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. Tim Brown

    And we know how great Gallup polling has been lately. They were only 7.5% off on the presidential election with a margin of error of 3.5%. They have been taken over by right wing ideologues.

    November 30, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
  2. Me

    It was the Ancient Aliens!

    November 30, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • PaulB

      Even if it were they still would have had to have evolved on their original planets.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • chuckb

      Ancient Aliens were actually the Fallen Angels. Since God created the Angels also, then still no Evolution.

      November 30, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
  3. mike hunt

    evolution is in the bible. Gen talks about bringing forth life from the waters. Jesus fish with feet on the back of a Subaru anyone?

    November 30, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • mike hunt

      and unless Darwin wrote the first chapter of the Bible, the Bible was either inspired by God or some sand eater was a much better scientist than Darwin 6000 years before he was born.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • Smack

      Genesis said that the sun revolved around the earth, the earth was stationary, the moon gives off its own light, day and night was created before the sun, and implies the earth is a flat circle. Oh, and men have one less rib than women, you can build towers that reach Heaven but God will strike it down before you build it high. Then you have Noah who lived to be 900 years, etc, etc.

      The Author of Genesis woud lose on a show called "are you smarter than a 2nd grader"

      November 30, 2012 at 2:22 pm |
  4. Preston

    @HailNo The point of chapter 38 is that God has control over all creation including weather and the animals. See Joshua 10:13-15 for an example of just how far this control is described. Jonah's disobedience which lead to the belly of a whale is another example of how God exercised control. Your summary of Job 38 is lackluster at best. Nice try though.

    November 30, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • Colin

      You will excuse me if I do not take seriously a point made by citing a story about a man living inside a whale's belly. How you Xtians can take this mythology seriously is beyond me.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • chuckb

      @Colin – You (and most so called Christians for that fact) don't understand what you're reading. Jonah wasn't alive in the belly of the fish (which was probably a whale-shark) he died and was brought back to life. Jesus said "for as Jonah was" 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the fish so shall the Son of man be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • Hail No

      Preston,

      No. The point is that the science in Job is wrong regarding the formation of snow and hail. You were touting the scientific accuracy of the Bible. Wrong.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
  5. John Zoidberg

    The majority of scientists believe in God or a higher power:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24

    November 30, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • John Zoidberg

      51% but still a majority. 41% do not believe in God.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • Kenny

      Depends on who qualified as a "scientist" in this survey, and what their fields were. It would be interesting to survey that 51% and ask them if they based that belief upon their understanding of science, or because they have a faith?

      November 30, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • John Zoidberg

      The fields were:
      Biological and medical
      Chemistry
      Geosciences
      Physics and astronomy.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
    • chuckb

      See, here we go, someone who has the same degree, and some probably higher, are disqualified from being Scientists if they believe in God. Who's the closed minded bigot now.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • John Zoidberg

      Come on. No name calling. Let’s all be friends.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
  6. Bill

    Dear Humans:

    God here. I thought I would clear this whole issue up for you.

    You see, I do not exist. The concept of a 13,700,00,000 year old being, capable of creating the entire Universe and its billions of galaxies, monitoring simultaneously the thoughts and actions of the 7 billion human beings on this planet is ludicrous.

    Second, if I did exist, I would have left you a book a little more consistent, timeless and independently verifiable than the collection of Iron Age Middle Eastern mythology you call the Bible. Hell, I bet you cannot tell me one thing about any of its authors or how and why it was compiled with certain writings included and others excluded, nor how it has been edited over the centuries, yet you cite it for the most extraordinary of supernatural claims.

    Thirdly, when I sent my “son” (whatever that means, given that I am god and do not mate) to Earth, he would have visited the Chinese, Ja.panese, Europeans, Russians, sub-Saharan Africans, Australian Aboriginals, Mongolians, Polynesians, Micronesians, Indonesians and native Americans, not just a few Jews. He would also have exhibited a knowledge of something outside of the Iron Age Middle East.

    Fourthly, I would not spend my time hiding, refusing to give any tangible evidence of my existence, and then punish those who are smart enough to draw the natural conclusion that I do not exist by burning them forever. That would make no sense to me, given that I am the one who elected to withhold all evidence of my existence in the first place.

