February 4th, 2014
10:05 PM ET

Creation debate recap: Science, religion and terrible jokes

By Daniel Burke, Belief Blog Co-editor
[twitter-follow screen_name='BurkeCNN']

(CNN) - Did you miss the debate between creationist Ken Ham and Bill "The Science Guy" Nye?

Don't worry, we've got you covered.

The debate was moderated by CNN's Tom Foreman, and, if there's one thing both sides can agree on, it's that he did a swell job.

Here's almost everything else you need to know, from Genesis to um, Revelation.

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Creationism • Evolution • Science • Uncategorized

soundoff (1,469 Responses)
  1. notexceling

    Proof of God.....

    prove me wrong

    April 25, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
  2. truluv4u

    GOD of wonders: The universe declares your majesty! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6L0mydGZNo

    March 6, 2014 at 10:46 am |
  3. danab1234

    Bill Nye was wasting his breath. Ken Ham does not want to hear any facts or reasoning. He wants to hang onto his myth for some reason. I have no idea why.

    February 24, 2014 at 10:34 pm |
  4. truluv4u

    Why is asking you to humble yourself before God coming across as arrogant and condescending? Perhaps deep within you there is a conviction which urges you to search further. "I've found a path that is leading me where I want to go." How can you be certain? Have you received visions from Christ or the down-payment of heaven (Baptism of the Holy Spirit) as a full-gospel Christian? There is so much more than you have ever experienced – praying some day you will understand. For now, go in peace!

    February 17, 2014 at 11:00 am |
    • meatheist

      Because it is arrogant and condescending. You have a belief, based on nothing, but expect others to have the same belief and "humble" themselves to YOUR imaginary god. If they don't, you consider them to be your lessers, because they cannot see what you think is obvious.

      February 22, 2014 at 6:25 pm |
      • truluv4u

        IF I considered you a 'lesser', there is no way I would be compelled by the LOVE of Christ to share about the HOPE I have found in Him. It is out of genuine concern for your life – not arrogance or condescension. You must understand this truth!.

        February 23, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
        • igaftr

          That is belief, not truth.
          There is a one in infinity chance of what you say being actually true.

          February 23, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
        • truluv4u

          What are the exact odds that your consciousness originated through naturalism?

          February 23, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
    • danab1234

      Please keep your delusions to yourself.

      February 24, 2014 at 10:36 pm |
      • truluv4u

        What are the odds that the ability to be deluded came from mere naturalism? Atheism could be a delusion – think on it!

        February 24, 2014 at 11:48 pm |
  5. joeyy1


    February 16, 2014 at 7:37 pm |
    • meatheist

      So I take this message is from a believer. In context, I think it is an encouragement for believers to dive from airplanes and not open their parachutes, hastening their own deaths and meeting the sky fairy in which they have so much faith.
      Seems like a good idea for the faithful. Unfortunately, I do not count myself among them and prefer to make the best of the one life I have. Why waste it on false beliefs? Of course if you were an atheist, you'd open the chute, enjoy the view and continue to see the wonders of life,-without worrying about your brother, Jack, a sinner for sure, dead and burning in hell.

      February 20, 2014 at 5:40 pm |
      • truluv4u

        PLEASE don't plan to take the risk of sky diving anytime in the near future! You are admittedly not yet prepared to meet your mocked MAKER. Though the sky is NOT the limit for His patience – there will be a day of accounting any time now, or at most, within just a few DECADES. Of course, we know all too well how time flies!

        February 23, 2014 at 4:16 pm |
  6. Creationists say the darndest things

    Especially the young-earth variety.

    One only need search for "young earth geology" on youtube to get a plethora of videos from a Dr Snelling who was referenced a few times by Ham in the Ham-Nye debate. But what story is this Dr Snelling telling? Another geologist, Dr Alex Ritchie has some interesting insight.

    Will the Real Dr Snelling Please Stand Up?

    Dr Alex Ritchie, The Skeptic, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp 12-15

    Dr Alex Ritchie received his BSc. (Hons) in Geology and a Ph.D at the University of Edinburgh. He worked as a palaeontologist at the Australian Museum from 1968 to 1995 where he is currently a Research Fellow.

