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

Pat Robertson challenges creationism

By Dan Merica, CNN
[twitter-follow screen_name='DanMericaCNN']

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- CNN’s Eric Marrapodi contributed to this report.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Christianity • Creationism • Evolution

soundoff (4,408 Responses)
  1. Rocket Dog

    Two errors in this article:

    1) Robertson is not challenging creationism. He's challenging YOUNG EARTH creationism. Big difference.

    2) The reporter got the age of the universe wrong. It's 13.7 billion years, not 14.5 billion.

    December 3, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      As a way of checking this age estimate, we can examine the oldest things we find in the universe to verify that they are 10-15 billion years old, but definitely not older.

      http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/BigBang.htm

      December 3, 2012 at 11:27 pm |
  2. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    How old is the earth? At least as old as my port. And that goes really well with a good cheese like Le Bleu d'Élizabeth.

    December 3, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
  3. Farmer John, Mendocino, CA

    Don't forget, Pat Robertson also wants to legalize "Pot". We sure raise a lot in the "emerald Triangle". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_Triangle Pat really turned very liberal in his old age.

    December 3, 2012 at 9:23 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Elder Pat may have finally seen the Light! 🙂 🙁 🙂

      December 3, 2012 at 10:32 pm |
  4. lionlylamb

    Just exactly how far is the length, height, depths, breadths and widths of Nothingness? Where does nothingness so end and something therefore declaratively truly begin? Is it too much to say that, "The Nothingness Seas of outward regions are spatially immature regions where stellar constellations are forever being formed, raised and developed in randomized particulates in concentrated organizations of the atoms' cosmos. It is furthermore a contention that these Seas of Nothingness became as rivers, lakes and creeks within or inside all concentrated organizations of said atomic matter." Are you still with me?

    We or for that matter, all of "celestialized" life is merely conglomerate clusters of cellular organizations of inner cosmological rifts of atomic matter being held together by an order of conjunctive reasoned abilities far beyond one's mental complexities' aspirations! It seems as if Nothingness itself may well be holding together all mannerisms of life that we know of! At least that's my understanding regarding a Nothingness that goes way beyond all celestial things held by Nothingness and Nothingness does traverse ever inwards to hold together all atoms. Is such wordage plausible?

    December 3, 2012 at 9:07 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly

      1) Define nothingness
      2) Using words not in common vernacular as often as you do has only one of two purposes: a) To attempt and confuse people into agreeingwith you; b) Self-gratification in a perceived superiority in vocabulary.

      December 3, 2012 at 9:12 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      hawaiiguest,

      We are all born upon sinfulness natures. We breathed our first breath and did so commit sin. We drank our first milk and did so sin. We ate of our first food and likewise did sin. Only the Holy Spirit is found to be sinless. For the Holy Spirit is the Absolution of Nothingness and does hold together everything in its bosom. Without Nothingness there would not be the stars up above! Without Nothingness hemming together all of the celestial pageantries' clusters of galaxies in nebulas forming solar systems, Life as we know would never have been able to be and therefore become. Nothingness is a great emptiness yet this emptiness does so love its creations allness! Our true God of all creation and creations manifestations is the Holy Spirit of Absolutely Nothing!

      December 3, 2012 at 9:26 pm

      December 3, 2012 at 9:30 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly

      What a lovely pseudo-intellectual, self-serving way to not answer anything in my post. Why do you feel the need to troll around here saying absolutely nothing of worth?

      December 3, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      hawaiiguest,

      My written word is far different than the word I speak. When I write, I let the words flow thru me and do seldom take much thought as to what I write out. I am not constrained by rhythmic nuances of a beguiling educations that stiffens and does harden one's flow of the word. It is a shame that many folks are so hammered by their hard long ways of an education and they cannot hardly let or wantonly allow their own instincts to give rise to propel their ideas without civil contentions wiggling upon the minded ways. I do so thoroughly enjoy writing nowadays and even though I did not enjoy English studies during my youth-filled days, I find solace in that which I now do write upon.

      December 3, 2012 at 9:47 pm |
    • Athy

      Lionly thinks his writing style is cute and will impress some people. I find it childish and senseless and rarely read his posts, even if short (which they rarely are). His posts are riddled with spelling and capitalization errors which, along with incorrect word usage, render them essentially meaningless.

