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.
If this little shit is the best the Pubtards have, the Dems have nothing to worry about.
Da Chimps like ur bwain. Chitown's Hizzonner.
BTW dude, how long you been a puddy tat catlick? Required in chitown.
Da Big O's Illinois is so corrupt even their Supremo Courto was Busted!
Their univeritees have cop killin' professors! But you da schmart one!
Purposeful goals do not produce simple information.
The First cause argument, states in summary:
1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore, the universe must have a cause
That causal agent must necessarily exist outside that which it stands in causal relationship to and is therefor not subject to our space/time. Since that causal agent exists external to time, asking how it "began" is meaningless, it is not subject to time and has no beginning.
Gee, what a shock. The Vegetable is here. Guess his little rolodex came up with this topic for today. *yawn*
Does anyone have the slightest interest in hearing the Chard's views on this issue YET AGAIN? For the umpteenth time? As if he has anything new to add?
Some holes in your argument.
1. It has not been proven that everything has a cause, everything is all encompassing and we don't know everything.
2. See point one and we don't know the unverse "began"...for all we know it is eternal.
3. Even if your first 2 points were true (and we don't know that they are) there is no reason to conclude the first cause was an intelligence and even less reason to think it is your specific god. Strike three.... you're out.
I dare quess that 99% of folks believe that we live in a singularity called a universe when in a very literal sense we live in a cosmos of infinite amounts of universes far too many to ever become known by our future generations even in a billion more years of generations passing!
@Cheese "It has not been proven that everything has a cause, everything is all encompassing and we don't know everything."
@Chad "you arent reading the argument: it says "whatever began to exist has a cause"
can something begin to exist without a cause? no..
@Cheese "See point one and we don't know the unverse "began"...for all we know it is eternal."
@Chad "Of course you are free to not know whatever you dont want to know, however the prevailing cosmological theory (big bang) on the origin of the universe says that it is 13.75 billion years old."
@Cheese "Even if your first 2 points were true (and we don't know that they are) there is no reason to conclude the first cause was an intelligence and even less reason to think it is your specific god. Strike three.... you're out."
@Chad "the First Cause argument doesnt attempt to ascribe the origin of the universe to the God of Israel, it merely says there must be an external causal agent.
Emoticons: a sure sign that the Chard is nervous.
Again, Chad, we do not know about the properties of things before our current universe, therefore we can only speculate, theorize. It is therefore, obvious that you are leaving out possibilities when you make assumptions about the unknown.
And regarding this, Chad: "That causal agent must necessarily exist outside that which it stands in causal relationship to and is therefor not subject to our space/time. Since that causal agent exists external to time, asking how it "began" is meaningless, it is not subject to time and has no beginning."
Even if a causal agent exist/ed external to our current universe, we can't say for sure that it was not relative to it in time. again, Chad, all of it is theory. You are again making huge assumptions against things that are only theory.
Once again, there is no proof that everything that begins to exist has a cause....it is still unknown. It is possible it does but you are putting the cart before the horse.
The known universe as we can see it started 13.75 billion years ago, that does not rule out that the universe existed in some other form previous to that and possibly had no actual beginning.
The first cause argument may not directly infer the christian god but it does fallaciously argue for an intelligence as its "first" cause when that would 'beg the question'.
Problems with your position:
1. Special pleading!
2. a-posteriori reasoning!
3. Even if there is a first cause, how is that first cause the theistic God? The position of deism or pandeism is equally valid for a first cause.
4. Infinite causal regress – If the existence of every member of a set is explained, the existence of that set is thereby explained.
Chad: Earth's official reincarnation of Sisyphus.
Chad, do you have any proof for anything you believe?
Is there any reason to as.sume that this "cause" is anything more than a non-sentient hyper-dimensional structure?
Is there any reason not to as.sume that the universe is not eternal and mearly changing forms, with the Big Bang the point in time in which the universe transitions from an unrecognizable, unobservable, form to its current form?
Is there any reason to as.sume that the causality is absolute outside of our universe?
Chad wrote, "you arent reading the argument: it says "whatever began to exist has a cause"
can something begin to exist without a cause? no.."
This shows the profound d depths of Chard's scientific ignorance. At the quantum level, no cause is needed for effect. Kids in High School know this.
