 |
|
|
|
November 19th, 2012
04:19 PM ET
Rubio ignites debate with answer about creationismBy 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. |
  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.  |
|
|
|
I don't know any xstians who VOMIT all over the table when other people are there eating. Why can't they realize that this is the effect they have on our society when they spew their delusional beliefs on the rest of us. Religion is the reason our test scores are lower than other countries. Freedom of religion has gone too far. Religion is the OPPOSITE of patriotism now. We need to make it illegal to drag children into a church for this brainwashing, just like it's illegal for them to drink in a bar.
Poor little matriotic girly man.
Nietodarwin,
You cannot legislate belief or what parents teach their children. While I agree it is child abuse, the change cannot be forced.
True Blessed. But, thankfully, now it is easier now to expose stupidity involved in important decision-making than ever before (and to get the word out about it).
Nietodarwin
It's sad that the USA scores so low, but you can't legislate non-belief any more than you can legislate belief. All anyone can do is keep countering their propaganda and hope that the trend away from religious fanaticism continues on it's present steady pace. Maybe then, if we're lucky, the USA could have a world-class education system again in about fifty years.
Nietodarwin wants freedom of religion only for atheists not for any other kind of faith. Thanks for making that clear. I will teach my child my faith. thank you.
Kneetodarwin is a twit thinking you can vote on truth.
Tea,
We have some common ground. Restricting any belief threatens everyones freedom.
lol?? is a dumb slore that thinks that religion should be legislated....keep you religion out of my va jay jay, and I'll keep your god out of it too.
Trina,
killing unborn humans is good huh?
@tea
For pete's sake, tea, I don't think there are many people going around, dancing for joy at the possibility of having an abortion.
teapatriot bleated: "killing unborn humans is good huh?"
only a pregnant woman can make the choice to have an abortion. until you're a pregnant woman it's none of your business, you screaming, delusional retard.
not everyone believes in your imaginary man in the sky. when you become a pregnant woman i doubt you'll want anyone else making decisions for you on what you do about it. when you become a pregnant woman – if you don't want to get an abortion... don't. it's that simple.
roe vs wade won't be overturned – get over yourselves.
those of you who believe in an imaginary man in the sky should never be allowed to vote, hold public office, purchase or own firearms or teach public school.
those of you who seek to make legislate your idiotic theistic morals, usurping their freedom, liberty, rights and equality of those who do not believe as you do – deserve no rights, liberties, freedom or equality.
religious organizations that seek to influence political discourse should be weeded out and have their tax-exempt status promptly revoked.
tolerance of religious ignorance and idiocy has to stop.
enough is enough.
@TeaPatriot
"killing unborn humans is good huh?"
Your god seems to be pretty okay with it. "His will" is responsible for terminating all pregnancies not brought to term, no?
anvil@
it isnt the pregnant's woman sole choice. someone had posted a four part q and a along the lines of is the fetus alive? is it human? is it harmless to the mother? does it have unique dna? that proved it to be a unique unborn human. "I dont want this baby so its harming me" is rejected as the answer to Q3. it has to be medical harm or psychological harm like ra-pe or inc-est. If you answer yes or no to all four Q's and its yes to all, then one can figure out if its a unborn human or not.
the pregnant woman has as much right to harm the fetus as a mom has to harm her already born son/daughter.
teapatriot whined: "it isnt the pregnant's woman sole choice."
yeah, it is. roe vs wade says so...
that must really irritate you... huh?
lolz
@tea
Who else can make that choice? Certainly not you.
TP, don't twist what I said into your own banner pet peeve. You speak for no one but yourself, and do not start that tired bull about speaking for the unborn.
teapatriot – as a former infantry soldier in the united states army – having fought to defend the ideals of liberty, freedom, rights and equality we enjoy... i am ashamed of you.
you should be ashamed to call yourself a patriot in any form because true patriots not only believed in freedom and liberty – many of them died fighting for it.
Trina@
yes I speak for the unborn
Don't like abortion....don't get one.
