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. Apologist

    I find it ironic and a little sad about this whole "belief" in science and not God. I find it ironic because the truth is that you cannot believe science without faith. In fact, having faith in the bible is actually more substantial than having faith in science. How can this be you may ask? Simple, if we look at our epistemologies for the believing Christians and the unbelievers, we find that only one way of thinking can make sense out of the vast experiences we see in the universe and doesn't fall into a logical fallacy. The only worldview that can do this is the Christian worldview. The unbelieving worldview contradicts itself every time the scientific method is applied. This is an age old problem that unbelieving scientists and philosophers have known about but cannot answer. What is the problem with the scientific method you may ask? Simple, the epistemology of the unbeliever is that the central concept of how it can know things is that they be empirical. Meaning, you must be able to observe it with your senses. So what's the problem with that? Well, what are the three main things that the scientific method relies upon to prove things empirically? The three main things are logic, math, and predictability (or induction). "So what?" So, these three things cannot be proven empirically. And if you think you can prove them empirically then you will engage in circular reasoning, at least that is what history has shown us so far. What is circular reasoning? Having to assume something exist in order to prove that it exist. Or, using what you are trying to prove to exist, to prove that it exist.

    So what have we learned? Unbelievers think that the only way we can know anything is to empirically prove things exist through the scientific method; however, the scientific method itself uses three main abstracts that cannot be empirically proven. If science believes in things that cannot be proven then it is engaging in faith. Science itself is a religion when used in this manner. Having this incorrect view of science and empiricism will lead one to an incorrect worldview and therefore incorrect conclusions based on this worldview. As many philosophers have said, this brings into question all knowledge that has been gained through the scientific method.

    Does this mean that Christians don't believe in the scientific method and think that it doesn't work? Of course not, don’t be silly. Christians can explain where we get logic, math, and predictability from easily. They are from God and reflect His thinking. That explanation, however, may be a little too simplistic for the unbeliever.

    The fact is, unbelievers face a real logical, epistemological, and dare I say, theological problem, when it comes to anything dealing with "their view" of science. This is why unbelievers actually rely on the Christian worldview to make sense of the universe.

    Silly unbelievers, you are like a child that wants to slap his Father in the face, but you need to sit on His lap do it.

    September 4, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Your premise is imbecilic. Faith means to believe in something for no good reason, without evidence and in the presence of evidence to the contrary. The logical application of reason to deduce reality from evidence and predictive power (known as Science) is based in Logic and Reason, thus It is applied reason and hence not faith. Faith is based in nothing but faith alone.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      Having faith in hinduism corruption of truth absolute is as having faith in forged bill of a dollar, one has to be a hindu ignorant to put his faith in book of hindu Mitra ism, pagan savior ism labeled as bible, having no authenticity but hinduism, absurdity of un known hindu's, pagans, Visit http://www.limitisthetruth.com/ to learn more.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Well you sure fulfill the handle you use.

      The long and short of your entire post is simply, "you can't prove science itself, so you rely on faith which makes it a religion (somehow) and that makes you wrong and me right"

      It's actually sort of sad that you have to stretch yourself so thin in order to try and make yourself sound even a little sane.

      It's sort of cute in a way if it wash't terrifying that in Novemeber you could vote.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • One one

      The problem is science actually works and delivers material benefits, like a safe water supply to a city of millions. Religion doesn't work or deliver anything except mind candy.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
    • Spencer

      False equivalency argument..

      Science is not a belief system, it is a method. One does not "believe" in science, one studies it.

      I'll quote XKCD on this " The wonderful thing about science is that it doesn't ask for faith, it just asks for your eyes."

      September 4, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
    • One one

      @chuckles, yes but he/she used really fancy words like " epistemological". Isn't that enough to sway you to his/her way of thinking?

      September 4, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
    • Apologist

      For all the people who apparently don't know that the internet has dictionaries, here you go. Stop making up your own definitions. Silly unbelievers.

      1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
      2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

      And another one.

      2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
      b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

      September 4, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @One one

      Now that I reread the original post keeping yours in mind, I'm a complete believer, LONG LIVE JEEBUS!

      September 4, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • Chuckles


      Oh dear, so because I have "faith" it's the same sort of faith as yours? Does your idiocy know no bounds? Since science has produced results, like say.... the computer you are using, it's easy to have "faith" my computer is going to turn on.

      The only person that has faith without any evidence in something is you.

      September 4, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
    • Apologist

      WOW, you guys really throw a tantrum when your religion is attacked.

      September 4, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What religion?

      September 4, 2012 at 7:25 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Tantrum? Kiddo, throwing a tantrum would be sticking my fingers in my ears and yelling "LALALALALALA", what is happening here is you posting idiotic drivel and people pointing out your idiocy.

      September 4, 2012 at 7:27 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ apologist – that last comment is one of the most intellectually dishonest thing you have said – suggesting that atheism is a religion. Because, if atheism is a religion, then it can be attacked on the same basis that religions get attacked on ie they are fairy tales. I do not believe that my cat will turn into a 9 foot tall were-cat tonight. So is that a religion – my lack of belief in my cat's supernatural abilities? Hint – NO!

      September 4, 2012 at 7:30 pm |
    • Apologist

      Calm down Chuckles or you'll have a heart attack. That's not even the point I'm making. I even conceded that I think that the scientific method is useful and works with the Christian worldview. But the unbelieving worldview is a bundle of contradictions to the scientific method but the Christian worldview is not. That's the main point I was aiming for. Only the Christian worldview can make sense of the universe without contradicting it's beliefs about how any/all knowledge is gained.