      December 3, 2012 at 9:50 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly

      And I think you're lying. To write in a poetic manner like that is not natural, especially if the person does not talk that way. You are purposefully writing in that style in order to try and confuse people, while simultaneously thinking you sound smart in deep. News flash, you don't sound deep, you sound like a condescending poetry nut with a superiority complex.

      December 3, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      hawaiiguest,

      I thought I defined my views of Nothingness fairly well although brief in my yearning to expound it. 🙁

      Nothingness
      1.) The Holy Spirit
      2.) The great Seas that holds all things in its bosom
      3.) The meandering rivers and creeks ever flowing inward from the Seas of its abundance measure/

      December 3, 2012 at 10:02 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      hawaiiguest,

      In all these writings did I make one mention of contentiousness or call you out as being a liar of your deeded word? Why must you accuse me and persecute me so?

      December 3, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      ll, i think it's high time you acknowledge the criticism you receive here. It will do you good to adjust as you are able.

      December 3, 2012 at 10:16 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "News flash, you don't sound deep, you sound like a condescending poetry nut with a superiority complex."

      And that's a nice way to phrase it.

      December 3, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
    • Grammar cop

      I'd let you off with a warning, LL, if you could explain what a "deeded word" was. Can you?

      December 3, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Moby Schtick,

      And just what form of criticism should I be so obliged to?

      December 3, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
    • Damocles

      Isn't a deeded word one that you have bought or are making payments on?

      December 3, 2012 at 10:23 pm |
    • Grammar cop

      Do you need to have someone draw you a map and lend you a flashlight to find your own ass?

      December 3, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      the form you are receiving, ll.

      December 3, 2012 at 10:25 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      High are the cronies ever to gather wherever the lights of reason does shine out. The lusts of the beguiled do ever make embers from which falls their scorn and ill wills. The naysayers and the leary-eyed peasants of pompous proclivities will always surround the cupboard lain bare!

      December 3, 2012 at 10:28 pm |
    • Athy

      I don't think lionly is going to change (he's probably incapable of that). Best to simply ignore him.

      December 3, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
    • Grammar cop

      Well, cover up your ugly bare cupboard and stop exposing everyone to your idiocy. Shut the fvck up or write something sensible. Take your pick, or pick your nose.

      December 3, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly

      Finally, a straight fucking answer from the pseudo-intellect. Tell me then, what justification do you have for your definition of nothingness.

      December 4, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
    • fintastic

      @lionlambchops wrote;

      "When I write, I let the words flow thru me and do seldom take much thought as to what I write out."

      Bwahhhhhhhhh!!!!! haaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!.......... haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hoooooooo!!!!!...... ....

      December 6, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
  5. prophet

    we are praying for you all, turn from your sins and repent.

    December 3, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      I don't have any sins.

      December 3, 2012 at 8:15 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      We are all born upon sinfulness natures. We breathed our first breath and did so commit sin. We drank our first milk and did so siin. We ate of our first food and likewise did sin. Only the Holy Spirit is found to be sinless. For the Holy Spirit is the Absolution of Nothingness and does hold together everything in its bosom. Without Nothingness there would not be the stars up above! Without Nothingness hemming together all of the celestial pageantries' clusters of galaxies in nebulas forming solar systems, Life as we know would never have been able to be and therefore become. Nothingness is a great emptiness yet this emptiness does so love its creations allness! Our true God of all creation and creations manifestations is the Holy Spirit of Absolutely Nothing!

      December 3, 2012 at 9:26 pm |
    • Athy

      And how can I repent when I haven't pented yet?

      December 3, 2012 at 9:43 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheese makers

      I can only sin if your god is real.....nope....no sin!!!!

      December 3, 2012 at 11:47 pm |
    • ZeusDeusMaximus

      @ lionlylamb

      Your post is just gross and disgusting. You're one of those people that teaches children that they are bad because they were born. Evil, child abusing, fiction-as-fact purveyor of lies. Your death-cult is disgusting. You are an example of why religion shouldn't be taught to children, to no one under 21 because, just like alcohol, it ruins minds if ingested during formative years. And if you're so sure you're right, you'd support that idea cuz you have nothing to fear from rational thinkers right? Or, do you? Don't you think it would be the end of religion if we didn't allow it to be taught until age 21? Why is that? Cuz without brainwashing in childhood religion looks like the ridiculous supersti tion it actually IS!

