December 5th, 2012
10:46 AM ET
Rubio clarifies age of the earth answer
By Ashley Killough, CNN
(CNN)– Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida attempted to clear up Wednesday his controversial answer to a question about the earth's age last month.
"Science says (the earth) is about 4.5 billion years old. My faith teaches that's not inconsistent," Rubio said at a Politico Playbook Breakfast in Washington. "God created the heavens and the earth, and science has given us insight into when he did it and how he did it."
"The more science learns," he continued, "the more I am convinced that God is real."
Sen. Marco Rubio's religious journey: Catholic to Mormon to Catholic to Baptist and Catholic
Rubio was asked how old the planet was in an interview with GQ magazine published November 19. The senator, who's considered to be weighing a 2016 presidential bid, replied saying the Earth's age is "one of the great mysteries."
Emphasizing he "was not a scientist," Rubio said "whether the Earth was created in seven days, or seven actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that."FULL STORY
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.
Rubio made a complete FOOL of himself. His explanation was that it would take a "ROBOT" to be able to switch topics easily from rap to creationism.
Proof that Rubio has no business representing any intelligent Americans.
Yeah, sounds like Rubio is the best and the brightest that the USA political arena has to offer. Goofball!
What do you mean? He said that said states the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Obama had a chance to say this but instead left the door open for a six thousand year old earth.
Obama basically said that he doesn't necessarily believe everything in the Bible.
“My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know.”
So he doesn’t know?
At least Rubio said what the science community believes.
Neither are acceptable answers but Rubio’s is the better of the two.
In the same speech where Obama sidestepped the age of the earth question, on the related topic of evolution he also said:
"Let me just make one last point on this. I do believe in evolution. I don't think that is incompatible with Christian faith, just as I don't think science generally is incompatible with Christian faith. I think that this is something that we get bogged down in. There are those who suggest that if you have a scientific bent of mind then somehow you should reject religion, and I fundamentally disagree with that. In fact, the more I learn about the world, the more I know about science, the more I am amazed about the mystery of this planet and this universe—and it strengthens my faith as opposed to weakens it."
His position is not very ambiguous – politician that he is. Gallup found that 32% of Americans believe in God and accept evolution. Why don't more?
how is Obama's statement to Messiah College in 2008, materially different. Other than mentioning 4.5 billion years he is still clearer off the cuff than Rubio:
Messiah College: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?
Senator Obama: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know.
How is that better than what Rubio said?
Obama said "FUNDAMENTALLY true" which leaves room that he doesn't agree with it all. Fundamentally could mean "God created it, but not like the Bible says in 7 days 6,000 years ago".
Obama should have said the earth was 4.5 billion years old and so should have Rubio. So, they both lose.
If we blame one, we got to blame both.
Politicians often aren't as religious as they have to be for public consumption. Nothing new. It started with our 1st or 2nd president.
At least Obama left some "wiggle room" to account for why he likely isn't as religious as Rubio claims to be.
I don’t think saying that the scripture is not to be taken literally makes someone less religious. Many religious heads believe that it is not to be taken literally. I was watching an evolution/creationism debate and one participant in the audience was a priest and he said it was not acceptable to teach creationism.
"I was watching an evolution/creationism debate and one participant in the audience was a priest and he said it was not acceptable to teach creationism."
Of course. Most Catholics accept evolution. Young earth creationism to most Catholics is fundie nonsense.
I asked the question earlier – 32% of Americans believe in God and accept evolution. Why don't more people believe this way?
That 46% of Americans believe humans (ant the earth) are less than 10,000 years old is ludicrous.
Broken down by religion according to the Pew Forum (2009)
% who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth
Total US population …….. 48%
Buddhist ………………..... 81%
Hindu ……………………... 80%
Jewish ………………….... 77%
Unaffiliated …….……….... 72%
Catholic …………………... 58%
Orthodox ……………….... 54%
Mainline Protestant …….... 51%
Muslim ……………............ 45%
Historically black ……....... 38%
Evangelical Protestant ...... 24%
Mormon …………………... 22%
Jehovah’s Witness .......… 08%
Genesis is the Hebrew cosmology myth. 77% of Jews believe in evolution, but only 24% of Evangelical Protestants!
Even the Jews don't believe in a 'literal' interpretation of Genesis!!!
It's good that Christians don't take the Bible literally because of the contradictions and nonsense in it, but the problem is that too many of them still think they have the ONLY possible understanding of it and act accordingly.
Hi. I'm Ricky Rubio and I'm willing to throw my race under the bus to win elections. It works great. Just ask Herman Cain.
Rubio never did that!
Scientific evidence for answered prayer and the existence of God is available at the following website. Results from several double blind clinical trials, enjoy,
First of, the website provided is clearly an incredibly bias source, which automatically skews results. Secondly, since we don't know what they prayers were about, to point out that a person was getting an "assist" from god because they were nominally better in a group than the people in the placebo group in no way "proves" god, it just means they responded to treatment better than the placebo group. Third, lets discuss for the moment that everyone was receiving medical assistance, it wasn't one group that was relying only on prayer while the other group was relying solely on science. Both groups used medical assistance which means that results in getting better can be attributed to medical advancement and not god. Lastly, since the threshhold for a prayer "working" is so low, how can we posssibly know if was your god and not say, Allah, or the jewish Yahweh, heck it could have been Zeus, just because these patients were being prayed for by christians doesn't mean some other lesser god could have tried to intervene.
This is probably the weakest evidence I've seen on this blog so far, and that's saying something because Chad has been stamping his foot saying "god exists because I say he exists" for a long time.
Evidence? maybe, but not even a little scientific.
No doubt the source is bias, but they did put a link to the raw data if you care to analyze for yourself. You see a lot of calls for evidence on here so I just looked it up and this was at the top of the list. Might be hard to find a nonbiased source for info like this, but who knows. Did you see the reference to the new study over to the right. Some nonbiased medical group commented.
