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. MandoZink

    I watched Ken Ham's first few minutes, saw nothing new, and went to do my taxes. Every single thing Mr Ham had wrong has been thoroughly explained or debunked. Why the man cannot understand why his beliefs are what they are can only be explained by,,, well ... blind belief and total refusal to ever think for himself. Eventually his kind will be functionally extinct.

    February 4, 2014 at 11:46 pm |
    • Apophis

      Thank god for that! Pun intended! lol

      February 5, 2014 at 1:00 am |
  2. Steve

    It's hilarious people still think the Earth is 6000 years old when it is as easy to disprove as counting tree rings.

    February 4, 2014 at 11:46 pm |
    • Mopery

      Or looking up at the night sky and realizing that you can see nearly 2 million years into the past, and that's with the naked eye. Whoops, shouldn't have said naked, now the fundies will be foaming at the mouth.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:13 am |
      • Steve

        Star distance requires knowledge of the speed of light, triangulation, and luminosity. Difficult subjects, not accessible to the masses. Radiological dating requires familiarity with radioactivity, again, too hard. Genetic drift, mitochondrial DNA, and Y chromosomes is again going to go way over heads. Fossil stratification should be pretty easy, but stratification is a fairly big word. Should simplify it to "lower is older". Should keep the debate to tree rings and ice cores. Both are no more complex than simply counting single lines, and I think everyone is familiar with tree rings and seasons. All the evidence is worthless if the people you are looking to convince can't understand it.

        February 5, 2014 at 12:30 am |
        • Lou

          No more dumbing down the evidence please....Let the dinosaurs that don't get it just fade away in time.

          February 5, 2014 at 2:04 am |
        • Rob

          Excusing things such as the lack of knowledge of the speed of light and triangulation is exactly what Bill was addressing in his moments of championing for science education. I knew all these things in the 7th grade! Stop being ignorant!

          February 5, 2014 at 3:07 am |
    • MonkeyBoy125

      This is why the religious minded and backed law makers of the country continue to slash education funding and push their "Intelligent Design" agenda. Keeping the general populace in a state of ignorance in order to perpetuate their lies and maintain power over naive, unquestioning minds. Our national education system should NOT be taking its cues from the state of Texas.

      February 5, 2014 at 8:42 am |
      • Spinner49

        Oh, agreed!! I've been saying this for ages!

        February 5, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
  3. Vic

    I would like to personally congratulate CNN for this wonderful coverage as well as moderation—Good Job Tom Foreman—where the opportunity was well presented to both sides to present their view points and debate each other. An open forum like this benefits all. I remember last year when Daniel Burke asked us what we like to see on the CNN Belief Blog, and I requested articles on Science and Faith as the main theme. CNN has delivered well.

    I personally hand it to Ken Ham for a well versed presentation and debate. Mr. Ham very well emphasized that we all share the same Observational Science—Empirical Science— and physical evidence while philosophically differ on Historical Science—Origins—and interpretation of the evidence. He very well defined the etymology of science and the different types of knowledge while demonstrating the prevalence of the Creation Model over any other. Very thorough and organized.

    Bill Nye seemed to mesh Historical and Observational Science together indiscriminately and without acknowledging the difference. Instead of acknowledging the difference, Mr. Nye kept asserting that Ken Ham claims that the laws of nature changed from the past to the present—that was never the case. Bill Nye also avoided addressing the problems with "Radioactive Dating Methods" presented by Ken Ham to a great extent until he hit a snag when a direct online question came from a viewer.

    It all boils down to where we and the universe really came from.

    Again, thank you CNN.

    February 4, 2014 at 11:33 pm |
    • Nathan

      Shame there's no such thing as "historical science." It is a junk term creationists invented to draw false distinctions by defining it specifically to exclude that which they want excluded so that they can point to it and say "but your evidence doesn't satisfy the conditions of my made-up definition."

      MOST of science is inference. You know we've never seen Pluto orbit the sun? It takes nearly 248 years and we've only known about it for 80, and that with spotty observation most of the time. Yet do you doubt that it does? No. Because we've seen enough to calculate its trajectory and make predictions about its location. That only took a few months of data. We don't even know what gravity is or why it exists or why it has the specific strength it does (which is extremely weak).

      Evolution is as close to fact as you can get and has passed test after test after test–even some it didn't know it had to take (like DNA, which has done more to prove evolution than ANY fossil ever did...not that you could get a creationist to talk about anything but fossil gaps).

      February 4, 2014 at 11:45 pm |
    • stevef00

      The reason Bill did not answer the differentiality between those two stated sciences is because there is no difference. Historical science is a made up terminology by the creationists to help illustrate their point. What I found most unsettling, more even than obvious fossil records, is the fact that creationists don't know what the speed of light is, and that when they look up into the night sky and see stars billions of miles away, that at the speed that light goes, they can't realize that the star light they are looking at right now emanated from the star millions of years ago. That, is an absolute and undisputable fact. The debate should have been over at that point.

