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. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things .

    November 21, 2012 at 7:02 pm |
    • hinduism by Judaism self center ,secularism source of hindu filthy hinduism, racism.

      in your hind

      November 21, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
    • 10101010

      What a naive statement. Physics, the study of the universe, has already determined that GOD=GRAVITY. ALL OF THE STARS AND GALAXIES AND PLANETS AND BLACK HOLES AND QUSARS, PULSARS, ETC, WERE CREATED BY GRAVITY. SO IF THERE IS A GOD IT IS GRAVITY, BECAUSE GRAVITY CREATED ALL WE SEE AND MAY ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE ITSELF. Please inform yourself. Intelligent design or any other name is just something that you believe because you have faith that it is so. You cannot prove it or disprove it. Science on the other hand is open for anyone with brains to try to disprove theories. Faith does not allow this. Please learn from the Catholic Church, they do not even try to equate the two. I bet you believe in witches and zombies right. Ignorant!!

      November 21, 2012 at 8:44 pm |
  2. ElmerGantry

    Gotta say the fundies sure are a HOOT!

    November 21, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • Chad

      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?

      Senator Barack Sen. Obama, D-Ill., speaking at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. on April 13, 2008::
      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.

      November 21, 2012 at 8:09 pm |
  3. foolsage

    If there be no God, why do you ask for proof, here in "blog of Belief"? That you come here and ask, is proof unto itself of He who Is.

    November 21, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      If there be a god? why do we have to ask for proof? Why can't he just show himself and be done with it? Then we wouldn't have to argue about whether there is a god or not, and we wouldn't have to kill each other over which god is real. That is proof that he does not exist.

      November 21, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • was blind, but now I see

      Chessmaker,

      He showed Himself 2,000 years ago. How did they react then? Few believed and followed Him. Most wanted Him killed.

      In the beginning,, God gave this planet to His children. They turned it over to Satan, who now has much more control over things than 99% of the population can even imagine. Just has he put it into men's hearts to kill Jesus, the same would happen if He showed Himself today.

      November 21, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
    • foolsage

      God is love, and his love is no fool. Ask him in all humility, and He will open your eyes.

      November 21, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
    • Commenter

      was blind,

      " Few believed and followed Him. Most wanted Him killed. "

      – He sure wasn't very convincing then, was he?
      – There is no evidence that "most" wanted him killed. Maybe *some* wanted him killed... *most* probably didn't give a hoot one way or the other - he was just another traveling preacher (if he existed at all). Quit the melodramatics.

      November 21, 2012 at 7:09 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Fool, that's like saying that a kid asking if there is a Santa Claus is proof that he exists.

      November 21, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Blind,

      There is absolutely no reason to think Jesus was god. That is a claim that is absurd. Jesus did not have an original thought to share with mankind and the only proof of his divinity are the claimed cheap parlor tricks he supposedly did. The idea god needed to sacrifice himself to himself to create a loophole for a rule he made had nothing to do with Satan. Not to mention Satan is powerless unless you god allows him to act....therefore your god is responsible for everything Satan does. The christian myth is a joke....so no, god did not show himself.

      November 21, 2012 at 7:35 pm |
    • was blind, but now I see

      John 14:1-8 "Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going." Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?" Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him." Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us. Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father‘?"

      November 21, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
    • was blind, but now I see

      37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

      38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.

      39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

      40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

      41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

      42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

      43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

      44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

      45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

      46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

      47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

      John 8:37-47

      November 21, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
    • was blind, but now I see

      Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

      Luke 16:29-31

      November 21, 2012 at 7:57 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Blind,

      Using the bible to try and prove the bible is true is circular reasoning. The creator of the universe should have been able to do so much better than the nonsense contained in that book.

      November 21, 2012 at 8:01 pm |
  4. Lester

    Age of universe is 13.7 billion years, not 14.5 billion as stated in article.

    November 21, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      It's the "belief" section. Lower your expectations.

      November 21, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      I'm not sure that the fact checking or editorial skills are any better on the "Light Years" column. ;)

      November 21, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      @I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV,

      Good point. Maybe I should have said, CNN is in Atlanta... lower your expectations.

      November 21, 2012 at 7:06 pm |
  5. Michael

    It amazes me that people who call themselves "logical" pander to such illogical discussions.

    1. Science is based upon Fact and Theory, with the later being a pursuit to bring discovery of the former.
    2. Fact is only established by a "repeatable process" otherwise it is not a fact, it is a hypothetical phenomena.
    3. For a fact to be recognized as being established, it must have concrete "proof."

    Last time I checked, there was no eye witness to creation, and no proof based upon a repeatable process.

    To say that the earth is such and such years old is pure hypothetical phenomena at its very finest, and Greek Mythology stories at best.

    You want to teach Greek Mythology to kids in school, fine... but have common sense to not call it Science!

    I'm not opposed to Religion or Science pandering their theories, but until we find an eye witness account, that can be established and recognized with solid "PROOF" that the earth is "...." years old, don't call it a fact.... it's just fictional record under a different author.

    The Bible does not say the earth is "...." years old, so why would Science try to compete with that?
    Where were the scientist when the earth was born? What was his/her name? Who recorded it?

    A scientist attempting to prove that the earth is "...." years old is like a preacher trying to convince you that Adam was 5 foot 8 inches tall and weighed 162 pounds with green eyes and blond hair.

    You have to be a complete moron to make such a claim.

    And they call themselves logical???????

    Who's the idiot?

    November 21, 2012 at 4:49 pm |
    • lookingforfreedom

      Michael, your post makes me think of the Smurf theme song.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:51 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      Michael, in answer to your final question: you.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
    • itsallaloadofbollocks

      Those who believe that the bible is literally true.
      Those who dismiss science in favor of biblical stories.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
    • Huebert

      Scientist draw reasonable conclusions based on evidence. One such conclusion is that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The Wikipedia article presents a good overview of the techniques used to reach this conclusion, and the evidence that supports it.

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

      November 21, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
    • End Religion

      michael, you've displayed an incredible lack of understanding of scientific method. You fail as a human. Please go back to the beginning, do not collect $200, and try again.

      P.S.: eyewitness testimony is one of the worst kinds of evidence. This one reason among many why we know the bible is a book of lies.

      November 21, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
    • wayne

      "Where were the scientist when the earth was born? What was his/her name? Who recorded it?"

      *SIGH* None needed to be there. Do you know why?

      November 21, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • jknbtjknbt

      hey Michael–

      there were no eyewitnesses to the Big Bang, but all modern astrophysicists accept it. Why? Because it can be proven mathematically and also because the background microwave radiation can be found in all directions of the sky.

      I was not an eyewitness to the Creation, but I believe in it first of all because the bible says so.

