home
RSS
Creationists hit back at Bill Nye with their own video
"The idea of deep time ... explains so much of the world around us," Bill Nye said in the viral video.
August 31st, 2012
04:34 PM ET

Creationists hit back at Bill Nye with their own video

By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

(CNN) - Bill Nye's viral YouTube video pleading with parents not to teach their children to deny evolution has spawned an online life of its own, with prominent creationists hitting back against the popular TV host.

"Time is Nye for a Rebuttal," Ken Ham the CEO of Answers in Genesis writes on his website. Answers in Genesis is the Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.

Nye's criticism of creationism went viral earlier this week, after being posted last Thursday.

"I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, that's completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that's fine. But don't make your kids do it," Nye says in his Big Think video, which has been viewed nearly 3 million times.

Ham writes that Nye is joining in with other evolutionists who say teaching children to deny evolution is a form of "child abuse." That idea comes in part from the atheist scientist Richard Dawkins, who in his book "The God Delusion" argues against exposing children to religion before they are old enough to fully understand it.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

"At AiG and the Creation Museum, we teach children and adults the truth concerning who they are in the Creator’s eyes — and where they came from," Ham writes. "We tell people that they do have purpose and meaning in life and that they were created for a purpose. "No, we are not just evolved animals as Nye believes; we are all made in the image of God."

Ham is the public face of a group that academics call Young Earth Creationists, though they prefer to be called Biblical Creationists. They believe in a literal interpretation of the creation account in the book of Genesis found in the Bible.

The Creation Museum also produced its own rebuttal video on YouTube that features two of their staff scientists, both Ph.Ds, David Menton and Georgia Purdom.

"[Nye] might be interested to know I also teach my young daughter about evolution and I know many Christian parents who do the same," Purdom says in the video. "Children should be exposed to both ideas concerning our past."

For the past 30 years, one popular method for Creationists to advance their cause has been to make an equal-time argument,with Creationism taught alongside evolution. In the late 1980s, some state legislatures passed bills that promoted the idea of a balanced treatment of both ideas in the classroom.

In 1987, the issue made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where a Louisiana "equal-time law" was struck down. The court ruled that teaching creationism in public school class rooms was a violation of the Establishment Cause in the Constitution, which is commonly referred to as the separation of church and state.

A key point between most scientists and many creationists is the timing for the origin of the world.

Your Take: 5 reactions to Bill Nye's creationism critique

Nye's argument falls in line with the vast majority of scientists, who date the age of the earth as 4.5 billion years old and the universe as 14.5 billion years old.

"The idea of deep time of billions of years explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your worldview becomes crazy, untenable, itself inconsistent," Nye says in his viral video.

Young Earth Creationists say the weeklong account of God creating the earth and everything in it represents six 24-hour periods (plus one day of rest) and date the age of the earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years.

"Yes we see fossils and distant stars, but the history on how they got there really depends on our worldview," Purdom says in the museum's rebuttal. "Do we start with man's ideas, who wasn't here during man's supposed billions of years of earth history or do we start with the Bible, the written revelation of the eyewitness account of the eternal God who created it all?"

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

Polling from Gallup has shown for the past 30 years that between 40-46% of the survey respondents believe in Creationism, that God created humans and the world in the past 10,000 years.

The most recent poll showed belief in atheistic evolution was on the rise at 16%, nearly double what it had been in previous years. The poll also found 32% of respondents believe in evolution guided by God.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • Creationism • Science

soundoff (5,973 Responses)
  1. p

    Give me a break... science IS your religion, and promulgators (or evangelists, if you will) like Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, are your popes, bishops. Darwin said as much.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:51 am |
    • Huebert

      sci·ence   /ˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled[sahy-uhns]
      noun
      1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

      re·li·gion   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn]
      noun
      1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

      Do you see the difference?

      September 7, 2012 at 10:15 am |
    • Toby

      I think they want science and religion to be separated in public schools.

      September 10, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
  2. tuvia

    --–

    WORLD VS ISRAEL. HILLARY CLINTON-THIS IS A MESSAGE FOR YOU – LET MY PEOPLE GO. FREE JONATHAN POLLARD NOW. LET MY PEOPLE GO BARRAK HUSSEIN OBAMA – NOW!
    The Land of Israel is the Promised Land given to our forefathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob and is given to us, their seed, as an everlasting
    speech
    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyBZhTaf1oU&w=640&h=360]

    September 7, 2012 at 9:50 am |
    • old ben

      This Jonathan Pollard is a traitor to the U.S. And a highly unstable lout to boot. Keep him locked up.

