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.
JL clearly you couldn't be bothered to make it past her first few words.. if you keep reading you'll see they claim to be Libertarian, socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
No wonder I love the word, CHRISTARD
It really does say it all.
Sad for fiscal conservatives like myself, that those who agree on fiscal issues, are often times completely void of common sense when it comes to facing the folly of mythology.
Why so much hatred towards people following the Christian faith? Are you really that insecure about yourself? I'm not religious and you don't see me going around bashing the religious folk.
Buck, not hatred, really. I pity those who live a life of illusion, worshiping invisible sky spirits, fearing invisible devils, and quoting a book of mythology, instead of embracing reality. But it's a free country, and I support the rights of those who refuse to join the modern world.
What SCARES me, is to see leaders like this, educated people, spew this ridiculous nonsense.
@Libertarian Atheist, my comment was directed towards the use of the term "Christard" which can ONLY be taken as a hateful insult.
@Libertarian. What was he spewing? He did not say "Creationism is the only way the Earth could be formed" He took a neutral position on an issue that he knew would create controversy if he answered one way or the other. He was placed in a lose lose situation. Of course, the joke is on him because even by taking a neutral stance, it still created a controversy. I'm struggling to understand why it has created a controversy, especially when his point is so accurate, that what he thinks about the age of the Earth has no meaning on the important issues like fixing our economy.
Buck, that is because you people who believe in sky fairies want to base policy on this childish garbage. For e.g., each of the following policies are set by the US govt or one or more state govts. based on the wishes the Christians attribute to their silly sky-fairy:
$ex education policy
teaching of evolution in school
immunization agaionst HPV
gays i nthe millitary
buying wine on a Sunday
So, how about this: Possibly, just possibly, there is intelligent design, not based on any religion but on the fact that there are just too many things that baffle some scientist and confront them with their stubborn resistance because these things just cannot be explained away. Some quantum physicists include that in their ruminating. And: 10'000 years. 6'000 years. Yes, that rings wrong. But a benevolent enrrgy that provides free will? A universe that might be million years old? A planet that is in the throws of evolution towards ... well ... something besides self-destruction. My opinion: That is at least worth contemplating. Believe it? Not my job to convince or persuade you. Hate it? Not my job to be a missionary. Think about it? Well .... why not. After all, the world is not a disc. And THAT was common "knowledge" at some point in time.
@Colin, you apparently have difficulty reading? I clearly stated I'm not religious in my first comment. So your attempt to insult me with your comment "Buck, that is because you people who believe in sky fairies" doesn't really do much. But thank you for further proving my point that people like YOU are truly insecure about themselves and thats why you come here to bully others. You won't see me bashing a person just because they are Christian. People are free to believe in what they want as long as they don't hurt others.
Buck, if religion didn't hurt anybody that would be fine, but it does. Ask the teenage mothers, AIDS victims, gay people whose lives have been ruined, people who have to slowly rot rather than ending their own lives, countless wars. No, religion is a poison and any person who still believes in sky fairies in the 21st Century is a moron. Anybody, like you, who is too gutless to challange these morons, shares part of the blame.
'there is intelligent design, not based on any religion but on the fact that there are just too many things that baffle some scientist and confront them with their stubborn resistance because these things just cannot be explained away.'
intelligent design is just creationism in a disguise to attempt to get into schools. Any intelligent design claim ultimately becomes religious.
@Colin, religion is just a covenient scape goat for many of the world's problems both past and present. Yes, some people twist religion into something vile. But blame the problems on the people. Even if there was NO religion, you'd still have all the same problems in the world. Bigotry doesn't need religion to exist.
@colin You really believe that teenage mothers and aids are casued by religion???? How about keeping your pants on for a start. Not sure but i woud guess you a dem cause they are great at taking a problem they created and then blaming someone else. LOL tenage pregnacy is because of religion
Why are we still discussing the debunked fallacy of creationism in the year 2012? I'll tell you why. A large percentage of Americans – not all and definitely not most, but many – are r3tards. Sadly, these idiot yokels hold the rest of us back because they breed a lot and are therefore a key part of the electorate. They are as dumb as urban hoodlum trash but have way more influence. Religion is still big business throughout the country and God is Santa Claus for adults; few brainwashed individuals are willing to snap out of it. It is amazing that politicians (who are very smart and know better; I seriously doubt that Marco Rubio believes that a giant man made the Earth in a week like an infant with "Play-Doh") are forced to dumb themselves down and lie in order to appeal to these undesirables.