      I also believe the Creation account is accurate because it so closely follows the current understanding of the history of the universe to the present day. This can have only happened because of divine inspiration. Take a look at the creation myths of other religions. They have turtles and elephants holding up the earth, lotuses growing out of sleeping god's bellies, a creation event that only occurred 400,000 years ago, cosmic eggs exploding, and other thoroughly non-scientific stuff that has no accord with the understanding science has of how it all began. See my comments (twice) below for the correlations I am talking about.

      November 21, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
    • Ken

      Michael
      You're right, there were no eyewitnesses to the creation story, but we can witness for ourselves the processes of evolution, of star formation, and a host of others that form the scientific view of how the universe and life happened. What you're basically claiming is that science can't really tell us anything that we can't see personally happening for ourselves which is utterly ridiculous considering that we convict people of murder often on the confidence we have in forensic science.

      So, who was an "eyewitness" to God's creation on the universe? Adam wasn't even made yet, so no human could have witnessed it. The Bible is full of such things. Who was the witness who saw Jesus being tempted by Satan? The mind boggles that people of faith don't see anything wrong with this.

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

      Hey Ken– people can know things beyond the limitations of their experience by divine inspiration. The Holy Ghost breathed the Word of God. He gave vivid visions to the writers of the bible beyond their experience. That is how these things are known. The Lord is not writing new books of the bible these days, but just about everyone I know that has a close personal walk with Jesus is seeing visions these days. The Lord is coming back soon, and He is getting His True Church ready. To get back to the bible, the visions in the book of Revelation were unintelligible until the last 50 years. Science is finally catching up with the bible. The visions John had are finally making sense.

      November 21, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
    • midwest rail

      " The Lord is coming back soon....." Men have been saying exactly the same thing since roughly 40 A.D. It is an absurd declaration.

      November 21, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
    • End Religion

      jknbtjknbt, gibberish in name and in content

      November 21, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Michael, are you trying to pretend that an eyewitness account is good evidence? You don't have much experience with eyewitness accounts, do you? The evidence that science uses is MUCH more accurate.

      November 21, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
    • Quag

      Creation stories and science based estimations of the age of the Earth are not on equal footing. Christian creation is based on a writings from thousands of years ago in a language that is all but dead. Translations muddy the waters. Science on the other hand follows logic and evidence...if that then this...the same logical reasoning that we all use everyday for everything. I need to work in order to eat. If I steal people won't like me and I may get in trouble. If I donate to a worthy cause I will feel satisfaction. Science does not give us clean proofs like math, but it's the closest process we have to determining reality. And there's the key...some of us accept reality and some bury their heads in the sand because the results don't fit previous beliefs and may be uncomfortable. It's my opinion that dying forever is far better than living forever...and I'll bet that eventually you would agree with me.

      November 22, 2012 at 5:17 am |
  6. foolsage

    God is spirit, he is no thing at all. Pure personhood and the absolute meaning of Being. Even in the absence of all things, he is present. In fact his presence is most real in the absence of all matter, space, time and energy. You will all learn soon enough and all too soon.

    November 21, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • Huebert

      To quote the immortal Samuel L Jackson. THAT DON'T MAKE NO GOD D@MN SENSE!!!

      November 21, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      Gozer the Traveler. He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!

      November 21, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • nsaldana420

      How do you know this? You don't.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • End Religion

      Key Master, I just saw the Gate Keeper in upper New York. I think you can still catch her. look for the burning penthouse apartment with lightning all around it.

      November 21, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
    • foolsage

      Does the Big Bang make any sense? Does gravity make sense? Personhood simply is. Behold it and thank your Maker for being the Father.

      November 21, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
    • Ken

      What are you smoking, foolsage? Seriously, that was one of the most paradoxical things I've ever read.

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

      God is the Father of all who exist. Our individual realities are a subset of His reality. Its not paradox, it's plain fact of scale and magnitude. If it confuses you it's because your diagrams are garbled. Without God, you wouldn't even have an imagination with which to comprehend time itself.

      November 21, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    • End Religion

      i guess i'll call Poe so we can move on....

      November 21, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
  7. retief1954

    Rubio: “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.”

    Marco, it also has nothing to do with ascertaining the true age of the earth. That's done using scientific geologic evidence, which scientists are adept at doing. Clergy and politicians (unless they're scientists) are NOT adept at it. They're just repeating stories from faith.

    E tu, Marco? This has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with positioning yourself for 2016? I smell a Republican national-candidate-wannabe at work.

    November 21, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
  8. Dr. Zeus

    Republicans sure have some shit-stupid people in high office, don't they?

    November 21, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • Jesus Christ

      Yes.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • CK

      I'm not a Republican but as I have been saying, Obama has also made similar comments.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • Jesus Christ

      @ CK, please give an example of what President Obama has said that is "similar."

      November 21, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • CK

      "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."

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

      November 21, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      @ CK – then on that point, Obama is also delusional. My gut feel (I have no proof) is that he, too, is being hypocritical – that he is in fact a non-believer.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • Jesus Christ

      On the second page of the same article:

      That's not to argue that Obama and Rubio are identical in mind-set (although it's hard to tell what either thinks on the basis of his cagey public statements). It's clear enough they differ on some scientific policies. At the same 2008 event in Pennsylvania, Obama went on to give this caveat:
      Let me just make one last point on this. I do believe in evolution. I don't think that is incompatible with Christian faith, just as I don't think science generally is incompatible with Christian faith. I think that this is something that we get bogged down in. There are those who suggest that if you have a scientific bent of mind then somehow you should reject religion, and I fundamentally disagree with that. In fact, the more I learn about the world, the more I know about science, the more I am amazed about the mystery of this planet and this universe—and it strengthens my faith as opposed to weakens it. [APPLAUSE]
      So Obama believes in evolution, and presumably he'd like to teach it in the nation's public schools, while Rubio suggests that "multiple theories" should be given equal time.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
    • CK

      Your point being?

      Obama, just like Rubio, had an opportunity to directly state how old he thinks the earth is and he chose to sidestep the issue. If you were to ask me that question, my answer would be 4.54 billion years old. I understand they’re politicians and it would be better for their career to not give an answer one way or the other but unless they reply back with my answer then they’re not giving the scientific answer.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:52 pm |
    • krhodes

      Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      "@ CK – then on that point, Obama is also delusional. My gut feel (I have no proof) is that he, too, is being hypocritical – that he is in fact a non-believer."

      Translation...he is a democrat unlike Rubio so he gets a free pass.

      November 21, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @CK,

      your slate article was a good one thank you for it. Obama *was* pandering for fundie votes in 2008, just like Rubio did with GQ.

      While they both avoided the question there is a slight distinction in their replies:

      Obama: "it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe"
      Rubio: "Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that."

      The Slate article does go on to say:

      Obama: Let me just make one last point on this. I do believe in evolution. I don't think that is incompatible with Christian faith, just as I don't think science generally is incompatible with Christian faith. I think that this is something that we get bogged down in. There are those who suggest that if you have a scientific bent of mind then somehow you should reject religion, and I fundamentally disagree with that. In fact, the more I learn about the world, the more I know about science, the more I am amazed about the mystery of this planet and this universe—and it strengthens my faith as opposed to weakens it.

