February 3, 2014

Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham: Are evolution and religion at odds?

FT-nye-ham-02-03-2014-03Religion and evolution will take center stage Tuesday evening in Petersburg, Ky., home of the Creation Museum and the site of a debate between Ken Ham, the museum’s founder, and Bill Nye. The topic: “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”

Nye is the former host of the children’s TV show “Bill Nye the Science Guy” and a science education advocate; he has spoken out against teaching creationism to children. Ham, meanwhile, is CEO of Answers in Genesis and a believer that Earth is several thousand years old (a movement known as young-Earth creationism).

FT-nye-ham-02-03-2014-04A recent Pew Research survey finds that most Americans (60%) say that “humans and other living things have evolved over time.” But a third of U.S. adults (33%) reject that point of view, instead saying that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.

Nye (the 2010 Humanist of the Year and a self-labeled agnostic) and Ham may represent extreme ends of the spectrum with their beliefs, but in between are some other perspectives, which can be somewhat difficult to capture in public opinion surveys. For example, roughly a quarter of Americans (24%) believe in evolution with God in the equation, saying that “a supreme being” guided the process (sometimes called “theistic evolution”).

Some evangelical churches reject evolution, including the Southern Baptist Convention – the largest Protestant church body in the country – which supports teaching “Scientific Creationism” in public schools. (Ham’s organization has appeared at the SBC’s annual meeting.) But many other major American religious traditions say their teachings are not in conflict with evolution, including the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Roman Catholic Church.

Those positions appear to be reflected at least somewhat in our polling. While nearly two-thirds of white evangelicals (64%) say humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time, 78% of white mainline Protestants say humans have evolved – about the same share as the religiously unaffiliated (76%). A majority of white Catholics (68%) also believe in evolution.

The teaching of the origins of human life in public schools continues to spark debate in several states, including a recent proposal in Virginia.

Topics: Evolution, Religious Beliefs and Practices

  1. is Editor at the Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project.

Leave a Comment

Or

All comments must follow the Pew Research comment policy and will be moderated before posting.

248 Comments

  1. Vern7 months ago

    Ken Ham is not representative of all creation believers.

    Ken Ham believes the earth was created in six literal twenty-four hour days.

    Most Christians see that the Bible does not teach that.

    The following three scriptures prove that the creative days were were like using the word day to speak of our grandfather’s day:

    Genesis 2:4  “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..”

    Genesis 5:1  “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him..”

    Notice how this next verse cancels out time so that a day can be whatever God wants it to be in terms of time:

    2 Peter 3:8  “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

    It would be wrong to even claim that verse says a day to God is a thousand years as the formula given cancels out the time factor.

    God did not simply speak, saying, “Exist”, and poof it appeared. He likely did evolved it, just not exactly as evolutionist claim.

    Evolutionists take liberties in speculation even just as a means of postulating theories and they are not all correct. They are right about much and speculating about much and Ken Nye with his literal twenty-four hour day creation thinking is presenting us poorly.

    Reply
  2. question9 months ago

    How many of you actually WATCHED the debate? Are you’re thoughts and statements based on what YOU saw or what you HEARD about it?

    Reply
  3. Michael Near9 months ago

    Simply because 60% of the American people believe something does not make it true. I am sure that you can poll for opinions on facts that have commonly held errors associated with them in many catagories of “science”. The real question is whether you believe God’s word or not. The bible clearly states how the creation began in Genesis. Take it or leave it. I take it literaly under the asssumption that god is true and His word reveals what He wants us to know about how things are. Science changes annually but God’s word does not.

    Reply
    1. Fred W. Hill3 months ago

      The fact “that god’s word does not change” is evidence of nothing except that it was put down in a book long ago and alleged to be the word of god and followers of that particular god are loathe to admit that “god” might have been wrong even when the real world does not fit the supposed word of god and moreover, god is shown to have contradicted himself several times in his own book. Science changes because scientists are eventually honest enough to admit they made mistakes due to prejudices or insufficient evidence or just plain ignorance. Creationism remains based on ancient ignorance and always will.

      Reply
  4. Jerry10 months ago

    I think it would have been helpful if you described what you mean by evolved. For example, I believe that people have gotten taller which you could say is evolution but I don’t believe that humans were once animals…big difference there. I think your poll might show something different if you took that into consideration.

    Reply
    1. Ron9 months ago

      Goliath was quite tall.

      Reply
  5. rev anon10 months ago

    Ken Ham is a con-artist, busy with parting his followers from their money.

    Reply
    1. Michael Near9 months ago

      So, the government brainwashing generations with tax dollars is OK?

      Reply
  6. Daniel Michaels10 months ago

    Man created god. As far as your bible goes, it was written by men who lived in caves to keep the loonies in line.

    Reply
  7. Brian Forbes10 months ago

    I would love to see this question in a national survey:
    Does Neo-Darwinism affect the truth of Jesus` message?

    Half the Christians seem to think it does. Half don’t. That’s according to my unscientific local survey. I bet a lot of people who are born Christian leave the church because of the way that they answer that question. They get educated at the university without hearing the counter-evidence and then they leave the church.

    Reply
    1. DogmaHunter10 months ago

      There is no counter-evidence.

      There’s science backed by evidence on one side, and there’s a big pile of thousands of religions without evidence on the other.

      Reply
    2. Jerry Southard10 months ago

      After a fairly exhaustive study of the history of the development of the New Testament, it is my understanding that most of Jesus’ words were “by mouth” until written down “in the names” of the gospel authors then subsequently edited until “authorized” in the fourth century. Hence, the efficacy of and truth in Jesus’ words, for me, is in the honor of time through generations to me. The values therein are my/many others, heritage. Others have a heritage which also have stood the test of time. Together we are a people who care.

      Whether or not Jesus was real, matters not to me, the story is my inspiration…even without the ascension Search on my brothers and sisters. J.S.

      Reply
      1. Ron9 months ago

        It better matter Jerry, cause “here come’s the judge”

        Reply
  8. Jerry Southard10 months ago

    Several years ago I did a reality check of my lifetime of Bible centered churchgoing on autopilot. My two fold conclusions thus far are (1) science best describes the world in which I live and how it came to be, (2) my prime behavioral directive is to treat others the way I would be treated…no matter what and all the time…which I have found to be fundamental in almost all religions. I advocate working out one’s own “salvation” or study conclusion, not accept someone else’s or some group’s. It is liberating to be “my own man.” I still sing in a church choir, not that I agree with all the dogma, but it is a gathering which accepts me as I am and is doing good works…in the extreme. Am looking forward to my 8th decade with you, my friends, with joy and confidence.

    Reply
  9. Ahmad Sharawneh Khan10 months ago

    biologos.org/blog

    for Christians check this out , there are many christian scientists which believes in evolution

    Reply
    1. Elva9 months ago

      Thank you for the link. It’s quite interesting.

      Reply
  10. mommcubed10 months ago

    Is Evolution vs Creationism a scientific question? If so, the evolutionists can support their conclusions with a plethora of facts unearthed by rigorous research; creationists, not so much.

    Is it a religious question? Then to each his/her own (beliefs).

    If there IS a supreme being, what’s to keep Him from creating the universe just prior to recorded history and liberally salting it with “clues” so that man can play in the sandbox and uncover findings that appear to be millions of years old? It’s like a lab associated with an archaeology class, no?

    I like the idea of a God with a sense of humor. Makes the Hereafter something to look forward to (my idea of heaven is finding out all the answers).

    Reply
    1. Kenyatta10 months ago

      So creationist are not allowed to use the the findings that people unearth? Why does it automatically go on the side of evolution? What if they put something together, broadcast it on TV or the newspaper as being another fact, but it was false. What about the archaeological biblical findings? How do you know what a millions of years look like? Do rock layers tell the story of millions of years. What if something was found that contradicted evolution?

      Reply
      1. DogmaHunter10 months ago

        “Why does it automatically go on the side of evolution?”

        Because that’s the only side that is supported by the evidence.

        “What about the archaeological biblical findings?”
        What about them?

        “Do rock layers tell the story of millions of years?”
        Yes.

        “What if something was found that contradicted evolution?”
        Evolution would be discarded instantly.

        Reply
        1. William Ockham10 months ago

          Yo Dog,

          Here’s something rock solid that contradicts billions of years.

          LUNAR RECESSION

          Based on the Roche limit the moon can not have ever been closer to the earth than 11,500 miles without the moon breaking apart. Because we know the speed of recession of the moon we also know the moon is too close for it to have been receding for billions of years. The current distance is 239,000 miles center to center.

          Scientist who believe in evolution will all agree evolution can’t work without billions of years.

          Evolution has now been discarded based on your assertion. Thanks Dog

          Bill Ockham,
          KISS

          Reply
          1. Douglas Oliver9 months ago

            This is old and refutted science. It’s just wrong. The current models state the Earth’s age at around 4.5 billion years. I would point you to The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System by Tim Thompson, which can be found here: talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html. This article at Talk Origins is getting dated now, but I believe it still gives a good synopsis of the discussion, and why the science you present is not valid.

  11. skeptic15010 months ago

    Of course science and (Christian) creationism are at odds – if one considers to Bible to be an accurate basis of beliefs – compare Genesis to what we know about human evolution (Genographic Project, The Complete World of Human Evolution, The 10,000 Year Explosion, etc.). And, Genesis overtly differs in chapters 1 and 2 with respect to the order of creation (if one tries to argue it represents some vague form of evolution).
    Sorry – but to me, Bible 0 Science 100

    Reply
    1. Dan10 months ago

      “What we ‘know’ about eveolution?” My goodness you’re old. You’ve observed it, eh? Unless someone observed it, you can’t say you know. It’s a theory and unless it can be observed to be proven, then it is impossible for you to talk about the “facts” of evolution. The Darwin following crowd needs to at least be honest enough to admit that they are accepting Darwin’s theory by faith just as I as a Christian will tell you I am accepting the literal six day creation and young earth by faith. Scientifically speaking creationism and evelution have to be considered theory. I, however, will side with the word of God on the subject as side with a deluded Englishman from the 19th century.

      Reply
      1. Blais10 months ago

        You need to look up the definition of Scientific Theory because it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

        Reply
  12. V.R.Sonti10 months ago

    I believe it was Voltaire who said, “Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities”!!! No scientist will murder a man who denies that the Force acting on a body is equal to its mass times the acceleration imparted to it. The scientist will prove the fact by simple experimental demonstration. If the skeptic refuses to accept patent evidence, all that the scientist will do is to wish him good day and leave. Such stubborn skeptics are rare. Even in the darkest regions of Africa it is not difficult to teach Euclid’s Elements to kids!

    Reply
  13. Bohootch10 months ago

    Jim: You hit the controlling factor dead on. Those in power and wannabees all have figured out that we are emotionally centered, science aligned and religious people alike. Once we realize that simple fact, we can at least take conscious steps to not be taken advantage of due to our own inherit weakness.