      And just google Richman and "red cow" to read more about this nutball.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • I Don't Get It

      What does this have to do with Bill Nye vs the creationists?

      September 7, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
  3. noob

    bill nye is an idiot plain and simple and im going to teach my children the truth so some BS made up by one man mr darwin who is now dead.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:43 am |
    • CK

      Can you specifically state what it is with evolution you have a problem with? Havent you posted before w/o following up on our responses?

      September 7, 2012 at 9:46 am |
    • old ben

      That's fine, noob. No problem. And you can let you kids play in the street – your god will watch out for them.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
    • Athy

      Noob: How could you teach your children anything? The way you write you appear to be as dumb as a door stop. Try using a little punctuation next time. Those are the funny little marks on the lower right hand part of your keyboard.

      September 7, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
  4. CK

    Since no creationist seems to be willing to debate us, I looked up a number of “facts” that creationists claim to have. Please see below and discuss. I found this off of yahoo answers who claimed to found this info from the following link:
    http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

    1) The origin of life – totally inexplicable to atheistic scientists. It has been suggested that you can put water vapour, ammonia andf carbon dioxide together under certain conditions and create an amino acid! Maybe true but that isn't life!!

    2) The Cambrian Explosion – the sudden abundance of fossils above the Precambrian / Cambrian boundary most of which have no known evolutionary ancestors! Darwin was puzzled by this problem when he wrote 'The Origin of Species'. He assumed that future fossil hunters would resolve the problem for him. 150 years later, this problem for evolutionists is as evident as ever!!

    3) The highly complex compound eyes of the trilobite, Phacops rana which are a complete engineering wonder since they are composed of single calcite prisms but have a small proportion of magnesium ions towards their outer surface that enabled them to focus as a result of a subtle change in the refractive index. But Phacops had no evolutionary ancestor that had anything LIKE this wonderful eye from which it could have evolved.

    4) No one has been able to establish how the earliest fossil amphibians such as Ichthyostega could have generated their ribs or their well developed legs. The frequent claim that these arose from an Eusthenopteron like rhipidian fish clearly has no scientific foundation.

    5) Dictyonema is a well known graptolite and yet, with its many fronds, no evolutionary palaeontologist has any idea about its ancestry as it is totally unlike other graptolites.

    6) The many unique features of the whale, make clear that it is entirely different in a number of respects from land mammals. The whale could not have evolved from land animals but must have been created separately (besides which there are no specific fossil links).

    7) The proportion of helium in the atmosphere when considering its generation from the current rate of radioactive decay in the world and the current rate of loss of the gas into space, point to a young earth as mentioned in the Bible.

    8) Tree ring data indicate that the OLDEST trees, the California Redwoods point to their establishment shortly after the biblically recorded date of Noah's Flood.

    9) A graph of population numbers over time points to the human race having arisen from a small number of people around 4500 years ago. The similarity of genetic detail in humans from different parts of the globe similarly point to recent common ancestry.

    10) Carbon 14 is MEANT to have a half-life of around 5700 years and is therefore used exclusively for archaeological dating rather than the dating of rocks. Why then, has C 14 been found in samples of Carboniferous coal and wood from Triassic Sandstones that are assumed to be from rocks over 200 million years old!! Radiometric dating of rocks is a total hoax!!

    And I'll give you a no.11. Two years ago a Tyrannosaurus femur was unearthed that still contained DNA and other soft tissue (see link below). Old earth geologists believe that the fossil was 65 million years old!! This couldn't have been so as soft tissue would never be preserved that long.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:31 am |
    • Huebert

      1) Their is no complete abiogenesis theory this does not mean that therefore "god did it.

      2) Another argument form ignorance. Just because scientist can't explain it, although I'm not sure that that is true, does not mean "god did it".

      3) Irreducible complexity argument. Which is another form of the argument form ignorance. I don't know how his happened therefore "god did it".

      4-7) More arguments from ignorance.