      Was he pandering? Yes, but Obama stuck his neck out to state more of his beliefs. Rubio didn't.

      November 21, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • CK

      Obama's answer is the SLIGHTLY better of the two. Correct me if I'm wrong but Rubio didn't say that he would want both theories taught in school. I'd guess that he would say that if asked but I don't believe he was ever asked. They both said that they don't know how old the earth is but all of science seems to know just fine. That is why they essentially gave the same answer.

      November 21, 2012 at 6:46 pm |
    • maryla

      Yes,

      November 21, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
    • Chad

      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?

      Senator Barack Sen. Obama, D-Ill., speaking at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. on April 13, 2008::
      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..

      November 21, 2012 at 8:09 pm |
  9. Eric G

    Oh I'd like to have a FULL THROAT of Romney! I loves me some Romney!!

    November 21, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
    • Eric G

      Well, I mean, I do exhibit anti-social behavior. Please let me know if anybody needs a dictionary reference to any big words; I have my big dictionary with me right now!

      November 21, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
  10. Jesus Christ

    So what do you get when you put Rubio and Franklin Graham together in the same room with Romney? A FULL THROAT of Romney!! Check out the article under belief, about Franklin Graham and his "FULL THROATED endorsement of Romney."

    November 21, 2012 at 4:09 pm |
  11. jknbtjknbt

    boy, I really don't like the way that the formatting came out on the first effort...I was trying to use two columns. So let's try again....

    Chad buddy– I thought I would send an "amen" your way....I believe in what the Bible says about creation: He created the universe. Okay, when? And how long did this take? Seven days or seven ages. I go with the "ages" reading of the hebrew word for day. Why? because the scientific objections to creationism melt down if you take the Gen. chapt. 1 "day" to mean "age, epoch, era" and so forth. See 2 Peter 3:8

    And when did this take place? If you believe in the "long day" reading of Gen. 1, there is no problem with a 13.7 billion year old universe. So let's look at a few things to compare science and long day creationism:

    Reader: Please look at the scientific item, for ex. "1s", and then skip down to the creationist item, for ex. "1c", to correctly see the correlation here.

    Science says:
    1s) the universe resulted from actions of a transcendent causal agent from beyond the time and space boundaries of the known universe. (13.7 billion years ago)
    2s) the universe began at a single point in time and space called the Big Bang. Time had a distinct beginning. Plasma was continually expanding outward in all directions.
    3s) the universe was an amorphous energy plasma cloud for the first 300,000 years.
    4s) then photons erupted from this energy cloud (detectable today as the microwave background radiation)
    5s) photons and other particles form the bodies of the early universe (atoms, molecules, stars, planets, galaxies)
    6s) it rained on the early earth until it was cool enough for oceans to form
    7s) the first life form was blue green bacteria. Primitive plant forms colonize the dry land. (about 650 to 500 million years ago)
    8s) ???
    9s) animal life appears in the cambrian explosion (about 540 million years ago) The first Fish appear about 400 million years
    ago. The first Birds appear about 160 million years ago in the mid-jurassic.
    10s) The first large mammals appear about 55 to 40 million years ago.
    11s) The first hominids appear. Anatomically modern humans appear in Africa about 50-70,000 years ago. Cro-Magnon man
    appears about 40,000 years ago. (Ask God which one was the first Adam ???)
    12s) no new large plant or animal species show up in the fossil record after 100,000 years ago.

    Long Day Creationism reading of Gen. 1 & 2 says:
    1c) in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth
    2c) the universe was created ex nihlo.
    3c) the universe was formless and void (tohu wa bohu in Hebr.)
    4c) let there be LIGHT (1-4 all the first day)
    5c) God next creates the heavens (what we call the sky) above (2nd day)
    6c) dry land appears as the oceans form (3rd day)
    7c) green plant life appears on land (3rd day also)
    8c) the cloud cover left over from the billions of years of rain finally condenses enough that a visible moon and sun
    can be seen from the earth's surface through the clouds (4th day)
    9c) God creates sea life including fish and birds (5th day)
    10c) God creates cattle and beasts (large land animals) (6th day)
    11c) God creates man. (also the 6th day)
    12c) God rests. (7th day)

    So Chad Buddy, maybe you are just right after all. What I have described above is the current scientific understanding in lay terms. It would seem that the Bible is a lot more scientific than your detractors give it credit for being. Can you see the correlation? Item for item there is a match in the bible for what the scientists are telling us about the history of the earth. And to think that a copper-age rabbi like Moses came up with this circa 1500 b.c. Why, it's enough to make you believe in the inspiration of the Bible. Amazing!

    intelligent replies invited, no insults please. People who don't have anything intelligent to say fall back on insults.

    November 21, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      sorry but you are a little off in your timetable.
      For starters 1 says '1) the universe resulted from actions of a 1) in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'
      The earth was not formed until billions of years after the universe 'resulted from actions' so you are off right away there.
      The time between what you have listed as 1 to 5 was about 9 billions years and then you cram 4 more days in just 4.5 billion years. You change your scale to fit your agenda. (not to mention you claim heavens in both 1 and 5)
      You have dry land and oceans forming and green plant life on the 3rd day and yet oceans and dry land existed 4 billion years ago, and you have plant life appearing 650 million years ago, so you want to claim day 3 lasted over 3 billion years and the other 3 days now cover 650 millions years.
      Your claim for number 9 about fish and birds ignores the fact that there were dinosaurs around between those two groups and yet you want to claim those as day 6, not day 5. Not to mention that the first mammals actually appeared 210 million years ago and not 40 million, and also appeared before the first birds.
      As for number 12......apart from all the modern day species that dont appear earlier in the fossil record you mean.

      In short your timeline uses different scales for each day in an attempt to fit everything in, suggests events multiple times, claims events in order different to how they actually happened and just does not work.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • jknbtjknbt

      @cedar rapids

      sorry for the mess on the first effort...apparently cnn doesn't like columns....

      pls take another looks and see if it makes any more sense.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      oh ive been a victim to the columns thing a number of times. i know how you feel.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      Genesis 2:18-19
      And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

      How does that fit into the timeline?

      November 21, 2012 at 4:48 pm |
    • jknbtjknbt

      @lunchtime

      a valid question...When the creation of animals is mentioned in Gen 2, it is a recap. Another thing about Hebrew is that their poetry is based on rhyming ideas with re-iterations. This happens a lot in the psalms. So this is a poetic reiteration of something that had already happened. If I were speaking to someone and said, "well, I graduated from school, and now, I am here", they would understand that I was talking about an event that took place many years ago which helps explain why I am here in front of them now. It doesn't mean I graduated from school 15 minutes ago. That would seem to be the reading you are trying to put on the Gen 2 verse. That would be an incorrect reading since it would imply that God created everything twice. Ya missed it!

