August 28th, 2012
10:37 AM ET
Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critique
By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor
(CNN) - Bill Nye does not think that children should be taught to deny evolution, and a YouTube video of him explaining why has gone viral. The CNN Belief Blog's report on the video has generated around 10,000 comments and thousands of Facebook shares since Monday.
There were some broad themes in the comments, reflecting a debate that is largely unique to the United States.
While Christianity is booming in Africa, Asia and Latin America, creationism is not, Penn State University religious studies professor Philip Jenkins writes in his book "The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South."
Here are five schools of reaction that have emerged in comments:
1. Those using this controversy to bash religion
Atheists love the Internet, as we've chronicled on the Belief Blog. While they may be a small portion of the population, they seem to make up about half our commenters. It was their chance to join with Nye and cheer him on:
2. Those who say wait a minute, being a creationist isn’t necessarily being anti-evolution
Lots of folks from the theistic evolution camp came out to say that believing God was involved doesn't automatically make you anti-evolution.
3. Those who say that science is stupid and that young Earth creationism rules
Young Earth creationists, who believe the Earth is about 6,000 years old, appeared to be out in force in the comments.
4. Those who say Nye should stick to his area of expertise
This tweet was the most polite remark we could find on this subject. Other comments and tweets, not so much.
5. Those who say CNN is cooking up controversy where none exists
Lots of people suggested we were generating a story instead of covering one.
For the record, plenty of other news outlets covered this story, pointing out that Nye's video was posted on YouTube just before the Republican National Convention opened. Turns out that Nye taped the segment awhile back and had no say in when it would be released.
Thanks for chiming in. The comments are open here, and you can always hit us up on Twitter @CNNBelief.
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.
Having 4 degrees in Physics and Math and being an ordained Presbyterian Elder, I agree with SteveHeft's comment, but would go a bit further. Folks who argue over whether creation did or did not come from God miss two key points. 1) Science deals only with the physical world, and has nothing to say about the spiritual world. Of course, there are those who say only the physical world exists; the spiritual world doesn't. They have a right to that belief, but I believe they are as deluded as those who deny the scientific truths we have discovered over the past 400 years. On the other hand, the Bible is NOT a science textbook. 2) Christianity derives from the expression of God reaching out to mankind through Jesus Christ. Christ's teachings, His actions while on Earth to reconcile mankind to God, and His effect in human lives and history over the past 2000 years are what is important to people of faith. How the universe came to be and evolved can be addressed by science, but its meaning and purpose (and ours) are questions for faith, not science. Arguing about HOW everything we see today came to be is unproductive. We need both science and faith.
I wonder how science and faith can be mutually exclusive. Faith(Biblical) is based on the science of the ages, whereas true science is based on faith in empirically observed phenomenon. They overlap in many fields. If you believe in a G-d, he must be able to create anything in any time frame. Failure to be able to do that would disqualify God as God.
The "science of the ages" was often just guesses that people made up just to have answers to life's questions. "Why are there rainbows?" "Well, here's the story of Noah's Ark..."
True science is not based on faith. It's based on confidence in the conclusions drawn in empirically observing phenomenon. Confidence, because scientists often throw out old and outdated ideas. When was the last time ministers ever told people sitting in church to forget what they use to know about religion when they were kids? "Na, na, none of that stuff you learned in Sunday school is current anymore..."
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
Bill, read the bible, notice the other men of science who have found evidence to all who are in the bible. Take in the understanding that this book is the most reinforced book in human history. Study your subject matter, it will give your information substrate more base. One question; how does the Sun stay so stable while exploding millions of nuclear explosions endlessy for thousands of years without moving, in a vacuum where everything else floats and moves with the littlelist of ease; the answer in the bible states that God Hung it there. maybre you can find the string. Also let me help you with another concept; the new earth age, which means Human age....how long does history show the Jews to have been here?
The sun is held together by gravity and is not immobile. It moves with the other stars in our arm of the Milky Way galaxy, which is itself moving toward collision with the Andromeda galaxy.
