home
RSS
Rubio clarifies age of the earth answer
December 5th, 2012
10:46 AM ET

Rubio clarifies age of the earth answer

By Ashley Killough, CNN

(CNN)– Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida attempted to clear up Wednesday his controversial answer to a question about the earth's age last month.

"Science says (the earth) is about 4.5 billion years old. My faith teaches that's not inconsistent," Rubio said at a Politico Playbook Breakfast in Washington. "God created the heavens and the earth, and science has given us insight into when he did it and how he did it."

"The more science learns," he continued, "the more I am convinced that God is real."

Sen. Marco Rubio's religious journey: Catholic to Mormon to Catholic to Baptist and Catholic

Rubio was asked how old the planet was in an interview with GQ magazine published November 19. The senator, who's considered to be weighing a 2016 presidential bid, replied saying the Earth's age is "one of the great mysteries."

Emphasizing he "was not a scientist," Rubio said "whether the Earth was created in seven days, or seven actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that."

FULL STORY
- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • Politics

soundoff (553 Responses)
  1. Chad

    "God created the heavens and the earth, and science has given us insight into when he did it and how he did it."
    "The more science learns," he continued, "the more I am convinced that God is real."

    =>well said!!!!
    The more we learn, the more the theistic claim is backed up.

    Some recent scientific discoveries that validate the theistic claim:

    Fossil Record.
    The fossil record does not show the gradual change over time that Darwin proposed

    – 1972: phyletic gradualism (darwins "evolution") is debunked; fossil record shows a common ancestry developed by long periods of stasis interrupted with extremely short periods of rapid change.

    "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism. The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

    Cosmology:
    our universe had a beginning, it has not always existed as thought
    – 1929: Edwin Hubble discovers red shift,
    – 1965: discovery of microwave cosmic background radiation
    – 1998, two independent research groups studying distant supernovae were astonished to discover, against all expectations, that the current expansion of the universe is accelerating (Reiss 1998, Perlmutter 1999).
    – 2003: Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin's Past-Finite Universe proves our universe had a beginning

    our universe is fine tuned for the building blocks of life:
    – 2003 "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." Paul Davies

    December 5, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Booo this man!!!

      BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

      BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

      BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

      December 5, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • Chuckles

      PS Chad

      I'm booing you because you are being disingenious, dishonest and all around liar, like you always are, trying to infer, imply and squeeze conclusions without stateting them or backing up specific conclusions but rather filling in spaces that have yet to be answered.

      BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

      December 5, 2012 at 4:09 pm |
    • Mohammad A Dar

      are we alone?

      December 5, 2012 at 4:09 pm |
    • mama k

      Chad: "well said!!!! . . . The more we learn, . . ."

      Well we certainly are not learning anything new from Mr. "I'm not a scientist, man".

      December 5, 2012 at 4:14 pm |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      There is zero evidence of a god or the supernatural in general. The attempt by some modern theist to use science to justify their FAITH (look up what that word means) is no less than a sad…sad… attempt to keep a primitive superst!tion from dyeing out like so many gods before them.

      December 5, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
    • sam stone

      Even if there is evidence for a creator, how does one make the logical leap to that of a god who judges humans?

      It's almost as if you are saying "the universe is incredibly complex, therefore jesus died for your sins"

      it doesn't follow

      December 5, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
    • Huebert

      In reference to your Gould quote.
      "As a result, many non-specialists sometimes inferred from his early writings that Darwinian explanations had been proven to be unscientific (which Gould never tried to imply). Along with many other researchers in the field, Gould's works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved. Gould himself corrected some of these misinterpretations and distortions of his writings in later works."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould#Controversy

      December 5, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
    • redzoa

      Chad must surely know by now, given the multiple times it's been explained to him, that: (1) PE is restricted to species level changes, the smallest discernible change between related forms; (2) that within the nodes of these PE changes, gradualism has plenty of time to produce the changes; and (3) "sudden appearance" is within geological time contexts, that is, Gould in no way is inferring special creation of any variety.

      Furthermore, note Gould's reference to "[t]he history of most fossil species" not "all" fossil species. Gould, himself, identifies fossil species which are doc-umented to have arisen via gradualism. Gould further notes that when expanding the morphological/taxonomy scales from Species-level to Family-, Order-, and Class-levels, the changes are, relatively speaking, gradualist.

      Lastly, PE is not about whether or not evolution happens, it targets competing paradigms of the dominant relative rate of change. Whether Darwin's model, proposed 150 yrs ago, accurately reflects the dominant rate of evolution is irrelevant to the fact that evolution happens, that it is observable both in the fossil record and in real time, and that there remains not a single shred of positive evidence indicating special creation.

      Chad's continued reference to PE indicates that he is either hopelessly ignorant or hopelessly disingenuous....

      December 5, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • Chad

      @Huebert ""As a result, many non-specialists sometimes inferred from his early writings that Darwinian explanations had been proven to be unscientific (which Gould never tried to imply). Along with many other researchers in the field, Gould's works were sometimes deliberately taken out of context by creationists as "proof" that scientists no longer understood how organisms evolved. Gould himself corrected some of these misinterpretations and distortions of his writings in later works."

      =>that criticism of quote mining would work if I was a young earth creationist that was claiming that animals just materialized into existence out of thin air in their finial shape.

      However, since I am a theistic evolutionist who believes in common ancestry, that criticism doesnt apply to my usage of the Gould quote to support the claim that species remain stable for extremely long periods of time, then rapidly change to new forms.

      so.. no.

      December 5, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Ah the dishonesty of the Chad.

      December 5, 2012 at 4:51 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      Sen. Rubio (to GQ): “Whether the Earth was created in seven days, or seven actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.”

      Sen. Rubio (today): ""Science says [the earth] is about 4.5 billion years old. My faith teaches that's not inconsistent, God created the heavens and the earth, and science has given us insight into when he did it and how he did it."

      So ... it's not one of the great mysteries anymore?

      It's a miracle! Senator Rubio has solved one of the great mysteries in just a couple of weeks. He is obviously the right man to run for President in 2016.

      December 5, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
    • Chad

      @redzoa "PE is restricted to species level changes, the smallest discernible change between related forms
      @Chad "you are using "PE" here very imprecisely. What you are referring to is "rapid change" as opposed to stasis. It is during that period of rapid change that species level change occurs.

      During the periods of stasis the species "the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean"
      that's why its called stasis :-)

      ======
      @redzoa "that within the nodes of these PE changes, gradualism has plenty of time to produce the changes;
      @chad "10,000 to 50,000 years is what is proposed. It has to be short enough to escape fossilization.
      the task at hand is to explain how/why the the species "wobbles about its phenotypic mean" for millions and millions of years, then WHAM, in <50,000 all this change occurs.

