News

Bill Nye visits Noah’s Ark theme park

Bill Nye, known from his 1990s TV show as "The Science Guy," tours the exhibits aboard the full-scale replica of Noah's ark at the Ark Encounter theme park in Williamstown, Ky., with Ken Ham, president and CEO of Answers in Genesis. Photo courtesy of Answers in Genesis

(RNS) Bill Nye, known from his 1990s TV show as “The Science Guy,” toured the new Ark Encounter theme park in Kentucky with the head of the Christian apologetics ministry behind it.

And it was “like the debate all over again but more intense at times,” according to a blog post by Ken Ham, president and CEO of Answers in Genesis. Ham also posted on social media about Nye’s visit, which occurred on Friday (July 8).

“Bill challenged me about the content of many of our exhibits, and I challenged him about what he claimed and what he believed,” Ham said on Facebook. “It was a clash of world views.”


RELATED: A flood of guests expected as Noah’s Ark theme park opens in Kentucky


“I chose to visit the Ark Encounter to see for myself the extent of its influence on young people,” Nye said Monday in a written statement.

“The influence is strong. I spoke with a lot of kids (and took a great many selfies). Almost all of them do not accept that humans are causing climate change — and that is the Answers In Genesis ministry’s fault. Through its dioramas and signage, the organization promotes ideas that are absolutely wrong scientifically, while suppressing critical thinking in our students — which is in no one’s best interest, conservative or progressive.”

Ham and Nye famously debated creation and evolution in 2014 at Answers in Genesis’ Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., about 45 minutes from the Ark Encounter. Afterward, Nye had said he hoped the planned theme park wouldn’t be built because it would “indoctrinate children into this extraordinary and outlandish, unscientific point of view,” according to The Associated Press.

Answers in Genesis promotes a view sometimes called “young Earth creationism” — that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, that humans once lived alongside dinosaurs and that the six-day creation and flood accounts found in the first 10 chapters of the biblical book of Genesis are literally, historically true.

By contrast, Nye and other scientists estimate the Earth is more than 4 billion years old and say life on Earth has evolved over that time.

Bill Nye, known from his 1990s TV show as "The Science Guy," tours the exhibits aboard the full-scale replica of Noah's ark at the Ark Encounter theme park in Williamstown, Ky., with Ken Ham, president and CEO of Answers in Genesis. Photo courtesy of Answers in Genesis

Bill Nye, known from his 1990s TV show as “The Science Guy,” tours the exhibits aboard the full-scale replica of Noah’s ark at the Ark Encounter theme park in Williamstown, Ky., with Ken Ham, president and CEO of Answers in Genesis. Photo courtesy of Answers in Genesis

Ham said he had invited Nye to tour the Ark Encounter several weeks before it opened to the public on July 7 in Williamstown, Ky. The 800-acre park includes a full-scale replica of Noah’s ark, built to the dimensions recorded in Genesis, with three decks of exhibits explaining Answers in Genesis’ views of the biblical flood account and depicting what life on the ark might have been like.

More than 30,000 people have visited the theme park between a preview and ribbon cutting Tuesday and Sunday, according to the Ark Encounter.


RELATED: Excerpts from the Ham on Nye showdown


Ham said on Facebook the two had discussed what happens after death as they toured the ark, surrounded by surprised visitors. Nye answered him that when you die, “you’re done,” he said.

“I then asked him why he was concerned about what we were teaching at the Ark if when we die we’re ‘done,'” Ham said.

“He also stated that it’s ‘not crazy to believe we descended from Martians.’ I then asked Nye if it was ‘crazy to believe we descended from Adam and Eve!'”

The Answers in Genesis president said the tour ended “with a friendly handshake” and with him praying for Nye in front of a display showing Noah and his family praying together aboard the ark.

Nye’s assessment was also optimistic, but in a different way:

“On a hopeful note, the parking lots were largely empty, and the ark building is unfinished. We can hope it will close soon.”

About the author

Emily McFarlan Miller

Emily McFarlan Miller is a national reporter for RNS based in Chicago. She covers evangelical and mainline Protestant Christianity.

267 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Bill Nye is my hero, but atheists don’t know with any more certainty what happens after we die than religious people do. I have a real problem with the condescending atheists who are so sure they’re right.

    Teaching Bible stories is fine, as long as it isn’t presented as scientific fact, or misquoted and abused to hold power over others. Like the mythology of any culture, it teaches us how we should act and live our lives through examples and storytelling, it’s our moral cookbook for living.

    Just remember, this story comes from the region around the Nile River valley, which flooded regularly. Flood stories are also found in the mythologies of peoples around the world and across time.

  • I applaud you for a reasoned tone in your remarks, I would tend to disagree about the scientific accuracy of what the bible declares when it is parsed accurately. Given that the mythologies of many peoples from across the globe contain a flood narrative, wouldn’t that be an argument for an earth encompassing flood? Unless, of course. the “myth” merely migrated from Mesopotamia.

  • I think it would be an argument about as strong as an argument for dragons, or extraterrestrials, or witches. It would have the same patchy geographic coverage, the same tendancy to migrate like the myth you described, and the same vague descriptions which allow for wide interpretation.

  • It’s an obvious conclusion to jump too. That because multiple cultures across the globe have all gestured to great floods that a global flood took place, but remember that during that particular time frame that people thought the whole world was the continent or even just the land around them. A worldly flood could simply be the region and field of view around them no more than 50 to 100 miles.

  • Sooo… Nye goes to a place that advocates young-earth creation as a hard science.

    And his biggest concern is that he thinks it somehow teaches kids global warming isn’t real??

    Nye, methinks you are confusing correlation with causation.

  • No! The Flood stories are from the region of the Tigris and the Euphrates. UR of the Chaldees where supposedly Abraham originated has shown to have a more than 30 foot
    sediment layer from the Great Flood. There are many creation myths. If you are interested read the one that predates Genesis by 1000 years. [The Epic of Gilgamesh]. There you will find another “Noah” story with a much more interesting Ark. Enjoy!

  • The mythologies and religions of many peoples across time and geography have a lot of similarities. Crucified saviors, born of a virgin in a manger/hovel/cave, are to be found everywhere. Resurrected man gods ditto.

    “Bible myths and their parallels in other religions” by TW Doane is an exhaustively researched book from about 130 years ago, it makes for fascinating readings on religion.

  • Nye is correct that Ken Ham’s version of young-earth creationism tends to reject (and not by accident) either that climate change is happening or that climate change is an important issue needing addressing. One paper on Ham’s AnswersinGenesis website states:

    It can be expected that several trends evident since the Flood, however, will continue: sea level will rise as polar glaciers continue to melt, and deserts will expand. These trends, as we have shown, have little to do with CO2, they are a consequence of a God-ordained event, the Flood.

  • “indoctrinate children into this extraordinary and outlandish, unscientific point of view,” Bill Nye.

    I think this is a widely shared concern. Being taught that well-established science is not true breeds doubt of all sorts of scientific facts. The human race needs to respect science as a means of preserving ecosystems, species, even the planet. People like Ham present a danger to humanity.

    Science is not the only problem. If children are taught that the Bible is literally, word for word true, all sorts of nasty, detrimental human behaviors could be sanctioned. Some already are. Radical Christianists have no less potential for danger than radical Islamists.

  • Hello. This is a very interesting article. If you are currently struggling with understanding what the purpose of your life it, I encourage you to keep on seeking. You are potentially on the most exciting journey of your life. For 25 years, I was a staunch atheist. Coming around to the other side, I can now tell you that loud and vocal atheists are merely selfish, self-serving, empty and joyless people. They may have fleeting happiness caused by money, possessions, perceived control or importance, temporary power, arrogance, hate, different forms of drugs and alcohol, and many other things, but they have no joy or peace in their hearts and in their lives. A person who shakes his or her little fist at God is using the brain that God gave them to glorify Him and to serve others, and is instead trying to FORCE other people to be unhappy like them. It is truly sad that many men and women’s hearts are void of love and truth, as mine was for over 25 years. Atheists are only angry toward Christianity because deep down within their hearts they know that it is TRUE. Atheists would never even visit or take seriously a group of people who built a theme park of genies and trolls, claiming that we all turned into unicorns when we die, no matter how large or fantastic that exhibit was. Atheists come against Christianity because, as God has plainly told them, they “by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” The very motivation of it is evil, self-serving, and immature. I encourage all of you to study the VERY MISSING “fossil record” claiming to prove that humans came from a random “big bang” explosion, producing monkeys that then over an incredibly long time became human beings. Please then study the truth about carbon dating, study the science behind it, and the inherent flaws with this “science” that actually disproves the thoughtless position about humans having evolved RANDOMLY from the most basic of particles. WAKE UP AMERICA! Slowly this country is becoming like China- where free thought is not tolerated, and everyone must move with the masses like a braindead slug. And we are doing this to ourselves– All simply due to our own hard, calloused hearts, and our opposition to integrity, honor, righteousness and truth. We are being told that our gender is not what we are born to be– and what makes us very biologically different, special and unique from persons of the opposite gender, but that it is rather “what you feel like it is.” Use your brain and examine the truth for yourself! Don’t take someone else’s word for it– no matter who that person is. There is no greater mental prison than that of a closed mind, repeatedly denying the obvious that is all around you in all that you see- and thereby living a life founded upon intellectual dishonesty. “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance- that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” Ask yourself the tough questions. Do your own research on every issue, and never be a robot who just repeats what they heard someone else say. I truly wish each and every one of you the best.

  • Why do I get the feeling you were raised by fundamentalists and think atheists are people who just attack Christianity for its own sake. This is a typical phony “ex atheist” spiel common to fundies.

    I will be frank here, I think you are BS’ing us here. It also doesn’t help that there is no such thing as an honest creationist. The position requires !ying to others about one’s faith and the lack of need for it in your religious belief.

    Bearing false witness is a sin, except when doing it for your best bud Jesus. 🙂

  • “Flood stories are also found in the mythologies of peoples around the world and across time”

    But almost none of them have much in common. Creationists like to fudge differences with cultures few are familiar with. Fabrications of similarities with the Noah/Sumerian stories are commonplace.

    Flood myths are common because floods were common to ancient early agriculture. Ones which developed as riverine cultures. (See Guns, Germs & Steel, by Jared Diamond)

    This is not teaching the Bible as Myth. Therefore it’s conceptually and factually wrong. The atheists are spot on in their criticism of this thing as perpetuating religious cretinism

  • “Given that the mythologies of many peoples from across the globe contain a flood narrative, wouldn’t that be an argument for an earth encompassing flood”

    Not at all. Flood myths vary wildly from culture to culture. There is no unified flood myth or even similar ones from far flung cultures.

    Are floods so uncommon around the world that they are a unique phenomenon? Of course not. Not even remotely. They are regular things for riverine cultures. The first to develop agriculture. The first literate cultures.

    You find few similarities with flood myths outside of areas where cultural diffusion was common. Mesopotamia was a crossroad between several cultures, empires, and peoples.

  • There was no great flood. Do you have a source for the sediment thing that isn’t a creationist site?

  • You are arguing from ignorance. Evolutionists want you to “believe” that it is well-established science, but the theory has changed so much from its roots that even one scientist stated once that everything he was taught about it that caused him to believe it in the first place has since been proven wrong. But he still believes it anyway. Some things that “are” firmly established, however, are that there is no evidence that life ever came from non-life and that it is mathematically impossible according to the law of probability.

    The Bible is also not taught as literal, but rather that it is historically accurate and can be taken in its plain reading as truthful. The word literal is not what is being taught.

  • You want to believe this person is lying about his former atheism because you want to deny the truth. You can’t conceive of this being true and yet deep in your heart you know it is.

  • No I believe the guy is lying because I have heard this spiel before from 1iars before. Its not the first time I have seen this ploy, nor going to be the last. One must bear in mind that not everyone is as naive as someone who claims the world is only 6000 years old.

    Deep in my heart, I know your beliefs are your own. Mine are my own. If you want people to respect your beliefs, its best not to insult their intelligence with clearly obvious mendacity.

  • Anyone who is using the term “Evolutionist” is not arguing from ignorance. They are displaying their ignorance proudly for all to see. Evolution is as much of a belief as gravity, germs, atoms and everything else described under the scientific term theory.

    “one scientist stated once that everything he was taught about it that caused him to believe it in the first place has since been proven wrong”

    Whose name is……..?

    Creationism is simply a form of lying on behalf of your religious faith. It is not only dishonest in its attack on scientific principles, research, and evidence, but also conceptually. A creationist lies about their reliance on faith for their religious belief.

    All religious belief is based on faith. But the Creationist doesn’t trust faith for its power to convince people. So they deny faith. They claim it isn’t necessary since the “evidence and rational methods of proof clearly demonstrates the factual truth of my belief”. The problem being, no Creationist will ever accept evidence or rational methods of proof which will disprove the truth of their belief. So they don’t really believe or rely on such things at all. Its all a cover for their faith. The faith they lied about being unnecessary.

    Anyone who believes in Biblical is historical is misinformed. One of the most irritating things for archaeologists in the Middle East are their psuedo-academic (read: crackpot) “Biblical” archaeologists. People who claim the historicity of the Bible as a given and simply look for evidence to confirm it. The complete opposite of rational and scientific study.

  • Just about everything you said is actually true of evolutionists, not creationists. Especially about not accepting any evidence to disprove their belief. All evidence says that life can’t come from non-life and yet you believe it. The law of probability says it’s impossible and yet you believe it. The complete lack of a fossil record to show evolution to be true and yet you still believe it. Soft tissues in dinosaur bones disproves millions of years yet you still believe it. Radiometric dating is flawed and based on unproved assumptions and yet you still have faith in it. And so on. The list is endless.

  • Not even close. Your use of the term “evolutionist” is already a dishonest representation. Evolution is not a belief at all. It is a scientific theory supported by evidence and research. It requires no faith or pre existing religious ideas.

    “All evidence says that life can’t come from non-life and yet you believe it.”

    Not evolution. Not true either. The definition of life has changed over time. Experiments have produced building blocks of life in a lab. I believe it because there is evidence to that effect. The need to misrepresent facts is necessary to creationists.

    “The complete lack of a fossil record to show evolution to be true and yet you still believe it.”

    Completely untrue and another sign of your ignorance. Fossil records are never going to be complete because fossilisation requires special conditions which aren’t necessarily met when every animal dies. Your saying it doesn’t demonstrate evolution is just a flat out lie.

    “Radiometric dating is flawed and based on unproved assumptions and yet you still have faith in it.”

    Another flat out lie by Creationists. The ability to make half life calculations of radioactive materials date back to the early 20th century. It’s amazing how many different scientific disciplines you have to ignore and make stuff up for to support the lazy utterly scientifically useless idea “God did it like in Genesis”. You need to deny all study in biology, geology and now physics.

