home
RSS
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. Wade

    CNN allows all libeals to post their hate but not me to post the truth.

    February 5, 2014 at 8:07 am |
    • Bernard Webb

      Curse those libeals!

      February 5, 2014 at 8:08 am |
    • truthprevails1

      What is a libeal?
      CNN has a word filter, your lack of ability to post might have something to do with that.

      February 5, 2014 at 8:22 am |
  2. Wade

    I felt kind of sorry for Bill Nye he looked like such a total fo** ever ytime he was asked a real question his response was I don;t know. The other guy replied well their is a book out there with the answers to tell you! LOL.. So pathetic on Bill Byes part.

    February 5, 2014 at 8:03 am |
    • midwest rail

      Absolute nonsense. Frequently, " I don't know " is the only honest answer.

      February 5, 2014 at 8:05 am |
    • Dan

      What you fail to realize Wade, is that saying "I don't know", when you actually don't know, is very respectable. Not being able to answer a question hardly provides support to the argument from creationists. At this point in time I would think that you would understand that there were plenty of things we once didn't know, but now we do know, because of science. There's still more out there to figure out. Not knowing the answer to something doesn't mean God did it, it means we just haven't figured it out yet. Maybe we will never figure out some answers, but that hardly means that the only credible answer is God. If you wish to substantiate your God claims, show me evidence of God. Our inability to answer 100% of your questions is hardly proof you're right.

      February 5, 2014 at 10:22 am |
    • nairebis

      So, rather than admit you don't know something, it's better to make up something absurd, write it down in a book, and pretend you know the truth?

      Who was the fool, again?

      February 5, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
  3. OK Now

    Yes...Because a mass explosion in space 14 billion years ago gave us this perfect environment. That makes perfect sense!

    February 5, 2014 at 8:00 am |
    • St. Lawrence of Arabia

      And where did the stuff come from in the first place that later blew up?

      February 5, 2014 at 8:02 am |
    • uhyep

      Does supernatural magic make more sense?

      February 5, 2014 at 8:02 am |
      • St. Lawrence of Arabia

        Understanding the Law of Causality, and how that applies to the Argument from Contingency, it can be seen that only the supernatural can cause the existence of the natural – making the Creator God a logical necessity.

        February 5, 2014 at 8:06 am |
      • imo

        All of existence MUST have an Eternal Source. This ABSOLUTELY makes sense.

        February 5, 2014 at 8:09 am |
      • tigersfandan

        The problem lies in whether one is willing to accept the possibility that there is a God. If you cannot accept that a God could exist, you probably will not be able to accept that many of the events described in the Bible - such as Creation - are possible. If, however, you can believe the possibility of an all-powerful God, you can probably believe in His ability to do some very incredible things.

        February 5, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
    • d123456

      Yes because some fictional character that none has ever seen waved his magic wand and said here you go.

      February 5, 2014 at 8:12 am |
    • Savonarola

      This is an insight on par with "I'm so glad my parents named me Mike because that's what everybody calls me."

      February 5, 2014 at 8:18 am |
    • cedar rapids

      what perfect environment?
      you know mankind evolved to live in these conditions right? Its not that these conditions exist and mankind exists separately and luckily we match.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:29 am |
    • Dan

      You truly do not understand evolution. We evolved to live in this environment. If the environment were different, either there would be no life, or different species. If the environmental conditions were to change significantly, such as less ozone and increased UV exposure, some of us would survive better than the others due to genetic variation that makes some of us more resistant to skin cancers. Those that survive better would have more opportunities to breed, and slowly over time, the population would become more resistant to UV exposure. The species would "evolve". Then you would come along, look around, and say, "It's amazing that we fit this environment so perfectly, it must be God..." Fact is, if you don't fit the environment you either die or you're slowly out competed for resources until you go extinct. If you're still around, doesn't the environment have to be capable of supporting you?

      February 5, 2014 at 10:33 am |
  4. pottershop2

    the one thing that people seem to forget is that evolution is still a theory. It has NOT been scientifically proven. Mutation definitely occurs in nature. But there is no proof that a lower life form evolves into a high life form. that is that genetic material mysteriously is added to the equation to create something out of nothing. I'm a trained as a scientist and truly believe that it takes more faith to believe that Mankind evolved from some primordial goo through sheer happenstance than it does to believe we were created by a loving and devine God.

    February 5, 2014 at 7:58 am |
    • uhyep

      It's a scientifi theory. In that context, theory means more than what it does in the layman's context.

      Gravity is "just" a theory, too. Do you doubt its existence?

      February 5, 2014 at 8:01 am |
      • OK Now

        I thought it was the "Laws of Gravity"

        February 5, 2014 at 8:02 am |
      • St. Lawrence of Arabia

        No, but you can observe gravity working. Although you can observe changes within species, you don't observe a fish growing lungs and feet. A fish may change, but it's still a fish. A monkey may change, but it's still a monkey. Things only reproduce according to their "kinds."

        February 5, 2014 at 8:04 am |
        • MikeT

          But given enough time, the "fish" becomes less like a fish, or at least less like the original fish that you started with. Is Hyraccotherium still in the "horse" kind, even though it was about the size of a beagle and had 5 toes on each foot? Can you even give a scientific definition of a "kind"? Is it at the species level? Genera? Family? Phylum? I've seen creationists try to define a "kind" at each level, depending on the organism. What kind are the HeLa cells? They are free living single cell organisms, but came from the cervical cancer cells of a human being. Also, even creationists concede that "microevolution" takes place. Evolutionists say there really is no such thing as "micro" or "macro" evolution, that "macro" evolution is just "micro" evolution given enough time. So, what is the barrier that keeps "micro" evolution (things within their own kind) from turning into "macro" evollution (things outside their own kind), and how can it be tested?

          February 5, 2014 at 8:27 am |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          "But given enough time, the "fish" becomes less like a fish, or at least less like the original fish that you started with"
          ----–
          With respect, sir, this is speculation. We all see the same evidence, but conclusions are drawn from whatever our paradigms are. It's like an ink blot test. The facts are that it's just ink on paper, but we see what we want to see, and there's no way to change that, aside from changing our paradigms.

          The truth is, if it cannot align with observable reality, then it isn't scientific. And if it isn't scientific, albeit evolution of molecules to man, or the supernatural spontaneous creation by God, it doesn't have a place in a science textbook or a classroom.

