home
RSS
Rubio ignites debate with answer about creationism
November 19th, 2012
04:19 PM ET

Rubio ignites debate with answer about creationism

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.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Creationism • Politics

soundoff (6,211 Responses)
  1. hethatknowsyourstupid

    Waa waaa waaa we cant be right. Creation is the most logical choice. Mans made up logic fails.

    November 19, 2012 at 8:05 pm |
  2. rosethornne

    I'm appalled that this yahoo is part of running the country.

    November 19, 2012 at 8:04 pm |
  3. Colin

    Wow, just wow, the way politicians have to pretend to dumb themselves down to pander to the scientifically ignorant Christians. If a majority of the electorate was Buddhist, he would be walking a fine line between science and Buddhist creation myths.

    November 19, 2012 at 8:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I know one thing for sure, any of you could be right. And if any of you are not right you really ought to be and God loves you just the same.

      November 19, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
    • End Religion

      I'd be a nice change of pace to see people valuing actual honesty and actual integrity.

      November 19, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
  4. Joe Plumber

    Burn the heretic at the stake! Everything in the Bible is true.

    November 19, 2012 at 8:01 pm |
    • ghastly

      BURN! BURN! BURN!

      November 19, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
  5. catholicboyrichard

    Reblogged this on catholicboyrichard and commented:
    He is not a scientist and does not claim to be. He was being trapped into answering a question based upon his own theology, and he did not fall for the trap. And for that they criticize him. What answer should he have given, that was both true to science, his own beliefs, and the press? None would have satisfied. He ignited no debate. The debate was already here. And he answered it as the man of Faith he is, as well as diplomatically. How is that a bad thing?

    November 19, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @catholicboyrichard,

      it's not a trick question. Sen. Rubio is on the Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space.

      There is no reason he should not have a cogent science-based answer.

      Besides, he claims to be Catholic, and most Catholics happily accept that the earth is 4.5B years old or are you going to try to tell me that Catholics are all of a sudden 'bible literalists' now?

      November 19, 2012 at 8:00 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      How is that a bad thing? Because he's an elected official. it's like him saying, that big white round thing in the sky at night, well, some say it's made of rock, and some say it's made of green cheese. Now, I'm not a scientist. I guess we'll never know – it's just one of life's great mysteries.

      He's being mentioned as a possible Presidential candidate. It staggers the mind – it truly does. The United States is slipping into a quagmire of idiocy and stupidity, where it's considered a badge of honour to be dumb and uneducated.

      November 19, 2012 at 8:03 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      My expectation is that decision makers should be intelligent.

      November 19, 2012 at 8:03 pm |
    • Alex

      What he should have said was "Ask a scientist" and left it at that. Since creationists are convinced that there are some scientists who believe that the Earth is 7000 years old, they probably wouldn't have been all that upset.

      November 19, 2012 at 8:14 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Alex,

      yes, the same ones that believe pumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is uncorrelated with rising temperatures.

      November 19, 2012 at 8:16 pm |
    • Bill Marvel

      Yes, but a man of WHAT faith? Not Catholic, for sure.

      November 20, 2012 at 12:18 am |
      • catholicboyrichard

        I am not particularly concerned if he attends both a Baptist (actually I think it is a non-demoninational) church as well as his Catholic parish. My understanding is that he goes to both. Something like me. The issue is that he spoke as a person with deeply held religious convictions, and is being slammed for it. I find that reprehensible.

        November 20, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
  6. was blind, but now I see

    "The world that then was"

    In the article “Genesis 1:1-2”, we focused on the first two verses of Genesis. As we saw there, God did not create the heavens and the earth on the first day of creation but “in the beginning”, in eternal past. We also saw that this earth became without form and void. It was not created like this but it became like this. There was a world, “a world that then was”, as we will see it is called, which disappeared completely. This article will try to throw more light on the topic, examining other similarly revealing portions of the Word of God.

    2 Peter 3:6: “the word that then was”.
    Starting this study, let’s go to 2 Peter 3. There we read:

    2 Peter 3:3-7, 13
    "Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation. For this they willingly forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which [i.e. water] the world that then was perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now by the same word are kept in store, reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men...... Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells."

    In this passage of 2 Peter 3, we learn for a "world that then was" and which perished being flooded with water. The reference here is not to the flood of Noah. This flood didn't destroy all the world but the world of the ungodly only (2 Peter 2:5). Also, since all the animals were preserved by Noah, God didn't have to re-do things after the flood. In contrast, in the case of 2 Peter 3:6, all the then world, “the world that then was”, perished. The word "but" in 2 Peter 3:7 makes a contrast between "the world that then was" and the world that succeeded it and which is the world that is now ("the world that THEN was perished, being flooded by water, BUT the heavens and the earth which are NOW....."). Moreover, 2 Peter 3:13 tells us that the world that is now will be succeeded by NEW heavens and a NEW earth i.e. by a new world (see also Revelation 21:1).

    From the above, it is clear that the Bible speaks of three worlds. The first world, "the world that then was", perished being flooded by water. The second world, the world that is now, is "reserved for fire" and it waits for the day of the Lord, "in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up" (2 Peter 3:10). The third world is still future and will succeed the world that is now.

    The fact that the there are three worlds: the world that then was, the world that is now and the world that is to come, is also evident from 2 Corinthians 12:2 where Paul says:

    II Corinthians 12:2
    "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago – whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows – such a one was caught up to the third heaven"

    What does Paul mean by "third heaven"? According to what we have learned, it means the NEW heaven that is still to come. It is this new heaven that John also saw by revelation (Revelation 21) and of which Peter speaks in 2 Peter 3:13. Is it therefore right that the Word of God speaks here of a THIRD heaven? Absolutely yes: the first was the one that THEN was, the second is the one that is NOW and the third is the one THAT IS TO COME.

    After making clear the above, and taking into account what we learned in the Genesis 1:1-2 article, it is obvious that "the world that then was" is the world of Genesis 1:1. God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning (Genesis 1:1). He didn't create the earth formless (Isaiah 45:18). It became formless and empty (Genesis 1:2) which means that there were living beings on that earth that died when that world, "the world that then was", perished. The way that it perished was by being flooded with water (2 Peter 3:6). That's why there are findings that suggest the existence at some time in the past, of fishes that are not known today in high mountains like the Alps, the Andes etc. There was sea there sometime when "the world that then was perished being flooded with water".

    Also that's why there are fossils of animals that are called prehistoric and it is supposed that they lived many million years ago: they lived in "the world that then was". In this world lived also the prehistoric, so called "man". This "man" as well as all the living beings that used to be the inhabitants of that first world, perished when that world perished.

    The problem with scientists is that they ignore the dividing line between "the world that then was" and the world that is now. Consequently, when they find fossils of beings that lived in that world and see that they are different from the beings that live in the present world, they try to explain the differences through such assumptions as the theory of evolution. But the truth is that there was a world that God created, which lasted for the period covered by Genesis 1:1. However, that world perished being flooded with water and thus God had again to put things in order in the six days of creation. Hence, He made the plants, the animals and finally man. Many times He chose to make things in a similar fashion as in that world. Thus for example, the elephant took the place of the mammoth. In other cases, He chose to make again things that were also in that first world as turtles probably. This is not strange at all. If you had a home that you liked and which for some reason was ruined, you may very well have chosen to make things in a similar fashion as they used to be.