TP: Good. I need you to come immediately to an abortion clinic, find a young girl contemplating an abortion, talk her out of it, take her home, foster her for the duration of her pregnancy, pay all medical expenses, and after her child is born, adopt the baby and raise it as your own, while the mom is free to continue living her life. You're altruisic enough to do that on a regular basis, right?
I once, as an experiment for a class I was taking, asked the protesters outside of a clinic to do just that.
Want to know what they said? "No." "No." "No." "I'm not paying for HER SIN." "No." Etc, etc...
They didn't speak for the unborn. They didn't care about the unborn, they just wanted to get their hypocritical message across.
Oh, they did, they did.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
Trina,
That is because they are not anti-abortion. They are anti-s.e.x...
Trina@
false analogy
everything has natural consequences, so does s3x. It may come with baby.
Lets say you are against people stealing from store. If caught, that may come with natural consequence of jail time and/or criminal record. What if I come to you and say that because you are against stealing from store, you must now take up the thief's jail sentence and criminal record?
Its not hypocritical to say "im not paying for her sin"
and to take the analogy one step further, even if you are against stealing from store, when caught they should be able to ab0rt the jail sentence, walk scot free.
Tea,
You want a baby to be a "consequence"...... babies are not consequences. So when the unwanted baby grows up as an irresponsible adult you will bit.ch and moan about that. If you want to stop unnecessary abortion push for comprhensive s.e.x ED. You are an asshat.
I would rather have been aborted than to grow up as an abused, impoverished child.
TP: False analogy? I DID this, and on more than one occasion. This is what was told to me. And if one's actions results in a baby, it is up to the one HAVING the baby to decide what is right for HER, not you, I, or anyone else.
It is ABSOLUTELY hypocritical for anyone to say they speak for the unborn, and then follow through with NO NO NO, I"M NOT TAKING CARE OF HER BABY, NO.
You have proved my point brilliantly.
And your asinine analogy of a thief in a store is beyond absurd, and has no bearing on legislation of what a woman may do with her body, whether you approve or not.
You care not one jot about anything but your obvious desire to legislate what YOU think if right or wrong, regardless of how it impacts others.
See you at the clinic, RIGHT?
Trina@
If you steal from the store, whether you get a jail sentence + criminal frecord is up to you and you only. not to the judge or store or socety. right? there are NO consequences to stealing, right?
You claim to speak for the unborn......and then you compare the unborn to a jail sentence.......you don't have any idea how stupid that is do you?
AND TP will be the first to want to cut benefits for this child he has forced to be born, because, hey, can't afford to feed the child, don't have the baby, right? Full circle here.
What a load of self-righteous bullsh!t! If every one you those hypocritical people would perform the scenario I gave, there'd be a lot less abortions....but guess what? Saving the unborn was never the intent, anyway.
That thief goes to jail, NOT YOU. A woman gets an abortion, NOT YOU.
I need you to come immediately to an abortion clinic, find a young girl contemplating an abortion, talk her out of it, take her home, foster her for the duration of her pregnancy, pay all medical expenses, and after her child is born, adopt the baby and raise it as your own, while the mom is free to continue living her life. You're altruisic enough to do that on a regular basis, right?
ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT? Since you can speak for that unborn, after all.
This isn't a hard question. YES OR NO?
Im not comparing unborn to a jail sentence just as im not comparing s3x to shop lifting.
im not equating unborn to a jail sentence which is what you want to accuse me of
im sayin all actions have a natural consequence. s3x -> possibly baby. steal -> possibly jail.
Trina, yelling wont get you anything. see above post for "LOGIC". which you never faced when you made false analogy in the past. im smarter than those people who got bulldozed by the likes of you.
Trina@
for all those who cant support children, dont have s3x. simple. abstinence always works.
One little problem with your stupid story, TeaPot. You're still trying to compare something that is illegal (stealing from a store), with something that is legal (abortion). But, of course if you want to help define the next fundie's platform for 2016 – well by all means, go for it. We'd be happy to watch another extremist fail.
So then why didn't you compare it to not studying for a test and failing the test, for example, instead of comparing s.e.x and pregnacy to crime and punishment?
