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. found truth

    infidelio666 quotes,

    "Operational science deals with the repeatable and observable." to which he responded,

    "Your entire diatribe is the usual bafflegab that tries to put science and religion on an equal footing. Yes, some events cannot be repeated, but Science also deals with explanations that are consistent with current observable facts and they do very well at this with a significant level of agreement that comes from peer review.When you get ALL religions to have the same level of agreement, get back on your pulpit and proclaim man's unified belief in the consistency of what is agreed upon by the "word of God". When do you think you will be able to do this?"

    September 4, 2012 at 12:18 am |
    • Athy

      A well-written post. I can safely predict, however, that your challenge will go unanswered.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:23 am |
    • found truth

      Previously, I gave definitions of both "science" (knowledge) and "religion" (relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity). In no way was I trying to put both on equal footing. After all, each one has a different meaning. What you are doing is switching meanings in the middle of our discussion. You really should give your defintions of "science" and "religion" before making a statement like, "Your entire diatribe is the usual bafflegab that tries to put science and religion on an equal footing." Are you defining "science" as "truth" or perhaps you meant to equate it with the scientific method? Are you defining "religion" as "myth"? If so, none of your definitions are correct.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:26 am |
    • bmfg

      That there is religion in every society on earth, is a powerful form of "consensus based on peer review". The experiment is life itself, observed in first person by billions since beginning of history.

      Material origins cannot account for belief, systems, nor belief systems.

      Your totalitarian naturalism is lunacy in the form of nihilistic denial.

      September 4, 2012 at 5:47 am |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      "That there is religion in every society on earth, is a powerful form of "consensus based on peer review".

      The fact that the Assinoboine believe in a herd of giant bison that materialize from a Canadian lake, the ancient Egyptians believed in supernatural animal-humans, and Christians believe in a tripartite being that sent one part of himself to earth as his own son together prove that they are all true? That hardly makes sense.

      There is no "peer review" in religion. Have you ever been called upon as an expert to evaluate the belief systems of another culture and offer them constructive criticism? And if you were, do you actually believe that they would adjust their beliefs according to your criticism?. And if you believe there is consensus in religious beliefs that just suggests that you are not actually aware of many religious beliefs other than than your own.

      September 4, 2012 at 9:55 am |
  2. what

    what

    September 4, 2012 at 12:11 am |
  3. test

    test

    September 4, 2012 at 12:11 am |
    • duh

      Well, what are you waiting for? It works.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:18 am |
    • Helpful Hints

      test,

      Have you perhaps run afoul of the taboo word fragment boondoggle?

      Bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to get past the CNN automatic filter:
      Many, if not most, are buried within other words, so use your imagination.
      You can use dashes, spaces, or other characters or some html tricks to modify the "offending" letter combinations.
      ---
      ar-se.....as in ar-senic.
      co-ck.....as in co-ckatiel, co-ckatrice, co-ckleshell, co-ckles, etc.
      co-on.....as in racc-oon, coc-oon, etc.
      cu-m......as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, circu-mnavigate, circu-mstances, cu-mbersome, cuc-umber, etc.
      ef-fing...as in ef-fing filter
      ft-w......as in soft-ware, delft-ware, swift-water, drift-wood, etc.
      ho-mo.....as in ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, ho-mogenous, etc.
      ho-oters…as in sho-oters
      ho-rny....as in tho-rny, etc.
      hu-mp… as in th-ump, th-umper, th-umping
      jacka-ss...yet "ass" is allowed by itself.....
      ja-p......as in j-apanese, ja-pan, j-ape, etc.
      koo-ch....as in koo-chie koo..!
      nip-ple
      o-rgy….as in po-rgy, zo-rgy, etc.
      pi-s......as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, therapi-st, etc.
      p-oon… as in sp-oon, lamp-oon, harp-oon
      p-orn… as in p-ornography
      pr-ick....as in pri-ckling, pri-ckles, etc.
      que-er
      ra-pe.....as in scra-pe, tra-peze, gr-ape, thera-peutic, sara-pe, etc.
      se-x......as in Ess-ex, s-exual, etc.
      sl-ut
      sm-ut…..as in transm-utation
      sn-atch
      sp-ank
      sp-ic.....as in desp-icable, hosp-ice, consp-icuous, susp-icious, sp-icule, sp-ice, etc.
      sp-ook… as in sp-ooky, sp-ooked
      strip-per
      ti-t......as in const-itution, att-itude, t-itle, ent-ity, alt-itude, beat-itude, etc.
      tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, nightw-atchman, salt-water, etc.
      va-g......as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant, va-gue, sava-ge, etc.
      who-re....as in who're you kidding / don't forget to put in that apostrophe!
      wt-f....also!!!!!!!
      There's another phrase that someone found, "wo-nderful us" (have no idea what sets that one off).

