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. Propylene Glycol

    Propylene Glycol

    September 15, 2012 at 3:03 am |
  2. Propylene Glycol


    September 15, 2012 at 3:02 am |
  3. creation web freelance

    I used to be suggested this website by means of my cousin. I am not certain whether or not this post is written through him as nobody else recognize such certain approximately my difficulty. You're incredible! Thanks!

    September 12, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
  4. swb338

    Here's a thought experiment...

    We know now that time and space aren't separate things. There's a fabric called space-time and you have to visualize time as an additional dimension. For example, if you trace a square from time A to time B it looks like a cube. 3 dimensional objects also trace a path from time A to time B, but humans perceive it as time passing in one direction. But in fact, it's path has already been traced out, from billions of years in the past to billions of years in the future.

    If God created everything, he had to have existed outside of space-time. Impossible for us to understand or visualize that, but we knew from the start that we could never completely comprehend God with limited human knowledge and facilities.

    If God exists outside of spacetime, it would be a simple matter to, 6000 years ago on an imaginary timeline, create a world that already extended 5 billion years into the past and an unknown billions of years into the future? Wouldn't it also be possible to have created Adam and Eve first, from His point of view, and at some time between their creation and their expulsion retroactively created everyone else, including the people that Adam and Eve's children married, through evolution and natural processes?

    Why wouldn't this be described in the Bible? Because the Bible is the story of how God's interaction with human civilization, and if he didn't interact with the people on the other side of the creation point they wouldn't be part of the story. It's of no relevance to the Bible, who's message is to love God, love each other and follow the Law.

    Science is not the enemy of religion. Science was given to us by God to slowly, over thousands of generations, expand our comprehension of the scope of creation from the largest to the smallest. These "young earth" people are lost in several ways – they're reducing the scope of God and His creation to their limited comprehension and interpretation of both scripture and science. They're also alienating people from God by asking people to deny reality instead of working harder to apply spiritual meaning to new facts and understanding of reality as they come along.

    The God who creates an impossibly large and old world and Universe and time, and up to 11 dimensions and Quantum Mechanics, and develops biological organisms through billions of years of evolution into thinking human beings is an awsome and infinite God. A God who creates absurdities like people riding dinosaurs and a world populated by incest...not so much.

    September 10, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
    • 512thinker

      The bible isn't an eyewitness account of anything. It's a compilation of stories written well after the time when these alleged events took place by a number of different people and then translated and translated... like a really long game of telephone, and we know how well that preserves information. People also adamantly believed that the earth was flat and one could sail off of the edge of the horizon...

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

      You sound like a smart young man, but isn't the space-time fabric a human concept, used to push God further away? Where that idea of time and space being relative came from? It wasn't from an empirical observation, was it? What was the observation that led to it?

      The Universe is in fact a lot simpler than you imagine, young man.

      September 11, 2012 at 8:24 pm |
    • shewiz

      I doubt even you believe that story. It seems more implausible than the original creationist story, or intelligent design for that matter.

      September 12, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
    • sugar

      Socrates: The observation that time is relative comes from observing planetary movements and understanding that time flow changes according to where you are. It's one of the most basic principles of physics. Questioning Gods mechanics doesn't win favor in the eyes of the Lord. Oh, wait. I don't pay lip service to a Lord. And you probably won't ever understand how fantastically simple the Universe really is. It's all just energy transference. Everything around all of us. Your ilk will no doubt choose to believe that the flow of time only appears to be different because God wants it that way. Six of one, half dozen of the other. It is what we observe. If it is a message from any of the gods then they are teaching us that time is relative.

      September 12, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
    • Socrates

      Wrong answer, mr. sugar. That's how time perception might be relative, something any spirited kid trapped in a math class can tell you about.

      What I asked was where the idea of time *and space* being relative came from. What observation led to that? I know you don't know, or you would have answered correctly the first time, since it's such an obvious question for anyone who actually studied it.

      September 12, 2012 at 11:06 pm |
    • PounceT

      Spacetime is an theory who was and is proven over and over in physical experiments and mathematics (astronomy).
      I do not see your point to argue it, there are enough hard facts and repeated experiments done to establish it in full.

