GQ Plays Gotcha With Marco Rubio On Creationism Question

marco-rubio

If there’s one narrative the left loves to promote about Republicans it’s that they’re weird and uncool. Democrats are hip and scientifically savvy while Republicans are extremist bible thumpers. And they’re pretty good at promoting it too.

The latest iteration of the narrative is GQ surprising Senator Marco Rubio with a question about how old the earth is during an interview, clearly an attempt at a “gotcha” for someone widely believed to be a contender for the GOP in 2016. Either Rubio throws creationism under the bus, and risks angering the religious Republican base, or he endorses it and risks weeks of derision as another anti-science nut job.

It’s a win-win.

Unfortunately for the narrative, Rubio did a pretty good job of handling it:

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.

Like Rubio, I’m wondering why any of this is pertinent to policy that actually matters. And, for what it’s worth, this atheist would happily vote for someone a believer in “Young Earth” theories if that person will promote a consistent limited government agenda in government. As Rubio notes, this is a free country with a lot of divergent views on matters of religion and especially the creation of the universe. What I’m looking for in a politician is someone who allows a free and open debate about those views.

Period.

Also, as Allah points out, the divide on matters of creationism might not be as partisan as some think:

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • two_amber_lamps

    Leftists can’t help themselves. Can’t leave anyone to their beliefs they must attempt to mock and ridicule others to adopt more statists to their happy flock.

    Rule 5:
    Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack
    ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your
    advantage.

    -Saul Alinsky

    Well played Mr. Rubio. Watch that guy…. he’s may be one of the names/faces that pull this nation out of it’s leftist-induced nose-dive.

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      Squawk, “Sal Alinksy”, squawk.

      • two_amber_lamps

        Are you trying (futilely) to string together a conscious thought?

        Stay statist my friend!

        • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

          Hanni’s been parroting others for so long, he gets feather mites.

  • Neiman

    It should happen a lot more, a Gingrich type response that the question has nothing to do with the problems facing the nation and force the questioner to admit they were playing gotcha games. Same with abortion and gay marriage, no conservative president, even if opposed to the latter two is about to try and force anyone to agree via legislation.

  • HG

    Not bad at all. It is an irrelevant question for a candidate for office. However, it does present an opportunity. Most Americans believe in God and that God created all things. The exact mechanics of creation we cannot speak to, but the majority believe God created. Some believe in a literal 6 day creation, others in eras, other yet, in some evolutionary manner. I do like the way Rubio implied this in his answer. What is important is that Rubio acknowledges God in his answer. Without the acknowledging of God, we have not inalienable rights. No ultimate authority to appeal to for ownership of those rights. No moral authority to resist excessive force depriving us of those rights.
    Go Rubio!

    • Roy_Bean

      http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/blind-men-and-the-elephant.htm

      “…In theology, just because we have limited access to Truth, that doesn’t mean any and all versions of Truth are equally valid. Actually, if we know the Whole Elephant is out there, shouldn’t this drive us to open our eyes wider and seek every opportunity to experience more of Him?”

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      Some religious fundamentalists desire to shape laws based on their radical interpretations of the bible. In the ME they are referred to as The Taliban.

      It matters who our political leaders are submitting to, and in this case it’s a group of radicals who want to implement laws based on their radical interpretations that ignore science.

      The world can be much older than our religious fundamentalists believe and still be created by God. To pretend otherwise is just willful ignorance.

      • HG

        I think that is what Rubio is saying. He didn’t say he is certain of the earth’s age, he said it is a mystery.
        What law would Rubio’s position on the age of the earth, affect?

        • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

          He didn’t say it was a mystery, he said that he knows what the answers are but he’s not going to answer because it doesn’t matter. It matters.

          • HG

            Rubio – “I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.”

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            My apologies, he did lie and say it was a mystery.

            We know there is an estimated age, that can never be exact, but can be smartly estimated and eliminate the option that it’s 6000 years old. There is no mystery between the two options.

          • two_amber_lamps

            YES, the SAB authority on the creationism vs. evolution debate should be a tax-dodging atheist in yellow-stained boardies…

            Stay statist my friend!

          • HG

            He did not lie. There is many who see things just as Rubio does.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            There are many who lie to themselves, Rubio was lying to us. He said he knew what the science says, and it doesn’t say 6000 years.

          • HG

            How is that a lie?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Because we know how old the earth is, as closely as we can estimate it, at least. And GQ did not ask him how long it took the earth to be created. He avoided the question then distracted, and when you continue to ignore the question and conflate issues, it doesn’t help your credibility.

            I will ask you directly, since I answered your question. How old do you think the earth is in scientific terms we use, 1yr being a complete season?

          • HG

            I believe the biblical account records that the earth is between 6-10k years old.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Was who attacked us in Benghazi a mystery?

          • two_amber_lamps

            Apparently you and yours still think the cause of the attack is a mystery. Perhaps you should worry less about foreign affairs and more on bladder control… and paying your taxes?

          • HG

            Apparently not, in spite of the Administration’s narrative.
            But that is irrlevent. Rubio did use the word mystery. You claimed he didn’t.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I’m just wondering if you think it’s a mystery who attacked us, and why? If the administration refused to answer any questions regarding Benghazi, dismissing it as a mystery, would that be acceptable?

          • HG

            The age of the earth is not a policy question. The comparison is absurd.

          • $8194357

            2 Peter 3:7-9

            New King James Version (NKJV)

            7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

            8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

            9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us,[a] not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

          • robert frost

            No he didn’t say that, you douche. Read his answer. He said he knows what science says and he knows what the Bible says. He said nothing about knowing the answer. Its possible that neither the Bible nor the scientists have it right.

    • $8194357

      Luke 8:9-11

      New King James Version (NKJV)
      The Purpose of Parables

      9 Then His disciples asked Him, saying, “What does this parable mean?”

      10 And He said, “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that

      ‘Seeing they may not see,
      And hearing they may not understand.’[a]

      11 “Now the parable is this:

      The seed is the word of God.
      God created the universe by His Command..

      Modern science is reverse enginnering that “Power”

      for mans technocracy and global crations control..
      Creation itself will “rebel” against those attempts to submit it
      to the will of lucifer thru man…

      Tower of Babble all over again..lucifers omnipotence attempts
      Reverse engineering Gods creation for our own destruction..

      Did I ever tell ya lucifer was the Praise and Worship
      leader in Heaven long ago..
      The universes quasars/energies magnetism pulsing back Love
      for He who IS..WAS..and ALWAYS WILL BE..

      THE ALPHA THE OMEGA

      11 “Now the parable is this:
      The seed is the word of God.

      That Word became Flesh and dwelt amoongst us..
      We knew Him not and hated His Truth revealed..
      We crucified Him dead and buried..
      On the third day..He rose from the dead
      as it is He who holds the keys over life and death…

      His ways are not our ways.
      His Wisdom not our wisdom..

      His purposes those universal mysteries mankind
      has been seeking since time itself was given to us..

    • $8194357

      I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?
      Ben Franklin

      Or can communist/muslim ideology take one down without
      His turning it over to its destruction?
      “Unless the Lord builds the house…
      they who labor…….labor in vain”………

      When did the leftist legal jihadist/ACLU Democrats
      kick God out of the public arena?

      • Neiman

        Hugo Black, Democrat, KKK, and rabid-anti-Catholic the lie of separation in 1948, the ultra liberal Warren Court started the all out assault in 1962, denying school prayer, after that our slide into the abyss.

        • $8194357

          Yup..
          Darwinism and technocracy can share in the blame for the governments jump away from our Biblical patriarchail rule of law
          republican form of governnace as well…
          No fear of punishment except the state and
          moral values exit out of the society..
          An ideology marx said, takes close to 100 years to saturate a culture..

  • WOOF

    Marco Rubio is on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation
    Committee.
    Be nice if Rubio actually had a familiarity with science.
    If he did he would understand that the economy is based
    on science, mathematics, sociology , statistics, physics,
    not wishful thinking.
    He’s a weasel with no real beliefs, bowing to snake handlers.

    • Neiman

      Science is not objective in the modern era, it is highly partisan, as both evolution and science use the exact same data, the only difference being their interpretations of that data according to what life model they use. Liberals seized by force virtually all of our academic/scientific institutions and have demanded only one model be considered or the people involved lose their careers. Why? Liberalism is anti-Christ and they force science to support their anti-Christ views or else. They refuse to accept contrary interpretations of the data for peer review, refuse tenure for anyone straying from liberal, anti-Christ dogma and end the careers of any open minded scientist.