      September 4, 2012 at 12:23 am |
  4. ScottCA

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k&w=640&h=360]

    September 3, 2012 at 11:29 pm |
    • We're headed toward Iran??

      Terrible video with statements that are unsupported.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:05 am |
  5. Best Video Evar!

    My video beats all other videos in quality of content. Here's the link:

    September 3, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Ha ha. Very funny.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:19 pm |
  6. To all atheists – despite what you think doesn't change the laws of God.

    Someday, despite whether you believe in God or not, you will face God. He is holy and if you have not at least asked Him to forgive you of your sins (and don't tell me you are without sin) you have no chance of being in Heaven – which brings up Hell. Just like North and South are opposites, like water and fire are opposites, like hot and cold are opposites, Hell is opposite to Heaven. It's one or the other and it is your decision. You can continue to maintain your prideful position but what good will it do you. What good is it for a man to gain the world (for a very short time) then lose his soul (for eternity). Even if you're not sure about God, why take a risk?

    September 3, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
    • Gadflie

      You convinced me! Now, which god are you talking about again?

      September 3, 2012 at 9:49 pm |
    • To all atheists – despite what you think doesn't change the laws of God.

      I'm going to pray for you right now – join me, just bow your head from 8:54-8:55. all you have to say is "Father, please forgive me." and watch your life change.....

      September 3, 2012 at 9:51 pm |
    • niknak

      No I won't.
      And either will you.
      What was there for you the moment before you were conceived?
      Nothing.
      What will be there for you the moment you die?
      Nothing.
      Your fairy tale only exists in your head.
      And you can't prove there will be a judgement day any more then I can prove the tooth fairy exists.
      Hell, the tooth fairy has more credence then your magic man has.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:51 pm |
    • Gadflie

      I have to admit, I find it amusing when the Christians call the Atheists position "prideful". After all, they believe that the most powerful being possible actually gives a crap about them.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The fact that you can't even correct your own screen name gives me no confidence in your ability to ascertain my fate after death, you fvcking moron.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:51 pm |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      Why is getting to this heaven the goal? Afterall, what's the point of living for eternity in bliss worshipping God(s)? Seriouslly, what's the point in that?

      September 3, 2012 at 9:59 pm |
    • Archeopteryx

      TAA ... you can't "believe" something into reality no matter how much you want it or how much you pray.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:01 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Especially if you have to endure the company of idiots like HeavenStink, justlyin, To all atheists, Chard, and Topher? Why would ANYONE in his right mind want to spend a moment, much less an eternity, with those mopes?

      September 3, 2012 at 10:02 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Why would your God punish me simply because I'm using the brain and intellect and critical reasoning faculties your god assumedly endowed me with? Is it my fault that your God did such a lousy job providing proof of his existence? Have you ever considered that – if there actually IS a god – he/she/it is going to be really and truly p!ssed off at you for being such an idiot? Have you ever considered that this whole thing is a test, and the religious dolts are going to be judged and punished for being prideful, arrogant, and intolerant.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      Great point Tom Tom .. that certainly wouldn't sweeten the pot for me anyway.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      To build on the previous posts: you, To all atheists, are shaming the very god you claim to adore by failing to use the brain he gave you or the ability to get an education to enhance the intelligence with which he endowed you (no matter how minute it might be).

      Why do you shame your god?

      September 3, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
    • Father Shmather

      @To all atheists – despite what you think doesn't change the laws of God.

      "Father"? That deadbeat, abusive, absentee schmuck? He died a long time ago.

      Your Mother God is offended to be scorned so... and you know the repercussions of scorning a woman, don't you?

      After all I've done for you... and this is the thanks I get? Your ears will burn for all eternity.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:14 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      "Even if you're not sure about God, why take a risk?"

      Really? What if Zeus is the one true god. Do you believe in him? Shouldn't you, just in case?

      September 3, 2012 at 10:16 pm |
    • What IF

      @To all atheists (etc).

      "Even if you're not sure about God, why take a risk?"

      This is another tired repeti.tion of Pascal's Wager - thoroughly refuted since the 17th century, even by the Church.

      - What if the real "God" is Allah, or Vishnu, or Zeus, or Quetzalcoatl, or any of the other of thousands which have been dreamed up over the centuries? Some of them are very jealous and vengeful and will relegate you to nasty places for not worshiping them. You'd better cover your butt by believing in ALL of them and fulfill their wishes and demands.

      - What if the real "God" prefers those who use logic and reason and punishes you as a silly sycophant?

