Rubio ignites debate with answer about creationism
November 19th, 2012
04:19 PM ET

Rubio ignites debate with answer about creationism

By Dan Merica and Eric Marrapodi, CNN

Washington (CNN) – Florida Sen. Marco Rubio attempted to walk the line between science and faith-based creationism in remarks that that have provoked the ire of liberal blogs, leaving the door open to creationism in responding to a recent question about the age of the Earth.

When GQ’s Michal Hainey asked Rubio, in an interview released Monday, “How old do you think the Earth is,” the rising Republican star described the debate about the planet’s age as “one of the great mysteries.”

“I'm not a scientist, man,” Rubio told the interviewer. “I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.”

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

Most scientists agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 14.5 billion years old. Christian Young Earth Creationists, on the other hand, argue that the weeklong account of God creating the Earth and everything in it represents six 24-hour periods (plus one day of rest) and date the age of the Earth between 6,000 and 10,000 years.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

Left-leaning blogs and sites like ThinkProgress and Huffington Post jumped on Rubio’s comments, with the Zack Beauchamp from ThingProgress writing, “To suggest we can’t know how old the Earth is, then, is to deny the validity of these scientific methods altogether — a maneuver familiar to Rubio, who also denies the reality of anthropogenic climate change.”

Rubio is regarded as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2016, though the senator says his visit last week to Iowa, home of the first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses, had “nothing to do with 2016.”

His response to GQ’s age of the Earth query has also provoked questions about his political aspirations. Dave Weigel of Slate writes, “How can you read that and not think ‘Iowa’? ” The state is the first to hold a presidential caucus in 2016.

Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup in June. That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

The second most common view is that humans evolved with God's guidance - a view held by 32% of respondents. The view that humans evolved with no guidance from God was held by 15% of respondents.

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

Rubio attends a Baptist church in southern Florida but also considers himself “a practicing Catholic.”

He was born Catholic, but his family converted to Mormonism when Rubio was 8 years old, according to Rubio’s recent memoir. The family left its LDS faith behind when it moved from Nevada back to Florida and Rubio was confirmed in the Catholic Church.

Catholic teaching is that science and faith are not at odds with one another and it is possible to believe what scientists say about the Earth’s age and in God. But many evangelical churches, including Baptist ones, promote a version of creationism.

When CNN reached out to Rubio’s Baptist church in Florida on Monday, a person answering the phone would not comment on its teachings about the Earth’s age and said that a church representative was unlikely to be available in the near term.

During the GQ interview, Rubio argued that “there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all.”

For the past 30 years, the “equal-time argument” –- the idea that Creationism taught alongside evolution -– has been popular method for Creationists to advance their cause. In the late 1980s, some state legislatures passed bills that promoted the idea of a balanced treatment of both ideas in the classroom.

In 1987, the issue made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where a Louisiana "equal-time law" was struck down. The court ruled that teaching creationism in public school classrooms was a violation of the Establishment Cause in the Constitution, which is commonly referred to as the separation of church and state.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Creationism • Politics

soundoff (6,211 Responses)
  1. Correctlycenter

    The people who reject the God that created the heavens and the earth in a literal six days, prefer to believe and spread the lies of evolution. Evolution is the theory that some inorganic mass of soup formed some 3.5 to 4.5 billion years ago, containing ammonia, nitrogen and CO2 just formed somehow out of nowhere to produce everything we see today, really?
    The hebrew term for a literal day, 24 hour period is "yom". Those who believe in the lie of evolution are stubbornly resistent toward God because they would have to be accountable to Him if they acknowledged Him, so the easy way for them is to say that there is no god. They prefer to live a self-centered, humanistic and ego driven life.

    Science tells us that "biogenesis" means that only life can produce life. Rocks, planets, asteroids and space elements cannot produce life. Tadpoles and monkeys cannot produce human life. We have our DNA from our parents...

    November 24, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • chuck

      Surely you can use fewer words to prove how stupid you are.

      November 24, 2012 at 11:56 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      What is your proof that any of the claims of your religion are true? (hint: the bible is not proof)

      November 24, 2012 at 12:01 pm |
    • Don

      Chuck, you managed to do it with 12.