      ========
      @redzoa "sudden appearance" is within geological time contexts, that is, Gould in no way is inferring special creation of any variety."
      @Chad "10k to 50k years, it has to be short enough to escape fossilization EVERY TIME.
      I never said Gould endorsed animals materializing out of thin air, I dont support that. ;-)

      ======
      @redzoa Furthermore, note Gould's reference to "[t]he history of most fossil species" not "all" fossil species. Gould, himself, identifies fossil species which are doc-umented to have arisen via gradualism.
      @chad "example please"

      =======
      @redzoa "Gould further notes that when expanding the morphological/taxonomy scales from Species-level to Family-, Order-, and Class-levels, the changes are, relatively speaking, gradualist."
      @chad "lol, translation "going from fish to amphibian to mammal is gradualist".
      nonsense, that isnt "gradualism"

      =====
      @redzoa "Lastly, PE is not about whether or not evolution happens, it targets competing paradigms of the dominant relative rate of change. Whether Darwin's model, proposed 150 yrs ago, accurately reflects the dominant rate of evolution is irrelevant to the fact that evolution happens, that it is observable both in the fossil record and in real time, and that there remains not a single shred of positive evidence indicating special creation."
      @chad "either you dont read my posts, or you are being purposefully disingenuous.
      I dont support animals materializing out of thin air, I am a theistic evolutionist, I believe in common ancestry.

      December 5, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • mama k

      So I'm curious, where does this ~200,000 year old Mitochondrial Eve fit into the picture for someone who believes in common ancestry theistic evolution? For instance in relation to the Eve of Genesis?

      December 5, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
    • Guy

      Chad
      As a theistic evolutionist do you mean Total Evolution , astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar ststems, etc.) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical efolution (for the development of lfe) Please indicate all or just one or two..

      December 5, 2012 at 5:15 pm |
    • Huebert

      Chad

      Your problem is you never actually define your position so arguing with you is like grasping at water. This does not make you a cleaver debtor it makes you a d!ck. Also what the hell is a "theistic evolutionist who believes in common ancestry"?

      December 5, 2012 at 5:15 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      @Huebert,

      'cleaver debtor'?

      Is that a witticism that went over my head or the unintended consequence of using a spell checker?

      December 5, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
    • Huebert

      It's definitely a super clever witticism, that I can't explain so don't ask me to.

      December 5, 2012 at 5:34 pm |
    • Chad

      I have defined the position ad nauseum.

      Theistic evolution: http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744
      I dont agree with everything, but most..

      December 5, 2012 at 5:45 pm |
    • Concerned Citizen

      BOOOOOOOoOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

      December 5, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • Guy

      I checked out Francis Collins book and some of the reviews. The one I liked best is what posters have been saying about all of your posts, your conclusion is always "I believe in God because I believe in God." the same conclusion Vincent D. Ortiz came to in his review of the Collins book.

      December 5, 2012 at 6:12 pm |
    • Guy

      Another review of the Collins book by S. Fike "A cunning and clever way to take both sides of the issue at the same time." If you depend on this book as your position that you were called on, it is a typical Chad cop out.

      December 5, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
    • Chad

      @Guy " your conclusion is always "I believe in God because I believe in God.""
      @chad "there are two equally reasonable methods to know that the God of Israel is real:
      1. meta-physical
      2. becoming convinced based on the evidence (origin of the universe, fine tuning, origin of life on earth, person of Jesus Christ)

      the evidence in the root post backs up #2

      December 5, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      You have no evidence, you've never had evidence, and I will eat a $100 dollar bill if you ever have evidence. All you have are fallacies and dishonest bullshit.

      December 5, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
    • Guy

      One more try, please define your understanding of what you think theistic evolution includes and how it relates to a common ancestor and Hueberts assertion that you never define your positon. Your orginal post is not evidence, at best conjecture.

      December 5, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
    • Chad

      Theistic evolution: http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744

      not sure where you are getting confused, unless you havent read it, in which case all I can say is that you'll have to read it.

      December 5, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Guy

      The term "theistic evolution" is always laughable. It's esentially "evolution happened, and god done it".

      December 5, 2012 at 7:39 pm |
    • Black Panther

      Chad's argument is identical to that of the water in a puddle, saying, "Hey, look at the shape of this hole!! It's exactly the shape of me!! It must have been made just for me!! Yay!!"

      1. We can't use the word "began" when describing this universe because the inflation of the universe (big bang) produces its own time. There was no "before" the inflation occurred.

      2. We don't know if this universe ever was not in existence; we only know that at one point the singularity "seed" expanded and is still doing so.

      3. We don't know if our universe is part of a larger process or not, but high math and physics seems to indicate that it is.

      4. The apparent "beginning" of our universe in no way supports the notion of any big, invisible sky wizard or "god."

      5. Even if we presuppose a "first cause" agent, it in no way describes a particular god, and that's why most religious people find it fits their own definition of the god they already believe in. (what a coinkydink?!?)

      6. The god of the bible is a mind-numbingly stupid azzhole from all perspectives of the story if you don't go in presupposing the opposite--he's the villain of the book if you don't read it with any bias.

      December 5, 2012 at 7:50 pm |
    • Guy

      Hawaiiguest
      You are right the Chad will never admit to what his position on any thing is, it is all part of the christian apologetics that he uses including the Collins book that only christians review with favour. Much of Collins conclusion he has taken from C. S. Lewis and that is supposed to be evidence, LOL. Good night all.

      December 5, 2012 at 8:02 pm |
    • redzoa

      Chad: “"you are using "PE" here very imprecisely. What you are referring to is "rapid change" as opposed to stasis. It is during that period of rapid change that species level change occurs. . .”

      Wrong. With respect to both change and stasis, PE applies to the species-level of taxonomy. This is something you’ve never quite understood because you’re not a scientist and you have no training in taxonomy.

      Chad: "10,000 to 50,000 years is what is proposed. It has to be short enough to escape fossilization. the task at hand is to explain how/why the the species "wobbles about its phenotypic mean" for millions and millions of years, then WHAM, in <50,000 all this change occurs.”

      First off, depending on the species and the strata, the range can be from 10K – 150K+ yrs. In addition to the Pod MrCaru lizards, you’ve been supplied with plenty of examples, including extensive explanations of contingent evolutionary history manifesting in rapid change (Lenski’s E.coli). You didn’t understand it then and you certainly won’t now. You’ll likely just rehash the same ignorant objections based in your non-comprehension of the organismal and/or molecular biology. 50,000 yrs is not a wham for…. Wait for it….a species-level change, the smallest change between two related organisms. Again, from a former incarnation of the PE wiki entry:

      “The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the [[Arithmetic mean|average]] generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record." (sometimes I wonder if it wasn't you who deleted this from wiki given it so simply and succinctly undermines your incessant "wham" arguments)

      Regarding wobbling, had you any background in the relevant science you could ramble off at least a few explanations, for example stabilizing selection, stabilizing gene flow, stable environments, etc, etc. None of this remotely suggests your preferred magical tinkerer intervening at apparently only those points at which you (erroneously) believe evolution lacks sufficient explanatory power.

      Chad: "example please"

      See. This is the difference between one who quote mines and one who researches and studies. You don’t know because you don’t really want to know. Go read “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory” and look in the index to help you along. I’ll give you a hint, Foraminifera. Your google is no match for an actual education.