      He answered correctly, but since it was not the liberal answer you and comrade Davo are pitching a fit.

      • HG

        Notice the President has never been asked this question.

      • Davo

        Then his answer should have been “I don’t care.” Answer it like a human being, for crying out loud!

  • Davo

    There are people reading Rubio’s answer, and thinking it makes him sound Presidential? It was a steaming pile of mealy-mouthed bullshit. Does Rubio have ANY feelings about ANYTHING? Anyone with a pulse who reads this interview will immediately (and correctly) label Rubio as “phony politician.”

    GQ: “What’s your favorite football team?”

    Rubio: “I’ve always maintained that football is a sport.”

    • Neiman

      Only extreme, anti-American liberals like yourself would come to that asinine conclusion.

      You know damn well that it was a “gotcha” question having nothing to do with his qualifications or the issues of the day.

      He answered it exactly right.

      • Davo

        Oh, you’ve read the entire interview?

    • HG

      Why hasn’t Obama been asked this question? After all he is the pres.

  • Davo

    Wait, so why are we applauding this politician for dodging a very simple and direct question?

    • ND in MD

      So, if he would have replied by saying ” that question is above my pay grade” would you have been happy? Would you have considered him hip and cool, or is dodging such question reserved to Odumber?

    • HG

      Ask Obama.

      • WOOF

        He was asked
        What’s your attitude regarding the teaching of evolution in public schools?

        Barack said:
        “I’m a Christian, ,,,,believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and
        science. I believe in evolution,
        and I believe there’s a difference
        between science and faith….. I think
        it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science
        with theories
        that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.”
        http://www.faithfullyliberal.com/?p=943
        Rubio is a twerp.

        • America

          “Rubio is a twerp.”

          obama was born a Muslim, so his whole response was a lie. But you being one of the fools that he so easily fools, you willingly believe his lies.

          • chris

            Everybody is born a Muslim, according to Koran. However in order to stay a Muslim, you have to practice being one every day of your life, including praying to Mecca several times a day and abstaining from pork, alcohol, etc. I think it’s safe to say that Obama is clearly not a practicing Muslim, nor has he ever indicated that he has been one.

          • WOOF

            Rubio is a twerp

        • HG

          That is not the same question. But you will find a similar answer in Rubio’s response. If you’re not blinded.

          “At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.”

  • http://www.dregstudios.com Brandt Hardin

    Here in TN they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

    • Neiman

      Science is not objective in the modern era, it is highly partisan, as both evolution and science use the exact same data, the only difference being their interpretations of that data according to what life model they use. Liberals seized by force virtually all of our academic/scientific institutions and have demanded only one model be considered or the people involved lose their careers. Why? Liberalism is anti-Christ and they force science to support their anti-Christ views or else. They refuse to accept contrary interpretations of the data for peer review, refuse tenure for anyone straying from liberal, anti-Christ dogma and end the careers of any open minded scientist.

      Yet, there are many reputable scientists that have been forced by the data to accept an intelligence behind all life, and prior to the past six decades, throughout all human history our greatest scientists saw no conflicts between Genesis and modern science.

  • http://www.dregstudios.com Brandt Hardin

    Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

    • HG

      Care to link to the legislation you’re talking about?

    • sbark

      For sure……..lets just keep going with “fanatical Leftist” ideology, essentially a religion, that has given us a 67% chance a black kid was born out of wedlock, and a 41% chance overall that a kid is born out of wedlock in 2010—up from 28% in 1990…….
      and that effect from single parent equates to a radicaly higher rate of poverty, lifetime of welfare dependency, drugs, and a much higher rate of incarceration.
      yup….we sure dont need those “fanactical Christians” having any influence in society…..
      …….but hey, as long as they vote for Free stuff, Dem’cats have no problem in being the principle cause of society falling down around our ankles.
      Liberalism is of 100% failure and is this nations major overiding problem for decades.

      • splined

        Just what the democrats love – more disasters that provide opportunities for political change.

  • sbark

    Very similar to the question out of the Blue from Stephonopolis to Romney about contraception last summer………..and then the drumbeat that never stopped about how Romney wanted to restrict and take away contraception from women…….
    This simple question to Rubio could well set up another off the wall politics of personal destruction to be pushed for 4 years that the ave one of 4 groups of voters will easily buy into
    1) ideological, with no loyalty to the USA
    2) just plain uninformed but easily molded
    3) morons
    4) Free stuff voters who will vote dem’cat under any circumstanses

    • $8194357

      And the leftist ever present
      5) all of the above

  • chris

    Evolution is not controversial in the scientific community. There is no alternative theory that explains the origin of things in the universe. It is the ONLY theory that can explain how the natural world became what it is, and what it will be.

    For those people who think creationism can compete with evolution as a scientific theory, they have one major problem to contend with: there is not a shred of physical and direct evidence that God exists. Even if there were evidence of God, there is not a shred of evidence that the universe is only 6000 years old, and therefore this God would not be that of the Bible.

    Given that creationism is a faith-based belief and not a scientific theory, it belongs in philosophy and religion class, not science class.

    • Neiman

      You godless evolutionists have a worse problem – design period, let alone the evidence of complex design all around us cannot, it is mathematicaly impossible for it to result from random mutations over time, it demands a preexisting designer greater than the things designed. You cannot explain it away.

      Just because you deny the evidence, the world around you from the smallest known elements to the vastness of the universe testify of His existence, but you are your own god in your mind and refuse the truth, a many that says there is no god, in his heart is a fool.

      • Realitybasedbrc

        Great idea. When someone refutes your foolishness with facts, quote the bible to them. Well played.

        • Neiman

          I notice you too avoided the irreconcilable fault of evolution, being: “ou godless evolutionists have a worse problem – design period, let alone
          the evidence of complex design all around us cannot, it is
          mathematicaly impossible for it to result from random mutations over
          time, it demands a preexisting designer greater than the things
          designed. You cannot explain it away.” That young lady is a FACT!

          Now crawl back into hell and take a nap.

          • Matthew Hawkins

            It simply isn’t mathematically impossible. Whoever told you that lied. With infinite time and infinite space it is not impossible.

          • Realitybasedbrc

            Dearest Neiman-

            You’re a creationist bible-thumping nutter. You wouldn’t know a fact if it landed on your face.

            I’d like to invite you at this point, to go fornicate yourself, you twisted, homophobic, misogynist sphincter.

            Have a day.

          • Neiman

            Your girlish emotional response speaks volumes about you and nothing about me at all.

      • chris

        I’ve never heard of the “deign” period. How long ago was that? But seriously speaking, I admit there are mysteries regarding the complexity and organization of life and the universe, and it does raise lots of questions. However, at most these questions present coincidental evidence that the universe does not act by itself, but they are not in and of themselves direct and physical evidence. You would have to prove without a doubt that complex systems cannot exist without a creator, or else your argument would not hold up in court.

        Unfortunately for you, there is already a mechanism that explains how complex systems can exist without a designer, and that is through development (evolution, if you will) from more simpler systems. Using this mechanism (simple-to-complex), we can understand how hydrogen, the simplest element in the universe, is the basis for which all the other more complex elements have come into existence, using gravity, heat, and fusion. It also explains how simple dust and particles floating in space can form to create complex stars, planets, and galaxies. As the logic follows, it’s not a stretch of the imagination to see how the right combinations of Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen and Phosphorus, can come together to create life. An then, how one-cell organisms eventually develop into multi-cell organisms, and so on.

  • Snarkie

    Run Rubio in 2016. He’s a super-hardliner. The copy is already out. Gotcha.

  • Snarkie

    Notice that Rob and Rubio think good science has nothing to do with good policy. No wonder folks accuse y’all of being bible thumpers.

    The age of the earth is not an argument among theologians. It’s an empirical question with only an approximate manner.

    Complex dynamic systems, eg those that drive the evolution of the earth from a ring of dust to a giant planet with a variety of extremely complex life and artifice, iterative inorganic and organic process changes in tandem… these ARE relevant to policy, to economics, to warfare, and the like. The state of the planet around us always has and always will constrain us and dictate much of what falls within current attention.

