home
RSS
Pat Robertson challenges creationism
Pat Robertson: "There was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible."
November 29th, 2012
04:04 PM ET

Pat Robertson challenges creationism

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – Televangelist Pat Robertson challenged the idea that Earth is 6,000 years old this week, saying the man who many credit with conceiving the idea, former Archbishop of Ireland James Ussher, “wasn’t inspired by the Lord when he said that it all took 6,000 years.”

The statement was in response to a question Robertson fielded Tuesday from a viewer on his Christian Broadcasting Network show "The 700 Club.” In a submitted question, the viewer wrote that one of her biggest fears was that her children and husband would not go to heaven “because they question why the Bible could not explain the existence of dinosaurs.”

“You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas,” Robertson said. “They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible.”

Before answering the question, Robertson acknowledged the statement was controversial by saying, “I know that people will probably try to lynch me when I say this.”

“If you fight science, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was,” Robertson concluded.

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.

The Gallup poll has not specifically asked about views on the age of the Earth.

Ussher’s work, from the mid-1600s, is widely cited by creationists as evidence that Earth is only a few thousand years old. Answer in Genesis, the famed Christian creationist ministry behind the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, cites Ussher as proof of Earth’s age. They describe the archbishop as “a brilliant scholar who had very good reasons for his conclusions concerning the date of creation.”

For Christians who read the creation account in Genesis literally, the six days in the account are strictly 24-hour periods and leave no room for evolution. Young Earth creationists use this construct and biblical genealogies to determine the age of the Earth, and typically come up with 6,000 to 10,000 years.

Most scientists, however, agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14.5 billion years old.

The idea of creationism has been scorned by the mainstream scientific community since shortly after Charles Darwin introduced "The Origin of Species" in 1859. By 1880, The American Naturalists, a science journal, reported nearly every major university in America was teaching evolution.

The question about Earth’s age has been in the news recently. Earlier this month, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida attempted to walk the line between science and faith-based creationism in remarks that that provoked the ire of liberal blogs and left the door open to creationism.

“I'm not a scientist, man,” Rubio told GQ’s Micheal Hainey. “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.”

– CNN’s Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Christianity • Creationism • Evolution

soundoff (4,408 Responses)
  1. Earl

    May all also read the following link to learn that Adam and Eve are not God's first created humans on earth as based from the Bible revelations of Maestro Erano Evangelista of http://www.thename.ph.

    This is the link: http://www.thename.ph/thename/revelations/goodevil-en.html

    This is not about a new religion. It is about opening our minds to the truth of God's Word in the Bible.

    November 30, 2012 at 4:19 am |
    • bob

      It is a cult is what it is-The bible is clear about the deity of christ

      November 30, 2012 at 4:21 am |
    • Some dude that went to catholic school

      Creationism is idiotic, and is actually dumbing down America.

      November 30, 2012 at 4:22 am |
    • Redhawk

      @ Bob...Deity of Christ was contested and decided in a council at Nicaea. The early Catholic church gathered numerous bishops, clergy members and scholars to decide what exactly the divinity of Jesus was to be and what to place in the Bible for the people to read and agree with. It was all part of MAN's attempt to create a religion that would include substance from a great person that actually lived and to control the population, thus creating profit, and generating congregations to continue spreading any and all false or revised truths to the masses.

      Religion and creation are 2 separate ideas entirely. One does not need the other for proof. Science and religion do not need each other to validate or refute the other either. Just as we, man/woman do not need the presence of MAN to sell religion to an already sold world.

      November 30, 2012 at 5:17 am |
  2. Earl

    May this message reach Mr. Pat Robertson and all Christian Pastors all over the world

    According to the Bible revelations of Maestro Erano Evangelista of the site:www. thename.ph

    We can read in
    2 Samuel 7:12-14 (NIV)

    12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. WHEN HE DOES WRONG, I WILL PUNISH HIM WITH A ROD WIELDED BY MEN, WITH FLOGGINGS INFLICTED BY HUMAN HANDS

    In the said verses: 2 Samuel 7:12-14 – we can read that God speaks of a coming son of David and not a literal son of God as what the religions preach

    The first choice to fulfill the task to build a house for the name of God in this prophecy was king Solomon. He was able to build the house for the name of God but failed to introduce the name of God because he built temples for the gods of his many wives. The next descendant of David to be chosen to fulfill this prophecy was:

    …to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David.
    The virgin's name was Mary.
    Luke 1:27 (NIV)
    It is Jesus and according to this verse Jesus' true father is Joseph who belongs to the house of David. So if we are to believe the teaching of the religions that Jesus is the “son of God,” then it should be Mary who should belong to the house of David.

    And:

    You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.
    Luke 1:31 (NIV)

    And who was Jesus' father?

    He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
    Luke 1:32 (NIV)

    "will be called" – As you have read it, Jesus was only a son or a descendant of David not a real"son of God;" he was just a man.

    Is this true –That Jesus is a son of David?
    In Matthew 1:1
    A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:

    Now we can see that the prophecy in 2 Sam7:12-14 about a coming descendant of David and not a son of God was now fulfilled

    Considering the prophecy in II Samuel 7:12-14 that if the descendant of David commits a wrong or an iniquity he will be punished with the rod of men. Was Jesus punished by the floggings of men? what is the proof?

    All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
    Matthew 27:25-26 (NIV)

    He was punished by men, what was his offense?

    The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die,
    because he claimed to be the Son of God."
    John 19:7 (NIV)

    However Jesus was flogged(Matt.27:25-26) and if we base what happened to Jesus to God's decree in 2 Sam 7:12-14, Jesus did not suffer such floggings for our sins- he was punished by the rod of men because he committed wrong!

    This is what religions failed to reveal to mankind – Jesus is in reality –not a genetic son of God but only a descendant of king David.
    What’s mind-enlightening here is that Jesus -the prophesied offspring of David as based on God's decree in the prophecy was tortured and beaten not for our sins but for his own iniquity.
    Therefore he did not save us and the promise of eternal life by the apostles and the religions if we follow their teaching to have faith in Jesus is not true all this time.

