home
RSS
Creationists hit back at Bill Nye with their own video
"The idea of deep time ... explains so much of the world around us," Bill Nye said in the viral video.
August 31st, 2012
04:34 PM ET

Creationists hit back at Bill Nye with their own video

By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

(CNN) - Bill Nye's viral YouTube video pleading with parents not to teach their children to deny evolution has spawned an online life of its own, with prominent creationists hitting back against the popular TV host.

"Time is Nye for a Rebuttal," Ken Ham the CEO of Answers in Genesis writes on his website. Answers in Genesis is the Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.

Nye's criticism of creationism went viral earlier this week, after being posted last Thursday.

"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," Nye says in his Big Think video, which has been viewed nearly 3 million times.

Ham writes that Nye is joining in with other evolutionists who say teaching children to deny evolution is a form of "child abuse." That idea comes in part from the atheist scientist Richard Dawkins, who in his book "The God Delusion" argues against exposing children to religion before they are old enough to fully understand it.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

"At AiG and the Creation Museum, we teach children and adults the truth concerning who they are in the Creator’s eyes — and where they came from," Ham writes. "We tell people that they do have purpose and meaning in life and that they were created for a purpose. "No, we are not just evolved animals as Nye believes; we are all made in the image of God."

Ham is the public face of a group that academics call Young Earth Creationists, though they prefer to be called Biblical Creationists. They believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account in the book of Genesis found in the Bible.

The Creation Museum also produced its own rebuttal video on YouTube that features two of their staff scientists, both Ph.Ds, David Menton and Georgia Purdom.

"[Nye] might be interested to know I also teach my young daughter about evolution and I know many Christian parents who do the same," Purdom says in the video. "Children should be exposed to both ideas concerning our past."

For the past 30 years, one popular method for Creationists to advance their cause has been to make an equal-time argument,with Creationism taught alongside evolution. In the late 1980s, some state legislatures passed bills that promoted the idea of a balanced treatment of both ideas in the classroom.

In 1987, the issue made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where a Louisiana "equal-time law" was struck down. The court ruled that teaching creationism in public school class rooms was a violation of the Establishment Cause in the Constitution, which is commonly referred to as the separation of church and state.

A key point between most scientists and many creationists is the timing for the origin of the world.

Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critique

Nye's argument falls in line with the vast majority of scientists, who date the age of the earth as 4.5 billion years old and the universe as 14.5 billion years old.

"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 says in his viral video.

Young Earth Creationists say the weeklong account of God creating the earth and everything in it represents six 24-hour periods (plus one day of rest) and date the age of the earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years.

"Yes we see fossils and distant stars, but the history on how they got there really depends on our worldview," Purdom says in the museum's rebuttal. "Do we start with man's ideas, who wasn't here during man's supposed billions of years of earth history or do we start with the Bible, the written revelation of the eyewitness account of the eternal God who created it all?"

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

Polling from Gallup has shown for the past 30 years that between 40-46% of the survey respondents believe in Creationism, that God created humans and the world in the past 10,000 years.

The most recent poll showed belief in atheistic evolution was on the rise at 16%, nearly double what it had been in previous years. The poll also found 32% of respondents believe in evolution guided by God.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • Creationism • Science

soundoff (5,973 Responses)
  1. WASP

    i love this passage from the young earth creationists "or do we start with the Bible, the written revelation of the eyewitness account of the eternal God who created it all?"

    ummmmm how do you know that god witnessed anything? he doesn't have eyes! no eyes no see.
    plus they are asserting that the bible for all of it's 2000 year history can be trusted even though we know it's pages were elected in during the cannon, which was paid for by a pagan emperor constantine. hmmmmmm yeah we can trust the bible wholely, lmfao

    August 31, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • nope

      @ wasp
      nope

      August 31, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Rope a dope the nope!

      August 31, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
    • Jake-413451

      That was my favorite part of the vid too. A great tautological argument. Offering the choice of or do we believe the revealed word of god.
      Well let's see, so she has a few things she still has to prove:
      Prove there is a god..
      Prove that god can communicate with man.
      Prove that god has communicated with man.
      Prove that the bible is an accurate representation of said communication.
      Prove that the communication was not misunderstood, was correctly transcribed, and has not suffered from faulty copying over the past several thousand years (they couldn't even keep Mark straight without adding a bunch of verse so it too would have a resurrection story).
      And once they get all that prove that the god wasn't lying. Which by the way the universe continues to provide evidence against. If their god does not lie then why do we have light arriving from millions of light years away if the universe is only 10,000 years old? Is their god lying about when the universe was created, or did they simply create the universe in an intentionally deceptive manner. And if the latter why believe anything else coming from them. The bible can't be trusted in either case because the on the one hand the evidence point out it is false, it is not consistent with what we can observe in the universe, or it points out the revelations are coming from a being which has a habit of being deceitful.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:18 pm |
    • vincent

