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
[twitter-follow screen_name='EricCNNBelief']

(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. Josh

    I bet 6,000 years from now a new book will be found and worshipped. And all will reveal in the written words of the one, the only, Harry Potter. right up there with Jesus Christ

    September 4, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
  2. Stephen

    The author is wrong in his use of the term "evolutionists" as implying a counterpart to creationists. There is no intellectual equality between the two. Evolution is a fact - the battle is social, between a future understanding of Nature and ourselves via absurd mythologies or via a reasoned study of Nature.

    September 4, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      Agreed. There is no actual debate within the life sciences (unless you consider 99.86% consensus controversial). The only debate is social and political.

      September 4, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
  3. Max1364

    Full disclosure: I am a Catholic.
    As a Christian I believe (as I believe most denomincations of Christians believe)that Jesus Christ is the Word of God incarnate. Jesus often chose to teach truth using parables. Parables are largely allegories; while there may not have been a historic person who was the Good Samaritan, the Truth within the parable, the Good Samaritan's deeds, not name is what is relevant.
    If the Word of God made flesh teaches using parables, why is it so hard to believe that the Bible, while wholly (and Holy 🙂 true, does not also teach using parables? To me there is no conflict between believing that the world was created (by God), and explained in a fashion for human understanding as described in the Bible. That God chose to explain evolution in the simplified form of Genesis is His Perogative. It is easy for me to accept that "His ways are so far above my own." I am content to (try) to follow His Teaching to the best of my ability.

    September 4, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ Max: it's encouraging to read that you do not take the Bible to be literally true. And yes – there is some good stuff in there – love thy neighbour; don't covet thy neighbour's wife's a-ss (I think that's one of the commandments). But being nice to each other, and treating others as you would want to be treated, requires no celestial intervention, as interpreted by a rich and powerful hierarchy of priests. How can you remain a Catholic given the staggering abuses carried out by the clergy? S-exual abuse and child r-ape by priests was handled simply shuffling the offending priest to a new parish, where he could continue to abuse new victims. This is a church where you have clergy saying that condoms cause AIDS. Wouldn't your god want you to disa-ssociate yourself from such a morally bankrupt inst-itution?

      September 4, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      There are a couple of problems here. First while Jesus taught using parables it is obvious that what he was relating on those occasions were fictional stories used to make a point. You are equating those fictional teaching stories to the creation story. Whoever wrote the creation story believed it was true and was not using it as an allegory.

      Second, is there anything in the bible that is not an allegory? I am assuming there are parts that you believe to be absolutely true. How can you differentiate between literal truth and allegory?

      September 4, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
  4. Tom, Tom, the Piper's evolved Son

    All porcupines float in water.

    September 4, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • old ben

      If that's true, that's news to me. Gosh, they could be used as water mines.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      What's the difference between a porcupine and a car load of lawyers?

      With the lawyers, the pr!cks are on the inside.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's evolved Son

      The Russian Navy wouldn't stand a chance!

      September 4, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Hahah, Ethel!

      September 4, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ Tom – what's black and brown and looks good on a lawyer?

      A doberman.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I like that one, too.

      No lawyer jokes, but:

      If you throw a soprano and a viola off the roof at the same time, which will land first?

      A: the viola. The soprano will have to stop and ask directions.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Nice one!
      In that vein, if you throw Frespech and Voice of Truth off the roof, which one will land first?

      Answer: Who cares?

      of course, I am not advocating tossing believers off the roof, although, given their posts, they shouldn't have a problem with it. After all, they have their faith to protect them from that nasty scientific law of gravity.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Is it the Law of Gravity? I thought it was "just a theory." 😉

      September 4, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Damn! You're right – it IS only a theory. Well, I'm not going to walk outside without my concrete boots on – the last thing I want to do is go flying off into space if the theory is proven wrong!

      September 4, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Well, I was actually thinking we COULD throw the two aforementioned folks off a building...wouldn't that prove it?

      September 4, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Agreed! And if their god does revoke the law – sorry, the theory – of gravity, and saves them, well, I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong.

      September 4, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      This has been fun. 😉

      September 4, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, gosh, I just remembered: doesn't the experiment have to repeatable? I guess we'd have to haul them up and throw them off more than once!

      September 4, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Excellent idea, Tom! In fact, we can use all of the believers. We can call it Believer Bounce 2012! Who will win – God or Gravity? We can have Gravity talkin's smak about the G'guy, and God gettin' up in Gravity's grill! Oh yeah – bring it. Only $79.75 on Pay Per View.

      September 4, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
  5. ari

    how is it possible that half of the country still believes in this nonsense???? what century are we living in?

    September 4, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      A sad century where education and knowledge and rational thought and discourse has been ridiculed. The sad result is creationists and reality shows. Land of the Free and Home of the Brave? No – land of the Idiots, sadly. Not all, of course, but a lot.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • fintastic

      I just read a quote recently that said....

      "If 50 million people believe in something ridiculous, it still ridiculous"

      September 4, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
  6. ThinkDude

    How sad this tendancy to form gangs and draw lines with a lack of more broad understanding/reading. The concept of a creator and the scientific method of analysis are not actually at odds. If one says "back in my day", he/she does not refer to a 24 hour period, but is merely defining a distinct period. The Hebrew word translated "day" in the creation account has this meaning. There is a totally different word used in other places in the Bible where a 24 hour period is denoted.

