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. panthrotheist

    the true reality,the universe was created through the big bang and evolved to reality through the 13.7 billion years of existence,the conflict of understanding is due to incomplete knowledge of this.The confirmation of the Higgs particle last year will ultimately settle this differences.

    February 3, 2014 at 8:22 pm |
  2. Mary

    Why would an atheist argue against something that he believes does not exist?

    February 3, 2014 at 8:20 pm |
    • Jean

      Your question fails to describe what is going on, Mary. I'd suggest getting a brain transplant, first. Then, come on back and ask something that actually makes sense.

      February 3, 2014 at 8:25 pm |
    • G to the T

      I'd say this debate pretty much answers that question doesn't it?

      February 3, 2014 at 8:25 pm |
    • ME II

      Generally two reasons. One, other people do believe it exists. Two, those believers do thing based on that belief such as, pass laws, promote bad thinking, push for creationism in science class, etc.

      February 3, 2014 at 9:25 pm |
    • Barcs

      Because dishonest people use their religion to attack scientific facts, and try to force it into law and classrooms when it's a faith based guess.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:52 am |
  3. Reality #2

    More details from National Geographic's Genographic project: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/

    "Our spe-cies is an African one: Africa is where we first ev-olved, and where we have spent the majority of our time on Earth. The earliest fos-sils of recognizably modern Ho-mo sapiens appear in the fossil record at Omo Kibish in Ethiopia, around 200,000 years ago. Although earlier fossils may be found over the coming years, this is our best understanding of when and approximately where we originated.

    According to the genetic and paleontological record, we only started to leave Africa between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago. What set this in motion is uncertain, but we think it has something to do with major climatic shifts that were happening around that time—a sudden cooling in the Earth’s climate driven by the onset of one of the worst parts of the last Ice Age. This cold snap would have made life difficult for our African ancestors, and the genetic evidence points to a sharp reduction in population size around this time. In fact, the human population likely dropped to fewer than 10,000. We were holding on by a thread.

    Once the climate started to improve, after 70,000 years ago, we came back from this near-extinction event. The population expanded, and some intrepid explorers ventured beyond Africa. The earliest people to colonize the Eurasian landma-ss likely did so across the Bab-al-Mandab Strait separating present-day Yemen from Djibouti. These early beachcombers expanded rapidly along the coast to India, and reached Southeast Asia and Australia by 50,000 years ago. The first great foray of our species beyond Africa had led us all the way across the globe."

    February 3, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
    • RB

      10k or 8. Noah & his wife, their boys and their wives.

      February 4, 2014 at 5:29 pm |
  4. JW

    ARE JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES CREATIONISTS?
    Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the creation account as recorded in the Bible book of Genesis. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not what you might think of as creationists. Why not? First, many creationists believe that the universe and the earth and all life on it were created in six 24-hour days some 10,000 years ago. This, however, is not what the Bible teaches.* Also, creationists have embraced many doctrines that lack support in the Bible. Jehovah’s Witnesses base their religious teachings solely on God’s Word.
    Furthermore, in some lands the term “creationist” is synonymous with Fundamentalist groups that actively engage in politics. These groups attempt to pressure politicians, judges, and educators into adopting laws and teachings that conform to the creationists’ religious code.
    Jehovah’s Witnesses are politically neutral. They respect the right of governments to make and enforce laws. (Romans 13:1-7) However, they take seriously Jesus’ statement that they are “no part of the world.” (John 17:14-16) In their public ministry, they offer people the chance to learn the benefits of living by God’s standards. But they do not violate their Christian neutrality by supporting the efforts of Fundamentalist groups that try to establish civil laws that would force others to adopt Bible standards.—John 18:36.
    [Footnote]
    Please see the article “The Bible’s Viewpoint: Does Science Contradict the Genesis Account?” on page 18 of this issue.

    February 3, 2014 at 8:12 pm |
    • Des

      Everyone, be careful of JW. He has been back out here often lately, on recruiting missions for his deadly cult. Above, you see just his latest con job attempt. That's how they keep it going; heavy sales efforts. You can see him on his latest con job for his cult in recent posts. This is well documented now. He must get cult brownie points for his doorknocking efforts here. He needs to engage you on his agenda to do that. Instead, keep pressing him on points like this, and watch him squirm:

      So, JW, are you opposed to blood transfusion in the case of an accident victim who has lost a lot of blood and will die without transfused blood? Yes or no answer please; none of your usual dodging will get you by. We are watching for you and your deadly ilk.

      February 3, 2014 at 8:20 pm |
    • truthprevails1

      Oh dear, one more who accepts that incest is okay. Grow up JW!

      February 3, 2014 at 8:20 pm |
    • Topher

      Ridiculous.

      February 3, 2014 at 8:33 pm |
  5. L

    I understand that evolution has evidence but I don't believe what atheists have created out of it. I don't want their version of evolution taught in our classrooms. If creationism cannot be taught in science classrooms(which by the way isn't a growing epidemic since not every school system teaches creationism LOL FAIL ATHEISTS) then the version that atheists created cannot be taught as well. Teach what evolution means NOT what atheists think it proves. Problem solved. Troll this comment atheists starting......now!!!

    February 3, 2014 at 8:11 pm |
    • Dez

      Do you know what the separation of church and state is?

      February 3, 2014 at 8:13 pm |
      • L

        Do you know what separation of atheism and state means?

        February 3, 2014 at 8:14 pm |
        • Dez

          I'm sorry, did you not understand the question?

          February 3, 2014 at 8:19 pm |
        • G to the T

          Do you understand the distinction between "atheist" and "secular"?

          February 3, 2014 at 8:27 pm |
      • Ian

        Would that include separation of humanism and state, Dez?

        February 3, 2014 at 8:16 pm |
        • Dez

          Is creationism considered humanism?

          February 3, 2014 at 8:20 pm |
        • Ian

          Or materialism and state? Or naturalism and state? All are religious in nature since they say all something about God, yet they are not only permitted in schools, but taught under the guise of evolution.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:17 pm |
        • redzoa

          "Or materialism and state"

          While methodological naturalism (as opposed to metaphysical naturalism) does carry some ramifications for a given metaphysical view, methodological naturalism is by no means a religion under any reasonable definition of the word. There is no scientific discipline which doesn't rely on methodological naturalism and if we want a scientifically literate populace, then we must teach science as science is practiced.

          That said, if a public school science teacher was caught moving beyond this into advancing or disparaging a particular religious view (e.g. ID/creationism), then that teacher should be sanctioned appropriately.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:47 pm |
        • Ian

          Christians have a basis for *methodological* naturalism. Indeed, many of the great scientists of the past were Christians who believed God created a world that operated according to understandable rules, without constant intervention and changing of those rules. There is no non-arbitrary reason why naturalists are able to view the universe in the same way. Thank God for the early Christian scientists!

