home
RSS
Ken Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism
Bill Nye and Ken Ham will debate the origins of life Tuesday at the Creation Museum.
February 3rd, 2014
01:15 PM ET

Ken Ham: Why I'm debating Bill Nye about creationism

Editors note: Ken Ham will debate Bill Nye on February 4 at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, with CNN's Tom Foreman moderating. The debate will be livestreamed at CNN.com at 7 pm ET, and Piers Morgan Live will interview Ham and Nye on Tuesday at 9 ET.

WATCH TUESDAY NIGHT'S DEBATE HERE: http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/cvplive/cvpstream1.html

Opinion by Ken Ham, special to CNN

(CNN) - Public debates on evolution and creation have become increasingly rare. Several hundred well-attended debates were held in the 1970s and 1980s, but they have largely dried up in recent decades.

So I look forward to a spirited yet cordial debate on Tuesday with Bill Nye, the "Science Guy" of television fame.

I also look forward to the opportunity to help counter the general censorship against creationists' view of origins. While we are not in favor of mandating that creation be taught in public school science classes, we believe that, at the very least, instructors should have the academic freedom to bring up the problems with evolution.

Even though the two of us are not Ph.D. scientists, Mr. Nye and I clearly love science.

As a former science instructor, I have appreciated the useful television programs that he hosted and produced, especially when he practiced operational science in front of his audience.

He and I both recognize the wonderful benefits that observational, operational science has brought us, from cell phones to space shuttles. But operational science, which builds today’s technology, is not the same as presenting beliefs about the past, which cannot be tested in the laboratory.

For students, the evolution-creation discussion can be a useful exercise, for it can help develop their critical thinking skills.

MORE ON CNN: Bill Nye: Why I'm Debating Ken Ham 

Most students are presented only with the evolutionary belief system in their schools, and they are censored from hearing challenges to it. Let our young people understand science correctly and hear both sides of the origins issue and then evaluate them.

Our public schools arbitrarily define science as explaining the world by natural processes alone. In essence, a religion of naturalism is being imposed on millions of students. They need to be taught the real nature of science, including its limitations.

Nye, the host of a popular TV program for children, should welcome a scrutiny of evolution in the classrooms.

As evolution-creation issues continue to be in the news - whether it relates to textbook controversies or our debate - there is an increasingly bright spotlight on the research activities of thousands of scientists and engineers worldwide who have earned doctorates and are creationists.

On our full-time staff at Answers in Genesis, we have Ph.D.s in astronomy, geology, biology, molecular genetics, the history of science, and medicine. Yes, creationists are still a small minority in the scientific community, but they hold impressive credentials and have made valuable contributions in science and engineering.

I remember the time I spoke at a lunchtime Bible study at the Goddard Space Flight Center near Washington. I was thrilled to meet several scientists and engineers who accept the book of Genesis as historical and reject Darwinian evolution. They shared with me that a belief in evolution had nothing to do with their work on the Hubble Space Telescope. Why should our perspective about origins be censored?

Our young people and adults should be aware that considerable dissent exists in the scientific world regarding the validity of molecules-to-man evolution.

It’s an important debate, for what you think about your origins will largely form your worldview. If you believe in a universe that was created by accident, then there is ultimately no meaning and purpose in life, and you can establish any belief system you want with no regard to an absolute authority.

Ultimately, I have decided to accept an authority our infallible creator and his word, the Bible over the words of fallible humans.

Ken Ham is founder and CEO of Answers in Genesis (USA) and founder of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The views expressed in this column belong to Ham.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Creationism • Culture wars • Evolution • Opinion • Science

soundoff (4,336 Responses)
  1. Aggie

    “There isn't anything to worry about between science and religion, because the contradictions are just in your own mind. Of course they are there, but they are not in the Lord's mind because He made the whole thing, so there is a way, if we are smart enough, to understand them so that we will not have any contradictions.”
    ― Henry J. Eyring

    February 4, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
    • tony

      Lord Valdemont?

      February 4, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
      • doobzz

        Lord and Lady Douche Bag?

