 |
|
|
|
 "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 videoBy 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. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
The creationists do not get to put their books of fiction on the same shelf as the books of reason and science. The creationists even define the word 'theory' incorrectly; in science, a theory is put forth after experiments replicate the results. The creationists perpetuate a fantasy; until they can replicate – "create" – a human in a laboratory, they need to keep their mythology out of school, period.
A theory is a hypothetical, one degree above a hypothesis. Did you flunk eighth grade science?
Evangelical, a theory is falsifiable, and creationism is not. So much for your science grades.
1. If a theory is falsifiable, then why do the evolutionists keep pushing evolution when it is so obviously false.
2. The fact that creationism is not falsifiable is a strength, not a weakness.
That post tells me all I need to know about Evan's level of education.
Evangelical,
Did you google to check what falsifiability means in relation to a theory and how it is the strength of a theory?
Within the philosophy of science falsifiability or refutability is a quality or characteristic of a scientific hypothesis or theory. Falsifiability is considered a positive (and often essential) quality of a hypothesis because it means that the hypothesis is testable by empirical experiment and thus conforms to the standards of scientific method. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false, rather it means that if it is false, then observation or experiment will at some point demonstrate its falsehood.
Thank you jesus for providing your blessings once again and I know you will forgive me for not attending the revival. I managed to find my hymnal and was on my way but I came across some fresh road kill, a big fat possum, and took it straight back to the trailer and now have something for sunday dinner; the cats are already feasting on the guts and brains. If you filthy atheists would break away from your satanic ways the lord my god would shine his holy light on you and provide for you as well.
Amen.
PS: Please jesus, you must help me for I am weak and cannot stop hoarding. It takes forever to find things and the cats can't find the litter box and pee and sh*it all over the trailer. Thank you jesus.
You had me going there for a minute. Good troll. Anyway this gets back to a bigger point of teaching creation alongside evolution in schools. It would be all fine and dandy if they both were taught, but wait till the theists get all up in arms about a muslim wanting their creation story taught. Or a hindu wanting their creation story taught. Christians never think about that.
Christianity 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.
Christianity makes you frothy like Rick Santorum. Just go to http://santorum.com to find out more.
Christianity prevents you from getting badly needed exercise.
Christianity makes you fat.
Christianity wears out your clothes prematurely.
Christianity contributes to global warming through excess CO2 emissions.
Christianity fucks up your knees and your neck and your back.
Christianity can cause heart attacks, especially among the elderly.
Christianity reveals how stupid you are to the world.
Christianity exposes your backside to pervert priests.
Christianity makes you think doilies are exciting.
Christianity makes you secretively flatulent and embarrassed about it.
Christianity makes your kids avoid spending time with you.
Christianity gives you knobbly knees.
Christianity makes you frothy like Rick Santorum. Just google him to find out.
Christianity dulls your senses.
Christianity makes you post really stupid shit.
Christianity makes you hoard cats.
Christianity makes you smell like shitty kitty litter and leads you on to harder drugs.
Christianity wastes time.
Extreme Atheism gives you Zyklon B, genetically modified food, Stalinism, Nazism, eugenics and the atomic bomb. It can be identified by religious zeal, unusually high passions, a tribalist atmosphere, vicious verbal attacks on non-nonbelievers, and a peculiar, extreme, distorted level of rage.
True Atheism gives you a broader outlook and a calm temperament awaiting proof presented by facts.
Guess which unfortunately seems to be the face of Atheism today and is giving all the rest of us a bad name.
Only for new members of this blog:
For $99, you can find out if a Neanderthal was a part of your evolutionary tree:
As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/
" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.
"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.
Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.
It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."
For your $99 and a DNA swab:
"Included in the markers we will test for is a subset that scientists have recently determined to be from our hominin cousins, Neanderthals and the newly discovered Denisovans, who split from our lineage around 500,000 years ago. As modern humans were first migrating out of Africa more than 60,000 years ago, Neanderthals and Denisovans were still alive and well in Eurasia. It seems that our ancestors met, leaving a small genetic trace of these ancient relatives in our DNA. With Geno 2.0, you will learn if you have any Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA in your genome."