      November 21, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
    • Chad

      @jknbtjknbt, well said!
      hope you dont object if I use that info in the future :-)

      November 21, 2012 at 8:41 pm |
  12. jknbtjknbt

    Chad buddy– I thought I would send an "amen" your way....I believe in what the Bible says about creation: He created the universe. Okay, when? And how long did this take? Seven days or seven ages. I go with the "ages" reading of the hebrew word for day. Why? because the scientific objections to creationism melt down if you take the Gen. chapt. 1 "day" to mean "age, epoch, era" and so forth. See 2 Peter 3:8

    And when did this take place? If you believe in the "long day" reading of Gen. 1, there is no problem with a 13.7 billion year old universe. So let's look at a few things to compare science and long day creationism:

    Science says: Long Day Creationism reading of Gen. 1 & 2 says:
    1) the universe resulted from actions of a 1) in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth
    transcendent causal agent from beyond the
    time and space boundaries of the known
    universe. (13.7 billion years ago)
    2) the universe began at a single point in time 2) the universe was created ex nihlo.
    and space called the Big Bang. Time had a
    distinct beginning. Plasma was continually
    expanding outward in all directions.
    3) the universe was an amorphous energy 3) the universe was formless and void (tohu wa bohu in Hebr.)
    plasma cloud for the first 300,000 years.
    4) then photons erupted from this energy 4) let there be LIGHT (1-4 all the first day)
    cloud (detectable today as the microwave
    background radiation)
    5) photons and other particles form the 5) God next creates the heavens (what we call the sky) above
    bodies of the early universe (atoms, (2nd day)
    molecules, stars, planets, galaxies)
    6) it rained on the early earth until it was 6) dry land appears as the oceans form (3rd day)
    cool enough for oceans to form
    7) the first life form was blue green bacteria. 7) green plant life appears on land (3rd day)
    Primitive plant forms colonize the dry land.
    (about 650 to 500 million years ago)
    8) ??? 8) the cloud cover left over from the billions of years of rain
    finally condenses enough that a visible moon and sun
    can be seen from the earth's surface through the clouds (4th day)
    9) animal life appears in the cambrian 9) God creates sea life including fish and birds (5th day)
    explosion (about 540 million years ago)
    The first Fish appear about 400 million years
    ago. The first Birds appear about 160 million
    years ago in the mid-jurassic.
    10) The first large mammals appear about 55 to 10) God creates cattle, beasts, and creeping animals (whatever those
    40 million years ago. are). (6th day)
    11) The first hominids appear. Anatomically 11) God creates man. (also the 6th day)
    modern humans appear in Africa about
    50-70,000 years ago. Cro-Magnon man
    appears about 40,000 years ago.
    12) no new large plant or animal species show 12) God rests. (7th day)
    up in the fossil record after 100,000 years ago.

    So Chad Buddy, maybe you are just right after all. What I have described above is the current scientific understanding in lay terms. It would seem that the Bible is a lot more scientific than your detractors give it credit for being.

    intelligent replies invited, no insults please. People who don't have anything intelligent to say fall back on insults.

    November 21, 2012 at 3:44 pm |
    • lunchbreaker

      When was the first soul introduced? With the first ho mo sapien sapien? What was the exact genetic code that warranted a living thing to be blessed with a soul? And was that creature actually immortal until it commited a sin?

      November 21, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @jknbtjknbt,

      I am perfectly happy for you to interpret Genesis as an allegory. In that case no problems.

      As a literal description (even using arbitrary periods of time for "days") it fails.

      The sequence is inconsistent with our scientific explanation. Waters and the earth appear before "let there be light" (which you associate with the big bang). The sun and moon do not appear until after plants. This is wildly inconsistent.

      Not only is Chapter 1 inconsistent with science but Chapter 2 is quite inconsistent with Chapter 1. It is quite evident that Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 are two completely different cosmology stories concatenated together.

      The sequences are:

      Genesis Chapter 1
      ---------
      - Beginning: Heavens and earth, darkness and waters
      - 'Day' 1: Light! night and day
      - 'Day' 2: Waters in the sky (atmosphere)
      - 'Day' 3: Dry land, plants
      - 'Day' 4: Sun, moon and stars
      - 'Day' 5: Sea creatures, birds
      - 'Day' 6: Land animals, Humans (male and female)
      - 'Day' 7: Miller time

      Genesis Chapter 2
      ---------
      - Man
      - Plants
      - Animals and birds
      - Woman

      Science
      ---------
      - Big bang (13.8BYA)
      - Star ignition (sun 4.57BYA)
      - Planetary accretion
      - Earth (4.54BYA)
      - Moon (4.53BYA)
      - Bombardment
      - Surface Water, toxic atmosphere
      - Simple vegetation
      - Oxygenated atmosphere
      - Aquatic life
      - Land animals
      - Birds
      - Mammals

      But like I said, if you want to think of it allegorically and blend a belief in God with the scientific explanation – I don't mind, so long as you don't think the earth is <10,000 years old.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      The fact that you can draw parallels between the current scientific thinking about the age and progression of the universe with your interpretation of Genesis does not in any way lend credibility to Genesis. You're certainly ent-itled to believe that a god created the universe – I merely wonder why you believe that, when there is not a scrap of evidence to support that. Would not the more intellectually honest position simply be, I don't know how the universe came into being.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:08 pm |
    • jknbtjknbt

      @I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      thanks for the interest....I was afraid this blog was closed.

      the hebrew of genesis is a lot like old english in that it had a small vocabulary. Each word had several meanings. The same rule is found in english...for example, "run" is one of the words that go back to old english. It can be used as many as 60 different ways according to the oxford english dictionary. For example, you can run a race; you can run a car; you can get a run in a stocking; the "runs" can refer to bowel distress; and so on....it is a mistake to limit the reading of "water" to one meaning, liquid H2O. In the usage in Gen. 1:6, I am sure this refers to the thick plasma cloud which was so dense that it had liquidity as a property. The entire universe at this time (<300,000 years after the big bang) was packed into a sphere smaller than the diameter of the solar system, and therefore was infinitely dense, hence, "water".
      And about the sun and moon appearing after life on earth, this refers to the perspective of an observer on earth if transported back in time to stand on the earth's surface looking up. Eventually the original cloud cover would disperse enough to allow an observer from his perspective to first see the sun and moon. Yes, the sun and moon had to be in their place before life could begin. But to an observer on Earth, they would not be visible through the miles-thick clouds until they parted.
      So both of your objections are spurious. Both instances are shockingly in agreement with the scientific understanding of the history of universe and the earth at those times. So once again, the only explaination for this accuracy is divine inspiration. If divinely inspired, then a literal reading is completely appropriate.
      I don't have a problem with you reading Genesis as an allegory, but I hope you can see that there is resonant meaning here beyond your limited understanding. Open your mind to the possibility that I just might be right....