    Rubio thinks simple,
    ask the priest.

    • chris

      Imagine what would happen to space exploration if they made calculations assuming the universe were only 6000 years old?

      • Neiman

        Were you there or are you only assuming facts not in evidence?

        • chris

          Actually, every piece of data leads to the idea that the universe is billions of years old, especially in cosmology. How can we see objects in space that are billions of light years away? Not only that, how are we witnessing events in space that could have only happened billions of years ago, like supernovae?

          If God really did create the universe only 6000 years ago, he made it to look like it’s billions of years old.

          • Neiman

            You inadvertently stumbled on the truth in your last sentence, although you will now, you must, insist that you actually cannot accept the very truth that God spoke to your heart and that rejection to your condemnation.

            First, how do you know the universe is that old? Were you there? Do you know anyone that was there at the beginning? So, you take the data as you find it, project it back to infinity and say, aha, the universe is X numbers of years old, although even that is not hard data, just a guesstimate.

            Next, when God created Adam it was as a man, he may have been but a teenager, but he was a man, not a fetus then an infant then a toddler, etc., no God said He created Adam fully formed as a man. So, on day one, minute one, second one, microsecond one Adam looked and behaved as a man, a person fully grown and that perfectly, although in actual age he was just created.

            Next, while you will deny the above as being possible, assuming it is true for your sake, as by faith I trust God’s Word on the matter; here we have in Genesis evidence that God creates new things with all the appearances/evidence of age and He had to do just that to make this earth inhabitable by living creatures, all creatures, it had to come into being fully formed, thereafter taking its natural course as He designed that course.

            How do I know, was I there, did I see it happen? No! But, I know He Who was there, Who created it all and tells us in Genesis how it happened. I have a Witness, for evolution you have only your assumptions based on the data, the same data that you godless scientific types have at your disposal, only our interpretations of what that data means and the underlying life model differ.

          • chris

            You cannot know just how deep a water well is with the naked eye, especially if you can’t see the bottom. However if you drop a rock and time how long it took the rock to hit the bottom, and then if you take into consideration the pull of earth’s gravity and the drag of air, you can determine just how deep the well is. Have you ever been at the bottom of the well to actually see how deep it is? No, but you can be certain that your calculations are pretty damn close.

            The same goes with most things in science.

          • Neiman

            Thank you for admitting that you do not KNOW that evolution by random mutations over time is the truth or that the age of all things is X number of years and that you are making assumptions based on incomplete evidence. That dang well of yours could be explored to determine its bottom, how are you going back in time to prove when all life began and how it occurred?

            You are making assumptions on the current data based on your faith, yes religious faith, in that data being true, but you cannot prove it or subject it to empirical tests.

          • chris

            What if the well were too deep and dangerous to explore? Forget the well, what if you were trying to determine the deepest point of the Atlantic ocean? Would you try to dive yourself and risk certain death, or instead rely on sonar wave technology, which most likely would be more accurate than manual measuring?

            My point is that you don’t have to “be there” to accurately calculate something. Science has time and time again accurately predicted natural processes through pure calculations. The latest example is the Sandy hurricane. Science couldn’t have gone 48 hours into the future to see exactly where Sandy would hit or how it would behave, so they relied on calculations made by supercomputers and other methods. And guess what? They were right!

          • Neiman

            The Atlantic Ocean is finite and measurable, it has physical limits to which calculations can be reasonably applied. Time/Space is not finite, it is not now nor will it every be within the ability of man to physically measure.

            Science through trial and error have witnessed such storms and weather/wind patterns; and; while they are getting much better, they are dealing with things that are material, measurable, subject to trial and error, as they have had people live in and observe innumerable storms and witnessed the same directly. Now, apply that to space and time which are beyond such direct physical measurements, you have to make assumptions and that it it religious faith, to conclude hundreds of billions of years.

          • chris

            You cannot predict the specific nature and direction of a hurricane through experience of previous hurricanes. Sandy was a freak superstorm that went farther north than normal, but scientists had predicted that days if not a week in advanced. It’s easy to predict large trends in climate, such as seasons, but it’s a lot harder to predict specific storms or behaviors only days in advanced.

            Your other point is that we can apply science here on earth because it’s finite, but not out in space since it’s infinite. You’re right and you’re wrong. We can only see as far out as about 13.7 billion light years away, because after that there is no light due to how the universe was at that point in time. We have a pretty extensive view of the universe, but not infinite.

            Calculating the distance of celestial objects is not a leap of faith We can calculate the distance of an object in space based on its luminosity, and its speed relative to us based on its redshift, and these methods are just as accurate as sonar mapping of the Atlantic ocean. Our very sun is about 93,000,000 miles from earth and for the most part we know its surface and core temperatures, size, mass, chemical makeup, age, its approximation from the closest star, its placement within the galaxy, etc. We can detect bursts of solar winds and know how long it would take to reach the earth and warn people of its effects beforehand. We even understand why the sun produces sun spots. However we’ve never been close to it. How is that possible?

          • Neiman

            We cannot see that far out, we only see the light that reaches us from that far out, which sources could have disappeared long before their first glimmers reached us. But, it doesn’t matter, as God set the heavens in place and as he established all natural laws, He could and did suspend them to make a mature appearing universe for the benefit of man, as he created a man with all the appearance of age to occupy the Garden He created.

            We are guessing at the Sun’s core temperature and will not know if our guesses are right until we can place a probe into the core and measure it, until then it is scientific religious faith in operation. Everything about the Sun is mere conjecture, albeit educated conjecture that may be close to the fact, but it too is quite material, time is not.

      • Snarkie

        You mean some people allow empirical evidence to influence their beliefs? Damn atheists.

        • Neiman

          Very good, then go into the laboratory, create all the basic chemicals and materials out of absolutely nothing and subjecting it to empirical proof, from those basic materials create life and then get that life to evolve. Or, admit that evolution cannot be empirically proven, only assumed based on your interpretations of the data. At some point, you to must apply faith to bridge the gap between the data and what you think the data means, you cannot objectively prove it to be true.

          • chris

            Artificial life is well on it’s way to being accomplished:

            http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10132762

            It is not wise to bet against science.

          • Neiman

            “On a Friday in March, scientists inserted over 1 million base pairs of synthetic DNA into Mycoplasma capricolum cells before leaving for the weekend. When they returned on Monday, their cells had bloomed into colonies.”

            That’s cheating! Let them create their own cells, let them create the synthetic materials from nothing, then we’ll talk.

          • chris

            That’s the next step. Science, just like everything else in the universe, starts simple and gets more sophisticated as time goes on.

          • Neiman

            When they create ALL the basic chemicals and elements out of NOTHING as God did, then get back to me.

          • chris

            Don’t underestimate the significance of this. They predict to produce a complete cellular system by 2015:

            http://positivefuturist.com/archive/453.html

          • Neiman

            Out of nothing as God did? Otherwise, they are not creating anything, they are only using what He created, manipulating it and I assure you, if successful with a host of disastrous, unintended consequences.

          • chris

            If we were created out of nothing then our DNA wouldn’t be made out of 5 of the most common elements in the universe, those being carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and phosphorus. Wasn’t Adam created from dirt, according to the Bible?

          • Neiman

            It never takes long for your dishonesty to surface. You are making a false argument and you know it is false. You know dang well I was speaking of all the elements in all of creation, which are the very elements God created first and then later used to create Adam. First there was nothing, even that old fart in the wheelchair that cannot talk and thinks he is god, admits that in the beginning there was nothing in existence. God brought all that exists into being and used what He aforetime created to create all things, including Adam.

            You knew that, you may be grossly dishonest and with a raging ego, but you are not completely stupid and knew what I was referring to.

          • chris

            I honestly thought you were talking only about origins of life. If you don’t disagree with my last comment, then it’s conceivable even to you that man can recreate life from the same “dirt”.

            Regarding the origins of the universe itself, there is still nothing conclusive from a scientific point of view, however there is talk of our universe sprouting from other universes:

            http://www.technologyreview.com/view/421999/astronomers-find-first-evidence-of-other-universes/

          • Neiman

            Let him create the dirt and all its basic elements himself, then get back to me. Man can at best procreate, never create anything new.

            That is all science has, their vain imaginations and every other scientist accepts it as your atheistic gospel.