      February 5, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
    • PD

      Did Mr. Ham figure out who really wrote the Bible and in what language? Both the Old and New Testaments were written or compiled by Men in the Past.

      February 5, 2014 at 6:54 pm |
  4. Tom

    Silly debate. Waste of time. There is no answer to the riddle that we are able to find. Science does, however, prove it is possible to design and create new life forms in a lab...do we not have the ability to do that? Taking the stories of the Bible as literal....as purely egotistical as thinking science is the only way humans can know. A simple bias. Science is but one way to attempt to understand the world. There are others but we are being taught to ignore those because empirical method cannot not understand them and we have all been raised to believe we MUST be able to understand in order for it to exist. Kind of silly really.

    February 4, 2014 at 11:28 pm |
    • Tony

      So, I believe in the fact that the universe was created from the halitosis of a giant space goats sneeze. By your argument that has as much credibility as science and the bible, it's my way of understanding the world, just one of many.

      quite silly really.

      People need to realise that democracy does not mean that my silly idea with no credence outside my head whatsoever carries just as much weight as your demonstrated knowledge, based on centuries of work developed by millions of people, all building on the work of what's gone before in an internally consistent and robust demonstration on how everything works.

      February 4, 2014 at 11:37 pm |
      • Truth Seeker

        FACT: Historical creationists laid most of the foundation that evolutionists have hi-jacked into their own illogical philosophy due to their determination for license to live as they please morally. You have already been provided with a partial list of creation scientists. The condescension of you and others in this forum is quite confounding – given that you are so easily refuted by evidence right out your front doors. The complexities and beauty of it all displays the handiwork of an omniscient Creator. All will KNOW (Scientia) someday – better to believe it now than risk denying your own Maker and receiving the sad consequences of doing so for all eternity.

        February 6, 2014 at 8:31 am |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          You aren't successfully representing the truth. Are you dishonest?

          February 6, 2014 at 8:34 am |
        • igaftr

          truth? seeker
          "The complexities and beauty of it all displays the handiwork of an omniscient Creator. "
          False. There are an infinite number of other possibilities...so far no evidence of any "creator".

          Then you bring up pascals wager, which only makes you look like a fool, since it is non-logic.

          You want the bible to be true, so you accept a huge amount of false garbage, like the ignorant people at answers in genesis.

          Here's the real truth. ALL of Genesis is a myth. The bible is not gods word, obvious in the fact that a god would not have gotten so much wrong, as we can plainly see in the world around us, that the bible is BS.

          February 6, 2014 at 8:40 am |
        • Truth Seeker

          The suffering and ugliness in the world are the result of sin. God created a perfect environment originally. You nor anyone else can prove unequivocally that He didn't. The global flood has been proven to have occurred by many highly educated creation scientists – including some former evolutionists. The bible is not full of errors – though there may be translational inconsistencies. Scholars have studied many of the original languages which have been discovered in various locations – yet nearly identical in texts. Ignorance is not bliss – please get educated beyond the status quo evolution dogma.

          February 7, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
        • Paul - just Paul

          Truth-seeker: A great deal of the development of evolution was built by people who started out as 'creationists', or perhaps more honestly as Bible-believers. Darwin didn't invent the idea of evolution - the thoughts and concepts he fleshed out started many centuries before, and his exposure to ideas that questioned the literal accuracy of the OT were as a lad at the foot of his grandfather, whose contemporaries included Watt and Priestley. None of these ideas that animals and life predated the 'history' in the OT were new, even in the 17th and 18th centuries. Creationist like to demonize C. Darwin, not understanding or not knowing that he was a church deacon and very well educated both in Christianity and the sciences of the time. What he did was connect dots from fossils and living species to better define the concept of natural selection as the non-metaphysical method by which nature (and not a god) could drive evolutionary development. With a natural mechanism, one didn't need to use metaphysical forces to explain the geological and biological records.

          February 6, 2014 at 10:33 am |
        • Truth Seeker

          Yes, I know of Darwin's biographical info. Are you aware that before his death he stated his concern over the many missing links in the fossil record? He declared that if they were not discovered over the next 100 years, his theory would be disproved. Therefore, Darwin would most likely have abandoned his own ideas by now. Ironically, humans are still drawn to it today despite the theory's devaluing of their worth – all in the name of free moral expression without guilt before an eternal righteous judge. :/

          February 6, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • Truth Seeker

          Darwin was taught the religion of Christianity as a youth – but clearly never was born again in Christ. There is such a difference. One should wonder how he reconciled his theory -comprised of only natural processes – with the indisputable fact that we have all been given consciousness. Evolution can never begin to adequately explain this – Creation does. I would add to Ham's comment in this regard that there is a BOOK that explains this – as well as a Holy Spirit who will lead you into the truth. Simply seek and you will find!