Additionally, since time did not begin until the singularity began to expand, you have no basis to claim what occurred before time began.
Are you really this fucking stupid?
@Primewonk “At the quantum level, no cause is needed for effect. Kids in High School know this.”
as I said before, there is a vast difference between a cause being required to bring something into existence, and a cause required for a material event of existing matter. The argument specifically says “everything that begins to exist has a cause”, NOT “every event must have a cause””
@mama k, @Cheesemakers, “we do not know…..”
@Chad “You’ll need to find something specifically wrong with the first cause argument if you intend to refute it.
Simran “Special pleading!”
@Chad “? I don’t think you know what that fallacy actually is, here is the definition:
Special pleading, also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counter evidence, slanting, and one-sided as sessment, is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption
@Simram “a-posteriori reasoning!
A posteriori justification makes reference to experience; but the issue concerns how one knows the proposition or claim in question—what justifies or grounds one's belief in it
That that the universe had a beginning is the most common cosmological belief held today, I am clearly on solid ground making that claim.
@Simram Even if there is a first cause, how is that first cause the theistic God? The position of deism or pandeism is equally valid for a first cause.
@Chad “the argument doesn’t make that claim that the first cause if the God of Israel
@simram “Infinite causal regress – If the existence of every member of a set is explained, the existence of that set is thereby explained.”
A. even if the succession of causes is infinite, the whole chain still requires a cause.
B. recall that the external agent, if it exists outside all time/space, would not have a beginning.
Again Chad, to be clear, this is all theory. And because it is theory, I don't need to refute anything to come up with alternative ideas. And again, Chad, regarding your own little add-on to this theory – even if a causal agent exist/ed external to our current universe, we can't say for sure that it was not relative to it in time. again, Chad, all of it is theory. You are again making huge assumptions against things that are only theory.
@mam k "Chad, all of it is theory..."
=>everything is theory, you and I might be in the matrix and all of this may be a computer simulated reality. lol
I have noticed that the atheist epistemology varies greatly depending on the subject being theorized :-)
Why accept premise 1 with regard to time?
But I'm genuinely curious. If you watched an atom of carbon 14 undergo beta decay to an atom of nitrogen 14, what was the cause for that atom of nitrogen 14? The decay of the carbon 14 atom is an event, to be sure, but what you really need is a cause for that event.
Fundies think that it's more honest to say that some big fairy snapped its fingers and created the universe than to say that the cause of the universe is unknown.
How stupid is that?
Our physical bodies are wrapped by the tendrils of Nothingess! When one dies and is cremated the Nothingness that encompasses our physical essences is given back to the Great Seas of Absolute Nothingness, the Holy Spirit of God. Is this an understandable vision for anyone here to think upon?
It isn't even bullshit. At least bullshit follows syntactical and grammatical rules. This is just total nonsense.
What's your fetish Ath? Do you love to mimic and mime others bs wordages or are you just being prudish?
Thanks for supporting my thesis.
See what you've gone and done in using the 'bs' word? Seems you have a mentor on your shoulder.
Anyone who uses the bs word in one posting has a fetish and you fit the bill! Check please!
Highly sophisticated design calls for a designer
Oh? Says who?
hey, I found this watch. all the parts came together by total chance. proto-watches were formed first. It transformed into this watch.
That's like thinking a baby comes from a stork before you learn where they really come from. We don't know, so presently, we are like the child whose current lame excuse for creation is something that originated from ancient fable from ancient people – who were even more clueless.
Well, to clarify my last point, lol, *some* of us can at least can recognize the dilemma we are in with our lack of knowledge.
Hey believers, get back to us when you understand the difference between animate species and inanimate objects.
Who says life is sophisticated? It could be a lot more sophisticated. It's only as sophisticated as it needs to be to survive and reproduce. Exactly what one would expect from evolution.
We know in theory, and more importantly in practice, that randomness filtered through some selective filter generates "sophisticated design" far beyond that which can be hoped for ab initio. The irony of ID/creationists invoking analogy to human artifacts is that they ignore the clear lineage of modern technologies/methodologies having arisen through incremental trial and error from ever simpler precursors. Mutation and natural selection is such a powerful and creative "designer" that ID/creationists still have no viable means to distinguish between "actual design" from "apparent design."
Well put, Redzoa. But do you think the fundies will get the concept?