        February 4, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
  2. Brad

    I would love to hear this debate, as long as no one mentions the Bible.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
    • SnakePlissken

      The bible should be mentioned – to reiterate that it is NOT the word of God, NOT written by God, and not even a direct translation of anything that God said. Jesus never wrote anything down either. That bible was written 300 yrs after the death of Jesus, back then, +7 generations, and after the death of all His followers who were alive when He was. And, it was written by power-mongers, hell-bent on controlling, i.e., oppressing, humanity.

      God created Life and Free Will. You are not a rock nor are you water, because God made Life from the stuff of rocks and water, and as for you, human, He did that too – made you Humanimal, instead of any of the other type of animal.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
      • Barcs

        hahaha. It's funny. When asked how to prove Christianity wrong to a believer, you just refer them to the bible.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
    • Jason B

      And yet his entire argument will be "Well the Bible is correct because the Bible says it is".

      February 4, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
  3. Mark

    "Ultimately, I have decided to accept an authority — our infallible creator and his word, the Bible — over the words of fallible humans."

    This is precisely why debating this topic will never go anywhere. Ken Ham, and people like him, believe the Bible is written by God. We know it wasn't. It was written by mankind over thousands of years and highly edited to exclude some material that didn't quite fit with the religion's political and social goals at the time. It's a collection of myths, stories, and fables. If you believe the Bible is an "authority", then you have no legitimate argument against the Koran being an authority on the topic, or any other religious book for that matter.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
    • Anita

      Exactly!

      Very well put Sir.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
    • JP

      Where is the proof of your false claims? You've made many statements but have offered nothing to back up those statements. Were you there when all these things supposedly happened while the Bible was written? Were you there when your make-believe theory of evolution was taking place? Were you around to see nothing explode into everything or are you basing it on a faith in fallible man's ideas? The same ideas that once said bloodletting was a good idea (while the Bible said the life is in the blood–Leviticus 17:14). 2 Peter 3:19-21, "So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;"

      February 4, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
      • Barcs

        There is just as much evidence that the bible is true as there is for the ancient greek or Egyptian gods. We don't need to prove your religion wrong. You need to prove it right. Prove the Horus isn't the savior of the world and that the book of the dead is wrong. Good luck.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
  4. Anita

    "Ultimately, I have decided to accept an authority — our infallible creator and his word, the Bible — over the words of fallible humans."

    See, my concern with that is the bible was written by fallible humans, the Bible was not written by God himself, so why should I believe a single paragraph, or word, in it? Your point is invalid.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
  5. timmaahhyy

    that smart ass science fella says we come descended from monkeys? that aint my culture and heritage.

    in all seriousness I would say that there is not enough evidence to prove 100% that either theory is correct....however the biblical account of creation and the great flood are so full of holes if I had to pick one or another I would fall on the evolution side.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
  6. Douglas

    God created Adam and Eve...not Adam and Steve.

    Matthew 19 details Jesus' instructions on marriage, divorce and celibacy.

    Efforts to disrupt his teaching, with new age definitions of
    marriage, have been catastrophic for the family.

    Follow the path of intelligent design through creation and you will see
    a return to harmony and order between men and women and all groups
    of people, regardless of race, color, creed or national origin.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
    • Alias

      AS soon as you offer any proof that your god exists, I'll consider your conclusions.
      Until then, they are based on a false assumption and invalid.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
    • Observer

      Douglas,

      Steve created the parallel civilization of Nod where Cain went and married.

      Prove me wrong.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
    • doobzz

      "God created Adam and Eve...not Adam and Steve."

      Actually, Douglas, if God created Eve from Adam's rib, then Eve had exactly the same DNA as Adam, making Eve genetically a male. So God really did create Adam and Steve.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
  7. Yoda

    Why bother? Creationists are microbrains. Nothing good will come off this.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
  8. A. Reasoner

    After listening to Nye explain why he's doing this "debate," I have serious doubts about his ability to keep pace with the quick quips and BS that's sure to be applauded by Ham's audience and promoted by his favorably edited video.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
  9. tony

    Believers should explain god's absence, before they start to credit him with any sort of activities.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
    • Jake

      non believers should be forced to evidence the missing link between Cro-Magnon and humans, and explain why modern quantum physics theories state that our existence is nothing but a hologram, before they claim that their beliefs are "proven".