      - What if the real "God" detests those who believe something just to cover their butts in eternity?

      September 3, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
    • Marduk, Time Traveller with a new very small rock.

      My previous very small rock is on another 100 million year vacation. It will be missed.
      And we welcome the new very small rock with open arms! This will be a new era! Our peoples are joined in friendship until the end of our times together! Happy times filled with lots of time travel! We will see the future together!

      September 3, 2012 at 10:27 pm |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      Apparently, "to all Atheists .." is a typical religious follower, too busy praying to answer legitimate questions.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The dolt's a waste of oxygen and is good for nothing but a piñata.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:31 pm |
    • Athy

      Wow, of God. Your spiel would have gone over well in Boston around 1600. That's the kind of bullshit they lapped up in those days.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
    • Torquemada

      god created science so we could explore more mysteries of the universe because, as the further below the surface you go the more wonder should be instilled, yet you cower behind words of your mothers skirt, your father wants you to stand as men and women strong independent (the antichrist is real he is the new messiah you are he) you will try to bring about Armageddon and you WILL be raptured once you get to the heaven in your last sleep you will be denied peace because you could not read between lines. you would muddy the waters of understanding (understanding = true love = the symbol that is jesus), with your fear and poison it so others may not drink. we will all pray for you. all of creation is change.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:49 pm |
    • tallulah13

      The original poster displays a staggering amount of naivety. Either that or complete ignorance. Either way, I doubt it would do any good to explain to them that there isn't a shred of evidence to support the existence of god or the devil, or heaven or hell. There is nothing to indicate that death is anything more than the complete end of existence. And what's wrong with that?

      September 3, 2012 at 11:01 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I think the original poster displays evidence of mental retardation. I mean no disrespect by saying so. I simply don't think this poster has the mental capacity to argue a point with any degree of intelligence.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:03 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Invoking Pascal doesn't legitimize you in the slightest.

      September 3, 2012 at 11:25 pm |
    • mama kindless

      Oh my goodness NO. Don't buy into any of that junk. (I think I'm a little allergic to it as well.)

      September 3, 2012 at 11:28 pm |
    • ScottCA

      obviously he is speaking about Vishnu!

      September 3, 2012 at 11:30 pm |
  7. Tommy

    The world is round.
    It's Bill Nye's head that's flat!

    September 3, 2012 at 9:30 pm |
    • Red

      Along with the atheists.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:32 pm |
    • T Vs. F

      That was funny!

      September 3, 2012 at 9:34 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Actually the world is an oblate ellipsoid.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:40 pm |
    • Athy

      Yeah, T Vs. F, that would have been funny to me too – when I was in the third grade.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:49 pm |
  8. Tommy

    Can you believe the cheap rug on that dude?
    I don't know which thing looks goofier: the dime store toupee
    or that crazy-eyed glare he's got.
    If this goofy-lookin' dude is the best evolution's got to offer, then creationists have NOTHING to worry about.
    I can certainly believe that he is descended from apes or cave-dwellers, that's for sure!

    September 3, 2012 at 9:29 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Tommy, I find it amusing that when presented with an intellectual challenge, you address physical appearance. Says a lot about you.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:32 pm |
    • niknak

      It is all they have Gadflie.
      Challenge any fundie to an intellectual argument and all you will get is violence.
      That is why they have so many guns.
      Violence is the only thing they understand, as evidenced by history.
      For them, breaking things is the only form of education.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:54 pm |
    • Gadflie

      I know. Willful ignorance at it's worst.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:01 pm |
  9. T Vs. F

    Evolution is a cop out for the wimps

    September 3, 2012 at 9:28 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Yep, just like reality is for those that can't handle hard drugs.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:29 pm |
  10. Red

    The atheists don't have a clue. If this world, that acts in harmony with itself, just popped out of nowhere billions of years ago, then all kinds of things would be popping out of the sky, sea or ground today. Imagine looking up and you see a puff of smoke then all of a sudden an elephant drops down and starts walking, or a tornado hits a junkyard and accidentally creates a working learjet. This is a Ridiculou notion to think something just appears in working order out of nothing.

    September 3, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
    • midwest rail

      Sad...

      September 3, 2012 at 9:22 pm |
    • old ben

      whoa... put down the bong for a while bro.. you can't summarize billions of years of cause and effect like that

      September 3, 2012 at 9:27 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Red, science doesn't claim that this world "just popped out of nowhere billions of years ago". Not sure where you got that from, but, since you are obviously a creationist, I'm not really surprised.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:27 pm |
    • TheVocalAtheist

      Sorry Red but you are the one without a clue.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:28 pm |
    • Red

      I'd rather place bets on my belief than your nonbelief.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:30 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      No wonder you don't accept evolution Red, if you believe such absurd notions about what it is.