          • chris

            You talk down science so much, and yet you blissfully enjoy the fruits of science every day of your life. The study of electromagnetism, which allows signals turn into real information and therefore allow you to talk to the world in a matter of seconds, is the same study that scientists use to calculate the distance of stars and determine their composition, etc.

          • Neiman

            I highly respect science, in fact I spent many years in medical science, in direct patient care and research, including a stint in conducting Cobalt irradiation experiments of sheep and doing all the post exposure hematological experiments and contributing to the research papers, then with Tissue Plasminogen Activase (tPA) in cooperation with Genentech in the prehospital setting, then some other emergency and cardiac medicine product developments, including my own petents. So, I am not anti-science at all.

            What I object to is secular science that closes its mind to alternative interpretations of the available data as part of a wholly liberal agenda to try and destroy faith that the State may be the ultimate authority. I object to a scientific community that due to partisan, ideological bias refuse peer review of research solely because it does not support vertical evolution of the species and destroy careers because they are closed minded and petty.

            It is beyond stupid, it is the occupation of fools to look at the complex design of all things and credit them to random forces over time, because they stubbornly refuse to admit all design demands a preexisting designer greater than the things design, no matter what you might call Him, because you refuse to bow down to Him.

          • chris

            It’s funny that you worked in cooperation with Genentech, because they’re practically the founders of biotechnology, which deal with, among other things, gene mapping, stem cell research, and cloning. Genetech is one of the frontrunners in the study of evolution. Just look at this Genetech tweet, that says: “Evolution from mouse to elephant took at least 24 million generations ”

            https://twitter.com/genentech/status/183313510833463296

            I doubt you were one of the actual researchers. The lower position people don’t need to know too much about the industry to perform their duties.

          • Neiman

            I said in cooperation with Genentech on a prehospital study, but it was for another company and a mutual goal. But, your poorly attempted put down is duly noted.

            All of science is polluted with the nonsense of evolution and in that I mean life result from random chance/mutations over time and the silly vertical, transitional evolution between species.

          • chris

            There is a reason why science is “polluted” with evolution. It’s because there is no alternative scientific explanation.

          • Neiman

            Nonsense! It is thus polluted because of liberal, godless political bias and there is an alternative and the only one that fits the data – Divine Creation. Evolution between species and life resulting from random mutations over time is a fairy tale.

          • Snarkie

            We have seen evolution occur, in the lab, in a matter of months. Keep putting your fingers in your ears and yelling LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA you NUTTER.

          • Neiman

            It is one thing to observe ongoing evolution within kinds, quite another to create or observe evolution between kinds (species).

    • HG

      So if you don’t provide a scientific answer to a question that doesn’t have any relationship to any public policy then you think no science is relevant to any public policy?

      That’s a pretty broad brush. Sounds rather desperate as well. Maybe you should diagram that attempt at logic. It should be obvious how poorly constructed your argument is.

  • Matthew Hawkins

    There are no “gotcha” questions. Anybody running for President needs to be able to answer all questions.

    As Pittsburg Steeler Coach Mike Tomlin said last week, “Excuses are the tools of the incompetent. ” .

    • splined

      Now that is a vivid description of the current president!

    • HG

      Except for Obama who refuses to answer questions above his pay grade that actually have to do with policy.

      • Grizzler1

        and so since obama has these obvious weaknesses its ok for the GOP hopefuls to do the same thing? I get tired of people, right or left, pointing to the other sides weakness as an excuse to be the same way. Its not an argument against anything, its an admission of the same..

        • HG

          Rubio’s answer was not “that is above my pay grade” and it wasn’t about abortion – an actual politically relevant topic. He gave the right answer. It should be obvious to you that given all the hype made over Rubio’s answer the question was intended simply to provide an opportunity for ridicule. You want a punching bag, not an answer.

          • Grizzler1

            I didnt ask the question, but I dont feel bad for him that is was asked. You used obamas lack of character/similar tactics as a defense of Rubio, as if becasue obama does things a certain way then its ok for the other side to do the same. It is not. Again, it does not defend, it admits.

          • HG

            Who is feeling bad for Rubio? Looks like the right is proud of his answer. I’m not defending Rubio, there is no need to. He held his own. I’m pointing out the demanding Rubio answer an irrelevent question because he may be a future Presidential candidate is liberal hypocrisy since they would never demand that of their own.

          • Grizzler1

            This whole thread is about the “injustice” of asking a “gotcha” question. There are no gotcha questions, only questions that will make a person look silly or dumb or anti-intellectual if they give the answer thier own supporters want to hear. If he could have answered the question honestly he would have. He cant, because if he does he either will infuriate the flat earthers or look like he is a susperstitious loon to the rational voter.

          • HG

            I think asking about a politician’s religious belief on a subject completely irrelevant to any policy simply for the sake of ridiculing that belief is disrespectful, low and demonstrates a lack of common decency. In other words it is disgraceful not an injustice. It tells me everything I need to know about the one asking it and those demanding an answer to it. Yourself included.

          • Grizzler1

            Of course, attack me for expecting a poitician to be honest. Its a dog eat dog world, politics are a rough biz. Too bad. I deal in what is, not what I wish was. As long as the GOP only deals in what they wish was, they will continue to lose. Too bad for them and too bad for the country as a whole.

          • HG

            You lie down with the dogs…..

          • Grizzler1

            The gop has as many fleas as the dems, so it would appear you are far more invested, and therefore far more inflicted than I. I lie with no political party. I dont have to make excuses for anyone. Homers make bad critical thinkers.

          • Neiman

            It is NOT completely irrelevant, those beliefs must guide the person in their development of public policy, at a minimum from a moral point of view; or they are not people of faith at all, as a true believer cannot separate faith from every part of their lives, if it is true faith in God. Now for most so-called Christians, as Flamemeister calls them, practical atheists, they are CINO (Christians In Name Only) and can easily make that separation, no true Christian can find that possible.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            It’s NOT hypocrisy because there is no definitive science on the answer to the question Obama was asked, but there is scientific evidence as to the age of the earth, as Rubio admitted. He just refused to answer.

            Not that you care about honesty.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Yes, Obama didn’t answer because there is no definitive answer, Rubio just dodged a question that would reveal how he views scientific information.

            There’s a big difference between the two, Rubio fell flat on his face, but did a nice kabuki dance. You like kabuki dances.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Science can’t even make that determination. So how is Obama supposed to? Oh, it’s different when a Liberal is asked a question, eh?

        • HG

          Exactly, H. Science can’t answer if when life begins, but apparently it can tell us when it began? Science has revised the age of the earth on many occasions. If you believe science can tell you the age of the earth you’ve been wrong numerous times in the past. It is likely the age will be revised again and those who believe what science says today will be wrong again.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            A smart, intelligent answer would be to give an estimate on the scientific age of the earth and also add that it could possibly change, then he could have said that the interpretations of The Bible differ, to some the years are not measured in days, as we know them. But if he does that, you know that then other interpretations of the The Bible come into question, and if that happens, you lose the ability to rely on what others tell you to believe.

          • HG

            That sounds a lot like Rubio’s answer. He didn’t provided the scientific estimation, but he alluded to it. He spoke of eras and of days. He concluded that it is a mystery.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            It’s not a mystery, and Rubio, nor I, said that it was. We know it’s not 6000yrs old. There is no mystery about that.

          • HG

            Well science estimates based on formation, not on creation. Science is limited by the material it has nothing to say about the immaterial. If God created, it is possible that he did so without the constraints of time. It is possible therefore that things formed immediately and that we can only look back on them and speculate that they must have formed over time.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            This is the heart of what the media was trying to get to; to see if science was put aside in favor of desire for people to reshape the facts to fit their religious beliefs.

            HG, science is lost on you. So discussing science with you will serve no meaningful purpose because people like you will ignore facts and try to shape them around their beliefs. This is why it is important for us to know what Rubio believes about science and The Bible.

          • HG

            H, do you believe in God?

          • guest

            Yes, he believes in his god, Allah.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You’re a conspiracy theory….nut.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Of course. I just don’t believe religious zealots are always interpreting The Bible correctly, and I believe man is perverting God’s laws and words by perverting religion.

          • HG

            Do you believe God exists outside of time and space and that he has intervened in time and space on occasion and acted directly? In other words do you believe in God’s ability to act miraculously?

