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.
Today I am busy at work. I do not post at CNN. Tommorrow, this article will be history and nobody look at it. So have a good day y'all.
Sure you are. You've posted several pieces of crap since you wrote this one. Grow up.
Great mysteries...spoken like a true ignorant bible thumper. Fairy tales and science are two different things.
Shouldn't a chimp like you be picking ticks and crabs off the bodies of your siblings?
@ lol?? ... why did you ask him? Did you want him to get dinner for you?
Do the chimp laws allow shipping with the USPS?
I believe in creationism, but I believed that GOD made a mistake putting the brain and mouth of Mr. Rubbio at the wrong end of his body. So what came out of his mouth is just excretions.
Please don't teach creationism to your children, or others, you will be doing them a great harm academically. Even the courts have now thrown out this silly belief when creationist tried to sue UCLA for not accepting xstian high school credits from biology classes where it was taught. You can't even pass a high school biology class if you believe in creationism. Even the sick catholic church accepts evolution as FACT, why should it be so difficult for the Talibangelicals. Creationist are doing great harm to our country, keeping our test scores low in comparison to other nations.
I wish more creationists would win Darwin awards, which are given to very stupid people who help the gene pool by their own death, thus eliminating their genes from the gene pool. It's like all those stories on that show 1000 Ways to Die.
The History Channel made a great video called "How the Earth was Made" full of %100 provable facts. It's 4.5 billion years old. It's as easy to prove as the concept of gravity. Drop a bowling ball on your toe before you watch it if your a creationist, the pain in your foot will help ease the pain you will feel at realizing you've been told a bunch of lies by preachers and others you may have trusted.
Yep, that show "1000 Ways To Die" is Darwinism at it's very finest...I never knew that such...odd ways to die existed.
Its, not it's.
Such chimp babble.
Have you been here all night, lol??
I guess it must be true-no matter how much time one has, one can't teach a pig to sing. You're a prime example. Now start oinking in tune.
What is the origin of life? Why can't an atheistic scientist answer that question?
The only answer any scientist would give to that is: "I don't know."
Unlike you, pea-brain, when a scientist doesn't have the answer, he doesn't blubber "gawddidit." He or she actually conducts research.
Pedro, look at history. The answer "God did it" is only a place holder we use until we find the real answer. Only religion claims to be infallible and to have all the answers. But, in reality, their go to answer has NEVER ONCE been shown to be actually correct. Science on the other hand, is ok with "we don't know yet". It's a challenge.
But Pedro, Christians are the only people that seem to think they know the answer, even though there is no evidence whatsoever that the answer they're so fond of is correct. They found their answer in a book, written by other men just like them, who didn't know any more about it than the scientists whom you so despise.
But at least scientists are willing to accept not knowing the answer, and will only accept an answer when evidence for it has been discovered. Christians on the other hand are perfectly happy making up an answer then insisting that the rest of the world believe them.
Someone eternal or something eternal. Someone eternal is the logic answer.
No, Brophy, it isn't. It's what you say because you don't know and you like being ignorant.
Pedro, actually, that answer totally fails Occam's razor. Want to try again?
Brophy, you really need to figure out how to write–your lack of expertise makes it easy to spot you no matter what name you use.
Pedro, pretending that God or the equivalent was responsible for creation is an answer that only Rube Goldberg would find satisfying. In reality, it's a laughable answer that only pushes the question back one step.
You have 0 communication skills. You just call me names. Evolution is not a law it is a myth
I would be more inclined to accept your statement, Pedro, that "someone eternal" is the logical answer, if you would use some logic to explain why. Making an assertion is not the same as making an argument.
Scientists routinely answer the question. You don't like the answer.
You have a lot of trouble with words, don't you, Pedro. Evolution is a "theory." Look up the word and how it is used in the area of science, Brophy.
Then post the definition here to proof you can learn after all.
Pedro, scientific laws are a totally different thing than theories. Theories do not advance to become laws, theory is the best it gets in science. Evolution is on the same standard as the theory of Gravity, the theory of Plate Tectonics, etc.