Money is God,
A double blind clinical trial isn’t scientific?
I took a gander, but it wasn't just the fact that source was bias, the "evidence" presented has some serious issues without coming from a severely bias source, as listed in my previous post. I applaud you for trying to supply something more substanitve than a simple "god is real because the bible says so", but just showing up doesn't win the game if you catch my drift.
Not when the bias is so prevalent. If I set up a study that there are only skewed results possible, then no matter how the study is conducted, the results will still be skewed. Garbage in, garbage out.
If you have evidence, you don't need faith.
Are you faithful or not?
Chuckles: Topher/Gopher has been doing the same. It would be sad, if it weren't so amusing
In case you can’t tell I’m not a scientist, but it looked fairly impressive to me, lots or detail etc. What type of group, other than Christian, would call for or conduct such experiments?
Very impressive study. Of course you cant expect them to do anything but poo-poo it. It challenges their world view you see.
I don’t need what is considered evidence on here, but it seems some do.
All of the prayers of the religious Republicans sure weren't answered in the last elections where it was a disaster for them on several fronts.
None of the candidates who said God wanted them to run for president came close. Even right before the election 4 years ago Palin said she was sure God's will would be done.
They've had a long list of failures. Even Bush, who said he talked to God all the time, was a disaster.
"All of the prayers of the religious Republicans sure weren't answered in the last elections where it was a disaster for them on several fronts."
How do you know it was not answered and palin was right...Gods will was done. You realize God uses the wicked to punish the wicked and has done so in the past. Kinda different when you look at it from that angle?
If God "uses" the wicked, what does that do to the "free willl" argument?
Yes, God may think Palin is a complete doofus.
Were Palin's prayers answerered? How did the religious Republicans do at the polls in November when it came to their prayers?
It would be tough to find an unbiased source doing scientific studies on prayer because scientists understand religion is fraud. They can't continually waste resources on funding fraudulent studies. Instead you will likely only find those with a predisposition to finding positive results for prayer funding fraudulent prayer "experiments."
"If God "uses" the wicked, what does that do to the "free willl" argument?"
Nothing? Man has limited free will while God is sovereign.
You can't have both. Either god is sovereign, and there's no free will, or there's free will and god isn't sovereign. Just because the bible makes no sense doesn't mean you get to do the same.
KRHODES says "...man has LIMITED free will..."
"limited" free will...do you even think about the implications of what you write? The need to continuously qualify terms and ideals and ideology...and then to stamp your (momentary) conclusions with the "God is sovreign" axiom is standard procedure among "thinking" religious...(and the more common not-thinking).
And yet, your god has an eternal punishment for the "limited" free will he created for his very limited creatures.
More evidence of man creating the creator...a creator that looks just like the one's who created him, complete with an overwhelming component of narcicism.
KRHODES wrote, " Man has limited free will while God is sovereign."
Your god claims both omniscience and omnipotence. And he claims that he "knew" us before he formed us. He also claims that every human will go to either heaven or hell.
Because of his claimed omniscience, your god knows who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. He knows this before he created us. He knew this before he created the universe. Your god already knows if you are going to heaven or hell. Your god knows if I am going to heaven or hell. And because of your god's omnipotence, how could I show up where your god isn't sending me? If your god already knows he is sending me to hell, how can I surprise him and show up in heaven? If your god knows he is taking you to heaven, how can you surprise him and end up in hell?
If your god does not know where we end up, he isn't omniscient, and thus isn't much of a god, is he?
If your god is not able to keep me from heaven or hell, he isn't omnipotent, and thus isn't much of a god, is he?
If your god is omniscient and omnipotent, and has known for an eternity that he will send me to hell, and creates me anyway, just to torture me forever, then he is one sick sadistic putz, and thus not much of a god, is he?
God, who knows the future and what he would have to do to save you, provided the way for your salvation and gives you an opportunity to accept it. This is his universe. He created for his pleasure. He provided the way. He can, but he may very well not, force you. His justice is perfect in that he provided the way. He doesn’t need advice from you. He makes no apologies or excuses. If you come to him you will come his way or not at all. He has told us how to come to him. He has told us what will happen if we do, and what will happen if we don’t. Would his justice be perfect otherwise?
Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer.
"Conclusions: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."
Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review.
CONCLUSIONS: There is no scientifically discernable effect for IP as assessed in controlled studies. Given that the IP literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to this line of research.
provided the way for your salvation and gives you an opportunity to accept it
Maybe so, but it isn't christianity. There are large numbers of human beings(creations of God) in this world right now who have never heard of christianity and it's teachings, and never will. People cannot possibly accept something they've never heard of.
You are missing the point. God would know, before he created the universe, weather or not each individual would accept his "gift of salvation". Therefor God intentionally created billions of people who he knew would never have a chance to go to heaven.
Madtown & Huebert,
When Jesus told them to let the little children come to him, because this is what is in the kingdom of heaven. I take that to mean that heaven will be full of innocents of every age, so if they never heard of Christianity they would be innocent. You have heard so you have to choose.
Actually I was addressing the point you say I missed. He knows the future. He provided the way. God is holy and perfect, regardless of how you define those terms. He creates for his glory. How that is accomplished is up to him. Does him knowing your future and not intervening more than he already has, make you think he is bad?
Small but important correction
MEN SAID Jesus told them... Everything "jesus told" anyone, is hearsay, and most likely not his words, if he even ever existed.
You have heard so you have to choose
Well, that's sure convenient. I'm inclined to think that an almighty God could send as many representatives as necessary to deliver a supposed divine message to all of humanity, rather than just 1 son to a small subset of the humans he created. This tells me God isn't too concerned with the religion we choose to follow, or he'd have provided the "right religion" to all people. Of course, I don't consider myself special relative to other humans on the planet, I consider us all equal. Maybe you think you're special.
