By Dan Merica and Eric Marrapodi, CNN
Washington (CNN) – Florida Sen. Marco Rubio attempted to walk the line between science and faith-based creationism in remarks that that have provoked the ire of liberal blogs, leaving the door open to creationism in responding to a recent question about the age of the Earth.
When GQ’s Michal Hainey asked Rubio, in an interview released Monday, “How old do you think the Earth is,” the rising Republican star described the debate about the planet’s age as “one of the great mysteries.”
“I'm not a scientist, man,” Rubio told the interviewer. “I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.”
“Whether the Earth was created in seven days, or seven actual eras,” Rubio continued, “I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.”
Most scientists agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14.5 billion years old. Christian Young Earth Creationists, on the other hand, argue that the weeklong account of God creating the Earth and everything in it represents six 24-hour periods (plus one day of rest) and date the age of the Earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years.
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
Left-leaning blogs and sites like ThinkProgress and Huffington Post jumped on Rubio’s comments, with the Zack Beauchamp from ThingProgress writing, “To suggest we can’t know how old the Earth is, then, is to deny the validity of these scientific methods altogether — a maneuver familiar to Rubio, who also denies the reality of anthropogenic climate change.”
Rubio is regarded as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2016, though the senator says his visit last week to Iowa, home of the first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses, had “nothing to do with 2016.”
His response to GQ’s age of the Earth query has also provoked questions about his political aspirations. Dave Weigel of Slate writes, “How can you read that and not think ‘Iowa’? ” The state is the first to hold a presidential caucus in 2016.
Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup in June. That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
The second most common view is that humans evolved with God's guidance - a view held by 32% of respondents. The view that humans evolved with no guidance from God was held by 15% of respondents.
The Gallup poll has not specifically asked about views on the age of the Earth.
Rubio attends a Baptist church in southern Florida but also considers himself “a practicing Catholic.”
He was born Catholic, but his family converted to Mormonism when Rubio was 8 years old, according to Rubio’s recent memoir. The family left its LDS faith behind when it moved from Nevada back to Florida and Rubio was confirmed in the Catholic Church.
Catholic teaching is that science and faith are not at odds with one another and it is possible to believe what scientists say about the Earth’s age and in God. But many evangelical churches, including Baptist ones, promote a version of creationism.
When CNN reached out to Rubio’s Baptist church in Florida on Monday, a person answering the phone would not comment on its teachings about the Earth’s age and said that a church representative was unlikely to be available in the near term.
During the GQ interview, Rubio argued that “there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all.”
For the past 30 years, the “equal-time argument” –- the idea that Creationism taught alongside evolution -– has been popular method for Creationists to advance their cause. In the late 1980s, some state legislatures passed bills that promoted the idea of a balanced treatment of both ideas in the classroom.
In 1987, the issue made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where a Louisiana "equal-time law" was struck down. The court ruled that teaching creationism in public school classrooms was a violation of the Establishment Cause in the Constitution, which is commonly referred to as the separation of church and state.
When will these people finally realize that when it comes to science, you can't cherry-pick! The scientific basis for the true age of the earth did not just come out of some vacuum – it is based on a foundation of scientific theory and experiment. That same foundation is the basis of all scientific knowledge as it exists today and, for example, accounts for so much that is commonplace and patently correct e.g. electronics, medical and bio-sciences,etc. You can't accept these others and selectively reject that which might disagree with your religious beliefs – it's an all or nothing proposition.
They won't ever realize that because to "follow the bible" you MUST cherry pick. You can't follow it all because some of it disagrees with other parts of it. Old habits are hard to break.
Why not attack Barack Obama for his beliefs – he claims to be a Christian too, and believes in the Bible. I guess that makes him an idiot and a bad leader too.
Because he doesn't say stupid things like the earth might be less than 10,000 years old.
Did Rubio say that? I don't see anywhere that he said that.
Sen. Rubio said:
"At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries."
He clearly legitimized the <10,000 year answer – from someone on the Senate Science and Space subcommittee.
@I'm Oh so you want everybody to believe like you? I think he legitimized that others have their own theories. Don't let people think for themselves that's too dangerous. They need to believe everything that comes from Scientific "theories".
A religious believer is only subject to criticism when his or her beliefs, statements and actions run counter to science and the public good.