      February 4, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
      • Anita

        Yes, but your religion is based on a book, that you will never be able to prove was written by any God-like being, no matter how evolved we become scientifically. It's just a bunch of here-say, and that's a fact. I'm not agreeing with evolution either to be honest I don't really have much of an opinion on the matter, but let's be clear that you are basing your opinions on a book written by whom you have no idea.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
      • Barcs

        LOL Jake! Do you even know what Cro magnon man is? It's an early ho.mo sapien. This is why creationists constantly get laughed at. They haven't a clue of science but they KNOW it's wrong. Hilarious.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
  10. Jake

    lets see it took 10's of thousands of years for primates to transform through the various stages towards humans, but now you want be to believe that evolution led to cro-magnom turning evolving to human over night. And the typical answer by atheist is that even though there has been no link found, you have to have faith in us and believe that one day that link will be found lol. Atheism is a religion of assumptions and faith just as much as any religion.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
    • snowboarder

      what the heck are you talking about? you make no sense whatsoever.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
      • Atheist, me?

        Snowboarder he does but you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't sit well with you!

        February 4, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • snowboarder

          @A me?, BS. his comment is nonsensical. no one has suggested anyone or anything evolved overnight.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
    • igaftr

      Jake.
      What are you talking about?

      The DNA proves evolution, and considering the fact the you have neanderthal DNA in your body, shows that you weren't created as a human exclusively. There are many other genetic proofs, if you care to enlighten yourself.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
      • Jake

        The existence of evolution does not negate the existence of creationism because there is no archeological link between modern day humans and modern ancestors. Yes there is links of DNA, but there are links of DNA amongst all living creatures regardless of the fact of how related they are. For example we have a grater DNA link to certain primate species, yet that link is stinger than our link to past humanoids.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
        • Jake

          Dude, if you're going to use my name, stop sounding like an idiot. I can't accept that someone with my name is dumb enough to believe in Creationism.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      Your ignorance is astounding! Try reading a book you didn't get at the Christian book store. You know, a REAL book.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
    • Barcs

      Cro magnon man IS the link, you imbecile! I can't type over here because I'm laughing so hard. Cro magnon IS a ho.mo sapien.

      And there have been 20+ "missing links" found between ancient ape and modern humans. OOPS! Somebody lied.

      February 4, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
  11. Ken Ham's Science

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZc4MpPWjc0

    February 4, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
  12. paul

    Nye debating a creationist would be like Mike Tyson boxing with a toddler.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
    • Aaron

      I would consider it more like Mike Tyson boxing with someone with a machine gun... Who wins the match would depend on whether or not you consider shooting someone with a machine gun a legitimate form of boxing

      February 4, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
      • mistamista

        Actually, it would be much more like Mike Tyson WITH a machine gun fighting a magical lampshade, Tyson of course being science and the lampshade being religion.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        Your answer can be taken either way but if you're saying that creationism has all the answers, that's totally incorrect, – it has no answers.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:01 pm |
  13. Christopher Staub

    Evolution is science, now supported by a near-endless amount of accepted evidence. Science does not beg to be "believed". Religion is mostly what ignorant people think because they are science-illiterate. This stupid Ham did not learn the lessons of the last 2 centuries of discovery and does a disservice to humanity by continuing to enable a psychotic subgroup of people who unduly and adversely affect progress with their political and social advocacy. A tyranny of the ignorant threatens human progress and sustainability.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
    • Bill

      I'm an engineer and a I believe 100% in evolution, but I can't stand how people criticize others who want to ask the kind of philosophic questions about the universe that religion does. Science and religion don't have to contradict each other. They compliment each other. They ask different questions of the universe. The political issues that surround the religion versus science debate from four hundred years ago no longer exist. We are encouraged to question dogma in today's society. So why not inject religion into science and vice versa? For a long time we thought the earth was the limit of God's creation. We now know that the Creation is much, much larger than we ever imagined. That's exciting! If you want to have a complete understanding of the universe, you need to have an understanding of not only science, but of religion too.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
      • Barcs

        There's nothing wrong with questioning things philosophically or exploring ideas. But we all know that creationists aren't doing this. They are intentionally being dishonest and denying proven fields of science. They ask questions that have nothing to do with the theory at all, and when they are told this they think we are being intolerant. The science is proven, and they need to stop the denial if they ever want to be taken seriously.