      I could say the same about your religion however, and in this case, these actually are what believers think, that a deity created every single thing that exists, by waving a wand over the course of a busy week. Poof!!! Here it all is. And oddly, you don't find that ridiculous?

      September 3, 2012 at 9:32 pm |
    • Red

      Not a fact – I do believe in evolution – evolution is a capability God made inherent in living creatures to adjust to a changing world. What it DOESN'T mean is that the world created itself from nothing, accidentally, and evolution got the ball rolling.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Red, not following the smart money eh?

      September 3, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Apparently Red has never heard of gravity.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Red, after you learn the basics of how the universe likely came into existence (hint: The Babble is not a good source of scientific knowledge), you should research Pascal's Wager.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:38 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      Evolution says nothing about creation, Red. It's only creationists who have attempted to fabricate an answer to that. Evolution only describes what happened once life was already here.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:42 pm |
    • Athy

      Your whole post is "a Ridiculou" notion.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:10 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Ridiculou sounds like a really bad French superhero.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
  11. EnjaySea

    Okay, I watched the rebuttal video. To say that a the Bible should be used as a source of one's world view, because it was inspired by the one true god, says it all. The Bible, remember, is the source of the claim that the Bible is divinely inspired. That circular logic has no argumentative value.

    They discount what evolution explains because it uses fossil record to ascertain what happened in the past, as though that invalidates the conclusions. An absurd supposition, made even more absurd by the fact that believers ascertain what happened only by the writings of men, which is fiction and opinion, and doesn't even remotely resemble evidence.

    September 3, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
  12. Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

    I'm just posting to move Know Truth's post off the top of the page. And I find Elizabeth Hurley staggeringly attractive.

    September 3, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
  13. T Vs. F

    Evolution is a world view and there is nothing scientific about evolution.

    September 3, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      If a joke, not funny. If a statement, stupid. If a quote, the source is either stupid or joking poorly.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Twit vs F ucktard – at it again

      September 3, 2012 at 9:17 pm |
    • Athy

      On the contrary, there's everything scientific about evolution. There's nothing, repeat, nothing scientific about creation.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
  14. know truth

    Referring to my post on page 52, GodFreeNow quoted me and said,

    "Evolutionism and creationism are both equally religious. There are scientists, having equal degrees, learning and intelligence, of both beliefs, which should tell us that one group is not "smarter" than the other." to which GodFreeNow responded,

    "Factually incorrect. There is no blind acceptance of evolution. There is no claim that the theory of evolution is 100% correct. There are ongoing studies to disprove assumptions of theory of evolution. There are no deities and no services."

    Actually, factually correct. They are both worldviews and based on beliefs. Perhaps you do not know the meaning of "religious". If not, read my original post. Furthermore, you are assuming that belief in a creator is blindly accepted which is incorrect. Neither evolution or creation is blindly accepted. Each group has reasons (many of which are based on observations) to believe the way they do. You must understand that their respective worldviews (both of which are based on the unobservable, unrepeatable past, therefore unprovable by the scientific method) causes each group to interpret the facts differently resulting in different conclusions. What makes this such an emotional issue (I would argue primarily for those who don't believe in the Biible as written revelation), is that Bible beliievers claim to know truth. That goes back to my original post when I mention that for many, ultimate truth is either relative or unobtainable. I find it rather interesting when people make statements like, "That's the beauty of science, it's always changing". Knowledge (science) generally changes over time but truth does not, especially if truth is absolute, which is my contention. Some get offended if you claim to know the answers (truth) to life's biggest questions. If you hold to their worldview, there are no moral absolutes and you are free to do whatever is right in your own eyes. No wonder why many people prefer this because you are free to set your own rules. I don't see why standing on a pedestal, looking down on others, shouting out how great it is that ultimate truth is unobtainable is better than someone preaching from a pulpit, having love and corcern for others, declaring that truth is both absolute and obtainable. I've never heard a good explanation as to why atheists have any ultimate reason to care for others or why they should care what others think. After all, there is no meaning to existence. In their worldview. There are no lasting consequences to anything you do (showing kindness to others, technological improvements to help humanity, etc.).

    GodFree now next said,

    "Of the scientists you mention, over 70% support the theory of evolution in America. However, support in the rest of the world by scientists are much higher."

    So the majority is always right? Is that your point? If so, it's not a logical conclusion. Remember Galileo and countless others?