          February 5, 2014 at 8:35 am |
        • WASP

          we can watch tadpoles metamorphsis into frogs; we can see fish..........that have lungs; we can see fish that can walk on land, we can see amphibians of all types, we can see reptiles, and birds and mammals.

          it would seem only logical that everything came from the sea then you can follow species that are similar;yet different.
          fish-> lung fish
          lung fish->amphibian
          amphibian-> reptile
          reptile-bird

          February 5, 2014 at 8:39 am |
        • cedar rapids

          'The truth is, if it cannot align with observable reality, then it isn't scientific. '

          Sorry but thats false logic. We cannot see the centre of the Earth but still teach that it has a molten iron core. if you wish us to remove that from text books as well then you right ahead and campaign for that.

          February 5, 2014 at 9:32 am |
      • chelle

        Do any of these people take Grade 5 science class? Theory, Theorum – look them up!!!

        February 5, 2014 at 3:30 pm |
    • WhyMe

      If you were truly "a trained as a scientist" as you say, you'd know what a scientific theory is.

      February 5, 2014 at 8:07 am |
    • couchloc

      This is not a helpful way to think about the concept "theory" and does not match scientific usage. Here is the correct view:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/books/review/Letters-t-THEFACTOFEVO_LETTERS.html?_r=0

      February 5, 2014 at 8:10 am |
  5. oneamerican

    If I am wrong in my belief of God, then II guess I spent some of my one life believing on false hopes, but not much else was really lost. If those that don't believe are wrong, everything I read indicate Hell is not a very desirable final destination.

    February 5, 2014 at 7:53 am |
    • midwest rail

      I begrudge no one their belief – but you do realize there are other options, right ?

      February 5, 2014 at 7:58 am |
    • Science Works

      And in America god is losing ground !

      February 5, 2014 at 7:58 am |
    • MonkeyBoy125

      So the only reason to believe in god is not to go to hell? That's pretty much saying that the only reason you don't kill people is so you don't go to jail. God and morality are extensions of a society that humans have created, not the other way around.

      February 5, 2014 at 8:03 am |
      • oneamerican

        Monkey– I simply took belief vs. non-belief in a very simple form. Not wanting to go into a debate here or try to convince others of anything. I am only stating that I am a believer and that everyone is either a believer or not. Actually I tend to focus on the positive things associated with my belief, including where I spend eternity. For me , there is no negative to being a believer. Of course, I do not want to go to Hell!

        February 5, 2014 at 9:03 am |
    • Bernard Webb

      Pascal's wager.

      February 5, 2014 at 8:07 am |
    • WhyMe

      But what if you picked the wrong god?

      February 5, 2014 at 8:17 am |
    • cedar rapids

      'If I am wrong in my belief of God, then II guess I spent some of my one life believing on false hopes, but not much else was really lost.'

      unless you picked the wrong god, in which case you are just as hosed as us.

      oh and do keep telling us about this ever loving and forgiving god that will torture and burn me for eternity for the crime of not believing in him.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:34 am |
  6. Get Real

    How evil a monster this mythical "God" is. Thank god God is imaginary, for the story of God is a story of a cruel mass murderer. If god is all powerful and all knowing and perfectly good, he would not bring people into the world knowing that they would go to hell and be tortured forever- a perfectly good being would never do such a thing.

    If god is all powerful and all knowing and perfectly EVIL, then god would create people knowing in advance they were going to burn in hell forever.

    Oh yeah, other examples of gods evil ways:

    1. Murdering innocent children during the flood
    2. Murdering Job's family
    3. Telling Abraham is kill his son
    4. Killing the innocent first born children in Egypt
    5. Requiring a human sacrifice for the salvation of mankind

    Clearly god is not love, he is pure evil. Fortunately for us he is purely imaginary.

    February 5, 2014 at 7:52 am |
    • Skeptic

      Yes, the roots of Judaism and Christianity are from a time of great scientific ignorance, genocide, barbarity, and unenlightenment.

      The Old Testament up to the Book of Psalms is largely a history of genocide, land grabbing, and ethnic cleansing.

      Yawheh is a blood thirsty and vengeful tribal god. The New Testament is more evolved.

      Christians should use the Bible after/including the Book of Psalms for their spiritual needs. Leave science to scientists.

      The Bible is not a scientific textbook or any textbook for any discipline. There is good spiritual inspiration though in books after Psalms for those looking for direction and comfort in their lives.

      February 5, 2014 at 7:59 am |
    • Brian H. Wagner

      get real look at your example again. For permitting evil is not the same as causing evil and turning evil around for something good is not evil itself and where do you think all those children went when they died when you consider God love and justice. That they missed out on this world man made evil could not be that bad of a thing.

      February 5, 2014 at 8:04 am |
      • truthprevails1

        I showed you below exactly where your holy book-the book you claim are the words of your god, states this stuff. Why keep denying it when it is right in front of you? If the book is the word of your god, then it is your god condoning all of that stuff. (now the rational, open-minded person knows that the book is the word of man and nothing more)

        February 5, 2014 at 8:19 am |
        • Brian H. Wagner

          Sorry Truthprevails1 (I like your handle) I did not see your answer right away... but have since placed a reply to it below.

          February 5, 2014 at 8:49 am |
  7. IGWT

    Could this be quite possibly the oldest and most boring debate ever??? This debate over thousands of years has evolved into nothing more than the same jibberish it began with!!! Basically, a debate on this subject becomes a sounding board for either side and no one has anything compelling to say other than the same old sh.. Although, it can be entertaining from time to time how each side badgers each other. The creative conversations and how they evolve into the same boolah boolah!

    February 5, 2014 at 7:47 am |
  8. Skeptic

    It was a mistake for Bill Nye to debate this creationist.

    It would have been better for him to debate someone in the realm of rationality.

    Creationism like Ken Ham promotes is just plain stupid. There is no other way to say it.

    There was no worldwide flood 4,000 yrs ago or ever.

    The Earth is 4.5 billion yrs old. That debate is settled.

    I would have rather seen him debate Michael Behe, a Lehigh University Biochemistry professor, who is the Father of the Intelligent Design hypothesis. Behe, is a credentialed scientist with peer reviewed papers in respected journals.

    Honestly, Ham is either a complete charlatan, a nitwit, or just under heavy delusions and illusions.

    Religion can be a serious obstacle to logical thinking.

    February 5, 2014 at 7:40 am |
    • Saraswati

      Bill Nye, while well educated generally in science, doesn't really have the credentials for a real debate within the field. You'd have to find someone else who finds this worth while, which will be hard. Few real scientists consider this an issue for serious discussion.