        February 4, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
        • Bill

          What's wrong with questioning "proven fields of science"? Isn't this what the first scientists did when they questioned the Catholic Church's dogma that the sun orbited around the earth? Science is obligated to question itself, and it does through peer-reviewed work. However, from time to time, a discovery is made that changes what previous theory has to say on a subject. Sometimes the discovery contradicts existing theory. We no longer live in the world of the Reformation and the Inquisition. We should be free to explore how science and religion intersects without being called names by either side. I firmly believe that both the religion-deniers and the evolution-deniers are drinking from the same well. They both have a belief system that is totally intolerant of different views.

          February 4, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
  14. vapor

    So interesting how haters criticize biblical explanations of creation but accept outlandish theories of how life manifested from nothing i.e. deep ocean heat vents, lightening strikes, alien intervention etc. Take God out of the equation and explain how DNA was created out of thin air when dna needs protien to form and protiens need dna to form which suggest that it was created at the same time.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
    • Madtown

      Haters or questioners/skeptics?

      February 4, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
      • vapor

        haters that are trolling today in full force. i accept/appreciate questioners/skeptics...i am both

        February 4, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
    • tony

      God's been out of all known and discussed equations for the last 13 Billion years.

      You explain "his" absence, while you continue to pray regardless.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
    • igaftr

      The bible is not a valid history book or science book. It is a compilation of previous cultures stories and myths. Evolution is valid proven, verifiable science. The bible is not.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
    • snowboarder

      @vapor, yours is the classic fallacy that if we can not explain something that the deity of your ancient myths must somehow be a valid cause.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
      • vapor

        a classic fallacy that you can not correct? thoughts on the DNA/protien conundrum that I presented?

        February 4, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
        • snowboarder

          @vapor, i can not, but lack of knowledge in any item in the theory does not magically give credence to the supersti tious writings of ancient men.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
    • Charm Quark

      vapor, catch up. RNA the building blocks of DNA has been discovered in the gas clouds surrounding young stars. This material would be part of any planets that maybe formed around the star, a head start on forming life from nothing. BTW it is just a matter of time for some scientist to replicate what happens at hydrothermal vents in the deep seas.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
      • vapor

        charm- a sugar molecule spotted 400 light years away is really sufficient evidence to explain the complexity/origins of DNA. sorry but i remain highly skeptical.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
        • Charm Quark

          vapor
          Of course it is not sufficient evidence but is a link in the chain. Complex molecules forming in space is quite relevant, even vinegar has been found, to say there was nothing that could have been chemically created is ignoring some basic discoveries. Chemosynthetic bacteria have been discovered, just a matter of time that life will be found on another world using the same process, no god required.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
    • Alias

      Of course. When we didn't understand lightning, Zues did it.
      We don't understand how life started, god did it.
      Believing science and answering some questions with 'I don't know' is just too silly.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
    • clew37

      I guess it took god several billion tries to make earth (as opposed to 7 days) since there are billions of planets in space. I don't recall any of them being mentioned in the bible either.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
    • mistamista

      Therein lies the problem. The "outlandish theories" all evolved from nonfactual religious theorem. Proof is what sets apart ideas and truths. There is scientific proof that humans evolved from lesser creatures and has become the predominant lifeform through our self-awareness and bettering our understanding of our evolution. There is no proof of any existence beyond what you see, feel and live as part of this very limited existence...and unfortunately for those prone to hypothetical and fanciful tales, no proof has always been the reason that religion cannot be ubiquitously accepted those who use analytical thought and intelligence to base our reality upon.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
    • Milton Platt