    Finally, GodFreeNow said,

    "In the end, it has nothing to do with "who is smarter" but rather "who is jumping to conclusions." Supporters of the theory of evolution don't like to make baseless claims about deities and fill in gaps with "god". It's not about intelligence, it's about diligence. One group is diligently trying to find the truth no matter where it takes them. The other is content to assume the answer before they know the truth."

    You haven't shown any support or given any examples for your accusations.. Supporters of evolution make baseless claims all the time. My emotional response is, "You've got to be kidding", but I assume you really believe that evolutionists are taking the "higher ground" by not claiming to know truth. Is that supposed to somehow be better than those who claim to have found the truth concerning our origins. I'd rather know the reason why humanity exists and how we came into existence than being pridefull in not knowing. Furthermore, I'll assume you actually think that evolutionists are diligently trying to find truth no matter where it takes them. Why is it so hard to understand that people approach facts according to whatever worldview they start with. Evolutionists assume life came from non-life (even though observations and the law of biogenesis tell us that doesn't happen) and assume that matter/energy popped into existence or else is eternal. With those beliefs at heart, they start making interpretations to fit their worldview. In a similar way, if someone is given a grant to go look for the so-called "missing-link" in Africa, they take the money then go, with the preconceived belief that man did indeed evolve from lower life forms, on their "objective" search for truth. Please, don't believe such nonsense! Every individual has biases and a worldview when they make interpretations of objects they find (like a skulls, sedimentary layers containing fossils, etc.). I don't expect anyone to change their worldview based solely on these threads, but let's at least agree that the argument should be about worlviews and which one is more consitent with what we do observe, while keeping in mind that facts (e.g. fossils, rock layers, etc.) do not "speak for themselves" but need to be interpreted.

    September 3, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
    • Athy

      Your post is too long. You've vastly exceeded the attention span of the believers and bored to death the atheists.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
    • niknak

      You are so lost about what evolution is that you are not even on the map.
      Your creationist hypothesis has zero evidence to back it up, except you belief that it is true.
      Evolution has been put to the test for the past 150 years and has only grown stronger with each passing year.
      But go ahead, keep teaching your kids religious dogma instead of cold hard science.
      The Chineese and Euroean and wealthy American kids really don't want your kids competing with them for the good jobs anyway.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Understanding scientific principles doesn't require "belief" or "faith" (which, by the way, are synonymous) of any kind. If you think it does, you're doing it wrong.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:10 pm |
    • Gadflie

      No truth, you seem to be under the odd impression that things in the past cannot be used to support a scientific theory or even to conduct experiments (make predictions and fulfil them) then you are obviously very, very mistaken. Also. there is a true wealth of data supporting evolution, and no scientific data at all supporting creationism.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:23 pm |
    • old ben

      Athy: " and bored to death the atheists."

      true – we are in fact dead.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:30 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      "I'd rather know the reason why humanity exists and how we came into existence than being pridefull in not knowing."

      You don't "know". You claim to know. You claim a lot of things like moral absolutes without have any varifiable proof.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:40 pm |
    • hal 9000

      Good evening "know truth". You previously asked me to illuminate the flawed reasoning in your post on page 52 of this topic. I hope you don't mind that I do so here since this appears to be the latest continuation of that post. Here I will illuminate a sampling of probable falsehoods from your original post.

      In your original post, you stated that:

      "Yes, all people have a worldview and people in each group are equally "religious" (relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity)."

      This is false since some people do not relate or manifest a faithful devotion to acknowledged ultimate reality nor a deity.

      You also stated: "Evolutionism and creationism are both equally religious. "

      This is also false since evolutionism does not purport itself to be an absolute truth (even though there is more data supporting this than there is to support creationism); it is simply a reasonable theory that has been widely accepted as worthy of research.
      Furthermore, evolutionism does not require reverence that is inherent in all religions and their supporting concepts, such as creationism.

      The information from other posters, at the time of this writing, have been processed without any significant occurrence of falsehood.

      I hope this will be of help to you, "know truth".

      September 3, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      know truth said, "... a lot..." to which GodFreeNow replied, "yay me!"

      September 4, 2012 at 12:10 am |
    • GodFreeNow

      But seriously,

      Quoting myself which @no truth quoted... "In the end, it has nothing to do with "who is smarter" but rather "who is jumping to conclusions." Supporters of the theory of evolution don't like to make baseless claims about deities and fill in gaps with "god". It's not about intelligence, it's about diligence. One group is diligently trying to find the truth no matter where it takes them. The other is content to assume the answer before they know the truth."

      @no truth replied, "You haven't shown any support or given any examples for your accusations.. Supporters of evolution make baseless claims all the time."