      8) An outright lie. Their are organisms older than the California redwoods. Their is a plant in Tasmania that is about 43000 years old, and their are Mediterranean sea grasses that is near 200000 years old.

      9) All human's do share a common ancestry, as predicted in the theory of evolution.

      10) Just because radiometric dating was wrong in one instance does not mean that it is wrong in all instances. Though this is exactly why scientist use multiple dating methods.

      11) Another argument from ignorance.

      September 7, 2012 at 10:07 am |
    • Todd

      Hubbert,

      1) Their is no complete abiogenesis theory this does not mean that therefore "god did it.

      The problem is not whether it is a "complete" theory, but how in fact does life come from non-life? Has anyone ever been able to test that? No one has ever seen something that is without life, come to life by itself. This would be like saying that all of what we see in this universe came from nothing, all by itself. It would have to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way. This is a contradiction.

      2) Another argument form ignorance. Just because scientist can't explain it, although I'm not sure that that is true, does not mean "god did it".

      To simply assert that something comes from ignorance does not make it so.

      3) Irreducible complexity argument. Which is another form of the argument form ignorance. I don't know how his happened therefore "god did it".

      As Richard Dawkins has said, "...the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker..." Since it is irreducibly complex, and it appears to have been been made with design, I must conclude that there is a designer.

      4-7) More arguments from ignorance.

      Just because this is asserted does not make it so.

      8) An outright lie. Their are organisms older than the California redwoods. Their is a plant in Tasmania that is about 43000 years old, and their are Mediterranean sea grasses that is near 200000 years old.

      Were you there when the plant in Tasmania came into being? Of course not! How does one come up with a date? By assuming that it came from that time and using the dating method that will "make it so." Assumption one – the plant must be thousands of years old, I will use this dating technique and it will give me a date that coincides with what I am assuming. (as far as the grass is concerned – same thing).

      9) All human's do share a common ancestry, as predicted in the theory of evolution.

      So, it is predicted – it is assumed that all human's share an ancestry therefore evolution is true. Where I could say, yes, all humans have the same ancestry – just as the bible declares – we all came from Adam and Eve....Same argument. Why is mine invalid?

      10) Just because radiometric dating was wrong in one instance does not mean that it is wrong in all instances. Though this is exactly why scientist use multiple dating methods.

      Once again dating methods begin with an assumption of age, as well as an assumption of what the environment was like and would do. So, when the age matches the predetermined time – WOW! look how old it is. If it is not, well I need to use a different dating method that will give me the right one...

      11) Another argument from ignorance.

      Just to state it does not make it so.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
    • CK

      “Were you there when the plant in Tasmania came into being? Of course not! How does one come up with a date? By assuming that it came from that time and using the dating method that will "make it so." Assumption one – the plant must be thousands of years old, I will use this dating technique and it will give me a date that coincides with what I am assuming. (as far as the grass is concerned – same thing).”
      From the research, I found, the scientists found the age of the plants through DNA testing. How do you know they assumed an age before they conducted the research?

      I’m might not get around to address all the points.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • Huebert

      @Todd

      Well technically it is a god of the gaps argument, which is a form of the argument from ignorance. A god of the gaps argument is a logical fallacy In which one claims that since the origins of life, or the origins of some creatures, can not be explained that therefore god is responsible for their existence. If you don't believe that the arguments presented above are god of the gaps arguments please show me where I'm wrong.

      September 7, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • Huebert

      @todd

      As far as your point 9 goes. Your argument is not invalid, but sense it would apply to both theories it doesn't support your position any more than it does mine.

      September 7, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • Todd

      Hubbert & CK,

      Thanks for responding to what I wrote. I appreciate the vein in which you both did that, in that it did not look to be condescending nor tongue-in-cheek. So again, thank you!

      I will respond as well when I can. Thanks again!

      September 7, 2012 at 3:20 pm |
    • CK

      I didnt mean any disrespect in my reply. Please do respond back when you get the chance as I enjoy the debate and your side seems to only make one post and then run off.

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

      @Todd

      I feel I should point something out.

      "As Richard Dawkins has said, "...the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker..." Since it is irreducibly complex, and it appears to have been been made with design, I must conclude that there is a designer."

