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. Chad

    The bible doesnt say when God created the universe, just that He did (which we know to be true, as science now knows that our universe doesnt have an infinite past, that it indeed had a beginning)

    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth Genesis 1

    November 21, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
    • rAmen

      and by "god" you mean Gandalf, right?

      November 21, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
    • Jesusiscreepy

      @ chad...seriously man? I mean, you really, really believe that God created the universe and you base that on your belief that science has proven that our universe doesn't have an infinite past? How has science proven this? Science has THEORIES....

      November 21, 2012 at 12:07 pm |
    • ElmerGantry

      and by "god" you mean Xenu, right?

      November 21, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      the topic in this article is 'how old is the earth', not the universe.

      I'll ask you the same question that GQ asked Rubio. How old do you think the Earth is?

      November 21, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
    • Mike

      We know for a fact from dinosaur bones and other scientific evidence the Bible isn't close. But then again the Bible was written by men with an agenda.

      November 21, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • Huebert

      Chad

      The fact that the universe has a beginning is in no way evidence for god. The honest statement would be that the universe began about 13.7 billion years ago, and that we have no idea what, if anything, caused that to happen.

      November 21, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Chad, you ever consider running for office?

      November 21, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • WASP

      @chad: yes the bible does say 7 DAYS............WELL 6 THEN HE NEEDED A BREAK. LMFAO

      The First Day
      (Genesis 1:3 NIV). (Genesis 1:3-5)

      The Second Day
      (Genesis 1:6-8)

      The Third Day
      (Genesis 1:9-13)

      The Fourth Day
      (Genesis 1:14-19)

      The Fifth Day
      (Genesis 1:20-23)

      The Sixth Day
      (Genesis 1:24-31)

      The Seventh Day
      (Genesis 2:2-3)

      November 21, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
    • mama k

      It's quite obvious why the time is not specified. All the writer of the Bible had to go on was word-of-mouth folklore across a vast expanse of time ultimately leading to man dreaming up a god in his own image in the same way that it had been done with many other gods.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
    • Chad

      @Jesusiscreepy ”science has proven that our universe doesn't have an infinite past? How has science proven this? Science has THEORIES....”
      @Chad “our universe had a beginning, see standard cosmological model, big bang, borde guth vilenkin theorem.
      As well, why would you be talking about how old the universe is, if the fact that it had a beginning wasnt widely accepted? ;-)

      ===============
      @GOPer “the topic in this article is 'how old is the earth', not the universe. I'll ask you the same question that GQ asked Rubio. How old do you think the Earth is?”
      @Chad “something like 4.5 billion years.
      The bible doesn’t say when the earth was created, how much time elapsed between verse 1 and verse 2? It just doesn’t say and you cant claim that it does. You can complain about the text not having enough info, but you cant claim the text is incorrect.

      1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
      2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “ni ght.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
      Genesis 1-5

      ===============
      @Mike “We know for a fact from dinosaur bones and other scientific evidence the Bible isn't close. But then again the Bible was written by men with an agenda.”
      @Chad “Note that I am a theistic evolutionist, and I believe in common ancestry.
      The fossil record is (in my opinion) THE strongest evidence for the God of Israel. The fossil record shows species experiencing millions, 100's of millions of years of stasis (no change, random genetic mutations are weeded out of the gene pool resulting in a pool 'wobbling about the genetic mean'), followed by extremely rapid change resulting in new species appearing fully formed in the fossil record. There is simply no known mechanism to explain this purely naturalistically.

      ===============
      @Huebert “he fact that the universe has a beginning is in no way evidence for god. “
      @Chad “utter nonsense.
      1. If we discovered that the universe had always been here (it was infinite in the past), that would have directly contradicted the ex-nihilo (out of nothing) creation account.
      2. Since it is meta-physically impossible for something to come from nothing (non-being), an external causal agent is required. That in and of itself doesn’t prove the external agent is the personal God of Israel, but it does demonstrate that an agent external to our time/space is required.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
    • JerryMyA

      Chad, for comparison, Christianity is not even a theory. It is purely a collection of fairly tales with a few historical markers tossed in, in vain attempts to make it have any credibility.

      Present your proof of your sky fairy tales or shove off.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • ChadWatch

      Jerry, we know from experience here that Chad can't present any proof. All he will do when you ask is post bafflegab and nonsense, to dodge the question. Same old deluded Chad.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Chad

      I have proof. Just wait while I pull it out of my back end.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad

      you said “something like 4.5 billion years. The bible doesn’t say ... etc. You can complain about the text not having enough info, but you cant claim the text is incorrect."

      I can and I have, but I'm not going to do so again here.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • WASP

      @chad: ummmmmmm the newest information being accepted DOES claim that time/space are infinite.
      it fixed that whole "required creator" thing you folks are so fond of.

      stephen hawkin's
      "It takes very little reasoning to figure out that if the universe exists in an unseen way without beginning or end, at right angles to regular time, then that time is simply more elementary and even more real than ordinary clock time. Thus it seems the term imaginary applies more accurately to our time. If the universe exists in another time reference where conditions are permanent or static, suddenly it doesn't matter that we humans so convincingly observe a beginning and a possible future end to our ordinary clock time, since the other time reference applies regardless of our sense of where we are in time. The universe could be said to exist before our clock time began, and after time ends. The past and future can be said to exist now. Obviously imaginary time relates more directly than our own time to existence itself. "

      link: http://everythingforever.com/hawking.htm

      November 21, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Huebert

      Chad

      Our metaphysics can only apply to our universe. Outside of the universe who is to say that causality is absolute. Additionally your argument leads to an infinite regression. That is to say that what is the cause of the agent that caused our universe?

      November 21, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      At the event horizon of a black hole the time dialation is infinite. That means that everything that will ever enter the black hole would appear inside the event horizon at the same time. A lot of current research indicates the Big Bang could be the interior of a black hole. As Carl Sagan said, "ever wonder what the inside of a black hole looks like? Look around."

      November 21, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "you said “something like 4.5 billion years. The bible doesn’t say ... etc. You can complain about the text not having enough info, but you cant claim the text is incorrect." I can and I have, but I'm not going to do so again here.

      @Chad "ah.. let me rephrase, you can ignore what the biblical text actually does say and just make unsubstantiated claims that the bible says something it doesnt and by doing so make a strawman that the bible is incorrect,
      but you cant claim that the actual text itself is incorrect.

      ========
      @Huebert "Our metaphysics can only apply to our universe. Outside of the universe who is to say that causality is absolute.
      @Chad "being can not arise from non-being... simple.."

      @Huebert "Additionally your argument leads to an infinite regression. That is to say that what is the cause of the agent that caused our universe?"
      @Chad "God exists outside of our time space, as such exists independent of time and has no "beginning"
      Asking why God doensnt have a beginning is like asking why there are no married bachelors. "

      November 21, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Is nothing simply "the absence of space, time and matter", or are there "things" that are not made up of space, time and matter? If you believe in a God you already admit to the latter. So already, theists, we can establish that there was never "nothing". I just don't think that what exists outside of the big bang has to be God, could be, or possibly it is just some"thing" else.

      November 21, 2012 at 2:31 pm |
    • Huebert

      Chad

      Being cannot arise form non-being, with in our universe, as far as we know. there I fixed it for you. There is no reason to as.sume that our universes laws govern anything outside of our universe.

      Your avoidance of infinite regression is a wonderful example of the special pleading fallacy. And remember you your self said that just because you as.sume agency there is no reason to as.sume that said agent is God. Hell, there is no reason to as.sume that said agent is conscious.

      November 21, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      @chad – at 215 you made the comment "let me rephrase, you can ignore what the biblical text actually does say and just make unsubstantiated claims that the bible says something it doesnt and by doing so make a strawman that the bible is incorrect,
      but you cant claim that the actual text itself is incorrect."

      You can't claim that the text of the bible is incorrect? How about:

      Leviticus 11:13-19 – Bats are a type of bird. INCORRECT – they are mammals

      Leviticus 11:20-23 – Some insects go on all fours – INCORRECT – Insects have 6 legs, not 4

      Leviticus 11:3-6 – hares chew their cud – INCORRECT – hares are rodents, not ruminants

      It appears that there are instances where the actual text of the bible is incorrect. Are you saying that your god, who supposedly created these animals, got all of this wrong when he wrote the bible?