    That's how clearly the Word of God explains the things. The Word of God does not have any problem with genuine facts and true science. The problem is with false "facts" and false "science". True science gives the facts and stops there. False “science” goes forth and draws conclusions based on unreliable assumptions. Evolution belongs to the second category, for it is based on entirely unreliable assumptions. It is thus similar to the ancient mythologies that were dreamed up to explain the creation of the world. Today we speak of them as mythologies but in their age they were respected as people today respect evolution. However, evolution is nothing else than another mythology or better "assumptiology" if there is such a word. In the future it will be listed in the mythologies that the mind of men that deny God invented to explain what the Word of God so clearly explains since thousands of years.

    What caused the end of "the world that then was"?
    As we learned from 2 Peter 3:6, “the world that then was”, was perished being flooded with water. The question the reader may have is why? What caused this flood and the associated destruction of that world? This is a question without explicit answer in the Bible, though we could get some clues from what happened to our present world. What I mean is that the present world, as also the world that then was, was, when it was first created, very good and perfect (Genesis 1:31). God creates everything perfect. Yet in Romans 8:20-22 we find it in a really pitiful state:

    Romans 8:20-22
    "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now"

    Futility, bondage of corruption, groaning and travailing in pain are not things that one would expect from a situation that God describes in Genesis 1:31 as very good. Something therefore must have happened in the meantime that turned what was very good to something that is under the "bondage of corruption". What was this? The fall of Adam. The fall of Adam not only cost him the loss of the one third of his being1 i.e. the spirit, but it also affected the whole creation of God: it put it under the “bondage of corruption”. Furthermore, though God made Adam boss of the world that is now (Genesis 1:26), by his fall he passed on all his rights to the devil who is the one now called the ruler, the boss, of this world (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11). That's why all the creation groans and travails in pain and waits for deliverance. What caused this situation? A fall. The fall of Adam. After this fall, we find God saying to Noah:

    Genesis 6:11-13, 17
    “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth….“And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die.”

    The only one that was saved from the flood was Noah and his family, together with all the animals they had in the ark.

    Though the Bible does not explicitly tell us why “the world that then was” was flooded with water, the following are I believe undeniable facts:

    i) God creates everything perfect. So “the world that then was” was created perfect.

    ii) God does not destroy anything that is good and perfect. In fact he is long suffering and long bearing. This means that for the world that then was to be perished completely, it means that it had reached a state where no “repair” was possible.

    iii) Why it had reached that state? What caused it? We cannot know for sure. However, as the fall of Adam and his apostasy from God caused the flood and the almost complete destruction of the present world, a fall, an apostasy was also I believe the reason of the destruction of the world that then was too. What fall? I believe the Bible does not say explicitly. However a world that God had created perfect, as He creates everything perfect, would have never had to be destroyed, had it not reached, through a fall, an apostasy from the Lord, a completely unredeemable state. This I believe is not assumption but a fact. What kind of apostasy as well as any other details we cannot really give, unless we start flirting with the borders of guessing, and I would not want to do this.

    The world that then was: conclusion.
    To conclude this study on the earth and when it was created: from Genesis 1:1-2 we learned that God did not create the heavens and the earth on the first day of creation but “in the beginning”. We also learned that the earth became without form and void i.e. it was not created like this.

    Further support to this is given by the passages we saw in this article, especially the ones in 2 Peter 3. As we saw, 2 Peter clearly speaks of 3 worlds: the “world that then was”, “the world that now is” and the world that is to come, “the new heavens and the new earth”. “The world that then was”, is no other than the world of Genesis 1:1-2. This world “perished, being flooded with water”.

    November 19, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
      Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
      Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
      One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
      In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
      One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
      One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

      November 19, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      I read this with great interest. I just wish it was longer and you could elaborate a bit more.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
    • Scout

      Oh, just shut up.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:52 pm |
    • Akira

      Zzzzzzzzz....wait, what? Oh. Nothing. Zzzzzzzzzzz

      November 19, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
    • Dump hinduism, illegality of Evolution, way of hindu's, deniers of truth absolute GOD, sons of LANGOOR, SELF CENTERED

      From book of hinduism, corruption of truth absolute, called Greek torah, renamed old testament to hind, fool humanity. Reject of son of blessed Mary.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @RL,

      change it up. You could always do a 'guess the tract'.

      When April with his showers sweet with fruit
      The drought of March has pierced unto the root
      And bathed each vein with liquor that has power
      To generate therein and sire the flower;
      When Zephyr also has, with his sweet breath,
      Quickened again, in every holt and heath,
      The tender shoots and buds, and the young sun
      Into the Ram one half his course has run,
      And many little birds make melody
      That sleep through all the night with open eye
      (So Nature prîcks them on to ramp and rage)-
      Then do folk long to go on pilgrimage,
      And palmers to go seeking out strange strands,
      To distant shrines well known in sundry lands.
      And specially from every shire's end
      Of England they to Canterbury wend,
      The holy blessed martyr there to seek
      Who helped them when they lay so ill and weal
      Befell that, in that season, on a day
      In Southwark, at the Tabard, as I lay
      Ready to start upon my pilgrimage
      To Canterbury, full of devout homage,
      There came at nightfall to that hostelry
      Some nine and twenty in a company
      Of sundry persons who had chanced to fall
      In fellowship, and pilgrims were they all
      That toward Canterbury town would ride.
      The rooms and stables spacious were and wide,
      And well we there were eased, and of the best.
      And briefly, when the sun had gone to rest,
      So had I spoken with them, every one,
      That I was of their fellowship anon,
      And made agreement that we'd early rise
      To take the road, as you I will apprise.
      But none the less, whilst I have time and space,
      Before yet farther in this tale I pace,
      It seems to me accordant with reason
      To inform you of the state of every one
      Of all of these, as it appeared to me,
      And who they were, and what was their degree,
      And even how arrayed there at the inn;
      And with a knight thus will I first begin.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • chyrd

      Willful ignorance shouldn't be considered a strong point.

      November 19, 2012 at 8:01 pm |
    • David

      Copy and paste somewhere else. tl;dr

      November 19, 2012 at 8:03 pm |
    • Unitarian Universalist

      Wow you made my iPhone download all this analysis of a bunch of incredibly ignorant ancients admittedly trying their best to explain the universe?! Please spare us next time and read some science books.

      November 19, 2012 at 8:12 pm |
    • End Religion

      For Frodo!!!

      November 19, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
  7. Apple Bush

    Life exists on Earth because it must.