      November 24, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What is "stupid" about Chuck's post? He's right. The op's drivel is dreck.

      November 24, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • Don

      Cheesemaker, you seem to have a pretty good handle on all this, explain how we get to that 4.5 Billion number again?

      November 24, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Well Don alot of it has to do with geology (the study of rocks). You see, we can date rocks using a variety of methods and when those methods give the same answers we can say that they 'prove' the answer. We know the moon shares rocks from the earth and so we can date how long ago the moon ran into the earth.

      Or we can use your method of relying on a book written by bronze age goat herders that claims "magic did it", that is no more reliable that any other book of supersi.tious mythology.

      November 24, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
    • Arvoasitis

      The Hebrew word yom or yohm refers in the Old Testament can refer to a literal day, several seasons (Zechariah 14:8), a thousand years (Psalm 90:4), or any extended period of time.

      November 24, 2012 at 1:15 pm |
    • Don

      Thank you for that. I guess the whole debate is over now, Cheesemaker has told us about moon rocks. I guess we have to go along with the 4.5 billion year theory. How much more evidence do we need? Time to feed the Goats.

      November 24, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      He certainly provided more explanation than you have, Don.

      November 24, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • ?

      Chuck, as you did?

      November 24, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • Don

      Sorry, don't look to me to explain the 4.5 Billion Year theory. I can't. Apparently no one else here can either.

      November 24, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'm sure that many can. But why should they bother to explain something to someone who believes in a fairy godfather who created all in 6 days?

      November 24, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Don

      I am not asking for "many", just one. Any takers?

      November 24, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
    • mama k

      Actually Cc assumes way too much. One can certainly refute the likelihood of the God of Abraham regardless of the validity of current evolutionary theory. There is certainly much unknown about the origins of matter. But the lack of credibility for most Abrahamic religious belief are quite obvious to some in the same way that spam is obvious. The OT is rehashed ancient folklore at best. And what better way to draw more non-believers to your new religion than to base your new religion on one that already exists – the god of Abraham of ancient mythology. Add some new twists and Christianity is born. Do it again in America with some even more dazzling twists and walla – Mormonism is born. It should be enough to question ancient folklore, but the twists injected for adding a new flavor is especially a red flag. There is no credible proof to any of the magic (miracles, interface with a higher being) in these religions. Written eyewitness testimony from or about a group that may have the same political motive (such as Jesus' inner circle, Paul & his secretary, Joseph Smith & Co. & Families, Inc., etc.) is not credible evidence.

      November 24, 2012 at 2:42 pm |
    • End Religion

      Here are a few "inconvenient" facts that, each independently of each other, comprehensively disprove the utter garbage of creationism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      In short, and not surprisingly, the World’s most gifted evolutionary biologists, astronomers, cosmologists, geologists, archeologists, paleontologists, historians, modern medical researchers and linguists (and about 2,000 years of accu.mulated knowledge) are right and a handful of Iron Age Middle Eastern goat herders copying then extant mythology were wrong. Creationists aren’t just trying to swim upstream against the weight of scientific evidence; they are trying to ascend a waterfall.

      November 24, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
    • Awe

      the very idea that these creationist can make the claims that they know and understand God's methods proves them to be arrogant fools. The bible when interpreted literally controdicts it's self thousands of times. This doesn't make it wrong. It makes it complex. Please take into account the bible was written to guide children who can not begin to fathom God's greatness. Science may give us small glances at the greatness of creation but we will never understand it all. The same goes for the bible. True Christians are humble.

      November 24, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
    • End Religion

      "True Christians are humble"

      No, all christians are Bumbles. And Bumbles bounce!

      November 24, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
    • lionlylamb


      The people who reject the God that created the heavens and the earth in a literal six days, prefer to believe and spread the lies of evolution.

      Our evolution from a singular celled organism due the inward placed orders of the submicrocosmological being subjected beforehand; is but an under the unknowable considerations regarding the whys and hows of cellular cosmologies tenured coming of age. Yes? Maybe? No? If no then why not?

      November 24, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers


      I find it interesting that you require others to prove science to you, something you can actually do yourself, but you are more than willing to take the word of a book containing multiple accounts of zombies.