    Now our minds will now be opened why Jesus cried out "My God, My God why have you forsaken me?"

    We have been taught to worship a man who was forsaken by God. (Matthew 27:46)

    You may know more if you read this link: http://www.thename.ph/thename/revelations/greatestdeception-en.htm

    November 30, 2012 at 4:07 am |
    • Smack

      I'm still waiting for someone to give me a good reason as to why a human sacrifice in the middle of a nowhere has anything to do with saving anyone. Its the most ridiculous premise I've ever read.

      November 30, 2012 at 4:14 am |
    • bob

      smack-and earl wants to start a new religion

      November 30, 2012 at 4:15 am |
    • steve

      Not to rain on your parade or anything Earl....But in order to make more compelling evidence you might try expanding the number of sources you use. and frankly, I think you should probably learn latin and greek so that you can get the word of God right. your translations lose the true meaning, and you have no true understanding of what the word of God is. If you're gonna be a literalist... then do it right. this phony literalism is empty.

      November 30, 2012 at 4:21 am |
  3. Hugh Mann

    "Robertson challenged the idea that Earth is 6,000 years old" – – –

    WOW !!!

    ...and a couple of days ago The Pope admitted that "Christmas" is not really Jesus's birthday....What is the World coming to?

    November 30, 2012 at 4:03 am |
    • Chancho

      everyone knows that christmas isnt Christ's actual birthday? its just a time set to celebrate it

      November 30, 2012 at 4:15 am |
  4. Heb

    Macro evo is a fraud!!!

    November 30, 2012 at 3:59 am |
    • Colin

      In your case, perhaps, my australopithicine friend...

      November 30, 2012 at 4:02 am |
    • Heb

      Resorting to name calling, eh. Well, the fool says in his heart, "There is no God." (psalms 14:1). Guess who's the fool.

      November 30, 2012 at 4:12 am |
    • Colin

      What did you expect the Bible to say, "A person who says there is no god is a well educated, thoughtful person".

      November 30, 2012 at 4:19 am |
    • Heb

      No, frankly I have a higher expectation of God's Word.

      November 30, 2012 at 4:38 am |
  5. uckermanf

    I would urge people to be very wary of this. Pat Robertson is UP TO SOMETHING. I smell a rat. He has never expressed such a view before. I believe he is attempting to make himself look a bit more moderate for the purposes of–oh dear God–getting into politics as a potential candidate for some office. Don't believe anything that issues from the mouth of this snake! He is posturing for some utterly self-serving purpose.

    November 30, 2012 at 3:55 am |
    • bob

      The man has and always has been a politician –That is why people don't understand and underestimate him
      He isn't running for office but he knows his own audience is questioning creationism and he is letting them have their doubts about it ==pat robertson said what he always believed–The man isn't stupid–he knows the planet is billions of years old

      November 30, 2012 at 4:00 am |
    • Smack

      His self serving purpose is money from donations. His audience is getting older while younger people are getting smarter. Organized religion must slowly transition ittself to more of a philosophical belief before they completely lose their audience. The facts about evolution, science, and yes, even the supposed birthday of Jesus are now too accessible and the truth is winning. Religious leaders can no longer rely on parents being able to brainwash their kids into believing the myth.

      November 30, 2012 at 4:23 am |
  6. Colin

    So, it's we atheists who put on blinders, is it? To get an idea of the enormity of the stupidity of that comment from a creationist, here are SOME areas creationists must ignore to maintain their silly faith.

    First and most obviously is the fossil record. The fossil record is much, much more than just dinosaurs. Indeed, dinosaurs only get the press because of their size, but they make up less than 1% of the entire fossil record. Life had been evolving on Earth for over 3 thousand million years before dinosaurs evolved and has gone on evolving for 65 million years after the Chicxulub meteor likely wiped them out.

    The fossil record includes the Stromatolites, colonies of prokaryotic bacteria, that range in age going back to about 3 billion years, the Ediacara fossils from South Australia, widely regarded as among the earliest multi-celled organisms, the Cambrian species of the Burgess shale in Canada (circa – 450 million years ago) the giant scorpions of the Silurian Period, the giant, wingless insects of the Devonian period, the insects, amphibians, reptiles, fishes, clams, crustaceans of the Carboniferous Period, the many precursors to the dinosaurs, the 700 odd known species of dinosaurs themselves, the subsequent dominant mammals, including the saber tooth tiger, the mammoths and hairy rhinoceros of North America and Asia, the fossils of early man in Africa and the Neanderthals of Europe.

    The fossil record shows a consistent and worldwide evolution of life on Earth dating back to about 3,500,000,000 years ago. There are literally millions of fossils that have been recovered, of thousands of different species and they are all located where they would be in the geological record if life evolved slowly over billions of years. None of them can be explained by a 6,000 year old Earth and Noah’s flood. Were they all on the ark? What happened to them when it docked?

    A Tyrannosaurus Rex ate a lot of food – meat- which means its food would itself have to have been fed, like the food of every other carnivore on the ark for the entire 360 odd days Noah supposedly spent on the ark. T-Rex was not even the largest carnivorous dinosaur we know of. Spinosaurus, Argentinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were all larger and ate more even meat. Even they were not large enough to bring down the largest sauropods we know of, many species of which weighed in at close to 100 tons and were about 100 feet long. A bit of “back of the envelope” math quickly shows that “Noah’s Ark” would actually have to have been an armada of ships larger than the D-Day invasion force, manned by thousands and thousands of people – and this is without including the World’s 300,000 current species of plants, none of which could walk merrily in twos onto the ark.

    Then, of course, there are the various races of human beings. There were no Sub-Saharan Africans, Chinese, Australian Aboriginals, blonde haired Scandinavians, Pygmies or Eskimos on the Ark. Where did they come from?