"Take in the understanding that this book is the most reinforced book in human history"
Yes, because there's such a wealth of independently verifiable information on:
-the global flood
-egyptians who have the ability to perform magic
-light being created before stars
-the captivity of the hebrews by the egyptians
-the resurrection of jesus
Here we go with the capitalizations again. Who was God Hung, some Vietnamese dude?
You can debate the cosmos all you want, but the fact remains that the Bible often conflicts with itself, and thus represents the most dangerous, untrustworthy piece of political sales literature ever foisted on mankind by mankind.
Michael, I do agree with you that the Bible is the most reinforced book in human history, and it has a purpose according to 2 Timothy 3:16- "All Scripture is inspired of God*+ and beneficial for teaching,+ for reproving,+ for setting things straight,*+ for disciplining+ in righteousness." As we all can see it was inspired by God for teaching and reproving among other things. @ .o. The Bible is Gods word it never contradicts itself. It may appear that way at times but if you do some research you'll be glad to find that it doesnt.
Eric says "The Bible is Gods word it never contradicts itself."
Rubbish. First of all you won't find agreement amongst Christians that the Bible is God's word. That's a silly notion right from the start. But the Bible is very contradictory and thus exposes the two-faced nature of your average fundamentalist Christian.
Sadly, Michael, your post is an excellent example of what happens when you choose to get your "sciency" sounding information from non-science sources like the "Pastor Dave's" of the world – instead of actual science sources. The problem is that "Pastor Dave" is as big a scientific idîot as his minions.
Are you saying that humanity started with the Jews?
Can you tell me how the decreasing sun's mass affects the gravitational pull on the earth over billions of years? If you're able to answer this, you'll be able to discover any length over a few thousand years has a death knell on the livable temperature of the earth.
Religion is just as worthy as science, and that's great that Bill Nye believes what he does, but that doesn't give him the right to dictate to parents (who don't share his opinion about religion) how to raise their kids; it reeks of arrogance and self-importance. The athiestic Nazi's and Communists also told kids that what their parents believed didn't matter, and that they must OBEY the 'party line', which was usually philosophic or reason-based. We can't let that mindset take hold in this country, if we do, we'll lose our rights as parents to raise our children however we see fit based on our own personal belief systems.
Bill needs to watch a bit more of the history channel. See its a matter of prospective. One of our leading mathematical genius that is living today has proved that if one was at the point of origin of the big bang and looking toward earth we would be in the 7th day... as the bible states.
Can you provide a reference for this absolute, utter nonsense?
First, Bill Nye wasn't dictating anything, just stating his opinion.
Second, you analogy to Nazis and Communists is false. Nye is not speaking about philosophy, politics, or religion, he's talking about science and facts. Do you advocate parents denying their children an education in math?
Third, if your "personal belief system" is contradicted by the facts, then it's wrong. e.g. flat earth, geocentrism, creationism.
Religion is just as valid as science? Are you out of your phucking mind? Next time you get influenza, try praying to your particular god to heal you instead of going to a doctor seeking the "scientific" cure. That way your myopic and uneducated beliefs will die along with you when Zeus or Spiderman or Jesus turn out to be no-shows even after your praying spree for help. God did not create antibiotics and anti-virals... PEOPLE did. Grow up.
The nazis weren't atheist – it was a very xtian regime. Hitler was a Catholic and his faith played an important part in his world views. Stop lying.
"we'll lose our rights as parents to raise our children however we see fit based on our own personal belief systems."
You have the right to teach your children that there are fairies under your garden, causing it to grow, and that they should chant to them for a more beautiful display of vegetation - it's just not very smart to do that. There is as much verified evidence for fairies doing that sort of work as there is for your god.
*facepalm* I have personally seen the program at least 2 times. I do not remember his name but gave U a hint in saying it was on the history channel. Look at what I said from prospective of being at the point of origin of the big bang. It has been proven that at that point in time some types of matter or energy was traveling much faster than the speed of light. Einstein has proved or has standing theory as one approaches the speed of light time slows down. So it only makes sense if at the origin of the big bang ones prospective of time would be different than we experience here on earth.
This history channel also has such scientifically-rigorous programs as the nostradamus effect, predicting armageddon, and ufo hunters. If you want to provide a reference, please cite a scientific journal – not just some nut spouting half-truths on a cable program. That's not how science works.
