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.
Here is what you need to understand about the Catholic doctrine of Creation: http://www.kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/
With havin so much content and artciles do you ever run into any issues of plagorism or copyright violation? My blog has a lot of exclusive content I've either written myself or outsourced but it appears a lot of it is popping it up all over the web without my agreement. Do you know any solutions to help protect against content from being ripped off? I'd truly appreciate it.
Scientists have unearthed the first direct signs of cheesemaking, at a site in Poland that dates back 7,500 years.
Clearly bad science since the Earth is only 6000 years old :)
if you are an 'all mighty god' why would it take you 6 days to create the earth/universe? why not wave your magic wand, and... every thing is there!! now go and rest for 6 days
and if we are so special, why put as on a mere dust speck orbiting a tiny star on the out skirts of an insignificant galaxy in an infinite universe. why all this vastness of nothingness??
I suppose when you are almighty god you can do it how ever you like ;)
The fact that this Rubio's simple comment has sparked so much controversy speaks volumes to the amount of free speech we have in the US and how we use it. This situation can be best described using the 'marketplace of ideas' theory. This simply states that when differing ideas are presented, the public will choose the one that suits them best and leave the one that they view is wrong. It is good to see the differing views being discussed and your 1st amendment rights being used.
GOD is the biggest lie PERIOD!!!
The justices' decision will likely resolve an ongoing battle between scientists who believe that genes carrying the secrets of life should not be exploited for commercial gain
You have it backwards, Satan is the original liar, God is the only Truth.
Well then.. let's see who the liar is shall we? The first line in the Bible says: In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)... where does science with all of it's infinite knowledge say that time, space and matter come from? Hmmm?
> It's one of the great mysteries
It's only a mystery if you don't want to spend some of your time learning about science and facts.
Its a mystery if you don't want to answer the question and look silly. That is more telling than actually hearing him say 4.5 billion years old.
"At some future period, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the s@v@ge races." – Charles Darwin
Pedro no such thing happen. The s@v@ge races as you call them are intermixing with the civilized races. Just look around you.
Unfortunately there are not yet enough atheists ("civilized races") to quickly counteract the s@v@ges (such as believers in general, and christians and muslims specifically).
Evolution has operated quietly on this planet for hundreds of millions of years, and will continue to do so long after there are no people left to not believe in it.
darwinism is just a theory
Better than your theory of god
Adding ancient mythology to a cup of tea just makes it dull and weak.
On the off chance you're not a poe.
What exactly is Darwinism you scientifically illiterate zealot?
Darwinism is the belief that I am a modern monkey rather than a creation of God.
1) You're talking about evolution.
2) Even according to evolution, we are not modern monkeys. We are part of the great ape family, diverged millions of years ago.
3) If you don't even know what a thoery is within the scientific community, you're even worse off than most.
4) Evolution is not a belief, it is an established scientific model that is also the pillar of multiple scientific disciplines.
In your case, Darwinism may be correct.
har har Athy. Hawaiian the thing I find objection in darwinism (or evolution. tomahto/tomayto) is it calls for me to kill or be killed. I am civilized. have morals. respect my neighbor and take care of him.
There are other survival mechanisms than "kill or be killed."
You're not even talking about any part of evolution I'm aware of. The closest thing I can think of is a complete misrepresentation of the thought of survival of the fittest. But that's only used when explaining natural selection and states that the organisms that adapt the best to the environment or enviornmental change survive the most. Do you really even know what you're talking about teavangelical?
You idiot. "Survival of the fittest" simply means that organisms that adapt to their environment will thrive. Those that don't, won't.
You're going to be a perfect example, teabag. Your sort is rapidly becoming extinct.
@HG & TTTPS,
yes, someone should explain conflating 'survival of the fittest' with being an apex predator to algae and lichens.
So is gravity, go jump off a cliff.
Actually, evolution, like gravity, is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact because there is no actual scientific doubt that it happens, the theory is the best scientific explanation of the mechanism involved.
