The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
-26 votes

Marco Rubio Is Not Sure How Old the Earth Is

I saw this link at the web site reporting on the tampon extracting nazi police story...

"In the Q&A, Rubio was asked how old he thinks the Earth is. His answer: "I'm not a scientist, man."
"Turns out Rubes isn't a scientist. He's just a deep thinker, man. Also, he's a Pandering McPanderpants. "

Ahhh... Pandering McPanderpants... Rubio, say it ain't so!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cyril's picture

Geology or HONEST money ?

Well, just for whoever missed it, Mr. Rubio isn't an economist either...

Or certainly not an honest one at that, anyway :

Bear with me. I'm a little less concerned with his geological knowledge (or lack thereof) than with his (mis)understanding of HONEST money.


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Marco Rubio isn't sure...

what a Republican is supposed to be, either.

Silence isn't always golden....sometimes it's yellow.

"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." - Patrick Henry

kjl89 says that my God sounds like a monster

Here is what I say to you and those who say as you do:

If you were standing before a judge, knowing you are guilty of many crimes, such as murder, robbery, rape, and or whatever else, you should be in great fear, and would be in great fear, as he is about to rightfully pronounce sentence upon you for all your wicked crimes.

Whether he sends you to the deepest, darkest dungeon, or to the electric chair, he is NOT a monster for doing so, but just and right.

It is YOU who are the monster!

This truth of sin in all mankind, is what mankind tries to pass off as something that is not true and so they invent these arguments such as evolution, they deny the One True and Living God, to foolishly make themselves feel better about it all but that will not do them any good on that great and notable day when the Judge of the universe judges them for their unbelief in His Son whom He sent for those who would believe on Him, that they may be washed and cleansed of all their filth and wickedness.

He will try them for each and every sin they have wickedly committed and then send them to their eternal damnation which they deserve.

You still have time to repent and call upon the only One who can forgive you for all your sins, or you can stubbornly remain in them and soon experience what it is that many have been warning you about as God has commanded us to do.

Time is getting very short!


" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

What a total crock of shit.

What a total crock of shit.

"Be good and I'll take you for Ice Cream, but if you're bad I'm gonna bruise your butt". Amazingly, that still works on some adults, those with much shallower minds, that in the Afterlife, where NOBODY has been to and lived to write about it, that you will be rewarded or punished based upon whether or not you "obey" what you're told. "Do whatever the Government or the Church tells you or you'll go to HELL and BURN FOREVER in a lake of FIRE after you die. But if you're good you'll go to this wonderful place, up in the Clouds, and God will pet your head like a little kitty cat, for eternity. And I know this is true because its right here in this book that the Church wrote."

Funny, this eternal damnation is common to SO MANY pagan religions...DO WHAT WE TELL YOU TO DO OR ELSE...

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Original Sin vs Liberty.

are the two compatible? and how many understand either one?

think of it for a moment, if you believe in the first... how can you support the 2nd?
ya'll need to simmer down and converse.

Who knows?

Most calculations of the age of the earth are approximate.

I can accept observable evolution or change. But when it comes to the age of the earth or common descent, we can only make assumptions based the currently available evidence.

Anyway, I want to address a comment found deep in this thread.

"PS. Your bible and God profess a pretty crappy approximation of Pi. 3 to 1?! Seriously? Stupid."

This(I think) is referring to 1 Kings 7:23-26. There was a bowl 30 cubits in circumference and 10 cubits in diameter with a hand breadth rim around the bowl(vs 26).

Here are my measurements and calculations.

1 cubit(My fingertip to my elbow) is 17.75 inches
1 hand breadth(my hand) is 4.125 inches





So with my measurement we are approximately 99.85% accurate.

If you use the standard 18 inch cubit and 4 inch hand breadth it is 99.94% accurate.

I encourage you to test this with your own arm.

Can anyone find a more accurate approximation of pi before 600 b.c.?

Holding back a great deal here

There's a great deal I want to say and a great deal I shouldn't. What I will say is this isn't worthy to be called news. What do we care what Marco Rubio believes? We know how he stands on policy and that should be enough. His religious/scientific beliefs are his own and not our business. The only reasons anyone would be interested is either to bash, to incite, or to justify their own beliefs. We really don't need any more posts on this site that have anything to do with religion or religious beliefs, which is implied as the topic. Age of the earth holds no greater place than in the incredibly dated argument between hardline evangelist "Always have to be right" types, and "Always have to be right" scientific types. Arguing either way is pointless because neither group will give and everyone goes away feeling insulted to some degree. I'm not saying I don't understand that feeling. I normally love a good convo on such things. And I have a whole slew of areas I'd focus on to prove my point, but like I stated at the beginning of this. I'm not going to add, I'm trying to squelch. Marco Rubio isn't a person we're interested in getting elected, we know he's establishment, why do we need any more information concerning him, especially tabloid level stuff like this?

Matthew 10:16


i loled at: " After reading

i loled at:


After reading Rubio’s response, I know very little about his actual views except, “I would like to continue winning elections.”


Bob makes a good point. And if true, Rubio did his job perfectly: He dodged an off-topic question and didn't cause any former supporters to like him less. The only people who are feigning outrage at his comment (like the op and the author of the linked article) didn't like him in the first place. What's the problem?

I think its funny how people

I think its funny how people like the OP and the author of the linked article (who may be the same person, for all i know, they both have the same nasty and sanrky tone) feign surprise when they ask religious people about their beliefs and the person stays consistent.

It would be more surprising (in fact, noteworthy at all) if insatead, Marc was asked how old the earth was and said something along the lines of: "oh, a few billion. yea that whole christian thing, you don't think i really believe that, do you!?!!?!"

eg: the current headline is basically:
"Man Previously Known to Believe in the Bible Recently Gives Answer to A Question That Sides with the Bible (Instead of Recent Scientific Consensus)"

I assure you..

