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. jamie rowe

    People will continue to go around in circles on the God and origin debate for a number of reasons. There is simply no definitive answer in relation to the existence of God. As for the origin debate, strict creationists defend their position using a worldview that does support the possibility that what we perceive as billions of years could have been created with those features already in tact, or as a result of a a creator. These positions will never have scientific backing because the starting point assumes creation and does not treat perceived time as a restriction to their theory. As a result, creationists and scientists are coming at the debate at different levels, the latter treating observable phenomena as indicators of what has actually occurred over time, the former treats observable phenomena as a result of the particular will of a creator. This creationists view does not speak to science at all because it assumes the that scientific observation is not the whole story. As a result, these two camps have very little to say to one another.

    September 1, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • jamie rowe

      In terms of the existence of God question, there are great arguments and cases to be made from both sides of the debate. I find it amusing that theists and atheists both think they have some kind of intellectual monopoly over the topic. Most atheistic forum-philosophers will undoubtedly attack the strawman argument that the world is 6000 years old. Most theistic forum-philosophers will use the bible to justify the bible... read some more advanced literature on the subject before immortalizing your profound insights on the slab that is the cnn comment section.
      What makes zero sense is when people, who have extraordinarily limited knowledge on the subject, get their rocks off by pontificating uncharitable talking points in as arrogant a fashion as possible.
      One of the worst mistakes some atheists make is to view it as a definitive stance that all Christian theists assert in relation to the origins of the universe. One of the worst mistakes some theists make is to acknowledge those arguments as legitimate threats to theism, unless their theism is based concretely on the notion of strict creationism. Also, This is why some think that by debunking the narrow sighted and entirely unimaginative account that has been 'interpreted' as the biblical world view, they believe somehow that they have successfully argued against the existence of God. If you want to continue to believe this, by all means remain on the cnn forums and feel superior to others by refuting claims that have no actual presence in the debate whatsoever. Forum-Theists will continue to use the bible to attempt a refutation while all agreeing parties cheer on, which will of course make you feel superior to their underdeveloped intellects…and on and on…while the real debate continues in a robust and respectful way. Respectful in the sense that there is no childish animosity towards others you disagree with. Instead there are carefully thought out counterpoints to explain why they disagree.
      Or you can read up on it and maybe form an actual well thought out opinion and one day even an argument to contribute.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • midwest rail

      And your view of the Young Earth – creationists ?

      September 1, 2012 at 11:34 am |
    • sn0wb0arder

      when your assumptions are unbounded there can be no rational argument.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • jamie rowe

      Bill Nye is speaking to the implicit religiosity that finds its way into legislative practices. His point is that if you are to send your kid to 'public school', then your child should expect to receive a public education. This entails the inclusion of what is academically accepted as a scientific explanation of our biological origins. Yes, if you would like your child to be brought up learning the creation account of origins and not evolutionary, then private school is the answer. This is because many who attend public school should not be deprived of academically valid exploration because a group of people choose to not believe it. Religious expression and freedom is a right in the U.S., but the separation of church and state is also expected so that others who do not subscribe to a particular world view are not unduly wronged by a fusion of religiosity and legislation. Bills' point may be going a bit to far insofar as he calls for parents who are creationists to avoid teaching their kids this. This is the right the parents have in rearing their children. However, this choice should not affect other children in reference to their exposure to science.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • jamie rowe

      yes, young earth is creationist. like I said though, the arguments enter the debate at different levels from the start and therefore have major difficulties in moving forward since evidence that is considered valid for one kind of conclusion by one group, is not recognized as supporting that conclusion from the other. This is due to underlying assumptions, both of the validity of the scientific method and the acceptance that the world was created in a week by a creator.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:46 am |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      You cannot be reasonable with an unreasonable person. It's about probability and there is no evidence of a God(s). In reality, historical evidence shows that all previous God(s) were false. It is unreasonable to asume this current batch of Gods are any different than any before. One thing they do all have in common is that they all can be found in the human mind, anthropomorphized to the times.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:47 am |
    • jamie rowe

      @horses: This is not a very sound argument since assuming that an assertion is wrong merely because other similar assertion were shown to be wrong is a fallacy which negates a particular on the basis of the negation of the general. There many great causal, deterministic and spatial-temporal arguments form both theists and atheists. These theories provide more concrete ways in which to debate the existence of God. Also, much existential philosophy can help to explore the ideas in ways that help hash out psychological foundations for or against God.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • jamie rowe

      snow, are you 'assuming' that theists have unbounded assumptions? In terms of the creationist stance, I tend to agree that their assumptions are not based on rationality, rather they are based on faith. This is why they cannot proceed from their position in the realm of scientific debate.

