 |
|
|
|
|
October 9th, 2013
02:27 PM ET
Creationists taunt atheists in latest billboard warBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor (CNN)– A new video billboard in New York's Times Square has a message from creationists, "To all of our atheist friends: Thank God you're wrong." The video advertisement at 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan is one of several billboards going up this week in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, paid for by Answers in Genesis. Answers in Genesis is best known as the multimillion-dollar Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum outside Cincinnati. The museum presents the case for Young Earth creationism, following what it says is a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, which says the Earth was created by God in six days less than 10,000 years ago. Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, said the idea for the advertisements came from an atheist billboard in Times Square at Christmas. During the holidays, the American Atheists put up a billboard with images of Santa Claus and Jesus that read: "Keep the Merry, dump the myth." “The Bible says to contend for the faith,” Ham said. “We thought we should come up with something that would make a statement in the culture, a bold statement, and direct them to our website. "We're not against them personally. We're not trying to attack them personally, but we do believe they're wrong," he said. "From an atheist's perspective, they believe when they die, they cease to exist. And we say 'no, you're not going to cease to exist; you're going to spend eternity with God or without God. And if you're an atheist, you're going to be spending it without God.' " Dave Silverman, president of the American Atheists, said he felt sad for creationists when he saw the billboards. "They refuse to look at the real world. They refuse to look at the evidence we have, and they offer none," Silverman said. "They might as well be saying, 'Thank Zeus you're wrong' or 'Thank Thor you're wrong.' " Silverman said he welcomed another competitor to marketplace, noting that after atheists bought a billboard two years ago in Times Square that read "You KNOW it's a myth," the Catholic League purchased competing space at the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel for a sign that read "You KNOW it's true." "I would suggest, if they're actually trying to attract atheists, they should talk about proof and reason to believe in their god, not just some pithy play on words," Silverman said. Ham says part of the goal of the campaign is to draw people to the website for Answers in Genesis, where he offers a lengthy post on his beliefs for the proof of God. Ham insists that this campaign is in keeping with their overall mission. "We're a biblical authority ministry. We're really on about the Bible and the Gospel. Now, we do have a specialty in the area of the creation account and Genesis because that's where we say God's word has come under attack." Ham said Answers in Genesis made the decision to split its marketing budget for the ministry between a regional campaign for the museum and this billboard campaign, rather than a national campaign. IRS filings for the ministry in recent years have shown a yearly operating budget of more than $25 million. Ham said the marketing budget is about 2% of that, about $500,000 a year. Though they are waiting for all the bills to come due for this campaign, he said he expected it to cost between $150,000 and $200,000. Silverman noted that his billboards were not video and cost approximately $25,000 last year. He said another campaign was in the works for this year. "They're throwing down the gauntlet, and we're picking it up," Silverman said, adding that his group would "slap them in the face" with it. Ham said that despite criticism from other Christians for being negative and the usual criticisms from secularists he received on his social media accounts, the advertisements have been a success. "We wanted people talking about them, and we wanted discussion about this. We wanted people thinking about God," Ham said. The Creation Museum and the theory of Young Earth creationism are widely reviled by the broader science community. In a YouTube video posted last year titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children," Bill Nye the Science Guy slammed creationism, imploring parents not to teach it to their children. "We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future," he said. "We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems." The museum responded with its own video. For the past 30 years, Gallup Inc. has been tracking American opinions about creationism. In June 2012, Gallup's latest findings showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution. For as long as Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years. The Creation Museum said it recently welcomed its 2 millionth visitor since its opening in 2007. soundoff (8,748 Responses)« Previous 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 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Next »
« Previous entrySenate chaplain: Shutdown is 'madness'
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
The Scopes Trial decision of 1925 caused the subject of evolution to become very rare in American secondary biology textbooks for a generation, but it was gradually re-introduced later and became legally protected with the 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas decision. Since then, the competing religious belief of creationism was legally disallowed in secondary school curricula in various decisions in the 1970s and 1980s, but it returned in pseudoscientific form as intelligent design, to be excluded once again in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU
It takes tremendous faith to believe in evolution!
Actually, it takes roughly a third grade education in a school district outside of Texas to believe in evolution.
It only takes understanding and education to accept evolution as a well-substantiated explanation for how nature works.
wow, howie.....that is very clever, and we certainly have never heard that one before
\
Howard, I understand you. I really do. Arguing on "faith" is a rather weak and lame way to make a point, so I truly understand your feeble attempt to associate science with faith, too. But it really doesn't work.