Has anyone ever asked Obama, Biden or Clinton what they believe? Why only Republicans?
Obama is whatever people want him to be, a politician, same for Clinton. We know Bush believed this STUPID mythology as much or more as this guy.
Yes, they believe in science.
because republicans are the ones that wear their religion on their sleeve and like to label democrats as godless.
They open themselves up to such questions by doing so.
So he's showing that he's another one of these spineless flip floppers that is afraid of the right wing of the party.
I'm a republican woman who voted Obama because of, 1) GOP hatred of women, and 2) GOP hatred of science. The inmates have taken over the asylum and the GOP really needs to get a handle on this issue. I used to like Rubio but I'm done with him. I will not vote for anyone who belittles science or women. Doesn't anyone in the GOP have the cajones to shut up the crazies?
"Doesn't anyone in the GOP have the cajones to shut up the crazies?"
Not many have the balls to alientate 30% of their base...
I used to be a Democrat and I voted for Romney because Obama only sees people as women or men or black or white or hispanic or muslim or Jewish or etc, etc etc. To Obama we are only voting blocks and you got fooled and because you got fooled – we all got fooled AGAIN. Trillions and trillions later that my children and grandchildren will have to pay because of that moron with no moral cares about anyone or anything. YUK!
I used to be a Democrat and I voted for Romney because Obama only sees people as women or men or black or white or hispanic or muslim or Jewish or etc, etc etc. '
yeah because its not as if romney sees people in exactly the same way or anything. He never talks of latinos getting gifts to vote dems, or young people, or blacks or women, or trying to get jewish vote by claiming how Obama isnt fully supporting Israel.........oh wait, thats exactly what he did. Looks like you were fooled again.
"Trillions and trillions later that my children and grandchildren will have to pay because of that moron "
Right, you mention Obamacare there, since that is the only program you could be speaking of that Obama gave us that will eventually cost trillions of dollars over the next few decades. But it will also give children and women healthcare that were unable to get it before and likely save many of their lives in the process, lives of children and grandchildren. Oh wait, I forgot that they aren't your children or grandchildren so they don't really matter do they...
@the truth. UMMM obama increased the deficit by 5 trillion not counting the afordable health care act. So you are a little off base in saying his only trillion dollar thing was the affordable health care act.
"obama increased the deficit by 5 trillion not counting the afordable health care act." Oh, I forgot that he did infact continue the Bush tax cuts and the Bush bank bailout which has increased our total deficit by 5 trillion over the last 4 years. I wasn't counting it because HE WASN"T THE ONE WHO FVCKED US OVER YOU IDIOT!!! It was Bush who took a surplus and turned it into a $2 trillion annual deficit with two unfunded wars and a huge tax break for the top 2%. If you are unable or unwilling to accept this you are obviously just a moronic partisan tool.
I don't understand all the vitrol towards this man for his comments. He took a neutral, open minded stance on the issue, while basically saying that his views on the age of the Earth are meaningless when there are much more important issues to deal with like fixing the economy, and 75% of the people commenting on this "story" are up in arms. Can anyone explain why? Seems to me that if he does not 100% come in line with your thinking, then he is a stupid republican, blah blah blah. As an independent voter, I find it amazing that dems always court by saying they are the party of tolerance and acceptance, but if someone has a view that is opposite of theirs, the tolerance and acceptance flies out the window. Dems can be downright nasty and disgusting with their comments. You're not better then the republicans, who can be downright nasty and disgusting as well.
"He took a neutral, open minded stance on the issue" There aren't two answers that are correct, son. He flinched; if he can't risk offending some old grannies, he's too mild for politics.
Wow, the lib media still refuses to do their job re: Obama using an alias to attend Occidental, then perjuring himself to the Illinois state bar. The lib media refuses to cover the Benghazi story. But they're so desperate to derail an unbeatable GOP candidate for 2016 (and in their heart of hearts, they know he's unbeatable) that they're trying to make a story out of THIS. Quite pathetic, really.
're: Obama using an alias to attend Occidental, then perjuring himself to the Illinois state bar'
oh jeez, go on then, what are these conspiracy theories now, could do with a laugh.
A you just visiting this planet ? Missing the point ?? YOU are missing the point. Rubio knows there is no answer that will cost him supporters so he is trying to walk a fine line between the two. I am willing to bet he is smarter than you are with the ridiculous post you left.
You are missing the point. He is an educated individual seeking a high political office who doesn't know the equivalent of his times tables. Would you want a politician who couldn't multiply two single-digit numbers together?