      Don thinks...

      Zombie books = real

      Science books = 1 huge consiracy to discredit his god myth perpetrated by evil scientist from every country in the world.

      Take a class, read a science book.....or your other option is to stay willfully ignorant.

      November 24, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • Don

      Yawn...still waiting for one of you experts to give us some evidence to back up your 4.5 Billion Year Theory.

      November 24, 2012 at 9:13 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Try wikipedia, Don. It's got all sorts of information for you to ignore and act contemptuously over.

      November 24, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
    • Don

      Just as I suspected, you don't think for yourself. You rely on wikipedia to tell you what you believe. If you can't explain it yourself than you don't really know what you believe.

      November 24, 2012 at 9:26 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Donny, I doubt you have a clue what the word "irony" means, but your post is an example.

      You rely on a book of myths and fairy tales that's 2000 years old for your "facts" but find it absurd that someone else thinks Wikipedia is a valid source of info.

      The irony, she burns.

      November 24, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
    • Damocles


      You asked for an explanation and received one. I'm not sure what else you want.

      November 24, 2012 at 10:15 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      He wants someone to make up some nonsense on the fly, like he did.

      November 24, 2012 at 10:26 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers


      Science has mounds and mounds of information. It is not my job proving it to you. There are science teachers and professors all over that could explain it to you if you really wanted to know.....I don't think you do. You are too invested in your mythology to really care what is true.

      November 25, 2012 at 11:22 am |
    • Don

      Cheesemaker, with all of those "mounds and mounds of information" out there you think it would be easy to explain the 4.5 Billion Year theory but no one here as even come close. Still waiting.

      November 25, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
  2. lionlylamb

    How long did it take for someone to finally look inwards upon this physical body of ours by taking on a scientific journey toward finally understanding our body-like buildings of Godly intentions? If it weren't for the daringly curious lots, there would be no such things as our modern day scientific understandings. The will to dream dreamt dreaming is what we dividedly do least and only in the sparsity of dreamt dreaming issues did we come of Age in the enlightenments of science and its ongoing understandings of spiritually to be so dreamt dreams of daytime believers daring to dream the dreams of one's lifetimes!

    Falsely labelling reiligious beliefs as s u p e r s t i t o u s dogma does neither parties any good! Should one call a cat a dog? Should one say a cow has six legs? One who dares to belittle things does no goodness upon that which is being belittled or even the 'belittler'. I do know such 'belittlements' will ever continue onwards if life here is to be spared a gruesome ending. All people are emotionally held islands of spiritedness and their souls do ever live on regardless those who hold firmly against such ideologies of religious intentions

    November 24, 2012 at 11:44 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I'll bet when you play "Balderdash," you always win.

      November 24, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • Hot Air Alert

      Falsely labelling? A wee bit presumptuous perhaps? Lol.

      November 24, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      We're not trying to belittle you. We're trying to introduce reasoning to you. Don't take it so personally. It's for the betterment of all mankind that you should be able to distinguish fantasy from reality.

      November 24, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
  3. Jourdan

    He starts it all with saying "I'm not a scientist, man." Automatically every ounce of credibility he had speaking on the subject is gone. If you dont realize that youre an idiot.

    November 24, 2012 at 11:37 am |
  4. caroper

    Rubio's response to the question on the age of the earth amounted to his confession of not being an expert on geology. All the elaboration you read in the above article and the TV broadcast amount to thin air fabrication by the two lying communists Dan Merica and Eric Marrapodi.

    November 24, 2012 at 11:35 am |
    • Hamm

      "communists", really?

      November 24, 2012 at 11:45 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      You don't have to be an expect to understand the science, that is a cop out.

      November 24, 2012 at 11:47 am |
  5. cybercmdr

    OK, simple test. The nearest star is about 4 light years away, which means it took the light from that star about four years to get here. If the Universe was created about 6000 years ago, we should not be able to see objects more than 6000 light years away. If things were more distant, the light would not have been able to reach us yet. As our galaxy is about 100,000 light years across, we would not be able to see most of our own galaxy.