      Chad: "lol, translation "going from fish to amphibian to mammal is gradualist". nonsense, that isnt "gradualism""

      Again, because you really have no understanding of biology, you immediately jump to Class and ignore the Family and Order level. When pulled together, they represent a generally smooth transition between forms, that is, gradualism. It’s not phyletic gradualism, but it is, in fact, gradualism.

      Chad: “either you dont read my posts, or you are being purposefully disingenuous.
      I dont support animals materializing out of thin air, I am a theistic evolutionist, I believe in common ancestry.”

      Your recent adoption of “theistic evolution” comes after I’ve personally witnessed you argue for the literal accuracy of the Genesis creation order. I've followed your nonsense for quite a while and I've seen you, like a witch doctor, continually attempting to reanimate these dead arguments. You’ve repeatedly offered PE as “evidence” of divine intervention because evolution could not account for the rapid appearance of species at the PE nodes. Call yourself whatever you want, but informed and educated on these topics, you most certainly are not. You have no background in biology or any of the relevant science. I've also witnessed you attempt to debate Establishment Clause precedent with equal failure, again, because you don't have the background (or a WestLaw account). Your biggest sin is a complete lack of humility in the face of your own painfully obvious ignorance. You do far more harm to the credibility of your beliefs (out of transparent and desperate pride) than any virulent atheist ever could.

      December 5, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Can someone give me the condensed version? Has the Chard connected his god to the origin of the universe yet?

      December 5, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Never mind. It looks like redzoa has the Vegetable by the short curly ones!

      Go, red!

      December 5, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Holy Sh1t, we need redzoa on speed dial for when Chard pulls this bulls!t again. The question is, is Chard smart enough to know that he was just knocked unconscious for a full thirty minutes or is he too stupid to notice the "missing time" at all?

      Well, Chad?

      December 5, 2012 at 9:24 pm |
    • Concerned Citizen

      @Redzoa

      *Slow clap*

      December 5, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
    • Chad

      @redzoa "PE is restricted to species level changes, the smallest discernible change between related forms
      @Chad "you are using "PE" here very imprecisely. What you are referring to is "rapid change" as opposed to stasis. It is during that period of rapid change that species level change occurs.
      @Chad “"you are using "PE" here very imprecisely. What you are referring to is "rapid change" as opposed to stasis. It is during that period of rapid change that species level change occurs. . .”
      @redzoa “Wrong. With respect to both change and stasis, PE applies to the species-level of taxonomy. This is something you’ve never quite understood because you’re not a scientist and you have no training in taxonomy.”
      @Chad “perhaps the definition will help you:
      Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.[1]
      Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.

      As you can see, it describes stasis(equilibria) and rapid change(punctuated), hence the name.
      Stasis doesn’t change anything, it’s the punctured part that changes ;-)
      If you unfold your original statement, it reads like this “stasis and rapid change is restricted to species level changes”, which, as I said, is very imprecise. It’s a nonsense statement, meaningless.

      =========
      @Redzoa “In addition to the Pod MrCaru lizards, you’ve been supplied with plenty of examples, including extensive explanations of contingent evolutionary history manifesting in rapid change (Lenski’s E.coli). You didn’t understand it then and you certainly won’t now. You’ll likely just rehash the same ignorant objections based in your non-comprehension of the organismal and/or molecular biology. 50,000 yrs is not a wham for…. Wait for it….a species-level change, the smallest change between two related organisms. Again, from a former incarnation of the PE wiki entry:

      “The relationship between punctuationism and gradualism can be better appreciated by considering an example. Suppose the average length of a limb in a particular species grows 50 centimeters (20 inches) over 70,000 years—a large amount in a geologically short period of time. If the [[Arithmetic mean|average]] generation is seven years, then our given time span corresponds to 10,000 generations. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that if the limb size in our hypothetical population evolved in the most conservative manner, it need only increase at a rate of 0.005 cm per generation (= 50 cm/10,000), despite its abrupt appearance in the geological record." (sometimes I wonder if it wasn't you who deleted this from wiki given it so simply and succinctly undermines your incessant "wham" arguments)”
      @Chad “:-)
      A. obsess much?
      B. you are of course ENTIRELY diminishing the nature of Gould/Eldridge work. What you are trying to do is say “well, “species” change can be SO SMALL, that really it amounts to gradualism”. Which, is, of, course, nonsense, and purposefully ignores the blatant evidence that we have of the fossil record, which shows new species, significant morphological change, WHAM appearing.
      C. Your largest problem is not me, it’s the fossil record. Now, you can attempt to continually appeal to the floor of the species definition, but that’s not what the record shows, is it :-)
      D. Cue “the fossil record is incomplete”

      ========
      @redzoa “Regarding wobbling, had you any background in the relevant science you could ramble off at least a few explanations, for example stabilizing selection, stabilizing gene flow, stable environments, etc, etc. None of this remotely suggests your preferred magical tinkerer intervening at apparently only those points at which you (erroneously) believe evolution lacks sufficient explanatory power.
      @Chad “
      A. You are merely observing that there are a PLETHORA of reasons WHY stasis exists “ wobbles about its phenotypic mean" as PE observes. So, congrats! You agree with Gould. Now what you have to do is explain why rapid change occurs.
      B. You must have me confused with a young earth creationist that believes entire herds of animals materialized out of thin air… Do you read my posts? I believe in common ancestry. I believe in PE. I believe that GOD can explain the rapid change part.
      C. it’s worth repeating.. since you seem to have poor reading comprehension for some reason, a condition that seems stubbornly resistant to information introduction. I don’t believe that mutation and natural selection lack explanatory power. What DOES lack explanatory power is to say that purely random genetic mutation could possibly accomplish the necessarily interrelated mutations required for a rapid change.

      @Chad: "example please"
      @redzoa “See. This is the difference between one who quote mines and one who researches and studies. You don’t know because you don’t really want to know. Go read “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory” and look in the index to help you along. I’ll give you a hint, Foraminifera. Your google is no match for an actual education.
      @chad “you’re going to have to do far better than “dogs turning into different kinds of dogs”, or amoebas turning into different kinds of amoebas ….
      You know why? Because if that explained everything, we wouldn’t be debating anything. The gradualism would exist at the species level in the fossil record. And.. it doesn’t, does it? :-)

      =========
      Chad: "lol, translation "going from fish to amphibian to mammal is gradualist". nonsense, that isnt "gradualism""
      @redzoa “again, because you really have no understanding of biology, you immediately jump to Cla.ss and ignore the Family and Order level. When pulled together, they represent a generally smooth transition between forms, that is, gradualism. It’s not phyletic gradualism, but it is, in fact, gradualism.”
      @chad “that is utter nonsense :-)
      It’s a common amateur mistake to say, “well, we have lemurs, monkeys, humans. That’s gradualism!”
      Again, the killer for your argument is the fossil record. The morphological changes are large enough to pose a perplexing question to(knowing, intellectually honest) paleontologists, how in the world did it occur??

      =======
      Chad: “either you dont read my posts, or you are being purposefully disingenuous. I dont support animals materializing out of thin air, I am a theistic evolutionist, I believe in common ancestry.”