Hooray! Let's get these Republican quacks flapping their jowls about this stuff years before the next election. That way we'll have tons of time to point out their stupidity to the masses.
This has probably sunk him; the crazies will know he hesitated and almost spoke the truth, and the sensible will see that he cringed for the crazies. Grow a spine soon or get out of politics.
You know... my grandparents died believing (after having been taught in school) that dinosaurs were of the reptilian species, because after-all, that is what our genius scientists theorized. And today, only recently, have new theories evolved stating that dinosaurs are not of the reptilian species, but rather of the avian species and even had feathers!!!!! REALLY????? I mean seriously... no such man will ever EVER know! So cut the crap about all these "theories"!!!!!
You're complaining because science has the integrity to correct itself? Wow.
So you think biology and geology are the same thing? You sound about as intelligent as most of the Republicans on our Science Committee
(me shaking my head in shock to how dumb this post is)
It does not surprise me the GOP attracts creationist, evangelicals, and other religious Taliban types. No wonder they lost the last election. They are out of touch with reality. If you don’t understand evolution, you probably don’t understand how a remote control, PC, an automobile or a microwave works. Ignorance can offer bliss sometimes. Evolution is no longer a theory although it was a long time ago. It’s mostly still called a theory now as that part of the name has stuck for mass use. Look up words like theory, fact, manifest fact, scientific process, evolution, etc. and educate yourself. The Roman Catholic Church accepted evolution as not contrary to their type of religious dogma some time ago when Pope Pius XII indicated there was no intrinsic conflict between Christianity and evolution. Evolution is taught in Catholic schools around the world today. Keep up on your science please. Religious fanatics, those who believe in magic or otherwise ignore science should move to some cave in Afghanistan where they don’t have to deal with science. Perhaps Mr. Rubio and most of the GOP should join them.
@JR, i agree 100% evolution is real i can hold it in my hand and i can follow the evolution of animals through geological strata. But just because things evolve does not mean that they were not created by a god, honeslty who knows. Either way its a total mind blow to think about that fact that at some point something had to come from nothing
@juan, i agree with your statement that science is science and sometimes things come along that make scientist change their beliefs such as dinosaurs were slow moving reptiles that lived in swamps to being more bird like warm bloded and fast moving. How anyone took anything other than the fact that sometimes science is worng is beyond me.
@squosh you have clearly shown yourself as the non inteligent one if you somehow think he was even talking biology or geology. Nothing more than a statement that scientist can be wrong and have been before
Does it make a difference how old the universe is? All that pretty rock and gas is just as stupid now as it was 14.5 billion years ago. A human toddler can out think anything seen through a telescope or microscope. There's an old argument about whether the earth rotated about the sun, or the other way around. What does the relative position of some celestial rocks count for? Actually, we should consider ourselves the center of the universe for now. The center should be where the most intelligent life is found. So far, that's us. Unless you have faith in the unproven existence of intelligent life "out there".
You don't make any sense, seems like you are allergic to education
Just wow...and then this guy speaks to represent the 46% in that poll, proving how dumb a large portion of America is!
Obviously we are not the most intelligent people. Did you take a look at who this country voted in for President of the United States of America. Wow, we are definitely not very intelligent.
Only for the open-minded folk:
Rubio, Rubio, Rubio wherefore art thou???
Mr. Rubio might be part Ne-anderthal making his education a bit more difficult. Maybe all political leaders should have their DNA checked for this. Tis rather inexpensive:
As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.
"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000+ years ago, with the first modern h-omo sapiens appearing in Africa some 200,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.
Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.
It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."
For your $199 and a DNA swab:
"Included in the markers we will test for is a subset that scientists have recently determined to be from our h-ominin cousins, Ne-anderthals and the newly discovered Denisovans, who split from our lineage around 500,000 years ago. As modern humans were first migrating out of Africa more than 60,000 years ago, Neanderthals and Denisovans were still alive and well in Eurasia. It seems that our ancestors met, leaving a small genetic trace of these ancient relatives in our DNA. With Geno 2.0, you will learn if you have any Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA in your genome."
Mr. Rubio would be wise to check the human evolution time line featured at before his next news conference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution#First_living_beings
Looks like he has never heard about Radiocarbon Dating. Half of the US population is ignorant and well in tune with Islamic nations. People in Europe and rest of Asia don't believe in this stupidity. Age of the Earth is not even an argument, unless you are brainwashed by Evangelicals or Islamists.
carbon dating is based on asumptions and dates cannot be guarenteed. So funny how many people take every aspect of science as a fact and not an assumption which is what most of it is
You are right, rest of the humanity is hindu, ignorant to truth absolute GOD, and spew their hinduism, absurdities as religion believeing in hinduism, racism, as is the case with tribe of their hindu stupid god monkey.