Scientist do know everything on earth is made from stars. Star formation is how planets form from cloud of interstellar gas, dust and ices. Stars also produce complex compounds, such as amino acids. They provide chemical enrichment. Everything composed in our bodies come from stars. Life wouldn't be possible without star formation.
And laws don't explain. That's what theories are for. Laws and theories accomplish completely separate tasks. Neither one turns into the other. They remain separate, with theories as the highest construct in science. Theories are used to explain laws.
Roo is exactly right. That's why there is a Law of Gravity and a Theory of Gravity. The Law of Gravity describes what gravity does (on a macro level at least), the Theory of Gravity is our best explanation about how gravity works.
I guess if you want to address the origin of life you have to come up with a definition for life. I don't know of one that clearly distinguishes life from the most recent non-life it might have come from.
Tom, Tom, the Other One, very good question. For example, are viruses actually alive?
Still waiting for an answer other then name calling and or 'I'm an atheist so I'm smarter then you'
See the posts above, Brophy? They are answers.
Pedro, I gave you an honest and correct answer and didn't call you any names other than Pedro.
I think I need to call Poe's law on Pedro.
It's Brophy, the troll. The "logic answer" phrase gives him away.
All right, life originated when information began to move in a system that could remember and modify its own state – life is a Turing machine.
I think what I would do with "Pedro" here is what I recently started doing with some others who love to revisit the same questions over and over again, as if they were either drunk or suffering from memory loss. I started tracking page numbers to specific articles. And then when they ask the same question the third or fourth time, I reply with the article and page as a page address where either they received my best answer or one that I was happy with from someone else, or where they ignored a good answer and ran away. This saves my rewording of an answer I've already given, and, at the same time, allows other readers to go to the page where it was addressed before. If we start to see a several links at once from similar responders to previous answers, then this poster behavior should become obvious even to the newcomer.
Poor ignorant uneducated Pedro. Let's forget about your question for a minute and work on your grammar. You wrote "What is the origin of life? Why can't an atheistic scientist answer that question?" You should have written ATHEIST, "atheistic' would be an adjective or adverb, so it is patently incorrect to write " an atheistic" Try to take a basic biology class along with a grammar class.
Nieto, er, actually, his grammar in that case was fine. It is common and proper usage to use the a or an for the adjective or (an if it starts with a vowel) preceding a noun. So, an atheistic scientist, an educated scientist or a knowledgeable scientist would all be correct usage. Admittedly, his argument is laughable, but you are criticizing the wrong thing.
Zues is the origin of life!
Since I have a answer I must be right.
It is interesting that feticide is becoming established as a kind of murder in many states. If you wonder why or why now here's an example:
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:2 (7), (11) defines "person" as a human being from the moment of fertilization and implantation and also includes a body of persons, whether incorporated or not. "Unborn child" means any individual of the human species from fertilization and implantation until birth.
Of course. It's a back-door way of making abortion illegal. The anti-choice crowd wants to establish "personhood" for fetuses.
William of Occam must be rolling in his grave. Let's face it, God (at least the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent version that most Christians believe in), being the most complex possible being, is, per Occam's Razor, the least likely answer to ANY question. Relying on something like a God preexisting to explain something much simpler, like our entire universe, is just asinine.
gadfly – you'd think so many people who hate math would shy away from needless multiplication.
And s3x, BTW, is legal, also, although I am sure TP would like to legislate that, also.
Poor TP. He speaks for the unborn.
You mean "poor unborn"...
Those who voted for him in Florida were to blame for sending this wacko to the US Senate in Washington DC. If he does not know yet how old this universe is, then what else he does not know who knows! People like him is a disgrace to this beautiful country and its modern culture in the twenty-first century.
Gupta go back to India.
That is because they are not anti-abortion. They are anti-s.e.x.
teapatriot, not only are you a careless, delusional, halfwit... you've now demonstrated that your an ignorant bigot.
smooth move, champ.
I see that, Blessed. Unless they're the ones doing it, of course.