    For several years, Australian creationists, representing the Creation Science Foundation Ltd, [now Answers in Genesis] have been publishing articles and addressing school and public groups on the topic of the age of the Earth. The theme of these articles and talks is that there is scientific evidence that the geological features of Australia are explicable within the context of an Earth which is only some 6-10,000 years old and that most such features can be attributed to a world-wide flood which occurred more recently still. The author of these claims made them with the authority of a BSc (Hons) in Geology and a PhD. However, in a recently published paper, this same author makes some very different claims about the age of geological features of the Australian landscape.

    These remarkably contradictory, and unexplained, claims by one of the very few Australian creation 'scientists' who has genuine scientific qualifications, calls into question whether anything said by this group on the subject can be taken seriously.

    Dr Alex Ritchie, palaeontologist at the Australian Museum, takes up the story.

    There appear to be two geologists living, working and publishing in Australia under the name of Dr Andrew A Snelling. Both have impressive (and identical) scientific qualifications – a BSc (Hons), in Geology (University of NSW) and a PhD, for research in uranium mineralisation (University of Sydney).

    Curiously, both Drs Snelling use the same address (PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld, 4109), which they share with an organisation called the Creation Science Foundation (CSF), the coordinating centre for fundamentalist creationism in Australia.

    But the really strange thing about this is that the views of these two Drs Snelling, on matters such as the age of the earth and its geological strata, are diametrically opposed. This article, the result of my extensive searches through the literature, highlights this remarkable coincidence and poses some serious questions of credibility for the Creation Science Foundation and for either or both of the Drs Andrew A Snelling.

    For convenience I refer to them below as follows:

    (a) Dr A A Snelling 1 – creationist geologist, a director of CSF and regular contributor to, and sometime editor of, the CSF's quarterly magazine, Ex Nihilo (now CREATION ex nihilo).

    (b) Dr A A Snelling 2 – consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation and publishes in refereed scientific journals.

    Snelling 1 seldom, if ever, cites articles written by Snelling 2 and Snelling 2 never cites articles written by Snelling 1.
    Snelling 1

    For the past ten years Dr Andrew Snelling BSc, PhD, the CSF's geological spokesman, has been the only prominent Australian creationist with geological qualifications. His credentials are not in question here, only his influence on science education in Australia.

    Snelling 1 writes articles for creationist journals and lectures throughout the country in schools, public meetings and churches. Although his geological credentials are usually highlighted in creationist publications it would be more accurate to describe Snelling 1 as a Protestant evangelist, not as a geologist. Some CSF literature openly refers to him as a 'missionary'.

    Why should Snelling 1's activities concern the scientific and educational communities? To appreciate this, one needs to analyse his published articles to see how geological data and discoveries are misused and reinterpreted from a Biblical perspective.

    CSF members subscribe to a lengthy, very specific Statement of Faith. Apart from purely religious clauses, not relevant here, several clauses carry serious implications for those in scientific and educational circles, especially for those in the Earth (and other historical) sciences. As the extracts below reveal, to a dedicated creationist, scientific evidence is always subservient to Biblical authority.


    1. The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator and Redeemer.

    (B) BASICS

    3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life.

    5. The great flood of Genesis was an actual historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect.


    The following attitudes are held by members of the Board to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture

    (i) The scripture teaches a recent origin for man and for the whole creation.

    (ii) The days in Genesis do not correspond to Geological ages, but are six
    (6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of creation.

    (iii) The Noachian flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

    (iv) The chronology of secular world history must conform to that of Biblical world history."

    These statements reveal 'creation science' to be an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, based on religious dogma (and a simple minded dogma at that). Despite its name, 'creation science' has little to do with real science and, in fact, represents the antithesis of science.

    Everything in his creationist writings and activities indicates that Snelling 1 subscribes fully to CSF's Statement of Faith. Where this clashes with scientific evidence, the latter is always secondary to the former and his message, although often cloaked in scientific jargon, is simple and unequivocal; indeed one of his favourite lecture topics is "Why, as a Geologist, I Believe in Noah's Flood".

    From the Gospel according to Snelling 1, the Earth is geologically young, created ex nihilo ("from nothing") by a supernatural being, during a short, well defined construction period of only six days. This miraculous creation event, usually dated some 6000 years ago (around 4004 BC), is not the end of the story. The Earth we live on today is not the same as the original created model, which was almost totally destroyed and remodelled some 1,600 years later (around 2345 BC) by an irate Creator who conjured up an unique, world-wide Flood to do the job.