It sounds to me that you consider s.e.x as something that should be punished.....with a baby. I suppose you will now compare s.e.x. education to teaching a theif how to steal.
And what false analogy have I used in the past, TP? And what is "The likes of me", anyway? Answer this: will you to come immediately to an abortion clinic, find a young girl contemplating an abortion, talk her out of it, take her home, foster her for the duration of her pregnancy, pay all medical expenses, and after her child is born, adopt the baby and raise it as your own, while the mom is free to continue living her life. You're altruisic enough to do that on a regular basis, right?
teapat said "im not paying for her sin"
What would your jeebus do? Don't you believe he paid for all your sins. Why won't you pay for one girl's sins?
TeaFart said: "abstinence always works"
How has that worked out for the priesthood?
It's legal to sacrifice your virgin daughters to the sungod in america, mustang sally. That was a required liberty for the fake chimps to keep ye olde civilization running smoothly.
Jesus said....
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household."
Jesus was not only pro choice....he encouraged it!
CNN filed under wrong OP
Sally@
bad analysis. legal or illegal is not the point. act -> consequence ok? get it? anyway i was not comparing stealing to abortion. i was comparing stealing giving you a jail sentence (why? coz its illegal of course) to s3x giving you a baby
cheesemakers, I am not adding anything to the analogy. this is not an allegory. its an analogy.
Trina your false analogy (for the Nth time) is : you say if I am for the unborn I should do what you have yelled 10 times so far. I say if you are against stealing then you should come to court, relieve the thieves of their jail time and crimminial record; instead take it upon yourself. When are you coming to the nearest court, as I have asked you 3 times?
End religion : it has worked for the priesthood. to date, none of them have become pregnant. which is what we are discussing. nothing else is being discussed.
Trina@ "Likes of you " I meant those who yell shout at us for our beliefs, not listen to one word we say, define our position wrongly and try to bulldoze us. good luck with that.
Tea Party,
Keeps claiming he is not comparing s.e.x to crime and the unborn to jail.......
and then he again compares s.e.x to crime and the unborn to a jail sentence.....
ok....I believe you.
David asks, "Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?" Took a few K years but science has finally answered the question, though it's too late for him. A CHIMP when you round up.
Teapot – of course abstinence is better than unwanted pregnancy. But it's an ideal that is not realistic in the real world – especially in a population of people of varying beliefs. So, in the USA, what we follow is the civil law – we are not a theocracy. As I said, if you think the law is unfair or inadequate, then you'll have to fight to change the law. I will be arguing on the opposite side. Good luck.
TP, I didn't use a false analogy. Perhaps you should look up what the word means.
I did an experiments, several times in fact, on the protesters who were protesting at a women's clinic. Others in my class did the same at different clinics. Not one anti-abortonist was actuallyspeaking for the unborn, as they did no one thing to try and prevent it. The conclusion isn't a "false analogy", it was fact: no one stepped up to the plate.
And neither would you.
I'm not trying to change your mind; I could care less about you.
It's the people who say sh!t like "I speak for the unborn", when they actually want to legislate what rights they want taken away from women, that get me...good luck with your fight against whatever right you want taken away next.
TP:
I am not shouting at you for your beliefs; believe as you like.
Just do not try to legislate them into being. That is not what the US was founded on.
We are NOT a theocracy.
Trina@
I would ask you (or your class mate) : do you believe that if you do badly in an exam because you are ill prepared, you still deserve 100% marks
you would answer NO
I would say then lets go to the closest exam center in a subject which you are expert in, find the people who are ill prepared and you take their exam
you would say WHA??
then I would say you are a hypocrite. You say people who are unprepared should not suffer. but you wont do anything about it.
the protestors you found were not good at argument
You are not addressing my contention that if you have s3x -> pregnancy if it happens is a natural consequence.
2 cases if that were to happen
1. not consesnual s3x -> you get an ab0rt1on
2. consensual s3x ->
2 cases here
1. mom's health not ok -> you get an ab0rt1on
3. mom's health ok -> now baby who is a unique human being has to be taken into account. no ab0rtion here.
simple.
someone who told you i wont pay for their sin had the right idea. but too crude. I didnt call it sin. I call it natural consequence.