    There are 200+ billion galaxies in the observable universe, and astronomers routinely study galaxies billions of light years away. This means that the universe must be billions of years old, otherwise the light from those galaxies would not have reached us. If the creationist argument can't handle something as fundamental as the speed of light, how can anyone believe it?

    November 24, 2012 at 11:19 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      God created the light. He saw it and it was good. Good enough to fool just about everyone.

      November 24, 2012 at 11:37 am |
    • caroper

      What you're saying in a nutshell is a creation event didn't occur. Given what is accepted as known at this point, your viewpoint is incredibly arrogant. In Genesis, God said let there be light. Science says the same thing. The big bang was the grandaddy of all light. Period. I can tell you garnered your scientific education from the likes of Nova. Space and time exist as relative functions. They're totally elastic. I afraid you may not have a working grasp on "in seven days"; "in the beginning" much less 6.5 billion years. Had God laid out the secrets of the infinite forms of the universe in modern English, how much chance do you figure you'd have understanding it?

      November 24, 2012 at 11:47 am |
    • Hamm

      The standard creationist explanation is that God created the light from those very distant galaxies already en route so that it only appears as though they would have to be that old. God is quite the little prankster, apparently. That and hiding fossils that, for all the world, test as millions of years old, as well as a mountain of other evidence, if he's responsible for faking all of it then he is seriously twisted and not at all interested in "the truth."

      November 24, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • Hamm

      Genesis has God separating light from darkness during the first "day", and then he goes on to create the sun and stars during the next day. How can a "day" exist without a sun? Easy, considering that the ancient Hebrews, like other peoples, believed that the stars, sun, and moon were set like clockwork up in a solid "firmament" not too much higher than the tallest mountains. Heaven was very close for them.

      November 24, 2012 at 11:59 am |
  6. Paul Stufflebeam

    How many of you are under the impression that they are born again ?

    November 24, 2012 at 10:29 am |
    • Jesus Christ

      Reincarnation works for me!

      November 24, 2012 at 10:31 am |
    • lionlylamb

      Paul S.

      To be "born again" is for us celestial conflagrations to die and then be reborn back into the Kingdom Domains or heavens of God which do lay upon our embodied building husbanded by the sons of God. Christians tend to "feel" a need to be soulfully or spiritually reborn via an emotionalized ambiguation leveraged upon a falseness in one's character analysis.

      November 24, 2012 at 10:50 am |
    • Jesus Christ

      @ the old, retired goat that needs to stop trolling these boards: Being born again is also known as reincarnation. It makes more sense to have an eternal soul that lives life after life, to learn new experiences than it does to have one life, die and then float around singing praises to a god that can't be bothered to even visit for 2000 years.

      November 24, 2012 at 10:53 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      How would one know? And why would it matter?

      November 24, 2012 at 11:13 am |
    • lionlylamb

      Your falsification of namesake does tend to belittle but no matter J.C. you are not!

      If you could only understand that our bodies are mere buildings inhabited by God and all His brethrens and family members you would then be one step closer to rightly understanding! God does will us to labour together with him and not be belittled by nor thru His will for us for being below Him in measurings of intellectual cunning. What happens here upon earth is also happening in the heavens which are inside our bodies. How long will it take others to be familiarized with my words that are mere fruitions from dreams ever being dreamt? Who then shall dare to likewise dream of dreamt dreaming in ways of Godliness ideals?

      November 24, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Goofy, Oddly Deaf: How long will it take? How long have you been posting your nonsense words and "does do this or that" stuff? Nobody understands it. It's not understandable because it makes no sense.

      November 24, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • Hamm

      Jesus could have simply meant that his return would be so distant in the future that his audience basically would have to be reincarnated, or born again some time in the future in order to see him again. Another in the long list of things that Jesus said, but that Christians haven't gotten right, I suppose?

      November 24, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
  7. Paul Stufflebeam

    Imitation is as we are all supposed to be to the light and also to those who see the light in us.

    November 24, 2012 at 10:23 am |
    • Paul Stufflebeam

      I hope that you can see that the only thing that has an opinion is a lie, the truth does not have an opinion.

      November 24, 2012 at 10:26 am |
    • Jackdack

      Why do christians babble incoherently all the time?