    This Flood, lasting just over one year, tore down all previous land surfaces, rearranged the continents and thrust up all existing mountain chains. It also destroyed all pre-existing life forms, plant and animal – except for a chosen few saved on Noah's Ark. Thus all of the remarkably complex geology of the present day Earth's crust formed during the one year of Noah's Flood and all the innumerable fossil remains of former animals and plants were all buried and preserved by the same Flood.

    Snelling 1 (1983a) presented his views on Flood chronology in an article, Creationist Geology: The Precambrian. After reviewing mainstream views on geology and evolution, he remarked:

    "On the other hand, creationists interpret the majority of the fossiliferous sedimentary rocks of the Earth's crust as testimony to Noah's flood....Creationists do this because they regard the Genesis record as implying that there was no rain before Noah's flood, therefore no major erosion, and hence no significant sedimentation or fossilisation."

    "However the flood was global, erosional and its purpose was destruction. Therefore the first major fossilisation commenced at this time, and the majority of the fossils are regarded as having been formed rapidly during this event. Creationists therefore regard sedimentary strata as needing to be classified into those formed during the time of creation week, pre-flood, flood (early, middle and late), post-flood and recent" (p. 42)

    Snelling 1 then quoted one J C Dillow, a creationist writing on the Earth's supposed pre-Flood "vapour canopy":

    "It should be obvious that if the Earth is only 6000 years old, then all the geological designations are meaningless within that framework, and it is deceptive to continue to use them. If, as many creationist geologists believe, the majority of the geological column represents flood sediments and post-flood geophysical activity, then the mammoth, dinosaur and all humans existed simultaneously .... Some limited attempts have been made by creationist geologists to reclassify the entire geological column within this framework, but the task is immense." (Dillow 1981, "The Waters Above". Moody Press, 405-6)

    Snelling 1 criticised Dillow and other creationists for restricting Flood strata to Phanerozoic rocks (Cambrian and younger) and claimed that most Precambrian rocks are also Flood deposits:

    "It is my contention that those who do this have failed to study carefully the evidence for the flood deposition of many Precambrian strata and have therefore unwittingly fallen into the trap of lumping together the Precambrian strata to the creation week. The usual reason for doing this is that the evolutionists regard Precambrian as so different, so devoid of life in comparison with other rocks, that creationists have simply borrowed their description." (1983, 42).

    Snelling 1 thus pushes the earliest limits of Flood strata far back into the Early Precambrian (early Archaean) times , before even the first appearance of fossils resembling blue-green algae:

    "What I am contending here is that fossils, whether they be microscopic or macroscopic, plant or animal and the fossil counterpart of organic matter, along with its metamorphosed equivalent graphite, are the primary evidence which should distinguish flood rocks from pre-flood rocks, regardless of the evolutionary 'age'." (1983, 45).

    Lest there remain any doubt, Snelling 1 (1983, 42) stated:

    "For creationists to be consistent the implications are clear; Precambrian sediments containing fossils and organic remains were laid down during Noah's flood. Creationist geologists need to completely abandon the evolutionist's geological column and associated terminology. It is necessary to start again, using the presence of fossils or organic matter as a classification criterion in the task of rebuilding our understanding of geological history within the Biblical framework."

    It is difficult to believe that the writer of the foregoing article has a BSc (Hons) and PhD in geology! However an examination of other articles by the same author in Ex Nihilo reveals that, to Snelling 1, everything geological (Ayers Rock, Mt Isa ore deposits, Bass Strait oil and gas, Queensland coal deposits, Great Barrier Reef, etc.,) can be explained as the result of Noah's year-long Flood.

    DOOLAN, ROBERT & ANDREW A SNELLING, 1987. Limestone caves ...a result of Noah's Flood? Limestone caves... a result of Noah's Flood? (4), 10-13.
    READ, PETER & ANDREW A SNELLING, 1985. How Old is Australia's Great Barrier Reef? Creation Ex Nihilo. 8(1), 6-9.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1982. The Recent Origin of Bass Strait Oil and Gas. Ex Nihilo 5 (2) 43-46.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1983. Creationist Geology: The Precambrian. Ex Nihilo 6 (1), 42-46.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1983. What about Continental Drift? Have the continents really moved apart? Ex Nihilo 6 (2), 14-16.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1984. The recent, rapid formation of the Mt Isa orebodies during Noah's Flood. Ex Nihilo 6 (3) 40-46 (cf. also abstract 17-18).
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1984. The Origin of Ayers Rock. Creation Ex Nihilo 7 (1).
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1986. Coal Beds and Noah's Flood. Creation Ex Nihilo 8 (3), 20-21.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A 1989. Is the Sun Shrinking? Creation Ex Nihilo (pt. 1) 11 (1), 14-19. (pt. 2) 11 (2), 30-34. – The Debate Continues. (pt. 3) 11 (3), 40-43 – The Unresolved Question.
    SNELLING, ANDREW A & John Mackay 1984. Coal, Volcanism and Noah's Flood. Ex Nihilo Tech. J. 1, 11-29.

