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. hollywood

    people tend to believe what they want to believe. There is no human " Missing link" that I am aware of. I am aware of two supposed links- one was designed soley from a pigs tooth, the other from a horse tooth–both as phoney as could be. I have a degree in cell biology and genetics and my daughter was studying molecular biology which you learn of the extreme complexity of a single cell and the multiple repair mechanisms to repair defective chromosomal material. The presence of the huge number of cancer patients–almost one in every family–speaks to the fact that most mutations result in negative outcomes rather than positive. There certainly is ability of a genome to adjust the organism. However in the case of a human it stands to reason that without a complete genome in all its complexity the incomplete specimen would die. For example-no circulation/ no endocrine system / no legs. And then you need a male and female at the exact same time, with the exact same genomes, for mating–and no babies please cause there is no way to care for the babies without adults being there first. So there is faith involved in both sides views. Look at how the universe is expanding at the exact perfect rate. Look at the strong and weak nuclear forces. There are so many interacting perfectly "weighted" balancing forces as to be quite a coincidence. It is all just accidental? –go figure. And to the person who questioned–why God hasn't shown himself–read about Jesus Christ–he tried to explain.

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

      I'd contact your university and ask for a refund.

      February 3, 2014 at 11:46 pm |
      • Piccolo

        I very much doubt he's been to college/university.

        February 4, 2014 at 12:34 am |
        • doobzz

          Judging from his post, I agree.

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

      Correct. There is no one "missing link" in the human lineage; rather there's a nice record of pre-hominid up through H. sapien forms. Your cancer analogy failed to mention that every human has, on average ~120 mutations not found in either parent, yet the remaining family members seem to be doing ok. Regarding the necessity of all the parts at once, male/female, etc, I'm guessing your genetics courses didn't include any population genetics. With all due respect, that's enough for me to question your claimed credentials . . .

      February 3, 2014 at 11:48 pm |
    • King of Darkness

      You do realize that well over 20 "missing links" between ancient apes and modern humans have been found, right? Missing link is laughable.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:33 am |
      • R

        Don't make me laugh...do people really believe this crap?? If you are so confident, show me a missing link that has t been debunked by evolutionists themselves. If there was one everyone in earth would know about it, as it would be major news.

        February 4, 2014 at 2:14 am |
        • Colin

          Wow. Have you ever opened up a science book? Look up "hominid." It is what you are calling the "missing link." We have found thousands upon thousands of hominid fossils in Ethiopia, Chad, Tanzania, South Africa, Croatia, Israel, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Moldova, the Ukraine, Java, China, the Philippines, Iraq, Pakistan and Iran. They tell an interesting tale and show the gradual evolution in "humanness," including bipedalism, tool use, arm length and brain capacity.
          The last common ancestor of man and chimpanzees lived about 6 million years ago in Africa. Around that time, there was a branching in the evolution of the species and any intermediate species between this last common ancestor and modern man (Ho.mo sapiens) is called a "hominid."

          A number of different species of hominids have been identified. Beginning, roughly with the oldest to the newest, these are –
          Sahelanthropus tchadensis
          Australopithecus afarenses
          Australopithecus africanus
          Ho.mo habilus
          Ho.mo ergaster
          Ho.mo erectus
          Ho.mo heidelbergensis
          Ho.mo neanderthalis (Neanderthal man)
          Ho.mo foresiensis
          And us, Ho.mo sapiens.

          The ages of the respective fossils suggest that our immediate ancestor was Ho.mo Erectus and that Ho.mo heidelbergensis, Ho.mo neanderthalis (Neanderthal man) and Ho.mo floresiensis all went extinct. That is to say, they were not in our lineage, they were our “cousins” although some interbreeding may have occurred.

          The above is an over-simplification, omits many other intermediate species or related and is not without controversy in some areas, but is a useful yardstick to gauge how humans evolved from the last common ancestor we shared with the great apes.

          February 4, 2014 at 5:09 am |
        • Ray

          Ha. Collin just played your butt. Get used to the butthurt because there's plenty more coming once the debate starts.

          February 4, 2014 at 5:13 am |
        • WASP

          @"R": you asked for one correct? ok.