    Fifthly, in the same vein, I would not make about 5% of the human population gay, then punish them for being that way. In fact, I wouldn’t care about how humans have $ex at all, given that I created all of the millions of millions of species on the planet, all of whom are furiously reproducing all the time. Human $ex would be of no interest to me, given that I can create Universes. Has it ever occurred to you that your obsession with making rules around human $ex is an entirely human affair?

    Sixth, I would have smitten all you Christian activists, and all evangelicals and fundamentalists long before this. You people drive me nuts. You are so small minded and speak with such false authority. Many of you still believe in the talking snake nonsense from Genesis. I would kill all of you for that alone and burn you for an afternoon (burning forever is way too barbaric even for a sick, sadistic bast.ard like me to contemplate).

    Seventh, the whole idea of members of one species on one planet surviving their own physical deaths to “be with me” is utter, mind-numbing nonsense. Grow up. You will die. Get over it. I did. Hell, at least you had a life. I never even existed in the first place.

    Eighth, I do not read your minds, or “hear your prayers” as you euphemistically call it. There are 7 billion of you. Even if only 10% prayed once a day, that is 700,000,000 prayers. This works out at 8,000 prayers a second – every second of every day. Meanwhile I have to process the 100,000 of you who die every day between heaven and hell. Dwell on the sheer absurdity of that for a moment.

    Finally, the only reason you even consider believing in me is because of where you were born. Had you been born in India, you would likely believe in the Hindu gods, if born in Tibet, you would be a Buddhist. Every culture that has ever existed has had its own god(s) and they always seem to favor that particular culture, its hopes, dreams and prejudices. What, do you think we all exist? If not, why only yours?

    Look, let’s be honest with ourselves. There is no god. Believing in me was fine when you cringed in fear during the Dark Ages and thought the World was young, flat and simple. Now we know how enormous, old and complex the Universe is.

    Move on – get over me. I did.

    God

    November 30, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • Nietodarwin

      We've seen this before Bill. I agree with all of it, even like some, but ............"brevity is the soul of wit" and all that. You have to keep it ADD worthy here.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • Colin

      I actually wrote the original version of this, Nietodarwin and it is quite simple. If you don't want to read it, don't. Simply shut up and skip it.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • John Zoidberg

      I’ve always wondered if there’s a God. And now I know there is one. And it’s Bill.

      This ends the debate once and for all. Every atheist on this board I’m sure is a believe but my question is, what religion would you all choose?

      November 30, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
  7. Bill

    Ghoti, my point exactly why couldn't god be the Albert Einstein of the universe with one awsome chemistry set................................. would that god any less divine?

    November 30, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • mama k

      Possibly. Sure doesn't sound the the one dreamed up in ancient mythology as the Abrahamic one, though.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • Mike, Albany

      This analogy makes no sense. First, Albert Einstein was a physicist, not a chemist. Second, what he created were theoretical explanations for what is observed in the universe, but he did not create any new aspect of the universe. He explained that all motion is relative, that there is a maximum speed that can be achieved, that gravity is the result of the curving of space and time due to massive objects in the universe, and that mass is a form of energy (with c^2 being the conversion factor). In addition, he also explained the photoelectric effect (for which he won the Nobel Prize) and the physics of diffusion. His name is associated with the physical effect that leads to phenomena such as superfluidity and superconductivity, namely, Bose-Einstein condensation. Maybe some day, there will be a theory that can explain the most fundamental questions about the universe, such as what is matter, how many dimensions of space-time are there really, and where did they (and space-time, itself) come from,....

      November 30, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
  8. mama k

    I'm still laughing over the last part of this post from someone named Mike this morning:

    "Someone over a the 700 Club needs to reign him in before he goes totally sane."

    November 30, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • Nietodarwin

      VERY FUNNY INDEED Laughter IS contagious (Hope you like these)

      Religion. It`s given people hope in a world torn apart by religion.
      Charlie Chaplin

      It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.
      Mark Twain

      November 30, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
  9. Blessed

    Its funny that no one wants to talk about the huge problem with radiocarbon dating. The decay rate and presence of carbon is accurate ONLY IF the item (ie fossil, rock, etc) HAS NOT been exposed to any elements (rain, wind, etc). Any exposure to elements accelerates the decay rate dramastically. Why are they using this inaccurate tool for measuring the age of a fossil.

    And also, Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven. Time is running out. If you dont want to salvation, then accept your fate of eternal hellfire because that is the ultimate end to all men who refuse Christ as their savior.