Robert wrote, " God, who knows the future and what he would have to do to save you, provided the way for your salvation and gives you an opportunity to accept it."
Again, no. Your god knew, before he created the universe, if he was sending me to heaven or hell. Otherwise, he isn't omniscient. If he knows he is sending me to hell, I cannot show up at heavens door. Otherwise, he isn't omnipotent.
Your all loving god purposefully created billions and billions and billions of people knowing that he is going to kill them and then torture them for all eternity.
You may call him loving. Any rational person would call him a sick, sadistic, psychotic, fucker.
"Does him knowing your future and not intervening more than he already has, make you think he is bad?"
Yes. According to Christian theology I will go to hell. According to the same theology, God knew this before he created me. This is a.nalogs to having a child for the sole purpose of locking it in a dungeon. Would it not be far kinder to simply not have the child, or better yet, to not lock the child in a dungeon? But your God chooses to create people who he knows, before they are created, will go to hell. This is abhorrent behavior.
Further, being omnipotent, it would require literally no effort for God to convince me that he exists. All he would have to do is will for there to be convincing evidence with in my path. And being omniscient, God would know exactly what evidence would convince me. The fact that God does not do this means that he either desires that some individuals go to hell, or that God does not exist.
I know I am blessed beyond what I deserve, but I don’t feel special, just thankful. So thankful that I want to praise him and tell others about him. He sent his 1 son to a small subset of the humans he created, knowing that the word would spread, knowing that over 2000 years later the call would still go out, come to me all you who are weary and heavy laden and I will rest you.
Primewonk & Huebert,
Are you fatalists? Do you think God allowed you to be born so that he could kill your mortal body and torture you forever?
He gives you the choice of two paths, good or evil, not good as you define it, not evil as you define it. Good or evil as he defines those terms. The path you choose determines your eternal destiny. Don’t blame God, he has made the way for you to be reconciled to him. If you desire the good things of this life and from now on, listen to his call. He says come let us reason together, try me, find out for yourself. God is just and he will judge sin. God is merciful and he will forgive you.
He sent his 1 son to a small subset of the humans he created, knowing that the word would spread,
Yet, here we are today and this word still has not spread out to all humans inhabiting the planet. In fact, it never will. You wouldn't even know where to look for some primitive societies, but those societies are still populated with your human equals. Man can't hope to reach all people, but God could. God has just chosen not to, so it's reasonable to think that there is not just 1 message. Additionally, could God have more than 1 son?
Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.
Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
"Does not cosmological similarities of the inner and the outer make a sense worthy of one confronting such a view?" Likewise, "How many universes are their in but one Cosmos?" and also, "If X equates the numerical value of universes within Y being but one Cosmos just how many singular Cosmos are there in the cosmologic equilibrium of Z the unknowable?"
It amazes me that this is being treated as a matter of faith/science.
HE IS A POLITICIAN! He is trying not to offend anyone who could vote for him later. This answer has nothing to do with what he believes or how much science he knows.
But while I'm commenting anyway – those of you who think the big bang came from nothing, and that all of everything that exists anywhere was a part of the big bang need to consider that not everyone who studied science starts with those assumtpions.
there is proof for the big bang - there is zero proof for god
see the difference?
I won't vote for anyone who isn't willing to insult people who think the Earth is 10,000 years old.
The BB Theory claims that the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state. It doesn't claim "something from nothing". In fact it makes no claims or explanations about the initial condition. A little reading goes a long way......
The Big Bang model is evidenced by, among other things, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. What exactly existed before that is still hypothesis or unknown.
1. He is on the science committee in the senate, it is important because I don't want a man who holds publically elected office and in charge of our nations science committee holding these dangerous beliefs.
2. I start out with no assumptions and then look at the evidence presented, thus far there is a red shift and other indicators and evidence the there was an immensely large expansion and using the constant of the speed of light and measuring distance we can find that the universe is approximately 13.5 billion of years old, give or take a couple of millenia. I do not however start out with the assumption that god exists because a book written 5,000 years ago tells me so without the evidence to back it up.
See the difference?
Exactly, if somebody told him that he got their vote after reading some tea leaves he wouldn't tell them that they're crazy. A vote's a vote, right?
Guys, I think you've got krussell's last comment backwards. He doesn't appear to be defending a view against the BB theory, but speaking against those who do.
In an attempt to stem your ignorance, nobody but creatards like yourself believe that scientists think that the Big Bang came from nothing. A scientist would say "I dont know" and that is OK. We dont know. That is more intellectually honest than saying that goddidit.
The bible says that god breathed the universe into existance. So that is more plausible?
hmm, you may be right.
There is also zero proof that there is no God, or in other words you can't prove God did create the universe, but you can't prove God didn't create the universe. As to who has the burden of proof, that's for each of us to decide.
@krussell. It amazes me that you are posting. After all, aren't you waiting for everything to end in 16 days, as you stated on another post?
@krussell, even though it says little about what he actually believes, it does tell us a lot about the target audience he's trying to reach.
I'm just going to have to go back to trolling.
Kenny, you seem to be the only one with true reading comprehension. It's a shame South Park kills you every week.
Firstly, Creationists believe that there was nothing then *POOF* god created it all. Many of the christians commenting here include the idea that the big bang came from mothing. Hense the question: "If there is no god, where did it all come from?"
2nd, a great many comments suggest that the Universe (aka everything that exists) was part of the big bang in the beginning.. Again, a simplifying assumption incorrectly applied from those who believe god did it in 7 days.
Does that help Honey badger, THOTH, Charles, Bootyfunk? Or do I need to post using smaller words?
(wow, this insulting people & stuff really is fun!)
