Watch Live: Second House Hearing on IRS Scandal

Watch: Rioters in London Clash With Police Over ‘Cleaver’ Terror Attack

Politics

Science and the GOP

Nov. 23, 2012 10:09am

Don Rasmussen is a writer and a political consultant providing campaign technology and strategic analysis to Constitutional Republican candidates. He earned […]

Don Rasmussen is a writer and a political consultant providing campaign technology and strategic analysis to Constitutional Republican candidates. He earned his BA in Political Economy and Latin America Studies from the University of Washington before moving on to a Masters in Political Management from George Washington University. He has staffed or advised on two presidential campaigns and over a dozen congressional races as well as organizing The Rally for the Republic, the conservative counter-convention to the 2008 Republican National Convention, which helped launch the TEA Party movement. Today he lives in Austin where he is working on his first book, Diaspora: Why We Leave, a study of the economic and political motivations of Americans living abroad.

[ x ]

dar2214@gmail.com

In the wake of Marco Rubio’s recent interview in which he claimed that the age of the Earth was “a dispute among theologians,” the Republican Party’s science problem has resurfaced as an issue.

According to Rubio, “I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that (the age of the Earth).” By that logic, only a meteorologist can tell it is raining and only a chemist can tell us that the rain is made of water.

The other fallacy propagated by Rubio in that interview is the old canard that evolution is “just a theory.” Gravity is also just a theory. Shall we start pushing politicians out of airplanes to see if it’s a valid theory? The false “just a theory” argument is borne of ignorance of the scientific process. It is easy to confuse the common use of the word “theory” with the exact, specific and verifiably valid scientific process of the same name.

When this confusion forms the premise of your argument, you’ve already lost the argument by revealing your misunderstanding. Yet this premise has persisted in Republican circles for years, along with a host of other false, anti-science “facts” that form the support for some people’s view of politics, apparently including Senator Rubio.

Growing up in small town Texas, I learned that plate tectonics was a hoax, the Earth was only 10,000 years old, there are no transitional fossils, radiocarbon dating is fake and humans were created whole cloth in God’s image.

All of this was years after the US Navy sonar-mapped the oceans, Edwin Hubble observed galaxies flying apart, Penzias &Wilson found the residue radiation from the Big Bang, paleontologists began discovering pre-human hominid fossils along with hundreds of transitional animal forms, geological measures repeatedly validated radiocarbon dating and Watson & Crick cracked the structure of DNA.

It’s especially ironic when these falsehoods are propagated on the internet, a technology based on quantum mechanics, a field of science that confirms much of the scientific understanding of the universe and its origins. It is also the foundational science behind CAT scans and many other modern technologies.

In fact, if you propose that DNA technology is wrong and humans can’t be genetically tracked back to early ape-like species with which we share 90 percent of our DNA, than you must also advocate releasing every murderer and rapist convicted with DNA technology. If one is fake, then so is the other; it’s the same technology.

I don’t write this to disparage anyone’s religious beliefs, only to highlight the fact that when those beliefs bump up against foundational science and proven technology; it is easy to make those beliefs look ridiculous to a majority of Americans. And so it is with Marco Rubio.

Despite overwhelming belief in God (92 percent according to Gallup), only 40percent of Americans persist in accepting some pre-modern views on the origins of the universe and the human species. That’s far higher than any other developed country except Muslim-dominated Turkey. The evangelical base of the Republican Party makes up the majority of those holding those views.

Therein lies the political problem. Reporters will continue to ask these sorts of questions for this very reason. Marco Rubio’s awkward pander to the base separates him from the 60 percent and growing portion of the population that doesn’t think Jonah literally lived in a whale or that Noah managed to get to Florida to collect a pair of swamp newts.

Moreover, this basic misunderstanding of science (Marco Rubio is actually on the Science and Space sub-committee) leads to many other misunderstandings that prove politically toxic; “legitimate rape” comes immediately to mind. If you accept a magical, meta-scientific worldview, you can fall for all kinds of quack theories that follow from it and you set yourself up for scandal and mockery when those views are revealed to a skeptical electorate.

Todd Akin didn’t lose because of the TEA party; he beat two TEA party candidates in the primary who split almost 60 percent of the vote. Akin squeaked by holding his 36 percent evangelical base. But his views didn’t sell to a general electorate. Case after case we see the same thing, media labeled TEA partiers who lost due to their religiously-motivated anti-science views…Angle, Mourdock, Akin, O”Donnell, Buck, the list goes on and on.

For all of the Democrats faults (and they are legion), they have successfully occupied the public space for objective and rational view of the physical world (setting aside climate change “science” which is infused with so much interest group politics and secular religion as to be a wholly separate case).

That leaves the GOP in a tough position representing minority views that seem increasingly at odds with scientific fact and public understanding. It also makes our legitimate criticisms of climate change seem less credible.

Apart from the cultural sensitivities that this raises; it is a political problem for the GOP. It is a political weapon so powerful that it can re-elect written off for dead senator Claire McCaskill and send an Indiana liberal Democrat senator to Washington even as the state votes for Mitt Romney by 11 points over President Obama.

Republican candidates and spokespersons must start responding to these types of questions in a fact-based manner. For every Biblical literalist they anger, there are more voters who will breathe a sigh of relief. Marco Rubio tried to have it both ways and ended up looking clueless and spineless to both sides.

The Republican Party has tried to fence sit on this issue for years, but our constantly improving scientific understanding along with an electorate which is increasingly accepting of the “science-based” view of the world make it a losing bet. The GOP is in desperate need of a scientific reformation. It probably starts by putting people on the Senate Science and Space sub-committee who know that the Earth is c. 4.5 billion years old and, just as importantly, why we know that is the case.

Evangelicals are an important and welcomed part of the GOP coalition, but they can’t continue to cost us election after election. If literalist rhetoric is making us politically uncompetitive and undermining our credibility among swing voters and educated suburbanites, then it is better to market to the 60 percent who don’t hold those views.

It’s not a matter of philosophy or ideology; it’s a strategic and practical necessity if we want to govern. We should never attack people for there views, but the only reason a political party exists is to obtain or retain political power. We must, therefore, not permit those views to dominate and define the party when they are at odds with our strategic and tactical objectives.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (287)

rwinger261
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:19pm
This is for all you super-intelligent, university-types, who have all the answers when it comes to the origin of the universe. One simple, down-to earth question: just exactly how did life come from non-living matter? I have examined the possibilities, and if we can somehow get past the origin of matter itself, no one has ever observed life coming from non-life. When searching my memory banks and looking back into my public school education, I seem to remember that science has proven that to be an impossibility. If we could go back and observe the primordial soup, do we really believe that life, with all its complexities, genetic code, ability to reproduce and repair itself, came from a mass of disorganized chemicals? Yet, somehow I am the one perceived as the moron because I take the Bible for what what it says that a power greater than myself created it all. Here’s the message the Great Creator has for all you super-smart people:

“I will question you, and you make it known to me. Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?”

No, there is without doubt proof a Designer, and if that Designer is so great He can do all that He did, He could certainly give us a book and show how He did it. No white-robed priest of Darwin and the Science god will change my mind on that.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc333
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:28pm
  No one knows for sure. Its one of life’s great mysteries… That doesn’t mean its proof of a designer though. because who then created the designers life? and if the designer can spontaneously form life, then why cant single celled organisms? and secondly.. as I said we don’t know that yet.. but to say your religion, out of the hundreds and hundreds of religions that have graced earth, is right. then youd be just as ignorant as the “university types” who pretend they have the big bang all figured out. as for the science aspect. the big bang is pretty much proven. everything from that point is also pretty much proven.. its just what sparked the big bang thats up for debate.
  
  Report this comment
- Gourdy
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:32pm
  I hear you, and I agree that there has to be a God/creator behind it all, but why can’t scientifically verifiable facts like evolution and the age of the universe not be God’s plan? One can’t say the Earth is 6000-9000 years old when science proves it’s billions of years old. God gave us brains too.
  