As someone who has a degree in physics I can confidently say that your understanding of the theory of relativity is EXTREMELY lacking
@whonoes. So you believe in the theory of relativity but not the theory of evolution. Strange as both prove that the bible is not literally true which seems to be what fundamentalists cannot accept.
Here is some interesting knowledge for you all:
In looking over the last 10 pages here, there are exactly 4 posts in which the author expresses skepticism over the fact of evolution, and then actually RESPONDS to the replies it recieved. In all other cases, the author ceases to participate in the conversation.
Of these four posts, none is an outright denial. By my evaluation, two are compatibilist arguments, one is regarding the presence of dogma in science, and one expresses doubt of the epistimology of evolution.
Do with this information what you will. I, for one, find it rather informative.
I guessing that most people posting don't want answers to their questions. Or, at least, don't want to question the answers they think they already have.
And it seems it's even the prospect of having a conversation which seems impossible. In that a conversation implies a meeting of different sides which attempt to understand and meet the questions and claims of the other. This is impossible if one has already declared that one knows, with absolute and unchangible certainty, that one already possesses the truth, and that no further thinking is required.
I was watching one of the videos posted in the comments here, and ran across a clip of Dan Dennett talking about how he thinks religion is pernicious because it teaches people it is noble to stop thinking. "We have to stop honoring people who stop thinking."
Interesting how Chrisitans can see that science continually supports what the Bible says, but atheists and other "science believers" can't. The bottom line on Bill Nye is that he's still touting the THEORY of evolution, which has never been proven, but HAS been disproven by the scientific discovery of the bacterial rotory flagella
"These results show that core components of the bacterial flagellum originated through the successive duplication and modification of a few, or perhaps even a single, precursor gene."
Bacterial rotory flagella? I guess you missed the Dover Trial?
"HAS been disproven by the scientific discovery of the bacterial rotory flagella" You mean "rotary". I think you're referring to the idea that they are irreducibly complex. Have a look at
I think the hypothesis that the nine-fold symmetry has a viral origin is interesting. The often-discussed role of viruses in evolution is interesting in general.
"science continually supports what the bible say." Not quite. How are the religious creationists going to explain away "building blocks of life found around young star" Aug 28, 2012. m Your god guyanaged to create our earth and man right quick, but it may take a few billion years to evolve around that young sun, don't you think?
The process of evolution has been observed. The only theoretical part is basically how it works.
Believing in god is every bit as rational as believing in the literal truth of the story of Snow White and the seven dwarves. I cannot imagine the willful ignorance necessary to believe such obvious nonsense.
What! Are you saying that pale women and short guys don't exist? 🙂
It all can be distilled in our fear of death,,, death without an afterlife. Would Christianity (or any world religion) hold and appeal if there was no mention of life after death? Death, and a promise that "it" isn't the end, is the common denominator in all the common religions.
If we would just have the strength to accept life as a biological "gift" – an agnostic trek, a brief speck in the time contiuum. Doing so would place the proper value on LIFE ITSELF. It would allow humanity an unfettered vision of scientific possibility.
Even with all this distraction, we STILL FUNDAMENTALLY UNDERSTAND BIOLOGY, whether YOU chose to ignore it or not. This understanding is what has fueled the incredible advances in medicine. Not prayers of any kind, but bright minds paired with long long hours in the labratory. Failure after failure, until the breakthrough occurs!! Penecillin, Chemotherapy, Pharmaceuticals, heart transplants, Human Genome Project Completion, Cloning, ETC>>>>>>>>>
Ignoring what we know puts you in the same historical category of those who proclaimed the Earth Is Flat, The Earth is the Center of the Universe, etc... Doing this denounces your own intellect. Instead, from a theological standpoint, unhinge the Bible as a Historical reference book, but rather employ it as a metaphorical and imperfect guidebook on living holistically.
Allow young people to hear all, but learn science fundamentally. If we deny them this knowledge out of our own fears, we give up America's place as the incubator for discovery.
