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. chuck

    Wow. The freak show continues to crawl out from under a rock. Now science is bad, huh? Do you really think that anyone with an IQ over 23 believes the earth is 6000 years old?? Marco Rubio doesn't. But to get America's trailer trash to vote for him, he has to pretend he does. How friggin dangerous is that?? To deny reality to get elected. And how does this religious filth explain away the fact that if they were born in Asia they would believe something completely different?? Imagine a world where we actually solve our problems by using logic, rather than pray to an imaginary voice in our heads. The world is changing, and the ignorant aren't dealing too well with it. Thank god.

    November 23, 2012 at 10:54 am |
    • lol??

      Trailer Park Avenue Trash?

      November 23, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • lol??

      Evolutionists are sooo right and convincing. That's why they're righteous.

      November 23, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • Bloody L

      @ lol???

      What's up with you and evolution anyway? Science works in ways you may not understand, like sometimes the math leads scientists to postulate stuff that ends up not true, which they discover by testing the postulates, thus generating new information and correcting or updating the postulate. What's up? That's a good system for weeding out the bs...

      November 23, 2012 at 11:19 am |
  2. LJ Swingholm

    Obama made the following comments about the Biblical story of creationism at CNN’s Compassion Forum at Messiah College in April 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 23, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • LJ Swingholm

      They both say the same thing.

      November 23, 2012 at 10:55 am |
    • In Santa we trust

      He did go on to say he believed in evolution. GOP and fundies do not.

      November 23, 2012 at 8:47 pm |
  3. DWN

    I think people have made an idol out of the very word "science." Science screws up alot. Scientists are people with jobs who don't particularly want to lose their jobs. They have car payments, house payments etc, etc. I have spent some time as both an environmental scientist and a medical leb technician. Science doesn't not work by concensus; It works by evidence and logic. In extrordinary complex systems, such as the human body or the environment, educated guess are made. Often a series of postulates leads to laughably bad conclusions. Why? Prestige, political and social agendas, and just good old fashioned hubris lead people to fiercely hold opinions. A paycheck can have a serious mind closing effect as well. The sign of a good scientist is an open mind. The sign of an insecure one is demonization of ideas that could theoretically prove him wrong. Building a concensus through demonization of the other side is stooping to politics, something science should be well above, unless the government is footing the bill.

    November 23, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • Nietodarwin

      SCIENCE means proof. Mathematics does not lie. Religion is nothing but lies. Preachers have car payments, and they pay them with money earned from lies. Scientists lose their jobs when the math doesn't work, not because of their religious delusions. People like you are an enemy to the future well being of humans on the earth.

      November 23, 2012 at 10:49 am |
    • Nietodarwin

      That was too harsh, since I basically agree with you. I'm saying we must end this "tolerance" of religion, which is just tolerance of ignorance. We need to take their money and their power, which allows them to manipulate society this way. Religion is legalized child abuse, intellect abuse, society abuse, future abuse. The communist had it all wrong when it comes to economics, but Marx was correct when he said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" We would all be better off just filling the churches with opiates and let them dream that way.

      November 23, 2012 at 10:54 am |
    • Bloody L

      @Nietodarwin

      You imply that opiating the masses is a bad thing. It may not be. Religion may be serving the betterment of humanity by opiating the congenital idiots? Just a thought....

      November 23, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • DWN

      You seem to have an almost venomous and illogical hatred of something you don't understand. Mathematical formuli only work when all variables are completely understood and then the scientist has to make sure he is not biased in some way. I am not against science by a long shot. What you seem to advocate is something that only acknowledges the free will of the powerful. I suppose I could say that I once thought much like you. I thought that technocrats should run the world. Trouble is that technocrats are human and as subject to blind pride as anyone else. I totally agree that the Right Wing Catholic view on birth control is crazy. Its nothing but a ploy to have more policical power through sheer numbers. I know of no protestants who oppose birth control, none whatsoever and something like 95% of Americans catholics use it, so stop worrying already. It seem like you think that extermination of christians is necessary to save humanity.

      November 23, 2012 at 11:11 am |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      @DWN: "Mathematical formuli only work when all variables are completely understood and then the scientist has to make sure he is not biased in some way."

      Umm, no. The Pythagorean Theorem, for instance: A squared plus B squared = C squared, where C is the length of the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle "works" – using your term – regardless of the knowledge or bias of any scientist. It is a constant and continuously true mathematical description.

      November 23, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
    • End Religion

      @bloody: while I agree on some level that an opiate for idiots may be a nice thing, the whole 'live and let live' has now allowed religion to flourish to dangerous levels. One can't kill an idea, so religion or a need for humans to prey to a sky fairy may not go away, but we should be applying fact, reason, rationality, derision and scorn toward religion to humans understand that, at least in the U.S., while they may be free to choose religion that it is a bad choice. If we continue to portary the willful ignorance of religion as a positive, it will only attract more weak minds.

      November 23, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      While there may be a kernel of truth in what you say, it is the GOP think tank explanation for denying climate change, evolution, origin of the earth etc. Knowledge derived by science may progress incrementally but these arguments do not refute evolution, etc.

      November 23, 2012 at 8:53 pm |
  4. DWN

    Pope JPII said evolution was true so Catholics had better darn well believe it or leave the Catholic Church. I don't say that because I am either Catholic or believe it has the truth. I say it because it is a Babylon of confusion and its always a good idea to leave Babylon.

    November 23, 2012 at 10:26 am |
    • Nietodarwin

      Catholics, right wing xstians, it matters not, because they are all against birth control and abortion, which means THEY are the ones that really have no love or concern for the future of humanity, (including their children, grandchildren, and following offspring.) I'm 50. In 1962 the world pop. was 3.2 billion. We hit 7 billion in 2011. We need to work on decreasing the population of this planet, and the elimination of religious fanatics, (and the moderate believers who still put money in the basket and support them) would be a good start. Going to church but not being such a fanatic is still supporting this mental illness and the end of our species on the planet.

      November 23, 2012 at 10:44 am |
  5. We_Hold_These_Truths

    Do I hear a familar theme in this speech? "I may not be a scientist, but I pretend to be intelligent in politics." What Rubio doesn't know is clearly represented in his views, and well represented in Congress. There are no requirements on what someone chooses to believe. These are life views that provide some context for individuals and groups to organize and operate their lives around. A question like how old is the earth when answered in terms of what other's say or believe is not the hallmark of a mature and informed individual. Just say what you think the correct answer is, perhaps add what the basis for your position is and why you hold to that understanding. But to wimp out with the "Will jolly, I don't really know for sure because there are all these different views held by different people for different reasons and based on very different levels of judgment and intelligence, so I don't really know what I personally think about anything."

    You can give a religious answer, and accept that it doesn't have to resonate with a scientific basis.
    You can give a scientific answer, and accept that it says nothing about 'why' this may be the case only 'how' it happened.
    Or you could give an answer that accommodates both, the 'how' is based on the best scientific perspectives and understandings, and the 'why' is based on your own particular view of the 'cause for it all'.

    November 23, 2012 at 9:42 am |
    • Mel

      But does his answer really accommodate both sides? Will the Religious Right appreciate a fence sitter unwilling to declare himself a creationist, or will the rational voters believe that this guy secretly believes as they do, and appreciate that he's just pandering to the believers? Somehow I just don't think so.

      November 23, 2012 at 9:57 am |
    • Nietodarwin

      "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . We need believing people."

      Adolf Hitler (Yes, by quoting this I am implying that we true americans need to do to the religious "wrong" just what we did to the Nazis)

      November 23, 2012 at 10:15 am |
  6. Sane Person

    God created the universe in 6 days, then he had to rest because he was really tired. He created Adam and Eve at the same time (or at different times, depending on which verse you read), he created light before he created a light source, and for some reason he measured the creation of the universe in earth days, which wouldnt have even existed until the sun was created on the 4th day.

    It's obvious this myth was written by primitives who didn't even realize there were other planets in the universe, or why we have night and day.

    November 23, 2012 at 8:02 am |
    • Mel

      The point of the story of six days is that the Jewish people had a cultural custom of resting on the seventh and this was their myth to explain that custom.

