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.
I'm sure you've got a lot of condescending remarks to make, mistaking them for arguments. I won't keep you.
Well stop whining and start arguing! I'm listening.
Other Issues in the Garden
Genesis 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
Genesis 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
Which raises the question, how can an omnipotent, omniscient God create something he’s not pleased with?
Genesis 2:3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
An omnipotent being required…rest?
Genesis 2:16-17 And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
God placed temptation in the direct path of his two naïve children and allowed them to be tempted by the serpent (Genesis 3: 1-7), resulting in a single mistake that would contaminate hundreds of billions with a sin nature worthy of eternal torture?
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, ’You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?"
A talking snake. Enough said.
And this is why 2000 years of philosophers have not really seen fit to waste any time attempting to talk about the text of Genesis.
You're talking about 2 separate moments in time. While God exist outside of time, his pleasure in this context addresses the fall of man, which occurred from free will. God could've made us mindless robots, but instead he put in motion forces that would not just create one blade of grass by His spoken word, but would perpetually propagate the seeds of grass forward. In the same way, man's mortal and spiritual being were set in the beginning and continue today. But it takes faith to comprehend these things. Just as it takes faith to believe in methods that you CANNOT observe for 100% accuracy.
Tell you what, Duke. Carry out the following experiment
1) Get bitten by a rapid animal
2) Make the choice between praying for a cure or having a rabies vaccine.
See – prayer is simple, and much better than those badly understood vaccines. So what if prayer alone without a rabies shot will kill you.
Maybe he should direct his emphasis in addition to all the other U. S. representatives to solving IMPORTANT problems i.e. ballooning deficit, unemployment, illegal immigration, etc. etc. etc. etc. versus trying to guess the age of the earth and universe. Profound I tell you, absolutely profound!
Given the GOPs history of screaming bloody murder every time gay marriage, contraception, or a women's right to control her reproductive health, I really don't think you should be accusing people on the left of making mountains out of molehills on this one. He is on the Senate science comittee. It's not irrelevant to ask him whether he knows a thing or two about science.
The ignorant posts from the clueless Teatards on here are absolutely hilarious. I think every 3rd grade class in America should study the comments on here and see if they can distinguish the intellectual garbage from the sane, the uber-partisan nonsense from cogent, fact-based analysis. By doing so you will teach our future generations how to distinguish [R]s from [D]s, rightwingers from patriots, FAILURE from SUCCESS.
I'm almost nostalgic for the days when "red baiting" meant something close to the exact opposite. At least they were talking about something that had a lot of significance for the world then.
The Order of Creation
Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:26-27 Trees came before Adam.
Genesis 2:4-9 Trees came after Adam.
Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27 Birds were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Birds were created after Adam.
Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before Adam.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:19 Animals were created after Adam.
Genesis 1:26-27 Adam and Eve were created at the same time.
Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 Adam was created first, woman sometime later.
If you take the time to read a bit of a concordance you will find that Genesis 1 & 2 are two different accounts mashed together.
kjvbible. org / gap
Good start for 2016 Marco....Keep it up with a little more intelligent talking points..........Hillary lol
Unless you were present 4.5 billion years ago, you CANNOT know with 100% certainty if the earth was here at that time. Perhaps it was. If you believe in a omnipotent, omnitemporal, omniscient God, who created at least two people as adult beings, then how can you limit that God's ability to say God could not create an earth already aged. The bottom line, as Rubio pointed out, this is NOT an issue that concerns political forces. The economy is the issue. Why doesn't GQ and the mass media ask liberals about where the world came from? Where did the first particle of matter originate from and what existed before that particle of matter?
Unless you were there at the crucifiction, you can' be 100% certain Christ died for your sins.
If God created the Universe to make it look like it was already aged, then the people who look at it and determine that it has aged are correct (at least insofar as they can be). That would also make all of the creationist half-baked logic used to argue for intelligent design wrong. I'm willing to accept that people can believe that God created the Earth to make it look like it was 4.5B yrs old, but I can't accept people dismissing the scientific method.
It's called "faith." Try answering my questions on the origination of matter.
What evidence do you have that Earth is not approximately 4.5 billion years old? Why do you prefer the imaginings of middle eastern sheepherders over scientific evidence?
Having a scientifically literate workforce in today's high-tech age is very relevant to our future impact to the world economy.