    November 19, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
    • Athy

      Well, if it didn't there would be no one here to wonder about it.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:37 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      It is unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life. It is necessarily that way, no great mystery.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
  8. J

    The vast majority of you are a bunch of idiots. Atheists....get a life! I take that back, atheists that are looking for that ego trip of repeating the same old rehear sed arguments that you didn't even create...GET A LIFE!
    Real atheists wouldn't feel the need to get there egos soothed on here.

    November 19, 2012 at 7:29 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      Get a life J.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Real atheists know the difference between there and their.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      There, there, J, they're there.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:34 pm |
    • Athy

      J
      It's "their", not "there". A sixth-grader would know that.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:34 pm |
    • Akira

      J, what the hell do you think the goddies are regurgitating if not the same old c/p bullsh!t? Do you READ these blogs with any regularity? And do you feel better now that you told everyone (very maturely, I might add) to "get a life?"

      November 19, 2012 at 7:37 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      J, Rubio is a Senator and believes Creationism crap. That's like a Governor of a State saying, "Well, some say the Earth is round, but others say the Earth is flat. I guess we'll never know – it's just pne of life's great mysteries" Of COURSE atheists are going to comment on such a ridiculous and dangerous statement by an elected official.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:52 pm |
    • chyrd

      Funny how a person who has trouble parsing a sentence is generalizing by calling atheists idiots. Kudos...

      November 19, 2012 at 8:08 pm |
  9. Dump hinduism, illegality of Evolution, way of hindu's, deniers of truth absolute GOD, sons of LANGOOR, SELF CENTERED

    Science is nothing more than a medium to find constant of a matter, without constant, truth absolute, hindu's, ignorant can hind, speculate all they want, they can never know real age of earth or universe, because Constant, truth absolute GOD, creator of heaven's and earth, kept it to himself.

    November 19, 2012 at 7:28 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      hindu-bot, haven't you heard the good news? God DID tell. He told the Christians. ONLY the Christians.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:34 pm |
    • Akira

      So....God's keeping it a secret?
      Ah.
      How wise of him.
      And I was going to bake a birthday cake for Earth.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:42 pm |
  10. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    So a few weeks back we learned that US Rep. Dr. Paul Broun (R. Georgia) is a member of the House Committee on Science Space and Technology and believes "All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. It’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

    Now we learn that Sen. Marco Rubio (R. Florida) who is a member of the Senate Committe on Commerce, Science and Transportation believes that the age of the earth is "one of the great mysteries" and is unanswerable.

    "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."

    Despite the fact that the Senator is on the SENATE SCIENCE COMMITTEE he says "I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that."

    Senator, you don't have to be a "scientist", you just have to accept the principles of science – or you should if you are going to influence legislation related to science.

    There is so much hot air devoted to how the the US is a technology incubator. This country can and will only move backwards if we give elected officials who ignore science, legislative authority related to the sciences.

    Perhaps we need a basic science literacy test that is administered to Congressional Representatives and Senators before they can participate on the House or Senate Science committees!

    November 19, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      In case anyone is interested you can find Sen. Rubio's committee assignments here:

      http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/committee-assignments

      In brief they are:
      – Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet:
      – Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard:
      – Subcommittee on Science And Space:
      – Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security:

      I don't know how you can be on the Subcommitte on SCIENCE AND SPACE, and not be willing to stipulate that to the best of our knowledge, the earth is approximately 4.5B years old.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:33 pm |
    • Akira

      That's kind of like putting the Duggars on a subcommittee for birth control...

      November 19, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
  11. Corner Cafe

    Chad Chew Toy

    This tasty treat is for your lonely mongrel waiting outside on a leash while you are enjoying a civilized meal. Your pup will love the beefy flavor and classic bone design. Perfect for your brainless best friend, like Chad! $2.99

    November 19, 2012 at 7:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      There aren't many apologists like Chad. He's persistent as a fart in a phone box. But it's not clear that the God he represents, defends or apologizes is one anyone would want to know. He doesn't seem to have a personal relationship with it or have any direct experience of it. It seems to have just a few special roles – first cause, of course, and the source of the odd bit of fine tuning required to make the Universe just the right sort of place for just the right sort of thing as Chad. Otherwise it just doesn't have much to say and it never seems to be quite there.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
    • End Religion

      lol @ chad chew toy... almost rotfl

      November 19, 2012 at 8:30 pm |
  12. was blind, but now I see

    5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

    6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

    7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

    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.

    – 2 Peter 3:5-8

    November 19, 2012 at 7:19 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
      Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
      Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
      One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
      In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
      One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
      One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

      November 19, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      Water dissolving and water removing
      There is water at the bottom of the ocean
      Remove the water, carry the water
      Remove the water from the bottom of the ocean
      TH

      November 19, 2012 at 7:25 pm |
    • JosephU

      Praying to God, and referring to Scripture, Jesus said:
      John 17:17 (NIV1984)
      "Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth."
      See: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017&version=NIV1984

      God word tells us:
      Exodus 20:1,11 (NIV1984Bible)
      The Ten Commandments

      1 "And God spoke all these words
      11 ... in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20&version=NIV1984

      November 19, 2012 at 7:28 pm |
    • sam

      WHAT?!
      – Lil Jon

      November 19, 2012 at 7:28 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      Yeay-esss.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:33 pm |
    • End Religion

      Please learn to walk in the many footsteps of Bilbo. In His name I pray...

      "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty wet hole, filled with the ends of earth worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole, with nothing to sit down on or to eat; it was a hobbit hole, and that means comfort."

      From the book of Bilbo, 1:1

      November 19, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
  13. Chad

    I keep waiting for atheists to introduce a curriculum that teaches the truth as they know it (after all, I'm SURE they dont want children mislead to think something is true when it isnt...)

    1. Scientists (Borde-Guth-Vilenkin) have proven that our universe has a finite past, that it has a beginning, and that it it meta-physically impossible for nothing (non-being) to produce something. In other words, an external causal agent is absolutely required.

    2. There simply is no workable theory on the table to explain the origin of life on earth.

    3. There simply is no workable theory that can harmonize the fossil record (which reflects extremely long periods of stasis interrupted by extremely short periods of rapid morphological change) with a purely naturalistic gene change being fed into natural selection.

    4. And dont forget in your history class to review the evidence for the empty tomb the resurrection appearances and the origin of the belief on the part of the disciples that they had witnessed a resurrected Christ.

    November 19, 2012 at 7:09 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      Gibberish.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:14 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Still presenting the same ignorant fallacies.

      1) You have yet to provide anything that shows that an external agent is required as being even a consensus among the scientific community, and only spouting off a few names doesn't accomplish anything.

      2) Hence why abiogenesis isn't taught as a theory in classrooms as far as I'm aware. And if you have any kind of evidence to the contrary, present it.

      3) Evolution is not a prescriptive process, it's descriptive. There is no formula of "This amount of time = this amount of change", so I don't see how this point could in any way be relevant to anything at all.