    Reply
  14. Jim from Copley10 months ago

    I love the powerful emotions raised by this type of question. Each side is so sure that the other is wrong. My opinion is “Does it really matter?”. I mean, eventually we will all die and find out which one is correct. Governments and religions need people to believe certain things just so they can control events to their liking. Some are good and some aren’t.

    Reply
    1. Ron9 months ago

      You forgot the Bible says “it is appointed unto man once to die, and afterward the judgement” (a paraphrase) because I’m too lazy to look it up. So, IF there IS a judgment, you had better care, and make the right choice.

      Reply
  15. Woody Arbo10 months ago

    What your study shows is that 60% of Americans are functional atheists. which explains why our society and culture are imploding. There is a direct linkage between the decline of the nation and evolutionary humanism, false and apostate churches and self-destruction of the nation and the embracing of totalitarianism.

    Reply
    1. Blais10 months ago

      Provide links supporting these outrageous claims or go back to bible studies.

      Reply
  16. Bobbie10 months ago

    Just a few thoughts – although I should know better than to jump in to a discussion of this kind….. The word typically translated as “sin” in the Bible is actually an ancient “term of art” from archery – it means “missing the mark”. So humans might want to consider themselves “in need of target practice”, rather than transgressors against God. The word typically translated as “fear” actually means “regard with wonder”, “be filled with awe”, “marvel at”. The admonition “Do not be afraid” recurs 366 times in the Bible – more than any other. It seems the world might work a bit better if we were to heed that particular “commandment”. We might then be able to come to grips with the core message. Jesus was Jewish, not Christian. He did not found a church and nowhere does he tell anyone what they need to believe to be saved, only what they must do: Love one another. I’m not feel in’ a whole lotta love here…..

    Reply
  17. Everett Barnes10 months ago

    The idea of God-influenced or directed evolution is internally contradictory. The whole concept of evolution is that RANDOM variations occur in organisms. Most are harmful, so these offspring are less likely to reproduce and leave descendants. A few of the variations,
    however, make the offspring more successful in their particular environment and more likely to live long enough to leave descendants. The key concept is the variations occur randomly, not by intervention of an intelligence.

    Reply
    1. Blais10 months ago

      “Random” has nothing to do with it. Evolution is anything BUT random, it is gradual adaptation of an organism to better suit its environment over many generations. The organism’s native ecosystem and required needs for survival will influence how it evolves to meet those needs. Adapt or Perish.

      Reply
  18. Phillip Nagle10 months ago

    First, Darwin was wrong. He had no concept of genetics or DNA. Some of his observations were wrong, mistaking did phases of the same species as evolution in progress. That being said, evolutionists make a good case, but one with glaring holes and questions. It is much easier to attack congregationalists than to defend evolution. That is why evolution remains a theory which many accept solely on faith as something they have been taught. On the other hand, those who accept creation do so solely on faith. The debate left out intelligent design which is another theory with a little more scientific theory than creation. In reality we will probably never know.

    Reply
    1. Jerry Bassett10 months ago

      A scientific theory is a framework that explains a natural phenomenon, and is not meant to be proven, but to withstand examination over time with factual evidence that supports or discredits it. A scientific theory needs only ONE fact to completely discredit it, and in the 150+ years since Darwin’s book, not ONE discrediting fact has emerged while countless millions of supporting facts have. Darwin’s evolution of species is one of, if not the most, fact-supported theories in science, and there are no GLARING holes in it. The fact that sealed the deal was Watson and Crick discovering the DNA helix. The theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun is “just a theory”, but the evidence that supports it makes it as certain as Darwin’s evolution. As Isaac Asimov said, “They think a ‘theory’ is something we made up after being drunk all night”.

      Reply
  19. V.R.Sonti10 months ago

    Hindu Scripture asserts that Vishnu (God as Preserver) assumed 10 different forms to protect the Earth. In the order, a Fish, a Reptile, a Mammal, a short Primitive type of mam, as a Perfect Man , etc. The origin of the Universe is placed at 2 billion years and that it will come to an end shortly.

    Reply
  20. Ronald C+Walker10 months ago

    The amusing side of this is…. there’s plenty of evidence to show that CHRISTIANITY has itself evolved over time.

    Began as a sub-sect within Judaism, then (AD 71) The Romans got fed up with the problems caused by monotheistic Bigots, and kicked the Jews out of Israel… including the Christians. Rival churches grew up all around the Mediterranean. After a couple of centuries, one (The Church of Rome, where Christianity had finally been accepted) had the military muscle to tell its rivals that henceforth there’d be just ONE church, with ONE doctrine – the Roman version. Which of the churches really WAS the “true descendant” of the original in Jerusalem was decided mainly by the threat of military violence. THAT was the point where Rome decided which books would constitute the bible, and destroyed the rival versions that had been used by the other churches. (Which they’d been using for over 300 years!) If God really IS “on the side of the big batallions”, then he seems to have dithered somewhat when the Greek Orthodox church went its separate way.

    Notably, on All Saints Day 1755, there was an undersea earthquake quite close to the coast of Portugal. The devastation brought about by the quake and accompanying Tsunami, wiped out Portugal as any kind of a power; awkwardly, the disaster was seen as an “Act of God”… an act which had hit good Catholic Christians much harder than unbelievers. Until then, science wasn’t really seen as necessary: “Why is the sky blue?” “Because that’s how God Wants it!” “Why did God choose to murder millions of his OWN people, with many of them killed in the middle of worship?” Major rethink by the Church before answering that question: “The earth is a kind of machine – much like a watch – which God created, wound up, and left ticking. He doesn’t intervene on a daily basis; he just leaves it to tick.” Commentators right across the world remarked on how the Lisbon disaster changed how the world was seen.

    No doubt about it… over 2,000 years, Christianity provides all the evidence you need for evolution; it’s done so by demonstrating what “evolutionary change” looks like.

    Reply
    1. V.R.Sonti10 months ago

      Bravo! Let me add that the vestiges of the primitive form of Christianity survives as a living force only the USA (God’s Own Country) but as the Pew survey shows this is changing fast. The problem imho, is that the Semitic Group of religions believe in a God made in their own image while utterly neglecting the universality of Ethics. I.e. this God works for the preservation of his own believers while damning everyone else including the other two branches of the Semitic Group. Mr. Nye was right: science or any form of rational thinking is incompatible with this sort of world-view. Witness the Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed raging today!

      Reply
    2. slk10 months ago

      you have your “beliefs, and they have there’s!!! at least i know you listen to whatever teach tells you!!!

      Reply
    3. Richard R Peters10 months ago

      There’s evidence that evolution of religion isn’t just limited to christianity. Both judaism and islam have and are evolving as well.

      Reply
  21. George Harrison10 months ago

    The only contradiction on both sides is in people’s minds based on bigoted preconceived notions and vast ignorance of science and Christianity. If you genuinely care about learning something of the compatibility of the the two without twisting or contorting science or Christianity, read “Processes and Perspectives, Sacred and Secular”.

    Reply
    1. Anony10 months ago

      Science mindsets and christian or faith based mindsets are incompatible. The only way for them to coexist is to either compartmentalize or rationalize. I often see christians in the field of science flat ignore data that contradicts preconceived notions.

      The only contortion I tend to find is in the minds of those that wish to believe despite evidence and reason.

      Reply
  22. Pietro Costa10 months ago

    Still watching the debate…. but Ken Ham just said:
    “There’s hundreds of dating methods out there, hundreds of them, actually 90% of them contradict billions of years. My point is all such dating methods are fallible. And I claim , thare is only one infallible dating method, it’s the witness who was there who knows everything who told us. And that’s from the word of god”

    Can’t really express my reaction to this… so I’ll let a picture say it.

    tinyurl.com/lxmxqkj

    Reply
    1. WH10 months ago

      I’m reading through these comments with my husband, an atheist and big HH fan. looking over my shoulder because we enjoy the science/religion debate when I opened your picture….thanks – that was hilarious. I’m not an atheist and I can’t watch HH any more after his years of it, but I did get a kick out of that picture. Now, what episode is it from?…he has them all and wants to find it.

      Reply
  23. Keith10 months ago

    You know what they say …If science is too difficult, try religion.

    Reply
  24. Alicia Carla Simpson10 months ago

    The Bible is a theological document. It is NOT an historical document. To read it as a history is to deny its theological nature, it is to deny God.

    The truth in the Bible is wrapped up in metaphor, simile, and morality tales. Not literal historic events.

    #DigitalCatechism

    Reply
  25. Aaron Keedy10 months ago

    If the Earth is only 8,000 years old, is that in “Dog Years” or “Jackass Years”. What is your definition of a years, keeping in mind that 500 years ago, the Earth was the center of the universe.

    Reply
    1. Tracy10 months ago

      And you honestly think it takes thousands and thousands of years for fossils to form when I had to make a fossil in 3rd grade over night!! Please the definition of fossil is Remains or traces of once-living things preserved largely in sedimentary deposits. Fossils can be made in literally 1-3 days …

      Reply
      1. Matt10 months ago

        uhm..the “fossil” you made out of what I will assume is either clay or some kind of bread dough is by no means a historic one

        also note none of your foolish books have noted anything about dinosaurs existing..even though we found their bones…or wait the devil put them there or some other nonsense

        Reply
        1. Piper10 months ago

          Ummmm…. Matt do your homework. The creation museum displays Dino’s. In a quote from ken ham on the museum….” We are taking the dinosaurs back”. He doesn’t deny existence. There is a book…….. Dinosaurs are mentioned. Pick it up and read it.

          Reply
  26. Dave Clark10 months ago

    The beauty of God, is that He is God regardless of who believes what. Old Earth? Young Earth? Doesn’t matter. God is still God.

    Reply
    1. mike10 months ago

      same is true for science, actually

      Reply
    2. Jerry Bassett10 months ago

      God is God unless he doesn’t exist, and we don’t know that. Science is science and we do know that.

      Reply
  27. Andy10 months ago

    Jesus Christ existed its a fact there are evidences outside the bible. The Letters of Pontius Pilate being one… If Jesus was false there wouldnt be 10million churches.. They wouldnt waste money on it… We have more eevidence for Jesus then any human being on the face of this wretched planet.. Read the Letters of Pontius pilate.. Theres no debate if Jesus existed no Historian or Archaeologist will deny this… Do some studying before giving YouTube arguments or google Study facts.

    Reply
    1. Bayani10 months ago

      By your logic, the Alien Overload Xenu exists.
      After all, they wouldn’t waste money Churches of Scientology if he didn’t…
      In fact, by your logic every god claimed to have existed that has had some kind of structure built, from Rah to Thor, exists.

      There’s something not quite right about that train of thought.

      Reply
    2. Lewis10 months ago

      If Mahomet was false there wouldn’t be ~1 billion Muslims.