      November 24, 2012 at 10:30 am |
    • Paul Stufflebeam

      Your lack of understanding is most certainly that that has been said, I will close up their ears so that they will not understand, and in the end you will be on the left hand of God , a goat.

      November 24, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • Jesus Christ

      Oh wow paul, you know your comments only prove how insane you are. Have you taken your meds today?

      November 24, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      The truth does not have to be asserted, the truth does not require faith.

      November 24, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • Hamm

      Paul Stufflebeam
      Deciding what is "the Truth", however, is an opinion. There is nothing standalone that is "the Truth" by itself, and that includes anything you think is according to your opinion.

      November 24, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
  8. lionlylamb

    It's true, I am a homeless man. God has done NOTHING for me, but at least I can go to the Public Library and get online so that I can troll all of these opinion posts to spread my crazy schizo agenda for Jesus!

    November 24, 2012 at 10:02 am |
    • lionlylamb

      You dear lost soul are a blackened facsimile and I am a "true blue" one and only! You can try to steal my name and make small talk but we all know you to be but a falseness!

      November 24, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • Paul Stufflebeam

      There probably is not room enough on this site to list all of the things that your Father has done for you that you remaine ignorant of. Not saying you are ignorant just of those things that you are not aware of.

      November 24, 2012 at 10:19 am |
    • lionlylamb

      Paul S.,

      Which of the two lionlylambs are you inferring towards? The "black one" or the "true blue one"?

      November 24, 2012 at 10:38 am |
  9. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    How would Gallup determine if a response actually represents a belief? Perhaps, at any given time, most people don't hold a view on the origin of the Universe or humanity, or even on the existence and nature of God. Not that they can't whip up such views when asked, they just think about such things so seldom and it's all so unimportant to daily life that they have no deeply felt beliefs about any of it.

    "How old is the earth?"

    "Dunno, maybe a million years."

    "Did God make the earth?"

    "He sure did!"

    "What's God like?"

    "He's, like, God – you know?"

    "Why do you believe in God?"

    "I know there's a Higher Power. One day I was waiting for the Metro and I almost fell in front of the train. Something pulled me back. I mean I almost died right then and there."

    "God pulled you back?"

    "No, this guy from Ivory Coast did. But God put him in the right place at the right time – you know?"

    November 24, 2012 at 9:35 am |
    • lionlylamb

      Tom, Tom, the Other One,

      We live therefore we are. In living do we determine things to be or not to be. Science does lay the boundaries of witholdings not withstanding the erring of theories ever to be outdone by the next dream to be dreamt by dreamers of thoughts.

      November 24, 2012 at 9:55 am |
    • Jesus Christ

      @ lionlygoat...get a job!

      November 24, 2012 at 10:00 am |
    • lionlylamb

      Jesus Christ

      Sorry but I no longer do work for I am too old to be a worker and am not mentally alert to raise a hammer anymore let alone jobs are very damn hard to find nowadays! Besides, It's freakin Saturday and part of a 4-day weekend!

      November 24, 2012 at 10:09 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      I don't care whether he actually believes it or not. We need to send a message to our leaders that supersti.tious dogma is not going to be tolerated as a basis for making decisions in the real world. It you want to believe "god started everything" that is fine but to deny science and scientific findings because it does not jive with mythology is rediculous.

      November 24, 2012 at 10:59 am |
    • lionlylamb

      Blessed are the Cheesemakers,

      Falsely labelling reiligious beliefs as s u p e r s t i t o u s dogma does neither parties any good! Should one call a cat a dog? Should one say a cow has six legs? One who dares to belittle things does no goodness upon that which is being belittled or the 'belittler'. I do know such belittlements will ever continue if life here is to be spared a gruesome ending. All people are emtionally held islands of spiritedness and their souls to ever live on regardless those who hold against such ideologies of religious intentions.

      November 24, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Gods Oldest Delusion,

      I will not respond to your posts, one cannot have a rational discussion with a person that makes up their own words.

      November 24, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
  10. lol??

    H0m0 saps are tri-part.. "1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and [I pray God] your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.".

    November 24, 2012 at 9:17 am |
    • lol??