      September 4, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
    • Chuckles


      You know, trying to make me sound worked up or angry isn't really going to work. You realize that right? Furthermore, if you understand that the scientific worldview is fine, then that's pretty much the atheistic worldview. Do you even know a person who is an unbeliever? Have you asked them any questions on their disbelief? My guess would be you might have met one once and when they replied, "I don't believe in god because it's idiotic" you went "CALM DOWN ATHEIST! WHY ARE YOU YELLING AT ME AND GETTING ALL WORKED UP! I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT YOU ARE CRAZY AND WRONG, WHY ARE YOU YELLING AT ME?!"

      September 4, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
    • Apologist

      @Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying What you just said was one of the most intellectual dishonest things you have said since apparently you assume that all scientists are atheists.

      September 4, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Where did Ethel state any such thing?

      September 4, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @Tom- typical intellectual dishonesty once again from our friend AppallingJest. It's like watching a cat trying to cover up its crap on a bare floor: the cat thinks it's being really clever and sneaky, but in reality it's just being pathetic. Hey – Appalling – given the intellectual quality of your posts, you are probably a big fan of another apologist – Ray Comfort. you know – the guy who made the argument that god exists because bananas fit the human hand. Frikken moron!

      September 4, 2012 at 7:52 pm |

      Mat 9:29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.

      September 4, 2012 at 8:02 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      Don't waste your time. I've been here for a few days getting in touch with the internet atheist militant phenomena, and I realized a few things.

      1. Most of them don't have a clue of what they are talking about.

      2. Most of the time they simply hold very idealized view of what science, religion and logic are.

      3. The ideas they have looks more like the product of indoctrination than real study of these things.

      September 4, 2012 at 8:03 pm |
    • One one

      It absolutely perplexes me how apologists can discount the PROVEN benefits of science while enjoying then 24/7/360.

      Safe And ample food and water, climate controlled shelter, good medical care, unlimited access to unlimited information, ability to communicate instantly to millions. The list goes on and on.

      What does religion offer that is proven beyond delusional beliefs that exist only in the minds of believers?

      September 4, 2012 at 8:07 pm |

      Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

      September 4, 2012 at 8:09 pm |

      One one, It absolutely perplexes me how atheists can discount the PROVEN benefits of Christ while enjoying then 24/7/360.

      September 4, 2012 at 8:14 pm |

      oxkarbaz, Athena and the Educratists sure did a big bangup job. Greekster tales!!! HHHmmm exactly how was Athena born????

      September 4, 2012 at 8:22 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ Muddy: Trentlage, Richard D (1963): "I wish I were an Oscar Mayer weiner". Very nice of you to quote something that someone wrote. So what?

      September 4, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
    • oxkarbaz

      One one,

      If it perplexes you, it's a good sign. Aristotle used to say that knowledge begins with awe, so the fact that you are perplexed might be a good start.

      Now, a suggestion. Try to put yourself in the place of an "apologist" and consider your argument as he would. For this, you'll have to study a "little" and learn what they really think and what are their reasons, you can't find a solution for your perplexity if you keep on using your own mind as a measure of things.

      I can give you the answer if you really want, but I believe the ride will be worth for you.

      September 4, 2012 at 8:24 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      @ Muddy – the "benefits" of christ? And these would be . . . .?

      September 4, 2012 at 8:26 pm |
    • Sam Yaza


      oxkarbaz, Athena and the Educratists sure did a big bangup job. Greekster tales!!! HHHmmm exactly how was Athena born????

      i don't have to answer that

      September 4, 2012 at 8:30 pm |

      Ethel, are you serious? How about just one for an example. The concept of self control(a form of government) that if you hurt someone, you won't get away with it, and you'll answer to Him.

      September 4, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
    • Chuckles


      Why do you believe that rereading the bible one more time will make me start believing again? If you really believe that awe is the first step towards learning, look at pictures from the Hubble Telescope, not in the bible.

      September 4, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Bullsh!t, Mud! if I hurt someone – no, let's say if i torture and mutilate and violate and do other horrific things to hundreds of people, I'm not answerable to Christ. i don't get punished. Because, in your nutty, wacky religion, it doesn't matter how evil I am – all I have to do, before I die, is say, oops, jesus – sorry – i accept you as my lord and saviour. The poor little kids i killed, who didn't get a chance to accept your jesus – well, too bad, so sad, but they're burning in a pit of fire forever. But me – the murderer? Hey, it's paradise everlasting!

      What a staggeringly evil, corrupt system you profess to follow.


      September 4, 2012 at 8:42 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      I honestly don't have a clue what you are talking about.

      September 4, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers


      If science is a religion than I expect you to stay away from doctors when you are sick, after all you would be worshipping a false god (naturalism). Your faith and scientific faith are on the same level so you should be able to pray and your god will take away your health issues.

      September 4, 2012 at 8:50 pm |

      Ethel, accept as savior? That would be big of one, wouldn't it?

      September 4, 2012 at 8:52 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @ oxkarbaz

      You said to One one, " If it perplexes you, it's a good sign. Aristotle used to say that knowledge begins with awe, so the fact that you are perplexed might be a good start.

      Now, a suggestion. Try to put yourself in the place of an "apologist" and consider your argument as he would. For this, you'll have to study a "little" and learn what they really think and what are their reasons, you can't find a solution for your perplexity if you keep on using your own mind as a measure of things.

