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. Gerry

    As a Ruminant Nutritionist and a Creationist. But Ken needed a debate coach. If I were judging the debate on points Mr. Nye won the debate while being wrong. Point by point that could have been rebutted and was not. If we Creationist are going to debate we need to be prepared to DEBATE and not just give a nice presentation.

    February 5, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
    • tony

      This event just proved you can't obtain a result if you debate opinions.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
    • PD

      Who really wrote the Bible and in what original language? I'm sure it wasn't written in English. The old testament is a compilation of the Jewish traditions, beliefs, stories and the New Testament is a compilation of the writings, letters, memoirs of the disciples. In what was the Old Testament and the New Testament.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
    • igaftr

      In what way was he "wrong" Gerry, and be very specific.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      You're a cow nutritionist and creationist? Well, there you go... I guess we need look no further for a physics and evolution SME

      February 5, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
  2. Victor

    I read it in a book, and as we all know, they can't put anything in books that isn't true.

    February 5, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
    • Nathan

      ...or put it on the internet.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
      • MKinSoCal

        And since I saw it on TV it must be true!

        February 5, 2014 at 3:18 pm |
  3. TexasBadger

    Let's use an example. A man has a box in which there is an object. He can't open the box and look inside the box. The scientist will use every means at his disposal to try and determine what is in the box. He will even go so far as to device new tests to gather even more information upon which to surmise what is in the box. The scientist may find in his evaluations that what is in the box is useful and put it to good use. So he can't see it or touch it but he can give you a good idea as to what it is by its determined properties. Over time the conclusions derived by the scientist will change as new information (data) is brought to light. That is the nature of science. We understand from the outset that our ideas are only as good as the last data we have derived. Today's ideas are tomorrows falsehoods because new data will show us a better truth. On the other hand the creationist will say that some prophet of old was told by his god what was in the box. The prophet wrote this down and that information has come down to us through the ages by word of mouth and multiple translations and mistranslations. But that is good enough for the religious claiming that it was inspired and thus could not be false. They won't even attempt to determine what might be in the box because, well, they don't have to. They've told what is in the box. And that is belief by faith. It is what it is and will never change. Because of their belief they will not be able to take advantage of what is in the box if it turned out to have a useful property. As an example we have the electron. It is so small that it is essentially in a box. Why, because we will never be able to see it. But we don't have to. We have devised numerous neat tests to determine its properties from which we have been able to find many uses (this computer being one of many). In conclusion, if you can't see it, it is belief. I think not.

    February 5, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
    • williamsunset

      I agree. We can only explore and find proof based on our 5 senses. Unfortunately the universe isn't based on our 5 senses nor human logic. So, the search for God by science or religion is pointless.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
      • igaftr

        In truth, we only have one sense...touch. What you see is light touching the light receptors, what you smell is aromatic molecules touching your smell receptors, what you hear is the vibration touching your sound receptors.

        If it does not touch you, you cannot perceive it.

        February 5, 2014 at 12:52 pm |
        • WASP

          ironic, yet totally true. i truly never thought of each stimuli that we persieve in a "touch" method, yet it does have to physically interact with a portion of our body for use to percieve it.

          i'm so excited i could kiss you! LMAO
          i love when people can stump me and make me think. 🙂

          February 5, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Things that make you go hmmm...

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

      Unknown to many people, a brilliant man has seen inside the box and has written volumes on the subject but who will listen. He was gifted mentally and became renown in his day as a scientist, philosopher, theologian, revelator ,etc. His name, Emanuel Swedenborg and he published many volumes about life on the other side in his later life as he focused his mind on the greatest mysteries of life.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
      • TexasBadger

        No reasoning, no experimentation, no way to validate what he sees in his mind and substantiate what he thinks (hallucinates) to be true. Again, not a good basis for determining what is real or even close to real. His story may sound good to you and resonate with you and your beliefs but that still doesn't make it so. Just because he believes it and you believe it doesn't make it so.

        February 5, 2014 at 3:29 pm |
    • Fod

      Or you could just be like Brad Pitt In Seven and keep creaming "WHATS IN THE BOX? WHATS IN THE BOX!!!!?????!!!"