      December 4, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
  6. prophet

    we are praying for all those who don't believe in God so that they may understand.

    December 3, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
    • sam stone

      understand what, that you are delusional?

      December 3, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
    • sam stone

      i tell what "prophet" (nothing pompous about THAT, is there?), you pray for me, i'll think you

      December 3, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      My understanding is why I know your god is made up fiction.

      December 3, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
    • Athy

      Pray all you want, I'll never understand.

      December 3, 2012 at 8:27 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      The Universally-Formed Cosmos of the Triune Manifestation

      We all live amid two chasms of cosmological orders. We have the inner-cosmos and the outer-cosmos. The inner-cosmos is atomically made and is the universal construct of the outer-cosmos. One could not have an outer without an inner. Both are synonymously of the same natures. It stands to reason the inner-cosmos was made first and the outer-cosmos came into being only after the passive finalization of the inner-cosmos was made near complete. The inner-cosmos is transcendent and fixed while the outer-cosmos is ascendant and malleable in their dualities natures.

      The third cosmos is of life itself made from the inner-cosmos living upon the terrestrial faces of the celestial outer-cosmos. This third cosmos is the celled cosmos or the cellular cosmologic orders of all life forms made anywhere cellular life can gain a foothold to evolve and gain in the abundant natures toward the evolution of its structures ever evolving. Without the two main Cosmos coming into existence; living cellular cosmologies could not exist.

      The trinity or threefold nature of chasm cosmologies is being one of the greatest and grandest gestures ever to have been formulated! To say God had nothing to do with such a feat of cosmologic inter-dependencies seems an infallible congruency inconsistent for one to say or think otherwise. To say the nature of God is to keep inflating the physical elements of the outer cosmos while deflating the essence needs for the inner-cosmos leaves one to wonder about the third cosmological construct’s real nature for having been created. Why then is there cellular cosmos of living cosmologies and when did such life become established?

      The history of multifaceted cosmological expansionism within celestial symmetries comes from the terrestrial complacencies of planetary regularities and solarized objectivism wherever the abundance of inner cosmologies coalesces to form stars, planets and moons among many other fragmented structures within the spatial confines of a universally formed Cosmos.

      Life, upon the celestial shorelines of the terrestrially compliant are as a biologic ‘cellularistic’ cosmological constant, and were ever formed and are continually forming seemingly unto forever as well placed living conglomerations in naturalisms arcades of wondrous cavalcades marching in steps of melancholy tributes to God upon the most high cosmos of universalism’s formidable formations on the highest of unimaginable grounds!

      G.O.D/
      God's Oldest Dreamer
      aka lionlylamb

      December 3, 2012 at 8:41 pm |
  7. prophet

    The Answer

    God goes beyond reason without contradicting it

    December 3, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
    • ZeusDeusMaximus

      Yeah, I thought lionlylamb sounded like g.o.d. the delusional poster. Evil, you are evil, as is prophet- yeah, nothing too vain about that handle eh?

      You are the evil ones teaching lies as facts to children. Bigotry, hate, and close-mindedness are your calling cards and child abuse is your legacy.

      December 4, 2012 at 1:23 pm |
    • fintastic

      @Prophet............. Reality = no god, no heaven, no hell,.............. just made-up fairy tales and mythology.

      December 6, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
  8. prophet

    science once said that the earth wasn't round, think about it how little they knew then but now we know different, its the same with all these dscussions about the history of humanity. But The Torah is correct.

    people once thought that there was a bible but there isn't Its called Torah all of it Old and New Testaments.

    i do have to say unless one believes in God one cannot understand what is Written in The Torah. i say to people why ask people, why not ask God, simple really. i hope you ask God.

    December 3, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Ah I see you're just a post and run troll.

      December 3, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
    • Rocket Dog

      Science never said the earth isn't round; the bible did. And even if science had said it, that's the beauty of science: it's self-correcting, unlike religion which sticks to its dogmatic guns no matter what (it only took the Vatican about 400 years to admit that Galileo was right and that we live in a heliocentric solar system).