Right on Shamus, well put. If you accept the fact that when the lights go out, the party's over, it empowers you to do all kinds of amazing things in your own life and in the world. If you think reward is waiting for you in the afterlife, it's defeatist thinking and gives you permission to not live up to your potential. I find it kind of funny that the current intellectual darling of the Republican right, Ayn Rand, was an atheist!. Of all the world's major religions, the one that comes close to getting it right is Judaism, where there is really no concept of an afterlife, and the emphasis is on making the world a better place by making yourself a better person.
Excellent post. If only 10% of Americans had the ability to think this clearly, we would truly be the global powerhouse the delusional masses think we are.
We use science to survive – death – heart transplant and reverse strokes with 'clot' busters – we use a lot of faith during these times while we are having heart transplants and reversing strokes to survive – death which is not insurmountable even with the science. What is the difference between science and faith? We are 'inextricably entwined' in science tomorrow morning – its not going any other way – except some of us still ? don't pray.
Are you saying that because people survive medical procedures – there must be a god? Wrong
I supopse that there will be a whole bunch of religious apoligists to refute the follwing headline "Building Blocks of Life Found Arouhd Young Star" Aug 28, 2012. So how will they adjust their creationist viewpoint, let me guess. After god created the earth he just happened to be going past other celestial bodies and decided to give them the building blocks of life so they too could possibly support life, not right quick like as he did on earth, man from dust, eureka, but over time, a long, long time. Having to change the story and dogma is the one consistent that religion does exceedingly well.
ONLY FOR THE NEW MEMBERS OF THIS BLOG:
AND THE INFAMOUS ANGELIC/CREATION CONS CONTINUE TO WREAK STUPIDITY UPON THE WORLD
Joe Smith had his Moroni. (As does M. Romney)
"Latter-day Saints like M. Romney also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."
Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;
Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tin-kerbell" got around).
Jesus and his family had/has Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented. (As does Obam and his family) (And Biden) (And Ryan)
The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.
Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie/horn-blowing thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.
A day is a thousand years. To believe that creation took place in 6000 years is a form of self deception. The same can be said for natural selection taking place in a straight forward and provable manner. Maybe a day is a billion years.
I'm not sure I ever heard any reputable biologist claim that natural selection was 'straight forward'. It seems like you're making the argument 'I dunno, god musta done it' without actually coming out and saying so.
True God is not bound by time. He was, is and is yet to come. Pretty interesting concept for stonage man to come up with, which to me is further evidence of Gods existence. Another tidbit I enjoy some prophecy in the bible is refered to in the past tense also very interesting. There is evidence all around us we just need to open our eyes.
No evidence at all.
"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."
Not one shred of scientific evidence exists to support the existence of a deity. What you are pretending is evidence is actually hearsay, groundless claims, misinterpretation of random occurances, and the like. Not evidence.
I am not telling you what to believe, I am just sharing my view. No one has all the answers, we never will. The entire point is faith not proof. Yes within our universe there are the laws of nature we can observe , study, learn, it still came from somewhere.
Forgot to add this Was there a singularity? Can we observe and prove it? Or do you believe it was there?
A day is 24 hours because that's how long it takes for the planet to revolve on its axis. No debate.
Where did god come from so?
From our point of view he alwasy existed. We are bound by time. I can only speculate as to the full nature of God and come very very short in an attempt. Once outside our universe time as we know it wouldnt exist.
A day was also not always 24 hours it used to be less and one day it will be longer due to the moon slowing down earths rotation. There is alittle more to it but thats the jist of it. But yes to God a day is like 1000 years and 1000 years like 1 day.
Do you have any proof or even a shred of evidence for our claims? You make these claims about god and time as if you have irrefutable proof. I'd love for you to share the knowledge.
I agree that a day has grown marginally longer over hundreds of millions of years, but at most 2 hours in the last 500,000,000 years.
@eric. so if a god can just exist – why can't a universe. You know no middleman and no creation myths.
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Are we to work for six thousand years before taking a Sabbath off? I know that it feels that long sometimes, but really?
@rational libertarian Are you telling God He can't make a day any length he wants? I'd be careful if I were you. That has to violate at least 1 commandment.