      I have read these comments for about 30 minutes now, and have come to some conclusions: ready? those who believe that God created us and loves us have made some good points; however, some of their grammar and usage looks like they may need some literacy work. I believe in God, not so sure how or when he created humans but this I do know: evolutionary theory is STILL a theory after over 150 years. If our origin were determined to be known 100%, we would not be having this discussion. I only know when I look at our universe and living creatures contained within, I cannot even begin to accept that life evolved in a primordial soup. To me, that is as ridiculous as it gets. Go on and believe that if it frees you to live your life in a manner in which you choose, un-accountable ( so you may think ), to the Creator. Secondly, I have noticed the ferocity of insulting comments, ad-hominem labels, and just downright nastiness of some of the non-creationist folk. I have been on other chat sites before, it is always the same. You don't believe in God, so you put down those who do with cheap insults. If that is the best you can do to support your arguments, do the rest of us a favor, and just please go away. You and your hatefulness are part of the problem in this troubled society, you are part of the problem. Thanks for reading

      September 1, 2012 at 7:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why do so many of you creationists blubber this nonsense about those who accept evolution doing so because it "frees them to be unaccountable"? That makes no sense whatsoever. Do you all read the same nonsensical propaganda from the fundie websites?

      September 1, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
    • toad

      Yes TTthPS. When they are accountable WE must hold them accountable and make them pay. God is too Nancy. "It rains on the wicked and the righteous" and all that shit. Do it and do it with your bare hands.

      September 1, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @vincent –

      Evolution is both a theory and a fact. I have included a link to an article from the National Academy of Sciences explaining these concepts. The article will also resolve your misunderstanding of the term "theory" as used in the sciences. Enjoy.

      http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

      September 1, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
    • Jake-413451

      @Vincent
      I'm going to reply in the event a non-troll is reading. Your own words towards the middle and end of your post make it clear you are a a troll.

      Evolution is a theory, but it is a scientific theory. Which means it is a theory which is formed that accounts for what we see in the world around us, and when the evidence disagree with the existing theory a new one must be developed that accounts for the evidence.

      We call it a theory because we are not so egotistical as to think we know everything.

      And that is what separates an atheist from a dogmatic creationist. The creationist is 100% certain they know the truth, because another human being wrote it down in a book but they attributed authorship to an imaginary being.

      September 2, 2012 at 8:38 am |
  2. HeavenSense

    I feel sick.

    August 31, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
  3. LittleHero

    I was 7 yrs old when I watched Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, and every boy in America wanted to be an astronaut. Somehow the love of science was replaced by disdain. Ask 100 children what they want to grow up to be, and I would be surprised if 1 says astronaut (and I would give odds of that being a little girl). My generation was the last that grew up WANTING to learn science, and we are the ones that gave you that device and network you are using. We as a nation are getting left behind on the world stage, and the attack on science is to blame. We need to excite our children about science and math. I mourned Carl Sagan, I mourned Jacques-Yves Cousteau, I am still mourning Neil. There are technologies and discoveries on the horizon that are really exciting – fusion power, nanotechnology, biology, ... you name it. At one point in our history we pledged to go to the moon and return safely before we even knew what we were up against. To deny science and all we have learned in the last 50 years (my lifetime) is completely insane. We can lead the world again, but we need to invest in education and make learning exciting and fun. Creationism is simply un-American. Show some patriotism and support the education of the next generation – after all if they can't make a living in the future, there won't be anyone to fund your Social Security.

    August 31, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
    • therealpeace2all

      @LittleHero

      Pretty well said.

      Peace...

      August 31, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • Jon D.

      Hats off to you Bill Nye, your supporting the proof of empirical evidence not the Book of Jewish fairytales. I cannot believe there is still debate on this argument in the US. We are falling farther behind the world in science because irrational thinking has taken over our political sphere. These "PhD's" at the Creation Museum cannot call themselves scientists, they are kooks and they should go back to the cave they came from to study the sacred scriptures. We are turning into a super religious evangelical country, please sane people of the United States shut these idiots up with real science. There is no debate, evolution is fact, it has been proven by the scientific community of the world, any other theory is based on pure faith and not reason. No wonder people are laughing at us all around the world, we are becoming the very people we despise, track down and kill; religious fanatics.

      September 1, 2012 at 8:33 am |
  4. Prayer is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer takes people away from actually working on real solutions to their problems.
    Prayer has been shown to have no discernible effect towards what was prayed for.
    Prayer makes you frothy like Rick Santorum. Just go to http://santorum.com to find out more.
    Prayer prevents you from getting badly needed exercise.
    Prayer makes you fat, pale, weak, and sedentary.
    Prayer wears out your clothes prematurely.
    Prayer contributes to global warming through excess CO2 emissions.
    Prayer fucks up your knees and your neck and your back.
    Prayer can cause heart attacks, especially among the elderly.
    Prayer reveals how stupid you are to the world.
    Prayer exposes your backside to pervert priests.
    Prayer makes you think doilies are exciting.
    Prayer makes you secretively flatulent and embarrassed about it.
    Prayer makes your kids avoid spending time with you.
    Prayer gives you knobbly knees.
    Prayer makes you frothy like Rick Santorum. Just google him to find out.
    Prayer dulls your senses.
    Prayer makes you post really stupid shit.
    Prayer makes you hoard cats.
    Prayer makes you smell like shitty kitty litter and leads you on to harder drugs.
    Prayer wastes time.