I am amused by creationist that tell Atheists that our lives are meaningless without the teachings of a church. We should learn from a church how to act in life.
IMPORTANT FUNDAMENTAL POINT HERE, we do not depend upon a mass group of church goers suffering from a delusional existence finding strength in large numbers of others. Likewise, we do not need leaders to tell us what to think. We are not sheep, you creationists are.
We think for ourselves and realize what is real and what is fiction, based upon OUR brain processing power, NOT what others tell us. I myself do have beliefs based upon life and society that I appreciate. I am very good to others, I am not a criminal and do not break any (well.. many) laws. I love all life around me, including animals, trees, plants, flowers. I marvel at the wonders of the universe, molecular science and theoretical physics. I wish we could discover life in other solar systems, I feel that it exists.
I like to read about the thoughts of authors such as Einstein, Tesla, Michio Kaku, Dalai Lama, Alan Turing, Steve Jobs and others.
I really feel sorry for those of you that base your entire life upon a fictional story taught to you by some preacher who has no insight, power or ability .. other than being able to speak to large rooms of people and control their thought process.
I'm not totally sure who said this ... I think it was from a Dan Barker book.
I just love it though
"Don't bow down and cower in the immense shadow of this universe. Stand up and claim your place in it.
Be the opposite of those who glance up at the night sky and feel small. Look upand be a giant because you are a part of it all.
Furthermore, you are special BECAUSE you are a thinking and creative life form, you are one of the most fortunate collection of
atoms in all the universe."
If nothing ever pop into existence from nothing then where did God get the universe from? ex nihlo?
guess ur right. never thought of that. god must have gods. prolly 1,000s cause god is huge. wow
thanks
Actually, many simply try to convince everyone that we don't know where the universe came from, not yet anyway.
Creationalists don't believe in what science has proven and Athiest don't believe in what no one has proven. So how can the Creationists say anyone is wrong or right, they don't believe in what they can see!
What the hell is a "creationalist? ?
@Scott,
Evolutionists say "from nothing, everything has come to be". Where is the science you're talking about?
Not sure what exactly an "evolutionist" is, but the scientific theory of evolution only explains the diversity of life since life began, not 'where everything came from'.
Where did everything come from? That's THE question, isn't it?
Religionists say "god made it".
And where did god come from? "Well it was always there. Don't ask questions."
Rationalists say, if one thing was always there, then another thing could have always been there. If another thing was always there, then any other thing could have always been there. If anything could have always been there then everything could have always been there. It is unnecessary, useless, and overly complicating to add another step with no reasonable proof. God is therefore a baroque curlique – an extraneous concept.
As for the question of where did everything come from? A rationalist's answer is a much more honest one: "I don't know. But let me ask questions and try to find out."
As far as the vicious Fire Monster that burns you up if you don't do exactly as you are told by old men in ugly dresses, well..... that's an obvious attempt by old men in ugly dresses to control the thoughts, behavior, and property of others. Especially others who are women.
Recycling may seem like a relatively recent phenomenon in today’s world, but archeologists are discovering that our prehistoric ancestors lived a green lifestyle. According to growing evidence, they recycled the objects they used in their daily lives, creating new utensils from broken tools made of flint or bone.
A conference called “The Origins of Recycling” this week in Tel Aviv, Israel brought together nearly 50 scholars from 10 countries to discuss the ancient recycling phenomenon. Archeologists at the meeting shared their discoveries of recycled tools at sites in Spain, North Africa, Italy and Israel dating as far back as 1.3 million years ago.
Not only humans but also their predecessors recycled tools as a survival strategy. “Why do we recycle plastic? To conserve energy and raw materials. In the same way, if you recycled flint you didn’t have to go all the way to the quarry to get more so you conserved your energy and saved on the material,” Avi Gopher, a Tel Aviv University archeologist, told the Associated Press.
Flint was probably like gold back then.... actually better than gold.
the hacker using this name is under investigation
Youtube – Neil DeGrasse Tyson – The Perimeter of Ignorance
Ok, so, you claim God created everything, therefore you have two proofs before you: first, you need to prove God exists, and then second, you need to proved that God created the universe. If you can do those two things, with evidence, you'll have a bunch of converts as well as people of all religions affirming Christianity as their faith. So, please present your two cases with evidence....
nah
y do u want to no?
Yes, Dorothy the Jerk, y do u care?