Queenie Trini, when a young lass is practicing marital relations with a man she is announcing her adulthood. She is playing God when using intentional abortion. She cuts off her own head by telling the father and hubby to take a hike. Then she steals the inheritance of the child and splurges the proceeds on herself, after a little murder of course. Calling all that Right is reprehensible.
TeaPatriot,
Having to have an abortion is a consequence too (and is no picnic, from what I've heard).
wee little lol, I never said it was right. In fact, I don't condone it at all. Guess you missed that part.
TP, I wrote a whole post to your math exam analogy, and it didn't make the cut. Quite simply, if you don't study, you fail. That is your choice. I can tell you to study, but if you don't, that's your choice, too.
I cannot legislate your study habits, and you don't get to legislate when, where, what, and why anything concerning a woman and her choice to have an abortion, or not.
Trini, you said".....when they actually want to legislate what rights they want taken away from women,....." What the hey kind of a Right is wrong?
Who says it's "wrong"? You, lol? If you think it's "wrong" to have an abortion, then don't ever have one. And if you're male, and actually possess a pen)s, don't ever have s3x with anyone unless you are wearing a rubber.
Other than that, you have no say in the matter, and your beliefs are irrelevant. You don't get to take away the rights of a citizen of this country simply because she is pregnant.
You guys lost the election in part because of your idiotic stance on reproductive rights.
Trina@
finally you get it
"Quite simply, if you don't study, you fail. That is your choice."
If you have s3x, you may have a baby. This is your choice. why you may ask
because once your conceive, that being is a unborn human. we balance its rights aganst yours.
reasons it s not an unborn human
1. it is not alive
2. it is not human(made of cabbage cells?)
3. its genetic makeup is not unique (it is part of you, like your hand)
4. it is harming you MEDICALLY or PSYCHOLOGICALLY. in this case, your body trumps it.
And lol, you moron, agreeing to have s#x does not mean agreeing to give birth. No woman is obligated to suffer your so-called "consequence" if she doesn't want to.
Get over it, you dolt. Abortion has been legal for over 3 decades. It's not going to be outlawed.
Poor little TeaPot. You just don't get it. Nobody says a fetus isn't human or alive. But it is not a person under law and its rights do NOT trump those of born persons, ever.
What part of that do you not comprehend. The issue was decided. You're done.
The little TeaPot says: "we balance its rights aganst yours."
Who's "we," you brainless git? YOU don't have a thing to say about it. The courts do. If you have a problem with that, then go speak to the SCOTUS. I'm sure they can hardly wait to hear the opinion of some dumbazz like you.
Tom@
healthy pregnancy woman who has an abortion when it not ra-pe or in-ces-t = mom who kills her kid after birth
no difference.
Tom@
court not only way. we have new regulation after regulation at state level to discourage unborn child murder. its happening in many many states.
What court does the TeaPatriot sit on?
Of course there is, you brainless boob. Try killing an infant and see what happens to you, idiot. Then go to a clinic where legal abortions are being performed and call the cops. See where THAT gets you.
You can bray all you want, TeaFart, but abortion is legal and there is not a single thing you can do about it. You beliefs about it mean nothing to anyone but you.
And what a friggin' hypocrite YOU are, TeaFarter. You think abortion is murder UNLESS it's a case of inc#st or r@pe? Why should the circ umstances matter? The fetus isn't to blame. If it's murder then it's murder no matter how the pregnancy occurred, if you're morally honest. So explain your reasoning, sh!t-wit.
"court not only way. we have new regulation after regulation at state level to discourage unborn child murder. its happening in many many states."
Him speak with forked tongue. Him not able to write sentence.
It is interesting that feticide is becoming established as a kind of murder in many states. If you wonder why, or why now, here's an example:
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:2 (7), (11) defines "person" as a human being from the moment of fertilization and implantation and also includes a body of persons, whether incorporated or not. "Unborn child" means any individual of the human species from fertilization and implantation until birth.