      "myth changes while custom remains constant; men continue to do what their fathers did before them, though the reasons on which their fathers acted have been long forgotten. The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice." Sir James George Frazer

      November 23, 2012 at 8:26 am |
    • Correctlycenter

      Genesis 1:3 says: Then God said, Let there be light! And there was light. God saw the light was good. God separated the light from the darkness. God named the light "day" and the darkness "night". There was evening, then morning- the first day.

      I think it takes more faith to believe the incorrect assumption that there is no God and that non-living matter was created out of nothing, from nowhere to form all life. Biogenesis is the concept that life can only create life. We all came from our parents and we have their DNA. A tadpole or a monkey cannot reproduce a human child over so many years. Evolution is just a godless lie to reject our Intelligent Designer and it's concept seems quite primitive and incorrect logically, scientifically and is unreasonable with the laws of nature God made...

      November 23, 2012 at 8:44 am |
    • WASP

      @center: i think it takes more faith to buy into the rantings of bronze age sheepherders than i do believeing in the ability of my fellow humans to create great feats without the need of any god.
      well to each their own. i mean it's not like religious groups are ki11ing each other over land promised to them by their "god"......................now are they? lmfao

      November 23, 2012 at 8:51 am |
    • Sane Person

      @ correctly – it takes zero faith to believe in evolution, because there is overwhelming evidence. Faith is required when you have no evidence (like the belief in god). Also, judging by your post, you clearly don't understand evolution, so it's laughable for you to criticize it as being unscientific. If it is such a "scientifically incorrect" theory then why don't you publish something in a science journal about it and try to sway the more than 99% of scientists who accept it as true.

      November 23, 2012 at 9:00 am |
    • Sane Person

      Also, evolution says nothing about the origin of life. You can believe in a creator and believe in evolution. But I guess you would rather take a Bronze Age nonsensical fairy tale literally.

      November 23, 2012 at 9:07 am |
    • Mel

      Correctlycenter
      How can there be intelligence without a creator then? Your argument also disqualifies a being such a "God" always existing. What you're asking people to do is believe in magic.

      November 23, 2012 at 9:52 am |
    • Moby Schtick

      Here's the choice you have when met with a mystery science has not yet "answered." *see note below

      1. We don't know, but we're still looking at all possibilities and trying to come up with testable hypotheses
      2. Big, invisible sky wizard did it with magic spellzzzz!!

      I chose number 1 everytime.

      *I put "answered" in quotation marks because science never completely answers the question but simply rules out more and more incorrect hypotheses until it becomes clear that the answer most probably falls into a narrow range of possibilities in a well-tested theory. For example, the evolutionary theory may still exclude some small portions of possibilities in certain azzumed steps, but theory as a whole holds together extremely well.

      November 23, 2012 at 9:59 am |
    • Chad

      1. We don't know, or rather, we DO know(in the case of the origin of the universe for example) that there can not be a "naturalistic" explanation, but we're not going to acknowledge it, because that would seemingly provide support for the theistic position.
      2. A causal agent external to our universe is involved.

      One thing that science does every day is posit the existence of causal agents for which there is no direct observable evidence, strings, quarks, other universes, etc.. The atheist has no problem doing that, unless of course the characteristics of the external causal agent starts to come perilously close to the God of Israel.

      November 23, 2012 at 10:39 am |
    • Paul is Copernicus Squared

      Ho, Chad, nothing postulated is proximal to that god. External in the thermodynamic sense is not coincident with your limited concept of a nationalistic god. You are seemingly trying to bend the facts to fit your prejudiced fables. Yours is a small god, so small that it does not exist.

      November 23, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • Colin

      Chad – only in your mind does anything get close to the god of Isreal. The current laws of physics are perfectly capable of explaining the Universe without resort to any god, much less......yours.

      November 23, 2012 at 10:48 am |
    • Jesus

      @Chad

      I’m sure I’ll regret this, but how do we know that cannot be a “naturalistic” explanation for the origin of the universe?

      November 23, 2012 at 10:52 am |
    • Chad

      @Paul is Copernicus Squared "nothing postulated is proximal to that god. External in the thermodynamic sense is not coincident with your limited concept of a nationalistic god"
      @Chad "you are making two mistakes:

      First Mistake is the extremely common mistake of assuming that my logic is:
      1. An event in a closed system can not be explained causally within that closed system
      2. Therefor an external agent must be involved
      3. Therefor the God of Israel is real.

      I do not claim that #2 proves #3, I merely assert that if #3 is real, we would expect #2.

      Second Mistake: is in essence saying that since you are so terrified of #2 implying #3, you deny the reality of #2, which is entirely fallacious.

      ===========
      @Colin "The current laws of physics are perfectly capable of explaining the Universe without resort to any god, much less......yours."
      @Chad "you are completely out of your league in a discussion like this, your statement is 100% incorrect. Please do some reading on current cosmological thought, singularities, and especially on "Planck Time" where physical laws breakdown

      Spacetime singularities in general are often viewed as being a serious problem for the theory that postulates them; indeed, they are often taken to signal the break-down of the theory of general relativity. In the case of black holes, however, the singularity is safely hidden behind a horizon. Thus the only way one can be affected by a black hole singularity is if one actually jumps into the black hole. But in this case, one will not be able to send any messages about this singularity to the exterior universe. Thus the external universe is safe from the break-down of physics at the singularity because the singularity is hidden behind the event horizon.

      A "naked" singularity, on the other hand, is one that is not hidden behind a horizon. Such singularities would be accessible to the rest of spacetime, and therefore appear much more threatening. Because physics "breaks down" at singularities (i.e., the physical laws do not fix what happens there), it seems that anything at all could pop out of naked singularity. There would be no way of predicting what sort of things might spring from such singularities; even astronauts or televisions could (it has been suggested) suddenly appear, fully formed, from nowhere.

      http://people.bu.edu/pbokulic/blackholes/

      November 23, 2012 at 11:45 am |
    • Chad

      @Jesus "I’m sure I’ll regret this, but how do we know that cannot be a “naturalistic” explanation for the origin of the universe?"

      @Chad "Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.[1] Adherents of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.

      If nothing exists beyond the universe
      and
      All of the universe, space and time itself came into existence some 13.75 billion years ago
      then
      All of the universe, space and time itself came into existence uncaused, out of non-being.

      which is meta-physically impossible.

      November 23, 2012 at 11:48 am |
    • Sane Person

      We can't fully explain everything yet , therefore the bible is true. Nice logic. How do you know it was the god of Israel and not a Hindu god or any other god?

      November 23, 2012 at 11:54 am |
    • Chad

      @Sane Person "We can't fully explain everything yet , therefore the bible is true. Nice logic. How do you know it was the god of Israel and not a Hindu god or any other god?"

      @Chad "you are making two mistakes:

      First Mistake is the extremely common mistake of assuming that my logic is:
      1. An event in a closed system can not be explained causally within that closed system
      2. Therefor an external agent must be involved
      3. Therefor the God of Israel is real.

      I do not claim that #2 proves #3, I merely assert that if #3 is real, we would expect #2.

      Second Mistake: is in essence saying that since you are so terrified of #2 implying #3, you deny the reality of #2, which is entirely fallacious.

      November 23, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I'm relieved that you understand that you are always starting with the presumption of #3, Chad. You are making progress. But why would anyone be terrified by the possibility of the existence of your God in particular? I thought it's supposed to be a kind and loving sort of God.

      November 23, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

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

      November 23, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Chad

      1. If we don't know the "case of origin of the universe" then it might "naturalistic" or "super-naturalistic." That's what saying "we don't know" means. The question is one of theory and testability. Since we don't know if the universe might have some mechanism of self-starting that is beyond our current understanding of the universe's function, it's stupid to classify it, as you do, as "thoughtful" and "supernatural."

      2. Neither you nor anyone has any idea if a causal agent to our universe is "involved." You're merely azzuming, and that makes you an azz.

      Yes, we posit the existence of causal agents for which the physics and mathematics provide plausible ideas that can be tested (to a degree) by those same physics and maths. The atheist has no problem doing this because the current physics and maths point to those possibilities. The problem is your level of faith in the matter; You azzume a certain TYPE of mindset behind the "causal agent" that has certain feelings and desires--and thus you are being dishonest. You insist an intent where you have no business insisting intent.