Sen. Rubio is on the Senate Subcommittee for Science and Space. On this committee he can influence science related legislation. As such he should have an opinion on such a simple science question.
Instead he waffled and stuck to talking points to pander to fundamentalist voters. (The same old tired GOP playbook.)
Alex not sure how God creating an aged planet goes against intelligent design. The point is creationism is based on faith. But, so is evolution. Although science can show methods for determining age, unless you were there when the world existed to know of its age you can't know with 100% certainty that those methods remain consistent for billions of years. Who's to say those methods of half-lives don't lose accuracy with time. Perhaps half-lives increase after so many thousands of years. Regardless, Rubio said no one can know and that isn't the paramount issue. I fail to see the controversy.
We don't know what was before the Big Bang; that doesn't mean that a god did it. It also makes it extremely unlikely that it was your god.
I have faith that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real and created everything. Prove me wrong.
Duke the answer to your question is "we don't know yet". This is because scientists are honest. Now you can take this as your queue to go "AHA! WE KNOW LOOLOLOL YOU CAN'T PROVE WE'RE WRONG!", but prepare to look really dumb when someday we do, just like you all looked dumb when we found out the Earth orbited the Sun, that it was round, and that lightening and thunder isn't angels bowling...
And yet none of you have attempted to answer the questions I proposed. Where did the first particle of matter come from and what existed before that matter?
Duke, First question why does it matter in politics?... Because I want to know where my lawmakers perspectives come from. These beliefs are the foundation to there critical thinking asolutions to our countries challenges. As for your second question why not ask the Liberals about the beging of matter?... Great question, and the simple answer is we don't know yet! Be we don't asume to know the answer like so many of our counterparts do.
Alex we will not be alive if that question is ever answered. One reason is that something that exist before matter must be anti-matter. If there is anti-matter it is omnitemporal. If it is omnitemporal then it cannot exist in this dimension of mortality that we live in. It must be of a supernatural force. Such a force cannot be fathomed without faith.
Duke, who created God? What was here before him? Your logic is used against you. Just because we don't know the answers yet doesn't mean that science is completely invalidated. If you want everyone to believe that God is a valid answer, then all other religions are then as equally valid as Christianity as they all have some "answer" to how things started and there's no proof against those either.
The very question of when was the first particle and what existed before are both invalid. Time is one of the dimensions and as such, the next big bang could actually occur BEFORE the one that created this universe. You really should study M theory which is based on scientific facts, such as the Big Bang did happen and has been proven.
Duke, you realize that we have lots and lots of nuclear reactors etc. around our country right? If we were to find out that scientists actually have no idea how nuclear physics works to the degree you're implying that would be a huge controversy.
Also, the nice thing about science is that the important part is the process, not the answer it spits out. If new information emerges that causes scientists to adjust their estimate for the Earth's age from 4.5B to 4.2B years old, that's fine. Scientists would be totally cool with that. That doesn't mean they were wrong before btw, any more than it means they're right now. All science does is make an accurate guess based on all of the best information available.
What makes belief based systems different is you're tied to your belief. That's why creationist / ID versions are so hilariously wrong, because they can't give anything up without having to dismiss their book as not being absolute truth. The answer is what matters, not the method. It's totally different from science. I don't care whether the Earth is 4.5B or 4.2B or 10B years old. What I care is that an honest attempt to find the answer has taken place, and that rational thinking takes precedence over irrational dogma.
I have studied it. Regardless of a big bang or whatever force caused matter to begin or re-begin, something had to exists before that matter. Otherwise you suppose matter that cannot create itself. In our mortal understanding having thing has a beginning and end. But once you delve into a realm of anti-matter, then time does not exists. Thus if God is anti-matter, then God was and always will be.
As you explain the universe cannot just exist but a god can. Why the difference?
Duke, you keep on using the word "anti-matter". I do not think that it means waht you think that it means.
Princess Bride references aside, anti-matter is simply matter (protons and electrons) where their electromagnetic charges are reversed. I have no idea where you're getting this nonsense from.
You must be a troll.
Evolution does not require faith; it is based upon observation. The fossil record shows a consistent and worldwide evolution of life on Earth dating back to about 3,500,000,000 years ago. There are literally millions of fossils that have been recovered, of thousands of different species and they are all located where they would be in the geological record if life evolved slowly over billions of years. None of them can be explained by a 6,000 year old Earth and Noah’s flood.