      @redzoa “Your recent adoption of “theistic evolution” comes after I’ve personally witnessed you argue for the literal accuracy of the Genesis creation order.
      @Chad “oh my. You have certainly locked on to a strawman!!
      A. Genesis IS literally true (day can also by translated age)
      B. I have NEVER ONCE ARGUED HERE, NOR HAVE I EVER BELIEVED that animals materialized out of thin air. Not once.. never.. sorry.. no dice..

      I think most of your problem comes from the atheist desire to have all Christians be young earth creationists. I think you just shut down anything that doesn’t agree with that. Pretty blind, but there it is.

      I would advise you to read what people post, not just react to what you want their position to be.

      =====
      @redzoa “You’ve repeatedly offered PE as “evidence” of divine intervention because evolution could not account for the rapid appearance of species at the PE nodes. “
      @Chad “again, you’re reading comprehension is abysmal.. really abysmal.
      What I have ALWAYS said, is that the ONLY way to explain rapid change is a divine orchestration of events that would create the necessary mutations.

      The really amazing thing about you, is that I can tell absolutely you are not at all familiar with the theistic evolutionist position. Right? Not even sort of. Your arguments are directed against a special creationist who believes animals materialized out of thin air.
      Where does you arrogance come from, if you aren’t even cognizant of the argument I am making?? Not ONE of your arguments refuted any of the claims in the root post.

      If you think explaining the rapid change in PE is easy, well, you’re the only one that does :-)

      as well, you are of course enti.tled to your view that the "const.itution is whatever we want it to be", but what you arent ent.itled to is rewriting the intent of the framers, which is every where in black and white. sorry.

      December 5, 2012 at 11:12 pm |
    • Chad

      this may be helpful to you on two points.. first on what theistic evolution is, and second to refute your claim of a Your recent adoption of “theistic evolution”

      from back in April: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/23/belief-blogs-morning-speed-read-for-monday-april-23/

      December 6, 2012 at 12:06 am |
    • Tom

      Oy, not this from Chad yet again! Reality's posts are starting to look better and better. ;-)

      December 6, 2012 at 12:13 am |
    • mama k

      I just don't understand how those generations of people that we traditionally think of as descendants of Adam. I guess now that we know about this M. Eve, we're probably supposed to multiply all those years they lived that are listed in the Bible by 100 – so Lamech would have lived like 7770 years or so.

      December 6, 2012 at 12:29 am |
    • redzoa

      @Chad – Yours was a long, but typical, non-response.

      Let me write this for 20th time. PE addresses species level changes, the smallest discernible changes between two species. Want an example of what two distinct species look like? Try this, type “chipmunk” into Wikipedia. Go ahead, I’ll wait….

      December 6, 2012 at 12:57 am |
    • redzoa

      Now please point to the dramatic morphological changes between the images. (You can't? Of course not. But with some good statistics sof-tware and some robust morpho-metric data, you likely could. Well, not you, but someone who actually knows the science.) While you're at it, please point to the error of the wiki example. Then actually go and read Gould and about Foraminifera (hint: Foraminifera are currently a-ssigned Cla-ss status, like fish, reptiles, mammals. See, this is what I mean about not understanding taxonomy).

      December 6, 2012 at 1:01 am |
    • Observer

      No one's going to prove or disprove evolution here anyway.

      Even if intelligent design could be proved, it still doesn't prove the existence of God.

      December 6, 2012 at 1:01 am |
    • redzoa

      "What DOES lack explanatory power is to say that purely random genetic mutation could possibly accomplish the necessarily interrelated mutations required for a rapid change."

      Again, Pod MrCaru lizards, Lenski's E. coli, etc, etc. Yours is a sad argument of incredulity based, as I stated before, in a non-comprehension of the organismal and molecular biology at play.

      "It’s a common amateur mistake to say, “well, we have lemurs, monkeys, humans. That’s gradualism!”
      Again, the killer for your argument is the fossil record. The morphological changes are large enough to pose a perplexing question to(knowing, intellectually honest) paleontologists, how in the world did it occur??"

      As Gould stated and as you ignore, "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."

      Hmmm, by "staircase model" do you suppose he really meant to suggest the slope of the staircase is vertical, or the slope is otherwise, relatively gradual?

      "A. Genesis IS literally true (day can also by translated age)
      B. I have NEVER ONCE ARGUED HERE, NOR HAVE I EVER BELIEVED that animals materialized out of thin air. Not once.. never.. sorry.. no dice.."

      You defended the literal order of creation. I seem to remember your stumbling over precisely when whales and birds appeared in the creation account as opposed to where they first appear in the fossil record. I did not state you believed in ex nihilo creationism and, in fact, took time to specifically ridicule your intermittent tinkerer notion in the post above.

      "What I have ALWAYS said, is that the ONLY way to explain rapid change is a divine orchestration of events that would create the necessary mutations."

      And you'd be wrong as illustrated in the Pod MrCaru lizards, Lenski's E. coli and the host of other examples both extant and extinct. Of course, you can climb back under the protective mantle of the "God (still) did it" despite the evidence that known natural mechanisms produce the exact same outcomes. But were they really natural? Do we live in the Matrix? Blah, blah, blah...

      "If you think explaining the rapid change in PE is easy, well, you’re the only one that does..."

      No. It's not easy. It takes actual research, not "God did it" and quit. What the actual research shows is that organisms are remarkably plastic, that they can and do change quickly, and that this change can be relatively dramatic in terms of morphology, behavior, etc. The difficulty is not in explaining "how" they change rapidly, but in explaining the environmental variables that predispose/preclude, foster/constrain, etc, these relatively rapid changes. For the last time, 10,000 years is a long time; plenty of time for a fish-fish, dog-dog, etc, change, which again, is precisely what a species-level change is.

      "as well, you are of course enti.tled to your view that the "const.itution is whatever we want it to be", but what you arent ent.itled to is rewriting the intent of the framers, which is every where in black and white. sorry."

      First off, you were erroneously arguing about the Lemon Test and secular legislative purpose. You were wrong and I showed you why in excruciating detail, complete with multiple case cites, pulling the holdings directly from the cases you yourself cited. Second, even here, you are wrong yet again. In McCulloch v. Maryland, we see the Framers (Jefferson/Madison v. Hamilton) adopting contrary views of the Const.itution they had only recently drafted and ratified. There is no single, monolithic "Framers Intent" as there is no clear "Original Intent" nor "Original Meaning." Were there such a simple "Framers Intent" then we would not have witnessed the almost immediate formation of the Democratic-Republican and Federalist parties.

      You really should just stick to those apologetics arguments focusing on exegesis, theodicy and all the other purely philosophical matters and leave both the scientific and legal discussions to those who not only possess a bit of a clue, but also have the foundational education and training to understand the issues. You might view this as "elitist," but then, I doubt you'd ask a "(whatever you do for a living)" to run a phylogenetic a.ssay or to write a 12(b)(6) motion...

      December 6, 2012 at 1:02 am |
    • mama k

      redzoa: "we see the Framers (Jefferson/Madison v. Hamilton)"

      Yes there certainly was that division, but I think it certainly says something about intent from Madison's point of view when he is reflecting (that is, to me it sounds like he is reflecting, pridefully, on his "handiwork"):

      It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Govt could not stand without the prop of a Religious establishment, & that the Xn religion itself, would perish if not supported by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State. (1819)

      Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. (1822)

      And also this reflection from John Adams:

      The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

      Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.