      November 21, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      I'll open my mind to the possibility that you are right – in fact it IS possible, as ANYTHING is possible – if you open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong

      November 21, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • jknbtjknbt

      @Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      there is a web site called Reasons to Believe out there....take a look, there are volumes of scientific evidence available to support a belief in scientific creationism....

      If you want to know, I started out very Darwinian and bought into the whole evolutionary schtick and the gospel that the Bible is myth & allegory.....But I opened up the book and my mind, and have learned that it is the truth. I found that a literal reading of the bible is intellectually defensible. You don't have to sacrifice your brains to believe in the literal truth of the Word. You do have to open your mind and question some outdated assumptions and presumptions.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      @jk – so you are NOT prepared to open your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong?

      I see.

      Okay, let's try this: you said, "But I opened up the book and my mind, and have learned that it is the truth. I found that a literal reading of the bible is intellectually defensible."

      So, if a LITERAL reading of the bible is intellectually defensible, could you please intellectually defend Leviticus:
      - bats are a form of bird (no, they are mammals)
      - insects go around on all fours (no, they have 6 legs)
      - hares chew their cud (no, they are rodents, not ruminants)

      November 21, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • End Religion

      very simply, if god could have given to man the knowledge of how the universe began, he also could've given him the knowledge of the proper words to describe the events. Your interpretation is mere machination.

      November 21, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
    • jknbtjknbt

      @Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      hello Attack– the word birds or fowl in Lev.11:19 should be taken as "flying animal"...the word in Hebr. is the same for both. Blame the translator.
      Also...can you pls provide chapter and verse for the other two?
      Also, you are "straining at the gnat" to use one of Jesus' expressions. The main event of the scripture is Jesus Christ, his death, burial, and ressurection, and also his immanent return. Have you come to terms with the claims of God in Christ Jesus? You know about bats and insects. Have you missed the main event?

      November 21, 2012 at 5:35 pm |
    • End Religion

      lol @ blame translator... but we're to expect your translation is the one true one? *sigh* the egocentric insanity never ends.

      November 21, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @jknbt etc

      In the scientific explanation, birds come after animals – not before.

      Your explanation that the sun, moon and stars were invisible due to clouds is an absurd reach.

      Verse 16 is *very* specific about the fourth day. This occurs after the plants on the third day.

      16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

      It says "made" not parted the cloud and made them visible.

      Trying to legitimize cosmology myths as science is like trying to smash a square peg into a round hole. Like I said earlier, it's fine to treat it as an inspirational allegory. It is simply not consistent with science.

      November 21, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • fred

      Goper
      “ it's fine to treat it as an inspirational allegory. It is simply not consistent with science”
      =>suggest you rephrase; “it is simply not consistent with science based on underlying scientific assumptions and contrary assumptions of intended Hebrew word usage”.
      When taking into account the method of oral tradition in use prior to the first writing of Genesis, science and the Bible are not in conflict.

      November 21, 2012 at 6:29 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Look, at some point all you're saying is that is a creation narrative, and creation narratives look very similar at the fundamental level. But that doesn't prove anything except the way that the human mind categorizes and processes narrative structure.

      1. There's a beginning from unknown or nebulous origins (gee, you think?)
      2. There's a slow accretion of events and structures category by category (um..yes)
      3. There's an apparent structure that begins to take on more definition (yep, how'd you guess)
      4. There's further division between more distinct structures (yeah, that's what happens)
      5. There's addendum accretion and harder divisions (that's the way it works)
      5. There's a crowning, final state or product or epiphany (otherwise, what's the point)
      5. Denouement, rest, resolution, warm-down (feels right, doesn't it)

      To say that this pattern makes a story any more or less true is pure hogwash.

      November 21, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      fred, you moron, if there was some way to make ANY creation myth "match" the current scientific understanding, we'd all know it very well by this point. You're just beating your chest when you such tripe.

      November 21, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @fred,

      No, I don't see a need to reword my statement. If you're not taking Genesis literally – even when subst!tuting arbitrary periods for days – wouldn't it then be allegorical anyway?

      November 21, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
    • fred

      Goper
      reation according to the Divine Word of God Genesis 1 science in CAPS;
      FIRST CAUSE
      “In the beginning God” (v1) – we are given the first cause, causation
      BIG BANG
      “created the heavens and the earth” (v1) – matter and energy created ,singularity establishing time and space
      “Earth dark formless mass “(v 2) – chaotic sub atomic particles
      STAR IGNITION
      “Let there be light ” (Day One) – God was the light or light from reionizing the universe
      PLANETARY ACCRETION=>EARTH, MOON=> WATER=> ATMOSPERE
      “Separated the waters to make atmosphere” (Day Two) – molten earth or water forming atmosphere as cools.
      VEGETATION OXYGENATED ATMOSPHERE
      “Dry land, seas and vegetation”(Day Three)- oceans and land
      NO SCIETIFIC EPLANATION
      “Sun moon stars”(Day Four)- God “set” or stabilized these in position for key purposes.
      AQUATIC LIFE, BIRDS
      “Creatures of the sea then birds”(Day Five) – sudden appearance of many fossils
      MAMMALS
      “Land creatures then man”(Day Six)-sudden appearance of many fossils

      At issue may be day four where; day, night, calendar, navigation, etc. are established prior to the beginning of advanced life forms. The sun the moon and visible stars were “set into the expanse” and now these lights rather than early lights from star and galaxy formation regulate and have greatest affect. Some scientific conflict may relate to time beginning at the Big Bang rather than observable time dependent on higher life forms.
      At issue may be the appearance of birds before mammals but that is an evolutionary distinction that is unsettled.

      November 21, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @fred,

      some things match up – like mammals after other land animals, and sea life before other living creatures. But lots of the Genesis 1 sequence is horribly mixed up.

      - you can't have the earth and the waters before light if you construe 'let there be light' as the big bang / cosmic background radiation
      - you can't have day and night before the sun
      - the earth doesn't form before the sun
      - you can't have plants before the sun
      - the birds come after the land animals, not before

      And ... it still doesn't explain why chapter 1 is sooo different from chapter 2.

      Why? ... It's a myth!

      November 21, 2012 at 8:57 pm |
    • fred

      Goper
      “And ... it still doesn't explain why chapter 1 is sooo different from chapter 2.”
      =>we discussed this and basically chapter 1 is the creative power of God creating a place that reflects his goodness. Note we move from formless deep and darkness to the creation which is very good. There are many sub topics but the thrust is God bringing order to chaos and creating an environment of wonder in creativity. It is filled with God spoke and it so, it is good, its very good, light separates the darkness.
      In chapter 2 note the first paragraph closes off the last chapter. Now God begins to demonstrate the personal care for man. Chapter 2 is about the relationship between God and the creation not the creation itself as in chapter 1. The focus and spotlight has changed.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:28 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @fred,

      Adam exists before plants OR animals in Chapter 2. In Chapter 1, humans (man and woman) are made after everything else.