          "lucy" the h0m0-erectious ancestor that all palentologists agree is a common ancestor to modern humans.

          February 4, 2014 at 7:47 am |
        • Ian

          LOL. Lucy was a gibbon (or similar), as many paleontologists know quite well.

          February 4, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
      • TasieSceptic

        do you realise that the chain connecting us to the common ancestor of humans and chimps is so long that you don't have a box big enough for the missing links?
        it's naive to imagine that there is only one intermediary

        February 4, 2014 at 2:23 am |
    • WASP

      @holly: "why God hasn't shown himself"
      ANSWER: because just like the rest of the gods and demons throughout history, he isn't real.
      riddle me this, why is god,jesus and the holy ghost refered to as being "male"? they are always called "him",hmmmm nah it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that those that wrote the bible were ego-centric males wanting their god to believe as they did, noooo that would be blastphamy. XD

      life and i mean all life isn't a mistake, or an opps. life exsists because it can not because it has to.

      all things are made from energy, thus all things will return to energy in one of it's various forms. no god required; not to mention the fact if i was alive because i was suppose to be, life would really blow. i like the thought of all these millions upon millions of situations taking place to give rise to little ol' me, because if one choice had been different or one thing out of place i wouldn't be as i am.

      February 4, 2014 at 7:38 am |
  2. Reality #2

    Only for the new members of this blog:

    See K. Ham's Christian con game economics at http://www.guidestar.o-rg/FinDocu-ments/2012/330/596/2012-330596423-09802a03-9.pdf. He pays himself $200,000/yr., spends another $700,000 on travel with all of his family members serving as part of his staff each being paid on average $10,000-70,000/yr. (seven family members total). Then there are some failed investments in securities.

    Then there is also Tim Dudley, the head of New Leaf publishing who is a board member of Ham's "non-profit". His company not only publishes Ham's con propaganda and is paid $1 million/yr. for the work plus gets another $100,000 for his "services". Strange but apparently standard conduct for "non-profits".

    February 3, 2014 at 11:16 pm |
  3. Fill

    http://www.youtube.Com/watch?v=O3v2m4_NHhA

    February 3, 2014 at 11:09 pm |
  4. Fill

    You can only fight crazy with crazy. Don't do it Bill!

    February 3, 2014 at 11:07 pm |
  5. bostontola

    Vic: "Did you know that the General Theory of Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics are NOT empirically proven."

    Vic,
    How many times do I have to tell you that science and scientists don't prove ideas. They test ideas, validate those tests, and discard ideas shown to be false. It works better than any other system ever tried by humans. That is indisputable.

    February 3, 2014 at 10:57 pm |
  6. tallulah13

    The very argument is an embarassment to the United States. It's no wonder that we are falling behind the rest of the developed world. When people believe myths over science, they kill their own future. Creationists are trying to drag the rest of us down with them.

    February 3, 2014 at 10:29 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Maybe they'll just become a pathetic underclass living in isolated tribal areas under Christian law.

      February 3, 2014 at 10:49 pm |
      • Greg

        Creation vs Evolution has nothing to do with observational science and technological discoveries. It has nothing to do with our scientific position in the world. Evolutionists and creationists perform the same observational science with the same degree of excellence.

        February 3, 2014 at 11:09 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          I can't say I've run across a creationist in my field.

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

          What is your field? I'm sure I can point you to some.

          February 3, 2014 at 11:54 pm |
        • redzoa

          Is forensics a valid scientific endeavor? If a DNA paternity test indicates a given father of a child, must the technician have also witnessed the act of conception?

          February 3, 2014 at 11:14 pm |
        • Greg

          Examining DNA from parent and child is observational science. Telling me who they descended from a million or billion years ago requires a great deal of imagination.

          February 3, 2014 at 11:27 pm |
        • ME II

          @Greg,
          "Evolutionists and creationists perform the same observational science with the same degree of excellence."

          Creationists can perform science with excellence as long as the science is not about "creation science".

          February 3, 2014 at 11:15 pm |
        • redzoa

          "Examining DNA from parent and child is observational science."

          Again, you didn't really answer the question. Is the conclusion of the paternity test any less valid because the technician didn't directly witness or recapitulate the act of conception?