          February 3, 2014 at 9:58 pm |
      • truthprevails1

        Don't feed the troll please, it lives off of being fed...best to ignore this one and let it wallow away.

        February 3, 2014 at 8:24 pm |
        • Dez

          Noted, and thanks.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:29 pm |
    • lngtrmthnkr

      L , why not teach all the facts as we know them and all theories and let the child or student come to his own conclusions. You could show the controversies and conflicting thoughts and let the students work it out as to what makes sense to them.

      February 3, 2014 at 8:33 pm |
      • redzoa

        This appears reasonable and is definitely ok for a comparative religion/philosophy class. However, to be a valid competing scientific theory, it must be falsifiable. For example, evolution is falsifiable by: 1) observing a fossil in the completely wrong place; 2) observing a true chimera; or 3) observing an actual specially-created form appear ex nihilo. ID/creationism, because the mechanism is supernatural, cannot be falsified because a supernatural explanation can explain any and every possible observation, thereby effectively explaining nothing. God just did it that way is simply not a scientific explanation because there's no possible way to confront this alleged supernatural mechanism using methodological naturalism, i.e. the process of science.

        Furthermore, because ID/creationism is a religious proposition, one can't introduce them into a science class for direct scrutiny without violating the Establishment Clause. Because the state is prohibited from either advancing or disparaging a religious view, promoting ID/creationism is a violation as would be the dismantling of ID/creationism claims by examining the evidence. Nonetheless, students are free to question whatever they like and ID/creationism is well-represented in the "science" curricula of private religious schools.

        February 3, 2014 at 9:38 pm |
        • Ian

          Of course, humanism, atheism, materialism and naturalism are all implicitly endorsed by teaching evolution in the classroom. They all say something about God, so religion is clearly not kept out of the classroom.

          Science can point out the impossibility of a model like evolution, just as it can point to the absolute necessity of a creator; intelligent design. Further, because of its dependance on naturalism, evolution does not even have a scientific foundation. Compare that to intelligent design which at its simplest is simply following where the evidence leads. That makes it very scientific. Determining the nature of the creator is the next step.

          February 3, 2014 at 10:27 pm |
        • redzoa

          "Of course, humanism, atheism, materialism and naturalism are all implicitly endorsed by teaching evolution in the classroom."

          Methodological naturalism is not synonymous with any of the metaphysical positions you erroneously conflate. Even creationists accept methodological naturalism whenever they attempt to distinguish "observational" science from "historical" science. Apparently, and much to everyone's surprise, even creationists implicitly endorse all those nasty metaphysical positions.

          "Science can point out the impossibility of a model like evolution,"
          True! Falsifiability is what makes evolution a scientific proposition.

          "just as it can point to the absolute necessity of a creator; intelligent design."
          Nope. But feel free to explain how science would do this (let me guess, exhaust every possible natural alternative, both known and unknown, then conclude that "God did it!")

          "Further, because of its dependance on naturalism, evolution does not even have a scientific foundation."
          Well, methodological naturalism is precisely what the practice of science requires, otherwise, there would be no way to make predictions or falsify a proposition.

          "Compare that to intelligent design which at its simplest is simply following where the evidence leads. That makes it very scientific"
          Ah, no. ID is the practice of developing pseudoscientific arguments of incredulity without offering any empirical physical evidence in support of the proposition. Conveniently, the alleged mechanism is supernatural and is not amenable to scientific investigation. Perhaps this is why ID advocates insist the definition of "science" must be changed to accommodate their completely unverifiable alleged supernatural mechanism?

          "Determining the nature of the creator is the next step."
          Well, best of luck with that. Seeing as how science invariably converges into a consensus validated in direct application, and religions invariably diverge into an innumerable conflicting mish-mash of competing, contradictory, and wholly unverifiable faith positions, I'd say you have your work cut out for you . . .

          Hey, you might be interested in this case from a few years back: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board. It kind of speaks to all of the claims you're making (spoiler alert: it doesn't turn out well for your side . . .).

          February 3, 2014 at 10:58 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      But there are people who contest school board elections with the sole intent of introducing creationism to the curriculum, it's well-funded and coming to schools in Texas, Louisiana, etc. etc.

      February 3, 2014 at 9:46 pm |
    • Barcs

      What have atheists created out of evolution? The only people whining about evolution are creationists who know zero about it, yet constantly pretend they know more than scientists about biology and attack it relentlessly. It's like throwing toothpicks at a stone house. It's laughable.

      Also, why can't it be theistic evolution? Why are so many creationists against this? Why the need to cling to literal scriptures and fight with science? It's time to grow up and put on your big boy pants. The real world ain't what mommy and daddy told you when you were 3.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:19 am |
  6. Darren D. Croghan

    Evolution science is NOT a belief system. Creationism is solely belief based. Evolution is science, creationism is religion. Mr.Ham claim of censorship is specious. Creationism belongs in literary/mythology discussions NOT in science. Evolution belongs in science/biology debates NOT in religion.

    February 3, 2014 at 8:04 pm |
    • Vic

      If you apply the Scientific Method to 'Evolution of Species,' it finds it to be pseudoscience!

      Simply put:

      There is NO "empirical evidence" of any 'evolution above the level of species.'

      February 3, 2014 at 8:09 pm |
      • truthprevails1

        Oh you're such a liar Vic!! Evolution is backed with data and has been shown numerous times over to be accurate. It certainly beats your creation myth which has nothing to back it. There's a reason Evolution can be taught and creationism can't.

        February 3, 2014 at 8:14 pm |
        • Vic

          Total assertion!

          February 3, 2014 at 8:16 pm |
        • truthprevails1

          No it isn't!! You know you're wrong and yet you continue to support incestuous stories within your book of stupid. Scientific study after scientific study backs evolution, the fact that you deny this for fear it will break down your obvious love and support of incest doesn't change a thing.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:22 pm |
      • G to the T

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

        Why do you keep saying this when it's patently not true?

        How about this – instead of trying to say there's no evidence for evolution, provide some evidence that would falsify evolution. If the theory is so flimsy, you should have some way of disproving it.

        February 3, 2014 at 8:15 pm |
        • Vic

          Thank you for the opportunity!

          Here is the evidence:

          For Evolution to be valid, it requires "the presence of the ancestral fossils prior to the emergence of the first forms of animal life," which are completely missing from Charles Darwin's research and from Evolutionary Biology to date! Meaning, life DID NOT evolve!

          Furthermore, "there exists no evidence in the fossil record that any species has ever evolved from another species since no undisputed transitional forms have ever been discovered."

          [
          “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, (why) do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”

          Charles Darwin
          ]

          February 3, 2014 at 8:17 pm |
        • Jean

          Vic, all species are transitional. Get over that non-point already, stupid.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:23 pm |
        • Dez

          Darwin died in 1882. Thinking that the testing of evolution died in 1882 is rather silly, no?

