This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children
- Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:04am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Bill Nye (Photo Credit: Big Think)
Scientist Bill Nye captured headlines last week after he lambasted creationists and proclaimed that teaching evolution is damaging to both children and society. Now, just days after Nye’s controversial Big Think video making these proclamations reached millions, Answers in Genesis (AiG), the Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, has responded with a clip of its own.
In an article entitled, ”Time is Nye for a Rebuttal,” Ken Ham, CEO of AiG, tackled Nye’s claims and announced the publication of the counter-video. Of particular note, the Christian ministry leader took offense at the scientist’s purported claim that those who teach creationism are, in a sense, “abusing” children.
“A recent tactic by evolutionists in their battle against creationists, one that is especially used by Richard Dawkins, is to employ an ad hominem argument—that creationists are committing a form of ‘child abuse’ when they teach creation to children,” Ham contended.
Bill Nye (Photo Credit: Big Think)
So, to counter Nye, AiG employed the knowledge of two PhD scientists who embrace creationism — Dr. David Menton and Dr. Georgia Purdom, both on staff with the Creation Museum. In the anti-Nye clip, Purdom makes the argument that children should be exposed to both creationism and evolution, not one or the other, exclusively.
“[Bill Nye] might be interested to know I also teach my young daughter about evolution and I know many Christian parents who do the same,” she said. “Children should be exposed to both ideas concerning our past.”
As for Nye’s claim that creationism makes the world “fantastically complicated,” Menton flatly denied this accusation and took the opportunity to lambaste evolution’s theoretical constructs.
“I would argue the world becomes fantastically complicated if one believes in evolution,” Menton said. “You see, in evolution you have to look at the hummingbird feeding at your feeder and assume that all of its parts have somehow come together by random, purposeless chance combined with natural selection — which is nothing more than deferential reproduction.”
Watch the intriguing video, below:
With the debate over creationism and evolution continuing to rage, it’s not likely to simmer any time in the near future. In June, TheBlaze reported that 46 percent of Americans still embrace creationism, 32 percent believe in evolution guided by God — and 15 percent contend that God played no role in the evolutionary process.
–
RELATED:
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 677 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 529 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 418 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 373 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 329 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 271 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 279 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 155 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 271 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (271)
antitheist
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:06amTo be a creationist is to believe that all man has descended from one incestuous and queer relationship whit his own rib. Thank you creationists, but I’ll go with the scientists on this one.
Report Post »hi
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:11amHow did a male ape and female ape evolve into humans at the exact same time in order to be able to have sex and reproduce? Or did your human commit bestiality for a while?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:17amHi,
You clearly don’t understand genetics. Read a book.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:24amI may not believe in creationism, but I like the theory for one reason. It makes atheist’s heads explode from self righteous fury. Just scan this page and you’ll see. It’s indicative of their true selves.
Report Post »Papadoc
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:28amWell then you’re going to have to go with someone besides Nye. Not only does the guy have only a Bachelor’s Degree, it’s not in any field of science. He’s never practiced science and the limits of his science teachings are on television. His background actually is stand up comedy.
As for his expertise with kids, putting together a one man entertainment show that kids watch doesn’t make anyone an expert. In fact ol Bill doesn’t have any kids and despite being in his mid-50s, his only marriage lasted less than two months. Obviously he’s not much to look at for interpersonal relationships or understanding what makes anyone tick. Yeah, the only advice I want from ol Bill is if I found myself alone in his neighborhood wanting an OCD stamp of approval on a local restaurant where I wouldn’t feel awkward eating by myself.
Report Post »Amarath01
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:29am@Hi
The theory is that a community or even large region of apes evolved their genetic pool together, over time.
This rules out a few random mutations and really there is no evidence for this but it is the working theory.
As simple, fast, macro evolution would be more of your explanation (which simply can not occur naturally in complex lifeforms [what scientist call a definite improbability]).
I will not take sides in an agreement that neither side can prove. But if evolutionist want to claim they has all authority in this area i would ask for concrete proof beyond theoretical abstracts , and likewise for the creationists.
And as a result of my actual scientific criteria i accept neither as the authority on the subject.
Report Post »FreedomWitness
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:35amANTITHEIST, i hear ya. You stick with the scientists. They can’t cure the common cold but they can explain evolution, right? Why are these scientists stuck in outdated 19th century theories? First, they cannot explain the evolution of the eye (sight). Second they cannot explain the Cambrian era of history, where thousand of species suddenly appeared, fully formed, with not apparent antecedents. But yeah, you keep thinkin’ that we came from monkees, I mean monkeys.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:37am@antitheist
Make that two bouts of heavy incestuous relations.
You‘re forgetting the period Noah’s family had to completely repopulate the earth.
Good to know humans, that supposedly did not evolve from primates, had to populate and repopulate the planet through rampant incest.
Great bed time story for the kids… You best prepare some lies to tie those bronze age myths into a neat little bow of deception should they have any questions about that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_BzWUuZN5w
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:43amCheck out any feathers lately?
Report Post »MartyTr
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:49amIf creationists are wrong, no consequence. If evolutionists are wrong, eternity in hell. I choose Christ. As you study the Bible you see all the science. As you study academia you see all the lies.
Report Post »hi
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:55amamarthor
Report Post »Okay. I get it. But, I was just trying to get him back, not make a scientific statement. It was stupid of me! Signing off now.
termyt
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:57am@Pontiac
Yes, explaining potential incest has to be about as much fun as answering “where did that come from?” back to the beginning of the universe.
Report Post »antitheist
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:03pm@Martytr
Report Post »Your comment is the epitome of the false dichotomy fallacy if there ever was one. You act as if there is only xtianity and atheism, all the while ignoring the hundreds of other religions that claim a savior and afterlife. What if you chose the wrong religion? What if the wrong choice causes you to go to Hades, Sheol, the Chinvat Bridge, Samsara, Bardo, etc? You are so sure that your brand of mythology is the right one? I hope to instill the fear of “hell” on you, as you did to me (although failed).
hi
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:05pmAmathor
Report Post »Actually I am back because you make it sound so easy to add new information to the genetic pool. The only way to introduce new genetic information is through mutation. 99.9% of mutations are lethal. If they are not lethal, the organism is sterile.
Think of the mutations we have in humans…they cause disease such as sickle cell or hemophilia.
NeoFan
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:07pmSouth Park has the best summery of evolution theory:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tx6nZP41LY
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:15pmFreedomWitness,
“They can’t cure the common cold but they can explain evolution, right?”
That’s your benchmark? Scientists may not have “cured” the common cold, but they know how it is spread and how people become infected by viruses. Do you yourself believe the Germ Theory and the Virus Theory of disease? It makes a lot more sense than the Demon Possession theory, I’ll tell you.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:19pm@MartyTr
Report Post »You might want to adopt a few more religions to increase your odds of not going to some “hell” seeing as hell is not exclusively a christian belief. I however am no more concerned about your religions myths than you are about any other religions myths. Because they’re just that, myths.
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:20pm“Think of the mutations we have in humans…they cause disease such as sickle cell or hemophilia.”
They also cause skin color, height, immunity to things like poison ivy, etc., and all kinds of factors that have no relation to lethality. “Lethal,” mutations stand out because people die from them, while mutations that make a child taller or faster than their parents, or have mismatched eye colors, happen all the time but get very little press. They also aren’t subject to natural selection in human society as they would in “the wild,” so genes don’t dominate as they would otherwise under environmental pressures.
If you theists believe that man came from Adam and Eve, then you would have to concede that, somewhere along the line, mutations caused adaptations in skin color in different populations. That’s just a given.
Report Post »jdtanker
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:23pmIf man came after the dinosaurs and we have millions of dinosaur fossils, then why don’t we have any half-ape half-man fossils? If man came after dinosaurs, then why are dinosaurs carved into temples in south Asia. Why are they found drawn in Peru? Why the thousands of figurines found in Mexico? Why are dinosaurs drawn in New Mexico by Indians in America? Is it because these ancient people dug up dinosaur bones, reassembled them, then made a computer model of what these dinosaurs looked like, and then carved and drew them? Why does every culture have stories of dragons? Probably because dragons were real. Probably because ‘your’ dinosaurs used to be called dragons. Look at Websters dictionary from around 1840 and you will see that the definition of dragon is not mythological at all. It does say how rare they are though.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:32pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD2D6eter7M
Report Post »disque-0-duc
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:38pmYeah, those enlightened scientists have created the evolutionary theory of man based on a fossil record that wouldn’t even fill a shoe box. If you think it is a stretch to believe in Creation how about the fact that putting together a theory for man’s ascent comes from a dozen bones of finger tips and a few teeth.
Report Post »DEMOCRATS.ARE.EVIL
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:51pmQuick, someone tell the worms they’re missing out…evolution is fun!
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:56pmAh, more ad hominem.
One doesn’t have to believe in evolution NOR creationism to see that Nye is applying extreme rhetorical ad hominem in an effort to dehumanize and belittle those who do not think as he does. That’s an invalid way to make an argument, ergo, his statement, regardless of which side they come from, are flawed and unsupported.
He loses the debate, by default.
Report Post »Thisisareallylongusernameisntit
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 1:07pm@ANTITHEIST
Report Post »Funny, proponents of evolution have proposed an incestuous relationship in the past as well. You, sir, are what is known as an arm-chair-scientist. Do some research before making yourself look foolish. Have you never heard of mitochondrial Eve?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100817122405.htm
Furthermore, all of evolutionary science typically supposes that the first form of life was asexual. How is that for a genetic bottleneck? In contrast, creationists claim that the first man and woman were created by God with absolutely no genetic mutations; thus, there would be no problem with Adam and Eve’s children interbreeding. The reason we have problems today when kin interbreed is because of silent genetic mutations that are expressed as a result of interbreeding with kin that have the same silent genetic mutation. A simple punnett square can explain the reason for this. Next time make sure you are not trying to pass BS on a Bio major.