      The "god of israel" is a myth that was molded and shaped by preceding myths. If the physics and mathematics of strings and quarks begin to point to that sort of sky wizard, we won't turn away, but to insist that particular brand of sky wizard is somehow behind all the quarks and strings (that are themselves just mathematical probabilities) is akin to saying that "Okay, so the leaves are blown by wind, instead of moved by the hand of fairy wings, but the wind is merely caused by the hands of fairies." You're positing an unnecessary agent because of your own personal feelings. How childish and stupid of you?

      November 23, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • Chad

      @Tom, Tom, the Other One "I'm relieved that you understand that you are always starting with the presumption of #3, Chad. You are making progress"
      @Chad "ah, the made up accusation, you fabvorite :-)
      A. you need better bait
      B. you'll find those kind of statements are so much more compelling if you provide evidence of same :-)

      @TTTOO " But why would anyone be terrified by the possibility of the existence of your God in particular? I thought it's supposed to be a kind and loving sort of God."
      @Chad "good question, why are you terrified of the notion of the God of Israel?

      "we're not, we just dont see evidence" was demonstrated false above, see mistakes #1 and #2

      November 23, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Chad

      Most atheists I've spoken with have zero problem with there being an outside causal agent for the universe. They simply draw the line at azzuming anything definitive about that causal agent. Of course our language does not capture the theoretical physical ideas very well, but it allows for something like "sheets" of "energy" rippling and contacting each other between higher dimensions of reality that we are blind to from our perspective in this ongoing "big bang" of energy/time/space. Notice I said that the physics ALLOW FOR THAT POSSIBILITY. Nobody is suggesting that you must believe in them and scientists would be disappointed if you did with the current knowledge because that would show a lack of respect for other, equally valid theoretical possibilities. IF you'll take that philosophical tone with your preferred sky wizard then atheists have no qualm with your hypothesis, either.

      November 23, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
    • Chad

      @Moby Schtick "If we don't know the "case of origin of the universe" then it might "naturalistic" or "super-naturalistic." That's what saying "we don't know" means"
      @Chad "so, you are acknowledging that the origin of the universe MIGHT be supernatural?
      I could be wrong, but I have never heard any athest say that...

      @Moby Schtick "The question is one of theory and testability"
      @Chad "? I thought you said you werent sure if it was natural or supernatural?? How exactly do you test the supernatural?

      @Moby "Since we don't know if the universe might have some mechanism of self-starting that is beyond our current understanding of the universe's function"
      @Chad "that is a self refuting statement.. if the universe came into existence, it couldnt have started itself, because it didnt exist prior to it's beginning.

      @Moby "Yes, we posit the existence of causal agents for which the physics and mathematics provide plausible ideas that can be tested (to a degree) by those same physics and maths
      @Chad "you cant test for the existence of quarks, strings, LOL. They are unobservable, their strength lies in their explanatory scope (like the external agent does)

      November 23, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      But Moby, where then is hope for the God of Israel if it can't be tied to something as "concrete" as the causal gent at the origin of the Universe?

      November 23, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • Chad

      I"m off to enjoy the day with the family, will check back later tonight

      November 23, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Chad said:

      "If nothing exists beyond the universe
      and
      All of the universe, space and time itself came into existence some 13.75 billion years ago
      then
      All of the universe, space and time itself came into existence uncaused, out of non-being.

      which is meta-physically impossiblity"
      .
      .
      This does nothing for your position, Chad, as it merely shows that according to your own reasoning, God is a metaphysical impossibility. <–your reasoning

      Why are you comfortable with your god being metaphysically impossible while you want others to be uncomfortable with the universe being metaphysically impossible? In other words, if you are comfortable with your metaphysically impossible hypothesis, what's it to you if other people are comfortable with their metaphysically impossible hypothesis?

      You and every other person share the same problem of the metaphysically impossible universe, so why do you want others to share in your certainty for which you have no reason to be certain?

      November 23, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Hmm... I know. The God of Israel must spring from our darkest fears and our lack of understanding of even the fundamentals of how our Universe came to be, if it came to be, and how it works.

      November 23, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Chad: "so, you are acknowledging that the origin of the universe MIGHT be supernatural?
      I could be wrong, but I have never heard any athest say that..."

      MB: That's only because you insist on your own narrow definition of "supernatural." I use the word "supernatural" to mean "outside our current universe." Until there's 'supernatural" stuff somewhere to do tests on, it's just philosophical theory like 'nothingness' and "unicorn digestive tracts." Should we debate how unicorn digestive tracts work, now?
      .
      .
      .
      Chad: I thought you said you werent sure if it was natural or supernatural?? How exactly do you test the supernatural?

      MB:You don't. You use the language of mathematics to describe what how the state or particle would function according to probability. If the probability exists, and the mathematics allow for it to function in a particular way, that aligns to our current understanding, then it's a plausible theory to the extent that it's probable according to the mathematical and physical laws. M-Theory and String theories are "vetted" by this process. If you know of a way to calculate the probability of bible god according to mathematics and physical laws in a way that explains how sub-atomic particles act, then science will run those numbers.
      .
      .
      .

      Chad: "that is a self refuting statement.. if the universe came into existence, it couldnt have started itself, because it didnt exist prior to it's beginning."

      MB: Chad, it's simple if you admit that we have no idea how the universe came into existence. Quit pretending to know for certain things that you don't know for certain. I have one pet theory that is not self-refuting and allows for the universe to reconceptualize itself, but it's just a pet theory. We don't have nearly enough understanding of how the universe works or what it is to state for sure that it must have a separate causal agent or that it must not have a separate causal agent.

      You take it on faith that god always existed without needing an external causal agent. Since we know so little about the universe, why do you deny me the same statement you yourself make?
      .
      .
      .

      Chad "you cant test for the existence of quarks, strings, LOL. They are unobservable, their strength lies in their explanatory scope (like the external agent does)"

      MB: No, mathematics and physical law allows for strings to exist (I think quarks are proven by now, right?) which would explain why we see what we do in the subatomic world. Strings weren't just proposed out of thin air. They were proposed to explain what our testing on subatomic particles reveal. It's a rigorous, step-by-step mathematical process that takes a lot of computer processing power. So, the existence of strings would explain why sub atomic particles behave as they do and they are mathematically consist with the physical world and its laws. When the god of Abraham jumps out of the computers at the LHC and tells everyone that it's all really just fancy magic, then we'll go with the "invisible wizard with magic spellz" answer. Until then, we have to rely on the mathematical models that seem to show up when we run the numbers.

      November 23, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • Mel

      Chad
      "A causal agent external to our universe is involved."
      You mean, like how every new universe could be what comes out of a black hole in another universe?

      What you describe as possible "external causal agents" could describe any of the gods featured in any of man's creation stories, including Genesis. If some magical being manufactured our universe then how did their universe originate?

      November 23, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
    • End Religion

      First Mistake: being born as Chad.

      November 23, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad's modal "metaphysically impossible" may relate to

      1) No possible world can come into being out of nothing
      or
      2) In no possible world can something come into being out of nothing

      I wonder about 1, because if it is true, and there are possible worlds that come into being (i.e. they begin), then we have to come up with a way in which a world of things, once having begun, is separable from the things it came into being out of so that it is, of itself, a world.

      With 2, suppose there is nothing. Then something can arise from it: things that are true of nothing – for example if the empty set is nothing, it is true of the empty set that it has no members. Of course 2 is trivially true if there is not nothing.

      November 23, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • Chad

      @Moby Schtick “This does nothing for your position, Chad, as it merely shows that according to your own reasoning, God is a metaphysical impossibility. <–your reasoning”
      @Chad “you lost me.. how?

      ===========
      @Moby Schtick “Why are you comfortable with your god being metaphysically impossible while you want others to be uncomfortable with the universe being metaphysically impossible? In other words, if you are comfortable with your metaphysically impossible hypothesis, what's it to you if other people are comfortable with their metaphysically impossible hypothesis?”
      @Chad “Hunh? How exactly is God metaphysically impossible?
      Remember, it’s metaphysically impossible for being to come from non being, but it is not metaphysically impossible for a timeless enti.ty to exist. Also remember that our universe is NOT eternal, it DID have a beginning.