          February 3, 2014 at 11:32 pm |
        • Greg

          No, it is not less valid because the evidence is observable in the present and is without assumption about the past. Evolution theory, however, is loaded with interpretation, assumption, and a naturalistic worldview.

          February 3, 2014 at 11:53 pm |
        • redzoa

          "No, it is not less valid because the evidence is observable in the present and is without assumption about the past."

          So too is the progressive order of the fossil record, the presence of forms bearing traits bridging the major vertebrate classes, and the phylogenetic analyses which corroborate the former two observations, all observable in the present. The assumptions present here, i.e. the relative stability of natural law, is the same assumption underlying the observation of the result of the paternity test and the conclusion that the test indicates who the father actually is.

          On what grounds is this common assumption reasonable for one but not the other?

          February 4, 2014 at 12:04 am |
        • Barcs

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

          Tons of observations and experimental evidence that points to evolution.

          Sorry bud. If you can't address the science behind evolution you have nothing. The fossil record can be observed, genetics can be observed. Radioactive decay can be observed. Everything about evolution from genetic mutations, to natural selection, to speciation has all been observed. Claiming it hasn't is a blatant lie.

          February 4, 2014 at 12:41 am |
        • truthprevails1

          Greg: You haven't gotten in from the first dozen times it has been explained to you. Maybe take a lesson from Barcs here-an obviously open-minded. educated christian.
          You can't bunch creation with evolution, they are two different things. Creationism can't be taught in schools due to the complete lack of evidence supporting it, evolution can be taught be is schools due to the overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it. Your unwillingness to look at the evidence and compare the two only shows that you are ignorant in the 21st century and somewhere were failed by the education system No matter what way you look at it, creationism is fallacious.
          Sorry but yes you do share DNA with chimps...now join us in the 21st century please-those who fail to catch up get left behind!

          February 4, 2014 at 5:23 am |
    • Science Works

      and the Text books won Ken Ham !

      Texas Textbooks: A Case Study for Creationism’s Staying Power

      By Molly Worthen | January 14, 2014
      – See more at: http://religionandpolitics.org/2014/01/14/texas-textbooks-a-case-study-for-creationisms-staying-power/#sthash.YZ6fRUp7.dpuf

      February 3, 2014 at 10:50 pm |
  7. thatguy

    Evolution is common sense... How is this even a debate?

    February 3, 2014 at 10:05 pm |
    • Ian

      If common sense was common then very few people would believe in evolution. Or perhaps I'm talking about intellectual honesty and the courage to follow where the evidence actually leads.

      February 3, 2014 at 10:12 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        The evidence actually leads to evolution; reality does not support the biblical account.

        February 3, 2014 at 10:15 pm |
      • ME II

        @Ian,
        What evidence does not support evolution?

        February 3, 2014 at 10:16 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        Ian, I write programs that model evolution. The models I and others make work well enough, and observation and experimentation over many years by many researchers have shown enough, that I feel comfortable asking questions like "why would evolution not happen?"

        February 3, 2014 at 10:18 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people!

      – House

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

      It's not a debate. It is just a stubborn creationist who thinks he'll fast talk his way around the facts and try to make Bill Nye look bad in front of a creationist audience. I still want to know how much Ham is charging for tickets to the "debate". Bill Nye shouldn't bother, to be honest. It's like debating a flat earther.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:44 am |
  8. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    The genes responsible for the development of "kinds" ( do you mean obvious differences in phenotypes like rayed-fins vs limbs with digits?) are becoming well-understood. Genetic events that can change those genes are known. Given sufficient time and selection pressure, it's hard to see why "changes in kinds" would not happen. And we do see intermediate forms with intermediate alterations in such genes. Apparently it's important to Creationists that such things don't happen. Can they explain why they don't happen

    February 3, 2014 at 9:36 pm |
    • Topher

      You mean why doesn't evolution happen?

      February 3, 2014 at 9:38 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        I think you would call it macro-evolution, Topher. Does something prevent it from happening?