Science is not the absolute "truth". The search for truth belongs in the philosophy department. Sometimes science gets things wrong. Arguably, science almost always gets things 'wrong' but usually only slightly. Newer more accurate explanations will replace older less accurate ones.
Having said that, there is ZERO science that is consistent with the earth being <10,000 years old.
@I'm Glad you admit that science is almost always wrong – because that never gets conveyed when they are.
@I'm Zero eveidence? I beg to differ. You just won't listen to any evidence that might be contradictory to your "beliefs". We are required to listen to your beliefs in school and accept they are fact to pass the class. So, truthfully your beliefs are more forced on you than mine are.
chuckb, if you don't believe science, why not disprove that nonsense about gravity. Clearly you won't fall to the ground from say a roof.
@i'm.. said "Having said that, there is ZERO science that is consistent with the earth being <10,000 years old."
Agreed. What Rubio is putting forward as a scientific alternative is merely a personal preference that does not conflict with his beliefs. As such his alternative has never been put to the test in terms of experiment, data, etc. Where are his measurements? Where are his results? What data does he have to say the 4.5 billion measurement is wrong? What is the basis of his objection to it? He can base his own personal beliefs on whatever he likes but passing them off as a scientific alternative needs more – a lot more. I don't care if his 'theory' is based on the words of the Bible or The Flying Spaghetti Monster [Bless his noodly appendages!] – it aint science without the scientific rigour!
@Santa – Typical. Go to extremes. I don't believe in the proposed age of the earth so I must not believe in gravity or that the earth is round. Get a new argument.
So you have a 'belief' – big deal! Please explain the _basis_ of that belief in terms that:
a) Convincingly refute the accepted scientific theory
b) Convincingly support your own theory
Please cite all your sources and provide an estimate of the error in any of your measurements.
@pjt – "big deal" Right. You're helping make my point. I have a belief, you have a belief. Does that belief make Obama or Rubio a bad leader or an idiot? Just because he doesn't agree with a few scientific "theories" and believes it's still open for discovery? No it doesn't.
Still waiting for the supporting evidence that elevates your belief into a valid, reasonable scientific theory.
Science is not about what you believe. It's about what you can support and reproduce with facts, measurements, observations.
It doesn't matter what I believe about this PC on which I'm typing this response – the science (the hard physics and math) on which it is based is irrefutable. It doesn't matter what I believe about the antibiotic the doctor prescribes for me when I get sick – the fact that it makes me feel better is rooted in the chemistry and biology on which it is based.
The point is that the science that says the earth is ~4.5billion years old is rooted in thousands of years of hard scientific labor in arriving at what we know today; the number may be 4..6 or 4.7 or 4.4 but it is certainly not 6000 or 10000. The main point is that TOO MUCH proven, irrefutable science on which countless other demonstrably correct things are based WOULD HAVE TO BE WRONG for this to be the case. You cannot isolate this one item from all the massively integrated whole that is the sum total of our scientific knowledge – you can't pick and choose! Belief just doesn't count in the real world.
chuckb, if you believe that the Earth is closer to 10,000 years old than it is to 4.5 billion years old then you are most certainly an idiot.
And gravity may be a bogus scientific concept too, so why doesn't he go jump off of a cliff? This is precisely why the GOP has to be put down like a rabid dog!
Acutally, Mr. Rubio gave a good answer for someone trying to walk the line between scientists and blithering idiots. Take it from there.
Actually Sen. Rubio gave a really bad answer for someone on the Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space.
Sad but true.
@Not a GOPer,
I forgot he was on the Science committee.
You're right. He gave the perfect politician's answer. It's sad that in the year 2012, one has to publically ignore scientific truths so as to not upset consituents... that fact is baffling.
Lol. Yeah, I'm not a GOPer, I'd love to hear what people would say if Chuck Schumer had such a response: "I'm not a finance guy, man".
It's worse than just evading the question.
Here's the full quote. It's linked in the article.
"I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries."
This is pandering to fundie voters pure and simple. From someone on the Science and Space subcommittee who claims to be Catholic. (Most Catholics are happy to accept that the earth is 4.5B years old.)
Why should it matter what he believes? I can't blame him for not answering more clearly. No matter what he says, he loses. As long as they don't try to shove their beliefs down our throats (Rick Santorum), and as long as he/she does the job to the best of their ability, WHO CARES what they believe in! What will you do to make this world (not just our country) a better place and safer place? That's the question.