Yeah you guys sayin lots of things. Im confused. Maybe darwinism is one explanation for man's existence but it cant be the only one. That would be like finding a beautifully carved marble status and exclaiming "look at this perfectly weathered man shaped piece of beautiful marble". Yeah the marble came to be by pressure and compaction and what not. But what about the sculptor who gave it shape? Actually I should give my pastor the credit for this example. Darwinism leaves us godless consequently no morals or ethics or
I can except darwinism as a part of the story but not the main part
Evanidiot, get back to us when you understand the difference between animate species and inanimate objects.
by kill or be killed I mean according to darwinism we came about by lots of species fighting amongst each other, and the most violent ones overwelming others. this continued till we came about.
Just remember it is your pastors job to keep you convinced and make up cute comparisons like that.....job security.
The tea bagger idiot wrote, " Actually I should give my pastor the credit for this example. "
This is an excellent example of what happens when ignorant fundiot nutters, such as yourself, choose to get their "sciency" sounding information from the Pastor Dave's of the world. The problem is that Pastor Dave is just as much a fucking idiot as his minions.
You fail to understand what "theory" means in science. A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment". (Source: National Academy of Sciences)
Gravity is a theory. That why it's called the Theory of Gravity. But nobody doubts it exists!
There is no gravity .. the Earth sucks!
Idiots like Rubio and Evangelical here are what's wrong with America. Bigotry. Lack or education. Ignorance. All for the sake of remaining backwards, self-validating and self-indulgent. If Rubio wants people to take him seriously, then don't give a lame excuse for a subject related to a committee upon which he sits. Thankfully, to a large degree, our secular government protects us from such dangerous extremists. And that's because the people who designed our Constitution had to deal with the same kind of idiots like Evangelical here.
James Madison, a moderate Christian, highly influenced by Deism – the chief architect of the U.S. Constitution:
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.
(A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, 1785)
I see you are still posting the same crap, none of which as the force of law.
Evangullible: " none of which as the force of law."
Just exactly what the hell are you blabbing about dear? Did you mean "has the force of law"?
Well, for your information, Madison's well-documented views on the founding give much insight to our Constitution. You did know he was the chief architect of such along with the 1st Amendment – didn't you dear? And I certainly hope that you realize that this nation's law has no other document of higher importance as "the force of law" as you say. So, I'm wondering – why would you say such a stupid thing? Did you just forget some history? Did you forget about the Constitution? Do you just blast replies without reading the posts? I have to wonder about someone being so careless. It kind of goes along with the extremist religious ignorance thing.
Madison's personal feelings have no force of law. They are just that: personal feelings.
Sometimes those view come into play. For instance, Jefferson's writings were referenced as part of Supreme Court decisions pertaining to the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. (I haven't researched it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the same were not true for Madison – especially regarding the same subject matter. Actually, you've given me new inspiration, Evan, to learn more about that.) You know Jefferson was not the only one to make a reference to separation of church and state. Let's listen to just a bit more Madison since I know for the moment you know who I'm talking about:
Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.
I think we know from that how that primary crafter of the Constitution & 1st Amendment felt about the law we still live by.
typo correction – first line: "those views"
@mama k "Idiots like Rubio and Evangelical here are what's wrong with America. Bigotry. Lack or education. Ignorance. All for the sake of remaining backwards, self-validating and self-indulgent. If Rubio wants people to take him seriously, then don't give a lame excuse for a subject related to a committee upon which he sits. Thankfully, to a large degree, our secular government protects us from such dangerous extremists. And that's because the people who designed our Const.itution had to deal with the same kind of idiots like Evangelical here".
@chad "as usual, you are wrong on both counts,
Q.Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?
Senator Barack Sen. Obama, D-Ill., speaking at the Compa.ssion Forum at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. on April 13, 2008::
What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know.
@Chad Well it's a good point, Chad that those kinds of answers are difficult for politicians across the board. What annoys me with Rubio is the callousness with which he disassociated himself with the subject that is a subject of a Senate committee on which he sits. And had Obama said that regarding a subject pertaining to one of his committee assignments, I would be just as hard on him. I think it just shows how green Rubio is. Whether you like or dislike Schumer, for instance, you are not going to hear him say "I'm not a finance guy, man". It's just a stupid response. It would be stupid for a live interview. But even more stupid for a magazine interview where one is most likely not under the spotlight for their immediate answer.