I'm putting this up here, because the thread is getting too long.
TP, I am not yelling. Usig all caps to emphasize words is not yellingm just like I didn't take your all-cap LOGIC as yelling at me.
I'm awaiting your logical answer:
I need you to come immediately to an abortion clinic, find a young girl contemplating an abortion, talk her out of it, take her home, foster her for the duration of her pregnancy, pay all medical expenses, and after her child is born, adopt the baby and raise it as your own, while the mom is free to continue living her life. You're altruisic enough to do that on a regular basis, right?
Sounds much better than "Mob of racist, misogynistic, ho.mo.phobes"
Trini, what do the fathers have to say about it? Did you usurp some rights and CAN'T HANDLE IT?
loltz, the fathers were paying for the abortions. The ones who were there, that is. The rest of them cut out as soon as they heard the girls were pregnent. Not one father I interviewed wanted the pregnancy to go on.
" what do the fathers have to say about it?"
Some day scientists might figure how to make a gestation chamber and how to transfer the embryo/zygote/fetus into it. THEN, the father can take over all he wants (if the risk to the mother from this procedure is the equal to that of abortion).
I Wonder, can't wait for that day. Hope it's in my lifetime.
Well said, PD Gupta, thank you. The TP people can go back to lala-land.
I'm not a scientist man, who talks like that ..another idiot who might run for President .....how depressing
Poor Fundies, Repubtards and Teatards. Still bickering with others, but, as usual, bickering among themselves. That's why I doubt they'll ever get it together again to challenge the "others". For a long time they were able to hide their greed via political misrepresentation. But in the last couple of decades, they have been happy for the whole world to see their ugliness – greed, pride, divisive, and fearful of anyone who is not like them. Poor Rummy Pirate – I told you that pirate ship was going down. It wasn't a one-time event – it was a sign of things to come in the information age. Awareness, exposure of the uneducated, transparency.
T H E P E T I T I O N S I T E has one to remove this man from the science committee
You are correct. The information age will finally allow us to eventually end this religious delusion. We non-believers can now state the truth without fear of deluded insane christians MURDERING us.
No twitdarlingdarwin. The progressives are the ones murdering children in their designated wombs. No teaching going on there.
Time for the 100% chimps to chump the fakes.
the only thing more pathetic than an idiot that thinks the earth is 6000 years old is somebody that post 24 hours a day on the topic. Dude. Get a girlfriend. Move out of Mom's basement. Just stop boring us.
Get a fundie evolutionie raiser going, chuckie. Be sure and VOTE! It's your matriotic duty. Your Priests like to live in style, too.
Relax folks. The people that talk to imaginary voices in their head are reeling because their diaper wearing Mormon messiah went down in flames. As long as they spout nonsense, they will continue to lose elections. and that is good for America.
How's Reid today?
I agree. I'm of the group of people that believe ignorance should be shouted from the rooftops for everyone to hear. It's the ones who keep it in the closet that are the most dangerous.
RE: "TeaPatriot... if I ask evolutionary biologist if evolution is right.... let me see. maybe I can predict how that will go...."
Although the fact that you can barely string a sentence together hints at another problem, it seems likely that the main reason you don't trust science (which only accepts ideas as facts when they have been proven to be true and other scientists can also prove them to be true) is because you would rather believe fairy tales that can't be proven. Your loving, all-powerful, all-knowing god would have no trouble appearing on the face of the moon and speaking to us. Don't you think it's a LITTLE odd that, instead, (as your cults proclaim) he has only appeared to people who hear voices. How childishly, magically, unbelievably odd.
The 98.8% are everywhere. Time for the 100% to eat em.
Pandering to the anti-science fundies is precisely what is wrong with the Republican party. There is no conflict between mainstream Christianity and the science of evolution. Unlike how some paint this controversy, it is not a fight between legitimate Christianity and atheism.
Voting on truth? That'll work. Twit.
4.5 Billion Yeras OLD !
According to what Experts have siad.
18 Major Events in the Geologicail theatre.
1st Event is what created air we breath according to....