      Those that demand experience as proof will get it..."Zec 13:8 And it shall come to pass, [that] in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off [and] die; but the third shall be left therein." When you die your spirit is all that's left. This fulfills this prophecy on one level, tailored just for you, err everybody.

      November 24, 2012 at 9:25 am |
    • lionlylamb

      Four Biblical Quotes to Keep on one's Mind

      Mathew 6:33 "But seek ye first the kingdom of God!"

      Luke 17:21, "The kingdom of God is inside you!"

      John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world!"

      1Corinthians 3:9 "For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building!"

      If one does make a valiant attempt to "literally believe" the above four verses of KJVB scripture you might then slowly begin to understand the Truth in God's Word!

      November 24, 2012 at 10:27 am |
  11. ericmpaul

    The sun is the center of the universe. The earth is 10,000 years old, it's flat, is the only planet of billions to host life, and humans have NO affect on the climate. When we screw things up badly enough on our magical planet, a mystical being is going to descend from "Heaven" and save those that believe in Him and let everyone else perish.

    November 24, 2012 at 9:03 am |
    • lol??

      An author like Broadwell! How many copies have ya sold?

      November 24, 2012 at 9:12 am |
    • Dionmithjesu

      gonna find out who's naughty or nice, I have tons of coal from xmas' past, but perishing in everlasting torment, I will take a pass on. LOL

      November 24, 2012 at 9:13 am |
    • niknak

      I think you summed it up pretty well E.
      But along the way, the people who believe in that are going to try to force their stone age myth on the rest of us and make our lives as miserable as possible.

      November 24, 2012 at 9:24 am |
    • lionlylamb


      Let me guess, "Your quote stems from an age of darkness and unpleasant desperations?" How long did it take for someone to finally look inwards upon this physical body of ours taking on a scientific journey toward finally understanding our body-like buildings of Godly intentions? If it weren't for the curious lots, there would be no such things as modern day scientific understandings. The will to dream dreamt dreaming is what we do least and only in the sparsity of dreamt dreaming issues did we come of Age in the enlightenments of science and its understandings.

      November 24, 2012 at 9:33 am |
    • lol??

      eric, you didn't know that God is green?? "Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth." It's not a good idea to put the Beasties in charge of 'saving the earth'. It's a futile usurpation and you know who they'll make pay for it. The wrong people!

      November 24, 2012 at 9:52 am |
  12. lionlylamb

    Is it not written that, "A thousand years God time is like but only a single day earth time."? Count the total number of known days up that we are aware of and multiply them by a thousand and one will have an answer in Godly years which may be equivalent to science's understanding our age of the Cosmos. It's not rocket science to do simplistic multiplication or is it?

    November 24, 2012 at 8:43 am |
    • Paul Stufflebeam

      I guess that earth time still remaines as a single day and it takes God 1000 years to equal 1 day earth time ?

      November 24, 2012 at 9:00 am |
    • Paul Stufflebeam

      Wouldnt that be devision instead of multiply ?

      November 24, 2012 at 9:03 am |
    • Dionmithjesu

      So it is written, so shal it be, I thought that quote was attributed to Tarus Bulba a fictional character, or wasn't it part of the Theogony where time was not relevant at all to the gods. Could you be more specific which god you refer to in your god time staement.

      November 24, 2012 at 9:07 am |
    • lionlylamb

      Paul S.,

      Yes, a thousand years God time is but a day's passing of earth based time. God does live inside our celestial being inside a domain of such smallness and increase of speed that mankind does hardly ever consider such a phenom of understanding.

      November 24, 2012 at 9:07 am |
    • lionlylamb

      Not only is it written that a thousand years God time is euivalent to one day earthly time but also is written that a day God time is equal to a thousand years earth time. This dichotomy or the breaking in two does equate to God being the overall of a celestialness is in reality quite young and the Kingdom domains of God being of the inner cosmos of atomic emulations is very very old.

      November 24, 2012 at 9:16 am |
    • Dionmithjesu

      The problem with your, so it is written type statements, made by christian apologists is that you can not name the author of the statement or proof that the statement is valid. Faith is all you have, belief in something that cannot be proved.