    August 31, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
    • James

      I'll pray for you.....

      September 1, 2012 at 12:40 am |
    • mack

      don't bother, james. i can offer a challenge to prayer that can never, ever be won. Want to take it?

      September 1, 2012 at 12:50 am |
    • Brian

      Pray for me and I'll think for you.

      September 1, 2012 at 4:28 am |
    • RealMenLoveJesus

      Puppies and Bunnies are lots of fun! Yay!

      September 5, 2012 at 12:42 pm |
    • God

      I have been talking to a few people and you, well, you should WATCH IT BUDDY! I will see you LATER.

      September 5, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
    • GotMiracle

      Prayer can improve quality of life & give people a longer life. It is a shame you are missing out on the good stuff. It does not harm you if someone else is praying for healing, unless you are jealous when their prayer is answered;) When prayer is added onto proper medical care people have much better outcomes. I feel sad that you do not experience the joy that prayer can give.

      September 6, 2012 at 2:38 am |
  5. Reality

    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.

    August 31, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
  6. Jill

    Chad, don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the log from the turnstile and cry prevalently.

    So there brown stare. Feed your inner walnut and resolve. Subject your lemon to the ingenious door in the presence of snow and animals. Aisle 7 is for the monetary cheese whiz. Faced with the kitchen, you may wish to prolong the sailboat in the cliff. Otherwise, rabbits may descend on your left nostril. Think about how you can stripe the sea.

    Regale the storm to those who (6) would thump the parrot with the armband. Corner the market on vestiges of the apparent closure but seek not the evidential circumstance. Therein you can find indignant mountains of pigs and apples. Descend eloquently as you debate the ceiling of your warning fulcrum. Vacate the corncob profusely and and don’t dote on the pancreas.

    Next up, control your wood. Have at the cat with your watch on the fore. Aft! Smarties (12)! Rome wasn’t kevetched in an autumn nightie. (42) See yourself for the turntable on the escalator. Really peruse the garage spider definitely again again with brown. Now we have an apparent congestion, so be it here. Just a moment is not a pod of beef for the ink well nor can it be (4) said that Karen was there in the millpond.

    Garbage out just like the candle in the kitty so. Go, go, go until the vacuum meets the upward vacation. Sell the yellow. Then trim the bus before the ten cheese please Louise. Segregate from the koan and stew the ship vigorously.

    And remember, never pass up an opportunity to watch an elephant paint Mozart.

    August 31, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • FelixCat

      I can honestly say I never have.

      September 1, 2012 at 1:33 am |
    • COL

      Ha ha ha, that was generated by a computer, yes?

      September 1, 2012 at 2:23 am |
    • Jeff Williams

      """control your wood."""

      But I find this so very difficult to do!

      September 1, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
  7. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things

    August 31, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
    • Spencer
      August 31, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
    • WASP

      ROFLMFAO! HELLO TROLL!

      August 31, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Troll la lol la lol la lol la lol

      August 31, 2012 at 5:47 pm |
    • HeavenSense

      Hi Prayerbot.

      August 31, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
    • chris hitchens

      A welcome breath of fresh air. Thanks for truth Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things.

      August 31, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
    • Agnostic Atheism is Healthy for Kids and Grown-Ups Too!

      Actually that's not true at all! What is true is this:

      It's really best for all people including children to have an agnostic approach to god, and an atheistic approach to all religion. It keeps things simple for kids, and let's them be all that they can be. They just need to be taught that some things, like all religion, are just made up by salesmen and politicians from long ago; and that other things, like god, we really don't know a damn thing about.

      Atheists have strong minds, and don't run and hide their misdeeds within their religion (and by doing so, disserving society).

      So instead of praying to make-believe people, get a good cup of tea and go on and sit down and collect your damn thoughts. My goodness.

      mama kindless

      August 31, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • nope

      @ agnostic...
      nope

      August 31, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • Huebert

      @prayer bot

      You're such a tool

      August 31, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
    • scopes

      says nope to nope

      August 31, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    • nope

      @hubie
      nope

      August 31, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    • mack

      @nope: nope, you're not funny or cute. simply, you're a nope. nopity nope nope nope.

      September 1, 2012 at 12:52 am |
    • ThinkingMan

      Fat chance. It changes about the same amount that a placebo works.