      (from "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America")

      December 6, 2012 at 1:37 am |
    • mama k

      Sorry – I just realized the first sentence I wrote about M. Eve two replies ago is incomplete. Basically I keep wondering, how do people who subscribe to this belief of theistic evolution date the generations recorded in Genesis against this M. Eve that supposedly lived ~200,000 years ago? It already sounds crazy enough to have Lamech living 777 years as written. So how could Genesis, as traditionally thought now accommodate modern human existence for a couple hundred thousand years verses say 10,000 years?

      December 6, 2012 at 1:49 am |
    • Chad

      First: you have yet to figure out what it means to be a theistic evolutionist, please do some reading
      Second: I am a theistic evolutionist, now, since you havent done #1 yet, that doesnt mean anything to you..
      Third: please review what it means to be a theistic evolutionist again, because that's what I am.
      Fourth: I am in agreement with Gould that PE is a reality
      Fifth: you dont understand #4, because you dont understand #1.. so
      Sixth: please review what it means to be a theistic evolutionist again, because that's what I am.
      Seventh, in light of that, review the accusation of Gould quote mining, and show ANYWHERE where I say that there is a lack of transition fossils.

      the biggest problem you have, is you still are clueless on my position :-)

      get it yet?
      hard to argue with someone that is so obtuse about understanding the position of the other person...

      ======
      You're argument that "species level changes" are trivial, and "all you have to do is add up a lot of them and you get major change, and that explains everything" has two ma.ssive problems:
      1. were it true, it would be self refuting, as stasis would be present between the minor species level changes, and you would have to explain how that entire stasis period escaped fossilization.
      Please remember, we arent talking about chipmunks turning into different chipmunks.
      2. it reminds me a great deal of a common mistake in athletics, the uneducated makes statements like this all the time "all you have to do is do 1 more pushup every day than the yesterday (1 on the first day, 2 on the second, etc..). Do that for 2 years and you'll be able to do 730 pushups.

      it dont work that way.

      more later, got to run. please dont try and rewrite the framers intent while I'm gone :-)

      December 6, 2012 at 7:12 am |
    • guy

      Chad
      Of course, evading again, I asked you as a theistic evolutionist, posted above, do you mean, Total Evelution, astronomical, geological plus chemical evolution? Your response is go read a book that someone other than you wrote and you only agree with most of what has been written. Try and express what YOU mean when you say you are a theistic evolutionist, try.
      PS: "obtuse about understanding the positon of the other person", hardly, you have never said what YOUR positin is other than go read a book you didn't author. Can we find your position on all topics on the christian apologetics web sites, talking points and rebuttals to cut and paste on discussion blogs. If so what sites do you use?

      December 6, 2012 at 7:56 am |
    • Guy

      Chad
      "The theistic evoltiionist believes organic evolution was simply "the way God did it" as He brought the Universe and its contents into existance. And although there are almost as many varities of theistic evolution as those that espouse it, a few characteristics are common to all." He includes, an old earth, wholly natural processs responsible for life as we see it, once the initial matter was brought inti existance by God and figurative (non-literal) interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. Bert Thompson Ph.D in his book Christian Evidences
      When you refuse to state over and over again what version/variety of theistic evolutioist you are and leave it up to us to guess you are not being genuine. State you position clearly, or you can just keep quiet.

      December 6, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • Chuckles

      I think my favorite Chad-argument is the old "you don't understand ______________"

      If you lay out all the reasons why he's wrong on a theological level he says, "well you have never read the bible, so you don't understand"

      go at him from a scientific angle then it's "well I'm a theistic evolutionist, you don't know what that is so you don't understand".

      It's chad's way of telling himself over and over again that he's right and everyone else is wrong. Poor, delusion chad.

      BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

      December 6, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • redzoa

      @Chad – Your philosophical view is, as is mine, frankly irrelevant to the evidence. Call yourself whatever you like, it doesn't change the fact that your PE arguments are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the science and what the evidence indicates and that despite repeated attempts to explain, you simply plug your ears and continue spouting the same ill-informed objections.

      As simply as I can state it, complete with utter redundancy, your misunderstanding of PE is three-fold. First, is your inability/refusal to understand that PE addresses species-level change, that is, a chipmunk-to-chipmunk level change (please go back to wiki and read the first paragraph under the PE listing. “…species… speciation… species… species…species…”). Second, a speciation event occurring within even the lower bounds of 10K yrs does not require some improbable coincidence of networked mutations. A limited number of mutations occurring at various times throughout the 10K yr node can produce either a gradual or, far more frequently observed, a punctuated change in form. A species-to-species transition is the smallest discernible morphological change and does not require wholesale reordering of genetic networks. What we know is that there are two basic levels at which genomes evolve: 1) within the protein-coding sequences; and 2) within the regulatory sequences which control the timing and duration of the protein-coding sequences expression. These changes can be additive or synergistic. It is the relative minor mutations in the regulatory sequences that allow organisms to share significant genomic similarity, yet display dramatically different phenotypes. There is more than sufficient time within the PE nodes to account for a speciation event. Third, unlike a given muscle group within a given organism, a genome is not similarly constrained, particularly over geologic time and given the availability of demonstrated genetic-functional novelty, exaptation, etc, etc. The only constraints on a genome are those required for internal metabolic/reproductive viability and those imposed by the external environment with respect to an organism’s compet-itive success. We need only look at present biodiversity to see the range of possible genomes satisfying these constraints. In looking at this genomic diversity, what we fail to see are any true molecular barriers between these genomes. Furthermore, when looking at the fossil record, we see sufficient transitional/intermediates to account for this extant and extinct biodiversity.

      December 8, 2012 at 2:55 am |
    • redzoa

      Despite your objection, there is value to understanding the exponential growth of species numbers over geologic time. If a given species produces only one daughter species during a 5 million yr stasis (a very conservative estimate), after 100 million yrs, this will have resulted in over 1 million distinct species. Of course, most will be lost due to extirpation/extinction and will not result in a continued lineage. But what matters here are not the sheer numbers of species, but their physical differences moving forward through time, specifically their “horizontal morphological distance” from the ancestral species and more specifically, those that have moved the greatest difference from the original, ancestral form. For a given speciation event, some morphological changes will be very small, others more dramatic. But nonetheless, each represents some novel divergence and they are, as evidenced in the fossil record, c-umulative in producing those morphologically distinct changes which paleontologists group, post hoc, as the higher order taxonomic relationships (again, see Gould’s quote regarding transitional forms. What, pray tell, is the “transition” you think he’s referring to?). Your argument is that you accept inches, perhaps even feet, but that miles are somehow impossible. Species 5 or 12 might not appear that different from species 1, but by the time you reach species 400 or 200K, the incremental changes in species morphologies yield such divergence that the forms are distinguishable as distinct Families, Orders and Cla-sses.