Bill Nye was correct in telling parents to quit teaching this creationist garbage to their children. We need to make it illegal to drag children into church for this brainwashing, just like it is illegal for them to go drink in a bar. If you sickos want to continue to believe these crazy ideas, you have the right to practice your delusions. You don't have the right to brainwash . Forcing a child into a RELIGION IS CHILD ABUSE. It's also downright UNPATRIOTIC.
whats wrong with teachin the controversy? Evolution has many failings but noooo you cant teach them. So sez the religion of evolutionist.
Evolution, like all science, THRIVES on the "controversy." That's how advances are made in the theories. There's a controversy over just exactly how some gene is expressed and able to reproduce, or express and not reproduce, or reproduce and not express for a while, or whatever. Settling hundreds and thousands of these sorts of "controversies" advance the science by refining it more and more.
If you're referring to some imaginary controversy that's been settled long ago, then that's just ignorance and stupidity.
I meant like since you cant show me all the transitional forms between monkey and me, its possible a designer of some kind intervened in the middle.
I meant like 'irreducible complexity', from Behe's book. Some mechanisms show up so suddenly such that they cannot have evolved. They have to be created or designed. He has a PhD in biochemistry and thats enough for me.
Evolution is FACT and you are a brainwashed moron. Do you not believe in the theory of gravity either?
Tea is right.
many people ask if we also question gravity. Evolution is 'theory of evolution' gravity is 'law of gravity'. Anyone can have a theory. In schools we should teach the holes in theories too.
Repeating. Show me the fossil record linking monkey to me.
Go read 'darwin's black box' and 'edge of evolution'
If you think that evolution can only be proved by seeing all the transitional fossils "between monkey and me" than you have a very fvcked up view of what the theory of evolution is. There are no "irreducible complexities," and far more PhD's agree with evolutionary theory than disagree with it. Why is one person's PhD more important than thousands of others? Because you chose the one that agrees with you? How silly.
Look into the genetic facts that prove evolution if you actually want to know the truth instead of run away from it with your hands over your eyes.
irreducible complexity is something of a zombie. it's been shot down and killed – yet it keeps rising – roaming around... consuming brainnnsssss braiinnnnnssssss
teapatriot – i'd seriously suggest you read more than just behe so you don't look like a complete idiot on a national public forum.
People like you are the reason our test scores are lower than so many other countries. We share %99 of our DNA with chimps. That's biochemistry and fact, but you won't use reason anyway, you have been brainwashed by religion.
Unlike many of you, I keep my eyes open. about this, about 'climate change'. and many other things.
Heard of the emails that leaked where the scientist boasted of using 'tricks' to make us rubes believe climate change? Got caught with your hand in the cookie jar, did you, Tommy?
try to suppress things like all you want. not working...
1) You do not want to teach the controversy. The truth is, you want to teach creationism.
2) Everybody teaching evolution also teaches its failings. There are no prohibitions on teaching problems with evolution theory.
3) People who study evolution do not resemble people like you. For starters, they are honest and do not bear false witness against their neighbors. Your creator would find you vile and repulsive because you lie to promote your beliefs. Jesus would not operate on "the end justifies the means "premise.
There is no controversy. The deniers of evolution are all based on religious myth. They have no viable theory of their own other than "god did it".....an argument from ignorance.
flat facts for you:
"climate change" is real... there's some conjecture over what causes it.
deal with it.
what about whales? how did blue whale the size of a small island 'evolve' from small mammal? Im not saying its impossible. its about the gaps, the gaps, the gaps.
flat facts for you
1. scientist boasted of using 'trickery' to convince rubes like me about evolution.
That was what pushed me in to the fence. I was just off it on the evolution side till I read about these climate gate emails.
2. other than just sayin that irreducible complexity is a myth, you dont have anything to say. If we find a clock winding mechanism with hands on the bottom of the sea, it is common sense that someone intelligent designed it. This whole assembly makes no sense without even one part in it.
above. typo. scientist sent email about using trickery to prove 'man made climate change'. not evolution. good try making me seem simplistic. I know earth becoming hotter but it has always had cycles. it could be natural or man made.