      February 5, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
      • Fod

        *screaming not creaming

        February 5, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
  4. Victor

    Frankly, I find it disturbing that so many people still believe in Bronze Age fairy tales. If some person today told you he was the son of god, you'd call him crazy and try to have him committed somewhere. But someone 2000 years ago does it, and it must be true? The entire notion is patently absurd.

    February 5, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
    • DC1973

      Let's be real.

      If someone today claimed to be the Messiah, the FBI would kill him and burn his compound to the ground.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
      • Sea Otter (Leader Allied Atheist Alliance)

        LET's Religiosity Law #1 – If Jesus came back today he would be shot in the head. That's what you do to put down zombies; otherwise they eat your brains.

        February 5, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
    • Foz-man

      Let's face it, he wouldn't be commited, he'd be turned loose to live on the streets and fend for himself. We have no mental heatlh care. In fact, Jesus may have already come back and nobody noticed.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
  5. georgex9

    Thankfully, nonbeliever now have opportunities to connect and communicate via Internet and organizations such as the Secular Coalition of America.

    February 5, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
    • The Jackdaw

      Yeah, and we meet religiously. Wait…I see what you did there!

      February 5, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
      • georgex9

        "Religiously" Or regularly?

        February 5, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
  6. bostontola

    We need another debate on a crucial topic:
    Is matter composed of elements from the Periodic Table, or the Greek classical elements Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Aether.

    February 5, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
    • tony

      One of the contetsants would probably just zap the other out of existence.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
    • Nathan

      I just want to know why we aren't allowed to teach our children about alchemy alongside Chemistry and astrology alongside Astronomy and then allow them to decide for themselves what they want to believe.

      Why are textbook publishers too scared to include the possibility that the aliens built the pyramids in their chapters on Ancient Egypt? That's the real conspiracy...

      February 5, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
  7. sly

    Personal opinions are not worth debating. Those who believe in dinosauers believe in evolution.

    Some folks don't believe in dinosauers and think all those bones and fossils are fakes.

    Can't have it both ways. Period. No such thing as 'creationism' followed by 'evolution'. Sorry – you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

    So, y'all choose to believe in whatever you want, please don't waste time trying to convince others about your opinions. It's like a Red Sox fan trying to convince a Yankees fan that he/she should love the Red Sox.

    February 5, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
    • DC1973

      Yes, there is such a thing. There are many, many people who believe that a higher being created the universe and then let it develop on its own.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
      • sly

        Ridiculous. If 'science' supports evolution, science supports scientific formation of universe. Cannot have it both ways. Science doesn't just conveniently 'start' AFTER some magical figure gets everything going.

        Either believe in your God or dont – stop with the pansie-ing around the issue. "Well, there is god, and evolution. Science wasn't smart enough to start life, but it sure was smart enough to have humans evolve from apes, which god created'.

        February 5, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
        • Joe

          I believe that "evolution" might exist in some form after God created the universe but after the fall of man and sin was introduced. That doesn't mean that man evolved from apes or that we were created by 2 elements in a puddle of goo that randomly connected, but it does mean that we probably look and act differently than Adam and Eve did.

          February 5, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
    • Nathan

      Agreed!

      And if it is some child's genuinely held opinion that 2+2 is equal to 7, who is that math teacher to give them a failing grade for holding such an opinion? Who is that architectural firm to refuse to hire them just because they hold such a non-mainstream opinion as that? If a student in a social studies class tells the teacher that the holocaust didn't happen, he shouldn't have to sit in a class being told that it did, the word "holocaust" having been hijacked by historians and their own personal agendas. All opinions are clearly equally valid and should be treated as such.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
  8. Mateo

    "Creationism" is as sound as "trickle down economics". It's no coincidence that they have the same believers.

    February 5, 2014 at 11:59 am |
    • Jahtez

      Hmmm...good point.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
    • tony

      That's why all creationists are stinking rich. Errrr....

      February 5, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
      • S Bstr

        That is very true. You would perhaps that the mega church leaders are very rich, it's only the followers who are not. These snake oil salespeople who peddle "creationism" and many other such "philosophies" get rich on the backs of the unsuspecting.