The Agnostics' Creed 2012: (updated by yours truly and based on the studies of historians and theologians of the past 200 years)
Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven??
I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)
Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,
He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
Jerusalem.
Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
many semi-fiction writers. A descent into Hell, a bodily resurrection
and ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.
Amen
(references used are available upon request)
Prayer changes things .
Christianity 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.
Christianity makes you frothy like Rick Santorum. Just go to http://santorum.com to find out more.
Christianity prevents you from getting badly needed exercise.
Christianity makes you fat.
Christianity wears out your clothes prematurely.
Christianity contributes to global warming through excess CO2 emissions.
Christianity fucks up your knees and your neck and your back.
Christianity can cause heart attacks, especially among the elderly.
Christianity reveals how stupid you are to the world.
Christianity exposes your backside to pervert priests.
Christianity makes you think doilies are exciting.
Christianity makes you secretively flatulent and embarrassed about it.
Christianity makes your kids avoid spending time with you.
Christianity gives you knobbly knees.
Christianity dulls your senses.
Christianity makes you post really stupid shit.
Christianity makes you hoard cats.
Christianity makes you smell like shitty kitty litter and leads you on to harder drugs.
Christianity wastes time.
Rational Libertarian , you should check out the book " Food of the Gods : The Search for the Original Tree of Knowledge" by Terence McKenna. It's a well known book, it's very interesting, you might find it compelling as well.
"The earth and the universe as 4.5 billion years old."
Story is inaccurate. The age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years. The age of the Universe is 20 billion years.
I don't understand people's need to interpret the Judeo-Christian Genesis myth literally. Creation myths exist in various forms in every culture. Just because they are not factual shouldn't invalidate them. It is completely ridiculous, by-the-way, the accept these creation myths as factual.
Also, aren't there 2 creation myths in the Bible? One in Isiah and another one in Genesis. So which one is it?
I'm not really a science guy, so I have a probably remedial question...
I just read the following:
As long as there are proteins and DNA, the emergence of life can be almost completely explained by science. Once there were both DNA and the requisite proteins for life to exist, life existed, flourished, and eventually evolved into every living thing we know. The problem, though, is that we have no idea where DNA originated or how amino acids were able to fold themselves into the impossibly complex proteins that DNA exploits to create life. It is statistically impossible for these things to have emerged spontaneously at the same time with enough facility to begin the long chain of creation, and that is an understatement. (source: "Science Academic Journal"
What then, if this is true, is the scientific answer for how life first began?
We don't know for sure yet. And admitting we don't is what makes science the only way to explain the universe. No gap filling.
Thanks for your patience and I hope I'm not sounding too stupid. A follow up:
If science doesn't have evidence on this matter, does it mean that a creator is as viable an option as, sorry, I don't have the language, maybe spontaneous creation?
Also, could you educate me on "gap filling?" Thanks!
(BTW, I'm not the Matt below)
First off, someone better educated in biology than myself should run you through some hypotheses on how life began on Earth.
Second, God of the Gaps is a term used to describe what religionists do to support their belief. They say that god is in the gaps in scientific theories. Like the Big Bang. Science has no way of currently knowing what existed before the Big Bang, so theists say god initiated it.
Third, no it's not a viable option in any scientific sense because there is absolutely no proof for any of it.
Thanks RL. Would like to continue the discussion, but I'm beat. Appreciate your responses.
The source is wrong. That's not from "Science", it's just some random writer's blog named magill. He's not a scientist, doesn't even have a science degree, and not particularly well informed as far as I can tell from his blog and bio.