      September 27, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
  5. Lex

    Atheism is the wave of the future. So stop wasting time on this debate. Atheism as a respectable cause is where gay righs were in the mid-1990's. Obama respects atheists at the table of religion. Why not?

    September 10, 2012 at 9:22 am |
  6. apples are red, oranges are ...

    Religion needs a major upgrade to keep up with the changing times, but don't expect the religious leaders to lead in the upgrading. They are contented with the way things are and they would resist any effort to change the status quo. The effort must come from the religious folks, that is if they want to. But if they are contented with the way things are, so be it.

    September 9, 2012 at 11:23 pm |
    • Athy

      Hell, they've had nearly 2000 years to update their dogma and haven't done so. Do you really think the next 2000 years are going to be any different? Religion is like a tortoise racing in the Indy 500. They're still stuck at the starting line

      September 10, 2012 at 1:38 am |
  7. md2205

    For more clarity concerning the interplay between religion and science and more explanation of why evolution is not a fact or even a theory, please read Torah and Science: Their Interplay in the World Scheme, by Yehuda Levi, past rector and professor of electro-optics at Jerusalem College of Technology, published 2006 by Feldheim Publishers.

    For better understanding of these issues and other issues in the modern world, or to get a better understanding of Jewish issues, please visit http://www.chabad.org. There is a lot of information on the website, and you can search any topic you want to know more about if you don't see it as you meander around the website.

    September 9, 2012 at 9:29 pm |
  8. md2205

    While some scientists wish to portray Darwinian evolution as a fact to answer how the world came to be and how life came to be, in fact, it is not so. Evolution defined as the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations is a fact. To continue from there to say that life came into existence by this process and developed all species is not fact and not even theory.

    Why not? In the several centuries that we have been making detailed biological observations, and in thousands of years of selectively breeding plants and animals, we have not seen any Darwinian evolution in the lab, farm or field. That does not mean it could not happen; it just means that we have no direct evidence of it ever having happened.

    So what is the scientific status of Darwinism, or macroevolution, i.e., the idea that all living species evolved from a common origin through random mutation and natural selection?

    Can we say that it is a fact? Well, if we define 'fact' as that which has been empirically observed, then no.

    Can we say it is a theory? Well, if a theory is an idea which generates falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested through experimentation, then once again the answer is no. The normative use in science of the term 'theory' involves the necessity to be able to disprove it through experimental observations. We cannot call macroevolution a scientific theory because we cannot go back in time to make the necessary observations that would either support or refute it.

    If macroevolution is not a scientific fact and not a scientific theory, then what is it?

    Science progresses using inductive reasoning, that is, rational inferences from what is known or observed to what is not known, or what has not been observed. But within scientific inference, there are stronger and weaker methods.

    To infer from the known to the unknown, it is more reliable to use interpolation than extra-polation. If one measures a variable quanti-ty at two points, one will be more secure in esti-mating the situation at some intermediate point between the measurements than beyond the range of observation.

    For instance, consider the relationship of temperature and density in water. If we know the density of water at 4 degrees C and 99 degrees C, and then try to predi-ct the density at other temperatures, we will be tremendously better off interpolating the density between the two temperatures than extra-polating even one or a few degrees outside this range. That is because with one added degree of heat, the water va-porizes and the density cra-shes, while at the other end, co-oler water becomes less dense instead of more dense, an ano-maly in all of nature. A few degrees co-oler than that yields a solid, ice, which unlike any other solid form is actually less dense than its liquid form.

    But evolution is based on the weaker inferential method of extra-polation and not the stronger method of interpolation. Scientists have been studying or-ganisms in the lab, field, and fossil record for only two or three centuries, and yet we attempt to make conclusions over 100's of millions of years. These are not modest extra-polations, but very big ones.

    Within inferences based on extra-polation, we again have two types: forward and backward. When we extra-polate forward from a known present to an unknown future, our inferences are much more secure than when we use the same means to infer backwards into an unknown past, especially a distant past.

    To exemplify forward extra-polation, imagine we have two numbers, two and three, which will interact and produce some result. Depending on whether we add, subtract, multi-ply, divide, take roots or exponents, we will get a small range of possible results based on extra-polation forward from known conditions.