Using the Law of Pedro, your god, who is more complex than the universe he supposedly created, must necessarily be a highly sophisticated being. Therefore, using your law, he had to have been designed.
If he was designed, then he's not the creator.
If he was not designed, then your law is incorrect.
Chance accidents do not produce complex information
Really? I contend that you weren't anything but a "mistake." I doubt your parents "planned" to have you. If they did, how sad they must be at the outcome of their plans.
Speaking of "chance accidents," dear: are there any other kind?
And on that note, how was penicillin discovered, honey-babe?
We actually don't know that. If we knew everything both inside and outside our universe, both before and now, we might be able to ascertain that, but, alas, we don't. It's silly to start limiting attributes about something so unknown.
What, pray tell, is a "chance accident?"
@athy, Apparently it's the opposite of the more standard "planned accident".
Again, you're correct Pedro. Only very simple structures, and very simple changes occur by the early, what you call "chance accidents". Trillions of accidents later, these simple structures gain complexity. You think that a god created everything in one wave of his magic wand, which is why you think that we must also be saying that all life "jumped into being" by some single, crazy, wild accident.
That's pretty ridiculous, don't you think? We think so too.
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
Pedro: A troll in desperate need of attention.
The lack of proof for the God of Israel and all the magic in the Bible has always been evident, whether one chooses to ignore it or not. This lack of proof is not contingent on the theory of evolution.
I think it is time to ignore Pedro.
We should keep engaging Pedro, because every time he comments, that gives us a chance to get through to those still searching for an answer, by way of our responses.
Some people out there who are still searching, can benefit from hearing an opposing point of view to the standard Christian echo chamber.
Life CANNOT evolve in a complex and hostile environment
And you come to this conclusion how, exactly, fvcktard?
Then how did your god create life? If the environment was hostile, wouldn't we have all died off instantly?
The theory of evolution "is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious . . . Scientific theory." – molecular biologist Michael Denton
Michael Denton is a current Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a Creationist organisation.
Of course he's going to agree with your friends, the Christians. Go ahead, throw us another quote.
"At some future period,. . . the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the s@v@ge races." – Charles Darwin
Darwin was incorrect when he said that.
Darwin's theory of evolution, however, was correct. A person can be both right, and wrong in the same lifetime.
Darwin was wrong when he said that. The inferior ra-ces are assimilating and weakening the white ra-ce. and we are powerless to do anything.
Charles Darwin wrote that the civilized races would exterminate, and replace, the s@v@ge races
Who TF is even listening anymore?
You are, apparently. Why?
Too many abusive people here. I dont post. this last post.
I have countered every point made against me. Every argument was ignored or mocked. No point.
Got back from work and made a meal while ago and was settling down. Guess I'll just go back to my books.
Immorality, big gov-ernment, concentration of all power in the center is the way to go in the future I guess. G0d save this country.
don't let the door hit'cha where your imaginary god split'cha.
he story goes that as Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall at the close of the Consti-tutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a woman asked him, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”.
Mr. Franklin replied, “A republic, madam – if you can keep it.”
apparently we havent kept it.
and here again – you're demonstrating ignorance.
we still have a republic... deal with it.
"being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." – benjamin franklin
cha cha cha
"Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lecture. It happened that they produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation itself. In a word, I soon became a thorough Deist" –Ben Franklin from his autobiography
Good riddance to bad rubbish! Get lost, Tea Bagger. No one is going to beg you to stay, but plenty might beg you to blow.
No you have not countered everything. I asked you twice to list one thing that has been proven "true" using religion. You ignored it both times. I pointed out that science is demonstrably a better way of understanding how the world works and again you ignored me. Now you are 'leaving'. I don't blame you...I would leave to if my arguments had been shown to be false....it is either that or you have to admit you are wrong.
anvil we dont have a republic. according to a strict reading of the consti-tution the following are illegal
department of energy
the general welfare clause and commerce clause have been abused to no end.
what has happened its too late. we will need to roll back slowly to the point where all powers except enumerated powers stay with the states. We had a good form of govt in 1787. lets get back to it.
which President formed the EPA?
"We had a good form of govt in 1787. lets get back to it."
of course you and your ilk would love to plunge us back to 1787.
you do realize you've just opened yourself up to so many possible stab wounds – there's no way you'll survive – right???
stunning, son... stunning.....
please – do go on...