      I can give you the answer if you really want, but I believe the ride will be worth for you."

      Building off that I pointed out to you that if you really want to learn from "awe" like Aristotle was talking about, look at some of the pictures that the Hubble Telescope is capturing rather than read the bible. The bible isn't yielding anything new, but the Hubble is finding new stars, planets, galaxies everyday.

      September 4, 2012 at 8:56 pm |
    • oxkarbaz

      I wouldn't apologize for that. A good stink is good for your nose once in a while.

      September 4, 2012 at 9:02 pm |
    • Chuckles

      I didn't ask you to apologize. Those are your words. I simply pointed out to you that if knowledge begins with "awe" then you are clearly looking for knowledge in the wrong place if you keep throwing your bible at people if they disagree with you.

      September 4, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      First of all, the comment above is some fan impersonating me. Ignore him.

      Second, I never mentioned the word bible, nor suggested anyone to read it, nor threw it at someone who disagreed with me. I'm simply suggesting that someone perplexed employs a basic tenet of learning in order to solve it, which is empathy.

      Third, since you mentioned the Hubble telescope, I suggest you read not the bible, but Edwin Hubble's Observational Approach to Cosmology.

      You're so used to getting into an argument that you shoot at the wrong target, buddy.

      September 4, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
    • truth be trolled

      this is from a recent post from "oxkarbaz" from the "Nye....Flat" article that he was having with 17-year-old Ryan
      I would be interested to see what others think of this horizontal verses vertical causation, where he/she mentions God as a prime cause of "vertical" causation.


      "Second, it's because most of the modern physics is only concerned with one kind of causation, that's called horizontal causation. The chain of causation you can clearly examine in the materialist sense. For instance, if a guy has a guitar and plays a chord, what's the cause of the sound emitted by the amplifier? The horizontal cause of it is the stroke of the strings, the electrons flowing through the cable, the transistor junction that amplifies it, the vibration of air from the speaker, but the vertical cause of it is simply his will to play that chord at that instant. Physics can't explain vertical causality, and God as the prime cause is an example of vertical causality."

      September 4, 2012 at 9:18 pm |
    • oxkarbaz

      By the way, in case you're puzzled at the recommendation, all theories about those pretty pictures of planets, stars and galaxies far away are based on an assumption made purely on faith, the Copernican principle, which still exists on 20th century purely to counter empirical evidence of the privileged position of Earth in the universe, exactly as described in the Bible, which implies God. Hubble's book is one of the most straightforward explanations of that.

      September 4, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
    • Chuckles


      First, sorry I didn't realize. That can be a problem with these boards an anonymity, if someone steals a handle and answers in a way that isn't a departure from his personality, how am I to know who's who.

      Secondly, I am used to debating people, especially when I point out that I disagree with them.

      Third, you may have not used the word bible, then again you asked one one to put himself in apologists shoes and study a little. You strongly implied it. Apologies if you really meant to tell one one that he should study something completely different, then I put words in your mouth.

      Lastly, I have read a little of Hubbles work, but I'm more interested in what the telescope is finding and less about the views of its namesake. What specifically are you trying to point out in Hubble's work that you want to discuss here?

      September 4, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Hey, MUD – sorry about that – cleaning the kitchen and stuff like that. Where were we? Ah, yes – I was a pointing out the lunacy o the underlying premise of Christianity, and you were thinking to yourself, "Holy C-rap! He's right!!!!!". Back to my example. me – evil, horrible murderer, and I'm on my death bed. In order to avoid the fires of hell, i have to accept jesus as my saviour. oooh – tough choice! At this point I accept jesus as my saviour, and all of my sins are washed away. Mind you the sins were against a bunch of innocents, and when i killed then I deprived them of the chance to accept jesus, thereby condemning them forever to hell, but me? The guy who did all of this horrible stuff, and messed up eternity for a bunch of innocents? Hey now! I get to go to heaven, and live in paradise forever."

      Seriously, MUD – you're okay with that setup? Doesn't that strike you as – um – staggeringly immoral?

      Why do you want to be a part of that?

      September 4, 2012 at 9:28 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      Well, I'm not here for debate. I'm just interested in this internet militant atheist phenomenon, and today is my last day at it. Sure, if some interesting debate comes up, I'm all for it, but I doubt, since none came up for a week.

      So, the position that caused perplexity isn't related to any religion in particular, and can actually be easily understood even by comparative study. To assume I was implying a study of a religion in particular, or even the bible, is a product of your own imagination, it wasn't something I said or even implied.

      Even if it was the case, reading the bible for this purpose is pretty useless unless someone is already well-trained in bible hermeneutics, and I certainly wouldn't suggest that. I merely suggest to really understand what are the real motivations behind someone's actions, instead of projecting the stereotype you have on that. If he thinks it's so perplexing that a religious people feel no shame in using technical achievements provided by science, then try to understand that from his point of view, instead of assuming you know it first hand and he's a hypocrite.

      I mentioned above what I'm pointing, since I expected that you wouldn't accept it promptly.

      September 4, 2012 at 9:41 pm |
    • Chuckles


      Ok, here's your main problem. People come to this board for debate and argument, if you are just stoking the fires to try and get a response, it'll be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you're looking for a "militant" anything, go to a board of a specific topic and disagree with people. Especially if you keep calling a person "militant". Furthermore, what type of debate would you want to discuss?