      September 1, 2012 at 3:40 am |
  8. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    Here's where the data came from:

    Gallup June 2012:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx?version=print

    God created humans in present form less than 10k years ago ... 46%
    Humans evolved, with God guiding …………….………….......…. 32%
    Humans evolved, bug God had no part in the process ……..….. 15%

    Majority Republicans Are Creationists
    Political affiliation: Republican … Independent … Democrat
    God created humans in present form less than 10k years ago ... 58% … 39% … 41%
    Humans evolved, with God guiding …………….……………........ 31% … 34% … 32%
    Humans evolved, bug God had no part in the process ……..…... 05% … 19% … 19%

    The Most Religious Americans Are Most Likely to Be Creationists
    Church: weekly … almost weekly / monthly … seldom / never
    God created humans in present form less than 10k years ago ... 67% … 55% … 25%
    Humans evolved, with God guiding …………….……………........ 25% … 31% … 31%
    Humans evolved, bug God had no part in the process ………..... 03% … 10% … 26%

    Those with Postgraduate Education Least Likely to Believe in Creationism
    Education: High school or less … Some College … College Graduate … Post graduate
    God created humans in present form less than 10k years ago ... 52% … 47% … 46% … 25%
    Humans evolved, with God guiding …………….……………......... 25% … 36% … 35% … 42%
    Humans evolved, bug God had no part in the process ………......11% … 13% … 14% … 29%

    Pew Forum

    % who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth

    Total US population …….... 48%

    Buddhist ………………..... 81%
    Hindu ……………………... 80%
    Jewish ………………….... 77%
    Unaffiliated …….……….... 72%
    Catholic …………………... 58%
    Orthodox ……………….... 54%
    Mainline Protestant …….... 51%
    Muslim ……………............ 45%
    Historically black ……....... 38%
    Evangelical Protestant ..... 24%
    Mormon ………………….. 22%
    Jehovah’s Witness ......… 08%

    August 31, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Oops – "but" not "bug".

      August 31, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
    • "prayer...." is a dummy

      "bug" is funnier.

      September 1, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • Jack Sparrow

      Look at your numbers and realize that you have just proved that the true Christianity is the lowerst of those numbers if they are not made up which im sure btw you are because those that are baptized JW wouldn'g be that evolution played in part in creating the heavens earth or humans.

      September 1, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • RealMenLoveJesus

      Flowers are pretty!! Yay!

      September 5, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • GotMiracle

      Evolution is part of how God created us. After all, how long is God's day? Billions of years? Trillions? Infinite? We are still a work in progress.

      September 6, 2012 at 2:53 am |
  9. Mike

    HAHA comments and ratings were disabled for the ceation video.

    August 31, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
    • Jake-413451

      Christians aren't used to having their assertions questioned unless they are able to threaten those questioning them with physical violence for daring to disagree with them. That is how they handled critics for just about the first couple thousand years or so.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
    • saywhaaa

      Yep, thats how you know they are full of sh_it, afraid of critisism.

      September 7, 2012 at 10:42 am |
  10. Chad

    In this paper we shall argue:
    ( 1) The expectations of theory color perception to such a degree that new notions seldom arise from facts collected under the influence of old pictures of the world. New pictures must cast their influence before facts can be seen in different perspective.
    (2) Paleontology’s view of speciation has been dominated by the picture of “phyletic gradualism.” It holds that new species arise from the slow and steady transformation of entire populations. Under its influence, we seek unbroken fossil series linking two forms by insensible gradation as the only complete mirror of Darwinian processes; we ascribe all breaks to imperfections in the record.
    (3) The theory of allopatric (or geographic) speciation suggests a different interpretation of paleontological data. If new species arise very rapidly in Small, peripherally isolated local populations, then the great expectation of insensibly graded fossil sequences is a chimera. A new species does not evolve _in the area of its ancestors; it does not arise from the slow transformation of all its forbears. Many breaks in the fossil record are real.
    (4) The history of life is more adequately represented by a picture of “punctuated equilibria” than by the notion of phyletic gradualism. The history of evolution is not one of stately unfolding, but the story of' homeostatie equilibria, disturbed only “rarely” (i.e., rather often in the fullness of time) by rapid and episodic events of speciation.

    This issue is Central to the study of speciation in paleontology. We believe that an inadequate picture has been guiding our thoughts on speciation for 100 years. We hold that its influence has been all the more tenacious because palenotolgists, in claiming that they see objectively, have not recognized its guiding sway. We contend that a notion developed elsewhere. The theory of allopatric speciation. Supplies a more Satisfactory picture for the ordering of paleontological data. Stephen Gould

    August 31, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Looks like I've hit a sore spot.....

      Tell me chad, where is your disconnect when it comes to denying the existence of a potential event just because it's highly improbable, but at the same time being able to accept an event that is impossible?

      August 31, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    • Chad

      what event do you say is impossible? And why is it impossible?

      August 31, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
    • Jill

      Chad, go now. Don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the log from the turnstile and cry prevalently.

      So there brown stare. Feed your inner walnut and resolve. Subject your lemon to the ingenious door in the presence of snow and animals. Aisle 7 is for the monetary cheese whiz. Faced with the kitchen, you may wish to prolong the sailboat in the cliff. Otherwise, rabbits may descend on your left nostril. Think about how you can stripe the sea.