    November 30, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
    • PaulB

      If exposure to elements accelerates the decay rate dramatically, wouldn't that mean that things are a lot OLDER than what we calculate now?

      November 30, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Mike, Albany

      Sorry, but this cannot account for the 6 orders of magnitude discrepancy between 6,000 and 6,000,000,000 years. Think it through.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • miked

      I sure feel sorry for all those billions of people who lived before Jesus....and those who have never heard of him...Damn them all to heck....

      November 30, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • ME II

      @Blessed,
      First, it wouldn't affect the rate of decay. It might contaminate the sample or change the amount of C14 in the sample, but not the rate of decay of C14.

      Second, there are many variables that go into getting a proper sample which to measure and that is why often there are multiple samples taken and multiple methods used to date a sample.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      You just have to shake your head when a delusional believer in invisible supernatural beings questions hard science. . .

      November 30, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • Honey Badger Dont Care

      Blessed,

      There are MANY different types of radiometric dating. They are overlapping in the timeframes that they test for and they all corroborate themselves. How about you learn something before you open your mouth and make yourself look stupid again.

      Just because you don’t understand science doesn’t mean that you have to be afraid of it.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
  10. Nietodarwin

    Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
    Isaac Asimov

    November 30, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • PrimeNumber

      Asimov is wrong on at least two points: The Bible is written in many layers and to great depth. It plumbs human nature which is unfathomable. Azimov only skims the top layer of the Bible and thinks he's finished.
      Second, Asimov never discovered a great but subtle fact: we don't read the Bible; the Bible reads us. Asimov, being human, would find himself in the Bible in many places, sometimes for the good, sometimes not.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • biobraine

      I'm gonna have to go with Isaac on that one

      November 30, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
  11. eno

    ALLAH AKBAR!!!! ,,,,

    November 30, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • sybaris

      Godzilla!!!!

      November 30, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • ME II

      Gesundheit !

      November 30, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
  12. D.Noble

    @BobthePrairieDog lol..How can you make an absolute statement based on what you yourself don't know? How do you know NO ONE knows what happens when you die, what about accounts of people who have actually died and came back? Do thier recollections not count?

    November 30, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
  13. David Murray

    I'm pretty sure the original translation of the book of Genesis actually describes the "six periods of creation" or the "six stages of creation" but somewhere along the way modern translations say "six days." I'm sure this was done hundreds of years ago to make it easier to understand to the reader. But if only they know the controversies it would create later on, maybe they would have kept the word as "stages." I'm sure they never expected readers hundreds of years later to be interpreting the book literally anyway.

    November 30, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • sybaris

      Study the original Greek copies and get back to us.

      November 30, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • My goodness you're stupid

      " I'm pretty sure the original translation of the book of Genesis actually describes the "six periods of creation" or the "six stages of creation""

      And what evidence do you have for this fantasy?

      November 30, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • PaulB

      My goodness you're stupid
      All he has to do is say it, and many believers looking for an excuse will accept what he says at face value, and he knows it. It's a typical creationist reaction. Something pops up that bothers them, they search for an answer to this bothersome argument, they come across some statement like David's above and they just latch onto it without bothering to check if it actually makes any sense. Creationists don't search for answers, they search for excuses.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • ccw

      My goodness you're stupid: the same evidence you have for belieing the bible as the word of god

      November 30, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • Mike, Albany

      Okay, I'm always amazed by just how ignorant people who claim to know something about the Bible actually are. First of all, the Old Testament (where the Book of Genesis is found) was not written in Greek, it was written in Hebrew. Second, iIn Hebrew, the word "Yom" is used to describe the "stages" of creation, and "Yom" means "day" in English. So, you either accept the concept of the 7 days of creation, or you reject it. However, consider this: One day, 24 hours, is defined by the time needed for the Earth to execute a full rotation about its axis. When creation started, there was no Earth, so when did the "creation clock" officially start? And if a "day" is not defined as an earth day, then what is this unit of measurement in Genesis? If we take it to be Venus, then 1 day on Venus is approximately 243 Earth days, still not enough to account for the 6 orders of magnitude between 6,000 and 6,000,000,000 years. If we then agree that the concept of "Yom" in the Bible is not to be taken literally, then it tells us that the Bible, generally, should not be read literally.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
  14. Blue

    For us to have evolved on this planet over millions of years – of which there is zero physical evidence.... consider what we've done in the last few thousand years to the Earth, on the Earth, and multiply that by the five thousand times of that duration we would have been mucking it up on this planet to have evolved. Again, considering what we've done in the last few thousand years, for millions of years to have been required for evolution, do you really think we would be here today as we are, if we were here for 5,000 times the cycle of thousands of years we just experienced? Think about it folks.