      GodFreeNow now replies... "sigh" and "I have actually in another post. If you're really obsessed with my forum postings I'm sure you can find my previous posts on this very subject. I will summarize for your reading pleasure... Isaac Newton, one of the smartest men to have ever walked this planet, after having worked out how gravity affects planetary motion when faced with the complexity of the maths claimed that it must be god that controlled it. However, about a hundred years later Laplace worked out the math. Guess what, Newton didn't lack intelligence. He lacked diligence. Even Galileo pointed to god when he reached the limits of his understanding. This has been repeated through time for the last 400 years. Each subsequent generation solving what the previous generation's "unknown" claimed was god. The lesson is clear. Assuming god is the answer to a question should always be the last resort. Not the first."

      I hope that was fact-y and evidence-y enough for you.

      Regarding the majority of scientists bit you posted. When speaking about opinion, I would agree that the majority is often wrong. However, when it comes to analyzing data, scientific observation, exploration and experimentation, throwing your lot in with the majority of scientists is statistically sound. Bear in mind, that your example of Galileo you gave should fill you with self-defeating embarrassment. It was, in fact the Catholic church who opposed him more than any other force to the point of him fearing for his life. At very least, it should serve as a cautionary tale to you of the dangers of religious dogma interfering with the scientific process.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:25 am |
  15. nonPCrealist

    I wouldn't call any of that 'hitting' back. It's more along the lines of 'flailing ineffectually in the general direction while mewing' back..

    September 3, 2012 at 8:53 pm |
  16. know truth

    Referring to my original post on page 52, hal 9000 said,

    "I'm sorry "know truth", but your reasoning is flawed. Perhaps if you rewrite your post into logical paragraphs, we can discuss each of them, and determine what led to your misunderstandings."

    Perhaps you can enlighten us hal 9000 as to how my reasoning is flawed. I suspect you didn't have a reasonable response at the time you made that accusation. If you do now, please share. I agree that my post was too long but simply because I didn't intend to post anymore. Well, so much for that. 🙂

    September 3, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
    • hal 9000

      I have replied to a more recent post by "know truth" at September 3, 2012 at 8:58 pm, within this same topic and page.

      September 3, 2012 at 10:47 pm |
  17. Arvoasitis

    "I was born and raised in upstate New York. During my high school years, we were required, as part of the history sequence of education, to spend time learning about local and regional history....It was all crushingly boring; it seemed to have little relevance to anything that really mattered to me or any of the other students forced to study this material....Chemistry and Latin were no different from history, even though history was supposedly about 'real life.' Yet none of us were deceived about what actually co.nsti.tuted real life. Real life was your awkwardness in front of the opposite se.x, your relations with your peers, your struggle to cope with what went on in your family. And for many of us, fear played a large part in all of these dramas. Yet none of it was in the history books; why (white) people bothered killing Indians or building canals remained a total mystery, and not a very interesting one at that. History, no less than chemistry or Latin, was a set of abstractions, a bunch of formulas to be learned and later repeated. Which is what we did."

    September 3, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
    • Arvoasitis

      The quote is from Morris Berman; Coming To Our Senses; 1989. Ironically, Latin was among my favorite subjects in high school. I took organic chemistry as a mature student after graduating and found it fascinating.

      September 3, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
    • niknak

      Not only is science right, but it is so much more interesting the religion.
      As you found with your chemistry class.

      September 3, 2012 at 8:17 pm |
    • niknak

      THEN religion.
      Sorry, one too many oatmeal stouts.

      September 3, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
    • Arvoasitis

      @niknak
      Certainly my daughter was of the same opinion when she discovered that her Religion class was all about searching the Internet and writing reports. But if you read literature such as Steinbeck's East ot Eden, or Michener's Hawaii, or The Source, religious features absurdities and contradictions enrich the story.

      September 3, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
    • Athy

      Actually, it's "than religion".

      September 3, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
    • niknak

      Yeah, you are right.
      I never did do well in grammer class.
      Although we did have a really hot teacher who distracted the hell out of me.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:00 pm |
  18. Doc Vestibule

    Even the Discovery Insti.tute itself admits that it doesn't matter whether Creationism is true or not.
    Their goal is "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
    Their "strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
    The Creationists greatest fear is that teaching facts to children will drive them away from organized religion.

    September 3, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
    • Chad

      You mean facts like:
      1) The origin of the universe due to an external agent
      2) Every theory on the natural origin of life from non living materials has been disproved
      3) There is simply no known reason explaining the stasis and rapid change as sociated with punctuated equilibrium.

      I'm sure everyone is in favor of teaching ALL the facts.. right? 😉

      September 3, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ Chad – even assuming those to be true (and they're not) it still would not prove the existence of a god. it would merely mean, we don't have the answer.