      Do you know the scientific explanation from where water came from?

      November 21, 2012 at 9:32 pm |
    • fred

      Goper
      Stop combining chapter 2 and chapter 1. This is as picture language condensed to written expression that nomatic Hebrew tribes 3,400 years could related with. The chapters deal with two distinctive pictures cast with a different lighting and mood.
      What is your problem with water in chapter 1?

      November 21, 2012 at 9:45 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      fred is like, "Yeah, but if you rearrange the days and make "water" mean "molten planets" and basically just mangle to hell and back the Werd of Gawd then you have a story that sort of matches with the scientific model."

      If it was really god's word, then science would be conforming to the biblical model instead of the other way 'round. fred should ask himself why he's working so hard to make the bible match with science, and why science doesn't give a sh!t if it matches up with the babble.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:59 pm |
    • fred

      Moby
      Take note that I said science and the Bible do not conflict. If God wanted to write a dry boring science book that limits the horizon of mans knowledge to the 5 senses God could easily have done that. Problem is that Gods purpose for mankind is not to make little Einstein’s that can wow the world with discovering the things God made. You are like a child that just made a mud pie and demanding Chef Ramsey’s moose pie does not have right recipe.
      The Bible is about Gods purpose for mans existence. Genesis lays that story out from the beginning. You are one who has attempted to justify your empty beliefs by supporting them with your version of mans story of creation. Take a close look at your version. You have no explanation as to first cause so you call it the great unknown is the cause of existence. You have no explanation for the purpose of life so you make baseless assumptions about what Neanderthal was thinking when looking up into the heavens. Then you make assumptions and form a belief that we die like other frogs and dogs end of story. Nice empty beginning and end all without any evidence.

      November 21, 2012 at 11:15 pm |
  13. Scoots

    @GOPer I was not speaking about the article, I was speaking about people commenting on this post. I'm not a christian which it seems many commenting on my post seem to believe. I believe in evolution. My point is that everything, including scientific theories are questionable and can not be said to be definite. As stated by others in the post, some say the Earth was created 4.5 billion years ago and the universe is 14.5 billion years old while other say it has no timeline, its infinite. Science creates probabilities to attempt to get a definite answer but it can not say it is 100% sure. To believe this would put you on the same level as those you are criticizing. Scientific theories are proven wrong everyday and to put all your eggs in one basket is, well, foolish.

    November 21, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • Jesusiscreepy

      @ Scoots...you're right and so is GOP'er....I think the issue has become black and white. People are still so up-in-arms over the religion tossing that stank up this last election, that they are wanting creationist to just stop talking...but at the same time, I don't think anyone REALLY thinks science knows the EXACT age of the Universe or the planet. It's a mixed bag.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
    • Eric G

      I think you have a general misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. Scientific theories are based on the verification of available evidence to support a hypothesis. If new verifiable evidence is discovered, theories are adjusted to include the new evidence. Scientific theory does not make claims of "fact" without demonstrative evidence. Science welcomes new verifiable evidence because it helps further our understanding.

      The difference in the positions you outline is that some believe the universe it 14 billion years old because that is what the verifiable evidence supports. Those who believe otherwise must do so in spite of verified evidence that is contrary to their belief.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
    • Jesusiscreepy

      Oh thank you Eric! I'll sleep better tonight because of your ever-so-wise guidance and definition! Obviously we've ALL been idiots and knew NOTHING until you came along! ALL HAIL ERIC!!!!

      LOL!!!

      November 21, 2012 at 3:55 pm |
    • Huebert

      Scoots

      You are right in that you cannot say for 100% that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. You also cannot say with 100% certainty that you are not a brain in a jar plugged into the matrix.

      But there is no evidence to support the matrix hypothesis, so you , most likely, don't believe it. Not all theories are equal, some have evidence to support them and others do not. The only rational choice you can make is to base your beliefs upon evidence.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
    • Eric G

      @Jesus: Happy to be of service. Thank you for providing clarity of your intellectual level. I find it important to have a understanding of where people are coming from, and based on the stupidity of your posts, your origins have been a bit of a mystery to me.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
    • Jesus Christ

      And eric, thank you for proving that we can only expect to be kicked by a mule.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Scoots,

      Interestingly the article is wrong (as many have pointed out) when it says the estimated age of the universe is 14.5 billion years. (It is 13.7 billion years. Presumably the author conflated 4.5 into 14.5.)

      We have an estimate of the age of the earth at 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years. There is a lot of consensus on this number and it hasn't changed substantially from an estimate of 4.5 billion years made 59 years ago in 1953.

      Do we *know* with certainty that someone won't come along in 50 years and produce evidence to show the earth is 5 billion or 6 billion years old? Of course not.

      With our current understadning we do *know* with ~100% confidence, that suggesting that the earth is <10,000 years old is simply ludicrous.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
  14. Angrymute

    How old is the earth?
    Why makes the sun revolve around the earth?
    What keeps water from running off the edge of the world?

    These are are the great mysteries of our time. They have perplexed the world's greatest thinkers for literally hundreds of years and we will probably never know the answers ...

    November 21, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
    • Bubba

      How old is the earth? 4.54 Billion. GIve or take a few hundred thousand years.
      Why makes the sun revolve around the earth? Gravity.
      What keeps water from running off the edge of the world? Also, Gravity.

      I am the smartest person alive.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      @ Bubba – yes, you ARE the smartest person alive. I therefore dub you "Sir Bubba The Dude with a Brain the Size of a Planet"

      November 21, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
    • Bubba's left ear

      Is the world an infinity pool? What edge would the water otherwise flow over? Is the earth flat again? Damn!

      November 21, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
    • Evangelical

      @Bubba

      LMAO. I'm a strict Bible believer, but yet I know that the sun does not revolve around the earth.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      Evan, do you believe Leviticus?
      Bats are a form of birds?
      Insects go around on all fours?
      Hares chew their cud?

      November 21, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT

      Angrymute

      Why makes the sun revolve around the earth?
      .
      .
      Were you home schooled???????????????????????

      November 21, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      @ Christianity is a form – I think that Angrymute's sarcasm font wasn't enabled on his initial post.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
  15. DA

    Martin Luther King and Bill Clinton are religious, are they stupid?

    November 21, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
    • Jesusiscreepy

      @ DA...well your sentence structure is, um, it's not "smart." MLK is dead so you wouldn't place him in that sentence in present tense, would you? Bill Clinton is religious? Maybe he belongs to a religion, but I don't think he's terribly evangelical.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • DA

      Neither am I.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Well, both have acted stupidly

      November 21, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
    • itsallaloadofbollocks

      Bill, By stupidly I presume you mean that their morals have at times fallen below your interpretation of the bible's "moral code"? And plenty of evangelicals and GOP politicians have hypocritically slipped below said standard.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      bollocks, yes, we all fall short of the glory of God do we not?