    November 30, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • sybaris

      You really should go back to school. Maybe take a course in biology.

      November 30, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • Blue

      Zero physical evidence that we've been here beyond the most recent thousands of years, and you'd have to multiply that time by 'at least' 5,000 times of us being here to get to the millions of years needed to substantially evolve... Who among you thinks that mankind has been here mucking it up for thousands of years... times 5,000?

      So how did we just appear? It's either creation, as chronicled by the common/shared root of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam – all founded in Abrahamic old testament – or you believe we were dropped here by aliens.

      November 30, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • biobraine

      Blue,

      Here is a list of some of the 1000's of fossils showing human evolution:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

      November 30, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • Magic Jew

      *Billions of years

      And there's plenty of fu**ing evidence. Please don't reproduce.

      November 30, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
    • Blue

      From goat-herders and farmers to launching ships to space in less than 2,000 years, and over-runing the planet with population. But somehow we've been here for thousands of years, times 5,000 of those cycles, to have been here long enough to have evolved...

      November 30, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • karl

      Blue you are an idiot pure in simple. i hope you were dropped here. the thought of you reproducing scares me

      November 30, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Dyslexic doG

      you really need to start reading books bought from somewhere other than the christian bookstore.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • Blue

      Biobrane, you're pointing to a list of extinct apes and other similar anthropological finds. Has nothing to do with actual fossils that demonstrate an evolution of a single species over time; whether dogs, cats, monkeys, birds, or humans.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • mama k

      My goodness where do these people come up with these crazy ideas? I also hope Blue can walk to the library and doesn't have to operate an automobile.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
    • Blue

      Typically big on the personal attacks when out of ammo. Have anything specific to say on topic?

      No fossil evidence that we've evolved (or than anything has evolved other than humans, either). Only genetic linkages between species. Zero fossil evidence tracking any evolution of any species.

      We've been here thousands of years by any evidence, and look at what we've done as a species during that time. We'd have to multiply that timeline of accomplishments and expansion by 5,000 times to approach the time it would take for our species to evolve... so are you arguing that we have been here 5,000 times the thousands of years we took already to climb from dirt farmers to technology-driven cultures?

      Bring it. How did we appear here? Bring it. If you've got any rational response.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • biobraine

      "It's either creation, as chronicled by the common/shared root of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam – all founded in Abrahamic old testament – or you believe we were dropped here by aliens."

      So you're saying its either believe in some man made religion's guess at the origin of life or that aliens started life on our planet even though we don't have any scientific evidence to support it? There is no logical reason to believe either.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
    • Hm Cooper

      Really? what kind of carbon fuels were we consuming eons ago to have what I am assuming you are referring to, in which to "destroy" your said earth? Heck did you give any thought to when fire was discovered? Our rate of technology and said consumptions are "relatively" new compared to say a thousand years ago. We are talking about 150 years tops. Might want to look at your timelines and discoveries before you speak.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
    • ME II

      @Blue,
      "With zero physical evidence of evolution taking place, that demonstrates it did not,"
      Here are some highlights:
      Fossils, like Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus, Archeoptyrx, etc.
      Biochemistry like Cytochrome-C
      Biogeography like marsupials
      Genetics like ERVs, Human Chromosome-2, etc.
      Experiments like Lenski's long term e.coli experiment

      November 30, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • Blue

      5,000 times here the already thousands of years we know we've been here, to evolve. So, the most recent thousands of years represents 0.01% of the time it would take to evolve as a species. What was our species doing the other 99.99% of the time we were supposedly on this planet since the last evolutionary step? Camping? So what are you challenging exactly?

      November 30, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • ME II

      @Blue,
      "What was our species doing the other 99.99% of the time we were supposedly on this planet since the last evolutionary step?"

      Our species didn't exist prior to our species existing.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • Blue

      You can't logically or really think that mankind has been idle for 99.99% of the time it would take since the last evolutionary step, and that we've only started climbing out of being goat-herders and farmers the last 0.01% of our time (the most recent thousands of years).