    If, however, we end with the numbers two and three, and try to extra-polate backward, i.e., to determine which numbers have combined and in what way to yield these two numbers, we will be confronted by a truly infinite number of possibilities. Backward extra-polation is a far more uncertain and variable method than forward extra-polation.

    All fossil and rock dating techniques rely on the uniformitarian principle, and yet every worker in the field believes that it been vio-lated in significant ways, rendering calculations immensely va-gue.

    The most common of these methods is carbon dating. This involves comparing the relative amounts of two forms (isotopes) of carbon in the fossilized remains. The idea is that while the or-ganism was alive it had a known amount of each type of carbon, but that once it has died, the amount of one type of carbon decreases at a known rate through a process of radioactive decay. This would allow the scientist to calculate the age of the fossil.

    One problem with this is that the relative amounts originally in the living or-ganism depend on environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, radiation, and magnetic fields, solar flux, and ambient levels of or-ganic comb-ustion, all of which have been subject to change to an unknown degree in the distant past. Consequently, experts continually revise their opinions and frequently disagree about dates, with high and low esti-mates varying by as much as twenty times and more.

    Rocks are dated in a similar way using elements other than carbon, and these dates are even more variable. In fact, the very same rock dated with different elements, samarium and pota-ssium, have given results that vary by one billion years. Considering that the lower age esti-mate was somewhat over half a billion years, the margin of error was even more than the esti-mated age.

    Evolutionists have themselves noted these glaring flaws in Darwinian theory and have sought to deal with them in the manner of Stephen J. Gould, who has suggested that speciation is a sudden and dramatic event which therefore does not show up in the fossil record. Gould states that "the fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change," and then proposed that "macroevolution proceeds by the rare success of these hopeful monsters, not by continuous small changes within populations."

    It sounds nice, but from a scientific standpoint, the fatal objection to his punctuated equilibrium notion is the absolute lack of any concei-vable mechanism by which the necessary genetic and or-ganic changes could occur.

    In addition are the unanswered challenges to macroevolution posed by information theory and molecular genetics by scientists such as Lee Spetner in prestigious journals such as Science and the Journal of Theoretical Biology. Spetner's calculations show that billions of years are insufficient to evolve even one new species, and yet not one scientist has ever even attempted to refute his arguments in a scientific journal.

    In a recent book, Spetner calculates the likelihood of one species evolving from another at no better than 1:102738. This is comparable to the probability of every person on the planet buying six billion lottery tickets every day and the same person winning every day for a year. Of course, everyone would agree that such an eventuality would be impossible.

    Many, if not most, leading scientists agree. Royal Society astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle says that a tornado generating a jet in a junkyard is more likely than one species evolving from another. Nobel Prize-winning chemist Harold Urey, famous for his role in recreating the building blocks of life from inor-ganic matter, has been widely quoted that "all of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere."

    And, there is the biochemical challenge to evolution. When Darwin proposed his theory, no scientist could imagine the incredible chemical intricacies underlying every biological process. This posed a new problem for the Darwinists: irreducible complexity. This means that if any one of dozens of key elements of a biochemical process would be missing, the entire process would simply shut down. Just as the dysfunction of one small screw could destroy a jetliner, so too one missing chemical can terminate an essential life process such as photosynthesis, respiration, blood clotting, or reproduction.

    This is an impossible outcome for Darwinian evolution. Macroevolution requires a progression of one beneficial mutation after another, with each generation becoming more fit and more developed than the previous one, until more complex or-ganisms evolve from simpler ones.

    However, this is illogical. Just a wing of a bird would be a great liability as it is developing until it would develop into something useful, and the bird with the wing that is in development stages would be slow and awkward and get eaten faster. If an irreducibly complex system of, say, ten elements is to evolve, then element one has to add some fitness, element two has to add some fitness, and so on until all the parts are in place. The problem with the complex system is that elements one, two, three… and nine do not add any survivorship to the species, and there is no natural selection favoring those intermediate stages. On the contrary, they will be selected against. Thus irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve into existence, and therefore higher life forms cannot evolve from simpler ones.

    While scientists "believe in" the accuracy of carbon dating, Torah does not. That is because the Torah clearly states that during the great flood 4000 years ago, not only did rain fall from the sky, but extremely hot water came up from below the earth. Thus the earth was cooking for forty days, and that refutes the "uniform conditions" theory, the premise that conditions on earth were always exactly the same, upon which carbon dating is based. It is comparable to scientists measuring and proving how many days or weeks it took for the water in an empty pan to evaporate, but being blissfully unaware that at some point it had a fire under it and so the process took only minutes.