      November 21, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
  16. Evangelical

    God is powerful indeed. He is so powerful that unbelievers are so taken by the very idea of God that they come on these boards day in and day out to proclaim how strongly they "disbelieve" and how believers are "delusional" or "stupid." If you merely just didn't believe, you would not react so viscerally and would just allow believers to believe

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

      @Evangelical

      Oh yes and the believers just allow the non-believers to live their life without running smears like teaching that non-believers are evil people who can do no good, and attempting to force their doctrines into our laws. Get a clue moron, if the christian activists weren't so bent on turning this country into a theocracy, then many reasonable people wouldn't be jumping into the conversations.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
    • Huebert

      While I can't speak for everyone, I am on these boards because I enjoy it.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      Evan – come on! We react because believers are trying to push their beliefs into the public sphere, trying to influence and modify the law and public policy to fit their religious belief system. If believers stopped doing that then the non-believers would back off.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      And I'm on these boards because hawaiiguest is on here, and i consider it highly beneficial to align yourself with someone who lives in Hawaii!

      November 21, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      If your delusion was non-intrusive on the rest of us we wouldn't care. It is....so we do.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Evangelical, suppose that you lived in a society that primarily worshiped the Easter Bunny. Mightn't you visit boards about the Easter Bunny with criticisms similar to ours?

      November 21, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      Evangelicals are so self-absorbed, indoctrinated, and smug in their assertion that a god exists, that they can't imagine in their wildest dreams that someone could "really, really" not believe. How impossible that must seem to them!

      I don't believe in god (yet). I'm here to help those who haven't yet been indoctrinated to understand that they do have the option of thinking for themselves. The notion that I'm here because deep down inside I truly believe is extremely funny, and completely incorrect.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
    • Evangelical

      @Hawaii

      Nobody is saying that unbelievers can do no good. That is a figment of your imagination. The key is that good works will not get you into heaven.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      And what did I mean by "I don't believe in god (yet)"? I'm also not so foolish as to assert there is no god. As soon as there is proof that a god exists, or proof that a god does not exist, then I'll "believe" one way or the other.

      Until then, I withhold belief, and maintain the default position of taking no position.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:35 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      'The key is that good works will not get you into heaven.'

      and that idea explains why people like you act like you do.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
    • Evangelical

      The point I was trying to make is that whether you believe in God or don't believe in God, you are on here discussing it because of God.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
    • ANOEL2005

      Evangelical,

      you made an excellent point.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      I think the "we're keeping religion out of government for the good of the country" argument is a canard. If atheist were as rational as they propose, they would realize that calling religious people names isn't furthering the goal of converting anyone to their way of thinking any more than it is affecting pending legislation. Therefore, logically we must either discard the supposition that they are here defending the Establishment Clause or rule out their claim of rational and intelligence.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Evangelical

      Gee I must have just imagined
      2 Corinthians 6: 14-18
      or Psalms 14: 1-7

      November 21, 2012 at 3:42 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      Evangelical said: "The point I was trying to make is that whether you believe in God or don't believe in God, you are on here discussing it because of God."

      You are incorrect. I don't believe that there is a god. I am here because others believe in God, and I'm arguing that their logic is incorrect. And that's because it's a fun debate to engage in.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
    • Evangelical

      @EnjaySea

      You are here because of God. We are not debating history or mathematics here.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      Evangelical, I am not here "because of God". I am here "because people believe in a god".

      The fact that you can't see the difference doesn't change that in the slightest.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
    • Evangelical

      @Hawaii

      The Bible verse, 2 Corinthians 6: 14-18, is precisely the reason that we can never give ground to unbelievers. The moment we accept that the beliefs of an unbeliever are equal to those of a believer, we will come under God's judgment.

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

      @Evangelical

      Thank you for demonstrating your agreement with theocracy and your marginalization of those who do not believe as you do.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      @Evangelical, Speaking for myself, I'm out here because I believe ignorance should be highlighted and held up for everyone to see. That way more reasoned discussion can focus it, which in turn raises the overall level of discourse. I'm personally glad that religious people, ignorant citizens, and bigots have come out of the closet and loudly proclaim their views in a public forum. It's when these beliefs are hidden that they becomes truly dangerous.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
    • Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT

      Evangelical

      @Hawaii

      The Bible verse, 2 Corinthians 6: 14-18, is precisely the reason that we can never give ground to unbelievers. The moment we accept that the beliefs of an unbeliever are equal to those of a believer, we will come under God's judgment.
      .
      .
      Thank you for help proving my point .............Christians are enemies of freedom and this country.

      November 21, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
    • End Religion

      Gunter glieben glauchen globen

      Alright, I've got something to say
      It's better to burn out than fade away!

      Gonna start a fire, come on

      Rise up, gather round, rock this place to the ground
      Burn it up, let's go for broke, watch the night go up in smoke
      Rock on! Rock on!
      Drive me crazier
      No serenade, no fire brigade, just pyromania, come on!

      What do you want? What do you want?
      I want rock 'n' roll, yes I do
      Long live rock 'n' roll

      Oh let's go, let's strike a light
      We're gonna blow like dynamite
      I don't care if it takes all night
      Gonna set this town alight, come on

      What do you want? What do you want?
      I want rock 'n' roll, alright
      Long live rock 'n' roll, oh yeah yeah

      Rock of ages, rock of ages
      Still rollin', keep a-rollin'
      Rock of ages, rock of ages
      Still rollin', rock 'n' rollin'
      We got the power, got the glory
      Just say you need it and if you need it, say yeah!

      Now listen to me!

      I'm burnin', burnin', got the fever
      I know for sure there ain't no cure
      So feel it, don't fight it, go with the flow
      Gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme one more for the road

      What do you want? What do you want?
      I want rock 'n' roll, you betcha
      Long live rock 'n' roll, oh yeah yeah

      Rock of ages, rock of ages
      Still rollin', keep a-rollin'
      Rock of ages, rock of ages
      Still rollin', rock 'n' rollin'
      We got the power, got the glory
      Just say you need it and if you need it, say yeah! Say yeah!
      We're gonna burn this damn place down
      Down to the ground

      November 21, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
  17. Jesus Christ

    Oh my ME! I look above....and I see....the sky!!!! And the sun!!!! YAY, no god!!!! LOL!!!

    November 21, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
    • End Religion

      hey, who said you could roll that rock and come out of your crypt?