        February 3, 2014 at 9:44 pm |
        • Topher

          It's biologically impossible. A cow, for instance, only has the genetics to produce another cow. Are there micro changes? Yes. But it involves hair color, body build, etc. But it's still a cow.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:48 pm |
        • Ian

          Genetic load happens. (I bet someone has made a T-shirt of that.)

          February 3, 2014 at 9:49 pm |
        • redzoa

          "It's biologically impossible. A cow, for instance, only has the genetics to produce another cow. Are there micro changes? Yes. But it involves hair color, body build, etc. But it's still a cow."

          So again the creationist argument goes, inches exist but miles are impossible. We'll just ignore the progressive order of the fossil record and those fossil forms bridging the alleged specially-created kinds, e.g. fish with tetrapod features, reptiles with mammal features, reptiles with avian features.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:55 pm |
        • Topher

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWecPwrQv2c

          February 3, 2014 at 9:56 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher,
          Your video is incorrect.
          1) Evolution does not deal with life from non-life, that's abiogenesis.
          2) Organisms are built from gene sequences that express in some cases in proteins. Gene sequence can be change, i.e. added through, gene duplication, transposition, genetic drift, etc.

          February 3, 2014 at 10:04 pm |
        • Topher

          ME II

          "1) Evolution does not deal with life from non-life, that's abiogenesis."

          You atheists are constantly telling me how we evolved from rocks. That's non-life. Second, if we didn't evolve from non-life, where'd we come from according to your worldview?

          "2) Organisms are built from gene sequences that express in some cases in proteins. Gene sequence can be change, i.e. added through, gene duplication, transposition, genetic drift, etc."

          That's not beneficial, at least not in the long-run. It's a loss of information and thus not evolution.

          February 3, 2014 at 10:15 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher,
          I never told you *how* we evolved from rocks. We don’t know how life on Earth first began, yet. But, once it began evolution explains how life developed.

          What do you mean it’s not beneficial?
          The difference between any two species is in the genome of those species. And what are those differences? Gene sequences.
          Therefore, some differences in gene sequences are beneficial, or at least neutral, i.e. not all changes are deleterious.
          Gene duplication, transposition, genetic drift, change the gene sequence.
          Therefore, not all duplication, transpositions, and drifts are deleterious.
          example: Lenski’s long term e.coli experiment.

          February 3, 2014 at 10:28 pm |
        • Topher

          “For example, to destroy a bacterium, the antibiotic streptomycin attaches to a part of the bacterial cell called ribosomes. Mutations sometimes cause a structural deformity in ribosomes. Since the antibiotic cannot connect with the misshapen ribosome, the bacterium is resistant. But even though this mutation turns out to be beneficial (for the moment), it still const/itutes a loss of genetic information, not a gain. No ‘evolution’ has taken place: the bacteria are not ‘stronger.’ In fact, under normal conditions, with no antibiotic present, they are weaker than their nonmutated cousins.” — from Case Against Darwin, Chap. 2

          e.coli becoming e.coli is not evolution.

          February 3, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
        • redzoa

          From wiki:

          Wild-type E. coli cannot grow on citrate when oxygen is present due to the inability during aerobic metabolism to produce an appropriate transporter protein that can bring citrate into the cell, where it could be metabolized via the citric acid cycle. The consequent lack of growth on citrate under oxic conditions, referred to as a Cit- phenotype, is considered a defining characteristic of the species that has been a valuable means of differentiating E. coli from pathogenic Salmonella.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment#Evolution_of_aerobic_citrate_usage_in_one_population

          In other words, relative to the diversity of microbes, this novel feature was the functional equivalent of a change in "kinds."

          February 3, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Why do you say this is a loss of information, Topher? In your post-streptomycin world, over the entire population of E. coli there are now new topological forms of ribosomes. E coli know how to make more kinds of ribosomes. That is more information.

          February 3, 2014 at 10:43 pm |
        • ME II

          @Topher,
          1) Your bacteria example is, but one example of a genetic change.
          2) It is beneficial.
          3) "Stronger" does always mean more adapted, i.e. more fit for survival.

          How exactly do you classify that as a loss of "genetic information", whatever that is?

          February 3, 2014 at 11:01 pm |
        • Barcs

          Tropher and his red herrings should be ignored, to be honest. Dude is a straight up liar, probably the same guy as L and Vic.