          February 3, 2014 at 8:33 pm |
        • G to the T

          "the presence of the ancestral fossils prior to the emergence of the first forms of animal life"

          Yeah – you keep saying that. And it still makes no sense. Are you talking about plant fossils? We have those that predate "animal" life. Do you want bacterial fossils? We have those too.

          Just what ancestoral fossils are you speaking of and how would this falisfy evolution? Let me give an example of something that would falsify evolution – finding the skeleton of a zebra in the same strata as a brachiosaurus.

          What have you got? I'm genuinely curious.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:42 pm |
      • Garrett

        See a few comments down, where Vic is again shown to be lying. Par for the course, for that guy.

        February 3, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
    • Ian

      And yet... evolutionism (which you appear to follow blindly) is based on a non-scientific philosophical view that because of its non-scientific foundation ironically takes more faith to believe that the rather less scientifically limiting philosophies you argue against. But you don't even realise how much faith you have in it.

      February 3, 2014 at 8:13 pm |
      • Darren D. Croghan

        Not so. There are many debates within evolutionary science,
        http://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html
        But the fact remains that evolution is the only scientific theory for life as we know it. Creationism is not based in the scientific method. it has no place there. Creation mytholoogy certainly has a power and beauty in the literary tradition. My point is that Creation and evolution are apples and oranges, they can't be compared like Braeburns and Fujis or Navals and Sevilles.

        February 3, 2014 at 9:04 pm |
      • utalkintome

        you are free to comment on anything you like, but you cannot make up your own facts....from your comments(trolling) i can tell you have no education or background in any sciences. as for myself, i have a doctorate in anthropology and a master's in behavioural sciences from the university of calgary. if you can provide any evidence for your claims, i would love to see them. All the sciences are based on the natural world. if you are claiming that god did it, it isn't even a science question. "god" has nothing to do with science because it unobservable and cannot be tested. it is not science to prove or disprove god, that is on you and your like because you make the claim....could you be right? sure....but until there is evidence to support it, it doesn't exist....plain and simple

        February 4, 2014 at 3:59 am |
    • Greg

      About 10 minutes of honest critique would prove that molecules to man evolution is a belief system. Read any SCIENCE book on how the universe and life began and the chapters will be loaded with phrases like "may have", "could have", "scientists think", "might have", "perhaps". Go read one.

      February 3, 2014 at 8:15 pm |
      • Lux

        Do you think that may be because the theory hasn't been proven yet, much like the Bible?

        February 3, 2014 at 8:24 pm |
        • Greg

          I agree with you – hasn't been proven – yet, many or most evolutionists claim evolution is fact. They claim it shouldn't be questioned or debated.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:28 pm |
        • Dez

          They share that with creationists, hence the debate.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:35 pm |
        • Barcs

          Genetic mutations = proven fact
          Natural selection = proven fact
          speciation = proven fact

          Evolution = genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. Which part of that is not proven?

          February 4, 2014 at 12:57 am |
  7. ken

    this debate is without merit, and mr. nye is doing a disservice to science by even engaging mr. ham. first, one does not compare a testable theory with a theistic belief system. but that point has been covered very eloquently in numerous posts above. thus, i have no reason to request inclusion in the debate so i can take the side of russell's teapot.

    instead, i'd like to briefly comment on 2 of mr. ham's assertions, as his mendacity disturbs me.

    first: "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."

    EVERY science teacher in the country has the right to bring up "the problems" with evolution." that is what science is – constant questioning and experimentation to determine truth. but to say that the creationist movement merely seeks this aim is a blatant lie. the movement wishes to fill in those "problems" with a biblical solution. a solution supported by NO scientific evidence. in fact, a solution – faith – which is contrary to the entire scientific process. the "right" of teachers to present religious doctrine as an alternative to actual science is the entire purpose of the creationist movement, and to say otherwise is positively dishonest.

    second: " If you believe in a universe that was created by accident, then there is ultimately no meaning and purpose in life..."

    really? this statement is so inaccurate as to be laughable. simply because the meaning and purpose in my life is not dictated by the christian god, zues, isis, ganesh, allah, baal, or the flying spaghetti monster, does not mean that it does not exist. mr. ham is simply logically inaccurate. it is also an insult to the significant number of us who define our life's meaning and purpose for ourselves, through interaction with people and nature, through philosophy, science, ethics and many other sources that happen not to be theistic. mr. ham's either/or approach (believe in god or have no purpose) is childlike logic at best, and insulting at worst.

    it disturbs me that mr. nye would even consider offering creationism the slightest appearance of being on the same plane of viability as evolution. this is not a debate. it is real vs. myth.

    February 3, 2014 at 8:04 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      This is not a debate about science.
      It boils down to two media figures, each recognized as a face for science or a face for creationism, fighting for popular opinion.
      Fact and merit don't enter much into the equation – it is a PR game.
      Ham needs visitors to his floundering museum. Nye likely feels that he has enough cared as a "friendly scientist" for some Creationists to listen to his points and research what he has to say for themselves.

      For all their gnashing of teeth, creationists don't so much believe that every word of theBible is inerrant – they the fear destructive moral and cultural implications in a society without God.
      If you doubt Adam and Eve, you must be doubting the 10 commandments and will run off killing, stealing and phukking to your hearts content.

      February 3, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
      • AtheistSteve

        No doubt Doc. I'll pit secular moral foundations against fundamentalist Christian moral dictates any day.

        February 3, 2014 at 8:40 pm |
  8. skye

    The Bible was penned by "fallible" humans. It's not as if the words were not burnt into the side if a mountain by God – they were written, interpreted, and often times embellished by man.

    February 3, 2014 at 8:03 pm |
    • Ian

      And you know this because...?

      February 3, 2014 at 8:08 pm |
      • skye

        Um, it is an undisputed fact that men wrote the bible. Even creationists agree with that.

        February 3, 2014 at 8:11 pm |
    • skye

      Sorry for the autocorrect blunders. The post should read:

      The Bible was penned by "fallible" humans. It's not as if the words were burnt into the side of a mountain by God – they were written, interpreted, and often embellished by man.

      February 3, 2014 at 8:09 pm |
      • Ian

        Don't worry, I wasn't worried about the inadvertant negative. I'm mainly curious to know how you come to believe you know that there was embellishment. Do you have access to unembellished source material? Did God tell you?

        February 3, 2014 at 8:31 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          No one has the original text, but the copies we have show changes as they were copied – so many differences that there have been several attempts at standard versions.
          Modern knowledge shows that the religious origin stories are not correct.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:40 pm |
  9. bostontola

    This is gonna be another boring debate.