      The entire Irreducable Complexity argument (IC because I'm lazy), hinges on Behe's own definition. The accepted scientific definition is not his, and he merely redefined it to suit his own theory. Take a look at the Dover case to see holes poked into the IC argument.

      September 7, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • Todd

      CK,

      I did not think you meant any disrespect, so no worries there.

      Huebert and CK,

      As I entered a response it ended up being on page 67.

      September 7, 2012 at 8:09 pm |
    • Todd

      Hawaiiguest,

      I will look at the IC 😛 thing when I can. But I still think the main point stands, that things appear to be designed because they are. Thanks for the heads up on the IC.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:49 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Todd

      Things that might appear to be designed does not automatically meant that they are. Simply stating that something is designed without presenting evidence of the designer (which we can do with any other man made object) does nothing to further the actual conversation, nor does it add to our knowledge. It's merely an assertion.
      Let me ask this, do you have an example of a non-designed universe to compare and determine design in this universe? If not, you have no point of reference.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
  5. jdupree05

    Science proves the Bible. But that's ok if you don't like that. 🙂

    September 7, 2012 at 9:21 am |
    • Huebert

      Specifically, what part of the bible does science prove.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:24 am |
    • Athy

      I don't think we're going to get an answer on this one.

      September 7, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
  6. Our Tiny Earth

    The idea of evolution versus creation shouldn't even be an issue. Even if you do believe in creation, there are mountains of evidence to prove evolution. Why can't one accept both? It would certainly be more reasonable and logical than the belief that we just appeared here 6000 years ago. Personally, I can't believe in creationism. With the amount of science out there, I'm going to stick with what's in front of me. Fact, not a poorly written story.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:14 am |
    • Counter

      If evolution is tue..macro evolution....it' was started and guided by God.

      Macro evolution.. Tha man cam from the primordial soup. Etc.. Is a educated guess and is not fact. You cannot observe macro evolution. It could be true, and I don't preclude it.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:23 am |
    • Counter

      If evolution is true..macro evolution....it' was started and guided by God.

      Macro evolution.. Tha man cam from the primordial soup. Etc.. Is a educated guess and is not fact. You cannot observe macro evolution. It could be true, and I don't preclude it.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:24 am |
    • tallulah13

      There is ample evidence for evolution by whatever qualifier you want to give it. There is not a single shred of proof for the existence of any god. All evidence indicates that the only part "god" plays is the one created to suit the cultural and emotional indoctrination of believers.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:32 am |
      • Our Tiny Earth

        I'm going to stick to science. Besides, scientists aren't as scary as clergy.

        September 7, 2012 at 9:36 am |
  7. hogwash Dao

    creationism is correct : god did created man .... after he evolved from the primordial soup of the earth 4 billions years AGO

    September 7, 2012 at 8:58 am |
  8. CK

    I voted for Bush and I believe in evolution.

    September 7, 2012 at 8:35 am |
  9. Silas Scarborough

    Creationist pseudo-science is one excellent reason to find somewhere else to live. Let them wreck America with their mumbo-jumbo as it's one of the few countries that pays any attention to them. Waste your time if you like. I'm moving out.

    September 7, 2012 at 7:51 am |
    • Arvoasitis

      The adversarial approach to science is not entirely without benefit. Don't you find that the challenges of the Creationist keep scientists on their toes?

      September 7, 2012 at 8:26 am |
    • DC non-believer

      Science keeps science on it's toes. Science doesnt need mumbo jumbo confusing the issue and forcing equal airtime to nonsense. there is enough good data and counter-opinions within science that need to be aired.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:00 am |
    • Randy

      If the creationists actually challenged scientists.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:03 am |
    • saywhaaa

      For creationists to actually challenge scientists, they would have to come up with more than just rehashed pascals wager, talking points copy pasted from answers in genesis(a black hole where intelligence goes to die), and quoting scripture at them. Unfourtunately for the creationists, this is 99.99% of what they bring to the table.

      It is challenging to scientists in the same way that it is challenging to eat a rock hard peice of stale bread.

      September 7, 2012 at 10:31 am |
  10. awasis

    Science starts with observation and facts. Creationists start with the Bible and twist things around to make it fit the Bible. Science is amendable to new facts. The Bible is amendable to no facts. One is rooted in modern understanding; one is rooted in ignorant tribal mythology.