      Next, you're quote, "Try to put yourself in the place of an "apologist" and consider your argument as he would. For this, you'll have to study a "little" and learn what they really think and what are their reasons, you can't find a solution for your perplexity if you keep on using your own mind as a measure of things." – are you really trying to tell me this isn't implication of asking One one to take a look at the bible? I can understand if you really didn't mean it, that's fine, but when you are discussing religion and christianity in particular, and then asking someone to get in the shoes of an "apologist" and asking them to "study" only points to one source that they need to study.

      Third, I have a degree in comparative religious studies, I've learned about bible hermeneutics, both old and new and did a lot of digging on other religions in the East as well.

      It's actually sort of appalling that you are trying to take this high road of "studying" the militant atheist by coming to a board full of anonymous trolls, religious debaters mixed with the every day atheist, the "atheist militant" and the crazy fundamentalist all balled into one. If you want to do real "study" go talk to the people who take their atheism a step further than their home by joining the American Atheists. Also, please define "militant atheist" do these people take up arms? do they bomb churches? have they tried to push legislation through congress about banning religion of any sort?

      I think you are committing something you are accusing me of, namely arguing with me when no argument is there. You assumed I geared up for a fight and put on your armor in defense even before a shot was fired. Who's the real militant here?

      September 4, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      1. A debate presumes the members are within some level of accordance in their basic premises, in the same level of knowledge, in the same form of narrative discourse, and a few other things. If I meet someone which fills these requirements, I'll gladly have a debate with him, because it will be positive for both, but so far I haven't. Simple.

      2. I'm mostly just observing militant atheists, and obviously this isn't the only media I'm doing it. I'm doing it at various levels, in anonymous and non-anonymous places, within layman and experts, educated and uneducated. I know it seems a waste of time being here, and actually I decided to give it only a week for that reason. I came here because the atheist militancy in the internet is an obvious phenomenon, and for a moment I was particularly impressed at how a mere entertainer like Bill Nye was cherished by the atheists like some sort of icon, while they dismiss all the greatest atheist intellectuals.

      3. To put this issue at rest, the book I'd probably recommend for doing what I suggested would be the Summa for the Gentiles, by St. Thomas Aquinas. As I said above, I wouldn't recommend reading the bible for this purpose without the proper training.

      4. I'm actually really surprised that you have a degree in comparative religions, but I don't expect someone like that to believe that reading the Bible from cover to cover is the only or even most important source of study for someone interested in christianity. Maybe even reading Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice gives more insight into christianism than reading the bible itself.

      5. I define militant atheist as someone who believes religion to be harmful and consider the dissemination of atheism in society is a political matter. If they do that through democratic means is irrelevant. I'm interested in the state of mind of these people, what leads them to this position, what is their religious background, their intellectual background, and so forth.

      Thanks for the American Atheist suggestion, but that's exactly the kind of thing I'm not interested, at least not for now. I'd be sure interested in meeting its members outside the organization, but not as a member.

      September 4, 2012 at 11:13 pm |
    • oxkarbaz

      By the way, time is over. Goodbye, CNN religion blog posts comment section. It was a fun week.


      You seem to be an educated person, so if you want to continue this conversation, just email me. It's my nickname at gmail.

      September 4, 2012 at 11:26 pm |
    • ScottCA

      From the oxford English Dictionary – the dictionary that defines the English language.

      Definition of faith
      [mass noun]

      1complete trust or confidence in someone or something: this restores one’s faith in politicians

      2strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof: bereaved people who have shown supreme faith
      [count noun] a particular religion: the Christian faith
      [count noun] a strongly held belief: men with strong political faiths

      And I think Steven Pinker who is a world reknown Harvard psychologist and linguist who studies the very root logic of languahe knows how to define faith far better than you.


      Religious delusionals can only play with word games in their mind, they are reduced to hiding in semantics, none of what they say ever has any consequence in the real world.

      September 5, 2012 at 12:26 am |

      Ethel, having some physical problems here but I just saw your post and I think this will be my last. Hope you see it. My recommendation for understanding Scripture is to have Paul explain it to you and go from there. At least find out what you're up against.

      September 5, 2012 at 2:08 am |

      You will be astonished and will marvel if you let him make his case. Is that a good thing? Jesus marvelled once. ..'Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard [it], he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.'

      September 5, 2012 at 2:28 am |

      The quintessential art form of the human race is deception directed outward and inward. And as easy as falling off a boat for a landlubber.

      September 5, 2012 at 2:37 am |

      Why did I post Scriptures here? It's a hot-cold-lukewarm thing.

      September 5, 2012 at 2:42 am |
    • Apologist


      I understand. This isn't my first go around with these blissfully ignorant types. I'm just hoping that some people who read this will wake up and start asking the hard questions about what they believe and why the believe it. Thanks any way though.

      September 5, 2012 at 9:30 am |
  2. Robert

    If you can't describe the taste of salt, then you can't describe the reality of spiritual experiences to someone who has never experienced it. We lack the language to do so.

    September 4, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
    • OTOH


      Did you ever think about the taste of a lemon and not have your salivary glands go berserk? Spiritual? Or mental – physical reaction?

      September 4, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      sprit means truth and soul means desire a hindu ignorant can never appreciate sweetness of spirit,truth, because his hindu soul filthy desire is hooked to acidity of salt, and lacking tool to comprehend difference between sweet and the salt. Visit http://www.limitisthetruth.com/ to learn about truth absolute, foundation of existence.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
    • ScottCA

      He is discussing Qualia as if their emergent properties cannot be explained by a materialist explanation (aka a explanation based in reality), nothing can be further from the truth. Emergent properties are easily explained. This is a kin to wetness emerging from the interaction of many molecules. The cause and under pinning of the emergent qualia can be very easily understood..