He didn't say what he believed – other than to say "every idea is legitimate and we'll never know'. This is NOT OK for someone influencing Science legislation.
"At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all."
Actually, there are multiple hypotheses on the origin of the universe, aren't there? I don't like his wording, but maybe that is what he was getting at?
Admittedly, the "7 days or 7 eras" bit is crap. As is the "we'll never know" bit.
Well you know maybe his family's religious past is a clue to his beliefs. Jefferson had his own type of Bible. Maybe Marco has the KFC version of the Bible. (And I don't mean chicken, but, damn, now I'm getting hungry – but I mean the Kolobian Fundamentalist Catholic Bible.)
it's classic evasion. He didn't answer the question. This is pandering to the fundie vote:
"Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that."
As a statement it is not factually untrue but it is the politician's dissembling answer of "I don't know, I wasn't there." It's better than the Paul Broun "lies from the pit of hell" answer but I expect more from a member of the Senate Science subcommittee.
@lj. So, your idea of a good leader is to say whatever the whackos behind you want to hear? That way, the "leader" doesn't lose. Far out...
@I'm not a GOPer,
True, it is an evasion, but some non-committal-ness (?) is understandable, seeing as he isn't a scientist.
I'd like to see politicians say something like: "I don't know the details, but science says it's about 4 billion years old and our children should study and understand science."
This is actually non-committal and supports science and education at the same time.
Even, "... the current science appears to say..." would be okay, I think.
had he said something like what you suggest, this discussion would not have happened.
The GQ interviewer hit him with a question he wasn't expecting. He waffled (using talking points with the fundie vote in mind). We know nothing of what he actually believes other than he is is clearly behaving like a candidate for 2016.
@I'm not a GOPer,
True, good point.
If more people read the bible... There would be less Christians. I know they make it seem like its all about peace and love, but that book contains some disgusting, immoral things.
The Bible is the most violent book every written and should be added to the list of Banned Books.
The age of the earth is not so "set in stone" (pun intended) as you may think. Research the science behind Carbon 14 testing and you will find that there are many variables that can cause rock dating to be in error. For one example, What if, we discover that rocks would already date old from the beginning of the earth? Maybe God created the rocks old? Who knows? Or radiation absorbtion and half life etc, is different now than when the world was born.
Proof for any of your claims? Oh none.
Carbon 14 is not used to date the age of the earth. It is only useful for organic things.
Carbon 14??? Right here is the problem. People too uneducated to know that they don't even have a clue.
sayin – it is fascinating to see the illogical lengths believers will go to attempt to fit their theology into reality.
Dude you cant use Carbon 14 dating to date the age of the earth
If god created the stones with the appearance of age, then one should ask god to retract his commandment regarding "bearing false witness..."
First, Carbon 14 dating is not used past 50k-100k years, so it is not relevant to the age of the Earth.
Second, your "what ifs" are already accounted for by scientist who spend large amounts of time studying this. For example, igneous rock's "clocks", for some isotopes, are reset when they are melted. We know this simply because newly cooled lava has its "clock", for some isotopes, reset to zero.
Third, if God created the rocks old, then He is being deceptive, i.e. lying. Does that sound like your God?
There is a large amount of information on radiometric dating. If you really want to understand it, as opposed to just trying to discount it, then get a decent scientific resource and read about it.
Obviously you do not understand science.......
Your argument is flawed. C-14 dating is not used to date rocks. It is used to date the remains of living things. Also, it's only able to date back about 62,000 years. To look at deep geological time, you need to turn to other dating methods, such as potassium-argon or uranium-lead dating.
Carbon-14 dating is only useful for a few tens of thousands of years. there are a number of other isotopes that can be used to accurately date the Earth. The science is quite settled and the age of the Earth is known to within a small percent error.
Carbon 14 can only be used to date organic materials, not minerals (rocks). The speed of light is a constant, so we can make extrapolations based on how fast it travels to determine the age of the light that we observe. The "who knows" argument is a cop out, we do know, or at least have a pretty good idea of these things.
Evolution is not a lie, we can see it happening, for example with drug resistant infections. The drugs we used to treat the infections were not widely present before humans started using them, now there is a resistance to them programed into the microorganism's DNA... they EVOLVED to be resistant.