    September 7, 2012 at 6:19 am |
    • Todd

      awasis,

      Are you sure that science starts with observation? If so, who observed the big bang? The big bang is unrepeatable, therefore, it cannot be based on science – can it? (based on your definition)

      Second, how are things dated apart from assuming what period the "dated" things are from? How is that – based on observation?

      Last, the statement, "Science is based on observation and fact," cannot be verified through observation and fact.

      September 7, 2012 at 7:52 am |
    • Arvoasitis

      In fact, the bible contains a considerable amount of history, though it is embellished at times; and yes, there is myth too. The rabbis do not accept the Torah entirely as inspired by God and have a test to eliminate what is most certainly not from God. Science, too, is regarded by some scientists as myth, and I'm not referring to the religious ones. But that does not stop them in their wor because science produces results that are relevant and useful. There are many historical cases where scientists fudged their observations to fit their theories.

      September 7, 2012 at 8:01 am |
    • Randy

      Todd, you can conclude someone was murdered after observing the knife in their back without observing the murder itself. In other words the observations don't have to be of the event itself, but can be of the effects of the event.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:10 am |
    • Todd

      Randy,

      That is true. But that is with the body and the knife and the fact that it is in the back. However, because it is a conclusion does not mean that is the only reasonable conclusion. There are other plausible explanations. Maybe they fell back on the knife after slipping on something. Just because there is a knife in the back of a person does not necessarily mean murder. Obviously, other details would need to be taken into consideration. Not all of which are physical.

      That said, I believe my point still stands. Assumptions are there – in fact there are assumptions that are not questioned in the scientific world, that are not verified through "observation and fact."

      Just because something appears to be one thing does not mean it has to be that. Even Richard Dawkins has said, "Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning."

      When he says this, I believe it is because he has an assumption – an unquestioned assumption of – there is no purpose, there is no design. And since he has this assumption – even in the face of evidence that refutes that very assumption – he must deny it and come up with another explanation. It is like the person who has a six foot bed and when guests come and use the bed if they are too short, he tries to pull them to make them fit the bed, and if they are too tall, he cuts there legs off.

      September 7, 2012 at 10:46 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      If I see a body with a knife stuck in the back and nobody else around, I can only conclude that God did it.
      There must be a Prime Stabber that set the knife in motion and that stabber is Jesus Christ.
      Luke 22:36
      "He (Jesus) said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

      September 7, 2012 at 11:46 am |
    • Todd

      Doc,

      Thanks for not answering!

      September 7, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
  11. 2357

    ENCODE is tsunami of new discoveries. Evolution will be buried is a sea of intelligent design. Run to the hills, atheists.

    September 7, 2012 at 5:43 am |
    • awasis

      You Creationists sure do like living in fantasies.

      September 7, 2012 at 6:23 am |
    • Brittany

      Sure be religious, but I personally am for progress. How can one stick so closely to a book so old. When we get a better recipe for chocolate cake we tend to throw out the old cook book. Science isn't here to antagonize religion, it is here to help us better the world. Most religions encourage followers to overpopulate and keep a closed mind. How is that progressive or healthy? The fact is that we have a scarce amount of resources and an unbelievable amount of hate. Every war I can think of has been caused over power(money) or religion(power), by simply opening our minds and realizing that we're willing to shed blood of our own species over the stem of our morals, or fear of going to hell, we could focus that energy into real current issues that aren't so self involved. Nothing I, or any other agnostic/atheist being will ever say will ever change the minds of someone religious, and vise versa, but I think we should encourage this type of critical thinking among each other. We're not allowed to teach children that storks bring babies, but we can deny them the right to choose for themselves whether or not they believe the Adulthood version of Santa Claus, your 'saviour' Jesus Christ.....

      September 7, 2012 at 9:08 am |
  12. Andypandaoh

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos&w=640&h=360]

    September 7, 2012 at 4:06 am |
  13. Dan Weeks

    The fact is, these sorry excuses for scientists of the Creation Museum completely and utterly failed to rebut Bill Nye's point. They, as usual, focused in on semantic details and parroted what I'm sure they've repeated to themselves and to their children, (who I suspect know better.) The point of Nye's plea was for the need of educated, fact-checking, critically thinking adults. It may be too late for some zealots, but there's hope in kids, unless of course you teach them to fear science and reason and to trust in faith without evidence. Neither Mentom nor Purdom addressed this concern, so I hardly call their nonsense a rebuttal. All it proves is that willful ignorance has little to do with intelligence, which is something we 'fact-believers' have known for quite some time. Pathetic.