      These arguments that try to divorce the mind from the material world are childish semantic games and nothing more than word play.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      Nothing can be formed without spirit, soft ware and Quantum physics bares witness to it, as dark matter, believe in truth of spirit before believing in matter formed. way of educated, knowledge able human, not hindu's, ignorant s, looking like human but no more than owl's of dark cave. visit http://www.limitisthetruth.com/ to learn more.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
    • oxkarbaz


      The whole western civilization modern science is based on the 17th century cartesian ontological divorce of mind and material world, res cogitans and res extensa, so you're obviously really, really, really lost here.

      Also, to equal materialism and reality is proof you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

      September 4, 2012 at 8:53 pm |
  3. Robert

    Put the best science book on one end of a shelf. Then put the Bible on the other end of the shelf. Come back in 100 years and see which book has been heavily revised and changed.

    September 4, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
    • OTOH


      Yep. Bats will still be birds in that book... and hares will still chew their cud; snow and hail will still be kept in 'storehouses' in the sky; plants will still have grown for (? amount of time) without the Sun; and quite a few other inaccuracies, fantasies and superst'itions... all still there.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Why would you think that was a plus, Robert? You wouldn't think so if you were discussing medical procedures, animal husbandry, or travel, would you?

      September 4, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • Spencer

      So what you are saying is that its better to believe in something that does not change, regardless of evidence, then it is to study and revise our world views based on new evidence?

      Talk about having your head in the ground. The bible not changing does not make it an authority on the world.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • old ben

      Well that is not something to be proud of when your "consti'tution" of Christianity is an unorganized pile of conflicted fable.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Don't forget the talking snake – I bet that will still be there in the bible in a hundred years

      September 4, 2012 at 8:02 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers


      You are right the bible has not changed, it still sanctions slavery. Isn't it great the bible doesn't change!

      September 4, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
    • oxkarbaz

      Funny comparison, Robert. You're an example of something I used to say: atheism is usually a product of bad religion, bad philosophy or bad science, but most often, the three at a time.

      First, the bible as a book is immutable, as much as any science book also is immutable. What changes is the interpretation of them, which in the case of the bible is a little field called biblical hermeneutics. All the study and changes to its interpretation that occurred in any century since the 4th wouldn't fit in a large library, to mention only catholic hermenutics. For instance, consider that St. Thomas Aquinas wrote around a hundred books in little more than 30 years in order to integrate greek philosophy with catholic doctrine and you get the picture.

      If you consider major ruptures in all religions, like the protestant reform in christianism, or the cabbalist movement in judaism, there are probably more books wrote about and influenced by it than anything else.

      Second, unfortunately science isn't this pretty lady you like to dream about. For instance, most of modern science is still based on the inherently flawed Cartesian model, which stayed unchanged since the 17th century, despite not providing useful answers in quantum physics for almost a century. The Copernican principle I mentioned above is still kept as is since the 16th century, despite not only no proof for it, but plenty of evidence against. In fact, a lot of 20th century physics, astrophysics and cosmology is nothing but an attempt to save the Copernican principle untouched of the empirical proof against it.

      Things aren't as simple as you think they are, buddy.

      September 4, 2012 at 10:38 pm |
    • thecollegeadmissionsguru

      @OX: Been making up the laws of physics again? The bible is immutable? If you say that the world is only 6000 years old, then I'm convinced that you are untouchable/unreachable. Science seeks change, the bible/religion denies change. You are probably a smart guy on some level, what that level is, I'm unsure.

      September 4, 2012 at 10:42 pm |
    • oxkarbaz

      Oh God, how unfortunate that you can't use maieutics on internet boards.

      September 4, 2012 at 11:23 pm |
    • oxkarbaz

      If science changes, then just answer the proposition above. Why it hasn't changed despite plenty of proof against the Copernican principle, and why it hasn't changed despite plenty of proof against the Cartesian model?

      I know you won't answer so I won't even come back, but in case I'm wrong about you and you do, and it's important for you to let me know that you did, email me. It's my nickname at gmail.

      September 4, 2012 at 11:29 pm |
    • fintastic

      @oxkar. FYI..... ALL religions are bad.

      September 5, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
  4. ScottCA


    September 4, 2012 at 6:14 pm |
  5. A reason to believe

    A more scientific approach to Biblical Creationism

    September 4, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Faith means to believe in something for no good reason.
      There is no scientific method regarding faith. Science requires reason and logic. Faith based religion is neither reasonable or logical.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
    • A reason to believe

      ScottCA, I believe you may need to consult your dicitionary a second time. If you treat your science with the same carelessness I'd suspect you may find you are in error more often than not.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • where does god go for vacation

      Explain what error you're claiming.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:46 pm |
    • Bob

      ScottCA is correct, and there is no good reason to believe in god.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • Spencer

      A reason to believe: Faith, Noun, 1. :confidence or trust in a person or thing: 2 :belief that is not based on proof:

      What error are we looking for?

      September 4, 2012 at 7:06 pm |
    • A reason to believe

      I could spend the next few minutes copy/pasting all the available definitions for the word faith, but you cannot convince people who make up their own definitions to use for their own ends, so I will regretfully pass. I will for the sake of balance in these useless arguements point out that the article failed to point out that the term "young earth creationists" requires that another type of creationist exist, that being "old earth creationists." That said you would find their beliefs more agreeable and harder to argue against.