Try reading the replies to your stupidity below before continuing in it.
KEEP it COMING Rubio AND keep alienating yourself from any chance of winning the presidency in 2016.
Idiotic thought is a self eliminator
'carbon dating is based on asumptions'
After reading this deluge of sarcastic comments it brings to mind a certain 2000 year old prophecy
II Peter 3, KJV
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 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 the creation.
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.
Plea to scoffers. Read the Word of God. Ask for His mercy and grace through the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. No one knows how much time we have.
What you call "the Word of God" is too stupid to be.
When you start off quoting from a book of mythology, line an verse, your post is largely ignored, and immediately discredited in the minds of most thinking people.
LOL, this isn't a prophecy. This is con-men covering their butts because they knew they were laying down a massive load of BS.
Another bible babbler.
Yeah .. sell your stuff and commit a mass suicide with ur family.
From book of hindu Mithra ism, savior ism called Bible.
Why is it always assumed opposition has just never read the "word"? Most of us have, and rejected the notion that it anything other than human inspired. What is entirely more likely, is that you should read up on your human race's scientific collection. I think you'll be surprised by the amount of supportive material. Also, I think in your other post you are inferring that our moral positions, like abortion, and government are from Christianity? No. How do you think a non-believer has morals? Are we to assume a child not given religion would grow up a lawless killer? No, society teaches us behavioral norms. And These ideals purported in your book were around long before the bible. Otherwise, Rome would not have existed would it? The human race would have simply destroyed itself and never amassed into coherent society. As far as statistics on beliefs, stop programming children from birth and we'll see how that changes.
JL must stand for "Jesus Lover" or "Just Loony"! I'd bet the latter.
I realize that it is possible to read the bible and still reject the message and authenticity. Also, I realize that it is possible to create a system of morals outside of religious beliefs. That system however will always be changing with society which God has told us, that since the fall, is inherently evil and selfish. Slavery after all, was at one time considered morally acceptable. Gods word and moral standards however are unchanging. But that doesn't mean people won't continue to misuse and misinterpret God's word for their own personal gain.
I humbly and enthusiastically accept the former.
ah so we are in the last days are we? i ask because they have been predicted for so long now
What a truly sad day for conservatives. Why, oh why, must we continue to watch Republicans say incredibly stupid things in public? The GOP is doomed, absolutely doomed. I am a libertarian who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and just shake my head when I hear incredibly stupid things said by someone as educated as this guy. Why in 2012 are we talking about the earth being created in a week? Why is this even a topic for discussion? Because we have too many clinging to mythology. In the process, it makes ALL fiscal conservatives look incredibly bad. Scratch this guy off of the GOP list for 2016. And yes, I know he is a likely favorite.
He really isn't "educated" if he spouts the kind of obvious nonsense.
I think you are the first atheist conservative I've ever come across. So you think abortion is wrong? Why? You think people should be free from a tyrannical govt? Why? Furthermore, did you happen to read that 46% of americans believe in a young earth compared to a whopping (32+15) or 47% that believe in some form of evolution and an old earth. That's hardly political suicide. Furthermore, Marco Rubio of course doesn't want to talk about the age of the earth. A liberal magazine asked him for the sole purpose of "exposing" him so another liberal outfit, could trash him. Have we really become a nation of brainwashed TMZ type media drones?
Very funny how many people are 100% sure that the scientist have the age of the earth right. Lets look at some of the things used to "age" the earth. The oldest rock formations are dated to 4.5 million. Really the person who made this statement obviously doesn't understand how the earth works. the rocks in canada are 4.5 million and are the oldest rocks LEFT on the earth. It is 100% possible that the earth was around 1 billion more years than that however the rocks that would have been left over have been sucked back into the earth melted down and spit back out as new rocks, its called plate tectonics. So just because the oldest tested rocks are 4.5 million doesnt mean thats how old the earth is. Secondly what aspects are they using to age these rocks. Once of the big things they do is look at the composition and breakdown of certain elements contained in the rocks. So lets say that current science says that carbon breaks down at random number say 5% ever 100 years. Well thats great but that is all based on current testing for all we know carbon breaks down at 5% every hundred years then after 100 million years iit starts to break down at 80% every 100 years. The point being is the age of the earth is NOT A FACT it is assumption based on SCIENCE thats why we take science 101 and not facts 101. So to all of you out there who believe that it is a fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old please understand the differene between facts and assumptions. Also stop hating on people who want to believe anything differently than you and don't tell people they are worng and tehn just quote some scientific study as to why they are wrong. You can say that hey i disagree becasue of this but not that someone is wrong. Becasue unless you were there when the earth and universe were created we WILL NEVER KNOW THE ANSWER.