      4) The bible is not historical evidence, especially without any kind of contemporary extrabiblical evidence that could corroborate your claim.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
    • End Religion

      1) I do not accept #1
      2) refer to #1
      3) refer to #1
      4) refer to #1

      November 19, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Chad

      Science isn't about truth; science is about testable and measurable hypotheses that provide the best working models of reality. Science is not philosophy. Go get some learnin' on the matter

      1. Science doesn't know what "caused" the inflation of the universe from a singularity. Because science doesn't know, it doesn't make up stupid sh!t like, "Big invisible sky wizard did it with magic spellz." (Also, who is claiming that "nothing" ever was? Certainly not science.)

      2. Just because there's no "workable theory" does not mean that "big invisible sky wizard did it with magic spellz." When you don't know the answer, the honest thing to do is admit that you're still trying to figure it out.

      3. That's why it's still being studied with the best tools available. When chanting "big invisible sky wizard did it with magic spellz" helps us get better results faster and more efficiently than otherwise, we'll do that to help on the problem.

      4. You don't seem to understand what is and is not "evidence."

      How Chardy of you, Chard.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
    • Athy

      1. An external causal agent is not absolutely required. Witness the spontaneous radioactive decay of atoms of elements above lead in the periodic table.

      2. There several theories on the table to explain the origin of life on earth. Lack of a definitive on does not prove a creator. Even if it did, one would need a theory to explain the origin of the creator.

      3. Evolution is not driven by a purely naturalistic gene change being fed into natural selection. It is fed by natural changes in the environment which can occur rapidly or slowly.

      4. Evidence for the empty tomb and resurrection appearances are too old to consider valid.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
    • Corner Cafe

      Chad Chew Toy

      This tasty treat is for your lonely mongrel waiting outside on a leash while you are enjoying a civilized meal. Your pup will love the beefy flavor and classic bone design. Perfect for your brainless best friend, Just like Chad! $2.99

      November 19, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • sam

      Bibbity bobbity boo.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
    • Chad

      @hawaii, I'm curious on a couple things:
      1. If you dont think that the universe had a beginning, why do you think it is ~13.75 billion years old?
      2. What criteria are you using to exclude the documents that were later on collected in one place as the bible, from the realm of historical scrutiny?

      November 19, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
    • Dump hinduism, illegality of Evolution, way of hindu's, deniers of truth absolute GOD, sons of LANGOOR, SELF CENTERED

      Chadism, filthy goon hind lover of hinduism, stick it in.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:27 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      1) Because I, unlike you, do not necessarily accept that nothing existed before the Big Bang. We don't know either way.

      2) What part of "no contemporary evidence" don't you understand Chad?

      November 19, 2012 at 7:29 pm |
    • was blind, but now I see

      "Necessary Existence" would be a good place to start.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:30 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad "If you dont think that the universe had a beginning, why do you think it is ~13.75 billion years old?
      @hawaiiguest "Because I, unlike you, do not necessarily accept that nothing existed before the Big Bang. We don't know either way."
      @Chad "you date the universe at ~13.75b years old because you dont accept that nothing existed before the BB?
      I'm confused...
      If you dont accept that the universe had a beginning, why do you date it at ~13.75 billion years?

      ===
      @Chad "What criteria are you using to exclude the doc uments that were later on collected in one place as the bible, from the realm of historical scrutiny"
      @Hawaii "What part of "no contemporary evidence" don't you understand Chad?"
      @Chad "so.. your criteria for history is that there be "contemporary evidence"? So.. no event written about after the fact qualifies?
      so... there is no such thing as history? We have no contemporary evidence for the VAST majority of events occurring prior to say, ~1000 AD..

      November 19, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
    • Chad

      @Athy "An external causal agent is not absolutely required. Witness the spontaneous radioactive decay of atoms of elements above lead in the periodic table."
      @Chad "hmm.. except that occurs within the existing universe.. we're talking about being arising from non-being.

      =======
      @Athy " There several theories on the table to explain the origin of life on earth. Lack of a definitive on does not prove a creator. Even if it did, one would need a theory to explain the origin of the creator."
      @Chad "all of which have failed...
      God doesnt have a creator..

      ======
      @Athy "Evolution is not driven by a purely naturalistic gene change being fed into natural selection. It is fed by natural changes in the environment which can occur rapidly or slowly."
      @Chad "hmmm no..., environmental changes can impact the rate and variety of genetic mutations, but dont in and of themselves provide a new change mechanism. There is only genetic mutation and natural selection.

      =======
      @Athy "Evidence for the empty tomb and resurrection appearances are too old to consider valid."
      @Chad "oh.. my bad, I didnt realize there was a historical statute of limitations. Can you send me that link?

      November 19, 2012 at 7:44 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Chad, two people can believe that something began without agreeing on what caused the beginning to occur. You insist on god being the causal agent while more intelligent people admit that they don't know.

      Historical evidence can be quite solid or quite poor. Our evidence that Egyptians existed is pretty good; our evidence that some group called "Hebrews" were ever enslaved in Egypt is about as poor as possible. The "evidence" for an "empty tomb" is extremely poor. The evidence that several hundred prophets walked judea around the turn of the millennium claiming to be the messiah is pretty good; our evidence that any of them worked actual miracles or rose from the dead is pretty poor.

      You ask dumb questions.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
    • Chad

      @Moby Schtick "two people can believe that something began without agreeing on what caused the beginning to occur. You insist on god being the causal agent while more intelligent people admit that they don't know."
      @Chad "I'm looking... but I cant find where I said that? I could have sworn I said simply "Scientists (Borde-Guth-Vilenkin) have proven that our universe has a finite past, that it has a beginning, and that it it meta-physically impossible for nothing (non-being) to produce something. In other words, an external causal agent is absolutely required."

      ==
      @Moby Schtick "The evidence that several hundred prophets walked judea around the turn of the millennium claiming to be the messiah is pretty good"
      @Chad "really?? what is your source for that :-)
      I know you wouldnt just make it up..

      November 19, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      1) The current state of the universe had a beggining. The current coniguration of matter had a beginning. We do not know if matter itself had a beggining. You are asserting that before the Big Bang, there was nothing (the more common usage of the word I assume, not the physics definition).

      2) Considering we have these writings of the gospels and the supposed life of Jesus at the earliest 60-70 CE, and the only extrabiblical references come much later, this is not enough to confirm any kind of supernatural claims. Especially when one of the things written is that a bunch of dead prophets crawled out of their graves and traveled around teaching (you would think people would be writing about a zombie invasion).

      "We have no contemporary evidence for the VAST majority of events occurring prior to say, ~1000 AD."
      Examples?

      November 19, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      The Universe is finite in time, therefore Christ was resurrected. That's pretty clear, Chad. No need to go over it again. But can you explain your God and your relationship to it? Does it speak to you? Do you converse with it. Does it tell you that it loves you and that you are a special creation billions of years in the making?

      November 19, 2012 at 7:59 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Chad

      So are you just playing game, here? You're stating something that we all agree on for no reason? Yes, the universe had a beginning. Yes, it seems likely that the beginning was caused by something or other. No, we don't know what that something or other was. If you're point is that it must be a god similar to the one you believe in, then you're being incredibly dovchy and dishonest in your prior post to me.