          • $8194357

            Religion is ‘not’ JESUS…

          • HG

            It was GQ, not the media. Science isnt’ put aside. Science is limited by the rules which govern it. It is a wholly materialistic discipline. It concerns itself with the material, and rigidly avoids the immaterial. How then can science explain an act of God? It cannot because such an act is miraculous — God acting directly.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            GQ has a news element which classifies as media, not MSM. That aside….

            You are attempting to dismiss and trivialize the science of dating the earth and other materials. There’s no “mystery” as to how old things are, there is just solid estimates which reveal that the earth is far older than 6000 years.

            My advice: stop digging.

          • Neiman

            “there is [are] just solid estimates which reveal that the earth is far older than 6000 years.”

            How do you know, were you there to give a first hand account? Look at Adam, God made him with all the appearance of age, being a man, immediately after creation, even while only a microsecond old. So, why cannot the same God create all things with the appearance of age, which would be necessary to support life?

            So, according to you God in Genesis was unable or unwilling to tell us the truth in simple terms, but doesn’t that mean he is not and could not be God, because God has no motive to mislead us with false information and being omnipotent cannot be limited as to ability, so doesn’t your position rule out God?

            You keep bitching about people misinterpreting God’s Word, which really means they disagree with your interpretation. But, instead of making a juvenile claim based on your liberal emotions, please prove from the Bible why they are wrong and lovingly correct their errors that they might know the Truth as you believe you know the Truth. Or, is it really like most people, you don’t care what the Bible says, you believe this or that and so everyone else must be wrong, because doggonit you are right about everything?

            I have an idea, show us ignorant Christians where God ever says anything positive about homosexuality, or maybe where he says other marriages like gay marriage are okay with him. If that is too hard, how about where He set aside the commandment “Thou shalt not kill (do murder)” in the cases of aborting babies as a means of birth control.

          • chris

            That “were you there” line doesn’t work. Nobody has “been there”, not even the authors of the Bible. We have tools and knowledge of physics and math to show us what we cannot otherwise see or know. We know that science works correctly, because we use it every day at every second.

          • Neiman

            Unless you were there, you do not know, you are guessing, albeit an educated guess, it is still a guess and science have been proven wrong so many times no mathematician could possibly count them all.

            No the men that penned the Bible were not there, but the Divine AUTHOR – the Holy Spirit was there and it is His testimony alone that counts and we know we can trust Him because His Word never fails. Science fails, God never fails.

            We don’t use science, that is stupid, science only reports on what data they can find and we mostly unconsciously avail ourselves of those things that exist.

          • chris

            How do you know God exists, have you physically seen him? How do you know the Bible is telling the truth, did you literally see God talking through the authors?

            See how this your argument of extreme skepticism can backfire? It’s a good thing we are smart enough to make “educated guesses” because so far it has been the best thing humans have ever done.

          • Neiman

            I know because I have seen overwhelming evidence of His existence in the things He has created. I know because I examine all the biblical and historical evidence and based on the information I know that the probability of His existence outweighs all evidence to the contrary. I know the scribes of the Bible (God is its only author) knew God personally and spoke to Him, because despite many, many centuries, many writers with many styles, there is a perfect harmony in every point in every book, and the time factor alone rules out any conspiracy. As in court this is all concluded upon the preponderance of the evidence. I know because I know what he has done in my life that makes it abundantly clear that He exists.

            Still, when using my intellect, weighing all the evidence and making the most reasonable conclusions possible, I must make that last leap of faith, not seeing Him in physical form before my eyes. Yet, evolutionist too take the same steps and since they cannot empirically prove evolution, in fact the evidence is against them, they too take a leap of faith to say evolution explains the data.

          • chris

            So what evidence of God do you have?

          • Neiman

            I just told you and I have detailed the evidence many times and am not playing your games tonight.

          • Guest

            You didn’t give any evidence. You just said you studied it (not evidence) and believe the stories of the people who wrote the Bible. There are also people who claim to see UFOs, writings by others who claim to have to talked to other Gods, etc. Why are these people less credible than the ones you just believe? Doesn’t your perfect harmony argument arguably prove any religion right? Why isn’t a Hindu’s belief in Krishan validated for having the same feeling? What evidence of God can you give that isn’t equally applicable to a benevolent flying spaghetti monster protecting you?

            I also extremely funny you still fail to see the irony in condeming evolution for failing to be empirically proven, while not applying that standard to your proof for the existence of God

            Pope John Paul II on Evolution: “In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”

          • Neiman

            Do you antichristians every get tired of false acusations?

            I never said that God could be subjected to empirical proof, in fact neither explanations for the existence of life can thus be proven absolutely and both require an element of faith.

            In such a format, I cannot present a full argument showing the evidence and showing why I believe that evidence leads to the greatest probability that it is the Truth. There are excellent books that argue the point in rational ways from an academic viewpoint, including the undermining of the false theory of evolution. So, I offered several key points wherein I believe the evidence clearly points, but there is no proof that would ever satisfy you, only a great crisis wherein you had to cast off every doubt and turn to God and see His deliverance might help you. I am not going to waste time when you are closed minded and passionately antichrist in your views.

            (a) The Pope is just a man, he is not the Holy Father, he is not infallible on anything. (b) I believe the evolution within kinds has been established, but that evolution between species has not, nor is it possible for any evolutionary process to explain the incredibly complex nature of all things, it demands a preexisting designer greater than the things designed, which science is reluctantly coming around to conclude.

            You are not looking for truth, only a way to argue against Truth and it is a waste of my time.

          • Guest

            Yes, it is a waste of time to argue for a belief you can’t provide any evidence for. I can understand why you wouldn’t want to respond further.

            Why wouldn’t a crisis equally provided truth for every other diety of fa flying spaghetti monster? You “key” point was that yoyou’ve read books supporting your belief. I’m sure Hindus have read books proving the existence of their god as well.

            Let me edit your response so as it pertains that switches evolution for god, and you point any differences:

            Do you anti-Scientists every get tired of false acusations?

            In such a format, I cannot present a full argument showing the evidence and showing why I believe that evidence leads to the greatest probability for the truth of evolution. There are excellent books that argue the point in rational ways from an academic viewpoint, including the undermining of the existence of God such as Dawkin’s God Delusion. So, I offered several key points wherein I believe the evidence clearly points, but there is no proof that would ever satisfy you. I am not going to waste time when you are closed minded and passionately anti Science in your views.

            It’s your own reasoning, pretty convincing, no?

          • Neiman

            No, you failed miserably as usual.

            I have presented here my own scientific background, made it clear I was not anti-science, but only anti-godless science that was closed minded, destroyed careers of non-believers in evolution and were not just defending or presenting their data, but were evangelically anti-Christian and atheist, all in blind submission to liberal political orthodoxy. So, you cannot apply any anti-Science charges against me, while you are openly antichrist.

            Again you lie, my assertion was not that I read books, but I listed many reasons why I know God is real and pointing you to some books that invested time in presenting the evidence for Christianity, was for your benefit not mine. But, while I have studied evolutionary THEORY, you are terrified to look at evidence in support of Christianity and that point out the huge flaws in evolutionary theory. One is “The Case for a Creator,: by Lee Strobel, interviewing noted scientists and not only debunking evolution, but wherein reputable scientists were forced by the data to admit that the data demanded a Designer and that the greatest probability was that this Creator was the God of Christianity.

            Nonetheless, this is pointless, you are passionately antichrist and nothing will change your mind, your mind is closed and filled with hate for anyone that will not submit to your atheist beliefs. You only want to debate me for the pleasure it gives you to attack Christ and the Church and massaging your out of control ego.

          • Guest

            Again no evidence, just calling me afraid, closed minded, and anti-christ.

            Again, your argument is you read books that supported your beliefs, but completely failed to explain the evidence or arguments that are in those books that provided convincing evidence.

          • Neiman

            No my argument was not that I read books and found out that God exists, but rather I recommended that you should read them and refute them or accept their evidence. You just cannot tell the truth, can you?

            It is a waste of time, no evidence would be accepted by you. I already provided very strong evidence – namely, from the sub-atomic level to the vastness of the universe, we are overwhelmed by evidence of incredibly complex design and it is absolutely impossible to have design, let alone complex design, without the preexistence of a designer greater than the thing designed. It is mathematically impossible for random mutations over any amount of time to produce even a single cell, it cannot happen. So, call that Designer what you will, other evidence points clearly to the Christian God, but no matter what – a Designer must exist. Science is being forced to admit design and a designer.