    Thus, there is agreement with scientific findings that the earth did not come about in six 24 hour periods. The fossil record agrees with the order and groupings in which life forms appeared. Additionally, readers will note that the timeline in Genesis refers to preperation of the planet for life, not creation of the entire universe. Faith should not be absent of logic and reason.

    It is good that science and logic challenged the religious tyrants who did not even read their own Holy Book. If they did, they would have read the plain text in Job and Isaiah that the earth is round and is "hanging on nothing" in the solar system. Instead, they killed valuable thinkers of the day. A shame.

    I do not join either gang. I leave emotion at the door. I know that facts can be obscured by fanaticism at either extremity of the supposed issue. To me, there is no issue. There are, however, learning, growning while appreciating logical methods and true science to examine and increase understanding of this awesome world we have.

    September 4, 2012 at 1:19 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      Hebrew word used for day is Youm, meaning quantified of by will of Ellah, The truth absolute, as "HE" desired, neither day nor a time limit. book of hindu Mithra ism, pagan savior ism labeled as Christianity, bible is hinduism absurdity of hindu's, pagans by hinduism, corruption of truth absolute written, not in Hebrew, Latin but Sanskrit hinduism corruption of language of truth absolute Latin, Visit http://www.limitisthetruth.com/ to learn more about hinduism, denial of truth absolute to understand hinduism, criminality of pot head hindu santans, pagan goons against truth absolute and humanity.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • Max1364

      Well stated. Any yup! It is a pretty awesome world, warts and all.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
  7. frespech

    If someone had told you before anyone had ever seen one, that there is a bird in Antarctica that lives in the freezing cold loves to swim and cannot fly, would you believe them or just as you say apply your logic and assume they don't exist.
    This is the same phallacy non-believers apply to God.

    September 4, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The word is "fallacy".

      September 4, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What a reasonable person would do would be to look for evidence of such a bird. Since one exists, there is certainly evidence of it.

      Can you show me any evidence that proves there's a god?

      September 4, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • Damocles


      Hey, when you get a chance, I'm going to need those IQ points back that I lost when I read your post.

      That is a horrible, horrible analogy simply because I can GO to Antartica and SEE the bird in question.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • old ben

      That's really stupid because before any man ever witnessed a penguin, no one would have been able to even guess that such a creature existed, much less what its characteristics were. Through observation and study we now know quite a lot about them – but don't profess to know everything about them. And I'm sure we have also, along the way, disproved outdated science about penguins and replaced it as necessary with new data. This kind of rational thinking is absent in much of religious basis.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      I wouldn't just take their word for it.

      If someone comes up to you and says they saw aliens last night and you think they believe what they are saying, does that prove they saw aliens?

      September 4, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • Dionysus


      "phallacy" sounds very racy!

      September 4, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • frespech

      Tom I appreciate the spelling lesson.
      You missed the whole point of my argument. I said before anyone had discovered or seen this bird they told you about it you would dismiss it by the logic that it must not therefor exists. The"fallacy" is assuming it can't exist because it has not yet been seen or revealed.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      One would also look around, to see if there might be any analogues to this bird. Let's see – we would find vertebrates of all kinds – that's a start. Then we would zero in on birds. What would we find? Let's see – there is a huge variety of birds – some huge, some tiny. Many fly, but some do not. Quite a large number swim, and eat fish. So would it be that surprising to find a bird that doesn't fly (like other observable birds), and swims (like other observable birds) and eats fish (like other observable birds)? No. In fact, such a bird is actually quite predictable.
      Now, apply that to your god. Let's see – are there any analogues of god? Nope. Anything that even starts to resemble god? Nope. Any verifiable evidence that in the past there have been any analogues of god? Nope yet again.

      Get the picture?

      September 4, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • old ben

      To put it another way with some of your words, if there was such a bird "before anyone had ever seen one", then no one would have been telling anyone about it.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I am here to help. I don't as sume there is no invisible being; all I ask is that you show me evidence for one.

      I'd ask the same thing of anyone who made a claim about something that I haven't seen.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
    • AverageJoe76

      Well, in that same thinking, I could attest that 'fire is really hot'. And you say 'No, it's not.' I burn you, then you agree. See? Logic wins.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "You missed the whole point of my argument. I said before anyone had discovered or seen this bird they told you about it "

      I don't think you understand what an 'argument' is. How would someone who's never seen this bird which hasn't been discovered tell me about it?

      September 4, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • What IF

      " I said before anyone had discovered or seen this bird they told you about it you would dismiss it by the logic that it must not therefor exists."

      How could they tell you about it if they had never seen it? From their imagination? They could make an hypothesis that such a creature *might* exist, but the default stance is to withhold belief until proven.

      There are fairies under my lawn, causing each blade to grow. I tell you. You'll see someday!

      September 4, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's evolved Son

      Let's argue about something more important... Who would win in a fist fight? A silver back gorilla or Chuck Norris?

      September 4, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • Brian

      Yet, you would be insulted if someone suggested that the world was created by the flying spaghetti monster and that denial is simply based on your own ignorance, having never seen it.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      @frespech said "The"fallacy" is assuming it can't exist because it has not yet been seen or revealed."

      The fallacy you are using is equating "can't exist" and "I need further proof before I will accept your claim that it DOES exist".