      Regale the storm to those who (6) would thump the parrot with the armband. Corner the market on vestiges of the apparent closure but seek not the evidential circumstance. Therein you can find indignant mountains of pigs and apples. Descend eloquently as you debate the ceiling of your warning fulcrum. Vacate the corncob profusely and and don’t dote on the pancreas.

      Next up, control your wood. Have at the cat with your watch on the fore. Aft! Smarties (12)! Rome wasn’t kevetched in an autumn nightie. (42) See yourself for the turntable on the escalator. Really peruse the garage spider definitely again again with brown. Now we have an apparent congestion, so be it here. Just a moment is not a pod of beef for the ink well nor can it be (4) said that Karen was there in the millpond.

      Garbage out just like the candle in the kitty so. Go, go, go until the vacuum meets the upward vacation. Sell the yellow. Then trim the bus before the ten cheese please Louise. Segregate from the koan and stew the ship vigorously.

      And remember, never pass up an opportunity to watch an elephant paint Mozart.

      August 31, 2012 at 5:40 pm |
    • ME II

      Stephan J Gould was discussing a different rate and/or rate of change in the rate of evolution, i.e. stasis for periods,,then relatively rapid change, then stasis, etc.
      That is still evolution.

      August 31, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      you really think you don't do this?

      10. The ‘reductionem ad creationis’ argument, no matter what the topic of the day, let’s talk evolution … again and again!
      eg: ”science doesn’t explain what happened before the big bang, so God is real, ergo he created everything”

      August 31, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
    • Chad

      actually, a great deal of what Gould was discussing was how blinded paleontolgists had been by their own preconceptions..

      August 31, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @no one in particular,

      "A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” – Winston Churchill

      August 31, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      Go back to the other thread on Nye slamming creationism where I clearly stated what was and was not impossible. For instance, unless you're telling the world something, I'm presuming you've never witnessed the impossible happening, this could include but is not limited to; someone walking on water, someone changing water into wine, a person living inside a giant fish for 3 days (let alone hours), or any other of the supposed miracles that defy natural laws. All you go on is hearsay from the bible, but have you witnessed something downright impossible? Yet you are willing to accept that with no hint of irony, but when it comes to a highly improbable event, say rolling a 2 600 times a row, you immediately discount the possibility because the odds are so high.

      Where is the disconnect?

      August 31, 2012 at 5:53 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad
      "actually, a great deal of what Gould was discussing was how blinded paleontolgists had been by their own preconceptions.."

      Perhaps, and where is the bogey man, sorry straw-man, of "phyletic gradualism" today? How many Evolutionary Biologists support a strict constant rate whole species evolution model?

      August 31, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • Chad

      """Perhaps""

      LOL

      The expectations of theory color perception to such a degree that new notions seldom arise from facts collected under the influence of old pictures of the world. ...

      We hold that its influence has been all the more tenacious because palenotolgists, in claiming that they see objectively, have not recognized its guiding sway.

      August 31, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • Dr. X

      Chuckie claims an improbable event can be a miracle? so chuckie finally comes full circle to believe in miracles? 😉

      August 31, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Dr. X

      Huh? When did I say I accept miracles or that they even exist? I pointed out to Chad, for the umpteenth time, that he can accept impossible events but not improbable events.

      August 31, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Has the evidence won out?
      Is "phyletic gradualism" considered a valid theory today? If not, then science has done it's job, has it not?

      August 31, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
    • Chad

      re miracles: if God can create the universe, He can certainly turn water into wine.

      now, can Chuckles flip a coin 200 times and get 200 heads?

      there is a big difference between the abilities of God vs Chuckles.. What is impossible with man is not impossible for God.

      August 31, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I just want to make sure I haven't missed anything. Has the Chard connected a god to the Big Bang or evolution?

      Or are we all still waiting for that?

      August 31, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      You're ignoring the question.....shame on you. You've seen someone flip a coin, you've seen the coin land on both heads or tails so you know it's possible to flip a coin and for it to land on one or the other and so you can calculate the odds of flipping a coin and it landing on heads or tails 200 times. Yet, you have never seen water turn to wine and not only that, you and I both know that alchemy doesn't really exist and changing water into wine is never going to happen, nor is a person regrowing a limb, or walking on water, or living inside a giant fish for days, etc.... So again, how can you happily accept something that is impossible in this world by feeling comfortable saying that god did it, but for an event that is possible, albeit unlikely, you dismiss out of hand because the odds are too hard for you to accept. What it boils down to is simply you dismissing improbable events but accepting the impossible. So again (and again and again and again), where's the disconnect?

      August 31, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Tom Tom

      Not just yet, he may have on the other thread, but here he's still trying to just poke holes in those theories and let other people fill them in with god for now.

      August 31, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Awww, look. He ran away!

      Poor little Chard!

      August 31, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chuckles "What it boils down to is simply you dismissing improbable events but accepting the impossible. So again (and again and again and again), where's the disconnect?"