  Report this comment
- rwinger261
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:42pm
  It is a matter of accepting the written record the Creator left His creatures. The Bible has proven historically accurate and is unsurpassed by any other of the “religious” texts. The book of Daniel predicted several great empires before they existed, and Ezekiel predicted the destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar and then Alexander the Great. There is no book morally superior to the Bible, as shown by the great freedom the West enjoys (those with Christian roots) as opposed to the misery and oppression in societies influenced by the other “great” book the Koran. Take away any religious background or purposely suppress it, and you have the USSR and China, with their murderous atheism. Man who ignores God pays the price, as our crumbling society is proving.
  
  Most people who criticize the Bible have never read it, or are simply parroting others, like their state-sponsored professors in college.
  
  Report this comment
- Theodwulf
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:50pm
  Why do volcanoes erupt? God did it! Why does it rain ? God did it! Why are babies born deformed? God did it! Why can’t God stop Satan from doing horrible things to humanity? Because God wants him to do it! Where do evil people come from? God created them!
  If you wish to live in the stone age be my guest BUT to cling to an absolute literal understanding of scripture is just plain foolish when a combination of reason, logic and observation can disprove such things very easily.
  
  Report this comment
- rwinger261
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:50pm
  God gave us brains, but He also gave us His word. Modern science is beholden to the high-priests in the universities who control the grant money and will stifle any voice of dissension to the current god of Darwin. The so-called “undeniable” facts of science you mention are undeniable because THEY say they are, or you lose your grant money and position. You have to accept either Darwin and his buddies by faith or the God of the Bible by faith, and I believe the God of the Bible to be much more trustworthy.
  
  Report this comment
- Gourdy
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:55pm
  Rwinger, I respect that you take the Bible as a moral guide — I was raised on it too — but accepting stories such as Jonah and the whale, Noah’s ark, or nearly the entirety of Revelations as fact strains credulity. And remember that the Bible’s New Testament was written over a few centuries by many, many different men and is their interpretation of the life of Jesus and his teachings. It wasn’t “dictated” to them by God.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 4:20pm
  RWINGER “You have to accept either Darwin and his buddies by faith or the God of the Bible by faith,” I will kind of agree to that.. personally ill take darwinism, but to each his own. I don’t believe however that the two have to be separate. Though i normally don’t give much credence to a God I did hear something pretty cool that I’d like to share. I forgot where I heard it but it went like this. ” maybe the greatest creator isn’t someone who mapped out every little detail of the universe, but instead one who can spark a universe that builds itself. see us libs arn’t all bad!
  
  Report this comment
- Clive
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 4:31pm
  ^agreed gourdy. rwinger, i think you are missing the point of this article. its not about fighting over the big bang. You can believe in darwins theory, and believe in god. When an entire political party begins to demonize science and education, they are sealing their own fate. There are a lot of intelligent, good republicans in the world of education and science. All people like you do is alienate them. PS I’m roman catholic. Quoting the bible doesn’t change minds, man wrote the bible, and as we know, man isn’t infallible.
  
  Report this comment
- davecorkery
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 4:55pm
  Obviously, you’re not a super intelligent, university type. You are the proof to his point. You are being wilfully ignorant, and refusing to see the facts because you are loyal to your tribe, your congregation. Good for you. Stay that way. Your numbers are dwindling, and eventually, your kind of stubborn people will be gone. Kids are fact checking everything with their blackberries, and are no longer frightened by magical boogeyman in the sky. God is imaginary. Get over it.
  
  Report this comment
- rwinger261
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 4:59pm
  It is true the world looks at Darwinism as indisputable science, but at one time in our country it was not so. Back then, we had a recognizable moral code and new the difference between right and wrong. Today it is all up for grabs. Few today look at root causes, and the #1 root cause of that moral declension is our society has accepted a naturalistic world-view that tosses out any idea of a Supreme Being. Now morality is whatever I want it to be, and whatever my neighbor wants it to be. Perhaps the madhouse we saw at the Walmart stems from the idea that what God said in the Bible about covetousness and greed does not matter.
  
  Those wishing to combine the two – that concede a Creator but deny the Bible as the authority of what that Creator demands – you still have the same result. If the Book is nothing but an unreliable list of stories and myths (like a 6 day creation), then I can still concoct my own morality based on whatever my whims might be at the moment. Want to take my neighbors stuff? No problem. My neighbors wife? Again, what is stopping me? If there is no WRITTEN CODE of what the mind of the Creator demands from His creation, then the results are the same. Morals are whatever you make them. Christ said there is a cross to carry for those following Him – today it is the cross of being an “idiot” for believing that the Bible is not only true in every aspect, but the only real way to know where we came from and how.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 5:09pm
  Sorry Right Winger the Dark Ages ended, resaon and logic rule. The problem is that fools like yourself believe the bible is a science book. Its fine to look to the storys and myths within it as an allegorys and morality plays, but the creation myth is no more valid than the creation myths of other religions.
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 5:13pm
  @Keaton: I’m disappointed that you’re ceding to RWinger’s bogus assertion that evolutionary biology and the literal interpretation of the Christian creation myth stand on equal ground. Firstly, RWinger is completely equivocating evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution by natural selection is the process that operates when living things exist. It makes no assertions about the origins of life, which is a completely different scientific field.
  
  Abiogenesis is the science of where organic self-replicating molecules originated, and has much more to do with chemistry. If fact, anyone with a good handle on chemistry will tell you that organic compounds readily form in nature. I’m not just talking about simple single carbon molecules, but long chains. The focus on abiogenesis is to unravel how the first self-replicating organic molecules arose. There has been a lot of headway into that area, as laboratory experiments have shown a lot of promise. We’re a long way beyond the 1950′s science experiments that creationists often cite.
  
  Lastly, do not confuse a modern cell with a protocell. One argument that Behe often makes is that cells are too complex to spontaneously arise. He’s right. Modern cells are, but the first cells weren’t complex eukaryotes with endomembrane systems. They were essentially self-replicating oganic compounds enclosed in a lipid layer.
  
  Report this comment
- Atrum Angelis
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 5:34pm
  God may have given us “His” Word, however, there is clear evidence by going back through the history of the bible and the church that we no longer have it. It has been changed and altered so many times it is now Man’s word. We don’t even have the original to examine. The earliest bible we have dates to hundreds of years after Jesus, and it is clear that there have been many changes, additions and subtractions to the current form.
  
  God’s original Words are lost to man. All we have now is a version catered to Man’s thirst for power and his desire to keep it.
  
  Report this comment
- rwinger261
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 5:38pm
  MAPROG – so what you are saying is that genetic material is gained, and the complex arises from the simple, without aid? Is that not like a ball rolling uphill? Just how close is science to making that first Frankenstein monster? You said “Evolution by natural selection is the process that operates when living things exist. It makes no assertions about the origins of life, which is a completely different scientific field.” Let’s face the facts – Darwin’s book was about the “ORIGIN” of species, was it not? Yet they all start with life already existing and then “changing” into something more complex. David said of his own body, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made”. The human body is far to complex to be an accident, and it is nothing short of blindness to deny it.
  
  Report this comment
- PlowMan
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 6:11pm
  Wow!! You should run for office, Rwinger261! For a non-intellectual you can sure use vocabulary to your advantage. I don’t understand the logic of people like Mr. Rasmussen. Surely there were people in Germany, before Hitler, saying how stupid people were to follow some outdated party that doesn’t side with the political views of the modern Germany. How many people knew it was wrong but, in order to try and win an election, abandon all rational and sided with the masses (or with the 60% as Mr. Rasmussen says)?
  I implore Mr. Rubio and others to stick to your guns. My view on why we lost has to do with the contrast of the skin color and little to do with political views. No one is saying it but if both the presidential candidates had the same skin color (black, white, red, it doesn’t really matter). Then the outcome would have been with the more conservative of the two. (not that Mr. Romney is a conservative by any stretch) What I am saying is that the country (for now) is still a center-right electorate. In order for the Republicans to win they must see this point and not change their platform just because at this point in time it looks as if all logic has been tossed out the window. Logic will prevail!
  