      February 5, 2014 at 7:44 am |
    • DB

      I agree most of Hams views are "out there" and by the way not at all indicative of the Christians that I know....They should have had John Lennox debate Nye, would have made short work of him imho. Want a good thought provoking debate on this matter? watch John Lennox debate Richard Dawkins...epic!

      February 5, 2014 at 8:20 am |
  9. Atheist Hunter

    The Bible is a feat that NO MAN could ever accomplish or ever again repeat. I has never happened again in the history of the world. If we have evolved then why could ancient man accomplish this but not modern evolved much better man? GOD THAT"S WHY!
    Ultimately, above the human authors, the Bible was written by God. Second Timothy 3:16 tells us that the Bible was “breathed out” by God. God superintended the human authors of the Bible so that, while using their own writing styles and personalities, they still recorded exactly what God intended. The Bible was not dictated by God, but it was perfectly guided and entirely inspired by Him.

    Humanly speaking, the Bible was written by approximately 40 men of diverse backgrounds over the course of 1500 years. Isaiah was a prophet, Ezra was a priest, Matthew was a tax-collector, John was a fisherman, Paul was a tentmaker, Moses was a shepherd, Luke was a physician. Despite being penned by different authors over 15 centuries, the Bible does not contradict itself and does not contain any errors. The authors all present different perspectives, but they all proclaim the same one true God, and the same one way of salvation—Jesus Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:12).

    While he is not the author of every article on GotQuestions.org, for citation purposes, you may reference our CEO, S. Michael Houdmann.

    Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-authors.html#ixzz2sRu4YtqT

    February 5, 2014 at 7:33 am |
    • St. Lawrence of Arabia

      That is SUCH a great website! There should be a button that you can push to get a download of all the articles in it.

      February 5, 2014 at 7:39 am |
    • Brian H. Wagner

      If you are a Christian, Atheist Hunter, then you really should change your chosen id for discussions like this! There does not seem to be a "love the sinner, hate the sin" in that choice! Atheism Hunter might work. Or Atheist Lover might do. Just saying. "Wise as serpents, harmless as doves" "The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle to all...:"

      February 5, 2014 at 7:41 am |
    • arawn

      except it does contradict itself. repeatedly. and as for errors, there's even a case where it gets pi wrong.

      February 5, 2014 at 7:43 am |
      • St. Lawrence of Arabia

        Well, it's a website, not the Bible. So of course there's going to be some mistakes in it. But overall, it's a great resource.

        Afterall, I read Martin Luther, although I don't agree with everything the man ever said, he's still a great resource.

        February 5, 2014 at 8:09 am |
    • Skeptic

      You need to hunt for your own brain.

      You are not deleting any atheists from the world. Your ignorance only increases atheism.

      I grew up in a Christian home with a father who was/is a Christian minister. I went to a Christian college and studied religious texts, religious philosophy, religious theology, etc. I know the Bible front to back and all related doctrines.

      I am an atheist.

      You could never ever convert me or defeat me or anything of the sort.

      I would run laps around your pea brain.

      February 5, 2014 at 7:43 am |
      • St. Lawrence of Arabia

        I'm guessing humility isn't one of your strong points then...

        February 5, 2014 at 8:11 am |
    • Lyles

      You do realize that in the court of Constantine they basically picked and chose which books were and were not going to be in the bible, the bible is the product of man. Not god.

      February 5, 2014 at 7:45 am |
    • Cedar Rapids

      Why on earth do you think no man can have done the bible? The stories were collected together and determined by man.
      And how the heck can you claim it doesn't contradict itself? It does that from the get go when a supposed all knowing, all seeing god didn't know about the future fall of Adam and Eve, didn't know what they had done after the event and had to go look for Adam and ask him what he had done.

      February 5, 2014 at 7:52 am |
    • wolf

      You've already pointed out the biggest flaw in the creationist arguement: The Bible paradox. "How do you know the Bible is true? Because it's from God. How do you know God exists? Because the Bible says so." Basically there is no argument for religion in which you use logic only nonsense and illogical arguments.

      February 5, 2014 at 8:01 am |
    • istenno

      how do you know the bible was written by god? the only way you can possibly "know" that is if you choose to believe what other humans have told you.

      February 5, 2014 at 8:29 am |
    • Atheist

      The Romans really screwed up. The should have had a lot more lions!

      February 5, 2014 at 8:34 am |
    • Pad

      Many of the stories in the bible have been repeated - or more accurately, the bible repeats stories that were told in many societies long before the bible and Christianity were even a thought. Almost all ancient civilizations held similar beliefs and had similar stories. These stories are useful anecdotes to guide a civilization, but they are by no means original to the bible.

      February 5, 2014 at 10:25 am |
  10. John

    Existence based upon fact or myth. Science is founded on facts, religion on faith.

    I have no problem with people believing either to be the case. The problem is motive, however, pure and simple. The real threat in this nation is not from government oppression, but rather theocratic dominion by the Christian faith. If you want to see a movement that has been swelling since the late sixties to force Christianity upon people through legislative measures, to compel children to practice Christian prayer and be isolated to classroom instruction regarding intelligent design, to be obligated to the practice of Christian faith by virtue of being an American citizen, to be held accountable to standards invoked by a religious sect but yet not practiced by it, then continue to let the theocracy movement try and take hold.

    Men of religion do not act in the name of their God, but purely for their own sake. Christians have much to fear and the origin of the threat is not within the pages of their doctrine, but in the capable hands of free people. Nothing holds more power, more retribution or overwhelming force than the response of free people to willful oppression.

    February 5, 2014 at 7:24 am |
    • Atheist Hunter

      Who's trying to snuff out who. The America I was born in endowed religious freedom.

      February 5, 2014 at 7:28 am |
      • Someone

        Correct – but you have no right to shove your religion down my throat. I have freedom to believe in Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, become a Sikh, Muslim. or whatever.

        February 5, 2014 at 7:34 am |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          In America, Congress is not permitted to make a law restricting the free exercise of religion. The Bible tells us to be evangelists. The consti.tution guarentees our right to be evangelists.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:42 am |
        • Saraswati

          Evangelize all you want as long as my tax dollars aren't paying for it.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:46 am |
        • St. Lawrence of Arabia

          Don't worry, they don't.

          February 5, 2014 at 8:13 am |
      • arawn

        but not freedom to force other people's kids to be taught your sect of your religion's version of the origin in schools paid for by the rest of us.