ThriCeSLewis
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 1:27pmOne: We have a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of Genesis:
http://youtu.be/pte-OPUG2Qc
Two: It’s easy to go on the attack using morality as your weapon, but in fact, you have no ammunition. Delve into naturalistic history and we find that violence and debauchery were the modus operandi of our parents. According to atheism (no God – no supreme moral law) – there’s nothing inherently *morally* wrong with incest. It’s evil is that its not pragmatic. It doesn’t produce the best bioorganisms. Fundamentally, that’s all we are – animated atomic machines with our trajectory aimed at the soil. So what’s the big fuss? Why are you using natural moral law to condemn the Book that gives it to us? If you’re pointing out internal inconsistency – by doing so, you presuppose that Truth exists. How can relativists judge any system as true or false? Stick with preferable or non-preferable and you’ll be consistent.
Now, Biblically, in the beginning of the human race, incest was not wrong considering the purity of the genetic code. Also, far from our modern context that values pleasure first, sex was sacredly pragmatic in the mandate to propagate the *family*. It had survival value. God later outlawed incest (Lev 18:6-18). Only today, with our knowledge of genetics, do we understand the wisdom of the decision. Lastly, to record history is not to condone it. I think you’d be best served by studying the *social and cultural context* of the Bible before stepping into the ju
Report Post »ThriCeSLewis
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 1:32pm..ry box :)
Report Post »Oldtimer2
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 1:37pmWhat part of the theory of evolution being just a “theory” don’t you understand. Science-wise , both evolution and creationism are a theory. With all the mountains of “proven science” , it is much more logical to believe in a Master Designer than a mindless, random, unproven, highly unlikely event like the big bang…..Those who believe in evolution think that by eliminating God from the equation, man is in control. If God is in control (ie the Master Designer) then man is obligated to obey God morally and ethically and intellectually. (love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind) Atheists and evolutionists deny God for the same reason a thief will never call the police when he’s robbing a bank.
Report Post »hornedmilkshake
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 1:40pm@Papdoc I just want to clarify that Bill Nye does in fact have a Bachelor of Science degree from Cornell University. Granted, it’s in engineering and not biology, so maybe that’s what you were trying to convey.
Report Post »hornedmilkshake
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 1:54pmYou aren’t much different from the rest of the fold, are you? Making condescending insults while adding very little to nothing of worth or interest to the conversation.
Evolution defies all logic and reason. And I mean REAL logic and reason, not your subjective definition of it. The root of all truth and credibility lies in the philosophy of logic and reason, something evolution does not live up to.
Evolutionists’ popular creation theme the Big Bang Theory has also been dealt serious blows to credibility. It doesn’t follow the Laws of Thermodynamics, the equilibrium of the universe’s temperature and the rate of expansion of matter is so precisely the way it is, that any iota of change in either direction would assure destruction of life in the universe. Finally, physicists and mathematicians calculated the the possibility of life occurring from the Big Bang. The chances were so minute that it would be appropriate to say they were virtually impossible, or as they put it “meta-physical” (miracle).
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 2:08pmYo Thrice:
Interesting it is that those that deny God want to then determine what is immoral. Even in this they ASSUME incorrectly the “idea” of incest and JUDGE God as evil and therefore not worthy of praise.
Report Post »They do not understand the “science” to it … as they speak of understanding science and how foolish we are to not. … I am now laughing with God!
Brentley
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 2:11pmANTITHEIST…you should in fact read biblical account of creation. Follow that up with some pages or entire book if you wish of THE EVOLUTION HANDBOOK. Keep an open mind when reading both. If you read both with open mind you will turn your back on EVOLUTION. Embrace CREATION and with Christians praying for you become a believer and all things will become NEW. Yes sir believe on the LORD JESUS CHRIST and thou shalt be saved. My friend to deny the existence of GOD and not believe in his SON is a recipe for eternal separation. Please read both with an open mind.
Report Post »roughie
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 2:17pmSuit yourself ANTI. If ever you can’t figure something out, just throw the explanation behind you some billions of years where THEN it happened that way – and, like now, you can feel good about your ignorance.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 2:31pmMaybe somebody can clear up a few things for me. Why do whales have little vestigial leg bones? Some snakes too. Why would God give a whale leg bones that serve no purpose? Or did HE just make a mistake?
Why are human babies occasionally born with tails, in the exact place where a monkey has a tail?
Why do you get goose bumps when it’s cold? In animals this puffs up their fur to keep them warm. But it doesn’t do a thing for humans. Why would God give us that useless reflex?
If the Earth is only 10,000 years old as both of these people claim (although not it this video) that means carbon dating (radiometric dating) is just inaccurate, it’s simply wrong. There are rocks dated at over 4 billion years on Earth, as well as from meteorites and lunar rocks. That’s the kind of thing Nye was getting at: to believe the Earth is only 10,000 years, you have to disbelieve fundamental, universally accepted science. Either that or God has played one great practical joke on us to make the world look old.
Hey, and why has no one EVER found a rabbit fossil, or human fossil, in the same layer as a dinosaur fossil. Ever.
Report Post »Lord_Frostwind
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 2:42pmAnd to be a evolutionist is to believe that against all sheer mathematical improbability, this world came together through happenstance. You have as much chance of a planet like Earth being constituted as a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a working space shuttle. But please, continue to mock my beliefs as being impossible, I could always use a good laugh for science theocrats.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 3:17pmOldTimer,
“What part of the theory of evolution being just a “theory” don’t you understand. Science-wise , both evolution and creationism are a theory.”
Yes, they are both “theories,” but they aren’t really equal as theories. That would be like saying that the jury is still out on the existence of germs, so we should also teach children the “Four Humors” theory of illness.
Evolution is not just “a” theory, it is the dominant theory in biology, meaning that, of all possible theories, it makes the fewest and smallest assumptions and explains the results of empirical experimentation and observation.
Creationism doesn’t actually explain anything, it can’t be verified or reproduced in a lab, and at its center is a colossal assumption that somehow somewhere an invisible omnipotent force exists independently of every observed natural law. You can say it’s a theory, but it has none of the features of a scientific theory–it’s theology, plain and simple.
Report Post »DEMOCRATS.ARE.EVIL
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 3:17pm@JZS
Report Post »Your questions regarding mammals can probably be answered satisfactorily by noting the overwhelming degree of genetic similarity between mammals, and simple genetic/chromosomal variation. As far as the earth being 10,000 years old – who believes that? Three people in Utah? Using such an extreme example undermines the strength of your argument. As far as human fossils not being found in the same layer as a dinosaur fossil – 1) how much of the earth’s surface has been excavated by researchers? Maybe they just haven’t looked in the right place. Or, 2) If you were a human, would you make your home in the same geographic area as dinosaurs? Not me. I’d make home far, far away from T-Rex and Velociraptor.
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 3:22pmHere’s a question for you Intelligent Design folks:
So, accepting your enormous assumption that life was “created” by some entity for whom there is no empirical evidence, why should that being be Jesus Christ or the God of the Bible? What proof do you folks have that it isn’t Gilgamesh, Zeus, Horus or Vishnu?
If you want to pretend to be scientific, you Creationist folks would have to admit that no alleged “evidence” pointing towards an “Intelligent Designer” can make a distinction about who that designer would be. I assume you Creationists are very upfront with your children in saying that, in this case, any of these religious traditions may be correct.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 3:30pmThriCeSLewis
[in the beginning of the human race, incest was not wrong considering the purity of the genetic code]
By all means, cite the source for “genetic purity”. Does this tidbit of information come from the holy bible or the Mein Kampf? You are simply fabricating more myths to cover up bronze age myths.
http://i46.tinypic.com/2nggcqg.jpg
Incest in evolution?
Report Post »Rampant incest is less likely in evolution because there are larger gene pools for viability. Those that interbreed would suffer from retardation, infertility, and high infant mortality rates. Simply put evolution would always be more likely (and preferred) than some creatards incestuous imagination. You creatards still need a fairy tale (based purely on primitive observations) to tell you incest is bad, while evolutionist can now simply point to the the multitudes of scientific “evidence”. You simply wish to forfeit any means of rationalization for some simple minded “because god told us so” answer to everything. I got news for you, it wasn’t god, it was men making observations and using “god” as the best reason they could come up with for the dimwitted masses.
http://i50.tinypic.com/2q8vlzc.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/incest.html
DEMOCRATS.ARE.EVIL
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 3:36pm@PUBLIUSPENCILMAN
Report Post »My friend was adopted at birth. She doesn’t know the names of her parents. Does that mean she wasn’t born?
BasketFullOfPuppies
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:57amOur scientists would have us believe that “spontaneous generation of life is absolutely not possible”… except for this one time, a long time ago, when it rained on a rock and created a primordial soup, then lightning struck it (just like in the Frankenstein movies), whereupon life sprang forth and then eventually decided that it didn’t like having sex with itself and wanted a mate, so one miraculously appeared and then those organisms decided that living in the water was getting boring and ventured out on land and eventually got used to it and decided to stay there. But, it was too cold, so they had to develop an internal heating mechanism and it was so. Eventually, the monkeys got smart and decided that the dumb ones needed to be left behind, so they started walking upright to show their superiority and started talking about how stupid the monkeys were and that they should call themselves human and refused to swing from trees. Here we are.