      Yes, there's plenty of evidence for prophets walking around Judea at "the time of christ." If you don't already know that or feel like looking into the matter than I couldn't care less.

      November 19, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
    • Alex

      @Chad

      1. Time is relative. Before the big bang, there was no meaningful definition of "time" and certainly no way to measure it. If all of matter is within a singularity, there essentially is no time passing. And either way, whenever scientists measure how old the universe is, they're only measuring to how long ago the Big Bang was. This could simply be iteration 1040502 of Big Bang – Big Contraction cycle, but since there's absolutely no way (yet) to know this, scientists have nothing to say on the subject.

      2. There's actually a number of very interesting hypothesis (including one which shows how self replicating cellular structures can occur around ocean vents, although technically not life since no metabolism or anything). Chances are we'll never get enough solid data to move from plausible hypothesis to theory, but that doesn't make your meaningless conjecture valid.

      3. All I can say is read a biology textbook. Scientists aren't nearly as confused as you think they are (at least about the trivial stuff you think is complicated).

      4. Lol.

      November 19, 2012 at 8:31 pm |
    • Alex

      @Chad
      Finally, this isn't an Atheism vs. Theism debate. You don't have to be an atheist if you're a scientist. This is simply a fact and evidence based belief system vs. willful ignorance belief system. None of the questions you've raised are valid arguments for belief in any deity or creation. And if you want to define your God as what we don't yet understand, that's totally fine with me. Enjoy watching your God fit into smaller and smaller boxes until it finally vanishes into complete insignificance. Hopefully you won't have deprived too many of your future descendants chances at having a legitimate education before that happens.

      What's really sad is that Christianity actually has some good moral values that it can impart (although, unfortunately, the best one of non-violence and forgiveness is the one that seems to be least followed by people who profess themselves to be Christian.) When people like you define Christianity instead to be about teaching the facts of the universe, now as these facts get inevitably discredited, so too may be the morals which the religion teaches. Oh well, guess we'll just have to rely on rationality to provide a set of moral principles. (frankly, probably better that way).

      November 19, 2012 at 8:38 pm |
    • Chad

      @Hawaiiguest “The current state of the universe had a beggining. The current coniguration of matter had a beginning. We do not know if matter itself had a beggining. You are asserting that before the Big Bang, there was nothing (the more common usage of the word I assume, not the physics definition).”
      @Chad “fascinating! A brand new cosmological theory.. Time had a beginning, but matter did not! Very bold theory, especially given the dependant relationship between matter and time (you are disputing Einsteins general theory of relativity!! )
      Is this written up anywhere? Lol”

      =========
      @Hawaiiguest “Considering we have these writings of the gospels and the supposed life of Jesus at the earliest 60-70 CE, and the only extrabiblical references come much later, this is not enough to confirm any kind of supernatural claims….”
      @Chad “you want off the rails again.. the question was this: "What criteria are you using to exclude the doc uments that were later on collected in one place as the bible, from the realm of historical scrutiny"
      Now, I know you don’t just discount those docs because they support the theistic claim, I’m sure you have valid, objective criteria that you apply to all docs, I’m merely asking what that criteria is?

      ========
      @chad "We have no contemporary evidence for the VAST majorit y of events occurring prior to say, ~1000 AD."
      @Hawaiiguest “Examples?
      @Chad “happy to, and on a side note, please take note of what it means to provide examples when asked.. It’s pretty simple, someone says “examples?” and you provide them.
      Responses such as “I already gave you them someplace else I just cant find it”, or “everyone know’s”, or “you’re and idiot”, just aren’t examples..

      Lets pick a couple people you may have heard of and see what contemporary evidence exists for their existence:
      Socrates , Plato, Josephus, : what do we have? Turns out nothing at all.. Our most recent manuscripts from ~400-600 years after their death, something like that.. In fact, that is the common case for famous people that didn’t wield enough power to have coins minted in their name, or some other archeological artifact created that would survive 2000 years.
      @Tom, Tom, the Other One “The Universe is finite in time, therefore Christ was resurrected. That's pretty clear”
      @Chad “ahh.. and the truth comes out, as it always does. Now we see why you are terrified of telling people the whole story, they might come to the wrong (in your opinion) conclusion :-)
      Best to control what information is presented to ensure the correct conclusion..

      ====
      @Moby Schtick Yes, there's plenty of evidence for prophets walking around Judea at "the time of christ."
      @Chad “There is?? From where?? I guess you somehow missed it when I posed that question before, trivial of you to provide the link to that info, thanks in advance!

      November 19, 2012 at 10:41 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chard, all I can say is that I certainly hope you never have any children or have any opportunity to interact with any.

      November 19, 2012 at 10:43 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I wonder, Chard, did you go to a public school? Did you graduate? How?

      November 19, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
    • Chad

      @Alex “Time is relative. Before the big bang, there was no meaningful definition of "time" and certainly no way to measure it. If all of matter is within a singularity, there essentially is no time passing. And either way, whenever scientists measure how old the universe is, they're only measuring to how long ago the Big Bang was. This could simply be iteration 1040502 of Big Bang – Big Contraction cycle, but since there's absolutely no way (yet) to know this, scientists have nothing to say on the subject.”
      @Chad “Hmm.. wrong on all counts!
      All time, matter and space itself came into being at origin, at the singularity (see Big Bang, Stephen Hawking, etc…. )
      See also Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin theory: It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning Alexander Vilenkin (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

      Regarding “big bounce”
      Borde, Guth, Vilenkin, proved that any universe which has on average been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. That holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time

      =======
      @Alex “Time “There's actually a number of very interesting hypothesis (including one which shows how self replicating cellular structures can occur around ocean vents, although technically not life since no metabolism or anything). Chances are we'll never get enough solid data to move from plausible hypothesis to theory, but that doesn't make your meaningless conjecture valid.”
      @Chad “LOL
      “Chances are we’ll never find a way for it to happen naturalistically, but that doesn’t mean God did it” :-)
      Funny stuff , thanks!..

      November 19, 2012 at 10:55 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      @Tom, Tom, the Other One “The Universe is finite in time, therefore Christ was resurrected. That's pretty clear”
      @Chad “ahh.. and the truth comes out, as it always does.

      Really Chad, I didn't expect you to swallow that. But life is worth living because it is sometimes amazing.

      November 20, 2012 at 4:48 am |
    • Chad

      the entire response:

      @Chad “ahh.. and the truth comes out, as it always does. <b.Now we see why you are terrified of telling people the whole story, they might come to the wrong (in your opinion) conclusion
      Best to control what information is presented to ensure the correct conclusion

      November 20, 2012 at 8:58 am |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      And what is time? Is it some kind of natural law, or is it a man made measurement of the movement of matter, or is it something completely different? So tell me Chad, where physics and the natural laws break down (the planck time), how is it that you somehow know that there was absolutely nothing before that? By what possible authority do you think you know what was before the planck time?