      I would never claim aliens can't exist but I would not believe they do exist based only on someone elses experience.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • Jeff Williams

      """I said before anyone had discovered or seen this bird they told you about it you would dismiss it by the logic that it must not therefor exists. """

      You use the word "logic" yet do not apply it reasonably. That's where you failed. You're in company, though. Plenty of the faithful folks use scientific terms frequently in arguments like this – without knowing their context or true meaning – in a feeble attempt to sound "smart".

      Why would a diving bird be dismissed when there are loons, cormorants, and other birds which dive. Why would a flightless bird be dismissed when we know of the ostrich and emu? Why would a cold weather bird bird be dismissed when we know of dozens of species of birds which can endure sub-zero environments. Why would the concept of a frikken penguin be hard t o grasp for a scientist?

      It wouldn't.

      You fail.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • old ben

      I still think the question is corrupt before you even get to the word "believe". No one would be telling you about it if no one had seen one yet. They might imagine something like it could exist, but under the circ'umstances given it would be just that – imagination (even if their imagination were to closely match something witnessed later).

      The poster is saying the person is telling of something that no one has seen, of something that is, not of something they think might be.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • BRC

      Tom, Tom, the Piper's evolved Son,
      This question has already been answered, why do you think silverbacks are an endangered species?

      September 4, 2012 at 3:14 pm |
  8. AverageJoe76

    Religion is for people who have no curiosity about the universe and the world around them. They want a simple explanation for everything so they can move on to bigger and better things, like posting themselves falling off a diving board on YouTube. I say it's not for the curious, because you don't even entertain the 'what if' factor surrounding the possibility of 'no God'. Too scared to entertain the notion because of 'the punishment'. Which is a shame, because your faith should've been confident enough to allow the 'God-given' brain skim the boundaries of your imagination. Instead, you remain pigeon-holed in thought, and too scared to vocally express your doubts. Because make no mistake, you've asked "would if there's no God at all?"

    September 4, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
    • NYChris

      You are insinuating all God-fearing Creationists are unimaginative and encouraging us to ask, "What if there is no God?" Great question, I have asked it and my answer is – Nothing. If there is no God, when I die, nothing happens, my body stays in the ground and becomes part of the Earth again. So I ask you to imagine this; how much of a gambler are you? Because if we are right... well, you can probably imagine where I am going with this. I don’t want to make a big debate out of this because I know you are not going to change your views any more than I will. Just asking you to think about it.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
    • grammarqueen

      Yes, all people have doubts, but when furnished with the evidence, it takes much less faith to believe that, "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth", than to believe that the universe was made out of nothing by no one. Even the best scientists declare that intelligent design is seen everywhere. Yes, God did create the heavens and the earth.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ NYChris – what you are suggesting is referred to as "Pascal's Wager". The problem is that you are only proposing 2 alternatives -either there is no god at all, or there is a god, and it is the god that YOU believe in, with the characteristics that YOU attribute to it. Why should there be only two alternatives? What about the alternative of a God who gave us this great big juicy brains to play around with, and think, and question whether god exists. What is this God hates – really viscerally, infinitely HATES people who don't use their brains? You die; you end up in front of this god, and guess what? You're pooched for all eternity. You had better rethink your position! Come on – use that big juicy brain – I know you can do it!

      September 4, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • AverageJoe76

      @NYChris – If your God is real, I don't want to be in this reality. Because he didn't make this system right if it goes by those twisted set of rules.
      One thing would bother me MOST about God if he's real, and goes by the rules of Christians; I would ASSUME he can see the future. And if God sees the future, he know who's going to H_ell or heaven before they set foot on Earth. That screws with the 'free will' slogan. An ALL-POWERFUL God that can't see every pathway?!? Doesn't sit well with my understanding of 'all-powerful'.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ grammarqueen: Intelligent design? Sure – in the computer you are using to post your comment – that shows intelligent design. In you car; in your kitchen appliances – yup – they are all designed. But, were you trying to say that things in nature – animals, etc – were designed by an Intelligent Creator?

      September 4, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • What IF

      "Because if we are right... well, you can probably imagine where I am going with this."

      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 4, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • What IF

      " it takes much less faith to believe that, "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth","

      Yes, that is the EZ way out. It was much easier to think that there was a god living in volcanoes too... and that a god sent down lightning bolts. We didn't stop there (yay!) and we won't stop now...

      September 4, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What evidence, grammarqueen? The bible? Sorry, but I don't find that to be terribly reliable as a source of facts.

      Can you produce anything else in the way of evidence, other than basically stating, "We don't know how it happened, so it MUST have been God."?