      September 1, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
  2. DaveX

    Angry Sky father say Poo! Poo on YOU! LOL "Creation Science" Priceless!!!!

    September 1, 2012 at 11:29 am |
  3. lindaluttrell

    As a small child hearing the Creationn story, I always wondered two things and got no clear answers: 1. Why would it take the Creator of the entire Cosmos six full days to create one tiny planet? 2. This one I never understood: Why would any diety this powerful have to REST an entire (earth-day I assume) after doing so??? By my early teens I had come to the conclusion that believers were guilty of forcing human traits on their supreme diety. I asked, "Isn't that, in and of itself, a form of blasphemy:"?? Never got an answer to that either!

    September 1, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • TXboyd

      Good questions.
      What if the God traditional religion believes in isn't in fact the real God? i.e what if He is not some mystical being with mystical power. What if His power comes from knowledge–knowledge is power therefore possessing all knowledge would be to possess all power. But this kind of power would be an ordered power and would have to comply with the laws and rules governing matter. Wouldn't that explain why the earth was created in six periods of time, and from simple to complex in terms of life, perhaps not evolution, but definitely simple life was necessary first in order to prepare this planet for the complex forms of life that would follow later. What if Isiah is correct, and the line upon line, precept upon precept principles he taught are eternal? What then do we as the human species eventually become or evolve to? If each time we learn something an opportunity is created to build on that knowledge and learn something new (new line built upon existing line). The what are we in 10,000 years, in a million years, in 10 million years? What do we know and what are we capable of doing as a result of what we know? The problem with these evolutionists is that they do not understand their own theory and lack the imagination to push that theory far enough into the future to understand that the theory itself proves that what they say doesn't exist ( a being or race of beings with God like powers) actually will exist in the future if it hasn't taken place on some other planet somewhere already. http://www.whatsthepointreligion.com

      September 1, 2012 at 11:47 am |
  4. Mike Dell

    I wonder if Bill Nye saw Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" movie...

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g&w=640&h=360]

    September 1, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • Kevin

      I'm sure he has. That movie is full of misinformation and Stein doesn't even know what evolution is. He says its the that people came from a mud puddle getting hit by lightning. Evolution says NOTHING about what caused life to start, just how it has changed since it has started.

      i have seen it, it has been debunked over 1000 times. Please dont post garbage like its supposed to be educational.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:34 am |
    • lindaluttrell

      Thanks! I hadn't seen it..and will look forward to it!

      September 1, 2012 at 11:34 am |
    • ME II

      I don't know, but if he did, I wonder he checked out this afterwards:
      http://www.expelledexposed.com/

      September 1, 2012 at 11:35 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      A movie full of lies and fallacies. For a movie about intelligent design, it spends no time actually presenting evidence for their argument.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • Scientist

      As a scientist, I was appalled by this movie. Based on the entire body of scientific evidence reported to day, Stein's understanding of evolution is deplorable and can only be categorized as willful ignorance.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:37 am |
  5. fairandbalancedfredo

    Why would anyone take as gospel the ancient stories written by desert dwellers 3000 years ago? The people writing these stories were all pre-science, and were obviously just reciting ancient myths.

    September 1, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • Darwin

      You know Darwin believed in God and these ancient texts when he asked God to show him the mysteries of life

      September 1, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • Patrick McDermott

      The story has a factual error. While it is true that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the universe is far older: at an age of approximately 13 billion years.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • .o.

      When salesmen and politicians get the kind of power that allows them to instill fear into people over time, they can keep believing just about anything. And of course once fear is instilled, it is almost self-maintaining amongst the fearful.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:34 am |
    • .o.

      correction: can keep their subjects believing . .