  • As intelligent and rational as Bill Nye is, it’s a wonder he hasn’t figured out that ignorance tends to be much more influential than knowledge, and that you can never win an argument with a fool. What bigger fool is there than an adult who believes the Noah’s Ark story is anything more than a fairy tale designed to appeal to children to aid in the indoctrination of the Christian faith?

  • I know that the Earth is older than 6,000 years, because I’ve waited longer than that in line at the DMV.

  • Hi Spuddie, I hope that you are doing well. I’m sorry that I came across as something other than genuine and myself in my post. In your search for why we are here, I encourage you to try to keep and open mind– and to try not to accuse other people of lying regarding their stories about their lives. Suffice it to say that I everything that I wrote in my post is true—– why else would I waste my time on some silly website other than to speak right from my heart about something that struck me internally as being necessary and important? Yes, there are, unfortunately, many bad examples of Christ in people claiming to follow Him. I don’t know what else I can do other than to apologize for that. If you ever come to faith yourself, you’ll understand– Following and imitating, relying on the Spirit of God in order to reflect Him is not an easy job. In fact, it is the hardest thing that a human being could ever do. I hope that you remain open and patient enough to one day meet (in person or through their writings) someone who is the real deal. There are many. C.S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, Jim Caviezel, Nicky Cruz, Jon Courson, and Lee Strobel are a few men that I personally respect. We are all imperfect Spuddie. But the proof is in the pudding when someone really has an encounter with God. Believe it or not, there have been millions of people (if not more) who WERE NOT raised by “fundamentalist parents” and have come to faith in Jesus Christ. Please. Meet me in the middle Spuddie. My parents were the exact opposite of your assumptions and your accusations— And that is why when I finally did come to God, it meant so very much to me. I’d NEVER experienced anything even remotely like it growing up. I grew up in the COMPLETE absence of God, and my life showed it. I’d love to continue talking with you if you’d like. My email address is [email protected]. I wish you the best man. Take care.

  • Well that was dripping with insincerity and passive aggressive sentiment.

    Have you ever heard of the paragraph break?

  • Yes there is, it’s called a Rhinoceros. The Biblical unicorn represents a type of horned animal.

  • The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.

  • No. It matters why and how you believe something is true. If you are using irrational and spurious means to get to a belief then it is not really going to be taken at face value.

    Creationists are dishonest by nature. The belief demands lying to others. It demands making irrational appeals and demonstrating willful ignorance for the purposes of furthering a narrow sectarian agenda.

  • Once you admit Creationism is based entirely on your religious faith, you have refuted its premise. Btw most of Christianity rejects Creationist garbage. So equating creationism with belief in God or even Christianity is a false association.

  • Nope its a unicorn.
    http://www.npr.org/2016/07/05/484756640/life-size-noahs-ark-to-open-amid-a-flood-of-skepticism

    They also included dinosaurs using models which are considered obsolete representations based on current evidence. Closer to Spielberg than paleontology
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/noahs-ark-dinosaurs_us_577d9ff8e4b0344d514dea93

    Since Creationists never do work to advance the knowledge of the world around them, they are left imitating Hollywood.

  • Thank you for refuting Creationism. The whole idea of Creationism is the claim that one does not need faith to believe in your fundamentalist literal version of the Bible. That the evidence and scientific study proves it to be true.

    Now you have admitted Creationism REQUIRES faith. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Therefore any claim that Creationism can be shown to be objectively true based on evidence is a complete lie.

    Evolution does not require any form of faith. it is accepted because the evidence and research show it to be true. Not only that, there are no competing theories which are as close to as effective in interpreting biological research. Even more importantly, every biologist would love to be the person to disprove evolution. They would be immortalized. Like Darwin, people would remember them centuries later. But the evidence simply isn’t there. So it remains.

    Thanks to your admission, it is absolutely certain nobody has to accept Creationism to be factually acceptable. Your belief in it is faith, not reason or evidence. Nobody has to accept anything based on faith.

  • This could be the dumbest statement on the internet today. Not only is it fact, it is repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. If you say, “well, it is a theory”, please Google ‘scientific theory’ and click any of the 297 million links.

  • The Ark Encounter cost the Kentucky taxpayers $85 million. They could have used this money to actually educate their kids rather than build a fantasy world (yes, fantasy world) that will be closed in 2 years.

  • You have that backwards – scientists know most of what happens when a person dies, on the other hand, religious believers merely pretend they know, with the result that if all human knowledge were lost and had to be created we would eventually arrive at similar conclusions regarding scientific knowledge, however religious beliefs on creationism and the afterlife would not be the same, as can be seen with the many, many other religions that preceded Christianity – all of which contradict each other. There is no god, there is no afterlife and what you do, and who you are will be your only legacy.

  • It’s worth pointing out that the Ark narrative is actually a very precise hypothesis. If you reduced the population size of all terrestrial animals (well, vertebrates, I guess…did Noah collect insects?) down to one pair each around 5,000 years ago, you’d get a really strong signal in gene trees from pretty much every gene and organism you looked at. Those genes would branch out from a coalescence about 5,000 years ago, and while there would be cases where a couple of versions of a gene made it through the Ark episode, the overall concordance would make for a screaming signal in DNA data. That signal would also be in stark contrast to non-Ark species (everything aquatic, right?), which would have gene trees that coalesced much farther into the past, and at a variety of times. In other words, the Ark “hypothesis” makes some really clear and strong predictions about what we should find in gene diversity, based on stuff like mutation and diploid inheritance that are not at all controversial, as they are observed routinely in the lab (and nature).

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, the data are utterly at odds with the Ark “hypothesis”. Those clear predictions, following straight from the narrative, are utterly absent in the vast collections of DNA data we have from existing animals. The points of origin of genes vary widely, are mostly much deeper than 5,000 years, and do not have the kind of qualitative distinction between terrestrial and aquatic species predicted by the Ark narrative.

    So in one way, the Ark story is a good hypothesis, in that it makes clear implicit predictions about what we should find when we examine lots of DNA data (it’s quite testable). And when we examine that DNA data, the Ark narrative fails miserably. In science, when a hypothesis makes predictions that utterly fail to match observations, we toss it out. What folks like Ken Ham do is another thing altogether.

  • Religion is for yourself. If you choose to believe in any book, written by humans or aliens or L. Ron Hubbard that’s your deal. But don’t push it on anyone else. If everyone who attends this park is told false facts, then they will not be informed. People in Scientology are not well-informed. People in any religion that makes you literally believe in fables, stories, fantasies, are not well-informed.

    The problem is when they go out and vote against things like climate change policies or civil rights for people they are taught are not worthy. That’s when it affects others.

  • Just on a practical end, Noah and family would have died from the sanitary issues from all the animal effluvia impregnating every surface of the ship.

    Plus ancient ships could not keep water seepage from the hulls for more than 2 weeks at a time. Triremes required dry docking to avoid sinking from hull seepage if at sea for more a week or so. . It was not resolved until about early middle ages.

  • Pithy little chestnuts like that only show how small your mind reaches. In your world, faith in SOMETHING is a must, so you project it where it is not. Evolution only requires observing FACTS, not faith.

  • Darwin was not wrong. You just haven’t taken any anthropology courses, yet are solidly sure of everything. The Bible, as much as I respect it is historicity from oral tradition that was finally written down in a number of different versions over thousands of years, after going through many spoken iterations. Genesis is a Creation story, one of many among different cultures on this earth, if you will be curious enough to look for them or the similarities between them.

  • Wait! What about the searchers for UFO’s and for Big Foot? What about the those 9-11 truthers? What about the fights over vaccinations and drinking water fluoridation?

  • “Experiments have produced building blocks of life in a lab.” Are you referring to the Miller-Urey abiogenesis experiment? I think that (1) The results were a far cry from living cells with DNA strands: (2) Opinions have changed about the environmental conditions when life forms first appeared on earth: and (3) Subsequent experiments have been disappointing.

  • Yep. The origin of life isn’t part of evolutionary theory either.

    Anyway it’s not like criticism of those experiments or even evolution are support for creationism. Scientific ideas require positive evidence, not false dichotomy.

    Fact of the matter is creationism is useless for anything other than trying to browbeat people into accepting fundamentalist protestant belief. Saying “God did it” doesn’t create further avenue for research nor provide interpretation of research and evidence. It’s just lazy nonsense.

  • Scientific education is diminished if it propagates falsehoods.

    The “creation of the building blocks of life in the laboratory” appears to be a scientific myth.

  • Which is why Creationism is so pernicious. It attacks the very nature of scientific education and even education of the scientific method.

  • Not so much myth as I used an obsolete reference. It happens.

    I stand corrected. I was right the first time. Taking you at face value on your assertion, without source was my bad.

  • Hi Spuddie, I hope that you are doing well. I apologize for not spacing out my text. Please let me know if there’s anything that I can do to help you bro. I live in Southern California, and I’d love to meet you and to take you out for lunch if you’re around me. If you knew me, you’d find that I’m nothing like who you think I am. I hope that you’re having a good day today bro. I hope to talk to you soon.

  • In Jesus days, many mocked Him too. “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” John 10:33 “Son, your sins are forgiven.”
    Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Mark 2:5-7 and even his disciple did NOT believe, – Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” John 20:24.

  • “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” Matthew 7:13-14

  • The man does not understand creation dating and neither biblical prophetic time correctly and the earth ages.

    As Evolution goes in the Book of Daniel and Revelation is the BEAST and it there describes the evolution of man. Are of a peoples and a nations and a kingdoms! If you don’t think there’s evolution and man is evolved or evolves you can read about some of it there. In the beginning we also know of our creator.

    I have personally calculated myself in the Bible scriptures the earth to be millions and millions of years old and 3.2 billion years could very well be in the ball park, biblically. But where were you when God created the earth made it such a nice round ball and the sun and the galaxies and the universe? I know it also and with the 6,000 years {of man this round anyway, but not of earth that is forever) you’re still in an infantile stage of learning! Chronology Adam 3975 B.C. and Noah 2319 B.C.

    I am Christian and would agree with Bill Nye and to edify what he is saying is absolutely true. Adam and Noah and Abraham and Moses’ knew of no living dinosaurs in their time and they where extinct long before them and the predated ancestors that creep up on land out of the waters (GENESIS) and of birds that evolved and into an atmospheric pressure twice (two times) what it is today and long prior to the deluge where it became 14.7 psi at sea level as it is now. Expressed as the dew and where man lived a long time during that period and former atmosphere. Now caught up into the 3rd heaven there was also a 2nd. heaven and 1st. heaven and earth ages. So we think to know anything there is so much to ponder! Born in 1951 the year that all carbon dating is based upon yet I don’t believe it is precisely accurate, and I grew up taught of evolution and in creationism as well and have no problems with both are correct to express. That many naive so called Christians also need to hold your mouth arguing and saying fables and what is not true and learn to edify because there is evolution and that you’re only driving people away from God and in denying the truth and about creation and the earth and the times and of man. An important thing evolution is also in part with science physics we should remember that!
    [I Cor. 14:26, Eph. 4:29, I Timothy 1:4]

  • If the 2900 BC Shuruppak flood was only 15 inches of Euphrates river flood silt how to explain the notion it covered “mountains”? The answer is that the Mesopotamian word for “mountain” is KUR. But KUR has several meanings: “mountain,” “land,” “region,” “country” and “the underworld.” Apparently someone misunderstood that the KUR-land or KUR-region about Shuruppak, which had been flooded, was a KUR-mountain and thus the flood came to be understood as covering the world’s mountains. Why the flood? The Mesopotamian account has two groups of gods on the earth, the Annunaki (senior gods) and the Igigi (junior gods). They have bodies of flesh and can die if they have nothing to eat. The Igigi are tasked with caring for the food-producing city-gardens watered by the Euphrates and Hidekkel Rivers (Tigris river). The work is back-breaking, digging irrigation canals and dredging them of clogging silts. The Igigi clamor day and night over this work and are at first ignored by the Annunaki. A rebellion occurs and the Annunaki respond by creating man to do the gardening-work of the Igigi. The clamor of the Igigi is now transferred to man. That is to say, the clamor over back-breaking work is transferred to man. The clamor does not allow the gods to rest by day nor sleep by night. In frustration it is decided to obtain godly rest by killing all of mankind with a flood, the resulting silence will end the clamor in the city gardens located in the land called in Sumerian, the Edin. One the 7th day of the flood man is no more, except for the few on the boat built by the Sumerian Noah. Now, at long last, all the gods CAN REST in peace and silence, for man is not around with his clamor, objecting to the back-breaking labor in Edin’s gardens. Man’s creation gave the gods rest from earthly toil for food from Edin’s gardens, but man’s clamor denied a peaceful rest and sleep to the gods, until they resolved to destroy man. Genesis’ God, Yahweh, rests on a SEVENTH day after CREATION, whereas Mesopotamia’s gods REST ON A SEVENTH DAY after DESTROYING a world. The Hebrews have inverted the Mesopotamian flood myth, replacing a godly act of destruction with creation allowing a god to rest. For details Google Walter R. Mattfeld, Noah’s Flood and the Shuruppak Flood. All this is to say Polytheistic Edin’s motifs and scenarios were recast by the Hebrews into a Monotheistic account, to refute the Mesopotamian explanations for why man was created and why a flood occurred.

  • The Shuruppak flood layer was dated to circa 2900 BC, the bibical flood is dated circa 2340 BC and no such silt layer was found at the site. In fact there is no 2340 BC flood silt layer anywhere in the Middle East: Egypt, Canaan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Mesopotamia, proving Noah’s 3rd millennium BC flood is a myth and a recasting of the 3rd millennium BC river flood found at Shuruppak.

  • Ignorance knows no bounds in America. Hey, guns are being allowed at the GOP convention up to a certain point. Noah’s Ark is part of creation ?
    This dovetails into everything as absurd as my son is going to become gay because he saw a transgender man in the men’s room.

  • Without an understanding of what reality truly is, we can not prove if the earth is 6,000 or 4 billion years old. What we do know though is channeling all of those resources (worth $100 million?) into constructing a ridiculous ark is an obscene waste of opportunity to do good.

  • Here again, Mr Nye is using the word “science” as though it is some mantra of a secret society somewhere, and if you do not belong among the initiates you are insulted and derogated. Those of the opposition have to subscribe to their position on an attitude of faith as well as we do to ours. Those of the opposition are summarily guilty of indoctrination. There is a science that can apply to the events of the Biblical Flood. The public school system is nothing but a propaganda machine for all disciplines for the socialistic left. This is part and parcel of the dumbing down of America. They are ignoring the mechanics of how Mt. St. Hellens can apply to the Grand Canyon. They are ignoring how the fossil graveyards around the globe can form in one year not millions.

  • People think they are evolved and yet they are believing and following the teachings of books written thousands or years ago by men who had not idea of why it rained, why they needed to breathe or as much as a 10 year old knows today and yet we believe their accounts of things simply because some religious authority selected their writings and said they were inspired by god who strangely enough is powerless to change anything on earth or be seen since mankind got educated. I gave up on the fools of the world. Let them waste their lives living them according to some ancient rules. We are not evolved at all, we still have our priests who maintain power over large groups of people and draw their income and riches from them.