Go ask an evolutionary biologist....or a marine biologist....or a paleontologist....
you can god to tolkorigins.org.
The answers can be found.....unlike in religion where when you drill down the answers are.... "god works in myterious ways"....or "it's a mystery". Science admits when it gets something wrong.....and they give a prizes to those who prove it wrong. Try that in religion.
The "watchmaker" design argument is intellectually vacant. The way we can know what design vs. non-design is by comparing the two. In the watchmaker argument everything is "designed"...there is nothing to compare it too.
i hear silence about the scientist caught with hand in cookie jar
if I ask evolutionary biologist if evolution is right. Kinda like asking Pope if catholicism or protestantism is the right way. let me see. maybe I can predict how that will go.
Creationism is not science. there's not one shred of science in the creationism story. I went to catholic school, sure we were told the story of creationism early in catechism class. In science class we were taught evolution. Rubio doesn't even know what religion he really belongs to or believes in. He's more adept at discussing his favorite RAP artist than intelligently discussing evolution and creationism. He'll make a super fine republican candidate.RAP is so great, sing me a tune please Mr Rubio..
yep – well aware of the bs over at the cru back in 2009.... doesn't change average temperature trends.
climate change is real. the misdoings of those chaps over at the climate research unit does not negate the facts.
in order to refute climate change you're going to have to collect data of average temperatures around the world for the widest span of time possible and apply statistical methods to disprove alllllll the data we've already collected.
good luck with that, chump!
once again you're being ignorant. flat fact.
irreducible complexity is a failed hypothesis. not a myth. flat fact, doofus.
once again – educate yourself on the matter drawing from more sources than behe. try to behave like a scientist and look at all the evidence, then when someone pops up with a new hypothesis... critique it.
you aren't doing that. you don't understand the scientific process, you're ignorant of a plethora of sound, reasonable, very well substantiated facts that negate the concept of irreducible complexity.
you can literally overcome your ignorance with some work on your part. stop being lazy.
stop being ignorant. evolve.
Now you are not arguing honestly. You asked about whales. I gave you options to answer your question. You then throw out a red-herring about climate change. Science can be wrong, science can be influenced by politics....but it has a built in mechinism to change when it is wrong....does religion have that? Science is always seeking truth....religion claims to have already found truth and has no reason to change.
I will ask you the same question I have asked many and have never gotten an honest reponse. Name one thing that has been proven true using religion?
re climate change, I dont have to do anything like you mentioned. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. If you say man made global warming prove it. The east anglia emails blew the lid off and then there was a coverup. why does using 'tricks' and stuffing journals with their friends not worry you?
where are the fossils of half whale half land animal? lets call it landwhale. where are the fossil between land animal and this landwhale? where are fossils between landwhale and current set of whales?
teapatriot shat himself: "good try making me seem simplistic."
i don't have to try at all... you're doing that all on your own.
now you're clarifying yourself: "man made" climate change....
once again – you obviously haven't looked at the data. what do you attribute the sharp spike over the last 150 years to, princess? that's the conjecture.
you ~seem~ simplistic because you're careless and ignorant. flat fact.
cha cha cha
earth has always had cycles. temp going up and down and up and down. ice ages followed by hot periods. extradordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
Everhard Johannes Slijper (1907–1968) was professor of general zoology at Amsterdam University, Netherlands. He was the world’s leading authority on whales.
in his work, he talks about a bone in the whale he calls a 'pel-vic bone. It was not attached to the vertebra. it also had a small bone attached to it. He interpreted second bone as throw back to thigh bone, based on evolution. If you start with the a bias then you land right there. surprise.
anvil@ and others
Why teach science when the bully mob of the Evolution religion VOTES on it? The winner determines the truth. BWAHAHAHA
teapatriot wrote: "re climate change, I dont have to do anything like you mentioned. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof."
i have made absolutely no extraordinary claims, you careless halfwit...
yes, teapatriot... in order to refute anything for which there is evidence, you must produce evidence which proves the original evidence to be incorrect. if you don't, you've done nothing but produce drivel.