Also DNA clearly shows evolution.
But I know you'll cling to the beliefs of middle eastern sheeb>pherders because it's in your bible.
Apparently you fail to comprehend the difference between "matter" and "anti-matter." The universe is made up of "matter." That exists in time. "Anti-matter" exists outside of time.
Maybe you studied M theory but it is obvious you didn't learn anything. You suppose that something had to exist before the first matter. Again you are thinking linearly. Time is one of the dimensions. Before and after are relative. Matter may have existed always, just not necessarily in the dimensions we percieve, but in the other. Since the prevailing theory, which has a great deal of knowledge to back it up it that the big bang occurred as a result of dimensions colliding, again, your pre-suppositions are moot. You need to stop thinking in a linear fashion to really begin to understand theoretical physics. Use the theory of relativity to assist in your understanding. Everything is relative to the observer. We perceive time as moving in one direction and at the same pace, but it has been proven that this is not the case. Before and after are only relative points.
You are correct about time being relative to the observer Seriously. There in lies the problem when science begins to attribute the time as perceived by mortals to something must exist outside of mortality. You won't win this debate Seriously. You can't because none of us can explain how is universe first began without generating the question of what existed before that and what force set it in motion. Eventually it must lead back to something outside of "matter." That will always lead to the supernatural.
Actually, what existed 'before' the big bang is a meaningless question, because time started then as well. The argument collapses on itself. However, Einstein answered the rest with his famous E=MC squared equation. Matter and energy are equivalent, and if you can convert matter into energy (see: Hiroshima and Nagasaki), then one should also be able to convert energy into matter. I agree with the other commenter about how it is the METHOD that is important in science, by definition all scientific answers are provisional. I recommend some books for your edification: "Only a Theory" by Kenneth Miller, "The Creation" by EO Wilson, "The Language of God" by Francis Collins.
There you go again with presupposition again. You are correct in the fact that this debate cannot be won, but only in respect to the original topic for debate , which is incorrect in the basic question you posed.
In order to win a debate, you most pose a valid question, while you keep insisting that something had to exist before time. Time is a dimension, it too has always existed so your question creates a debate which is based in flawed supposition. If you pose a debatable question, have at you. The question you have posed is moot, therefore no real debate can be had.
Duke. I'm only on my first semester of particle physics, but let me explain a little of what I know. Matter and antimatter both exist in our dimension. This is easily proven because the radiation of the sun when passed through certain materials in a cloud chamber actually produces positrons (anti electrons). Thus one of your statements is already wrong.
As to where matter comes from, I don't really know, but if you take one photon it can spontaneously form a particle and an antiparticle. Now antiparticles have negative energy, while particles have positive energy. Thus if you have absolutely nothing and then you create a particle and an antiparticle you can get matter and antimatter.
I don't know the reason that it is thought why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe today, but that's probably because we're still studying this, and I haven't studied quantum field theory yet.
As to what happened before matter appeared. That is irrelevant. You see, time is a relative coordinate. Meaning an electron lives through less time in it's own rest frame than we see it live through. Thus if there is no matter, and no energy you can't really measure time because there is no physical space and thus time does not exist yet. Basically, the clock hasn't started yet.
Also, about half lives. We know that they are accurate because of the way they work. Basically a half life is the amount of time it takes for half of some material to decay. Now, this is because things decay probabilistically. Basically every some amount of time you've got a 50 percent chance that this specific atom will decay away. Since in any object that we measure there's a lot of atoms (by alot I mean on the order of at least 10^23) That means that 50 percent of the atoms will decay in that time (same way that each time you flip a coin you have a 50 percent chance of getting heads, but if you do it thousands of times, you'll get heads half of the time). The second half life, there is again 50 percent chance that each atom will decay, so 50 percent of the remaining atoms will decay in that time.
The accuracy doesn't change with time because the atoms don't know that a certain number of half lives have passed. They only know that given this time range they have a 50 percent chance of decaying.
I'll believe what your Bible says about the creation of the earth, Duke, just as soon as you prove to me there's a god.