@ Kevin – in logic, you cannot prove a negative. For instance I cannot prove that there are no giant invisible fuzzy pink unicorns circling Uranûs.
Also, when people claim that their particular version of a god is real, and that this version of a god is "the god", then the onus is on them to provide support for that contention.
I'll admit that I obviously missed some key fragments of your post, but seriously, why does everything think my name is Charles?!
I understand Chuck is a nickname for charles, but Chuckles is an action, not a continuation from Chuck
And so you make your conclusion even though it can't be proven one way or the other. So, as to who has the burden of proof, that's for each of us to decide
The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. In this case it is the believer claiming an existence of god. The non-believer holds no beliefs on the matter; they just don’t believe your claim. There is a difference.
If I said that a purple bunny followed me around to keep me safe, and you told me I was crazy and that you don’t believe me, you don’t have anything to prove, because I’m the one making the ridiculous claim. Just replace the purple bunny with god, and you might get it.
You are using a false equivalency in order to give one side a lot more legitimacy than it deserves. Burden of proof isn't an opnion to be decided upon by people, it just is. To make the claim "there is a god" means that the burden of proof falls on you, not the person that rejects the claim.
In this instance, dicussing the big bang, the theory is in place and is constantly being backed up (or as the case may be, reworked), the second hypothesis "the beginning of the universe was created by god" is a separate hyptoehsis posed and also has the burden of proof to be proven.
So which claim are you making? If your claim is that there is no god, by all means present your case. Of course you need to define who or what God is and what are How's intentions, so as to verify your claim.
Sorry Ken but you're wrong. Atheists are making no claim. We are responding to the positive claim "God exists" and are saying "we don't believe you...where is your evidence". The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. If it wasn't then everything you can imagine that isn't manifest in reality in some fashion would be equally valid.
Example: Prove to me that the Flying Spagetti Monster doesn't exist. By your argument if you can't prove it's non-existence then it follows that his existence is just as likely as your God. You are making a logical fallacy. The only time to accept a premise is when there is evidence to support it...not before.
I didn't make any claim either, other than proclaiming a belief. All I'm doing is responding to those who have been proclaiming that there is no god. So Virginia, who knows, there may just be a flying spaghetti monster.
Kev, atheists don't claim that there is no god. Atheists LACK BELIEF in any gods described to them up to the current date. That's the atheist's position: I don't believe the god believer's claim.
You're defining a gnostic atheist, and I've never met one and neither have you.
I believe that your position is that, saying that there is a God is a claim, and saying that there is no God is also a claim, right? Both are claims that require evidence, but since almost all Christians, for example, would claim to KNOW that there aren't any other gods, in an equal absence of any evidence, what right do they have to quibble about "proof" when they themselves dismiss so many gods without having any?
Thanks for your comment...hadn't thought of it like that....my non-renewed, once upon a time evangelical mind would never have thought of it like that...
I never claimed to know what atheists believe either. But there have been definite claims on this blog about there being no god.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. Although I have some dogmatic beliefs about God, they are just that; beliefs. I don't claim them to be any more than that.
hilarious. politicians are finally starting to be held accountable for their fairytale beliefs. they've been laughing at us in england for quite a while. rubio is embarrassed to say that he DOES think the world is 6k years old. he also knows that's a huge turn-off to independent voters and anyone living in this century. lol.
the bible also says the earth was here before the sun, that the earth is flat and that there was light on earth before the sun. read the introduction in any high school science text book and you will have 10x the scientific 'knowledge' offered in the bible.
God also supposedly separated the oceans from the water in the sky with a solid vault that he later poked holes in for the stars to shine through. That's where the ancients thought rain came from: Some massive ocean of water on the other side of the sky. God was in the "heavens", this side of the solid vault, so nor very far at all. This explains the belief that he hung out on mountaintops.
religion promotes ignorance. religion tells us to turn off our brains - after all, we have the answers from god already. we know how the universe formed - no need for research or questions. it's one of religion's greatest crimes and christianity is ignorance's greatest advocate.
The universe derived from a State of Eternal Energy not Nothingness. This is why Nothingness show signs of Energy because Energy is Eternal.
"Dawkins and his army have a swarm of articulate theological opponents, of course. But the most ardent of these don't really care very much about science, and an argument in which one party stands immovable on Scripture and the other immobile on the periodic table doesn't get anyone very far. Most Americans occupy the middle ground: we want it all. We want to cheer on science's strides and still humble ourselves on the Sabbath. We want access to both MRIs and miracles. We want debates about issues like stem cells without conceding that the positions are so intrinsically inimical as to make discussion fruitless. And to balance formidable standard bearers like Dawkins, we seek those who possess religious conviction but also scientific achievements to credibly argue the widespread hope that science and God are in harmony–that, indeed, science is of God."
you may want it "all", but you're just getting science. god does not exist. grow up. think for yourself.
People don't always get what they want. It's nice to fantasize about miracles coming true and all, but the reality of this world doesn't support such beliefs.
"If you want to define God as this ever-shrinking unknown then I'm with you" – Neil Degrasse Tyson.
Isn't "ever-shrinking unknown" also the definition of "ignorance"?
fear, guilt and ignorance - the pillars of christianity
@Jones – Ignorance can mean unaware, or that you choose to ignore something. It only becomes ever-shrinking when you actually open your mind and learn. IMO Dr Tyson's statement sums the concept of god up rather well....but that's just my opinion...
and that is religion - not knowing and not wanting to know. sounds like both sum it up pretty well. religion teaches us not to ask questions in the first place.
There appears to be a lot of "choosing to ignore something" when it comes to creationism and the bias against gays, but I meant that our ignorance is that which we still do not know. Why people are so set against admitting that we don't know the answer to something, and feel compelled to fill in the blank with any old answer, is beyond me.