"If you say man made global warming prove it."
i did not "say" climate change was man-made.
flat fact: there's strong evidence that global climate change has been effected by man.
once more: look at the data and then deduce your own hypothesis to explain the glaringly sharp spike on the right side of the x/y chart which plots global temperature trends over the last 2 centuries. what do you attribute that to?? are you aware of the possible explanations, ideas and suggestions??
i now know – with a high degree of certainty that you're not educated well enough to do that in any meaningful way. not only that – you're just basically ignorant to a wide range of texts published over the last 2 decades on the matter.
"The east anglia emails blew the lid off and then there was a coverup. why does using 'tricks' and stuffing journals with their friends not worry you?"
it doesn't worry me because they were discovered and their efforts were thwarted.
So, who is the scientist, and post the email. Put up or shut up.
Name one thing that has been proven tru using religion? If you can't you have to admit religion is not a path to truth.
RE: "Evolution is 'theory of evolution' gravity is 'law of gravity'. ..."
There are observable facts that prove bible stories about Earth's formation AND bible stories about Noah's flood cannot be taken literally. For instance, all the attempts to fabricate great flood 'evidence' ignore science that disproves it (like finding certain types of dust embedded in layers of earth which could not have even appeared during a global flood). Religious leaders who dispute science will ALWAYS end up embarrassing themselves. It isn't wise for them to go there, so those who do are unwise. Why follow an unwise religious leader? When scientists make errors, other scientists correct them. What do zealots aim to do, correct the truth???? Sheeesh!
Okay, went to the BLOG site that TB posted. Here is the how the person descrobes hiself that TP puts so much 'faith' in:
"James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books, including his most recent work Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future, also available in the US, and in Australia as Killing the Earth to Save It. "
"if I ask evolutionary biologist if evolution is right. Kinda like asking Pope if catholicism or protestantism is the right way. let me see. maybe I can predict how that will go."
I didn't say you have to automatically accept their answer. You can decide if it makes sense to you, you can ask other experts in related fields and see if the answers mesh, you can read books on the issue. I would never ask you to blindly accept an answer....that is what religion does.
RE: "Evolution is 'theory of evolution' gravity is 'law of gravity'. ..."
There is a law of gravity (objects with more mass attract objects with less mass) and there is the theory of gravity (WHY objects with more mass attract objects with less mass).
It is the same with evolution.
"He has a PhD in biochemistry and thats enough for me."
Yet the 90% of scientists with PhDs that do support evolution are not good enough for you? You can't use science as your defense if you deny the overwhelming amount of contradictory evidence it is throwing at you. That's what religion is for, so you can pick and choose what you want to believe. Religion is all about finding facts to fit the story. Reality and science is about letting the story fit the facts—no matter how inconvenient.
Awwww – I love it when certain people here take time to teach things like evolution to some of the more stupid ones. But it's so self-defeating when the "students" try to argue without really knowing the subject they are arguing. All for the sake of their imaginary friend. How pathetic. Lol.
"i have made absolutely no extraordinary claims, you careless halfwit..."
anyone who claims that humans cause global warming has made an extraordinary claim. I will then expect extraordinary evidence. coz I will not ruin my economy and change all my habits to serve a whim.
"it doesn't worry me because they were discovered and their efforts were thwarted. "
No they werent thwarted. they were defended by others. things continue on schedule, painting global warming skeptiks as rubes.
"St. Augustine found lying among the clergy so prevalent that he wrote two books (De Mendacio in 395 A.D. and Contra Mendacium in 420 A.D.), urging that it stop."
if someone is skeptical of global warming they're ignorant rubes. and yes. – the perpetrators were thwarted. lolz
as for making extraordinary claims – if you weren't ignorant in relation to the data that's available - you'd understand that the claims that man is very highly likely to have effected the global climate aren't at all extraordinary, dummy.