      =======
      @Moby Schtick “I use the word "supernatural" to mean "outside our current universe."
      @Chad “good, that’s what the word means :-)

      @Moby Schtick “Until there's 'supernatural" stuff somewhere to do tests on it's just philosophical theory like 'nothingness' and "unicorn digestive tracts."
      @Chad “by definition the supernatural cant be tested, as it is external to our universe (as you note).. I don’t think you are quite understanding the definition yet…

      @Chad: I thought you said you werent sure if it was natural or supernatural?? How exactly do you test the supernatural?

      ============
      @Moby Schtick: “You don't.”
      @Chad “Hunh?? Didn’t you just claim that ““Until there's 'supernatural" stuff somewhere to do tests on it's just philosophical “
      Make up your mind! :-)

      @Moby Schtick: “You use the language of mathematics to describe what how the state or particle would function according to probability. ….”
      @Chad “you are getting confused again.. Supernatural cant be tested, by definition, remember? It is external to our universe, hence external to our measurement capability.

      ==========
      Chad: "that is a self refuting statement.. if the universe came into existence, it couldnt have started itself, because it didnt exist prior to it's beginning."

      @Moby Schtick: Chad, it's simple if you admit that we have no idea how the universe came into existence. Quit pretending to know for certain things that you don't know for certain. I have one pet theory that is not self-refuting and allows for the universe to reconceptualize itself, but it's just a pet theory.
      @Chad “reconceptualize???
      reconceptualize: To conceptualize afresh; to develop a replacement concept of something

      I think perhaps you picked the wrong word…
      I think also you havent yet grasped that our universe had a beginning..
      it had a beginning...

      it had a beginning...

      there was a beginning..

      a beginning means, it did not exist "before", then it came into existence. Thats what beginning means..

      perhaps this will help:
      be•gin•ning
      noun
      1.an act or circu.mstance of entering upon an action or state: the beginning of hostilities.
      2.the point of time or space at which anything begins: the beginning of the Christian era; the beginning of the route.
      3.the first part: the beginning of the book; the beginning of the month.
      4.Often, beginnings. the initial stage or part of anything: the beginnings of science.
      5 origin; source; first cause: A misunderstanding about the rent was the beginning of their quarrel.

      November 23, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Beginning – as in the first point of an open ray. Oh wait, that doesn't work.

      Beginning – as in the first moment of time. Oh wait, that doesn't work either

      Beginning – as in the first of Chad's misconceptions. There you go. But what was the causal agent?

      November 23, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Chad,

      Your logic states that nothing can exist without a causation, yet you insist that your god does. I say that I don't know how the universe came into being, with or without causation. Your logic for the universe existing without causation being a "metaphysical impossibility" means that your god can only exist as a metaphysical impossibility. You can't use one set of logic rules for your god and another for the universe.

      Who cares about "being" vs "nonbeing?" We're talking about ALL OF EXISTENCE. Beings are included.

      Yes, the universe that we see might have a causation that is outside of the universe we see. That does not mean that the causation has a particular sort of mind or intent.

      The supernatural is theoretical. Your god is theoretical. It can't be tested, it can only be theorized. M-theory and string theory have roots in mathematics and physics, your god has roots in mythology of a dozen or more previous myths.

      If you can't work with terms like "reconceptualize" then you have no business considering philosophical concepts. Let others do your thinking for you and just believe in the twisted and revised and rerevised and rererevised myths of ancient goat fvckers.

      Prove that the universe had a beginning, Chad. We know that at a certain point the "baby universe" expanded, but we don't know whether that was a true beginning or not.

      I don't know where the universe "came from" or what "caused it" any more than you know where your god came from or what caused it. Thus, the phrase, "I don't know" trumps your "big invisible sky wizard did it with magic spellz."

      p.s. I believe you are purposely dodging concepts that you understand in order to just restate the bullsh!t you have already stated. It's a dovchebag move, dovchebag.

      November 23, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Chad said: "Remember, it’s metaphysically impossible for being to come from non being, but it is not metaphysically impossible for a timeless enti.ty to exist. Also remember that our universe is NOT eternal, it DID have a beginning."

      1. Neither you, nor anyone else has ever shown that "timeless ent.ities" exist, Chad. You can't start throwing around rules that do and don't apply to things/beings that nobody has ever proven to exist. That's just stupid philosophy. You might as well say that purple striped unicorns don't eat grass on Tuesdays because their digestive tracts use the fairy poop deposited in dew drops on Wednesdays and by Monday night it's too stale.

      2. We don't know if our universe had a beginning or not. We simply know that it APPEARS to have undergone drastic inflation at approximately 13.7 billion years ago.

      November 23, 2012 at 8:41 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Fro Chad:

      log·ic/ˈläjik/
      Noun:

      Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity: "experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic".
      A particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference: "Aristotelian logic".

      November 23, 2012 at 8:43 pm |
    • Chad

      @Moby Schtick "Your logic states that nothing can exist without a causation, yet you insist that your god does"
      @Chad "no.. my logic says that whatever began to exist must have a cause.
      God did not have a beginning, he exists outside of time/space.

      It's very important to understand the difference.. Everything that has a beginning of it's existence, must have a cause.

      ========
      @Moby Schtick "I say that I don't know how the universe came into being, with or without causation"
      @Chad "again, there are two options:
      1. the beginning had an external cause
      2. that which began just came into being, from non-being, by nothing. Which is metaphysically impossible. "

      ======
      @Moby :" Your logic for the universe existing without causation being a "metaphysical impossibility" means that your god can only exist as a metaphysical impossibility. You can't use one set of logic rules for your god and another for the universe."
      @Chad "ah.. no.. again, whatever began to exist has a cause.
      God did not begin to exist.

      =========
      @Moby "Who cares about "being" vs "nonbeing?" We're talking about ALL OF EXISTENCE. Beings are included."
      @Chad "I am using being in the "the quality or state of having existence" sense, not the "a living thing" sense.
      I use "non-being" instead of "nothing" since dishonest people attempt to redefine the word "nothing".

      Yes, the universe that we see might have a causation that is outside of the universe we see. That does not mean that the causation has a particular sort of mind or intent.

      =the supernatural cant be tested, by definition
      =strings and quarks are not supernatural..
      ====
      @Moby "Prove that the universe had a beginning, Chad. We know that at a certain point the "baby universe" expanded, but we don't know whether that was a true beginning or not."
      @Chad "lol, it's already been proved :-)
      see Huble, Einstein, Hawking, etc.. etc..

      if the fact that the universe has a beginning wasnt widely accepted, we wouldnt be talking about the universe being 13.75 billion years old now would we :-)

      November 23, 2012 at 8:48 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Chad, you're making positive, declarative statements about things that are not known.

      1 We don't know if the universe began or not; we do know that it underwent an inflationary period.
      2 We don't know if any "timeless ent.ities" exist or not--they are simply a philosophical idea.

      The universe is unique, even if we "agree" to say that it had a beginning, so we're out of our depth already in applying rules to it that we derive from inside it. God is not proven and a philosophical idea, so ANY logic we apply to it is merely hypothetical.

      Why not just agree with common sense and the atheistic, scientific approach and say "We don't know" instead of "Big invisible sky wizard (of Hebrew myth) did it with magic spellz?" Seriously, what have you got? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

      November 23, 2012 at 8:54 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Chad,

      You are oversimplifying the scientific terms and taking way too much liberty with philosophical concepts to do you any good. It's like you're repeatedly stabbing yourself in the eye with a fork because somebody told you that you see the fork from particles bouncing off the object into your eye.

      We date the age of the universe from it's expansion. We don't know if it existed in some form before that expansion or if the singularity that expanded came from some other place outside of itself. (For example, there's no reason that our universe might not have "bubbled" out from the black hole of another universe or be the result of two or more larger dimensions colliding with each other--we just don't know)

      And if our universe did "begin" then it might have been caused by other phenomenon just as unknowable as any other mystery. You do yourself a disservice to say that YOU have the definition to the mystery of the universe's birth when we don't know if it even was "birthed" or what might have given rise to it.