From Pat Archbold...pretty descriptive of the majority of you that frequent this blog and demean those with different beliefs:
"...Heffernan, like many, seem to believe that once science was pure but somehow has been corrupted. Not so. It has always been this way. One need look no further than the patron saint of snarky scientists, Galileo himself.
What we usually hear about ol’ Galileo is that he was persecuted by the Church for his ideas and that is true to a point. I bet many people probably believe he was beheaded or something rather than being forced into early retirement at an Italian Villa. Anyway, we all know the Galileo story, right?
Well did you know that that Pope Urban VIII had been a friend and admirer of Galileo. When Galileo wanted to write a book about the controversy of the day, heliocentrism, the Pope gave him the go ahead. All he asked is that Galileo present fairly both sides of the argument. So what did the patron saint of scientists do? He put the words of the Pope into a character in his book name Simplicio, a fool. Not content to fairly promote his ideas, Galileo mocked the Pope who gave him permission for the book.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
But… But…. Galileo was right! So he was advancing science by mocking those who disagreed. He is vindicated!
Well I am not sure if being right is vindication for poor behavior, but the truth is that scientists have conducted this vitriolic inquisition on their own kind more than anyone else. Such scathing scientific discourse may have destroyed more lives than the Inquisition. The real sin here is disagreeing with the prevailing wisdom of the scientific clique of the day.
Just one example of many is the case Alfred Wegener. Wegener was an astronomer by trade but he proposed a simple theory in the field of geology. Alfred Wegener proposed the theory then called ‘continental drift’ and now know as plate tectonics. Plate tectonics is well accepted now but in the early 20th century when Wegener proposed it, it flew in the face of accepted scientific wisdom.
For his insight, Wegener was mocked and criticized and ultimately ostracized by the mainstream scientific establishment. Ultimately he died virtually unknown on an expedition trying to prove his theory.
We can see the same type of behavior by global warming scientists today. You are either in the club or out. And if you are out, watch out.
So while I understand Heffernan’s frustration at the level of discourse in science today, she should just resign herself to this reality. It has always been this way.
Science is great, scientists however..."
You can go to the Galileo Project (from Rice University) and read a more "truthful" account that uses the New Catholic Encyclopaedia as a source.
You finished up with this – " We can see the same type of behavior by global warming scientists today. You are either in the club or out. And if you are out, watch out."
Question – Why is it that none of you denier nutters will post the citations to the peer-reviewed scientific research showing ACC is a scam? We've been asking you folks to do this for years. But you either refuse, or ignore it.
LMAO at all the people on here who put their faith in science. To borrow from a poster below, the more I see of science, the more I am totally convinced in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible.
So you believe that the entire earth was flooded?
" I am totally convinced in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible."
Your god got the very first verse wrong. The earth was not created in the beginning. The universe existed for 9 billion years before the earth formed. So much for your inerrancy.
Absolutely. The Bible tells me so.
No, the earth was created first. You have fallen victim to the lies of science.
"the Bible tells me so" ..... LOL.... it must be true then.
Then where did all the water go?
I don't have an answer to your question, but unlike other people on here, I will not make up an answer. I don't know. The only thing that I do know is that with God all things are possible.
" where did all the water go?"
Hell with that! Where did the billion cubic miles of water come from?
To dismiss "science" is fine, but you cannot dispute the realities that science has uncovered. If you show such unerring belief in your book that has been proven wrong countless times, you are a fool.
" No, the earth was created first. You have fallen victim to the lies of science."
Have you ever noticed that it's the folks who are too fucking stupid to understand science that make the claim science is lies?
The Bible has NEVER been proven wrong. If you think so, then you don't know how to read the Bible. I would advise you to take a Bible class.
@Prime – don't you know anything? The water came through the little holes in the dome that covers the earth. Some people think they are distant stars but that's just made up science. They are actually tiny holes in the dome. 😉
A better ethical question about the flood would be why a just and loving god would murder all species; innocent children, animals, etc... simply because he was unhappy with his own creation.
What's with the personal attack? I do not call you stupid. The way you talk about others just confirms that atheists have no morality.
"the Bible has never been proven wrong"...... in the words of John Mcenroe "you cannot be serious".
In other words you cannot support our beliefs in any way but you still hold them. Have fun being delusional.
Thoth wrote: "A better ethical question about the flood would be why a just and loving god would murder all species; innocent children, animals, etc... simply because he was unhappy with his own creation."
That's just it, no one was innocent except Noah and his family. That's why God found it necessary to wipe them out and start again.
Again, name calling from atheists. Wow, why am I not surprised? You see the thing about delusions is that unless you have an objective standard (God) for judging, there is no way to tell who is delusional and who isn't. I maintain that it is you who is delusional because of your inability to see all the lies within science.
@Evangelical – if you would condemn an infant incapable of rational thought, or animals simply struggling to survive as "guilty" of some act against your god that warrants drowning, then you truly are a disgusting human being.
I prefer to use evidence as my objective standard. What scientific claims do you consider lies?
God is not a human being, and He is the creator of all.
Evolution, the big bang, age of the universe are some of the whoppers of science.
The bible has been and can be proven wrong in many instances. some examples.
the story of Jonah
I you think all things are possible through god, try praying for god to let you put your right elbow in your right ear without damaging your body in the process...take a picture when you accomplish that.
you must be a poe
@Evangelical – nice gear switch. I'll re-phrase. If your God would condemn an infant of some act that warrants drowning then your god, and all his followers are truly disgusting and have no moral compass. Spin that one.
" no one was innocent except Noah and his family"
There would have been many fetuses less than 100 cells in size that your god murdered. What was their sin?
And since you nutters claim original sin is on all humans, how did it skip Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives? And then, how did it reenter humans, requiring god to ràpe a little girl impregnating her with himself so that he could sacrifice himself to himself?