      September 4, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • frespech

      Tom, if it is just a straight out fist fight, I have to go with the Silverback.Must admit I don't think I presented my argument as well as I could have and I sure wish they had spell check on this blog site.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
    • NYChris

      I really do not want to get into a debate which will obviously go nowhere. We are all intelligent here and have varying perspectives on what we believe. I am not going to change my view nor will I change yours. The only issue i have is the notion that ALL Creationists are too narrow-minded to think there are other views which we have not explored. I for one have and, call it what you will, Pascal’s Wager or otherwise, I CHOOSE to believe what I believe and have served my country to preserve that freedom of CHOICE. If my choice was wrong, then we shall find out when this vapor of our lives is over. I asked to give thought to these two options, which I feel were pretty cut and dry, and you all have. So thank you for pondering the possibility, like I also have.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ NYChris – I have to disagree. No, we are not all intelligent here. You are attempting to democratize the content of everyone's beliefs, in essence trying to make evolution and creationism equivalent in value. They're not. If you walked around, saying that the way to eradicate polio is to wear a live poodle on your head for 72 hours, should that viewpoint be given the same intellectual weight as the viewpoint that giving the polio vaccine is the way to eradicate polio? I would hope that you would agree that it should not be. Note that anyone is free to believe that; they are also free to express that belief. But, they're going to come up against opposition if they want to teach that theory in medical schools, and rightly so. Now subst-itute poodle on head for creationism.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
    • where does god go for vacation

      @grammarqueen. Explain why? If a god can exist from nothing why can't a universe? No middleman makes it easier to believe surely.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
    • What IF


      "... I sure wish they had spell check on this blog site."

      I think that spell check is a feature of your browser. Firefox, for one, has it.

      Spell check won't get you through "to"/ "too", "their"/ "there"/ "they're", "your" / "you're", etc., but it's a start. Eye have it, ewe sea? 🙂

      September 4, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • NYChris

      @ Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying
      You went a little high and right on me here, but you are correct, maybe intelligent was the wrong word to use. Nevertheless, we do have the free will to believe how we wish. If one side sees the beliefs of another as silly as placing a poodle on your head to cure polio (which I can't help but think someone will now try), then so be it. The point I was making, which you have actually reiterated, is opinions will not change because everyone considers themselves too intelligent to change them, another point which was reiterated by the demeaning references to the poodle. The equality of the matter is none of us are right or wrong until we are proven right or wrong and since the proof is left to individual interpretation and belief. Unfortunately, the only way to find out who was right cannot be determined in any of our lifetimes. Even if someone was able to provide proof, there will still be skeptics. In this aspect we are all equal in that our belief, or faith, is so strong we will still question the validity of the proof. So, I don’t have to defend my faith, iI know what I believe in and I respect what you believe, but like I said before, I have taken many "what if's" into consideration and I myself cannot fathom the "there is no God" viewpoint nor do i think it's silly, it is a different point of view with unanswered questions, just like my point of view also has unanswered questions. Plain and simple this is what it boils down to; beliefs with unanswered questions.

      September 4, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @NYChris – I understand completely – we all have differing viewpoints, and no – chances are we are not going to be changing anyone's mind completely. In looking at your own personal beliefs, do you ask yourself why you believe what you do? Were you raised in a religious household? Personally, I wasn't. My mother was Catholic, but stopped going to church around the time I was about 4 or 5. I happen to be very analytical in my approach to things. That, perhaps, explains why i look at things the way i do. There very well might be a "god" in some sense – I don't know. I would have a very hard time believing in a sentient, personal god – my leanings (in theory) would be toward some universal force of consciousness. But I think we'll never know. My concern of course is the damage and harm that extreme religious beliefs can cause, and I don;t think that point is really very debatable – people killing other people over religious differences are everywhere.

      September 4, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • NYChris

      @ Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying
      I agree, extremism and religion do not mix well at all. Yes, i was raised in a religious household by a saint of a mother and a hypocrite of a preacher father. He was not the best influence, in fact, my father really turned me away from religion. I was forced into it while I was young, Forced away from it through the hypocrisy I witnessed and have come back to it as my life needs balance. Maybe having the tracks laid down at an early age made coming back easier, I don’t know, all I know is I feel complete now that I am seeking God for me and not some hypocrite says I have to. by the way, I do have nightly lessons with my children, but I do not force them to either take a turn reading scripture or to pray and as a matter of fact, if I go to bed without reading or praying, my teenagers get mad at me, they remind me, they inspire me and keep me motivated on my path. I don't force them, they see what a different person I am and they encourage me to stay the course. I hope they don’t follow the footsteps I had to take to get here. I appreciate the fact that you are searching and admire your open-mindedness. I wish you the best in your search for your answers.

      September 5, 2012 at 9:43 am |
  9. Tom, Tom, the Piper's evolved Son

    If a goat and a sheep mate the offspring is called a geep.

    snapple fact #769

    September 4, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
    • old ben

      Not sure on that one. But I'm reasonable sure that if a sheep and a lemming mate, you wind up with a VoiceOf Truth (scientific name HS retardum TBT.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Sure, but if an Evangelical and a sheep mate, it's just called a typical Saturday night in the far south.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • where does god go for vacation

      Not a shoat?

      September 4, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
  10. TomPaine

    I've never understood exactly what it is that creationists want to be taught in schools. It seems to me creationism can be pretty well summed up in one sentence: "Some people believe that the earth was created in its present form by an all-powerful god somewhere between 6000 and 10,000 years ago." But everyone knows about that idea already, so, like I said, I don't know what they want taught or how long they think it should take.

    September 4, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      That's actually a good point.

      Reject the last 300 years of scientific achievement. Go read your Bibles. Class dismissed.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
  11. VoiceOf Truth

    "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..."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

    This Nye guy is very arrogant and foolish. So to be "inconsistent with the world" is a bad thing, a world that has rejected Jesus Christ and is steeped in wickedness and lawlessness and greed and wars. And now he plays God by calling us "crazy" if we don't believe his improvable nonsense. Nah, I'll skip the Nye religion and stick with Jesus Christ.