    September 7, 2012 at 3:54 am |
    • brickphil

      WHAT PEOPLE DO NOT REALIZE IS, THE 6 DAYS ARE NOT OUR LITERAL 24HR DAYS.! jESUS LATER SPOKE SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS AFTER GENISIS WAS WRITTEN AND REFERED HIMSELF STILL LIVING IN THE 7 DAY OF GODS REST. IT IS BELIVED THESE DAYS THAT GOD INSRIRED TO WRITE ABOUT COULD HAVE BEEN SEVERAL 100'S OF THOUSANDS OF MAN YEARS. FYI

      September 7, 2012 at 7:57 am |
    • tallulah13

      I suspect that when the bible was written, everyone thought that a day meant a day. It was only when the real age of the world was discovered that the definition of "day" was changed to a metaphor by christians desperate to keep their bible relevant.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:41 am |
    • Athy

      Brickphil: Go back to school. Anyone that writes in all caps, misspells every third word and can't make any logical sense must have slept through every school session he ever attended. Your stupidity makes a banana seem smart.

      September 7, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
  14. orange

    The earth has got to be much older than what the creationists say it is. They base their assumptions on the book of Genesis and try to explain away the fossil evidence as intellectual dishonesty on the part of the scientists (the dinosaur bones were deliberately buried to make it appear that they are much older than what they actually are). It might be a plausible excuse since fossils are not that difficult to transport. But how will the creationists explain away petroleum and coal deposits. I'm not much of a science guy, but I know that it takes hundreds of millions of years for carbon based life forms to develop into coal and oil. And who in his right mind will even attempt to bury trillions of barrels of oil and trillions of tons of coal just to make it appear that they are much older that what they actually are. Of course you first have to produce the coal and oil before you can bury them.

    September 7, 2012 at 3:00 am |
    • Doug

      Reading your argument, I would respond that scientists say diamonds (carbon based) takes millions of years to create from heat and pressure of the earth yet we can produce a flawless diamond in a matter of weeks that cannot be distinguished between a mined stone. So could scientists base there findings on crude and coal based on flawed assumptions as well given a certain set of conditions?

      September 7, 2012 at 3:59 am |
    • redzoa

      The assumption of the scientists is that, absent evidence indicative of non-natural production (as is the case here), the production was natural. All you would need to do to undermine this assumption is demonstrate the presence of some non-natural artifact. To reject the scientist assumption without evidence to the contrary requires an unreasonable doubt, that is, a contrary assumption that science itself is unreliable (so unreliable as to be effectively useless). The reliability of the relevant sciences is validated by their replicable successful predictive ability, so you would need to offer plausible explanations for why geologists are so consistently "lucky" in predicting the locations of various deposits and reserves. If you choose to invoke some "magical", undetectable mechanism, well, that fails too in that magic, capable of explaining anything and everything, effectively explains nothing.

      September 7, 2012 at 4:39 am |
    • SciGuy73

      It is so adorable when religious folks try to use reason to support their arguments.

      September 7, 2012 at 7:48 am |
    • orange

      The production of artificial diamonds was a 20th century invention. The inventors had to solve many technical problems before they became successful. Every step of the process had to be precise. If they were off even by just a little, what they ended up with was a piece of graphite and not diamond.

      Why don't we do an actual experiment instead of using reason to prove something. Let us bury dead plants and animals and then dig them up after 5,000 or 10,000 years (the age of the earth according to the creationists), and see if they have turned into coal or crude. If they did, then the creationists were right after all.

      September 7, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
    • orange

      Reason should guide us in our pursuits. It is the means to an end and should not be the "be all and end all".

      September 7, 2012 at 8:19 pm |
  15. The Word

    Teaching creationism is a sin

    September 7, 2012 at 2:21 am |
  16. Joshua F

    I always struggle with this topic and I will tell you why. I am about as liberal as one could possibly believe I desire equal rites for all minorities including but not limited those in the LGBT community, political refugees and illegal immigrants. I dislike conservative policies and politicians and despise the "Tea Party" and "Neo-Conservatism. I support Obama and love his ideals. BUT !! I believe in creationism with all my heart this does not mean I do not also support the scientific truths in relation to the theory of evolution in fact I have always personally believed that the two go hand in hand like peanut butter and jelly.