  Report this comment
- scottydu81
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 6:23pm
  You are all idiots. You have NOT researched anything, because there are answers for your every questions! (mostly) where did life begin? Look up “abiogenesis”. There was a test done by recreating the atmospheric makeup of early earth air, and by passing electrical currents through the gas (you know, like LIGHTNING?!?) it created the building blocks for DNA. THAT is where life probably came from.
  
  when the topic of evolution comes up, people begin asking about the origins of the universe, when the theory of evolution does not even consider that subject! what you are concerned with is the big bang theory (which explains how the universe formed), abiogenesis (which explains how life began), and evolution (which explains how life became so diverse). That is ALL evolution explains! it explains all of the different forms of life and how they branched out from a common ancestor!
  
  as for how matter came to be in existence PRIOR to the big bang, well my response is “where did god come from?” if your answer is “he was always there, he has no origin”, then what is so difficult about accepting that MATTER has always been there, without origin?!?
  
  You young-earth creationists are absolutely WORSE than the most socialist democrat, hands-down, NO DEBATE. All you do is just make the rest of us look bad!
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 6:31pm
  @RWINGER: yes, I’m telling that the complex can arise from the simple without aid of a creator. We’ve replicated it in experiments dozens of times. As for the “ball rolling uphill”: yes, it is like that. It’s called an endergonic reaction, and it requires the input of energy to fascilitate the reaction. That energy can come in the form of sunlight, volcanism, lightning, to name a few. Lastly, if you had read Darwin’s book, you’d know that he is speaking explicitly about common ancestry among living organisms. He didn’t make claims about where the very first organism came from.
  
  Report this comment
- TheCalmOne
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 6:49pm
  RWINGER261 – It has been patiently explained to you that the theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life. The slightest amount of research on your part will confirm this. Will you continue to display your ignorance in a public forum and parrot the fallacy that evolution must be wrong because something cannot come from nothing?
  
  Report this comment
- rwinger261
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 8:03pm
  THECALMONE: I am not arguing the fact that Darwinism doesn’t address the origin of life, except for the fact it is unable to. That is because life is SPIRITUAL in nature and can never be replicated in a laboratory. It most certainly cannot be the product of chance or an accident. Nobody argues that natural selection is a method of change WITHIN A SPECIES, only that it can never add genetic information or change one species into another. This limitation is quite consistent with the biblical idea of the animal kingdom being created and reproducing by their “kinds”.
  
  I won’t continue arguing whose main source of attack is to belittle the intelligence of those who disagree with them. It is a wast of time. I will take a little time to answer this one post:
  
  “Obviously, you’re not a super intelligent, university type………. Your numbers are dwindling, and eventually, your kind of stubborn people will be gone. ”
  
  Yes, the future for this country does not look bright for biblical Christianity. Be careful what you wish for. Once the influence of Christianity is completely snuffed out, you won’t like it here.
  
  Report this comment
- Jaycen
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 8:32pm
  Gravity is a law.
  
  Evolution is a theory. It’s a very poor theory. Saying that we share 98% of our DNA with chimps points at how similiar carbon-based life-forms are, but anyone who fails to notice that 2% is a TREMENDOUS difference is suffering from mental retardation. Perhaps chimps aren’t going to build great cities, but where are their hamlets? Where are the chimp hunting and gathering parties?
  
  I’m not a Christian, but even I hear constantly about the “missing link”, and that there are several missing links. Only a few years ago the nutty theory about “evolution’s suddent leaps” were floating around trying to gain some traction.
  
  This was a really disappointing article to read on The Blaze. The article was mostly a hit-piece. Rubio’s answers were weak, true, but they aren’t evidence that “the Republican Party” doesn’t understand or rejects science.
  
  Report this comment
- TomSawyer
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 8:53pm
  Gourdy, Evolution is not a verifiable fact. It is a silly child like way of viewing it. The scientific reasons for not believing it our plentiful. It will one day replace the “earth being flat” as an example of ridiculous.
  
  Report this comment
- SendTheMeteors
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 10:30pm
  Why is it that people who assume a God created life on Earth believe it was the God of the Christian Bible? Why not the Muslim God? Why not Zeus? For that matter, why not a God that is different than any conceived by any religion or person on Earth, present or past? Even if you believe that you have to invoke a deity to explain life, what does that have to do with organized religion?
  
  Report this comment
- ugottabekidding
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 1:28am
  Creation cannot be explained by science because it has nothing to do with what we call science.
  What came first? the chicken or the egg?
  The universe was spoken into existence, already with age. If you can’t see the design in the world around you from the micro to the macro, you are truly blind. What about all those nifty genetic instructions. Hummm… Is the speed of light really the constant we thought it was??????????????
  
  Report this comment
- evmybryan
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 6:57am
  RWINGER, your right. Don’t listen to these leftist fools. They have been brainwashed by the liberal media. Jesus is Lord. God Bless you and Merry Christmas.
  
  Report this comment
- JJJB4EVERFREE
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 8:58am
  rwinger261, I have been following your posts. I want to thank you for graciously, accurately and thoughtfully presenting your beliefs and position. God help this nation if they are able to completely silence the voice of truth. Contrary to populist opinion there is a God in heaven who is intimately aware of the condition of His world. The further we move from biblical truth, as a nation, the more error seeps into the vacuum left in its wake. The only remedy for our political, intellectual, spiritual and moral decay is to follow the biblical injunction. Ps 11:2 “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” the question is rhetorical in that when a foundation is destroyed the only remedy is to rebuild it. If The Foundations Be Destroyed, What Can The Righteous Do?
  For the bible believing Christian there is but one way to begin; 2 Chronicles 7:14, “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land”.
  God bless you for standing for the truth!
  
  Report this comment
- SoNick
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 10:56am
  @rwinger261
  Darwin’s original title (up until the sixth edition) was “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Note that it does not say: “On the Origin of Life”. And to others who would warn us of the inherent evil of Darwin’s theory, please, stop propagating the idea that the mention of “favored races” means that he thought certain ethnicities were superior (the word “races”, in the context of the book, merely means “varieties”). Note, also, that what has been referred to as “social Darwinism” has nothing to do with uncle Charles theory. What Darwin explains in his magnum opus is the origin of speciation or how different species can arise from a common ancestor. From this, we were able to assess that man and great apes share a common ancestor. If you’re going to attack such a solid theory, you better read it first.
  
  Report this comment
- mr.goodvibe
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 11:26am
  SENDTHEMETEORS- The Muslim god is the same god of the old testament bible, judaism which led to the break away sect of christianity from the appearance of Jesus and the root of Islam. Mohammed changed islam to it’s current monstrosity. The roots are the same but the outcomes are much different. If you want to understand more you will just have to read more and not take what others say as fact.
  
  Report this comment
- Faithful Fisherman
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 12:38pm
  The whole argument for Macro-evolution, life from non-life, is predicated on the belief in “billions of years”, to bring this outcome to completion. The author has put forth several “proofs” for his belief, but they are loosely detailed, and all have their fallacies with recent discoveries. Scientists have attempted to age the earth using radioisotope dating, this is a very good article on the problems with radio-dating: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n1/patterns#. Carbon-14 is used to date rock layers as well, but with a half-life of only 5,700 years, it should be completely missing in fossils found in rock layers dated at 500 million years. Unfortunately, Carbon-14 is detected in fossils, coal samples, diamonds, marble, natural gas. After 1 million years, all Carbon-14 should have decayed. Other evidences pointing to a young earth include: 1) seafloor sediment too thin, 2) recent discovery of “soft tissue” elements in a fossilized T Rex thigh bone (2010), collagen, RBCs, blood vessels, 3) Helium contained in radioactive rocks, this should have leaked out after 100,000 years, 4) salt concentration in the sea is much lower (1/70) than expected 5) “ancient” DNA in bacteria found to be the same as “modern” bacteria, extracted from salt rocks dated at 250 million years. In difference to the author, there have been no “transitional fossils” found in the geologic record, which you would expect given millions of years. We also share 50% DNA with b
  
  Report this comment
- KGray
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 1:04pm
  What infuriates me is when Republicans and religious leaders and conservative commentators, like this one, are not prepared to answer such questions.
  