Anyone who denies this is occurring does not deserve to be part of the discussion, they are denying observable facts in order to support their argument of a omnipotent, invisible, and unprovable force that controls our destiny.
Carbon 14 dating refers to the dating of once living materials and not rock, unless the rock strata were deposited on top of the once living material, in which case an argument can be made that the rock is newer than the material below it.
One gauges the age of rock by looking at the age of the rock lying above it, as in the Grand Canyon, that took millions of years (perhaps 17 million) to erode to its present depth to expose rock estimated to be billions of years old. Of course, a creationist could look at that and exclaim what a beautiful work of art God created with the Earth.
The Chicxulub crater in the Yucatan is another example of estimating age of rock based on a global event. The estimated age of this event is 65 million years. But again, a creationist could look at the evidence and exclaim what interesting things God did a few thousand years ago.
At least Rubio admitted that he didn't know. And, personally, I think that is a good answer. There are ways to know how old the earth really is. Some people know how to measure it, some people don't.
No – he chose not to answer the question – and not alienate fundie voters.
It is disingenuous for a member of the Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space to say:
"I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all."
For some background, there are *25* senators on the Science and Space committee. So Rubio is certainly not alone in his apparent lack of qualification.
which only serves to exaccerbate the problem.
We also have the example of US Rep. Paul Broun (R. Georgia) on the House Science and Space Committee who says that "the big bang theory ... evolution are lies from the pit of hell".
Let's put elected officials on the science committee who accept science as reasonable explanation for the world around us. How's that for an idea?
I didn't know he was a member of the Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space. If he is, he should know how old the earth is. I agree.
Well that seals it, Hilary 2016
Great. Another GOP wannabe pandering to the far right by supporting the concept that science not not be believed or accepted unless it conforms with your personal beliefs, and that all belief-based views of science are equally valid.
I don't know much about Rubio yet, but anyone who thinks science is subjective has lost my vote.
Right, they intend to run another stupid man for president. Go for it and see what happens. Maybe we can get some people into government who don't believe in automobiles and telephones as well?
The GOP REQUIRES stupid candidates, as only the stupid can be so easily led by the real power brokers behind the scenes.
Hey repulitards....you let Romney lead you this last election. He and his religion believe that they WILL become gods after they die...they believed that GOD was a mortal, human man on another planet before he perfected himself and became a GOD of this planet (LOOK IT UP!) so I don't think you have ANY room to talk ANYMORE.
If you need a religion to run the country, then move to the Middle East where the government is run by an ignorant Theocracy. Don't drag this country down ANYMORE!!! AMEN!
makes about as much sense as a guy who was born from a virgin, walked around living a sin free life performing miracles, and dieing on a cross and coming back to life three days later before magically ascending in to heaven.
You don't have to be a bible thumper to know that religion espouses morality, humanity and social values, something not too evident in most of the posts here. the "golden rule" is a moral code to live by. Do you know it?
John, show evidence that Christians are more "moral" than unbelievers.
Uysfl – you just described what Barack Obama claims he believes – I guess that makes him an idiot and bad leader also.
Tom, read the posts. The hatred and vile for not agreeing with the Ayhiest stance is apparent. Live and let live.
@ Mr. Galt...remind me again what Ayn Rand thought about altruism and other "selfless" qualities you claim are the foundation of religion
Thank. You. !!
@galt: " Live and let live."
religious followers haven't ever been good at that idea....................trust me religious people showed up and slaughtered my ancestors, then placed us in concentrations camps......opps i meant reservations.
Burning Man it is becoming apparent that Ayn Rand is your God since the only takeaway you have from the book is her belief that God is a distraction and failure of purity. There is a lot more there about what a godless society and government run amok can do. Do you remember that or just the lines that support your beliefs?
@John Galt. Wow. I think you must have failed that lit class and had to turn in your Objectivist code ring. Or maybe you're just suffering from some kind of dissociative order.
Mr. Galt said: "Burning Man it is becoming apparent that Ayn Rand is your God..." hmmm...and that after only 12 minutes from my post to your response? And you didn't even take a moment to respond to content of my statement? You, too, like Rubio, are a bit loose with the "non-commital" non-answer. You are an excellent American pollitician...you should run for office. BTW, never read anything of hers other than _Philosophy: Who Needs It?"