    Second, there are those little things we call oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels. Their mere existence is another, independent and fatal blow to the creationists. Speak to any geologist who works for Exxon Mobil, Shell or any of the thousands of mining, oil or natural gas related companies that make a living finding fossil fuels. They will tell you these fossil fuels take millions of years to develop from the remains of large, often Carboniferous Period forests, in the case of coal, or tiny marine creatures in the case of oil. For the fossils to develop into oil or coal takes tens or hundreds of millions of years of “slow baking” under optimum geological conditions. That’s why they are called “fossil fuels.” Have a close look at coal, you can often see the fossilized leaves in it. The geologists know exactly what rocks to look for fossil fuels in, because they know how to date the rocks to tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. Creationists have no credible explanation for this.

    Third, most of astronomy and cosmology would be wrong if the creationists were right. In short, as Einstein showed, light travels at a set speed. Space is so large that light from distant stars takes many years to reach the Earth. In some cases, this is millions or billions of years. The fact that we can see light from such far away stars means it began its journey billions of years ago. The Universe must be billions of years old. We can currently see galaxies whose light left home 13, 700,000,000 years ago. Indeed, on a clear night, one can see the collective, misty light of many stars more than 6,000 light years away with the naked eye, shining down like tiny accusatorial witnesses against the nonsense of creationism.

    Fourth, we have not just carbon dating, but also all other methods used by scientists to date wood, rocks, fossils, and other artifacts. These comprehensively disprove the Bible’s claims. They include uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating as well as other non-radioactive methods such as pollen dating, dendrochronology and ice core dating. In order for any particular rock, fossil or other artifact to be aged, generally two or more samples are dated independently by two or more laboratories in order to ensure an accurate result. If results were random, as creationists claim, the two independent results would rarely agree. They generally do. They regularly reveal ages much older than Genesis. Indeed, the Earth is about 750,000 times older than the Bible claims, the Universe about three times the age of the Earth.

    Fifth, the relatively new field of DNA mapping not only convicts criminals, it shows in undeniable, full detail how we differ from other life forms on the planet. For example, about 98.4% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees, about 97% of human DNA is identical to that of gorillas, and slightly less again of human DNA is identical to the DNA of monkeys. This gradual divergence in DNA can only be rationally explained by the two species diverging from a common ancestor, and coincides perfectly with the fossil record. Indeed, scientists can use the percentage of DNA that two animal share (such as humans and bears, or domestic dogs and wolves) to get an idea of how long ago the last common ancestor of both species lived. It perfectly corroborates the fossil record and is completely independently developed.

    Sixth, the entire field of historical linguistics would have to be rewritten to accommodate the Bible. This discipline studies how languages develop and diverge over time. For example, Spanish and Italian are very similar and have a recent common “ancestor” language, Latin, as most people know. However, Russian is quite different and therefore either did not share a common root, or branched off much earlier in time. No respected linguist anywhere in the World traces languages back to the Tower of Babel, the creationists’ simplistic and patently absurd explanation for different languages. Indeed, American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, “true” Indians, Chinese, Mongols, Ja.panese, Sub-Saharan Africans and the Celts and other tribes of ancient Europe were speaking thousands of different languages thousands of years before the date creationist say the Tower of Babel occurred – and even well before the date they claim for the Garden of Eden.

    Seventh, lactose intolerance is also a clear vestige of human evolution. Most mammals only consume milk as infants. After infancy, they no longer produce the enzyme “lactase” that digests the lactose in milk and so become lactose intolerant. Humans are an exception and can drink milk as adults – but not all humans – some humans remain lactose intolerant. So which humans are no longer lactose intolerant? The answer is those who evolved over the past few thousand years raising cows. They evolved slightly to keep producing lactase as adults so as to allow the consumption of milk as adults. This includes most Europeans and some Africans, notably the Tutsi of Rwanda. On the other hand, most Chinese, native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, whose ancestors did not raise cattle, remain lactose intolerant.

    I could go on and elaborate on a number of other disciplines or facts that creationists have to pretend into oblivion to retain their faith, including the Ice Ages, cavemen and early hominids, much of microbiology, paleontology and archeology, continental drift and plate tectonics. Even large parts of medical research would be rendered unusable but for the fact that monkeys and mice share a common ancestor with us and therefore our fundamental cell biology and basic body architecture is identical to theirs.

    In short, and not surprisingly, the World’s most gifted evolutionary biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, geologists, archeologists, paleontologists, historians, modern medical researchers and linguists (and about 2,000 years of accu.mulated knowledge) are right and a handful of Iron Age Middle Eastern goat herders copying then extant mythology were wrong.

    Creationists aren’t just trying to swim upstream against the weight of scientific evidence; they are trying to ascend a waterfall.

    November 30, 2012 at 3:52 am |
    • steve

      Right on. That is what I'm talking about!

      November 30, 2012 at 4:03 am |
    • Smack

      The problem is that we are trying to debate people who believe in a book that implies the earth is flat, the sun revolves around a stationary earth, the moon gives off its own light and the days and nights were created before the sun. This is just the first few pages before all the killings begin.

      Evidence and facts have no value to the brainwashed.

      November 30, 2012 at 4:06 am |
    • steve

      Colin, bravo for taking the time to actually write that out. I wish creationists would just listen to the endless mounds of evidence for once. I spent the first 20 years of my life listening to their evidence. If they had their way we'd be told that Thunder was the sound of Angels Bowling. (that was actually told to me by a sunday school teacher)

      November 30, 2012 at 4:09 am |
    • Colin

      Thanks Steve. The problem is, most creationists are brain-dead stupid. I am sorry, but there is no other way to put it. I sincerely doubt many of them have the slightest idea of even how to think rationally. "The Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it" pretty much sums up their capacity for independent thought.