  It’s interesting to me that no one uses this argument as an opening to discuss the failures of public education. You think science has PROVEN the earth is millions of years old? Funny, because the elite scientific community doesn’t even believe that. Read their publications. It doesn’t match up with the discoveries in microbiology, chemistry or other expertises. So do you, as an untrained scientific student, no more about the facts of science than leading experts?
  
  How can anyone in our country know for sure what the truth about our origins are if they are not being allowed access to all of the information regarding the subject? Public schools and universities have been suppressing the facts in science for decades now. It is a part of a plan to destroy people’s belief in God.
  
  And how can you trust an educational system that is already showing their biased teaching against American history, morality, and other subjects?
  
  The media has left themselves wide open for exposure by bringing this up. If only there were someone in the public eye who had the intelect and skill to take this debate right in the direction it belongs.
  
  Report this comment
- Southernsoul
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 2:37pm
  The answer to your question is rathr long and complicated, but the important thing here is; there i an answer. Now a question for you. How does your god, the ulitimate being, create himself from nothing and then violate every law of physics with his existance? I don’t care what your religious believes are, when they come into conflict with solid science they are wrong. What a joker, your god, to create Carbon 14 with a known decay rate and then create and bury things with partially decayed C14 just to fool us. And then he sets a limit on the speed of light, creates the universe with light already on its way to eath from very distant stars and other universes. What a joker. No wonder you worship such a comedian.
  
  Report this comment
- JUSTMYOPINION
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 5:59pm
  TO Theodwulf:
  Why do we perceive beauty? Maybe it’s a chemical thing in the brain, but God didn’t do it! How do we know right from wrong? It’s a cultural construct, God didn’t do it! Why do we value human life? We’re no different than animals so we are just preserving our species, but God has nothing to do with it! Why is it that religion persists in the world and even atheists often admit to the perception of a ‘higher power’ that they choose NOT to believe in? Well, it must be a failure of evolution or maybe leftovers from primitive culture, but it is most certainly NOT GOD!
  
  Reason, logic and observation can prove some things but it can rarely disprove anything. Reason must be fully rational, logic must be infallible and observation must be all-knowing to accomplish what you suggest. The arguments for God and against God are not very persuasive on either side. You choose the lense you wish to look through and that determines how you see things. What we call science today is not always true science. What we call religion today is not always true religion. Pick your poison, but don’t act like you are above it all or that you have achieved some higher level of clarity. Accept that you are likely wrong about many things – whether your religion is God or Science. Be fully persuaded in your mind and let others do the same.
  
  Report this comment
- SendTheMeteors
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 11:20pm
  Faithful Fisherman, I read your post and you seem like you have some brains. But you suffer from information bias. You only read and accept the “science” that conforms with your religious beliefs.
  
  You seemed focused on carbon 14 dating, but, as you say, given the half life for carbon 14, it’s only useful for estimating the age of objects less than 50,000 years old or so. Given Creationist beliefs, and the fact that carbon dating is routinely accepted as a measure of the age of objects far older than the 6000 years age of the Earth creationists assume, you must believe carbon dating is meaningless. That seems to be your point.
  
  But there are many other radiometric “yardsticks” of the age of the Earth that go back millions in some cases and billions of years in others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
  
  Those radiometric measures aren’t fraudulent atheist conspiracies to tempt the religious to abandon their religion. That is science.
  
  Fisherman, even the Pope believes in an old Earth and evolution, as do most educated Christians. Believe what you want, but you are a flat-earther on this topic.
  
  Report this comment
- Godfixated
  Posted on November 25, 2012 at 2:33am
  I love when people like this Rasmussen speak from a blind and ignorant view of science. All one has to do is stop where he brings up Watson & Crick and DNA. What is DNA? DNA is information and how does information come about? Someone has to program that information. This is the only way we know information generates. This question perplexed Crick so much, he proposed the idea of directed panspermia which says that aliens seeded life on Earth. This would be a form intelligent design my friends.
  
  Report this comment
- utopia27
  Posted on November 25, 2012 at 2:47am
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2122619.stm
  
  Please note the date on this article: 2002. You are at least 10 years behind the literature. This is a virus assembled from inert elements, and fully capable of replication. It is life engendered from non-alive materials, and entirely artificial. You can do this in a graduate bio-chem lab right now, down at your local university. There are dozens of students who can provide you with a demonstration.
  
  Arguing science from a 2000 year-old book of moral instruction is not going to be a winning proposition.
  
  What is interesting is investigating the lifestyle instructions, particularly from Talmudic law. Turns out the Bible is also a great public health manual. At the time of writing morality and public health were considered inextricably linked, because they didn’t understand the physical basis of disease. Modern scientific investigation shows us, for example, that pigs harbor diseases easily transmissible to humans. So – Talmud says no pork. There are many lessons to be gleaned from these sorts of admonitions, and precisely none of them have to do with demonic possession, even if that’s the cited cause in the Biblical literature.
  
  So please come join us in the 21st century, and help us better understand the physical basis of the hard-learned lessons left to us in the 2000 year-old literature.
  
  Report this comment
Keatonc333
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:11pm
Science is to GOP as smoking is to lung health

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- truthnstuff
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 6:50pm
  Keatonc333, you truly are a mindless idiot.
  
  Report this comment
- TomSawyer
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 8:55pm
  Many scientists are Republicans. Try again.
  
  Report this comment
Robert999
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:10pm
The problem with science is it keeps changing, from Ptolemy to Copernicus, from Newton to Einstein, and now scientists are modifying Einstein’s ideas with string theory, etc., but the Word of God is immutable.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc333
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:29pm
  haha not really… the word of your god maybe.. for about 2,000 years. but what about all the other Gods throughout human existance?
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 5:14pm
  Yes, science amends its theoris to conform to new evidence. What is your point? That alone is the greatest testament to the scientific method.
  
  Report this comment
- TheCalmOne
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 6:52pm
  That is the great strength of science.
  
  Report this comment
termyt
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:01pm
Gravity’s a law, dude.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- enzomedici
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:23pm
  If the GOP doesn’t drop the nutjob evangelicals, they will never win the presidency ever again. You can’t be anti-women, anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-rich and expect to win. The GOP keeps support this no tax on the rich nonsense when most of the rich voted for Obama in the last election. Romney should have been a shoe-in based on Obama’s record, but Romney on social issues that shouldn’t even be issues. You have these GOP idiots saying women should not be able to get abortions even in cases of rape, but they wouldn’t support welfare for the mom to have the baby. What a bunch of morons. Lose these evangelicals or keep losing elections.
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 5:15pm
  No, gravity is a theory.
  
  Report this comment
- theotherberean
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 6:44pm
  We lost because we looked around and realized it’s too late. We have become a nation of godless, heathen perverts. Should we elect a Mormon and expect that to change?
  
  Report this comment
- TomSawyer
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 6:45pm
  We fall down, so gravity has been proven. Also 70% of Human DNA is common with plants. So saying that 90% in common with apes says very little. Rain is water, drink it and find out. But how does Rubio know how old the world is? He doesn’t. He can only quote guesses or guess himself.
  
  Report this comment
- Zipit
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 7:41pm
  SAWYER! It’s the KISS system, your post is well articulated, and I agree!
  
  Report this comment
- Catzilla23
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 9:41am
  Gravity is a law, the way gravity works is still theory, same for evolution.
  
  Report this comment
acovenantinblood
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:50pm
This article just made me done with The Blaze and the Republican Party. See ya folks!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc333
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:31pm
  Congratulations! I am proud of you!
  
  Report this comment
- cgnick
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 10:40pm
  Between this post and after reading some of your other posts it sounds like the Taliban is a better fit for you.
  