      November 21, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • Chad

      @Huebert "Being cannot arise form non-being, with in our universe, as far as we know. there I fixed it for you. There is no reason to as.sume that our universes laws govern anything outside of our universe."
      @Chad "I'm fine with atheists admitting that either the universe had an external causal agent, or that being arose from non being, spontaneously, without cause."

      ======
      @Huebert "Your avoidance of infinite regression is a wonderful example of the special pleading fallacy.
      @Chad "special pleading? no.. not in any way, God has no temporal restriction, do you call the answer to the question "why arent there any married bachelors" special pleading?

      ======
      @Huebert " And remember you your self said that just because you as.sume agency there is no reason to as.sume that said agent is God. Hell, there is no reason to as.sume that said agent is conscious."
      @Chad "that's why I said "That in and of itself doesn’t prove the external agent is the personal God of Israel, but it does demonstrate that an agent external to our time/space is required" ;-)

      November 21, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • Chad

      @Underwear " at 215 you made the comment "let me rephrase, you can ignore what the biblical text actually does say and just make unsubstantiated claims that the bible says something it doesnt and by doing so make a strawman that the bible is incorrect, but you cant claim that the actual text itself is incorrect.""
      You can't claim that the text of the bible is incorrect?"

      @Chad "in that comment I was specifically talking about Genesis 1:1-5

      ======
      @Underwear "Leviticus 11:13-19 – Bats are a type of bird. INCORRECT – they are mammals"
      @Chad "birds is referring to things that fly around, they had yet to be exposed to our current method of species identification in ~2500BC.

      =========
      @underwear "Leviticus 11:20-23 – Some insects go on all fours – INCORRECT – Insects have 6 legs, not 4"
      @Chad "best explanation I have seen of this is that two of the legs weren't regarded as real "legs" for some reason.. (not used in walking, rather jumping – grasshopper for example.)

      ======
      @Underwear "Leviticus 11:3-6 – hares chew their cud – INCORRECT – hares are rodents, not ruminants
      @Chad "rabbit grouped with other animals who appeared to chew the cud because they move their jaws in the same manner"

      November 21, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • Huebert

      Chad

      So you admit that you can not support the position that God created the universe. Thank you, that is all I wanted to hear, or read, from you.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      Chad, it's always entertaining to watch believers go through absolutely convoluted contortions to attempt to deal with the clear and obvious and patent defects, incongruities, irregularities (not to mention the acts of horrific violence and hate) contained in the bible. The Bible says what it says, and you attempting to twist it does not change the wording – not one little bit. It appears that you share the same degree of intellectual dishonesty as Rubio. By the way, have you ever seen a grasshopper? Six – count 'em – six legs. The Bible is not the word of god. It is simply a collection of ancient writings by me, for men, and used since that time to manipulate and control people.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:39 pm |
    • Chad

      @Huebert "So you admit that you can not support the position that God created the universe. Thank you, that is all I wanted to hear, or read, from you."

      @Chad "LOL, nice strawman :-)

      no, what I said was ""That in and of itself doesn’t prove the external agent is the personal God of Israel, but it does demonstrate that an agent external to our time/space is required""

      November 21, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
    • Huebert

      Chad you said "I'm fine with atheists admitting that either the universe had an external causal agent, or that being arose from non being, spontaneously, without cause."

      That means you accept both positions as equally valid. Your only reason for preferring the agent explanation is that it allows you to continue your belief in God. But if the universe arose spontaneously, and there is no reason to say it did not, an agent would be unnecessary.

      I've got to go. Have a happy thanks giving.

      November 21, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • Chad

      @Huebert "That means you accept both positions as equally valid."
      @Chad "no, it means that I'm happy to get atheists to the point where they have to admit the need to choose between an external agent, and all the matter, space and time itself arising spontaneously, from nothing, by nothing (which is metaphysically impossible).
      I definitely dont consider them equally valid, in my view it's a choice between the rational and the utterly irrational, and that is exactly why I say I'm happy to get atheists to that point. :-)

      happy thanksgiving to you also!

      November 21, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Prove that it's "metaphysically impossible," Chard. How do you know? And why would you think something is "metaphysically impossible" but believe in some sky-fairy who snapped its fingers and *poof*: there was the universe?

      Yeah, that is CLEARLY "metaphysically possible," you smarmy little dweeb.

      November 21, 2012 at 8:17 pm |
  2. KBNJ

    Judging by some of the anti-religion posts on almost all the CNN blogs, I think there are a growing number of people who blindly believe whatever the latest "science" says, and give anonymous scientists the same power as they would a cult religious leader. And then they have the nerve to claim they're "open minded". Open mindedness is an acceptance that we can't know anything for sure, regardless of the source. We "play" the percentages with the knowledge we might get it wrong, and don't go overboard in any one direction. No honest scientist will tell you he/she is 100% certain of ANYTHING. Einstein himself was religious. Personally, I don't believe in creationism. I think it's a bit far-fetched. But I respect those who do so long as they respect my thoughts and beliefs.

    November 21, 2012 at 11:56 am |
    • Jesusiscreepy

      @ kbnj...why do you religious people always generalize without any references? Could you please give us THE poll or statistic that says most scientists are not 100% non-religious? I mean, try to SOUND educated, even though we know that right-wingers aren't'.
      Just an FYI...some of Einstein's theories have been proven wrong recently...you're putting him on a pedestal and yet he wasn't even a christian.

      November 21, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @KBNJ

      You said: "I think there are a growing number of people who blindly believe whatever the latest "science" says ..."

      You do realize that the accepted estimate for the age of the earth has not substantially changed in 59 years. The 4.5 billion year number was first proposed in 1953. The "latest "science"" isn't necessarily last week's theory.

      November 21, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @jesusiscreepy,

      here's a good poll:

      http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

      It's important to realize that there are many religious scientists – particularly in the 'softer' sciences. The most relevant fact is that scientists are MUCH more likely (10 times as likely) to be irreligious than the public at large.

      November 21, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
    • rAmen

      it doesn't take a PhD to affirmatively state that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Any well educated 9th graders can say that

      November 21, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Science does not propose anything to be believed 'blindly', that is the realm of religion. Anyone can access the information in science and verify. If you can prove science wrong you get a big prize. Try that with religion.

      November 21, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    • derp

      "I think there are a growing number of people who blindly believe whatever the latest "science" says"

      How precious, a religiot criticizing blind belief.

      November 21, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT

      KBNJ

      You will discard science and give more value and faith in mythical things. Respect???? How can one have an intelligent conversation with somebody insane or delusional??????

      November 21, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
    • Brother Maynard

      KBNJ sez:
      " I think there are a growing number of people who blindly believe whatever the latest "science" says, "
      Uh of course we beleive whatever the latest science says ( although not blindly )
      what would you have us do? Believe the science of 100 years ago ? or 1000? or 2000?

      ".. and give anonymous scientists the same power as they would a cult religious leader."
      And this is true too. the "power" that give science is to scrutinize, test, validate, docu.ment and repeat hypothosis. The same way we do with religious leaders ( cult or otherwise ). The difference is that religious leaders always fail said test

      November 21, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
  3. alien

    Hey westcoastsurfer is your first name David?

    November 21, 2012 at 11:49 am |
    • westcoassurfer

      no

      November 22, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
  4. doc

    “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.”

    What Rubio stated is essential true...He never said that the earth is not X billions of years old he never said it was created in 7 days...he said he could say what recorded history said and what the Bible said....so what is the F n problem people? Had he said it was done in7 days or that creationism was right the others would pounce on that just like they have with his statement...What the man believes is his thiing..as long as he does not try to impose his beliefs on anyone leave the man alone...His religion is his not yours!

    November 21, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • Huebert

      The problem is that Rubio is on the senate SCIENCE committee, and he can't answer a basic science question. The age of the earth is not in dispute, it's 4.5 billion years, give or take a few million years.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • Jesusiscreepy

      No....if he is a public servants, which he is, then his religion is ours; it is ours to accept or refuse. If he is running for a bigger office in 2016, then Americans have the right to know if he foolishly believes in christian propaganda over science. Please remember that America is made up of SO much more than just christians.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • doc

      Right as we found out with Obama,,,the way he tells it Islam came over with the pilgrims...Like I said his religion is his and as long as he does violate the first amendment you can't complain about it..if you believe in God fine if not fine that is your thing....No the libs try to much more out of it than what there is...Same thing with Romney,,everyone was thinking the Morman church was going to dictate what happened....Same thing happened when JFK ran millions thought the Pope was going to tell him what to do...So leave the man alone

      November 21, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • Huebert

      doc

      I'm not ridiculing Rubio's religion. I'm ridiculing his moronic answer to a basic science question.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • derp

      No dooshe bag!!