      September 1, 2012 at 11:36 am |
    • .o.

      Darwin wrote: "You know Darwin believed in God and these ancient texts when he asked God to show him the mysteries of life"

      Just because a famous scientist may have some flawed beliefs doesn't mean that he, by his own reasoning and methods, could not find great truths about the universe (that are real and don't involve deities).

      September 1, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • lindaluttrell

      Yes. And one other thing believers do not like to admit is these books were written decades after events, particularly books in the New Testament...one or two nearly 100 years after events...

      September 1, 2012 at 11:48 am |
  6. wolfpackbob

    Even supposedly the smartest guy on the planet, Stephen Hawking, cannot explain the creation of gravity. It is one thing to embrace evolution as an accepted ongoing process yet quite another to use evolution as a tool to dispell the existence of a supreme being. Evolution and The Creator are not mutually exclusive. They can be compatible. The extreme positions on both sides, with no slam-dunk facts for their positions, have a closed-mind agenda rather than an openess to seeking the truth, which is an ongoing process even in our "advanced state" of scientific development.

    September 1, 2012 at 11:26 am |
    • rswfire

      I agree with you. I don't see why they would ever be considered mutually exclusive. They are not to me.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • sn0wb0arder

      you are correct. they are not mutually exclusive.

      evolution only posits that there was no requirement for a supreme being. then again, if there is no need, what necessity is ther for belief?

      September 1, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • Advocatusdiaboli

      While belief in a deity or creator can be compatible with science and evolution, belief in the Old Testament as the word of that deity is not and never will be. Evolve your mind and thinking or stay ignorant and delusional.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • Kevin

      I agree, evolution does not show god to be fake, just all the creation stories ever written. so if all those stories are false, its not a far leap to make to say that the concept of god is made up as well.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:36 am |
  7. Cindy

    I'm sorry, but I'm going to flat out say that people who believe in creationism are flat out morons. In the article on guy for creationism says "an eyewitness account". How so many can believe the writings of one camel herder in the desert's version of creation is beyond me. In fact it is so silly I can't believe even someone with an IQ of 75 would buy that idea. How can people be so stupid? They are gullible. Don't get your history from some schmuck on Sunday mornings folks. Not only does it make you sound stupid it shows you have been effectively brainwashed.

    September 1, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • sn0wb0arder

      i won't say that they are morons. i will simply say that they have been indoctrinated into a belief that if they were forced to look at critically, they could not justify.

      many people go through life never having to look at religion in a critical light.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • Goose66

      It's funny that you would call the Purdom a moron or idiot when you can't even read. Purdom didn't say the eyewitness was a camel herder in the dessert. Purdom said that the eyewitness was God himself, because Purdom believes the Bible is the Word of God. You want to call others morons, but you don't come off all that smart yourself.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • sn0wb0arder

      goose – the bible was written by man. obviously no eyewitness.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    • lindaluttrell

      Not only that, Cindy, but each culture on this planet has its OWN creation story...and each claims THAT story to be the truth...The way I see it, so many people are afflicted with the "herding instinct." They have a compelling need to be a part of something they feel is greater than themselves. But in becoming part of the group, they lost their free will to possess an open mind. That is the biggest problem I have with organized religion today.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:44 am |
  8. rswfire

    I ended up on this article after reading an article about a Pakistani girl who is in danger of being murdered by mobs of people if she is let out of prison, all because she burned a few pieces of paper to use as kindling in a cooking fire. This young girl can't read, and apparently even suffers from Down Syndrome. Unfortunately for her, she allegedly burned some pages that had "special writing" on them from the Quaran, and now she is guilty of blasphemy! (That's a real crime?) This all boils down to fundamentalism, of course.

    And now I'm here; and I don't need to read even more than one page of comments to see that Christian fundamentalism really isn't much different - you're full of arrogance, illogical beliefs that you staunchly defend no matter how much more illogical it makes you sound, and an unrelenting animosity toward anyone who does not agree with you. How far we've come...

    September 1, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • David

      I've wondered one thing about the Pakistani girl's case – if she was collecting scraps of paper to burn, why were pages from a Quran littered in the street for her to be able to find? She may have unknowingly collected and burned them, but someone else "committed blasphemy" by throwing the pages into the street as common trash. Why is there no investigation into how they came to be in her possession to begin with?