      November 30, 2012 at 4:14 am |
    • Giovanni

      Evolution theory is required if you remove the God factor in explaining the origins of the material world. If you have put it in your heart that there is no God, then it does not matter how much evidence one brings before you, you will not believe that God alone was responsible for all creation. To the evolutionist: Just looking at the complexities of creation, how can someone logically conclude that its all from random chance. Evolution theory is in itself not science because many points are not proven, its just theory. If you remove the God factor, then the only other possible way to explain the material word is by inventing the theory of evolution. The origins of species was written at a time when we had no knowledge of DNA and genes. DNA and genetic code debunk the evolution theory. If your DNA says you are a bird, then a bird you will remain. Over time a bird can change some of its characteristics but it will always remain a bird. The bible uses language that supports DNA and genetic code science. Examples in the following verses show that there can be variation within a certain kind, but it will always remain within its kind and not become something else: a) Verse 11: Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.b) Verse 21: So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. Note that language used and the emphasis on "according to its kind". Every living things has a genetic code that determines what it is. Like computer code, someone had to write it. To Christians like Pat Robertson who challenges creationism. Why do you put limits to God's power. If God says he created in 6 days then that's what it is. Mathew 15 verse 29 where Jesus feeds the 4000. With seven loaves of bread and a few fish, he reproduced enough to feed 4000 simply by commanding it with his word...the same way he created the world...by simply saying it...by his word. He did not need time to bake bread or start a fish farm. How much time did it take Jesus to reproduce all those fish to feed 4000 – it was instant...a few seconds maybe....Now what if you had taken one of those fish to a scientist, and asked them how old the fish was, the scientist would deduce his response on the basis of the size of the fish to determine its age....yet the fish was created instantaneously. So you see, we live within the confines of time and space and that is the only way we can see or explain things, but God is not limited by time and space.

      November 30, 2012 at 4:40 am |
    • Giovanni

      Hi Colin. I read your article. I heard and read that stuff before. I work in the Information Technology field. Humans create programs (code). And the code is always full of bugs (errors). None of the computer programs on this planet came into existence by chance on their own. Why....because the programs themselves indicate that there was some sort of planning and thinking behind their designs. Now compare the complexities of computer programs that are made up of 0's and 1's...with the complexities of the human genome, the complexities of life on this beautiful planet, and the complexities of the universe.....can a computer or computer program create itself without any instruction or design from another source? No it can't. Stop treating evolution theory like science...its a religion onto itself....at least I admit that part of my belief is based on faith....but you have a hard time admitting the same.....evolution is a theory and its not proven and therefore you need faith to accept it... and therefore you are putting your faith in its theory....and your god is mankind and science itself. So there is no difference between your thinking or mine.....we both are exercising some level of faith. For me, I sleep comfortably at night knowing who my creator is, my origins and my ultimate destiny. If you are able to sleep at night knowing that you are an organism of random chance that will one day disappear, and that puts a smile on your face then good for you. I was debating whether or not I should write the next lines given your stance on the matter – I can just imagine your reaction :) , but since you brought up the story of Noah's Ark, I feel compelled to raise a few points for you...you can read it for yourself in the bible....prior to the flood, it seems that there was no fear between man and animals, and man's diet was limited to vegetation. After the flood, the earth's climate changed significantly as God encouraged Noah's family to start eating meat..and animals started fearing man. Interesting how science today stresses on the importance of a diet high in vegetables, and keep meat to a minimum. Take care!

      November 30, 2012 at 4:41 am |
    • Heb

      Wow, a 7-point treatises on a blog, really? Colin, you are blinded by own intellect.

      November 30, 2012 at 4:52 am |
    • Colin

      Ok Heb, what did I get wrong? Come on, point out what I got wrong.

      November 30, 2012 at 5:05 am |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      Giovanni, I have been in the IT industry for over 40 years and given your display of (non)knowledge, would never want to be on the same development team as you:

      – you do not understand the basic scientific definitions of theory, hypothesis, fact etc.

      – whether or not you like the probabilities implied by evolution, they are possible.

      – you do not understand the difference between animate, breeding species (that can replicate and evolve over time) and inanimate objects (the vast majority of which cannot evolve except under very limited circustances).

      – even in IT, "we don't know" is a better answer than "some god is responsible." I dare you to reply with "some god did it" the next time you are asked to explain why or how something happened or works but can't.

      – scientists, through public peer reviewed publications have shown that species have evolved. All you have to do to prove them wrong is produce your own research, and get it reviewed and accepted.

      – there is way more evidence for evolution than for your, or any, god. In fact, there is infinitely more evidence for evolution given that there is zero evidence for any god. You say you are in IT, so you should know what happens when you attempt to divide a number by zero. All you have to do to prove me wrong is come up with a proof for your, or any, god.

      If summary, you are basing your views on emotion not science, and ignoring proven science, and as a scientist, even within IT as a computer scientist, are highly likely to make bad decisions.

      November 30, 2012 at 5:26 am |
  7. trollin....rollin...

    I am king of the trolls and it be true...I got skeletons on each of you! Just sit back and enjoy the show...cuz its time to let the rythym flow!! See ya soon.

    November 30, 2012 at 3:37 am |
  8. Giovanni

    Evolution theory is required if you remove the God factor in explaining the origins of the material world. If you have put it in your heart that there is no God, then it does not matter how much evidence one brings before you, you will not believe that God alone was responsible for all creation. To the evolutionist: Just looking at the complexities of creation, how can someone logically conclude that its all from random chance. Evolution theory is in itself not science because many points are not proven, its just theory. If you remove the God factor, then the only other possible way to explain the material word is by inventing the theory of evolution. The origins of species was written at a time when we had no knowledge of DNA and genes. DNA and genetic code debunk the evolution theory. If your DNA says you are a bird, then a bird you will remain. Over time a bird can change some of its characteristics but it will always remain a bird. The bible uses language that supports DNA and genetic code science. Examples in the following verses show that there can be variation within a certain kind, but it will always remain within its kind and not become something else: a) Verse 11: Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.b) Verse 21: So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. Note that language used and the emphasis on "according to its kind". Every living things has a genetic code that determines what it is. Like computer code, someone had to write it. To Christians like Pat Robertson who challenges creationism. Why do you put limits to God's power. If God says he created in 6 days then that's what it is. Mathew 15 verse 29 where Jesus feeds the 4000. With seven loaves of bread and a few fish, he reproduced enough to feed 4000 simply by commanding it with his word...the same way he created the world...by simply saying it...by his word. He did not need time to bake bread or start a fish farm. How much time did it take Jesus to reproduce all those fish to feed 4000 – it was instant...a few seconds maybe....Now what if you had taken one of those fish to a scientist, and asked them how old the fish was, the scientist would deduce his response on the basis of the size of the fish to determine its age....yet the fish was created instantaneously. So you see, we live within the confines of time and space and that is the only way we can see or explain things, but God is not limited by time and space.