      It's not "his thing".

      This fundie nitwit is on THE SENATE SCIENCE COMMITTEE. If his stupid religious beliefs preclude him from actually recognizing scientific fact, he has no place influencing national policy let alone serving on the science committee.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • Jesusiscreepy

      @ doc...please give us ONE actual speech with a reference where Obama said that Islam came over with the Pilgrims? Please prove that Obama is Islamic. Do you REALLY think that the republicans would allow a President to be vetted (look it up) for such a high office if he were Islamic? If so, then you're admitting that republicans are also Islamists....
      You mention the first amendment and then tell me I can't say anything about Rubio's religions...that I have no right to do so? Did you forget the other part of the amendment that mentions free speech? You republicans are all the same. Hypocrites. What serves you is what MUST serve everyone else.
      Here's some advise...DON'T tell people what they can or cannot say about a public servant. Rubio WORKS for US.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:54 am |
    • rAmen

      What's wrong with that? thinking theologians, the bible or the "recorded history" have anything to do with the well established science of the age of the Earth

      November 21, 2012 at 11:56 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @doc,

      the problem is not the answer he gave – he didn't give an answer. While he was not giving an answer he stuck to talking points designed not to alienate fundies and legitimized teaching creationism. This is the problem.

      Here is what he actually said – not the abridged version:

      GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?
      Marco Rubio: 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.

      For someone on the Senate Science and Space Subcommittee, I call BS on this:

      "Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that."

      We can answer that, categorically. The earth was not created in 7 days.

      Basically his answer was "I'm not a scientist. I'm just on the Science Committee and influence science related legislation, but I don't know the first freaking thing about science. I think just like you fundies. Vote for me!"

      See the problem?

      November 21, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
    • doc

      jesus.....read what I said.... I said they way he explains that America is not a Christian nation, Did I say Obama was Islam? Not no but HELL NO! I love it when idiots like you twist thing around..Obama is Christian....So what is it that he has with Islam? You tell me why is it that every time something comes up about the idiots who storm embassies, or what ever he finds a way to apologize for what ever? He blamed a f n video on the attack in Bengahzi when at the time he should have know it was a terroist attack...Frankly I could care less what Obama is religiously it does not interest me..what interest me is what he does, actions speak louder than words...

      November 21, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
    • Jesusiscreepy

      WOW doc...speaking of IDIOTS, I think you need to step away from the mirror for a while...
      Um, evidently you DO care about PRESIDENT Obama and his religion if you think he's defending Muslims. On the other hand, what does PRESIDENT Obama have to do with Rubio.
      It comes down to ONE thing. You're nothing but a republitard, sore loser. You lost the election. You know that in four years even more progress will be made and the republitroll party will be so far removed from the newer generations that Democrats will become the permanent norm. LOL!!! Now go and knock off a 7-11 like the rest of your crazy kin, you're not worth arguing with.

      November 21, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
    • doc

      So being on the science committee means you need a Phd in whatever realm of science? No! Lets take Obama before his first term...did he have any foreign policy expirence?NO! should he have had some? Yes! being on a committe means beans...again it is what the man does...actions speak louder than words...and Obama speaks a lot.....action little..especially now with the so called fiscal cliff coming at us! Why is he not here doing something about it? The economy and fiscal side of the house needs attention...

      November 21, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @doc,

      Of course he doesn't need a PhD. What is unacceptable is intellectual dishonesty. Either he knows the earth is billions of years old and won't say so because he is pandering to potential voters OR he is ineligible to serve on the science committee because he believes the earth is <10,000 years old.

      My bet is option one. He's a lying shapshifting GOP proto-candidate for 2016.

      November 21, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • WASP

      @doc:"Why is he not here doing something about it? The economy and fiscal side of the house needs attention..."
      i think that is exactly what he has been trying to do. when you have the republicans from day one yelling "LET'S MAKE HIM A ONE TERM PRESIDENT!" then do you really think the republicans were thinking "hey let's work WITH this guy to improve the country"
      no they were only interested in getting obama out of office and their own man in again.
      obama and the dems put forth a good deal of legislation to help this country only to have the republicans either yell "filabuster" or water it down so far that it did nothing at all.

      November 21, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • doc

      Hey Jesus....The trouble is not that some one won or lost...you libs find the smallest things to slam someone with...so what your problem....my problem is there is no reason to make that big a deal out of what the man said......That is just like foot in the mouth Biden..how often has he screwed up and nothing shows up in the news....that man has said more things that are stupid than Carter has peanuts...Hope you day gets better...

      November 21, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
  5. Huebert

    Other things that Marco Rubio considers a great mystery.

    Do babies come from a woman's va.gina, or form the cabbage patch?

    Is illness caused by microorganisms, such as bacteria and viruses, or by evil spirits?

    Does grammar exists so that sentences make sense, or Banana fart doodle monster?

    November 21, 2012 at 11:06 am |
    • Which God?

      Oh, oh, Heubert. You got me. I didn't know of the Banna Fart Monster, priase his smelliness. May we slip on his fallen peel on our way to becoming a Banna Creme Pie.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:11 am |
    • Quag

      Germ theory is just a theory. No one has ever seen a germ make someone sick. Scientists make me sick not germs. And take electron theory. No one will ever prove electron theory because you can't prove a negative.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • Jesusiscreepy

      @ Quag...scientists make you sick? So you don't think germs make you sick, but scientists do? Ah...this is why you need to go back to living under your rock...

      November 21, 2012 at 11:26 am |
    • Huebert

      This blog cries our for a sarcasm font.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      @ Quag – well done with the electron quip – I applaud you, sir!

      November 21, 2012 at 11:35 am |
    • bob

      idiot

      November 21, 2012 at 11:47 am |
  6. westocassurfer

    A lot of these posts are grossly misinformed, having studied Biophysics and now working in a scientific field, if there is one thing for certain it's that we don't "know" anything. There are a lot of assumptions in scientific research in general and especially with radiometric dating and mass spectroscopy that we have not been able to prove or disprove. Yes, to the best of our knowledge we theorize that we came about through evolution, and we have found significant evidence that evolution(in a general sense) exists, but to go from that to being 100% certain that we, as humans, came about specifically through evolution? I wouldn't be betting my life on it.

    November 21, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • Jesusiscreepy

      @ westoca...but you would bet your life on supernatural beliefs in something that has NEVER made a "proven" visit to anyone for at least 2000 years? If you're trying to say that your supposed expertise in the science field allows you to doubt evolution and accept creationism, most people would be inclined to believe that you're either working for a church or you're not really a scientist.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:04 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      There are mounds and mounds of evidence in biology alone that indicates an evoltionary process. Then you throw in all the evidence in the related sciences (genetics, geology, palentology, taxonomy, ect., ect, ect.) that also shows a natural process and the evidence is overwhelming. Then compare that to the evidence on the creation side of the argument.....none.

      We may not know how life started, but to argue that means "god did it" is an argument from ignorance.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:09 am |
    • Which God?

      So, westocass, as the sun pulls away from the peer, and your boat sinks into the west, where the sky is green and the trees are blue.... Where did you say you got your degree from? Liberty?

      November 21, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • Ken

      westocassurfer
      The question is, why would you trust anything other than that which appears to be the correct answer, to the best of our knowledge? If you were on a jury wouldn't you say that evolution has been proven beyond any "reasonable doubt"? Of course, which leaves creationists to be assuming what they do based on un-reasonible doubt of evolution, right?

      November 21, 2012 at 11:21 am |
    • westocassurfer

      Since I've received so many responses that seem to tort my first comments, I'll respond.

      I am not claiming that creationism as the bible, or more so as "Christianity" defines it, is accurate. All I am specifying is that I, having experience in working in biophysics (only one of many scientific fields), do not believe that anyone can go around persecuting others for believing in a higher being when there are so many unknowns. Law is not science and science is not law. In "science", reasonable doubt can be anything that is phenomenally based. So no if I were on a "science jury" I would not say that evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I am always weary of those who put forward an argument by degrading others. In the scientific field, if a fact is indeed the whole truth, it has a tend to speak for itself. So please go forward with believing in evolution, but know that you need to question everything, not just the other-side of the argument.