          February 7, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
      • Pete

        " better to believe it now than risk denying your own Maker and receiving the sad consequences of doing so for all eternity."

        More negativity from the Christians and this is why this religion is so bad for our society.

        February 6, 2014 at 8:35 am |
    • davidcrichton

      Actually, there is answer to this "riddle". It's Genesis 1:1.

      February 4, 2014 at 11:40 pm |
      • Rob

        Problem is, your evidence isn't really evidence. Its based in personal belief and nothing concrete.

        "Occam's Razor makes the cutting clean" – Clutch

        February 5, 2014 at 3:11 am |
      • stevef00

        David...that same stupid book says I may stone you to death if you are wearing a shirt made of two different cloths. Sometimes, we have to use a little logic when we decipher things. You obviously do not.

        February 5, 2014 at 1:24 pm |
      • Robert

        Actually it's found in the beer section of the Book of Convenience 7:11

        February 5, 2014 at 7:25 pm |
        • Paul - just Paul

          This may be the best post yet.

          February 6, 2014 at 10:59 am |
  5. Jamie Estevez

    To Orthodox Christians creationism vs. evolution is a non issue. Not everything in the Holy Scriptures is literal nor was everything meant to be literal.

    February 4, 2014 at 11:22 pm |
    • TheBob

      Try telling that to the people of the Bible Belt. And arm yourself to the teeth before you do.

      February 4, 2014 at 11:26 pm |
  6. Aleks

    So my question is: has anyone actually been convinced by the opposing side after tonight's debate?

    February 4, 2014 at 11:21 pm |
    • Nathan

      No one ever is. I haven't seen a genuine evolution/creation debate in a decade. It's both sides trotting out the same old trite soundbytes and tired arguments and rarely genuinely engaging the statements of the other party, instead choosing to push their own bullet points out there.

      February 4, 2014 at 11:24 pm |
      • bobsyuruncle

        Your point is valid only for the young earth creationists.

        February 5, 2014 at 3:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I'm willing to take Ham up on the idea he put forward that students should be trained to think critically about all aspects of science, and even go further with it: let's help kids get a critical look at the religions that want to rope them in.

      February 4, 2014 at 11:24 pm |
    • joe

      So my question is: has anyone actually been convinced by the opposing side after tonight's debate?
      Oh yea, but it's only one way. The religious fall off the religious bandwagon every single day. Scientists and science never flop over to the bible. Ever.

      February 4, 2014 at 11:53 pm |
      • Aleks

        I'm sure fundamentalists will not be budged, but hopefully this found a few moderates. More importantly, if this gets more kids that have been raised under the creationist yoke to think more critically about the sciences, Nye will have won this debate.

        February 5, 2014 at 12:16 am |
        • bobsyuruncle

          Every time a creationist young person goes to college and studies science, a creationist is lost. That's why creationists hate higher education.

          February 5, 2014 at 3:39 pm |
        • Truth Seeker

          This only happens when students have not been thoroughly educated in creation apologetics. Then they are able to debate even their professors and occasionally cause them to think out of their boxes – sometimes embracing the possibility of a much younger earth.

          February 6, 2014 at 1:16 am |
        • Observer

          Truth Seeker,

          If you haven't been there, go to the Grand Canyon. Think about how long it must have taken for the earth to cool and then how long for layer after layer of sediment to be deposited. Then think how long it took for water to wear a groove over a mile deep.

          Then tell me how YOUNG the earth is.

          February 6, 2014 at 1:34 am |
        • Truth Seeker

          It would have taken very little time in the midst of a massive hydraulic cataclysm – commonly known as the worldwide flood. Please see the very informative link below regarding the creation point of view for the Grand Canyon's origin.
          http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v18/n2/grand-canyon Do not close your mind!

          February 6, 2014 at 8:17 am |
        • LOL!


          LOL! Guess who is the CEO of this site. Ken Ham! LOL! What a joke.

          February 6, 2014 at 8:26 am |
        • igaftr

          truth? seeker

          There was never global flood. Many sciences have disproven it. The answers in genesis has a lot of WRONG answers, but no actual truth there, just a bunch of misrepresentation and distortions of scientific data. They are lying to you.

          February 6, 2014 at 8:33 am |
        • Truth Seeker

          There are evidences all around the world that attest to a global flood. How do you know YOUR mentors are truthful? Mine believe in accountability to a Creator. Yours believe in moral relativism. Who would more likely be trustworthy? Open your mind to the possibility that YOU have been deceived. Ask your Creator to reveal the truth – seek and you will find!