          February 4, 2014 at 12:46 am |
        • sam stone

          now, now, now, let's be fair to gopher. he is not only a liar, but he is also a coward of some note and as well as a world class sycophant

          February 4, 2014 at 6:07 am |
      • ME II

        What are the limits of evolution and what causes those limits?

        February 3, 2014 at 9:48 pm |
        • Ian

          Do you mean change that actually occurs or the microbes-to-man fantasy that evolutionists promote?

          February 3, 2014 at 9:50 pm |
        • ME II

          @Ian,
          Exactly.
          How do you tell the difference between the two?

          February 3, 2014 at 9:52 pm |
        • Ian

          Animals reproduce after their own kind, and do not develop over time to another kind. Change within kinds does occur. Variation within a kind can be quite large. (For example, dogs.) Sometimes this leads to speciation, where two organisms of the same kind can no longer breed with each other. (Lions and tigers can interbreed, so are clearly of the same kind.) That video above is quite good.

          February 3, 2014 at 10:10 pm |
        • ME II

          @Ian,
          "Sometimes this leads to speciation, where two organisms of the same kind can no longer breed with each other. "

          Speciation is evolution.

          What is the difference between "kinds" at a genetic level?

          February 3, 2014 at 10:14 pm |
      • sam stone

        evolution doesn't happen? how's that tailbone, gopher?

        February 4, 2014 at 2:12 am |
    • Ian

      Given much less than "enough time" it's ridiculously hard to see how anything other than extinction would inevitably occur, because deleterious mutations outnumber beneficial mutations (http://mendelsaccountant.info/). I don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist.

      February 3, 2014 at 9:47 pm |
  9. Mary

    Why was the early universe entirely energy?

    February 3, 2014 at 8:54 pm |
    • Science Works

      If you are riding the ground FOAMING at the mouth having an epileptic seizure it is not the DEVIL – Neil deGrasse Tyson

      Published on Jan 22, 2014

      Bill Moyers continues his conversation with the astrophysicist in part two of a three-part series.

      Watch part one with Neil deGrasse Tyson: http://bit.ly/1dvNWcW

      Subscribe to 'Moyers & Company' channel: http://bit.ly/LGjeaM

      Science & Technology

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRx6f8lv6qc

      February 3, 2014 at 9:11 pm |
    • Topher

      Where'd the energy come from?

      February 3, 2014 at 9:12 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        Wheaties

        February 3, 2014 at 9:17 pm |
      • Science Works

        Which source topher ?

        February 3, 2014 at 9:20 pm |
        • Topher

          Which source?

          February 3, 2014 at 9:23 pm |
        • Science Works

          You asked topher there are a few sources of energy ?

          February 3, 2014 at 9:28 pm |
        • Topher

          Any of them. Pick one. Your choice.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:31 pm |
        • Science Works

          That is your choice Topher .

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

          OK. All of them. Where did they come from?

          February 3, 2014 at 9:33 pm |
        • Science Works

          Yeah topher sort of like the links that went into cyber space – weird energy ?

          February 3, 2014 at 9:42 pm |
        • Topher

          So ... no answer then?

          February 3, 2014 at 9:49 pm |
        • Science Works

          OK topher the energy of the breath of soul ?

          February 3, 2014 at 9:55 pm |
        • Topher

          Where did it come from?

          February 3, 2014 at 9:57 pm |
        • Science Works

          austin tried to answer but chocolate bunnies and passover came up ?

          February 3, 2014 at 10:02 pm |
        • Science Works

          Topher – Hopefully the children at the museum will learn something from the debate .

          Topher = child that might learn something ?

          February 3, 2014 at 10:11 pm |
        • sam stone

          gopher doesn't need to learn anything.

          it's all in the babble, the word of iron age man that he mistakes for god

          halle-fvcking-lu-jah

          February 4, 2014 at 6:11 am |
  10. Mary

    Why does 13.7 billions years not sound like "always"?

    February 3, 2014 at 8:53 pm |
    • ME II

      Does it?

      February 3, 2014 at 8:57 pm |
    • Philip Eugene Douglas CO, CO

      Because it's not, you dingbat.