  • The Ark would not have had that “bubble” that is at the bottom of the bow of the thing. This Ark was constructed according to modern standards not ancient ones. AND, they should charge ten dollars not the forty they are asking for admission in order for me to even visit the thing. But the New Testament notes, “Freely received, freely give”.

  • Bill ought to back off a bit. Those that put their faith in James Ussher are unlikely to be dissuaded by science, those that apply scientific method are equally unlikely to be persuaded by creationism and similar doctrine. Their kids will probably be equally segregated in the job market……

  • Wrong. Origin of life is part of the general theory of evolution. You can see proof of this in George Kerkut’s book Implications of Evolution.

    https://archive.org/details/implicationsofev00kerk

    Chapter 2, page 6.

    And since there is no evidence that life came from non-life, the theory is unscientific and unreasonable. It defies the law of probability. Thus, it is simply a belief.

  • Your source is over 55 years old and frequently quote mined and taken out of context by Creationists.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/author.html

    http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IAorigintheory.shtml

    Misconception: “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.”
    “Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory.

    As for your [n_coast] assertion of life from non-life, you are simply choosing to both ignore evidence and seek an easy answer to a subject which requires more study. Your criticism of the Miller Urey experiments appears to be unduly harsh. My guess is it was in bad faith. My bad for taking you at face value there.

    ” The 1953 Miller-Urey experiment, for example, simulated early Earth’s atmosphere with nothing more than water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane and an electrical charge standing in for lightning, and produced complex organic compounds like amino acids. Now, scientists have learned more about the environmental and atmospheric conditions on early Earth and no longer think that the conditions used by Miller and Urey were quite right. However, since Miller and Urey, many scientists have performed experiments using more accurate environmental conditions and exploring alternate scenarios for these reactions. These experiments yielded similar results – complex molecules could have formed in the conditions on early Earth.”
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/origsoflife_06

    The last part seems to refute the “Subsequent experiments have been disappointing.” assertion. Oh well.

    Evolution theory does not depend on divining the origins of life. Never has been. Even at conception Darwin didn’t address the subject. Study of the origins of life is an entirely different discipline than run of the mill evolutionary biology. More biochemistry and physics akin than the taxonomy, molecular biology and genetics research done in the field.

    So either you are far behind on your knowledge of the subject, or willfully choosing to ignore what is out there. Creationism by its nature involves dishonesty. By its very nature it posits lazy, misconceived and intentionally fictitious issues in order to attack clear scientific research and evidence gathered for over a century

  • Don’t get hoodwinked, Tommy like I have in the past by frauds that have ID/Creationist sites under the guise of being an academic institute that are notorious for quote mining and are not open to comments and questioning. So far, on forums, when I give these frauds the contacts and email addresses of faculty members they have quote mined, all came up with some lame excuse not to contact them except for one, but none of them ever get back to me in regards to the quotes and info they misused to confirm what the authors meant. I now go with institutions as where discoveries/breakthroughs have been made in technology, medicine, and cosmology instead of institutions and sites that appeal to sheeple that mostly want their theologically based beliefs “confirmed”. I found it very important to take the time to evaluate a source for bias and credibility.

  • George Kerkut was an zoolologist and biochemist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_A._Kerkut

    The book is real. The problem being that it is old and taken out of context by a dishonest Creationist. Published in 1960. Only 7 years after the discovery of DNA, 30 years before gene mapping.

    Much of the criticism made the book, The Implications of Evolution was based on lack of evidence. Much of that criticism is no longer valid as evidence and methodologies have improved vastly in that time.

    If anything the Genome Project has delivered clear evidence of evolution which would have been impossible when Kekrut wrote his book.
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html

  • “Creationism requires faith in God.” But the reverse is not true. A belief in God does not require a belief in creationism the way it is defined. I believe in God and Jesus, but I don’t believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. And I would say that the vast majority of Christians believe the same way I do.

  • I am a ‘non-believer’ but I hate it when atheists feel compelled to try and show how much smarter they are. It simply doesn’t matter. People who are interested in science and learning will do so. Those who wish to believe things that make make their lives better for them should have the right to do so. Is Bill going to ban Harry Potter next? How about all the incorrect physics in the original Star Trek series? Is he going to ban Star Trek? What makes America great is my right to spend my time working on string theory and my neighbors right to work on biblical writings. There are a lot of Physicists who think I am totally wasting my time. They may be right. But it is my time to waste.

  • The christian god has promised “Peace on earth, and good will among men” for 6,000 years.
    STILL WAITING !!!

  • “Bill challenged me about the content of many of our exhibits, and I challenged him about what he claimed and what he believed”

    So you were asked valid questions and you dodged them all with nonsense.

  • creationism requires blind rejection of facts.
    evolution requires investigation of evidence.

  • “Your source is over 55 years old and frequently quote mined and taken out of context by Creationists.”

    Time doesn’t change truth. The Origin of Species is much older and yet you still accept that. It is not quote mined or taken out of context. I pointed you to the actual book and cited the page. It is there as plain as can be. There is no need to quote mine anything.

    The Miller-Urey experiment did not demonstrate life came from non-life. The very experiment assumes that the conclusion is true to begin with. You have to assume the big bang happened in order to then assume what an early earth atmosphere was like. If the big bang never happened and the earth was created, as we believe, then there never was any such assumed early atmosphere. In any event, the experiment was flawed in many ways including the fact that they deliberately insured that the resulting compounds were not exposed to oxygen so they wouldn’t be destroyed. As well as the fact that it produced a racemic mixture. And, just because there were some so-called basic building blocks of life in no way approaches what was needed for life to form. It’s like saying that if I throw down a bucket of alphabet blocks and I sometimes get a word to form and then assuming that doing so enough times would produce the works of Shakespeare. When examined more closely, the details are lacking and the conclusions don’t support evolution.

    “Evolution theory does not depend on divining the origins of life. Never has been.”

    Asserting this does not make it true. That’s the logical fallacy of proof by assertion. I have shown by Kerkut’s book that you are incorrect in your assertion and yet you continue to make the assertion. Read the reference in the book I cited. You can continue to deny it, but you are incorrect. There’s just no escaping it. Unless you can prove life came from non-life then you have no foundation for your entire belief system.

    “So either you are far behind on your knowledge of the subject, or willfully choosing to ignore what is out there.”

    Actually, as Kerkut’s book states quite clearly, you and others are the ones willfully choosing to ignore it.

    “There are however seven basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussion of Evolution. (1) The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. spontaneous generation…”
    –G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution

    Time doesn’t change truth, but if you think that a book as old as Kerkut’s should be dismissed due to its age then we must do the same with Darwin’s book, which is far older. You may not realize it, but here are Kerkut’s credentials:

    He attended the University of Cambridge from 1945 to 1952 and earned a doctorate in zoology. He went on to establish the Department of Physiology and Biochemistry at University of Southampton
    where he remained throughout his career. He became Professor of
    Physiology and Biochemistry in 1966 and went on to become the Dean of
    Science, Chairman of the School of Biochemical and Physiological
    Sciences and Head of the Department of Neurophysiology.

  • ” I now go with institutions as where discoveries/breakthroughs have been
    made in technology, medicine, and cosmology instead of institutions and
    sites that appeal to sheeple that mostly want their theologically based
    beliefs “confirmed”. I found it very important to take the time to evaluate a source for bias and credibility.”

    Speaking of technology, can you name one technology that depended on the theory of evolution? And speaking of discoveries and breakthroughs, did you not know that many major breakthroughs and discoveries were done by creationist scientists including people like Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, James Clerk Maxwell, etc? And consider how science has been hindered by incorrect evolutionary assumptions such as junk DNA and vestigial organs. You don’t actually still believe that the appendix is vestigial do you?

    It is the God rejecting atheist scientists who are hoodwinking you. Repent and trust in Jesus and your eyes will be opened. Mine were.

  • Why do you claim it is taken out of context? I have read the chapter that clearly and unambiguously states the 7 assumptions of evolution with one being life arising from non-living things. That’s not quote mining. And it can’t be dismissed so easily. Of course the origin of life is part of evolution. If you are assuming a universe that started from a singularity and everything came from that in gradual steps then one of those steps HAD to be life from non-life. Are you seriously denying that simple basic fact?!!!

  • Let me unpack this Gish Gallop of ignorance here:

    “Time doesn’t change truth.”

    Because science never advances with new evidence, improved methodology/technology, and further research? Scientific truth changes over time, that is why it is credible. It incorporates new knowledge and seeks the limits of what we know. Ignorance never changes over time.

    “The Origin of Species is much older and yet you still accept that. It is not quote mined or taken out of context. ”

    No, not really. No scientist references Darwin directly except for dramatic effect. The state of evolutionary biology is so far ahead of what Darwin knew that he is not considered a reliable source on the subject anymore. His basic ideas are proven correct. Even if the exact details have changed. Your claim is like saying that all knowledge of physics ended with Isaac Newton.

    “The Miller-Urey experiment did not demonstrate life came from non-life. The very experiment assumes that the conclusion is true to begin with…..”

    An opinion not shared by anyone in the scientific community. The Miller Urey experiment was subject to review by peers in the field. Peers who found no such methodological defects. Like yourself they were looking for them. Unlike yourself, they were honest about their intentions and findings.

    “You have to assume the big bang happened in order to then assume what an early earth atmosphere was like. If the big bang never happened and the earth was created, as we believe, then there never was any such assumed early atmosphere.”

    False dichotomy. You have to prove the earth was created with positive evidence, not assume based on negative inference. Plus there is nothing credible to back up your assumptions or claims.

    “I have shown by Kerkut’s book that you are incorrect in your assertion ”

    You didn’t read the Kerkut book, if you did you would not try to use it to support Creationism. You are quotemining him. You got the quote from a creationist site and backtracked to find the original source. Also Kerkut’s book is also not a scientific study nor a work which was subject to methodological review. It is a personal musing on the subject. One which is 50+ years out of date on its assumptions and conclusions.

    Kerkut was not a Creationist. Not by a long shot. But being lazy Creationists have keyed in on 2 concepts he coined “Macro-evolution” and “micro-evolution”. Both of which have been discredited in the field of evolutionary biology as a pointless distinction unsupported by the evidence. Creationists use such terms in order to concede their complete lack of credible knowledge in biology and still save face.

    You have to understand, no matter what criticism you have for evolution, at least on an alleged scientific basis, none of that is support for Creationism. There is no zero evidence out there to support Creationism.

  • Kerkut was not a Creationist. You linked to a book source because you got the quote originally from a Creationist site. Hence you don’t go any further about the book or the scientist beyond that little bit. It’s a common ploy. Quotemining Kerkut is common enough that it comes up on searches for “quote mining”. It can be dismissed easily because it is not honestly presented. You are simply doubling down on your misrepresentation here.

    Creationists are dishonest by nature. Creationism is dishonest by conception. As stated previously, its very concept, that Christian fundamentalist Biblical literalism can be objectively proven true without faith required, is false. Creationists have their belief entirely on faith and then make up alleged evidence to confirm it. To provide evidence for the belief they accept precisely in its absence. But in the end, its all a sham. No Creationist will accept evidence which refutes their Christian fundamentalist Biblical literalism, so they are not interested in the whole process anyway. Just one of many 1ies to tell to get to their goal.

  • how about this science… we have been told that Modern Man evolved some 200000 years agl, yet they just found a 1,000,000 year old modern human footprint. Time to change the story, again.
    T-rex bones cracked open to find soft tissue…wow, after 65,000,000 years…time to make up something new. The baseless science story keeps evolving more than life supposedly has!

  • “Because science never advances with new evidence, improved

    methodology/technology, and further research? Scientific truth changes over time, that is why it is credible. It incorporates new knowledge and seeks the limits of what we know. Ignorance never changes over time.”

    If something is proven incorrect over time and replaced by something else then it was never truth to begin with. Again, truth does not change. It is absolute. If science is self-correcting then it was never correct to begin with. You realize you are arguing that because something changes over time that that makes it credible? So, if a little boy’s lies change every time the parents ask him a question that makes his lies more credible. How can you not see what you’re saying?

    “No, not really. No scientist references Darwin directly except for dramatic effect. The state of evolutionary biology is so far ahead of what Darwin knew that he is not considered a reliable source on the subject anymore. His basic ideas are proven correct. Even if the exact details have changed. Your claim is like saying that all knowledge of physics ended with Isaac Newton.”

    This is a great point, but not in your favor, in mine. The fact that you admit the original theory has changed so much that his book isn’t reliable. And yet so many bought it hook line and sinker and even though it’s all been shown to be wrong, the basic concept is still clung to like glue and just modified to be more credible to the modern audience..

    “An opinion not shared by anyone in the scientific community.”

    You are obviously wrong here as many Bible believing Christian scientists reject it. And, of course, you would say they aren’t real scientists and yet they hold degrees from distinguished universities and publish papers and conduct research as any other scientist.

    “The Miller Urey experiment was subject to review by peers in the field.”

    No Christian scientist would have given it a stamp of approval, but then again, they wouldn’t allow such peer review.

    “Peers who found no such methodological defects. Like yourself they were looking for them. Unlike yourself, they were honest about their intentions and findings.”

    Why would they? They desperately want to tout anything as proof of evolution even on the flimsiest of evidence.

    “False dichotomy. You have to prove the earth was created with positive evidence, not assume based on negative inference. Plus there is nothing credible to back up your assumptions or claims.”

    True to some extent, but likewise you must prove it wasn’t created and there is no evidence of that. All supposed evidence assumes you are right to begin with. Isn’t it a popular saying that life evolved at least once in the universe and the evidence given is simply that we are here? Saying we are here therefore it must have happened is to assume you are correct to begin with.

    “You didn’t read the Kerkut book,”

    No, I haven’t read all of it, but I read a bunch of that chapter where the quote came from.

    “if you did you would not try to use it to support Creationism.”

    I never said I was using it to support creation. I used it to prove that the origin of life is considered part of the general theory of evolution. And I proved that point quite amply. And it doesn’t even have to be in a book like that. It’s just obvious. If every came from a big bang and evolved through gradual steps all the way to all the life we have on earth today then either life evolved from non-living things to living things or there is a massive gap in your evolutionary story.

    “You are quotemining him.”

    You don’t understand what quote mining is apparently. It means taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner’s viewpoint. I did not take that quote out of context. In fact, it is precisely the subject of discussion in Kerkut’s book. He is explaining 7 assumptions that are usually left out of evolutionary discussions and one of them is that life arose from non-living things, which is, of course, the origin of life. And my assertion was that the origin of life is part of the general theory of evolution. Therefore, the quote is highly relevant and not taken out of context. Please admit you are wrong on this. You can’t possibly believe that is out of context.

    “Also Kerkut’s book is also not a scientific study nor a work which was subject to methodological review. It is a personal musing on the
    subject. One which is 50+ years out of date on its assumptions and
    conclusions.”