          February 6, 2014 at 8:40 am |
        • Paul - just Paul

          igaftr – it wasn't a lie. It was the best speculation the authors of the story had at the time. May I assume something about our scientific-based friends here: that their frustration with the stories in the Bible are stagnant (mainly the OT, but certainly the metaphysical aspects of the NT should be examined without simple blind faith as Mr. Ham presents). They are stagnant because if they were revised in modern day (as they were for King James, and the refinements that have puzzled biblical scholars for centuries before), then those refinements would be logical proof that a supernatural deity's word is NOT infallible nor immutable. That throws into question the worthiness of worshiping such a being.

          Assume for a moment the flood. Without sinking every continent, somehow contracting the crust, mantel and core of the planet, there is insufficient water on the planet to flood all of it. Melt every bit of ice, and where I live in Raleigh NC becomes beachfront. Throw a dinosaur-killing asteroid at the Gulf of Mexico, and Dallas would not see the tsunami. But if your whole world was in some valley in Assyria at the end of the last ice age, below an ice dam, and you were smart enough to realize the melt would let that dam give way, and you were smart enough to build a box, your story of how you saved your farm from 'the great flood' would grow in size - and spread as all good stories do - across cultures and the centuries. There is geological evidence for these kinds of regional floods going back millions of years (sorry literalists - 6000 years was a monk's dream and not supported by any holy text nor the physics that presently rules our world).

          February 6, 2014 at 10:07 am |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Your mentors are entirely accountable in their minds to their God. They wanted you to believe what they thought their God wanted you to believe. Do you imagine they ever for a moment looked critically at their beliefs once they were sure they had what God wanted them to believe? What if they were wrong?

          February 6, 2014 at 8:45 am |
        • igaftr

          truth? seeker
          "There are evidences all around the world that attest to a global flood."
          FLAT OUT FALSE.

          There is evidence of localised flooding in various parts of the world, but all with vastly different timelines.
          There has never been a world encompassing flood. Thre would be evidence of it in the same geologic time frame, and there is NOT any evidence at all of it. An event of that magnitude WOULD have left evidence but there is NONE.

          There are MANY other things that PROVE the flood is a myth. From the fact that it would take 5 times the water on the planet to flood to the level specified in your myth book.

          You have chosen the lies in the bible over actual fact, and what a pity that is.

          February 6, 2014 at 8:47 am |
        • Beth Herron

           Reality check:  Evolution is a THEORY – always has been!   It's adherents have been admittedly wrong on NUMEROUS speculations they have made in the past.  Insulting my intelligence will never boost yours.  At least I give proper credit to the One who gave me life.  Praying you will too some day!    

          February 6, 2014 at 8:59 am |
      • Truth Seeker

        Not true Joe! Many evolutionists have become convinced they were wrong about this theory of origins. Some of them now work for creation science organizations – imagine that! I could name many others like C.S. Lewis and Lee Stroebel, as well as some of my personal friends. Be assured that there are more than you know. Perhaps you might become the next enlightened one!

        February 6, 2014 at 3:32 pm |
      • Chopper007

        Beth: just stop. Gravity is just a theory too. Please jump up and down until you fly off into space. That's how you get to heaven!

        February 7, 2014 at 9:05 am |
        • Truth Seeker

          Your comment would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. Your ID could be interpreted to mean that you are actually the one spinning out of control with your adamant assumptions that there is no God or heaven. We will all find out within a few decades. Believers have nothing to lose – either way that it turns out – though we gain a joyful, abundant life while we wait!

          February 7, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
        • Chopper007

          You assume too much (typical of people who claim to know the "truth").. I believe in God I just don't buy your silly mythology. And yes, I seek the truth of the reality around us, scientific and spiritual by using my mind. You gave that up long ago. Sad really.

          February 8, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
  7. JW


    ▪ Fact: At the beginning of the 20th century, all the fossils that were used to support the theory that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor could fit on a billiard table. Since then, the number of fossils used to support that theory has increased. Now it is claimed that they would fill a railroad boxcar. However, the vast majority of those fossils consist only of single bones and isolated teeth. Complete skulls—let alone complete skeletons—are rare.

    Question: Has the increased number of fossils attributed to the human “family tree” settled the question among evolutionary experts as to when and how humans evolved from apelike creatures?

    Answer: No. In fact, the opposite is true. When it comes to how these fossils should be classified, Robin Derricourt of the University of New South Wales, Australia, wrote in 2009: “Perhaps the only consensus now is that there is no consensus.” In 2007 the science journal Nature published an article by the discoverers of another claimed link in the evolutionary tree, saying that nothing is known about when or how the human line actually emerged from that of apes. Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Department of Biological Anthropology, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary, wrote in 2002: “The classification and the evolutionary place of hominid fossils has been under constant debate.”* This author also states that the fossil evidence gathered so far brings us no closer to knowing exactly when, where, or how humans evolved from apelike creatures.