@Chad – and the Establishment Clause does protect people from fundies who want to take over and implement a theocracy, Chad. Shall I send you to the page that shows all the times the Establishment Clause has been applied to uphold a claim for separation of church and state? You might be surprised at how many times.
as we've discussed, Obama has his share of pandering for the votes of fundies too. He at least was prepared to offer a partial answer to the question: it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe."
Rubio wasn't even willing to go that far.
In the rest of that speech our President was abundantly clear on his position regarding evolution.
@mama k "and the Establishment Clause does protect people from fundies who want to take over and implement a theocracy"
@Chad "A. It protects against creating an official state religion.
B. That protection DOES NOT mean that atheists such as yourself get to try and distort that into a desire on the part of the framers to create a govt where people like Rubio or Obama can not enumerate their Christian beliefs in their role as govt officials.
You're right Chad, we are protected from government imposition of religion, and allowed to believe, or say whatever we want, including elected officials.
Luckily, when elected officials say things outloud like this, it gives us the ability to make informed decisions on who we will or will not vote for. For that reason, I'm glad he spoke up.
I'm thankful we have men like Marco Rubio in the senate and on the science committee. On this one issue alone, he represents me and 46% of the American people. We need more like him who are not afraid to stand up to the thugs in science who want to shove evolution down our throats.
Just because you fucking nutters purposefully choose to be ignorant about science, doesn't mean that the rest of us do.
And I wonder why you cretins don't disavow yourselves of using things tthat are the result of science?
If by "shove down your throats" you mean "teach supported scientific theory" then yes we do want to shove evolution down your throat.
Don't worry, Evangelical is just a little woosy from that last application of leeches to treat his erectile dysfunction. It's a good thing for him that his religious leader kept the post as head of medicine at his hospital or he might not have access to such relevant and accurate medical science...
I'm not ignorant of science. I studied science in college like everyone else. I simply reject it and the science thugs who want to tell the rest of us what to believe.
Rejecting reality in favor of fantasy doesn't make your fantasy reality.
Well you dont have to accept science. I hope the 47% out there do not use our hospitals and medicines and rely 100% on their God or Gods for their wellbeing.
I studied science in college like everyone else. I simply reject it. Thank god 47% is getting smaller.
“Science is hard! I reject it in favor of the irrational!”
Evangelical wrote, "I'm not ignorant of science. I studied science in college like everyone else. I simply reject it and the science thugs who want to tell the rest of us what to believe."
Quantum theory and mechanics are both used to describe the beginning of the universe as well as the computer you are using. You claim that the quantum mechanics that resulted in our universe are false, while the exact same quantum mechanics that let your computer operate are true.
Can you say cognitive dissonance?
Natural evolution resulted in the diversification of life on earth. Human directed evolution has resulted in all the foodstuffs you eat today. The principles of evolution have been used by farmers, agronomists, and animal husbandry to create the foods we eat today. You claim one is false, while using the other to survive, and both are the same thing
Can you say cognitive dissonance?
Evolution IS the reason you need a new flu shot every year, and new antibiotics. The exact same evolution you claim is a lie.
It has nothing to do with science being hard. It is because it runs contra to the Bible, the Holy Word of God. The Bible is the standard against which all is measured.
It’s funny how all faiths see it that way. Have you thought about looking for parallels between faith and science?
If you believe the wackiness that is quantum theory, I feel sorry for you. Even Einstein came to reject it, and you are no Einstein.
I have long maintained that science is nothing but another religion.
Einstein argued against quantum theory but was never able to disprove it.
What a dimwit you are. This has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with the age of the earth. The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old whether you believe in evolution or not.
The earth is not ten thousand years old and Rubio knows that.
He also knows that he can't say that because for some reason, Republicans insist on catering to people who are too stupid to understand that there hasn't been a single credible scientist that believed in the Neptune Theory in over 100 years.
Do you drive a car?
IIt runs on fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels take a really really long time to create.
If a bunch of things did not die hundreds of millions of years ago there would be no fossil fuels.
Maybe we should just start calling them "magic god fuels:".