Time is not necessarily a dimension. This is where you and others misunderstand much of quantum physics. Time, regardless of the perception of the observer must be measured. It is measured by the movement of the planets or stars, or by the atomically reactions of an atom, or be it any other means. It is measured from matter. If anti-matter exist, then it exist outside of measurable time. Go read all the books you want, then try to fathom where the universe ends and what lies beyond it. You can't. Because to us there is always a beginning and an end. But in actuality everything just "is." Why? because some supernatural force, from outside of time put it here. At some point in your examination you must face the clear evident fact that somethings are unexplainable by mere science alone. That is where faith steps in. But this question was posed to Rubio, not to understand anything of great relative importance today. It was posed in an attempt to make him look foolish and you all have tried your best to misconstrue his comments to accomplish it. But you failed!
You seem to not understand what antimatter is. Antimatter does not exist outside of time. In a way we say that an antiparticle is a particle moving backwards in time, but it is a conceptual way to understand how energy can be negative. The reason we even say that is that in the particle wave function the term has an Et term, but the antiparticle one has a -Et term. Thus either the energies are opposites, or their direction in time are opposites.
This does not matter. Just as one object can move up and another one can move down, some things can move forward in time and other things can move backwards.
I can't help but laugh at some of your responses. You say these things assuming that I somehow am uneducated. I promise you I am very educated on this subject. And actual anti-matter does not exist in time. Because anti-matter does not contain "matter," Hence the term. Matter reacts in time. Anti-matter does not. I know very well about half-lives, but unless you have observed half-lives for thousands of years you CANNOT know with 100% certainty that it remains consistent. Does it probably remain consistent? Yes, I believe it does to. This leads me to the other assumption you all make. You somehow have misconstrued my comments to suggest I don't believe science. I DO! But no one can know with 100% certainty.
All you have said boils down to this
Ignorance + God
We don't understand therefore there must be a God.
Clearly it is your understanding that needs work.
You seem not to understand what antimatter is.
It's simply a particle with the same mass, flavor quantum numbers, spin, and color quantum numbers as the regular particle, but with its charge quantum number changed. Also, it has a negative energy.
Basically if you look at the dirac wave function of a particle and an antiparticle the only difference is in the energy time part of the wave function, there is a +Et term in particle and -Et term in the antiparticle. So since part of the wavefunction of an antiparticle has time in it, it does interact in time.
It's hard to believe that you're educated in this field if you have never seen an antiparticle wavefuction before
And since when has the scientific method ever gone into the realm of absolute truth? Saying "we cant be sure of the age of the earth because we weren't there", is as useless as saying "how do you know you really exist?". The age of the earth is based on evidence, and given our best approximation with the dating methods that have withstood the test of time and scrutiny.
For Rubio to give a non-answer, and even imply that creationism is a "theory" on par with big bang cosmology shows that he doesn't know science, and shouldn't be on a Committee for Science and Space. A man without even basic scientific knowledge has no place weighing in on the funding of scientific and space endeavors.
Also, time is a dimension. For conservation of momentum and energy to hold in relativistic mechanics, you need to use lorentz four vectors which treat time, or rather ct as a zeroeth dimension.
antimatter has mass. Which is kind of our general definition of containing matter. It's just of a type that will go through pair destruction the moment it touches the type of matter that the majority of the world is made of. The name is kind of a historical relic
Finally, the laws of physics are invariant under time and spacial transformations. That means the government of the decay rates acts exatly the same way 1000 years ago as it does now as it will 1000 years in the future. Physics is invariant.
I'm talking about presence of something that occurs WITHOUT any MASS. I'm talking about something that must have existed at some point for those things WITH mass to exists. God is not an anti-particle. God is a supernatural force that exist beyond the mortal comprehension of man and that has always been and will always be. Eventually, the study of time, matter, and the universe has to lead to a place where something outside of these things exists. That force is GOD.
That would be before time started, so not relevant to a timeline. Also, pair production produces two things with mass from one thing without mass (a photon). It happens all the time right now, why not 13 billion years ago?
Prove it, then, Duke. Prove that your "unknown cause" is God. Who says? Just because we don't yet know, and may never know, what caused the Big Bang, it doesn't follow that "goddidit." Unless you're a stupid fundy.
Still demanding proof of God when you know none will be given to you. Jack Nicholson’s famous words; “you can’t handle the truth” applies to you more than it did Tom Cruise. Knowing God has nothing whatsoever to do with the properties of matter and energy as we know them. A quick study of Adam, Abel, Cain, Enoch, Noah and Abraham should enlighten you as to how God can and cannot be found. You have read the account so exactly what is it you really don’t get?