  Report this comment
Gourdy
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:49pm
People used to read the Bible as a series of allegories pointing out ways to live a moral life. Now? Too many fools take it literally and try to twist or deny logic and scientific facts. Noah’s Ark is perhaps the dumbest story to take literally. Dinosaurs on the Ark? Really?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- OccamsSword
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:05pm
  Ever heard of babies or youngsters ??
  
  Report this comment
- TomSawyer
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 6:46pm
  I take it seriously and do not deny scientific facts. I do not believe that science contradicts the bible.
  
  Report this comment
- Zipit
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 7:53pm
  OCCAM! Nice, cutting edge comments on this subject! (In a razor like way)! SAWYER, my sentiments exactly!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- puravida56
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 12:15am
  ha ha ha ha!!!!! Occam really believes there were baby dinosaurs on noahs ark. Ha ha ha ha ha! What about the tower of babel? Do you believe that too? Do you believe Jonah lived for three days in a fish belly? unbelievable!
  
  Report this comment
- OccamsSword
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 10:01am
  Indeed I do!…. I also believe in Adam and Eve, and that Christ walked on water. I Admit believing in the supernatural powers of God ! So scoff and mock away, and go propagate your stupid made up fairytale and supernatural religeon of evolution, silly bitch.
  
  Report this comment
- puravida56
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 1:47pm
  occam- do you believe god caused the different languages because he was mad that everyone was working together to build the tower of babel? God said they could accomplish anything if they have a common language……so he spread them all over the world and gave them different languages.
  
  Do you believe that? really? Who was in the belly of the fish? Pinoccio or jonah?
  
  Report this comment
CreationScience752
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:44pm
It’s sad that very few people understand the difference between observational science and historical science. I have 2 degrees in engineering: a bachelors in mechanical engineering, and a masters in aeronautical engineering. I work in a research laboratory. The science I do is observational science.

The type of science that develops theories about the past is historical science. I encourage everyone to read this article http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/science-bible and then check out that website in general. Creation scientists use the same evidence as evolutionists. Yet, if you are legitimately willing to explore creation science, you will find that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the Bible.

http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4/ten-best-evidences

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- OccamsSword
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:03pm
  Thanks for your logic and reason… you got style…
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 4:35pm
  Whats sad is the fools still believe the bible is a science book.
  
  Report this comment
- TheCalmOne
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 7:06pm
  I have two degrees in engineering – a bachelor of mechanical engineering and master of science degrees – plus a post grad degree in teaching. I support the theory of evolution. Do my three degrees trump your two, or do you understand the fallacy you are adhering to here?
  
  Report this comment
- CreationScience752
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 9:23pm
  Nope, I am just making the point that there is a difference between observational science and historical science. What I do is observational science. Since you are an engineer, you do observational science as well. However, you will here many people make the claim that we wouldn’t be able to build the space shuttle and develop other advanced technology without the theory of evolution. Now THAT’S a fallacy. I am a successful engineer despite the fact that I do not believe in evolution.
  
  And of course, technology “evolves,” but it is constantly being designed and re-designed. If we were to apply the theory of evolution to technology, we would wait forever for stuff to build itself by random chance.
  
  Report this comment
- OccamsSword
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 11:33pm
  CALMONE… His logic trumps yours.
  
  Report this comment
- Faithful Fisherman
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 12:59pm
  Hi Creation, just posted my response earlier in the string, love the AIG and the creation scientists. You hit in squarely on the head. It’s not the “scientific evidence” it’s our starting points, either we believe in a creator God, and His revelations, or not, and that defines our conclusions on the same “facts”. Most of the anti responders don’t take the time/effort to educate themselves, but just regurgitate “talking points” put forth by some Republican strategist. They don’t want to go against their closely held beliefs, so they close their minds to any contrasting information. Hold fast to the “Truth”.
  
  Report this comment
- CreationScience752
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 6:50pm
  Well said Faithful Fisherman, and will do! Thank you for your support!
  And thank you for your support as well Occamssword!
  
  Report this comment
lifelinz
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:41pm
… cont from my previous post

So then one must ask why God would create a PERFECT earth with dry land in Gen 1:1 and then throw it into chaotic state with flood waters and darkness? In order to answer that we have to go to other parts of scripture.

1. Everything was created by God first – the heavens and the earth in Gen 1:1 – this includeds the angelic host and Lucifer
2. Before Gen 1:2 took place – Lucifer, now Satan, and his band of angels who followed his rebellion were cast out of the highest heaven where God’s throne is; read Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28 and Revelation 12:3-4,9.
3. The angels were bound in chains on the earth into “darkness” – the chaotic judgment state we see in Gen 1:2; read Jude v6
4. Satan was merely cast down to the earth in darkness but not put in chains for judgment YET
5. Hence this is why Satan comes along in the newly created Garden of Eden from the chaotic dark flooded state in Gen 1:2 and tempts Adam and Eve

To summarize:
1. Gen 1:1 was a PERFECT creation with dry land
2. Judgment came to Satan and his angels that followed him
3. They were cast down to the PERFECT creation and judgment came upon the earth and put in a state of chaos, darkness and flood waters
4. The time between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 is something science is trying to determine
5. The time from Adam and Eve is 6000+ years
6. Therefore the Bible and science has no conflict here

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TurboCat
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 1:43am
  So why is Rubio attacked just for saying he does not know? Can’t someone nowadays simply say he does not know? Or should he just become a “know-it-all” like most people nowadays?
  
  Report this comment
- Shoot2Stop
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 6:17am
  6,000 years from the first humans to what we have today? 6K-Years is about 170 generations, so in that few iterations we went from a homogeneous pair of white folks, as depicted in most Western European religious art, to all the races we see today. If so, that’s exceedingly fast evolution. Or did Abel’s wife pop out a Chinese kid one year and a black one the next? That must have came as quite a shock to old Abe. ;-) Maybe it was the progeny of Cain who were the black sheep – so to speak.
  
  I’ve often wondered how long god was around before he decided to create the universe. A week or two? – A few centuries? – Forever? If less than forever, where was he before he was around, and how did he come into existence? Did one of the many other gods create him? ( http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_myth_gods_index.htm ) If ‘the’ god was around forever, why did he sit in the darkness of nothingness so long before the idea came to him to build a universe?
  
  Report this comment
- JediKnight
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 5:43pm
  @Turbo: I’m not sure anyone is attacking Rubio except the author of this article.
  
  Report this comment
- utopia27
  Posted on November 25, 2012 at 3:01am
  @JediKnight – if no one else will attack Rubio, I will. I will agree with the author of the article that his pandering made him look stupid and spineless. He made a hash of a basic statement that, “the establishment scientific community believes that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Biblical scholars put the earth’s age at approximately 6000 years.” Even if he had gotten that right, he wouldn’t have had an answer to the follow-up about which he believes. Because supporting one or the other alienates a chunk of the electorate, as demonstrated in this forum. Politicians that don’t count on the evangelical community for their support have no problem expressing an opinion on this issue – no one except ardent evangelicals regards the literalist Biblical interpretation as a direct description of material fact – not even other ‘people of the book’ such as Jews, Moslems, or Mormons, all of whom share the same Book of Genesis with Christians.
  
  So yes, someone sitting on the Science and Technology committee in Congress should have a minimally informed view of the topic, and it should be one with predictive value. But the evangelical community has made Marco Rubio look ignorant and spineless, because they will be alienated if he doesn’t look at least ignorant.
  
  Report this comment
jdog777
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:27pm
And the “theory” of gravity has also been revised over the last few years. Also … the age of the earth is in dispute among SCIENTISTS… forget about theologians. What do you want Conservatives to embrace? The confoundment of the intellectual community? OK… I embrace it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- puravida56
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:55pm
  The republicans will continue to drive away conservatives who are educated if they continue to embrace the religious right beliefs.
  
  Anyone who says the earth is 6000 years old loses all credibility in everything they say. If you are that naive in one area, how could I trust your judgement in any area?
  