    September 4, 2012 at 12:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Fine. You do that. Just keep it out of the public schools, laws, and government.


      September 4, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • old ben

      And I don't need to hear and of that sh it when I go to get my haircut, either.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • Damocles


      Funny how wickedness, lawlessness, greed and wars have been around for a long, long time. Are you really trying to suggest that these things have just sprung up overnight?

      September 4, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
    • VoiceOf Truth

      Tom: Nah, we pay taxes, too. But here's a better deal: let us use our property taxes for our own schools and i will be glad to keep it out of your schools 🙂

      September 4, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • VoiceOf Truth

      Damocles: Huh? How do you draw that conclusion from what I wrote? The world has been in opposition to God for centuries, which is part of my point. Nye is essentially saying that Christians who don't conclude as he does are in opposition to world norms, and I am saying that those norms have been at odds with God for some time, and have even escalated.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
    • Damocles


      The way you wrote it, seemed like that was what you were saying. So even when religious belief is at a highpoint, all those bad things still happen, right?

      September 4, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
    • old ben

      The "bright" VoiceOf Truth said: "Nye is essentially saying that Christians who don't conclude as he does are in opposition to world norms, and I am saying that those norms have been at odds with God for some time, and have even escalated."

      Yes norms that have been at odds with God have escalated, and crime rates are going down. This is a good thing.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Your payment of taxes does not afford you the right to inject your version of belief into the public schools.

      As for keeping your taxes, be clear: your taxes do not pay for the education of your children alone. They pay for the education of an entire populace.

      I don't have kids in school any longer; by your reckoning, I should be exempt from paying for the education of others' progeny. Sorry to disappoint you, dear, but that's not how it works.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
    • frespech

      The idea of deep time of billions of years is the only thing that gives credence to evolution for without it the theory implodes.
      Take away there billions of years theory and it becomes all hot air. It doesn't work

      September 4, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's "their", not "there".

      Somehow, I don't think you know much of anything about anything.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      You are proof positive that religious fundamentalism is child abuse.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • where does god go for vacation

      @fre. Yes a long timeline was required for species to evolve to their current state. What's your point? All evidence points to that timeline and there's a lot more evidence for evolution – DNA, taxonomy, etc

      September 4, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
  12. karl

    i enjoy spiderman comics maybe i should start reading them as literal truth...just because you like a book doesnt make it real idiots

    September 4, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
    • VoiceOf Truth

      The wisdom if foolish man is nonsense with God. So now who's the idiot?

      September 4, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
    • karl

      in order to defent your statement you have to first prove that something exists.... simply stating it in a book or using the convenient term faith is not evidence. We can prove the earth is a certain age...your turn

      September 4, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
    • karl

      in order to defend your statement you have to first prove that something exists.... simply stating it in a book or using the convenient term faith is not evidence. We can prove the earth is a certain age...your turn

      September 4, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
    • truth be trolled

      VoiceOf Truth – "The wisdom if foolish man is nonsense with God. So now who's the idiot?"


      September 4, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • VoiceOf Truth

      Karl: you miss my point. You resorted to childhood name calling in your comment, so I presented a mirror back at you. My point is that you are free to voice your opinions, but the name calling detracts from your point.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • truth be trolled

      not sure what VoiceOf Truth meant, but to be clear – I am not karl. what a dingbat.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • frespech

      Tom: It sure is wonderful having a spell checker on line. Actually I know a lot about nothing and very little about everything.
      Once again thanks again for the spelling lesson but very little of anything else.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I don't bother paying attention to people like you, fre, when they can't write a coherent sentence or spell simple words. It's unlikely they have much of importance to impart.

      If you want to have a debate about something, then make a valid argument. You aren't doing that.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • ECassious2


      Actually you can't prove the age of the earth. You can create a mathematical model which presumes from the beginning that the earth is old (which is exactly what happened) and use that as your baseline for determining things, but you can't prove anything. Darwin himself knew that the only way his hypothesis could hold true is if it were given enough time for the small variations to occur over time. The mathematical models for dating were all created with this in mind. I know just a little about math and can tell you that if you create the math around the answer, you will get what you are looking for. face it, you have no more proof than I do. None. You have to have just as much faith as me.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • frespech

      Karl , I think you are under a false impression that one guy sitting under a tree decided to write a fiction called the bible.
      It was written by some 40 authors over a period of some 1500 years. Now why would a group of successive writers, write such a story? Tom, leave my spelling out of it. LOL

      September 4, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @frespech: Why would a group of successive people write such a book? Simple: control and manipulation of other people, thru threats and intimidation. that's all that religion is – a system of controlling and manipulating other people. And, back in the dark ages, it worked very well. But as more people become educated, and start to ask questions (Hey, what did the predators eat on Noah's ark?) religion loses its grip, as more people that books like the bible are really just bedtime stories for uneducated children.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • where does god go for vacation

      @fre. Because there's a lot of money to be made and power to be had (not so much of the latter in recent times) when you control people's minds and heavily influence their actions. Have you seen how wealthy most churches and their leaders are?

      September 4, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
  13. matt

    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.

    Seriously??? We're in big trouble.