    It doesn’t matter. The part I was referring to is relevant. Kerkut obviously got it. He knew that in order for the whole evolutionary tale to hold up that there had to be a step in the process where life came from non-life. Why you fail to see this is beyond me. So, if the origin of life is not part of evolution then how do you plug the gap? How do you explain how the cosmos evolved to the point of having a planet earth and then skip over the origin of life and get to life? Plug the hole for me and tell me where it came from then.

    “Kerkut was not a Creationist.”

    Never said he was.

    “Not by a long shot. But being lazy Creationists have keyed in on 2 concepts he coined “Macro-evolution” and “micro-evolution”. Both of which have been discredited in the field of evolutionary biology as a pointless distinction unsupported by the evidence. Creationists use such terms in order to concede their complete lack of credible knowledge in biology and still save face.”

    Anyone can see that there has to be a bridge to the gap of the evolution of the cosmos and to life on earth. The reason it is “dismissed” or “discredited” is simply because if more people realized the implications then they would lose more followers to their baseless, house of cards theory. Sweep it under the rug and keep it hush hush so people don’t realize just how shaky the theory really is. In fact, there is absolutely no foundation for it without explaining the origin of life.

    “You have to understand, no matter what criticism you have for evolution, at least on an alleged scientific basis, none of that is support for Creationism. There is no zero evidence out there to support Creationism.”

    First off, it is not creation-ism, it’s simply creation. Ism is added to make it sound unscientific. And you know it. Second, we have the same evidence and creation better explains the evidence than evolution.

    If you think science supports evolution you should consider the fact that the law of probability says that it’s impossible for life to have spontaneously created itself and from we know of biology, life always comes only from life. In addition, there is no known mechanism for new functional information to be added to the genome. And don’t try to give me lame examples like the e coli experiments. Even the scientific paper itself says that the ability to digest citrate was already there and only a mutated switch position caused it to be on all the time. That’s like trying to say a fan evolved the ability to blow air when someone switched it on. An honestly, don’t try to give me any of the other supposed evidences because I’ve seen them all and none of them hold up to scrutiny. If this is something that happens often enough to go from a single cell to human beings with consciousness then the number of credible examples of mechanisms would fill enough books to overflow the library of congress. And yet all we have are a handful of easily refutable examples.

  • “Speaking of technology, can you name one technology that depended on the theory of evolution?”

    Computer artificial intelligence in regards to genetic algorithms, and biotechnology in regards to combinatorial biology, but don’t take my word for it, you can contact Russell J. Howard at Oakbio Inc.

    Or if you prefer a devout Christian, Francisco Ayala. He can be reached at his faculty by email on the Columbia’s University website.

    Can you name one technology that depended on creationism?

    “did you not know that many major breakthroughs and discoveries were done by creationist scientists including people like Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, James Clerk Maxwell, etc?”

    Yes, what else would they have been under Christendom and their locales during that era? Which makes it very impressive what atheists, a minority, have contributed to the betterment of humanity in a world where the stigma attached to atheists limited the good and talented ones in the past from participating in society i.e., becoming leaders in politics or the sciences.

    Did you know that folk like these guys were not creationists? – Atheists, to name a few, like Norman Borloug that saved a billion lives by fixing the world food supply; Jonas Salk discovering and donating the Polio vaccine; Donald A. Henderson saving countless with the eradication of Smallpox; Alan Turing and his Turing Machine and his code breaking that enabled the Allies to defeat the Nazis in many crucial engagements. Did you know many mad men and bad men were creationists; Hitler was a creationist. Godwin’s Law on my part ; )

    The good new nowadays (except in the US due to the stigma attached to non-believers) is good atheists have a chance to become an elected leader of a country, as we have seen in Nordic Countries, some European counties, and Australia twice not to mention other positions of leadership in politics throughout the world. Also in the past as we have seen good atheist elected leaders throughout Europe post WWII (even as early as 1945) that vehemently opposed Stalin’s cold war, created social safety nets, promoted democracy, and free speech to name a few.

    “And consider how science has been hindered by incorrect evolutionary assumptions such as junk DNA and vestigial organs. You don’t actually still believe that the appendix is vestigial do you?”

    This clearly demonstrates your partial knowledge on the Theory of Evolution let alone junk DNA. Please visit Berkeley’s site and start evaluating your sources.

  • “If something is proven incorrect over time and replaced by something else then it was never truth to begin with. Again, truth does not change. It is absolute.”

    That is nonsense. It is truth to the best of our knowledge at the time. It’s amazing how you have to upend any basis for rational and objective study to shoehorn your mythological text into the discussion for non believers. You are telling me any pretense to understanding and accepting scientific ideas is a 1ie on your part. It means nobody has to take any further assertions you make on the subject as honest representation of fact.

    “The basic concept is still clung to like glue and just modified to be more credible to the modern audience..”

    Because the evidence supports it.

    “No Christian scientist would have given it a stamp of approval”

    Because your sectarian belief is far more important than evidence and reliance on scientific methods. You are saying Christians would rather 1ie than accept scientific evidrnce and research. You don’t trust science or how it is given credibility far greater than your religious faith.

    “I never said I was using it to support creation”

    A flat out 1ie right there. You were trying to use Kerkuts musings on the alleged evidentiary issues with evolution to support creationism by negative inference and false dichotomy. Your continued use of an out of date book whose premises are rendered obsolete by new evidence and technology just demonstrates the dishonest nature of your point of view. Rational and objective standards and methods are only a means to an end, not something you actually rely upon.

    “The reason it is “dismissed” or “discredited” is simply because if more people realized the implications then they would lose more followers to their baseless, house of cards theory”

    Complete and utter BS. The scientists who upend evolution would be immortalized as innovators. Not hushed up like religious heretics. Science doesn’t have followers. It has evidence and methods. Your use of the term merely demonstrates the religious and dogmatic nature of your thinking. Not how scientific ideas are adopted.

    “Second, we have the same evidence and creation better explains the evidence than evolution”

    Obviously not, since you rely on obsolete books and use philosophical arguments no later than the 19th century. You also don’t rely on evidence anyway. If you did you would have relied on the plethora of evidence refuting biblical liberalism. Instead of concocting this dishonest view. There is no creation science. There is no research done in service of creationism. Merely glomming off the fringes of real work.

    ” And don’t try to give me lame examples like the e coli experiments. ”

    “don’t try to give me any of the other supposed evidences”

    Thank you for demonstrating that you are not interested in evidence unless it confirms your pre existing view.

    I already consider creationism to be dishonest at its nature, so pretty much any assertion of fact you are claiming is not to be taken at face value without links. I don’t care what your opinion on various scientific developments are because you haven’t demonstrated competence to make such criticism. You don’t even trust scientific methods. But Gishes have to gallop.

  • “Thank you for demonstrating that you are not interested in evidence unless it confirms your pre existing view.”

    That’s not what I meant. I’ve already seen all the supposed evidences and they’ve all been easily refuted. But if you have something new then please present it.

    You still continue to evade my biggest point. And I understand why because you have no reasonable answer. So, I will not continue with any other aspect of this discussion until you can prove you have a foundation for your belief.

    If everything started with a big bang and evolved to all life on earth today then there must be steps somewhere along the line from non-life to life. Show the scientific proof that this actually occurred.

    I will repeat the above paragraph alone until you actually address it.

  • It’s exactly what you demonstrated. That “Bible believing Christians” (which evidently excludes all Catholics and most protestant sects) will ignore evidence and research vetted in the field which is contrary to their alleged beliefs.

    “I’ve already seen all the supposed evidences and they’ve all been easily refuted”

    Yet you provide nothing credible to support that claim. You opinion on such matters is worthless unless you can show why you have to be education, knowledge and skills,in the field necessary to upend scientific principles accepted in the field.

    “But if you have something new then please present it”

    I don’t have to prove anything to you. The scientific community already accepts evolution as the standard based on accumulated evidence and research. Since you are making the claim to upend such things, the burden is on you to provide clear proof to the contrary.

    “You still continue to evade my biggest point”.

    It’s a dishonest representation of evidence, methods and research. One does not lend credence to dishonesty by taking it at face value. If you want evidence of the big bang, there are plenty of sources from the astrophysics community to chose from. Do your own homework. There is no need to assume God in anything. Your inability to leave an issue open for further study shows how little you value scientific methods.

    As for the rest, you are making a fallacious point based on negative inference and false dichotomy. Biblically literal God being the default for when you are too ignorant and lazy to find an answer to an issue. Rather than leave a question open until further evidence is gathered. You don’t trust, know about or depend on scientific evidence or methods. More to the point it is insulting to religion by making God a function of your ignorance.

    Evolutionary biology has gotten along fine by leaving the issue of life’s origins open until further data can be found. It has no bearing on the study of how life develops.

    “So, I will not continue with any other aspect of this ”

    You have already proven everything I said about creationists. They don’t trust or really accept scientific evidence or methods. Only use whatever gets them to a given goal. Creationism is entirely sectarian in its acceptance. Creationists dishonestly present their case. (Quote mining, burden shifting, phony citation methods…)

  • You have evaded once again,

    If everything started with a big bang and evolved to all life on earth
    today then there must be steps somewhere along the line from non-life to life. Show the scientific proof that this actually occurred.

  • Don’t have to. I can leave the issue open until there is more data. I never have to assume the biblical literal God for anything. Science requires positive evidence not negative inference. Experiments have already posited how it might have happened. Your refusal to accept them isn’t my problem. It’s yours.

    In science when there is insufficient evidence an issue is held open for further study. In religious fanatical dishonesty, you just automatically say “God did it” and stop using your head.

    Since you have provided bupkiss to support your creationist ideas, I don’t have to do anything . Your claims of lack of evidence or ideological flaws don’t act as support here. I only have to say the scientific community has already established such things to the best of their abilities. Of you want to challenge that you need your own evidence.

  • “Don’t have to. I can leave the issue open until there is more data.”

    Incorrect. You either must provide the irrefutable evidence that it happened or you have to admit it is just a belief. Something is always just a belief until evidence proves one correct. You cannot rely on future data that might never exist. Because that means you are appealing to prophecy and are predicting the future. You cannot know that there will ever be data to prove your point. Thus, you must either provide the proof or admit it is a belief and not proven science.

  • Well, in the first it wasn’t even written by Christians, and certainly not necessarily to that end, so that would make you ignorant, and would make your statement foolish.
    The Book of Genesis, even if you believe the apostate liberals, was around for a long time before Christ came bodily in 4 BC.

  • Because you, an admittedly dishonest amateur seeking to challenge well established scientific principles demands it and is too lazy to support their claim?

    “Something is always just a belief until evidence proves one correct”

    Of an idea is established scientific principle it has already been proven correct to the best of their knowledge, education and technology. Such is the nature of the scientific method. If the methods employed are vetted in the field, one can accept the evidence and research as credible on it’s face. My work was already done. You are trying to refute and challenge all that pre existing evidence. You have to prove to me why I should care about your ideas. I don’t have to prove anything to you. It’s already been done.

    Your opinion on the subject doesn’t mean squat unless you have evidence, research and proper methodological vetting to support it.

    ” You either must provide the irrefutable evidence that it happened or you have to admit it is just a belief”

    No I don’t. I can say to the best of our knowledge this can be inferred, but at this point we don’t know exactly. I don’t need “irrefutable evidence”. I can leave something open for further study.

    Since your creationist belief is entirely based on faith, the belief in the absence of evidence, any alleged criteria from from about the sufficiency of evidence is just dishonest prattling. You don’t require evidence for your belief but demand such in order to refute it.

    As for “proven science” you have already demonstrated a complete disregard for scientific methods and evidence. So your comments on what is proven or otherwise is useless nonsense.

    So where is your evidence of the biblical literal Genesis story? Why would anyone have to believe in creationism given such dishonest approaches and a complete and total absence of evidence to support it? Attacking evolution won’t help you here.

  • The challenge for Christians is that Christ commanded his believers to share what they’d been taught. The original believers were also encouraged to participate in the world around them. Both present problems for those who would rather they take one verse in the Bible about hiding their prayers in a closet out of context.

  • There are many Christians who believe that there was (and is) a Creator to the Universe that have very little in agreement with much that Ken Ham has to say. I see the need to dismiss all of Christian believers with blanket statements based on partial evidence, but if we’re not to do that with Science, how come it’s alright in reverse?

  • At the same time, having an engineer who once made a TV show be represented as the face and voice of scientists worldwide and over the course of history seems equally problematic.

  • “Because you, an admittedly dishonest amateur seeking to challenge well
    established scientific principles demands it and is too lazy to support
    their claim?”

    I never admitted I was dishonest. You simple assert that. I am an honest man.

    “No I don’t. I can say to the best of our knowledge this can be inferred,
    but at this point we don’t know exactly. I don’t need “irrefutable
    evidence”. I can leave something open for further study.”

    Yes, you do. Inferring something simply because you’ve already decided it’s true is not scientific. You not only don’t know exactly, you don’t know period. That’s unscientific. You only have a belief that it happened.

    “As for “proven science” you have already demonstrated a complete disregard for scientific methods and evidence.”

    Asserting something doesn’t make it true. Show me the proof that I disregard scientific methods and evidence. You don’t even know me, You have no clue how much research and study I’ve done in this area. Your accusations are baseless and incorrect.

  • I already had two creationist here (Darwinwaswrong and Tommy) admitting their beliefs depends on adherence to a given religious faith, not scientific evidence and methods. Tommy provided the evidence for the disregard creationist have for things which would refute their claims. Hence his constant burden shifting and god in the gaps arguments.

    If you want to challenge my take on creationists grow a spine and do so directly.

    As I see it, they are an entirely dishonest bunch. Even creationists don’t really believe what they spout. It’s all just a way to garner acceptance for their religious belief beyond the limits faith can provide. Since they don’t really care about the veracity of their claims, they can change them constantly to meet the obvious deficiencies which pop up. Once you start 1ying you don’t ever have to stop.

  • If you are saying creationism depends on Christian belief, you have refuted its very premise. It is the admission that it is not an objective and rational belief based evidence but an expression of faith.

  • Because your Christian belief exists in the absence of evidence, not in its presentation.

  • Not at all. Bill Nye is a qualified scientific educator. One who depends on established scientific principles and evidence. He is not a scientist so much as a representative for the community with a media friendly demeanor. People don’t rely on Nye for info, they rely on the people Nye relies on.

  • Please provide links to your assertions. Creationists are too notoriously dishonest to take at face value for such things.

  • You admitted that Bible Believing Christians should reject validated scientific evidence just on the basis of their beliefs. An admission of the dishonesty of your demands for evidence as you can get. You also attacked scientific methods for being based on available evidence and tried to make claims that a quote mine from an obsolete text needs to be taken seriously.

    “Inferring something simply because you’ve already decided it’s true is not scientific.”

    But I didn’t decide its true, the scientific community did. with its process of evaluating and vetting evidence and research did that. I merely rely on their work and the scientific process.