Sorry, did you mean "inaccuracy" of the Bible?
@Evangelical, you wrote:
"The Bible has NEVER been proven wrong. If you think so, then you don't know how to read the Bible. I would advise you to take a Bible class."
The bible has never been PROVEN wrong for the same reason that evolution has never been proven wrong – proff doesn't apply. On the other hand there is mounds of evidence for the theory of evolution, and little for most of the supernatural claims in the Bible. Don't get me wrong, though I don't believe in god myself, I have no problem with the concept and believe it could be compatible with science. But to claim to reject science is just false. You use scientific reasoning to assume that if the world was hear 5 minutes ago it will be again in another 5. You use scientific belief every time you take a medicine or rely on...gravity...heck anything. So what you are doing is selectively picking and choosing which pieces of scientific evidence you want to believe. You just need to come up with a better argument than that.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
"The Bible has NEVER been proven wrong. If you think so, then you don't know how to read the Bible."
The essence of the problem. 'If you think the Bible is wrong, then you are reading it correctly.'
What you label as "lies of science" is merely your complete lack of understanding of scientific principles and methodology. Science provides the best available explanation for whatever it studies. Repeated experiments and confirmed results with facts and supporting data are what eventually become labelled scientific theories. Science doesn't deal in absolutes. Results are often given as probabilities and when high degrees of certainty are reached it is accepted as demonstably true.
In contrast religious ideas are not scrutinized in the same way at all. There are no probabilities given or any degree of certainty arrived at whatsoever. Instead an appeal to faith (belief wthout evidence) is heavily relied on. The only wiggle room for lies to be accepted as true is rooted in faith alone. Unless you can demonstate that faith is a reliable path to truth. But how will you do that without facts and evidence? It all comes down to evidence.
So do you just the magic "God did it" wand to explain all of these things?
eva: you are a jeebus sucking cvnt. why should anyone care what the f you think?
eva: jeebus is waiting for some good mouth loving. no need to wait.....do you have a sidearm, or a tall building where you live?
Evangelical = Poe
Evangelical, if you don't want people to call you stupid I would suggest that you don't say stupid stuff like the bible has never been proven wrong.
The more I see Evangelical post, the more I am convinced that he is an absolute fake.
" What's with the personal attack? I do not call you stupid"
If you will notice, the only people I have called stupid ignorant nutters are the ones who are stupid ignorant nutters. If you don't want to be called a stupid ignorant nutter, the simple solution is to not be a stupid ignorant nutter.
Evan is totaly, willfully ignorant. A scared liitle man who is afraid of living life, while despararately hoping he'll get a better one when he dies. Religions = cults of death. Live so you can die, and be happy with goD, the rest doesn't matter. Fukked up, yes?
You realize that name-calling is just an ad hominem argument.
@stupid ignorant nutter
An ad hominem would only be applicable is Evangelical made an actual argument instead of plugging his ears and going "LA LA LA LA LA LA BIBLE IS RIGHT LA LA LA LA LA SCIENCE SUCKS LA LA LA"
oh, come on, you guys are better than this.
"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent's argument."
Name-calling is just attacking the person not the argument and has no place in a logical argument. Now if you just want to win the emotional argument and try to feel superior, good luck.
I came here for an argument!
Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
@stupid ignorant nutter
Like I said, if he actually made an argument, then what you're saying would apply. Unfortunately for him and you, he makes no arguments.
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn't the automatic game saying of anything the other person says!
So, if there are stars that are billions of lightyears away, that we can see, why should we assume anything other than said stars being billions of years old?
"An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn't the automatic game saying of anything the other person says!"
No it isn't.
If you actually believe in "the absolute inerrancy of the Bible", then you obviously haven't read much of it.
I don't know, @AtheistSteve seems to have done an excellent job.
@stupid ignorant nutter
Maybe AtheistSteve is more patient than the rest of us. Look back in the past 3-5 months. This conversation with Evangelical has been done over and over, and he either doesn't care, or is a completely fake troll, one of the two.
then you must support slavery, Evangelical, because the bible does. you must support killing all non-virgin brides, because the bible does. you must support all the evil found in the bible. good job - you've only proven you don't think for yourself.
Stupid Ignorant Nutter wrote, " You realize that name-calling is just an ad hominem argument"
Point 1 – I can't argue against Evangelical's argument because he doesn't have one. All he has is religious opinions unsupported by fact or evidence.
Point 2 – If someone is left-handed, is it an ad hominem argument to point out that they are left-handed? If someone is green-eyed, it it an ad hominem argument to point out they have green eyes?
"Point 1 – I can't argue against Evangelical's argument because he doesn't have one. All he has is religious opinions unsupported by fact or evidence."
So why comment at all? Or simply state s/he has no evidence.
"Point 2 – If someone is left-handed, is it an ad hominem argument to point out that they are left-handed? If someone is green-eyed, it it an ad hominem argument to point out they have green eyes?"
I would agree, if you had only said "ignorant," since Evangelical does appear to be ignorant of science, but "stupid" and "nutter" are obviously not simple descriptions.
RANDOM KIRBY DANCE!!!!!
Hmmm...So apparently wordpress doesn't like the enter button? They shall feel the kirby wrath.
Stupid Ignorant Nutter wrote, " Name-calling is just attacking the person not the argument and has no place in a logical argument."
Very well, as soon as Evangelical, or one of the other stupid ignorant nutters puts forth a logical argument, I promise not to call them a stupid ignorant nutter.
Fair enough for you?
I'm hoping that he's taking my advice and looking back 3-5 months to see that Evangelical does not make arguments usually, and the few that were brought up were refuted easily.
@ Stupid Ignorant Nutter – why do I post in response to Evangelicals posts? Simple – when I see so done posting lies about science, I respond. And this isn't simply a case of them being mistaken or incorrect. This is someone purposefully choosing to post lies.