        February 5, 2014 at 7:38 am |
  11. Atheist Hunter

    Forgive them Father, they know not what they do.

    February 5, 2014 at 7:22 am |
    • truthprevails1

      You should be in an asylum not on a computer. Your alias is a clear indicator that you're a danger to society!!

      February 5, 2014 at 7:26 am |
      • Atheist Hunter

        No coffee yet? Temper, temper.

        February 5, 2014 at 7:28 am |
        • truthprevails1

          No tolerance for hateful, angry people.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:36 am |
        • Skeptic

          There is nothing Christian about your arguments. It's all pure ego.

          Buddhism can help you with your ego problems.

          You should just give up. You aren't convincing anyone.

          Turn the other cheek, like Jesus said, and leave the board and go practice your religion.

          You aren't converting any people here. That annoys you and makes you feel inferior and humiliated.

          So you start to attack people in non-Christian ways. See, you are nothing like Christ.

          Your religious beliefs are an adjunct to your ego. Your beliefs are a way to give your ego confidence in this complex and chaotic world and give you power when it comes to competing with other people.

          But, Christianity has nothing to do with bolstering the ego. It has to do with serving others and humility.

          Debate like a fool all you want. The more you post the more you prove that you're not really a follower of Christ.

          Just another deluded person using religion as a means to boost his/her egoic power.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:53 am |
    • Skeptic

      I know Christianity bottom to top and I understand the minds of Christians better than most people.

      Your post is pure ego. And you should be ashamed for using your religion and your supposed 'god' to win arguments.

      You can't win these arguments because most people now are awake to the backwardness of religion so you invoke the name of your god to make you seem superior.

      You do this for the sake of your ego. There is no god on your side that support your argument.

      Your god is a figment of your imagination. Quote your biblical verses all you want. It doesn't help any of your arguments.

      February 5, 2014 at 7:48 am |
  12. Bob

    Ok, so THAT was a summary of a debate? Am I missing something? These were just sound bites in the form of twitter posts. This illustrates a big problem today. The story gets dumbed down to sound bites, and the best sound bite wins. Of course it is entirely possible that this "debate" was stupid anyway. You can't have a real debate between science and religion. Science says show me what we know and let's learn more, and religion will point out the mystery of what is unknown and that there always will be unknown. How do you debate when the entire philosphy is different? Of course creaitonism doesn't make scientific sense, but a religious apologist can always make up some hypothetical "well maybe the devil put those dinosaur fossils there to confuse us". There is nothing to debate in situations like this.

    February 5, 2014 at 7:15 am |
  13. WASP

    ok long story short; science shows humans evolved from lesser species into what we are today, religion saids we are all imbred.

    i'll stick to evolution..............the alternative is just disgusting.

    February 5, 2014 at 7:00 am |
    • truthprevails1

      Yes, someone tried to make it right the other day by claiming 'god' condoned incest initially but after the Noahs Ark fiasco determined incest was wrong...just a little bit crazy. Silly christians like to spin their stories to make their god seem good...foolish really.

      February 5, 2014 at 7:22 am |
      • Atheist Hunter

        Called free will, just like your free will to bash God. Your choice, their choice. Your mistake, their mistakes.

        February 5, 2014 at 7:23 am |
        • truthprevails1

          Anyone going by the alias 'Atheist Hunter' needs an asylum and not a computer.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:24 am |
        • Atheist Hunter

          Mr. truthprevails, your don't begin to know truth. Why are you so angered by my handle? Atheist are such angry people from what I can tell on here.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:30 am |
        • Dori

          Yeah? But what if you're wrong. And, I know, you are convinced that you are not wrong; but, the truth of it is that you really don't know. You've got a hunch that you call faith because you hang around a bunch of like minded guys who blow sunshine in each others ears all day and condemn anyone who suspects your beliefs to be wrong. You want people to tone down on the criticism? Then pull back a bit. You have your beliefs, keep them in your circle and out of our politics. Quit condemning anyone who disagrees. You have thousands of reason why other belief and religions are wrong; however, you cannot see that those reasons may apply to you. I am tired of being ridiculed by arrogant people worshiping gods in the 21st century. Enough already.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:44 am |
        • truthprevails1

          Your handle indicates hatred and a desire to kill. I stand by my original comment that you need an asylum and not a computer.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:48 am |
        • Saraswati

          I've got to agree with truth. Anone who picks a handle that apears to condone not only hatred but murder needs help and should probably be on a watch list.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:54 am |
  14. mitex

    Reblogged this on Riggs Poland.

    February 5, 2014 at 6:40 am |
  15. Coolius Caesar

    So god only revealed himself to a small group of nomadic goat herders in the middle east, not the rest of humanity.
    If there was a god he would be a sociopath

    February 5, 2014 at 6:34 am |
    • Brian H. Wagner

      God has told us through those prophets and apostles who were from all walks of life that He speaks to everyone also through creation and conscience so that they are without excuse for not seeking to know more about Him. And He promised that if they seek they will find.

      February 5, 2014 at 6:43 am |
      • WASP

        and let's not forget the part where he created all you christians from incest..........................twice. XD

        February 5, 2014 at 6:54 am |
        • Brian H. Wagner

          I am sorry wasp that you choose such misrepresentations as an excuse not to seek for reasonable answers and a satisfying relationship with God. But that God can even use man's evil and turn it around for great good is obvious. He allowed the murder of His Son to be able to offer us the gift of forgiveness from our guilt.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:06 am |
        • WASP

          hey so where did the mommy gods go? i know three men can't make a baby so why force himself on an innocent woman whom is already married to a human male.

          if he created humans, did "god" lose his ability to create another and call it his "son"?

          i don't know about you but i feel no guilt about a fairytale story gone horribly wrong, if i did something wrong then i would feel guilty and make amends for my actions; i wouldn't force my child to pay for my mistakes............which is exactly what your god did. he didn't suffer or have to deal with humans, he sent his "son" to take his punishment for something he appearantly had no power to fix himself;

          in the words of the HULK " puny god".

          February 5, 2014 at 8:48 am |
      • The GOP needs to pack up and leave

        Mythically speaking, Moses was the last person God talked to. But to paraphrase James T. Kirk, why would God need prophets?