    September 4, 2012 at 11:53 am |
    • Seyedibar

      Statistics skew themselves though. A good portion of those people only continue religion because it binds their family together or because it's a useful crutch in a crisis, not because they actually believe the nonsense at heart.

      September 4, 2012 at 11:58 am |
    • VoiceOf Truth

      The only "trouble" is that the sleeping masses accept without question everything that scientists say. Have you not studied the numerous blunders of medical scientists in the past? Science is full of blunders, but conditioned sheep never awaken to ask "who keeps conditioning me to believe things without challenging them?"

      September 4, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
    • truth be trolled

      VoiceOf Truth calls scientists "conditioned sheep". LMAO. That's a good one. Idiot.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • Oakspar

      Hardly in trouble, unless the trouble your refer to is how little of humanity still believes in a divine creation.

      If you truely believed in evolution, billions of years, and all that tripe, you would realize that what man believes is meaningless, as man would be a blink of an eye than can barely affect even the fragile planet of life that he lives on (how many millions of years would it take for evolution to erase all the influence of man?) – a heartbeat.

      Nope, beliefs have meaning only if man has meaning, and man has no meaning against an evolutionary background.

      Nye gets his DNA all up in a tizzy because not enough girls are spreading their knees for his "superior" worldview and he is afraid his position will be lost to the world (monogomy is anathema to an evolutionary worldview, by the way, so never marry one).

      The problem with evolution is that it is a story that the facts are made to fit, rather than a story that explains the facts. Scientist will disagree with me and talk about how the theory has changed over time, showing reaction to evidence like a scientific theory should, but their veheminence and dogma supporting it whenever the theory itself is challenges gives them away.

      On what day of the week was the universe created? In what month did something non-man first give birth to man? Science is about observation, and when it comes to observation, creation and evolution are not science. They have never been observed. Evolution within a (speciation) has been CAUSED, but never observed.

      Thus, even if evolution is true, it is still bad science. It is no different than the scientist of old proclaiming that the world is flat. Their science would have been no better and their position no more sound had they said that the world was round (right by accident) or been right (if the world was indeed flat).

      September 4, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
    • Brian

      @VoiceOf Truth – the difference between when science is wrong and when fundamentalist religion is wrong is that science is predicated on admitting its mistakes, correcting them, and moving on. You would still advocate an Earth that is 6000 to 10000 years old, when all of the evidence shows otherwise. It's time to admit the mistake, correct the error and move on.

      And the "masses" do not believe everything that science says. Science is built on questioning, and questioning is encouraged by science. You statement that people should accept ideas without question contradicts the basic premise of the scientific enterprise. The basic ideas of physics, chemistry, biology etc (including evolution and medicine) have changed over time in response to new information, and in response to challenges and questions raised by successive generations. That is how science works.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • stltact


      Peer reviewed. Google it.

      Science has no predetermined conclusion. 1) Find evidence 2) Make a hypothesis 3) Tests it 4) Peers review it, usually trying to prove you wrong. 5) Adjustments are made when new evidence is found.

      Religion has a predetermined conclusion. 1) State the account as written in the Bible. 2) Find evidence 3) Do no abstain too peer reviewed criticism 4) Adjustments are never made, regardless of mountains of evidence 5) Repeat to infinity.

      This same process was evidence in nearly all the major breakthroughs of natural science.

      1) Earth revolves around the Sun vs Sun revolves around the Earth
      2) Earth is flat vs Earth is Round
      3) Gravity existing
      4) Other celestial bodies existing vs only the Earth and the Sun
      5) Mental health vs Possession and demonology
      6) Epidemiology
      7) Math

      You are the quiet masses, you are the sheep, and that is the irony. The evidence is unbiased and substantiated by centuries of peer reviewed, nothing to gain, scientists, from all parts of the world. The reason they came to a generally agreed upon conclusion is the evidence and the testing of measurable hypothesis put forward by the evidence discovered. The thing about the scientific process is, it will correct itself over time, it will find new evidence, or correct issues that were seen as incomplete or lacking. Religion, all of them, are bound by preordained doctrine and texts that constrict any notion of adjustments, this is why Creationism as well as any scrutinized religious garbage falls apart so quickly to the modern scientific subscribing Human. You are a dying breed and we can all thank God for that.

      But you may be right, Adam and Eve may have been riding on the backs of Velociratptors prior to the "reptiles of the earth having the taste for flesh". Oh those darn fossils, so annoying are they not? Oh wait, carbon dating may not be accurate right, stupid science, not like the decaying rate of a radioactive isotope is a precise and measurable thing right? Even though everyones cellphone is automatically adjusted to the Atomic Clock time, that is the most accurate measurement of time in existence, utilizing what you ask, you who know so very little? An atomic clock is a clock device that uses an electronic transition frequency in the microwave, optical, or ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum of atoms as a frequency standard for its timekeeping element. Atomic clocks are the most accurate time and frequency standards known, and are used as primary standards for international time distribution services, to control the wave frequency of television broadcasts, and in global navigation satellite systems such as GPS. The principle of operation of an atomic clock is not based on nuclear physics, but rather on atomic physics and using the microwave signal that electrons in atoms emit when they change energy levels.

      Oh that science! So sheepish.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • VoiceOf Truth

      It's funny how some of the haters have resorted to name calling when someone is simply challenging what the mainstream media puts out about what imperfect scientists say. If your line of argument is so valid, why resort to name calling?