      And for those who asked, I graduated from UCSD.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:41 am |
    • Huebert

      westocassurfer

      The theory of evolution has more support than Newtonian gravity. Genetic theory corroborates evolution. And evolution has been replicated experimentally. You may still have doubts but they are most certainly not reasonable.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

      November 21, 2012 at 11:57 am |
    • westocassurfer

      @Huebert – When attempting to counter an argument, if you intend to do so seriously, never use Wikipedia. Your claim that evolution has more evidence then the theory of relativity may or may not be fundamentally true, if it is I propose that it's only because we can observe evolution in more structures (organisms) in evolution then we have the ability to observe in the mathematics realm of physics. Evolution also has more anomalies then the theory or relativity. As I have previously stated we have found significant evidence to support evolution (in a general sense) yet, correlation is not causation. If you cannot see that then my unimportant ramblings over a keyboard will not convince you of anything and neither will any person or study in a scientific field. I have not been for or against either side. I have only pointed out that evolutionary theory has flaws as any theory does and therefore cannot be counted on to be absolute. Will we one day prove human evolution to the fullest extent, maybe, but until then I, personally, would not base my entire life on it.

      November 21, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
    • Angrymute

      You seem to be saying that if we can't be 100% certain, then one explanation is as good as any other. That's simply untrue. The whole point of science is to use the best available explanation until a better one comes along. Evolution is a better explanation than Creationism in that it explains more of the data.

      November 21, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • Huebert

      westocassurfer

      I use that Wikipedia article because it has links to several of the papers Richard Lenski wrote based off of that experiment, I had no desire to post all of the links individually. Now please tell me where I alluded to coloration being causation?

      Evolution is a wonderfully elegant theory that adequately explains the diversification of life on earth. It is supported by both observational and experimental evidence, has yielded many useful predictions, and is corroborated by other theories. There is no competing theory for which can say the same. Now do we understand every facet of the evolutionary process, of course not. But we do understand enough to say, beyond any reasonable doubt, that evolution is the mechanism by which life on earth diversified.

      Please do look at the Wiki article and the links it provides.

      November 21, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @westocassurfer,

      we do *know* the earth is much much older than 10,000 years.

      November 21, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • westocassurfer

      @ Angrymute – No I am not saying that. Again with the taking my words and coming up with a your own hypothesis of what I have said when everything I have stated has been literal, nothing more or less. One cannot take bits an pieces from papers and studies and create their own fantasy world were evolution of man is completely true and therefore everyone else is idiotic. That is just as bad as what they argue against, in fact it is fundamentally the same. If a theory has flaws, it cannot be counted on as absolute. period. why? because it has flaws and absolutivity is without flaw. Does evolution, in general, exist? yes, we have found a significant amount of evidence to prove that it does. But one cannot take that evidence and then say, because it is correlated to humans and humans are organisms then.. there is no God or higher power. It's completely absurd and goes against any form of scientific thought. why? Because science cannot prove either way and "science" itself is not absolute but only the best way we can come up with in studying physically unknown phenomenon; which is what makes science such an exciting group of subjects because it is a constant search with an ever growing amount of new evidence. In fact any well respected study in science just comes up with more questions. Is there a God? Science will probably never know. Does that mean because scientific study cannot prove for or against, that we should assume the latter? That's for each of us to decide, but as for me, working in biophysics and knowing all the uncertainty and assumptions that go into studies, I have decided to say no.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
    • westocassurfer

      This is my last post. I'm starting to be distracted from my work. Science is never a yes and no answer but simply put, evolution (in the general sense that organism diversify over time) is real. Can we say without any doubt that we as humans have been completely manifested through it specifically? No. Can we assume that? Sure. Would I be willing to base my entire life on that notion, No. Is the Earth 4.5 billion years old? Well the materials found on it have been evidenced to be that old. Are there known flaws in the way they have been evidenced? there have been instances of wrong dating based on general assumptions. Have other things in the universe been evidenced to be that old? Yes. What about when the earth was actually formed compared to the materials it is made out of? The exact accretion of earth is not known so technically they can differ.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • WASP

      @west: i can stop this arguement right now.
      science hasn't ever attempted nor claimed there is no god because that wouldn't be science.

      science does claim that humans evolved from common ancestors with lower species of animals.
      science does claim the earth is 4.5 billion years old
      science does claim the universe is 13.75 billion years old
      science does claim that you are a mammal
      science does claim to know down to the nano-second what happen during the "big bang"
      science can produce the proof of what it claims.

      religion makes many many claims..................yet has ZERO proof of anything.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      westocassurfer,

      The time to believe something as being true is when there is evidence to reasonably support the conclusion. This being the case it is justifiable to question a belief in god and it is NOT persecution to oppose the ideas of the religious. Religion is part of the marketplace of ideas and as such the belief needs to stand or fall on its own merits. What other belief should be given automatic respect? It is only religion that has convinced people it should have automatic repect and that is absurd. Even if all science was completely disproven, that does not then justify a belief in a supernatural enti.ty.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • Angrymute

      Whether or not God exists is beside the point. The question is whether or not we can estimate the age of the earth scientifically or whether a 6 day creation several thousand years ago is an equally reasonable hypothesis.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • Ken

      westocassurfer
      So, what you're arguing is that since "there are so many unknowns" any being ever imagined could be real? Fairies, giants, vampires, Ewoks, Vulcans, Bart Simpson, Superman, Santa; all COULD exist despite our best evidence that they are merely the products of human imagination? Sure, a really powerful being with god-like powers could exist, but that's a far cry from just assuming that God does exist because that means that any, or all other gods could also exist, and few believers would accept that possibility.

      November 21, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
  7. doc

    The thing the irks me is that the liberal Media asks a question that is loaded and when someone gives a relatively neutral answer the pounce on it....like many have said, what is a day to GOD? 24hrs I doubt it, 24 years? 2400 years? no one knows, and in the context of the bible it is done to show that God work 6 days and rested on the 7th, thus the sabbath.

    November 21, 2012 at 10:33 am |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      "Liberal media" my big hairy ar-se! He was asked a simple question; he refused to answer it. He was not asked to give his definition of the term "days" as used in Genesis. He could have expressed his answer in years ie 6,000 years, 10,000 years, a million years, 4.5 billion years. He was in complete control of his answer, and he deliberately refused to answer. Politicians like him do no one any good – certainly not the GOP.

      November 21, 2012 at 10:44 am |
    • CK

      Obama was asked the same thing and refused to answer it. The media never made as much of a commotion when he gave the same answer.

      November 21, 2012 at 10:50 am |
    • doc

      Attack....So your saying the MAIN STREAM MEDIA is not Liberal?? you need to wake up...and as far as your Ar-se is concerned that is your problem...

      November 21, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • Huebert

      doc

      The point is that "How old is the earth?" is not a loaded question. It is a question appropriate for a 5th grade science test.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • The Truth

      "So your saying the MAIN STREAM MEDIA is not Liberal?"

      No, they are not. It is the facts that have an obvious liberal bias, and the media occasionally reports them.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:34 am |
    • CK

      The media IS liberal. Not as bad as some people on Fox news would have us believe but it is to the left. In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:48 am |
    • derp

      It's funny how for 1800 years christianity was quite adamant about the earth being created in six days until Hutton proved the Neptunists wrong.

      Then it was "oh, we did not mean six actual days, we meant GOD days".

      What a bunch of intellectually dishonest frauds.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:59 am |
  8. Quag

    I discovered a living breathing ape-man and it's the final nail in the creationists coffin. The ape-man is ME! I am a transitional form.

    November 21, 2012 at 10:31 am |
  9. Chuck

    “I'm not a scientist, man,” Rubio told the interviewer.

    This is the part where you stop talking because anything you say afterwards means jack !@#$.

    November 21, 2012 at 10:26 am |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      "What makes things fall to the ground?"

      "What keeps you from suddenly flying into the sky?"

      "I'm not a scientist" would NOT be an acceptable answer, whereas "gravity" would be an acceptable answer.

      "How old is the Earth?" Approximately 4.5 billion years would be an acceptable answer. Silence, or a deliberate refusal to answer a simple question , is not an acceptable answer, especially from an elected representative who sits on teh Science and Technology committee.