        February 5, 2014 at 7:06 am |
      • truthprevails1

        Wow, there's a crap load of speculation. You have no way of knowing that any god had anything to do with those words. What we do know for certain is that it was primitive man who wrote those words with no validation that a god was involved.
        You can spin it however you wish but the god you hold so dear is not anything worthy of worship....the book you claim it inspired condones rape; slavery; oppression of numerous subsets of people; child abuse; murder.
        Picking and choosing to make it seem right doesn't work, we're not so foolish.

        February 5, 2014 at 7:19 am |
        • Atheist Hunter

          Ultimately, above the human authors, the Bible was written by God. Second Timothy 3:16 tells us that the Bible was “breathed out” by God. God superintended the human authors of the Bible so that, while using their own writing styles and personalities, they still recorded exactly what God intended. The Bible was not dictated by God, but it was perfectly guided and entirely inspired by Him.

          Humanly speaking, the Bible was written by approximately 40 men of diverse backgrounds over the course of 1500 years. Isaiah was a prophet, Ezra was a priest, Matthew was a tax-collector, John was a fisherman, Paul was a tentmaker, Moses was a shepherd, Luke was a physician. Despite being penned by different authors over 15 centuries, the Bible does not contradict itself and does not contain any errors. The authors all present different perspectives, but they all proclaim the same one true God, and the same one way of salvation—Jesus Christ (John 14:6; Acts 4:12).

          While he is not the author of every article on GotQuestions.org, for citation purposes, you may reference our CEO, S. Michael Houdmann.

          Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-authors.html#ixzz2sRu4YtqT

          February 5, 2014 at 7:26 am |
        • truthprevails1

          Anyone going by the alias 'Atheist Hunter' needs an asylum and not a computer.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:27 am |
        • Brian H. Wagner

          Are you willing to read reasonable answers to your charges or even to read the context of the biblical charges that you are presenting? The Bible clearly does not condone the sins you list, even proposing the death penalty for slavery that results from kidnapping a person for their homeland and selling them somewhere else. They were not "primitive" men in the sense of little intelligence. And Jesus' words, which are more accurately preserved that any other ancient text of its time include His acknowledgement of the OT Scriptures as God's Word. I choose to trust Him.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:34 am |
        • truthprevails1

          Brian: As a recovering christian, I have opened my eyes to reality and the extreme dangers your belief system presents to this world. You keep speaking of this god but show nothing of its existence outside of using mans words. Maybe if you read that bible from beginning to end instead of just picking and choosing, spinning it to fit the delusion..you too would join reality and start living in the 21st century. The quickest path to disbelief is to actually read that horror story (aka your bible).
          The bible does condone everything I said...it is only your own ignorance that prevents you from seeing that.

          (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

          If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. RA,b>PE CONDONED

          You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB) MURDER CONDONED

          If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) SLAVERY CONDONED

          The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

          February 5, 2014 at 7:45 am |
      • Saraswati

        He probably just needs a good college communications course. One semester at community college ought to cover most of the concepts he's missing. Seems a bit daft a god to need it, but I'm sure most schools would clear a space.

        February 5, 2014 at 7:50 am |
  16. Chuck

    You know my generation at least in the area I came from taught both
    Evolution and that we had a Creator. The way they were taught made total sense,
    Jump forward 40 years and you have to either be for Evolution, or in Creationism.
    Creationism is a new phenomenon, we were taught in Church as a kid the universe
    is billions of years old and the earth as well.

    Fools are those that say Evolution Only or Creationism Only
    Solomon told us not to be too much of the flesh or too much of the spirit to balance them

    February 5, 2014 at 5:30 am |
    • Brian H. Wagner

      Creationists believe in micro evolution within "kinds", just not macro evolution, creating new organisms. Once you believe that God is in the picture, the time it takes to get things done is not a problem, like forming a man in one day or a universe in six days or wine from water or loaves and fish in a few seconds.

      February 5, 2014 at 5:48 am |
      • faisalalsarraf

        Indeed, Creationists believe God controls time as well!

        February 5, 2014 at 6:14 am |
        • Brian H. Wagner

          And it is important to believe that Jesus is that Creator or else this debate makes no everlasting difference!

          February 5, 2014 at 6:30 am |
      • The GOP needs to pack up and leave

        It's a problem.

        February 5, 2014 at 7:08 am |
      • The GOP needs to pack up and leave

        Also, Jesus wasn' t the creator. He was the illegitimate son of a 13 year girl.

        February 5, 2014 at 7:09 am |
        • Robert Sakovich

          You clearly don't know the Bible well if that is what you think. Jesus existed eternally and then came to Earth as a man to live a perfect life in thought and deed (which none of us do), die on the cross and take the wrath of God in the place of those who trust in Him. Then He rose again, conquering death for us. And outside historical sources actually confirm that these events happened and the people who saw Him after He rose again preached the Gospel and were killed for it. Which doesn't make sense for a group of people to make a story up so they could get tortured and killed in the most cruel fashion...

          February 5, 2014 at 7:33 am |
        • Atheist Hunter

          Forgive him Father, he knows not what he says and does.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:34 am |
        • Atheist Hunter

          The Bible is real and true, that is why they keep digging up artifacts, cities, temples, etc. that prove it is true. You can sit here and argue all day against God but it will not make his one bit less real or less powerful. Go fishing or something!

          February 5, 2014 at 7:37 am |
        • Chopper007

          There is evidence of some of the history of the Bible. There is no evidence of the mythology of the Bible.

          February 7, 2014 at 3:41 pm |
    • AgentX

      Creationism is a new phenomena? I do not know why you are saying that. Genesis is thousands of years old.

      February 5, 2014 at 6:10 am |
      • Steve Wilkinson

        Probably some confusion over 'evolution vs creation' and 6 24-hour day Creation there. They are different topics, and as a popular interpretation of the Bible, the 6 24-hour day view is fairly new. Though, so is the creation vs evolution debate, but that's more due to evolution being so young. Darwin's forerunners were essentially ID folks, so creationists.

        February 5, 2014 at 6:19 am |
        • Brian H. Wagner

          Actually six day creation was popular throughout Christian history since a normal reading of expressions like evening and morning, first day, second day, and day and night, found in Genesis 1 consistently mean a normal 24 hours throughout the rest of the OT.

          February 5, 2014 at 6:25 am |
        • The GOP needs to pack up and leave

          The six day creation story started in Mesopotamia. It was part of their religions. It's not originally a Jewish or Christian belief.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:11 am |
        • Steve Wilkinson

          I guess it depends on what we mean by popular. I guess a better way of saying it, is that 6 24-hour days was just one possible interpretation (held by some) up until rather recently, where it became quite popular on a larger scale by a particular segment of Christianity.