    “You have no clue how much research and study I’ve done in this area.”

    You saying so is meaningless here. You can’t even provide the slimmest bit of evidence to support your views. So you shift burdens of proof. Very dishonest on your part.

    I have no idea why I even need to take your assertions concerning established scientific principles and evidence seriously. It’s not work for amateurs online. If you want to upend such things you need the requisite education, training and have to do work acceptable in the field. Your assertions online don’t mean a thing here.

  • Those who would rather not be bombarded with someone else’s religious dogma. No matter what the religion. Knocking on doors, billboards telling me I am going to hell, flyers on my windshield – this happens from many different “religions” even the fringe ones.

    Which religion teaches that others have the right to be left alone and also that you cannot change laws of the land to suit religious views, which is what the Xtian Right is clamoring for here in America.

  • Wrong. Every religion requires faith in Man. Men write the books, men teach what “God told them” – why believe the men? I can say that too. Anyone can write a book. Anyone can say they know secrets. L. Rob Hubbard did. Joseph Smith did. Oh by the way I know everything about aliens and gold plates and boom people believe me.

  • “You admitted that Bible Believing Christians should reject validated scientific evidence just on the basis of their beliefs.”

    Can you please show me where I said that?

    “An admission of the dishonesty of your demands for evidence as you can get. ”

    That sentence doesn’t even make sense. What are you trying to say?

    “You also attacked scientific methods for being based on available evidence…”

    No, I was saying that you cannot make proof claims based on lack of evidence.

    “…and tried to make claims that a quote mine from an obsolete text needs to be taken seriously.”

    I showed you very plainly that it was not quote mining by the very definition of quote mining. You have yet to prove it was quote mining (i.e. taken out of context) except to assert that it is.

    “But I didn’t decide its true, the scientific community did. ”

    Not everyone in the scientific community decided that it is true. And majority opinion does make truth. That’s the logical fallacy of appeal to the majority. And by accepting their claims, you have also decided it is true.

    “You saying so is meaningless here.”

    Maybe true, but your claims about me are also meaningless for the very same reasons.

    “You can’t even provide the slimmest
    bit of evidence to support your views.”

    To assert that does not make it true. DNA alone is evidence to support my views. So your claim that I have no evidence is ridiculous.

    “So you shift burdens of proof.
    Very dishonest on your part.”

    To be honest, I am not interested in a debate where I am trying to prove creation. My goal here is to simply show you that your worldview is unscientific and unreasonable. And since you cannot provide evidence for the origin of life and because it violates the law of probability, it follows that evolution is unscientific and unreasonable. It is merely a belief. Essentially a faith position. You have faith that it happened without the required evidence. And you have faith in those scientists who are telling you it’s true. Because secular scientists reject God from the very beginning, they are left with no choice but to interpret all evidence in favor of evolution no matter how ridiculous the solution may seem. No evidence can convince them that God was the author of creation because the idea isn’t even on the table for discussion.

    “Your assertions online don’t mean a thing here. ”

    I’ve done more than assert things. But that’s all, in fact, that you’ve done. Thus your assertions don’t mean a thing.

  • “The Miller Urey experiment was subject to review by peers in the field.”

    “”No Christian scientist would have given it a stamp of approval…””

    No Christian scientist. Not no scientist. Belief being the qualifier here. Your words.

    You admitted to quotemining by claiming you only read the one chapter of the book quoted. The fact that you are using it to support creationism showed you were using it out of context.

    “Not everyone in the scientific community decided that it is true”

    You are right. Not the entire community. Just the professionals in the field of study who are responsible for methodological and evidently vetting of research. The people whose expert opinion on the subject carry enough weight that it can be relied upon by the lay public. 🙂

    “My goal here is to simply show you that your worldview is unscientific and unreasonable.”

    Which you do by shifting burdens of proof and assuming a level of authority on a subject that is unearned and not demonstrated. Your goal is to make unfounded assertions concerning established scientific principles in service of your religious faith. Your assertions about DNA are worthless without something to bring as support. I linked to how the Genome project, a study of DNA structured, provided evidence of evolution. You bring nothing.

    “Because secular scientists reject God from the very beginning, they are left with no choice but to interpret all evidence in favor of evolution”

    If it were a faith position, there would be no evidence to interpret. You contradict yourself. You can’t say no evidence exists and then say evidence is being interpreted differently.

    Fact of the matter is, you can’t assume God. You have to provide evidence for him if you want him in scientific study. You have none. Rejecting God from interpretation is a given in such circumstances. When one being honest and relying on objective scientific methods

    “I am not interested in a debate where I am trying to prove creation”

    Then you are SOL. As the person trying to challenge established scientific principles, you must do so to support your claim. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Nobody needs to assume a creationist default position. Either support your claim with positive or concede its merely a religious faith position.

  • Good point, thanks. That fact doesn’t really change my point, though, if I revise my comment slightly to say, “indoctrination of faith in the fictional supernatural god.”

  • Christ said to share what he taught and he did, he didn’t say to change the laws of the land or harass people. If people do that in the name of Christianity, then I would say they’re missing the point.

  • Then why didn’t he defer to them in debating Ham? He allowed himself to be presented as an authority, not a popularizer.

  • And your opinion of me exists in the absence of evidence as well. Simply because I assign the existence of the Universe to an intelligent entity as opposed to a quantum fluctuation or whatever the theory of the week is does not exclude evidence.

  • Where is your evidence to support the existence of as an intelligent entity. If you have none, then it is belief solely on faith. If you reject scientific knowledge in service of that faith, you exclude evidence.

  • There are multiple extremely different views on the origin of the Universe that fall under the umbrella of Creationism. It does not depend on Christian belief or else there would not be creation accounts from many different beliefs and cultures.

    Creationism in its basic definition is the idea that an entity preceding and not dependent on the existence of the Universe brought it into existence. Religious faith enters into it when you decide that such an entity is worthy of some sort of spiritual worship.

  • But he did. He represented the scientific community in his position as a media figure. If you considered him an authority, that is your misperception and misinformation.
    Ham declares himself an authority because anyone can make up stuff to support creationism. It is not a rigorous form of study.

    Plus a debate is not the same format as submission of a scientific research paper for peer review.

  • All humans, barring some sort of developmental issue, have a spine. I am challenging you to defend the claims in the post you made.

    I believe that the Universe came into existence by intelligent planning and forethought, not a random event. To me, the Universe and what it contains is evidence and proof for that, not merely a claim I make so I can sit at the adult table. It is the foundation upon which my life sits and don’t care to make changes to that foundation to win arguments or try to convert someone.

    You seem to be making the accusation of anyone who accepts the label of Creationism is a pathological liar. On what basis am I, specifically, guilty of that claim?

  • “On a hopeful note, the parking lots were largely empty, and the ark building is unfinished. We can hope it will close soon.” LOL

  • Your assertion and a YouTube. You know anyone can post to YouTube, right. It has no inherent credibility. Do you have a link to a reliable source? Scientific sites, articles, etc.
    If there was a serious scientific challenge to evolution, it would be published in scientific journals and it’s discoverers would be famous. Nutballs on the fringe using open source media don’t measure up to the same level.

    You also miss the point of positive evidence. No matter what you say about evolution, it is not support of creationism. You need to prove your claim. Something you already said you were not going to do. So you are wasting time.

  • Watch again. The video shows quotes from actual evolutionists and cites the sources for you to check yourself. You cannot deny the facts about DNA. And the enzyme problem is an evolutionary story killer.

  • No, by no means do I consider him an authority. Which was my original point.

    There are many, many scientists out there rigorously studying the Universe who also have a belief in a deity as a real being. They manage to hold both viewpoints in the same brain with integrity.

    You are correct, a debate is not the same format having the same rigor as a research paper. Nye was likely one of the few people to be willing to take Ham on, for whatever reason.

  • Forget the argument over creationism vs. evolution, wouldn’t it be a great world if everyone just followed HALF of what Jesus taught???

  • Most scientists would not bother with a PR debate. So they got a proxy with Bill Nye.

    “There are many, many scientists out there rigorously studying the Universe who also have a belief in a deity as a real being. They manage to hold both viewpoints in the same brain with integrity”

    Sure. As Pope JPII said “Truth does not displace Truth”. But if they are young earth creationists, they have sacrificed rational belief for dishonest representation of faith. They are engaging in scientific untruth to support spiritual truth.

  • No, it’s those who, without the least bit of actual empirical data, presume that the creator of the entire universe of uncountable galaxies each with billions of stars and planets and possibly other intelligent life actually cares about what some individual mostly-balding primate on a tiny planet on the out end of an insignificant spiral-arm galaxy is doing with his ‘naughty bits’ who are fools. And many of them are corrupt and have done abominable deeds – like raping children, or covering up for other clergy who were raping children. Every child is born a non-theist. And then, as the song from South Pacific points out – they have to be very carefully taught to hate those who aren’t just like they are.

    Or, in the inimitable words of Tom Lehrer:
    “Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
    And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
    And the Hindus hate the muslems,
    And everybody hates the Jews.”

  • Lol! Like when producers dishonestly quoted scientists in the film “Expelled”?

    “Watch the video” is not a sign of credibility. I can deny everything you say about DNA because you haven’t established why your opinion on the matter supplants known scientific evidence and research. I don’t have to assume any of it to be true.

    Creationists love phony strawman positions on alleged problems with evolution on a scientific level that apparently nobody but them can see.

    If you had anything credible it would be published in a source which would be accepted in the field. YouTube is not ever a credible source for anything besides cat videos and self sustained groin injuries. It’s this failure to cough up credible evidence why creationists can’t win a court case. They can’t even meet the barest criteria for expertise in what they spout about.

  • To believe in the big bang is to believe in creation. The universe was created from energy, But where did that speck of energy come from?…strange is it may seem to believe in the big bang, one must have faith. There was a great flood, there is plenty of evidence to support it. But was it caused by the melting of the glaciers at the end of the ice age? Or maybe a comet exploding over Canada releasing huge amounts of water over a short period of time? Let’s not be foolish. What if there was divine intervention from another more evolved life form which influenced human evolution. If you think I’m wrong ask yourself where did all different breeds of dogs come from or the roses in your garden?

  • It is my experience in over 25 years of discussing the origins of the Universe and all it contains that what I consider evidence, whether subjective or objective scientific evidence, is usually rejected without much consideration, but I will try.

    My evidence generally falls under the label of fine tuning and the anthropic principle. I’m sure you’re familiar with the latter term, but I will try to explain my view of it.

    Basically, the idea is that numerous conditions in the Universe have to fall into narrow ranges for stars to exist, star systems to exist, terrestrial planets to exist, any life to exist, much less complex life, much less intelligent life. Each factor, whether its the strength of gravitational forces in the Solar System to the strength of the magnetic field on Earth to even minute levels of certain chemicals in human blood, are independently, if they were not where they stand, enough to eliminate the possibility of humanity being here.

    The concept that an intelligent entity has a specific goal to what it creates is key. Yes, there’s the idea that we came into being as we are because we fit the conditions of the Universe that just happened somehow to come into being. However, if that’s the case, then why? I see no evidence that random processes can lead to the ultimate existence of beings that would be able to analyze what came before them.

    To me, the challenge of science is to not try to stuff belief systems into it. It can be a building system for understanding the Universe. However, it cannot be a foundation for accepting or rejecting a God. In my life, I find that most people who have rejected the idea of a Creator cannot separate the spiritual component of deciding to worship that Creator and the theology that is built around that worship. I find the Universe evidence that we didn’t get here out of millions of possibilities, that ours just happened to work out.

    I suspect that the above may not be all that you asked for, but I at least wanted to give you an idea on where I’m coming from.

    One last thing; I am not a scientist. I have a BA in Analytical Geography from SUNY Binghamton. I took some graduate level courses in Geographic Information Systems at SUNY Cortland. That is as far as my official education has gone. Like Bill Nye, I would defer to those doing the actual research and study, in my case of a number of disciplines, including theology, philosophy, as well as the “hard” sciences. I mention the first two because any cosmological argument isn’t just based on telescopes, microscopes, computer models, etc., but also on value judgements and analysis of the implications of both the science and belief systems, on the hardware and what happens in the wetware.

    I’ll stop there. Have at it.

  • Creationists are pathological liars. It’s inherent to the belief. It requires denial of faith in public they possess. It requires lying about science and evidence both in existence and in importance to the belief.

    Your religious belief is based on faith. To be a creationist you have to claim its based on evidence you can present. Hence, you are lying about the basis of your belief.

    You admit that to you, in a personal act of faith you believe in creation. Now to reject scientific knowledge that you think threatens that faith is to dishonestly dismiss clear demonstrated truths. Science is true regardless of your faith. Your faith is not affected by science.

  • There are more Creationists out there than just Young Earth Creationists. I am not a YEC. To be honest, I’m not sure exactly where I might be pigeonholed or shoe horned. I find both evidence in the Universe for a Creator and compelling reasons in theology and philosophy to form a belief system on the identity of the Creator and how to react to that Creator. I am a Christian and was raised in a Christian household, so I admit to that being part of the framework of my identity and my thought process. However, I’ve long since battled through the idea that studying the Universe meant throwing out my Bible or believing in God meant discarding my brain. I try not to misrepresent either science or my faith.

  • But faith in God does not require creationism.
    There are many godly and spiritual people who nevertheless understand that the earth is NOT 6000 years old, and that as far as we can tell, life arose some 4 billion years ago or so through a process known as ‘chemical abiogenesis’, and hasn’t stopped since, producing the wide diversity of organisms we observe today through the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. Only those who are so blinded by their faith that they cannot see the words of bronze-age shepherds for the allegory and poetry that they are, and convince themselves that these words are infallible history. Here’s a free hint – nothing any human has ever had anything to do with – up to and including the ‘scriptures’ that make up the Christian Bible- is anything even close to ‘infallible’. Humans are very fallible. And unless you can PROVE the existence of ‘divine intervention’ through empirical experimentation, then you must accept that the words in the Bible are fallibly recorded by fallible humans, and fallibly translated by fallible humans, and are therefor about as reliable as ‘history’ as the Book of Mormon is.

    Don’t put your faith in the Bible. That’s misplaced – the Bible is just a bunch of human-written words – of no more (or less!) value than the Winnie the Pooh stories or the Harry Potter stories or the Foundation and Empire stories. Don’t put your faith in preachers or pastors or priests or imams or rabbis – they’re all fallible humans too. Put your faith, if you must, in listening to the ‘we us ours’ aspect of your conciousness, and not listening so much to the ‘I me mine’ aspect. And then – as a special test – make sure you understand that ‘us’ is EVERY HUMAN – not just the ones that look and talk the same way you do.

  • I am referring entirely to young earth creationism. Everything else is just an expression of personal faith and doesn’t require attacking science. I have no issues with the other varieties

  • My confusion and my fault for jumping on you. I’ve “lived” this debate for a long time, so when people generically call what is considered young earth creationism Creationism and then go after it, I tend to step in and beg to differ.