  I really do not want our country to meet the inevitable doom that it is facing due to over spending in government. However, the republican party will not be victorious through prayer.
  
  Something has to change. I think if Republicans dropped their hard line stance on social issues (including teaching ‘intellectual design’, gay marriage, school prayer, etc) they would do better in national elections.
  
  Report this comment
- OccamsSword
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:25pm
  PURAVIDA…. I will believe YOU are credible, if you tell me how long comets last. and we will go from there..
  
  Report this comment
- puravida56
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 6:51pm
  occam– I dont care if you think I am credible or not. You obviously believe the earth is 6000 years old, so your opinion is meaningless.
  
  Go ride a dinosaur.
  
  Report this comment
- OccamsSword
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 11:55pm
  Not interested in your girlfriend, thanks
  
  Report this comment
- Wisdom7
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 6:37am
  @PURAVIDA56
  
  Well I happen to be an educated conservative who believes in God. I have an IQ sin the upper 100s and a degree. However, I am not going to claim I am better than anyone else or play the who has the biggest brain or better degree game, as you haters do, so it doesn’t really matter.
  
  Your post makes a number of assumptions that are not even true. Many Christians do not believe the Earth is only six thousand years old. Many believe this planet is millions of years old. It is written in the Bible in 2 Peter 3:8 that one day with God is as a thousand years. However, it doesn’t say it IS a thousand years. This word day, speaking in general terms, in Hebrew refers to a period of time, not twenty-four exact hours. Really the concept of time has no meaning with God or the spiritual realm for that matter. Time is a measurement. We created calendars and clocks, not God.
  
  You also say we should simply abandon those things which make us Christian. To be a Christian is to set yourself apart from the lusts of this world. Because I do not condone homosexuality, adultery, and abortion am I somehow less of a person? Am I living in the stone age? No. Even if I were an atheist, I would not condone them. Because I believe that there is a divine Creator, I am naive and stupid? I assure you I am not. Also, no one is saying the Republican party can only be victorious through prayer. That is just an absurd statement.
  
  Report this comment
- Wisdom7
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 6:47am
  I think the problem many of you have is that the Bible speaks to both the physical and spiritual man. Christians believe we as mortal men inhabit these vessels we call bodies from birth until death. When the physical body dies, our soul does not. An atheist believes at that point they cease to exist. They are just empty vessels. Too many things have happened in my own life to dispute this belief. Science does not even attempt to understand it.
  
  To be Christian does not mean you are anti-women, anti-science, or whatever other nonsense. It is absurd that some of you make such a declaration. You speak of tolerance, but all I hear is hatred of Christians because they refuse to deny who they are to “fit in”. God does not care about politics, but as citizens Christians do care about their rights as well and the only ones forcing their beliefs down the throats of others are the secular immoral crowd.
  
  Report this comment
- puravida56
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 2:03pm
  @ wisdom- I didnt mean to offend all christians. However christians like occam give all of you a bad name. He not only literally believes in the story of noah’s ark, he actually believes there were dinosaurs on noah’s ark.
  
  I realize you can be christian and rational. Many christians do not oppose teaching evolution. My bigger point is that it is easy to categorize all republicans as right wing religious nut jobs when far right leaders try to teach intelligent design in science class or support camps that ‘pray away the gay’
  
  I dont think you need to throw away your values or beliefs, but I do wish the GOP would quit trying to legislate their religious values into law. Banning gay marriage is a losing issue for the GOP and they keep throwing it out there.
  
  I want the GOP to win because they have a better chance to balance the budget.
  
  I don’t know….maybe the GOP is screwed. They can cater to the ignorant religious right, and lose the independents needed to win……or they can try to modify their platform to quit denying science and lose the brain dead christian vote.
  
  They are damned if they do and damned if they dont
  
  Good Joe Rogan video on noahs ark
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF9Xn5m2OGg
  
  Report this comment
lifelinz
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:24pm
Actually if one reads the very first scripture line “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” in Hebrew – the question of how old the earth is lines up with science. The only question we really can’t nail down is exactly when the earth was created. Follow the steps below as to why.

1. The Bible only gives us dates (timeframe of 6000+ years) concerning Adam and Eve; it is mistake to state the earth is only this old, according to the Bible in Genesis 1.
2. In English the first line has 10 words, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
3. In Hebrew it is a perfect creation with 7 words, – בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃
4. Hebrew is read from right to left
5. Therefore the first word on the left is הָאָֽרֶץ׃ – means – ‘erets – or “dry land” e.g. in English translation “earth”
6. God created a PERFECT creation of the heavens and the dry earth in Gen 1:1
7. But TIME has passed between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 because v2 states, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
8. Now the earth in Gen 1:2 is in a chaotic void state, far from perfect, and flooded by water (no more dry land); judgment has come upon the earth to put in darkness
9. This is first FLOOD, not Noah’s flood
10. That first flood could have happened thousands, mi

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- lifelinz
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:46pm
  10. That first flood could have happened thousands, millions or billions of years ago – we simply do not know but have some clues from dinosaur bones (by the way a flood would cause the extinction of all dinosaurs), fossil fuels, rocks, etc.
  
  To be cont above on another post …
  
  Report this comment
hi
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:21pm
The only scientific fact valid he stated was that the galaxies are flinging apart. If the universe is as old as he says it is, the galaxies would have flug apart completely. The observation of the intact galaxy proves the universe is young.
However, evolutionist will not accept that age. So, they invented dark matter which is neither seen nor detected as the “glue” that holds the galaxy together.
Furthermore we would not see comets anymore. They would have burned out by now. Yet the evolutionists conveniently invented the oort cloud at the edge of the galaxy which is neither seen nor detected.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Keatonc333
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:34pm
  How would comets have burned out by now? all they are are huge renegade chunks of ice flying around the universe.. they cant go out.. they can crash or melt. but not burn out. and how do you presume they would all have crashed or burned out?
  
  Report this comment
- Oldmantex
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 9:48pm
  HI
  Nice points. Same with our sun. It consumes itself over time and has been shrinking because of it. If the earth was as old as they claim, the sun would have been so large, it would have scorched every planet in our solar system. I have yet to have one provide an answer to that, which is provable without another theory added to protect their faith. BTW I have no issues with science an love it. But if we dont know something lets admit it, and stop making up constant unprovable theories to get to the the answer they WANT. That is NOT science. Let the evidence lead you. That means what you can see measure, and test. NOT an endless list of unprovable theories to support more theories, with name calling and attacks on those that dont agree.
  
  Report this comment
- OccamsSword
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 10:27am
  KEATON, That is creation vs evolution debate 101…. There is no debate that comets lose mass (as observed by their tail) And that the average life span is around 10,000 years give or take…So the Oort cloud was invented, if you want to believe in that, so you dont lose your faith.
  
  Report this comment
- SoNick
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 11:09am
  @HI
  you say: “However, evolutionist will not accept that age. So, they invented dark matter which is neither seen nor detected as the “glue” that holds the galaxy together.” Do you have any idea how wrong you are? Evolutionary biologists did not “invent” dark matter, as it is not their area of expertise AT ALL. It was astrophysicians who “discovered” dark matter. Jan Oort (look him up) was not an evolutionary biologist and his research has nothing to do with the origin of life. You get so many basic facts wrong that is is very hard to listen to anything you have to say.
  
  Report this comment
tasmaw
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:17pm
Holy Cow People! All this commentary and nobody notices that the LAW of gravitation was established in 1686! Wow. No wonder there’s argument. It all starts with hypothesis. An hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis supported with repeated testing. (Notice, that this can’t be done with evolution.) A law is a theory that no exceptions have been found.
And nobody notices the libs have painted themselves into a real crack. If evolution is real, why hasn’t anyone created a new species in the last 400 years? Not just a variation on a species, a real whole new species. (Good News! We’re not godlike yet! We’re a pretty clever bunch of monkeys, but not gods yet. And don’t give any guff about monkeys. You don’t work with the bunch I do.) What’s more, if anyone succeeds, then they’ve proven not natural selection, but intelligent design. Damned if they do eh?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- OccamsSword
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:53pm
  Holy mackeral Encinom, Boy, I dont want anyone to think bad of me…I want to be scientific, so will you show me the science that shows evolution is just as real as gravity, so that I can show everyone ? I wanna look smart and be popular like u.
  