    February 3, 2014 at 8:03 pm |
    • Dez

      Steal a name, did ya?

      February 3, 2014 at 8:11 pm |
  10. Russell

    Teaching the flaws in evolution should be done at the same level that the flaws in unifying theories of forces are done, in graduate school when you have a deep understanding of science and the scientific inquiry underlying the theories, not in 5th grade science class!

    February 3, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
    • Ian

      What's your basis for that philosophy?

      February 3, 2014 at 8:07 pm |
  11. Tkojar

    I wish people debated on more important issues like global warming solutions.

    February 3, 2014 at 7:56 pm |
  12. Tkojar

    Don't be lazy creationist people, go read any book on evolution like the Greatest Show on Earth. Play Devil's advocate with yourself.
    Remember one thing:
    The greatest evidence for a hypothesis is when it can make predictions. Not that it "looks" feasible or it feels good etc. It just gives us predictions. That is why creationism is not science, it cannot make predictions.

    February 3, 2014 at 7:53 pm |
    • Ian

      It certainly can. For example, predicting magnetic field strength of the outer planets. http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young

      How about falsifiable? http://creation.com/the-evolution-trains-a-comin

      February 3, 2014 at 8:06 pm |
      • Garrett

        Umm, ya think "creation.com" is a valid scientific reference? Seriously? What a fscking joke you are. Desperate times for creationists, it seems.

        February 3, 2014 at 8:16 pm |
      • G to the T

        Brane's theory (which creationists still quote for some reason) was based on inaccuate models of the earth's interior. While there is some variation in the intensity of the field, there is NO evidence that it is decaying as Brane believed.

        This is a prime reason why creationists are not taken more seriously. Check your sources!

        February 3, 2014 at 8:21 pm |
        • Ian

          You mean Barnes? This is a good reason why evolutionists sounds so knowledgeable – so few people bother checking. How about addressing the predictions?

          February 3, 2014 at 8:36 pm |
        • G to the T

          Typo on my part – apologies.

          What prediction would those be specifically? And even if the predictions prove true, if the foundation of the theory has been falsified (as this one has), it doesn't add credibility to the theory. It only means that it happens to fit those facts (which may be explained by other, non-discarded theories). But I'll bite, I didn't see any specific predictions in what I read – what were you thinking of?

          February 3, 2014 at 8:53 pm |
      • redzoa

        Not familiar with geophysics; however, regarding the claim that there is insufficient new "information" to provide biological novelty, one need only look at Lenski's E. coli, the Pod Mrcaru lizards, or the many examples of duplication mutations (up to and including whole genome duplications).

        At the end of the day, evolution is clearly falsifiable, e.g. a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian, a true chimera, direct observation of a specially-created form ex nihilo. ID/creationism, on the other hand, cannot be truly falsified because the alleged mechanism is supernatural. Because an alleged supernatural explanation can explain any and all possible observations, it effectively explains nothing. Why is the fossil record arranged in a progressive order? God just did it that way. Why do humans have a defunct gene for egg yolk protein? God just did it that way. How did two of each kind get to the Ark? God supernaturally delivered them. How was there enough room? God sent only juveniles. How was there enough food? God supernaturally placed them in suspended animation. Etc, etc . . .

        February 3, 2014 at 9:15 pm |
  13. bostontola

    Docu.mented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed by William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas.

    Diane Dodd used a laboratory experiment to show how reproductive isolation can evolve in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after several generations by placing them in different media, starch- and maltose-based media. Dodd's experiment has been easy for many others to replicate, including with other kinds of fruit flies and foods. Research in 2005 has shown that this rapid evolution of reproductive isolation may in fact be a relic of infection by Wolbachia bacteria.

    February 3, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
    • Tkojar

      ^Beautiful. I wish people debated on more important issues like global warming solutions.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
    • Vic

      Simply put:

      There is NO "empirical evidence" of any 'evolution above the level of species.'

      February 3, 2014 at 7:59 pm |
      • Andy Anybody

        Of course there is, there is literally mountains of it but for some reason theists are terrified to either admit it or get off their lazy butts to go look at it.

        February 3, 2014 at 8:03 pm |
      • Garrett

        Vic, if the root post above yours is correct, and it looks to be (and well referenced too), well, since you read it, hate to say it, but you are pretty much showing yourself to be a liar.

        Seems like these are very desperate times for creationists. You are resorting to reality denial, and even lying, it appears. Not the first lying incident either; there was that earlier one of the term change that was pretty prominent.

        Word of advice: maybe it's time to take a good hard look at your (unsupportable) position. Try to be honest about it, for a change. The evidence sure ain't on your side.

        February 3, 2014 at 8:13 pm |
        • Vic

          You are totally confusing "adaptation" and "variations" within the same species with 'evolution above the level of species,' which the latter is NOT existent!

          February 3, 2014 at 8:26 pm |
        • Ian

          Speciation? That's a loss of genetic information, a narrowing of the gene pool. That's never going to amount to an increase in information that will produce a new, higher order animal.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:40 pm |
        • G to the T

          @ Ian – Speciation is not a "loss" of genetic information. It's a drift in the genetic information of 2 populations. Once they have separated as the species level, they may diversify again within that grouping.

          And what is this obsession with "loss" and "gain" of genetic information? "Information" is not lost or gained, it just changes. That change may involve the creation of additional genetic matieral, but that isn't a guarantee of "higher" life. There are plants that have "more" genetic information than us.

          Speciation? That's a loss of genetic information, a narrowing of the gene pool. That's never going to amount to an increase in information that will produce a new, higher order animal.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:57 pm |
      • Barcs

        Simply put.

        Vic is a liar.

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

        February 4, 2014 at 1:16 am |
  14. Des

    Everyone, be careful of JW. He has been back out here often lately, on recruiting missions for his deadly cult, and he's back again today on his latest sales con job. That's how they keep it going; heavy sales efforts. You can see him on his latest con job for his cult in recent posts. This is well documented now. He must get cult brownie points for his doorknocking efforts here. He needs to engage you on his agenda to do that. Instead, keep pressing him on points like this, and watch him squirm:

    So, JW, are you opposed to blood transfusion in the case of an accident victim who has lost a lot of blood and will die without transfused blood? Yes or no answer please; none of your usual dodging will get you by. We are watching for you and your deadly ilk.

    February 3, 2014 at 7:41 pm |
    • Why post the same thing over and over.

      Please do not become the next "source of filthy racism" robot. Thank you.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:46 pm |
  15. Steve Truglio

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

    February 3, 2014 at 7:40 pm |
    • Greg

      The Bible was recorded by man but is "God breathed" by a God who doesn't lie.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
      • JCC

        In what way does your statement validate the Bible any more than the countless religious tomes produced by others across the world and throughout time? Why is the Bible more valid than Dianetics, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita or Aztec inscriptions on their temples?