*gets out scalpel*
which President signed the Food & Drug Act (aka the Wiley Act) creating the FDA?
Anvil? scalpel? you not making sense.
one more thing against the const-itution – federal income tax
the general we-lfare clause has to be qualified with enume-rated powers. DC is not to advance 'general welfare' in any area not mentioned in the enumeration list.
I dont care which prez started FDA. Lincoln started the whole big government thing if you ask me. "Lion" andrew jackson fought against the bankers in his era and paid off the national debt. thats why they tried to kill him. learn. and liberate yourself.
so in your enlightened opinion, the first of the GOP Presidents is to blame for "big government". Do you find this ironic at all?
I know you don't care, but Theodore Roosevelt (R.) created the FDA and Richard M. Nixon, (R.) created the EPA.
Ronald Reagan – "the government is not the solution, it is the problem"
Why don't you do a little more digging, idiot, and find out how much the government GREW under Reagan? Or are you too much of a chicken-sh!t?
So TeaParty, How can you claim you have countered every argument against you when you have ignored my question 3 times now? That nagging feeling you have right now is called 'Cognitive dissonance'.
Thats because your question is a trick question. a straw man. i never claimed religion proved anything. in ID we say dont wear blinders that block you to an intelligent designer. look at everything. question the controversy. I laugh at the answers in genesis people. the earth is more than 6000 years old.
Oooh, a "trick question", huh? Because idiots like you NEVER use those, do you?
"anvil we don't have a republic." – yes, we do.
"according to a strict reading of the consti-tution the following are illegal"
social security: illegal? nope! in 1937 the supreme court of the united states ruled it is consti tutional – "to spend for the general welfare" – reference helvering v. davis.
question for you: what would happen to the united states without social security?
medicare: illegal? nope! again – general welfare clause.
another question for you: what would happen to the united states without medicare?
department of energy: illegal? NOPE! i don't know how old you are – but i remember the long gas lines back in 1973 during the oil crisis. the department of energy (again – to provide for the general welfare) was probably the smartest thing jimmy carter did when he was in office.
question to you: what do you think would happen to the united states today without the department of energy?
EPA: illegal? NOPE!!! once again – wrong... nixon was made very aware of how rampant pollution was – having been basically unchecked since – oh who knows! do you even have any clue how things were before the epa was formed? do you like the taste of benzine?? i mean – i could have guessed you probably snacked on lead paint chips as a child – but were they delicious? lolz. more abuse of the general welfare clause huh???
question for you: what do you think things would be like right now without the epa???
FDA illegal? NOPE!!! – are you SERIOUS with this?? tell me something – do you think melamine is delicious and nutritious?? do you enjoy the taste of cardboard? what about the potency of the psychiatric meds you should be prescribed? do you want cheap stuff from mexico where they haven't even heard of quality assurance or quality control? – once again – to provide for the general welfare, son.
"the general welfare clause and commerce clause have been abused to no end."
there's abuse in all systems that involve people. does that negate the necessity of social security, medicare, the department of energy, the epa and the fda??? nope! does the inst itution of these much needed crucial elements of our nation abuse the general welfare clause??
anyone who isn't myopic – and who has a basic understanding of us history would say no. not at all.
i wonder what your 1787 america would be like with a population of 300 million as opposed to just under 4 million.
i bet it would be interesting...
slavery was ok
women couldn't vote...
they had no electricity and couldn't even imagine what the world would become.
times change, teapatriot... the world changes... it's all changed monumentally since 1787... and we've made adjustments along the way. very important, useful, intelligent adjustments.
and we'll make more.
we'll drag you into the future – kicking and screaming....
deal with it.
as for your quip about immorality...
what immorality are you referring to?
sure – you'd love to make decisions for others – you'd love to trample all over liberty, equality, and freedom....
you not only wan to limit the size and power of government -which i agree with – but...
you'd deny a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy.
you'd deny two people of the same gender to marry.
you'd allow the teaching of creationism and spittle on evolution in public schools.
you'd put the old and indigent out on the street next to the orphans and crack babies that you forced into the world because you denied some poor girl an abortion....
the united states is a melting pot. we're a nation of all people and all religions- and no religions. i watched you post a bigoted statement last night towards mr.gupta – admonishing him to go back to india. pretty moral, huh??
bigotry was all the rage in 1787... you'd fit right in.
and you have the audacity to call yourself a patriot???