          February 5, 2014 at 1:13 pm |
      • Hiram57

        Actually, the term "Creationism" as it's used today (with Religion trying to masquerade as Science) first occurred in 1929. Back then, it was viewed as a slightly crackpot view. The term used prior to that was (I think) closer to the Truth: "Anti-Evolutionists". Doesn't really matter much to them that Evolution has been proven in so many ways (and is so fundamentally compatible with Christianity) that their Arguments fall flat. They've made up their minds... and it's pointless to use Reason with such people.

        February 5, 2014 at 7:58 am |
        • Steve Wilkinson

          You've got to be a bit careful with terms though.... for example, all Christians would be 'creationists' as opposed to 'naturalists' or 'materialists.' And most Christians (unless ignorant) aren't anti-evolutionists if we're talking about evolution in terms of what science has 'proven' in any reasonable manner.

          February 5, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
  17. John R. Grace

    I believe in science, evolution, the 'big bang theory', and I'm Roman Catholic. I do not consider those beliefs in conflict. Personally, I consider the entire 'six day' creation story to be a fable and I think most creationists believe it because that's the story they've been told since day one of their lives. Once you make that 'break', however, it's relatively easy to reconcile yourself to both creationism and science.

    February 5, 2014 at 5:18 am |
    • Brian H. Wagner

      If you can believe that Jesup can immediately create wine out of water, you can believe that He made the world in six days.

      February 5, 2014 at 5:28 am |
      • Brian H. Wagner

        I meant Jesus... my too big fingers for little phone. 🙂

        February 5, 2014 at 5:31 am |
        • JesusFan

          Well of course Jesus would perform Cool tricks when on Earth. I believe he did not appear in the dreams of every human being at the age of 10 and teach every child about Jesus because he's not a SHOWOFF.

          Jesus would NEVER showoff his superior awesomness. What type of people show off? Well, they are not good people.

          That's the reason Jesus did a lot of smaller miracles, like walking on water, changing water to wine, and healing a few people at a time. He would never bring thousands of people up from the dead. Nobody would like that. It's just too much showing off.

          I also think the disciples didn't recognize him after he rose from the dead because Jesus looked REALLY REALLY different. Being dead might have changed his bone structure, for example. That's why you'd need some other 100% proof that it was Jesus, other than looking at his face. If George W Bush died and rose from the dead, I would NEVER recognize him. I'd need some kind of PROOF like if he still had his wallet on him and had appropriate identification.

          February 5, 2014 at 6:04 am |
        • Brian H. Wagner

          Jesusfan... you may want God to reveal Himself the way you think He should... who wouldn't. But many children ask for stupid things from their parents. Maybe trusting that the evidence He provided us to get to know Him would be a more mature way of looking at it.

          February 5, 2014 at 6:15 am |
      • Steve Wilkinson

        Of course I can believe that God could have created the world in 6 24-hour days. The question is what the Biblical texts actually say and what we can learn from well-done science. That all has to inform our position on the matter. While I probably wouldn't be in full agreement with my Catholic friend above, I also have no problem reconciling the Biblical text with the best science. The conflict is imagined by people who know nothing of Christianity, science, or both.

        February 5, 2014 at 5:36 am |
        • Brian H. Wagner

          I agree Steve that many do not know either position well. I thought Ham's strongest point for a young earth last night was showing that 90% of the timing methods show the age of the earth to be much less than the dogmatic age chosen and needed for evolution.

          February 5, 2014 at 5:53 am |
      • The GOP needs to pack up and leave

        Jesus didn't create the world according to the myth. It was God. Two completely different individuals in the stories.

        February 5, 2014 at 7:13 am |
        • Robert Sakovich

          You are just showing your ignorance of the Bible. Go read John 1 and you can clearly see that Jesus did create the world. Of course, to understand the Bible, you have to read the whole thing and not just the snippets from sound bites that people throw out there.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:38 am |
    • scott

      You're almost there John. We're all atheists for Zeus, Thor, etc.. Just go one god further. I was raised Roman Catholic but decided it was all a lie at the same time I understood Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Tooth Fairy were lies. Let go of religion and feel the energy of the Universe without crutches.

      February 5, 2014 at 5:53 am |
      • Brian H. Wagner

        Please Scott don't confuse the corruption of Christ's teachings with Christ's teachings. Roman Catholicism did not give us the Bible, prophets and apostles did. Give reading their worldview a chance, unfiltered by any denominational perspective. If it truly is God's Word it doesn't need those filters.

        February 5, 2014 at 6:05 am |
        • sam stone

          if it were truly god's word, it would be totally clear

          how man christian denominations are there?

          February 5, 2014 at 6:29 am |
        • Brian H. Wagner

          You'd be surprised how clear it is if you read it like any other book. Half of it is history... you can't get much clearer than that. And Jesus said faith of a child is basically all that is necessary to be accepted by Him, so what is necessary to believe is also clear. That God added some ambiguous things that make us think is a good thing as long as we don't become dogmatic about what we think is the resolution of those ambiguities... and there is how denominations get started!

          February 5, 2014 at 6:38 am |
        • bob

          you call it history but it's anything but.
          the bible is a series of passages written from thousands of years to decades after the fact that was voted on by men over 1000 years after they were written as to what should be included in the book.

          consider the assassination of jfk. that happened only decades ago. many people are alive today that were there, in person, at the event. the places still exist as they were on the day in question, we can go back and see them, test out theories. there is video and countless still images. there is forensic evidence. and still we can be absolutely certain of what happened that day.

          the bible can offer no such corroboration yet you take it as the unerring word of god.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:00 am |
        • Hiram57

          The RC Church certainly DID give us the Bible... at least they set the Canon (throwing out any of the Gospels they didn't like– which included many Prophets and Apostles!). On top of that, they (and many denominations since) re-translated it, which always compounds confusion.

          February 5, 2014 at 8:19 am |
      • AgentX

        Atheists believe in magical sources for genetic information. Information just appears out of thin air and forms something complex enough to reproduce itself and adapt and store those adaptations. At least Chris Kringle actually existed. DNA forming by itself is impossible.

        February 5, 2014 at 6:15 am |
        • sam stone

          how do you make the logical leap from a creator to a god?

          February 5, 2014 at 6:30 am |
        • bob

          science had made artificial RNA that not only self replicates but can undergo micro evolution. if man can do it by putting the right chemicals in a test tube then nature can do it too.