      Reply
      1. four and out10 months ago

        Well millions thought
        The earth is flat
        the center of the universe
        there are only six planets
        George Bush was a capable president.
        All were proven false.

        BTW which God are you referring to? Greek, Roman, Inca, Native American, Hindu, Buddhists, Scientology, Southern Baptists? If you can question, dismiss, on ridicule one, you can question, dismiss, on ridicule all of them. That is unless you you have a corner of the “one true GOD”.

        Here’s a tip the Flintstones is not a documentary.

        Reply
  28. DoctorDoctrine10 months ago

    Evolution is simply a lie. It is a fabrication based on speculation. There is no such thing as physical biological evolution. It is an invention of man based on false assumptions about the origins of life. If the Bible is true then everything in it would be correct. Since there are no contradictions in the Bible, the Genesis Creation account is true. The Noahic Flood account is accurate. Jesus really did rise from the dead and there really is a heaven and hell. If human sin needs redemption then Adam and Eve need forgiveness. All have sinned and all need a Savior. Creationism is simply the verification of the Bible as accurate fact. I have studied the geology of the Grand Canyon, which is representative of all sedimentary layers throughout the earth. These layers hold the PROOF that a world-wide flood really happened. The thickness of sorted material in the earth, the uniformity of layers in angle, the abrupt change in sedimentary layers, the lack of erosion between layers, and many other FACTS based on empirical observations (primary evidence) demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that not only is the Bible true about a world-wide flood, the Noah account accurate, but that everything else in the Bible is also true. Watch my movie “Evolution is Impossible” to discover why evolution could never happen based on the lack of time, the lack of Chronological evidence, found in the logical primary evidence of the strata layers. youtube.com/watch?v=Rd_PHJN_2Lw

    Reply
    1. Matt10 months ago

      there are no contradictions in the bible?

      When second coming?

      MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

      MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

      LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

      or what about another one?How many apostles were in office between the resurrection and ascension?

      1 Corinthians 15:5 (12)
      MAT 27:3-5 (minus one from 12)
      ACT 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection)

      MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

      I can keep going, the entire book makes no sense..but instead let me ask a few questions

      the sun was created on the 4th day correct?..you know the thing that is literally needed in order for days to happen.

      and adam and eve had 2 sons..cain/able…they had two sons and the world was populated (and considering that one killed the other)

      Reply
      1. Nathan9 months ago

        Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning” Matter and TIME were made. When the sun dies, will there still be time? Granted, the sun gives us a way to measure and keep track of time, but it seems like to me that sounds like a watch made time. Just because you don’t know something is there doesn’t mean it isn’t there. As for the contradictions, if you had, I’m not sure I track what your saying. Please clarify. Have you actually read the Bible or did you just Google, “Contradictions in the Bible”? If you read it it would make sense. Thank you.

        Reply
    2. Alicia Carla+Simpson10 months ago

      DoctorDoctrine, which story of the Noah flood is the accurate one, there are two of them? Which story of creation is accurate, there are two of those too. In both cases the stories are mutually exclusive, only one can be correct.

      Of course, the Bible is a THEOLOGICAL document, it is about God, it is NOT a historical document. The truths in the Bible are wrapped up in metaphor, simile, and morality tales (also known as parables). There was never an intent to write a history.

      When you claim that the stories in Genesis are historical you are DENYING God. You are NOT being true to scripture.

      Note: I have a Master of Arts in Religion specializing in systematic theology and a Masters of Sacred Theology with a speciality in Bible hermeneutics.

      Genesis has at least 4 distinct authors, somebody edited a number of stories together, weaving them into a whole. If I were you, I would get off the silly kick that Genesis is history and become a real Christian, stop listening to Satan with his lies.

      Reply
      1. Andrea Collins10 months ago

        The Epic of Gilgamesh was the record of a flood myth/folk memory hundreds of years before the Old Testament was written down.

        Reply
    3. Ed Chambers10 months ago

      To say that physical evolution does not exist may be the stupidist and least informed comment I have ever read. I can PROVE evolution in a test tube in a matter of hours and have done so repeatedly. Darwinian evolution does not state that new species will be created… it is based on the theory that those creatures most adaptable to change will survive while those without adapability die off. Over long enough time periods, this will lead to the development of beings which are superior to those from which they evolved.

      The most common form of proof is to place large numbers of insects (flies, gnats, bees) in a glass tube and introduce a poison, such as cyanide gas into the tube. The vast majority of the insects will die immediately while a small number will survive. Generally, those which survive are either very strong or have a natural (mutant gene?) immunity to the posion. These few survivors are then allowed to reproduce and the resulting offspring are almost 100% immune to the poison. After a couple of generations, all surviving members of the colony are immune to the poison. This proves Darwinian evolutionary theory and can be observed in the natural world in a wide array of creatures.

      Another obvious example of evolution is the fact that humans are much larger today than they were just 100 years ago. The average male and female in nearly every culture on Earth has grown by several inches just in the past century. Again, this proves Darwinian theory as it indicates that creatures (and plants) evolve to improve their chances of survival, either through natural selection or the elimination of those life forms which cannot change rapidly enough to stay ahead of natural changes in the environment.

      Reply
  29. Edgar Postrado10 months ago

    Ken and Bill are both wrong and in error. They will be debating both nonsense. The real science is here: BIOLOGICAL INTERRELATION.

    amazon.com/Biology-Intelligent-D…

    Reply
  30. Daniel Mills10 months ago

    Actually you do not believe in the Christ of the Bible since he as creator said he created in six days of 24 hours per standard use of the Hebrew word for day…

    Reply
  31. O Celebi10 months ago

    You can’t argue with stupid people. They use illogical arguments, non-facts, supernatural explanations, and when all fails, they say god did it. If the Bible got one thing right, it was the false prophet (literally, it wa the only thing it got right) and anyone who triers to come and preach about God is by definition a false propthet now that Jesus is dead (who didn;t exist. So , this whiole thing is nothing but a farse, mucho do about nothing…

    Reply
    1. kelli10 months ago

      guess that means no one can argue with you

      Reply
    2. none10 months ago

      A) The phrase is, “Much ado” about nothing. Not “Mucho do.”

      B) Jesus, the man, actually DID exist, though whether you believe him a prophet is up to you.
      amazon.com/The-Jesus-Family-Tomb…

      They actually found a tomb with Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Joseph, and all of their family as mentioned in the Bible, that fits within the time he would have lived.

      Reply
      1. RaWr10 months ago

        There is no historical evidence that solidifies that a ‘jesus’ actually existed at all.

        Reply
    3. Piper10 months ago

      It is a fact Jesus existed. Do your research if you like. Back to your comment about what the Bible got right. Please explain to me the discovery of a large vessel in Turkey made of wood. Let’s think…. The Bible says the arc landed safely in… oh yeah, the Middle East. I guess it’s also just coincidence that the boat also has exact dimensions that are mentioned in the Bible for the arc. Also explain to me the possible ruins of sodom and Gomorrah. They believe they have discovered the city destroyed by God by fire and brimstone. All over the surface of the area of the city was none other pieces of brimstone.

      Reply
      1. Nelson Hernandez10 months ago

        Lol, they find the ark like every 5 yrs or so. Also, the man that created and stained the wood to make it look old came forward already. lol.

        Reply
  32. DeusEx10 months ago

    I don’t know if I’d call the bible a joke. I suppose it is only a joke if one takes it literally takes it word for word. It is after the word of god record by humans. Error and misinterpretation abounds without the proper context (ie what is allegory, historical, diadatic fiction, and etc.).

    If carefully and thoughtfully approached it can bring comfort and spiritual enlightenment. If not well suffering and pain here on earth and the afterlife (If you believe in such a thing).
    As for how the world works and what can we do with that knowledge. Well we have science and reason.

    “The righteous need not cower before the drumbeat of human progress. Though the song of yesterday fades into the challenge of tomorrow, God still watches and judges us. Evil lurks in the datalinks (repository for knowledge- i.e. bible, internet) as it lurked in the streets of yesteryear. But it was never the streets that were evil.” – Miriam Godwinson

    Reply
  33. O Celebi10 months ago

    Creationist are deniers, not believers. The Vatican and every other religious authority does not have problem with evolution or science in general. Why do creationist? Money. Yes, money. The likes of Ken Ham are otherwise failures – how would Ken Ham be anything if it wasn’t for this? It’s also the attention. These people think arguing with well-known people gives them some credibility – it does not. Another problem is their “world view” and where it starts – read Bible. They act like this “starting point” is something to be proud of something everyone does or should do. Evolution is not a starting point or an ending point – it only exists if there is life and is conjunction with existence. Science is not a “starting point”. When you walk out into life, you do not say “I am going to reject everything that does not fit my starting point”. If you do, you’re a little crazy. Another point, the Young Earth people like Ken Ham follow an idiot’s teaching from the 60’s – yes an idiot and his son who is now in charge. These people whpo came up with this “idea” are nothing but frauds. People who follow them are nothing but sheep, with afraudsters in charge, and whatever comes out of their mouth is regurgitation of crap that has been debunked over and over, and is simply not remotely factual or true. Last point, if you believe GODDIDIT, why would you even argue with anyone or try to explain anything? Gravity? Goddit it. Light? Godditit.

    Reply
  34. dstrio10 months ago

    Ham will beat Bill Nye the Science Guy. Ham debates this issue all the time and a Mechanical Engineer degree isn’t going to help you. Doubt many will change their opinions, but should be entertaining.

    Reply
    1. Christopher Robinson10 months ago

      Lets be honest here, the only side that could be swayed is the (real) scientific community. The creationists have already made up their minds.

      Reply
      1. DeusEx10 months ago

        Yes but there kids who have no idea. The debate is not to convince the otherside they are wrong or right. But an audience that one is right the other wrong.

        Reply
        1. Matt10 months ago

          their kids are indoctrinated by their parents to believe that “the one true religion” is theirs..wouldn’t it be crazy if a young child decided that their parents religion was wrong..but another say an islamic family and a 9 year old decided that christianity was the “right one”

          Reply
          1. Andrea Collins10 months ago

            Or even the Odinist one :)

    2. Steven D Hart10 months ago

      Ken Ham’s real purpose is to show that Creation is just as scientifically viable as evolution. To many people have been brainwashed into thinking evolution is a perfect theory that has been proven true a thousand times and faces no opposition in the scientific community, and that is just not true.

      Reply
      1. RaWr10 months ago

        Creation is not scientifically viable. A creationist can be a scientist, but the fact of the matter is that Creationism is a SINGULAR religious view. To debate the scientific efficacy of it would mean you would have to include EVERY creation story from EVERY religion and hash out which one is more scientifically ‘valid’. This makes the argument a non scientific one, it in fact changes science into a religious argument that can, and often will, continue indefinitely; which oddly enough WILL lead to the end of science, and the scientific process.