    But let's even agree that the bones test out older than 6000 years. There can be more than one conclusion to draw from that: they do not have to be older than 6000 years.

    It says in Genesis that on the sixth day G-d created adult man and woman. The subsequent verses describe what these do the day they were created, talking about fully-grown adults, not babies, even if they were indeed only one day old. In other words, they already “looked” older than they were.

    In addition, "G-d said, 'Let the earth bring forth…fruit trees,' and it was so." (Gen. 1:11) This took place on day three: Full-grown trees already producing fruit. But if a scientist came along with Adam on the sixth day and carbon-dated the trees or measured their rings, what conclusions would he draw about their age? Would you believe him when he announced they are dozens or more years old and agree with him when he laughed at Adam who would have insisted they were only three days old?

    Not only that: There is a professor who was a student at a major North American university. He decided he would like to see for himself how accurate are the methods of dating fossil remains. He purchased from the local Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals the remains of a recently deceased dog and buried them in his back yard. Several years later, he decided to call academic experts in paleontology, geology, and zoology to find out about the bones he decided to dig up. All the experts agreed that the remains were that of a dog, but beyond that there was not much consensus. Questions of how heavy the animal was, how old at death, and for how long it had been buried got answers that varied by factors of 2 to 4 times. If this is the uncertainty over a period of a few years, imagine what is the case with purported periods of centuries, millennia, or millions of years.

    September 9, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
    • Athy

      Man, that's the highest pile of bullshit i've ever had the pleasure of not reading.

      September 10, 2012 at 12:08 am |
  9. Allen Ortega

    "You speak as if you knew everything on God and science, but unfortunately you do not offer proof that you know anything on either".

    Thank you Mr. Nye for your opinion. I chose to forgive you for your baseless remarks on God. I have a few questions for you. a. if you are a scientist and talk in a way as if you knew everything on God, why would you not prove to us the existence of everything? b. why don't you offer scientific proof on why we have feelings, why we have imagination that creates, why we are able to connect with people, why humans display leadership?

    Maybe because you do not have the scientific answer to these questions.

    It is the very essence of Jesus' leadership that has allowed humans to have some sort of order, and have some sort of a good world. As a scientist who speaks as if you knew everything on God and science, I ask you: Why have you not discovered eternal energy, eternal travel? Maybe if you did, Mr. Nye, this world would be better. But you haven't, and you can't. So why don't you dedicate yourself to your craft, keep baseless opinions to yourself, and let everybody work on making this world better.

    Because it is only through imagination, love, passion and leadership that we can be better, and you unfortunately do not know anything and everything about God.

    September 9, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • itsallaloadofbollocks

      I see no evidence in your post that refutes the mountain of evidence for evolution; neither do I see any evidence supporting creationism. So why do you think creationism should be taught as science?

      September 9, 2012 at 4:39 pm |
    • old ben

      "It is the very essence of Jesus' leadership that has allowed humans to have some sort of order"

      That's the most complete self-validating rubbish I have read on here this afternoon. Sure if Jesus existed and said the things attributed to him, I would say that as a normal man, he had some decent morals and ideals. But all of religion is BS – fable at best, but most likely political fable. So everything else you said doesn't matter because of your JC delusion.

      September 9, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
    • Athy

      Man, what a bunch of illogical bullshit. That's like saying they call a horse a horse because he looks like a horse.

      September 9, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
    • Yikes

      I believe you completely missed the mark on what he was saying. I suggest you watch that video again. Never did he suggest that he had the answers to 'eternal life, etc'. For those who believe that there is any actual fact or truth in the bible...I weep for your idiocy. The answers to creationism is "Why? Well...because this old book says so." Amazing

      September 11, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
  10. Anthony Mannucci

    I would suggest that we can still be made in God's image, and we need not deny the existence of evolution. Let's study the material world and evolution. How we are made in God's image is more of a mystery. When a religious person says "we are made in God's image", they are not contradicting evolution because their statement is not about physics. It has another meaning. I have never seen a religious person explain their statement from a physics perspective, so there is no contradiction here. It's OK to teach evolution and believe we are made in God's image. How exactly that has happened? I must be honest and answer that I don't know.
    -Anthony Mannucci (see the recent post at my blog embracetheinfinite.com).