  Report this comment
- OccamsSword
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:12pm
  Encinom, Gee u are magical…. you post just disapeared into thin air. neat!
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 5:36pm
  @Tamsaw, what to get the definitions of theory and law totally wrong. A hypothesis is not an educated guess, but rather a proposed explanation a phenomeon, that is subjected to a battery of experiments. A law is NOT a theory that has no flaws. A theory is an explanation for a class of phenomenon or observations. They describe a pattern in the natural world, and identiy mechanisms that generate the pattern. A scientific law is the description of a phenomen, usually mathematically, ut it does not provide any explanatory power. For this reason, theories often incorporate laws in them, as well as empirical evidence.
  
  Report this comment
VanceUppercut
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:08pm
A Republican who actually believes in science? Crap, I just lost a bet!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- hi
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:25pm
  We believe in scientific facts and the scientific method. Theories are theories.
  
  Report this comment
- termyt
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:00pm
  Science as the study of the universe around us id great. Science as a religion is what most of us object to.
  
  Report this comment
- Keatonc333
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:36pm
  HI technically gravity is a theory… do you not believe in it?
  
  Report this comment
- TomSawyer
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 3:01am
  I don’t know any Republicans that don’t believe in science. But that does not mean that everyone believes the earth is flat, that you can cure diseases with leeches, you can natural selected from nothing and create life, and that an infinitesimal trace gas can cause climate change.
  
  Report this comment
mr skeffington
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:07pm
Nowhere in the article does Mr Rubio say or imply evolution is a theory. Although he would have been correct in charactorizing it as such. While there is ample evidence of minute changes that occur within species of animals such as horses etc, over time, there is nothing to show that we all descended from a common ancestor and until there is it will remain a theory. However, the law of gravity is a demonstrable fact.

And you insult our intellegience by suggesting that we are ignorant for calling it just a theory. A theory is merely a supposition based on evidence that is not indisputable. A fact is the exact opposite.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
4XGrace
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:07pm
Evolutionary “Science” is in for a very rude awakening when faced with the Lord Jesus Christ. There is plenty of proof that the world is no more than 10,000 years old; yet the people who deny personal responsibility for their own actions will close their eyes to those sure proofs. They seek out unreliable proofs that run contrary to an ultimate authority who created them and to whom they will have to give account to at the end of their earth bound lives. Man is a sophisticated liar and the higher his I.Q. the more sophisticated his lies. Our intelligence is our pride. Our pride is our weakness. We can do nothing good for anyone even for ourselves. We are selfish beings and only seek our own comforts, physically and spiritually. We never find true comfort because we live in a world built on illusion, delusion and falsehoods. The only true comfort comes when knowing God and his plan for this world.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Salvation before works, not works to salvation. Salvation by God’s faith given to you, not by your faith exercised in works. Works after salvation not to prove salvation but because God has given them to you. If you do anything to earn your salvation you call God a liar and say that his work is incomplete.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
FREDINOHIO
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:04pm
Before we can begin to solve all the problems of this country and the world (rising unemployment, excessive national debt, immigration, terrorism, food shortages, the price of gas, etc, etc, etc.) by all means lets stop whatever we are doing, on the left and the right, and answer the question “How old is the earth”. This whole thing makes me want to slap someone or throw up or both!!! Who gives a flying crap how old the earth is except someone that is trying to demonize or belittle someone else to further their agenda or make that person look stupid, ignorant, of uninformed? I would think our politicians have better things to do than to entertain sure questions. FOCUS, PEOPLE!! iS THIS REALLY A QUESTION THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GIVE A FLIP ABOUT???. I would rather have a politician answer the question “What are you doing to reduce unemployment” or “What are you doing to reduce the national debt”, or even “what have you done for America today”.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
longknifed
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 1:56pm
The only reason for the GOP love affair with Rubio is because he is Hispanic. Jeb Bush only pushes for amnesty for illegal alien conquistadors because he married into it.

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/06/11/jeb-bush-criticizes-gop-partisanship-says-mitt-romney-needs-change-the-tone-immigration/WlVLxD5QlWeLpsPH1rrwrK/story.html

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ICBentley
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 1:45pm
Religion and science do not ask and do not answer the same questions. But, Will you consider the following?

Could evolution be God’s tool for creation?

If our bodies are created in God’s image, does He have backaches?

Does it seem reasonable that the God of all the Universe has a physical body?

Could it be that our souls are Created in God’s image and our bodies were Created by Him by means of evolution?

If Creation was accomplished in six 24 hour days, what time zone was that?

Why does a “day” to God have to be the same as a day on earth?

Is it likely that humans can fully understand and accurately state in language a communication from God?

How many times has the Bible been written, rewritten, edited and revised by humans? And, even when inspired by God, were any of these humans perfect?

Is there any scientific model of the way things work that can deny that God made things work that way?

“Question with boldness…” the relationship between religion and science. The answer that I have gotten is that there isn’t one. One can choose to accept one, the other, both, or neither. But to say you disbelieve one because you believe the other is intellectual sloth.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
lmojoml
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 1:34pm
If the GOP goes this route they will never hold power again. If the country chooses to forsake the Biblical account of creation well you lose me and mine, I don’t vote for baby killers or people that deny the God of the Bible and His truth! I will never vote for someone that does not use the Bible as the authority. Sure I might be in the minority for the moment, but I have to answer to Him not you! There is no compromise with darkness and if the people want to live in it well that is not a choice I can help. As for me and my house we will serve the Lord be it in the prisons or the mountain tops.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- encinom
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:11pm
  The creationists and the bible thumpers are the ones holding the GOP back. This anti-science, myth over fact BS is making the GOP look like loons. While the nation moves forward, extreme fringe christians have shackled the GOP and holding them in the 16th century.
  
  Report this comment
- TheCalmOne
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 6:42pm
  Wouldn’t you want someone who understands where oil comes from as a leader?
  
  Report this comment
- puravida56
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 12:09am
  The GOP is screwed. They can cater to the ignorant religious right, and lose the independents needed to win……or they can try to modify their platform to quit denying science and lose the brain dead christian vote.
  
  They are damned if they do and damned if they dont
  
  Report this comment
235user
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 12:50pm
Rubio is not a “natural born citizen” I know, I know – the Democrats didn’t care about Obama’s credentials; but, they are hypocrites and they will burn Rubio for the same flaw that didn’t matter with their guy. So, why are we wasting time on him?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TurboCat
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 1:47am
  Because, why can’t he say he does not know? Something wrong with not knowing everything?
  
  Report this comment
- Sensible_Centrist_Democrat
  Posted on November 25, 2012 at 4:34am
  Rubio is a natural born citizen.
  He was born in Miami.
  14th Amendment says he is a citizen.
  
  Report this comment
SerikFox
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 12:48pm
This commentary is pathetic. I understand the intended point; but the commentary itself does not take into account several factors regarding biblical beliefs, and instead uses the “popular” views of what it says rather than looking at it from a theological view. He’s doing the exact opposite of what he argues against; he’s discounting theological views for scientific, ones; there’s no reason they can’t work together. He makes no effort to explain or even understand what the bible says, yet he argues against many things that it says. He also apparently has no concept of God; for all we know the world could have been created at 8 this morning and we’d never know. And back to the author of this article; the moment we give up our beliefs to win we lose. Also, Rubio did not look clueless, the media said he looked clueless. I just heard a politician actually say he doesn’t care about things not related to government, it’s a debate for others, and all he cares about is fixing the problems with the government. His personal views are his, and they will be shown in the way he acts, not the way he talks. Actions speak louder than words. I like Rubio’s actions so far. Also, the interview was crap, and everyone knows it was crap. If the interview was so obviously biased (attempting to get a soundbite to use against Rubio), why should be take anything negative about Rubio away from this? We should be going after the interviewer for doing a ****** job.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- charles116
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 12:59pm
  Theological views do not fit the criteria of being called ‘a science’.
  And therefore have no place in cources called ‘science’.
  