      September 1, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
  9. Dan, TX

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution You can find the primary reference through the Vatican web site

    The Church has deferred to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, have accepted the findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:

    According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

    September 1, 2012 at 11:24 am |
    • MikeA

      I'm an atheist, and I disagree with many things about the Catholic church, but I have talked to some priests about science. I found them to be extremely reasonable and educated and thoughtful in their responses. Compared to evangelicals/fundamentalists, it was like night and day.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:42 am |
  10. SM

    "For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong."
    I Corinthians 1:25&27
    "Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates correction is stupid." Proverbs 12:1

    September 1, 2012 at 11:24 am |
  11. If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

    "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," lolololol .. tear .. lolol..

    September 1, 2012 at 11:23 am |
  12. Ryan

    @Jurtin: Gravity is a theory. Please read a science book.

    September 1, 2012 at 11:21 am |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      Gravity is a reality .. it's labeled a "theory" until science can fully explain it. Religion isn't even a theory, it's clearly pure folklore with no basis is reality.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:35 am |
  13. jl

    ok mankind, since you are" Running This" The next time a supercell tornado or massive hurricane appears do something. –

    September 1, 2012 at 11:21 am |
  14. I can prove evolution

    Scientist can prove evolution, religion cannot prove god.

    September 1, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • ME II

      Science doesn't deal in "proof".
      There is, however, an abundant amount of evidence that supports evolution and none that counters it.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • Goose66

      If you can prove Darwinian evolution, then do so. You will be the greatest scientist ever!

      September 1, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • Darwin

      God can create a universe... What have you done lately

      September 1, 2012 at 11:24 am |
    • Goose66

      There is evidence that counters Darwinian evolution, i.e. "survival of the fittest." It may not be conclusive evidence that the theory is wrong, but the evidence does exist. Go out and look for it before you make such ridiculous sweeping statements.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • ME II

      @Darwin
      "God can create a universe... What have you done lately"
      Read someone lie about what they know.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:26 am |
    • Darwin

      You are the Lie for denying God and teaching such

      September 1, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Darwin, please shut up. You are a nut-case.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • ME II

      @Goose66,
      I'm not sure if you are presenting a strawman with, "Darwinian evolution" and "survival of the fittest", but the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis has plenty of evidence supporting it and, as far as I'm aware, zero evidence that contradicts it.
      If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • ME II

      @Darwin,
      Technically, I didn't deny God, just denied that you actually "know" He created the universe. You may think He did and you may even be right, but you don't "know" that he did.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • Brian

      The theory is what is the driving force that caused evolution. Just as the theory of gravity describes why things fall to the ground. The fact is that things do fall to the ground and creatures evolve, the fossil record proves it and it can be witnessed in the lab. The Theory of natural selection may one day be disproved, but the underlying fact that creatures evolve will not be.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:33 am |
    • Goose66

      Even in more modern theories of evolution, natural selection is the primary driver. However, I learned several examples in college biology where scientists believed that the fossil record showed a tremendous speed in the evolution of a species to be compatible with it's environment that is inconsistent with the speed that would result from random genetic mutations. Scientists speculate that there may, additionally or alternatively, be an adaptation process at work that accounts for such speed in the evolution. The source of such an adaptation process is unknown. There may also be other explanations that are more in line with natural selection. The other, most glaring, evidence against natural selection, of course, is all the "missing links" in the fossil chain. Again, I am not suggesting that evolution is wrong, I just don't like non-scientists that speak in such absolutes as "X is true, there is no evidence against" and such.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:39 am |
    • ME II

      @Goose66,

      "However, I learned several examples in college biology where scientists believed that the fossil record showed a tremendous speed in the evolution of a species to be compatible with it's environment that is inconsistent with the speed that would result from random genetic mutations."
      Sounds intriguing, could you point me to the evidence.