        February 5, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
  9. Dave

    You can only directly prove something is, not that something isn't. You can't prove the sky isn't green, without proving what color it actually is. Don't say ignorant statements like "Disprove my God", say "prove evolution" and give proof for god yourself. Scientists are to prove evolution, Christian are to prove Jesus and God existed.

    February 5, 2014 at 11:59 am |
    • The Jackdaw

      It is easier to say, “You are stupid” than it is to prove “I am right.”

      February 5, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
    • Spinner49

      Even if Ken Ham totally shot down evolution, it still has no bearing on whether creationism is correct. (Not A) is not the same thing as (B). That would be like looking at an unidentified tree and say, it's not a pine tree, therefore it must absolutely be a maple. Well, there are several hundred other species of tree it could be, so ...no.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
    • Underwaterops

      Clearly your understanding of science is limited.
      .
      You can prove the sky isn't green without proving the actual color. You run a spectrograph that is sensitive only to green, and find that green makes up less than a reasonable percentage of green given the total illumination, and you can say it will not appear green without saying that you know what color it is.
      .
      And arguments like these, based on a false logic, are what drive the creationist, global warming denier, cigarette defender, and other long disproven arguments.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:25 pm |
  10. bigbendjc

    Creationism: welcome to the Dark Ages!

    February 5, 2014 at 11:55 am |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Or the American South... same thing

      February 5, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
      • tony

        🙂

        February 5, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      "A pall on truth and reason....."

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWXLlHyoJxQ&feature=kp

      February 5, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
    • Truth Seeker

      Yes, but Christ came to bring LIGHT into these dark ages! These comments prove just how much darkness has developed because of the predominance of evolution instruction in our public schools!

      February 7, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
  11. countingdown

    According to you guys there nothing else to be discovered and what we know now is finite.

    Not really science people are you!

    February 5, 2014 at 11:55 am |
    • ME II

      Not sure who you are talking to, but there is a lot more to discover, likely more yet to discover than has been so far.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:57 am |
    • The Jackdaw

      uuuum – no. Sorry Mario, your princess is in another castle.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:57 am |
  12. Auro

    For those that side with Mr. Ham.

    Evolution is proven. The best example is dogs, we can change wolves, foxes, coyotes, and other Caninae species into Canis lupus familiars (dogs).

    We can choose the best example of the oldest breed of dogs: Afghan Hound, Akita Inu, Alaskan Malamute, Basenji, Chow Chow, Lhasa Apso, Pekingese, Saluki, Samoyed, Shar Pei, Shiba Inu, Shih Tzu, Siberian Husky, and Tibetan Terrier.

    We found that their DNA show the fewest genetic differences from wolves.

    We have found the link of Evolution between wolves and dogs.

    That example is Macro-Evolution which need a long period of time.

    The other example that is Micro-Evolution is germs which is why we keep updating our medicine to fight against these.

    February 5, 2014 at 11:52 am |
    • God's fake

      Ken Ham's own graph in the debate shows dogs diverging 400,000 years ago, not 4,000 years ago. Ken Ham accepts evolution, even if accidentally or unintentionally.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:54 am |
      • Truth Seeker

        You are mistaken – especially in your ID – but also that Ham's dog chart was wrong. I have seen it in person – 4,000 years, not 400,000. That would be a ridiculous error to make for someone trying to prove a youth earth. Someday you will know the truth!

        February 7, 2014 at 12:36 pm |
    • The Jackdaw

      Gregor Mendel was a monk. Just sayin.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:56 am |
      • sorry receiver crabtree

        So is Art Monk.

        February 5, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
      • Nathan

        Yes. He was a monk.
        A monk who discovered one of the single greatest pieces of evidence that young earth creation with animals made in their current form was total bunk. His scientific discoveries in no way validated his religious beliefs.

        February 5, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • MKinSoCal

          And let's not forget Thelonius Monk. He created the music universe,

          February 5, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
    • Mateo

      I beg to differ about evolution. Look at the GOP party.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:01 pm |
    • shem

      hate to burst your bubble but they are still dogs

      manipulate their DNA to produce a cow- that would be evolution

      February 5, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        @shem – LOL... You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, huh?