      November 21, 2012 at 10:48 am |
    • Ken

      He's not a scientist, and most of us aren't, but we do trust science to get the answers right. Every time we go to a doctor, take a medicine, use a computer, take a flight, drive a car, and thousands of other things we expect that people got the science right and things will work, and they do, most of the time. When they don't, it's the inspectors and others, also using scientific methods, who identify the problems and others, also using science, who fix them. Nowhere do we take the opinions of psychics and the like to determine whether a bridge is safe, or a new cancer drug works. What this guy is saying is that he doesn't trust scientists, and that's not a very rational thing to say when they do get it right most of the time.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:15 am |
  10. PrimeNumber

    Senator Rubio gives an honest answer to a hardly relevant question and he is pounced on by the typical liberal bloggers. Apparently, such bloggers went up the mountain where they were handed some tablets with scientific dogma of the day and told "Here. If you want to be thought of as freethinkers you must believe everything we tell you." I wonder how many on this blog have read Origin of Species or know what the fundamental theory of calculus describes. G.K. Chesterton observed " It (evolution) has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read the Origin of Species

    November 21, 2012 at 10:20 am |
    • doc

      Great statement and welll thought out Thank you

      November 21, 2012 at 10:25 am |
    • Huebert

      I have read The Origin of Species, it is quite dry and ponderous, and honestly I wouldn't recommend it. All of my mathematical education is in statistics so I never learned calculus. Now, would you like to address the fact that evolution is one of the most supported theories in all of science, and has been demonstrated time and time again? Would also like to address the fact that the age of the earth being about 4.5 billion years is accepted by virtually every geologist?

      November 21, 2012 at 10:33 am |
    • Brother Maynard

      I'm curious as to what Mr Chesterton has to say about the fact that gene theory supports and reinforces the theory of evolution ?

      November 21, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      @ Prime – Evolution has nothing to do with calculating the age of the earth, although it can be used to corroborate the fact that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years

      November 21, 2012 at 10:51 am |
    • Quag

      Science isn’t dogma. It’s something that anyone can copy and determine if what’s been claimed is true. That’s right, all you have to do is copy someone else’s work. You don’t need to be a genius.
      Free thinking is what someone can do once the dogma is shed. It allows someone to make a logical argument without saying, “because my dusty book said so.”
      I have not read “Origin of Species” but I have read a great many other books on evolution that are better developed. I’ve taken 3 semesters of calculus and diff eq. I don’t recall a fundamental theory of calculus but I do recall a proof involving a variable h. h is added at the beginning of the proof and removed at the end and it works…and that’s why it’s called a PROOF. Math is the only medium for absolute proof. All other areas of knowledge are known to degree of uncertainty.
      I don’t care what G.K. Chesterton had to say about evolution because it’s nothing more than an opinion…a very flawed opinion at that. Good day to you fellow ape.

      November 21, 2012 at 10:56 am |
    • derp

      I own a very early copy of On The Origin of Species, as well as a first print of Vol I Descent of Man & Selection in Relation to S e x.

      They are in my wife (Molecular/Evolutionary Biologist) and my library in our home; along with countless other antique to current science texts.

      Molecular biology has pretty much proven the theory of evolution. Daily advances in DNA mapping show Darwin to have been pretty much spot on.

      Denying this, or the work done by Hutton et al is as silly as proclaiming that the earth is flat.

      The earth is 4.5 billion years old. We evolved from lower species. Then planet is a sphere. It revolves around the sun.

      The bible is wrong.

      November 21, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      What is Chesterton's opinion on a science-denier sitting on the science committee?

      November 21, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
  11. CK

    I’m not one to think that there is massive bias in the news media but the President made similar comments.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/11/rubio_and_obama_and_the_age_of_earth_politicians_hedge_about_whether_universe.single.html

    This article should have addressed this too.

    November 21, 2012 at 10:12 am |
    • Huebert

      I hate it that politicians have to pander to the lowest common denominator. It makes the US look like a country of uneducated religious buffoons.

      November 21, 2012 at 10:19 am |
    • CK

      Obama’s answer:
      “Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?

      A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know.”

      Was the earth created in six days? The answer is obviously no. There really isn’t much of a difference between Obama and Rubio.

      November 21, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • Ken

      CK
      If they're not literal 24 hour days then they're metaphoric days which leads one to wonder if Adam and Eve were not metaphoric humans in the story, the Garden a metaphoric place, the serpent a metaphor for something else, and "God" also not a metaphor for something else. Either you take it literally, or the whole thing is questionable.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • CK

      Ken,
      I don’t think a lot of it is supposed to be taken literal. If Jesus spoke in parables, then why couldn’t God?

      November 21, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • derp

      @Ken

      The religiots were very adamant about the six days being actual days until Hutton proved that the topography of the planet was not a result of a catastrophic biblical flood, but instead was a result geological forces that would have taken hundreds of millions, to billions of years to happen.

      Then they changed their story to, "well we meant it was made in six GOD days".

      Convenient, in that nobody on earth has ever had a clue how long a GOD day is.

      They are intellectually bankrupt, and a disgrace to human achievement.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
    • Ken

      derp
      Christians will also say that God exists outside of time, which begs the question what special concept of "days" he could have if he doesn't even experience time.

      November 21, 2012 at 2:41 pm |
  12. Reality

    As per National Geographic's Genographic project:

    https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

    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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution#First_living_beings
    before his next news conference.

    November 21, 2012 at 10:02 am |
  13. art

    Wow. So if the Mormon messiah wasn't embarrassing enough, the GOP now presents Desi Rubio Jr.. Somebody needs to ask Little Ricky about legitimate r-pe. Then maybe he can self deport.

    November 21, 2012 at 10:01 am |
    • Which God?

      Oh, Ahahaha. Good one, Art.

      November 21, 2012 at 10:53 am |
  14. Arnold

    A creationist had a $250K offer on his website for anyone who can prove evolution. To my knowledge, nobody was able to claim the prize. In an attempt to draw more viewers to my own website, I offered anyone a cash prize to anyone who could prove evolution. As a creationist myself, I knew this wasn’t possible. When I received the first request I thought, “This will be good.” When I read through the information I saw information on missing links such as bear dogs, Australopithecines, and tiktaaliks! Then it went on about carbon dating, fossils that link reptiles to humans, vestigial organs, and then showed that viruses, such as the flu, is evolving year after year! I couldn’t believe my eyes. After reading all this, I was speechless. I realized that I had no other option but to pay the money. I had to borrow the money and drain my savings account. My wife was mortified that I wasted our money on this, especially since she makes more than I do and we were struggling to get by as it was. Lately, we have been fighting a lot. Oh, how I wish that someone would informed me about stuff such as tiktaaliks, and australopithecines beforehand.

    November 21, 2012 at 9:28 am |
    • lunchbreaker

      Do you have a link to the website?

      November 21, 2012 at 9:32 am |
    • Arnold

      Nope. I was just kidding around. No creationist would ever admit that they were wrong, regardless of the evidence that was presented to them. If they’re not convinced now that the evolution exists and the earth isn’t thousands of years old then nothing will change their mind.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:35 am |
    • Carrie

      Link?

      If it is the same one I am thinking of, it cannot be proven–not because evolution is not valid–but because his definition of evolution is wrong and he is asking for evidence that simply does not exist, like a literal half-modern-man, half-ape or half-cat, half-dog.

      The FACT is that evolution has been proven to a degree of scientific certainty that few other scientific theories have. We know more about evolution and its processes than we do about gravity. The last 10 years alone have seen more than 2 MILLION scientific papers written on evolution and evolutionary mechanisms in ENGLISH alone–millions more in other languages and the century and a half of study before. It is accepted by more than 99.99% of working life scientists and EVERY major biological studies organization in the world.

      There are literally mountains of scientific evidence and the fact that one lone nut-job, admittedly biased creationist uses dishonesty and moving goalposts to make it appear "unproven" is only a testament to the levels that religious people are willing to go to in their dishonesty and lies to protect their per-existing beliefs in light of overwhelming contradictory empirical evidence (beliefs like not lying or bearing false witness oddly enough...)

      November 21, 2012 at 9:36 am |
    • Arnold

      I was kidding but cat-dogs do exist:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CatDog

      November 21, 2012 at 9:46 am |
    • HarryJames

      Yup, creationists are looking for "transitional species" that are half one thing and half another, like mermaids, centaurs and jackalopes.

      November 21, 2012 at 10:01 am |
    • Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT

      HarryJames

      Yup, creationists are looking for "transitional species" that are half one thing and half another, like mermaids, centaurs and jackalopes.
      .
      And dont forget magical demons and sky wizards....maybe even dragons...lol

      November 21, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
    • HarryJames

      Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT
      Yes, and aren't angels and demons also seen as half-divine/human and half-animal? Wings and goat's feet on people, basically? Even Jesus is half-divine, half-human. It's all black and white thinking with them.