      To address the earth is flat vs round nonsense, you should google the bible. The bible itself recognized the earth as circular, so if the bible says that, then what anti-Christian historian told you that the Church believed the earth is flat? Some of us never question the history of things, never ask who is telling the "facts." Some don't even question the truth of the founding of America. Some take it as a fact that America was founded to promote freedoms and rights, when it fact, it was founded to promote conditioning. Nevertheless, if science is your infallible perfect god, then I can respect that. Just don't force us to believe science is perfect. Science makes mistakes, sometimes very deadly ones.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The difference is that science learns from its mistakes. Religion never does.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
    • old ben

      VoiceOf Truth – "Some take it as a fact that America was founded to promote freedoms and rights, when it fact, it was founded to promote conditioning."

      Your are truly retarded. Or maybe someone slipped a little drano in your coffee this morning.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • stltact


      If you must know, my belief is that evolution and a creationary force (God) are not mutually exclusive. The Earth has far more evidence for being much closer to 5 billion years old rather than 10,000 years old, it has far more evidence in support to a events of evolutionary changes, and explosions of cycles of new life, and death. What science if breaching is these truths, unbiased, and with ever mounting evidence. None of this means that a creator never was, or is, or forever will be. It just means all of the religions of man, all of the thousands that have come and gone throughout the civilization of man across planet Earth are just that, "religions of man". They hold no bearing in reality. As I said before, science and the spirituality on a "creator" are not mutually exclusive, but they do show how false the religions of man truly are, and always were.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
    • I_get_it


      Careful... perseveration is going to give you away.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I have to agree with you, old. V of T has a few loose screws.

      Good thing he's impotent.

      September 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
  14. TiredODaCrap

    Interesting report. So twice as many people believe that God could be guiding evolution than think that there ain't no God? Hard to fathom how 16% of the population could have such a hard time getting everyone else to believe them. From the article, and others on line, you' think that 3 out of every 4 people were atheists. I guess, much like Bills' Law of Evolution, everything might not be quite what it seems. Amazing to me how a proven Law cannot be accepted by a vast majority of the populous!
    Oh wait, that's right, it's not a Law, but a Theory. Can't imagine what the difference is??? It's only been around forever – without being proven enough to become Law. Could it be that the argument that Christians are biased because they refuse to be open to the idea of evolution is the exact same reason that "scientists" argue there is no God. if you go in with the idea that there is no way God (or evolution) exists, you'll discount anything that may show you're not 100% correct.
    Well, I'm just glad that those against Creation have such a relavent and up-to-the-second spokesman like ol' Bill. Can't wait to see the newest episode of his show again this Saturday.
    Oh. What? He's been off the air for decades??? How can that be???

    September 4, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • fintastic

      "Can't imagine" yea, I'm getting that...... another ignorant moron that doesn't understand the definition of the word "theory" as it applies to science.

      September 4, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
    • YoozYerBrain

      Hi Tired- like many of your ilk you are equating the word theory with the word Theory and you can't. Here's why, in science a Law is a stated and immutable fact whereas a Theory is a body of evidence continually added to and refined through time. It will NEVER BECOME A LAW, and it actually has MORE life and proof about it than a Law as it is continuously added to and refined. By scientists all around the world speaking different languages and from different life experiences because that's how science works. It's OBJECTIVE. Anyone from anywhere can replicate the experiments that derive the conclusions. There is no "belief" in science, it's an attempt to objectively explain the universe.

      By the way, don't forget that your mythology has antecedents in Sumerian myth and didn't just appear. Read history and find out that you are parroting inaccurate mythological interpretations and political/religious ulterior motives. Sorry to use such big words...

      Rufus, you da FIREFLY!

      Unlike your theory, with a small "t", that there is a god, to which NO objective evidence is ever added. Don't confuse the two terms. It makes you look stoopid. God hates it when you don't USE YOUR BRAIN! uh cept there aint no god...so use your brain as a way of being ethical, ok?

      September 4, 2012 at 3:50 pm |
  15. Lex

    Religion is a dying business. More and mroe people are moving away from it and into atheism. Why bother fighting them. Just let the business die out.

    September 4, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • VoiceOf Truth

      Nah, carnal man is a dying business. We Christians are just fine. Care to join us?

      September 4, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • truth be trolled

      No thanks "VoiceOf Idiocy". Religion is what's dying out you nutball.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
  16. Jake

    I will give religion credit where credit is due: It is amazing and if it weren't such a horrible thing, it would be impressive, that the religions practice of childhood indoctrination has led literally millions of people to STILL believe in god / creationism in this day and age. Full grown adults LITERALLY believe there is a man in the sky who created everything and not just that, they know exactly how he did it and it was in a way that is completely inconsistent with what we observe in reality!

    How can anyone not be completely embarrassed to admit they are religious in this day and age? I can see how you become religious via childhood brain-washing, but it amazes me that so many don't see the glaring truth that religion is a complete and unquestionable fantasy. It is just so obvious to the rest of us!

    September 4, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • kenny

      they literally have a delusional disorder that can be cured but only with deep critical thinking and an understanding of the world around them which they don't get when they are indoctrinated as kids and then don't bother learning when they are adults...