Anyone can be ignorant. I'm ignorant about many things. But I don't go onto internet message boards and demonstrate that ignorance for all too see. This behavior elevates Evangelical from mere ignorance to purposeful stupidity. And purposefully choosing to ignore any actual evidence that disagrees with a literal interpretation of Genesis, is nuts.
This isn't the first rodeo for any of us. And as long as stupid ignorant nutters continue to come onto threads and post lies, I, and others, will continue to point out those lies.
Jesus sent creationism and abortion as the two issues that will destroy the Republican Party forever. He really does work in mysterious ways.
KInda the same way I feel about religion.
The more I know about it, the more I believe in science.
It's like what they say about slaughterhouses: Most people are blissfully unaware of what goes on inside them, but those who do know fall into two camps. They're either part of the industry profiting from the slaughter of animals, or they become vegetarians and work to enlighten the blissfully ignorant of its ugly side.
In religion we have blissful believers, profiteering clergymen and atheist critics seeking to enlighten.
That's a clumsy analogy. I worked in a meat packing plant years ago, but no longer, and I'm not a vegetarian.
I still think that the basic premise is true, that most people who eat meat haven't thought much, or can't really imagine what actually goes on in one of those plants while most vegetarians probably do have a really good idea what does. Atheists consistently score higher on tests of religious knowledge than believers, and I see a positive correlation between greater knowledge of religion and likelihood to abandon religious beliefs that require faith.
I've thought about it, seen some documentaries about those things. I don't really see that as convincing for me to not eat meat.
No eat meat, sick you get.
New of neighbourhoody.
Sea Bass smothered in Arctic Char Roe sweet/sour Teriyaki you choose
Sea weed greens
Sake free, open special
The fear that religious leaders feel, however, is that too many will get turned off of religion if they educated themselves similarly, but you may be right. They've pretty much swung open the doors to the nasty side of things like smoking and fast food, but all that has taught us is that a pretty big percentage of people will still go ahead and partake even when they know something's harmful. I think it's the "I like what I'm doing and I don't give a s–t what anybody thinks about it" att itude.
As.sumeing that the behavior in question does not cause harm to anyone, is there anything wrong with the "I like what I'm doing and I don't give a s–t what anybody thinks about it" att.itude?
While I agree that education is a key to irreligion.
I don't think that eating meat is inherently wrong or self-contradictory, as you may be implying.
However, my point is not critical to the argument, so feel free to ignore it.
"They've pretty much swung open the doors to the nasty side of things like smoking and fast food, ..."
Wait a second...
Are you equating eating meat, smoking, and fast food with religiosity? That seems like quite a stretch.
Who are the "they" that you're talking about?
As.sumeing that it doesn't, then no, but nobody would seriously argue that smoking, eating fast food and even meat isn't potentially harmful to a person's health. Lots of religious beliefs don't cause much harm either, but plenty do, in a lot of people's opinion.
"Religiosity" is a pretty big umbrella, and you can't "prove" it's bad effects like you can those of cholesterol and nicotine, so you may be right. I withdraw my analogy, all right?
I guess I didn't fully understand your analogy to begin with.
Seems to me that you were maligning people who eat meat or smoke or eat fast food. In appropriate amounts most things are not that harmful, for example sunlight, contributes to cancer. Are you saying that people who go outside are partaking of the "nasty side of things"? Are you a radical vegan?
How in the world does eating meat harm anyone?
"Most people are blissfully unaware of what goes on inside [slaughterhouses] but those who do know fall into two camps. They're either part of the industry profiting from the slaughter of animals, or they become vegetarians and work to enlighten the blissfully ignorant of its ugly side."
Up to a point, I think the analogy is apt, though it is slightly flawed.
At some level we all *know* what happens in slaughterhouses. Most people don't want to be a first-hand witness. We're not in denial that it's pretty nasty. Where many religionists are convinced of their faith, no one is convinced that the livestock are having a good time.
Personally I'm still an evolving primate who likes proteins derived from animals but I really don't like thinking about where this food comes from. (I don't have any conscientious justification.) The assumption that humans are the only mammals that are self-aware seems very weak to me. Societally speaking though, eating meat is not immoral.
This stance against eating meat because it involves the death of animals never made sense to me. I think most people wouldn't condone needless cruelty, but we are omnivores, and we can't spend all day processing our own food. And if we're going to keep these animals in luxury suites until time for slaughter, the price will skyrocket.
Choosing to only eat vegetables because animals are killed for their meat is one the most senseless argument I've come across. It ranks up there with "god did it." Just because a carrot does not bleed when it is yanked out of the ground, just because lettuce does not have big cow eyes to cry with or a voice to moo with when it has its throat slit, doesn't mean you aren't KILLING it just the same as any animal.
Now, give me an argument that humans may need to evolve to only eating vitamin pills and that would make a bit more sense (but only a bit since if we did evolve to that and for some reason lost the ability to produce the pills, we'd be in trouble). But the argument to stop eating a food source because it means we must kill it simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
Most things are OK in moderation, but the problem is that there are far too many who overindulge in such habits. Personally, I'm not any kind of vegan, but I have learned to reduce my trips to the Burger Boys to once a month, I've never smoked, and I limit my meat intake to roughly what the food guide says is appropriate for a man my age. Picking up the analogy once again, I think people can live fairly rational lives with a moderation of religious faith but, again, too many people overindulge.
I think many, if not most people, would agree that if some activity becomes your sole focus that's a sign that you aren't living a very well-rounded life. It doesn't matter what you're obsessed with, sports, politics, comic books, soap operas, religion... What have you, if that's all you think about then something's wrong, wouldn't you agree?
I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV
"At some level we all *know* what happens in slaughterhouses."