      November 21, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
  15. Q

    It will be decades before conservatives are able to be competive again...

    November 21, 2012 at 9:04 am |
  16. Dom

    I don’t deny that the world is 4.5 billion years old but can anyone really blame Rubio for what he said. He’s obviously planning for a run in 2016. Considering that 40% of Americans believe the world is 10K years or less, would his chances be better or worse if he directly answered the questions and said that the earth is billions of years old?

    November 21, 2012 at 9:03 am |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      Can anyone really blame him for what he said?

      Um – yes! He was being deliberately dishonest and evasive – he can be blamed for that. He was deliberately pandering to a targeted group, as opposed to looking out for the best interests of all of his const-ituents – he can be blamed for that. He was deliberately breaching the trust placed in him as a member of the Science and technology Committee – he can be blamed for that as well.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:31 am |
    • Charles

      Many Americans still believe in witchcraft, ESP and other supernatural phenomena. Maybe that was why Christine O’Donnell wasn't so quick to deny her “dabbling”?

      November 21, 2012 at 9:51 am |
    • Dom

      Attack,

      I understand what you’re saying and it is certainly a valid point but if he said the truth then it would be political suicide. It’s not his fault that 40% of the people in the country believe in nonsense. When asked a similar question, Obama also sidestepped it but provided a better answer than Rubio.

      November 21, 2012 at 10:04 am |
    • Matt

      It would have been a good opportunity for him to begin purging the ignorance from his party. Professional suicide for him, yes, but if he truly cares about this country in the broader sense, perhaps he should be willing to sacrifice his career.

      November 21, 2012 at 10:31 am |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      @ Dom – yes, perhaps it would be political suicide. But what is more important – being honest with yourself and those around you, or being a successful politician? The system will not change, and we will keep electing liars, until we start to hold politicians accountable, and let them know that the standard we demand is truth. The country does not need more lying politicians; the country needs leaders who are prepared to tell the truth, no matter how unpopular that truth may be.

      November 21, 2012 at 10:56 am |
  17. robmajor2

    Marco is carefully pandering to what the Republicans euphemistically refer to as "low information voters." The rest of the world calls them ignorant, anti-science, nutbag religious extremists. Or, for short, the American Taliban. For them, it's time to Take The Country Back! .... to the dark ages.

    November 21, 2012 at 9:02 am |
  18. RE McCray

    Who let the freaks back out?

    November 21, 2012 at 8:54 am |
    • Carrie

      Well, religious extremism clearly played so well for them this last election cycle...

      November 21, 2012 at 9:02 am |
  19. Rubens

    Hey Mr. Rubio, try to dispute this: Albert Einstein "I do not believe in a personal God, the word God is nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

    November 21, 2012 at 8:38 am |
    • lunchbreaker

      Kind of hard to dispute since Albert's not here to debate for himself. While I probably agree with you on theological matters, simply throwing up a quote from a smart person does not prove anything.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:01 am |
    • Open Eden

      Why is Einstein held up as an authority on God? The human weakness that he describes applies to all human thought, including his own "genius". Faith, not logic, is required to see God.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:11 am |
    • Arnold

      A creationist had a $250K offer on his website for anyone who can prove evolution. To my knowledge, nobody was able to claim the prize. In an attempt to draw more viewers to my own website, I offered anyone a cash prize to anyone who could prove evolution. As a creationist myself, I knew this wasn’t possible. When I received the first request I thought, “This will be good.” When I read through the information I saw information on missing links such as bear dogs, Australopithecines, and tiktaaliks! Then it went on about carbon dating, fossils that link reptiles to humans, vestigial organs, and then showed that viruses, such as the flu, is evolving year after year! I couldn’t believe my eyes. After reading all this, I was speechless. I realized that I had no other option but to pay the money. I had to borrow the money and drain my savings account. My wife was mortified that I wasted our money on this, especially since she makes more than I do and we were struggling to get by as it was. Lately, we have been fighting a lot. Oh, how I wish that someone would informed me about stuff such as tiktaaliks, and australopithecines beforehand.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:27 am |
    • Arnold

      That was supposed to go above.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:28 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Eden
      "Faith" is the problem.
      Once a proposition has been accepted on faith, it can no longer be examined by reason.
      Faith is the williing cessation of rational inquiry in order to accept dogmatic, rote answers.
      It is not a virtue.
      One may bask at the warm fire of faith or live in the bleak uncertainty of reason – but one cannot have both.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:31 am |
    • fred

      Doc

      “One may bask at the warm fire of faith or live in the bleak uncertainty of reason – but one cannot have both.”

      =>well put doc, this is why depression rates are higher with democrats and non believers. That also translates to greater sickness and overall lower quality of life. Gads, looks like the Bible is good to nourish the body and soul. I think Jesus said I am the bread of life and his words are the living waters.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:41 am |
    • Huebert

      Fred

      Your delusion may make you more comfortable, but it is still just a delusion.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:43 am |
    • Moby Schtick

      Yes, fred, religion is like any other addiction that raises endorphin and serotonin levels. Again, it's the belief that does the trick, not the invisible, undetectable sky wizard. Your argument is just as valid for a jogging and fitness program.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:45 am |
    • fred

      Huebert
      Moby
      Fine so why choose the delusion of darkness over the delusion of light if that is what it is?

      November 21, 2012 at 9:50 am |
    • fred

      That choice of darkness you like to embrace as reason or more reasonable than the words of Christ reveals your soul whether you believe in soul or not. A deliberate choice to reject a positive hope and promise requires a more pleasant or less painful alternative. Assuming you are not sadistic in nature then note your attraction and you will see that it is typically one of the sins expressed in the Bible.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:54 am |
    • trevor

      fred – who said one must choose dark vs light. Ra gives us just the right amount.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:55 am |
    • Huebert

      fred

      There is no evidence for god therefor not believing in god cannot be considered a delusion. Unless of course you consider not believing in the Lock Ness Monster to be a delusion as well. Additionally the benefits of religious belief are not exclusive to said belief. The same benefits can be gained from having strong family or communal bonds, both of which I have. Therefor I don't need a delusion to make me feel better.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:57 am |
    • Moby Schtick

      It's not a choice, fred. If I believe that your car is yellow with a gray interior, and then you give me a ride and I see that it's blue with a red interior, I can't choose to believe as I did before. Plus, there are other ways to "feel comfortable" with reality besides believing in fairy tales.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:58 am |
    • HarryJames

      Open Eden
      Any prominent scientist is held up as an authority on God if they can be quote-mined as saying something even remotely uncertain as to God's existence, despite what the bulk of their published work says. There will also be stories about their supposed deathbed conversions as well. The same goes for any prominent atheist.

      This, coming from people who usually tell you that you have to read the entire bible in order to get its context, is just rich.

      November 21, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • HarryJames

      fred
      "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." – George Bernard Shaw

      November 21, 2012 at 10:17 am |
    • Ken

      fred
      No, it's more like choosing the answer "4" to the question "What is 2 plus 2" because that's the answer that's been demonstrated over and over as being the correct one. Choose to believe that the answer is something else if you like, but don't expect the rest of us to just take your word that we're wrong.

      November 21, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Fred
      I should have cited the source for that statement – my bad.
      The full quote is as follows:
      "A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion – any religion – is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both."
      – Robert Heinlein

      November 21, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • Ken

      Doc
      I live in a family where it would be unimaginable to live a happy life without being a NFL fan. Some Christians simply cannot imagine anyone being as happy as they are without being a Jesus fan. I think it's basically a failure to even conceive that people have different likes and dislikes, a belief that everyone is the same and want the same exact things. If football fans were the religious right they'd be trying to force people to attend games, or at least trying to close down other sports, concerts, books, and other things that people enjoy.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • fred

      Huebert
      “There is no evidence for god therefor not believing in god cannot be considered a delusion.”
      =>you have a belief. Your belief is at a minimum secular humanism that is a delusion. Throw up all the smoke screens you want but you have a belief which at its core is unsupported by any verifiable evidence whatsoever.

      “ Unless of course you consider not believing in the Lock Ness Monster to be a delusion as well.”
      =>smoke screen, without foundation and totally unrelated to faith. We are speaking about belief in that which is not made of matter or energy known to man. Your monster would be a physical organic being which would leave signs that are consistent with matter and energy known to man. This is why it is so foolish when you attempt to confine God to some form or pattern that is part of the creation not the creator.