      November 24, 2012 at 9:25 am |
    • niknak

      Since you are dealing in magic, then you can just keep waiting for science to put forth proven facts and then you can use your babble to make up whatever fits.
      That has been your fundie's MO for centuries, why stop now?

      November 24, 2012 at 9:31 am |
    • lionlylamb


      Do not also the atheists have faith in much of sciences theories that many atheists can less understand yet do remain faithfilled by thoughtless amalgams in obscured relativities?

      November 24, 2012 at 9:42 am |
    • lionlylamb


      I do not "deal in magic" for I deal upon questions regarding much of Jewish scriptures of the uncommon holdings that dares to leverage my understandings.

      November 24, 2012 at 9:46 am |
    • Dionmithjesu

      But of course, whatever, duh!!!

      November 24, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • lionlylamb


      Do you willingly want to ever remain in "duh duh land"? Sadly you cherish duh duh more than dare to dream dreamt dreams of ones days do willingly be a dreamer of things wanting to be so dreamt!

      November 24, 2012 at 10:01 am |
  13. Paul Stufflebeam

    If I am not mistaken, There was recently a scientific conclusion that it was not possible for the human body to have just happened, that there had to have been an influence that is beyond their ability to explain.

    November 24, 2012 at 8:39 am |
  14. gep1955

    With all the immediate crisies going on, the next time a leftist reporter asks a conservative politician a stupid question like how old is the earth, the politician just needs to answer, "older than you, dimwit, next question".

    November 24, 2012 at 8:24 am |
    • Mirosal

      That would be a very good answer, but poloticians LOVE to hear themselves talk, so reporters give them a chance to dig their own graves.

      November 24, 2012 at 8:27 am |
  15. Paul Stufflebeam

    Is it possible that evolution and creation are both true ?

    November 24, 2012 at 8:02 am |
    • Paul Stufflebeam

      It seems to me that there is scientific proof of an evolved human , also there seems to be scientific data that the earth is really old, lots older than 5000 years. Then there is the creation of man that has all of the necessary proofs to, Why is it that there has to be one or the other ? Why would God , in the beginning point out that there would be a diffrence between a " Good Seed " and a " Bad Seed " ?

      November 24, 2012 at 8:09 am |
    • Mirosal

      To answer that question yourself, just ask yourself another question. Do you believe in ghosts, spo'oks, spectres, goblins, vampires, werewolves, fairies, sprites, nymphs, leprechauns, unicorns, and/or anything else in the realm of the supernatural?

      November 24, 2012 at 8:11 am |
    • lol??

      When Lazarus walked out of the grave do the scientists say Jesus was on steroids?

      November 24, 2012 at 8:19 am |
    • Paul Stufflebeam

      I was'nt talking obout all that, just thinking that it is possible that there are two blood lines that are coexisting. All human beings, just that, not all that other stuff.

      November 24, 2012 at 8:23 am |
    • Mirosal

      and you REALLY think that happened? The only place you'll find THAT story is in the big book of fables. Something that astounding, that amazing, and NO ONE thought to record it for posterity? Before you start, not a single word of the New Testament was written by anyone who was there. Every word they wrote was nothing but hearsay. The Lazarus stroy is a myth, just like the flood, the resurrection, the appearance 40 days later, the talking serpent, the burning bush.. even the Jews escaping Egypt. Not a single hieroglyph mentions a word about ANY Jews ever being held there, let alone escaping across a parted sea.

      November 24, 2012 at 8:25 am |
    • Dionmithjesu

      Paul S.
      "Then there is the creation of man that has all of the neccesary proofs to (also)" Really, name the neccesary proofs; proof–evidence or arguement establishing or helping to establish a fact or truth of a statement. With that in mind, give it your best shot.

      November 24, 2012 at 8:32 am |
    • lol??

      Blood lines, hhhhmmmm. "Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;" ............."1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit."

      November 24, 2012 at 8:42 am |
    • Paul Stufflebeam

      If I am not mistaken, There was recently a scientific conclusion that it was not possible for the human body to have just happened, that there had to have been an influence that is beyond their ability to explain.

      November 24, 2012 at 8:45 am |
    • Mirosal

      lol?? ... you're quoting that book? It isn't regarded as evidence by ANY means of the word "evidence". Please, try again, but this time, use something credible.