I find it bewildering that extreme-Christian types with this anit-science/anti-evolution schtick like when the town's people of Springfield declared war on science (ultimately burning down the Christian Science building). It's moronic and a ploy by parties to detract ignorant masses from REAL problems around us. Better yet, it's just a ploy for the rich to get richer, and the poor to remain poor ultimately.
I grew up Catholic, and I was educated in Catholic schools my entire life through college. And through all that time, not once did I hear "BAN SCIENCE TEACHING! BAN EVOLUTION!" It was stated by both science and religious teachers that one may believe all the science facts presented by human study with the understanding that a higher power SET THESE EVENTS IN MOTION! This power is working through the laws of physics and reality around us, and that it had a hand in the order we see today.
What Creationists are doing is rejecting even this relationship for a dangerous stand that warps reality, warps the fabric of the universe, and lays the ground work for humanity to fall back to a dark age when humanity was pretty much ignorant of reality. We sure had BIG A$$ issues with plagues, morality, and war during those golden years, eh?
Creationism is akin to cultism. Just like when Hitler hunted for artifacts to support his "Superior Race" agenda, creationists are doing the same to support human-centric agendas and allow our continued disenfranchisement with the world around us. Politicians supporting this belief structure are just extended pawns being paid to hinder intelligence and critical thinking..
Creationism should not be tolerated for the good of humanity's survival today and in the future.
God created the universe, which makes Him the first scientist. Therefore, creationism and science are compatible.
That would make him an engineer, not a scientist. So god created the universe and then waited a few billion years before creating life on earth? Or he just set things in motions and then sat back and watched?
Janey, there is no evidence at all to support the existence of your god, or any god. There is no need for your god or any god. Your faith is valid only to you, and to people who share your belief.
Yes God did create the universe and all the laws of nature. To say the universe just poofed out of nothing is from a logical point of view less liokely then a creator. As for time.... Time does not exist to God. Time iwell spacetime is an abstract we are bound by it because we live within the universe. By definition God which created everything we can observe is not bound by our laws of physics.
For example if you could leave the universe you would need to move faster then the speed of light to outrun the expanding universe. Relitivity tells us you would be traveling back in time. at the point you exit the universe it would cease to exist atleast to you its light would not reach you. well the last part cant be right though the laws of physics would be different outside the universe...if there is at all.
As for evolution Yes there is plenty of evidence for natural selection to what extent we do not know. The fossil record does not support the current theory of evolution. There is also the matter of the creation of the cell in Darwins day the cell was a goo ball today we can observe much more. Do I believe the the current theory of evolution is correct? NO. If it was it would be the LAW of evolution. But just for the sake of discussion even if it were 100% correct it still would not take away from intelligent design, God did create all the the processes as well as matter, energy and information.
Bottom line it still comes down to belief for all of us.
We can believe God created the universe and us as well.
The poof here we are and randomly life formed
The universe was always here...not likely entropy issue.
For me I believe in God
I have heard it said that athiest call God our imagionary magical friend.
What fits the definition of magic better We were created and there is intelligence beyond our universe or POOF here we are.
That's a straw man argument, Eric. You massively misrepresent cosmological science, pretending it says the universe popped out of nothing. Singularity is not nothing. What you are really saying is that you do not understand current thoeries of the beginnings of this universe, and you are so afraid that they might hold water that you have to lie and say your "popped out of nothing" distortion.
Ask yourself why people like you have to lie and distort so much when they try to defend their religion. It does not speak well of you.
I have a pretty firm grasp. we can "see" using cosmic background radiation to a point we believe to be 400,000 years or so after the big bang, which in itself we can not observe. Therefor anything prior to the earliest possible observation is extrapolation not observation. At that point any theory can be attempted.
Given your statement in the above thread you should understand what I mean
@eric. you claim to not believe evolution because it is a theory – by that standard you wouldn't believe in relativity either. how many new scientific laws are there? none. so another straw man
Had God experimented prior to creating there wouldn't be so many examples of poor design.