  • What does Ham have to say about the incest after the Flood killed everyone but Noah’s little family? They had to be having sex like rabbits to repopulate the earth…then, of course, there is Adam and Eve and their two sons…God loves incest, apparently.

  • Empiricism itself requires ‘faith’ in a few indemonstrable postulates.
    Empiricism requires that we accept that:
    1) That which I name ‘me’ exists (cogito ergo sum)
    2) That which I name ‘reality’ exists separately and independently from ‘me’. (rejection of solipsism)
    3) My sensory datastreams are generally caused by and reflective of reality. (note that ‘generally’ dispenses with hallucinations and dreams)
    4) My memory of prior sensory datastreams are generally reflective of those prior datastreams. (unlike Rachel the Replicant from ‘Blade Runner’, whose childhood memories were ‘implanted’.)

    Now – those assumptions may look pretty dang obviously true. But they would look and feel just as true, and yet ‘3’ would be utterly false, were we ‘trapped in the Matrix’ with our sensory datastreams being artificially supplied directly to our brains by malicious machines.

    There is no such thing as ‘knowledge’ if any of those four axioms are not true. And yet none of those things are ’empirically demonstrable’, in that if they are not true, then ’empirically’ has no meaning.

    Since accepting the truth of an indemonstrable postulate is the definition of ‘faith’, then I have just demonstrated that all knowledge is based on faith.

  • But what scientific proof do we have that truly threatens any belief in a pre-existing entity creating the Universe? In the online discussions I’ve had for the last 20 years or so, the closest I’ve gotten is that my proof is somehow indistinguishable from a God not showing proof of its existence. Whereas I would respond that the Universe itself IS the proof. I’m not trying to manipulate the science. The Universe is what it is and what science studies cannot be altered. The conclusions, however, seem to be more subject to human opinion than any of us might like.

  • Oh, they definitely are. All the politicians (Huckabee, Cruz, etc) who think this country needs to embrace The Lord and everything will be ok – that’s not America. I don’t think Cruz is even a regular run of the mill Christian, he’s a Dominionist.

  • I believe that the world needs to embrace the idea that the same entity who made the world, the Universe, Life, Everything, loves them. I don’t believe forcing it on anybody.

  • You are wrong on both counts.
    Nobody has ever proven that chemical abiogenesis is impossible, or even all that improbable. And no, radiometric dating – while not horribly precise at the extremes (more than 40,000 years ago or so) – is not flawed, and is not based on indemonstrable assumptions. There is ZERO evidence that the decay-rate of C14 has ever varied. Ever. There’s nothing in Quantum theory which would even begin to suggest such a phenomenon.

    See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html for a firm refutation of the claims of Creationists like Hovind on this subject.

  • The universe is the proof is just begging the question. Either a statement of faith or a lack of meeting a standard sought in the discussion. A personal interpretation whose mileage varies wildly. A YEC denies scientific knowledge in service of such beliefs. The old earth or theistic evolution types are more honest in understanding the limits of proof. They say God uses natural mechanisms science is explaining. No evidence is ever required for such a claim. Just faith.

  • Wrong. Evolution doesn’t have beans to do with chemical abiogenesis, no matter what some British guy wrote in 1960. Evolution is about how life becomes diverse and reacts to changes in the environment.

  • /If something is proven incorrect over time and replaced by something else then it was never truth to begin with./
    And so, since Einstein showed that Newton’s laws don’t always hold true, you’re going to jump off the cliff and not fall, because Newton’s laws are wrong, right?
    Wrong. Newton’s laws are right IN OUR REFERENTIAL FRAME. They’re just not right everywhere under all circumstances. But they were incorrect and replaced by something else – and yet they WERE and ARE true FOR US.

    As ObiWan said – and which many people still don’t get: “many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”

  • “If you had anything credible it would be published in a source which would be accepted in the field.”

    Here is the link to the original book which the quote came from.

    http://philpapers.org/rec/POPSR

    The google books link works and you can find the quotes on page 270.

  • Show the scientific proof that ‘everything started with the big bang’.
    Bet you can’t.
    You probably don’t even understand that the ‘big bang’ supposedly started TIME itself – which means that the concept of ‘before’ the big bang is undefined. Or that the ‘big bang’ is JUST a theory – one with not nearly the TONS of evidence in favor of it as evolution has. But you cling to THAT theory because it dovetails with your mythology, while you deny the far more demonstrated evolutionary theory because it does not so easily dovetail with your mythology of humans being magically created by the direct intervention of a deity.

  • If everything started with a big bang and evolved to everything we have today then there must be steps along the way that go from non-life to life. You can’t escape this fact. Besides, epigenetics explains adaptation and is proof that the information was already there and didn’t evolve.

  • Bill Nye is an ass. But I agree with everything he says. He is just beating a dead horse. Those who see it like he does do not need this. Those that believe there is a God in this day and age have gone way past being able to see through all the brain washing. Creationism is a sign religion and humans belief in Gods is about over. One thing Islam has over Christianity is it sticks to its guns. There is no bending and flexing ones beliefs regardless of the current knowledge and understanding of our universe. Those guys really believe. Here in Creationism you see the religious doing their best to keep people in the seats.

  • I don’t mean to beg or avoid anything. What would be acceptable evidence? Why is a Creator designing the mechanisms and then using the mechanisms He created somehow just employing faith?

  • I said “if” everything started with the big bang. It doesn’t dovetail well with anything I believe. I don’t think the event ever happened, but evolutionists do. Yes, I am well aware that there would be no time outside of our universe.

    Answer this question. Why does anything exist at all?

  • No, truth is not relative. In your example there are more than one truth. Neither proves the other false. They are not the same truth.

  • What’s funny is that they are focusing on just ONE of the MANY “Gods” that humans have created for themselves to worship since the “Beginning” (or earlier depending on when you think that YOUR favorite “God” woke up and went to work). They are ALL equal in that they exist only in the minds of those who choose to believe in a favorite. And, of course, those who do choose a favorite just “know” that their favorite Fantasy Figure is real and the others are phony. That never changes. I can assure you that I know what I’m talking about. I am a Pastafarian and worship the only REAL and TRUE made up “God”, The Flying Spaghetti Monster. SHE is really nice, and if you don’t like HER, SHE won’t call you names or want you to go to a really hot place when you die, or cut off your head. You can just do lunch and move along. It is reverently called “The Last Lunch”. Join us. Pastafari!!!! rAMEN. And YES, I do have as much proof that the FSM exists as anyone else does about their favorite. Right?

  • You use the word believe. Like people believe in God and the Bible. This is nothing like believing in the big bang. Believing in God is just that. After that there is nothing to talk about. But one who “believes” in the big bang will always keep an open mind, that it is the current theory and when new data and understanding is presented they will keep the door open to allow new possibilities that were unknown and not understood before. This is the difference in religious belief and scientific belief. It is a big one. Science will never know how it all works and never claims it will. Religious beliefs are rigid and lead to a one final answer. God. If that is an answer.

  • Ah yes. Mysticwine never can pass up a good rhyme. One that attempts depth of heart but in the end only shows Mystic is not very smart.

  • Who in the hell created creationism, and how has it evolved into such a farcically flamboyant faith-flummox?

  • The headline of the creation story in the bible is simply: “God Made the Universe”. An educated reader knows that it was never intended to say precisely how he did so. You can believe that the universe is self existent or you can believe that it has, and we have, a creator. Every person should think that through carefully and not be too dismissive of opposing arguments because the truth cannot be known. Ultimately a leap of faith is required for either position (including atheism). What could be more important than considering if we have a creator we are accountable to. As for the flood, there are many accounts indicating that such an event took place, though many would guess it was not a truly global event. Either way, if you believe in a creator God then the flood can be viewed as a story of his judgement. Were these stories true in a literal sense? No reader/listener at the time would have asked. The point is in the message conveyed. If a creator God exists, he clearly could have done such a thing. Arguing over the minutia and the “how” of many things in the book of Genesis vividly exposes the fools on both sides of the argument. Seek to understand rather than to one-up online strangers, some of whom may have legitimate points.

  • BOTH require faith in God. Who else could have designed the world and the original life on it, and allowed it to evolve? I cannot at all understand someone who can sit and ignore the evolution that takes place daily, in front of them.

  • None of you poor, ignorant slobs GET it! The Great Big Invisible White Man in the Sky hovers over MY house! I can PROVE it!! He whispers in my EARS!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  • That’s because Bill Nye is an hypocritical intolerant troll who couldn’t help himself. He preaches that climate change is anthropogenic but that never stopped him from burning more fossil fuels than the average human producing his television show. How many tons of pollution went to his narcissistic enterprise all the way down the line?

  • “Never try to teach a pig to whistle: it wastes your time, and annoys the pig.” Let them have their playground of delusion. But the schools have to be purged of religious indoctrination.

  • Bill is a nerd that talks to much. But he is fighting for what he believes in. He believes to many children do not get the chance to actually learn objectively. They are taught there is god before they understand the most basic functions of the world around them. Its actually called brainwashing.

  • My point is to believe is to accept at times things that cannot be proven. No one can prove the big bang is actually how the universe was created, nor can anyone prove the earth was created in 7 days. But one must believe to accept. I do not accept either. I do not believe the entire universe was created by a singularity, I don’t know how it was created. Nor do I believe God flooded the earth to to wash away sin, because sin is still here. I believe people could not explain the flood so they pointed to the divine as the answer.

  • True enough, though as I think you imply, these propositions are virtually impossible to disbelieve. Also, they don’t help at all if you’re trying to assert one “faith-based” truth claim over another. After all, the objective external existence of the “Bible,” along with every interpretation of its meaning, would fall victim to the same propositions. Not saying this applies to you, but a lot of people use this kind of Humean deconstruction of empiricism to reach pan-fideism, then suddenly switch back to authoritative claims about the faith-fact in question and even cocksure claims about empirical evidence supporting said claims, as if nothing they had just said about empiricism applied to their own argumentation. Personally, I feel safer trusting, in my simple common sense realist way, that the long history of apparent verifications of the scientific method are meaningful and that, while not perfect, and even if based on a certain kind of “faith,” the scientific method together with careful observation and logical reflection are far preferable as a means of truth-seeking than just accepting (and over-interpreting) statements written by one or another of our ancient ancestors outlining what he thought the shape and nature of reality to be.

  • So true. It permeates society now, this questioning of everything, this superstitious conspiracy thinking, and perverse undermining of established facts. From the televangelists to Rush Limbaugh, there has been a steady erosion of the pillars of Western Civilization, driven by Right Wing corporate politics combined with pidgin English Bible thumpers who haven’t the vaguest notion of what their Jewish and Greek scriptures were getting at.

    That a “Noah’s Ark” fantasy park can even exist is a sad statement on the intellectual poverty in this country, that has been worsened by persistent Republican attacks on education over the last 40 years. The monks that ran Europe knew that education was dangerous, and actively kept their flocks stupid to maintain control. Some of them are still here, even on this comment thread…

  • Yes we all believe this or that without proof. If God came to you and said “do not believe in me” would you? I use to believe in Santa. I believe there is a .00001% chance there is a God as described in the Bible. I believe almost anything is possible to some extent. But to believe something that flies in the face of all known science, to believe in it to the point you will strap a bunch of explosives to your body and kill nonbelievers as well as yourself. Sorry but belief in Gods and the brainwashing that goes with it kills everyday in the middle east. We as westerners should be paying more attention to what the word believe means to us.

  • Actually I am paraphrasing the Federal Rules of Evidence for acceptance of expert witnesses. Legal standards are very helpful for allowing unqualified laypeople to evaluate the validity of scientific expert evidence.

    Expert witness testimony can only be deemed admissible if there is either acceptance in the field in general, or of sufficient credibility and support that it could be accepted. In terms of this thread,

    Evolution is admissible because it is the accepted scientific standard in the field of biology. Creationism doesn’t pass muster because not only does it lack acceptance in the field, but lacks the basic support (positive evidence) necessary to be considered n the field.

    In the Kitzmiller case (Dover, PA Intelligent Design Case), the Intelligent Design experts couldn’t even prove their ideas were scientific, let alone worthy of acceptance as an expert opinion. In fact the plaintiff’s showed their texts merely used word substitution for purely religious creationism writings.

  • Its just your POV doesn’t actually require evidence in the first place and you are not really providing it anyway.

    “Why is a Creator designing the mechanisms and then using the mechanisms He created somehow just employing faith?”

    Because you have no proof of a creator or design other than your personal feelings on the subject. So anything relating to such a creator is just employing faith. There is absolutely nothing wrong with belief based on faith!

  • “then there must be steps along the way that go from non-life to life”

    But if you can’t think of them, so you automatically assume “God Did it” because you are lazy in your thinking and do not have any desire to seek further discovery on a given subject. Besides the fact that the origin of life is immaterial to Evolutionary study. We have life existing and can study how it changes over time.

    ‘Besides, epigenetics explains adaptation and is proof that the information was already there and didn’t evolve.”

    Based on whose work? Your saying so doesn’t mean anything here.

  • If the concept is so contemptible and beneath you, and you’re so much smarter and farther above it, why do you take time to go out of your way to mock it? Do you like stepping on those whom you feel are beneath you? Do you tip over wheelchairs, too?

  • I personally do not, no. The person who does a much better job explaining basically where I stand is Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe. I’m not as strict an adherent to Special Creation of living things as he is, but on the astronomy side, his strength as an astrophysicist, I consider him spot on.

    So, rather than do a really poor job of trying to explain his presentation of evidence, that’s where I’d point you, again, on the astronomy aspect of things. He has a colleague, Dr. Fazale Rana, who is an expert on the biology, among other colleagues that he works with. Like with Bill Nye, where we started, I would refer you to them. Although Mr. Nye would probably do a much better job of relaying the viewpoints of those he respects than I do and have.

    On your last paragraph, I admit some confusion. Some of the other posts I’ve read by you seem to have a large issue with belief based on faith. Or (please forgive me if you’ve already stated this), is it that you have issue with beliefs and faith being presented as logical, scientific evidence? I will try to explain a bit of why I find the idea that where I stand is just faith, just belief, below.

    I went out to a lake close to where I live this evening and looked at what stars were visible through some gaps in a pretty thick overcast, as well as seeing something rare for me, light shafts from the moon coming down through the clouds. Those things hold inexplicable beauty for me. I understand the basics of the reflection of the sun’s light off of the moon’s surface and the principles of seeing old star light from objects many light years away, but I couldn’t tell you why I find them beautiful.

    It’s like that for seeing design everywhere and therefore a Designer, a Creator. I could try to distill Hugh Ross’ arguments for design in scientific terms, but, as I said elsewhere, I’m not a scientist.

    I started life brought up by Christian parents and it took until I was 14 before I started making my own way intellectually and theologically. I came across Hugh Ross’ materials at the age of 17 and it seemed to put a lot of the seeming disharmony between my intellect and my beliefs, my mind and my feelings, to rest. At 41, to a large degree, I still feel that way.