      “ Additionally the benefits of religious belief are not exclusive to said belief.”
      =>the benefits that come with the presence of God in your life are very different from most religious beliefs and are exclusive to God. The confusion comes with all the false religions and those who worship a god of their own design rather than the living God.

      “ The same benefits can be gained from having strong family or communal bonds, both of which I have. “
      =>no they cannont. There is a big difference from following your own beliefs that may be very good and honorable in themselves and having the presence of God in your life. The difference is a humble thankful disposition that gives glory to God vs a humble thankful disposition that gives glory to the unknown. In short you are doing it for yourself.
      Take a good look around you and see how without God the bottom line becomes what is in it for me. That includes your thoughts about doing it for you family because the center of your wheel is still you.

      “Therefor I don't need a delusion to make me feel better.”
      =>contradiction as you just said you gain benefits from strong family and communal bonds in order to make you feel better. That is a delusion from your belief that feeds itself because it is self centered and self absorbed. You belief is based on Maslow’s self-actualization model which is old school. In 30 years your belief foundation is already corrupt and empty while after thousands of years the Word of God remains true and unchanged.

      November 21, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Huebert

      fred

      Please look up the word delusion.

      November 21, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • WASP

      @fred: " the living God." so god doesn't fall into natures catagory for being a living being, thus it CAN NOT be a "living god" seeing all things that live, eventually die. if it can't or doesn't die then it isn't living now is it?

      " There is a big difference from following your own beliefs."
      your so called beliefs FRED are the beliefs of your family. your chirstian your family is christian and you take pride and joy in sharing that lack of proof together. there is no difference between one group of acceptance and another as long as that groups acceptance isn't harmful to you..............say like a CULT. it releases the same chemicals into your blood making you feel good. i'm atheist and i find more joy being with my family and enjoying sunday together then i ever did going and listening to some stuff shirt hypocrite yell about how the end of the world is coming. lmfao

      "while after thousands of years the Word of God remains true and unchanged."
      do some research on that statement; look up " banned from the bible" 1 and 2. it was a history channel docu.mentary about how the bible HAS changed over the "THOUSAND" years it has been around.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Fred. What is the source of your comments about depression?

      November 21, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
    • fred

      Doc
      Let us look at the flood as an example. I see all the evidence which interestingly comes from almost every discipline of science that says a global flood is not possible. Now, I don’t toss this evidence aside rather say yes, I can see how those conclusions came about and would agree that the scientific evidence against the biblical flood is reasonable. The assumption based on what is contained in the Bible account is that everyone understood it to be a actual physical global flood (with the exception of Jesus who used the reference to the flood in parable form perhaps intentionally to address the present audience and future audience). This seems reasonable given the last characters in the Bible lived 2,000 years ago.

      My faith does not override the scientific evidence presented. I believe the story of the flood serves its intended purpose of being included in the Bible and is the true word of God. This true word of God warned all the generations of peoples from the day Noah was building the ark. This warning was clear right up to the conclusion of the Bible and understood by all.

      One does not need to believe the Bible to agree it served its purpose. Now, the Bible is the Living Word and applies to this day. Those who read the account fall into the same two categories of people represented in the Bible. You are either on the boat (in the presence and the will of God) or oblivious to the purpose of God.
      The arguments of science verses faith is little more than mental masturbation that distracts from the truth of who we are without God.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
    • fred

      In Santa
      "http://www.gallup.com/poll/144980/religious-americans-report-less-depression-worry.aspx"

      November 21, 2012 at 1:16 pm |
    • Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT

      "This is why it is so foolish when you attempt to confine God to some form or pattern that is part of the creation not the creator.:
      .
      Please share the writing from a god or video of your god? Oh wait you cant...you rely on visions of men. Men created your god and your faith is in men and their writings of 1000's of years ago. Your god is just another mythical creature that only man can speak on their behalf.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • fred

      WASP
      A Living God is evidenced by believers walk with the presence of God in their lives not a physical presence such as Jesus next to them. I was most likely an agnostic when I experienced the presence of God in my life and my life changed completely is all aspects. That is a real action and presence with the Spirit of God now a very part of who I am (soul of you will). A living God in that the word of God continues to spread throughout the world and change millions of lives every day. No not a logic fallacy (ad populum) just a statement of fact.
      The Word of God has remained unchanged if you look at the Dead Sea Scrolls which contain the core of the Bible. Yes, society looks at it different today but the truth remains. Truth is truth and cannot be changed otherwise one would be a lie. The Bible will cut like a two edged sword and anyone who reads it will believe or reject God. The story Adam and Eve, Cain and Able, the Flood etc. play out in all generations and the same conclusion is reached. This has happened since the time of the first man that was created in Gods image (referred to as Adam).
      You fall into the category of those who reject God and I fall into the category of those who worship God. Do we not prove the Cain and Able story living out to this day?

      November 21, 2012 at 1:34 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      fred, do you understand why your anecdotal evidence is not worth the skeptics consideration?

      November 21, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      The same assertions by fred, and the same complete lack of evidence. Poor thing can't bring evidence to the table so he needs to constantly use the same useless crap.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • fred

      Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT

      No, mythical gods are manmade looking like Zeus having babies etc and are physical organic matter familiar to the men that made them. God is not confined to physical form and is not definable in terms we know because there are no words that exist capable of doing such. What we have is Gods revelations expressed through creation (includes men who authored the Bible). The Glory of God could be seen on Moses but it was not Moses physically. The Glory of God can be seen in the fine tuning of the universe. This is not myth it is a reality that you exist in whether you believe in God or not. Your belief alters your perspective on how you view life.

      I always maintained that boundaries of mans knowledge is all that you can muster up in the absence of the knowledge of God. In short we cannot even come up with words to describe what we do not know yet alone begin to assign properties to it. The only properties we can assign to what is unknowable at the moment are those properties we understand. This is why Gods attributes are revealed through creation including man the pinnacle of creation made in the image of God. That does not mean I am claiming that God looks like you only that certain attributes in you reflect God. We need look no further than all the artistic works that attempt to express God likeness yet only reflect an artist’s conception.
      The unknown force or first cause is supernatural as we cannot grasp or limit the scope of what is unknown. All attempts to reduce this unknown down to a natural cause or force have failed. The only success has been in scientific fields that are not of the natural unless you consider quantum mechanics to somehow have real physical properties rather than just conceptual properties.
      Bottom line is that the likes of Stephen Hawking will never allow the possibility of God to fill that unknown while believers are very much at home with it. What we see as believers is what Abraham saw through faith and obedience to God’s word. Can it be proven? Yes, it can because 7 billion plus people have testified to it over the course of time. Is it true? Yes, every last person to date who by faith and obedience follow the path to God on God’s terms have found the promise. God has delivered on every promise and I have no reason to believe God will not deliver on the final promise that is yet to come.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      What a beautiful example of what I just said fred, thank you.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
    • fred

      Moby
      The Bible traps the skeptics like flys on tack paper. That is the wonder of the Bible as it reveals to the skeptics the foolishness of their mindset and they cannot see it. Kinda like the Sanhedrin that carried out the sacrafice of the perfect lamb without knowing it. Low and behold the blood did fall on them in 70AD

      November 21, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • Chad

      fred the bible does not make very effective flypaper.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • Jen

      The only revealing done related to the bible is what those priests do to little kids behind the altar.

      November 21, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • fred

      Chad

      I have yet to see a true skeptic escape the truth in the word of God once they read the Bible. They leave the Bible with greater skepticism or the love of God taking root but they never get that word out of their being for the rest of their lives. It is stuck to the eternal soul which they deny.

      November 21, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • Ken

      fred
      More like flies being attracted by something that stinks, I'd say, and the Bible sure does stink.

      November 21, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • fred

      Jen
      The Bible itself warns us about such priests and the harm their evil brings to the cause of Christ. Evil is present in all men to various degrees and that is why we need a savior. You seem to think you are somehow better than these priests yet your negative sarcastic attempt to slap Jesus across the face once again points to the condition of your own soul.
      Just to set the record straight the abuse by priests on boys happened as it does with others that have authority over children. This is a problem with carnality of man not God.

      November 21, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
    • Ken

      fred
      Didn't God have a son by impregnating human women just like Zeus?

      Can the glory of God also be seen in the many examples of bad design and the fact that 99.99999999....% of the universe is inhospitable to life?