      December 3, 2012 at 10:34 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      prophet=idiot

      December 3, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
  9. prophet

    science once said that the earth wasn't round, think about it how little they knew then but now we know different, its the same with all these dscussions about the history of humanity. But The Torah is correct.

    people once thought that there was a bible but there isn't Its called Torah all of it Old and New Testaments.

    i do have to say unless one believes in God one cannot understand what is Written in The Torah. i say to people why ask people, why not ask God, simple really.

    December 3, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Ridiculous logic. "Unless you already believe you wont get the answers that give you a reason to believe." Look up confirmatory bias and circular reasoning.

      December 3, 2012 at 7:50 pm |
  10. prophet

    science once said that the earth wasn't round, think about it how little they knew then but now we know different, its the same with all these dscussions about the history of humanity.

    December 3, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      And exactly what observation was used to support a flat earth? The ancient Greeks knew that the earth was round by using observation and testing. In fact the biggest proponents of the thought that the earth was flat was the early Christian church.

      December 3, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
  11. prophet

    mr robertson is not really an authority on the bible as he doesn't even use the correct Name of Our Saviour so if can't do that how can we believe him on anything else.

    Look at the money he's made, his organisation is exactly the same as the catholics, big building and collecting money.

    What you see is what it is.

    December 3, 2012 at 7:34 pm |
    • Bob

      Religion is all about gaining profit from the stupid.

      December 3, 2012 at 7:37 pm |
    • ZeusDeusMaximus

      There ya go! It only took a few posts before we got the " he's not a real Christian" from "profit". Beautiful! You make my argument about the evil of your teachings. Graham IS a REAL christard, just like you, all lies and child abuse....

      December 4, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
  12. prophet

    so none of you have really got it yet have you

    December 3, 2012 at 7:30 pm |
    • Athy

      Got what?

      December 3, 2012 at 11:06 pm |
    • fintastic

      I got it........ picked-up a pizza on the way home...

      December 6, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
  13. Robyn

    Well, Pat Robertson should know, since I'm pretty sure he was already middle aged during the time of the dinosaurs.

    December 3, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
  14. Believer

    “ … when there is a systematic increase or decrease in the frequency with which we see a particular gene in a gene pool, that is precisely what we mean by evolution.”- Richard Dawkins.Creationists do not have issues with this statement, except for the fact the Natural Selection and Darwins origin of species are completely different. So by tying them together, scientists say they see evoultuion every day. Well no you are not seeing evolution. You are seeing natural selection. Evolutionists have all kinds of evidence for natural selection, but ZERO evidence for nothing turning into something and ZERO evidence for one creature changing into other creatures. ZERO. As a matter of fact it is so ZERO, they will find the missing link's every once in a while and then quitely repudiate the findings.

    December 3, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
    • Believer

      http://creation.com/dawkins-bait-and-switch-guppy-selection

      December 3, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Talk about a complete failure of understanding on your part.

      December 3, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Believer

      Not to mention, do you think anyone that doesn't already agree with you will find that article you posted anything but scientifically illiterate crap?

      December 3, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      You are talking about abiogenisis....and you do understand that YOU have zero evidence that your god did it right?

      December 3, 2012 at 2:13 pm |
    • Courtney Hammett

      Are transitional fossils zero evidence?

      December 3, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
  15. Lara Avara

    Pat Robertson endorsing evolution? Has the whole world gone nutty? I'm going outside to see cats are playing with dogs.

    December 3, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
    • dozapolis

      My cat plays with dogs, she has for at least 7 years.

      December 3, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
  16. David

    In ancient hebrew the word morning is yom, which is always used to represent the mathematical equation for 24 hours when accompanied by a number, such as "and there was morning and evening, the fourth day". One cannot claim those days were longer, and that there was an earth before creation, if they do not read the bible: the most accurate history textbook.

    December 3, 2012 at 10:35 am |
    • David

      On the subject of radiometric dating, adam was made an adult, so was eve, so was eden, so was the earth, the trees, rocks, w.e. So those radiometric datings are correct in saying that the soils physiological age is X. If you went to the past, right after creation, and counted the rings on a tree they would have quite a few, just like if you counted how many years adams body had aged right after creation. Though he was made new, he was an adult.