This attempt to force every believer to assemble a body of evidence that consists of matter and energy known to Science is a smoke screen to cover the fact you personally reject the path given towards God. You like your path that is your choice but you will never see God on that path. God can only be found according to the way God has provided. I suggest you back up along your path to discover how that path is contrary to God. When you reach the beginning you will see God.
And here's fred again with the same useless "If I say it's true that means it is" bullshit assertions. Get some new material tool.
fred, you have a real grasp of the obvious, don't you? OF COURSE no proof will be given because there ISN'T any, idiot. That you continue to assert you have facts when you don't and that you defend others just like yourself is a testament to your stupidity.
If you don't have proof or evidence, azzwipe, then stop acting as though your beliefs are based on facts when they aren't. It's just that simple.
I can accept beliefs when those who hold them don't claim them to be fact.
You are clueless.
Leave it to fred to make the christian position seem even more stupid than we thought five minutes ago.
fred, pay attention. Focus. Concentrate. I don't object to your beliefs. You are perfectly free to believe whatever you want. What you cannot do without my objection is pretend that your beliefs are facts or explanations. Duke is attempting to assert that the force that generated the Big Bang and the beginning of the universe was God. Unless Duke, or you, or somebody else, can produce evidence for this claim, it's nothing but belief. You can believe it; that doesn't make it fact. If you'd stop lying about that, I'd have no issue with your religious convictions. But when you or Duke or some other dumbfvck attempt to lie and insist that your god "did" something and that it's FACT, you'd better be able to step up and provide evidence.
If you don't like it, shove it, fred.
My how some of lost their composure. First let me clarify. I NEVER told anyone how they should believe and neither did Rubio. That is the point. Can I prove what force put "matter" into motion however, and whenever? No! But you CANNOT disprove that a supernatural force, be it God of the Bible or some other spiritual being began life and "mater" as we know it. What I can do, is lay a premise that suggest a more likelihood than not that some supernatural force is at work or was at work in the genesis of all things. You can point to nothing except the natural world that MUST have a beginning and end. Why don't you try reading all my comments instead of the select few. You might actually learn something. Like the true meaning of tolerance and understanding.
1) Telling someone to disprove something is called the Shifting of the Burden of Proof Fallacy.
2) I do not accept your premise that something supernatural exists. For one, define supernatural, two define god, and three demonstrate your premise to be true. Otherwise, it's just unjustified assertion and speculation.
Duke, no one HAS to disprove it. The onus is on the one who makes the claim. No one can prove unicorns don't exist. If you believe they do and that they are the origin of the Big Bang, the burden of proof is on you. You're claiming that because no one is able to give a definitive answer as to how the universe began, then God "must be" the cause. If that's your belief, fine. If that's what you expect anyone else to believe you'd better be able to provide evidence. Either do so, or admit you have none and that a belief does not equal fact.
The fact is that we DO have a pretty good idea how old earth is.
The fact is that you have NO proof god made it. What you have is faith and belief. That's fine. Stop trying to make it something it isn't.
You both must have read past my other comments and this part of my last post, "What I can do, is lay a premise that suggest a more likelihood than not that some supernatural force is at work or was at work in the genesis of all things." The fact that something omnitemporal must exists (because matter cannot just be and continue to be) suggest a supernatural force MAY exists. Prove to me, or even propose a more likely scenario of how "matter" first arrived and was set in motion. Science can't answer that question and neither can you, without dealing in the realm of something outside of the natural, which is the SUPERNATURAL. You keep talking to me as if I'm preaching Christianity, when I've never ONCE mention Christ or Christianity or even professed to believe the account in Genesis. I have only suggested that Rubio's comments were prudent because NO ONE can know with certainty the genesis of creation. I do have faith. And that faith rests on my scientific knowledge coalesced with a religious understanding. I don't care what you believe. But to dismiss those who do believe in something supernatural and who do DARE question the imperfect methods of science shows the highest level of arrogance and intolerance.
Thank you for not addressing anything I posted.
Duke, you must need to see it in capitals: IF YOU CONTEND THAT IT IS A FACT THAT A SUPERNATURAL BEING CREATED THE UNIVERSE, THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE.
Was that clear enough for you?