Your "other way" isn't working out too well for you, dumbbell. The fundies in VA tried to force women to have a va ginal ultrasound before an abortion. That got tossed out. George Allen, the anti-choice candidate got soundly beaten. The two morons who thought they could get away with prohibiting abortion for ANY reason lost their offices.
Are you getting the message yet?
And does that law exempt abortion?
Exactly Tom. It's still 'human' with unique DNA regardless of whether it was conceived from r-pe or incest. Why should the baby be punished for the crimes of someone else tea?
Also, if you believe that abortion and killing a baby after birth (except for r-pe or incest) is the same thing, then you must also think it is okay to kill your child after birth if you have been r-ped as well, right tea (since you think it is okay to have an abortion in that case and there is NO difference between that and killing after birth). You have to agree with that or you are a hypocrite.
States differ. I don't think Louisiana does exempt abortion in the way other states do with specific language. Alabama is an example of that:
Ala. Code § 13A-6-1 (2006) defines "person," for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability and specifies that nothing in the act shall make it a crime to perform or obtain an abortion that is otherwise legal.
Sorry, Jen – but to the extent that the law goes beyond helping a woman protect a pregnancy she actually wants to protect, I think it's crazy.
tom tom the other one:
"It is interesting that feticide is becoming established as a kind of murder in many states. If you wonder why, or why now, here's an example: ..."
those state laws deal with victims of violence. the victims of violence act carries severe penalties dealing with murdering pregnant moms.
the consensual termination of an unwanted pregnancy by the mother is excepted in these laws.
I agree. But I believe any state which has such laws also exempts abortion.
Which they must do to avoid any challenge to their laws. But did you notice how they slip in a definition for "person" or "human life".
Yes, they are all for calling a fetus a "person" if it will allow them to limit abortion. Too bad they do a really cruddy job of educating and protecting those already born. Tells you how much they care about life in reality.
The problem is that it is not possible for the fetus to have equal or 'special' rights without abrogating the rights of a woman who is pregnant to be "secure in her person," which is the meaning of the "right to privacy."
Sorry Tom the other one, I was replying to piper son. I was just pointing out teapatriot's hypocrisy. He/she seems to think that he/she gets to decide when it is okay to abort, when Tom the piper is correct that tea's opinion is irrelevant.
TeaPoop must be in his cups as they say.
Lol?? Trina was referring to the rights of women to have an abortion or not. The right to CHOOSE, which is legal. You're kinda getting hung up on the whole semantics thing.
TeaPatriot, you completely ignored Trina's statement that you cannot legislate whether or not you study, or what happens to a woman if the consequence for having s3x is getting pregnant. It is, quite simply, a consequence that is not a decision that is yours to make.
Bill Nye was correct to say these creationist nuts should be teaching this nonsense to children. Forcing children into a RELIGION IS CHILD ABUSE. Rubio belongs in jail, not in congress.
But daddy, who made you god? You arrogant twit.
Your assertion is correct, "Nietodarwin", misinforming children is seen as criminal by most people. Unfortunately, most people do not know how to recognize misinformation. Misinformation in the form of religious belief and regarding the origins of the earth have been perpetuated for millennia. It is therefore a difficult task to break the cycle of misinformation. I hope you're up to the task, "Nietodarwin".
more bullyin'
If getting children to believe in imaginary creatures is immoral than anyone who's ever told their kid of the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, or Santa is guilty. The problem is conspiring to continue that belief into adulthood, which the Christian community is all guilty of. Maybe this explains why some atheists sound so angry? I wasn't raised at all religious, but I can imagine wising up to God as an adult would be about as traumatic as being in your twenties when you finally realized that Santa wasn't real.
Arrogance, lol? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkCdmd80shg
@Hamm, Telling a bedtime story and sparking your child's imagination is very different than telling them a fantasy and insisting that it's true and if you don't believe it you'll burn in torment for all of eternity.
No one F-cares when the earth was created. Spend the time and money on fixing the problems in the world rather than this non-sensical bs to use later to tear someone down. The very notion that 'leaves the door open to creationism' begs the question of what the writers agenda was. The guy said he doesn't know. Maybe the writers want to weigh on how scientists explain exactly how pyramids were built, or the probability density function of aliens. Bunch of hacks.