      As for the people you brought up, so what? What would really change if those people turned out not to be real, not to mention that Socrates is not considered a historical figure by many historians due to the lack of contemporary evidence. In fact, it seems likely that Socrates was a character made up by Aristotle, but the philosophy is still there. But being besides the point, I have said, many times in this thread I've said CONTEMPORARY EXTRABIBLICAL EVIDENCE.

      As far as your little dig, I gave you two links the last time you wanted examples of your incredible dishonest bullshit, and you completely ran from that thread, probably so you could claim I have never given you examples. But that's besides the point, because you're never going to think you're anything other than the most honest debater here, so I don't see why I should even bother.

      November 20, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • Chad

      @hawaiiguest "And what is time? Is it some kind of natural law, or is it a man made measurement of the movement of matter, or is it something completely different?"
      @Chad "you need to do some reading..."
      @hawaiiguest "So tell me Chad, where physics and the natural laws break down (the planck time), how is it that you somehow know that there was absolutely nothing before that? By what possible authority do you think you know what was before the planck time?"
      @Chad " Borde-Guth-Vilenkin have proven that our universe has a finite past, that it has a beginning, since all of the matter in the universe, space and time came into existence at that beginning (that's what a beginning is), NONE of our existing universe existed prior to that (space, time, matter).

      As it is meta-physically impossible for nothing (non-being) to produce something, an external causal agent is absolutely required.

      ======
      @hawaiiguest "As for the people you brought up, so what? What would really change if those people turned out not to be real, not to mention that Socrates is not considered a historical figure by many historians due to the lack of contemporary evidence. In fact, it seems likely that Socrates was a character made up by Aristotle, but the philosophy is still there. But being besides the point, I have said, many times in this thread I've said CONTEMPORARY EXTRABIBLICAL EVIDENCE."

      @Chad "I am merely pointing out that using your standards for determining historical credibility, socrates, plato, josephus, NONE of them exist.
      So, clearly, you stand alone in viewing your standard of determining historical credibility a valid one. No other historian on the face of the earth agrees with you.

      November 20, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • Huh?

      " But that's besides the point, because you're never going to think you're anything other than the most honest debater here, so I don't see why I should even bother."

      Hawaii you've been winning for a long time but Chad's ego can't handle that fact or the truth. Keep up the good work dude when ever you have the patience's to put up with this dweeb.

      November 20, 2012 at 3:17 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Tell me I need to do reading but not answering the question merely shows that you never thought about that before have you? Try actually answering the point Chad, or that's just another example of you being dishonest.

      In terms of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, check out

      http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/borde-guth-vilenkin/

      for more information on how you are simplifying what their theorem implies and says. Then again, since William Lane Craig interprets it your way, that must be the truth right?

      Also, which definition of nothing are you using? The physics definition or the common usage? You never answered which.

      We have writings that are supposedly from Josephus, not to mention other people writing about Josephus during the time he lived. It's not a big stretch to accept that Josephus and Plato most likely existed. With Jesus it's completely different, and I explained how in this thread already. Just because you want to ignore it doesn't make your Straw Man correct.

      November 20, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
    • Chad

      @hawaii "As far as your little dig, I gave you two links the last time you wanted examples of your incredible dishonest bulls hit, and you completely ran from that thread, probably so you could claim I have never given you examples. But that's besides the point, because you're never going to think you're anything other than the most honest debater here, so I don't see why I should even bother."

      =>Merely pointing to another thread where a similar baseless accusation was made shows nothing :-)

      what you need to do is simple:
      1. Copy and paste what I said
      2. explain why it is dishonest

      the reason you refuse to do that, time after time after time,, is that you simply have no example to use. If you did, you'd be trotting it out every day..

      cue baseless accusations..

      November 20, 2012 at 3:30 pm |
    • Chad

      @hawaiiguest "Tell me I need to do reading but not answering the question merely shows that you never thought about that before have you? Try actually answering the point Chad, or that's just another example of you being dishonest."

      @Chad "uh.. no.. it shows that a valid response to the question "what is time" is "do some reading".
      If you dont understand at least at a rudimentary level the relationship between time, space and matter, you need to do some reading before proceeding with this discussion, right? that is a reasonable request by any measure..

      ====
      @hawaiiguest "In terms of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, check out http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/borde-guth-vilenkin/ for more information on how you are simplifying what their theorem implies and says. Then again, since William Lane Craig interprets it your way, that must be the truth right?

      here is a complete discussion: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/contemporary-cosmology-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe

      The really important thing to remember is the statement from Vilenkin himself, the universe is NOT past eternal.

      It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning Alexander Vilenkin (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

      ====
      @hawaiiguest "Also, which definition of nothing are you using? The physics definition or the common usage? You never answered which."
      @Chad "nothing means non-being, the absence of everything, end of story. There is no such thing as a "physics definition of nothing"
      recently dishonest physicists have attempted to redefine "nothing" so that they can claim that something can come from nothing.

      ====
      @hawaiiguest "We have writings that are supposedly from Josephus, not to mention other people writing about Josephus during the time he lived. It's not a big stretch to accept that Josephus and Plato most likely existed. With Jesus it's completely different, and I explained how in this thread already. Just because you want to ignore it doesn't make your Straw Man correct."
      @Chad "You are exactly correct, it is completely different. Our manuscripts from the original eye witnesses of Jesus are 100s of years closer to the original event than any of Josephus manuscripts, and we have a much larger variety of accounts.
      So, why would you accept the historical authenticity of what Josephus wrote, when he can only corroborate himself, and not accept the Gospels and letters which provide independent corroboration of each other?

      November 20, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Wow, so you answer absolutely none of my posts, and you give a pro-creationist site to back up your creationism. How convincing.

      1) Time is a more abstract concept than you realize, and is not a universal constant as relativity will tell you.

      2) Plopping out a supposed budding conspiracy theory about what physicists mean by nothing just shows your inability to accept ways of thinking that are contrary to your own.

      3) What are the implications of Josephus not existing, or Plato or Socrates? Does it make the writings any less meaningful, or does it make the philosophies somehow invalid? What are the implications of the biblical model of Jesus existing or not? Considering his existence is so closely linked to the supernatural claims, the standards of evidence change. If you think that standards of evidence in history is static, then you obviously don't know how historical research works either.

      4) The gospels cannot be determined to be written by eye witnesses, especially when the average age of people at the time was 38-50. And the earliest scraps we have are dated at the earliest (by religious scholars) to be 60-70 CE, and by secular scholars from 70-90 CE. I have, in part, alluded to this fact out once already in this thread, but you ignored it. I wonder if you will ignore it this time as well.

      5) In terms of linking to other threads for your dishonesty, there are two reasons for this and not for just quoting you.
      a) I don't want to give you the opportunity to claim context or misrepresentation.
      b) I don't feel like quote mining, and I'd rather give people the chance to see the conversation in full.
      c) Just because you enjoy quote mining doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

      November 20, 2012 at 5:03 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Posts should read points.