        The only "evidence" exists only in the minds of a religion's adherents.

        February 3, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
      • truthprevails1

        What god are you speaking of here? And how exactly do you know you're right?

        February 3, 2014 at 8:04 pm |
      • Check

        Greg,

        So who "breathed" this stuff?:
        (somebody lied)

        - You cure leprosy by having a dove killed, dipping a live one in its blood and having it fly around. Also, you have to anoint the toes of the suffer with the blood.

        - You discover unfaithful wives when their bellies swell and their thighs rot after they are made to drink some magical water.

        - Prized striped goats are bred by having the mating parents stare at striped objects.

        – You may buy, own, sell, and will slaves to your descendants (only foreigners for slaves, though, no Israelis)

        There are several other similar instances of absolute rubbish that this "God" allegedly "spoke", along with a bunch of other rules and laws that are obviously only from the minds of primitive men. How anyone can believe that this stuff came from a real smart divine being is ludicrous.

        February 3, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
        • Greg

          Instead of grabbing a verse here and there I suggest you study it in context. I'm certain you'll find Good News. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

          February 4, 2014 at 12:05 am |
  16. Tim

    Hamm's use of the phrase "evolutionary belief system" is a perfect example of why it's pointless to debate science with religious zealots. Evolution is not a belief system – it's a rock-solid cornerstone of modern scientific knowledge. No belief necessary! It is as firmly established as the theory of gravity. The only reason to continue to doubt it is willful ignorance, which is Hamm's position. Hopefully Nye will reach a couple of people and encourage them to investigate for themselves. I assure you Hamm will win no converts to his point of view.

    February 3, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
    • Philosophy

      I agree that philosophy and science are not supposed to be mixed. Science is science and philosophy and religion is something else entirely.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:36 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        Philosophy is at the foundation of science. Check out the ruminations of Stephen Hawking over realism and model based realism.

        February 3, 2014 at 7:40 pm |
        • Philosophy

          Well I've been meaning to read the brief history of time. I'll give it a shot, I like Hawking. Though I have to say I always thought philosophy was supposed to be unsolvable questions.

          February 3, 2014 at 7:51 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          My friend Russ seems to say that that is what metaphysics is about.

          February 3, 2014 at 7:52 pm |
        • Philosophy

          Maybe so, I thought metaphysics was more evidence driven than philosophy.

          February 3, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
        • Philosophy

          Not that a lot of evidence was going to be there though.

          February 3, 2014 at 7:59 pm |
      • Ian

        Evolution absolutely depends on philosophy, because without certain philosophical (not scientific) beliefs, evolution is clearly impossible. Which all goes to show how weak science teaching really is, that the distinction between science and philosophy isn't actually clear to most people.

        February 3, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
        • JW

          I agree with you. But we most not forget that the majority of the teachings in the so called "Christian" churches come from Greek philosophy as well...like Hellfire, immortality of the soul....etc.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
        • G to the T

          @JW – Don't forget "Logos".

          February 3, 2014 at 8:59 pm |
    • Chris k

      It may come as a shock to your conditioned worldview, but there are actually very good reasons to doubt the theory of evolution. The so-called evidences for evolution are mainly exaggerations and lies. For example, the tree of evolution connecting all species one to another only exists on paper. There is no significant cohesion between all the various kinds of living organisms. Also, all that we have ever observed is micro-evolution, which is far and a way different than macro-evolution. In order to accomplish macro, brand new information must be added to an organisms DNA: we've also never observed this. I do believe in evolution, but not to the extent that's bring propagated in our schools. It's not the first time erroneous curriculum has brainwashed civilization into believing far reaching farces. Evolution is so fraught with errors and inconsistencies it's a wonder to me that academia embraces it. There are probably 100 questions I could ask you about evolution that even the most intelligent evolutionists would fail to properly respond to. Dig a little deeper than what you're being told. Being inquisitive is a wonderful trait and would do you well.

      February 3, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
      • truthprevails1

        No Chris, there is substantial, well documented date to support the theory of evolution and a lot more to support it than there will ever be for the incest err creation myth of the bible. The fact that you do not comprehend evolution doesn't make it fallacious...next time pay attention in school.

        February 3, 2014 at 8:07 pm |
      • AtheistSteve

        First there is no such thing as micro and macro evolution...There is just evolution and the only distinction real between the 2 things you are suggesting is TIME. Secondly the tree of life depicted in evolution is clearly linked to commonalities in DNA of every modern species.

        February 3, 2014 at 8:36 pm |
  17. PeggyC

    As for evolution being tested in the laboratory, it happens all the time. One particular experiment comes to mind–the one that started out with one species of E. coli in a test tube. Richard Dawkins talks about it in one of his books. I'm sure a quick Google search will find it. But yeah, evolution can and has been tested in the laboratory. And, for the record, testing in a laboratory is not the only way to test a scientific hypothesis. You use the hypothesis to make predictions and then test them. Finding just one fossil in a geological time zone/layer where it doesn't belong would falsify the hypothesis. It hasn't happened.

    February 3, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
    • Greg

      So bacteria becoming bacteria is proof that man and animals evolved over billions of years? Only changes WITHIN kinds is observable (that is not evolution, but it is bibical). Everything about evolution is man's idea about the past and trying to find a reason for his existence without God. Molecules to man evolution is not a provable fact. In fact, it is ridiculous.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:52 pm |
      • G to the T

        "Only changes WITHIN kinds is observable (that is not evolution, but it is bibical)"

        It's not scientific either. As any 10 people what "kind" actual means and you'll get as many answers. What does "kind" mean to you? Genus? Family? Philum?

        Beacause the only difference between changing at the species level and any of these other levels is time.

        February 3, 2014 at 9:02 pm |
        • Greg

          "Beacause the only difference between changing at the species level and any of these other levels is time."

          That is a belief. Not observable. And no, it is not proven in the fossil record.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:22 pm |
        • G to the T

          Greg – it's not disproven by the fossil record is it? So far as I know, everything seems to line up fairly well.

          If you are willing to concede evolution at the species level, then all we're talking about is how much time you are willing to allow it to work in. 1 million years, 10 million, 100 million, 1 billion? Take your pick. Life's been around almost as long as the planet, it's had plenty of time.

          February 4, 2014 at 10:07 am |
      • redzoa

        With respect to the alleged inability to evolve beyond "kinds"; this is akin to arguing inches exist, but that miles are impossible. Creationists can point to no known biological constraint on the ability of an organism to acc-umulate genetic/morphological change. Add to this the direct observation of fossil forms bridging the major vertebrate classes, i.e. fish with tetrapod features, reptiles with mammalian features, reptiles with avian features, etc. According to the premise, these forms simply shouldn't exist . . .