Someone has sprayed diazinon on the mound. Your fellows are thrashing, curling up and dying all around you. You decide to go and try to save the Queen. You will not make it.
samo is their lord and curly is a better choice than that non-existent iron age immoral sheep luver
Her various troll names:
pas
dodo murdock
lulu
bootyfunk (stolen)
slappy
love
tt
point being
louie
cherrie
prophet
Dr E
kati
sam tone
blessed
Meredith S. (Stolen from a 9/11 widow!!
doodoo
bingo
wary
alaqeada
sam stone (stolen)
al
observer
sammy
karie
bethany
barry
blake
faith
hharri
charlie
terry
mary
yudhisthira mahabharata jr
eddie
tex
dewie
Pharisee DM
I really like it. When some can explain to me what's been going on with world history. Now I know, 10,000 years old. So when you blockheads tell this story, do other blockheads believe you? I think were talking about a blockhead syndrome that will have to be dealt with. The sun must have been in everybodies eyes that day. So they would,kt see god laying this carpet out. Creationist can create stuff, that will fit any time in history, just no dinosaurs please.
Paul
"@Angus,
Did you catch the fallacy in that video?
Here's what the guy said:
"Evolution argues that we share a common anscestor with the great apes: the chimpanzee, the gorilla, and the orangutan. Well if that's true, there should be genetic similarities. In fact there are."
Let me break it down for you:
If P, then Q.
Q,
Then P
That's the fallacy of affirming the consequent."
Paul, in philosophy you are correct; in science you are wrong. Genetic similarities do not "prove" absolutely the existence of a common ancestor. Philosophically speaking, it is possible that aliens or god or the spaghetti monster could have created the apes and humans with genetic similarities and it is possibly coincidental (though astronomically unlikely). This would indeed be an example of affirming the consequent.
However, science is rather incapable of establishing absolute proofs. Just because I have thrown a ball in the air a million times doesn't mean that the ball will fall the next time. A theory is not a proof - it is well-substantiated explanation of related natural phenomena. In the case of evolution, this encompasses pretty much all of biology. Theories are never proven in the philosophical sense, a theory never becomes a scientific law, etc. They can only be supported by evidence. For example, the theory of gravity predicts that planets will orbit the sun. We have observed planets orbiting the sun. Therefore, the planetary motions SUGGESTS that the theory of gravity is true.
It is not "If P, then Q. Q is observed, then P is true."
Instead, "If P is true, Q is predicted. Q is observed, this suggests P is true."
Except theories are normally not this narrow. Usually,
"If P, then A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P....."
Theories can also be disproven, and this often results in a noble prize for the researcher. (Einstein's photoelectric effect is an example): If P, then not A. A; therefore, not P.
Intelligent Design is not a theory and not science. What is a prediction that can be made using ID? What experiment can be designed that tests that prediction? How can ID be disproven? If you can answer these questions, then maybe you can make a case for presenting ID in public science classrooms.
@chubby rain,
So in essence what you're saying is that scientists are using "abductive reasoning" – tracing an effect back to it's cause. And if there's more than one hypotesis or theory that predicts the same thing, then you have to look for more evidence.
DNA similarity is often cited as evidence of evolution. What most people don't know is that Creationists would also expect similarites in DNA since we all live on the same planet and have the same Designer. So the ultimate question is this: What is the ultimate cause? What has the causal power to cause everything to come into existance? I don't think that science itself can answer that question. Science is not the only way to gain knowledge. There are other disciplines like philosophy. It's
I'll certainly give you credit for arguing better than the rest of the atheists/non-theists/evolutionists etc.. on this blog. You've certainly demonstrated a better understanding of science than they have.
Except theories are normally not this narrow. Usually,
"If P, then A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P....."
That's basically how I came to belief in God. I examined all the pieces of evidence from scientific, historica, philosophical, etc. perspective and came to the conclusion that there's a Creator and that Creator is the God of the Bible. My belief is evidenced, it's not a blind faith that atheists accuse me of having.
Thanks for your post. I would be glad to have more discussions with you in the future.
"DNA similarity is often cited as evidence of evolution. What most people don't know is that Creationists would also expect similarites in DNA since we all live on the same planet and have the same Designer."
However, the common designer argument fails to account for dramatically similar forms with very clear and distinct ancestral lineages, e.g. New World and Old Word Vultures. The common designer also ignores the clear evidence of sequential mass extinctions and the redundancy of forms. This renders the intelligent designer a haphazard tinkerer who is conveniently indistinguishable from the trial and error processes of evolution.