Are you both really that doltish? This is the question. HOW DID THE 1ST PARTICLE OF MATTER START? I have proposed a supernatural force because the supernatural is the only thing that can exist outside of or before the natural. The burden is on you to prove a more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence in legal terminology) that something other than the supernatural existed before the natural and started the first particle. Quit avoiding the question? Unless of course it's because you have no answer. I'm not simply saying I believe something so prove to me I'm wrong. I'm saying, I have provided a logical explanation to answer a question about the beginning of all things. So provide to me an alternative that has more proof than what I proposed.
No, you haven't, Du-du. You have provided nothing of the sort.
The burden is on you to prove your claim. If you can't, then shut it.
There is nothing logical about positing something you have no basis to posit in the first place. You obviously think that some things can always exist, why do you exclude matter from that? Arbitrary exclusion? The supernatural has never been proven to exist, so throwing it out as an explanation explains absolutely nothing.
All you've done, Dukie the Dork, is to say that if there is no explanation AS YET, then it "MUST BE" supernatural. That's ridiculous.
At one time, there was no explanation for disease, so it was ascribed to 'bad humors in the blood.' That doesn't mean such an explanation was fact, you moron. It simply means that at the time there was no answer. Now there is.
The same is likely to occur with regard to the origin of the universe, and even if it doesn't, there's no logical reason to think that the cause is supernatural, dumbfvck.
And yet you still have yet to propose an alternative other than to prove you're own moronic tendencies to personally attack those you disagree with. Yet again proof of the "tolerant" and "elite" of the Left.
When did I say anything about left or right? The absence of an alternative does not all of a sudden make your baseless claim any more viable. Look up the Argument from Ignorance.
Look up res ipsa loquitur. Somethings automatically lead to a presumption. Without an explanation for an alternative, then the event speaks for itself. Thus, if life began then something started that life.
Complete misuse of a legal term used to determine whether something was an accident or not. Very dishonest of you.
What a dipsh!t, Duke. Tom, Tom is right to call you on what he did. "Stuff is nifty and we don't know all there is to know about it" does not equal "Big invisible sky wizard did it with magic spellz" which is exactly your stupid as sh!t argument. Grow a brain.
halfway up this thread you said: "But this question was posed to Rubio, not to understand anything of great relative importance today.
In context, your statement is wrong. Rubio was asked the following question:
"GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?"
Not anything about matter and time and anti-matter or how something could come from nothing without cause or even the age of the universe. Just, how old is the earth?
He evaded answering the question. He waffled and paraded talking points about the legitimacy of teaching creationism. In short he acted just like the shapeshifting Rmoney candidate that lost in 2012 trying to pander to a likely voting bloc in 2016.
A Senator on the Senate Subcommittee for Science and Space should have been able to answer that question without evasion. By the way, he claims to be a Catholic – most of whom are happy to accept the estimate that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Actually it is a philosophical understanding that is used to justify a legal doctrine. While its common usage is in tort law, the premise is that some events speak for themselves. If something exists, then something else caused it to exists. In res ipsa loquitur, a rare event can lead to a presupposition of negligence. When considering all of creation, a presupposition can suggest that something outside of creation caused it to exist. Proud of you for googling it to find out though. Next time go past the wikipedia and into the origin of the term.
Yeah, Duke, the answer is this one: We don't know what caused the singularity to inflate. (The "Big Bang" is still occurring).
It's a much better answer than "Stuff is nifty; therefore, BIG, INVISYABLE SKYYY WIZARRRRRD!!!"
Duke, if you're an attorney, you must really suck at it.
"If something exists, then something else caused it to exists."
So what? Doesn't mean it was some supernatural sky-fairy, does it?
You really are a sh!tty debater.
Saying that something exists, therefore it must be caused is also an unjustified assertion. To exclude something you must be able to demonstrate cause for it to be excluded.
Duke: "Gosh, a pedestrian was struck and killed, and no one saw it happen. Therefore: GOD!!"
In other words, you have no alternative. That's fine. You don't have to. But don't dismiss and disparage those who attempt to contrive an answer for your unanswerable question. Rubio never said one theory was right or one was better. He said the economy needs an answer right now, not how old is the earth.
"How old is the earth, Marco?" "Gosh, I guess it could be 10,000 years old or maybe not. I don't have a clue; i'm just a member of the Science committee. Why would you expect me to have a clue?"