        February 3, 2014 at 9:19 pm |
        • Greg

          Not the same at all. You can prove inches add up to miles. You cannot prove changes in species add up to changes in kind. That is why evolution is a belief. You can believe it if you want, just stop teaching it as fact.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:25 pm |
        • redzoa

          Feel free then to explain the progressive order of the fossil record, the presence of forms bearing features which bridge the allegedly specially-created kinds, the phylogenetic analyses corroborating the progressive order of the fossil record and transitional forms, speciation events and the ability of purely natural mechanisms to yield novel biological functionality. In the midst of this explanation, feel free to point to the biological mechanism which precludes the addition of small changes into larger changes.

          By "proving" miles exist, I presume you mean we could observe the addition of inches until we reach a mile, much like we can look to the fossil record, trace the progressive order, divergence and addition of features from one "kind" into a different "kind."

          February 3, 2014 at 10:17 pm |
        • Greg

          What you describe in the fossil record is more naturalistic interpretation and imagination than scientific evidence. What the fossil record shows and what we can observe is that all life, even the simplest forms of life, are indeed quite complex. Complex systems of information (numerous complex systems of information in an organism) did not evolve on their own over time. Even if you believe that then know that it is a belief. You accept it by faith. The evidence cannot prove that.

          February 3, 2014 at 10:26 pm |
        • redzoa

          I note you didn't even attempt to respond to the progressive order of the fossil record or those pesky forms bridging the alleged specially-created kinds (which just miraculously appear in the correct order) . . .

          February 3, 2014 at 10:32 pm |
        • Greg

          Did you know we date the fossils based on which rock layer we find them and we date the rock layers by which fossils we find in them? Circular reasoning. I also totally disagree with your assertion concerning "pesky forms bridging the alleged specially-created kinds". You'll need to site some evidence that hasn't been discredited.

          February 4, 2014 at 12:12 am |
        • redzoa

          "Complex systems of information (numerous complex systems of information in an organism) did not evolve on their own over time."

          Apparently you are unfamiliar with Lenski's E. coli or the Pod Mrcaru lizards. Tell me, Greg, why do you, a placental mammal, possess a defunct gene for the production of egg yolk? Perhaps we should simplify, why do you possess nip-ples?

          February 3, 2014 at 10:34 pm |
        • Greg

          You mean the experiment where bacteria evolves into bacteria? I know, small changes we can observe + LOTS of time = big changes we can't observe. That's a belief.

          February 4, 2014 at 12:00 am |
        • redzoa

          Let's skip to the chase. I would reject evolution if a rabbit was found in the pre-Cambrian, a true chimera was observed, or if a form suddenly appeared ex nihilo.

          Is there any evidence which would convince you that evolution is in fact true?

          February 3, 2014 at 10:36 pm |
        • Greg

          There is no evidence to date that convinces me of evolution. Keep looking. I think you'll discover it will get harder and harder to prove evolution. Again, evidence doesn't speak. People speak for it.

          February 3, 2014 at 11:18 pm |
        • redzoa

          "There is no evidence to date that convinces me of evolution."

          That wasn't the question. Is there any evidence which would convince you evolution is true. If so, then what would that evidence be . . .

          February 3, 2014 at 11:21 pm |
        • Greg

          How can I tell what evidence you're lacking until I've seen it? You suggest there is a single piece of evidence that would give me that ah-ha moment? I've looked at a lot of evidence used to support evolution and find it full of errors, generous interpretation and unprovable assumptions. The entire evolutionary foundation is problematic.

          February 3, 2014 at 11:35 pm |
        • redzoa

          Well, given that I've told you what evidence I believe would undermine evolution, and in light of your claimed dedicated and thorough examination of the evidence supporting evolution, one might think you could hazard a guess . . .

          Is it possible that there is simply no evidence that could convince you that evolution is true?

          February 3, 2014 at 11:40 pm |
        • Greg

          Probably about as much evidence that would convince you creation is true. I've responded to several posts that it is not about the evidence. We all have the same evidence and we have reached polar opposite conclusions. Why is that? It is because our starting points are different. I'm fully committed to trust the Bible because everything I observe confirms it is true. You are committed to naturalism – it all happened without God. So, you interpret the evidence through that lens.

          February 4, 2014 at 12:21 am |
        • redzoa

          Strange delay in the posting order here . . . Nonetheless, regarding the alleged "circular reasoning," I'm not referencing any dating methods, I'm pointing to the order in which fossils first appear in the record, i.e. first fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then fish. This observation alone confounds literal creationism, particularly when we see forms of similar density/niche separated by many, many layers of strata, whence the need to develop failed creationist models like "hydrodynamic sorting," "eco-zonation," "differential escape," and "floating biomes."

          Regarding forms which bridge current vertebrate classes, I'd point to Tiktaalik and the other fish-a-pods, and perhaps Microrapter/Archeopteryx to start. Now when you say "discredited" I suspect you mean the "interpretations" by AIG and ICR, but not that these forms don't actually exist (again, at the right place in the progressive order).

          But to keep on track, I'll ask again. In light of my identifying evidence that would undermine evolution, and in light of your claims of having examined the bulk of the evidence supporting evolution, you suggested you are incapable of even hazarding a guess:

          Is it possible that there is simply no evidence which could convince you that evolution is true?

          Or we could take it one step further: Is it possible that the god of bible doesn't actually exist?

          February 4, 2014 at 12:29 am |
        • Greg

          We also see petrified trees (lots of them) standing upright (or completely inverted) passing through many layers of rock that supposedly span millions of years. That is clear evidence the layers were laid down quickly (during Noah's flood) and not by some gradual process.

          Unashamedly, my starting point is God's Word. I believe in God and find that observational science continually confirms His word. To directly answer your question, I do not believe it is possible that God does not exist.

          February 4, 2014 at 12:50 am |
        • redzoa

          "Probably about as much evidence that would convince you creation is true."

          Again, you are evading a simple question. I've already specifically identified evidence that would undermine evolution and included evidence that, if observed, would support creationism. Still you refuse to answer. I'll ask again.

          Is there any evidence which could convince you that evolution is true?

          Alternatively, is it possible that the god of the bible doesn't actually exist?

          I appreciate the difficulty you face in answering these questions. On one hand, identifying evidence opens the possibility that such evidence already exists, but that you are just unaware, and even accepting the possibility that evolution might be true contradicts what I suspect is a fundamentalist belief that requires unwavering allegiance (lest you be found guilty of insufficient faith). The same quandry exists for the possibility that the biblical deity doesn't exist. Of course, a reasonable person must concede the possibility, and that is the point. There is reasonable doubt and then there is unreasonable doubt. Unreasonable doubt is not concerned with evidence, which would betray the facade of coming here and pretending to discuss the merits of evidence to begin with. Why not just skip all this discussion, concede that your position is not actually based in evidence, but rather it's based in the hope that you'll get to escape death and live forever if you demonstrate sufficient impenetrable faith?