    There are many things I won’t try to pretend to understand, intellectually, emotionally or metaphysically, and many things I have a personal grasp on, but would have a hard time conveying to anyone else, as I seem to be having in this discussion. I know that it’s not just faith, belief, feelings or spiritual convictions that I put my foundation on, but explaining that to you or anyone else who is in a different place than I am seems to elude me.

    I’m going to end here, as it’s almost midnight where I am. Thanks for being merciful with my imprecise presentation of my views. In the last couple of decades of doing this, I will say you’re among the kinder of those I’ve had dialogue with, even if we seem pretty far apart. I wish you well and look forward to your response.

  • Sorry, I saw one typo in my post. “I will try to explain a bit of why I find the idea that where I stand is just faith, just belief, below.” I meant to say “the idea that where I stand is NOT just faith…”

  • “But if you can’t think of them, so you automatically assume “God Did
    it””

    You automatically assume evolution did it. Besides, as I’ve said before, you cannot just say that it will one day be solved. That is a future prediction and you cannot know if one will ever know how it happened. Therefore, it is simply a belief. It cannot get out of the realm of a belief until you DO know how it happened. What do you think scientific hypotheses are? It starts with a scientist who has a belief about how something might work and then he sets up experiments to see if he can prove he is right. He doesn’t claim he is right and it’s a fact. He merely believes it. Get it?

    “Besides the fact that the origin of life is immaterial to Evolutionary study. We have life existing and can study how it changes over time.”

    Just because something changes over time does not mean it went from molecules to man. We both agree that things change over time. I never disputed that.

    “Based on whose work? Your saying so doesn’t mean anything here.”

    And your ignorance of the research and its implications is mind-boggling.

  • Just because you don’t understand a small part of a scientific theory, or science hasn’t yet filled in the blanks, doesn’t make it less true. You’re saying that since one small part of evolution is beyond understanding at the present time that the whole idea is hogwash. It’s a puzzle we can’t see all of yet, and sometimes we learn (“evolve”) as we go. It’s a sure bet to be much more accurate than the preposterous and somewhat insulting idea of creationism.

    Haha, the “ark” has a bulbous bow. I guess Noah was a natural naval architect since that wasn’t part of the design as stated.. Does anyone really believe that a guy with no naval construction experience could build something like this? Anyone who works on boats day in and out knows how silly this idea is.

  • You have faith in a literal, infallible Bible, which is something that is seen and can be heard. True faith would be believing in God while giving up your need for a perfect book that tells you everything you believe…

  • why does there have to be a why? Isn’t it sort of vain to assume the Universe has a purpose that may have anything at all to do with humanity?

  • “You automatically assume evolution did it.”

    Nope. Evolution is accepted because evidence and research confirms it and it is the most useful framework for interpreting study of biology we have so far. The origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. It is related in the fringes of it, but not an integral part. I can make assumptions about evolution, as a lay person, because the work of validating it has already been done by the experts in the field. You can’t because you are trying to challenge it without demonstrating the requisite knowledge, education and work necessary to rebut the work of said experts in the field. I personally don’t have to do anything here. The experts in the field of biology do that for me.

    “you cannot just say that it will one day be solved”

    Of course I can. That is what scientific research is all about. Use the data and evidence one has. Look for more where possible. Your view forecloses any such inquiry by giving a pat, ignorant answer without evidence to support it. Creationism is anti-science. It seeks to avoid further inquiry on a subject to reach a foregone conclusion. Evolutionary theory has changed with time and evidence. Creationism just rehashes arguments which were spurious in the 19th Century.

    “Just because something changes over time does not mean it went from molecules to man. ”

    Man is not made of molecules?

    “And your ignorance of the research and its implications is mind-boggling.”

    I am not the one making claims they refuse to support. You admitted that you have no desire to prove Creationism despite trying to use it to challenge pre-existing accepted scientific principles. If you aren’t going to put in the work for your own argument, I don’t care what you claim. I don’t have to.

  • Actually its appeal to authority. A fallacy which is only undermined if one can challenge the validity of the authority cited. Doing so requires a level of education, skills and experience you have to demonstrate.

  • No, eff him and his ‘beliefs’ you asserted he holds. Prove “many children do not get the chance to actually learn objectively” otherwise keep ‘believing’ whatever you want but be aware that without proof of your assertions you’re stepping out on faith.

  • I’m surprised Bill Nye even went. I say stay away as you will come out nothing but aggravated at the stupidity of the whole thing. Not to mention down about $40 to boot!

  • Actually, I am not standing on the creationist argument, and I started with “I think.” Maybe someone will generate something that is more than just “building blocks,” but I don’t see anything that shows the attributes of living cells.

    Maybe we could argue about my use of the word, “disappointing.” The understanding of nuclear physics took far less than 60 years.

    You obviously have a lot more invested in this than I do

  • Creationist believe in micro-evolution. There is no evidence in science of macro-evolution. Even scientists who deny creation admit this.

  • “The understanding of nuclear physics took far less than 60 years”

    Nuclear physics is not nearly as messy and chaotic as the study of biology. Especially of its earliest forms. (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle notwithstanding). Plus you aren’t trying to reproduce what you think environments were, which are lost to time in nuclear physics. Plus nuclear physics has all that practical material support. National defense, civil use… A lot of money goes into that one.

    We are still in the process of understanding what conditions existed on the prebiotic world. the studies show far too much promise to be dismissed. Bear in mind biologists are still on the fence whether to consider a virus is alive or simply a form of those “building blocks”.

  • Wrong. There is no distinction between “micro” or “macro” evolution accepted in the field of biology. The terms were coined by GA Kerkut but never were adopted by professionals in the field. There is just evolution.

    Creationists use your argument every time they get their posterior handed to them by more explicit evidence of evolution. It is simply a way to save face in Iight of overwhelming evidence of evolution.

  • Apparently, Berkely didn’t get the memo that “micro” and “macro” are not accepted terms. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

    There are unanswered questions in Creationism just like there are unanswered questions in evolution? I’m more troubled by the unanswered questions in evolution. Like – where are the millions of transitional creatures that must have existed somewhere between monkey and man?

    You get the last word here though. I’m out.

  • If you bothered to delve into the site, you would have seen that your claim about no evidence of “macro evolution” was false. It’s a distinction which is largely irrelevant in the field as described in that site. The process is the same. Macro evolution is just micro evolution x sample size.

    Creationism isn’t science. So you can use any available argument regardless of evidence, consistency or intellectual honesty. Evolution has to use evidence, scientific methodologies and honest presentation.

    “where are the millions of transitional creatures that must have existed somewhere between monkey and man?”

    The various discoveries of hominid fossils I guess is being ignored. Plus you are making a misrepresentation of issues. Monkeys and men evolved from common ancestors. As for transitional fossils, you assume the process of fossilization even occurs when all animals die. Which is not the case. Plus it’s a shifting goalpost argument for creationists.

    Moreover, criticism of evolution is not support for creationism. There is no evidence for creationism.

  • There is no evidence? I suppose in the sense that it has not been observed there is no evidence. But neither has evolution been observed. Logic says that design demands a designer. I’m not a scientist. I am a thinker. I’m not afraid of the Ark Encounter. I wasn’t afraid of my school textbooks which taught evolution. But in my mind, which has even doubted my own faith, creationism make sense in light of the evidence, which you seem to deny exists. Maybe you should visit the Creation Museum 🙂

  • “But neither has evolution been observed”

    That is not true either according to that site or any reasonable search on the matter. You appear to be on a roll for not getting facts straight so far batting zero. As I stated previously Creationism involves dishonesty.

    “Logic says that design demands a designer. ”

    Only if you can determine design and are familiar with designing things of that nature. Patterns and order do not imply an intelligent designer.. Ice freezing to form crystals do not imply someone created them. Neither does a canyon. We recognize the watch in a desert as created by a designer because humans create watches. One can infer design from a Daschund puppy because we have experience in selective breeding and creating such animals. One cannot infer design from a wild animal. As we do not make such things or have any hand in creating their structures and systems.

    Argument from design has flaws in it which were apparent in the 18th Century. Rehashing it at this point is somewhat wasteful. If you were really interested in such subjects and philosophy, my suggestion is to check out David Hume’s work (especially Enquiry on Human Understanding)

    “creationism make sense in light of the evidence, which you seem to deny exists”

    None of which exists. Your claim to have a rational belief in creationism is fiction. You believe based on faith and carry on a pretense that it is not necessary to said belief. But it is also clear that you accept Creationism because of how it makes you feel. Not because of any interest in serious study of the world around you.

  • Actually I was thinking about the work on the atom and radiation physics before they got to the weapons stage. The Curies had to do a lot of hard work under primitive conditions to get uranium from pitchblende and then do the analytical work to untangle that metal from the daughter products from radioactive decay.

  • There were already applied uses of atomic radiation before the weapons stage as well, such as medical radiology and photoelectric cells. It would take nearly a century for evolutionary theory to have applied uses in the genome project.

  • “Patterns and order do not imply an intelligent designer.”

    I disagree.

    And I’ll let you have the last word in this exchange. After checking out your Disqus profile and seeing how active you are, I discovered you may have much more time on your hands than I do for this type of debate.

  • All I have to say is one of the first official comments about the genome project is how it provided clear observable proof of the process of evolution at a molecular biological level.

  • The middle east is a great place to look. Although I guess I would have to have “faith” my eyes were not showing me things that were not there. Your argument about faith is a waste of time. Religion needs faith otherwise there is nothing to hold its universe together. My faith can and has been proven in a math equation many times over. By a community that spends it time trying to disprove its own “faith”.
    And it is kinda ironic you called him a hypocritical intolerant troll who couldn’t help himself. I mean you went out of your way to come here and type insults to a man for doing exactly what you are doing.

  • Speak for the man and then move the goalposts. Not surprised. I expended no extra time or effort to get my point of view out here, unlike your vicarious avatar, Mr. Nye. Also, I am on a religious website where it is apparent I am more comfortable with the content than you are, which makes you a troll as well. Crafted in the image of your hero, showing how smart you are to an entire group of people you very obviously feel superior to. Bravo, Einstein.

  • In 1966 Professor Nahum Sarna noted there was no geologic evidence for Noah’s Flood: “…the science of geology offers no evidence in support of the notion that the earth’s surface was at any time after the appearance of homo sapiens on earth submerged, wholly or in large part…excavations at the site of ancient Jericho…revealed a walled town dating back nine thousand years. Examination of the ruins of the various levels of more-or-less continuous occupation throughout this period shows no accumulation of clay deposits, the tell-tale evidence of extensive flooding.” (pp. 38-39, “The Flood.” Nahum Sarna. Understanding Genesis, The Heritage of Biblical Israel. Schoken Books. New York. 1966). Professor Avi-Yonah noted Jericho had been founded circa 9,687 BC in the pre-pottery neolithic period. At no point in time until the site’s abandoment circa 587 BC after being destroyed by the Babylonians, was there found evidence of a worldwide universal Flood. Some scholars date Noah’s Flood to circa 2340 BC, subtract that date from Jericho’s founding circa 9,687 BC and we have the city being in existence for 7,347 years before Noah’s Flood allegedly occurred. Yet there is no flood silt evidence for the 3rd millennium BC nor any other date at Jericho. Conclusions: Moses, Jesus and Mohammed erred in claiming Noah’s Flood was areal event that destroyed the earth and covered its mountains. For had such been true the flood silt would have been found in Jericho, but none were found. See p. 553 for the date of Jericho’s founding in “Jericho,” Micael Avi-Yonah, editor. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 2, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1976. The findings suggest Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed the Prophet are pious frauds, for they claimed a flood that never happened. The Torah, Bible and Quran are not divine revelations for all erred in claiming Noah’s Flood was a real event.

  • Let me settle this with reasonable arguement is not the samsung s7 high tech. Yes would be your answer. Therefore what is more complex, samsung s7 or the brain which is the cpu for the body. You would have no doubt in saying that the phone was created by someone with an idea an purpose but the higly complex brain just happened spontanously, is quite extraordinary.

  • How cute your still trying to prove your point to an anonymous person. If you were comfortable you wouldn’t need to keep responding to my posts and other post like em. You think you are comfortable because the burden of proving your argument is not required. You can argue it all day long with out a single element of proof. Talk in circles about “faith’ and “beliefs”. But it is only skin deep. Deep inside you there are questions. Uncomfortable questions you are scared of. Questions people in your religious community would look down on you for asking.

    Me a troll? maybe ok what ever. I will not argue that. But it is another thing to call others trolls when in fact you are one yourself as you admitted. And I do feel superior. It is easy to when confronted with close minded hypocritical children who still believe in Santa.

  • Random Comment 8 days ago

    Bob Skully a day ago

    How cute your still trying to prove your point to an anonymous person. If you were comfortable you wouldn’t need to keep responding to my posts and other post like em.

    Indeed, Bob, indeed.

  • RandomComment 8 days ago
    Speak for the man and then move the goalposts.

    Bob Skully a day ago
    How cute your still trying to prove your point to an anonymous person. If you were comfortable you wouldn’t need to keep responding to my posts and other post like em.

    Indeed, Bob, indeed.

  • I am an Evolutionist, but I don’t deny that God set up this system and programmed the DNA to do what it does: survive. I’ve always looked for facts in text books, and for the Truth in the Bible. The tale of the Ark is the world needing to be cleanses after too much BS by humans. Isn’t that what Nye himself is alluding to when he talks about the “dangers” of Global Warming?

    Why does Nye have to go to this guy’s theme park just to disparage it? What is the point of that?
    Does he go to Disneyland and say that both Pluto and Goofy are dogs but one is treated like a man and the other is treated as a dog? What is the point?

    Make no mistake. Nye is as devout in his religion of AGW as the pastor who runs this Ark replica.

    Nye’s Faith is in his Science (that is when the studies agree with him) while the pastor’s Faith is in the Bible.

  • actually there is a HUGE DIVIDE between micro & macro evolution. the only reason you are upset when people point that out is because science doesn’t actually support the macro—so you need to blur the lines.

  • selective breeding is micro…not macro…how do you think you sound smart on here when you undermine your own posts?

  • a Christian can’t reject the clear teaching of scripture for the praise of a lost world at enmity with God. And yes, a belief in God requires belief in His word. And yes, the earth, based on Scripture AND science is only thousands–not millions–of years old.

  • your confusing micro (genetic variation within a created kind-the blooming rose of creation filling the planet) with macro (macro has never been seen in nature or the lab)

  • That speaks badly of your education. Darwinism doesn’t actually exist. Nobody uses the writings of Darwin as a basis of belief. Its like calling the study of Gravity, Newtonism. Obviously science has advanced far beyond its original origins.

    There is the Theory of Evolution, which is an established scientific principle supported by over a century of evidence and research. meaning your opinion on the subject isn’t worth squat in terms of the acceptance of such ideas.