"The Bible is the standard against which all is measured"
Wo, that is unbelievably frightening.
You have very low standards.
When God created the earth (less than 10,000 years ago), He created everything including the so-called fossil fuels.
Moreover, this is every bit about evolution as it is about the age of the universe. Either you believe that God created man in his present form about 6000 years ago or you don't. You are dealing with the same passages in Geneses which I believe to be literal and inerrant.
nuh uh derp! god put the oil there to TRICK us! orrrrr – the devil did it???
@Evangullible: There is just as much evidence that an alien from another planet did the things your suggest (in the idiotic time range you suggest), as there is that it was from the the god of Israel of Gullible's Travels. Still no proof?? Darn, I was hoping you would have some proof today. But as none has ever surfaced going back oh, say, at least a couple of thousand years – I'm not holding my breath, Gull.
the entire fossil record was deliberately placed in the ground, 6000 years ago – by the hebrew god!!
I don't care what you think. You are among the damned. Your soul is dead and you prove it every time you post. However, I will remind you that at least 46% believe as I do that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago.
"We need more like him who are not afraid to stand up to the thugs in science who want to shove evolution down our throats."
Wait... So now the nerds are the bullies? That's probably a well-deserved reversal of fortune.
If you only believe what is in the bible, why are you not living life a la Amish. At least they live by their convictions – you use the science that suits you and pour scorn on the rest. You can't in all honesty use the internet or even electricity without accepting the speed of light. We know with absolute certainty that your creation myth is not true; your pretzel logic doesn't change that.
Sen. Rubio said nothing about evolution. He was asked a question about the age of the earth which he did not answer, instead retreated to talking points to pander to people like you.
He does not have enough courage of his convictions to actually tell us what he believes.
As a member of the science committee, there is only one reasonable answer to the question and that is that the earth is billions of years old.
Rubio either believes this but does not want to say it in public – which means he is untrustworthy; or he believes in a young earth – which means he has no business influencing science legislation.
Evangullible: "I don't care what you think. You are among the damned."
LOL. Well that is one of the most brilliant, inspiring, intelligent responses someone has ever addressed to me. I feel like I need to get out a book of etiquette to make sure I know how to properly reply.
I believe that most definitely every candidate for the science committee should be asked their positions on 1. The Big Bang, 2. The age of the universe, and 3. Evolution. If they answer in any way that contradicts the Bible, they should be disqualified.
if there were a Senate committee on Bible study your posiition would be understandable. But there isn't. (It would be unconstîtutional anyway.)
I do agree that all members of the Senate and House committees on Science should be asked whether they accept the big bang theory, evolution and a 4.5 billion year-old earth – or be disqualified.
You do of course realize that it is reasonable to believe in God and accept the big bang theory, evolution and a 4.5 billion year old earth? 32% of Americans share this belief.
Oh and I forgot – "no religious test" etc. The Constîtution is abundantly clear that the bible cannot be used as a litmus.
Evan, you must be a poe surely. How can anyone living in this century USA have such disdain for science? It's all around – you presumably believe DNA evidence to convict someone, you presumably have a flu shot each year, you presumably eat many of the foods that humans have influenced – potatoes, sheep, etc. have all been modified over time by human selection. These are but a few pieces of evidence supporting evolution. Physics shows that the universe is billions of years old; you use the results of that science every day. Are you that ignorant of science?
I'm having trouble envisioning Stephen Hawking burning anyone at the stake as christians prefer to enforce their views.
It has nothing to do with science being hard. It is because it runs contra to the Bible, the Holy Word of God. The Bible is the standard against which all is measured.
Okay..I have to call troll...you must be an atheist troll because you possibly couldnt be this ignorant.
Yep Evangelical, keep fighting against the truth. I'm sure your imaginary God is proud of your lies.
You serious? If they contradict bible in any way throw science commitee members out?
methink you trying to give 'christian' people a bad name and just posting tripe here. I dont think like you and dont know of any in my circle who does. All we say is we cant divorce the faith from any part of our life, including education.
"I dont think like you and dont know of any in my circle who does. All we say is we cant divorce the faith from any part of our life, including education."