    If we now turn to the scientific articles published by the other Dr A A Snelling, consulting geologist (also from PO Box 302, Sunnybank QLD, 4109), we find a remarkable contrast, both in approach and content. None of them mention the Creation or Creation Week, Flood geology or the need to revamp the classic geological timescale.

    The latest paper by Snelling 2 (1990, 807 -812) is a detailed technical account of the "Koongarra Uranium Deposits" in the Northern Territory. It appears in an authoritative two volume work on "Geology of the Mineral Deposits of Australia and Papua New Guinea" (ed. F E Hughes), published by the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne. The references list eight earlier papers by Snelling 2 in refereed journals (or symposium volumes) on aspects of uranium mineralisation; three as sole author and five as junior co-author.

    In discussing the regional geology (p. 807) and age (p. 811) of the Koongarra uranium deposits, Snelling 2 describes their geological history in fairly technical terms, however, to avoid the charge we lay against the creationists, of taking quotations out of context, I will quote Snelling 2 verbatim from the paper (p. 807):

    "The Archaean basement consists of domes of granitoids and granitic gneisses (the Nanambu Complex), the nearest outcrop being 5 km to the north. Some of the lowermost overlying Proterozoic metasediments were accreted to these domes during amphibolite grade regional metamorphism (5 to 8 kb and 550° to 630° C) at 1870 to 1800 Myr. Multiple isoclinal recumbent folding accompanied metamorphism."

    For the benefit of lay readers, this statement is summarised and simplified here:

    "The oldest rocks in the Koongarra area, domes of granitoids and granitic gneiss, are of Archaean age (ie to geologists this means they are older than 2500 million years). The Archaean rocks are mantled by Lower Proterozoic (younger than 2500 million years) metasediments: all were later buried deeply, heavily folded and, between 1870 and 1800 million years ago, were subjected to regional metamorphism at considerable temperatures and pressures."

    There is no question here of "abandoning the geological column and its associated terminology", and the term Myr refers unequivocally to millions of years.

    One further quotation (p.807), "A 150 Myr period of weathering and erosion followed metamorphism.", is self explanatory.

    There are several further references to ages of millions and thousands of millions of years, and to commonly accepted geological terminology, throughout the paper but, to spare the lay reader, I will only summarise them here:

    1. During Early Proterozoic times (from 1688-1600 million years ago) the area was covered by thick, flat-lying sandstones.

    2. At some later date (but after the reverse faulting) the Koongarra uranium mineral deposit forms, perhaps in several stages, first between 1650-1550 million years ago, and later around 870 and 420 million years.

    3. The last stage, the weathering of the primary ore to produce the secondary dispersion fan above the No 1 orebody seems to have begun only in the last 1-3 million years.

    Nowhere in this, or in any other article by Snelling 2 is there any reference to the creation week, to Noah's Flood or to a young age for the Earth. Nor is there any disclaimer, or the slightest hint, that this Dr Snelling has any reservations about using the standard geological column or time scale, accepted world-wide. The references above to hundreds and thousands of million of years are not interpolated by me. They appear in Dr Snelling 2's paper.

    The problem is obvious – the two Drs A A Snelling BSc (Hons), PhD (with the same address as the Creation Science Foundation) publish articles in separate journals and never cite each other's papers. Their views on earth history are diametrically opposed and quite incompatible.

    One Dr Snelling is a young-earth creationist missionary who follows the CSF's Statement of Faith to the letter. The other Dr Snelling writes scientific articles on rocks at least hundreds or thousand of millions of years old and openly contradicting the Statement of Faith. The CSF clearly has a credibility problem. Are they aware they have an apostate in their midst and have they informed their members?