      December 8, 2012 at 2:57 am |
    • redzoa

      By way of another example, take a look at the wiki PE image depicting the difference between phyletic gradualism and PE. Extrapolate that PE image out 10-fold and then consider the horizontal morphological distances between the center and the outer lineages. Then consider that distance represents only a single founding species and that one can safely presume at least a few more species operating in the same fashion producing a still greater c-umulative morphological distance (but to better reflect reality, you’d have to move beyond the simple 2-d and consider those distances within an “N-dimensional hypervolume” where each “N” represents some phenotypic trait and thereby, each represents an opportunity for divergence sufficient for a new Species, Genus, Family, etc). You are inappropriately attempting to apply a level of constraint relevant only to the smallest taxonomic scale as being equally applicable across much, much larger geological and morphological scales. In other words, you are attempting to use a ruler (an otherwise useful tool when appropriately applied to a given situation) to measure the distance from New York to D.C. and concluding it’s “impossible to get there from here” based on your measurements.

      December 8, 2012 at 3:00 am |
    • redzoa

      @mama k and Chad – Looking to the Founders/Framers is helpful, but simply can't be morally or practically controlling in Con law disputes. They were simultaneously brilliant and hypocritical, particularly so when contrasting their professed ideals to their practices (both private and public). IMHO, it is "We the People" today that actually matters, not the political or philosophical views of the Founders/Framers. Were there any true deference to the "Framer's Intent" then we could have no basis for striking down anti-miscegenation laws (Loving v. Virginia). Similarly, were we to restrict ourselves to pure textualism, we'd have no "right to privacy" (Griswold v. Connecticut). What I argue is that there is insufficient unanimity among the Framers, the state legislatures or the "We the People" of the late 18th century to provide a viable adjudicative framework. As a hypocrite myself:

      "We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” – Thomas Jefferson

      (apologies for duplicate on p. 4...)

      December 8, 2012 at 3:17 am |
    • Chad

      @redzoa “First, is your inability/refusal to understand that PE addresses species-level change, that is, a chipmunk-to-chipmunk level change (please go back to wiki and read the first paragraph under the PE listing. “

      @Chad “ you sure you are not reading my posts, again.. that seems to be a theme with you.
      PE deals with change (enough to produce speciation, which obviously will be sometimes small, some times large morphological changes.), and stasis.
      Where you are getting hung up, is in your attempt to characterize ALL change, as “chipmunk to chipmunk” ie the minimal to call it a “species” change. You do that, because you want to minimize the change that occurs during these short time spans.

      The problem with that approach is that if ALL of these PE events were like this, there would be a PLETHORA of “chipmunk to chipmunk” species, which all would have gone thru stasis periods, and would have been fossilized. It would be trivial to show gradual change at the species level. You are trying to turn PE into gradualism. But, the one thing you keep ignoring, is the fossil record, which simply does not support it.
      Right? :-)

      Cue appeal to incomplete fossil record (please don’t forget that Gould excoriated colleagues for doing that)

      December 8, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • Chad

      @redzoa "Looking to the Founders/Framers is helpful, but simply can't be morally or practically controlling in Con law disputes. They were simultaneously brilliant and hypocritical, particularly so when contrasting their professed ideals to their practices (both private and public). IMHO, it is "We the People" today that actually matters, not the political or philosophical views of the Founders/Framers"

      @Chad "FINALLY, you admit that your real purpose is judicial activism.
      If "We the People" is what's important, then pursue constitutional change through the amendment process. That's why the founding fathers provided the ability to add amendments. right? :-)

      but. you dont like that do you? You know that you'll never accomplish that. So, instead you try to convince people that the founding fathers didnt really mean what they said, and at the same time claim that legislating from the bench is the "practical thing to do"

      let me guess.. you work for the ACLU?
      lol

      December 8, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • Chad

      @redzoa "Species 5 or 12 might not appear that different from species 1, but by the time you reach species 400 or 200K, the incremental changes in species morphologies yield such divergence that the forms are distinguishable as distinct Families, Orders and Cla-sses"

      @Chad "again:
      A. the fossil record doesnt support your attempt to completely minimize the changes that occur during the "rapid change" period, because only species 5 and 400 show up. Where are the rest? Gould says they arent there.
      B. You think erroneously that I use that fact to argue that God materialized #400 out of thin air.
      I DONT.
      What I argue is that the change, in the vast majority of cases (which is why the fossil record is the way it is), is so dramatic that it goes right from 5 to 400.
      And, this supports the theistic argument, because of the number and inter-relatedness of the genetic changes that were required. It is impossible to have occurred by chance.

      Your "PE" is virtually indistinguishable from darwins gradualism :-)

      December 8, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
    • Saraswati

      OK, I do know what theistic evolution. is and while I don't believe in it I don't care one way or another if you do and hardly think it comparable to other fundamentalist creationisms. Did I miss something where you made a claim this should be taught in the schools or something?

      December 8, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
  2. charles darwin

    Rubio speaks with a large forked tongue.
    He is trying to back track his out of touch with reality statement making him look stupid.
    Guess what? He still looks stupid.
    Presidential candidate?....I think not.

    December 5, 2012 at 3:06 pm |
    • Chuckles

      I have a feeling, and call me crazy here, that since another election isn't for another 4 years and no one is going to start to campaign for at least another 2 + years, but the time Rubio even considers running and nomination no one will remember this or care.....

      December 5, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
    • Mohammad A Dar

      him and Ryan are already talking 2016, new GOPs rising stars.

      December 5, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
    • Lou

      Mohammad A Dar
      If those are the GOP's rising stars then I'm not worried about the Oval Office slipping from Democrat hands any time soon.

      December 5, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
    • Dippy

      It's "he and Ryan," not "him and Ryan."

      December 5, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
  3. Bootyfunk

    "The more science learns," he continued, "the more I am convinced that God is real.""
    LOL! if this guy read the opening introduction in a high school science text book, he'd quadruple his science knowledge. science and religion mix like oil and water. science keeps pulling the curtain back on religion and people are realizing there's no one behind the curtain at all. law makers like this idiot are the ones keeping evolution from being taught in our classrooms. idiocy.

    December 5, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
    • LivinginVA

      My uncle said the same thing. He was a scientist (professor of biology) – who believed in evolution and was a Christian. He thought that each day of the creation story was some random period of time during which God poked and prodded and encouraged the evolutionary process.

      December 5, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      yeah, it's a case of christians rushing to try to make their theology fit into an ever growing world of facts and research data. the bible says the earth was created in 7 days. also says the earth is flat. also says there was light before a sun. the bible says the earth was here before the sun. and yes, the bible does say the earth is only 6k years old - just use reverse genealogies and it adds up to 6k. the bible also gets the order of creation wrong when it comes to plants, animals and man.

      it's obvious the bible was written by ignorant sheep herders that were victims of their time.

      December 5, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      @ LivinginVA
      There have been reports from Air Force pilots of UFOs that move like nothing man made. Now… do you believe we are being visited by UFOs? Your uncle (no disrespect intended) would be of the 1% of scientist who have ‘faith’. Don’t take my word for it, look up the polls on the subject.

      December 5, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
  4. Honey Badger Dont Care

    "The more science learns," he continued, "the more I am convinced that God is real."