    November 30, 2012 at 3:29 am |
    • Apple Bush

      @Giovanni

      I had to stop when I read ..."it does not matter how much evidence one brings before you..."

      LOL !!!

      November 30, 2012 at 3:31 am |
    • Mirosal

      @ Giovanni .... ok show us exactly what evidence YOU have that supports your idea of a "god" creating everything. Make sure your evidence (for lack of a better word) can stand up to peer review and scrutiny.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:37 am |
    • Seethroughu

      the worl is full of evidence that supports the Bible and discredits evolution everywhere we look, but evolutionists put on their blinders and go blah blah blah can't see, can't hear, the amount of self delusion is truly astonishing

      November 30, 2012 at 3:38 am |
    • Go To School

      Share that evidence, seethru. I could use a good laugh . . .

      November 30, 2012 at 3:41 am |
    • Mirror Mirror

      Isn't it interesting that the most self-deluded people call everyone else self-deluded?

      November 30, 2012 at 3:42 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      "If you have put it in your heart that there is no God, then it does not matter how much evidence one brings before you, you will not believe that God alone was responsible for all creation."
      wrong. exactly wrong. and that's the big difference between the religious and atheists. if you show an atheist empirical proof of god, he will change his mind - this shows we are open minded. we require from religion the same as what we require of science - proof.
      but for the religious, NOTHING can change their mind. you admit it. NOTHING can change your mind about god. you are the very definition of close-minded.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:46 am |
    • Mirosal

      Your bible is not evidence. It is a collection of 3000 year old stories in a 2000 year old book. Even your New Testament is full of stories written by men who were NOT THERE when these things supposedly happpened, and nothing was written down at the time it supposedly happened. All your authors had to go on were stories from 2 generations ago. That's called hearsay, and it's inadmissable. Try again.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:47 am |
    • Jim

      Sorry, all of that is heresay with no corroborating evidence.

      And you made some "off the cuff" remark about "theories" – you have no idea how that word is used in the scientific community. Google it and educate yourself.

      November 30, 2012 at 4:19 am |
    • Giovanni

      Hi Colin. I read your article. I heard and read that stuff before. I work in the Information Technology field. Humans create programs (code). And the code is always full of bugs (errors). None of the computer programs on this planet came into existence by chance on their own. Why....because the programs themselves indicate that there was some sort of planning and thinking behind their designs. Now compare the complexities of computer programs that are made up of 0's and 1's...with the complexities of the human genome, the complexities of life on this beautiful planet, and the complexities of the universe.....can a computer or computer program create itself without any instruction or design from another source? No it can't. Stop treating evolution theory like science...its a religion onto itself....at least I admit that part of my belief is based on faith....but you have a hard time admitting the same.....evolution is a theory and its not proven and therefore you need faith to accept it... and therefore you are putting your faith in its theory....and your god is mankind and science itself. So there is no difference between your thinking or mine.....we both are exercising some level of faith. For me, I sleep comfortably at night knowing who my creator is, my origins and my ultimate destiny. If you are able to sleep at night knowing that you are an organism of random chance that will one day disappear, and that puts a smile on your face then good for you. I was debating whether or not I should write the next lines given your stance on the matter – I can just imagine your reaction :), but since you brought up the story of Noah's Ark, I feel compelled to raise a few points for you...you can read it for yourself in the bible....prior to the flood, it seems that there was no fear between man and animals, and man's diet was limited to vegetation. After the flood, the earth's climate changed significantly as God encouraged Noah's family to start eating meat..and animals started fearing man. Interesting how science today stresses on the importance of a diet high in vegetables, and keep meat to a minimum. Take care!

      November 30, 2012 at 4:34 am |
  9. GayAtheist

    Apes evolved from Creatonists.

    November 30, 2012 at 3:20 am |
    • Apple Bush

      Like.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:24 am |
    • John A

      Apes evolved by other apes. Man is man.

      November 30, 2012 at 5:01 pm |
  10. RichardSRussell

    Who cares what Uncle Chuckles has to say? It's not as if he's an authority on anything. He's just a bag of hot air.

    November 30, 2012 at 3:10 am |
  11. Apple Bush

    Oh Mr Bush. Don't deny your true feelings and remove those posts! Everyone knows that you be a flamin fairy!!!

    November 30, 2012 at 3:04 am |
  12. Edwin

    So even Pat Robertson accepts that science is correct. Will wonders never cease?

    November 30, 2012 at 2:50 am |
    • John A

      You are missing the point. He challening a dogmatic view (i.e. Archbishop of Ireland James Ussher around the 1600's) about a short creation period. Science, Geography, Physics....are academic disciplines trying to define what has been created. People will try to use these as avenue to reject a Cretor.

      November 30, 2012 at 9:04 am |
  13. Seethroughu

    evolution is a religion not a science

    November 30, 2012 at 2:49 am |
    • Go To School

      Religion is, by definition, the service and worship of God or the supernatural. I know, you are trying to pull off the Fallacy of Equivocation, yawn, we get that lie all the time, but the correct applicable definition just does not fit evolution at all.

      And to claim evolution isn't science . . . wow, you are not only stupid, you are a liar of the highest order.

      That what we expect from Christians. Lies and fallacies.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:54 am |
    • Chancho

      Websters dictionary- Religion:a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. I feel thats pretty accurate description of those who believe in science alone. You should also stop name calling- it makes others not respect you and you seem guarded and insecure.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:00 am |
    • Seethroughu

      thats one definition. the other is it is faith based. for example for evolution to be true we must have cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution macro evolution and solar evolution. not onee of which has ever been observed by anyone ever, none has been tested, so it is on faith that any of the ideas put forth on these ever happened. without observation and testing it is not science but imagination and faith. faith is the cornerstone of all religion.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:02 am |
    • Go To School

      That is the equivocation, Chancho. You ignored the thoelogical definition which applies, and substituted a colloquial definition that is not necessarily theological. That is EXACTLY what the Fallacy of Equivocation is.