    Of course there may well be a simple explanation, eg that the two Drs Snelling are one and the same. Perhaps the Board of the CSF has given Andrew Snelling a special dispensation to break his Statement of Faith. Why would they do this? Well, every creation 'scientist' needs to gain scientific credibility by publishing papers in refereed scientific journals and books and the sort of nonsense Dr Snelling publishes in Creation Ex Nihilo is unlikely to be accepted in any credible scientific journal.

    I think that both Dr Snelling and the CSF owe us all an explanation. WILL THE REAL DR ANDREW SNELLING PLEASE STAND UP?


    Several years ago, in the Sydney Morning Herald, as one geologist to another, I publicly challenged Dr Snelling (the young-earth creationist version) to a public debate, before our geological peers, on a subject close to his heart – Noah's Flood – The Geological Case For and Against.

    I've repeated the challenge several times since then and it still stands.

    For reasons best known only to himself, Dr Snelling has declined to defend the creationist cause.

    In the light of the above I suggest the reason is obvious. In his heart, and as a trained geologist, he knows that the young-earth model is a load of old codswallop and is totally indefensible.

    February 16, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
    • luvisreal

      EVOLUTIONISTS love to cut and paste – especially large figures of highly speculative ages of matter (from terribly flawed dating methods) which make them seem so very indisputable. This article was a smear tactic by a self-proclaimed (thus totally biased) skeptic of anything biblical. In all fairness, I must provide the following link which provides the highly credentialed Dr. Andrew Snelling's response to the ridiculous statements made by Alex Ritchie: http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_as_01.asp Again, I implore readers to study both sides of the issue in order to competently offer your input. Come out of your darkness so you are enabled to see the truth with the light your Creator will provide!

      February 16, 2014 at 5:40 pm |
      • meatheist

        "When I wrote the paper I had no option but to take the standard conventional terminology, and what all the critics have overlooked is that I fully reference all the comments that they are slamming me with. In other words, as far as I was concerned I was making it perfectly clear that this is what everyone else believes, and what is the standard wisdom about this ore deposit and its geological setting." Snelling. In other words, Snelling write papers based on a geological timeline he doesn't believe and accepts money for them. He believes in a young earth 6-10000 years old, but write papers using an age of billions. Liar, liar basalt on fire.

        February 16, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
        • otoh2

          psst, @meatheist - you might want to look into the 'display name' section to get a space in the proper place in your name. meat heist is funny, but I don't think it's what you're going for...!

          February 16, 2014 at 6:50 pm |
        • luvisreal

          Bearing FALSE witness? Only atheists believe in no consequences for lying. We theists do not want to offend our Creator. You slaughtered the context of Snelling's defense. He further clarified: "The problem is that these hard-line evolutionists are so blinkered that they can't see how a person like myself in such a situation is forced to use their evolutionary terminology whether we like it or not... It is ludicrous to suggest any hypocrisy. Besides, if you look at some of my papers in the creationist literature, and those of other creationist geologists such as Steve Austin and Kurt Wise, you will notice that we still use the same labels for the rock units as the evolutionists, not by way of compromise, but so everyone knows that we are talking about the same rock units, except we make it clear that we don't agree with the millions of years associated with them." Crystal clear?!!

          February 16, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
        • meatheist


          The rock unit is between your ears. Just because Snelling says he is not a lying hypocrite does not prove that he is not.

          February 19, 2014 at 8:25 pm |
        • truluv4u

          No, it doesn't prove it absolutely – but nor should Ritchie have concluded that Snelling was definitely being disingenuous. He deserves the benefit of the doubt, especially when his explanation makes perfect sense to anyone who isn't rock-headed.

          February 19, 2014 at 10:02 pm |
        • meatheist

          You can't use boulder units to get paid, and dust units to describe your beliefs, and not have your head explode from cognitive dissonance, unless you are lying and know you are lying.