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOO.......................................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    December 5, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
  5. Sam Yaza

    nothing can be put on the internet unless its true. that's a fact because the internet told me so.

    December 5, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

      The same thing is sad about the Christian Bible.

      December 5, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
  6. Chuckles

    Here's what really confuses me. You have Rubio among countless others who have decided the best way to reconcile their faith is to use the old trope that days in the bible don't mean 24-hour periods. Why? How can they back that up with the text?

    It's sad that they believe that the men (or man as its believed) who wrote the bible didn't understand the concept of a day so just used a random unit of time to describe an era. If the bible wanted to say era, or ages, or epochs instead of a 24-hour day then it would have, but it would have also made god less powerful right? I mean what sort of all-powerful god has to take up to 4.5 billion years to create something, sounds like a pretty weak god to me, especially in the face of all the other gods out there who created the universe and the world in no time flat.

    December 5, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • Pete

      We know that before there was a moon an Earth Day was something like 6 hours. So if god didn't create the moon on the same day as the Earth then some of the creation days would have only been 6 hours long.

      December 5, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Pete

      A) where in the heck did you get THAT statistic? B) I don't think that arab nomads 5,000 years ago could even comprehend how we got our moon and that when they said day they meant 6 hours

      I think you were agreeing with me, but I just want to be clear, are you agreeing with me?

      December 5, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • Pete

      I agree with you.

      December 5, 2012 at 3:29 pm |
    • Pete

      I take that back, that is how long a day was right after the formation of the moon, not before there was a moon. Since that time the moon has been moving away from the Earth which slows it's rotation and causes days to become longer as time goes on. At some point the moon will begin to move back towards the Earth very slowly and days will begin to slowly become shorter.

      December 5, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Pete

      That sounds more right, I got a little confused at first.

      December 5, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
  7. I’mbeingsarcastic

    Sorry, everyone. You’re all wrong. Rubio was right the first time. That’s just the way it is.

    December 5, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      I was about to get militant there before I read your handle.

      December 5, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @I'mbeingsarcastic

      Are you being sarcastic?

      December 5, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
    • I’mbeingsarcastic

      Chuckles,

      No.

      However, this post IS purely sarcastic though/

      December 5, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • Rational Libertarian

      I'm not sure I understand. Are you retarded or not (agreeing with either of Rubio's statements would qualify you as retarded)?

      December 5, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
  8. Rational Libertarian

    Rubio said "whether the Earth was created in seven days, or seven actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that".

    Yes we can Rubio, the answer is neither. F.ucking retard.

    December 5, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • Lou

      The bible says "days" doesn't it? Why is it somehow allowable to just up and declare that days aren't really days when it doesn't suit their agenda, but that anything even remotely resembling a word meaning gay absolutely has to mean that God disapproved of gay marriage?

      December 5, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • Sane Person

      The fact that god measured the creation of the entire universe in earth days shows that its obviously written by men who had no knowledge of the universe. Also, god counts earth days before he makes the sun, which makes no sense.

      December 5, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
    • Mohammad A Dar

      days and nights on Earth are created as our planet spins on its axis, not universe or heaven. Which seven days? Earthly or Heavenly?

      December 5, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      Seven days according to God's Swimsuit calendar.

      December 5, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
    • Lou

      Regardless, it's the same word for "day" that they later use to describe the Commandment to keep the Sabbath holy, so the ancient Jews obviously saw both as the same unit of time, right?

      If not, that's one hell of a long time to wait for the weekend.

      December 5, 2012 at 3:32 pm |
  9. Mohammad A Dar

    Rubio "Science says (the earth) is about 4.5 billion years old........God created the heavens and the earth, and science has given us insight into when he did it and how he did it."

    Thanks Rubio!!! now I can predict age of God, HE is at least 4.5 billion years old.

    December 5, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
  10. Sam Yaza

    funny the more we learn about the universe the more I'm in aw about how great she (Gaia) is

    December 5, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
  11. Bender Bending Rodiguez

    I think we should cut Rubio some slack. He’s now providing an acceptable answer.

    December 5, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • Ben

      That's like saying that "Because Krypton's sun is red" is an acceptable answer to why Superman can fly and talk in space.

      December 5, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • Bender Bending Rodiguez

      Let's be realistic. There isn't going to be a president who will come out and say the earth is billions of years old and leave it at that.

      With Rubio's follow up, he gave a better response to the question that Obama did:
      http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/11/rubio_and_obama_and_the_age_of_earth_politicians_hedge_about_whether_universe.html

      December 5, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • Ben

      There probably isn't a president who will say that reading your horoscope is stupid either. People don't get elected by alienating more people then vote for them. Is there a single superst ition that is a safe bet for a president to say something against?

      December 5, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Ben

      Everyone knows that Superman gets his power from the yellow sun, which is why he can do all those things in space without being affected. Duh

      December 5, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • Ben

      Chuckles
      Well, that explains it. How silly of me to think that a red sun could ever help someone talk in the vacuum of space. :-)

      December 5, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Ben

      It's alright, I forgive you. Clearly the color of the sun is incredibly important when it comes to super powers. Superman is of course, the most powerful superhero to walk this planet, so why not be able to speak in a vacuum? LIttle things like oxygen are only for weak superheros like batman.

      December 5, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
    • Ben

      Chuckles
      I was thinking that you'd actually need to move some atoms in order to make sounds, but hey!

      Also, considering that red dwarf stars are the most common of all stars in the galaxy wouldn't most aliens in the DC universe be as powerful as Supes?

      December 6, 2012 at 12:22 am |
  12. Sane Person

    “The more science learns,” he continued, “the more I am convinced that God is real.”

    A lot of theists claim this, but it's a lie. There is nothing scientific to support the belief in god.

    December 5, 2012 at 12:57 pm |
    • Ben

      All it shows is their utter ignorance of science, and nothing more.

      December 5, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • Mickey1313

      Sane, but it fits the old saying, if you tell a lie enough times, people will start to believe it. Theism is the ultimate lie.

      December 5, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
  13. Apple Bush

    If science has not found an answer to a phenomenon, then God did it.

    Therefore before we understood lightning, God did it. Likewise for rain, tides, earthquakes, etc.

    Using this logic, every time we explain something we did not previously understand, a piece of God is eliminated.

    Therefore, God will necessarily be disproven over time.

    Therefore, there is no God.

    The law of a diminishing God.

    December 5, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
  14. Colin

    SO, he still thinks that, once we reach the limits of our current knowledge, it makes sense to call the remaining unknown "God".

    All he has done is push his logical error back from 6,000 years to 13.7 billion. "I don't know" DOES NOT equal god

    December 5, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
  15. Topher

    Good morning, everyone!

    December 5, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      Good morning T, ready to save some souls today?

      December 5, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • Topher

      Yep. Did you think about what we talked about yesterday?

      December 5, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • Madtown

      Bring the comedy.

      December 5, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      Topher, yes I did and I still think you need to accept Santa Claus as your Lord and Savior. Dude, I want you to get presents!

      December 5, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • Topher

      Again, Santa is not God nor is claiming to have any control over my soul for eternity. I don't need presents. I need my fines paid for.