          February 5, 2014 at 6:52 am |
        • Hiram57

          Simply NOT TRUE, AgentX. The chemistry and mechanics are well understood, and have been replicated. Of course, you have to have above a grade-schooler's understanding of Science to understand that.

          February 5, 2014 at 8:24 am |
    • tigersfandan

      If evolution wasn't being taught in the public schools, how many people would believe it? It's not just creationists that believe what they were taught.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
      • Chopper007

        Science is all around us. Evidence of evolution is too. You just choose to ignore it in favor of beliefs that wholey lack evidence.

        February 7, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
  18. Steve Wilkinson

    One thing that quickly becomes obvious in reading some of these comments... 95% of the people poking fun of Ham have FAR LESS knowledge about what Christianity teaches than Ham does of what he's critiquing. i.e.: if you think Ham looked silly..... 😉 Straw-men ablaze as far as the eye can see!

    February 5, 2014 at 5:13 am |
    • bob

      you dont need to know ANYTHING about christianity to criticize ham. he is trying to make statements about science. religion is irrelevant.

      February 5, 2014 at 6:53 am |
      • Steve Wilkinson

        No, typically religion is not irrelevant, as even most scientists go far beyond simply presenting the scientific data. Once you start to interpret that data and form a story of what happened or is happening, you bring in religion, philosophy, and a host of other disciplines. Unfortunately, it's a major characteristic of modern scientism to miss this point.

        February 5, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
    • Someone

      Frankly – I got everything I need to know about Ham after listening to about 2 minutes of his opening remarks. As soon as he started with the "science has been hijacked by atheists" bit – I got immediately turned off.

      February 5, 2014 at 7:29 am |
      • Robert Sakovich

        So you didn't bother to listen to the explanation? That just shows that you aren't even willing to hear an argument and are just being dogmatic.

        February 5, 2014 at 7:41 am |
      • Steve Wilkinson

        Yea, that's kind of a silly statement. A better way to put it might be that science has too often been hijacked by a modern kind of naivety that it can run independent of other disciplines such as philosophy and theology, all the time doing bad philosophy and theology without realizing it. It's generally called scientism.

        February 5, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
        • stevef00

          No Steve...actually, yours is the sillier statement. Science is only laced with conjecture and facts. Religion is the polar opposite. Belief in something with absolutely no facts....only conjecture. Once facts are in place, conjecture then becomes irrelevant. I have no idea why you religious people can't accept facts as your basis for belief, and insist on focusing just on conjecture.

          February 6, 2014 at 10:34 am |
        • Steve Wilkinson

          re: "Religion is the polar opposite. Belief in something with absolutely no facts....only conjecture."

          Where are you getting that from?

          February 6, 2014 at 8:53 pm |
  19. Steve Wilkinson

    While I have not listened to this debate, I can only imagine where it went with such polar-opposites. I think it's important for people to realize that Ham only represents a small segment of Christianity in his position. There are also folks like Francis Collins who wouldn't differ with Nye much at all, and then a very large segment of Christians who hold an old-earth, but special creation position where they neither agree with Ham nor Nye.

    February 5, 2014 at 4:47 am |
  20. AgentX

    Tony wrote:"Ditto with trying to educate those that believe in a god that doesn't exist."

    Saying facts do not exist, is much different than saying God does not exist. It is illogical to say that God does not exist. You can't look everywhere and verify that God does not exist. But I can go up to the top leading experts and ask them for facts about cats and dogs having a common ancestor. They can tell me why they guess that they have a common ancestor. It is a known how that theory started and what facts were being used. The scarcity of information makes saying that a cat and dog have a common ancestor speculation and not fact.

    February 5, 2014 at 4:43 am |
    • Steve Wilkinson

      Not only can't one assert that 'God does not exist' with any level of certainty, making such a statement approaches the absurd given any sane definition of deity. All one can really say is that based on one's experiences in life, or some set of data, that they feel it's more likely God doesn't exist than does. And, I think if anyone has taken an honest look at the data, there is a bunch more data in the 'there is a God' camp than not. Then the question becomes, which one?

      February 5, 2014 at 4:59 am |
      • bob

        i can assert that 'god does not exist' with the same level of certainty that i say: "there is no santa, easter bunny, tooth fairy, monster under my bed or a god named ra who carries the the sun across the sky in his boat every day"

        February 5, 2014 at 7:07 am |
        • Steve Wilkinson

          .... which simply makes your general ignorance incredibly obvious to anyone with a decent education.

          February 5, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • Chopper007

          You mean decent RELIGIOUS education...

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

      Nye never once made the assertion that God does not exist. Not once. He simply said that the Creation Museums model of Creationism is not a viable model to explain the origins of the planet and universe.

      February 5, 2014 at 5:31 am |
      • Steve Wilkinson

        I mentioned (in another post) that I didn't watch the debate. If what you're saying is true, then he's a smart man... and I'd probably agree with him on that particular point. While I'm a Christian, I'm pretty critical of Ham. It would have been much more interesting to put Nye up against a more credible young-earth-creationist, or better yet, an old-earth-creationist like Hugh Ross or John Lennox.

        February 5, 2014 at 5:47 am |
        • tb

          Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer, by no means an expert on evolution – part of the reason why so many scientists were so against this "debate." It was a theatrical event, with Ham playing lead protagonist.

          The fact that this is a debate in 2014, in the United States, is a bit worrisome. Nonetheless, I think it was all for fun and worked well for those who believe in Creationism. I wouldn't expect it to be in the classroom anytime soon, thank God. 😉

          February 5, 2014 at 7:21 am |
        • Steve Wilkinson

          Yea, neither are Lennox or Ross. If it were going to be a debate on evolution with experts, then I'd send in someone like Fazale Rana. That said, Nye isn't very shy about something he's no expert in, as is the case with 99% of most of us weighing in on the issue... including the vast majority of the 'scientific consensus' who *know* Darwinian evolution (and neo-Darwinian evolution) is fact.

          February 5, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
      • AgentX

        Genetic Information forming from random events does not conform to any observations. It only conforms to speculation about how life might have formed by itself. How do you naturally select from nothing to get the process started? Evolution really does not even attempt to say how life started so that it is wrong to debate one against the other. The debate was about one interpretation of the bible stating the age of the earth against speculation about scientific age of the earth. Evolution was not really even debated. Even Ham acknowledged that variation in life occurs. Creation can occur and then afterwards change over time.