          February 20, 2014 at 5:28 pm |
        • truluv4u

          Ah, unless you understand that there is a Creator of those boulders and dust who is the author of all 'scientia' (knowledge) -and would therefore adamantly refuse to lie – because of your allegiance and respect for His Name. Any cognitive dissonance occurring must only result from one's stubborn denial of the intelligent design in all things – including the amazing ability to ponder it all with a magnificently created brain. This organ, as well as all of the others, has many interdependent parts which must have formed simultaneously in order to function at all. Dr.Scott Huse has calculated that the odds that just a single eye could have randomly evolved is about 1 in 10 to the 266th power. How much more remote a possibility for such with an entire human system? There is much you could learn from the diligent and thorough analyses of many creation scientists. I myself have studied both the old and young theories of origin extensively for decades. Perhaps you might consider shedding your bias and seeking alternative ideas for the real meaning of your existence. In the process, you may actually discover the source of your consciousness – the answer to that big question that mere naturalism can never explain. You surely cannot continuously defend the illogical position that nothing made everything. Open your mind and acquire true scientia! Start with this link: http://www.icr.org/life-designed/

          February 20, 2014 at 6:35 pm |
  7. albertleslie973

    "Happy Velentine Day With Red Flowers"

    my best friend's mother makes $86 hourly on the internet . She has been without a job for 10 months but last month her pay check was $20416 just working on the internet for a few hours. browse around this website
    >>>>>> Sign up here> BAY91.­­ℭ­­Oℳ

    February 14, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
  8. luvisreal

    REAL LOVE: "Hope does not put us to shame, because GOD'S LOVE has been poured out into our HEARTS through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, CHRIST died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But GOD demonstrates His own LOVE for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." – The Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans (5:5-8) Yet sadly, Jesus Christ Himself stated:This is the verdict: "Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil." (John 3:19) PRAY to receive this LIGHT – the only HOPE for your eternal souls. LOVE IS REAL – not evolved from natural processes – but embodied in the omnipotent being of El Shaddai – God Almighty!

    February 14, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
  9. joeyy1


    February 14, 2014 at 10:38 am |
    • truluv4u

      PLEASE don't plan to take the risk of sky diving anytime in the near future! You are admittedly not yet prepared to meet your mocked MAKER. Though the sky is NOT the limit for His patience – there will be a day of accounting any time now, or at most, within just a few DECADES. Of course, we know all too well how time flies!

      February 24, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
  10. luvisreal

    SURPRISED to be accused of condescension in this forum – which is clearly dominated by old-earthers whose primary responses include outrageous insults aimed at Creation believers! Even so, being a Christian enables me to readily forgive you! Such misbehavior is really to be expected however, since rebellion against God has occurred throughout history – a clear pattern in both secular and biblical texts. People would receive the truth and later exchange it for lies because of their persistent determination to satisfy the flesh. Monotheism was obviously practiced right from the beginning of humanity by Adam and Eve – who knew the one true Creator God. Polytheism was begun later as their descendants began to worship the objects of creation in defiance of the teachings passed on to them (until Abraham received a divine revelation which foretold of an eventual Savior through his bloodline)... Of all world religions, only Christianity provided the perfect sacrifice (God Himself) to pay for the sins of ALL people. Only Jesus Christ conquered death – as eye-witnessed by hundreds. Thousands to this very day have lost their physical lives for refusing to deny what was revealed to them through Him... Furthermore, there is NO comparison between the validity of the Bible versus other religious texts. Amazingly, scripture scrolls discovered in both Byzantine, Greece and Alexandria, Egypt were found to be nearly identical. It is by FAR the most verified book ever known.... So then RECEIVE this admonition: Until you seek a supernatural experience with your Creator, you will continue grasping at the tangible and trusting in theories which years later are discarded and replaced with new ones. Evolution can never become an established fact by your definition of science, because it is not observable. All dating methods employed by its adherents are very fallible because they do not recognize that the conditions of earth over the millenia have included sporadic incidents of rapid aging (flooding, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, etc.). The only consistency over time has been the perfect and just nature of ALMIGHTY GOD. While people alter their ideas and are often unreliable, the Creator of ALL will never change ! We should PRAISE HIM for this – and for His great patience with those who so readily mock His name.

    February 13, 2014 at 6:22 pm |
    • hotairace

      Alleged god. Alleged, not proven. You can't point to a single bit of objective, verifiable, independent, factual evidence to support any of your claims. Your faith is nothing more than you pretending to know things you do not. But go ahead, prove me wrong.