It was obvious political pandering. But someone who sits on a science committee should have a better answer for a magazine interview than “I'm not a scientist, man,".
Magical thinking that is directly contrary to the known facts is unlikely to "fix the problems of this world." It's the same motivation that gives rise to climate change denialism and a belief in supply-side economics in direct contradiction to overwhelming evidence. Rubio is without conscience. He obviously knows better but is just pandering to the ignorance and social resentment that have become the animus of the current incarnation of the GOP. Worked well with Romney...
Gwow, gwow, gwow the beast, gently down the drain,................ merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, they like to spread out their pain.
Grim Reaper wrote, "The guy said he doesn't know".
That "guy" is a US Senator. He should have the ability to open a fucking science book and read a sentence.
You wouldn't get me up in a space shuttle if the arrogance of these educated commie committee members is any indication of their judgments if the safety of getting back is in question. Who knows how they would vote? They don't care if YOUR body is spread across a couple of states.
enough said!
There is no space shuttle.
(i'm just an idiot mirror – I'm just supposed to sit here to let the idiot poster above see how stupid they are)
Even as a Catholic, I believe God allows us to evolve and in time accept scientific FACT that He did NOT create the physical universe and in turn, the planets. After many years of confusion instilled by my religion, which is done I believe on purpose, I began to accept science instead of myth as fact. Too much is proven for science to be just a hoax. Too many "men" have manipulated the "Bible" to fit their own agenda for any human being to believe in religion to the extent that God created the physical world. Yes I believe there IS a God but I firmly believe He was a man and that others created certain things about Him to "fit" into their own agenda. I believe His words were manipulated by power hungry people to enslave and control others. After 56 years I've learned that science is based on proven FACTS and religion is mere myth used as a tool used by man. Sorry but I believe God gave me free will. With that, He gave me the ability to seek out the truth based in fact not fantasy.
God became less than omnipotent so that you could have a little free will. God became less than omnibenevolent so that you could be evil when you choose. God did not give up omniscience. He likes to watch.
"2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
debby,
Couuldn't the mythology of Jesus have been manipulated? The christian reason for his existence doesn't make sense.
Debbie@
people should be free to teach the controversy, point out evolution's failings.
Tea Idiot,
Science controveries are not disputed and settled in K-12 classrooms. There is not a "controversey" of evolution in science. If you want to disprove science you have to do the work. Intelligent design has offered none.
Saying that the earth is 6000 years old is a non-trivial error. It an error on the magnitude of saying that the continent of North America is 7 yards wide. Religiously driven ignorance is really the only excuse for it. The evidence for an earth that is around 4.5 billion years old is overwhelming. Anyone with any amount of objectivity, whether they are religious or otherwise, should be able to find this out for themselves with little effort.
it's called "pandering."
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.
Colin, it is nice to see that you can copy and paste. We already saw this post yesterday "word for word". It wasn't stirring then and it isn't now.
Colin didn't copy it. Obviously someone else, blush, is satisfied with it's value.
And scanning below here, I don't see anything of substance from you, Don. Do you have the capability to explain any of your one-liners? Or would you be more comfortable with a like button?
At the end of the day, I love all people religious or atheist. If I saw anyone of them in a life or death situation I would risk my own to save them. I just know that life is not a product of blind chance. I also know that the worlds major religions do not represent the creator accurately
/o\, which of my one-liners do you need explained to you?
Try this one out for size – it has two parts: "Askurian, Well said. Your statement makes perfect sense. Primewonk's comment that he knows more about nuclear force than God does is kind of funny." (from your response to askurian's post at 9:30 a.m.)
You really need that explained to you?
Sure Don – explain thy lame response. Don't forget the two parts now.
Should I do it in two different posts so it will be easier for you to follow?
Whatever floats your boat.
Moral of the story: Republicans haven't learned anything about distancing themselves from the far right fringe of their base.