This is easier to believe than creation?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:06amYou have no idea what you are talking about.
But yes, from a scientific perspective, even this cartoonish narrative you’ve created is more scientific than the creationist narrative, which assumes:
1) There are acts of creation that could not possible be reproduced in an observable setting.
2) That none of these acts have ever been observed.
2) That these acts are performed by an invisible, unproven omnipotent entity that exists as an exception to every law we have observed in the natural world.
These are enormous assumptions that make Creationism entirely useless as a scientific theory. You can teach Creationism, but don’t pretend its science. It’s theology, plain and simple.
Report Post »davecorkery
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:09amIt would be if you had your facts right. Everything you think you know about god came from the minds and hands of men. Not god, since he never wrote anything. (He can’t, he is imaginary). Regardless, if you want to believe that the opinions (bible, koran, etc) of men as to how we came to be actually happened, go right ahead. You can’t verify anything. With science, I can challenge everything. All scientific facts must be tested and proven before they get into the science books (ever read any?).
Say what you want about Frankenstein, he sure was a snappy dresser.
Report Post »black9897
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:19am@PUBLIUSPENCILMAN
1. The Big Bang cannot be reproduced in an observable setting.
2. The Big Bang was never observed.
3. It came about by..itself?
We all make some assumptions, only creationists don’t’ label theirs “scientific fact.”
Report Post »CafeConservative
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:45amSpot on Black. These atheists prance around like they’ve got the universe all figured out and somehow their position has been scientifically proven yet much of what they believe in has zero evidence, is not observable, and cannot their theories cannot be replicated. In short, it’s as you say, they rely on faith on something that proclaims prides itself on being manmade with a history replete with errors and they will die knowing that some of which they embrace as proven fact today will later be proven wrong. But with their dying breath they’ll robotically cry that that is what is so great about their faith, er science; “it’s self correcting.”
Atheists. free pro tip for you. We have yet to fully investigate the Earth. Much of the past of the Earth and universe is completely lost and unobservable. Our understanding of our own solar system is extremely (understatement there) limited and that of the rest of the universe is nearly zero yet you clowns want to pretend that you actually have a thorough understanding of how it operates and that it has been scientifically proven. There are much smarter people than you who have studied it and these people frequently reverse the positions you so proudly have touted as science fact (ex. Hawkings on black holes).
In short, please leave science to people who understand what it is and how deeply limited it is vice those who manipulate it for agenda (global warming alarmists, evolutionists, etc.).
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:48amYo Dave:
Please prove the big bang …
all you have proven is that you disprove yourself …
but then, that is the effect that pride has on the heart of a man.
What he thinks he see’s is not and what he does not is …
Report Post »VRW Conspirator
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:06pm@Dave and Publius
the problem with all of the arguments that “pure evolutionists” make is simple…
1) you claim to base it wholly on the “science” but Science NEVER discounts ANY theory without evidence. Neither the Theory of Evolution nor the Theory of Creationism can be completely discounted through Science. They are competing theories in a laundry list of theories designed to try and explain the nature of Life on Earth ONLY!! Do NOT combine the Big Bang Theory with the Theory of Evolution of Life.
Report Post »2) if Macro Evolution – on which the theory is based – does occur, then why have NO Chimpanzes evolved into Humans in the last 3 million year and why are there no “half-breeds” for lack of a better term still on Earth. If the theory were correct, you would expect to see communities of apes at ALL stages of the evolution from Gibbon to ****-erectus still on the planet. You can not claim “natural selection” on this because then you must confront the question “how was it possible for them to survive long enough to evolve higher if their evolutionary step was not condusive to survival?”
3) do you know the odds? yes, the odds…not gambling but Statistical Calculus..the odds that evolution without guidance could result in Humans evolving on any planet, let alone Earth? Science says there are about 100 Billion Stars in our Galaxy and that many Galaxies as well. 1 in 100 Billion is the odds for evolution as well.
Amarath01
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:45pm@ basket
You are 100% correct in your original statement. The creation of the universe is an definite improbability, so is of life on earth.
The current science in biology, molecular , etc all evidence life on earth as definite impossibilities. As such you would think they would want to answer these questions before claiming “mission accomplished”. Yet for further their names and funding they progress wild theories that are disproven by PHYSICAL AND SCIENTIFICALLY MEASURED EVIDENCE we do have.
This is not to say they are not the best fit logically or at face value but scientifically we are missing more of the picture than we know. About as appropriate as the flat earth theories. But then again so is the core of creationism (not that everyone beliefs the same things).
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 3:33pmVRW,
1) “Neither the Theory of Evolution nor the Theory of Creationism can be completely discounted through Science.”
That’s not how science works. Evolution is the dominant theory, meaning that it explains the most while relying on the fewest and smallest assumptions. No current theory has come even close to Evolution in terms of the “best fit” theory. Creationism’s assumptions are enormous and it is unverifiable, making it entirely useless as a “scientific theory.”
2) “then why have NO Chimpanzes evolved into Humans in the last 3 million year and why are there no “half-breeds” for lack of a better term still on Earth.”
Report Post »Really? You actually think that this is how Evolutionists think it works? Do yourself a favor and actually read what evolution is before you just spout nonsense. Humans did not evolve from Chimpanzees. Humans and Chimpanzees share a long-extinct common ancestor, but our evolutionary paths diverged long long ago. In terms of “half-breeds,” I have no idea what you are saying. Try to rephrase the question and I would be happy to address it.
davecorkery
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:56am46 percent of Americans still embrace creationism
It used to be 90%. Ooops.
People are starting to realize that all holy books, bible, koran, etc, were written by men, not one word from god. Ever. If man is so “sinful and wretched” why would we care what their opinions are, since every word in those books are nothing but opinions. No one follows god’s law, because he never wrote them down for us. All holy laws come from men. If you want to obey other men’s opinions on what rewards they can get for you if you obey their commandments, be my guest. But the kids today are fact checking everything. It’s getting harder to believe that a man and his kids built a boat to accommodate 16,000,000 animals for a flood (since there were 8,000,000 species that couldn’t stay airborne or swim for a year. When discussing creationism, exchange the word “holy god” for Holy unicorn” and it still works. Can’t do that with science and reality. Get it now?
P.S.: Innocent babies aren’t born with anything but beauty, not “sin”. What a disgusting thing to tell a child when they are young and impressionable. Vomit inducing.
Report Post »hi
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:08am1/3 of the Bible is prophecy. Only the Christian Bible has fulfilled prophecy. There were 300+ things written about Jesus 700+ years before He was born that he fulfilled.
That would be like someone in the 1500;s writing 300 specific things about Obama like where he was born and how he would die.
We had a perfect earth until Adam and Eve sinned. Sin caused death and destruction. But God always had a promise to restore Paradise through his son Jesus Christ. So, the precious child you mentioned will know that all of the death and suffering on this earth WILL end. But, if you tell her it’s all good, she will think this is as good as it gets.
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:11amAgreed. Especially about the original sin thing. Religion is just the oldest and most pervasive form of government that there is. I don’t care so much is someone wants to practice a religion, but they need to keep it out of my face and out of our collective laws.
Report Post »Libertarian
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:24amHow did nonliving matter turn into living matter?
To call oneself an atheist (to believe there is no such thing as a God) is as far as a jump as saying there is an omnipotent God.
There is more historical account of a man named Jesus (English version) than there is that Plato and Voltaire were actual people. There is more historical evidence a man named Jesus walked the earth performing miracles, amassed hundreds of thousands of followers, created a following of 2.1 billion christian followers today, that claimed to be the son of God.
Yet no one would not argue that Plato or Voltaire existed. Even the Athiest Steven Hawkings admits that no scientist dares to explain the “magic fire” that turned nonliving matter into living matter and goes on to say that the world is so perfect that if we imagined it as a gigantic switch board, changing any science by a decimal would not have allowed Earth and any of its habitat to exist. It is perfect…
There is a God, the bible again and again reveals itself to be prophetic.
Report Post »black9897
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:25amSaying we are sinful isn’t disgusting. You also don’t tell your children “you are a nasty sinful thing.” You can put it in age appropriate words.
Report Post »BenzinVasser
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:25amThe only thing I agree with you is the statement you say: “Babies are born without sin”..you’re right what just God would thrust sin upon innocence. I guess unless you go with the statements God makes when he stated: “I knew you before you were born”. But, then this brings on the stance of “Where were we before we lived here?” Reincarnation? This would open up a whole new box of worms, I believe in God but I’m in the 32% where God guided evolution. Everything is confusing…haha!
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:31amI suspect that people polled in that survey were being furtive with their answers, and were trying to skew the results as some kind of protest against the media.
Report Post »BigCityJ
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:36amyour words are written by a man so why should I believe them? according to your reasoning I shouldn’t, so I don’t.
Also how do you raise a child? always tell them they are right? never tell them no? never tell them how to behave? you completely misrepresent the religious view of original sin as it relates to a child and call it vomit inducing but ignore the fact that no matter your view on religion you still need to tell this “beautiful innocent” child that they have done wrong, even punish them in order to instruct them because, gasp, you love them. Live in the world that is, not the one you wish it was.
Report Post »CafeConservative
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:59am” but they need to keep it out of my face and out of our collective laws.” But your values need to have legislative support, right? Hypocrite much?
Report Post »CafeConservative
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:03pm““I knew you before you were born”. But, then this brings on the stance of “Where were we before we lived here?” Reincarnation?”