        February 5, 2014 at 5:49 am |
        • Travis

          In that one statement you have rendered all your arguments irrelevant because of how little you seem to know about the very subject you are trying to debunk. Evolution by Natural Selection and the Origin of Life are two entirely different topics as Evolution is the means by which organisms change over time, not to debate how it all started. You would know this if you had a basic understanding of the issue.

          February 5, 2014 at 7:35 am |
      • Hiram57

        Thank you, JB, for pointing that out !

        February 5, 2014 at 8:40 am |
    • JB

      PS . . . It is completely logical to say God does not exist when looking at the world around us. It is, at least, if you were not indoctrinated from day one of your life to believe in any sort of religion or if you were enlightened enough to have escaped that indoctrination by your parents.

      February 5, 2014 at 5:33 am |
      • Steve Wilkinson

        'escaped the indoctrination....' and 'enlightened enough' LOL (thanks, I needed a good laugh before bed)
        Anyway, how about providing some of evidence for the non-existence of God then, or maybe we can see your logical proof???

        February 5, 2014 at 5:39 am |
        • Hiram57

          Proving a Negative is almost always a fallacy from the start. Science realizes this, and form their Hypotheses carefully to avoid such. Some of the "Fundy Fringe" seem to think that Science is trying to disprove the existence of God. Nothing could be farther from the Truth, as Nye pointed out repeatedly... Science would LOVE to find Evidence. If Ham can provide such Evidence, he will be touted as the greatest Scientist of all time.

          February 5, 2014 at 8:48 am |
        • Steve Wilkinson

          And, yet you've got tons of popular figures in science weighing in on the matter, as if science HAS actually given data which weighs heavily on the negative side of the existence of God debate. Maybe if they stopped promoting such ignorance, those of us working in philosophy, history, theology, etc. would be commenting a lot less on the science.

          February 5, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
      • AgentX

        When you look around the world you see things with an origin completely not understood by you. God creating it is a perfectly logical explanation. Genetic information organizing out of random events is completely inconsistent with observation. We do not see non-trivial things organizing in this universe. We see organized thing breaking down into greater disorder. The only things that seem to organize outside of life are trivial cases like crystals and snowflakes.

        February 5, 2014 at 5:56 am |
    • Tony

      The onus isn't on me to prove that a fictional character doesn't exist. The onus is on those that want to use god as their justification to railroad their ideals across the rights of others to prove they do exist and are therefore relevant. Failure to provide such proof should negate their "right" to force said ideals down the throats of others.

      February 5, 2014 at 9:17 am |
      • Steve Wilkinson

        Yes, but the onus IS on you for any claims you make, such as that the God of Christianity is a fictional character, or that the 'religious right' shouldn't be able to 'railroad' their views any more than any other group able to gain power is able to railroad theirs. And, maybe you might want to undergird this whole 'rights' concept of which you speak in the first place. Or, you might want to be able to defend your wacky concept that sans religion, you're at some kind of neutral point, not having the onus to support your worldview.

        February 5, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
        • Tony

          Tell me, what would you call a book about supernatural powers, written by men who didn't actually witness any of it that has since been demonstrated over and over again to wildly wrong, inconsistent, plagiarised from earlier works and outright stole legends and beliefs from earlier religions?

          Fantasy fiction perhaps?

          And why else is American society running scared from confronting the religious extremists in their midst? Is it perhaps because of the political and financial clout they wield?

          February 5, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
        • Tony

          Here's the deal. If Christians want to use the "word" of said "god" to dictate laws that govern my life, then they can at least have the courtesy to (1) demonstrate that said god is real and relevant; (2) make at least a token effort to update said word of said god to modern day life as opposed to constantly trying to drag everyone kicking and screaming into the 4th century; (3) come up with some other evidence for said word of god other than endlessly rehashing one book, written years after the events it is said to describe, by people that were never there, and chosen to represent said word of god by other men centuries after the fact from thousands of other texts that were discarded because they didn't meet the criteria for pushing the doctrine favoured by the men of the earliest church.

          Until that time, keep your faith in your church where it belongs and let the rest of us set laws that are relevant, up to date and at least looking forward, not 2000 years backwards.

          February 5, 2014 at 9:41 pm |
        • Steve Wilkinson

          re: "...what would you call a book about supernatural powers, written by men who didn't actually witness..."

          I'd say not to pay much attention to it. But, I'm guessing you're probably referring to the Bible, you just don't have much understanding about the history of it all. Too much History Channel probably.

          re: "And why else is American society running scared from confronting the religious extremists..."

          Relativism, religious pluralism, and silly postmodern ideas being applied to very compartmentalized aspects of life. That coupled with general ignorance and an inability to think critically.

          re: "If Christians want to use the "word" of said "god" to dictate laws that govern my life, then they can at least have the courtesy to..."

          Why? If neo-Darwinianism is true, they should be doing whatever they think will help them best survive, and intact, due to the deterministic nature of naturalism, can't help but do otherwise.

          But, since you put so much time into typing all of that, I'll humour you a bit (as I know you're not really an evolution-produced naturalistic-robot, but a real person).

          re: "as opposed to constantly trying to drag everyone kicking and screaming into the 4th century"

          What's wrong with the 4th century? A bit of anachronistic snobbery? I guess we do have electric toasters. OK, you win. 😉

          re: "written years after the events it is said to describe..."

          Yea, unless you've got a CNN cameraman there, I guess that is true of most texts. And even if you had a camera crew there, people would just claim it was edited (as it just so happens, I'm currently involved in trying to expose a fake-ex-Muslim who trained some of our US Marines before deployment to Iraq.... who being caught in lies, IS actually claiming the evidence against him has all been edited to make him appear to be lying... just google 'The Great Evangelical Coverup' someday.)

          re: "by people that were never there"

          What evidence do you have of that? No, they didn't bring their notebooks along to the events, but I see no reason to believe the writers weren't eye-witnesses.

          re: "thousands of other texts that were discarded because they didn't meet the criteria for pushing the doctrine favoured by the men of the earliest church"

          That's called the Bauer-Ehrman thesis, and it's been severely discredited. (cf. The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Kostenberger & Kruger, among other such works)

          re: "set laws that are relevant, up to date and at least looking forward"

          Yea, society hasn't been doing a very good job of that, as of late. So, you're just proposing we wing it and the powerful get to define the law?

          February 6, 2014 at 4:48 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
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.