Well you don't trust science, now apparently and thankfully you don't trust the bible.....so I am not sure how you conclude you are not just a brain in a vat. It. Sounds to me you could be a solipsist in which case it is useless to continue discussion.
my, my.. many points
I got to go to work so keeping it simple
some points like "go to india" you know anyone can post claiming ti be 'TeaPatriot'
Good to know you also are for small government
about gas lines justifying DoE, one of our founding fathers said "those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither". Which enumerated power does the DoE draw from? the general welfare clause is qualified by enumerated powers.
There is a story about Davy Crockett the frontiersman opposing the house of represenattives setting up a pension fund for the widow of a distinguished navy officer, saying "this is not the job of government. Its not in the consti-tution explicitly so we dont do this. I will give up a week's pay into a fund for the widow. all of you who pretend to care for the widow should do so". Very few did. Proves that people will spend the "government's money" freely but not their own. what is the govenrments money I ask you? mine and yours.
Many other areas you have mischaracterized me. got to go to work. will respond ind etail later.
So Teabagger, why have my taxes been used on a preemptive (at best) war in Iraq that I do not approve of. Where are preemptive wars covered in the constitution?
E I M B A C K ! ! ! !
Just got my meds refilled, and I ready to go.....
I always quote the Scripture so you know I'm not lyin'. Sorry, nobody has a clue who you are.
Failing to teach children basic science leaves them less prepared for any kind of profession that relies on that science. A general failure to understand science also leaves kids less able to pursue other related fields that rely on appreciation of the scientific method as well as critical thinking. Only fool can't see how this weakens our society and economy in the long term.
Just so. Too bad fools are in abundant supply in this country. I can only hope that their spawn will die out soon.
Darwinism = racism
Are you a poe, or just plain stupid?
Pedro's comment = Scientific ignorance
I've read Pedro's posts. I'm gonna vote for him being a fucking idiot.
Darwin influenced the nazi's to weed out races that they felt were not as evolved.
LOL. Someone has been listening to Ben Stein too much. Here's a tip Pedro, know what you're talking about before you post complete idiocy, and the movie expelled is a bunch of crap. Religion played a large part in Hitler's hatred of Jews, as well as the thoughts of Martin Luther long before Hitler, and used the horrible economy at the time, as well as the religion of many to create a scapegoat in the Jewish people. Remember Got Mitt Uns?
The fact that the Nazis warped evolutionary theory toward there own ends has no bearing on what the theory actually states.
You typed your comment incorrectly Pedro. Apparently what you meant to say was "Darwin = Racist". A scientific model cannot have a human attribute - those are reserved for humans.
If what you're trying to use here is the ad hominem fallacy - attacking an argument by attacking the person making the argument - then the only people you'll convince with this tactic are those who haven't learned to think critically.
Wow, I think I'm now more stupid after reading your comments. FACT – evolution is a MYTH, all of you belong to a dangerous cult and have been brained washed. People like you is what makes this world a terrible place
Ok now I'm thinking it is more likely you're just a poe.
Fact, putting the word "fact" in front of a statement does not automatically make said statement a fact.
The rest of your statement of is nothing more than a banal insult, to which I have no desire to respond.
It's actually a good thing, Pedro that you continue to post on a regular basis. I know that none of us will convince you of anything new, because you're far past the point of no return in your Christian indoctrination. And your comments are unlikely to convince those undecided voters still seeking the truth.
But each time you transmit another one of your standard, Christian-inspired attempts to twist truth into a form that fits your biblical world view, you give all of us an opportunity to provide a reasoned rebuttal. And that directly benefits readers who happen to be in that "seeking the truth" demographic.
So please, quite literally, keep those comments coming in!
was Poe-ed long go...
"all of you belong to a dangerous cult and have been brained washed. "
Yes, you figured it out. All of the highly-educated, intellectual scientists are brain washed cult members, but the uneducated, religious people have access to the truth.
"Remember Got Mitt Uns?"
Oh...so a belt buckle proves the nazis were Christian. Interesting...what part of Christianity were they following when the murdered millions? Hitler was simply following Darwinism...the strong dominating the weak. You know...creating the master race.