      December 3, 2012 at 10:39 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      "The Bible is correct because its says it is correct and it says it is correct because it is the Bible"

      great logic David....

      December 3, 2012 at 11:10 am |
    • ME II

      So you're saying God created the Earth and the universe already old.
      Then by extrapolation every star that we humans have seen explode, i.e. every nova, outside a 10,000 light year distance, never really existed.
      Why would God created star-light from a star that never existed? At a minimum, that seems disingenuous of Him.

      December 3, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • ME II

      p.s.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_supernovae

      December 3, 2012 at 11:16 am |
    • Steve in seattle

      ME II ... That list of supernovas is just a list of some of the stars that god created on the 2nd day. The story of creation then glosses over how he made light travel faster than light in order to make it appear that he had created the world 14 billion years ago when in fact he had created the universe only 6000 years ago. Duh. Why is stubborn evangelical logic so hard to understand?

      December 3, 2012 at 11:50 am |
    • will

      C'mon David. There is no dispute between the Bible and science. Evolution is supported by mountains of data and research, more than the Theory of Gravity. No one in scince is attacking the Bible. Why do you insist on attacking reason and science?
      You have just said that physics, biology, geology, paleontology and many other scinces are invalid. Thats crazy.
      No one is challenging your right to have a literalist view of the Bible. We have religious freedom in the uS.
      But modern creationism started in the 1920s here in America and the following churches do not support it.
      catholic, Lutheran, Mehtodist, Presbyterian and Episcopalian as well as the jewish religion.
      Looks like you have a denominational problem as well as a scientific credibility problem'
      Try going to the NCSE website and doing some reading about creationism.

      December 3, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
    • will

      David, Your radiometric dating argument is out to lunch. Radiometric dating is based on physics and it says the earth is at least 4.5 BY old. And radiometric dating comes from crystalline rock not soil. Fail.

      December 3, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      It's always hilarious to see scientifically illiterate people like David talk about science.

      December 3, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
  17. James

    The most shocking thing in this whole article is the fact that 46% of Americans still believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old and man was created in his present form. Talk about a massive amount of ignorance and Pat is right when he stated that you'll lose more young people in the church if people continue to believe such nonsense.

    December 3, 2012 at 9:56 am |
    • Rick

      James,

      So, you are saying that YOU know the truth of the age of the earth? Wow, you're smart! How did you get all that learnin' in you?

      December 3, 2012 at 10:26 am |
    • In Santa we trust

      Rick, Science has shown that Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. There is a margin of error say plus or minus a few million years. Way, way, way more than the fundies dogma.

      December 3, 2012 at 10:31 am |
    • ME II

      @Rick,
      Not sure about @James, but there is plenty of evidence and reason to think that the Earth is far older than 10000 years.
      Radiometric dating, meteors, astrophysics, biological evolution, plate tectonics, the moon, magnetic sea-floor banding, geology, dendro-chronology, etc.

      December 3, 2012 at 10:34 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Rick thinks that getting an education is just people telling you what to think....the same thing his religion does and is equally valid. It is like trying to argue with a 4 year old that Barney isn't real.

      December 3, 2012 at 11:14 am |
  18. m

    Why is this man even aloud to open his mouth??

    December 3, 2012 at 8:51 am |
    • dozapolis

      *allowed not aloud. The reason is because fundamentalists don't educate their young'ns as is evident in your misuse of the word 'aloud'.

      December 3, 2012 at 12:51 pm |
    • the AnViL

      young'ns isn't a word.

      it shouldn't be aloud.

      *chortle*

      December 3, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
  19. Kebos

    Robertson is an idiot and baffoon.

    December 3, 2012 at 6:52 am |
    • dozapolis

      "and a buffoon." With a 'u'.

      December 3, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
    • Stephen Ryan

      Check out Lt. Robertson's record in the Korean War for further information regarding his character.

      December 3, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
  20. Blessed are the Cheese makers

    Your god took 6 days...pathetic. Mine did it in 6 minutes.

    December 3, 2012 at 12:39 am |
    • the AnViL

      1 minute = 750000000 years

      ha!

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

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