      February 3, 2014 at 9:48 pm |
  11. panthrotheist

    the atheists are sent by God to argue or debate with the theists or believers of God in order to arrive to the truth through the dialectical process of religious change.Two opposing forces is needed to arrive to the truth,The theists or believers versus the atheists the non believers to result in panthrotheism,The self creationary and evolutionary universe,the resultant unified religion of the future.

    February 3, 2014 at 8:46 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      nev/devent/panthr
      It still makes no sense.

      February 3, 2014 at 9:11 pm |
    • Barcs

      Actually, creationists are sent to atheists by the universal collective consciousness to test their patience.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:48 am |
  12. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    No point in asking most of these believers if they actually believe this stuff. They may themselves think it's incredible, but insist that it's true in hopes that they can, if they say so often enough, believe it and please their God.

    February 3, 2014 at 8:45 pm |
    • Ian

      Can't tell if you're talking about evolutionists or creationists there. Your comment could equally apply to either, with the "God" of the evolutionists being the vain hope that there is no creator to be accountable to.

      February 3, 2014 at 9:42 pm |
      • Damocles

        What, exactly, am I going to be held accountable for? Living my life the best way that I can? The freakin horror of it all.

        February 3, 2014 at 9:51 pm |
        • Ian

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72CQisSrvQc

          February 3, 2014 at 10:36 pm |
  13. ET

    a quote from Mr. Ham via the article.... "Ultimately, I have decided to accept an authority — our infallible creator and his word, the Bible — over the words of fallible humans." The funny part, the Bible was put together with the works of about 40 different people; and you know... they are fallible.

    Just proves to me how ignorant Mr. Ham is.

    February 3, 2014 at 8:42 pm |
    • Eddie (Texas)

      Exactly, I'm glad someone caught that.

      February 3, 2014 at 10:08 pm |
    • Ian

      How do you know they made mistakes? How do we know you're not being fallible yourself thinking there are mistakes in the Bible?

      February 3, 2014 at 10:37 pm |
      • Parapraxis

        ...contradictions.
        Somebody had to be wrong, therefore fallible.
        It's pretty basic reasoning really.

        February 4, 2014 at 2:15 am |
  14. Mitt's Magical Mormon Undies

    Ken Ham the creationists = Insti-tute for Creation Research – also this nonsense ?

    Creationists taunt atheists in latest billboard war on XMAS ?

    February 3, 2014 at 8:37 pm |
  15. chris

    "Our public schools arbitrarily define science as explaining the world by natural processes alone" NO, this IS the definition of science. anything else IS NOT science. take away Genesis and there is no creation argument. creationism is based on the bible, not scientific evidence. faith vs science. simple.

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

      Really? When did you ever prove scientifically that naturalism – a philosophical belief – is scientifically true? How could you? In other words, it comes down to one faith vs another. Which is the more scientifically consistant with the lack of transitional fossil and living forms, the incredible compleity of DNA, the ridiculous improbability of self-replicating, self-repairing machines spontaneously generating, and so on.

      February 3, 2014 at 8:50 pm |
      • Ian

        Actually, rather than "one faith vs another", instead of the faith-based evolution, a scientific view like intelligent design is probably a scientific necessity. Where you go from there is another issue, which is where alternate faith systems to evolutionism might come in.

        February 3, 2014 at 8:54 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          ID is not a scientific view – it's just a rebranding of creationism.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:57 pm |
        • truthprevails1

          ID has been shown to hold no evidence. Look up the Scopes Monkey trial. There's a very good reason that ID/Creationism can't be taught in schools, when compared with the vast amounts of evidence that support the Big Bang and Evolution they come up empty handed.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:30 pm |
        • Parapraxis

          "a scientific view like intelligent design"
          Now that is cute.
          Considering ID science is like considering the stork theory a viable explanation for reproduction.

          February 4, 2014 at 2:17 am |
      • ME II

        @Ian,
        That is simply the definition of science, not a philosophy. Science is a tool, a methodology for understanding how the natural world works. It does not make claims about anything outside of the natural world; it just can't measure it, ergo it is not part of science.