        February 5, 2014 at 12:38 pm |
      • Nathan

        No...actually it would not.

        But based on that statement and out of total curiosity...would you please define for us what, exactly, your understanding of evolution is and what it claims? I'm REALLY curious.

        February 5, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
  13. gladiatorgrl

    When the woodland creatures come clean my house – I'll listen about talking snakes!

    February 5, 2014 at 11:49 am |
    • Doris

      document.getElementById('LikeButton').click;

      February 5, 2014 at 11:57 am |
      • Doris

        lol – sorry – syntax error; let's try that again – document.getElementById('LikeButton').click();

        February 5, 2014 at 11:59 am |
  14. tony

    Our pet dinosaur has grown terrifically and is eating us out of house and home.

    Does the creation museum offer feeding grants?

    February 5, 2014 at 11:46 am |
    • Jahtez

      Put him to work in the stone quarries. Make him earn his keep.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:47 am |
    • The Jackdaw

      No, but they will send Jesus over to show you how to ride it to the store.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:48 am |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQuAIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DtvcpQSetMgI&ei=gXDyUpOaO8TpkQe1yoCQBA&usg=AFQjCNHBSolYcvlO0iGSRfO1DokBddIirA&bvm=bv.60799247,d.eW0

      February 5, 2014 at 12:11 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        Awesome... sometimes my work firewall lets me post the video and sometimes just the link...

        February 5, 2014 at 12:13 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvcpQSetMgI

        February 5, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          and now it lets me post the video... weird

          February 5, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
  15. The Jackdaw

    All religions are true. None of them are literal.

    February 5, 2014 at 11:46 am |
  16. A dose of reality

    AT Live4him
    Please provide proof of god or jesus from ANYWHERE other than the Bible. OR, how about just some REAL EVIDENCE?

    February 5, 2014 at 11:43 am |
    • DC1973

      Jesus of Nazareth was a real man. He was a rabbi, and there is historical record of him having existed.

      Whether or not he was the Son of God, and whether or not God Himself exists, is another matter entirely.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:52 am |
      • A dose of reality

        I can make stuff up to. PLease be more specific as to your sources.

        February 5, 2014 at 11:54 am |
        • DC1973

          He was as real as the ancient Egyptian pharaohs, and other people who have been proven to have existed – his brother, James, for instance – knew him while he was alive. He was a human being, just like any other.

          It's not the man that you take issue with. It's what the man was distorted into after his death. Claiming that Jesus never lived is as illogical as claiming that Julius Caesar never lived.

          February 5, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
        • A dose of reality

          DC1973...please name your sources for this info.. Otherwise you too are just making things up

          February 5, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
    • Ivan

      Whether Jesus existed doesn't really matter. What matters is the he was a man, not a god.

      Actually the best proof that there is no god is the existence of religion. If there was a god the first thing he would do is wipe out all religions, because of the hideous ways they portray their gods.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:55 pm |
      • truluv4u

        God did wipe out religion when He raised His Son from the dead (according to over 500 witnesses and scores of later martyrs). True Christianity is a 'relationship' with the Living God, Ivan – not a list of rules and rituals to follow – but a gracious gift available to all humanity. All He asks of us is that we receive His Spirit – and our lives will then change from the inside out. Praying you will soon discover this priceless truth – as have I. Simply ask your Creator to reveal it to you – nothing to lose right?

        February 21, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
    • Truth Seeker

      OPEN YOUR FRONT DOOR – and your eyes – as well as your mind. The most obvious evidence of your Creator is in all that you view in nature – its complexities which scream out His power to design amazing things. All unbelievers will be without excuse before God – especially if they have functioning senses that He has provided for them to perceive it all.

      February 7, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
  17. countingdown

    Apparently I hit a nerve with science only jerks when I posted this on comment page 7:

    Ok! Science freaks , when and only when you can definitively answer this one question can you provide a valid argument to the existence of God.

    What is the result when an object that can't be moved is struck by an object that can't be stopped?