I think there are lots of people who have more of a child-like understanding of where meat comes from. Ever watch any kid's cartoons these days? Animals don't eat other animals in them. Not PC, I suppose. So, it wouldn't surprise me that, for many younger adults especially, that level where they "understand" where meat actually comes from is really, really far back in their minds.
There is a certain economics that suggests that too much energy is lost raising animals to eat as opposed to just eating the grains we feed them directly, but I'm with you on we treat animals. There appears to be a correlation between being offended by the eating of meat and the tendency to dress one's pets in silly, degrading outfits.
I have question. can one prove carbon dating? or is that also just a theory?
In science we do not prove things, we explain things. Proofs are for maths, ethanol, and yeast doughs.
Carbon dating has been validated hundreds of thousands of times. Most commonly via dendrochronology.
Yes, carbon dating is a proven fact.
Just like all the other science that you use daily to make your life better and more confortable.
You fundies just won't let go of your stone age fairy tale.
Tell me, is there any proof of you god(s)?
Get back to us when you have any...........
Ah Ha! Primewonk admitted that science does not prove things.
Well he would be wrong. Science looks for proof at all times, only occasionally do we find solid proof, but we always strive for it.
OK, tea, I know you're just playing games, but I'll play along. You see a computer in front of you. Prove it was there 30 seconds ago.
Teabagger wrote, " Ah Ha! Primewonk admitted that science does not prove thing"
With this simple statement Teabagger demonstrates that he doesn't have a fucking clue as to what the scientific method is, or how it works.
Why am I not surprised?
" Science looks for proof at all times, only occasionally do we find solid proof, but we always strive for it."
Proof implies 100% certainty. Science is never arrogant enough to assume that we will neverr uncover new facts or evidence that causes us to rethink the dominate theory. For this reason, falsifiability is a key component in science.
The closest thing we have to "proof" would be a scientific law, which is, in essence a mathematical construct that appears to hold true at any point in the universe – for example Newton's law of gravitational attraction. However, do not confuse law with theory. A law lets us calculate a value. But it does nothing to explain "how". Newton's law lets us calculate the force of attraction between 2 bodies with mass at a distance. But it does nothing to explain why mass attracts mass – for that you need the theory.
Primework, Im sorry if I came across wrong. I took your "In science we do not prove things" literally.
Niknak, asking me for proof of God in this realm is like handing me an ol' merqury bulb thermometer and insisting that I take your picture now using the thermometer and only the thermometer. I just cant do it. I need a camera for that one. Similarly God is to be experienced. and when He is, your life will change.
@teavangelist, Here's a pretty straight forward explanation of the proof in science issue and why that question doesn't make sense to people in the sciences:
They will never give you any proof because they can't. That is something hard and empirical and they should be able to prove it, but it is, like most things in science, just a theory. However, asking for proof of God, which is not hard and empirical, is like asking to prove love exists.
OK Evangelical, since you apparently also don't have even basic exposure to how science works and are too lazy to read even the simplified link I posted on the subject, here's the pertinent bit:
'The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and se'xual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my ass tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.'
I don't find your source credible. That is, of course, a scientist talking. Can't you find a more objective source?
@Evangelical, Seriously? We're talking about the very DEFINITION of science. I apparently can't help you.
We know "love" exists because we can experience it from actual, flesh and blood people. What you're asking is that we believe that some invisible being loves us and expresses that love in ways that could just as easily be seen as natural events. You could just as easily claim that Zeus loves us, or Santa.
Now you've gone too far. I know that Santa loves me – he put a Koran in my stocking last year!
They will never give you any proof because they can't. That is something hard and empirical and they should be able to prove it, but it is, like most things in science, just a theory. However, asking for proof of God, which is not hard and empirical, is like asking to prove love exists.
Its not hard so we await your proof. lol
mental illness moron :-
have you read above post about thermometer and taking picture? then read it
You've never answered this question.
Are you a poe?
hawaiiguest what is a Poe?
asking me for proof of God in this realm is like handing me an ol' merqury bulb thermometer and insisting that I take your picture now using the thermometer and only the thermometer. I just cant do it. I need a camera for that one. Similarly God is to be experienced. and when He is, your life will change.
If I experience something that I never have before ( Vuja de...that feeling that I've never done this before), why would I or any rational person jump to the conclusion that it is some deity?
It means I think you're a complete fake and just pretending to be as ridiculous as you are for kicks.
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
H. L. Mencken
i woudl say this is perfect except i have trouble even reaching that level of respect when it comes to religion. I prefer scorn and derision.
People might want to check out last night's debate at http://intelligencesquaredus.org/. The question was "science refutes god" and Krauss/Shermer destroyed their opponents. To be fair to Ian H, he was severely handicapped by Dinesh D.
Whats in a name? Rubio, from the Latin "Rube". as in this guy is a total Rube.....
Rubio is about as smart as a box of rocks. anyone that really thinks the world is 6k years old should just remove their frontal lobe since they aren't doing any cognitive thinking anyway.
i agree.....gotta be purt near twice that by now
All of us say some pretty dumb things when we are drunk or stoned.....
"All of us say some pretty dumb things when we are drunk or stoned....."
LOL not that dumb though.
Rubio, Rubio, Rubio wherefore dost thou come from?
Determine your evolution for $199 and a DNA swab:
As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
"Included in the markers we will test for is a subset that scientists have recently determined to be from our hominin cousins, Neanderthals and the newly discovered Denisovans, who split from our lineage around 500,000 years ago. As modern humans were first migrating out of Africa more than 60,000 years ago, Neanderthals and Denisovans were still alive and well in Eurasia. It seems that our ancestors met, leaving a small genetic trace of these ancient relatives."
Even without said testing, your comments indicate a fair amount of Neaderthal DNA in your genome.
Yes. prayers might change Rubbio from a toad to a frog 😉