You don't know anything about evolution or what survival of the fittest actually means, so you might want to stop now before you make yourself look any more idiotic.
k, I knew you were stupid, but pretending that Hitler and the Nazis were following some principle of Darwin is just plain asinine.
Hitler would use any excuse to annihilate Jews, you idiot. He didn't need Darwin's ideas. He used Christianity to excuse his hatred of Jews and anyone else he deemed "non-Aryan."
My gosh, but you're a moron.
And HG has you by the short, curly ones, too, khruddy. You are attempting to pretend that Darwin's ideas mean something they don't. And that's because you're an ignorant yahoo.
"You don't know anything about evolution or what survival of the fittest actually means, so you might want to stop now before you make yourself look any more idiotic."
Why you do a fine job of embarrassing yourself everytime i see you comment.
the Germans who followed Hitler's bidding were 'good' Lutherans and Catholics. Just how do you explain that?
Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
"k, I knew you were stupid, but pretending that Hitler and the Nazis were following some principle of Darwin is just plain asinine.
Hitler would use any excuse to annihilate Jews, you idiot. He didn't need Darwin's ideas. He used Christianity to excuse his hatred of Jews and anyone else he deemed "non-Aryan."
My gosh, but you're a moron."
Do you have anything other than ad hominem attacks? So what teaching of Christ were the nazis following when they perpetrated the murder of millions? And yes...pure darwinian thought.
Khruddy, "everytime" isn't a word. You're dumber than a box of hair.
Oooh what a well thought out and in depth come back. Tell me, what in evolutionary theory would condone mass murder? What, in natural selection, would condone and even promote that? You say that it does but give absolutely no specifics you religious zealot. Give the specifics, or you're just showing once again how little you know.
"Pure darwinian thought." What an idiot! You are obviously in over your head, Khruddy. You haven't got a clue what "survival of the fittest" means and you're showing it with every post! How can you BE this stupid? You must practice daily!
Khruddy, what part of "used Christianity as an excuse" are you unable to comprehend, you knucklehead?
I repeat, my word, but you're stupid.
"Khruddy, "everytime" isn't a word. You're dumber than a box of hair."
Poor tommy...doesn't have an argument so just calls names...sad :(
Poor krhodes apparently wants to ignore direct challenges and questions.
Poor khruddy. Hasn't made an argument yet.
I'm sorry, "Tom", but, although your assertion is correct, at least there might be some value for someone in a box of hair.
"Khruddy, what part of "used Christianity as an excuse" are you unable to comprehend, you knucklehead?
I repeat, my word, but you're stupid."
Well tommy...what part of Christianity did they "use?" Surely you have scripture that they were following? You do understand what i mean don't you? If you are willing to say they "used" Christianity then you should be able to tell me what Christian doctrines they were following?
Describe said "value."
Why, khruddy? Would it matter? Hitler pretended that god was on his side against the Jews. "Gott mitt uns" was a way to persuade the god-fearing idiots that getting the Jews out of Germany was god's will.
There's no mystery there, honey, no matter what you imagine.
Really, khrud-meister, are you going to pretend that HItler didn't use the Lutheran and Catholic Churches to achieve his objectives?
Go ahead and provide sources for your claim, if that's what you're saying.
"Tom", even though krhodes share the same intellect as a box of hair, a box of hair might remind a human of a loved one. I doubt that krhodes would remain in any human's memory for any considerable amount of time.
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. ... In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ... Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian, I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice." – Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich 1922
Hitler manipulated German Christians using religion. Whatever he may personally have believed is moot. He railed against atheists too.
"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." – Adolf Hitler, speech in Berlin, 1933
yeah GOP...i can post many quotes from Hitler that demostrate his hatred of Christianity.
of course you can. The man was completely evil – and not atheist by the majority of accounts.
Nevertheless, he used the Christianity of the German Catholics and Lutherans to accomplish his ends. That is the point. Christians did his bidding.
Darwin's sucessors started eu-genics. look it up.
"look it up." Where? In a volume of Grimm's Fairy Tales? Or Ripley's Believe it or Not?
foulmouth tom start here
also see this blog where they recommend how well researched above is – http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=828
Oh, please, if an idiot like you is citing it, it's complete bullish!t.