    The point to this statement is that you can not disprove the existence of God any more than you can prove/disprove the existence of an immoveable or unstoppable object.

    February 5, 2014 at 11:42 am |
    • The Jackdaw

      You are assuming that there are immovable objects and unstoppable forces. Both are fiction. It’s a bit like saying: “I will believe in science if you can prove to me what technique Darth Vader uses to eat Smurfs.”

      February 5, 2014 at 11:45 am |
    • Torquemada

      Didn't do very well in basic physics, did you?

      February 5, 2014 at 11:45 am |
    • A dose of reality

      At that point matter is converted into energy. Pretty simple, but then, your hypothesis does not exist in reality, and that is why no one answered it. Of course, the difference is, science tries to prove things, and changes to meet the new facts, religion just claims to know things it can't possibly know and ignores the facts.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:47 am |
      • countingdown

        Lucifer's Evil Twin http://www.google.com/url? sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDEQuAIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube .com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DtvcpQSetMgI&ei=gXDyUpOaO8TpkQe1yoCQBA&usg=AFQjCNHBSolYcvlO0iGSRfO1 DokBddIirA&bvm=bv.60799247,d.eW0

        Before your comment went to this crap! I read what you said about GOD not able to post on Facebook! How 3825464 stupid!

        February 5, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Your god (smallcaps) is juvenile fiction at best... whatever crappy video you posted will be unseen by me... since you have demonstrated by your numerous posts that you are a creationist imbecile and not worthy of debate, but instead only of ridicule

          February 5, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          And if your magical mystery man doesn't like what I said about him/her... they can send me an all-powerful email to put me in my place... I'll hold my breath

          February 5, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
    • tony

      That's one imaginative way of getting the big bang, if you assume it was collision of two prioruniverses.

      But hey it's just a wild guess.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:49 am |
      • countingdown

        Underwaterops

        His statement was presented as an absolute. Your logic makes no sense.

        February 5, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
    • gladiatorgrl

      Google the "teapot theory" and get back to us

      February 5, 2014 at 11:50 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      For a proper analysis, details of the objects are required.
      What specifically are these objects? What are they physical properties?

      February 5, 2014 at 11:50 am |
    • DC1973

      I'll rise to your challenge if you can rise to mine.

      Can God create an object so large that he cannot move it?

      February 5, 2014 at 11:50 am |
      • countingdown

        I too accept you challenge! See comment to jofish. GOD, BEING SUPREME TO ALL THINGS, COULD DO AS HE WISHES. OUR PERCEPTION OF MOVEABLE OR UNMOVABLE IS IRRELEVANT.

        February 5, 2014 at 12:28 pm |
        • tony

          Including creating dummies for comic relief apparently

          February 5, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          You god can't even send us an email or post to Facebook to let us know how HE/SHE is feeling... but yet my 78 year old father seems to be able to manage that skill pretty handily...

          February 5, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
        • Dave

          God cannot be both all knowing and all powerful, for if he were all knowing he would know the result of something before it happened, thus making him powerless to change the result without changing the knowledge of the result.

          February 5, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
    • God's fake

      There are no immovable objects. Everything moves, throughout all of the universe, throughout all of time. Our sun moves around the galactic center. It, like all other stars, is not fixed in space, but drifts according to physics. We are in a sort of egg shell being dragged along with our star through the cosmos.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:53 am |
      • countingdown

        And you are all knowing of all things, the new supreme being. Um! NOT!

        February 5, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
    • jofish

      Ah, simple answer. Such object do not exist.

      In fact, arguments such as that have actually been used historically to prove that if a being such as "God" existed he couldn't be all-powerful. The argument goes like this:

      1 – If a being is all-powerful, it must be able to create an immovable object
      2 – If it creates an immovable object, then it cannot by definition move it
      3 – If there exists an object which it cannot move it is by definition not all-powerful
      4 – If it cannot create such an object (one which it cannot by definition move) then it isn't all-powerful (there exists something which it cannot create)

      Therefore no being, by definition, can be all-powerful. Point. Set. Match.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:55 am |
      • countingdown

        Wrong!
        God, being all powerful, could do as HE wishes. Man's science or logic has no control over HIS creations. After all, it is you science only people who believe we simply evolved, so we can only assume that our micro existence and miniscule knowledge would be of little consequence.