      September 4, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
  6. ScottCA

    Worth watching

    September 4, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
  7. hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

    Adam, when breath con sti tut ed or cycle of breathing reached to it's normal cycle, Adam, statue of clay became human, language witness to truth of creation not hinduism, speculation of evolution. Visit http://www.limitisthetruth.com/ to learn more.

    September 4, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
  8. ScottCA

    "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." This is just ignorant. A simple Google search will tell you the correct age of the universe.
    he earth is 4.54 billion years old and
    the universe is 14.6 billion years old.
    This error has been reported to CNN through the contact us options many many times not, there is no excuse for this lie being left uncorrected. I would fire this writer for spreading misinformation, and contributing to the misunderstanding of science

    September 4, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      Earth and heavens existed way before human settled on earth, not more than 80,000 years of human cycle, rest of it is hinduism hypothesis, speculation of hindu's, ignorant s by their hindu Judaism, filthy self center ism to please their hindu soul, ignorant desire to be, what human can never be, truth absolute God.

      September 4, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • Arvoasitis

      Some estimates of the Earth's age:
      Ancient Hindus............1,972,949,054 years
      Lord Kelvin (1852).......20 to 40 million years (based on cooling of the Earth's crust
      John Joly (1898).........80 to 90 million years (based on salt content of oceans)
      George Darwin............57 million years (based on resonance theory)
      Sir Harold Jeffries........4 billion years (based on recomputated esonance theory with improved data)
      Radioactive dating (1913).....700 million to 1.5 billion years
      A. Holmes (1947).........3.35 billion years ( based on radioactive dating)
      Meteorites (1954).........4.5 billion years (assumed same as Earth)

      September 4, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Faith based religion thrives in ignorance.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
  9. Agnostic Atheism is Healthy for Kids and Grown-Ups Too!

    Let your kids be all that they can be. Just teach them that there are:

    1. Things we know that are unfounded and most likely political sales literature from the beginning of mankind (all religions); and
    2. Things that we don't know a damn thing about (god/deities).

    An agnostic approach regarding deities keeps us honest about what we don't know anything about, but also prevents unfounded junk from #2 above (religion) from dirtying up our rational thinking on the matter.

    So instead of praying to make-believe characters and trying to get others to follow the political garbage from long ago, just sit down, put on some good jazz, and collect you damn thoughts. My goodness.

    I am mama kindless and I approve this message.

    September 4, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
    • Arvoasitis

      And the beauty of it is that you can use the Holy Bible to support your position. Somewhere in the early books, unfortunately I cannot remember precisely where, God warns people to leave the mysteries with God.

      September 4, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
  10. skeptik0

    Sorry for the multiple posts. The board never gave me a confirmation that my post was published but it just alerted me of the "duplicate content" and gave me no way forward so I had to go back, where my comment did not exist.

    September 4, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  11. Truth

    "Hell, I don't even believe in the veracity of the "eyewitness" accounts of the life of Jesus. If they reported that miracles happened, then I already question their honesty."

    There were no eyewitness accounts of Jesus. The earliest gospels date to approxamately 30 years after Christs supposed death.

    "Who taught man to read an write? Where they just endowed with the ability? If so, what language?"

    Paintings on cave walls and ceilings dates back to the Aurignacian period, approximately 40,000 years ago. Some theories hold that cave paintings may have been a way of communicating with others, while other theories ascribe them a religious or ceremonial purpose. This would seem to be the logical origination of early forms of writing. People who subscribe to the biblical account of creation which would not account for cave paintings from over 40,000 years ago have no other answer to the question of man's literacy than "Um, God must have did it" which is their answer for anything they either don't understand or don't want to understand.

    September 4, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
    • Arvoasitis

      Your claim that there were no eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life may be correct but there is an eyewitness account of his ministry. In the year 62 C.E., the most devoted and reliable follower of Jesus, the Gentile named Joseph of Arimathea, gave an account of the ministry of Jesus to Gladius Ensa, a Roman officer who sought him out on behalf of his uncle, who had been a physician to St. Paul in Rome. Unfortunately, the Roman officer was not interested in spiritual details (or, perhaps he was afraid to record any, Nero was emperor) But he provides interesting details on the trial of Jesus. What is perhaps most telling about the testimony is that Joseph, by then extremely frail of body but still sound of mind, told the story with "tears streaming down his aged cheeks."

      September 4, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • where does god go for vacation

      @arvo. Where are these letters?

      September 4, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
  12. Chip Fields

    The only difference between between me (a creationist) and atheistic evolutionists is, my presupposition for the possibility for the existence of God is not zero....theirs is

    September 4, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
    • where does god go for vacation

      One can believe in god and evolution.
      Why your god and not the 1000s of others; because that is ultimately the difference between you and an atheist – an atheist believes in one fewer god than you.
      Why is a god necessary? Where did a god come from. Then why can't a universe just exist. Much less complicated without a middleman.

      September 4, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
  13. Think-About-It

    Whether you are a Christian or not, you NEED to watch this video.


    September 4, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      So the ultimate just and loving god, allows a complex conspiracy web to trick people into believe that they are really saved, so they have a false sense of security, then when they realize they've been scammed, he "must" punish them to prove he is just. Cute. Just when you think the rabbit hole doesn't go any deeper, now Christians believe that being a Christian is a conspiracy!