My field is basically genomics. The analogy that comes to mind when I consider eukaryotic genomes like ours is the old cutting room floor where movies were edited. The genome is like what you would get if you picked up all the random cuttings and spliced them together and made a movie – some pieces blank, some backward, some forward, some outtakes, some actual scenes, but broken up into bits. It does not look designed by any means.
I appreciate the analogy. IMHO, herein lies the strength of evolution over creationism in that evolution predicts and explains both the functional and the odd-ball components of an organism, whereas creationists torture their logic to account these oddities. I believe Paul's bypassing (see below) of any discussion of the superfluous centromere and telomeres in our 2nd chromosome and moving directly into a misapplication of a formal logical fallacy to natural science is a typical response.
@Paul,
Science is Inductive reasoning. Logic is Deductive.
"So in essence what you're saying is that scientists are using "abductive reasoning" – tracing an effect back to it's cause. And if there's more than one hypotesis or theory that predicts the same thing, then you have to look for more evidence."
I took Critical Reasoning seven years ago and don't remember the terms. A theory is not a cause though, it is an explanation. And just because there are multiple explanations for an event, does not mean there is not a "best" or "most probable" explanation. The current scientific theories are these most probable explanations, based on what we know at that time. And there are hundreds of thousands of scientists publishing the results of their experiments each year in peer-reviewed journals. Of the biology-related articles, zero have supported intelligent design, zero have supported creationism, and all of them have supported evolutionary theory.
"DNA similarity is often cited as evidence of evolution. What most people don't know is that Creationists would also expect similarites in DNA since we all live on the same planet and have the same Designer."
There are examples of structures that are functionally identical but differ in structure. For example, the red blood cells of mammals lack cell nuclei, which differs from virtually all other vertebrates except for specific genus of salamanders and fish. This is a somewhat arbitrary choice for an intelligent designer to make in my opinion. Of all the species that have existed on this planet, 99% of them are extinct. People are born all the time will life-altering defects. But then maybe that is how God fashioned his creation, and that is why such a position is unscientific: it cannot be disproven.
"So the ultimate question is this: What is the ultimate cause? What has the causal power to cause everything to come into existance? I don't think that science itself can answer that question. Science is not the only way to gain knowledge. There are other disciplines like philosophy."
Personally, I am more excited by the fact that there is no limit to scientific inquiry. And I'd much rather answer the small things like how to cure cancer and find a unifying theory for physics. Science is not the only way to gain knowledge, but the knowledge it has generated has been supremely useful. Look at the world 300 years ago and look at the world today. That change has not arisen from philosophical knowledge or religious knowledge, but from scientific knowledge. Science is currently the best method we have for exploring the natural world. The supernatural and immaterial are left to other areas.
""If P, then A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P....."
That's basically how I came to belief in God. I examined all the pieces of evidence from scientific, historica, philosophical, etc. perspective and came to the conclusion that there's a Creator and that Creator is the God of the Bible. My belief is evidenced, it's not a blind faith that atheists accuse me of having."
I do not doubt that you believe in that, and I do not doubt that there are circ-umstances in your life that have contributed to your belief. I am not trying to belittle you for it. The only thing I am trying to emphasize is that your beliefs are not scientific, the evidence you have gathered is not peer-reviewed: I cannot possibly experience want you have and vice versa. Many Christians believe in God and accept evolution. Many religious scientists (to clarify, scientists that are religious) feel the understanding of the world they have gained from scientific inquiry has deepened there appreciation for their god's creation. Evolutionary theory is quite extraordinary and I would encourage you to learn more about it.
"Thanks for your post. I would be glad to have more discussions with you in the future."
Thank you as well. I enjoyed brushing up on my logic.
@Chubby rain,
Excellent explanation.
Paul : "But there's absolutely no evidence of "common descent" – the idea that, if you go back far enough in time, everything has a common anscestor (i.e. dogs, cats, humans, elephants, bananas, tomatoes, etc.. have a common anscestor.)"