      September 4, 2012 at 11:40 am |
    • VoiceOf Truth

      The only "indoctrinated" ones are the mindless sheep who keep believing what scientists say without question as if they’re infallible. I'm sure if scientists say that it is good for your health to kill at least 1 person a week, you mindless ones will be mad at Christians for crying foul as it violates the "Thou shall not murder" law. And to add insult to injury, the same mindless sheep think they are "free" in making their choice when in actuality, their minds have been conditioned since the anti-Christian school system planted mental "ticking time capsules" in their minds that would leave them more susceptible to believe anything the evil ones want them to believe, especially the things that put them in direct opposition to the Almighty God.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • truth be trolled

      @VoiceOf Truth

      What an idiot.

      Scientists by nature never think they are infallible. They just seek to observe, postulate, and validate or invalidate claims and theories.

      And scientists are not just a product of "anti-Christian school system"s.

      Are you really this retarded?

      September 4, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
  17. Svenghooli

    It is really amazing today that people still believe in the big "Sky Daddy"...with all the scientific facts we have today.

    September 4, 2012 at 10:58 am |
    • Rob-Texas

      Since the facts support the bible, you might way to re examine the facts! Everyday more acheology is found that supports the bible. The big bang supports the bible. Evolution from apes is a myth. The gap for a missing link is to short for any evolution to close that gap. It would take a genetic mutation miricle that has never been seen in any species on Earth. So tell us these facts that prove the bible false.

      September 4, 2012 at 11:26 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Archaeology proves that many of the places referenced in the Iliad existed. Does that make Homer non-fiction?
      There is archaological evidence for Gilgamesh's kingdom. Did the 3/4 divine ancient Babylonian King therefore truly rule for 125 years in between trips to the Underworld?
      There is evidence that there was a Viking lord named Hrothgar. Does that mean Grendels are real?

      September 4, 2012 at 11:34 am |
    • VoiceOf Truth

      If Science is your infallible god, then so be it, but stop forcing your religion on us. Evolution is full of flaws, but mindless sheep don't care because their infallible priests of science are omniscient. So be happy with your religion.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Please elucidate what the theory evolution has wrong.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      V of T sounds a mite testy.

      Why should your view hold sway, V of T, when you have no evidence that your beliefs are facts?

      September 4, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • Thomas

      Yo, VOT:

      Please explain some: Evolution is full of flaws.
      If something has been proven false, it is dropped, no longer considered true. Simple as that.

      So what are these "flaws" you speak of?

      September 4, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • frespech

      Really, what observable evolution have you been witness to?

      September 4, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
  18. rynoleaks

    "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 actual age of the universe is closer to 14 billion years old....at least the author got the age of the earth right!

    September 4, 2012 at 10:48 am |
  19. Kevin Egan

    IT'S JUS ALL WONDERFUL NONSENCE BOTH. wEshould be thinking about the future ALLof us instead of brining forth these arguments that produce more heat than light.

    September 4, 2012 at 10:46 am |
  20. AverageJoe76

    Truly mankind was/ is dellussional to believe he could hold counsel with a being that created reality itself. I beileve some of these 'historical accounts' are in sync with an experience had by drug users. I mean, can you tell me man didn't do drugs in biblical times?? Seeing angels, hearing God's voice..... these can be hallucinations.
    How can we be in counsel with God? There's more chance that the germs in my body will begin counsel with me. Pray to me, and say that I created their universe, because that's all they can conceive.

    We need to step back from the details surrounding God. Start off with "I don't know." Because guess what? You DON'T know.

    September 4, 2012 at 10:42 am |
    • Seyedibar

      The visions of Ezekiel and St John are definitely hallucinogenic in their origin. They outright state that the visions are brought on by "eating the word". Likely purposeful ergot poisoning or mushrooms.

      September 4, 2012 at 11:13 am |
    • VoiceOf Truth

      What are you babbling about? Your user name fits your level of thinking. Stop blaspheming and stick to the subject.

      September 4, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
    • truth be trolled

      Look who's talking VOT- LOL. I think we know whose writing skills fit their level of thinking, VoiceOf Truth (disgruntled ex Evangelical Fortune Cookie Co. writer).

      September 4, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
    • AverageJoe76

      @ VoiceOf Truth – Since you mentioned 'babbling', why did God tear down the Tower Of Babel? Man seemed to be working so well together. In fact, God 'supposedly' thought that if the tower was completed, that man would not think anything is impossible to himself. Why tear down, scatter, and confuse your creation when they were mamking such progress? Sounds like God was what the rappers call 'hating'. The story doesn't go into any real fact why this was done. So if you could, please educate me 'VoiceOf Truth'

      September 4, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • ECassious2

      Average Joe 76

      Seriously? Why did God tear down the Tower of Babel? Did you google this?

      Please explain to me how the first protein was formed. Then explain to me how the first "simple" sequence of proteins were formed within the evolutionary framework. You do this, and i will take a crack at the Tower of Babel.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
    • AverageJoe76

      @ECassious2 – Don't tell me that it's absurd to ask that question?!? So there's no explanation as to why God tore down the Tower Of Babel? Interesting.
      So God's creation (man), was doing quite well, formed one language, had a common goal, and God destroyed it. Scattered them across the Earth. Confused them.

      Wow. It gives no reason as to 'why'. Just says it was done. 'Blind faith' is a kick in the head.

      September 4, 2012 at 3:26 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
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.