      September 4, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
    • ScottCA

      Sure so this all powerful all knowing infinitely wise god couldn't have given you knowledge in a better manner than frying your insides with a lightning bolt? You do realize your a lunatic right, and that this proposal makes no sense whatsoever?
      Near death experiences and the delusional dreams that accompany them are well understood by neurologists. They are not in any way shape or form, magical or paranormal. And are to be expected as the brain shuts down.

      September 4, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
  14. l33theart

    How on earth can there be an "eyewitness account" of the Biblical creation story if several days' worth happened before God allegedly created humans in the first place?

    September 4, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Shhhh!!!!!! No logic allowed!

      September 4, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      Find your self first and know the truth absolute to be, and than evaluate your being with the story and you will have the answer hinduism denial of truth absolute, book of hindu Mithra ism, pagan savior ism called bible is nothing but hinduism, corruption of truth absolute by hindu Jew's, criminal self centered, secular to hind fool humanity, promoting hindu Mithra ism pagan savior ism to make human their gentile, slaves by hinduism racism by faith. For more visit http://www.limitisthetruth.com/

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

      I'm sorry Hinduism-guy, but your posts are completely undecipherable.

      September 4, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      Go to http://www.limitisthetruth.com/ to decipher some thing very simple, you may not comprehend out of your hindu soul blinded desire.

      September 4, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      The few days before humans notwithstanding, l33theart, there are clearly no "eyewitnesses" to the Adam and Eve story either, or most of the other stories that date back into unrecorded history.

      Hell, I don't even believe in the veracity of the "eyewitness" accounts of the life of Jesus. If they reported that miracles happened, then I already question their honesty.

      September 4, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      That brings up another interesting question. Who taught man to read an write? Where they just endowed with the ability? If so, what language?

      September 4, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      Human "HIS" desire were not just dumped on earth by truth absolute, God, creator of human and every thing else , but guided by angels, extra terrestrial and "HIS" human messengers on earth, 123000 human messengers alone. Visit http://www.limitisthetruth.com/ to learn more.

      September 4, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
  15. YoozYerBrain

    Rufus you da Firefly!!
    ... and that sentence shouldn't have been in the last post as it was a non-sequitur as presented. So sorry...

    September 4, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
  16. AverageJoe76

    From Wikipedia concerning the Tower Of Babel;
    "According to the biblical account, a united humanity of the generations following the Great Flood, speaking a single language and migrating from the east, came to the land of Shinar, where they resolved to build a city with a tower "with its top in the heavens...lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the Earth". God came down to see what they did and said: "They are one people and have one language, and nothing will be withholden from them which they purpose to do." So God said, "Come, let us go down and confound their speech." And so God scattered them upon the face of the Earth, and confused their languages, and they left off building the city, which was called Babel "because God there confounded the language of all the Earth"

    That's rather counter-productive for a God that created man in his image.

    September 4, 2012 at 3:31 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      No need to lay hinduism, illegality of human on truth absolute God, your post mentions hinduism absurdity of some hindu ignorant to involve human hinduism denial of truth absolute with majesty of truth absolute. please visit http://www.limitisthetruth.com/ to learn more.

      September 4, 2012 at 4:26 pm |

      You forgot the part about Eve being tricked by a pimp. And Adam didn't want her to be smarter than him, so he said, what the heck I gotta follow, too. AND that changed everything.

      September 4, 2012 at 4:36 pm |

      There's your answer for the question of why women outlive men. The men are too dang stupid and the women are slow learners. who need more time for instruction.;

      September 4, 2012 at 4:44 pm |

    Evolution is a conspiracy theory. Are ye blind?

    September 4, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Okay, Muddy – your troll is showing

      September 4, 2012 at 3:24 pm |

      I'm using one of those new-fangled missionary boats. it' got something called a battery in it. I'll throw a rag over the motor if it offends, ethel.

      September 4, 2012 at 3:35 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      A battery???? Muddy – isn't that one of them new-fangled thingies made possible by science? Using electricity? Or is it powered by angry imprisoned demons and imps?

      September 4, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
    • fintastic

      Don't forget now...... electronics is only a "theory".............

      September 4, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      I think Muddy may have it wrong. I think his boat is powered by his god's breath, carrying him along on a divine wind. Batter-what? Electrici – who? Come on, you elitists – quit trying so hard to impress, what with your grade 7 edumacation! In fact, the only reason good ol' Muddy's boat floats at all is because god is supporting it! Buoyancy schmuoyancy!

      September 4, 2012 at 3:53 pm |

      Ethel, I got to looking around on the net checking your demon in the battery theory, and was shocked to find this from Wiki:....'A daemon is usually created by a process forking a child process and then immediately exiting,......' Sounds like something an atheist would do to a child.

      September 4, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
  18. Dyslexic doG

    The bible is like a "Nigerian Email" from the bronze-age.

    September 4, 2012 at 3:15 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Instead of offering 25 million, they offer you eternal paradise. But read the small print – there's always a cost. And you keep paying and paying and paying, and there's never any payoff.

      September 4, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
  19. ThinkDude

    The book is logical, confirmed by true science, writers confirmed and known. I totally undersand an opponent of the book actually opposing the dogma and behavior of those claiming to follow it. Unfortunate that such silliness reflects poorly on the book.

    September 4, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      Word logic is driven from Latin word La, truth absolute 360* if word's written do not conform to truth absolute they are not fact truth absolute but hinduism, absurdity of some hindu ignorant spewing his hinduism absurdity in his hindu Judaism, filthy self center ism secular ism to please his hindu soul filthy desire. For more visit http://www.limitisthetruth.com/ your comments will be much appreciated.