And that is why you fundiot tea bagger nutters are such fucking idiots.
Religion says "I don't know how things work, so God did it". Science says "I don't know how things work, so let's find out".
In the same week religion was debating which chicken sandwich was safe to eat in case it made you "catch gay", science landed on Mars.
the christians are not alone
There are over a tthousand different creation myths. Hell, your bible has 2 contradictory ones in Genesis 1 and 2.
All of these thousand myths are mutually exclusive, meaning that no 2 or more can be true. The one thing each of the thousand myths – yours included – have in common is the evidence they have to support themselves. And that would be zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada.
Science is a tool we use to understand the universe. It has no agenda, although admittedly, sometimes those who use it do. Science is supposed to be empirical; its results repeatable, testable and predictable. When those using science to understand the universe sketch an outline of the history of everything, it is not a guess; it is based in empirical evidence. To dismiss it in favor of “God”, whatever he may look like to you, is to take the easy way out. To say, “God did it” is to tie off all the loose ends you do not understand with a magic wand. I think that in today’s day, with the information that is available to us, we owe it to ourselves to try a little harder than that.
Scientific proof that 46% of Americans are smart like dump-truck.
500 years ago about 99% of people believed the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth because the Bible said so. Belief didn't make them right.
The 12th Amen-dment specifies the quorum or the necessary number of states for the College to act, is 2/3. If 17 states that chose Romney refuse to participate, the Electoral College does not have a quorum. Without a quorum to decide the presidency, he continued, the Republican-led U.S. House will decide and Romney will win.
This is a good way to save the USA
Save it from a Romney presidency? Too late – already happened. Let those welfare states secede and see how they cope.
You are advocating subverting the democratic process because your side lost? That's pathetic, the Republicans lost, get over it.
Uh, no. It can’t. The 12th amendment doesn’t say that there must be a quorum in the electoral college, it says there must be a quorum in the House of Representatives:
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.
And they corrected this over at worldnewsdaily.com
Editor’s note, Nov. 20, 2012: Since this column was posted it has been discovered that the premise presented about the Electoral College and the Const.itution is in error. According to the 12th Amendment, a two-thirds quorum is required in the House of Representatives, not the Electoral College.
Who the fuck uses World Nut Daily as a source? It makes as much fucking sense as using AIG in a debate on the science of evolution or NARTH in a debate on tthe science of sèxual orientation.
Sure, you can. But it only shows how profoundly ignorant you choose to be.
I used them as a source because it was one of their commentators that originally and erroneously, proposed that a quarum was needed in the electoral collage, and they then corrected it.
what do "world nut daily" whatever that is and an insurance company have to do with this?
I wasn't busting on you Cheezy, I was busting on the cretin who got his information from WND.
And genius – WND is World Nut Daily – a group of intellectually dishonest, scientifically ignorant, fundiot nutters. AIG is Answers In Genesis – a group of intellectually dishonest, scientifically ignorant, fundiot nutters who are YECs. NARTH is a group of intellectually dishonest, scientifically ignorant fundiot nutters who think gay folks choose to be gay and that they can "change" them to be straight.
Honestly, I was not sure you were directing that at me Prime but since I was the one that mentioned WND I felt I better explain why I used it.
Republicans lost cuz of voter fraud. some pricincts had 140% of the population vote. look into it.
You made the statement, you provide the supporting evidence, otherwise STFU.
A report ona blogspot, next you will send us to AIG for the age of the earth....
Just because its a blog you cant ignore it. See the links in it, for which counties have voter fraud, how voter id plays a role, many things. yr statement is like me saying "thanks for pointing me to a magazine. now show me real proof of thing A". the magazime or blog is just medium of communication. look at content.
I generally prefer that sockpuppets, with their numerous fake IDs be more adept at trolling. Apparently, you are too fucking stupid to be able to type actual words.
Does it hurt to be such a dickhead?
Please tell me how you get around the word filter, it's driving me nuts.
Use your browser's "View Source" command and search for Primewonk, then look at the comment, and you'll see the trick. Primewonk used the bold tag. I usually use the italics tag. But either one will work.
try using the <idiot> tag
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.