          February 4, 2014 at 12:37 am |
        • redzoa

          "Unashamedly, my starting point is God's Word. I believe in God and find that observational science continually confirms His word. To directly answer your question, I do not believe it is possible that God does not exist."

          I take this as a concession to both of the questions then. It's clear that physical evidence is not truly a consideration and your invoking and pretending to rely on it is simply disingenuous apologetics.

          The most ironic part of fundamentalism is how its adherents claim for themselves, the infallible knowledge they attribute to their preferred deity. How very humble . . . I wonder if you'd step forward and hack children and infants to death (1 Sam 15:3) if you believed it would guarantee favor with your deity? Obedience before reason or even empathy, eh?

          Regarding polystrate trees : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

          If you really want some fun, go check out AIG/ICR responses to the Coconino Sandstone. I believe one of these groups has a page which openly prays for some evidence to reconcile the observation with the mythical flood. Now that's science 😉

          February 4, 2014 at 1:00 am |
        • Greg

          Thanks for the article. I noted the word "interpretation" at least twice. See my point? There is observable science and there is interpretation about the past. Interpretation is guided by a worldview – a starting point.

          Physical evidence IS a consideration. Interpretation is not physical evidence. However, neither of us will convince the other because our starting points are different.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:16 am |
        • Barcs

          Greg, please name the mechanism responsible for preventing genetic mutations from adding up over time.

          3...2...1....Go!

          Oh wait there isn't one. It's just an imaginary wall put there by creationists, with no logical reason to believe otherwise.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:21 am |
        • Greg

          If you believe that genetic mutations over time account for the complexity and diversity of life then have at it. But, it is a belief.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:23 am |
        • redzoa

          "Physical evidence IS a consideration"

          Again, this is disingenuous at best. You begin with the conclusion, and consider ONLY that which you believe conforms. For example, your citing polystrate trees but ignoring the progressive order of the fossil record, or say, the Coconino Sands (or the long, long list of empirical physical evidence contradicting the Genesis narrative). As I have already indicated, I am willing to consider evidence which doesn't conform to my current understanding. I am willing to accept the possibility that evolution is not correct. I am willing to concede I could be wrong. This is the intellectually honest position; the position which maintains integrity.

          You, however, are incapable of making a similar concession because you are afraid such a concession would jeopardize your desperately hoped for escape from mortality. What voluntary inquiry can be made when every inquiry is bookended by an alleged threat of eternal punishment and the alleged promise of eternal reward?

          With all due respect, your continuing to insist it's simply a matter of "worldview" is equally disingenuous, because you've already conceded that your "worldview" is beyond reconsideration.

          Please spare me the apologetics. I've heard it all before. Quit trying to pretend your position is reasonable when you've already openly conceded that reasoning, or evidence, or humility, are not actual considerations given they must invariably yield to "God's word" as you infallibly interpret it.

          On the bright side, proponents like yourself forced Creation Science to mask itself as Intelligent Design. Fortunately for actual science, the same flawed arguments of incredulity, the same absence of positive supporting evidence, and the inevitable need to declare one's purely religious motivations always shines through . . .

          February 4, 2014 at 1:38 am |
  18. Kevin

    " 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."

    Yeah, there's a reason for that. Why don't we debate the shape of the Earth while we are at it? 🙂

    February 3, 2014 at 7:31 pm |
    • Greg

      Shape of the earth is observational science. Origin of life is historical science. That is why we debate.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
      • truthprevails1

        Gee, so much nonsense coming from you. The incest story of the bible makes sense to you?

        February 3, 2014 at 8:08 pm |
        • Greg

          You're referring to brothers marrying sisters in Genesis? Yes, it was later in the Bible where God said close relatives could no longer marry. Face it, we're all related. We're all one race of people.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:12 pm |
        • truthprevails1

          Nice spin there...funny but nice. Where in the bible can your claims be proven? If you're going to make up lies, then at least try to back them.
          We may all be related but not due to your incest story..how cute that you support incest, it explains so much about your proven lack of intelligence on here.
          You know if you leave the trailer park, you can get an education!

          February 3, 2014 at 8:18 pm |
        • Greg

          Didn't say I support incest. Oh, and where do evolutionists get their moral code from? If there is no authority (God) then man decides what is right and wrong.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:24 pm |
        • truthprevails1

          You didn't have to say it, you prove it just by denying evolution and supporting the bible story...enjoy sleeping with your sisters???
          You do not need a god or religion to be moral.
          This might explain things better for you.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq2C7fyVTA4

          February 3, 2014 at 8:27 pm |
        • Greg

          You can't know what moral is unless you have a standard to follow. What is moral to you may not be moral to me. Sorry, you don't get to decide.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:33 pm |
        • truthprevails1

          Nor do you get to plug a god into it. Our species had to learn from our very beginnings how to co-operate, they certainly didn't worship your god until much later in the game; in fact they probably worshiped other gods-Thor, Odin.
          I pointed you to a video and as I thought you would, you dismissed it. All that does is prove you really don't care.
          Morals are rather simple and I do not need a god to tell me that killing is wrong or that causing harm to another human or animal is wrong or that sleeping around on my husband is wrong.
          If you need that book as a moral guide, please feel free to keep it because you're not moral to begin with.
          However some of us do just fine without that book.
          In fact the morality you accept by accepting that book, isn't too much to be proud of...even you agree that there is incest within and yet we know that incest is seriously wrong and has NEVER been right; your bible supports slavery; your bible condones child abuse and murder; your bible condones oppression of Women and LGBT.
          To accept that book means you in turn accept all of that and none of that can be deemed moral.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:21 pm |
        • Greg

          Most of what you reference are results of man's sin, not God's plan. Why is murder wrong? When a cat kills a mouse is that a crime? When a lion kills the antelope is that a crime? If we're just evolved animals then why is killing another person or animal wrong? It is wrong because something inside us tells us it is wrong. I'm hopeful you'll come to realize you were created by God and he sent his son to die on a cross as payment for you sin and mine.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:32 pm |
        • truthprevails1

          Oh my, I've asked you for evidence of this god you claim exists and you keep failing to answer and instead keep coming up with excuses for stuff.
          I've tried to explain to you how no god is necessary but you don't want another opinion nor do you care.
          Murder is wrong because it causes harm. Sin is strictly biblical and does not pertain to anyone who doesn't share your belief (an amazing 5 billion on this planet).
          As previously stated, not all of us need a god to know right from wrong, we're not all so weak.
          I was a christian until I took a thorough look at the bible and realized it doesn't hold a light against scientific evidence.
          If you need the bible to be moral, have at it...we wouldn't want you murdering or pillaging or raping or beating women or killing LGBT-damn it, your bible approves of all that but you have willfully chosen to ignore it.
          You're not worthy of further debate because you're not even willing to try to provide answers.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:45 pm |
        • Greg

          You're not looking for answers. You want to keep believing in your religion of no God because it gives you the illusion of no accountability to Him. An evolutionist and creationist have the same fossil record, the same rock layers, the same chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc. We can all perform the same observational science and draw the same conclusions. Both creationists and evolutions can be excellent scientists. The difference is when we go beyond what we can observe and try to apply it to the past. The argument isn't about the evidence. Who defines what is moral? Is it you? Is it me? Thank God it isn't up to us.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:59 pm |
        • truthprevails1

          Greg: I don't stop looking for answers. You stopped looking for answers the second you plug a god in to it. I do not have a religion...that is a misconception of your behalf. It has been proven time after time that Science and creationists have vastly different evidence, if it were the same there would be no debate about which is taught in schools and on this one, creationism isn't.
          You are weak if you need to thank a god for your morals. Not all of us are.