      My answer (and the scientific, atheist answer): We don't know
      Your answer and the religious position: Big invisible hebrew myth sky fairy

      Which is more honest?

      November 23, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I am curious about metaphysical impossibilities. Classically, metaphysics dealt with questions regarding being. Nowadays it seems to be deal more with questions regarding what is logically possible (e.g. Plantinga's possible worlds). Are you saying that it is logically impossible for something to come out into being out of nothing, Chad? Do you have a good notion of what nothing might be?

      November 23, 2012 at 9:01 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      For Chad, on "nothing"

      The definition of "nothing" isn't changing, we just don't know of any place or time where "nothing" is or was. In the most absolute vacuum we can imagine, there are sub atomic particles coming into and popping out of existence. It's an uncomfortable fact that raises more questions than answers, but it's the truth, so there's not much we can do about it. For those of you who talk about "nothing" as an actual possibility, it's a real problem, since it seems to be that "nothing" never existed, does not exist, and cannot exist.

      Philosophically, "nothing" has the same problems for you as for any scientist. You say that "god always existed" without one piece of evidence that god exists, now. You say that "something can't come from nothing" but there's no way to know that "nothing" ever was for "something" to come from. If "something" always existed and "nothing" never existed, then you've got no argument-–but then again, you never had one except as provided by your own definitions that were never proved in the first place.

      November 23, 2012 at 9:05 pm |
    • Damocles

      We say the universe is ~14 billion years old because we have to put it in some sort of human perspective. For a believer to try and say that their deity exists outside of spacetime as a lame attempt to deny it had to have a beginning is stupid, if you want say that matter had to have a maker then the maker had to have a maker and so on. It's your only defense against this and it falls flat.

      November 23, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Tom, Tom,

      Chad is talking out of his azz, as is clear from his body of posts on CNN and this thread.

      November 23, 2012 at 9:07 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Classical thinkers used to suppose that vacuum – the absence of matter is nothing. Of course a vacuum is at least space and a metric that might be used to define space, not exactly the absence of everything. In that sense, reality still exists in "nothing" which makes it a not a very satisfying sort of nothing and there might be potential there for things to come into being out of it. Maybe the Chad-like metaphysical impossibility is for reality to come into being (of course from something that is not reality).

      November 23, 2012 at 9:22 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad seems to have gone to ground, Moby.

      November 23, 2012 at 9:24 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Tom, tom, the other one:

      On "nothing"

      "Nothing" is merely a philosophical place holder, like 0, or like a zero of zeros. (For a time, the Greeks consider the idea of zero to be heretical and killed mathematicians who used it for figuring-–and that sort of makes sense. After all, what is "nothing?")

      We know that there is something, but we don't know if there is "nothing" and how would we? The idea gets out of our depths immediately. We do know that where we would seem to expect nothing, sub atomic particles pop into and out of existence almost as if they are "looking" for structure or "crystal" to "latch onto" and take atomic form.

      So the problem remains: Okay, so something can't come from nothing--was "nothing" ever around? It doesn't seem so. And if something can't come from nothing, then from whence comes the something we witness and live in and from whence comes god? It's all just mental exercise at that point and fluff philosophy. How many times do we fluff the pillow before using it?

      November 23, 2012 at 9:32 pm |
    • Chad

      @Moby Schtick "We don't know if the universe began or not; we do know that it underwent an inflationary period."
      @Chad "LOL, you're like 60 years behind in your cosmology..
      Like I said.. the universe had a beginning:
      It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning Alexander Vilenkin Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

      ========
      @Moby: "We don't know if any "timeless ent.ities" exist or not–they are simply a philosophical idea.
      @Chad "we know there must be an external agent"

      ====
      @Moby "Why not just agree with common sense and the atheistic, scientific approach and say "We don't know" instead of "Big invisible sky wizard (of Hebrew myth) did it with magic spellz?" Seriously, what have you got? Nothing, as far as I can tell."
      @Chad "well , nothing other than the origin of the universe, the origin of life on this planet, fine tuning of the universe, fossil record, Jesus Christ."

      November 23, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Chad

      I think that the others are right about you, and you are an atheist troll pretending to be a christian. You refuse to deal with the issues squarely, and so you just keep going around the same tired old bullsh!t pretending it's a lovely rose bush

      I have no issue with another universe that spawned this one, we just don't know.........and you don't either. You have no idea, but you use faith to posit a particular brand and flavor of sky wizard.

      We don't know if there's an 'external agent' or not, or if there is, what that "external agent" might be like. There's no reason that it must exist and there's certainly no reason it's the color and shape of the sky wizard you believe in.

      Correct, you have nothing on the cause of the universe. Nobody does. You have nothing on 'Jesus Christ;' no one does. All you have is your theories and faith-–the same as anybody else.

      Good evening.

      November 23, 2012 at 9:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Yes, most anything that comes to mind about nothing is idle speculation – for me at least, but fun. It seems to be important to Chad, though. Anything to make his bible true in some pretzel-like way of looking at things.

      I think you've properly called Chad out on whether there actually was a beginning (or if we can know if there was one). His little system of the world depends on it.

      November 23, 2012 at 9:47 pm |
    • Damocles

      An external agent could be anything so it is as likely to be deific as it is to be some form of hyperintelligent squash. An external agent leads to an infinite number of possibilities, all of equal value.

      November 23, 2012 at 9:52 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Aren't the implications of a beginning kind of terrifying, though? I mean, obviously it leads to the possibility that the God of Israel exists. And hell, too. Wouldn't it be safest, then, to believe the whole of the bible, believe in the God of Israel, believe the God of Israel, and accept Jesus Christ as the one and only way to have an eternal relationship with it? Hmm?

      November 23, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
    • Chad

      @Moby Schtick "I have no issue with another universe that spawned this one, we just don't know.........and you don't either."
      @Chad "that would be the multi-verse theory, in which case the external causal agency for our universe would be another universe. Now, you being an empiricist, I would as.sume that you would recoil from that idea of another universe, because it is impossible to test for the existence of it.. But I guess atheists are perfectly willing to suspend the demand for empirical results as long as the subject is not the God of Israel :-)

      For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.

      — Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse

      =======
      @Moby "We don't know if there's an 'external agent' or not, or if there is, what that "external agent" might be like."
      @Chad "you dont understand what "external agent" is.. read above again.. especially the part about the MV acting as an external agent.

      November 23, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Sorry: The God of Israel :-)

      November 23, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
    • Damocles

      @the other one

      No, the safest way is to believe that an 'external agent' could be anything and everything and nothing at all or a combination of all 3. While the deity of the bible may be a possibility, it would be merely 1 possibility in an eternal sea of possibilities.

      November 23, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I don't know, Damocles. Any day now Chad might sew up an argument for the God of Israel :-) and then where will we be?

      November 23, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
    • Damocles

      Oh, I know exactly where I'll be. I'll be living my life like I am right now, trying to do the best I can on this crazy planet. Learning the absolute reason for the origin of the universe might make me pause for a moment and say 'Cool!', but it's not going to pay my bills, feed my family or anything else.

      November 23, 2012 at 10:14 pm |
    • mama k

      There's even the possibility that some creator or agent peeked into the beginnings of this universe and then realized its job was done here – and then ran off forever to some dimension that may not even have laws of physics the same way this universe does. (See – in that even I could not help but try to describe it in a way where someone might think I was dreaming up something in my own image, and that's the most ridiculous aspect of the Creationist view – that somehow, in all the universe, a creator must look like us.)

      November 23, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm asking again: How do you know, Chard, what is metaphysically impossible? What makes you imagine that you have a grip on even the tip of the iceberg? You cannot conceive of something that's beyond your understanding of the universe, but you believe in some jolly green giant of a sky fairy who brought it all into existence with a wave of his hand?

      Really, you're a ridiculous little man.

      November 23, 2012 at 10:53 pm |
    • Damocles

      @mama

      The possibilities are endless.

      November 23, 2012 at 10:54 pm |
    • redzoa

      @Chad "well , nothing other than the origin of the universe, the origin of life on this planet, fine tuning of the universe, fossil record, Jesus Christ."