Yeah, that's certainly excusable.
Really, Duky, if you wanna be an apologist for the Repubtard party, go right ahead. You're doing Democrats a huge favor. On behalf of all of us, thanks!
I will disparage illogical and unscientific bullshit like yours when you try to pass it off as some kind of amazing revelation. It's not. It's mental masturbation at best, and no amount of heaped on unjustified assertions of yours is going to make it anything other than that. You're so enamored with shifting the burden of proof that you're quickly becoming just another irrelevant troll on these blogs, albeit faster than most people.
This is when I no I have won the debate with typical Liberals. They stop trying to debate logically and immense themselves in the practice of personal persecution in an attempt to dissuade others from listening. How about I say this, I know you are but what am I. Does that make me any more appealing to your immature rants? Give me a break. Just give me one friggin' scientific explanation for how the first glob of matter came into being.
Oh you have not seen ranting yet you dishonest little tard. You continue to demand something for which you have absolutely no standing to demand. Your assertion is without evidence, and can be dismissed without evidence. I'm done here, try learning some basic logic you gleefully ignorant little tool.
They may have quit trying to debate you logically, you however, never even attempted to debate logically.
Bottom line: creationism is NOT scientific, it doesn't belong in the science classroom. Those who say it does and should don't know anything about what science IS. I'd be willing to bet that fewer than 25% of the US population can give a quality definition of Science, and even fewer could explain how it works. Just reading the perpetual arguments about what "Theory" means makes my head spin.
NOBODY TIMES NOTHING = EVERYTHING ( MORONIC EQUASION)
science gathers data for learning.
scientism mistakes that data gathering for a religion...
...an incredibly intolerant religion that forgets the difference between physics and metaphysics.
if "religion is science's worst enemy", that religion is scientism.
NOBODY TIMES NOTHING = EVERYTHING MORONIC EQUASION
Go back and take something besides a woodshop class Marco...
What do pigs do when you throw food in their pen? They attack it and shred it to pieces. The word of God is a great pearl and Jesus warned his disciples not to throw their pearls before the swine.
So Bob, am I to take it that you live for the coming of the great pear?
Seems like a fairly thoughtful answer on his behalf. Not sure why the criticism.
thoughtful? You have to be kidding.
Sen. Rubio is a member of the Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space. He should have an opinion on a basic science question.
He refused to answer the question, and evaded it by sticking to taking points that pander to fundamentalist voters. He acted like he is already a pale imitation of Rmoney the candidate:
Who am I? Well, who do you want me to be? I'm just like you. Vote for me!
This whole thread is about a waffling non-answer that should be a no-brainer for someone influencing science related legislation.
More thoughtful would be if he just said it's for the scientists to decide, not bring in the theologists into the answer (because, you know they are not the right authority to answer a scientific question) . His conclusion was good though, but it leaves open the question if he would fund future research on basic science like this, if he seems to think the Bible is also a legitimate source of science. Would he as President equally fund such fake-science along with real science?
@I'm not.... Give me a break! The word "science" comes from a root that means knowledge. Since none of us (unless you are not telling us something) was here 5 million years ago, or even 6,000 years ago, talk about the age of the earth is just guess and conjecture, not science or knowledge. Stick to the things you can see and touch currently if you want science. Rubio's response was appropriate and non-inflammatory. Knowing who is right (if anyone) about the age of the earth is so, so irrelevant to anything we need right now. It will not give us a cure for cancer, it will NOT get rid of evil, and it certainly will not solve our current economic problems. Doing things on Mars could lead to something useful (like a new source of natural resources, colonization, etc.), but conjecture about the age of the earth, and fundamentalist types that don't really know what they are talking about squaring off against nerds that also don't really know what they are talking about accomplishes nothing at all.
@Answer is etc
No. The scientifically derived estimate for the age of the earth IS 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years.
There is observable evidence that leads to this conclusion, without the requirement of being there in person.
Perhaps in the future science will come up with a different more accurate estimate based on new measurement approaches but we are very sure it is much much older than 10,000 years. These estimates were first derived in 1955 and have not materially changed since then.
I've always wanted to ask the young-earthers who say things like "well, God made the world LOOK older than it is", if they've ever considered the Biblical texts about how God does not deceive, does not lie, and tells us He is unchanging. I find this whole thing (creationism, intelligent design, etc) to be both bad science AND bad theology. ID/Creationism doesn't pass the first criteria for scientific exploration. It's also bad theology, because it requires a God who goes out of God's way to change the way things work in midstream, as well as a God who deliberately does things to fool us.