            Will that convince you that evolution of all life via random chance./mutations is highly flawed and that God exists? No! You will accept no evidence short of God deigning to stand before you and prove by performing magic tricks that He is real. So, why waste my time with a man like you with a closed mind and hatred of Christ and the Church?

          • Guest

            If there’s so much overwhelming evidence, you should’ve been able to provide at least a shred of evidence, but haven’t. Just because you say it’s mathematically impossible doesn’t make it true. If it’s true that there’s some intelligent designer, how do you explain all the vestiges of our evolutionary history that are serve no purpose like our appendix, which serves no biological purposes other than killing us? Who would’ve designed that? Or our useless wisdom teeth? Or who would have us drink and breathe through the same whole? Many of people die from choking every year. Sounds like a pretty stupid design. Are you accusing some God of being an incompetent designer?

            If you reject evolution, do you reject that we have DNA? Do you reject that organisms most fit for the environment are more likely to reproduce? Do you reject that the DNA of children is an amalgamation of their parents? If not, you accept evolution.

          • Neiman

            See what I mean, you cannot even admit we are overwhelmed with evidence of complex design, Can you? Why? Because you know that random mutations cannot produce design and that all mutations represent a loss of information. You would be forced to admit a designer.

            No, God designed all life perfectly, it just your half-assed opinion that any of the things you mentioned are evidence of poor design.

            We have DNA. I do not deny that some organisms, due to the fall of man and his corruption of the world have caused the deaths of some organisms and not being God, I have no idea if His plan included such extinctions. No, I believe the DNA of both parents are reflected in their children’s DNA. DNA is a complex design that was created by God, He is its designer and it fits perfectly withing His design of all life.

          • Guest

            Please, you’re the one the who cannot provide a shred of evidence for the existence of God. Your so scared by the fact you have no evidence and you can only cling to repeating false claim that you’ve provided enormous amounts when you know you have provided any at all that doesn’t also support the existence of a magical flying spaghetti monster. Your deluding yourself if you think we’re the product of solely random mutations. It’s basically the same argument that a hundred monkeys being chained to a hundred typewriters would almost certainly not write Shakespeare. But imagine if each monkey who couldn’t type died off and each who demonstrated higher cognitive skills was allowed to reproduce. Multiply this over billions of years and generations and eventually high literary works will be produced.

            Moreover, how does an unliklihood of life support the existence God any more than it supports a Hindu’s belief in Vishnu? If God designed all life perfectly, then why do we have an appendix? If we’re perfect in every way, why did he give us an inferior nose to dogs? We have a much far inferior nose then them, it’s indisputable.

            I’m pleased that you admit DNA is amalgamation of parents who survived long enough to reproduce and constructively accept that evolution occurs.

          • Neiman

            I have provided evidence, your inability to accept it is your problem, mot mine and certainly not the Lord’s. He has given you a universe full of evidence, but you came into the jury room determined to convict, no matter the evidence.

            First, the evidence of design demands a preexisting designer, who that intelligent designer might be is a matter of a separate debate. The first step to a cure is accept the absolute fact a designer had to produce all the design in nature.

            Your idea of what is inferior or not is subjective, with some examination we will find the nose we have is perfect for our human body, as is the eye once debated, but now known to be perfect as well.

            I admitted DNA was created by God and the humans He created with that DNA then passed it along through procreation, that is all.

          • Guest

            No it doesn’t, your inability to see there is no evidence is your own fault. Please provide one explanation for the existence of God that doesn’t also prove the existence of Vishnu.

          • Neiman

            I have provided ample evidence, your inability to accept it is your problem, mot mine and certainly not the Lord’s.

            Please provide one explanation for the existence of God that doesn’t also prove the existence of Vishnu.

            I see that you are a Hindu, as much as you are fixated on Vishnu. Why him? You folks have a million gods.

            Anyway, that is an easy question to answer, once you admit that design demands a preexisting designer greater than the thing designed, then who is that Designer is obviously the next question.

            That proof? ISRAEL!

            The Jews have been the most hated people in all human history, covering almost all recorded history. They have been murdered almost to extinction several times, enslaved, forcibly scattered throughout the whole earth, all to rid the earth of them. When scattered they were always exposed to one pogrom or another, hated for being blessed by God. Today, they are the focus of hate of the entire world still, all the world is focused on that tiny piece of crap land and that numerically insignificant people, now surrounded by enemies that want to destroy Israel and annihilate all the Jews on earth.

            Yet, God has delivered them and made them strong after every trial, from the beginning until this very day, Israel is at the center of world history, seen as the greatest enemy of peace just because they exist, still most the world would deny them a homeland, they want those damn Jews to go away. But they are God’s Chosen people, the Apple of His Eye and that is an historical fact. Now compare that to any other people or land, even those that have suffered great trails and tribulations, none can compare to the hatred of the Jews – none in all human history.

            Prove God, look to Israel.

          • Anonymous

            It’s extremely humorous that the good fortune of the Jews is the apparent proof of God’s existence. God also predicted in Ezekiel 28:26-24 that Israel will live in peace with his it’s neighbors, so God’s predictions about the Jews aren’t exactly 100%.

          • Neiman

            Actually, I spelled out the misfortune of the Jews, not their blessings as evidence; but I offered much. much more than that as evidence, but you want in your ridicule to trivialize it and make it small so you can deal with it in sarcasm.

            Your not being a Christian, you cannot be and write as you do above; anyway, you would know that most prophecies must be read in light of the whole of Scripture. We Christians know that after the Lord’s return, Israel will be the Lord’s Throne, the world will bring tribute to Israel and all nations shall live in peace with them.

          • $8194357

            Full Gospel

          • $8194357

            The devil don’t like the Jews for sure.
            They gave us Jesus and His victory over the grave…
            He also knows God promised them victory over his
            persecutions with Christs Second Coming…
            The least amongst the world, against all odds..
            The Shekina Glory appears again, just like in the days of old..
            Awesome..
            Praise the Lord Jesus and His Holy Name…

          • Neiman

            Amen!

          • $8194357

            http://www.barenakedislam.com/2012/11/21/a-special-message-to-the-israeli-people-from-america/

            Jeremiah 33:10-12

            New King James Version (NKJV)

            10 “Thus says the Lord: ‘Again there shall be heard in this place—of which you say, “It is desolate, without man and without beast”—in the cities of Judah, in the streets of Jerusalem that are desolate, without man and without inhabitant and without beast,

            11 the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the voice of those who will say:

            “Praise the Lord of hosts,
            For the Lord is good,
            For His mercy endures forever”—

            and of those who will bring the sacrifice of praise into the house of the Lord. For I will cause the captives of the land to return as at the first,’ says the Lord.

            12 “Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘In this place which is desolate, without man and without beast, and in all its cities, there shall again be a dwelling place of shepherds causing their flocks to lie down.

            1 Peter 1:24-25

            New King James Version (NKJV)

            24 because

            “All flesh is as grass,
            And all the glory of man[a]
            as the flower of the grass.
            The grass withers,
            And its flower falls away,

            25 But the word of the Lord endures forever.”[b]
            Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.

          • $8194357

            As it is HG..
            Before Moses….
            I AM

            Exodus 3:13-15

            New King James Version (NKJV)

            13 Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?”

            14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

            15 Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’

            Before Abraham…..
            I Am

            John 8:57-59

            New King James Version (NKJV)

            57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”

            58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

            59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple,[a] going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

          • $8194357

            How about before creation God excisted?
            Or..Before you, He created the great white?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I have seen a great white take a seal, 25yds parallel to me in the line up. God appears to be with me.

          • $8194357

            Was the seal bigger?
            Simpler answer.

          • Neiman

            God is with the lowest sinner in trying to get them to look to Him, repent and accept His Salvation in Christ Jesus. Maybe that is what you were experiencing, God calling you to repent and accept Jesus as your only Savior and Lord, you know, the Jesus you refuse to confess before men.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You sin a lot, my Christian Brother, my sins are few. God is with those who sin the least, you got that right. Perhaps you have been left alone, with your nutty friend?