It doesn’t mean that you pre-existed (lived before you were in the womb), it means God is omniscient and part of His omniscience is foreknowledge. When He set things in motion, He knew that a part of the “clockwork” would involve your birth and who you would be as a person.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:12pmYo Dave:
mathematics …know them …well the math says that in FACT the “kinds” could have been accommodated on the ark … mind the math not me
Another fact since your big on them … some of the bible was written down by EYE WITNESSES … you know those people who actually FACTUALLY were there and see it
Another fact … Luke (the book of Luke), who was a physician went around and FACT checked, and then wrote down what FACT checked.
If you believe every “fact” on the internet you are most foolish and I‘m 6’8″ and 400 lbs. of solid muscle and I didn’t need no testosterone boosters.
Another FACT …babies are a gift, no doubt. You seem to mis-understand the idea of being born “sinful” … that would seem a FACT. It is also a FACT the babies in there innocense could not give a stink (pun intended) about anything else but themselves … but then maybe you would call that a “good” trait.
So you see … you are just FACTUALLY wrong … good day
Report Post »VRW Conspirator
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:36pm@Dave
not to burst your bubble Davie boy…. but your statement
“P.S.: Innocent babies aren’t born with anything but beauty, not “sin”. What a disgusting thing to tell a child when they are young and impressionable. Vomit inducing.”
if absolutely, 100%, WRONG….Original Sin does not mean that the baby is committing acts against God..it means that the bloodline of Humans was tainted when God expelled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden and that we would no longer be immortal, be able to speak with the animals and have control over them, and we would have to work and toil by the sweat of our brow to earn a living and provide food and shelter and clothing for ourselves. Our God given ability of Free Will had left us in a position where we would strive our whole lifes to return to Eden and the relationship we had there with God. THAT is what you should be telling a child about being born with Original Sin, not your convoluted idea of it…
And before you get even more stupid…if a child dies before the age of Biblical consent..13…before knowing the difference between right and wrong as God sees it…they are accepted back into Heaven freely and without trial of Sin because their Father loves them so He will never hold their actions against them until they understand the consequences. Jesus gave this gift to us as well through his blood. That is the Mercy and Grace of God…that is LOVE.
Report Post »HYPNOTOAD
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 1:28pmDear BENZINVASSER: You have a sweet ignorance. That is not a knock against you. Yes every person born is born with original sin thanks to Adam. The second Adam, Jesus removes that sin. Saying a baby has original sin is not a put down to babies. It’s like a birth defect. would you deny a birth defect because the baby is “innocent”? If a baby was born with a heart condition, would you deny it could happen because the baby was innocent? I hope not.
Report Post »Snidely
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 3:04pmDave, You are selectively presenting those statistics. The 46% is the number of Americans that say the God created humans in their present form. If you include those that say God guided evolution (which, according to Eugenie Scott and Richard Dawkins, is the same as being a creationist), the number rises to 78%. And that is after over half a century of only evolution being taught in schools. Less than 15% of Americans believe in neo-Darwinian evolution. (No one believes in Darwinian evolution – his hypothesis said that acquired traits, like a body builders muscle mass, could be passed on.)
And it’s not just an American thing. About half of the people in Great Britain believe in creation or God guided evolution. And they are certainly not a Christian nation.
Report Post »guz75
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:53amSo where did the creator come from, who or what created God? This is where much of the creationist argument comes apart for me. Something that created all that we see today, must‘ve been created by something even more complex and powerful and what created the creator’s creator etc………..
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:02amit’s perfectly acceptable to these folks that God was created from nothing, but it’s impossible for the Universe to have come about this way. Science hasn’t closed the door on this either. the Big Bang is still under investigation. we know it occurred, but the bang itself could have been one of many bangs, or an infinite succession of bangs. this is what’s great about Science, it won’t just give up and say “well, i dunno, must have been some God creature who done it.”
Report Post »hi
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:02amWhy wouldn‘t ’nothing turning into everything’ come apart for you as well?
Yes it is freaky to go alllll the way back whether you are a creationist or evolutionist.
Report Post »hi
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:09amWhen I see stuff blow up, I don’t see anything created from it, just a lot of destruction.
Report Post »pantokrator
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:09amGod is infinite, He had no beginning. He is the Alpha and Omega.
Report Post »guz75
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:12amBut for me it seems creationism is finite, it says there is one God that made all of this and it all stops there. The science may be full of gaps, but at least it wants to understand what came before everything we see today. It’s not the creation element that concerns me, it’s the brick wall that goes up with the biblical creation story.
Report Post »DLV
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:22amGuz- god didn’t have a beginning. As a matter of fact, the funny thing is at the beginning you need to have something eternal to make the universe or else you keep playing “who created him/it” game. For the Big bang to work you need to have something eternal or else you run into this problem.
Report Post »pantokrator
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:24amCreationism is finite, but God is infinite. If God was not infinite, He would have no choice but to be finite, like us, and was not God, as He must have had a beginning. So then you ask, “What created Him, then?” It can only be an infinite thing, which must be (as we call Him/it) God. You can keep asking the question about “Who created that? Who created that?” But you will solve nothing through it. To be finite is to have a beginning and an end. At some point, the very first finite thing needed an uncaused cause, an infinite thing that was beyond it, something that simply had no beginning.
Report Post »hi
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:30amIf you go on the AIG and IR websites you will see hundreds or PhD’s researching science in every field. Just because we believe in God does not mean we do not try to understand science.
Report Post »Granny58
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:30amPhysical things must have a cause. Metaphysical (beyond physical) does not.
Report Post »guz75
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:11pmI think part of the problem with discussing these things is the wide variety of understanding as to what God is.
I have no belief in the biblical God, but can accept the idea of something that binds us and everything around us and is responsible for some kind of infinite cyclical process and I think this could be defined as a God, of sorts. Whereas others accept elements of the biblical interpretation, but with an acceptance of other defining elements and others strictly adhere to the biblical story and of course there are shades between each of these.
Evolution isn’t trying to refute the existence of some sort of God, it isn’t specifically trying to understand where it all started (although the 2 things obviously crossover to a certain extent). My questions extend beyond evolution, because I struggle with the logic of an infinite entity, suddenly deciding to create all these things around us. In fact I think this is where intelligent design almost turns on itself, in that something, whether physical or metaphysical, that makes a decision to design, requires consciousness and seems to me would require some intelligent design of it’s own??
Report Post »DLV
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:19pmFor all atheists here on the Blaze: listen closely!
Many Christians here do not have a tolerance for militant name calling atheists. If you really want to have a discussion/debate, and not just spew hate type along the lines of this next paragraph. If you continue to name call we will ignore you (or at least I will) and I will only engage people in debate who actually interested in learning. Atheists always seem to quote the bible but have no understanding of it, this where they can learn and I like science and am always willing to know more. But if you name call and say things like “sky fairy” then I will lose all respect for you (because I do have some respect for atheists) and the discussion will be over before it begins. Here is how to respond to someone to let them know you are up for a civilized discussion and not for name calling
An atheist: “I’ve always found that religion seems like bull. However, I am interested to know why you (christian) believe what you do. What do you have to say about problems I find in the bible? I also find that the God of the OT is pretty harsh. Can you explain why he is this way? I can also teach you on why I believe in evolution and the big bang, but I am interested to know why Christians believe what they do.”
See no insults here only bull, but that is because this person is an atheist and I won’t take offense to that. Try being polite and eager to learn the truth about the bible and maybe you will get somewhere.
Report Post »guz75
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:35pm@DLV
Report Post »I‘m not sure who you’re referring to? I asked the original question, which is a perfectly honest question, to which a few have responded and I’ve responded in kind. There has been no name calling in this section. I don‘t understand why your so upset with someone who doesn’t necessarily believe what you believe, asking a perfectly polite and reasonable question?
phillyatheist
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:37pm“Physical things must have a cause. Metaphysical (beyond physical) does not.”
there is nothing Metaphysical. prove that i’m wrong and go collect your Nobel Prize.
Report Post »DLV
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:41pmGuz- I wasn’t referring to you per se, because your question was reasonable. I was just talking about in general, this is how to approach a debate. I’ve found that too many atheists and christians start with angry name calling which gets us NOWHERE!
Report Post »pantokrator
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 1:13pm“Evolution isn’t trying to refute the existence of some sort of God, it isn’t specifically trying to understand where it all started (although the 2 things obviously crossover to a certain extent). My questions extend beyond evolution, because I struggle with the logic of an infinite entity, suddenly deciding to create all these things around us. In fact I think this is where intelligent design almost turns on itself, in that something, whether physical or metaphysical, that makes a decision to design, requires consciousness and seems to me would require some intelligent design of it’s own?”
That is a very good point. I tend ask these questions myself, like the idea of free will. I’ve concluded that free will is an illusion, and predestination is likely the reality. But there is also reason to believe we have free will. It’s all very in depth, and it’s good to ask these questions. Personally, I’ve gotten to the point where I believe God is just, plain and simple beyond us in every way. There are things we simply will not be able to understand with our limited minds. Does that mean stop trying? Of course not, but pursue knowing you won’t find all the answers.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 1:23pm@ PHILLY…Since God is spirit and is beyond our physical senses to detect then it is up to him to reveal himself to us if he chooses, otherwise he remains undetected and unknowable. However, he has revealed himself through his word (the bible) and the person of Jesus Christ. Now in order to demonstarte the reasonable evidence that exists for the question you posed we must begin where I have tried to begin before. There are 3 broad categories of evidence to evaluate any work of antiquity by, bibliographical, external and internal evidence. I assume since you have before conceded that the bibliographical evidence is extremely profound and quite solid we can move on to other areas of investigation. So on to the external evidence if you agree? thank you for your time my friend…
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 1:53pmYo Guz:
Questions with honest intent in finding the “truth” are required in order to find it.