      An argument from ignorance is not an acceptable way to discern the truth. Science does not claim to have all the answers, it is religionists who make that claim with "if I can,t explain it then a god must have done it". Science is comfortable with just saying that it doesn't know.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
    • sandralogan0430

      The thing about science and those that are scienfically literate is that it/they don't claim to know everything. They are allowed to say " I don't know." However, religion just says "god did it." And those who believe that anything science can't explain must be their invisible man in the sky.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
    • skeptic612@optonline.net

      Take God out of the equation?!? Creationists PUT God into every equation, whether warranted or not. The God of the gaps method of explaining phenomenon is by far the most over-used methods I have ever encountered. How does that compare with experimentation, observation and review? i'd say it fails every time. If science can't explain the orgin or DNA (which we can't now, but in time we will), then it must be God. I say, let's postulate a theory that these creationists can understand: if science can't find the orgin of DNA, matter, or beginning of life in the universe, it must be the cookie monster . . . cause you have to have faith that it was!

      February 4, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
    • Unlo4

      > dna needs protien to form and protiens need dna to form

      Perhaps passing Biochem 101 before basing your argument on an incorrect statement would be a wise place to start.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
      • vapor

        RNA-DNA-protiens can not exist w/o each other. are you rewriting scientific laws?

        February 4, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • Charm Quark

          vapor
          It would seem you are rewriting scientific laws but do not have the knowledge to know that. Christian apologist web sites are not the sum total of scientific knowledge. Read a book, take a course, search the web, learning is positive and oh yes put down the bible.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
      • dmh

        RNA doesn't; alone it holds information, like DNA, and can be functionally catalytic like a protein

        February 4, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
    • Barcs

      Read a basic science book?

      February 4, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
  15. snowboarder

    "If you believe in a universe that was created by accident, then there is ultimately no meaning and purpose in life, and you can establish any belief system you want with no regard to an absolute authority."

    why do they trot out this old fallacy?

    February 4, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
    • igaftr

      Fear and ignorance. The very same reasons their belief exists in the first place.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
    • josh

      If you know it to be a fallacy then you must know the meaning of life. Why are you holding out on us?

      February 4, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
      • Barcs

        Nobody knows the "meaning" of life. People have faith that the bible or other scriptures have it right, but there is no way to know for sure.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
  16. No2theprideofman

    The willingness to consider alternate explanations other than the atheist/agnostic one within the origins debate is what is missing. That unwillingness makes science appear to be biased and act as if it has something to hide.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
    • snowboarder

      science assumes naturalism and it is a simple fact that nearly all things once attributed to supernatural origins have been determined to be of natural cause. the realm of the supernatural is simply a placeholder of ignorance waiting upon the determination of that natural cause.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
      • No2theprideofman

        That is an extremely handy way of dismissing rational, logic arguments against evolution, rather than by honest debate. Kudos to cleverness. However it is essentially a wrong basis for not engaging in discussion.

        February 4, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
        • snowboarder

          what debate? their god, just like all others, has been conveniently placed outside of the realm of validation as to render any argument moot.

          February 4, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • Milton Platt

          I have been reading those arguments for creationism for years and have never found a valid one which has not been amply refuted numerous times. Please list a few of the unrefuted claims you seem to be aware of or provide links to the unrefuted ones you know of. I can find none........I suspect you will also find none.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
    • truthprevails1

      Atheism doesn't define more than a disbelief in god(s). It says nothing about whether or not science is right or wrong.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
      • :(

        I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
        • Milton Platt

          Silly statement. There are all kinds of atheists, some for good reasons and some for bad reasons.
          It requires no faith to withhold belief in a claim until there is suitable evidence to support the claim.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
        • doobzz

          Apparently, you don't have enough brain either.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
        • josh

          "withhold belief in a claim..."

          This is not atheism. This is agnosticism.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
  17. bill

    Do atheist refute the existence of God? as well as the existence of a soul? and the existence of an after life? because they have not been proven yet or because they are radicals that refuse to even hear or consider scientific studies which may prove the existence of any of these. If atheist were in power, anything that would go against their beliefs would be shunned, funny how they have become exactly what they complain about.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
    • Observer

      bill,

      Atheists and believers have one thing in common: NEITHER can prove they are right.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
      • Aggie

        Beautiful!