        ‘Creationism’ is NOT science. It is religion, with a dogmatic focus on a particularly singular view. I would also further state that ‘creationism’ is FAR from universal as there are MANY scientists, who are christian, who find the idea of ‘creationism’ detestable, directly misinformation, and dogmatic.

        Reply
  35. dtschuck10 months ago

    I do not mock Creationists….I refuse to give them that much respect.

    Reply
    1. Mike Helton10 months ago

      Creationism is science and the bible can be proven. People will not take the time to study the facts.

      Reply
      1. mike10 months ago

        by who’s definition of science!? Ken Ham? please. Science is formed through testable hypothesis and measurable results. theorys are scientific concepts formed from a large body of supporting evidence. creationism can be called neither. evolution does not even need scientific evidence to back it up. Without even accounting for DNA or heredity, it is logical fact that a self replicating system that imperfectly self replicates will diversify according to outside influences favoring certain changes over others. there is no logical basis for creation.

        Reply
      2. RaWr10 months ago

        This is wrong. In fact there is no evidence of any kind anywhere that support this singular religious world view masquerading as science.

        Reply
    2. four and+out10 months ago

      Oh, he got all of that one.

      Reply
  36. dtschuck10 months ago

    Virtually nothing about the physical world related in the bible has turned out to be true. Given that the bible is supposedly the Word of God, you would have thought he’d gotten a few more basic things right.

    On the other hand, if the bible is just a bunch of novelists making things up hundreds of years after the unconfirmed life of Jesus, then the pieces fall neatly into place.

    I like the Creation Museum….every time I think about it, it makes me chuckle.

    Reply
    1. Mike10 months ago

      Generalist statements are the work of fools. You must name the errors. Not make general statements with no reference. Please put away the children textbooks and ape drawings. It’s 2014!

      Reply
      1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

        How about proof of talking serpents and donkeys. Or proof of men living to 500+ years old……Oh, you have none….

        Reply
        1. Mike10 months ago

          You mean like pigs teeth and bird feathers and a missing link a month. Made up evidence and anything for a grant. Give me a break. There’s more lies and scams in the “science” of evolution than those sneaky apostles who became martyrs for their faith.

          Reply
          1. Mac10 months ago

            Do you understand how the theories behind evolution work? There’s no talk of finding a “missing link” anymore. Ever since we have been discovering more and more of the ‘between’ stages. Evolution is a GRADUAL process. It’s not as if one day a Homo Erectus just gave birth to a Homo Sapien on accident. These are merely labels we apply to the variations we have discovered in the recent years. These variations have ALL lined up perfectly along a linear time-scale. Have you ever read a scientific journal? Do you understand what it takes to prove something in science with the kind of definitive conclusions that evolution brings us? Thousands, perhaps millions, of tiny facts and observations. Tested time and time again by different people, with different biases to allow for the most conclusive results.

            It’s painfully ironic that you posted the words “Not make general statements with no reference,” because that’s exactly what you’re filling this comment section with. Where is the evidence for a young earth? Because I’ve got to tell you, carbon dating seems to disagree. Pulling your hypothesis from a book that has been written, rewritten, lost, found, translated, and retranslated over the course of hundreds of generations. Historical fact or not, how could there POSSIBLY be any credibility there?!? And why are you Christian? What’s wrong with Hindi? Perhaps you try Judaism? They seem to have a lot of great holidays. What makes you more right than them?? Because your parents told you so? Your community? Why are they more right than 1 billion Buddhists?

            The fact this debate is garnering so much attention is incredibly sad. So much progress in this world, and yet a third of the richest nation don’t even trust in science. Our only true saving grace. Although I have to admit, science has a way of persevering. I mean, if the Catholic Church had had their way, we’d still believe the sun orbits the earth. Thanks Galileo.

            /rant

        2. Mike10 months ago

          Missing links, feathers and beaks. Lying for grants and filed pigs teeth. You have your own skeletons to worry about.

          Reply
      2. O Celebi10 months ago

        You have the Bible on your side, we have everything else. EVERYTHING…. ELSE… You are arguing with EVERYTHING ELSE.

        Reply
      3. Nelson Hernandez10 months ago

        Mike,

        Let’s take a simple look. Go home and compare the different personalities of Jesus. Even paul has his own super jesus where he mocks the other gospel writters during his arrest, “what? Am I supposed to ask my father to remove this cup from me. This is what I am here for? Even something as simple as the arrest of jesus is counted as wrong.

        Plus

        The Lineage is wrong between gospels.
        The time of census is wrong and conflicts with recorded history
        The lack of recorded history for the slaughter of the innocents.

        There are many many many things wrong. I think I’ll stop here and let you research what I mentioned. (like you really will. lmao)

        Reply
    2. O Celebi10 months ago

      lol… here’s a good one from the bible:

      If Noah saved ALL the animals from the flood, how did he save the tube worms of Mariana Trench, viruses, bacteria, all the different species of whales, and what about the asexual animals? did he take 2 of those, too? and if saved all the animals as male and female, then why are there gays?

      All of these animals require extremely unique living environments… The blue whale alone is 90+ feet. tube worms live in sulfur under immense pressure, viruses are not even visible…and on and on

      funny stuff, the bible is comedy. a joke.

      Reply
      1. Rich W10 months ago

        You are trying to argue without having basics facts. Only two of every ‘kind’ (Hebrew word is ‘min'; whenever this word is used it speaks to animals/plants that can breed together; thus not every dog was taken, but kind/min) of bird and creatures that walk along the ground (Genesis 6:20 – 7:4) and seven of every ‘kind’ of clean animal; using this knowledge, the maximum number of animals would be approx 16,000. God did not send sea creatures on the ark, they stayed in the water. According to Scripture, the ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. According to the Bible, the ark had three decks/floors. Knowing this, all of these animals would fit and the vast majority are small to begin with. Even the larger animals (elephants, giraffes, rhinos, dinosaurs, etc) would not need to be full grown, just old enough so that when flood was over they would be able to mate. A great book, “Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study,” shows that only 47% of the ark would be needed for the animals, which leaves the rest for food, water, supplies, and people. It is amazing that you can use modern engineering to show that this historical account from 4,000 years ago is feasible!

        Reply
        1. Nelson Hernandez10 months ago

          You sir…are a liar and blatantly so. There are no engineering experts or ship building experts that have spoken about the viable construction of the ark. Quite contrary actually.

          Also, you forget many facts. Like species of plants that cannot survive in seed form for long. salt water and fresh water fish. Millions of species of insects, each on unique to it’s own classificaion and family.

          Reply
      2. dudesaidwhat?10 months ago

        Read the Bible first before you make fun of it. Doesn’t say he saved ALL animals. It says he saved representatives(two of each unclean etc.) of each kind of air-breathing land animals and birds…Not every species or variant, but KIND(s). So he didn’t put whales on the ark or the other stuff you said….Animals aren’t gay b/c they hump everything in sight. Dogs don’t have a weird human fetish b/c they start humping your leg. They are dogs, K? Animals are mostly instinctual, unlike humans who make decisions for themselves.

        funny stuff, evolution is a sad joke…thanks for the laugh

        Reply
        1. Mac10 months ago

          So, if it he didn’t take EVERY species/variant, and there ARE a lot of these species/variants now, does that mean they’ve all EVOLVED since the great flood??

          Reply
          1. dudesaidwhat?10 months ago

            No, you are talking about Natural Selection NOT evolution. There is a difference. DNA allows for an animals to change within its own kind…but not from one animal(etc) to the next. ie: Dog to a horse. But a dog can change(hair, dental structure, height etc), but it will still always be a dog. But thanks for letting me clarify.

      3. Nathan10 months ago

        You’re kidding, right?

        Why would someone attempting to save animals from a flood….a flood of water….take on board animals that live IN water? The fact that this needs pointing out to you speaks volumes.

        Reply
        1. PM10 months ago

          People were inherently evil before the flood (Gen 6:5) and inherently evil after the flood (Gen. 8:21). What was the point of the flood?

          Reply
      4. Mimi10 months ago

        He didn’t have to take whales because they can swim ._. To much for “knowing” science. Lol now that’s a good laugh and joke.

        Reply
    3. JCK10 months ago

      A little research on “Does archeology support or refute the Bible” would surprise you while illustrating just how wrong your first sentence is.

      Reply
  37. DeusEx10 months ago

    A smarter man on the subject….

    “No scientific theory, including evolution, can pose any threat to religion—for these two great tools of human understanding operate in complementary (not contrary) fashion in their totally separate realms: science as an inquiry about the factual state of the natural world, religion as a search for spiritual meaning and ethical values.” Steven Jay Gould

    Reply
  38. Dave10 months ago

    Genesis says God created man in His own image. Has His imaged changed over time? If not, then neither have those who were created in it.

    Reply
    1. Seeker of+truth10 months ago

      So then god is a physical form based off that fact.

      Reply
  39. Mike10 months ago

    Throw in a little chance and a little time. Say that it all always existed or just came from nothing. Slime and lightning, feathers and beaks…don’t you see? Unified theory just around the corner. These are the top “naturalist” arguments. Do you wonder why everyone doesn’t just fall in line and buy this crock?

    Reply
  40. Seeker of truth10 months ago

    For those of you that think evolution or how old the world is based off of religion lets look at one of the simplest facts. Jesus Christ when was he born? Don’t say christmas the bible proves that wrong. There were also days when the church Christian and catholic alike were telling everyone that the earth was flat. They also thought that the earth was the center of the universe these have been proven wrong. Christmas was in fact adopted by the church and made to celebrate JC’s birthday to ease the transformation from pagan to Christianity. Strict believers in thw christian faith don’t believe in combat or physical fighting of any kind. Then if they don’t believe in any of these then why tell stories of wars in thw bible. The bible also teaches to worship him not a holiday. Christmas holiday birthday holiday Easter holiday st Patrick’s day holiday. So with logical and physical evidence answer these questions scientist and believers in faith: when was Jesus Christ born? Did giants ever exist on earth as they say in the bible? Did god give us free will and create us in his image? If so what does he look like? If so he gave us free thought also which in a sense gave us knowledge to have the thought of finding scientific evidence out? So if god gave those powers to each of us why continue the argument the scientists are helping you explain. Also someone show me physical and written not faith evidence (bible) the start of the universe and the world?

    Reply
    1. Urns So10 months ago

      We are all flawed by nature. Religion is a means of purification. Obviously Christians fight against Christians. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries have come from Christians. Somehow, we have gotten to the point where people think that religion is the opposite of science when in fact both are usually the search for truth.

      Reply
      1. Seeker of+truth10 months ago

        I agree.

        Reply
  41. dtschuck10 months ago

    Creationists are usually wrong, but they are alway certain.

    Reply
    1. Mike10 months ago

      Throw in a little chance and a little time. Say that it all always existed or just came from nothing. These are the top “naturalist” arguments. Do you wonder why everyone doesn’t just fall in line and buy this crock?