To answer the question posed by the author, how could something as impossibly complex as Myoglobin instantaneously and spontaneously emerge from the primordial soup? It didn't. The process of evolution took a billion years or so before something as complex as single cell organisms emerged. Myoglobin didn't just appear with 153 correctly arranged amino acids. For a billion years, the primordial soup is just tons of random large organic molecules stirring about as if a film on top of the oceans. Some of them arranged as to be more stable, more reproductive, or fitter than others. After a billion years, with a trillion trillion trillion combinations of organic molecules stirring about in the muck, finally the correct arrangements started emerging for self-reproductive proteins and then, self-reproductive proteins encapsulated by a membrane. But only after billions of years and a trillion trillion trillion combinations of molecules were randomly arranged in the soup.
Second, a famous experiment occurred a few decades ago where a scientist took some ammonia and other raw chemicals, dumped them in a beaker, stirred the beaker, stuck a live wire with a small amount of voltage on it, stirred the beaker, and sealed the entire contraption. Left it for a few days, and guess what appeared? Amino acids. The same muck of the primordial soup, spontaneosly emerged out of just a combination of raw chemicals that were stirred and had a voltage applied to them. It was that simple and easy to get the very stuff of life to emerge in the lab.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsbBT118Rbw&w=640&h=360]
Great vid. Thanks ScottCA.
@Gadflie: Yawn.....zzzzzzzzzz
Awww, the little whiner is falling asleep. Someone should help tuck him in. No, I don't volunteer.
Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is the best…
Some music. But, there is always crap music also...
This is a Zappa quote, so we can rule out any association with crap music.
Music doesn't hold a candle next to dissolution of self (regardless of method used for attainment or duration of the experience).
I stand corrected.
Really-O
Please tell me you're not into all that transcendental hippy stuff.
"Music, in performance, is a type of sculpture. The air in the performance is sculpted into something."
Mr. Zappa
@Rational Libertarian –
Nope. However, our consciousness really is bedrock for all of our experiences and refining and cultivating it is a worthy, and invaluable, pursuit. That, said...don't eat the yellow snow.
I like my consciousness just the way it is. I'm also far too cynical for this stuff.
@Rational Libertarian –
If your perception needs no fine-tuning, you have no worries. However, cynicism is on of the methods for refining consciousness...I'm just sayin'.
Cheers
A little MDMA and/or LSD with the music doesn't hurt either... Oops, was that put in a public forum?
...sorry...Cynicism should have been capitalized.
@DancingInPDX –
Good evidence now indicates that MDMA is neurotoxic and, therefore, should be avoided. Dr. Hoffmann's problem-child, however, will open the doors of perception.
Drugs are for the weak minded.
Also, wouldn't Cynicism with a capital C have Greek connotations? I'm definitely not a Greek Cynic. Just a modern cynic that has no faith in anything or anyone.
@Rational Libertarian – "Drugs are for the weak minded."
That's the kind of sweeping generalization that is, well, just not rational. Does your assertion apply to alcohol? Caffeine? Morphine when administered for intractable pain? Soporifics when administered for idiopathic insomnia? It's really not that simple, is it? Also, as a libertarian, you certainly defend the right for every person to do whatever they wish with they're own damned body...right?
...getting late..."they're" = "their"
I said "a little". Geez. Life it to be experienced.
@DancingInPDX –
No judgement...just cautionary.
Cheers
Cool. I'm hoping to die of everything at the same time. My brain needs to catch up to my liver.
Yes, if you want to take drugs, go ahead. Just please stay away from me when you're on them.
I just feel that anybody who isn't happy with sobriety has some sort of psychological problem or it is an escape from an empty life.
I have nothing against the medical use of drugs. I took two painkillers yesterday for a migraine (didn't work).
Drugs that aren't behavior altering like tobacco and coffee are alos OK in my book.
LOL! Dude, I love sobriety. I also love my home life, but like taking vacations too.
@Rational Libertarian –
"I just feel that anybody who isn't happy with sobriety has some sort of psychological problem or it is an escape from an empty life." - You might want to delve into the clinical research on the subject...you're a bit behind the curve.