AnViL, when you say "highly likely to have effected the global climate" – are you really meaning "affected" or what you wrote? I just wanted to make sure. Because, if it were "affected", then it would be more like "having an affect on" on or "contributing to", whereas "effected" you would be saying the subject (man) caused or implemented or brought about the object (global climate). Please excuse me if you already were careful with those words and intended them as-is.
There is no actual significant controversy with the theory of Evolution itself. It is the only scientifically valid theory that explains how life today became how it is. There are no actual competing scientific theories. There is no evidence that contradicts the theory of Evolution. There is literally mountains of evidence supporting it. It's really just that simple.
""there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"" Michael Behe.
""We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."" Ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich." From the ruling in the Dover case
"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system." Also from the Dover case
"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." Dover Ruling
sally – i did mean effect.
also – thank you for your lucid comments.
also sally – to clarify...
if you look at the data – that sharp spike alllll the way on the right side of the x/y chart that illustrates global climate change over the last 150 years – has been attributed to the industrial revolution and "man" belching tons of crap out into the atmosphere. the idea here is that industrialization has had an effect on global warming – causing it to increase significantly.
as for global climate change – that happens anyhow – even in the absence of industrialized civilization. that's why i balked at the ignorant bigots original claim – before he backtracked and clarified his statement.
as for global warming having been influenced by "man" i admit it's arguable (obviously) – but as i stated before – that's the conjecture.
i apologize if you were already aware of all this...
again – just to clarify.
There is no controversy. The modern theory of evolution has ironed out many things missing since Darwin proposed the theory in 1800s. Thus the theory has been updated due to technological advances & new discoveries unknown then, or even 10 or more years ago. A scientific theory is simply meant to provide an explanation for some body of natural phenomenon with the use of what we have found- gathered evidence, data, laws, hypothesis, facts in their explanation. It isn't meant to prove whether something occurs, but to explain what is already observed. Theories also explain laws, so theories are the highest construct in science. Since theories are explanations, they can change on the basis of new data. New data require new explanation. If there is none, nothing changes.
As for transitional fossils, fossils are no longer needed to prove ancestry with primates now with the fields of genetics & molecular genetics. Evolution deal directly with change in gene pools of a population. That's why biology is so central to the theory. There is little question about common decent. Fossils are nice to help construct an overall picture of evolution, but they aren't the requirement. You will never find all fossils because the process of fossilization is rare. Not all fossils are preserved.
Irreducible complexity is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally shown with several evolutionary mechanisms. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex have been shown not to be. The conclusion of design with Irreducible complexity does not follow.
Asking for a complete fossil record is like showing up at a crime scene where the killer is still present. He has his fingerprints on the gun, gunpowder residue on his hands, blood spatter on his shirt, the neighbors heard them arguing, and still insisting on his innocence because there's not video showing him commit the murder.
"where are the fossils of half whale half land animal? lets call it landwhale. where are the fossil between land animal and this landwhale? where are fossils between landwhale and current set of whales?"
You don't have to look to fossils to see animals in transition. There are many living creatures which would qualify as transitional. Consider the Indian mudskipper fish — one must completely shut their eyes to reality to not see this animal in a state of transition. Bacteria and viruses are also in a constant state of transition. Dogs have been transitioning for thousands of years and most notably in the last 500 years. Cabbages have transitioned into all kinds of things including broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts and kale. And it continues to transition as evidenced at your local grocer. Horse hooves still contain finger bones. Whale fins still have fully formed hand bones in them. The theory of evolution is most obvious in life, not death. If it were only about fossils, it would be paleontology.
The evidence is all around you. Ignorance is fine. We all start out that way. It's beautiful and innocent. Willful ignorance though in the face of evidence, is blind stupidity.
Correction: I should have said horse hooves contain a finger/foot bone. (Namely the middle "toe"). FYI, you can find the transitional record or the horse's feet very easily. It's fascinating and enlightening.
T H E P E T I T I O N S I T E has one to remove this man from the science committee
Nietodarwin – you rock.