      Reply
      1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

        yea because ‘magic’ is the answer lol Yea ok Mike!

        Reply
        1. Mike10 months ago

          The village atheist just climbed up from his Mom’s basement. Dinner time!

          Reply
  42. Christopher Robinson10 months ago

    I’m not sure I understand why Bill, or anyone would do this. Those who accept the concept of “faith”, by it’s own definition do not require any sort of proof to believe in something. That being said, what’s the point of arguing, these folks believe “just because”, you can’t win/lose/draw in that situation, only waste your time. The scientific method does not apply here :)

    Reply
    1. Seeker of+truth10 months ago

      So if someone were to tell you follow me off the San Francisco bridge into the water would you. Faith is blind would you have that faith or would you use logic which is scientific fact that you would die.

      Reply
    2. Mike10 months ago

      They believe in God because the arguments on the other side are so inane. Multiverses, magic, aliens and pig’s teeth. You must do better.

      Reply
      1. Barney10 months ago

        Mike, enough already with the pig’s teeth, eh?

        Reply
    3. Rich W10 months ago

      Both evolution and creationism having a starting point with faith. Evolutionist must have faith that everything happened by random chance and there is no God and a creationist must have faith that there is a God and everything created in six literal days.

      Reply
      1. mike10 months ago

        i think you’ll find there is no reason why someone can’t believe in both evolution and god, if you accept that the bible was written by men for men and influenced by god. that is what i was taught in CATHOLIC school. in fact, the catholic church officially accepts the theory of evolution…so, really, no qualms there

        Reply
  43. LieutenantCharlie10 months ago

    Do we really need a debate on Evolution vs. Creationism,…… since in America we have a freedom of Religion,…….. and a right to believe any way we choose.
    If the Great Monkey Trial didn’t change any minds, I am sure putting Religion on Trial again will not change any minds.

    Reply
  44. Steph10 months ago

    “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind” A Einstein

    Reply
    1. Urns So10 months ago

      Catholics have been major contributors to the science of astronomy and medicine.

      Reply
  45. Bob Woods10 months ago

    matter cannot be created or destroyed
    time and motion are the principle modes of existence of matter
    matter, time and motion cannot have a beginning or an end and are mutually exclusive
    matter is primary,spirit is derivative
    evolution and revolution are aspects of matter in motion
    agnostics are what some people call themselves at a cocktail party but who are really atheists

    Reply
    1. Urns So10 months ago

      True atheist practically never exist in a world full of unknowns.

      Reply
    2. Christopher Robinson10 months ago

      No Agnostic is completely different, research it you don’t understand. In my opinion Atheists are almost as silly as Theists. How do you know an extremely religious/Agnostic person? Don’t worry they will tell you (at a cocktail party). You will generally not hear an Agnostic telling you they are unless they are specifically asked or feel the need to explain because folks simply don’t understand, like you.

      Reply
      1. Christopher Robinson10 months ago

        Obviously that was a type-o in my little joke instead: ” How do you know an extremely religious/Atheist person? Don’t worry they will tell you (at a cocktail party).”

        Reply
  46. Ex Nihilo10 months ago

    Monkey. People like Ham are bringing EVERYONE down? Care to cite some specifics? Do you mean an overall loss of genetic material from one allelic polymorphism to the next? I’m confused.

    Steve. Life is simple if you accept the bible? and of course would mean that it is complex if you believe in evolution? No thinking is required? I would agree that by your post not thinking is your pre-requisite for posting delightful tidbits from the “mind of Steve”. I no way are your positions justified by anything concrete. Can you not see the hypocrisy in this?

    Reply
  47. Rich10 months ago

    Here is what I don’t understand about modern journalism.

    HOW AND WHERE DO I SEE THIS!

    Great, 2 guys are going to talk about something that you think may be interesting to your readers.

    Don’t bother providing the most important information tho.

    Reply
  48. James10 months ago

    This is why we are behind in sciences and math. We allow beliefs to color the facts and we end up with confusion.

    Keep faith out of science and fact, and for God’s sake keep those fanatics of religion the hell off the face of the Earth.

    Thank you

    Reply
  49. Miguel Castillo10 months ago

    Evolution is against science, because it has set a bunch of assumptions due to its bias against God. For example, atheist “scientists” date rocks base upon fossils charts, containing date ranges beside each. And fossils are dated in base of strata, or different earth layers, which are dated upon different rocks formations. So, often we can see a dated rock chart showing how old is a fossil. This is a circular way of thinking. In reality, for them, the base is not fossils or rocks, for them the premise is “There is no God”.
    I’m very excited! yes, because when the first war of Gog and Magog occurs (which is coming very soon) all that blind people will have the opportunity to open their eyes to the truth.
    By the way, atheism is against philosophy and logic, because saying “There is no God” is an absolute that needs to be demonstrated. Nobody can demonstrate such a foolish declaration, because nobody can be present in each and every part of the Universe at the same time, to say he (or she) used a “scientific” method and in fact demonstrated it.
    Psalm 53:1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

    Reply
    1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

      Miguel,

      you need to stop listing to people like Eric Hovind, and Ray Comfort, and do some actual research. Starting at a geology website, because your post show obvious ignorance in that field. Also, there is never going to be some supernatural ‘war’ here on earth as you stated. Just like the world didn’t end in Dec of 2012. The only thing that will destroy this earth with 100% certainty is the sun.

      nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-…

      Reply
    2. curtis10 months ago

      actually evolution is science…proven in animals…man? not sure…I am a believer in Christ but not in young earth evolution which is disproven by fact.

      Reply
  50. Rob10 months ago

    Bill Nye is bold – most evolutionists are afraid of debate and hide behind the mantra “it is already settled” – so hats off to mr Nye though I think he will get crushed.

    Reply
    1. Joe10 months ago

      HA! Ken Ham, Bachelor of Applied Science, Kentucky Baptist, and intellectual midget finding answers in a millennia-old set of myths from tribal people roaming the ancient Levant, shall CRUSH Bill Nye, celebrated scientist, educator, mechanical engineer and student of Carl Sagan.

      Reply
      1. Urns So10 months ago

        Bill Nye only has a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering. He is famous for a “Children’s show” similar to Mr. Rogers.

        Sagan predicted that we would enter a “nuclear winter” from “black soot” if Saddam set all of Kuwait’s oil wells on fire.

        Saddam did just that and we are yet to see Sagan’s prediction come true.

        Kind of ironic that you think Sagan, known for his political agenda, is an authority on science.

        Reply
        1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

          Urns,

          Sagan never said that we would encounter a nuclear winter from the fires. He said that it would have a nuclear winter ‘like’ impact on the atmosphere. He was wrong after the EVIDENCE and data came forth to prove himself wrong. Which he admitted to.

          Reply
    2. Cheri Campbell10 months ago

      Really ? Will he get crushed by the bones of one of the dinosaurs that creationists say co-existed with man about 5,000 years ago ?
      Kudos for saying hats off to Mr Nye, though .

      Reply
  51. dtschuck10 months ago

    Scientific Creationism. LOL, a classic oxymorron like army intelligence and gigantic shrimp.

    Reply
    1. Urns So10 months ago

      A true oxymoron is “something that is surprisingly true, a paradox”. Garry Wills

      Shrimp is a term for crustaceans that are generally less than an inch. In areas of the world where these types of crustaceans are larger, prawn is a more common term than shrimp. Some prawn can be as long as 12 inches; hence the term giant shrimp. All matters of size are relative.

      Your reference to “military intelligence” isn’t oxymoronic; it’s a George Carlin joke.

      Reply
  52. Steve10 months ago

    The denial of evolution is based on the fear of thinking for one’s self. If you don’t think for yourself but just accept the Bible literally, life is so simple. No thinking is required.

    Reply
    1. Dave10 months ago

      As opposed to not thinking for one’s self and just accepting what some “science guy” is telling you is so much better? Thinking for one’s self is generally in short supply in this world no matter what side of any fence anyone is on. We should all strive to be better critical thinkers.

      Reply
      1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

        No not accepting what some ‘science guy’ tells us. But accepting what is known to work, and that is science. It proves itself as I type this message. DERP.

        Reply
      2. O Celebi10 months ago

        you don’t get to choose a better reality my friend. it is what it is. you can believe what you want in heaven etc., but it does not make a better person – in fact it makes you selfish pos who thinks “god” likes you and nobody else. you go to heaven and we go to hell…what a selfish belief.

        Reply
      3. Urns So10 months ago

        If people took the time to study the teachings of Jesus they might figure out that he was all about “truth” and his teachings have remained so for the past 2,014 years. He challenged the accepted religious leaders of his time as we should ours.

        The battle between science and religion is a false dichotomy.

        Reply
        1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

          Urns,

          Those ‘teachings’ you speak of are not his own. They are in FACT handed down stories of what he supposedly said. Written no sooner than 60 years after his death. There are 0 words written ion the bible, by Jesus himself, or in his time period. You would think such an important many would be able to write for one, and have a scribe with him at all times. But, this is not the case.

          Reply
        2. O Celebi10 months ago

          what truth? bible is a complete lie.

          Reply
  53. curious110 months ago

    This story would be nice to see explained from science perspective:

    usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2…

    Reply
    1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

      It’s 2014. Every phone has a video camera on it. You would think of all the family members, police officers, and hospital staff, someone would have recorded the incident……They didn’t though because it didn’t happen. Video or it didn’t happen.

      Reply
  54. MACHINE10 months ago

    People ask, where did God come from? Well, where did dark matter come from, how did the dark matter mold itself into an explosion, how did a pea size explosion mold our Universe?

    Maybe God created the Universe from his World. Because humans can only experence reality through their bodies. Thanks to their senses: Mind, eyeballs, ears, smell, and ect. Science said we come from apes. Yet, they haven’t found the missing link. They can find just about everything else, though. But, the missing link can’t be found. Kind of odd. Maybe Darwin was wroung.

    Reply
    1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

      Google, it works you know……

      youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU

      Reply
      1. MACHINE10 months ago

        Ah, another liberal nut job. Next, you’re going to tell me it feels good in your butt. Thanks but no thanks.

        Reply
        1. Cichawoda10 months ago

          Well I see what is on your mind — has Christianity repressed your feelings?

          Tell me what you think the words “missing link” mean to you and what you think would be conclusive proof of its existence?

          Your idea of God would also have to include a reasoned logical explanation why this creature/creator bothered to put so much evidence on this planet, in our DNA, at the quantum level and in the Universe in general in order to make sure any rational, logical critically thinking mind would doubt its existence.

          Reply
      2. MACHINE10 months ago

        I don’t watch Alex Jones videos, i’m soryy, lol.

        Reply
        1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

          Again, if you actually looked at the source of that link, you would know it is not an Alex Jones video. Sounds to me you, like most creationists are confirmation-bias. Typical.