"I have nothing against the medical use of drugs. I took two painkillers yesterday for a migraine (didn't work)." - So, it's OK to chemically modify your consciousness as long as a central authority (the medical establishment) gives you permission. That really isn't very libertarian.
"Drugs that aren't behavior altering like tobacco and coffee are alos [sic] OK in my book." - Caffeine (coffee) and nicotine (tobacco) do alter behavior. Again, a bit of research is in order.
I never mentioned anything about centrally authorized permission. Anybody can take any drug they want for all I care, I'm offering my opinion. I tolerate the use of all drugs, but I only condone medicinal drug use.
As to your first point, that's speculative. Re the second point, I realize they're behavior altering to an extent, I should have said personality altering. Seeing things, falling over furniture, turning into a complete ass-hole. These are the drugs I personally don't approve of.
@Rational Libertarian –
Regarding "medicinal drug use" – I assumed you meant licit (prescribed) drugs as opposed to illicit drugs. If I was correct, your assertion endorses the authority of the medical community and also draws an arbitrary line between "good" (prescribed) drugs and "bad" (non-prescribed) drugs. The simple fact is your body can't tell the difference. If I was incorrect, perhaps you'll edify me.
Regarding my "first point" – It's not actually speculative as there is a growing body of good medical research supporting specific drug therapies and how they enhance well-being. Again, the research is available.
Regarding "Seeing things, falling over furniture, turning into a complete ass-hole". With the exception of "seeing things" (I don't even know what that means in context), we can agree those are undesirable. Just as properly ti'trated narcotic analgesia is desirable, narcotic abuse is destructive.
You're clearly intelligent; however, this is an area in which you would benefit from setting aside your prejudices and doing some research.
My prejudices are born from personal experience.
I wasn't speaking from any legal standpoint. I have little technical knowledge in medicine, but surely there are narcotics which offer direct health benefits, and I have completely accept the necessity of their use.
I've read that MDMA has been used with relative success in couples' therapy. I don't approve of it, but if it helps people, they should go for it.
By seeing things I meant drug induced hallucinations.
Also, I have to make this clear. if it was up to me, all drugs would be legalized and made freely available.
And by free I mean anybody can purchase them, not price. Consumption tax on legalized narcotics would help us immensely.
@Rational Libertarian –
Thank you for the thoughtful response. With regard to your last sentence...spoken like a true libertarian and I agree.
Enjoy your weekend.
@Rational Libertarian –
You got a post in before my response. Just to be clear, my "spoken like a true libertarian" applies to both of the following –
"Also, I have to make this clear. if it was up to me, all drugs would be legalized and made freely available"
"And by free I mean anybody can purchase them, not price. Consumption tax on legalized narcotics would help us immensely."
...I do have a question regarding the legitimacy of a "consumption tax" on narcotics as opposed to your opposition to income tax...but that's for another time.
Cheers
If you see this, I support FairTax. Anyway, I'm off to bed.
My son is in his senior year at the School of the Holy Mother of Losers where he has a tough final semester:
– Science: Creationism
– Medicine: Blood Letter with Leeches
– Social Studies: Identifying and Purifying Witches
– Children's Health: Curing Life-Threatening Illnesses with Prayer
– Theology: The Sudden Death of Children and God's Will
– Astronomy: Understanding the Stars Orbits Around the Earth
– Physical Eduction: Boating Without Falling Off the Edge of the Earth
– Career Development: Proper Techniques with Toilet Brushes
If he keeps his grades up the nuns say he should make head janitor right out of school, provided he continues practicing his oral stimulation skills on the Priest. And to think they said he would be a nobody after he failed 6th grade for the 3rd time in that stupid public school where they taught all that worthless math and science stuff. My son is going to be a head janitor and I'm so proud!
I know it's supposed to be a facetious post, but no church or any educated people believed the earth was flat. A spherical earth was known to educated men since the Greeks. The whole idea that a flat earth was preached up until the Renaissance is a myth.