      November 30, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • cleareye1

      Blue is hopelessly ignorant about evolution and will probably never understand the science.
      What gets me about these people is they like to challenge science with the question- "Did humans just appear out of nowhere?"
      Where do they think their god came from? Nowhere?
      Science answers those questions better than religion. That's is, to any rational mind.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • ME II

      "More than 2,600 sharp-edged flakes, flake fragments, and cores (cobbles from which flakes have been removed), found in the fine-grained sediments of a dry riverbed in the Afar region of Ethiopia, have been dated to between 2.52 and 2.60 million years ago, pushing back by more than 150,000 years the known date at which humans were making stone tools."
      (http://www.archaeology.org/9703/newsbriefs/tools.html)

      November 30, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • mama k

      You might avoid personal attacks, "Blue", if you stop running away from a previous argument:

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/pat-robertson-challenges-creationism/comment-page-38/#comments

      (just a couple of pages back)

      to just shit out the same bullshit all over again.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:21 pm |
    • Blue

      Still waiting for some tangible bit of argument with the majors, many of which were postulated by Sagan and Hawkings, such as Mankind's short time here on this planet in the historic context of the worlds evolution.

      ME – the URL talks about tools, but no information and shows a picture of a broken rock. I would be open to any info, as I always am, but this is really light. If they really have info on tools used by humans a million years ago, let's see it.

      Mama – I'm familiar with the info on page 38, nothing new there, what was your point, other than being hateful? Anything on topic?

      November 30, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • biobraine

      Blue,
      Here is a link to the Smithsonian that explains all of the evidence for human evolution:

      http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

      I don't think that you are unintelligent but you are ignorant to long established scientific theories. Keep asking questions of what your religious leaders are telling you and keep an open mind to alternative explanations.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • Blue

      LOL, seriously, I can't be idle for 2 minutes without wanting to be productive, and somehow mankind has been idle for 99.99% of its supposed timeline since the last stage of evolution millions of years ago. The fact that scientists are baffled by our seemingly instantaneous appearance on this planet is no secret.

      We have lots of fossils of dinosaurs and extinct species going back millions of years, yes. However we have zero fossil evidence of humans to back up Darwin's nice theoretical drawing.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • mama k

      "the info on page 38, nothing new there"

      You didn't respond to valid statements there, "Blue", before abandoning that thread and making your silly assertion all over again. That's the point. That reminds me of someone else. Disappear when things get rough, ignore, start the argument all over again. Hmmmmm.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • ME II

      @Blue,
      "the URL talks about tools, but no information and shows a picture of a broken rock. I would be open to any info, as I always am, but this is really light. If they really have info on tools used by humans a million years ago, let's see it."

      As it stated, it was a "Newsbrief". Here're some more articles:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/31/hand-axes-oldest-advanced-stone-tools

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10938453

      http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/08/12/scientists.discover.oldest.evidence.human.stone.tool.use.and.meat.eating

      http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/content/116/11-12/1529.short

      November 30, 2012 at 3:19 pm |
    • ME II

      @Blue,
      Early humans weren't "idle", they were surviving.
      Do animals in the wild look idle?

      November 30, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
    • Tyler

      Mitochondiral Eve. Proof that we have been here for more than the 5,000 years you are thinking.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

      November 30, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
  15. ghoti

    i cannot understand why this discussion even takes place....from a realistic stand-point, anyway. The bottom line up front is the earth we live and thrive upon is ancient in terms of our lives, so are all the heavens. We can guess to the ages based on what we have proven to ourselves time and agin using our knowledge and sciences. It does NOT, however, negate that it was created by a higher power. Science cannot confirm or deny, regardless of what we think we learn and prove, that there is not a higher power than we mere mortals. Certainly all the "evidence" we dig up, display in museums, and fight over are tangible and real, yet do not negate GOD. Who are we to think we can tell time by GOD's watch, what may be relevant to us, by no means has to be our relevance on GOD, quite the contrary. Is the Bible real? Yes, I think it is....exactly how accurate, cannot, will not, hazard a guess, but the recordings of our human history annotated in the Bible have to have some factual basis....I cannot imagine it is all fiction. I suppose if we could revisit ourselves in a thousand years, look at the historical recordings of ourselves, we will see there are factual basis, but sprinkled with human interpretation of our present time now by those who have appointed themselves as the keepers of what we do, just as the recordings of the Bible were done by those appointees trying to capture there presnt now...yet sprinkled with their best interpretation of what they new then. So, really get over it...it is what you believe in that matters, as when you pass, we really cannot say for an absolute you are where you believe you should or would be. Right?