      November 24, 2012 at 8:47 am |
    • Paul Stufflebeam

      Yes, all that God has made is of one blood, but there is deffenitly a determination before a child passes into the realm of physical life and air that it's blood is determined. Whether they will be a goat or a sheep.

      November 24, 2012 at 8:55 am |
    • Dionmithjesu

      Paul S.
      Just stating there may be a scientific study is not proof of anything. A scientific study must be peer reviewed and achieve a favourable concensus. It is possible to give scientists the result you want them to achieve and pay them to come with a path to the desired conclusion. Re: Smoking is not harmful or emissions do not cause acid rain, etc.

      November 24, 2012 at 8:55 am |
    • Lisa

      Sure. Sort of.

      Creationism is a belief, a tenet of faith. It's true to you if you believe it. Period.

      Evolution is a scientific theory (unlike creationism) which is why it's taught in science class for us all to know/weigh/study.

      November 24, 2012 at 11:01 am |
  16. Frank Maston

    I thought Rubio was considered by Republicans to be a serious contender for 2016 until I read about this interview. He's only 41, and grew up in the era of science, so he cannot claim to be uninformed. This "early equivocating" reminds me of Romney in the primaries – say whatever you need to keep the base. This is a losing strategy.

    November 24, 2012 at 7:56 am |
    • lol??

      The wise guys know the house always wins. Old Chicago dem machine politics. The Masters lose. That's what a demobocracy is all about.

      November 24, 2012 at 8:05 am |
    • lol??

      Even the Pope gives a Red Mass for the commie public servants.

      November 24, 2012 at 8:13 am |
    • gep1955

      Any strategy is better than the path we're on now designed by the Socialist Democrat Party and our dear leader,Barack Obama. The certainty that America will be bancrupt in a couple years and his dream of all nations being equal in their misery will become a reality. So much for transformation.

      Did you vote for Obama? Thanks a lot a**h01e.

      November 24, 2012 at 8:31 am |
    • pjt

      @gep1955 "Any strategy is better than the path we're on now..."

      Then your standards are way too low! If this Rubio guy really believes what he said then he is unqualified for any decision-making role and most certainly should have no say in any Science Policy. If he's pandering to the base of creationists and young-earth zealots then he is without honor or scruples and is (unfortunately) highly qualified for political office by today's standards.

      November 24, 2012 at 10:35 am |
  17. Jonathan

    What a loser.

    November 24, 2012 at 7:37 am |
  18. ComSenseWiz

    Anyone who even eludes that the Earth is less than 15000 years old is either delusional or an idiot.

    November 24, 2012 at 6:52 am |
    • lol??

      'ludes are bad? Better tell that to the gubmint.

      November 24, 2012 at 7:42 am |
    • Mirosal

      @ Com Sense ... try a little common sense please... "elude" means to evade, to avoid ... to "allude" means to refer to. If you are going to keep using that screen name, at least TRY to act like your screen name, ok?

      November 24, 2012 at 7:48 am |
    • lol??

      The Masters can't afford editors, so don't be to hard onthe dude with ludes.

      November 24, 2012 at 7:56 am |
    • lol??

      too................another annoying correction?

      November 24, 2012 at 8:01 am |
    • Mirosal

      Well, if he wants to SHARE them, that's another story!! 😉

      November 24, 2012 at 8:06 am |
  19. TheRationale

    He knows how to garner votes from the uneducated, it seems. Unfortunately it seems like that's because he is uneducated himself. And what's this with "left-leaning ire"? How about the ire of those who can pass a proper biology class, not just liberals? Why must the Republican party be the stupid party, the anti-science party?

    November 23, 2012 at 11:38 pm |
  20. niknak

    Here is what the article should have read-

    Marco Rubio leaves the door open to more right wing pandering.

    November 23, 2012 at 11:14 pm |
    • lol??

      I see. You prefer closet activity behind closed doors. Their is some merit to that viewpoint. Keep the dead skeletons where they belong and not stinkin' up the place.

      November 24, 2012 at 7:48 am |
    • lol??

      There................Isn't that correction annoying?

      November 24, 2012 at 7:59 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73
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.