“God always was” is not something you are to “completely” understand. It is beyond us … is that not in part the “idea” of God ?
Is it not a bit arrogant to put yourself on the same level of knowledge as HE ? As God said to Job, “ do you know of the treasury of the snow”?
Scripture tells us to get wisdom. It also says that with wisdom God created all things. Does this not indicate that we are to search for understanding as to the HOW ? Because we are also told to get understanding and knowledge. Stupid is not in the “book”.
Report Post »Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:49amShow me the man-ape-monkey deity that atheists worship and I’ll reconsider.. We are to believe that this missing link performed the miracle of all creation and the additional miracle of removing all trace of itself. The written word and language just appeared out of nowhere and they cannot explain it with all of their ‘science’.
Report Post »guz75
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:01am‘The written word and language just appeared out of nowhere and they cannot explain it with all of their ‘science’.’
What do you mean? As an example there are drawings of animals in caves in France alongside some basic symbols, which are believed to be some of the earliest known forms of communication which date back 30 – 35,000 years. Would that not be enough time for that basic form of communication to develop into what we have now?
Report Post »ltb
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:45amChristians believe: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light ‘day,’ and the darkness he called ‘night.’ And there was evening, and there was morning — the first day.” (Genesis 1:1-5)
Atheists believe: “In the beginning there was nothing and nothing exploded into everything after nobody did anything.”
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:08amAnd if we were debating the Big Bang, that would be important. However, this article is about evolution.
Report Post »davecorkery
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:32amBut god didn’t write genesis. A human did. He lived during the bronze age, or before. Since men are so sinful and wretched, why would you take his word for it? You like believing stories from strangers? Good for you! I won’t allow you to BS my kids, though. Or anyone else’s. Atheists don’t need to believe. We are more interested in knowing. Perhaps you didn’t get the memo. There was not “nothing” at the beginning. There was only the simplest element: Hydrogen. Scientists have realized that when talking to people with little science knowledge, they have to be careful when choosing the words they use.There was nothing at the beginning, nothing but hydrogen. All was stable until one Boson changed it’s path naturally, or enough bosons naturally changed their orbit to create a critical mass, producing gravity differential, and Kapow. Here we are. This theory was originated by a catholic priest in the last century. He mentioned it to Einstein, who thought it might be plausible. He later endorsed it. Ironic or what? And if you are wondering where the Hydrogen came from, the logic is this: It has always been there, or we would not have “something”today. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. It just changes form. Something as complex as god was around for an eternity in the darkness, he got bored and stuck his finger in the air and said abracadabra? Unlikely.
Report Post »Granny58
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:33amPublius – it is relevant. We’re talking about if there is a creator or not. You know that.
Report Post »WSGAC
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:26pm@DAVECORKERY
You said, “….And if you are wondering where the Hydrogen came from, the logic is this: It has always been there, or we would not have “something”today. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. It just changes form.”
It is obvious you are unfamiliar with the subject of philosophy when it comes to the subject of origins. The universe had a beginning. Whether you’re a Big Bang proponent, or a Steady State proponent, or a String Theorist…etc., the Universe had a beginning.
Now the big question is, Why does the Universe exist at all? and why does it exist in its present order vs. another order? These questions cannot be answered by scientists. The moment the scientists attempts to do so, he/she enters the realm of metaphysics…what others might call religion.
Report Post »VRW Conspirator
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:51pm@LTB
and those two passages you mentioned are PERFECTLY in line with each other…get rid of all the flowery language from the Bible and the Creationist and the Atheist believe the EXACT same thing..
there was nothing…then “poof” is all appeared…whether through the Word of God and his Holy Spirit or through the Big Bang Theory….they are EXACTLY the same statement…
now the Bible calls that “the first day” and the Atheist/Evolutionist calls that the first 10 Billion years.. SO WHAT!! Time is explained in the Bible as well…“to the Lord a day is but a 1000 years and a 1000 years is but a day” meaning God doesn’t CARE about time… so the first day could easily have been 10 billion HUMAN years to a God that doesn’t care about time
think of it this way…in cartoon or Comic book fashion…you are a species which exists OUTSIDE the dimension of Earth and the universe, you can pop in and out at any point since creation to the end of the universe within any of the infinite universes…to those inhabitants of the universe you interact with, you would be all powerful, all knowing, and timeless, unchanging…
now assume you are the last of your race…traveling in and out of Earth history to guide and set things right..appear and disappear…interact with some and not others…well..then you would be..
Doctor Who =)
Report Post »woodyee
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:36amHow “religious” can a child molester be, when he’s harming those described by Him as the most innocent? Hardly religious, I would say. Which places Nye’s accusation of harming children squarely in his lap…
…a little progressive projection going on here, eh, Nye?
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:20amFar from being an “ad hominem attack”, what Nye is suggesting is that parents and other adults who have made the decision to teach children creationism while ignoring or downright misleading them about the theory of evolution by means of natural selection are doing such a disservice to them that they may be intellectually “crippled” by it. If those notions aren’t done away with, the child may find themselves locked out of many fields of science, particularly those dealing with medicine-one of our country’s most important sectors.
Report Post »Lord_Frostwind
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 2:58pmHow are you significantly clipped? Very little of math and science has anything to do with natural selection or evolution, even biology has a strictly limited use for it. The only people in science who care greatly about creation vs evolution are the scientists who declare the nonbelievers heretics unfit for science.
This is a false argument. Kids who are taught evolution or creation have very little difference in learning the sciences, which by the way is pretty low because our schools prioritize useless garbage to be taught. If people like Nye want to know why kids aren’t doing well in science, maybe take a look at the schools rather than blaming religion for their problems.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 3:36pm@ Woodyee
Report Post »Another aspect of projection is where atheist/darwinist folks try to pin the “racist” label on Bible-believing Christians. Darwinism was the prime mover for racist thought from the outset of Darwinism. Sure, racists have attempted to cloak their ideology in Christian garb, but it is a very awkward fit. Darwinism fits like a glove, though.
TruthPolice60
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:36amI’ve always been a believer in Creationism. However, after closely studying the picture of Mr. Nye, I can see why some people believe that man evolved from apes. He has many of the same facial characteristics as Cheetah from the Tarzan movies. You put Nye and NBC’s David Gregory in a room with a jungle gym and some bananas and see what happens.
Report Post »AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:42amPut the world’s largest nuclear arsenal in the hands of a population that believes the earth is 6000 years old and see what happens. Thank baby jesus we’re not a real democracy.
Report Post »Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:00amNobody ever said the World is only 6000 years old. The bible says MAN was created about 6000 years ago and their is no ‘science’ to the contrary. That’s about where the historical record begins. Nothing but cave scribblings and primitives before that. Floods, plaques, incinerated cities, have all been found, and all can be predicted by man today, but not then. We have one more predition that lines up with the anti-christ fooling too many people from a seat of power with slick talk and false promises. Obama is either the poor man’s satan,or satan himself. Obama will not appear int he same room as the likeness of Christ, That’s pretty Anti-Christ..
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:07amYou pathetic creationists sicken me. Now, let me preface this by saying that I do believe in God, however, anyone who thinks that all of existence and life just popped into being some few thousand years ago fully formed; is a moron. There is no other explanation for it. It is as bad as the old polytheistic Roman or Greek beliefs. It makes no sense and there is no evidence to support it.
Now, I don’t know how the universe began, nor do I think it had a beginning at all. It is infinite and exists everywhere and over all time. Evolution is a word to describe simply how the life that did come into being over millions of years on this planet or any other changed over time. Surely no one believes that the universe is a stagnant and unchanging place, so why would the life that is created in it be stagnant and unchanging?
Evolution does not suggest that we magically change from an “ape” into a human. In fact, we didn’t evolve from apes. According to fossil evidence, we evolved from hominids. Slightly different than apes in a crucial way. There were several species of hominids and nearly all of them walked erect on two legs. Apes are not designed this way. Hominids also have a skull record which clearly shows that as time passed, their canine teeth shrank, their brain pan grew, and they got taller and more erect over time. I’m not sure how much more proof you people want than the truth, but maybe is a wacko makes it into a religion you’ll believe it.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:20am” The bible says MAN was created about 6000 years ago and their is no ‘science’ to the contrary. ”
Except for the fossils of **** Sapiens found that are over 100,000 years old. Does that count a proof?
Report Post »Granny58
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:40am@SGTB – The Bible doesn’t say it all popped into being fully formed, far from it. The Bible gives a vague timeline actually, able to be interpreted different ways. But “in the beginning” particularly is nebulous. How long is that? And it also says the earth was void and without form. Void = nothing. There was nothing (obviously without form). You have the entire span of time termed the “beginning.” If you have the beginning of a program, a play, labor, planning, anything – beginning does not necessarily mean that finite second when it all starts. It can mean the preliminary phases. Finally you have God speaking light into existence and THEN declares the first night and day. This is not a god of the gaps idea, but merely reconciling the Word of God to known science. In my opinion, if we knew everything about both there would be no discrepancies.
Report Post »John in Jackson
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:42amUMMMMM…..Andy, since the 1950′s a government populated by predominantly Christians has controlled enough nuclear material to turn the surface of all land on earth into glass, where’s the problem?
Report Post »HYPNOTOAD
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 1:37pmSGTB, you say you believe in god, I’m sure you do. Satan believes in the one true God. You are in good company. You need to be specific in what your god is or you sound foolish. The Athiests believe in god too, the god is “self”. They can deny it all day long, be we know truth.