Very interesting!!! I didn't know that. No seriously, you learn something new everyday ... unless of course you refuse to learn new things. Thanks RL!
Guess my son will have to take that moon cheese cooking class.
Well, us not being religionists certainly helps us to learn.
The whole flat earth myth is actually very interesting. Here's the Wikipedia link for yourself or anybody else who's interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
Yeah, I read it! I couldn't trust a random dude on a BBS at face value, now could I? 🙂 Truly, I appreciate the education.
Ironically, for such a convoluted BS of yours, you got astronomy correct right there.
If you're referring to Relativity, yeah get it, I have a degree on the subject. The satire was designed for the audience.
@End Religion: lol. you had me laughing there for a moment....afraid of dying. You see, I've been in combat. After that ....uh no ,i'm not afraid of dying. Thanks for the laughs though. To me your life sounds rigid, monolithic, and cold. Sort of a metallic life...no color. You see it in your writing. Unwilling to have an open mind. Can't help you. As much as I was a hard core atheist I still had an open mind and I never once would try to attack someone in the way you did with me. Adios
eyes. you whine a lot. Sorry kid but it's true.
JustNotAbleToReadHeavenSentJustSayin, do stop dodging and answer the question that we are all still waiting on: does your Jesus wear a thong?
@Tina...why are you being so ignorant and ridiculous. CLEARLY Jesus wears a thong.
Jesus and his banana hammock.
Show me the evidence. The subject should not shrink from investigation
Jesus didn't wear underwear. Free, easy and breazy.
Breezy.
Have you never watched Bethlehem Shore? There's so many scenes where you can clearly see Jesus wearing a thong. You were probably too busy staring at his abs to notice the fact that he was wearing a thong.
His abs are rock hard, in my defence.
The only thing exceptional about the U.S. these days is the stupidity of half its people.
@Matt –
I bet you listen to your pastor/reverend/priest/holy-book regarding evolution, right? Which is more foolish?
Im willing to bet I know more about evolution than most here. I do have a graduate degree and have studied it in detail. I do see organism adapt to their enviroment. I don't see life spawn from nothing. There is structure to the universe that guides life. We didn't write the laws of physics, nature ect. They already exsisted. God is eternal. Most pastors dont even say anything of evolution. They just preach the virtues of christian life. Helping people in need ect.
You say you have a graduate degree. Is that degree in anything actually related to science?
Its a degree in assuming he knows more than he does.
Matt, you know a lot about evolution but then associate it with abiogenesis? LOL!
Matt, I have to ask, a graduate degree in what? Ethnic studies? Kinesiology? Theology? What?
Matt doesn't see life starting from nothing. And since Matt is an all knowing genius he must be right. Its simply not possible that he doesn't know what really happened.
Geez, Matt. You have a college degree and still use "ect" for "etc"? Perhaps you'll understand when I say I'm not impressed.
Athy
"Geez, Matt. You have a college degree and still use "ect" for "etc"?"
Oy, I hope that he doesn't actually say, "eck cetera" or "ex cetera" out loud! 😮
For all the religious people out there, how do you feel about the fact that your 'love for god' has caused the deaths of millions of millions of people? Apparently you're okay with the fact that your god kills people for sport. Why would he create believers and non believers to fight it out? If YOU know the difference between right and wrong and your own god doesn't, what does that say about your religion?
Why are we even paying this guy any attention? So he earned a BS in mechanical engineering and was given an Honorary phd for being a humanitarian. Now hes a biologist? lol
@Matt –
I bet you listen to your pastor/reverend/priest/holy-book regarding evolution, right? Which is more foolish?
...
Well, every credible biologist agrees with him.
Matt, why the ad-hominem attack? Are you that afraid of his actual argument?
Any trained engineer knows more about science than a trained clergy.
You don't need a degree in biology to understand evolution. It's 3rd grade curriculum in my state.