      "The other, most glaring, evidence against natural selection, of course, is all the 'missing links' in the fossil chain."
      What missing links?
      The fossil records is not a complete lineage of parent to child from 3.5 billion years ago to present. However, it does show a progession of species that is fully consistent with the Theory of Evolution, i.e. no fossil has yet been found that does not fit.
      Interestingly, that is one of the falsifiability tests of TOE, out of place fossils. As someone once said, 'find a rabbit fossil in the Precambrian and evolution is wrong,' or something like that.

      "...I just don't like non-scientists that speak in such absolutes..."
      Understandable, science does not speak with certainty, that is why I rarely say more than there is plenty of evidence supporting the TOE, or it is well supported.

      September 1, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
  15. Wondering

    I've come to the conclusion of late that so much of religious belief is purely a product of man's ego. The need to know that we are special and not just like any other animal that roams the planet. Religion is only for people, not God

    September 1, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • wolfpackbob

      Huh? The Golden Rule is at the core of the three major religions. And the only way anyone places their neighbor's welfare above their own is by suppressing their ego, not glorifying their ego.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • jd

      Last time I looked – I didn't see the animal kingdom, launch a probe to Mars so I would think that we are just that much more special – or do you still insist that we are equal to them.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:35 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Last time you looked? Doesn't it ever occur to you that man may very well not be the dominant species on earth indefinitely? Or does your ego not permit you to imagine that we, like the dinosaurs, may be a temporary fixture here?

      September 1, 2012 at 11:38 am |
  16. HeavenSent

    I am happy to see the true christians fighting back againgst these filthy atheists, when judgement day comes they will end up in the flames of hell with their fat dripping into the flames. One of the cats peed on my head again while I was sleeping, it smells a bit. Come to jesus before satan grabs you by the balls and you will never escape the flames.

    Amen.

    September 1, 2012 at 11:19 am |
    • jd

      Your really foolish and not being Christ-like at all wishing Hell on others.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      jd, are you incapable of spotting a troll?

      September 1, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    • I'm embarassed

      You are the reason that makes me sad to say that I do believe in God...judgemental...tisk tisk

      September 1, 2012 at 11:59 am |
  17. Trent

    "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 is about 4.3 billion years. The universe is about 13.2ish billion years. Please make these corrections.

    September 1, 2012 at 11:17 am |
  18. That was easy

    Discredit Creation in the name of evolution and voila that is proof there is no God. Wow! very intelligent minds, indeed! NOT!

    Challenge to satan's minions:
    Prove macro evolution and then we can talk, until then, ciao!

    September 1, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • midwest rail

      How old is the Earth ?

      September 1, 2012 at 11:18 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      There's no such distinction, except for morons like you, easy.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • sn0wb0arder

      macro evolution is a religionist term to allow them to deny the evolution that they observe everywhere around them.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • That was easy

      What? no intelligent responses ...still waiting...for a mind with a brain to respond...

      September 1, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • sn0wb0arder

      easy – your question has been answered. macro-evolution is a term coined by religionists that allow them to deny the abundance of evolutionary evidence everywhere around them.

      this fallacy of an artificial boundary of evolution whereby adaptation is somehow stopped is just that. a fallacy.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:46 am |
  19. Observer

    "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?"

    OK (this one requires a highly centered chi or a major blood-pressure event will inevitably occur) – So take a look at Dr. Purdom's last quote in that paragraph, basically saying 'Do we start with mans account, or do we start with the Bible...'

    -- Here's the definition of PRE-SUPPOSITION (for those that didn't see immediately where I was going with this) :

    In the branch of linguistics known as pragmatics, a presupposition (or ps) is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse. Examples of presuppositions include:

    Jane no longer writes fiction.
    Presupposition: Jane once wrote fiction.
    Have you stopped eating meat?
    Presupposition: you had once eaten meat.
    Have you talked to Hans?
    Presupposition: Hans exists.

    A presupposition must be mutually known or assumed by the speaker and addressee for the utterance to be considered appropriate in context.

    - OK, here are the important parts to focus on, "... to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse." And secondly, "A presupposition must be mutually known or assumed by the speaker and addressee for the utterance to be considered appropriate in context.