  Report this comment
- Celebritter
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 1:15pm
  Amen to that.
  
  Evolution is a lie. If you don’t have the tools to survive you die in this world. You don’t magically grow gills, grow wings, grow fangs all because there was a “need” for it and then evolve. Just look at the case of the Fruit flies – http://www.icr.org/article/5779/
  
  If that were the case, we’d see people that could fly from mountainous regions, people who are the size of bears to kill large game in the woods, people who live on islands and have gills so they can go into the ocean to hunt etc.
  
  Evolution is the theory that a puddle got hit by lightning with all the right elements (Frankenstein anyone) and somehow we spawned from this goop. But we can’t prove it and recreate it despite our vast intellect that has “evolved” since the beginning of time.
  
  Evolution is taught for one reason only – to get people away from the idea that God made everything. Evolutionists will do anything, say anything, insult us — just to destroy the concept they fear most – that there is a God and he is going to judge us in the end.
  
  Report this comment
- VoteBushIn12
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 1:23pm
  The earth could have been made 8 days ago? Sounds like Omphalos hypothesis. Which is a proposition understood, by most everyone with a working brain, to be completely ignorant. It’s a cop out and it only encourages the logical counter question of,
  “If God made the earth to reflect a state that could be achieved without his intervention, then is his intervention really even significant?”
  
  Whether or not he created the earth with history is moot and does nothing to justify or alter the way we view the world. So, in either case, it should not be taught in school (even aside from the obvious reason that is a completely insane and desperate position to hold)
  
  Per Rubio’s comments. I find it pitiful and disgusting. If you are like me and enjoy scoffing at conservative religious literalists and their archaic views, you will love this commentary on YouTube about Marco Rubio
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwP2na8tdSM
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 1:35pm
  And the Anti-Science Fringe Right is making sure the GOP dies a slow death. While the rest of the nation is in the 21 Century the fringe Tea Party is stuck in the 16th. Unable to accept anything but the myths within their holybook, the Tea Party is dragging down the conservative movment with it.
  
  Report this comment
- OccamsSword
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 1:54pm
  VOTEBUSH, Your logical question is quite unprofound, and, well, the premise is illogical…sorry. Enjoy wallowing in pompous ignorance…I find it entertaining.
  
  Report this comment
- OccamsSword
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:05pm
  Yes ENCINOM, I would like to purge any unscientific and illogicals from the Right and Tea Party. Let them go to the evolution , and commie side for sure.
  
  Report this comment
- OccamsSword
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:26pm
  CHARLES, I agree. Evolution must GO…lets stick to the facts, and science.
  
  Report this comment
- SoCaDad
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 4:40pm
  To the dolts trying to brand the Tea Party with social issues…give it up. The Tea Party advocates for less government, taxes, spending and debt, and more individual liberty.
  
  Report this comment
- charles116
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 6:38pm
  Creationism is for folks who have never STUDIED any science
  or have been so perverted by their church and parents they refuse to accept facts and evidence.
  They used to burn witch and even cats.
- SerikFox
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 8:48pm
  Creationism and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The bible says God created the Earth and the animals on it – it doesn’t say how. However, Genesis does say that “the waters brought forth life” and makes a few references to animals being made in the images of the ones before it. There are many different ways to interpret it, but it doesn’t rule evolution out. If God created everything in this universe, then it would make sense that every natural process is a direction of his creation.
  
  @Votebushin It could have been created a few minutes ago. Keep in mind that the concept of God is a being who created every single atom there is. He would be beyond our concepts of physics and logic. For that very reason, logic cannot be used to disprove him. However, you also cannot prove he exists either. That is why faith is so important. (For all we know, the earth may not actually exist until tomorrow. By definition, God is beyond the laws of physics and time; we may be created tomorrow but live today. We can’t understand it, but God could.)
  
  Report this comment
OccamsSword
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 12:32pm
Science is great, Evolution is “MAGICAL THINKING’ And is far from scientific… One needs to challenge their own theory, and try to falsify it and a great way to do that is by examining what critics of the theory proposed, and to know what the interpretation of the evidence is for the opposing or different view. One example out of thousands- Grand Canyon..evo view = little water lots of time… creation view = lots of water little time. research both views.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- encinom
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:20pm
  There is no “magical” thinking with the science behind evolution. The only magical thinking is with those that believe a sky deity waved his and made man. There is zero evidence outside of the collection of myths, none as the bible to prove the christian creation myth.
  
  Report this comment
- OccamsSword
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 2:43pm
  well…. I thought that you thought life came from non-life… something about primordial soup or somehting, and that new genetic information was evolving somehow, which science says cant happen, so Isnt that your storytale??It sounds so magical, and faith based, but it cant be I guess, cause they arent supposed to teach it in school…maybe you are right.
  
  Report this comment
- rwinger261
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 3:26pm
  Here’s a thought to consider regarding that mythical Being that created the world: “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world”. (Romans 1) In other words, you don’t see it because you don’t want to see it. You suppress the truth because if that Great Creator is real, you will answer to Him for your life. Something to think about.
  
  Report this comment
- utopia27
  Posted on November 25, 2012 at 3:34am
  @occamsword – life comes from non-life: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2122619.stm
  
  There is nothing in science that says new genetic information can not develop. If you want nuance, then the science says that new genetic information (pure mutation) is extremely rare, but that combinational and structural variance are much more common. Several examples are causes of recognized medical conditions. Down’s Syndrom and XYY syndrome are both structural anomolies – additional copies of a chromosome retained. Fragile-X syndrom is a combinational disorder, with many replications of a genetic code on the X chromosome interfering with normal expression of a particular series of proteins.
  
  These are mutations – sublethal mutations, but far from beneficial. You don’t get them directly from your parents, and they don’t result from demonic affliction. It’s genetics, and natural variation in biology.
  
  CCR5 delta 32 is an allelic variation (different genetic material) that occurs primarily in european populations. It turns out that evolutionary theory directly and correctly predicts its increased frequency in response to a major environmental stress. CCR5 delta 32 confers an advantage in resisting bubonic plague, and the variation was reinforced in European populations during the 13th-16th centuries AD.
  
  Please do keep up and inform yourself, before spouting off about what the scientific community ‘believes is impossible’.
  
  Report this comment
charles116
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 11:59am
Once off his talking points Rubio reveals just how unpresidential and dense he is.
He’s another Paul Ryan.
The Republican party is doomed.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Red Meat
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 11:57am
Rubio=GOP=Dodo bird.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
OccamsSword
Posted on November 23, 2012 at 11:35am
Okay Don Rasmussen… Lets start with educating you ! Every example you gave as “proof of evolution” is jsut the opposite, and actually if you research, priveds it to be HIGHLY IMPROBABLE if not impossible… research each example used, and check the critical examination views, and logic and the emperical science will show otherwise… you couldnt show more ignorance.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- dflocks80
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 12:05pm
  I think you’re proving his point here, Occam…
  
  Report this comment
- charles116
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 12:06pm
  A “creationist” will NEVER be elected president.
  Folks like you have to reconcile your FAITH with the real world
  Instead
  You try to change the real world to fit your religious beliefs.
  Essentially you have your shoes on the wrong feet – It’s quite simple.
  
  Report this comment
- OccamsSword
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 12:17pm
  DFLOCK, You are proving my point.
  
  Report this comment
- TomSawyer
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 10:34pm
  charles116, Please name some presidents that were not creationist.
  
  Report this comment
- puravida56
  Posted on November 23, 2012 at 11:58pm
  occam is certifiably nuts and delusional. Arguing with him is a waste of time.
  
  Report this comment
- OccamsSword
  Posted on November 24, 2012 at 10:54am
  Dang…. Well it was fun while it lasted.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.