      February 13, 2014 at 10:22 pm |
      • luvisreal

        My personal PROOF is in the daily presence and power of the Holy Spirit in my life. I have experienced miraculous healings numerous times. The most notable and verifiable is in the existence of my five precious children – since I was declared infertile 20 years ago. Each was the direct result of intercessory prayer – once by a Christian physician who used anointing oil... Over ten years ago I received a Spirit language from this amazing GOD – enabling me to by-pass my mind and pray in full agreement with the Creator of all things. Then, even more spectacularly – He speaks back to me through my spirit in this same language and provides full interpretation which I am then able to apply in my life – sometimes even prophesying for the encouragement of others. I assure you this is NOT a delusion! There is no experience like having a relationship with the Great I AM. You cannot come near imagining it – unless or until you receive it! Praying your 'hot air' will be transformed in a cooling breeze from your own Maker – who has much in store for those who seek Him with all of their hearts! Only HIS LOVE is unconditional and everlasting!

        February 13, 2014 at 11:46 pm |
        • hotairace

          So you have nothing put your personal experience. Enjoy your delusions.

          February 14, 2014 at 12:00 am |
        • luvisreal

          IMy personal experiences are the best evidence for ME! I had already mentioned my decades of research into both evolution and creationism in earlier posts – including links to sites on which clear and logical conclusions were drawn from the tremendous proofs of a young earth. You will need to conduct an equal and objective analyses of the alternatives – and ultimately ask for your CREATOR to reveal the actual truth of origins (no risk involved if He doesn't exist). You may label my personal accounts as delusional by your God-granted free will, but the complexities all around you testify of an intelligent source. Cease from your denials and give yourself the opportunity that you would one day regret not taking. There is HOPE for those who humble themselves before HIM – acknowledging their weaknesses and desiring His MIGHT. You are not guaranteed another breath – hot air or otherwise!

          February 14, 2014 at 12:18 am |
        • Alias

          You do know that poeple of all faiths think they have had experiences just like yours, right?

          February 14, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
  11. luvisreal

    LISTEN to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ScWCfNPpI

    February 13, 2014 at 10:37 am |
    • igaftr

      is there some point to it...just someone singing pascals wager.

      February 13, 2014 at 10:45 am |
      • luvisreal

        " If you don’t believe in God and He exists, you’ll either win nothing (and risk His judgement) or else you’ll lose something (your eternal reward). If you don’t believe in God and He doesn’t exist, you’ll win only a finite gain." Conversely, if you believe in Him and He doesn't exist, you still gain a morally fulfilling, healthy life and legacy on earth. If He does exist, you get this AND eternal bliss in Paradise! You needn't become a rocket scientist to determine which of the two is the wisest wager! Magnificent song! (Please see my other lengthy note to you!)

        February 13, 2014 at 11:33 am |
        • myweightinwords

          That presumes that those are the only two options available.

          What about all of the other gods? What if they're real? What if they exist and your afterlife depends on following their rules?

          February 13, 2014 at 11:40 am |
        • otoh2


          This is another tired repeti.tion of Pascal's Wager - thoroughly refuted since the 17th century, when it was posed (where have you been?)

          - What if the real "God" is Allah, or Vishnu, or Zeus, or Quetzalcoatl, or any of the other of thousands which have been dreamed up over the centuries? Some of them are very jealous and vengeful and will relegate you to nasty places for not worshiping them. You'd better cover your butt by believing in ALL of them and fulfill their wishes and demands.

          - What if the real "God" prefers those who use logic and reason and punishes you as a silly sycophant?

          - What if the real "God" detests those who believe something just to cover their butts in eternity?

          February 13, 2014 at 11:43 am |
        • luvisreal

          Here's an idea OTHO: Why not ask the real GOD to please stand up. TRUTH or Consequences? (An old TV show). Seriously, your Creator is omnipresent, so you can truly ask Him to reveal the truth of who He is. Many have done so and were amazed with the response. My plan for eternity is to lay any rewards I may be given before the throne of the only One worthy of recognition – Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who sacrificed Himself for yours sins and mine. No other religion founder has made this claim – and certainly no other one ever arose from the dead (appearing before hundreds of witnesses). Sincerely seek and you will FIND!

          February 14, 2014 at 12:36 am |
    • luvisreal

      Alias: You mean they THINK that they are healed of infertility (Imaginary children?) and spontaneously cured of visible physical symptoms? Do they receive mysterious words from within themselves in an unknown language – which coincidentally provide exactly the interpretation needed for a particular situation? What are the odds, Alias? I have studied most all world religious doctrines – discovering that none remotely compares to the claims of Christianity. You would be wise to seek the answer to the question on the origin of human conscience – the truth is available to those who sincerely seek for it!

      February 14, 2014 at 6:06 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
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.