          February 4, 2014 at 4:57 am |
        • Barcs

          Greg, take your head out of the sand. Evolution is real and factual. Read a book, instead of formulating your opinion based on what you read on a creationist website. God gave us brains that can critically think. USE YOURS. Science denial in 2014 with the availability of information is beyond stupid. There is no excuse for that type of ignorance.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:24 am |
        • Greg

          "evolution is real and factual"

          That statement alone is laughable. And you say my head is in the sand. Evolution is a belief, full of interpretations and assumptions about the past. I get sick of people calling it a fact.

          February 4, 2014 at 1:28 am |
  19. JW

    Despite good intention of the governments and the scientific societies to change our planet for the better, unfortunately history shows that humans could never accomplish what Gods Kingdom is promised to do.

    Jesus told us to pray for Gods Kingdom to "come and do his will on earth" (Matt 6:9,10). So,

    -What will Gods Kingdom accomplish?

    1.God’s Kingdom will replace all human governments and rule over the entire earth. (Daniel 2:44; Revelation 16:14) Once that happens, God’s Kingdom will . . .

    2.Remove the wicked, whose selfishness harms us all. “As regards the wicked, they will be cut off from the very earth.”—Proverbs 2:22.

    3.End all wars. “[God] is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth.”—Psalm 46:9.

    4.Bring prosperity and security to the earth. “Everyone will live in peace among their own vineyards and fig trees, and no one will make them afraid.”—Micah 4:4, Good News Translation.

    5.Make the earth into a paradise. “Thirsty deserts will be glad; barren lands will celebrate and blossom with flowers.”—Isaiah 35:1, Contemporary English Version.

    6.Provide everyone with meaningful, enjoyable work. “The work of their own hands [God’s] chosen ones will use to the full. They will not toil for nothing.”—Isaiah 65:21-23.

    7.Eliminate disease. “No resident will say: ‘I am sick.’”—Isaiah 33:24.

    8.Set us free from the aging process. “Let his flesh become fresher than in youth; let him return to the days of his youthful vigor.”—Job 33:25.

    9.Bring the dead back to life. “All those in the memorial tombs will hear [Jesus’] voice and come out.”—John 5:28, 29.

    February 3, 2014 at 7:31 pm |
    • Kevin

      Don't believe everything you read. I can write a religious book with twice as many miracles.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:33 pm |
    • bostontola

      Your God did not create anything, He exists in the minds of some humans. The bible exists and has done some good and much harm.

      "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

      This bible statement has been used by man to extinguish species and poison the planet. ouch.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:36 pm |
      • Luke

        You know, I too might have held such a opinion however when I was eslaved to addictions and had no purpose in life I trusted in God and he did save me, since then My life has completely been changed no everything didn't suddenly get easy and I didn't get rich or anything like that but He Has been with me released me from my addictions just like that and my deepest darkest moments, as for his exsitance I will not Denie him because I have known him and I have a relationship with him I will gladly be a fool for his sake, as for evolution in the sense of a organisim turning into another separate and distinctive organism of a higher form (ex, a fish with gills to a man with lungs) it is not provable, we have never observed any creature turning into another, And we have never seen it historically if there were transitional forms of animals evolving into others over billions of years there should be billions upon billions of transitional forms (half way in the evolving process) but not once have we found even one transitional form of creature, every creature we find in the fossil record shows distinct and purposeful design and those Ancient animals if around now would operate just as efficientlly now as they did then. As for billions of years we have no accurate dating methods to date the age of the earth sobwe can not know according to science without just guessing. I think if all the data is reviewed the bibles account of history is completly consistent with what we should find in our world today if in fact the bible is true. Ulitimatly the problem here is not of evidence but of a spiritual blindness if The Bible is true then God is true and satan also is true, Now if Satan has someone in a state of not beliving God that person will never get to the truth which is that we are desprately wicked enemies of God and will one day have to stand before him to receive Judgement for our deeds done, God however made a way to forgive and save us, we have sinned we are corrupt and evil God can never accept us because he Is the very essence and definition of what righteousness is he can not just forgive you, that would not be just to let a criminal go without sentence the wages of our sin is death so eternal death is our punishment someone had to take your sentence to take away and cleanse you from your sin since you can do nothing yourself to change your condemned state and God accomplished this by seending his Only beggotten Son to pay our price so that God could now forgive us not because we deserve it but because of Jesus Christ he then offeres Forgiveness now if we will repent turn from our wicked ways and trust in his Son Jesus christ and what he did for our salvation. As for me I will belive God his unwavering word that has never been proved in error unlike Science text books which yearly are revised. I am grieved for you friend not knowing God is the saddest purposesless existence I can imagine ( now that I know what I do now I wpuld rathet die than Not know him) You dont know when you will die It could be tomorow or tonight or in 20 minutes, I tell you God is there ready to save you if you will only repent and trust in Jesus, he will provide and be with you when no one else is.

        February 3, 2014 at 8:30 pm |
        • Bones McCoy

          Use the force, Luke!

          February 4, 2014 at 1:25 am |
    • Des

      Everyone, be careful of JW. He has been back out here often lately, on recruiting missions for his deadly cult. That's how they keep it going; heavy sales efforts. You can see him on his latest con job for his cult in recent posts. This is well documented now. He must get cult brownie points for his doorknocking efforts here. He needs to engage you on his agenda to do that. Instead, keep pressing him on points like this, and watch him squirm:

      So, JW, are you opposed to blood transfusion in the case of an accident victim who has lost a lot of blood and will die without transfused blood? Yes or no answer please; none of your usual dodging will get you by. We are watching for you and your deadly ilk.

      February 3, 2014 at 7:40 pm |
      • Asked the 8 ball

        "Don't count on it"

        Source:
        http://8ball.tridelphia.net/

        February 3, 2014 at 7:55 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.