Rubio has tyoo much baggage for 2016. Gets history of parents leaving Cuba wrong. Has personal finance problems. Kinda like Ryan and his 3 hour marathon. GOP puts up this guy in 2016, they'll have learned nothing!
why all the Rubio hype? This guy was a lucky draw on a anti Obama ticket. Presidential candidate? What a joke. The latin community here in Florida knows the true story that cnn is trying to hide. This guy doesn't represent them. He is a Freshman in politics and will be lucky to survive the next election.
He simply didn't answer, as in non committal. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The condemnation of the atheist community for someone not taking their side is appalling. Believe what you want and allow others to believe what they want. It must be very hard to get out of bed every day knowing the president you voted for goes to church every Sunday.
Wow, you never actually "read" Atlas Shrugged did you? If you did, you'd know that John Galt and the characters in the story are Atheists....
john – if it were only as simple as believers just believing, but unfortunately, they work tirelessly to force their beliefs upon the general population by codifying them into civil law.
That dark, incoherent passion within you, which you take as the voice of god is nothing more than the corpse of your mind.
Rubio is on the Senate Subcommittee on SCIENCE and Space.
Not taking a side!!!! this is the same thing as saying he is still on the line whether or not gravity exists.
Seriously, you take the same john galt then defend this nonsense. Ayn Rand is doing back flips in her grave.
JP – I'm all of a sudden "wrong" for reading a book? Yes, Ayn Rand was an atheist. As for the qcharacters, they are fictional you dimwhit and are what Ayn wanted them to be. The book tells a far better story and doesn't focus at all on atheism. Maybe if you had finished it you would know that.
@galt: nah i voted for the president not based on what fantasy figure he prays to, but on his ability to explain simply what his plans were and how he saw doing them. the other guy i didn't trust because he couldn't explain a simple taxation plan.
so to us we don't care about your "god" until his followers start making stupid claims about the earth being 6000 years old.
Lalala, why would anyone want to take a side when they can't win? His beliefs are his like yours are yours. His purpose on the Science and Space Committe is funding. That's it, just like the other committee members who you seem to be ignoring. hmmm any democrats on that committee who are, Athiests cringe, "Christians"?
Precisely, John. He is on a committee which is in charge of funding related to science. If he doesn't accept that science is based on fact and religious belief is not, he shouldn't be on that committee. There are plenty of Christians who can figure out the difference. I don't have any issue with their presence on said committee. I do have an issue with a thumper being on it.
WASP – and I'm sure your ancestors did no evil and had no God of their own.....right?
Tom, yet your Christian president is in a far more powerful position than Rubio. How can you not have the same condemnation? Me think you be a hypocrit. Signing off now but may come back later.
Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son got it right. The issue has nothing to do with letting people believe what they want. The problem is those who believe want to push their beliefs into law and pressure force this republic into a theocracy. There should never be a debate on what is taught in schools. What goes on in schools is based only on facts and therefore stories should not be used to influence young minds. No one is stopping anyone from learning about creationism because they are more than free enough to make that choice by attending sunday school and church. But that teaching based in faith should NOT be one of the default lessons taught to American children.
Going back to forcing beliefs on others; can you tell me how christians arent trying to force their beliefs on the american people? There have been movements to enact laws against abortion(cause the bible denotes life begins at conception), for creationism teaching in PUBLIC schools(self explanatory), against gay marriage(because the bible says it is wrong to lay with another man), and going back further the bible was used to support suppression of black americans(theyre skin is the mark of Cain). All of the hardline christians attempt to force their beliefs on the rest of the public.
@WASP – apparently you don't know that Obama's God and Romney's God are the same.
@ out of touch, no more than you sir. We can differ and coexist, that's the point.
I voted Republican this past election, I believe in God, and I struggle with gay marriage. HOWEVER, people that believe the Bible is a literal daily journal of God/Jesus SCARE THE $H1T OUTTA ME! You'd have to be one dense idiot to deny modern geology, astrophysics, and evolution. And seriously all you Bible beaters out there, you do realize that the modern Bible is a collection of anecdotes, dreams, and interpretations all gathered over several hundred years right? And that the Catholic Church assembled these stories into a collection based on political and theological desires, right? Uneducated folks + agendas = BAD
Wanda sykes said it best: "If you don't like gays getting married, don't marry a gay person." It's no one's business who someone F@#ks.
So its a big deal that there are still Christians in the GOP but Obama attending a church with pastor Jeramiah Wright is okay?