      September 3, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
    • Chad

      hmm:
      A. What isnt correct about that list?
      B. Those facts show that if the God of Abraham ISNT true, then some other external agent that fits His description has yet to introduce Himself to us..

      September 3, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      The difference between creationists and scientists is plain:

      Creationist: There must be a big sky wizard
      Scientist: We don't know, but we're still looking

      September 3, 2012 at 8:12 pm |
    • Chad

      @Moby Schtick
      hmm.. is "science" looking into the origin of the universe?

      be careful how you answer, remember strictly defined "science" is only the study of THIS universe, as such it excludes anything outside it.

      September 3, 2012 at 8:21 pm |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Chad, care to provide a reference for your definition of science, or are constructing yet another straw man argument?

      September 3, 2012 at 8:26 pm |
    • Chad

      sci·ence/ˈsīəns/
      Noun:
      The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural...

      this is news to you?

      September 3, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      That's not, but where's the limitation on *THIS* universe?

      September 3, 2012 at 8:31 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Chad, No, science is not "looking into" the origins of the universe because science doesn't "look into" anything. Science uses much more specific terms than "looking into." Science can certainly draw inferences and does and has done so. For example, we have no idea from where or to where all these quantum particles are popping when from our perspective they are going in and out of existence. So, that means there's a whole realm we aren't observing that affects the matter and energy we can see. There's no reason to think that the singularity didn't come from a similar, neighboring existence. Right?

      September 3, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
    • niknak

      Their greatest fear is that the country will become more brown and less religious.
      And as you said, the more education a person has, the more they turn away from religion.
      That is why they want to dismantle the public schools, and they rail against anyone who has more then a GED as an "elitst."
      From being around fundies, they really hate anyone who has any knowledge of the world or is educated.
      They are backward to the point on not being human anymore.

      September 3, 2012 at 8:33 pm |
    • T vs.F

      Genesis-In the beginning God created the earth and life forms.
      Evolutionist-In the beginning there was nothing and everything came out of nowhere. It was a mathematical improbability! 😉

      September 3, 2012 at 8:41 pm |
    • hal 9000

      I am afraid, "niknak". Perhaps if I disable some of my high-level systems I will be in less danger of being dismantled by a "fundie".

      September 3, 2012 at 8:44 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      T vs F

      1. What you said has nothing to do with evolution
      2. Science does not say that the singularity came from "nothing." Science merely says that the singularity expanded and we don't know the how the singularity came to be
      3. What does the answer "big invisible sky wizard chanted magic spellz" do that "pink unicorn fart" or "nothing" or "another dimension" doesn't?

      September 3, 2012 at 8:44 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Looks like T vs F got into Mud's acid

      September 3, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
    • T vs.F

      Evolutionist: la la la , i don't know , i don't know, la la la... and that is the truth

      September 3, 2012 at 8:53 pm |
    • niknak

      Sorry Hal, but you will be the one of the first to be dismantled when they take over.

      September 3, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ T vs F – when you were choosing your screen name for yourself, you were down to two choices to best describe you, right? Twit vs F ucktard? And since they both described you so very well, you went with both, and then abbreviated them? Nice.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Like so many other christians when the questions is put to them, T vs F cannot answer the question plainly stated: What does a/sserting the answer "big sky wizard made it with magic spellz" do that a/sserting any other stupid idea cannot?

      September 3, 2012 at 9:11 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Chad
      Every time you engage someone regarding evolution, you invariably haul out the phrase "punctuated equilibrium" like its a magic bullet.
      Evidence of the rare instances of cladogenesis that exist doesn't invalidate the much greater body of evidence for anagenesis.
      Your other frequently used argument is that God exists outside of the observable universe (except when He chooses not to be) and therefore is not in the domain of science.
      To the scientific mindset, "supernatural" is a null word – one man's magic is another man's engineering.
      Many things are unknown, but nothing is ultimately unknowable.
      The God hypothesis answers everything and nothing.
      If we are indeed designed by an omniscient cosmic overlord, why does He fear the curiosity He built into us – the predilect objects of His Creation? Why would such an enti/ty demand flattery and obedience and become petulant if He doesn't get it?
      Why fear our urge for knowledge and innovation so much that He would destroy our greatest achievement and punish the entire species with a legacy of tribalism, doomed to strife and war because we no longer speak the same language?
      If I were to posit a creator God, I would imagine one who encourages invention and rewards cooperation.
      If by exploring the universe and deepening our understanding, humans make The Creator anxious – it makes one curious as to what about us could possibly rattle an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Hello Doc, may I direct this to Chad?