    February 4, 2014 at 11:14 pm |
    • Tony

      I notice, like so many other creationists, yiou casually sweep under the carpet the amazing wealth of DNA evidence that shows a clear evolutionary trail from ancient species to humans – even down to what types of diseases their genetic input to us left us susceptible to.

      Now THATS a fact.

      February 4, 2014 at 11:20 pm |
    • Nathan

      Far more than a boxcar. But what does the fact that the evolutionary tree is proven to be more complicated than people with a very limited number of fossils thought it would prove other than it is more complicated than people with a very limited number of fossils though it would be?

      Are you honestly saying that in the light of all the new discoveries, the DNA evidence, and the 2 MILLION papers published on evolution in the last decade alone, that because we still don't have every single answer that you think we should it is all wrong?

      February 4, 2014 at 11:22 pm |
    • Tony

      Selective quotes taken completely out of context is how creationists try and throw smoke and mirrors across the argument. not a single one of the people quoted would support a creationist point of view. they would all accept unreservedly that humans evolved from earlier primates. Just, as in all science, new evidence requires a change in thinking to accommodate the new data.

      this is the exact opposite of faith, where new evidence is either carefully ignored or vilified for defying the dogma.

      February 4, 2014 at 11:30 pm |
    • stevef00

      JW....just because science does not have every single answer does not give you the right to assume that an invisible sky wizard must have therefore waved a magic wand and created everything.

      February 5, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
  8. JW

    Belief in Evolution—An Act of “Faith”

    Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”* Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

    In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.

    If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths? Really, belief in evolution is an act of “faith.”

    February 4, 2014 at 11:10 pm |
    • Tony

      Google "observed evolution in short lived species"

      Google "Mitochondrial DNA in the fossil record"

      That's why they stubbornly insist in believing in macro-evolution as a fact, because it is.

      try doing some reading as opposed to spouting the views of those you believe and no others.

      February 4, 2014 at 11:15 pm |
    • Saraswati


      JW, look up the word "plagerism". Maybe take a high school English class that would explain use of citations.

      Is there a reason you refuse to follow the standard laws regarding copying others words?

      February 4, 2014 at 11:24 pm |
      • Rob

        You should learn to spell 'plagiarism' before bandying it about as an argument?

        February 5, 2014 at 3:17 am |
        • Saraswati

          Hmmm...spelling errors vs. plagiarism? Interesting set of priorities you have there.

          February 6, 2014 at 8:59 am |
    • akmac61

      Your lack of belief in the scientific basis of evolution does not affect the validity of evolution in the slightest. The fact that there is not a time-lapse movie of evolution does not invalidate the concept.

      February 6, 2014 at 7:21 am |
  9. Travis

    Bill Nye pretty much dunked on Ken. There's no other way to put the debate in simple terms. Ken just kept dancing around the questions and apparently doesn't even know what the word "literally" means. Bill Nye "won" that debate on all fronts.

    February 4, 2014 at 11:05 pm |
    • joe

      Ken just kept dancing around the questions and apparently doesn't even know what the word "literally" means. Bill Nye "won" that debate on all fronts.
      That's what all the good con men do. And that's why verbal debate is such a poor venue. You can never pin down a con man because their brains just don't work right. They always dance around and convince the gullible. Written debate is much better.

      February 4, 2014 at 11:57 pm |
    • SB

      Were you watching the right debate? Throughout everything Nye said, he paused, stuttered, and incoherently babbled his sentences. If anyone should be embarrassed it should be Nye...

      February 5, 2014 at 12:40 am |
      • Rob

        I want what you're smoking. It's apparently much better than the weed I grow.

        February 5, 2014 at 3:19 am |
        • jesuswasafish


          February 5, 2014 at 4:37 am |
      • stevef00

        SB....Bill was flabbergasted that any human being could completely ignore scientific fact. He used the phrase "I find this unsettling", when he really should have said, "Ken, I find your thoughts on this question to be among the most stupid I have ever heard in my life"

        February 5, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
      • bobsyuruncle

        The world as you wish it to be is not reality. I have to wonder what you were really watching, because it bears no resemblance to the reality of the "debate." Nye was truly in conflict with an unarmed man.

        February 5, 2014 at 3:44 pm |
  10. JCInter

    Evolution is the process of creation. Only the idiots would debate this issue. By whatever you call it, the very first particle was created then expanded to the millions of galaxies and trillions of satrs (as we know for now) and is still going beyond our estimation. But the universe is also evoluting itself, i.e. From the birth to super nova cycle of the stars; the birth to death cycle of everything. During each cycle, some very small change occurred, then it has evolved as planned. For all the evidences we know of, the process of evolution never reverse its course back to the origin of the very first particle. Therefore, the evolution keeps on that process along with the endless cycles during the ever-going creation of the universe.
    Now, we can stop this stupid debate forever.