          • Neiman

            No, God is not with those that sin the least – you cannot prove that statement by the Bible. He hates ALL sin and even one, even what you think is a tiny sin, disqualifies you for Heaven. He saves sinners because no one is good enough for Heaven without repentance and His Salvation which is by grace, alone, by faith alone in Christ alone and NOT by any works of the flesh.

            As to your few sins: You support and are a part of a group that you know have slaughtered over 50 million helpless, innocent babies, making you an accessory to every one and mass murderer before God. You lie to gays and tell them homosexuality is okay with God, as is gay marriage and by those lies lead them to hell, and I assure you God says He hates those that lead others into sexual immorality and hell. You are part of the people that by lies kicked God out of the public square and our national affairs, and I assure you that God knows you put loyalty to your party and Obama above His Word.

            7point62 and I have been born again of His Spirit, all our sins covered by faith in the blood of Christ and we are everlastingly secure in the beloved. You not only have not repented of the sins mentioned above and your many fornications that you have bragged about here as well, you have denied Jesus by refusing to confess Him as your only Savior and absolute Lord before men, making worldly excuses to avoid proclaiming Him.

            Now, I would ask you to list my sins, but mine are all under the blood of the Lamb, not even in Heaven can a single one ever be brought up against me and therefore there is now no longer any risk of my condemnation or coming into Judgment of any kind. By all you have said here @ SAB, your constant anger and hate in every comment, every day, it seems you do not have the blood of the lamb and are under Judgment.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Brahahaha! You are one quaky guy.

          • Neiman

            That is what I expect from you, rational, intelligent, bible based responses, not.

            Your everlasting soul is at risk and you play childish, liberal games. You are a fool.

          • $8194357

            Who belongs to the prince of fools..

          • Neiman

            Yes, quite sad really. It is the same with Ellinas and even gay Bob, an admitted non-Christian; they all think good works and not being as bad as the other guys gets them into heaven, not absolute surrender to Jesus and being born again. No appeal will help them, only dear lord Jesus can rescue them and Hanntized. Really sad to see such people so determined to go into hell.

          • $8194357

            BC
            Before Christ came into my life, I as well thought….
            Well, at least I never killed anyone so I should be alright…

            devil loves to feed folks false truth
            “secular enlightenment” and keep them
            in the darkness as he fights the Light of Truth.
            But without his teeth now, still roaring as a lion..

            Jesus defanged him when He rose from the dead…

            Oh death, where is thy sting for a saved believer?
            As the Apostle Paul so stated:
            “Wether I live or die…
            I live or die to Christ”…

          • Neiman

            It is a great lie, “I am not as bad as others, I haven’t murdered anyone, I don’t steal, I am not violent, etc and like the rich man, I am not like the heathens, so God will have to accept me into Heaven.”

            The Truth is no one is good, no not one, not one is righteous among men. All have gone out of the way, all are headed for Perdition; but God, in His Love laid all our inequities, all our sins upon His Son to pay the full penalty so we need not be lost and we can gain eternal life in Heaven. But, that pardon (Grace) from sin must be accepted by faith in Christ Jesus, wherein our sins are all washed away and we are made perfect in the Beloved, safe evermore.

            The Hanntized and Ellinas and Gay Bob’s of this world refuse His pardon, believing they can earn Salvation and that to their everlasting doom.

          • $8194357

            True that..
            Most “religion” is works based on doctrine or good deeds.
            Jesus alone knows the heart of a man or woman…

          • $8194357

            ( my sins are few. God is with those who sin the least, you got that right)
            Now thats some funky doctrine ya got going there sharkbait..
            Can ya point to it from the Scripture without twisting the Scripture into a train against car wreck?

          • Ken

            “my sins are few”

            Says the lying, STD carrying tax cheat.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            And you follow with a lie, which is a sin. Enjoy the heat down below, sucker.

          • Wes

            ” God appears to be with me.”

            It’s just that you’re not appealing to anything breathing, which is why you’re always alone.

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    Nutters crack me up.

    If he were a real man, a manly man, a non gop man, a smart man, he would have answered the question. Does he, like Neiman, believe the earth is only 6,000 or so years old? We don’t know what he thinks, because he is a wimpy man.

    It is an important question.
    Nutters hate science, until they need a doctor to prescribe insulin, forcing them out of their box.

    • Neiman

      More lies from Gay Bob, I have never said the earth is 6000 years old, let the liar who archives my every word copy and paste wherein I have.

      I believe in science, just not liberal, perverted science.

      • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

        Yes you have. Please stop lying.

        • Neiman

          No I have not! Now who do we believe? Certainly not a proven pathological liar (Gay Bob). So, how about you copy/paste my words from your endless archives of me every utterance?

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Have you no shame, Old Pal, or is lying a source of pride for you?

          • Neiman

            So, how about you copy/paste my words from your endless archives of me every utterance?

    • America

      Yes booooob, everyone knows what kind of man you prefer.

    • $8194357

      Light years away into the universe….

      When we’ve been there ten thousand years,
      Bright shining as the “Son”…
      We will have no less time
      to sing Gods Praise….
      As when we first begun………..
      The realm of time and eternity are two seperate realms
      leftist apoligist…Thus the temporal and thus the eternal…
      Go figure huh fool tool…

  • Grizzler1

    It is totally relevant that he wont answer the question. First, If the man doesnt want to answer it because he is ashamed to admit he is a biblical literalist, then he is lacking in character and testicular fortitude, a nessesary trait for the job of president.
    If he wont answer because he doesnt want to admit to understanding science and geological fact, for fear of losing the support of the flat earthers, then he has no hope of ever gaining the white house. To deny geological fact in in order to hold the support of the flat earthers shows weakness and lack of leadership, again a severe detriment to the performance of the office of president.
    The office of president requires, in my opinion, a well rounded understanding of the world as a whole. To deny reality in this area means he will deny reality in other areas, or at least he will pretend to deny reality in certain areas of science in order to kowtow to the superstitious far right loons.
    Also, how is this question a gotcha! question anyway? As far as I am concerned knowing what a person thinks in regards to scientific reality is very important, and just because the answer to the question is loaded with peril for any republican right now doesnt make it out of bounds. The GOP has put itself in this position and will have to wiggle its way out to continue to be relevant in the modern world.
    Until the GOP gets past this lack of reality and begins to de-emphisize the power of the far right religious non-thinkers, they will be relegated once again, to regional status.

    • HG

      The President won’t answer that question. And the press won’t ask it of him.
      In fact, the press won’t ever ask Obama this sort of a gotcha question. They are too busy propping him up.

      • Grizzler1

        I say again: and so since obama has these obvious weaknesses its ok for the GOP hopefuls to do the same thing? I get tired of people, right or left, pointing to the other sides weakness as an excuse to be the same way. Its not an argument against anything, its an admission of the same..

        • HG

          It’s no excuse, it just points out the liberal double standard. Rubio gave the right answer in my opinion. And that is that the age of the earth has nothing to do with any policy. It is a matter of faith and science, period.

          • Grizzler1

            No, its a matter of character. Just because obama is lacking in character does not make it ok for others to do the same thing. Its not ok for obama. Its not ok for Rubio. My issue is not really what he believes as much as its his reluctance to answer the question honestly. It isnt the faut of the media or anyone else he chooses not to answer the question in a forthright manner.
            I would respect a man who stands by his belief, even if I disagree with that belief, more than a man who dodges the question, or those who would make excuses based on the bad behavior of the other side.

          • HG

            Goody for you. But the rest of us see this for what it was. An attempt to get a politician to answer an irrelevant gotcha question in order to make him a target for ridicule. You’ve fallen for it.

          • Grizzler1

            I dont know who you think “the rest of us” are, but it is an inacurate estimation. Im sorry you dont think answering questions that are hard is relevant, but I do, no matter who is asking the question, or who is answering the question. But then I am not part of either “club” and dont need to make excuses for poor leadership from either side.

          • HG

            Stating my support and agreement with the answer given is far from excusing. I’m convinced that a politician represents Americans and on the subject of religion, unless a specific religious belief is relevant to policy, we should respect every individual’s freedom of religion. That means a politician should not use his office to preach a specific doctrine that would disrespect the beliefs of others. The age of the earth is just such a subject matter.