"The fossil record does not support the current theory of evolution." Actually, it wonderfully supports the theory of evolution, particularly in light of its matching with phylogenetic analysis of extant and even extinct organisms (e.g. neanderthals, t. rex, etc). Perhaps it doesn't support what you believe the theory of evolution indicates, but this is quite different. In any case, without having identified precisely why it fails, this is just pure argument by fiat.
It is fairly easy to prove that evolution isn’t true. When somebody is born they get half of their genetic information from their mother and half from their father. Therefore there is no new information and no evolution. When the two legs of land-dwelling creatures were in the intermediate stage between legs on the ground and the wings of birds in the air they were useless appendages that were neither legs nor wings, so the creatures had to flop around helplessly for millions of years until the wings evolved, but they would have gone extinct by survival of the fittest. Yeah, don’t use your brain just believe you came from a fish.
Sorry Bill, you’re the one that believes in fairy-tales.
Seriously, you need to read more about genetics and evolution.
Do you look half your mother and half your father because you get half and half? Of course not. You get a mix, and it's the mix that makes yourself unique and different from your mother and father.
And "don't use your brain"? Oh please. You're the one who believes everything some work of fiction and your priest says.
I might as well go on believing that magic exists because of Harry Potter.
Bill Nye etc.. You have a complete lack of any understanding of evolution.
LMAO – OMG – TOTAL FAIL!!! Wow – a grade schooler could probably come up with a better argument. OMG I have to write that one down.. LOL.
Yes the OP could have made his point better laughing at him doesnt take away from the intent. The fossil record does not support the current theory of evolution.
He is correct where are the transitional forms using the currently accepted tree of life. there is magnitudes greater gaps then fossils.
You'er living proof that a) home-schooling in the wrong hands is dangerous and b) Bill Nye is correct – we need to stop teaching this creationist nonsense immediately
@eric. Do you mean that because bones decompose within decades unless preserved – say in ice and therefore many fossils are gone so the record is incomplete, you conclude that evolution theory is flawed because of that? There are so many proofs of evolution easily accessible to those who want to be educated. Do some research.
Wings developed from the front arm/legs, leaving the hind legs untouched. Birds, if you haven't noticed, can walk and even run on their two legs. Many dinosaurs could as well. Feathers are not just for flying. If you own a down comforter you might know that they provide warmth.
Seriously, read a book. Libraries are full of them, and it's free.
No one I know of thinks the bible tells us the world is 6000 years old. Man was created 6000 years ago. What existed before
that was not man. Man is more than a physical being. We are the image of God and God is not physical; so, we must be like God in another way. We may look like apes and cavemen but we are more than that. Our Bible tells us, "you are Gods". We do not see anything in ourselves that resembles God because we have not paid "Him" enough attention and/or deny his existence.
People believe what everyone around them believes. That's why everyone in Asia believes in Buddha and everyone in the U.S. believs in Jesus. In other words, the only reason you believe in the Bible is because you've been told to by someone else. If nobody ever told you about it, you never would have concepted the idea of a god.
Kenchandammit...your thinking is very flawed. Not everyone in Asia believes in Buddha. There are many different religions there, including Chirstianity. And not everyone in the U.S. believes in Jesus. We also have different religioins. And we also don't believe something just because someone tells us to. We have brains to think and believe for ourselves. I guess you don't. Sad.
@janey – the correlation between geography and religion is absolutely undeniable. That there are exceptions in no way invalidates the original argument. People largely tend to stay in the religion, or at least within the major faith, of which they were born. Wouldn't a god that cares whether or not people worship him/her/it make something other than birth parents the predominate factor in faith?
So is that why 2000 years ago christianity was a very small group of people limited to the roman empire and now it is in every corner of the globe.
Same can be said of islam also. However I am not a follower of islam.
Our belief in Buddha (speaking from India here) is not the same as the Christian's belief in Jesus. Buddha was not God and is not worshipped. In fact, he himself denies the existence of a creator. What he preached was a simple way towards spirituality, and theistic beliefs are actually considered a hindrance to the attainment of Nirvana.
The sad part about Christianity (and I think Islam as well) I feel is that they do not really encourage anyone to look beyond their own culture, to look beyond what is there in the Bible.
Yes, I agree with your point that had they not been born into one particular faith, they would have believed different.