        February 4, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
      • Milton Platt

        Atheism does not make a claim, and therefore requires no evidence. The assertion that there is a god is what requires evidence. Atheism is the default position.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
      • Jake

        Yes, but we can prove that one of them is wrong.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
    • Aggie

      Yea, some atheists act a lot like fundies. It is ironic, because atheism isn't a religion. But some are turning it into one.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
    • Happy Atheist

      "refuse to even hear or consider scientific studies which may prove the existence of any of these."

      That is because the veracity of the "studies" done that verify an afterlife are as believable as an episode of Ghost Hunters or Finding Bigfoot.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
    • Barcs

      Name the scientific studies that prove god, soul or afterlife.

      GO.

      Didn't think so.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
  18. Wrong again

    You can debate all you want. Evolution is real. That's how it happened. The end. No debate!

    February 4, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
    • No2theprideofman

      No debate means – unwilling to entertain I am might be wrong. Seems to be a trait among agnostics.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
      • Wrong again

        The problem with religion is that it's based on silly stories. Adam and Eve...really? It doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It doesn't mean there isn't an afterlife. But, don't confuse grace with mythologies from the Old Testament.

        February 4, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
        • No2theprideofman

          Yes I can see your point about silly stories. After all it is much more plausible to believe that all the varied life on the planet just spontaneously "happened", and that something as complex as a human reproduction system, or even DNA, just evolved (via a process never observed). Sounds to me that the definition of silly stories depends on your perspective.

          February 4, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
        • Barcs

          Please top talk about science. You clearly don't even know the basics. Just stop. Leave the science to the scientists. Your debate points would get laughed out of any valid debate as it has nothing to do with evolution. FAIL.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
    • Cathy

      Uh, you might keep a small amount of your mind open. Evolutionists tell us we don't look at facts. It works both ways. Are you afraid you might be convinced?

      February 4, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
      • igaftr

        cathy.
        Facts? What facts go against evolution? What facts show creationism? Oh that's right...none. See it does not go both ways.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
      • doobzz

        Convinced about what? That an imaginary being created the world by chanting magic spells?

        February 4, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
      • sandralogan0430

        ther is no such thing as an "evolutionist." That is something the bible people came up with to put people who understand evolutiona and science into a camp that religious people can dislike... Just know that you are the deviation from the fact. So if anyone deserves the ist.. its you bible thumpers.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
      • Milton Platt

        Note to No2theprideofman........
        Evolution can and has been observed in the laboratory.............it is what produces drug resistant viruses and bacteria, for one thing.

        February 4, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
  19. T

    I ... am.. not.. no .. monkey

    nuff said.

    thats the problem with "evolution"

    February 4, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
    • CoryTE

      but yet, you apparently think like one.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
    • Ben

      you're right, you are not A Monkey, you are the cousin of one. thats the point silly.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
    • truthprevails1

      Saying you're not a monkey only shows your lack of understanding, it is no way shows a problem with evolution.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Evolution says nothing about humans being monkeys – just that we have a common ancestor as we do with other mammals and fish.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
    • igaftr

      "not no monkey" would be a double negative so what you posted is "I am a monkey"...which is incorrct...you are an ape with common ancestor to monkeys.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
    • doobzz

      Wow, those are some mad debate skilz you got there.

      Try learning to speak English properly first, then you can move on the the tougher subjects.

      February 4, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
    • sandralogan0430

      since we don't have the options for like/dislike, I'll just type it... dislike

      February 4, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
    • Barcs

      So the problem with evolution is that you are stupid?

      February 4, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
  20. georgex9

    Finally, non-believers are becoming more organized with various organizations. Many previously thought they were alone are being connected by Internet and by local groups. One of the primary benefits of organized religions has been the social connections.

    February 4, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
    • Alias

      Love the irony, dont you?
      Communication is destroying religion, and the world is becomming a better place for it.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
      • georgex9

        People will make better decisions for society when they correctly understand reality.

        February 4, 2014 at 12:59 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
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.