    September 9, 2012 at 8:13 am |
    • Athy

      It's the other way around. We "made" our imaginary god in our image.

      September 9, 2012 at 5:01 pm |
    • Toby

      Where is your proof that God is imaginary? I’m a religious person but I can admit that I cannot prove the existence of God. Therefore, I don’t go around saying, “God definitely exists.” Since you do make claims that God doesn’t exist, then why don’t you back that up with proof?

      September 10, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • Athy

      Total lack of proof that there is a god is good enough for me. Likewise, there is no proof that there is a goose that lays golden eggs, and that pretty much proves to me that there is no such a thing. I could go on forever with such examples. Just because there are many deluded cross clutchers doesn't sell it to me. Truth is not established by popular vote.

      September 10, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
    • Joe

      If there is no God then how do you explain the stigmata of Padre Pio?

      September 10, 2012 at 9:13 pm |
  11. don't click here

    Thank you a lot for sharing this with all people you actually know what you're talking about! Bookmarked. Kindly also talk over with my web site =). We can have a link alternate arrangement between us

    September 9, 2012 at 12:30 am |
  12. aj

    It is wrong to just teach Evolution in schools. We need to be balanced. So that means we also teach Creationsim as well as the creation stories of Islam and Bhuddism. After all, this is all about showing the different possibilities right?

    We should also teach evolution in a balanced way in Churches.

    September 8, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • Athy

      What we should teach in schools is knowledge as gained by the scientific methods, including observations, experimental results and peer-reviewed conclusions. Creation fails on all counts.

      September 8, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
    • Kenchandammit

      Balanced with WHAT? On the evolution side we have the weight of 10 tons of evidence, and on the creation side we have 'somebody said so'. 'Creation' is religion. Teach it in church if you want. But leave the schools alone to teach science. The schools will agree to keep their science out of your church.

      September 9, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
  13. rlbaty

    Ken Ham challenged Bill Nye to a debate, even while Ken Ham continues to run from me and my proposal that he "come out" and "come clean" regarding his positions relating to my argument that so many of his followers rail against but which quite properly is able to demonstrate why it is, in part, that young-earth creation-science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

    Here's one place where I have responded to Ken Ham's challenge to Bill Nye:


    September 8, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
  14. tony

    It's just sooooo simple. Religion is the worship of being unbelievably stupid. No more, know less.

    September 8, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
    • LEONARD87

      How old was Adam when he was created. He might look 18 years old by being 5 feet 10 inches tall but actually he was just one second old because God just created him. Every scientist knows that he must be 18 years old by his appearance. Maybe God is smarter than you think.

      September 8, 2012 at 10:10 pm |
    • itsallaloadofbollocks

      @leonard. fyi there were no cameras then. the images yoyu see are from the imagination of mainly italian artists.

      September 9, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
  15. Todd


    As far as the assumptions in DNA testing (Above you mentioned radiometric dating which is absolutely based on assumptions) But since you then mentioned you have read up on how DNA is used this would be my answer – I surmise that the same way other dating methods are used – that DNA has with it, it's own assumptions. Do I have "hard evidence"? No I do not. And I must admit I have not heard of how DNA is used to determine age. But I do have questions regarding it. First, where is the DNA found? Is it found in a certain strata that is assumed to be so many years old already? And in finding the DNA in the fossils of the strata, then what is used to independently verify the age? Is the age of the DNA dependent on the strata it is found in, or in the fossils it is found in?

    Also, I am not able to find something on the process they use to determine the age of DNA – can you point me to a source. Thank you..


    As far as the "God of gaps" is concerned – you are right – it does not follow that simply because one cannot explain things in a naturalistic way because of a lack of "evidence" does not mean that, "God did it."

    However, as far as evidence is concerned there needs to be a definition. Also, if I point to the world in which we live and say that there is evidence everywhere that God is – including you, is that evidence that you would accept? If not, what type of evidence would you accept?