      =>again.. and again,,, and again..

      the issue is not WHAT happened so much as it is WHAT WAS THE CAUSE.

      I CAN believe God turning water into wine
      I CAN NOT believe Chuckles flipping 50 heads in a row..

      Different abilities.
      I can believe Usain Bolt running a 100m in 9.58
      I can NOT believe Chuckles running a 100m in 9.58

      get it??

      August 31, 2012 at 7:59 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So, essentially, Chard, you're saying that what you can believe is fact and what you can't isn't?

      Hmmm. So much for proof of a god's involvement in the Big Bang or evolution.

      August 31, 2012 at 8:03 pm |
    • Chadwatch, a public service

      Alert! Alert! Chad is employing the "get it' response as a means of refuting facts.

      August 31, 2012 at 8:04 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      So Chad, that's your answer? That's what you've been dodging this whole time? So god, the guy who's existence is still up for debate, is purported to have done something thousands of years ago and even though these things literally violate nature and can never be recreated successfully, you can swallow that pill easily, but since me, a living person with the ability to flip a coin, does could do something thats pretty unlikely, you rule it out only based on the odds?

      Chad, doesn't that even sound a little crazy to you?

      Oh, and another thing, why is it impossible for me to run as fast as Usain Bolt? Usain has clearly proven that the human body can move that quickly on its own accord, so why is it impossible for another person to replicate it? For a guy who likes to really stick to definitions like glue, do we need to go over what the word "impossible" means?

      August 31, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Looks like a TKO for Chuckles. Chard is goin' down.

      August 31, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chuckles "So god, the guy who's existence is still up for debate, is purported to have done something thousands of years ago and even though these things literally violate nature and can never be recreated successfully, you can swallow that pill easily, but since me, a living person with the ability to flip a coin, does could do something thats pretty unlikely, you rule it out only based on the odds?"
      @Chad "you have no idea how happy I am to see that you finally understand it..
      very happy indeed.

      oh, and flipping a coin 10 times and getting 10 heads is "pretty unlikely".
      flipping a coin 200 times and getting 200 heads is not "pretty unlikely"

      you should actually do the math to see exactly how unlikely it is.. would be a good exercise for you. The first thing you're going to find out is that your calculator reverts to scientific notion, because the number is to large to display..

      ========
      @Chuckles "why is it impossible for me to run as fast as Usain Bolt? Usain has clearly proven that the human body can move that quickly on its own accord, so why is it impossible for another person to replicate it? For a guy who likes to really stick to definitions like glue, do we need to go over what the word "impossible" means?"
      @Chad "I said it is impossible for YOU to do it"

      get it?

      your reading comprehension is abysmal. slow down, read the entire post.

      August 31, 2012 at 9:39 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The Chard sez: "Read the entire post."

      Why? It's just more of the same drivel, Chard.

      When are you going to connect a supernatural being to evolution and the Big Bang? Why keep us all in suspense, Chardalicious?

      August 31, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      Well, thanks for showing the world how insane you are. You believe in the impossible but not the improbable, That should be the other way around you know. i understand how unlikely flipping 200 heads in a row would be, I also understand how impossible it is to live for days inside a giant fish and yet here we are, where you are willing to accept the idea of living inside of a giant fish without question, facts, offs, calculations, etc.... but when it comes to the simple act of flipping a coin you are determined to go to the complete opposite end of the spectrum and apply so much scientific reasoning, that you ignore the simple truth that an unlikely event is still possible vs. an impossible event.

      Secondly, how do you know I can't run as fast as Usain Bolt? Do you know how much I run, do you know my height? weight? running schedule? Times I go to the gym? Since a human being has proven to run that fast, why is it impossible for a second human being (in this case, me) replicate it? That's not bad reading comprehension chad, though I do like how you have attempted to turn around insults directed at you as an attempt to make yourself feel better. Soon, I'm sure, you're going to start using terms like "mental gymnastics" in order to get your point across.

      It's pretty simple, You've rejected the improbable in favor of the impossible. This inversion is the only way your god, nay all gods, can exist which his fine, as long as you admit that you spit in the face of logic and reason in order to insert your god into this world. Thanks for finally showing the whole board just how far you'll go in order to twist your own mind into believing god. Kudos!

      September 1, 2012 at 4:10 am |
    • Chad

      The mistake you are making in both cases is you are looking at the event, not the agent

      What is impossible for man (walking on water), is possible for God.

      What is impossible for Chuckles, is possible for Usain Bolt

      September 1, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
    • Chad is a dummy

      Now I see why you call him 'Chard".....because he is a 'tard!

      Delusional people should not be allowed access to a keyboard.

      September 1, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
    • Chad is a dummy

      I see, Chard, god can do what ever you want......after all, you made him up!

      September 1, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      "I CAN NOT believe Chuckles flipping 50 heads in a row." Just today I caused someone to flip a coin 50 times. The result was
      exactly THTTHHTHTHTTTHTTTTHHHTHTTHTHTHTHTHHTHTHHTHTHTTHHHT. What are the odds of that?!