    February 4, 2014 at 10:56 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Not so long as the fundies keep th.umping their bibles.

      February 4, 2014 at 10:58 pm |
    • sam

      Nah, the fundies can't let it go. They're like junkies who need a fix.

      February 4, 2014 at 11:06 pm |
      • Mopery

        I used to be all messed up on drugs, now I'm all messed up on the Lord.

        February 5, 2014 at 12:16 am |
    • JW

      Genesis says that God created everything according to its "kinds". But within those "kinds"there are variations. Humans can produce other humans with different colores, hights...etc..

      February 4, 2014 at 11:41 pm |
      • stevef00

        JW....the intelligent people here on this thread do not care what Genesis said, any more than we care what George Orwell said in the book 1984. Do you have any real proof it was written by god? Nope? Didn't think so...

        February 5, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
      • LetsBeFactual

        JW, genesis has the order of creation wrong.
        in genesis, god created the earth on the 1st day, plants on the 3rd day. then he created the sun and the stars on the 4th day. The order of creation here is wrong because:
        – With plants being created BEFORE the sun, how did they survive without sunlight for photosynthesis? Its common knowledge that plants require the sun to live and for energy.
        – We all know that the earth and other planets stay in orbit because the sun's gravitational pull holds them in orbit. This means that the sun was here first, and is older than the earth. But genesis has it the opposite way with the earth being created 1st and the sun created on the 4th day.
        – Some stars are the sun's age or younger, and many are older than the sun. Therefore there is no way the earth was created 1st before the stars. Here the order of creation is incorrect too.

        There r many other errors in genesis if u keep thinking about it. I hope u see where i am going with this.

        February 6, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
    • UncleBenny


      February 5, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
    • Truth Seeker

      Evolution implies improvement of species. This just hasn't been the case. The DNA evidence indicates that in reality, the opposite occurs. Species are losing information when they inbreed and narrow their genetic capabilities. PLEASE get informed by studying creation science! I have studied both theories for several decades and have concluded – with no doubt -that evolution is not remotely feasible as a theory of origins.

      February 6, 2014 at 3:25 pm |
  11. joe

    What's at stake in tonight's #Creationism debate?
    There's nothing at stake. Science has just sent robots to Mars. Creationists have never done anything but hold mankind back.

    It was game over 100 years ago with the onset of the modern scientific era.

    February 4, 2014 at 10:55 pm |
    • sam


      February 4, 2014 at 11:00 pm |
    • Tony

      What's at stake? Really??

      Do you want your kids taught the tools needed to survive in the real world of science.

      Or do you want their education and therefore their future hijacked by the worlds most successful brainwash program that actively discourages critical thinking?

      That's what's at stake.

      February 4, 2014 at 11:09 pm |
      • Truth Seeker

        BINGO! Very interesting, Tony! I could have asked your same question: "Do you want their education and therefore their future hijacked by the worlds most successful brainwash program that actively discourages critical thinking?" This actually describes what evolution has been for many decades in America's public schools. Many more parents than you know are fed up with the the science curriculum's ludicrous references to evolution as established fact – deliberate indoctrination of their children with sickening ideas about having evolved from apes and primordial slime. This is one of the main reasons that an increasing number of families have chosen to abandon public education – choosing instead private and home school programs. To survive and thrive, public schools greatly need to implement an alternative theory of origins in order for our youth to adequately compare and contrast the options and THEN to decide which is most logical.

        February 6, 2014 at 3:49 pm |
    • bobsyuruncle

      Remember: Science flies people to the moon; religion flies people into buildings.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
  12. Chris

    Not that I go to church regularly but I've always had one question in mind. If there was the big bang, and there was matter that all came to together combusting to make our solar system....... How did that matter get there to combust? Who hit the play button? Something or someone had to place matter there in space, no? How did things just "get there"? Gasses and all.

    February 4, 2014 at 10:54 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Since time began along with the rest, its not quite like a button was pushed. There was no time in which to push it. Really, it's more like poles on a sphere. As you move away from one of the poles time and space begin.

      February 4, 2014 at 10:58 pm |
    • joe

      Something or someone had to place matter there in space, no? How did things just "get there"? Gasses and all.
      It's the same question for a God. How did the God get there?

      Two acceptable answers:

      1. It's always been there.
      2. Nobody knows.

      February 4, 2014 at 10:58 pm |
      • Chris

        Thanks Joe, yes that has always been my question as well. Crazy rt? Who made God God, you couldn't just "poof" show up....

        February 4, 2014 at 11:00 pm |
        • Brad C.