      Granted, the origins of the universe and life on the planet are clearly in the unknown categories, neither explicitly/implicitly supporting nor detracting from a deity-based external cause hypothesis. The fine-tuning argument is little more than saying if things weren't as they are, they wouldn't be as they are. Pointing to JC as some form of evidence is only viable if one first accepts the myriad of unsupported magical hearsay alleging his divinity and merits the same weight as all other unsupported magical hearsay alleging the divinity of the mult-itudes of other gods and goddesses.

      However, Chad has been shown ad nauseum that the fossil record and PE in particular most certainly do not support ID/creationism, but rather, reflect the various and well-validated mechanisms of evolution. There is simply no positive evidence for any form of special creation.

      November 24, 2012 at 12:09 am |
    • Moby Schtick

      Chad, you are amazingly stupid.

      I say, "We just don't know" and you say, "That's the multi-verse theory." What kind of fvcked in the head are you? Yes, what we see and call the universe might just be one small part of a much larger structure in more dimensions than we can see and test. And quantum physics seems to indicate that might be the case.

      The point is, we don't know, as I keep trying to tell you, and the fact that we don't know, does not make your big invisible sky wizard with Hebrew flavoring any better of an answer. Certainly it's possible that what we see as the universe had a cause from another part of existence that we don't see. None of the data points to biblegod, and you know it. Quit dragging yourself around by your own small d!ck.

      November 24, 2012 at 12:38 am |
    • Moby Schtick

      I think that Chad is an atheist troll with a sick sense of humor. All he does is lie and state obviously stupid sh!t in different wordings no matter how many times he's corrected.

      November 24, 2012 at 12:42 am |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Tom, Tom, the other one

      1. What damocles said
      2. Pascal's wager has hundreds of really good refutation that put it to shame; I'm sure you could think up a few on the spot if you try.
      3. If there is a god, he is NOT represented by that stupid fvcktard showcased in the bible. That childish, petty, moron can't possibly exist because it's a self-refuting idea when you look at it closely. Any god who cared about what humans thought of him wouldn't dare allow the creation and spread of the bible; ergo, the god of the bible does not exist (unless he is a trickster purposely playing head games with us as a colossal azzhole might).

      November 24, 2012 at 12:50 am |
    • Chad

      @redzoa "However, Chad has been shown ad nauseum that the fossil record and PE in particular most certainly do not support ID/creationism, but rather, reflect the various and well-validated mechanisms of evolution. There is simply no positive evidence for any form of special creation."

      @Chad "LOL
      utter nonsense

      show me anywhere that allopatric speciation(which is the ONLY mechanism that I am aware of put forth to explain PE) is a proven and accepted means by which such rapid change:
      A. takes place at all
      B. DOESNT take place during the long periods of stasis.

      As well, you never did define "special creation" :-)

      November 24, 2012 at 1:18 am |
    • Chad

      @Moby, you need to read the whole thread again,, a couple times..

      November 24, 2012 at 1:19 am |
    • >

      The Blind Spot is experience. Consider how proof and non proof can exist simultaneously.

      November 24, 2012 at 1:35 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      You are quite right, Moby. This line of thought ultimately boils down to Pascal's Wager. See the posts at 12:23 and 12:08. It is a very long leap to make from any of what was said to the reality of the God of Israel ( the God of Israel :-) ) A leap we don't make, I am told, because the implications terrify us, not because there is no argument that leads to it.

      November 24, 2012 at 8:01 am |
    • Moby Schtick

      Chad, forget rereading this thread, it wouldn't help you; you need to go learn logic and English. "We don't know" is an honest answer whereas, "Big invisible sky wizard with Hebrew-mythology flavoring" isn't.

      November 24, 2012 at 10:27 am |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Tom, Tom the other one

      I disagree with your main point (that we don't logically connect the "first cause" to the supposed "God of Israel" out of fear), but I find the subject interesting, so...

      Let's azzume a "first cause" for the next four points:

      1. There is ZERO logical argument that connects the supposed first cause to the god of the bible.
      2. One should never decide what to believe because it causes less fear than another option. The truth doesn't care whether or not you "believe" it. If you're hunting comfort over truth, then you should ignore uncomfortable truths and seek the bliss of ignorance. People who choose this path should remain on strong anti-psychotic medication and "numb out" reality. (And I have no problem with people taking this option--perhaps this is an acceptable way to meet death for most individuals in pain over its onset??)
      3. In most veins of the Christian faith, it would seem far more beneficial and pleasant to believe in the Christian god than to disbeleve--unless you are the type of person to worry about the eternal fate of others over the fate of yourself. But one would azzume that an inhabitant of biblegod's heaven would not worry about those souls in eternal punishment because that would make heaven itself unpleasant and not "heaven."
      4. Most believers seem far more afraid of losing faith than gaining it or gaining more understanding about their god. The fear I most witness in the believer/atheist debate is on the side of those who do not wish to have their god's existence questioned (see violent acts against "heresy" in the past and in current muslim behavior)
      .

      So I see three main problems:

      1. How does anyone prove that the universe had an initial cause? (We lack this ability and so it is a mystery--Initial cause is A SSUMED!)
      2. How does anyone show that something we cannot prove has any specific intent? (Here, the believer must stack two unfounded a ssumptions on top of one another: a) there was a first cause and b) that first cause has a specific intent requiring consciousness and will)
      3. How does anyone connect those unfounded a ssumptions to any specific god believed by any group of humans?

      So you see, the first cause argument is a huge, huge dilemma for anyone who attempts to use it. There's no way to get through all the hurdles even if we start out a ssuming that there is a first cause. And even if we did get past the first two hurdles, the god of the bible is far too stupid and self-contradictory to be taken seriously. The only way that the god of the bible can exist is if he is an incredible trickster--and if that's the case then there's no reason to take anything in the bible seriously for any reason whatsoever.

      November 24, 2012 at 10:52 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Not my point and not something I actually endorse. Failed humor. Oh well.

      November 24, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
  7. Maria

    Wow and these are the people that are being elected into government??????

    November 23, 2012 at 6:11 am |
  8. louitje

    Believers in God or in Allah, they both believe in creationism.
    so funny to see how retrograde and ignorant religions keep their flock, another example why to keep a separation between state and religion.

    November 23, 2012 at 6:07 am |
    • Mel

      So did everyone who ever believed in a pagan god who had a creation story linked to them. There are hundreds, if not thousands of other Genesis-like accounts in the world's mythologies and, while none of them have any more evidence to back them up than the Adam and Eve story does, some do get closer to the Big Bang.

      It's funny that none of the world's ancient mythologies, including the Jewish one, ever mentions microscopic lifeforms, isn't it? So much for the handing down of divine knowledge.

      November 23, 2012 at 8:21 am |
    • lol??

      Mel, have some Scarab stew.

      November 23, 2012 at 11:34 am |
  9. Steve

    when I here this sort of nonsense my opinion is I'm listening to someone who doesn't really believe in anything.

    November 23, 2012 at 1:17 am |
    • Dippy

      It's "hear", not "here". Not a good mistake if you're trying to impress anyone.

      November 23, 2012 at 1:48 am |
  10. Patricksday

    Well the Democrats have a Bright Future when you have people like Rubio who cower to the Ignorance of America.

    November 23, 2012 at 12:37 am |
    • Steve

      Yep. Can't say I ever want either party to have clear sailing but short of taking a wake-up call the GOP seems to want to beat that dead horse.

      November 23, 2012 at 1:15 am |
    • lol??

      Sunnis and Shiites and Dems and Repubs are both the same constructs. Ain't the Republic grand?

      November 23, 2012 at 11:29 am |
  11. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    If you look at the picture of Mr. Rubbio carefully, notice that his brain is at the back end of his body ;-)

    November 23, 2012 at 12:12 am |
  12. shoos

    Rubio, keep pushing the fringe agenda, and keep reinforcing you are full of crap in order to kill your political aspirations. Better for us all to know you can be bought by the fringe now so when you try and change your tune with higher political aspirations we have the proof you are not worthy of a vote.

    November 22, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
    • lol??