    November 30, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
    • sybaris

      which god?

      November 30, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
  16. palintwit

    My work here is nearly done. Thanks to me Obama has been re-elected, the teabaggers are on the run and Sarah Palin is no longer a household word and has been tossed on that dung heap known as Fox News. I have accomplished much and I am considering taking time off to write my memoirs

    November 30, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
  17. Bill

    So here is a thought........... The bible was and is nothing more than a childrens book meant to guide us.......... (yes we are very young children) it was given to guide us as a very young people not capable of understanding the complexities of the universe. At the time the word of god was being dictated to mankind (and assuming man didn't add his own embellishments to it) we were nothing more than toddlers in the grand scheme of time . When you walked into the bed room and caught your toddler trying to stick a piece of metal into the wall socket did you try to explain oms law, voltage and current to them or did you just say "No Bad" because you knew they wouldn't and couldn't understand the concept of electricty? How could we understand how long it took to create the universe or how it was created (we still thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth), even now we are just young adolecents barely beginning to understand the world and universe around us. That is why god gave us a brain to grow and understand these things and science is the tool he gave us to grow and understand, I believe that rejecting science would be (for you die hards) rejecting god, just as we expect our children to grow and understand the world we live in im sure he expectes the same from us, i belive that learning how to create planets and create life ourselves is what he ment for us to do and is the only way we will ever really know god and make it to heaven! If all he wanted was mindless servants he could have stopped at the neandertal.

    November 30, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
    • sybaris

      Try another thought

      November 30, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT

      When you walked into the bed room and caught your toddler trying to stick a piece of metal into the wall socket did you try to explain oms law, voltage and current to them or did you just say "No Bad" because you knew they wouldn't and couldn't understand the concept of electricty?
      .
      Actually my father did explain then he had me stick my hand in so I could experience it. I created my first program at age 8...analog clock . I graduated high school at age 13. Not all people are mindless sheep walking around. I will admit though grammer is my weak point...always has been.

      November 30, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • biobraine

      Why try to rationalize the bible? If there were any gods that cared about us in any way they certainly wouldn't just remain silent after all this supposed activity 1000's of years ago as told by the Hindu's, Jew,s Christians, ancient Romans and Greeks, etc.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • cleareye1

      It was written for child-like minds. Very few people could read at the time so it was written as an attempt to improve living conditions by well meaning people who knew how to write convincing scenarios that the illiterate would accept as truth.
      It is still being done today in many areas. It works. It may always work.

      November 30, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
  18. biobraine

    "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.”

    Wow, talk about being brainwashed. Ask the wrong quesiton and you go to hell for eternity. How in the world can people believe this drivel?

    November 30, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • batjones

      Biobrane – I think you touched upon the real issue, which speaks to a belief in God or a force; a fear of death; and a hope of Heaven, some form of spiritual salvation after the human body dies. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. Only a true believer in some spiritual force could have chosen the Giants to beat the New England Patriots TWICE in the Super Bowl? My Christian teaching tells me that I will get to Heaven only by the grace of God. I may be a swell indivual and nice to stray cats, but only by God's grace will I enter the kingdom of heaven. I can not transfer my good grace onto my children or friends. It must be achieved individually. I can only offer insights from historical commentary that point to how other individuals achieved grace. The Bible is a source that provides commentary on a few individuals that are believed to have achieved God's grace and salvation. The Koran is another source. I do not find science and religion to be exclusive. I find science and religion to be congruent.
      Creationism: God created the fish, critters and beasts of the earth, birds and then Adam.
      Evolution: History identifies the growth of fish, critters and beasts of the earth, birds and then Mankind

      November 30, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
  19. TR6

    Say what you will about Pat Robertson, even at 82 he's got enough smarts to abandon a sinking ship

    November 30, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • sam stone

      looks like he got hold of some good ganja, too

      November 30, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
  20. Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT

    I was surprised at Pat's remark...perhaps with age does come wisdom...perhaps he will see his way out fo his self imposed mental illness called christianity?

    November 30, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
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.