    How does one go on to prove to you or present evidence to you that God exists? Is the existence of God (now when I say God – I do not mean a generic God. I mean the God of the Bible, the one who has revealed himself in his word the bible, sent his Son to die for sinners of which I am one of the worst. He is transcendent, yet immanent, he is holy and just and loving and righteous, and good and merciful and kind. He is able to communicate and does communicate through creation and his word – just so you know where I am coming from) proven in the same way as everything else to you? (through the scientific method {empiricism}).

    September 7, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
    • hawaiiguest


      The god of the bible is inherently contradictory, and therefore cannot exist. Also, existence itself is not evidence of a god.

      September 7, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
    • Damocles


      Do you believe your deity is everything?

      September 7, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
    • bubba's left foot

      Presuming a creator – How do you know that the god of the bible is that creator and not Zeus or Odin or Brahma or any of the 1000s of other gods

      September 7, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    • Todd


      The god of the bible is inherently contradictory, and therefore cannot exist. Also, existence itself is not evidence of a god.
      I think you would know it is one thing to assert that something is contradictory and another thing to show it. Let me ask you what is the definition of contradiction, is it something like – A cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. Or is there another definition of contradiction you would be coming from? And if a contradiction is that, where do you see the God of the bible be and not be at the same time and in the same way? And, by the way, are you of the empiricist sort, or what is your worldview? Thanks!


      Do you believe your deity is everything? – No, I am not pantheistic.

      bubba's left foot

      Presuming a creator – How do you know that the god of the bible is that creator and not Zeus or Odin or Brahma or any of the 1000s of other gods. – I presume this, because as the Bible assumes that God is, and this is no generic God but is specific in revealing who he is. By the way, we all have assumptions – we just need to be honest with them. At least, I think we should. And I think that if someone reads the bible, taking in everything that it says about God, and not isolate texts from their immediate context, nor from the context of the whole, then you see a view of God that is different than any other gods that men have imagined. (Now, I do not say that as if I am perfect in my understanding – because I am not. And I don't say that to mean that I have not attempted to fashion God in my own image – because I have. I say that because as I look into it more, I see a vast difference between the Greek gods, or any other god, and the God of the Bible.)

      September 7, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
    • bubba's left foot

      I think the most informative part of your response is where you say that man imagined god.
      My question was more about – why your god; can you enumerate why you chose your god over, say, the Norse gods, or the Hindu gods, or the native american gods.

      September 8, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • Todd

      bubba's left foot

      I think the most informative part of your response is where you say that man imagined god.
      My question was more about – why your god; can you enumerate why you chose your god over, say, the Norse gods, or the Hindu gods, or the native american gods.

      If there is one true God, then any other god is false. Does this assume the existence of the God of the bible yes it does. What specifically is it about the God of the Bible that is better than any other god – The God of the Bible is transcendent, yet imminent. He is holy and just, yet gracious and merciful. He is sovereign and good. And he displays his goodness in the death of his son Jesus Christ. Because Jesus willingly took my sin and the penalty that I deserve for my sin upon him and undertook the full wrath of God – so that I, who was once an enemy, would be a son to him.

      There is no other god of man's imagination that comes close to the God of the bible. A God who sacrificed his greatest treasure, so that those who were once enemies could be his sons and daughters. The Norse gods did nothing like this. Neither the Hindu gods, nor the Native American gods (However, since there is one true God, any other so-called god is by definition false).

      September 8, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Rediometric dating is based on assumptions? Yes, it is. Assumptions like "we have measured radioactive decay many, many times and have never once measured any difference in the rate so we assume that Bubba the Big Guy Upstairs doesn't vary it outside the testing parameters just to confuse humans.

      September 8, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • Todd

      "Rediometric dating is based on assumptions? Yes, it is. Assumptions like "we have measured radioactive decay many, many times and have never once measured any difference in the rate so we assume that Bubba the Big Guy Upstairs doesn't vary it outside the testing parameters just to confuse humans."

      When dating something – are the original amounts of mother and daughter elements known or assumed? How does one know what those elements were if they were not there to test it? How do you know the rate of decay has been constant over the millions of years without assumption? And how is it known that it has been in a closed system, not interacting with other systems?