      In other words, you are trying to say bananas are cowardly Asians because they are yellow.

      Fallacy of Equivocation. Fallacies are automatic losers in a debate, and they are intellectually dishonest.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:07 am |
    • Herby Sagues

      You claiming something doesn't make it truth (well, it does in religion, and nowhere else).

      November 30, 2012 at 3:08 am |
    • Chancho

      Ah but then your point above about your definition of religion is invalid if there are multiple definitions of religion or of any word. Also how does one observe and test ideas "not onee of which has ever been observed by anyone ever,"?

      November 30, 2012 at 3:09 am |
    • Seethroughu

      have you or anyone you know ever see a star form? a universe form? a chemical evolve? an animal turn into another? answer no, so it is by faith these things are believed in. which means religion.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:19 am |
    • Go To School

      You are off in silly land, Chancho, so I will let you just say whatever you want. Enjoy your cowardly Asian bananas.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:22 am |
    • Mahebb

      Go to School wrote: "Religion is, by definition, the service and worship of God or the supernatural."

      Congratualtions, you just provided a poor definition of "religion" that excludes scores of world religions whose practicioners neither serve nor worship "God or the supernatural."

      You might want to "go to school" and do some more book learnin' there, bub!

      The point stands: naturalism is as much of a religion as Christianity, albeit naturalism requires quite a bit more blind faith and pure speculation.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:24 am |
    • Go To School

      That is from Websters dictionary verbatim, moron.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:27 am |
    • Go To School

      Oh, and you just committed the Fallacy of Equivocation too, as well as the Straw Man fallacy.

      Two fallacies for the price of one. You prove that religious people cannot argue honestly, and must resort to dishonest forms of debate.

      Thanks. We appreciate it when you do that.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:28 am |
    • Mahebb

      Your religious devotion to and faith in the infallible words of one man-made book is inspiring, School!

      November 30, 2012 at 3:32 am |
    • Smack

      Are you suggesting that it takes faith to believe that dinasaurs existed? That there is no evidence they ever existed that we cannot observe? The history of the earth is buried in its soil and is being observed everyday based on actual facts.

      Religion, specifically yours, is based on a book that implies the earth is flat, the sun revolves around a stationary earth and the moon gives off its own light. That is just the first few pages.

      I'm pretty sure that the earth is round and revolves around the sun and we know this based on observed facts via scientific processes.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:33 am |
    • Mahebb

      School: "Fallacy of Equivocation" and "Straw Man." In the words of Inigo Montoya: You keep on using those words, but I do not think they mean what you think they mean...

      No, really. You are using them incorrectly. Nobody is equivocating or creating straw men. You really don't do your screen name justice, do you?

      The orginal point still stands: devotion to evolution is a religious devotion.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:38 am |
    • Go To School

      Ah yes, more Fallacy of Equivocation. Mahebb believes in the lie told many times.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:39 am |
    • Go To School

      Oh, you got in more equivocations. Good for you.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:40 am |
    • Mahebb

      Smack: who said one word about dinosaurs not existing? Dinosaurs fit just fine into a young-earth framework.

      The relevant questions regard age and the processes used to determine it.

      The (for now) proclaimed 13-point-whatever-billion-year-old age of the universe relies on some very unscientific presumptions, as does the claim that dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago. This is the result of people who are desperate to support a specific worldview, and have to make the evidence fit their desired conclusions, rather than forming conclusions that fit the evidence.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:46 am |
    • Heb

      Smack – actually the bible refers to the earth as a "circle" not flat (Isaiah 40:22). Look it up and learn something.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:57 am |
    • Colin

      So heb, is that before or after it refers to a witch, a talking donkey, men living to be hundreds of years old, an 80 year-old women giving birth, a virgin giving birth, a talking snake, and a man living in a whale's stomach for a week?

      November 30, 2012 at 4:11 am |
    • Heb

      @ Colin. And your point is????

      November 30, 2012 at 4:14 am |
    • Colin

      That the Bible is littered, from end to end, with pure mythology and that it lacks any credibility as a factually accurate tome.

      November 30, 2012 at 4:17 am |
    • Heb

      Ah, and man-made science is full of logical fallacies and untestable predictions: Big bang, everything from one singularity, (what was catalyst?); the universe expanding more rapidly as it ages vs. thermodynamics; gravity vs. quantum mechanics, to name a few.

      November 30, 2012 at 4:35 am |
    • Smack

      Ah yes, he sits above the circle of the earth with four corners and you can see the entire kingdom from the top of the mountain top. Read Isaiah 11:12, revelation 7:1, Jobs 38:13, Mathew 4:8, etc, etc.

      And I noticed you didn't defend the sun revolving around the stationary earth. I lov it when the religious pick and choose what to defend.

      November 30, 2012 at 4:45 am |
    • Smack

      Mahheb, so your suggesting that Dinasaurs roamed the earth within the last 6,000 years and that scientist have conspired to convince the world that they died off 65,000,000 years ago?

      You didn't happen to go to Liberty University did you. I believe they have a dinasaur skeleton they claim to be 3,500 years old :)

      November 30, 2012 at 4:57 am |
    • Heb

      And you macro evos don't do the same with science? Why don't you take a stab at explaining any of the science contradictions listed above, my friend. Oh, and tell me where I can find your missing link.?

      November 30, 2012 at 4:59 am |
    • Smack

      Heb, I'd suggest you read up on the latest scientific findings rather than propose contradictions you've cut and pasted from a creationist website. Start by googling David Toms and Quantum Mechanics and then move on to thermodynamics and the expansion of the universe. People like you used to jail people for suggesting the earth was round, or revolted when a doctor claimed that men and women had the same number of ribs. Then there was the witch burnings. Denial will not translate to the next generation.