Yep, they still cater to a vanishing, fundamentalist minority, who still allow creationism to influence their vote.
..........GOD gave us BRAINS.............to use......................Therfore, those that deny truth and science, are actually going directly AGAINST GOD'S WISHES. GOD gave us reason and "FREE WILL" to assit us in our lives. To do what GOD wants requires, THOUGHT, LOVE, and asking for HIS assitance through prayer. GOD wants us to THINK, and decide for ourselves what is our lives course. Only the foolish do not seek HIS help and guidance. These are the ones we need to pray for the most.
Maybe your brain came from god. Mine evolved.
Here's another truth about evolution: the god of the Mormons is a twist on the god of mainstream Christians, who is a twist on the god of Israel who was based on other gods of ancient folklore and created by ancient man in man's image. I have to wonder if any of these fundamentalists are capable of recognizing spam if it's not automatically placed in a separate folder in their email app.
..........GOD gave us BRAINS.............to use......................Therfore, those that deny truth and science, are actually going directly AGAINST GOD'S WISHES. GOD gave us reason and "FREE WILL" to assit us in our lives. To do what GOD wants requires, THOUGHT, LOVE, and asking for HIS assitance through prayer. GOD wants us to THINK, and decide for ourselves what is our lives course. Only the foolish do not seek HIS help and guidance.
The guy can't even take a stand on science based facts. When are people going to learn to stop electing these morons?
Well, Hera in GA we reflected Paul Broun, who will continue to head the science and technology committee in congress.
The scariest portion of this article is that, in this day and age, 46% of Americans still believe the Earth is 10,000 y.o., was created in 6 days, and man was created in the image of an unprovable character.
I love how everyone ignores that the bible states that moon and the sun were not created until the "fourth day." So, essentially, the bible is telliing you that the 7 days of creation are not "regular earth days" right from the outset.
There is no debate or contradiction what so ever. And, the thing that is most interesting – is the bible does hae the "order of things" correct. We know it is at least 2000 years old – and it got the order of evolution correct. Do people ever spend time thinking about that? That is a very interesting thing.
Really? And what is at least 2,000 years old?
"the thing that is most interesting – is the bible does hae the "order of things" correct."
Point 1 – The earth was not created "in the beginning". The universe expanded for 9,000,000,000 years before the earth formed.
Point 2 – There was no "light" in the beginning. The early universe was way too hot and way too dense for visible light to exist. The universe had to expand and cool for 300,000 years before there was visible light.
Point 3 – There was division of waters, especially since you cannot have liquid water on the surface of the earth without a sun to provide heat. And the sun didn't show up until day 4.
Point 4 – There was no vegetation on earth before there was a photon source to drove photosynthesis and a heat source. Remember, your god didn't create the sun until day 4.
Point 5 – The moon is not a light source. It is a light reflector.
Point 6 – Birds did not exist before terrestrial animals.
Point 7 – All humans did not descend from one breeding pair.
Apparently, you are as profoundly ignorant about science as your god is.
"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.”
Except, of course, this is simply a nutter lie. The age of the earth is not a mystery. Sorry.
As a hard line moderate, I have an answer to the earth age debate- both the young earth and old earth creationists are correct. The answer is in the middle – when God created Adam, he created him as a fully formed man, not as a baby, not as a teenager, but at the peak of youth or early manhood. And the riddle to what came first, the chicken or the egg, can be applied to the age of the earth. God created earth in a matter of days, but when it was created, it already had aged just like Adam and all the other inhabitants of planet Earth. He created all things to bear fruit at inception, so its not a stretch to think that the earth already had instant maturity at creation.
Except that this means you choose to worship a trickster god, more akin to Loki, the Norse god of mischief.
By the way, the only way to make a 6,000 year old rock appear 4 billion years old is alter the weak nuclear force by many orders of magnitude. This would have released so much heat and radiation that earth would be a barren cinder.
People do have a right to choose to purposefully be ignorant. However, they should have no expectation of not being called on their idiocy.
Askurian, Well said. Your statement makes perfect sense. Primewonk's comment that he knows more about nuclear force than God does is kind of funny.