        February 3, 2014 at 9:31 pm |
    • Gresham

      Actually, creationism isn't based solely on the Bible. If the universe is millions of years old, why do we still find carbon-14 in specimens when the half life of C-14 is only 5700 some odd years? If the planet Earth's mass was made solely of C-14, it would have completely decayed into nitrogen-14 in less than a million years. And why are comets still around? Haley's comet will completely sublimate in 10,000 years. And how did life form? There is no known scientific theorem by which life can arise from non-life. Furthermore, there is no known method by which an organism's DNA can gain new information. Creationism is most definitely not based solely on faith or the Bible.

      February 3, 2014 at 9:10 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        C14 is formed constantly in the upper atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen.

        Comets in the inner solar system do not originate there. They are injected from the outer solar system (and asteroid belt region) over time, and due to their gravitational interactions with other bodies, into eccentric orbits that carry them into the inner solar system.

        February 3, 2014 at 9:16 pm |
        • Ian

          Nice comet idea, but one still lacking in evidence. It's mostly just "required" by the evolutionary timeframe, an "output" of the model rather than an "input".

          February 3, 2014 at 9:27 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Mathematical models on observable bodies support that theory on comets.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:38 pm |
      • In Santa we trust

        Gaps in our knowledge is not evidence of creationism. There are several possibilities for the origin of life and life has been produced from inorganic material. How DNA evolved is not fully understood. Evolution explains what we see and is a far more satisfactory explanation than a superantural being made a fully-formed man from dirt, and a fully-formed woman from that man's rib.

        February 3, 2014 at 9:18 pm |
        • Ian

          Life has not been produced from non-living organic material. LOL.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:28 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Do a search on experimental abiogenesis.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:33 pm |
        • Ian

          Hm... no life produced... no life produced... abiogenesis experiment shows good evidence against abiogenesis... Should I go on?

          February 3, 2014 at 9:38 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Yes do. I didn't say a fully formed human, we're talking amino acids which are the building blocks of life as we know it.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:48 pm |
        • Ian

          You're now saying life hasn't been made. I'm glad we cleared that up.

          Also, a racemic mix of left handed and right handed amino acids are a big problem for life, which isn't based on a mixture.

          February 3, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        "Furthermore, there is no known method by which an organism's DNA can gain new information." This is definitely not so. Genes can be duplicated within an organism and subsequently the two copies can, over many generations, develop divergent functions. There are other mechanisms as well .

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

          Depends what you mean by "information". It's misleading to equate Shannon information (data which does not require meaning) with functional information (data which requires meaning). For example, a random string of letters compared with the text from Moby Dick. Thus your example would be a deterioration of functional information in the doubled DNA, not creation of new functional information. This is a common misunderstanding.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:34 pm |
        • redzoa

          Then perhaps the loaded term "information" should be supplanted by a more relevant term, say "functionality."

          February 3, 2014 at 9:50 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          A change in the active site of an enzyme that allows it to work more efficiently on a different substrate has meaning. Perhaps you should be thinking along the lines of Kolmogorov complexity. Additional functions confer greater complexity when one gene with one function becomes two genes with different functions. Other mechanisms increase complexity- read about the "interactome." Addition of new interactions between existing genes contributes to this kind of complexity as well.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:56 pm |
  16. Mary

    Why are there atoms?

    February 3, 2014 at 8:34 pm |
    • Philip Eugene Douglas CO, CO

      Why do you exist?

      February 3, 2014 at 8:36 pm |
      • Mary

        Why do you ask?

        February 3, 2014 at 8:38 pm |
        • Philip Eugene Douglas CO, CO

          Because I want to know.

          February 3, 2014 at 8:39 pm |
        • Mary

          Why do you want to know?

          February 3, 2014 at 8:41 pm |
        • trump

          Will you ever as a relavent question?

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

      Baryonic matter didn't exist until long after the universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to condense. You might just have asked why is there energy? The early universe was entirely energy, something that cannot be created or destroyed so the obvious conclusion is that it always existed. No god required.

      February 3, 2014 at 8:47 pm |
      • davidcrichton

        Where did the energy come from? Where did the first atom come from? How do you know God didn't make it?

        February 3, 2014 at 8:54 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          We don't but a god is one of a large number of possibilities and given that the god has been invisible for millenia and most likely since the Big Bang, it's just speculation.