Saying you believe in a god does not mean you are saved and your name is written in the Lamb’s book of life. Ask the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to reveal himself to you.
Report Post »hi
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:28amCreationists believe in science including:
Report Post »The Law of Entropy
The Law of Conservation
The Law of Spontaneous Generation
The Laws of Probability
Whereas, evolutionists do not believe in the above scientific facts. Evolution goes against the laws of science.
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:40amNo, it goes against your religion. If it went against the laws of science, scientists would be refuting it. That’s the difference between the religious and the secular, when scientists misrepresent the truth for the sake of convenience, they are ostracized by the entire community, when religious types do the same, they are just being pious.
Report Post »hi
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:48amScientists do refute evolution. Look at the Ph.D’s just on the AIG website, the ICR website, Walt Brown PhD website.
“Here and now” science can be observed and tested. But, evolution does not fall into that category. There is not one scientific fact that supports evolution.
Report Post »RED PILL PATRIOT
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:57amWith the absence of irrefutable proof one way or another, wouldn’t it be “scientific” to not discount either “theory” until one is proven true and therefore the other is proven false. To discount either one is to be “religious” for or against the other.
Report Post »davecorkery
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:00amWrong. All scientific facts support evolution. A giant finger coming out of the blackness and saying abracadabra? Not so much. Don’t worry, though. Religion will be around a bit longer, enough for you to feel comforted. It won‘t be around much longer after you’re gone, but you won’t care then, so relax.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:16amLaw of Entropy:
Has no relation to Evolution. “Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a “spreading out” of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously.”
And for the other three–no, these laws are not consistent with Creationism, because Creationism assumes the existence of a force outside the natural world that exists as an exception to all of these laws.
Report Post »hi
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:17amDave
Report Post »Name ONE fact.
The fossil record goes against evolution. There are distinct species found all around the world. If evolution happened we would be inundate with fossils of inbetween animals. There are so many animals we have only named 1/3 of them. Yet there is not even a living inbetween animal.
Natural Selection goes against evolution. It gets rid of genetic material. Also, if a fish sprang a leg, it would swim around in circles and then get natural selected, eaten.
Mutations are 99.9% lethal. Think of the genetic mutations humans have like sickle cell or hemophilia. they are devastating to the human;they don’t make them better. Mutations cause disease.
PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:29pmHi,
You’re wrong about the fossil record disproving evolution, but I’ll let that slide because I want you to explain how then the fossil record “proves” creationism. After all, you can’t just disprove a theory and then have nothing–scientific theories don’t work that way. You have to replace a theory with a better fit theory that makes fewer assumptions. The problem is, the idea that life was suddenly created by an invisible, omnipotent, unobservable entity who exists as an exception to all hitherto observed laws of the natural world is a colossal assumption, far far greater than any assumption made by evolution.
Report Post »tom comella
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:16amCreation and evolution are both “theories” in that neither can be “proven scientifically” (Where’s your lab created left handed protein?).
Report Post »There was no one there as a witness except God.
If one believes in God as The Creator, they need to believe in ONE miracle and everything else makes sense. If one chooses to believe in evolution then they have to believe in an INFINITE STRING of ONGOING miracles, and even then NOTHING makes sense. (Everything is just a series of random accidents) Such a sadness!
bennyfranklin
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:24amFYI: GOD is a theory as well…no proof.
Report Post »AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:29amIs it really just one miracle? Aren‘t there a bunch of ’miracles’ that clearly would only have occurred to bronze age desert-dwellers to invent? Don’t we have to believe in those too as we sit here on one of several massive continents that God forgot to tell us about in the bible?
I think the greatest miracle of all is that people like you aren’t a little suspicious of the religious establishment when it sets itself in opposition to every advance in the scientific world.
Report Post »meerkie
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:32amThe theory of evolution has been scientifically tested extensively for the hundreds of years. What evidence has been found to disprove evolution? Just like global warming, evolution is widely accepted as a valid theory by almost everyone in the field qualified to make such judgments. Religious faith is completely unrelated, or at least, it should be.
Report Post »PATTY HENRY
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:33amAgreed. Take a GLASS. HOLD IT UP HIGH. DROP IT ON A STONE FLOOR. It shatters. The Big Bang. Then what? The pieces lie there unmoving. In order to believe the Evolutionist you’d have to believe that each particle keeps exploding and exploding. Such foolishness.
Report Post »every Chair you sit in, car you drive, house you live in, coffee cup or pencil you use…all designed.
Not only did GOD design everything, conceived everything. He is a JOYOUS CREATOR and He’s opened His life/His world up for everyone to enjoy if they will just come to Him.
He gave us FREEDOM OF CHOICE to decide. The first rotten fruit of Islam is the enslavement…the
force they use to keep their people in the faith, killing them if they try to leave. That should be anyone’s FIRST clue that Islam has -0- to do with CHRISTIANITY or JUDAISM.
For the poor souls who have been so misled in their schools by wicked Commie teachers who admitted last year they were indeed sent here to infiltrate our schools, kill religion…no wonder you are so confused. IF you want to know GOD all you have to do is go somewhere by yourself, and quietly ask: GOD are You Real? IF you Are could you please let me know it? Then go from there and study…HE doesn’t ram it at you…you have to meet Him half-way…and it will be the best thing you’ve ever done for yourself, your family your community. JUST ASK. What have you to lose?
PATTY HENRY
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:42amMy response was for TOM of course. I can only feel sympathy for those folks who spend so much effort disproving what can’t be disproved.
Report Post »Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:02amLook out your window fool… Do the math..
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:11am“The Big Bang. Then what? The pieces lie there unmoving. In order to believe the Evolutionist you’d have to believe that each particle keeps exploding and exploding. Such foolishness.”
Yes Patty Henry, because scientists believe that the Big Bang was about spreading around shards of glass…. That is an incredibly dumb analogy.
How about this… you split an atom, and what happens? Well, energy is released, and part of that energy contributes to a chain reaction in which other atoms are split. You see, “pieces keep exploding and exploding.” We know it happens–we’ve observed it happening. It’s how the sun works smart guy.
Report Post »Calm Voice of Reason
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:33am@Patty: The “Big Bang” wasn’t simply a big explosion, that’s just a silly name that someone threw out there. It was a rapid expansion of space-time and the evidence for this is literally all around. Also, this has more to do with Physics than Biology…actually it doesn‘t have ANYTHING to do with biology and shouldn’t have anything to do with a discussion of the theory of evolution by means of natural selection.
Report Post »DoctorRon
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:12amThose who disavow God need to study quantum physics and come up with a better explantion. The sentient force that is the basis of all creation is God. You may prefer to call it the Force, the Universe, the collective subconscious or whatever. It is still God. God is not, and never has been, an elderly Caucasian male sitting on a cloud somewhere. God is everywhere and is Spirit. As the Bible says, God told Moses that God is what is. Another way to say it is, God is the great “I am.”
Report Post »AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:21amEverything you said was plausible until your last sentence. Plenty of highly intelligent people are unwilling to conclude that there is no god in the deistic sense. However, there is not a single intelligent person, past or present, who can make the leap you just made from the deistic position to the book-publishing God position.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 1:12pmC.S. Lewis hangs his head in sorrow somewhere
Report Post »AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 3:38pmI’ve read Mere Christianity. A good man, to be certain. I wouldn’t stoop to calling him unintelligent, but then again he never bridges the rhetorical gap that I just described. He begins with a few stirring passages about the natural moral imperative, but then reverse engineers his argument when the subject switches to Christian doctrine. He never addresses the possibility that the Bible is a fraudulent text, never address the issue of translation, never considers for a moment the mountain of conflicting evidence regarding the details of Christ’s life, and glosses over the unfortunate and archaic baggage of the Old Testament with complete indifference. He argues with no regard for evidence that inconveniences his position, the first sign of intellectual dishonesty.
Report Post »antitheist
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:08amShe’s right, children should be exposed to both evolution and creationism, just as children should be exposed to both:
Chemistry and Alchemy
Phrenology and Neurology
Magic and Physics
Astrology and Astronomy
Let the kids decide, what could possibly go wrong?
Report Post »mensa141
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:21amGood for you. Finally making sense advocating education in both sides of an argument. I should think you might think of evolution as man’s attempt to explain creation. Not a bad explanation so far. Another thought would be for all those that think evolution is a fact should revisit the definition of theory. Just might enlighten somewhat.
Report Post »AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:31amJust as all those who think the Bible is fact should revisit the definition of ‘fiction.’
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:32amisn’t it remarkable how many people deny the most basic tenants of Biology? we’ve made such strides in our understanding of the natural world only to have it brushed off as guesses or hunches. these people have no idea how Science works. they claim that advances such as radiometric dating are wrong – why, because it’s convenient for them to believe that. they simply refuse to believe that Scientists have no agenda, because they can‘t imagine that someone would pursue something for truth’s sake. it’s much easier to brush it off as a conspiracy theory designed to rid the world of their almighty creator.
Report Post »Godzgrl247
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:39amI can tell you what can happen! You will have a child that thinks he is superior to every one else. He / she will rail against all authority. Anyone that says that she is wrong will be called all sorts of vile names. This child will choose to gratify self and seek out ways to make self more powerful by delving in all manners of black arts. He / she will choose to follow Satan because he will have deceived this child into believing that they can have a life of prosperity. This child will be deceived that he / she has special powers. Then, one day this child will be lying in a hospital bed watching the hallelujah choir on TBN and begging God to take away their pain. Some may call it Karma. Some may call it the wrath of God. I don‘t know but I do know that God’s word is true and God is not mocked. I admit that I have more questions than answers but that is where I have to rely on faith and trust. However, I will NOT leave my child to find the truth on their own in this wicked world. I’ve done that already.