      So it is clear that at the very beginning – assuming the amounts of mother to daughter elements – that assumptions are made. Assumptions are a basic part of science, there is no doubt. But it undermines the very principle of science itself – that what can be known comes through study and observation, to assume anything flies in the face of this basic tenet.

      September 9, 2012 at 9:57 am |
    • Todd


      One more thing, the principle that things can only be known through emprical observation – cannot be verified through emprical observation.

      September 9, 2012 at 10:01 am |
  16. CK

    I know that the creationists believe that the stars we see in the sky are not actually there. They claim that they have all died out and we only see them b/c of the delayed time from when the star burnt out and the time the light travels to earth. Is there any truth to this?

    September 7, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • Athy

      No. Virtually all the stars that we can see are within our own galaxy and therefor the travel time of their light is but a tiny fraction af a star's lifetime. But the dimwit creationists will make up some bullshit story to justify their mindless position.

      September 7, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      I've heard them say that god is all-powerful therefore bent the laws of physics to make the light appear as it does now (i.e., 6k years ago.) He created a physically "mature" universe, with grown up creatures and trees and whatnot. As you might expect, there are no mathematical equations to explain how light could be 13.75 billion light years from its source of origin in an instance... but hey... why do we need maths. We have god.

      September 7, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • Athy

      Yeah, with "god" on your side you can just invent your own physics.

      September 7, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
  17. CK

    Very entertaining video involving Ken Hovind and I believe a Graduate biology student. I presume that this was supposed to be a debate but Hovind gets squashed on each and every point he makes. Then, when he has no response, he quickly and smoothly moves onto the next point, ignoring the fact that he never responded to what the real expert had to say.

    I don’t know why anyone would debate Hovind on the topic. Does they really expect to change his mind?


    September 7, 2012 at 11:24 am |
    • GodFreeNow

      Yeah, this is great. Thanks for posting.

      September 7, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
  18. Frank, Mechanicsburg, PA

    "the Bible, the written revelation of the eyewitness account of the eternal God who created it all"
    What eyewitnesses?

    September 7, 2012 at 10:47 am |
    • Jesus

      Um mathew, John, Peter, Paul,, and Luke who interviewed the many eye witnesses....

      September 7, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • Frank, Mechanicsburg, PA

      Thank you, Jesus! But I was refering to the 6th Day!

      September 7, 2012 at 11:39 am |
    • 2357

      There are angels and divine creatures who serve at the throne of God. Four of the creatures are full of eyes inside and out. These and a legion of angelic beings, probably with Satan in charge of all, executed the commands of the Creator in the Beginning. Eyewitnesses, every one of them. They are still executing orders, even now. God is still creating. And all the demons balk and say thus:

      September 7, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
    • bubba's left foot

      @2357. Where is the evidence for any of what you've posted.

      September 7, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      2357 is smokin' the REALLY good stuff...

      September 7, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
  19. Proud Atheist

    "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?"

    There are established scientific methods and principals that can PROVE that other creatures roamed this planet, LONG before the arrival of man, which completely contradicts the whole 6 days argument provided in the bible. I'm not going to sit here and say that I KNOW how old the planet is. Anyone that does is either lying, or deranged. However, I WILL go on record as saying that the bible's rendition is completely false.

    So I'm going to start with "Man's idea".

    September 7, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • Those Who Fail History

      There is no doubt that there are creatures that lived at the time as man but it is difficult to prove that they lived after man when you find things like dinosaurs with fully intact muscles and organs. Personally, I find it hard to prove that either evoloution or Creationism are realistic,which is why I hate these arguments as it is basically proving from the Bible or from some prominent scientist, with anti-Christian leanings, when neither side believes the others source as legitimate.

      September 7, 2012 at 10:43 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Those who fail, there have been no "dinosaurs with fully intact muscles and organs" found actually.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:00 pm |
  20. Charles

    Is it too hard to just admit that we don't know how we started? We can make good guesses but that is all. Religious books were written by men who were far less advanced than we are now, so the odds of them being accurate are pretty slim. I'll go along with the I don't know theory until I can get my time machine working.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:06 am |
    • Who hasn't?

      Good thing evolution doesn't speak to how we started, only to how life changed across time and generations AFTER life started. Scientists WILL tell you we don't yet know how life started, though there are working hypotheses being researched as we speak.

      September 14, 2012 at 10:54 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.