      November 21, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
  18. trex

    ..............You know........GOD gave us BRAINS...............and wants us to use them. GOD also gave man ..."free will" to make his decisions. So life comes down to your brain, and what you believe is true and real. I know that the Earth is BILLIONS of years old. I also believe GOD made this Earth, and you and me in his image. How do I reconcile?..............The Bible says something like........"A day is but a THOUSAND YEARS"........for GOD the Father. Therefore, OUR Time is of NO cosequence to GOD. GOD, indeed, made the Earth in 6 of HIS days............NOT OURS.

    November 21, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • Jesus Christ

      .....trex....where......do you get......your crazy ideas.......funny how......you think......you know better than.......science.....

      LOL!

      November 21, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
    • Jesus Christ

      I mean, do you talk with......all the time?
      Who told you that your god gave you brains?

      November 21, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • Athy

      Why not just face the fact that god doesn't exist, everything is just a product of natural processes. Then there is nothing to reconcile. Why make things more complicated than needed?

      November 21, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • Captain Kirk

      Trex .. . .. . please . . .. . stop using . . .. . my speech cadance! ........It's .......subject to . . . . .. ..copyright!

      November 21, 2012 at 3:12 pm |
    • Jesus Christ

      Thank you Captain Kirk! I knew I recognized that speech pattern trex was using!

      November 21, 2012 at 3:13 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      'GOD, indeed, made the Earth in 6 of HIS days'

      why would it take a god 6 of 'HIS days' to make Earth? why wouldnt a god just imagine everything being there in an instant and poof! its all there?
      And how does a deity have a 'day' anyway? surely the passage of time is meaningless to a god so the notion of a day is also redundant?

      November 21, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
    • EnjaySea

      Right, trex, since Genesis is dead-wrong about how the universe is created, why then, it must have been written in code!

      It was written by a man who invented the entire story. It was one of many, many creation fables that were circulating at the time, and just happened to be the one chosen to put in the Bible. Genesis was written by a man, and selected for the Bible by men. End of story.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
    • End Religion

      if we're supposed to know god's meaning for words he should have inspired a dictionary. He didn't, so if you think a "day" should be "HIS day" then maybe "toast" means "HIS bowling ball". Or maybe instead of continually redefining things to fit your beliefs, understand it is all a fraud and you can diminish the need for such complexities.

      November 21, 2012 at 5:40 pm |
  19. DA

    Why do you all think religious people are stupid? Nobody can prove or disprove a God?

    November 21, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • Eric G

      Why would you believe in something that can't be proven to be fact?

      November 21, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • Jesus Christ

      @ DA...that is a LOADED question you know...

      November 21, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • trex

      Look above DA...^^^^^^^....I believe in GOD........and I also believe the Earth is BILLIONS of OUR years old.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • Huebert

      There is no evidence for faeries, thus it is unreasonable to believe that faeries exist.

      There is no evidence for dragons, thus it is unreasonable to believe in dragons.

      There is no evidence for God, thus...

      November 21, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Religious people are not stupid, but religious belief is irrational.

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

      Just b/c I cannot prove it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

      Is Obama stupid then?

      November 21, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      DA,

      I don't claim to know whether Bigfoot exists, but there is no reason to believe it is true. Same with god.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
    • DA

      Scientists haven’t proven how the universe began before the big bang. Why is it irrational for someone to believe that God created this? If someone was to discover where the pre-big bang universe came from, then what created that, so on and so forth. It seems the most logical to me that a higher power created the beginning. It seems that the majority of life on earth is here for a reason. Why can’t the same be true for humans?

      November 21, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
    • Eric G

      It is irrational to claim that "god did it" without evidencial support. What would be rational is for you to claim that you don't know. It is also irrational to dismiss theories that are supported by verifiable evidence because they do not support your world view.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      'Just b/c I cannot prove it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
      Is Obama stupid then?'
      when it comes to religion, sure. sorry, werent you expecting that response?

      'Scientists haven’t proven how the universe began before the big bang. Why is it irrational for someone to believe that God created this?'
      because you dont fall back to 'it was magic', which is what you are saying by claiming a deity.

      'It seems that the majority of life on earth is here for a reason.'
      huh? like what exactly? no life is here for a reason, what are you on about?

      November 21, 2012 at 3:45 pm |
    • Bubba

      I never dismissed any scientific theories. You’re right that I believe that God created the beginning of the universe but I don’t feel that is irrational. Since we don’t know and probably will never know, why can’t one fall back on God?

      November 21, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
    • End Religion

      Please prove the universe was not created by a large pink polka dotted elephant named Elephus, who pinched her trunk and farted us into being.

      November 21, 2012 at 5:42 pm |
    • DA

      My belief is just that a belief. Theoretically, it could be created by anything.

      November 21, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
    • End Religion

      DA: then you agree that in school we should give equal time to the teaching of my belief of Elephus?

      November 21, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
    • Jesus Christ

      DO NOT MOCK ELEPHUS OR I SHALL SMITE THEE WITH MY ROD OF IRON!!

      November 21, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
    • DA

      I never said that equal time for an alternative to evolution should be given. I'd actually be against this.

      November 21, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
  20. Scoots

    I see everyone comparing God creating the Earth in 7 days some 2000 years ago to the Earth forming 4.5 billion years ago. I thought the bible stated Jesus was here 2000 years ago not that the Earth was formed. Isnt there a whole Old Testament before that which means there was time before this. Also, when the bible says God created Heaven and Earth, it did not give a specific date. Who is to say God didnt create the Earth 4.5 billion years ago. Even with the Big Bang theory, it states stars and galaxies began to form about one billion years following the Big Bang, and since then the universe has simply continued to grow larger and cooler, creating conditions conducive to life. Does this mean it will continue to expand to the point it will no longer be ideal conditions to support life? Everything taught is questionable whether it be religion or science. Everyone has an opinion/belief but I dont think anyone should push their ideas on someone else. We need to stop judging everyone and let people believe what they want to believe.

    November 21, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Scoots,

      where do you see any reference to: "God creating the Earth in 7 days some 2000 years ago"?

      The figure that young earth creationists (aka fundies) agree with is something less than 10,000 years – usually 6,000 – 10,000 years, NOT 2000 years.

      According to Gallup, 46% of Americans believe "that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years".

      Did you read the article?

      November 21, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      Oh, yes – the democracy of all ideas. An ongoing attempt by creationists and believers to try to get the content of their beliefs on the same footing as science-based beliefs. Here's the deal; Your right to believe whatever you want is equal to every one else's right to believe what they want. However, the content of that belief does not automatically come with the right to not have the content of that belief scrutinized. Is it appropriate to judge someone who ignores all of the accepted evidence and claims that the earth is flat? Is it appropriate to judge someone who believes that is is okay to own other humans?

      Of course it's okay!

      November 21, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
    • Huebert

      Rubio is an elected official and thus his beliefs are subject to public scrutiny. Additionally not all beliefs are equal. Some beliefs are supported by evidence, such as the earth being 4.5 billion years old,and others are not, such as the earth being created in seven days.

      November 21, 2012 at 3:00 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.