The reason Christianity and Islam have spread are because these religions have one core belief – of converting others to their faith. The Muslims still use force to do that, as they have done in the past. The Christians (I can speak of my country) have used another way of proselytizing. Christian missionaries spread far and wide, and the largest Christian populations in India, which are in SOuth India, converted bcoz they were tired of the rigid casteism plaguing Hindu society. Most of the converts were of the lowest sects which were bieng tortured by upper classes, and Christianity looked something better.
The problem with any religion is that those at higher levels always misuse their power, and the system becomes corrupted over time (just like you can see what is happening at the Vatican).
No religion is superior over the other, no ones beliefs are the only one.
I agree but it isnt the faith that is usually to blame but human nature. We are all sinners and fall short. And as one amasses power and wealth it tends to corrupt more, not always. My point was point out the flaw in facepalms logic.
What does that say about Romney who is currently worth more than a quarter billion? If he gets elected he'll be the richest president ever. What are his chances then of not being corrupt?
I stand up for Nye. I like the Science Guy. Creationism is not science. It is not a theory, and it cannot be tested or proven to be true or false. It is a magical way of explaining the unknown to provide people emotional comfort. Nothing wrong with that. But it is not useful. It will not lead to further scientific discoveries, because that is not its purpose.
Nothing magical about it. It's called faith.
Creationism requires supernatural intervention – what most of us would call 'magic'.
Rod I agree with you and I am a believer in Christ. Young earth creationism probably didnt happen. Yes denying emperical evidence is foolish. Greater then that though is denying God.
For 1 to conclude God does not exist because a goup of people have a different belief is very foolish. Yes God did create the universe. We are discovering how through science.
No, Eric. Science is discovering how the universe came to be naturally. Nothing has been discovered to suggest some outside, intelligent agent being involved.
I wonder where Bill Nye got that cheap rug from.
I can't decide if he looks like somebody's weird uncle or a flasher in the park.
I like the guy, but for a second I did wonder if the picture was on old darwin photo restored "mr. bean style"
Howdy Doody time science expert.
I wouldnt have put it that way but yes a mechanical engineer is a long way off from an evolutionary bioligist.
I wonder how much he made to produce this and who was the sponser.
If you want to get your information from somebody who claims to be an expert in every science may I suggest your watching reruns of Gilligan's Island? The Professor could build a radio out of coconuts, after all.
If you want a comedy try Ray Comfort speaking on how bananas were specifically designed by God for human convenience.
Hurricanes keep hitting Louisiana because God is punishing Bobby Jindal for allowing creationism in public schools. Coincidence? I don't think so!
Well even if it is, they still should be happy down there that the army corps of engineers were educated in something other than just creationism.
No coincidence! Our God Reigns!
When you're finished celebrating how your God kills people that make you uncomfortable, keep in mind that West Texas has suffered a serious drought for years now. However much your God hates gays, he apparently hates fundamentalist Christians even more.
Not to mention the vicious drought all across the midwest bible belt. Or is that just to root out the gays that are left? Atheist Hunter, your weapons are useless against truth.
Da heck? You're supposed to be atheists.
Must be so frustrating for you to know in that none of your beliefs can be proven, huh? Sooo frustrating...
kenchan...not at all frustrating. God doesn't have to be proven. Those who believe in Him have faith. You also have to have faith to believe in evolution. No one was here when the earth was formed.
@janey – if a tree falls in a forest and no one sees it, you apparently believe it's a matter of faith to think that the tree fell down, but it's reasonable to assume that some supernatural deity placed it there, fully grown, laying on the ground.
Janey, why doesn't your god have to be proven? Why should anyone believe in something for which there is no evidence? How is believing in your god any different than believing in unicorns?
It doesn't matter that no one was around when the earth was formed. The geological record tells us what happened. The fossil record shows us how life has changed over millions of years. This is what people who are interested in the truth call "evidence".
God has revealed Himself to us in these last days through His Son Jesus Christ
Rufus T. Firefly
Tornados seem to be specifically targeted at fundamentalists more than hurricanes.
truth be told
Do you only perceive this emotionally?