    Are their any creationists or creation scientists that have any rebuttal beyond their pre-supposed beliefs? Are their any creationists or creation scientists who've proved things, hmm, I don't know.... scientifically maybe? Science is the pursuit of fact, and factually speaking there is a body of evidence to support evolution or something like it. This body of evidence actually EXISTS. It can be measured, studied, and reveal answers about our world, answers that SHOULD NOT threaten anyone's religion if they're secure in it.

    Creation science does not have measurable scientific proof to justify itself, and so is forced to hang its hat on a set of PRE-SUPPOSED beliefs. There is no mutually agreed-upon implicit assumption that everything starts from the Bible. That's why there's a debate, and that's why anyone with a mind for the truth is NOT satisfied by the "answers" posited by creation science, because it's not the pursuit of scientific fact, it is the proliferation of a pre-supposed belief. Essentially, the Creationist side of the argument is asking you to consciously ignore scientific fact and instead believe an allegorical and symbolic account given in the Bible, which if you're reading in English is translated from the original Aramaic events into Greek, and then into English.

    If you're only defense is that the Bible is literal truth, is this what you really believe? Do you think humans actually lived hundreds of years? Do you really think Jonah lived inside the belly of a whale?

    To all creationists and creation scientists: The rest of the truth-seeking world is not willing to start the conversation of man's origin by working backwards from the Bible. The FAITH-BASED beliefs of the literal story of Genesis are exactly that- FAITH-BASED beliefs. Bill Nye is just tremendously frustrated by our country's religious fanatics. He just wants our students to be given the facts to make their own opinions, and he's tired of having to wade through the collective ignorance that is the religious right. Can ya blame him?

    Evolution needs to be taught more as a THEORY, and creationism a THEORY. One is concerned with facts, one is concerned with faith. Neither is completely provable, but one of them has huge body of scientific evidence behind it, and one doesn't concern itself with science at all. Bill Nye is a scientist.

    September 1, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • hj

      Very well written reply and spot on.

      Bio Teacher
      Indiana

      September 1, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • Chris

      BRAVO!!! Well said!

      September 1, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Great post.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:26 am |
    • heywaitaminit

      Ditto to what this guy said!
      Unfortunately this probably like that time I tried to teach my beagle to do quadratic equations. 😦

      September 1, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • therealpeace2all

      @Observer

      Well said, my friend.

      Peace...

      September 1, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • Knyte315

      One of the most thoughtfully written pieces I've seen on a CNN blog. Thank you.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • jd

      Evolution needs to be taught more as a THEORY, and creationism a THEORY?
      That's not what Bill wants – his science lands only just a little less than 50% of NASA's probes on Mars, the rest crash
      Why do you suppose that is?- we have all the science in the world to get the job done – what are we missing here?
      I guess I have to concede – I cannot prove there is a power greater than you and I, however Bill's Science is only about 50% accurate.

      September 1, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Where do you get 50%? Of what?

      jd, it's obvious you have no clue what scientific theories are or what science does.

      September 1, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
    • jd

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son – 50% percent of our attempt to land a rover on mars have failed – I speak to the accuracy of our science man – what is so hard to understand about that – fifty percent of what? – I asked why do you suppose that happens?
      – So its because I don't understand scientific theory?
      I see

      September 1, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
  20. Proudarabamericanmuslim

    Why can't you believe in both that God created the earth, and that it was done millions of years ago? Muslims don't deny the possibility of a long historical timeline of the earth and the creatures on tne land, but we clearly believe God create it all.

    September 1, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • Trent

      Because it's not true.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:18 am |
    • IslandAtheist

      It's NOT science.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • Proudarabamericanmuslim

      Did you two even read what I wrote? Islam is able to say yes there were fossils and dinosaurs and various stages, and does not deny the earth has been arou d for millions of years, but states that intelligent design was responsible as everything comes from something. Science explans how the earth works and God pushed it all to happen.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Proud, when you produce evidence that God "pushed it all to happen," notify the media. As of now, you don't have any.

      September 1, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • jd

      The better question is what created the things that our Science has discovered to exist.
      It was created or caused into existence way before our Science ever discovered it.
      Funny how believing in the creation of Man to me is about as far fetched as Man reaching alpha Centauri. (4.7 light years)
      At our current rate it will probably be measurable in Bill's science by another 4.5 Billion years

      September 1, 2012 at 12:18 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.