        February 5, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
        • Clown

          Congratulations on being a nitwit. Johnny, show him what he's won!

          February 5, 2014 at 12:18 pm |
        • jofish

          Sigh. Saying "God" can do whatever he wants is like a 6 year old child who is losing a board game throwing all the pieces off the board and declaring "I win!". Asked why, the child then says "Because I said so.".

          February 5, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
        • DC1973

          Your definition of "all powerful" needs some work.

          A God who is all powerful could create an object so large that He cannot move it, but, an all-powerful God would be able to move anything.

          February 5, 2014 at 12:21 pm |
        • Underwaterops

          If he is all powerful, why does he leave communicating to us through his Pope, ministers, and others? Why not just speak to us all?
          .
          He could just "have the talk" with us at ages 6, 10, 13, and 21 – and let us know what he expects, how it all came down, and what he wants.
          .
          Why all of the "get it from the book" or "get it from the Pope"? Is he too busy? If he's too busy, is he really all powerful?

          February 5, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
      • countingdown

        Has man learned all there is to know?
        If yes, then prove GOD does not exist!
        If no, then come back when you have the answer, which won't be in our lifetime!

        February 5, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Your god keeps getting squeezed in ever and ever smaller gaps... what a foolish and juvenile counter-argument

          February 5, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
        • Underwaterops

          Stawman again.
          .
          You claim he exists, and that the beliefs should be taught to others in school.
          .
          Since you make the claim he exists, and that I must be forced to listen to teaching related to him, then the burden of proof is on you to show that he does indeed exist. To produce him, or to show that he exists via some means direct or indirect other than "take my word for it".
          .
          You can claim whatever you wish. But once you demand that I believe it, you have to prove it.
          .
          I frankly don't care what you believe. But don't attempt to grab my kids and teach them something that can't be proven. Science is the process of getting to solid proof, and can therefore be taught – even if some of the results are still under consideration. But religion is without proof. It belong in church, not school. And all of these debates come from having believers attempt to force public schools to teach something for which there is no scientific evidence.
          .
          Or would you really have us return to a time when proof was delivered by the priest, and people were found innocent or guilty based on such practices as tossing them into the water and seeing if they floated (and therefore lied), or drowned (and where therefore innocent)?

          February 5, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
      • fred

        Your base assumption is the existence of only one space time construct which is like ours. The immovable object or space time where that object is created would occupy a different position depending on tensor limiting that boundary. The immovable object only appears immovable within its own field.

        February 5, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
        • fred

          Oh, conclusion; if man can figure that out imagine what God is capable of.

          February 5, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
    • whatever123

      There are no absolutes like the ones you used to bait us "science freaks".

      February 5, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
      • countingdown

        You statement is contradictory. Are there no absolutes or is your statement an absolute?

        February 5, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
        • Underwaterops

          Your response is dishonestly argumentative not deliberative.
          .
          It is another typical strawman deliberate mangling of the intended meaning to redefine the statement to something you can address.
          .
          The post said "like the ones you used". That is not the same thing as saying "there are no absolutes". You ignored the rest of the sentence that made it clear it reference you claims.
          .
          If you only look at less than half the statement, you cannot hope to understand the concepts at work. When you do so dishonestly, then address your own false statement, you are not debating, you are deceiving.
          .
          And deception is the only way the creationist concepts have survived.

          February 5, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
    • Nathan

      So your question is–to be clear–Please use science to explain what would happen when two non-scientifically supported ideas, i.e., fictions, meet. And if you can't use real science to explain away made-up ideas that do not exist in science, then somehow god must logically be real.

      My brain hurts just trying to think how yours must work.

      February 5, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
      • countingdown

        To be clear you nor I know the limits of GOD or science.

        I do not have prove anything, the burden of proof is in your court and obviously you don't know where or how to begin!