          Reply
    2. dtschuck10 months ago

      Ah, thanks. It’s always interesting to see iron clad demands for facts from science, but anything from religion is just accepted because “it is”.

      You demand to see the missing link? Well, I demand to see you god?

      Reply
  55. Joe10 months ago

    Come on, moderators. This isn’t grade school. Anyone able to comprehend this article could handle that reply.

    Reply
    1. MACHINE10 months ago

      Yet, you offer nothing but an insult. Is that your reply?

      Reply
      1. Joe10 months ago

        Machine, no. My reply was completely on topic. Moderator is just a little reactionary.

        Reply
        1. MACHINE10 months ago

          Sure.

          Reply
          1. Joe10 months ago

            I’m really not sure what your problem is, Machine. I’m just calling out the moderator for micro-policing. You don’t even know what my original comment was, since it was rejected. Are you just looking to pick a comment board fight overrrr….. what? Nothing.

    2. Joe10 months ago

      Nice. You let this one pass? You’re doing a bang-up job “moderating” these comments.

      Reply
      1. Joe10 months ago

        Machine, no. My reply was entirely on topic. I’d repeat it, but moderator is a little sensitive.

        Reply
    3. Joe10 months ago

      Non-insulting reply offered, but rejected by moderator. I’d repeat it for you but, y’know…

      Reply
    4. MACHINE10 months ago

      You are too, with 5th grade education.

      Reply
      1. Joe10 months ago

        What makes you say that?

        Reply
  56. Luke10 months ago

    I have been struggling with this concept myself, and most likely will continue to struggle with it for the remainder of my life. I am a creationist who is also a high school science teacher (and before you disregard everything I have to say- know that I will present information on only evolution-both in favor of and opposed to- and let students decide on their own conclusion) but here’s my thought: God made Adam as a grown human being; a fully functioning adult. Is it possible that God made the Earth as a fully functioning world within, say, 10,000 years-that is, starlight already on its way to Earth, the universe already expanding, radioactive materials already decomposed? What are your thoughts?

    Reply
    1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

      Luke what evidence do you have of a literal Adam and Eve? You have none, therefore as a Science teacher, you do not apply the scientific method to your claim.

      Reply
    2. Urns So10 months ago

      Luke, The history of dogs is an interesting example for both creationism and evolution. Science has proven that all dogs have evolved from wolves. We know that domestic dogs are all of one species have drastically different breeds to meet certain needs (herding, guarding, exterminating rodents, etc..). There is photographic evidence that an English bulldog today looks very different than it did just over 100 years ago. This is evidence how humans have created different dogs breeds by selectively evolving the species. We can use the car as another example to prove that creations can evolve from a wagon to a modern automobile.

      Reply
      1. Rich W10 months ago

        Using this logic, if the wolf was the dog ‘kind’ that was put on the ark 4,000 years ago, what we see today would be expected

        Reply
    3. Phys10110 months ago

      No Luke, it isn’t likely at all. Even within your own religious doctrine this is not likely. It would mean that all the physical evidence of the age of our universe, the age of our planet, and evolutionary processes are a hoax perpetrated by god. Your own bible will tell you that god doesn’t lie, doesn’t play tricks. You really cannot have it both ways – either the bible is right in which case the universe is somewhere less than 10,000 years old or everything we can observe and test for ourselves is right and the universe is in excess of 12 billion years old.

      Your idea of the earth taking 10,000 years to be made simply doesn’t hold water either with scripture or science.

      I am a former seminary student turned physicist. This doesn’t make me any more right than anybody else… but it does mean I’ve spent an inordinate amount of time thinking about this topic.

      Reply
    4. O Celebi10 months ago

      what would be the purpose of God creating all stuff “old” and putting oil under the ground, and burying dinosaur bones and fossils all over the place, creating plate tectonics and leaving all these clues for humans find? Is god playing a game?

      short answer is no. plate tectonics disproves your theory.

      Reply
    5. O Celebi10 months ago

      you will struggle until you accept the bible for what it is . it’s a spiritual guide. it’s not a field guide.

      Reply
    6. Steve10 months ago

      I get what your saying to a point. Your argument of “Is it possible that God made the Earth as a fully functioning world within, say, 10,000 years-that is, starlight already on its way to Earth, the universe already expanding, radioactive materials already decomposed?” is a valid question to ask but is exactly the same question as follows: Is it possible that all of our know existence was created Jan. 1st 2014 and all knowledge prior to that date was seeded in our heads by some supreme being at the exact beginning of that day? Add in any arbitrary date and you have the same question. The problem with either question is that there is not one definitive way to prove it right or wrong. Period. The bible is a collection of stories and fables, collected and told by humans about what they thought was happening a few hundred years prior to the bible being completed. It is in no way to be considered scientific literature. So in point, the question you posed can make sense if you blindly believe in what the bible says but if you do not believe in the bible or god in general, it leaves you nothing. Evolution tires to explain how over thousands to millions of generations, small adaptations make rise to new species. If you look at evolution to give you a 10 different species to fill in the gaps between ancient apes and humans, you will have a lot of holes and it wont make a lot of sense. If you were to bump that number up 100 species between ancient apes and humans, seeing the difference between #76 and #77 would be a hard thing to notice. Also remember that evolution does not say that the transition of species is a linear model. Species can diverge and re-converge with our linage (i.e. neanderthals splitting from a common ancestor and then interbreeding with humans thousands of years later).

      As a teacher, keep your mind open. Just because you are a christian and believe in creationism doesn’t mean all of your students do. Teach them the science that is commonly accepted throughout the scientific body and they will get a proper education. If they choose to believe in a creation story from a religion, so be it but it should be on their time outside of school.

      Reply
    7. Luke10 months ago

      Thank you all for your great, intellectual, and respectful responses! They all are very thought-provoking, and I will continue my study into the subject! I am hesitant to declare any life-altering philosophies, but this is definitely helping my worldview and challenging everything I once thought I knew as a fact!

      Thanks again! And God Bless (if you’re into that!)

      Reply
      1. Steven D+Hart10 months ago

        I think you just need to look at the fossil evidence. The fossil evidence shows nothing. Some people try to use DNA to “prove” evolution, but that doesn’t prove anything because DNA would be similar with creation as well. Evolution lacks evidence and is now a contorted theory. Darwinian evolution died a century ago. What we have now with “punctuated equilibrium” is just a self-contradicting patch to try and keep it alive.

        And if you are looking at the Bible, there is no room for evolution. I think anybody who believes humans to be a result of evolution who is also Christian is ignoring the Bible.

        I am not an expert on creation science, but I’m sure you’ll hear plenty about it tomorrow.

        Reply
  57. Jeffrey Schleifer10 months ago

    God reveals his creation in terms humans can understand. 5000 years ago humans could understand the words God revealed to his prophets. Now we can understand modern science and God continues to reveal His creation in ways humans can understand. The ethical and moral principles remain unchanged.

    Reply
  58. O Celebi10 months ago

    Everything is odds with the Bible, including the Bible itself, because the Bible is nothing more than an elaborate – and extremely flawed – story concocted to control masses. Jesus is son of God? Hercules son of God. Romans stole/adopted Greek mythology to control the Greeks. Romans stole/adopted Jewish mythology to control the Jews. The question therefore is not whether Bible can co-exist, or if God created the world in seven days, or what have you – that’s like asking whether Santa can fit down a tiny chimney. The question is WHY would anybody BELIEVE something that is the most IMPROBABLE scenario to explain the physical world, AND reject the most PROBABLE scenario. My theory is, there is extreme psychological influence exerted – i.e. brainwashing – in order for a mind to relinquish logic in return for money and power. If you will notice, Ken Ham is not poor – for a man who is preparing for the afterlife, this is a paradox and is also at odds with the Bible. I think all these “religious” institutions need to be investigated in a through scientific matter in order to explain how people en mass can be led to ignore reality. This is the heart of the matter – not the if Jesus walked on water (so what if he did) or if Santa has flying reindeer. Let’s stick to reality, it makes the world we live (the actual one we live in, right now) a sane place to live. If you believe in the afterlife, you can talk about that world there. I wish there was a way to FedEx these believers there – Santa?

    Reply
    1. Mike10 months ago

      Jesus lived. Don’t be simple-minded. Make an argument.

      Reply
      1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

        Prove it, outside the bible, and in a document created in the same time period in which he supposedly lived. The only sources you will find of his existence are either the bible, or documents long after he died.

        Reply
        1. S Brooks10 months ago

          Ben,
          I can assure that I can provide MUCH more supporting evidencethat Jesus Christ lived than you can provide of evolution (non-living things becoming living things). There is NO religion that requires more faith than the RELIGION of evolution!

          Reply
        2. Mike10 months ago

          Eye witnesses during his life and written documents within several years of his death. Get your GED and then we can talk.

          Reply
          1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

            Mike,

            Did you not read my comment? I said sources outside the bible, inside the same time period in which he lived. Saying it’s true because the bible says its true, also means that Gnomes, and Superman exist. It says so right in the books that tell about them!

            S Brooks,

            Here is a link form a simple google source for the evidence you require. I don’t have the time or patients to educate you.

            talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sci…

        3. Rich W10 months ago

          First written documents about Alexander the Great was centuries after he died

          Reply
      2. O Celebi10 months ago

        Lots of Jesuses lived in Mexico.

        Reply
      3. Steve10 months ago

        A man named Jesus lived. Other non christian texts have corroborated this, but they did not see him as the son of god, only a prophet. Islam actually sees Jesus as a prophet, though in the Qur’an he is also viewed as Muslim. He is a prominent figure in a lot of religious texts but as for outside of the bible there is very little about him. Due to the works of the Roman Emperor Constantine, we have very little to go by. Constantine is notorious for heavily editing the contents of the bible when he adopted it for the Roman Empire. He did away with all texts that portrayed Jesus as a normal man. This is why there are large gaps of Jesus’s life missing from the bible. His very early years and later years are documented well, his mid life years not so much. So back to my point, yes I believe Jesus lived, though I do not see him as the son of god even slightly as to the fact that all text referring him as a normal man have been destroyed.

        Reply
      4. O Celebi10 months ago

        I made the argument – you missed it. Jesus is a story. You can’t prove it. You can’t prove god. Your entire argument is based on a lie.

        Reply
    2. KB3M10 months ago

      Why do human’s believe… Evolution of course. Humans who believe were more successful so that trait was passed along. Maybe it helped stem depression over death and helped us be more productive.

      Reply
  59. Rodan10 months ago

    As a previous poster – the bible is but a compendium of historical documents. Nothing more.

    Reply
  60. Bob10 months ago

    The “Evolution vs Religion” controversy only exists under the assumption that ‘Religion’ is somehow, by default, at odds with the theory of evolution. Flavors of it may be, but in its purist form Christianity, if that’s what is meant by religion, has nothing to say on the subject.