– and i'd like to remind people to sign the p e t i t i o n s to urge the removal of paul broun and todd akin from the house committee for science, space, and technology as well.
also – to you and everyone else...
thanks for all your efforts in standing up against the enemies of reason.
So you want to use any excuse to remove this non-anglo monkey from politics? I see thru this. very ra-cis-t.
Jose, no way – it's a well reasoned effort to keep delusional religious idiocy out of government bodies that make decisions for our industry, trade, and public education system.
race has nothing to do with this.
you're stupid and you should be ashamed.
AnVIl thank you. I will go back and sign those other two as well. Jose, eres bien necio, no tiene nada que ver con racismo, solament tiene que ver con RAZON
Inglés, por favor! Talking to wide group here.
Why this one statement become important suddenly when he becomes more important? Not smelling right.
Jose axed: "Why this one statement become important suddenly when he becomes more important? Not smelling right."
because, jose....it's a well reasoned effort to keep delusional religious idiocy out of government bodies that make decisions for our industry, trade, and public education system.
race has nothing to do with this.
Anvil repeating himself again. why?
Vote on truth? Twit.
Thanks for the link.
Our elected representatives should be smart...but it now seems some are as dumb as a box of rocks. We should keep religion out of the classroom, and teach our young people science based on scientific observations, and facts.
our public schools already teach the greek/roman mythologies about zeus/jupiter.. why not simply allow them to teach the hebrew, muslim, and xian mythology of elohim/allah and the hindu mythology of indra along side it...
it would keep creationism and id out of the science classes AND be a huge step in the right direction to keeping religious idiocy out of political discourse in the united states.
Another twit. Why teach, when you can have a mob vote on it?
it is absolutely hypocritical to be against stealing from stores and not showing up at court to serve thieves jail time. see you at the court!
Ah, but you are trying to prevent another person from doing what is legal, just not what YOU would do.
I am against stealing, therefore I do not steal.
I am against abortion, therfore I will not get one.
If you want to steal, go ahead, and if you get caught, do your time.
If you get pregnant, have the baby.
Your analogy still stinks; I am not going to do time for your crime, but neither am I going to force a woman to have a baby she does not want/cannot afford.
It comes down to choice...and her choice is legal, even if you don't like it.
So you want to mess with the const ittion again and create some more mobsters? How socialistic of you.
Constitution? Start making sense.
lol will never start making sense. He or she is a victim of religion. So deluded as to believe in gravity, but not believe in evolution.
I need a psychiatrist. Nothing I am writing is making any sense.
"messed with"? lol @ the idiot "lol??". In regards to the article, it is not a matter of the Consti tution changing, but rather a matter of it being more firmly enforced. But reading your other posts below, I'm not surprised you don't know the difference between application and modification (of something that has not changed in ~200 years).
bad analysis. legal or illegal is not the point. act -> consequence ok? get it? anyway i was not comparing stealing to abortion. i was comparing stealing giving you a jail sentence (why? coz its illegal of course) to s3x giving you a baby
cheesemakers, I am not adding anything to the analogy. this is not an allegory. its an analogy.
Trina your false analogy (for the Nth time) is : you say if I am for the unborn I should do what you have yelled 10 times so far. I say if you are against stealing then you should come to court, relieve the thieves of their jail time and crimminial record; instead take it upon yourself. When are you coming to the nearest court, as I have asked you 3 times?
End religion : it has worked for the priesthood. to date, none of them have become pregnant. which is what we are discussing. nothing else is being discussed.
"it has worked for the priesthood. to date, none of them have become pregnant"
It isn't for not trying – little girls and boys are constantly assaulted by your friends in the priesthood. Maybe they prefer little boys because they won't get pregnant? Why are so many priests screwing little kids when they're supposed to be practicing celibacy? Isn't this some sort of biblical thing? Do they all not believe in god and so feel free to defy the churchy rules?
"court not only way. we have new regulation after regulation at state level to discourage unborn child murder. its happening in many many states."
Him speak with forked tongue. Him not able to write sentence.
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.