      November 20, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
    • Chad

      @hawaiiguest "Time is a more abstract concept than you realize, and is not a universal constant as relativity will tell you."
      @Chad "ok, this is why I told you to do some reading, you dont even understand the basics (yet you are so confident.. how exactly does that work???)
      The theory of relativity says that the speed of light is constant, and that time varies. Time is NOT a "a universal constant as relativity will tell you"
      sheesh.. do some reading. the TOR does not say time is a constant.

      ========
      @Hawaii "Plopping out a supposed budding conspiracy theory about what physicists mean by nothing just shows your inability to accept ways of thinking that are contrary to your own."
      @Chad "LOL
      Krauss misrepresentation of something as "nothing" is getting whacked everywhere..

      ====
      @Hawaii "Considering his existence is so closely linked to the supernatural claims, the standards of evidence change. If you think that standards of evidence in history is static, then you obviously don't know how historical research works either."
      @Chad "two standards of evidence :-)
      and no, objective historians dont operate in that manner.. Methodology is methodology, it doesnt change based on the subject, lol

      ====
      @Hawaii "The gospels cannot be determined to be written by eye witnesses, especially when the average age of people at the time was 38-50. And the earliest scraps we have are dated at the earliest (by religious scholars) to be 60-70 CE, and by secular scholars from 70-90 CE. I have, in part, alluded to this fact out once already in this thread, but you ignored it. I wonder if you will ignore it this time as well."
      @Chad "sigh

      Jesus crucified ~33 AD, lets say his companions ranged in age from 18-25yrs old (which is reasonable as many of them had living fathers/mothers).

      which would have meant that they would have been from 45 to 52 years old in 60 AD
      A. That is within your made up range of 38-50 for the youngest disciples.
      B. More importantly, your range is wrong. The average life expectancy of a 15 year old person was 52 years of age. "Mortality". Britannica.com (50% of all those people died before the age of 15).

      meaning that all of the disciples could have been expected, on average, to be alive with the first Gospels were written.

      =====
      @Hawaii 5) In terms of linking to other threads for your dishonesty, there are two reasons for this and not for just quoting you.a) I don't want to give you the opportunity to claim context or misrepresentation. b) I don't feel like quote mining, and I'd rather give people the chance to see the conversation in full.c) Just because you enjoy quote mining doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
      @Chad "yeah.. either that, or you dont have any examples :-)

      cause, if you did, you'd be trotting them out every day.

      November 20, 2012 at 5:30 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      So you accept that time is not a constant, and changes, and I was not talking about just the theory of relativity, since it is more broad than just the speed of light being constant. General Relativity, for instance, deals with gravitation and its effect on space, time, light, and energy. But how does what anything you've had to say on the subject prove that matter did not exist before the Planck time?

      You make a claim of Krauss getting "whacked ffrom everywhere". You have sources for that?

      Wow, so apparently to you the standards of historical evidence is the same for natural and supernatural claims? So what about the historical claims of Alexander being part god (or a god in human form I can't remember). There are contemporary writings claiming that from all over the Roman Empire. Does that mean it's true?

      In terms of your gospel claims, you once again ignore the fact that the things we have from within that time are only scraps, not full books. So how is it that you determine who wrote the gospels based on scraps?

      And for your last non-address of my points, you merely say "that or this", and merely take your thought as some kind of truth, but once again that doesn't it make it so.

      November 20, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • Chad

      @hawaiiguest "And what is time? Is it some kind of natural law, or is it a man made measurement of the movement of matter, or is it something completely different?"
      @Chad "you need to do some reading..."
      @hawaiiguest "Time is a more abstract concept than you realize, and is not a universal constant as relativity will tell you."
      @Chad "The theory of relativity says that the speed of light is constant, and that time varies. Time is NOT a "a universal constant as relativity will tell you" as you are claiming.
      @hawaiiguest "So you accept that time is not a constant, and changes"

      @Chad "I would say that little exchange summarizes all of the dialogues I have every had with you.

      you mistakenly thought that the TOR maintained that time was constant. I corrected you on it noting that time is NOT constant, rather it is relative, speed of light is constant. THEN you claim that I am newly starting to realize that time is not constant, implying you were somehow aware of that all along :-)

      the way your mind works escapes me.

      November 20, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Ah the dishonesty. Didn't I say quite clearly above the General Relativity does indeed demonstrate that time is not a constant at all? Didn't I clearly say that relativity is not merely about the speed of light? Sweet Zombie Jew on a stick Chad are you really this desperate to where you would slip up and demonstrate your dishonesty within the same thread?

      November 20, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
    • Chad

      yes you did,,, but only after I pointed out that time is NOT constant as you thought it was: "@hawaiiguest "Time is a more abstract concept than you realize, and is not a universal constant as relativity will tell you."

      @hawaiiguest "And what is time? Is it some kind of natural law, or is it a man made measurement of the movement of matter, or is it something completely different?"
      @Chad "you need to do some reading..."
      @hawaiiguest "Time is a more abstract concept than you realize, and is not a universal constant as relativity will tell you."
      @Chad "The theory of relativity says that the speed of light is constant, and that time varies. Time is NOT a "a universal constant as relativity will tell you" as you are claiming.
      @hawaiiguest "So you accept that time is not a constant, and changes"

      November 20, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      And if you notice in your little quotes, nowhere did I say The Theory of Relativity. You decided to use that one on your own, and I then had to clarify that I was referring to General Relativity.

      I also see that you are just focusing on one specific thing (something fairly irrelevant I should add) in this whole conversation now, and completely ignoring all the other points that were brought up. Why is that Chad. Could this be more dishonesty on your part?

      November 20, 2012 at 10:25 pm |
    • hal 9001

      I'm sorry, "hawaiiguest", Chad is that desperate to where he would skip up and demonstrate his dishonesty within the same thread.

      November 20, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
    • Chad

      oh brother..

      so, what "relativity" were you referring to with your statement in bold below? Some more context..

      @Hawaiiguest “The current state of the universe had a beggining. The current coniguration of matter had a beginning. We do not know if matter itself had a beggining. You are asserting that before the Big Bang, there was nothing (the more common usage of the word I assume, not the physics definition).”

      @Chad “fascinating! A brand new cosmological theory.. Time had a beginning, but matter did not! Very bold theory, especially given the dependant relationship between matter and time (you are disputing Einsteins general theory of relativity!! )

      @hawaiiguest "And what is time? Is it some kind of natural law, or is it a man made measurement of the movement of matter, or is it something completely different?"
      @Chad "you need to do some reading..."

      @HawaiiGuest "1) Time is a more abstract concept than you realize, and is not a universal constant as relativity will tell you.

      the first rule of holes, when you're in one, stop digging.

      November 20, 2012 at 10:42 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Wow, didn't I just fucking say which one I was talking about Chad? What the hell do you think clarifying means? It is so incredible that you would be this dishonest of a fucktard when I gave you the answer not even 1 post ago. Just stop already Chad, you're just embarrassing yourself now.