      I don't want no stinkin' PUblic Servant with aspirations. The world's oldest professors at Harvard blew Broadwell out of the water. How did the Big O get his pass? A waiver, perhaps? Corruption is a dead end street.

      November 22, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Poor lol has realized that his rhetoric has fallen flat so now he's resorting to random claptrap.

      November 22, 2012 at 10:13 pm |
    • Steve

      Yep. He must not have received the memo about that nonsense not workiing.

      November 23, 2012 at 1:13 am |
    • lol??

      OOOOeeeewww, stevie votes with the flie. They must have beers together, just like the prez and pals.

      November 23, 2012 at 11:24 am |
  13. chimpo

    And Mitt Romney, the Mormon messiah, appears to have taken a job trying to debunk evolution. Good luck with that.

    November 22, 2012 at 5:33 pm |
    • Ed

      Maybe Romney's wife will debunk him.

      November 22, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
  14. fred

    I'm a die-hard republican and conservative. There is no chance in hell that I would vote for any presidential candidate that did not support evolution. This is a sad commentary on the state of science education in this country. Sad to see people pander to the lowest common denominator.

    November 22, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
    • chuck

      The Republican Party that I grew up with and voted for is gone. The current crop of conservatives would make Ronald Reagan puke.

      November 22, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    • Ed

      What fred said. Right on.

      November 22, 2012 at 5:37 pm |
    • lol??

      You're pretty safe on that fred with elections becoming passe' in the near future. That's big of you.

      November 22, 2012 at 5:39 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Elections becoming passe'? Really? Just how's your record as a prophet so far?

      November 22, 2012 at 5:46 pm |
    • David

      Don't be so sure that evolution is such a solid scientific principle; you may not realize this, but the theory has been extensively debunked, see http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

      November 22, 2012 at 8:43 pm |
    • lol??

      flie, how you would treat a prophet is obvious and you've been tested already......."Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See [thou do it] not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

      November 22, 2012 at 9:23 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Sorry kid, Jesus failed as a prophet. The prophesy he repeated and paraphrased the most often did not come true before the deadline he set.

      November 22, 2012 at 9:52 pm |
    • Mel

      David
      "discovery.org"!

      Oh, that is precious! Might as well get your minister to write "Evolution Bad" in crayon. :-)

      November 23, 2012 at 12:38 am |
    • Sane Person

      Wow, did you seriously just use discovery.org as a source? Uh, Yea.

      November 23, 2012 at 7:29 am |
    • Sane Person

      @sane person – why are you pretending to be me?

      November 23, 2012 at 9:09 am |
  15. lol??

    It's time for the terrorist Evolutionists to lay off the bullying of Christians. Christians believe this with evolution nowhere to be seen: "Jhn 11:39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been [dead] four days. Jhn 11:43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth."

    November 22, 2012 at 5:13 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Terrorist evolutionists bullying Christians? Don't know much history, do you?

      November 22, 2012 at 5:15 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Evolution nowhere to be seen? Are you truly that ignorant or do I need to call Poe's law on you?

      November 22, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
    • Mel

      Naa, I think that it's the folks who try to scare people with threats of eternal hellfire and damna tion who are dealing out the "terror" around here.

      November 22, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
    • fred

      It's entirely possible to be religious and still back evolution. The problem is people that take the bible literally. I wish that God was so easy to understand that all one need do is read a book to figure out all he has to offer.

      November 22, 2012 at 5:31 pm |
    • lol??

      Fred I was talking Christian. Religious won't even pay for the parking.

      November 22, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • Robert Esquire

      You need to get your nose out of that book of fairy tales and come back to reality. Evolution is real, it's fact, it's science. I don't care what your Mother Goose tome says. Get a brain and get a life.

      November 23, 2012 at 5:21 am |
    • NII

      |ROBERT
      Don't lie. Evolution is a scientific theory not a scientific fact. It may or may not be true.

      November 23, 2012 at 5:26 am |
    • Mirosal

      Nii... you'd better look up "theory" as it applies to science. A mathematical theory is different than a scientific theory.

      November 23, 2012 at 5:29 am |
    • NII

      ROBERT
      It is a big chasm that destroys the religious man both believer and non-believer. Why should I esteem one body of knowledge over the other when they have nothing whatsoever to do with each other? The Bible is about restoring Man to his natural relationship with His maker so as to help him conquer his negatives and enhance his positives. Science seeks to help man utilise his environment better by knowing it better. Where do theses two meet?

      November 23, 2012 at 5:34 am |
    • NII

      MIROSAL
      I am a scientist, remember? Our theories are PROBABLE explanations for natural phenomena not the factual histories.

      November 23, 2012 at 5:37 am |
    • Mirosal

      and your branch of science is ....????

      November 23, 2012 at 5:45 am |
    • WASP

      @NII-tard: nice to have you back to the blog................didn't you disappear not too long ago screaming something " you're all going to hell and i'm never coming back to this site!"
      well nice to see you're back. we have been through this before just because you read a science book doesn't make you a scienctist any more than me reading the bible makes me a preacher.
      ROFLMFAO! XD

      November 23, 2012 at 7:57 am |
    • WASP

      @fred and NII: so let me get this correct.
      you both are choosing to listen to a man standing on an altar telling you about the "end of the world" blah blah blah from a book that isn't complete, has been written and re-written over and over again to suit the goals of whatever king or pope wanted it to say or mean; instead of something you can test yourself?
      you can't test your god, he doesn't exsist.
      you can test the chemical make up of a rock.
      you can't test your demi-god jesus because he is long dead and turned to dust.
      you can observe bateria adapting in real-time which is the building blocks of evolution.

      what i find hilarious is you both choose to listen to sheepherders over well educated men and women of the modern age.
      you the kind of people that combat illness with medicines, not magical prayer and crap hope.

      November 23, 2012 at 8:03 am |
    • Mel

      NII
      Do you have any idea just how many people we send to the death chambers every year based on some "theory" that they're guilty based upon the same kind of analysis of evidence that evolution science uses? If you've got a problem with believing and acting based on what the evidence says then I suggest that you never go on jury duty. Evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. All that is against it now is unreasonable doubt.

      November 23, 2012 at 8:14 am |
    • NII

      MIROSAL
      You know very well that I am a civil engineer so lets not pretend ok?
      WASP
      You rarely make sense and at the same time you expect me to engage in a rational arguement with you. I never left anywhere singing that anyone is of to Hell. If you feel empty inside well thats Hell enough. I am the man who stands on the altar to tell people to understand all knowledge rather than allow pride to deprive them of the benefits of spiritual enlightenment. If you don't have eternal life here on earth it does't matter whether there is an after-life or not. That is one of the themes of Christ's teaching. ETERNAL LIFE IS NOT THE AFTER-LIFE. If you can't grasp this why bother with blind arguementation with me. We are on different paths.

      November 23, 2012 at 8:14 am |
    • NII

      MEL
      Variation has been established and is a Law, the Law of Variation. This is what we base the Theory of Evolution on. It is not a legal arguement. Science has very different rules. There is a reason we call something a Hypothesis, another a Theory and yet another a Law. The most probable is called a Fact. So if you do not know this don't come here singing about Evolution being proven beyond reasonable doubt. At this moment it is a good explanation for the Origin of different species from a common ancestor, thats all!

      November 23, 2012 at 8:23 am |
    • Mirosal

      Nii ... I haven't seen you in a long time. As far as your science goes.. you got that degree from a 4th rate "college" in Ghana, yeah there's a hotbed of educational opportunities isn't it? And you can't see how your sceince evolves with new materials, new methods of construction, more efficient planning, it's just the same with life forms... those that adapt survive, those that don't adapt.. well, we're constantly digging up their fossils. Having a B.S. degree does NOT make you a scientist any more than having a B.A. makes you the next Rembrandt. Go ahead, bring your fancy degree to the U.S. ... with it you'll be nothing more than a flagman or a waterboy.

      November 23, 2012 at 8:26 am |
    • Mirosal

      Nii ... what's the proper way to classify a life form.. starting with the greatest classification down to the smallest?