          Well, we can assume that either matter (and the natural laws) had no beginning, or that God (or a god) had no beginning. Both are incredibly difficult to comprehend, granted, but I certainly can not believe when I look at the stars, and when I look out over the ocean, and when I look at plants and animals that it happened by accident. Its beautiful, and yet there is no reason I should see it as such. It should just be random junk that doesn't effect me, and yet it does.

          February 4, 2014 at 11:12 pm |
        • d00d

          yes it is totally amazing ! and beautiful, BUT its not all beautiful, think about all the atrocities also, malformations, diseases etc etc when you look at the grand scheme of things it really looks like evolution took place.

          February 5, 2014 at 2:29 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      It still doesn't mean young earth creationism is anything but laughable.

      February 4, 2014 at 10:59 pm |
    • Rationalist

      The Big Bang was not a combustion. And there was no matter to "come together" to cause it. The process wasn't any type of chemical or nuclear reaction that we are familiar with. There is now reason to believe there was no need for any matter or energy to cause the singular event that led to the universe we know. Read "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Kraus, a leading theoretical physicist.

      February 4, 2014 at 11:23 pm |
      • Nathan

        ^This. The Big Bang is an unfortunate name because everyone thinks of it in terms of explosions and bangs and combustion. The physics involved are complex at best, and downright foreign and unknown at worst.

        February 4, 2014 at 11:34 pm |
  13. waveshaper1

    The Old Testament of the Bible states that, "God created the Heavens and the Earth", (the universe and beyond) but doesn't say how. One of the problems with creationist is they tend to think very small and don't give the big man (God) much credit for what he has put in motion. I believe God created evolution and in the big picture of things that God created (heavens/universe and beyond) evolution is probably one of his smallest/most insignificant (a speck of sand if you will) accomplishments. So my suggestion for creationist is to give God more credit, think big not small potato's. For the scientist/evolutionist-your going to be busy trying to figure out all these specks of sand the big man put out there and your responding as expected to this God sent "Universal" chum (Hook, Line, and Sinker).

    February 4, 2014 at 10:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Bring on the big man.

      February 4, 2014 at 10:55 pm |
    • Randy N

      Only sheep need to follow a shepherd

      February 4, 2014 at 11:10 pm |
      • Lamb Chop

        Yeah, the shepherd who will fleece them and sell them and eat them for dinner!

        February 5, 2014 at 11:17 am |
    • jesuswasafish

      i can only laugh at your ideas and beliefs in your "god" simply because there were other "gods" written in texts older than the bible.. actually there were "gods" written by civilizations older than what the bible "says" the earth is. looking at modern religion , there are many many many many gods interpreted from many many different texts people worship.. just because the bible is a best seller doesn't mean its true, if you want to assume a religious text is true. im pretty sure Ham said something similiar in his debate about the most popular things aren't necessarily true, which is confounding to me because the bible and the religion that follows is one of the biggest in the world.... durp.. open mouth insert foot.

      February 5, 2014 at 4:44 am |
  14. The Jester

    Folks like Mr. Ham think 'science' is the art of validating the bible. He thinks the bible is inherently infallible so if he is exposed to evidence that contradicts the literal word of the bible, his job is to figure out how it doesn't contradict the bible. No matter what it takes. That's not science.

    In science, we go where the evidence takes us. If it means invalidating previously-held beliefs – no matter how much we WANT to believe them – so be it. We throw it out. No beliefs are sacrosanct and no work is ever infallible.

    Mr. Ham would have us believe that 'observational' science is somehow different than 'historical' science. It isn't. All of science uses the exact same methods to eliminate the impossible, then use whatever remains to create a model that predicts future discovery. The more we learn, the more we learn. When Mr. Ham asks 'Were you there?' he seems to imply that the 'laws' of science may have worked different in the past than they do now. Scientific 'law' is DESCRIPTIVE, not PROSCRIPTIVE. That is, it describes how something DOES work, not how it SHOULD work. These are observations of the mechanics of the universe, not just arbitrary rules that molecules are forced to obey. This is just one of the many language tricks these so-called 'scientists' use.

    What Mr. Ham DIDN'T do is offer one single scintilla of evidence that the bible is infallible or that god even exists.

    February 4, 2014 at 10:50 pm |
    • Mopery

      Some people think that reading the same book over and over again throughout their life means they're literate.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:26 am |
  15. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    The tame scientists Ham brought on were amusing. In my field they're called biostitutes.

    February 4, 2014 at 10:35 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Funny, and there's just soooo many of them – according to Ken Ham, though he grudgingly admits they are "in the minority".

      The funniest one was the astronomer who claimed that there is nothing in astronomy that conficts with a >10,000 year old earth.

      February 4, 2014 at 10:39 pm |
      • Cpt. Obvious

        Wha???!??!!? The astronomer thing???? Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!