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

          who created god? checkmate

          February 4, 2014 at 3:32 am |
      • Ian

        Why are you suggesting we are at the end of an infinite series? How did that happen?

        February 3, 2014 at 8:56 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          A god doesn't change that unless you employ special pleading, i.e. what created the god – nothing but everything else needs a creator which you then define as god.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:24 pm |
        • Ian

          God changes a lot. "In the beginning..." very clearly stated that the universe had a beginning, and a finite time ago.

          February 3, 2014 at 11:13 pm |
        • Ian

          As for the other issue, it is a categorical fallacy to ask "who/what created God". God is outside of the creation, so there can be no point in our universe's timeline in which God was created, and it's meaningless to talk of time outside of the time God created.

          February 3, 2014 at 11:16 pm |
        • redzoa

          "As for the other issue, it is a categorical fallacy to ask "who/what created God". God is outside of the creation, so there can be no point in our universe's timeline in which God was created, and it's meaningless to talk of time outside of the time God created."

          This is simply special pleading via definitional fiat to exempt your preferred cause from the infinite regress. There remains, no empirical physical evidence for the existence of your preferred deity, let alone, any evidence indicating the nature of said deity.

          February 3, 2014 at 11:20 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Conveniently, God, though outside of our world, can act in it at will doing impossible things.

          February 3, 2014 at 11:23 pm |
    • Barcs

      If you are legitimately interested, you should become a physicist.

      February 4, 2014 at 12:50 am |
  17. thematrixq

    Reblogged this on ?verything!.

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

      Ok, if you want to create life that is complex and intelligent, how would you do it.? Well we don't really live long enough to take all the steps to do it, It would take many lifetimes to make simple life and then to advance it through evolution would take millions of years of constant nurturing and experimentation, Again we don't live that long, we have only been in existance for 60,000 years in our present state of evolution. We could program life from the beginning of cell devision to reach our present state of development through evolution using coded DNA, But who knew how to write code 4 billion years ago? Or maybe just by chance, all this would happen for no particular reason just the act of chaotic incident. Or an intelligent force was and is still at work. And maybe we wont or can't know the reason untill the end. O r maybe this force left clues for us to discover.

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

        How would you advance your deliberately created lifeform by deliberate "evolution"? Introduce deliberate beneficial mutations? (Of course a huge bunch of them at once so your lifeform is stil viable.) Sounds like intelligent design or theistic evolution.

        February 3, 2014 at 9:21 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          It appears to be a series of chaotic events which were fortuitous for humans. Forming of the earth in the "goldilocks" zone, acquisition of a moon, presence of the right elements, extinction of the dinosaurs, mastery of fire, and many more. It probably wouldn't happen again or not so quickly even if we were able to somehow try to recreate.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:31 pm |
        • redzoa

          "Sounds like intelligent design or theistic evolution."

          Both are fine philosophical positions, but they are not scientific propositions.

          February 3, 2014 at 9:48 pm |
        • Ian

          On the contrary, intelligent design's "we have evidence of the need for a creator" is (or can be) a scientific statement, whereas evolution's foundation of "there is nothing but the material universe" is not scientific at all. It's a philosophical belief.

          February 3, 2014 at 11:12 pm |
        • redzoa

          "On the contrary, intelligent design's "we have evidence of the need for a creator" is (or can be) a scientific statement, whereas evolution's foundation of "there is nothing but the material universe" is not scientific at all. It's a philosophical belief."

          Well, first, ID's "evidence" is simply a collection of negative arguments of incredulity, i.e. evolution (allegedly) can't explain X, therefore God did it. Second, evolution does not declare there is nothing but the material universe; for example, Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and many other evolution supporters who are also devout theists.

          February 3, 2014 at 11:16 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          "We have evidence of the need for a creator" is a claim. Is it true?

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

        We already have an answer...Evolution-the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth....the gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.

        No designer or coder is necessary over billions of years of adaptation. I think a mistake is made when you look at things from the human perspective only. Humans only one of milllions of species on this planet...they(or their perspectives) are not special or above other specie.

        February 14, 2014 at 9:00 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
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.