          • Grizzler1

            I disagree. If a politician believes the earth is flat I do not wish to support him in holding public office of any kind, but at least I could respect his courage in being honest. No questions are out of bounds in modern politics. the fatc that some questions are loaded has no bearing. It is what it is. Better to be honest and live with that IMO. I understand you dont think that is so. Oh well. Personal responsibility for ones own beliefs shows character. Rubio, like obama is obviously lacking in this area.

          • HG

            I don’t doubt you’d oppose someone for their religious beliefs. That is my point. You’re opposed to a candidate not for his policies, but for his religious belief on a subject that is irrelevant to any policy. There is no dishonesty in recognizing a trap — GQ asking about the age of the earth — and avoiding the snare by answering it in a manner that respects all Americans. Nothing Rubio said wasn’t the truth.

          • Grizzler1

            I think it is relevant. I think when you play in the big game you have to man up. Avoidance is not manning up. A candidates policies are obviously affected by his religous beliefs. That makes it relevant. Superstitiion and mythology are not qualities I look for in a candidate. They do shade policy and I prefer policy to be based in reality, not superstition and fantasy.
            You have repeatedly pointed to obamas behavior and tactics when confronted by Rubios. Just because you dont think Rubio should be honest when confronted by a hard question doesnt make the question less valid. And as I have stated, I wont vote for a person who denies geological reality, or any other kind of reality. Makes it hard to find worthy candiates, true. I wont play homer games just to FEEL better about the lack of quality people in public office. If he could have answered the question in a straight forward manner he would have. He did not. He has his reasons. They are purely political. He is a typical politician and the media and the left are not responsible for that. Rubio is responsible for his own character.

          • HG

            Rubio was honest. You’re looking for an excuse to attack the man and you think you’ve found it.
            Tell me how dating the age of the earth affects a candidates policies?

          • Grizzler1

            I alread have. To deny strong science is detrimental to good decision making and critical thinking skills. To avoid answering in order to kowtow to the anti-intellectual base of the GOP lacks character. This isnt brain surgery man.

          • HG

            So if you believe that God created, it is “detrimental to good decision making and critical thinking skills”? You may have just demonstrated the weakness of your critical thinking skills.

          • Grizzler1

            You put words in my mouth. I said to deny strong science is detrimental. Did you misread that or just make it up? This is about the age of the earth. The earth is billions of years old. To deny this is either ignorant or dishonest. Try again.

          • HG

            So believing God created in less that millions of years is “…….
            Correct?

          • Grizzler1

            I told you what I think. Inserting your own bias into my comment wont work. I have been very clear. Dont put words in my mouth. It does not become you.

          • HG

            Thanks. I’m trying to apply your critical thinking to the question asked. If strong science states that the earth is millions of years old, then belief to the contrary would qualify as “detrimental to good decision making and critical thinking skills”, no?

          • Grizzler1

            Billions of years not millions. Yes, to deny strong science is detrimental to good decision making skills and critical thinking skills. Avoiding hard questions is detrimental to good character. All important traits for office holders and those who make policy for the country. President most of all.

          • HG

            Sorry, I was quoting your reference to “millions” above. So what decision or policy would be affected by a belief that the earth younger than what science says?

          • Grizzler1

            Are you that obtuse? We have been around this block already. If you need a distinction between policy and fitness for office, then look elsewhere. For Me this is about character and the lack thereof, as I have made very clear. Im sorry you cant get your mind around that.. Rubio knows the earth is not 6000 years old. Trying to change the debate will not work with me.

          • HG

            It’s a simple question. Since you claim that disbelief in science’s dating of the earth affects political decision making, I’m looking for an example.

          • HG

            How many millions of years old is the earth according to science?

          • chris

            About four thousand million years old.

          • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

            Politicians quite often believe shit that makes the Flat Earth Theory seem sane by comparison.

  • chris

    Regardless if a politician believes in creationism or not, his policies still have to abide by a world in which secular science dominates. Everything from military weaponry to information technology to space exploration is made possible thanks to those godless scientists, and there is nothing anybody can do about it. In a sense, a president’s personal religious belief is irrelevant.

    • Grizzler1

      true enough, but a politicians inability to answer a question truthfully in order to preserve his poitical base is a character issue. I dont believe for a second that Rubio thnks the earth is 6000 years old. I think he is does not have the courage to tell the truth as to what he thinks.

      • HG

        What information in Rubio’s answer wasn’t true?

        • Grizzler1

          Rubio:
          “I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that.”
          This is dishonest. This avoids being responsible for what he thinks, or doesnt think. Anyone with a reasonable education is qualified to answer the question…he chose not to.

          • HG

            In the context of the question asked, that is true. Rubio is neither a theologian nor a scientist.

          • Grizzler1

            If Rubio does not have the courage to answer a simple question like this because he is “not qualified” Then there must be a massive amount of simple questions he is not “qualified” to answer.
            Get real HG, you know as well as I do this is simple an avoidance tactic. You are not that obtuse. I have been reading your posts for some time and have debated you in the past. If we cant agree on that then we are to far apart to even waste our time.

          • HG

            It’s a simple question? Then why all the debate and disagreement over that simple question? It may be simply posed, but the answer is not simple. A politician must respect everyone’s beliefs in such cases. Rubio did just that.

          • Grizzler1

            I see it not as respecting anything, but as avoiding the question because to answer it would hurt him no matter what he said. In a case like this I fall on the side of honesty and responsibility for ones own beliefs.I keep repeating myself, which means we are talking past one another. Until next time HG……

          • HG

            Or we’re looking at the same thing from two different angles.
            Good day Griz.

          • Grizzler1

            Same to you HG

    • HG

      And belief in God does not require a rejection of all secular science.

      Second, not all scientists a godless. In fact, much of the scientific foundation upon which other scientists have built was laid by God-fearing scientists.

      I agree, a president’s personal religious belief by and in large, is irrelevent.

      • chris

        Many scientists are not godless, but most if not all scientists believe in evolution, and that alone makes them “godless” according to many religious folk on the right.

        • HG

          Not at all. I don’t know where you’re getting your information. Many people believe in God and believe God created using evolution.

          • chris

            If you don’t find a conflict between God and evolution, then you’re a rare type of conservative.

          • Neiman

            Evolution and Genesis are wholly incompatible, they are totally, absolutely contrary to one another. One is free to believe either Genesis or godless scientific evolution; but to try and merge these two is the ultimate blasphemy, as it says that God in Genesis was either unwilling or unable to communicate how all life came into being and that unwillingness or inability means He cannot possibly be God at all. Such people are practical atheists, they say they are Christian, while in the same breath by accepting evolution as the means they are cleary denying God’s very existence.

            Try and be honest, be either one thing or the other; James 1:8 NLT “Their loyalty is divided between God and the world, and they are unstable in everything they do.” I can at least respect the godless atheist scientist for his consistency, but how can you trust a man that wears both a belt and suspenders, he cannot trust either to hold up his pants. The Christian that accepts evolution as the means of all existence is for all practical purposes, really just a hypocritical atheist.

            As to most, if not all scientists believe in evolution, it is factually false, there are many, many scientists that reject evolution; but, if they hope to get peer review of their work, tenure at a university or have a career, they must publicly say they believe in evolution or die as scientists.

  • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

    That’s hilarious, Rob.

    Gee, you aren’t sure what is the point if someone ignores science if favor of pressure from a group of people? It’s a tough one, isn’t it?

  • HideFromObama

    The whole point Rubio is making is that science can’t PROVE where we came from, how the earth was formed, or how old it is. All they have is theories based on interpretation of data. Just like religion can’t PROVE origins or creation either-it’s their theory based on faith from the words of their Book (Bible, Koran, etc.) I think he’s calling a spade a spade.

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      Rubio wasn’t asked where we came from, and he said nothing of the sort. To compare this to Obama’s answer is dishonest.

  • David Penman

    Right on the mark, Rob.

  • ‘Tom Crawford

    Personally, even if this is a joke, I still like it as an explanation..hehe

    God was sitting in heaven one day when a scientist said to Him, “God, we don’t need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing – in other words, we can now do what you did in the beginning.”

    “Oh, is that so? Explain…” replies God.

    “Well,” says the scientist, “we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man.”

    “Well, that’s very interesting… show Me.”

    So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil into the shape of a man.
    “No, no, no…” interrupts God, “Get your own dirt.”

Top