No, there are complete retards in the GOP trying to force social policies based on retarted ways of thought.
No, that is not the issue.
jeff – the difference we saw during the debates and well indicated by biden, is that the republicans will work to enact their beliefs into law and that the democrats will espouse their beliefs as only their own and not attempt to impose them on the general population.
nearly all things once attributed to divine influence have been determined to be of natural origins. that trend is not likely to miraculously reverse.
Of course, if it did reverse, that would prove the existence of miracles? :)
I'm not holding my breath.
Ok all you people against creationism lets have a test (isn’t testing science?)- a few yrs ago humans spliced the genes of a goat and spider to create a goat that produces spider silk in its milk. Please use all the current science and theories to prove humans did this independent of the knowledge of this experiment (IE you can’t reference the experiment for validity). Just prove humans did in fact splice these genes to create a new type of goat rather than the genes mutating/evolving naturally over time without any “creator or intelligence”. I have provided you with a proven human accomplishment that is fact and science has provided a model/theory of evolution that excludes this as being a possibility (an intelligence that purposely creates). Tell me, doesn’t science say a model is flawed if it doesn’t take into account something that we have PROVEN to be possible? Humans have created a new type of goat but current evolution theories states that is not a possibility. Seems we have proof that an intelligence (humans) can create a new distinct form of life but a belief/theory of evolution that this could never have occurred in the past. We have proven the possibility of what many here claim to be myth- that is an intelligence purposely creating/designing a new life form that did NOT occur from natural evolution. So tell me again about how accurate your science claims/beliefs are and how foolish mine are when you (science) reject something as impossible that humans have proven to be possible. In order for evolution to be true science would have to prove that no other intelligent life has existed in this universe. And knowing the size and vastness of the universe to claim that humans are the only intelligent beings ever to have lived is like claiming the earth is the center of the universe. Note I'm not claiming this or that G-d/religion, only that life occured from the actions of an intellegent being.
Wow, you really are stupid, aren't you?
sum – you don't really understand evolution or science, do you?
Care to provide peer reviewed proof of your claims? Oh none, in that case shut the fvck up.
Sumday....Im embarrassed for you...such a childish line of reasoning.
You know i put milk and suger in my coffee to make it sweeter, so since coffee didn't become sweet on it own, than their must be a magical person that crated the sweet coffee and than therfore the world and everything in it. Nice logical thinking there buddy...
Open a science book and welcome to the 21st century. There is no debate on evolution. It's a fact. Frankly, people like you need more education, pure and simple.
And where in nature would it be favorable for a goat to produce spider webs? Your argument is non-sequitur.
My hope is that sumday youll try to learn instead of spew this junk
Here's the thing: science is based on being able to prove/disprove a theory. You have to provide some sort of solid proof of that this intelligent creator 1) exists and 2) had a hand in creating life on earth. (And I'm sorry, but "the Bible says so" doesn't qualify as scientific proof.) You can believe in something with all your might; that doesn't necessarily make it scientific fact.
@sum: DAMN! i have read some true BS from the religious folks, but you take the cake.
humans have "created" many living creatures through various forms of experimenting/breeding.
the modern domesticated dog for one. our ancestors took wild canines and bred them to our liking based on the traits we wanted them to have.
human intervention can create an animal that wouldn't have ever been created in nature otherwise.
so that is the main difference. evolution is natural adaptation to your enviroment which takes time. evolution is the long term for adaptation.
science doesn't claim "no other intelligent life" religion does that. science is actively looking for other life in this universe.
The Republicans say they are the party of conservatism and the hallmark of conservatism is things don't change. Well, after the election, the Republicans can evolve or, they can let themselves go extinct and then we won't have to listen to them anymore telling us the earth is flat, there is no global warming, or that women can turn pregnancy on and off at will.
Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition.
The Big Bang theory - which now says that the universe has been around for billions of years - was first thought up by a Belgian priest by the name of Georges LeMaitre. Not all people who believe in God can be called anti-science.
Which begs the question why Rubio (who claims to be Catholic) would make such a big deal of evading this question.
Most Catholics are quite happy to accept that the earth is 4.5B years old.
Rubio bounces from one religion to another. Publicly he kowtows to the religious fanatics of his base. I doubt he believes much of anything, but I'd love to hear him do a dramatic reading of some NWA lyrics for his neaderthal followers.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.