      Or, you could just keep believing that God is expanding the universe to create even more billions of light years of real estate while he simaltaneously instructs chosen followers on earth to provide guidelines on what we humans can and cannot do with our genitals.

      November 30, 2012 at 5:27 am |
  14. Athensguy

    Wow... 46% of Americans do not believe vaccines exist?

    November 30, 2012 at 2:46 am |
    • Chancho

      please stop, you are making your side of the discussion look bad.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:49 am |
    • Athensguy

      Why?

      November 30, 2012 at 2:50 am |
    • Seethroughu

      the vaccine argument is a fail and has nothing to do with evolution anymore than a persons tan

      November 30, 2012 at 2:52 am |
    • Chancho

      You are making irrational conclusions. something that is a sort of faux pas for your side

      November 30, 2012 at 2:55 am |
    • Go To School

      The proof of evolution:

      You have a tailbone, and as a fetus, you had a full tail.

      The flipper bones of whales and seals look like the paws of land-based animals, which whales and seals evolved from.

      Anti-biotic resistant diseases have evolved in response to the evolutionary pressure anti-biotics.

      Many new new flu and cold and other diseases evolve into being each year. Some change (you know, evolve) so much that they are not affected by the flu shot meant to immunize you.

      There's more, but there is a whole lot of evidence right before your eyes, if you would get the BibleBlinders off of them.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:02 am |
    • Seethroughu

      none of that is evidence for evolution and haeckle was discovered a fraud 150 years ago by his own university

      November 30, 2012 at 3:06 am |
    • Chancho

      I agree with you. It would be foolish to say that macro evolution does not exist. That is not usually the source of the argument. Its you telling me that all you see right now, your computer, room, etc. all came from a loud "pop" some time ago, which we arent quite sure when that was. Give or take a billion years

      November 30, 2012 at 3:11 am |
    • Go To School

      It's all evidence of evolution. Vestigiality – evolution. Diseases, well, you cannot explain where these new diseases come from if you deny evolution.

      Here is the evidence of evolution from U.C. Berkeley. You can deny all you want, but you only play the fool by doing so.

      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

      November 30, 2012 at 3:12 am |
    • Go To School

      That's not evolution, Chancho. That's physical cosmology. You are changing the subject, onto an area well-debunked. Needless to say, while it is impossible for humans to know exactly what the state of the universe was at and after Big Bang, that in no way supports the very lame "God magicked" answer people like you try.

      And you risk being trapped in your own paradox: If everything must have been created, then the creator was created as well, as was that creator, ad infinitum. Christians claim something cannot come from nothing, and yet that describes the god of their belief, not the universe.

      Sorry, but attempting to claim that evolution is not real of that the Big Bang is a lie, well, forget it. That just proves you ignorant . . . but it does a great job recruiting athiests from people who are so tied into science in their computers and phones and technology.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:19 am |
    • Chancho

      We dont claim God came from nothing. we claim God has always been which is so hard for our human minds to fully wrap our minds around due to our attachment to the concept of time. As an ending note- did you notice that i carried on this discussion without personally degrading you once? Im not going to insult you for what you believe in because what good does that do? merely pushes you away. I find it ironic that it is the atheist imposing his beliefs and the atheist personally criticizing others for what they believe in. Anyways- thanks for the discussion- hope you have a great night

      November 30, 2012 at 3:31 am |
    • Go To School

      Christians never imposed their beliefs? Are you totally crazy? Christians did not impose their beliefs on as much of the world as they possibly could, on the indigenous people of the Americas and Hawaii and so many other places?

      Really? You want to stand by that?

      Sorry, but nothing can "always exist". If there is a god, then that god had to be created. We know you claim otherwise, but that is the paradox that debunks you. You insist everything must be created . . . except your god. Fail.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:36 am |
    • Chancho

      Why are you filled with so much pride and hate? 1st i never ever said christians havent imposed their beliefs on anyone. thats rediculous. people bearing the christian name have done some pretty messed up stuff. thats the problem with religion. when one uses it for their own selfish advantages. read the comment. i was talking about you and i- our conversation. You are so quick to retaliate. Look im sorry if some one or the church itself or whatever it might be did something to really hurt you personally. People suck sometimes and christians are far from the exception but i want to apologize for them. Im sorry.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:43 am |
    • Mahebb

      Go To School: for all of your angry accusations about others using "equivocation" and "straw men," you sure don't mind resorting to those fallacies yourself!

      That is what is commonly defined as "hypocrisy." Unless, of course, you really don't understand what the terms you keep hurling about mean?

      Let me 'splain, Lucy: Chanco pointed out that he had been replying to you respectfully and without the use of personal attacks. He specifically pointed to HIMSELF. Howerver, by the fallacy of equivocation (treating Chancho's individual claim as a claim about an unspecificied large number of Christians throughout large swaths of history) you created a straw-man argument which you could "defeat."

      Thank you for providing such a relevant case-study in equivocation and straman arguments!

      November 30, 2012 at 3:58 am |
    • Mahebb

      "Sorry, but nothing can "always exist"."

      And everything can't come from nothing.

      The problem for you is that science can be used to prove the latter, but not the former.

      November 30, 2012 at 4:02 am |
    • UncleBenny

      Sorry, you are quite wrong. Everything can indeed come from nothing. Go read "A Universe from Nothing" for some of the latest thinking on this subject. Nothing ain't what it used to be.

      And there is no reason something can't always exist, i.e., exist without cause. The idea of cause and effect is not a scientific principle, it's philosophical. It's turtles all the way down.

      November 30, 2012 at 11:09 am |
  15. JJHenryJr

    Finally! that guy says something sensible.

    November 30, 2012 at 2:42 am |
  16. Rob

    The age of the universe is actually known to 4 significant digits. It's 13.75 +/- .11 billion years old, not 14.5 billion as this story stated.

    November 30, 2012 at 2:37 am |
    • mark273

      I noticed the same thing. I am not sure where they get the 14.5 billion number from. I have never seen that. The 13.7 billion is the standard figure I see.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:09 am |
    • UncleBenny

      14.5 was an older value, since refined to 13.75. A hallmark of science, as better evidence comes along, the theory is revised. Unlike religious arguments, which seem to be immune to actual evidence for some reason.