    Reply
  61. Babu G. Ranganathan10 months ago

    SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE CANNOT BE ETERNAL because it could not have sustained itself eternally due to the law of entropy (increasing net energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein showed that space, matter, and time all are physical and all had a beginning. Space even produces particles because it’s actually something, not nothing. Even time had a beginning! Time is not eternal.

    The law of entropy doesn’t allow the universe to be eternal. If the universe were eternal, everything, including time (which modern science has shown is as physical as mass and space), would have become totally entropied by now and the entire universe would have ended in a uniform heat death a long, long time ago. The fact that this hasn’t happened already is powerful evidence for a beginning to the universe.

    Popular atheistic scientist Stephen Hawking admits that the universe had a beginning and came from nothing but he believes that nothing became something by a natural process yet to be discovered. That’s not rational thinking at all, and it also would be making the effect greater than its cause to say that nothing created something. The beginning had to be of supernatural origin because natural laws and processes do not have the ability to bring something into existence from nothing. What about the Higgs boson (the so-called “God Particle”)? The Higgs boson does not create mass from nothing, but rather it converts energy into mass. Einstein showed that all matter is some form of energy.

    The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence and power for the origin and order of the universe. Where did God come from? Obviously, unlike the universe, God’s nature doesn’t require a beginning.

    EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn’t mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws may explain how the order in the universe works and operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

    WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports.

    Some things don’t need experiment or scientific proof. In law there is a dictum called prima facie evidence. It means “evidence that speaks for itself.” Of course, in the complexities of human society and relationships, prima facie may not always be what it seems.

    An example of a true prima facie would be if you discovered an elaborate sand castle on the beach. You don’t have to experiment to know that it came by design and not by the chance forces of wind and water.

    If you discovered a romantic letter or message written in the sand, you don’t have to experiment to know that it was by design and not because a stick randomly carried by wind put it there. You naturally assume that an intelligent and rational being was responsible.

    I encourage all to read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

    Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

    Babu G. Ranganathan*
    (B.A. Bible/Biology)

    Author of popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS

    *I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I’ve been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who in The East” for my writings on religion and science.

    Reply
    1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

      The kalam cosmological argument has been refute long ago.

      youtube.com/embed/dac4LkG2i8A

      Reply
      1. Mike10 months ago

        Linking to YouTube videos does not a refutation make.

        Reply
    2. John Nelson10 months ago

      Sorry, Babu, but your argument “is not rational”. It is true that there is no credible scientific explanation for how all of creation came to be, even though we may have a pretty good handle on what may have happened from that instant onward. But to suggest that an invisible man in the sky willed that creation into existence is just parroting mythology, not offering a credible scientific hypothesis.
      Also, your understanding of entropy, as it relates to astrophysics, is fundamentally incorrect. Back to school, my friend.

      Reply
    3. NFidel10 months ago

      Not rational thinking, huh. But completely rational to believe in an invisible man that lives in the clouds and grant wishes. True, no one was around to witness the big bang…but no one alive today was around to witness Jesus. Science is not JUST observing, there is an entire scientific method that is involved. It always amuses me that it’s the burden of evolutionists to prove evolution happens, but creationists never give any reasons to prove creationism. Here’s an idea…you can’t PROVE either theory, so you just go living your life the best way you see fit and I will do the same.
      FTR, I am a non-believer but I live in the Bible belt and have come full circle to respect Christians (and all believers) for their beliefs. I didn’t always feel that way, but being around these type of people has reaffirmed that these are good people doing good things and the world would be better off with more like them. Bad apples appear in everywhere in society, those are the exceptions and not the rule.

      Reply
  62. Charles10 months ago

    Bill is not the opposite extreme as he is agnostic. By definition he is unsure, which is a fence-sitter position. One should consider Richard Dawkins the proper opposite.

    Liberal religion is often cast as the opposite of christian fundamentalism, when in fact it should actually be staunch atheism. perhaps if you looked at the extreme of Ham, then Nye seems pale

    slate.com/articles/health_and_sc…

    Reply
    1. John Nelson10 months ago

      Agnostic != “doubtful”. Agnostic means, literally, “without knowledge”. The agnostic is one who believes that we can’t “know” the nature of God. The beliefs of an agnostic are frequently far deeper than those of the believer who has managed to convince himself that he can know such things. Faith and knowledge are two different things.

      Reply
      1. NFidel10 months ago

        Amen!

        Reply
      2. ana10 months ago

        Thank you! Never ceases to amaze me how so many people misinterpret and misunderstand the definition of “agnostic”…..which does NOT mean “fence-sitter” or “doubtful” but does mean “requiring concrete proof”……again, thank you.

        Reply
  63. Mike10 months ago

    Ask any geneticist worth his salt and he will tell you that each replication of DNA leads to mutations and 99.999999 percent of them are all detrimental mutations. Ask them how this leads to improvement in a species or to a new species. It doesn’t. It can’t and never has and never will. Thoughts?

    Reply
    1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

      So Mike, you mean any geneticist that agrees with your world view of Creationism? Citation needed.

      Reply
      1. Mike10 months ago

        Dr. John Sanford, Cornell University. Look it up!

        Reply
        1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

          Ahhhh yes….that one creationist that doesn’t know what a mutation actually is. Mr Stanford has been refuted by many; many times. You need to look that up. Try basic Information Theory to start, you might learn something. So because that 1 guy has a misconception of mutation, the whole theory is wrong. HA! I don’t think so. Its 1 guy, that has 0 peer-reviewed articles, versus the rest of the scientists in his field. The earth must be flat too, because the flat earth society thinks so, and there are ‘real’ scientists there! Give me a break dude, lol.

          Reply
          1. Mike10 months ago

            You know nothing of Dr. Sanford. You are in need of your GED and a clue. You’re all about feathers and beaks, time and chance, slime and lighting. Go to school. Read a book. It will do wonders.

          2. Mike10 months ago

            Who refuted him? You refute him. Now…not a chance!

    2. Ellis Vener10 months ago

      Assuming your number is correct, to use your numbers there are .000001 percent that are beneficial. Considering that the human population is currently around 7.14 billion (that’s 7,140,000,000) if each person alive today has one genetic mutation that means there are 7,140 current beneficial mutations currently active in the human genome. Of those hypothetical 7,140 people have to reproduce and their offspring carry the beneficial mutation with them.

      And that is just the species H. Sapiens which is of course just one species amongst millions of species.

      Reply
    3. Charles10 months ago

      mutation is not the crane that evolution depends upon, so you make the mistake of applying the human technology analog to the biological process. of all the billions human noses on the planet 99.9999% of them work while each being unique. some, through natural variability, even work better. the success of any one nose is rarely the mortal discriminator for an individual to pass on their genes. expand your mind, read a good book ISBN: 1416594795

      Reply
    4. R10 months ago

      Funny that most geneticists believe in evolution then…

      Seriously though, as long as the selective pressure is strong you only need a very small percent of mutations to be beneficial to get evolution.

      Reply
    5. Grimaldy10 months ago

      Bill,

      You really need to read Darwin.

      Reply
    6. Jesse10 months ago

      So, taking your numbers, out of every 1 million mutations, one of them will be beneficial. That may not seem like a lot, but DNA replication and mutation are going on all the time. Putting aside for the moment cross-species viral DNA transfers and other, somewhat less random, sources of genetic change, that still leaves plenty of room for a number of beneficial mutations to occur over the course of several million years. Natural selection means that rare beneficial mutations survive and spread through the population, while the much more common detrimental ones die out within a few generations. Over time the population changes and adapts to its environment as the beneficial mutations accumulate.

      Yes, beneficial mutations are rare. That does not mean they can be dismissed as insignificant.

      Reply
      1. Mike10 months ago

        If you were a geneticist, I would listen to you, but you have no qualifications. Dr. John Sanford, a Cornell geneticist and inventor has discovered that DNA is constantly deteriorating with each successive generation and those mutations lead to the extinction that we have seen in hundreds of species and the human species is no exception. Entropy impacts everything. There is no exception. What does your heart tell you? Believe and no longer live as a fool.

        Reply
        1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

          Here Mike, let me help you, since it seems you are inefficient at doing your own research:

          letterstocreationists.wordpress.…

          Reply
          1. Mike10 months ago

            I’ve read and attended Dr. Sanford’s lectures. Why would I ever listen to you to discern what is truth. Dr. Sanford most certainly is a greater intellect than you and I’ve never heard of you. I have learned from the source. Go back to the basement until dinner is ready.

          2. Mike10 months ago

            Dr. Sanford is in constant discussion with many atheist geneticists who agree completely with his conclusions about the deleterious effect of mutations on longevity and disease and selection. They look for examples of beneficial mutations in the third world?

    7. gordon10 months ago

      The answer is simple, and I’m surprised that the geneticists you presumably consulted didn’t tell you:

      though most mutations are indeed either harmful or neutral, the few changes that provide an adaptive advantage allow the carriers of those mutations to gradually outcompete the non-carriers. As a result, overtime the species comes to reflect those changes, a process we call evolution. The key to understanding this is to recognize the large time frames that this process requires, which is but one of the (many) reasons that educated people conclude that life on Earth is of great antiquity.

      Reply
    8. KB3M10 months ago

      A mutation (detrimental) created uniquely weak muscles in humans. Look at the jaw muscles attached to the skull. Our weak muscles allows our skull to be thin and expandable when compared to the strong muscles of say a chip requiring thick skulls that are fixed in size.

      Bottom line: Weak muscles = large brain

      Reply
  64. Donna Kat10 months ago

    To say that Bill Nye is at the extreme end of the distribution is offensive. No he is not. He follows science period. Religion has no place in science. If it cannot be tested, it is not science. This is the whole bloody problem with reporting today. It tries to make both sides equal. You cannot say that those who believe the earth is flat have just as valid a point as those who say it is not. You are part of the problem and why America has been dumbed down over the last 3 decades.

    Reply
    1. Justin10 months ago

      Please explain how the THEORY of evolution is testable? Please site one example of true Macro-level evolution. Thank you.

      Reply
      1. Grimaldy10 months ago

        Read Richard Lensky’s experiment on evolution at the University of Michigan.

        It has been done.

        Reply
      2. ray10 months ago

        Explain how the THEORY of creation is testable.

        Reply
        1. O Celebi10 months ago

          fruit fly tests. look it up. you can do it at home. it’s easy, 3rd grade stuff.

          Reply
    2. Urns So10 months ago

      Science and religion are not opposites. If anything, science has become a religion with people seeking to conclude preconceived ideas. Faith has always filled the gap of what can’t be proven by science. Furthermore, what was science 100 years ago is now considered junk. Even today scientist don’t all agree on something as simple as gravity much less quantum mechanics. Yet ancient scriptures in the Bible/Torah suggest the world was described as a round/spherical earth.

      Reply
      1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

        Yes the bible does say the earth is ’round’ but it does not say spherical. Nice try. Round as in a flat round 2-D object. The word ‘duwr’ meaning ‘ball’ was never used or any derivative of it, to describe the earth.