The age of the earth is dated by many different scientific tools. No, we don't know the age of the earth, but with every new method we use, it seems to come out to about 4.5 billion give or take a few dozen million. If you check the price of a gallon of milk at twenty different stores and come up with a median price of about $4.19, what do you want to do, quibble?
Well one thing is Certain....It's not 10,000 years old.
Your whole statement about carbon is incorrect. You obviously have never read a good science book.
Is it absolutely correct at 4.5 billion years? Probably not. But was it created in a week, absolutely not even close. Look at the science, apply some common sense, and we can see that there are datable layers of earth proving these things. It's a lot more complicated than that, but it's enough to give anyone a clue about the week creating myth, and the far more silly notion that the earth is 10,000 years old, when we see datable evidence of humans alone going back much further than that. Some people simply refuse to face reality.
i wasn't here when the earth was created.
neither were any imaginary super beings.
"stop hating on people who want to believe anything differently than you and don't tell people they are worng and tehn just quote some scientific study as to why they are wrong. You can say that hey i disagree becasue of this but not that someone is wrong."
Yer Speeling iz tarrable, yoo kneeed two lernt mor reel Amarican speeling, yer sow stoooopid. I lernt mye speeling ferm ma lowcal teecher wyth reel smharts!!
No, sometimes you just have to call someone on their stupidity...
To: Some People. There is a fundamental flaw in your argument. Most scientists estimate the oldest rocks on Earth are approx 4 Billion years old, not 4 Million
Better check your facts. The oldest rocks on earth are approximately 4 billion years old. Plus, how references to dinosaurs do you see in the bible? None because they were extent 65 million years ago.
Scientists continue to test and question every day. If they find something new that changes the accepted age of the Earth, they will amend their assertions. Scientists are wrong all the time and they don't care when they have to admit it.
The difference between science and religion is that no matter how much evidence we have that points to the contrary, some people will never allow themselves to live in the realm of reality.
There wouldn't be any mention of dinosaurs in the bible because that word was not coined until 1841. The bible does however mention great beasts and dragons over 100 times and this fact is one of the many arguments young-earth creationists use to show that man and dinosaurs coexisted.
Funny how some people are, never made 1 single argument to the bible being correct or even made a statement in regards to the bible. In fact if you read what i said i argued it could be older nto younger. Also carbon dating is not a fact it is an assumption based on certain studies and can never be a fact. Once again please understand the differences between facts and assumptions. Fact fire is hot we know this because it is here and now and we can measure it. Not a fact carbon breaks down at a certain rate constantly, there is NO way to ever confirm this unless you create crabon and the see how long it lasts. Just because science says carbon breaks down at a certain rates doesn't mean there isn't a point where it accelerates more rapidly or slower than anticipated. And yes the older rocks still left on earth are in the billions typo on my part. But funny how so many people do nothing more than read a book and take it for a fact.
History scholars have been attacking the accuracy of the bible for centuries and continue to be disappointed. It is the most accredited work of literature in existence. Do your research.
If you want an example related to this young earth discussion, in Genesis, there is the account of a worldwide flood that destroyed all living, breathing creatures except for Noah, his family and the animals aboard the ark. If this had occurred, we would see plenty of evidence, like billions of dead things buried by sediment laden water all over the earth. Well guess what we find...
If life has existed for billions of years all over the planet you would expect to find the exact same thing. Try again.