Report Post »hi
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:45amThere are assumptions built into radiometric dating that the status quo has always existed and no catastrophic events took place that could affect the samples. Also, if the samples were taken to several different testers, they would have mixed results varying millions of years.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:52amHI – and you know this because you’re a scientist and have been trained in radiometric dating? or are you copying from Answers in Genesis?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:23amI would say too that parents should teach the Germ Theory, the Four Humors Theory and the Devil Possession Theory of medicine, right? After all, nobody really knows why people get sick, right?
Antitheist, I think a few commentators missed your sarcasm.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:35amlo0o0ol look at them seethe
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:27pmYo Philly:
Are not those of AIG and many others not TRAINED and learned individuals ??? You are like every atheists I have ever met … what you accuse others of you yourself do , even if you are correct about the others. This would mean that you nullify yourself as you nullify then … so where does that leave you ??? ( oh, by the way I don’t hate atheists)
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:41pm“Are not those of AIG and many others not TRAINED and learned individuals ???”
they may very well be. but they deny too much verifiable science to be considered credible. we KNOW that the earth is billions of years old. if you want to play with the other Scientists you simply can‘t ignore facts because they don’t fit into your narrow worldview. that’s the problem with Young Earth Creationist scientists. Old Earth Creationists can maintain scientific credibility at least.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 1:09pmYo Philly:
We DO NOT know that the earth is millions of years old … that’s the point
“Your” side say it is and say … here is the “science” and facts ,… no proof, no science … theories and assumptions.
“My” side say it is not and here is what we believe the science says, and yes, we look for how it aligns with scripture because if it does not we than know that we have the “science” wrong and we recheck and keep looking … we DO NOT ignore “good” science like atheists whether from Philly or not like to FALSELY accuse us of.
Simple fact is this: NOBODY will ever be able to PROVE how it began as that would go against the very meaning of the word “science.”
Report Post »So … it comes down to faith … yours is in men, mine is in men …well, not quite. Mine is in men speaking the words of God with the Holy Spirit being a witness to that truth … you have no witness for your side. You are alone and on your own!
Jethro212
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:08amBill Nye is an Engineer, although that is a good accomplishment, and no I dropped out myself for that major, it is a far cry from even a Pharmacist for an education. Nye should focus on making bridges and shut up about things biological, I am pretty sure him and I are both versed to roughly the same level concerning biological.
Why is it people who are so lowly versed in subjects, want their side, the only one heard? My grandfather, who was a dentist, said that when people acted like that, it showed they were actually not concrete on their viewpoints. But I am sure Bill Nye knows more than my Grandfather did, after all, he is on TV…
Report Post »Angry-Elf
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:07amBill Nye, why bring this up now?
Report Post »What could possibly be your motivation?
Just wondering…
NewLife56
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:05amHey Bill Nye? Go play with your monkey, I mean Brother, I mean family member and leave to think what we wish and teach our children the Truth. GOD created humankind. Deal with it. Oh and Bill? If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
Report Post »THXll38
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:11amAllopatric speciation
Report Post »THXll38
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:04amYet another debate that shows how social cons and modern day liberals are the same, but different.
Report Post »Lord_Frostwind
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 2:52pmI prefer to call the “New Atheists” the ones who are always in the news and making stories like this as “Science Theocrats.” They worship theories while the religious worship God, and both are absolutely sure their answer is the right one, and both are dead set on making sure the other is wrong.
Truly how someone believes the world formed shouldn’t have any bearing on what they can contribute to scientific advancement, after all, do chemistry and physics care about whether the universe or God established them? They both work the same whether you believe in evolution or creation. Even biology, the great battleground of these theories, only has a very limited use for them, after all, very little of biology involves “where things came from” over “how do they work?”
The fact that so many Atheists have declared this to be the determining point on whether you are intelligent and capable of being a man of science is no different than a religion declaring something as heretical. I just wish the irony of it all wasn’t so completely lost upon them.
Report Post »sndrman
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:01amfunny how the owies kids who were sent to occupy their time because there are no jobs for them,have been taught and believe they come from monkeys(exact spices not a concern to me)…so therefore since they descended from,explains why they were using outside bathrooms and wouldn’t surprise me if they were throw feces…….so if you teach kids certain things you get a certain response……………
Report Post »NewSolomon
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:56amBill has become irrelevant, so he is doing this for the attention he has lost. He also knows most people will not do the homework to find out his statement is not true. The impact of teaching creation to children is not abusive, but lets the child make up there own mind (which one would think he would want). His fear is that the children will understand that creation is better science.
Report Post »sbenard
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:45amThe day will come when every Nye will bow and every tongue confess that God is. And that includes even the most haughty hubris of Nye and his blind buddies.
There are NO atheists. There are just people to proud and UNWILLING to pay the price to know, what the rest of us DID pay the price to know!
Report Post »AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:19amAnd for some reason they have uniformly higher IQs.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:29amBecause they are elitists with more money to afford better education?
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/reason.html#.UETMvYl5nTo
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 2:31pmHigher IQ’s do not make for a “better” person
God will make the intellegence of men as foolishness
“Fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom”
“Wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s site”
Report Post »“What is their glory will be there shame” ……….what a shame
God does not look at the appearence of a man, He looks at the heart. He cares not about IQ, which He gives … so no man can boast outside of being foolish. He cares about how that IQ is used. So the one with a high IQ speaks against the one who gives it in pride and arrogance. This would mean that the one of intellegence has become a fool … let’s all say yeah now!
That make as much sence as a man that says to the bullets in the gun he points at his own head: “you will not hurt me” as he pulls the trigger …
AndYetItMoves
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 3:27pmLike I said.
Report Post »Waterlylys
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:33amI just have to say, I am immensely disappointed in Bill Nye. Not because he believes in evolution but because he has chosen to use his position to bully those who don’t believe as he does.
I agree with the PhD who said, “Children should be exposed to both ideas concerning our past.” Whether we expose them to the theories out there or not, they will be exposed at some point in their lives. If we expose them we are able to have the conversation and share the information. They become more informed “consumers.”
Report Post »ScienceIsNotEvil
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:11am“to bully those who don’t believe as he does.”
Isn’t threatening small kids with eternal and everlasting torture in hell threatening as well?
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:06pmThat is holding people accountable for their actions. If that’s wrong, so are police departments.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:39pmYo Science:
If I yell to you as you drive by; “THE BRIDGE IS OUT”, is that a threat? You can respond by calling me a crazy drunken fool and keep your foot on the gas. Or, you can heed the “warning” and slow down … well, the bridge is out …
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:32am“With the debate over creationism and evolution continuing to rage,”
the only place this “debate” exists is on forums such as this. there is no debate amongst rational, informed people. Evolution is Science, Creationism is Religion. if any Believer devises an experiment to test for the supernatural then we can call it Science, until then it is in the realm of the untestible and thus clearly outside the bounds of Science.
Report Post »AllLost
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:48amPlease tell me how evolution is science? It takes much more faith to believe in evolution than creation.
That you reject discussion of differences on the topic shows that you ‘rational’ people are unwilling to look at the evidence in an impartial, critical way. You sir have been indoctrinated in the humanist religion.
Report Post »Memphismerlin
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:53amPhilly, I challenge you to look into the people at AIG and then tell me how irrational they are.
Report Post »HOOT_OWL
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:53amWhat a surprise.. I see your ’preaching’ on your religion again Philly .
Report Post »nonwinger
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:57amYour comments are based on the assumption that science and religion are mutually exclusive. Since science has not and can not answer how or why all that exists has come into being why do you insist on insulting those of us who are interested in those questions? Your arrogance implies a lack of confidence in your theory and your inability to allow for other points of view.
Report Post »pantokrator
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:02amCreationism is also science. Just because people believe in the Holy Spirit, does not mean they are against science. I am a Christian, and I love science. In fact, it is science that has led me to believe in God.
Report Post »stone2016
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:22amPhilly once again proves that the “science” argument is made by those that are uneducated and ignorant of science.
Please point to the scientific test that proves evolution. Or just the devised test that can prove it. And creationists would argue they have a test that proves it (I for one have used it and proved it and by the way it really could be said it is based on the scientific method or vice verse).
1st, Evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive. We don’t have any proof that one exists without the other. To state such is ignorance on either side.
2nd, speaking strictly “scientifically”, both evolution and creationism are essentially the same thing; ie, theories based on evidence. There is no scientific proof of either and having no scientific proof of either, there is no evidence or “non-disprovable” theory that should be excluded just because it doesn’t fit your theory. Scientists understand that. Bill Nye is not a scientist.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:23am“Creationism is also science.”
PANTO – you need to look up what Science means.
“Since science has not and can not answer how or why all that exists ”
NONWINGER – this is called the God of the gaps. it’s a bad strategy since Science continues to answer these types of questions.
“Please tell me how evolution is science?”
ALLLOST – wow!! are you really this ignorant? you need to talk to a Biologist, or a shrink.
Report Post »pantokrator
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:35am“this is called the God of the gaps. it’s a bad strategy since Science continues to answer these types of questions. ”
I’d love to hear some of these “answers”.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:50amPANTO – every significant scientific breakthrough over the past 300 years has eliminated what people used to believe about God. we’ve learned that the Earth is not the center of the Universe. we’ve learned that there are trillions of stars and that Earth is not such an unusual planet after all. we’ve learned the age of the Universe and the age of the Earth. we’ve learned that Adam and Eve were not real people. all of these and more debunk much of the previous beliefs about your deity.
so if your argument says that Science hasn’t found out how life began so that points to God, well you’re right for now. be careful though, once we do know how it began your argument is reduced to nothing. where will your God hide then?