        Reply
        1. Mike10 months ago

          Prove it. Where does it say it? Silence from atheist follows.

          Reply
  65. monkey10 months ago

    People like ham is what’s wrong with this country, and bringing everyone down.

    Reply
  66. Billy Rubin10 months ago

    I completely support theistic evolution. The above argument of creation vs evolution is an excellent example why I do not support organized religion. Creationists want the world to be created at the snap of Gods fingers as stated in the Bible. Exactly the same argument for creation of the Earth and Universe.

    The Bible teaches the Earth’s age is measured in thousands not billions of years, even-though there is significant scientific evidence to the contrary. It’s this dedicated following of the Bible’s literal statements, no mater what evidence there is to the contrary, that Creationists have it wrong.

    Just maybe the Bible got it wrong, and if that’s the case, then the Bible is not the divine word of God, rather a collection of historical documents heavily editorialized and assembled by one Constantine around 315AD then declared to be the official (Canonized) word of God at the Synod of Hippo around 393AD.

    Look up the history, don’t take my word.

    Reply
    1. O Celebi10 months ago

      The most probable thing is Evolution. The least probable thing is creation. There are other improbable things like Scientology (we’re all aliens!) but even that is more probable than genesis. I can claim that this is all actually computer simulation and we don’t really exist (we’re just programs) and even that would be more probably and plausible than genesis. BUT, we have thousands of years of science t- not just evolutionary – that supports non-creation. Chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, math, and every science branch, and logic, and any data analysis, and/or ANY observation goes against the Bible.

      Reply
    2. JAFO10 months ago

      We have a creator. You can’t make something out of nothing. Where did dark matter come from? If you can answer this question, I’ll convert to an atheist and spread your message. Ah, that’s right, because science can’t answet this.

      Who created God, you ask? I know, that’s going to be your rebuttal. Well, to answet your question, hot shot, God created everything outside of his realm. Because God doesn’t relate to time and space. Because God is a bona fide spirt and the soul of the Universe.

      Reply
      1. Ellis Vener10 months ago

        “We have a creator.”

        Maybe we do and maybe we don’t. No one knows for sure. And your statement begs the question, who or what created the creator? Especially given your next statement…

        “You can’t make something out of nothing.”

        “Where did dark matter come from?”

        We are getting closer to finding out.

        ” If you can answer this question, I’ll convert to an atheist and spread your message. If you can answer this question, I’ll convert to an atheist and spread your message. Ah, that’s right, because science can’t answer this.”

        But I’m not an atheist. Absolutist views on the existence or non-existance of God are absurd. it might give you comfort to think that there is a God who created the Universe and everything , but I prefer to think that if there is a Creator or Creators they’d prefer that we have doubts.

        “Who created God, you ask? I know, that’s going to be your rebuttal.”

        Let me answer your question with a question, why dop you keep viewing God as being like us. What if “God” isn’t a who or a thing but a mathematical equation or a rippling of energy? There is no way to tell is there? Any absolutist view on the existence or non-existence of God (by what ever names you choose to address him places defines who or what God is and thereby places limits on God. Are you such a megalomaniac that you think you have the power to do that?

        “God created everything outside of his realm”

        There you go again, placing limits on God.

        “Because God doesn’t relate to time and space.”

        How can that possibly be true if time and space are part of the universe created by God?

        Reply
      2. O Celebi10 months ago

        Nobody EVER said something was made our of NOTHING -ever. Energy however, can be turned into mass (e=mc2) . That little equation explains the entire universe. All of universe is made of energy that turned in to mass, originally quarks, then Hydrogen , then other elements (about 92 natural ones). Humans are made of 25 of these elements, and 4 of those make up 96% of a human body – 96%!!!! – and these are the ones most abundant on Earth’s air and water (Carbon, Oxygen, Hyrogen, Nitrogen). And these atoms are attracted to each other, and the ones that are not attracted these are not in our body – for example humans do not have any Argon as it has no role in life. Therefore, the formation molecules essential to life already exist in the Universe – EVERYWHERE – not just Earth. It just happens that Earth has more of certain elements more than others, and therefore is suited for a CERTAIN type of life form. This is not a design. This is not creation. Is it incredible? Yes? Is it magic? No. Of course, it looks like that when you roll out of bed one day knowing nothing and not education yourself – you think, wow, it’s so amazing, only a God could have created it. Ironically, the only thing created out of nothing here is God.

        Reply
    3. Kyle Talon10 months ago

      I guess it’s not possible for a “supreme-being” to create anything, then? But how exactly did the universe start if there was a starting point? And I really shouldn’t have to say it but if there was such thing as an almighty Creator of sorts, would it not only be possible to create but age that material? According to Science, there are particles that “pop” in and out of existence. Maybe our universe popped randomly from a single point.. or maybe something greater beyond our current comprehension did. We humans tend to be attracted to ignorance, and we try to explain away some of our most ancient history with science.

      Most of you say science and religion have no right being together. I say nay, the only way to explain religion is through science. The proof is in the math itself. However, you all reserve the right to think freely based upon what you have been taught and through your own, hopefully, careful research. I implore everyone to do their own research, especially before you make a fool out of yourself by inexplicably saying the Bible was altered at some point in the 300s A.D. when there were clearly over 15,000 manuscripts of the same translation in Greek and Hebrew in that era.

      Reply
      1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

        Everything that has happened in this world has had a natural cause. The things in which we do not yet have answers for, if summed up with ‘God did it,’ only makes God smaller and smaller each time an answer is found. This is whats known as the ‘God of the Gaps’ argument.

        Reply
      2. O Celebi10 months ago

        No, it is not possible for God to create something if God does not exist. You are making a flawed logical argument – something like “Is it not possible for Santa to deliver all those toys?” No it is not, Santa does not exist in reality.

        If you can imagine a God, imagine this – that Universe has no end or beginning as time does not apply to it. What I am saying it is anybody guess since nobody knows and when nobody knows, people start making up stuff like God. It’s anybody’s guess. So my guess that I just made is just as credible as “God” if not more. So, for somebody to come and argue against evolution because of God (which is a bad guess) is extremely stupid. It is illogical.

        Reply
    4. JAFO10 months ago

      Around? You don’t even have dates, lol. Are you lonely? Because all you’re doing, is making rants about something you have no proof of.

      Reply
  67. Mike Bike10 months ago

    I think evolution is at ends with Science. Science must be Observable and testable. Dna meets all scientific requirements of being a language. Chances of DNA by Chance 10^164 as explained in DNA doing the Math, on you tube. A phd Lecture Dr. Steven Myer. All of time 10^ 18 all of elements 10^80. Darwin’s finch, not only was it still a bird it was still a finch. It addapted that is all.

    Reply
    1. O Celebi10 months ago

      evolution is science. it can be tested and observed. it can be recreated. it is happening now.

      Reply
    2. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

      Google is your friend sir. Use it.

      evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/m…

      Reply
    3. Cichawoda10 months ago

      during the trial Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District the Intelligent Design (Creationism) scientific defendant Michael Behe was asked if under his definition of science would Astrology have to be taught as an alternative to Astronomy — he answered yes.

      It is only if you redefine language to fit your need does DNA meet the current scientific definition.

      Reply
  68. Ken10 months ago

    The true bible and true science are not in conflict because God is the author of both. “Seven Days?” you ask? Look up “day” in your dictionary. One definition includes “a period of time”. But who is to say that “English” is the language to use anyway? Regrettably, misinterpretation of the bible, and misunderstanding of science lead the extremists to ignore the clear and obvious conclusion that God is the Creator. Let there be light!

    Reply
    1. Mike10 months ago

      Exactly! The word “Yom” in the bible means long period of time. Evolutionists are disingenuous and trying to make anyone who believes in God look foolish. Believing in random acts leading to order is impossible and truly ridiculous.

      Reply
      1. Ben Beckwith10 months ago

        Mike, what order do you speak of. There is no ‘order’ in nature.

        Reply
        1. Jeff Mazzoni10 months ago

          The Water Cycle, the Nitrogen Cycle. Try astronomy as well.

          Reply
        2. Mike10 months ago

          Every time you write, you bring scorn from legitimate atheists. There should be the requirement of at least a GED for these posts.

          Reply
        3. Just Sayin’10 months ago

          This looks like order to me: livescience.com/37704-phi-golden…

          Reply
      2. Rich W10 months ago

        Actually, when every time in Scripture when ‘yom’ is used with a number (ex -6th day) it means a 24 hour period

        Reply
        1. A friend10 months ago

          You know, when I was in college, I was determined to not “fall prey” to the “lies” of evolution. In my Historical Geology class I was constantly on guard against all the inconsistencies I noted. For my final project I gathered a stack of evolutionary works, planning to read their perspectives and refute them using Scripture. I was set!

          And I opened the first one.

          From the beginning it was not about science. There were no scientific arguments. It simply denied the truth of the Bible.

          And as I sat there in that library, the strangest thing happened: I saw it. I saw the simplicity and futility in belief of the Bible. With this new revelation came the greatest emptiness and dead feeling I could never describe.

          I shut the books and walked away like a zombie. I wanted to believe in God but knew it was pointless.

          But later that week I spoke, tongue in cheek, to the God I now knew didn’t exist.

          God, if you are there (although my mind knows you’re not) will you help me believe? I am going to foolishly continue to believe, so if by some wierd quirk you ARE, then, please help me somehow believe?!

          That weekend my brother was cleaning his closet and I looked through the hefty sack to rescue anything valuable to me. And there I saw it. An ancient worn out copy of the Morris classic, Scientific Creationism. I grabbed it like a life preserver and devoured it. God–whose name is I AM–showed me HE IS. No matter who knows He’s not!

          Reply
  69. Ulises jofre10 months ago

    Some fossilized questions for a transitional and healhty debate, for instance: is there evolution if there is no time? How will evolutionary biology meet new physical paradigms about time, space and so on? Will new conceptual changes deny evolution? Or on the contrary, will it become a more extraordinary process, full of astonishing implications? If so, will past human beings and the rest of living beings become something different as science progresses? After all, is life something fix-finite-defined? That is, can one understand it by means of using a flesh brain and its limited words, axioms and dogmas? Does the whole of life fit inside a bone box? Indeed, will science add indefinitely without understanding completely, is there an infinite pool of knowledge and ignorance waiting for us? Otherwise, will religions use the word God forever and ever, as if it were a death thing, a repetitive thing that is part of human discussions? And, in order to speak about God, are they using his limited brain or do they use unknown instruments? Along these lines, there is a different book, a preview in goo.gl/rfVqw6 Just another suggestion in order to freethink for a while

    Reply
    1. dat dude10 months ago

      Thanks for posting an actually good comment! it wasn’t just “No, you’re wrong!”
      Thanks (:

      Reply