      September 1, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Chad

      You're getting closer, now lets bring it in for the home stretch. First, if you are going to rely strictly on the "agent" and not the event, then isn't it paramount to prove the agent actually exists? It's pretty clear I exist. I have am typing to you at the moment, I have fingerprints, genetic heritage, information scattered across the internet and many other ways to prove incontrovertibly that I am in fact, real. Because of this you have rightly pointed out, that since I am human there are limited things I can do. I can't fly, I can't walk on water, I can't live inside a giant fish for 3 days, etc... I can however flip a coin which may or may not land on heads. Once we've established as me, the "agent" as you want to call it has the ability to flip a coin and the outcome which can either be heads or tails, we can then calculate the odds of a specific outcome from there and set within a framework where we have no idea if time will ever just "end" whatever possible outcome I want, can inevitably happen, either within my lifetime or beyond. The point being that the outcome is possible.

      On the other hand, your "agent", god of the bible, still only might exist. You have not proven his existence in anyway nor has he. I have witnessed no magical event happen where the laws of nature of violated so completely the only thing I can come up with would be a powerful being to break those rules. No one has yet to walk on water without the help of machines, nor has anyone regrown a limb, lived inside a fish for days and lived or had food rain from the sky. You've out your stock into god existing and so impossible events now are possible because of this god fellow your always going on about. Here's the catch, since gods existence is still hotly debated and no one has been able to prove his existence, you believe in the most unlikely scenario of all, which would be ok if you weren't so against other scenarios strictly based on odds alone. You've somehow been able to compartmentalize the idea of accepting something on faith alone and separately dismissing something out of hand based solely on probability.

      So I ask again, do you not see how completely crazy that is? Do you not understand there's a severe disconnect here and that you are only holding yourself back simply because your want to believe in god is so strong it blinds you to all else?

      September 1, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
    • vincent

      that's it? the best you can come up with? punctuated equilibrium? and believers in God are called stupid, and closed-minded? are you serious? quick question: Who decided when to "punctuate" the fossil record? Logic must dictate a MOVER....... If you cannot come up with who MOVED in the fossil record, perhaps you are not as smart as your chat may suppose...........Have a nice day

      September 1, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Vincent

      Run along now, the grown ups are talking.

      September 1, 2012 at 9:41 pm |
  11. ME II

    @Ken Ham,
    Why don't you allow comments on the AIG website?

    August 31, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
    • therealpeace2all

      @ME II

      I've suggested to several people over the years here on the blog, to meet up and take a trip to the "creation museum."

      The consensus seems to be that we would be all kicked out within the first 15 minutes. LOL 😀

      Peace...

      August 31, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
    • ME II

      I've seen video and text reports of visits to the Creation Museum by atheists, AA, Atheist Students Association(?), etc. It's generally not an issue with the "museum" as long as they don't disrupt the normal operations or other visitors. They don't seem to discourage Atheist visitors from what I can tell.

      Although, given the tone of the comments on here, I wouldn't be surprised if many didn't even make it through the doors.

      August 31, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    • therealpeace2all

      @ME II

      Yes, we should definitely 'not' send -Willam DeMuth as a representative of the atheists/agnostics crowd !

      Peace...

      August 31, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • ME II

      lol... true that.

      Peace

      August 31, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
  12. Evolution is a religion..

    with bill nye as it profits 😉

    August 31, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
    • Universe

      sure, one can trust an atheist to dictate what one must teach a child. atheism has done so much for humanity that one can't deny its contributions to society and mankind in general.

      August 31, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
    • ME II

      "atheism has done so much for humanity "
      Atheism is a lack of belief, a single statement negative stance, not a philosophy. Technically, atheism has never done anything, either good or bad, ever.

      August 31, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      "profits" heh heh.

      August 31, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why are these fundies so fvckin' stupid?

      August 31, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
    • Chad is a dummy

      @ Uni'verse'.......one speech? .....maybe it should be 'unibrow'?

      September 1, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
  13. Sue

    This is a far better video than what the creationists came up with:
    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo&w=640&h=360]

    August 31, 2012 at 5:13 pm |
    • therealpeace2all

      @Sue

      ^Like

      Peace...

      August 31, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
    • English Andy

      I love you Sue... That was so funny!

      September 1, 2012 at 12:00 am |
    • Andyg

      ok- so now you follow the religious advice of george carlin? GC and Bill Nye are ACTORS- you understand that right?

      September 1, 2012 at 9:23 pm |
  14. therealpeace2all

    Reblogged this on peace2alldotme.

    August 31, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
  15. therealpeace2all

    Can't wait to visit the "Creation Museum" and see T-Rex talking a stroll with the blonde haired blue eyed people. 😯

    Peace...

    August 31, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
  16. The Sanity Inspector

    As a science-believing Christian, I find myself teaching my children this: We honor the Bible, but we worship God. Creationists worship the Bible. However, we do not believe that the Bible is a science textbook, it was never intended to be read that way. They are a little young for such nuances, but I'm trying to ginger them along.