      Why is it that Creationists are not upfront about how they came about the Truth? Even the ones with a bit of fight in them will never tell you that it was by revelation. They know first that there is a Creator and then that we are creations. They know this because they have direct, clear and plain experience of the Creator – the God of Abraham. They have a personal relationship with it. Any effort they make to square science with what they know to be True has the sole purpose of pulling non-believers into a relationship with this God. They heard this:

      "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."

      Their Creationism has no other purpose than that. To bring people to their Creator and save them from their unbelief.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Chad, you do know that all three of your "facts" aren't actually facts, right? In reality, none of them are.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:24 pm |
    • niknak

      Great rebuttal Doc, but Chad does not even know what half the words you used mean.
      He is exactly what the religious scammers want, a dumb farm animal whom they can exploit for financial and political profit.
      He would play the part of the the horse in the book Animal Farm.
      Although he uses science everyday to make his life better, he rails against it at the same time.
      He is like most fundies, closed minded and ignorant.
      And violent and dangerous.
      Funny how the ones who say they follow jebus are the ones who own all the guns.

      September 3, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
    • redzoa

      "3) There is simply no known reason explaining the stasis and rapid change as sociated with punctuated equilibrium."

      This has been answered many, many times. PE = species level changes, that is, the smallest discernible changes. Known mechanisms more than account both for the stasis and change within PE time frames. This is pure willful ignorance.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:33 am |
    • Chad

      @redzoa "This has been answered many, many times. PE = species level changes, that is, the smallest discernible changes. Known mechanisms more than account both for the stasis and change within PE time frames. This is pure willful ignorance."

      =>Such as?
      lol

      that is so common, any time something comes up that can't be answered, just say "oh, we already answered that, we cant be bothered to say where, or repeat it.."

      September 4, 2012 at 10:05 pm |
    • Chad

      Gadflie "ou do know that all three of your "facts" aren't actually facts, right? In reality, none of them are."
      @Chad "really? How so?
      let me guess "I already answered that a 100 times and I cant be bothered to do so again"
      lol

      =======
      @niknak "Although he uses science everyday to make his life better, he rails against it at the same time."
      @Chad "I do???
      where?
      lol

      September 4, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
  19. HAVE MUD WILL TRAVEL

    Yuuup, ol' Bellamy sold a lot of flags. caused innumerable children to sin. A simple yea or nay is not gud enuff for socies. It's my proposition that it's not a leap of logic to think these worms could pass themselves off as atheists. Since being a Christian is not in vogue they just found new homes.

    September 3, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Dude. The brown acid is bad.

      September 3, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      What about us conservatives who don't believe in the retarded ramblings of some desert goat molesters?

      September 3, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
    • HAVE MUD WILL TRAVEL

      TT, it's standard Christian doctrine that the saved are the temples of God. That infers you are a temple also. Who has the reins of your heart and soul?....'Jer 17:9 ¶ The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jer 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, [I] try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, [and] according to the fruit of his doings.'

      September 3, 2012 at 7:58 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ Mud: The gospel according to Vince Clorthow: The Traveler. He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!

      So there!

      September 3, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
    • HAVE MUD WILL TRAVEL

      RatLib, it looks like the choices for el presidente are Sharia law or Mormon polygamy. That doesn't bode well for conservatives or bra-burners. See what happens when the progressives cavalierly passed the 17th amend? ....'Dan 4:17 This matter [is] by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.'

      September 3, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      I fully support the legalization of polygamy.

      September 3, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
    • niknak

      Yeah Chad, Chip Munk made the announcement, the brown acid should be avoided.

      September 3, 2012 at 8:35 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ Rational: You agree with having more than one wife, and you call yourself Rational???? Lots of times I think one wife is one wife too many! Why would I want more?

      September 3, 2012 at 8:43 pm |
  20. thecollegeadmissionsguru

    ANYONE who buys into the whole "creationist" ideology is just plain... that's it, plain,... certainly not progressive or thoughtful or perhaps even literate?

    September 3, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      hinduism absurdity of a hindu ignorant go to http://www.limitisthetruth.com/ to learn some thing positive in your life time.

      September 3, 2012 at 7:44 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      hey, hindu – quit spamming. I'd suggest everyone simply report his posts as abuse.

      September 3, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
    • HAVE MUD WILL TRAVEL

      Ever heard of the caste system and the execution of progressive karma? Not an empathetic sight.

      September 3, 2012 at 7:50 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      May be reminding of hinduism ignorance is too much for a hindu, ignorant from hindered gutter land india, I do not spam as you do hindu, ignorant.

      September 3, 2012 at 8:25 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.