      September 4, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • where does god go for vacation

      The book is not confirmed by science. The writers are not known nor are most of the subsequent editors.

      September 4, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • Athy

      And there are no pictures!

      September 4, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Confirmed by "true" science? Like the science that confirms that the world is 6000 years old? Like the science that confirms that it would be possible, using bronze age technology, to build a boat capable of housing and supporting 2 of every species of animal in the world – with adequate food, water, ventilation, and veterinary care – for a year, with this boat being run by only 8 people -Noah, Shem, Ham, Ja-pheth and their wives. That "true" science?

      September 4, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
    • fintastic

      The talking snake is confirmed by science???

      September 4, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
    • Ethel the Aardvark Goes Quanti-ty Surveying

      Actually it wasn't so much a talking snake as a snake that used Sign Language.That ticked off god so much he made sure that snakes never had hands again. True.

      September 4, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
    • hinduism source of hindufilthyracism.

      So than it is hinduism absurdity of hindu's ignorant's, spewing their hinduism absurdity to hind fool humanity, spoken in hindu Judaism filthy secular ism to feel good to please their hindu soul, filthy desire, To know more please visit http://www.limitisthetruth.com/ Your comments will be much appreciated.

      September 4, 2012 at 4:08 pm |
  20. ThinkDude

    If a man walks on concrete without shoes he will get calluses. Is that evolution? If his children are all born with calluses I will believe that mutation due to evolution is true. Mutations, per science, are typically detremental to a species, not beneficial.

    Science has identified similar components in life forms in the hundreds of millions of species know and unknown. I am open to considering examples of transitional species if there are any citations.

    Unfortunately labling oneself as an -ist in either direction is bound to limit ones ability to think rationally. Logic anyone?
    There appears to be evidence of purpose/design in life and science is an awesome tool. It need not be yet another religion known for irrational, closed-minded dogma.

    September 4, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • Closet Atheist

      "If a man walks on concrete without shoes he will get calluses. Is that evolution? If his children are all born with calluses I will believe that mutation due to evolution is true. Mutations, per science, are typically detremental to a species, not beneficial."


      Clearly, you lack a grasp of how evolution works.

      September 4, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • Closet Atheist

      To elaborate on your example...

      Let's assume that, somehow, we have degenerated as a society and can no longer create shoes for those bare feet. Now let's assume there are poisonous glass shards that cause crippling disabilities or death.

      People who are born with naturally thick-soled feet will have a survival advantage. As such, they will be more likely to survive and procreate... making more babies with thick-soled feet (an advantage in survival).

      See how this works...??

      September 4, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • Rufus T. Firefly

      "If a man walks on concrete without shoes he will get calluses. If his children are all born with calluses I will believe that mutation due to evolution is true."

      Your supposed understanding of evolution is called Lamarckism, and is exactly what Darwin was arguing against. According to your logic, we should expect that if you cut off your thumb in an accident that your children would have no thumbs. That is cutting edge thought...for the late 1700's. Your understanding of evolution is basically pre-Darwinian and pre-genetic. As is typically the case, people who quickly dismiss evolution actually have no understanding of it whatsoever.

      Why do people who have no background whatsoever assume that they possess the expertise to overrule generations of professional research? Do they just not know enough to realize how little of it they understand?

      September 4, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • fintastic

      @Atheist, I applaud your attemps to explain evolution to a dim-wit.

      September 4, 2012 at 3:55 pm |
    • Thomas

      If a man walks on concrete without shoes he will get calluses. Is that evolution?


      September 4, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • Spencer

      If that's what you've been taught as to how evolution works.... its no wonder you think its wrong.

      Someone has done you a great disservice in teaching you that.

      September 4, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
    • skeptik0

      "If a man walks on concrete without shoes he will get calluses. Is that evolution?"
      Of course not, where did you get that idea? Callouses do not get written in the genetic code. Environmental effects are not passed through genetic code.
      Now, if you happened to have a genetic mutation that gave you stronger than normal skin on your feet that gave you a reproductive advantage over your peers because your species needed to walk long miles to reach a mate, you would be able to pass that mutation to your progenie and they in turn would be able to better reproduce because of it and eventually that mutation would be dominant.
      That's evolution.

      September 4, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
    • skeptik0

      Stupid "duplicate comment thing!

      September 4, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
    • skeptik0

      What is the matter with this board and the duplicate comment nonsense?

      September 4, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
    • Truth

      "If a man walks on concrete without shoes he will get calluses. Is that evolution?" Obviously not.

      When a man has a tiny pit on each side of his septu.m which is lined with nonfunctioning chemoreceptors, that is evolution.

      When a man has extrinsic ear muscles which are muscles that most likely made it possible for preho.minids to move their ears independently of their heads, as rabbits and dogs do, that is evolution.

      When a man has a subclavius muscle, the small muscle stretching under the shoulder from the first rib to the collarbone which would only be useful if humans still walked on all fours, that is evolution.

      When a man has a palmaris muscle which is a long, narrow muscle that runs from the elbow to the wrist and is missing in 11 percent of modern humans. It may once have been important for hanging and climbing. Surgeons harvest it for reconstructive surgery. That is evolution.

      Male nip.ples – whens the last time you bre.ast fed? That is evolution.

      September 4, 2012 at 5:43 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.