@JL can you read???? have you seen me defend the 10000 year creationist theory at all??? Have i made one single statement in reagards to the bilble. Did i bring up noah flood, jesus, god, moses muhamed, the dali lama or any other person??? No i did not, i was merly commenting that the age of the earth is an assumption and can never be a fact and that it is very possible that current dating techniques can be greatly flawed. It is highly possible that matter reacts differently after being exposed to certain elements for a certain amount of time. Yes we know carbon currently breaks down at x rate. But what if there was a 500 million year period on the earth where conditions were differnt in a way we can't yet measure that would have caused the carbon to break down not at X rate but at Y rate. Caculate this over the 500 million year period it was happening and the age of the earth could be so far off its not even funny. The point is this is all science and not fact. Granted the best knowledge we currently have is being put forth to make the assumption but it is still an assumption. It is no different than when a scientist says they know a planet has a certain element becasue of the light it emites. Yes under certain conditions certain elements can reflect certain colors of light but just becasue one side of the universe has certain conditions that casues an element to reflect light a certain color doesn't mean that on the other side of the galaxy there are other conditions that casue that element to reflect a different color. Quite clear people don;t understand the difference between scientific facts and scientific assumptions. Like i said scientific fact fire is hot scientific assumption the earth is 4.5 billions years old
'If you want an example related to this young earth discussion, in Genesis, there is the account of a worldwide flood that destroyed all living, breathing creatures except for Noah, his family and the animals aboard the ark. If this had occurred, we would see plenty of evidence, like billions of dead things buried by sediment laden water all over the earth. Well guess what we find...'
oh please, tell me you arent serious with that arguement? ok then, what do we find.....we find specific animals in specific layers. We dont find t-rex in silurian strata, we dont find trilobites in jurassic strata. In fact we dont find the jumble of bodies in different layers that we would expect from a great flood.
@ some people
Can YOU read?!? It doesn't seem like you can.
what is it that i can't read moby schtick. please elaborate on this. My comments were in regards to scientific testing methods and how they could be flawed. My post has since been turned into a debate about creatinism. If you want to talk creationism and the bible please do so but create a new post
some people, apparently you can't read a science book.
I wish I had a strangle-hold on the truth like all of the other people commenting here.
Judging by your name, you most likely worship a "prophet" who molested children, and believe that stoning, beheading, and / or shooting your wife and daughter can be an "honorable" thing depending on how much they p1ss you off.
@ Atheist Con – He's a Hindu ...LOL have you ever been outside US? I'm an atheist and there is no such thing as atheist conservative. you are a fool.
If "believers" are wrong, no harm, no foul. If nonbelievers are wrong...whoops...good luck! I bet the casinos love you, folks, who "go all in!"
How are you trying to ensure that you die gloriously in battle so you can get to Valhalla?
What do you mean you don't believe in Odin?
You non-believers are going to be sorry when Ragnarok comes.
There are dozens of fantastic refutations to Pascal's Wager. Look it up.
So are willing to believe in absolutely asinine things, just in case they are true. I understand.
Great post Inciteful. For Christians it's a non–issue, we believe the Bible. Jewish people have history of living the Bible. Muslim population has traces to some of the truths in Bible. And then there are few lame atheists, who not knowing the truth, think if they pervert it and pretend that there is no God and they live as they please they won't have any consequences. History teaches that events that took place in Bible have actually happened. Whole nations' histories are linked with events in the Bible. But oh well, fools won't realize the truth if it hit them in the face. No point....
"f "believers" are wrong, no harm, no foul"
Unless that person believing in magic runs a school, business, state or country then its extremely scary
'If "believers" are wrong, no harm, no foul. If nonbelievers are wrong...whoops...good luck! I bet the casinos love you, folks, who "go all in!"'
oh i do so love this argument because they ALWAYS forget the third possibility.......there is a god but it isnt the one you are worshipping, in which case you are just as s crewed as the rest of us. better worship them all to be safe.
'History teaches that events that took place in Bible have actually happened'
Thats nice and all but there is a huge leap between a pharaoh having existed and claiming that therefore a person did indeed walk on water or part a sea. Its like my claiming that because Troy existed, as stated in the Illiad, that therefore Achilles was indeed invulnerable to all weapons except in his heel because that is where he mother held him when she dipped him in the river styx.
46% of Americans really believe god created humans in the last 10,000 years? Are there really that many dumb people? I would love to see the demographic breakdown. I can't imagine that you could even find 4% of the people that believe this in the northeast.
Sadly, I fear that there ARE that many dumb people. It's a very sad thing for our future too. Despite mounds of overwhelming scientific evidence, even evidence showing evidence of people that goes back further than 10,000 years, nearly half of our country believes in ignorant mythology.
I was thinking the same thing. And you can blame one thing for this – our inability to pass on information through our DNA/RNA. Because human beings are no different than other intelligent mammals, we must learn everything from birth. This allows people in each generation to be potentially brainwashed into believing whatever their "teachers" want them to believe. So, for instance, people 10,000 years from now could very well be as dumb as our ancestors 10,000 years ago. Ever see the movie "Time Machine" – that "sort of" portrayed that possibility!
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.