      November 30, 2012 at 11:11 am |
  17. bLOGINYOU

    who
    ever
    listens
    to
    PAT ROBERTSON is a dinosaur

    November 30, 2012 at 2:33 am |
  18. right4life

    For the non-believers out here. What is the scientific reason why humans die?

    November 30, 2012 at 2:22 am |
    • Henry

      Depends on the person. Cancer tends to be big right now. Small pox was big a couple hundred years ago.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:26 am |
    • bob

      the question is why you would want to live forever?

      November 30, 2012 at 2:28 am |
    • Apple Bush

      Humans die due to inflammation.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:34 am |
    • Athensguy

      Cells die due to oxidation?

      November 30, 2012 at 2:44 am |
    • Chris in Houston

      Most proximal inciting cause of death in scientific terms is usually circulatory failure, no circulation of oxygenated blood = no life.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:44 am |
    • EuphoriCrest

      Telomeric nuclotide sequences at the end of chromosomes shorten with each DNA replication. As the sequences are lost, cells reach their replication limit. Hopesthis helps you.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:46 am |
    • wrong4religion

      The same reason everything living dies: Perpetually operating parts is impossible.

      Why would you ask such a stupid question, and why do you think that somehow proves a deity?

      Or better yet, if there is a god, then death is just another cruel trick he is forcing you to suffer when he could make it not happen.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:48 am |
    • Chris in Houston

      That being said, it's a better question to ask "why do we live?" - that's the more improbable thing: an extensive and extremely complex network of regulated biochemical reactions, directed by a set of immortal genetic material, compartmentalized across 50 trillion cells in 3 different types of tissues within more than 13 major organ systems, all of which need to be working properly for us to have what one would consider a normal "life". The fact that this much complexity, bound together for an organized purpose, should eventually come undone and cease to function should be a no-brainer.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:54 am |
    • Jim

      How do we know life is improbable? How far have we explored and what is our sample size? Everywhere we look on Earth we see life. The Universe is awefully big. Biger than anything anyone has ever imagined. And if we're the only life, it seems like an aweful waste of space. Don't ya think? (with thanks to Carl)

      November 30, 2012 at 4:26 am |
  19. Chancho

    I believe that science is very helpful: weather reports, medicine, new electronic technology. Things that for the most part produce tangible results. Useful results. Where i lose faith in science as the end all of end all is how can science tell me that the world is billions of years old when science/history cant tell me what accurately happened 5,000 years ago? Think about how long a billion years is. We lose track of time and history with in a couple thousand years and you are telling me that we know what happened a couple billion years ago?? As a rational observer (which yes may be a stretch of a self-proclamation) i feel it takes more faith to believe in matter coming out of nothing a couple billion years ago, than belief in creationism.

    November 30, 2012 at 2:22 am |
    • In Santa we trust

      Science and History are two different things. Whatever it is you want to know about 5000 years ago either needs to be recorded (history) or discovered (archeology etc.). The age of the universe is determined by the distance of planets, speed of light etc. which are calculable today. If you have a problem with a universe coming from nothing why do you have a problem with god coming from nothing?

      November 30, 2012 at 3:01 am |
    • Chancho

      Im not saying i have a problem with the universe coming from nothing if you can show me its validity over God coming from nothing (which if you read the bible, it says God has always been around- which i know you wont take as fact but stll good to know none the less).

      November 30, 2012 at 3:19 am |
    • steve

      hmmm... What I might recommend you try.... is learning the science first. The same science that helps predict weather reports, that allows us to make complex circuits the size of a pinhead on wafers of silicone, the same Science that allows us to synthesize more effective medicines IS the same science that tells us how old the earth is. furthermore... it DOES tell us a lot about what happened 5000 years ago! Bones and artifacts all get dated using science!

      The bible leaves out quite a bit of information for you to base the age of the universe on... for example, when got created the universe 6000 years ago, why did he decide to make it expand? wouldn't a static universe make more sense? (because it is expanding... we can measure that) when God could make Every single star in the entire universe (10000000000000000000000 stars (10^24) if we go by a conservative estimate and this doesn't even account for the planets associated with these other stars) why did he spend a whole day creating the sky and ocean on the planet earth?

      Why is it so difficult for people to realize that the Bible was Never intended to be taken literally. The Catholics and Orthodox Christians know this... and they invented the religion!

      November 30, 2012 at 3:53 am |
    • Jim

      I don;t think we have any evidence that the universe came from nothing–I think we simply don't yet know from what the Universe came from and how the cycles move. We have a number of hypotheses, but most (at this point in time) are untestable. We don't know everything yet. Science is a process for learning, and a much better process for learning than any we humans have ever had. It requires testable, repeatable evidence–and when new evidence is discovered (such as in the theories of atomic structures) we accept the new, better explanation and continue to move forward. Religion does not do that. In part because God knew everything 2,000 or so years ago and is (to qualify as a god in the traditional sense) unconstrained by time or space as we observe them or, in fact, any other limits we can imagine. I think however the key word when it comes to thinking about god is "imagine"–God explained everything until we began learning how to explain things... then, slowly over time, He explained less and less as we explained more and more.

      November 30, 2012 at 4:33 am |
    • UncleBenny

      "Chancho: Im not saying i have a problem with the universe coming from nothing if you can show me its validity over God coming from nothing"

      I don't think anyone said the idea of a universe from nothing was more valid than the idea of a God from nothing. Religious people assert just the opposite, that a God from nothing is perfectly acceptable but a Universe from nothing is not. Which makes no sense at all. If it is possible that something can exist without cause, then there is no reason to suppose that a non-created God is any more valid than a non-created Universe. It's largely a matter of choice, except we have some pretty good evidence that the Universe actually exists. Not so much for God.

      November 30, 2012 at 11:17 am |
  20. Jo An

    Cannot we are debating the age of the earth !!!! No wonder more and more people are saying 'No religion' when asked to state a preference!!

    November 30, 2012 at 2:21 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.