Praise God- Primewonk- you have unwittingly proved my point. It is indeed a feat that only one who is called God could accomplish – and in response to your weak argument about my idiocy, have you examined your fallacious idea of the big bang creating life, or is it on the backs of crystals, or is it aliens that dropped down? What is idiotic? Biologist Richard Dawkins' idea that aliens are responsible for earth, evolutionist Michael Ruse's assertion that we originated on the backs of crystals? What is more realistic? It is statistically improbable that a big bang occurred without a prime mover or designer. Have you or ANYONE in psuedo science found transitional fossils, and how many times did the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Gould change his theory on naturalistic evolution? Punctuated equilibrium did not save him from the afterlife. So after all, who is the real idiot here? I am more of a realist – it is highly unlikely that the universe with all its irreducible complexity and ultra precise design, not to mention our ever increasing plunge towards entropy, came to being by simple chance. Or for that matter with all the glory lauded by evolutionary philosophy to the elevation of man as a species, how is it that in the "millennia" of human existence, we only have at the most thousands of years of actual verifiable historical records? Was man dumb and stupid all those millennia and then all of a sudden, literacy, art, science came into existence. Man turned from chimp to genius. That my friend is idiotic and the most fantastic story ever told, and exceptionally unique in the realm of human history.
@askurian
You consider life amazing and complex and so you insist that some god must have designed it. Why then do you not consider god's life amazing and complex enough to require a god who must have designed him?
"I don't know, therefore god"
you are stupid, with no brain. God created cell phone, tv, internet, and even electricity, your car you fool to drive every day.. Fool!
I'm sorry, "askurian" and "Don", but all of your assertions are unfounded. God is an element of mythology and therefore could not have created anything. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your assertions may represent truths is: "EPIC FAIL".
Don,
Why don't you ask for askurian's proof that what he said was true and not just an assertion?
My guess is because you know there is no proof......Greek mythology is just as valid.
Cheesemaker...Better yet, why don't you tell us your Moon Rock Story again. We all got a kick out of that one yesterday.
I'm sorry guys, but you are as scientifically ignorant as the god you choose to worship. Still waiting to here why you choose to worship a trickster god.
Don,
Here is a page from NASA's website, why don't you go tell them how silly they are?
http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/index.cfm
Or you tell us more about you zombie apocalypse death cult where you practise symbolic cannibalism.
Cheese, I haven't practiced symbolic cannibalism in a while. Not sure what goes on in your neighborhood though.
Snake handling Don?
this is why i will never vote republican , because they are just plain dumb no other way to put it
And as an independent moderate who votes Democrat and Republican, I find your statement appalling. How can we expect conservatives to be tolerant, yet we ourselves practice intolerance towards their views? It is utterly hypocritical.
Your assertions are correct, "jason". Republicans are just plain dumb and there is no other way to put it.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” Al Einstein
Lack of understanding bible will never help Republican Party to win election. Creationism is evolution as god desired. God is always active and creating. Technology, computer. Programs are coming from god to understand god creationism and continuous creativity. Obamad and Democratic Party understand this, that is why Obama won election. Obama became true Christian and gave up Islam religion for same reason.
"Creationism is evolution as god desired. "
Then you need to explain why your god was so incredibly scientifically ignorant that he screwed up the whole order of creation in his book.
God did not screw up anything. God,s creation can not be comprehended by human minds. To comprehend creation theory, one needs to be able to comprehend god and his creatures. To comprehend god is not an easy matter, it needs god,s grace.
Apparently the biblical writers assumed they comprehended the mind of god enough to write it down. Creation isn't a theory. A theory require evidence that is testable in the natural world. A unseen god is not observable evidence whatsoever. It is merely an assertion of faith. That is not scientific.
Stop the argument ladies and gentlemen, Science and God are inclusive, for the study of God is Theology, before you tell me Theology is not a Science, look up what science is.
Science is true, god was created by people including scientists who could not be able to explains things when we knew so little about the earth and the universe. That is why when mankind knows more and more then less and less people believe in creatism.
Hui Wang- The definition of science.