Did no one tell him they lost...? America does not want people in office that cannot accept science and is suppose to represent the majority of voters.
This guy is nuts are pandering STILL to the Tea Baggers!
Let's move on America, we want to move forward NOT backward!
Why should politicians be involved in a discussion of science and theology? It's like asking George Clooney or Clint Eastwood for their political advice.
David, he's on the science committee. Science denial should not be permitted. Maybe he should resign from that committee.
David, that's like saying "We shouldn't care if a politician believes the Earth is flat because his cult says so." Believing in such absurdities should tell us that the politician in question is not rational. Do you really want an irrational person making decisions on your behalf?
so the Flintstones was actually a reality show?
Who do you think carved the ten commandments ... you shall not bowl on Friday night!!!!
Those who wrote the bible probably could not count more than to seven, that's why the Earth was created in 7 days. They didi not have acces to scientific methods to measure geological age either. The Christians were also convinced that god created the world so that Sun revolves around the Earth, and that was dimissed several hundred years ago. Marco Rubio is another Republican idiot who believes in fairy tales about world's creation. It is incredibly pathetic that this country has so many religious cretins who get so much media time.
NOBODY TIMES NOTHING = EVERYTHING MORONIC EQUASION
We are all doomed! We have ignorant idiots that elect political egomaniacs that don't have the guts to tell the idiots that they're idiots.
Wow, it's science versus stupidity! This is one of many reasons that republicans lost the election.
The evolution theorists were not around 4.5 billion years ago. The creationists were not around 10,000 years ago. BOTH require faith. Let's respect each other and practice a little tolerance of each other's beliefs.
Evolution does not require faith, it requires an unbiased look at the evidence. Creationism and the theory of evolution are in no way equal.
Glenn, take a basic science course so you won't sound so ignorant in the future. There is no magical man in the sky.
good point, we wouldn't want to confuse anyone's beliefs with cold hard scientific facts
Actually the creationists were around 10000 years ago. In their (understandable) ignorance they attributed what they didn't understand to supernatural beings; those beings (later distilled into one in your religion) accounted for events such as rain, thunder, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.
What some in the middle east believed then is what is written in your bible (other religions/cultures have different myths). Seems odd that when science has shown that the vast majority of stories in the bible are untrue – creation, origin of species, Noah, etc. – that supposedly educated people are 1000s of years in the past.
Science requires ZERO faith as it is based on countless experimentation and observation. Unlike religion where it is all faith in the idea that YOUR religion has the answer which will never change. There is quite a difference b/t the 2 as one is rational and subjects itself to constant test of rationality where religion..... well would rather have people flying planes into buildings then accepting the FACT that we are all mammals much less accept another religion. You don't see the scientists at CERN killing each other over the existence of the Higgs Boson do you? NO! Why? B/c of rational thought process'
Glenn, I do believe in tolerance - even of creationism. I mean, I'm not asking for prison sentences or anything. But I personally wouldn't vote for someone like that, and I feel quite strongly he should not be involved with making decisions about scientific research funding - decisions which could be of truly great importance to our future.
46% ... how embarrassing...Science provides plenty of evidence to back up their findings on the age of the earth and the process by which species change over time. I don't think the writers of the Bible understood radioisotope decay and genetic variation...so they can't really be blamed for getting it wrong, they were just ignorant. Too many religions try to trap God in the pages of a holy textbook...limiting Him and themselves. They need to instead just let God....be God. No person is able to understand fully such as huge concept...it is egotistical to say one can....so let's not bicker and argue....OKay?
There's no need to start whaling on the creationists again. They're people who don't understand either evolution or their own religion. What I find interesting is that the Republicans haven't given up the campaign-by-pandering technique, in this case pandering to the religious extremists who think God is an evangelical Christian and anyone who doesn't believe in the literal truth of the Bible is the devil incarnate. The Republicans haven't learned: you don't win by pandering to the worst of the society. If the Repubs would dump the fanatics - the religious fanatics, the tax fanatics, looney right fanatics, and simply say, "We stand for one thing: fiscal conservatism", they'd win every election for the next 20 years.
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.