      November 20, 2012 at 11:10 pm |
    • Chad

      @hawaiiguest "And if you notice in your little quotes, nowhere did I say The Theory of Relativity. You decided to use that one on your own, and I then had to clarify that I was referring to General Relativity."

      @Chad "I think you are confused again, The theory of relativity, generally encompasses two theories of Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity.

      General relativity, or the general theory of relativity, is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916[1] and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalises special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.

      November 20, 2012 at 11:29 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      You know Chad, I'm done with this topic, because all you're doing is using it to avoid answering the other points that I made. How about this, there was a communication breakdown on the time thing, and you decided to take advantage of that. Good job, because you now have ignored me asking about my other points 3 times. Chalk up another example of your dishonesty you fuckstick.

      November 20, 2012 at 11:35 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      What can we know of Chad's God? Does it speak to him? Does he converse with it? Does it tell him that it loves him and that he's a special creation billions of years in the making? Does it actually care if he ever knows how the Universe began, or if it began at all?

      November 20, 2012 at 11:37 pm |
  14. Dump hinduism, illegality of Evolution, way of hindu's, deniers of truth absolute GOD, sons of LANGOOR, SELF CENTERED

    Age of earth and universe was never reviled to human by truth absolute GOD, but generation's of human on earth, according to Islamic teachings, Islam was taught to 1000th generation of human after Adam and Eve, hinduism, speculation about age of earth is hinduism, absurdity of hindu sanatan, lair goon pastors, as a common norm to hind, fool humanity.

    November 19, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
    • Dump hinduism, illegality of Evolution, way of hindu's, deniers of truth absolute GOD, sons of LANGOOR, SELF CENTERED

      But I am the Hindu FREAK! I HATE ISLAM!!!! I HATE MYSELF! I SPIT ON MY UNHOLY SELF!!!

      November 19, 2012 at 7:06 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      Elvis is dead and hindu-bot don't feel so good himself.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:09 pm |
    • Dump hinduism, illegality of Evolution, way of hindu's, deniers of truth absolute GOD, sons of LANGOOR, SELF CENTERED

      No need to hind, scream, we know you are a hindu, ignorant ID thief with swear pain in your hind from holy tradition of hinduism, sodomy by your hindu sanatan, filthy goon man god.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
    • Dump hinduism, illegality of Evolution, way of hindu's, deniers of truth absolute GOD, sons of LANGOOR, SELF CENTERED

      Someone, put it in my hind.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
  15. Dump hinduism, illegality of Evolution, way of hindu's, deniers of truth absolute GOD, sons of LANGOOR, SELF CENTERED

    Age of earth and universe was never reviled to human by truth absolute GOD, but generation's of human on earth, according to Islamic teachings, Islam was taught to 1000th generation of human after Adam and Eve, hinduism, speculation about age of earth is hinduism, absurdity of hindu sanatan, lair goon pastors, as a common norm to hind, fool humanity by th

    November 19, 2012 at 7:02 pm |
    • Dump hinduism, illegality of Evolution, way of hindu's, deniers of truth absolute GOD, sons of LANGOOR, SELF CENTERED

      I'm a FREAK!

      November 19, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
    • Dump hinduism, illegality of Evolution, way of hindu's, deniers of truth absolute GOD, sons of LANGOOR, SELF CENTERED

      Yes, you are freak hindu, ID thief.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
    • Akira

      Absurd.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:06 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      absurd ISM

      November 19, 2012 at 7:08 pm |
    • Akira

      My bad. Ism.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • Dump hinduism, illegality of Evolution, way of hindu's, deniers of truth absolute GOD, sons of LANGOOR, SELF CENTERED

      I have-ism something-ism big up my hind ism, truth absolute is I wish it was bigger ism

      November 19, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
  16. Calvin Hobbes

    Christian private schools in Louisiana have started a curriculum that teaches that the Loch Ness monster is evidence that evolution is wrong. I kid you not.

    Schools following the curriculum will be receiving state voucher money transferred from public school funding.
    From the ACE curriculum:

    "Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence.Have you heard of the `Loch Ness Monster’ in Scotland?

    `Nessie,’ for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur. Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles.

    This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all."

    The Christian Right...working hard...24/7...363 days a year (they take Christmas and Easter Sunday off)...to save souls and systematically dumb down the population of the United States.

    If he says: "I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that"...is certainly not qualified to be in public office.

    November 19, 2012 at 6:53 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      To be fair, I take Christmas and Easter Sunday off too (a useful hypocrisy).

      November 19, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
    • Akira

      Imagine how either triumphant (or conversely, mind shattering) it would be for them to actually realize that the famous photo of Nessie was a hoax...

      November 19, 2012 at 7:02 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      Using undiscovered evidence, scientists have put forward a surprising hypothesis claiming that infamous serial murderer Jack the Ripper and no-less famous and elusive monster of Loch-Ness lake in Scotland are in fact the same person.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      That would explain the two tonne poo found next to one of those prost.itute's body.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:07 pm |
    • Akira

      I thought Jack the Ripper was in fact the Easter Bunny...whoa. Who knew.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
  17. End Religion

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+old+is+the+earth

    November 19, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
  18. End Religion

    The universe is 13.72 billion years old. The earth is 4.54 billion years old.

    November 19, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Give or take some millions.

      November 19, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
    • End Religion

      what's a few million years between friends?

      November 19, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
    • Chad

      For the universe to have an age..

      that means it must have had a beginning..

      so..

      what began it?

      November 19, 2012 at 10:56 pm |
  19. filthy hindu flora ism

    I am a hedonistic Hindu LOVER!!! GIVE ME MY HINDUS! I LOVE THEM! I SPIT ON ISLAM!!!!

    November 19, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
  20. End Religion

    to the tune of "if i only had a brain" in Wizard of Oz...

    Scarecrow:
    Why, If I had a brain, I could …
    (singing)

    I could understand a theory,
    Of humans growin’ clearly,
    Without the mark of Cain.
    With the species all evolvin’
    And the planets all revolvin’,
    If I only had a brain

    I’d forget about ‘creation’
    And God over the nation,
    And flush them down the drain,

    Dorothy:
    With an intellect so charmin’,
    You could be another Darwin,
    If you only had a brain.

    Scarecrow:
    Oh I, could tell you how, primates evolve to men.
    I could tell you how the earth began and when,
    In thousand years, it’s more than ten!

    I would be an unbeliever,
    No “God I’m scared to see yer –
    Eternity in pain”
    With some science & some reason,
    I don’t really think it’s treason,
    If you use your fricking brain.

    November 19, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
    • Athy

      Excellent!!

      November 19, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      Excellent ER.

      November 19, 2012 at 7:05 pm |
    • End Religion

      it is stolen from another poster here.... i forget the screen name. It's too good to have been written by me. :)

      November 19, 2012 at 7:09 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      And with his blessings as I recall! ;)

      Share and enjoy!

      November 19, 2012 at 7:28 pm |
    • End Religion

      Ah, non-GOP... thanks. I was waiting for an opportune moment so I don't run that one into the ground. Good stuff!

      November 19, 2012 at 8:55 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.