    August 31, 2012 at 5:09 pm |
    • therealpeace2all

      @The Sanity Inspector

      I can respect that.

      Peace...

      August 31, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
    • JustMyselfToo

      That is a terrific way of stating it. Now, if only we could explain that to the creationists..

      September 1, 2012 at 11:10 am |
  17. Spencer

    I find it a little funny that a good number of arguments against evolution are not even about evolution, they are arguments about Abiogenesis.

    Remember people, the theory of evolution does not in any way touch on how life started on this planet. All it covers is what has happen to the life forms here since then.

    Also, would it be too much to ask to at least get the data right before trying to use it as "Fact"? "Nye's argument falls in line with the vast majority of scientists, who date the age of the earth and the universe as 4.5 billion years old." The Earth may be ~4.5 billion years old, but the universe is much much older at 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years.

    August 31, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Spencer

      I find it both funny and sad. Most arguments against evolution is Abogenesis or the big bang. Go back far enough and make a person admit "I don't know" is their only way of scoring points in their heads. Saying I don't know shouldn't be that way and exposing ignorance on something should be encouraged, but tell a person they're stupid from the get go, their knee-jerk reaction is to try and prove your own stupidity and bring you down to their level.

      August 31, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
    • Spencer

      Chuckles: Any discussion with this much emotion behind it does tend to boil down to personal insults & logical fallacies. Its the problem with entering a debate not in good faith.

      August 31, 2012 at 5:09 pm |
    • Arvoasitis

      To properly interpret the meaning or significance of anything, it is useful, perhaps even essential, to understand the context in which it occurs.

      August 31, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • Spencer

      Arvoasitis: the theory of evolution does not care about nor covers the meaning or significance of anything as it is a scientific theory, not a philosophical theory.

      Which highlights one of the larger argumentative flaws in these debates. Trying to use philosophy as a rebuttal to science.

      August 31, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
  18. sam

    Oh, this is comedy gold.

    August 31, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
    • Timmy

      I know it is pretty awesome. I particularly like this little gem:
      "Yes we see fossils and distant stars, but the history on how they got there really depends on our worldview"

      August 31, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
    • ME II

      ... as in "What world are you [viewing it] from?"

      August 31, 2012 at 5:15 pm |
  19. Brooke

    The last paragraph of this piece contains one of the worst sentences I have seen in a long time.
    "The most recent poll showed belief in atheistic evolution was on the rise at 16%, nearly double what it had been in previous years. The poll also found 32% of respondents believe in evolution guided by God."

    What is "Atheistic Evolution." Evolution is evolution regardless of what the believer or non-believer thinks. Is there "Christian Germ Theory"? "Atheistic Gravitational Theory" "Buddhist String Theory" (There might actually be a Buddhist string theory come to think of it) BUT, bad writing nonetheless.

    August 31, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
    • ME II

      I think they are referring to the poll question ""Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced from of life, but God had no part in this process."

      However, in re-reading it, I see that it is only excluding God from the process not from existence, interesting.

      August 31, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @ME II

      The wording of the quesion is why the result is as high as 15%, when athiesm+agnosticism is 4%.

      The wording still leaves room for the idea that God 'initiated' life or caused the big bang. We're only talking evolution, not abiogenesis or the big bang. (Of course those distinctions are immaterial to many fundies.)

      What is scary to me is that the answer with a plurality goes to this question:

      "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

      As answered by:
      All Americans .................... 46%
      High School or less ............ 52%
      Republicans ....................... 58%
      Weekly church attenders ... 67%

      And these people vote!!!

      August 31, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
  20. Bahn

    Evolution is a lie propagated by atheists to fool themselves.

    August 31, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
    • Mike

      Creationism is a joke from an old comic book.

      August 31, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • Children cannot be lied to

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-AyDtD6sPA&w=640&h=360]

      August 31, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • Sue

      This video is far better for both kids and adults:
      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo&w=640&h=360]

      August 31, 2012 at 5:13 pm |
    • therealpeace2all

      @Children cannot be lied to

      This video is beyond ludicrous.

      Jeezus !

      Peace...

      August 31, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
    • .o.

      @Children cannot be lied to

      BULL SH IT ALERT!

      August 31, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
    • Non-believer blog

      idolators seem to flock this blog and no surprises there!

      August 31, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • transitional form

      To hear a molecular biologist claim to be unaware of the observed mechanisms for generating genetic novelty and complexity is surprising. These mechanisms are described in textbooks used in universities across the land, for example in the textbook "Molecular Biology of the Cell".

      Well maybe not so surprising if, as claimed, what is true depends on your worldview. The whole point about science is that what is true does not depend on your worldview. Hindus, Muslims, Taoists, Christians, atheists too, will all come to the same truth regarding the freezing point of water, the time and place of the next solar eclipse, and copy number mutations as a key process in generating genetic diversity.

      September 1, 2012 at 5:44 pm |
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
Advertisement
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.