Wikipedia Table of Contents for "Evidence of Common Descent":
1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
1.1 Genetics
1.1.1 Universal biochemical organisation and molecular variance patterns
1.1.2 DNA sequencing
1.1.3 Endogenous retroviruses
1.1.4 Proteins
1.1.5 Pseudogenes
1.1.6 Other mechanisms
1.2 Specific examples
1.2.1 Feline endogenous retroviruses
1.2.2 Chromosome 2 in humans
1.2.3 Cytochrome c
1.2.4 Human endogenous retroviruses
1.2.5 Recent African origin of modern humans
2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
2.1 Atavisms
2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
2.3 Hom-ologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
2.5 Evolutionary trees
2.6 Vestigial structures
2.7 Specific examples
2.7.1 Hind structures in whales
2.7.2 Insect mouthparts
2.7.3 Other arthropod appendages
2.7.4 Pelvic structure of dinosaurs
2.7.5 Pentadactyl limb
2.7.6 Recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes
2.7.7 Route of the vas deferens
3 Evidence from paleontology
3.1 Fossil record
3.1.1 Extent of the fossil record
3.2 Limitations
3.3 Specific examples
3.3.1 Evolution of the horse
3.3.2 Transition from fish to amphibians
4 Evidence from geographical distribution
4.1 Continental distribution
4.2 Island biogeography
4.2.1 Types of species found on islands
4.2.2 Endemism
4.2.3 Adaptive radiations
4.3 Ring Species
4.4 Specific examples
4.4.1 Distribution of Glossopteris
4.4.2 Distribution of marsupials
4.4.3 Migration, isolation, and distribution of the Camel
5 Evidence from observed natural selection
5.1 Specific examples of natural selection in the lab and in the field
5.1.1 Antibiotic and pesticide resistance
5.1.2 DNA sequence differences
5.1.3 E. coli long-term evolution experiment
5.1.4 Humans
5.1.5 Lactose intolerance in humans
5.1.6 Nylon-eating bacteria
5.1.7 PCB tolerance
5.1.8 Peppered moth
5.1.9 Radiotrophic fungus
5.1.10 Urban wildlife
6 Evidence from observed speciation
6.1 Specific examples
6.1.1 Blackcap
6.1.2 Drosophila melanogaster
6.1.3 Hawthorn fly
6.1.4 London Underground mosquito
6.1.5 Mollies
6.1.6 Thale cress
6.2 Interspecies fertility or hybridization
6.2.1 Polar bear
6.2.2 Raphanobrassica
6.2.3 Salsify
6.2.4 Welsh groundsel
6.2.5 York groundsel
7 Evidence from artificial selection
8 Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration
8.1 Specific examples
8.1.1 Avida simulation
9 See also
10 References
11 Further reading
12 External links
Lots of areas there – evolution has been explored in so many ways. It's strange that the Catholics accept it, but that the fundies don't. I guess it has to do with the Catholic church examining research and proven truths, but the fundies just examining.... well, who know's what they're examining, but it's not science.
@Chubby rain,
Thanks for the reference. I've been using some of those in my own little list, but that one is much more comprehensive and provides citations.
I just typed in "evidence of common descent" in google and copied the wikipedia article's table of content. It's pretty frustrating that Paul and other posters cannot do this before making blanket statements.
They're not interested in the truth that is; they are interested in the truth they want.
It's telling that videos like these disable comments when you click on the link...
What kind of things do u think Ive been able to put up my ass?
Your head.
Typical creationist video – full of dishonest editing, twisting words and misrepresenting the facts. I highly doubt the people that came up with the 'question' understand their own question in the first place and understood Dawkins answer even less in the second.
my reply got deleted by a moderator bot or something..
lol. Yet you believe that teaching kids an invisible man is watching their every move is ok ? If they ever steal or m4sturbat3 or fail to go to a confession, they will burn in hell for eternity. Some powerful being holds a grudge for all eternity if they are not careful. You think that is healthy ?
You really don't have a clue as to what it's all about .
Rational Thinker,
Once again faith/hharri, etc. is showing that he has no morals and is using my name.
Ignor him. God, if real, certainly will, too.
I thought that was a brilliant and intelligent response from Dawkins. I think the narrator must not be capable of deep abstract thinking.
(Gen. 7:21) “And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and ALL HUMAN BEINGS”
Tough luck, kids.
Tough luck to other living things, too.
I used to get bothered by all of these creationist beliefs, especially when they try pushing it onto others that know better. Now, I truly feel bad for them and try to be compassionate. Seriously, somebody that believes man and woman were just created out of dust and a rib cage? Jesus walked on water? turned water into wine? blew up Sodom and Gomorrah?Flooded the world? turned Lot's wife into a pilar of salt? Was conceived without any intercourse ? Returned from the dead after 3 days ? lol. It is quite comical. I just try to remember that all humans are genetically different, some are not as intelligent as others and it is not their fault. cheers.
Well perhaps a sense of superiority is half way to actual compassion
Yeah, agree. Willful ignorance of truth really does say a lot about intelligence.