      November 23, 2012 at 8:29 am |
    • NII

      MIROSAL
      You are sooo funny. My 4th rate education taught me the distinction between stupidity and crass stupidity. If I am to answer you however the classification of an organism starts with the Kingdom and ends with the specie. However there can be another known as the breed within the specie. Whatever your thoughts about ghana's education are we are based on the much better British system rather than your hollow American one hence with only a tiny proportion graduating your government seeks to employ them in your public services.

      November 23, 2012 at 8:43 am |
    • WASP

      @NII-turd: i wouldn't expect to make sense when speeking logic to someone that bases their life off of the teachings of sheepherders.
      here let's make a deal, i will show you evolution and you show me your god.
      simple enough correct?

      November 23, 2012 at 8:44 am |
    • NII

      WASP
      What at all are you talking about? You will show me Evolution? As if my High School Certificate does not have Biology on it? Look I have studied Science all my life. I do not need lessons from a religious bigot. Also how would you show me Evolution when the entire scientific of the world agrees it cannot? Go and read Marx and leave me alone! Maybe He will teach you more than you know now.

      November 23, 2012 at 8:51 am |
    • Mel

      NII
      Maybe you should check out the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. Intelligent Design/Creationism was put on trial in court and their criticisms of evolution were found lacking. Nobody is ever proven to be a murderer as a fact, the way you want to define it. People are convicted beyond reasonable doubt and so has evolution. To go against the mountain of evidence supporting it requires blind faith and is an unreasonable stand to take. Believe me we know, because no mater how much you try to make a creationist see "reason" they refuse to. They are like the poor weeping mothers of the convicted murderers who just "know" in their hearts that their beloved could never have done such a thing. Well, duh!

      "At this moment it is a good explanation for the Origin of different species from a common ancestor, thats all!"
      That's all evolution theory claims to do, so what's your point?

      November 23, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • WASP

      @NII: "religious bigot"?
      i'm atheist you freak. XD

      "As if my High School Certificate does not have Biology on it? "
      really? i didn't know high schools were in the business of passing out certifications in anything other than high school diplomas. none i have ever seen had anything other than "congrats you survived high school." lmfao

      " Go and read Marx and leave me alone! Maybe He will teach you more than you know now."
      truly i have read karl marx and i find his ideals on equal distribution of basic needs to be truly enlightening, too bad humans are greedy and can't see past their own needs.
      there is that NII-TURD i know and love you ready to blow your top and i've merely been taking jabs at you. lmfao

      November 23, 2012 at 11:58 am |
    • NII

      WASP
      You should have qualified yourself as a STUPID Atheist because the premise of your intolerance towards me and others here is based on your religious beliefs. Contrary to your unevolved reasoning Atheism is a religion. A non-theistic one but still is a religion. It is studied as such in the Universities.

      November 26, 2012 at 5:48 am |
  16. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things .

    November 22, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
    • Gadflie

      It apparently can't even change your spam post.

      November 22, 2012 at 5:09 pm |
  17. Gadflie

    Mystery? The only real mystery about the age of the Earth is why do some people stick with religion when it is shown to be incorrect?

    November 22, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • lol??

      Clean up your fly specks. From the USGS:"So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found. Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age.

      November 22, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • lol??

      HHHhmmmm, a religious assumption.

      November 22, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
    • Gadflie

      LOL! Did you even read the cut and paste in your first post? You should.

      November 22, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
    • Mel

      lol??
      Wouldn't that only mean that the earth could be a whole lot older than what science can say with confidence? That doesn't help the religious case at all, now does it?

      November 22, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
    • lol??

      "............... The only real mystery about the age ..........." Mel, ol' chap, perchance that knowledge is held to a need to know basis. And no matter what type of clearance you hold it's not good enough.

      November 22, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
    • Gadflie

      lol, it must suck to try to argue for your side. After all, your entire argument is nothing but wishful thinking. And, you are going against actual evidence. Sucks to be you kid.

      November 22, 2012 at 5:36 pm |
    • lol??

      Side? What kind of scientific thought is that? Sounds like a socialist using the Hegelian dialectic.

      November 22, 2012 at 5:54 pm |
    • Gadflie

      lol, that's funny coming from someone who earlier wrote "It's time for the terrorist Evolutionists to lay off the bullying of Christians". Consistency isn't exactly your strong point, is it?

      November 22, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
    • lol??

      flie, bullyin' is all the rage these days in Athena's arena. You've just become desensitized to it. She has a new course to fix that for you.

      November 22, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • lol??

      And it's all about being PC. Broadwell was creamed by Harvard. The Big O got a pass. Socialism, yech!

      November 22, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
    • Gadflie

      lol, I admit that I have no problem with calling the ignorant ignorant. It is no kindness to them to pretend that their delusions are actually reality. Pretending otherwise is just that, pretending. But, apparently pretending is your strong point.

      November 22, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
    • Gadflie

      And, it's amusing watching you whine about bullying after you posted "Darwin was a racist Christian apostate who forgot his first love and went for his bitterfly collection. Then contrary to his genetic concerns he married his cousin.". Bullying a dead man? That's beyond pathetic.

      November 22, 2012 at 6:15 pm |
    • lol??

      flie, enlighten me then and tell me all about your healthcare waiver. Letting servants vote can't work. They'll put the Masters in the poor house.

      November 22, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • lol??

      flie sayz, "..........Bullying a dead man? That's beyond pathetic." Well I tried to point you toward the living but you're fixated on the dead. 'Sides, Darwin didn't feel a thing.

      November 22, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Really? The poor have been voting for over 200 years in this country, the rich seem to be doing just fine. Or are you just pretending again?

      November 22, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
    • Gadflie

      Point me towards the living? Sorry kid, your delusions don't count as living.

      November 22, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
    • lol??

      flie, I perceive you are hung up on delusions. I don't think I can help you there..........."2Th 2:11-12 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

      November 22, 2012 at 9:36 pm |
    • Gadflie

      I'm hung up on delusions? Sorry kid, your entire argument is based on one.

      November 22, 2012 at 9:50 pm |
  18. Gadflie

    Dirk, really? That's your argument? Here, let me demonstrate why it is so idiotic. Most Americans have European ancestors. Since we came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?

    November 22, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • the AnViL

      lolz

      good form!

      November 22, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • lol??

      They are holding out for Allah to save em?

      November 22, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
  19. Nietodarwin

    If this man is this stupid and ignorant he should not be in ANY office. If he can't understand basic biology and geology, what good can he do with the economy, or any other area of governing or making policy.

    November 22, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
    • lol??

      Sleeping with chimps amongst the rocks?

      November 22, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
    • Robert Esquire

      Ignore lol??? – he can't help it. His ignorance is like diarrhea – he can't stop spouting it.

      November 23, 2012 at 5:28 am |
  20. Nietodarwin

    Freedom of religion is one thing, but these mentally ill people need to be prevented from brainwashing children with this garbage.
    Freedom of childhood needs to come before freedom of religion. We need to make it illegal to take children into church, make Sunday schools that teach this backward thinking illegal as well. No good parent forces their child into a religion.

    November 22, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
    • lol??

      So you're shooting for 100% bwainwashing? Isn't that a little greedy?

      November 22, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
    • Victor

      lol?? you speak like a true re-tard. You're false logic shows you to be completely brain dead. Take a debating class sometime and they may be able to teach you all the false assertions you use to make your points.

      As a devout Catholic, I find people like you not only repugnant, but frankly dangerous. A person who is ignorant is bad enough. But someone who is ignorant and thinks they are not is definition of insanity: you.

      In any case examine your logic. Making sure children DO NOT attend Church or any other religious indoctrination does not mean they are FORCED or "BRAINWASHED" as you call it into some other way of thinking.

      All Nietodarwin was saying was the children should be left to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES. But of course, someone like you with no brains would never encourage indpendent thinking, since not having a brain requires people like you to "follow the herd" like sheep.

      November 22, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
    • lol??

      vicky, the children in the gubmint schools get a full dose everyday. "Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."..............The evolutionists' children are evident everywhere. They consider themselves smart and well trained and hunt like coyotes.

      November 22, 2012 at 9:46 pm |
    • Robert Esquire

      I fully agree with you. Kids shouldn't be exposed to religion until they're old enough to reason for themselves. And if you add reason, religion cannot stand.

      November 23, 2012 at 5:30 am |
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

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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.