Report Post »pantokrator
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:08amWonderful statement, but doesn’t convince me. It’s just like a Bible-thumper going off on Bible verses, only from a science book.
“so if your argument says that Science hasn’t found out how life began so that points to God, well you’re right for now. be careful though, once we do know how it began your argument is reduced to nothing. where will your God hide then?”
My argument is that God created life out of nothing. The universe, the possible multiverse, the whole shebang; it has nothing against science. I look forward to the day science can clearly find the VERY BEGINNING. Truly, I do. I know you think I’m stupid, but I’m not ignorant. If Atheism can conclude, by fact, that it is possible for an infinite series of finite entities to exist, then I will cast my faith aside and believe it. Until then, I’ve concluded that logically, philosophically and scientifically, it is impossible for life to be an infinite series of finite things, just an on-going chain of reactions that spawned life as we know it. At some point, there must have been a cause.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:18amPANTO – now that was a reasonable response! once we get into the unknown debates can exist. what you’re saying is true, and i don’t know any more than you do or anyone does about those things. it seems you know more about Comsmology than Evolution. and that’s fine, but i would urge you to look into the subject more so you can take an informed position. and i only say that b/c of your statement that “Creationism” is science”, which it most certainly is not.
Report Post »pantokrator
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:30amWell, I suppose to be clear, I believe in Creationism, but I do understand that like Evolution, it is merely a theory. But like Evolution, it can be argued with science. I just think there are things in the ever-expanding universe that we, as finite and limited beings, simply cannot and will not understand. You are correct, I’m more into the cosmos. I’m one of those nerds who nearly swerves off the road at night because he was staring at the stars for too long. Unfortunately, I do not put much thought into Evolution. I’ve got a basic understanding of it, but I don’t look into it as much as I probably should.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:31pmPANTO – i do the same thing!
the distinction needs to be made about what a Theory is. you believe that it means a hunch or a guess, but that’s not the case. Creationism is a theory (as in hypothesis) whereas Evolution is a Scientific Theory which means much much more.
Report Post »JustSayingIt
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 3:20pmI’m arguing for good science not religion or people who want to make a religion out of science. We know much more about genetics and biochemistry than Darwin had any clue about. The progressive, step by step model of evolution he described cannot explain how the muliplie interconnected chemistries of life processes or organ systems could have all come together at once to create a viable organism. It’s all or nothing. The theory fails the reality test. Science is about reality, not faith, not agendas. The only thing keeping the Darwin theory alive is our failure to come up with a theory that explains all the data we have and a desparate need to provide support for the non-existence of God.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:28amOh yes and heterosexual parenting is wrong too. The only right way to raise children is with same sex, evolutionist parents.
Report Post »Tri-ox
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:25amBill Nye has endorsed, and works for obama – so, no one really listens to him anyway. Bill Nye is simply propagandizing for obama with his bizarre attack on families and religion – this is what obama’s radicals do – it is all they know.
Report Post »RobbieTLHughie
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:54amLol you people are so twisted…
Report Post »NHwinter
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:24amNye is just stepping in line with the communists that want to remove God from all aspects of America. They can try, but they will not succeed. In God we trust, not in the limited minds of scientists or politicians.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:33amthere is no God…in Science class. that‘s what we’re talking about here. Religion has no place in Science, period.
Report Post »NHwinter
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:47amphillyatheist – – Religion has no place in Science – for the person that believes in a Creator, all science comes from God. Science is the exploration of God’s creation. For you, it is only particals thrown together to create the most incredibly complex forms of all life. Some scientist believe that their studies point to a Creator. Believe or do not believe. In the end you will find out if you were right or not.
Report Post »AllLost
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:52amPhilly, you are so funny. What has no place in science is unsubstantiated belief in something that has no way to be proven through scientific method. You know..global warming….rocks and water becoming life…and more.
It is fine to build a theory, but without a way to conclude the experimentation and repeat the experiment to the same conclusion it is not completed science.
It is funny how ‘models’ and statistics has taken over the world of science.
Report Post »TeresaJ
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:01am@ Philly
Since God invented Science, I differ. :)
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:27am“rocks and water becoming life”
ALLOST – you haven’t the simplest most basic understanding of what Evolution is. until you obtain the first clue about what Evolution is you really shouldn’t be discussing it. it’s truly embarrassing the level of ineptitude you display. i’m ashamed for whoever taught you Science. homeschooled, i presume?
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:35amTERESA – lol. well done.
Report Post »4truth2all
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 2:41pmYo Philly:
Talk about talkin about … home schoolers consistantly test higher … no evolutionary science here, just the facts …lol
Report Post »grayling646
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:18amIn your eye, Bill Nye!!!
Report Post »commonsensefreethinker1
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 9:58amThe 15% means is that they are the only ones that have the guts to admit that they do not believe what you or they do and have to go to church in order to to be accepted in their everyday life. They will pay the price of being alienated by everyone around them because they have a brain to decide for themselves and are not brainwashed by the church. I have seen it first hand at a local cult where the church will find out your deepest secrets share them with the sheep and literaly tear families apart because one or more members of the family does not buy what is being sold by the pastor. Let me ask you, because I am very curious. Do any of you have a sexual sin chart in your church where if at any time of the day for example, you are in a grocery store and you see a beautiful woman and you think to yourself “wow’ or you look at her backside, or she has nice breasts. This chart is open to the whole congregation to see and you have to put down your name on this chart if you have any of these thoughts.I myself find this very disturbing and that no one has any right to have access to your personal life but children are participating in this and it just breaks my heart.
Report Post »pantokrator
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:08am@Commonsensefreethinker1: That was the most generalized, senseless and ignorant piece of crap I have EVER read. Literally.
Report Post »NHwinter
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:10amcommonsensefreethinker1 – holy wow, what kind of church do you belong to? I’ve never heard of anything like that before. Find another church and quickly.
Report Post »commonsensefreethinker1
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:25am@NHWINTER
Obviously PANTOKRATOR is a member of that cult.
Report Post »Yes we have many people that have left that are coming together to get something done about it.The pastor comits slander at every service and spills very personal information about certain people that he does not believe is walking the walk or does not believe what he does.
NHwinter
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:37amcommonsensefreethinker1 – you know that is wrong then when he tells others personal sins. A Catholic priest cannot ever tell what he heard in the confessional, neither can other denominational pastors reveal private sins or post them anywhere. The head of any church stands in for Jesus to forgive sins in Jesus’s name never to reveal those to anyone no matter the threat made to him. It sounds evil to do otherwise. In Scripture, Jesus says whatever sins you forgive in my name, they are forgiven. They are not to be thrown back in your face and held against you. I’ll say again, leave and leave quickly.
Report Post »pantokrator
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 10:39amBro, that’s hysterical. For your information, I don’t belong to a cult. I don’t even belong to a church. You want to know how I pray? I pray each night before I go to bed, not in a church in front of a giant statue of Jesus with a bunch of other people. I haven‘t been to an actual church in I don’t know how long. Once again, your pathetic attempts to generalize me are absolutely, in all sense of the word WRONG and very hilarious. I believe the church resides in me. A priest has no place in my walk with Christ.
Report Post »RobbieTLHughie
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 11:12amCatholics recognize evolution… Lol
Report Post »VRW Conspirator
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 12:25pm@Panto
if a “priest has no place” in your “walk with Christ”, then my friend, I feel very sorry for you. Even Jesus used “priests”, we call them the Disciples, those that were sent out to speak of him and his teachings, to council others along their spiritual path to a personal relationship with him and the Father.
Report Post »the Bible warns us in MANY places in the Old and New Testament that only a “fool” keeps his own council but a “wise man” has many counselors. now before you spout off…the words do not mean what we use them for today….nor does it mean that if you talk to your friends about things you are “wise”….you MUST have “trusted” counselors that are more knowledgable and further along than you in their personal walk to guide you, help you, and set you right when you fall… Jesus KNEW this so he established the new line of priests in the Disciples.
now we all may have been contracted to “go forth and spread the good news” but not all of us were given the Gifts of the Spirit in the same measure or way…so have the Gift of Teaching and Interpretation and it is their charge to guide, educate, and assist the rest of us on our journey…
Now while it is OUR journey and deeply personal, walking without guidance from a priest (pastor, minister, reverand, Pope, or whatever you call them) is a Fools Journey and will never lead to true understanding of the Community of the Body of Christ Jesus called us to be part of…
DLV
Posted on September 3, 2012 at 1:52pmVrw- While I understand your point against Panto, I have come to sympathize more with solo christianity nowadays. My church at home is awesome, that said, I’ve worked at two Christian camps and the first one was especially awful. I was extremely close to just calling off group Christianity because of how unbelievably mean some people were there. For instance, they treated one of my closest friends there horribly because he was working there as a 14 year old and they fired him, then called him, fired him, called him back etc. All because he supposedly didn’t do his work. I was with him daily and I could say without a doubt he did his work. And when people got into “relationships” at camp, not sexual just boyfriend and girlfriend they were more or less demonized. I just find that sad. I do realize healthy group Christianity is ideal but some people and I bet Panto is included that he was turned off by it and I can totally see where he is coming from. I just hope he can find a GOOD church and not one that commonsensethinker has described (I doubt commonsense’s described church exists).
Report Post »