        February 5, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • Nathan

          I don't even understand what you are rambling on about. Your example presented two concepts–a thing that cannot be stopped and a thing that cannot be made to move–neither of which are supported by any known scientific process or mechanism. They are philosophical ideas, not real science. Then you told us to use real science to describe what would happen when these two made-up, non-scientific things encountered one another, which is impossible as those things don't exist. Then you claim that failure to answer that bafflingly nonsensical question is somehow proof that a god must exist.

          It makes no sense. There is no burden of proof necessary, save that such concepts as you describe could occur at all in a scientific concept.

          February 5, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
  18. igaftr

    ", when and only when you can definitively answer this one question can you provide a valid argument to the existence of God."

    I didn't know you had that kind of authority to make such a declaration.
    I do know that there is absolutely no argument that can rationally be made for the existance of any gods.

    I don't know if you meant for the existance of god or against the existance of god, but so far, no one has been able to show any gods exist, except in mens imaginations. There are no valid

    February 5, 2014 at 11:41 am |
  19. The Jackdaw

    Jesus used science to turn water into wine.

    February 5, 2014 at 11:39 am |
    • Praisethelards

      Didn't Harry Houdini duplicate Jesus' supposed feat of coming back to "life" after having been buried?

      February 5, 2014 at 11:48 am |
      • The Jackdaw

        Sure, but I like the party-favor story.

        "Dude shows up at party: Brings wine." – wow, thats prove of God!

        February 5, 2014 at 12:07 pm |
      • igaftr

        Phil Coulson died and came back after being dead for a week.
        This was witnessed by millions of people.

        February 5, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
  20. Vic

    I would like to personally congratulate CNN on this wonderful coverage as well as moderation—Good Job Tom Foreman—where the opportunity was well presented to both sides to present their viewpoints 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 "Faith and Science" as the main theme. CNN has delivered well.

    I personally hand it to Ken Ham for a well done 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 explained the etymology of science and the different types of knowledge while demonstrating the prevalence of the Creation Model over any other. Very thorough, well-versed 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. He kept veering off topic with promoting science as if that was the issue—Christians are the founders of "Modern Science" and continually advance and promote it. In all fairness, Ken Ham veered off topic only on the issue of authority. Bill Nye also avoided addressing the problems with "Radioactive Dating Methods" presented by Ken Ham, to a great extent until he—Bill Nye—hit a snag when a direct written question came from the audience. Bill Nye could not name other ways to date the age of the earth other than the "Radioactive Decay" based methods in question. He also was stumped by the question of the universe expanding as well as consciousness. Ken Ham answered those question with plausible knowledge and sound reason.

    I recommend reviewing the debate video and listen to the crucial details that shed some light on the plausibility of the "Creation Model" and the severely ignored flaws in the current scientific research.

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

    Again, thank you CNN.

    February 5, 2014 at 11:37 am |
    • tony

      Your posting is now history. And therefore untrue by Ken Ham's explantion

      February 5, 2014 at 11:38 am |
    • tony

      Which is why there is no such thing as "historical science".

      February 5, 2014 at 11:40 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      The "Obervational vs. Historical" semantic chicanery is a divide and conquer strategy invented by Creationists to sow confusion. The same thing was done with micro/macro evolution.
      These divisions exist only in the mind of the Creationist.
      It is a form of double-thinking rationalization. When backed into a corner with the undeniable, demonstrable proof of the scientific method's validity and the ways in which it tangibly improves lives creationists try to cut it in half and claim there are things that can't be demonstrated, therefore God.
      But every time this happens, the creationist half maintaining a semblance of plausible deniability gets smaller and smaller....
      The gaps in knowledge into which God can be crammed shrink more and more.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:46 am |
    • Science Works

      Vic – ham needs money to float the boat .

      Bill Nye Debate Defends Evolution In Kentucky Debate Against Ken Ham Tuesday February 4th 2014

      {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKF4URGaztU}

      February 5, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
    • Otis

      As for the existentialism where we and the universe came from I wish I had an answer. As for veering off topic I am afraid that was much more accomplished by Mr. Ham when he brought up abortion, gay marriage and the road to salvation.

      February 5, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
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.