Oh, wait. No, that's not true. It would be bullish!t no matter who cited it.
Why is it you morons are so lazy you don't get an education and rely on fundies for your understanding of the world?
And honestly, are you REALLY citing a fvcking BLOG as a source, you moron? What part of stupid do you not get? If you have to resort to BLOGS to back up your nonsense, you moron, just wave a white flag, because you're done.
Here's the description of the blog:"Independent journal of religion, politics and culture edited by lay Catholics."
Yeah, that's CERTAINLY going to be a neutral, unbiased source.
What an azzhole you must be.
That's not a very good source, "..". I know of a now more widely accepted paper from a Canadian researcher.
CNN blocking me.
first link is not a blog. its a published article.
No, it isn't, you moron.
If you're so stupid that you can't figure out that the cite you provided is a link to a blog, then you're too stupid to be a reliable source of information of any sort.
And if you haven't figured out how to post a link here, then go back to square one and find out.
Until then, you don't have a point. You have no facts. You aren't posting anything worthwhile.
po-ttymouth tom I wasnt refering to the blog. read the article before you start spouting. its very well researched.
pottymouth 2 links given 1. published magazine 2. blog. read article. think about it. then burst like ob-scenity volcano
If it were "very well researched" you idiot, you'd be able to provide a decent citation for it. That you have to resort to using a blog as a source tells me that you're too dumb to figure out how to find a neutral and independent source for your "article" and use IT to cite.
Get a clue, dipwad. If you don't have one, don't expect anyone to bow and scr ape to your crap.
pot-tymouth I dont sink to your level. the blog (which is separate from the magazine) is continuously edited by "lay catholics". If that is a bad source I can say any source by scientists is a bad source. Lay catholic means those that are not very religious. secular ones.
which is the link for the article by the canadian researcher? thanks art.
you po-ttymouth cretin the original article (gentle darwinian) is not a blog. its a published article that has lots of research. that is the reference. read it.
"The Commonweal (shortened to Commonweal in 1965) is the oldest independent lay Catholic journal of opinion in the United States"
"Lay Catholics"? Are you kidding? You think that means they're "SECULAR"? Compared to what? MONKS? Get a fvcking clue, you dope.
If you think for even a nano-second that citing an article published by a magazine put out by "lay Catholics" is a valid source of information on the theory of evolution, you friggin' azz, you need more help than anyone here can provide.
Can't we just get through one thanksgiving without somebody mentioning Hitler?! :)
foul potty-mouth the piper's daughter:- Did I ever say it has something to do with evolution or science? it was a social piece about darwin and his disciples. how they used 'evolution' to say cau-cas-ian is better than any other ra-ce. and that its ok to exterminate all inferior ra-ces.
If you say just because its a catholic publication you wont read it. then case closed. shows what a closeminded person you are.
I bet this idiot dooshebag drives a car that runs on fossil fuels.
You know, fossil fuels, those things that take a lot longer than 10,000 years to create.
Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son
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.
November 26, 2012 at 8:50 am
PIGS EAT CHIMP........."A family member of an Oregon pig farmer discovered his relative's body parts scattered across the pen — a gruesome find leaving authorities to believe it was a case of hog eats human.
A pathologist couldn’t immediately determine whether the pigs were the actual cause of 70-year-old Terry Garner’s death,
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hungry-hogs-eat-oregon-farmer-article-1.1172448#ixzz2DLnW9QmF
"Old Mitt’s Investment in a Fetus-Disposal Company Is Not a Great Thing for New Mitt" Copyright © 2010 2012, New York Media LLC. All Rights Reserved..... Iowa hog farmers are appreciative and Bob Evans says he hasn't had one complaint from a chimp.
Who invited me must be bored.
Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son, so here's your song, 'specially for you...... Fetus in the hot DOG,,,Fetus in the hot DOG,,,(give it a little Latin flavor),,, Wise Latino maMA,,,Wise Latino maMA (dedicated to SCOTUS, too)
Wow, Tom, you really got under someone's skin!
ER, you don't like my song?
ER, I can understand hunger, but killin' for sport? Nah.....God is Green. Chimpi, chimpi, chump CHUMP,,,,,,,Chimpi, Chimpi, Chump, CHUMP>
@ER, yup. I apparently did.
prom queen means what? tutu
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.