      You appear to be looking at a glass with a single prop in it and calling it full.

      November 21, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      @ fred – at your 143 post you said, "God is not confined to physical form and is not definable in terms we know because there are no words that exist capable of doing such."

      In your 1244 comment you said, " We are speaking about belief in that which is not made of matter or energy known to man." As well, you said " the benefits that come with the presence of God in your life are very different from most religious beliefs and are exclusive to God."

      You are in fact defining your god, using terms that you know, which of course contradicts what you just said. Are you so arrogant that you believe that YOU – fred – YOU can define the characteristics of god? Arrogance to the Nth degree.

      November 21, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Fred
      We know several of God's primary characteristics.
      1) He is a jealous God, which isn't exactly a divine attribute. The first commandment tacitly accepts the existence of other deities, but Abraham's God has a big ego and demands to be put first and foremost amongst them.
      2) God is anthropomorphic. We are created in His image, after all. Again, seems kind of odd that the great, ineffable, immaterial Creator of Everything looks just like people.
      3) God is anthropocentric. According the The Bible, we are the predilect objects of Creation and the entire universe, in all it's vast unfathomable glory, exists as it does simply to have us in it.

      So the God of Abraham looks human, acts human (often like a petulant child – ie: demanding to be the centre of attention lest He throw a tantrum and flood the world, unleash a swarm of locusts or smite someone for refusing His orders) and is primarily concerned with humans and our doings.

      It all seems a mite egotistical of Humanity to think that The Ruler and Shaper of All Existence is just like us, but more powerful...

      November 21, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      Hey, Fred – you said that the glory of god can be seen in the "fine tuning" of the universe? Would that "fine tuning" include the way humans uses the same orifice for both breathing and eating, leading to who knows how many people choking to death every year? Why did your god make such a crappy design decision?

      November 21, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • fred

      Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear
      I think you know the biblical answer but just in case: In the beginning there was not a chocking problem in the garden with man. It was when man rejected the provision and protection that came with the presence of God that the problem of chocking arrived. You are speaking about events that resulted from man living outside of the garden created for man and in the world. This was man’s choice not Gods.
      You live in that world not that garden. God has made a way for you to return to that perfect place and just as with Adam that choice is yours.

      November 21, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      Fred, just what are you smoking, buddy?????? Choking isn't as a result of sin. It's a result of having food or drink go down into the lungs instead do the stomach (or getting stuck so that the person can't breathe). Are you saying that god made Adam and Eve with a different physical setup – one orifice for breathing, one for eating and drinking (like a fish's gills, perhaps?) and once Eve took a chomp of the apple, god rearranged their physiology so that they could choke????????

      What about babies choking????

      Seriously, i have read some staggeringly DUMB responses on these comment boards, but your comment has to qualify as one of the all time most stupid things I have ever heard ANYONE ever utter.

      WOW!

      November 21, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • fred

      Doc

      “1) He is a jealous God, which isn't exactly a divine attribute”
      =>proper perspective is that Gods love for us is so strong that Satan who lures us away will suffer severe consequence for turning our soul away from the only source of eternal life.

      “ The first commandment tacitly accepts the existence of other deities”
      =>these are but hints as to the trinity which glorify God (Father, Son, Spirit)

      “ Abraham's God has a big ego and demands to be put first and foremost amongst them.”
      =>not ego but perfect unity of all dimensions.

      “2) God is anthropomorphic. We are created in His image”
      =>no it does not say God looks like people. If you want to see the image of God you can see it in the radiance of Christ or the Glory that was on Moses when he came down from the mt.

      “we are the predilect objects of Creation and the entire universe, in all it's vast unfathomable glory, exists as it does simply to have us in it.”
      =>no, we only can see of hint of what this is all about. God created man with the capacity to share the joy and wonder of eternal life. That is simply a gift or expression of who God is. If I shower you with your hearts desire it is not necessarily to have you in my life. It could be simply that I am so filled with love that I created it all just for you. Now, when you reject that gift and I see what you have rejected I fully know the eternity you have chosen for your soul. That is the darkness for lack of a more descriptive position relative to the light I offer.
      Yes, that is the basis where God is goodness and simply blesses everything with that goodness.

      “So the God of Abraham looks human, acts human”
      =>again we lack the words to describe the unknown so we do the best we can. Our words do not define God we simply attempt to express that revelation. The revelation is Sprit to Spirit then we attempt to put in words that are discernible.

      “It all seems a mite egotistical of Humanity to think that The Ruler and Shaper of All Existence is just like us, but more powerful...”
      =>we are egotistical so it would be natural that we would extend that character on God. The single best expression for God was when Moses said who shall I say sent me and God replied tell them “I AM” sent you you. The best image we have of God is Jesus who was God and man. The man form was not God but the presence and character was the full reflection of God.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      More standard non-answers and assertions from fred. Completely useless.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      Hey, Fred – if people are created in your god's image, does that mean that god sometimes chokes on things? Does god have a useless appendix? Does god have the remnants of nicti-tating membranes in his eyes? How about a coccyx – a tailbone? Hmmm – your god sounds like he wasn't designed very well! Sounds like he, oh – I don't know – evolved!

      November 21, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
    • fred

      Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      God is not of physical matter or energy known to man so all your assertions do not apply as they are organic. The image of God in man is that ability to relate to the presence of God and understand Gods purpose and will for our existence. That requires creative expression as God created the heavens and the earth. We have that creative side. Yes, believers and non believers alike were made in that image.
      o
      o The Bible does reveal the social evolution of man but God does not change.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:47 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      fred, If god's attributes are unknown to man, how do you know and what makes you the authority?

      November 21, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      Santa, it's Fred's arrogance coupled with his hypocrisy: I say that God can't be defined (except by me), and I can give this God whatever characteristics and attributes I want.

      Silly rabbit.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
    • fred

      In Santa we trust
      “fred, If god's attributes are unknown to man, how do you know and what makes you the authority?”
      =>All we know about God is what God has chosen to reveal to us through creation and the Bible. I am no authority only a witness to what God has done in my life. God has given me a new life and a hope that came through Gods grace alone. When the Bible says through faith that which was not visible can be clearly seen.
      My comments related to the physical properties of God in short state that I do not know what those properties are anymore than you do. That is very different from commenting on what God has revealed which I call attributes of God.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
  20. foolsage

    Rubio said in so many words "I don't know". So what's all the fuss? Why should he know the age of planets with such conviction anyway?

    November 21, 2012 at 7:37 am |
    • Charles

      Does he "know" if flu shots work? Does he know if early education incentives aimed at helping autistic kids work? Does he know if oil sands can be turned into actual oil to heat American homes? If he were ever elected to the presidency I hope that he would know enough science to make rational, informed decisions on issues that involve it.

      November 21, 2012 at 8:10 am |
    • Carrie

      Because a political leader should be scientifically literate. He doesn't need to be a specialist, but as one who will be approving or denying funding and other proposals directly affecting scientific advancement, he should know basic science facts and understand at a basic level the empirical evidence that supports them, how it is gathered, how it is dissected, and why it is valid. The FACT is that America is falling behind in the science race and if you think that doesn't matter, you are clearly not paying attention.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:14 am |
    • foolsage

      He's a lawmaker not a paleolithic geologist. When lawyers create science you end up with a disaster like uniformitarianism and all of the speculative fluff that clog up our "scientific literacy".

      November 21, 2012 at 9:31 am |
    • chubby rain

      Yeah, he's a lawmaker and he should listen to the paleolithic geologists. Not the religious nuts.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:44 am |
    • Jesus

      @foolsage

      You don't have to be a pulmonologist to know that smoking is bad for your lungs. It's common knowledge, and doesn't require any special training to understand it. Much like you don't need to be a paleolithic geologist to know that earth is older than 10,000 years.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:44 am |
    • HarryJames

      foolsage
      One wonders if he would say the same thing, that he doesn't know, about the accuracy of what his horoscope might say about his chances of being elected to higher office. I think most of us would agree that he most likely holds some very strong beliefs about some unscientific things, but is being intentionally unspecific here for political reasons.

      November 21, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • Ken

      foolsage
      If geologists all told him that there was a new massive oil reserve under some part of the country and that there was money to be made in investing now, do you think he would believe them then?

      November 21, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • In Santa we trust

      Also he's on the science committee and is spoken of as a potential GOP presidential candidate; I don't want a science-denier as either.

      November 21, 2012 at 2:45 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.