    But it speaks badly of your base of knowledge and honesty. Either you are ignorant or dishonest about your personal reliance on faith to support your religious beliefs.

  • The distinction between “micro” and “macro” evolution, is not a real thing. There is simply evolution. Scale of observation does not change the nature of the process. Creationist liars make a distinction to cover up when evidence has clearly shown not only evolution’s occurrence but how entirely wrong their own ideas are. A minor concession to avoid making the big admission that their ideas are all bovine effluence.

    Selective breeding isn’t evolution at all. It is artificial selection, not natural selection. Do you think you sound smart by making such blatant misrepresentations?

  • Your assertions are not worth squat. There is no distinction between macro and micro evolution. There is just evolution. Creationist liars make a distinction to avoid looking foolish every time new research an scientific advances demonstrate the accuracy and efficacy of Evolutionary theory.

  • Only in the eyes of Creationist liars who want to avoid looking foolish every time new research and evidence makes their arguments look pitiful. There is no line to blur here. Merely a need for people already beholden to dishonest discourse in support of their Fundamentalist Christian beliefs to continue doing so.

    As a creationist you are a liar. Someone who has to lie in public and deny their dependence faith to support their religious views. All religious believers do so based on faith. Creationists deny this truth to pretend their beliefs are somehow supported by evidence and scientific methods. Which they neither adhere to nor trust.

  • Biblical literalism is the most boneheaded form of religious belief out there. The kinds of logical and rational contortions, the willful denial of plainly established facts and utter impossibility of application in practice make such efforts futile. It promotes both ignorance and dishonesty. It denies the true basis of your belief, faith.

    The overwhelming majority of Christians, including its largest sect reject your notion of belief. If science is at odds with your religious beliefs, you are too immature to understand either.

  • Your comments are just useless poo flinging. You have not demonstrated even a baseline knowledge of the subject you are criticizing. Creationism is neither supportable by rational forms of inquiry nor honest. Your need to lie and ignore facts in service of your religion means one has to doubt your knowledge and credibility on any given subject.

  • Seriously?! Wow. That’s an awfully strange claim. Most Christianists say the science is wrong. That evolution is not science at all? Well, ya got me there.

  • Be that as it may. But if it warps one’s misconceptions, I have no problem with it.
    The empirical data that comes from scientific studies can actually deepen one’s faith but the first thing to do is realize that things like the Noah theme park are ideological, even political (on the far right), and only have a a passing relationship to the Bible.

  • Evolution doesn’t talk about the origin of life, but about genetic selection with in species and the changes that result.
    Darwin, who was a deeply religious Christian by the way, never talked about anything but the variety of species and the natural changes that occurred in adapting to different environments. His book is called “Origin Of Species”, not “Origin Of Life”.

  • What do you know about the fossil record, Tommy – have you studied it? Knowledge of the fossil record is a lifetime discipline and many distinguished scientists study it without ever claiming that they have found out all there is to know. There is no soft tissue in dinosaur bone by the way – it’s way too old for any of that to survive.

  • Part of a creation story, of which there are many around the world, trying to explain in a good naturled way why we are here. For me these tales fall in the purview of cultural anthropology. BTW the Noah’s Ark story is the written down version of an old tale, probably told orally thousands of years ago among ancient tribes of the Middle East, many years before the appearance of Christ (Y’shua) who was himself a Jew.

  • After observing and studying scientific laws, and with a basic knowledge of biology, I have concluded that Darwinism and evolution are a fairy tale.

  • Once you admit that evolution is based entirely on scientific laws and science, you have refuted it’s premise that everything “evolved over time” from literally nothing.

  • That is one of the silliest things I have read in the last 3 days.

    Cute attempt at reversing the argument. But it really falls flat.

    You really didn’t get what I wrote and went straight for snark. Creationists are kinda lazy that way. Anyone whose sole answer to a major question is “God did it” doesn’t look for intellectual rigor or complicated ideas. You didn’t bother to read or understand the argument given and just went for some nonsensical reversal/substitution of terms.

    Evolution is a scientific law and supported by scientific evidence. There is no pretension it is anything else. No dishonesty about the basis of its acceptance.

    Creationism pretends to support religious belief through scientific law and alleged support by scientific evidence. But it is really just a lie about the faith of the proponent. Creationists lie about their faith and pretend its science.

    The real problem being that they don’t really appreciate scientific methods, evidence or even the nature of faith. So it is a half-baked immature fake belief to pretend a belief based on faith really is something more credible.

  • Creationism requires belief in God and science.

    Evolution requires even more belief in a fairy tale.

    You have a lot more faith than a thousand religious people combined, to believe that in violation of scientific laws, we somehow “evolved” from literally nothing.

  • After reading that post, I have observed that Creationists as an entire group are lazy dishonest and immature.

    The basis for your conclusion is because of…..?

    The reason anyone should take your assertions seriously as someone who has any knowledge on the subject is because….?

    Btw “Darwinism” isn’t a thing. Nobody uses the writings of Darwin as support for the Theory of evolution. It has grown way beyond that. Its like calling gravity, Newtonism. A scientific theory is far more than its discovery. You have demonstrated that the notion of making credible, supportable assertions is well beyond the skill set of Creationists.

  • “Creationism requires belief in God and science.”

    Wrong. Creationists don’t rely on science. If they did they would accept evidence which would possibly disprove their religious beliefs. You would never do that. You don’t care about scientific methods or evidence. Just a preordained answer.

    “Evolution requires even more belief in a fairy tale.”

    Wrong again. If scientific methods and evidence could point to a theory which replaces Evolution, it would be adopted and its discoverer would be world famous for the effort.

    “You have a lot more faith than a thousand religious people combined, to
    believe that in violation of scientific laws, we somehow “evolved” from
    literally nothing.”

    Your ignorance of evolutionary theory is on full display here. Evolution doesn’t cover the origins of life. Just its diversity. There really are few people as lazy and dishonest as a Creationist.

  • You say: “The various discoveries of hominid fossils I guess is being ignored.”…..

    Wow, that’s for sure….Q.Could it be that the transitional fossil record very possibly does not exist?..A. If the Record existed, it would not be ignored.

    How do you explain the Cambrian Explosion vs. the Big Bang theory and evolution?

  • “The various discoveries of hominid fossils I guess is being ignored.””

    I didn’t say that. But applaud the sentiment in the sediment.

    “Q.Could it be that the transitional fossil record very possibly does not
    exist?..A. If the Record existed, it would not be ignored.”

    Your lack of understanding of the nature of fossilization is duly noted as is your laziness in thinking. Your question assumes that I consider Creationists honest. I do not. They are liars by nature. Creationism is inherently dishonest lying about the proponent’s all faith.

    Why would you bother to acknowledge evidence which makes you look foolish? Creationism is all about putting up a false front in denying personal faith and pretending your belief has the credibility of scientific methods and research. You are going to ignore, lie and fabricate anything which will make your views look bad.

    Since you are inherently lazy and resorting to “god in the gaps” (I don’t know the answer, therefore God did it), let me explain something about fossils. Bones only fossilize under special and rare conditions. Not every animal which ever walked the earth will end up fossilized. Not every fossil is complete or entirely identified when discovered.

  • Your theory of evolution (today’s version) as we all know, including Richard Dawkins, does not adequately explain the origins of species. Neither does it explain how evolution occurs outside the scientific Laws of Thermodynamics.

  • “Your theory of evolution (today’s version) as we all know, including
    Richard Dawkins, does not adequately explain the origins of species.”

    Wrong. Species means variation in life forms. What you are probably thinking about is the origins of life. Which is not covered by Evolution. The laws of thermodynamics are not affected by Evolution. The Earth is not a closed system and neither is the process of life.

    Dropping Richard Dawkins’ name doesn’t make your posts any less lazy, dishonest or ignorant here. You really have to do more than half-quote Creationist talking points. You are far too lazy to bother to elaborate on anything and support your views.

    All you are doing is demonstrating either a lack of honesty or complete ignorance on the subject. It is best you find another board to go on. You are not providing anything remotely interesting here.

    There is still no reason why anyone should take a word you say on a scientific subject at face value. You have already admitted that you only have a basic (and obviously incomplete) education on the subject and no level of expertise. You may ask why I can make such comments with only similar backgrounds? Because I am merely referencing scientific ideas already established by the community of experts. Its not my ideas, its theirs. They know better than you will.

  • Nice try Spuddie. Of course you said, “The various discoveries of hominid fossils I guess is being ignored.”…..you may have forgot to erase the statement from your original post, as I went back and checked it just now……so much for honesty.

    You are very creative, however, in the way you do not answer my scientific based questions with scientific based answers. When you are ready with some scientific answers, please reply. Thanks!

  • That is what you got out of the exchange? One that is over 3 months old? Whatevs

    “in the way you do not answer my scientific based questions with scientific based answers.”

    I did answer the question. I said, “You are going to ignore, lie and fabricate anything which will make your views look bad.” I emphasized that Creationists are liars by nature. Your statement, “If the Record existed, it would not be ignored” is a flat out lie.

    I also brought up the point that the fossil record is never complete because of the nature of fossilization.

    Please stop pretending anything you say has anything to do with actual science, science based concerns or demonstrate you have knowledge about scientific matters. That is clearly not the case.

  • Sorry. You cannot simply discard the Laws of Thermodynamics, as separate from your theory of evolution, with the closed system argument.

    Please note the scientific definition of a closed system: “Closed systems exchange energy but not matter with an outside system.
    Though they are typically portions of larger systems, they are not in complete contact. The Earth is essentially a closed system, as it obtains lots of energy from the Sun, but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero”…..

    As far as origins are concerned, you have no answer. No worries. This is expected. You might want to consult your evolutionist talking points on the matter of Origins. What you come up with will be a little better than nothing, and it might surprise you……….

    Also, you seem to mistake shorter answers for laziness. Please, do not play that card again, and since you are a self described clear and non-lazy thinker, make sure that you take the time to get those talking points, and then think them through thoroughly, for potential holes in the argument. Take care!

  • Are you not aware of the Cambrian Explosion fossil record? Study it. Please demonstrate that you have knowledge about these scientific matters. You label people as liars, and you do not directly answer questions with scientific facts.

  • You clearly don’t understand your own argument.

    The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument against Evolution is flawed because it posits the earth and living things as a closed system. Neither is true. The earth is constantly being bombarded with energy into its system by the sun and own rotation. Living things take in matter which is converted to energy and additional mass constantly in the form of food.

    “The Earth is essentially a closed system, as it obtains lots of energy from the Sun, but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero”…..”

    Whomever you cut and pasted from is an ignoramus. A closed system does not obtain additional anything. It is by its nature closed to outside input. Gaining neither additional energy nor matter.
    Rather than waste our time pretending you know something about the subject and lying like a cheap rug, just read the link below.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

    I am not going to pretend you know what you are talking about. When you get your doctorate in biology, then I can take your alleged scientific arguments against evolution seriously. You haven’t. The experts in the field accept evolution based on the evidence presented. You are incapable of producing anything which would refute them.

    “As far as origins are concerned, you have no answer.”

    Don’t need one. That is not the purpose of Evolution to explain such things. But I also know I do not have to accept Creationism ever as an alternative. Creationism is not a scientific idea. Its just warmed over lying. At this point many ideas are being floated around for the origins of life, but the question is still open. That is what science is about. Constantly looking for answers to open questions. Letting evidence open new questions. As Richard Feynman once stated, “Better to have questions you can’t answer than answers you can’t question”.

    “God in the gaps” aka argument from ignorance speaks badly of religious belief because it posits that you are a believer due to lack of education and ignorance. It is insulting to both religion and the speaker even though they don’t realize it. The answer to a question in any scientific context is never “God did it”. That is just laziness.

    No, you are lazy. You make statements you can’t support and expect people to take “I believe ….” seriously. I do not.

  • Explain to me two things. First off, how is creationism scientific? Second, which scientific laws are broken with evolution? Evolution does not even try and explain how all life began. You are confusing the issue.

  • Evidently you are ignorant enough to consider it an argument against evolution, even though the evidence clearly shows otherwise.

    Again, honesty is not in the Creationist wheelhouse.

    I label you, and all Creationists, liars because you are. Lying is essential to Creationism. You have to lie about your faith and pretend it is not the most important part of your religious belief. You pretend faith is unnecessary because somehow you can prove that religion to be true by objective study and arguments. The very opposite of belief by faith.

    Creationists are also liars because their arguments have been combed over and rejected time and again and they continue to repeat them. You are full of it. Its the nature of your professed belief.

    I would even go as far to say that no Creationist actually believes the nonsense they post as support for their argument. To them anything which gets them to a given point will be accepted, no matter how ridiculous, dishonest or contradictory. Because methodology is not as important as the pre-ordained conclusion. Hence the Gish Gallop. Throwing up as much BS as possible and hoping some of it gets by uncommented on based on sheer volume.

    There is not an honest bone in your body.

  • Why do you keep resorting to the “creationist liar” label, when I simply want to exchange back and forth, primarily with explanations based in science? Let’s talk about the Cambrian Explosion fossil record. If you are not familiar, look it up……. and at the same time, I will acknowledge, as I briefly hinted at in an earlier post, that faith and science are not mutually exclusive, as science does verify.

    However, If the two are contradictory to you, at least engage only with scientific based detail, and avoid jumping to the creationist liar label, because that shuts down any scientific based exchange…..So, I’m out. Thanks for the discussion and and take care!

  • Because it’s true for exactly the reasons I laid. Creationism requires lying about your religious belief. Pretending your belief is something besides faith.

    It requires you to lie to me that you have any knowledge of scientific principles, existence of scientific evidence or that you even care about scientific methods.

    Your word on a subject isn’t worth squat as you already admitted to a lack of expertise.

    The Cambrian explosion demonstrates evolution in a clear way. You are obviously getting your arguments entirely from creationist sites. Hence you think a point exists. But you clearly cannot describe or support one here outside of an oblique reference.

    You are not only a liar by nature, but far too lazy to even elaborate on your alleged arguments.

  • You argue from a totally false premise. Cannot help you there. I tried, but you still don’t get it. I’m out. Take care!

  • You have no clue what you are talking about.

    If I wanted to read half baked dishonest creationist arguments I could have just checked out answersingenesis.com and gotten them first hand. Instead of badly rehashed.

    I can’t help it if the very essence of your view is dishonest and promotes laziness and ignorance.

  • Cause and effect scientific question: Where did the matter come from that is necessary for evolution to begin, i.e, the matter that was present when the “Big Bang” occurred?……no issues are confused. Just answer the question from a scientific basis.

  • No one knows. We don’t know if it is always been there or if it came from elsewhere. Religion cannot answer that question either.

  • Now, as I have asked before, what scientific law does evolution violate? You still haven’t answered my question. You are simply making an assumption on something you don’t know. We don’t know how everything started. We can only go where the evidence points us.

2019 NewsMatch Campaign: This Story Can't Wait! Donate.

ADVERTISEMENTs