    September 7, 2012 at 2:05 am |
    • KXD

      So as progressive as you claim to be you're still just an ignorant religious person following fairy tales. Truth stings sometimes.

      September 7, 2012 at 2:06 am |
    • Randy

      Josh, as a liberal and an atheist I personally don't see a problem with anyone being a liberal and a theist. In the end personal beliefs don't matter as much as actions or beliefs that affect others.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:23 am |
  17. KXD

    Doesn't anyone proof read this ?

    "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."

    Our planet might be around 4.5 billion years old but the universe itself is three times that age.

    September 7, 2012 at 2:00 am |
    • Randy

      Good catch. I didn't notice that.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:24 am |
  18. Ei

    The vast majority of scientists do not believe that the universe is 4.5 billion years old but rather somewhere between 12 and 14 billion years old. Most in fact based on observations relevant to the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, believe the age of the universe is near 13.7 billion years old.

    September 7, 2012 at 1:58 am |
  19. winstonsmith

    Uh, we're not evolved from animals because WE ARE animals. Still. Human beings are animals. Incredibly advanced animals, but animals nonetheless.

    September 7, 2012 at 1:02 am |
    • SciGuy73

      I'm not so sure about the 'incredibly advanced' part. Have you read the forums?

      September 7, 2012 at 7:50 am |
    • Randy

      While you are correct that humans are animals, your assessment that humans are incredibly advanced is completely subjective. How do you define advanced in terms of evolution? I mean, we have great cognitive abilities, and we can run for long periods, but other than that we are beat in every measurable aspect. Evolution through natural selection only concerns itself with what works, not what is more advanced.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:30 am |
  20. happytoknowJesus

    I learned that Pluto was a planet in public school

    September 7, 2012 at 12:45 am |
    • where does god go for vacation

      Is your point that because Pluto has been reclassified that all science must be wrong and the bible the only truth?
      It was probably not classified correctly when discovered (in 1930). As someone posted earlier –
      Science isn't about certainty. That's the realm of religion. Science is about being more right today than we were yesterday. It's following the internal desire we feel to grow, improve and explore the unknown.

      Science is about checking, validating, and investigating and will provide answers unlike religion with its adherence to centuries old myths.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:09 am |
    • Athy

      And that's probably all you learned. I'll bet you thought Pluto was a dog up till today.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:41 am |
    • Chasnmil

      Since vacation boy know all abou scnience. What authority are scientists working with to CHECK, VALIDATE, and INVESTIGATE the orgins of time and space. Is there a library or museum I havent hear of? We cant even get out of our own solar system yet you and Bill have all the answers on time and space. Good one!

      September 7, 2012 at 2:50 am |
    • James

      @Chasnmil

      The data, theories, and observations done by scientists are then submitted for peer review by thousands of other scientists from all over the world. The difference between science and religion is that while religion claims to know all of the answers and can never admit to being wrong, scientists routinely prove theories wrong. It is not a bad thing, it's a wonderful thing! It isn't about what we know, it's about what we don't know, and the collective process of learning more and more. Its about checking the facts, data, and observations over and over, thousands (perhaps millions) of times to make sure it is as accurate as possible.

      As for your assertion that we "can't get out of our own solar system yet you and bill have all the answers on time and space"; two things. One, no one who is is scientifically literate makes this claim, it would be preposterous for us to claim we have all the answers. Two, just because we are just barely making our way out of our solar system does not mean we cannot test things within our solar system (and observe things well outside our solar system) to collect data and develop theories and consensus. For instance, heliocentric orbit. We see it every day in our solar system, we know why it happens and can predict its outcomes very very accurately. We observe the same process and effects in other solar systems and indeed galaxies. We understand gravity, first discovered by humans here on earth and then discovered to be one of the key elements of how the planets, solar systems, and galaxies function.

      Now, ask any religious person who the first humans on earth were, they not only claim to be able to tell you when it happened, how it happened, and why it happened, but they even know the names of these people! That, to me, is ridiculous.

      September 7, 2012 at 3:50 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.