      Seriously, dude, what things did you think about? What follow-up questions do you have?

      December 5, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
    • Huebert

      Hello Topher. Yesterday we were discussing Gen 3: 15

      14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

      “Cursed are you above all livestock
      and all wild animals!
      You will crawl on your belly
      and you will eat dust
      all the days of your life.
      15 And I will put enmity
      between you and the woman,
      and between your offspring and hers;
      he will crush your head,
      and you will strike his heel.”

      I gave the proceeding verse for context. You said that verse 15 is an allusion to the coming of Jesus. How so?

      December 5, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Topher

      Are you just here to proslytize or what? It seems like that's all you're here for.

      December 5, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • sam stone

      Saving souls? From what? A vindictive punk god?

      December 5, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
    • sam stone

      Hawaii: What else would he be here for, a discussion?

      December 5, 2012 at 1:35 pm |
    • Topher

      Hey, Huebert

      Happy to talk about that with you. Let's look at the verse Genesis 3:15 itself ...

      "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

      This is a prophetic passage about "thy seed" (Satan and unbelievers, called the devil's children in John 8:44) and "her seed" (Christ, a descendant of Eve and those in Him). "It (Christ) shall bruise thy head (defeating the serpent), and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Satan can only cause Him to suffer, not defeat.)

      In Romans 16:20, Paul says "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." See how that's a reference back to Genesis 3:15?

      December 5, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Topher

      Ballet dancers everywhere envy your spins.

      December 5, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      Topher said, "...what things did you think about? What follow-up questions do you have?"

      T, I thought about an article I read in this month’s Scientific American regarding the Milky Way's evolution. Then almost on cue, I read a CNN article regarding how our solar system appears to be bigger than we thought. Very interesting.

      That brought up a number of questions and if you are interested we can certainly discuss them.

      Another thing I thought about this morning upon hearing about the death of the legendary Dave Brubeck was how mathematics and music seem to be universal languages, but is music really just a sub-set of math? Is creativity mathematical?

      What is your take T?

      December 5, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • Topher

      Apple

      Those are interesting topics, but have nothing to do with what we talked about yesterday ... that we all have sins to be paid for and God has paid them for you.

      December 5, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Topher

      You don't get it do you? Apple is messing with you, and never took you seriously in the least with that topic. Your fear tactic isn't working on him, or anyone that thinks about your belief system even a little.

      December 5, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      Topher, why would I spend time thinking about your fantasies when there are so many interesting things to consider that actually exist?

      If there were a god, he was manifest in Dave Brubeck's music.

      If there were a god, I would thank him for the gift of music appreciation and great artists, and in using his gift, he would look down favorably upon me.

      I would pay god by using the brain he gave me to see the world as it really is. You on the other hand mock him and throw away his gifts. Bad Topher.

      December 5, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
    • Topher

      Apple

      You probably don't realize it, but you've just broken the second commandment.

      December 5, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      How do you figure T?

      December 5, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • Huebert

      Topher

      That seems like quite a stretch. What seems more likely is that verse is an early attempt to explain the natural human fear of snakes. There will be enmity between eve's seed (humanity) and the serpent's seed (all snakes). Man will kill snakes and snakes will kill men. That is much simpler idea than references between stories that occurred thousands of years apart.

      December 5, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
    • 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls

      I'm not buying anything Topher says (about religion) until he proves his god exists. . .

      December 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
    • Akira

      How does one break a commandment one does not believe in?
      How does one put a god before another god if one doesn't believe in any gods at all?
      Lol!

      December 5, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • sam stone

      Topher's belief system should not be taken seriously by anyone but Topher

      December 5, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
    • Pete

      Topher, since you think that Evolution is blasphemy you probably shouldn't have any kids because at that point you would be participating in Evolution.

      December 5, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
    • Topher

      Huebert

      That wouldn't make much sense in the context. Where else does the Bible deal with our fear of animals? Why snakes? Why not some larger predator? I think it's pretty clear it's a reference to Christ. Sin had just entered the world and it demonstrates God already had a plan in place. Even the Bible makes it clear in the passage I presented it was about Christ.

      December 5, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
    • sam stone

      if god is omniscient, and he knows who will accept his son as a savior, why does he create those who won't?

      December 5, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • Huebert

      Topher

      Where else does the Bible deal with our fear of animals?
      No where, as far as I know. Genesis is the only time the bible addresses the natural world at any length though. So if something about animals is going to be mentioned it would be in Genesis.

      Why snakes?
      Fear of snakes can be found in virtually every culture. This may be due to the fact that poisonous snakes can be found almost everywhere you find humans. They are scary because they are easy to miss and very deadly, especially considering their size.

      Why not some [other] larger predator?
      Because that part of Genesis is a story of deception. A large predator is not often seen as deceptive, that trait is usually applied to a small dangerous animal.

      Despite what you think, this is not a clear reference, and the evidence you provided is far from convincing. Genesis reads like a creation myth, if you look at some native american, or Greek, creation myths you will see the similarities.

      December 5, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
  16. Mohammad A Dar

    who cares??

    December 5, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
    • Huebert

      Considering he is on the senate science committee, I care.

      December 5, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • Lou

      He's on the science committee? Why not make a witch doctor the next Surgeon General?

      December 5, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • Mickey1313

      Hubert, it is sad that they have someone so stupid on the science comitee.

      December 5, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • sam

      Wasn't Akin, Mr 'shut that whole rape down' on the science committee too? Brilliant.

      December 5, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
  17. Bill Porter

    Earth's age, Just one of those mysteries we'll never know, like "Is the moon made of cheese?" and "Where do babies come from?"

    December 5, 2012 at 11:56 am |
    • Akira

      This made me laugh, thanks.

      December 5, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      Akira, sorry about that. For some reason I had the Steelers on the brain.

      December 5, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • Akira

      Apple:
      That's all right, toots.
      My grandbaby's Uncle played for the Steelers.

      December 5, 2012 at 1:29 pm |
    • Apple Bush

      Cool! I luvs me some football.

      December 5, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
  18. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    Sen. Marco Rubio (R. Florida): See I fixed it!

    This new revised answer is of course perfectly fine. What we have seen is a rookie mistake by a politician not used to being on the big stage. He badly fumbled what really was a softball question by trying to walk the Republican tightrope of denial of reality just to appease fundies.

    He would have been much better off being sincere in the first place. Sticking to the fundie talking points just made him look insincere and stupid.

    While Obama also avoided the question in 2008, he did it with sufficient panache to avoid the pasting that Rubio deserved.

    December 5, 2012 at 11:21 am |
  19. Pete

    Too late Marco,

    December 5, 2012 at 11:02 am |
  20. James

    Rubio privately does not believe that God created the world in 7 days and that we are all descended from Adm and Eve, but he has to toe the Republican line on creationism. Science has debunked a lot of what is in the Bible but Science has not debunked the existence of a mastermind behind the processes that have resulted in what the world is today. Call this mastermind God or whatever you want to but is he/she/it exists, he/she/it certainly does not micro-manage and answer to prayers, grant favours or punishes.

    December 5, 2012 at 10:55 am |
1 2 3 4 5

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

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.