        February 4, 2014 at 10:40 pm |
      • Tom, Tom, the Other One

        Now, you know you didn't see the light leaving those stars. That's historical science.

        February 4, 2014 at 10:43 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        Ooops "<10,000 year old earth" but I think you knew what I meant.

        February 4, 2014 at 10:49 pm |
        • Tony

          LOL yeah, because we are all scientists and can rag on that guy for saying what he found in his studies. If you are going to argue, be well versed in the subject that you are going to argue in...

          February 5, 2014 at 12:48 am |
  16. Brian H. Wagner

    Like all worldviews of origins, certain presuppositions have to be first chosen to test what remains of evidence left from the past. Evolution is based on the assumptions of naturalism, uniformity, and an anthropic principle, all of which must first be accepted as true for the results of their associated tests to point to evolution. Creationism is first based on the assumption that the biblical text preserves a true account of what happened and then tests the same evidence in observation science to point to a young earth altered by the catastrophe of a world-wide flood. Neither is unreasonable based on their individual assumptions. And students should learn how to critique how fairly each deals with the same observation evidence.

    February 4, 2014 at 10:34 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Yes, and super easy to test too.

      Q. Is there any evidence of a truly world-wide flood?
      A. No.

      No consistent alluvial deposit. Where did the water come from? Where did it go?

      Nope creationism fails. Move on.

      February 4, 2014 at 10:54 pm |
    • PD

      Who wrote the Bible and in what original language? I'm sure it wasn't in English and it's written by men of the past.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
  17. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    Yes, Tom Foreman, the moderator did an excellent job.

    February 4, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
  18. Lincoln

    Ken Ham did an excellent job!

    Nye was expectedly in awe of the "mysteries" that he's still trying to figure out.

    February 4, 2014 at 10:26 pm |
    • Ping Pong

      Who won?

      February 4, 2014 at 10:28 pm |
      • Lincoln

        The truth 🙂

        February 4, 2014 at 10:29 pm |
    • JB

      Nye was in awe of mysteries? Really? That may be true, but certainly not any mysteries of a religious nature. Bill nailed it. Plain and simple.

      February 4, 2014 at 10:31 pm |
    • Ding Dong

      Why was Morgan barking at Ken/Nye post debate about climate change?

      February 4, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
    • mulehead

      Clearly you're lost....Please shun all that science have given you, starting with your internet connection.

      February 4, 2014 at 10:38 pm |
      • Nick

        Living a a pre-19th existence is not all that bad. Except for the lack of effective medication, vaccines, sanitation, electricity, refrigeration, antibiotics, artificial fertilizers, fast international travel and communication, reliable weather forecasting, pest control, anesthesia... et cetera. Millions of people around the world still live that kind of existence, and when they are not starving or dying from cholera or internal parasites, things are just fine.

        February 4, 2014 at 11:15 pm |
    • EvolvedDNA

      mysteries like perhaps where god could have come from, and are you naked in heaven or do you wear clothes? oh yes what age are you in heaven.. does a baby stay a baby or a teenager get older? Bet Ken had those answers...

      February 4, 2014 at 10:40 pm |
    • Rob

      An excellent job of failing to show any proof of his subscribed facts.

      February 5, 2014 at 3:24 am |
    • PD

      Did you figure out who really wrote the Bible and in what original language? Specifically, the Old Testament and the New Testament? I'm sure it wasn't written in English and it was written by Men of the Past.

      February 5, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
  19. Michael Snow

    Neither guy is well qualified to debate the science. It was a PR event for both. And Ham adds to what the Bible says. http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/in-the-beginning/

    Here was a recent debate by real scientists.

    February 4, 2014 at 10:16 pm |
  20. Tony

    So, we expect an unbiased critique of the debate from the coeditor of a belief blog. Well done CNN, way to go in analysing the facts.

    And americans wonder why the jobs created from scientific discovery are shipping off shore........

    February 4, 2014 at 10:12 pm |
    • Nick

      'tis God's will... That is why those jobs are going elsewhere. Punishment for [insert sin here].

      February 4, 2014 at 10:36 pm |
    • I wonder

      Did the article not completely load on my server or something?

      All I see are a few tweets about HAM's presentation... then skip a couple of hours and some kudos for their employee.

      February 4, 2014 at 10:44 pm |
      • I wonder

        * ok, now a few more tweets are showing up...

        February 4, 2014 at 10:46 pm |
      • james

        Apparently, and sadly, that is what qualifies as journalism these days.... copying tweets from others. Its the MO of the Bleacher Report too.

        February 4, 2014 at 10:57 pm |
    • sam

      Careful! Burke has blocked folks for less. Or tried, he forgets that stuff like proxies exist.

      February 4, 2014 at 11:04 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.