I did not write the article, nor do I know the author. Marco wasn't consistent, he first deferred to scientists as knowing ("Hey I'm no scientist, man"), then quickly backtracked to pander to his base.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

to be honest, if you're

to be honest, if you're looking for reasons to hate Rubio there are more substantial ones that an alleged inconsistency between his personal beliefs and how much of that he wants to share with the public.

I'd have preferred he respond with a Chris Christie type "why the fuck are you asking me such a retarded question?" rather than his attempt to dodge that is going to get quoote-mined and nitpicked by people who dont like him for ideological reasons and will feign outrage at his innocuous remark.

Ha... yes, good points...

and believe me, I do despise him MORE for other things than I do for this question... his general neocon, warmongering, pro-NDAA stances for example. But also his speech about "keeping god in politics", which I found particularly disgusting. I believe in absolute separation of church and state, don't you?

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

"I believe in absolute

"I believe in absolute separation of church and state, don't you?"

Depends on the context. take schools as an example. in an ideal world, this is a private service provided by private sector companies... fulfilling every disparate need. Like all other goods and services provided in a free-ish market, it's reasonable to expect that one could find a decent quality at any price point (think shoes, food, etc)

So even the poor atheist families could send their kids to the secular school; even the poor christian families could send their kids to a christian school.

However, enter the state monopoly on education. As would happen were the state to monopolize any other good like shoes or food, this crowds out any private firms producing these goods, save for the very high end of the market (rich people).

So once we're in a situation with the government monopoly on education in place, Because the low-end free market secular and christian schools no longer exist (thanks to govt monopoly), everyone other than the rich has to now deal with the one monopoly school. And each group understandably pulls for it to be taught in their way.

I think focusing on "ZOMG the crazy christians want christianity to be taught in public schools" misses the point entirely. Why the fuck are we in a situation where what other people want to teach their kids has any bearing on what your kids may be taught? Imagine if there was one shoe producer and they would only make ONE type of shoes. Let's say, due to popular support, that one type is decided to be really gaudy basketball shoes with lights on them. Would you focus on the retards who want the govt-shoemaker to make these shoes in lieu of focusing on the real problem: why the fuck does what sheos the dude up the block buy for his kids have any bearing on what shoes my kid can wear?

tldr: the problem is the state, not religion.

yea right.....!/photo.php?fbid=534029776626228&set=a.348147848547756.96661.100000576310394&type=1&theater

who cares....

who cares....

evidently you do..

else you wouldn't bother to post here and keep the link alive. Don't think that link you posted works, BTW.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

uhh no.... and by the down

uhh no.... and by the down votes it lookes many more feel the same. Much more important battles to fight then this BS.

can't stand the heat...

get out of the kitchen.

Yep, lots of down votes from people who don't like their faith challenged. But also, 200 comments from lots of folks on both sides, maybe even some of us learned some things. Some good discussion can be found.

More important battles? So only the topics that you deem worthy should be discussed? Let's not speak of that which makes some of us uncomfortable?

We're capable of multi-tasking, thank you very much!

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

Hey, BugMan

Rand Paul's answer to that kind of question would be similar to Rubio's. If you read "Liberty Defined," you'll see that Ron Paul's answer to that kind of question would be similar if not identical to Rubio's as well.

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese

That doesn't make it right!

When you can show me that either one of them is perfect, I'll concede. Ron is not, and Rand... well he endorsed Romney, right? Was that not pandering, playing the game, or whatever?? He surely didn't have his heart in the endorsement, but had to say it anyway.

I would love to know what each of them REALLY believe with regard to the beginning of mankind. I would bet a Romney $10,000 bill that neither really believe the Adam & Eve version. Ron clearly said that creationism was just a theory too, so he's playing middle of the road on that issue. It's part of the game you have to play.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

You're being ridiculous.

A person's view on the age of the earth has very little if any effect on that person's view on policy. Secondly, Rubio didn't say he believed in the Adam and Eve version of origins. Thirdly, what does Rand's endorsement of Romney and he and his father's supposedly "playing the game" have anything to do with the age of he earth or their opinion thereof. I believe if pressed on the issue, Rand probably does hold to the Genesis creation belief. Ron stated in "Liberty Defined" that he believes God created the earth but, doesn't believe anyone can be sure how, when, or what means He used to do it - essentially Mike Huckabee's stated position.

If you're trying to discredit Rubio in order to make it easier for Rand in 2016, this is hardly the way to do it, because if this is the most important issue to you, you'll most likely find out Rand is "worse" on this issue than Rubio.

"The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests." - Charlie Reese

You may be right...

I made the assumption that young earth believers and Adam & Eve believers were one in the same. You're saying this is wrong, I'd like to hear from those young earth folks that don't believe the Adam & Eve story.

Again, the acceptance of young earth over solid science shows a mind set to me that is unattractive. It's a negative, but only part of the main formula for supporting a candidate or not.

I disagree with you that Ron & Rand are "worse" on this issue than Rubio. As both are doctors, I'm VERY skeptical that they don't take the side of science. You can easily evade the question, by saying nobody knows for sure - which is technicallly true, and that's what they all do to avoid losing any particular base of voters. Yep, even Ron.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

I don't purport to... an expert on geology; but I do know from examples such as Mt. Saint Helens here in the Northwest that sometimes geologic features that seem like they must be extremely old when explained on the basis of uniformitarianism can be created relatively overnight. I remember watching a documentary that showed how a miniature Grand Canyon was formed by the volcano with sedimentary layers, and also how a lot of the trees around Spirit lake ended up in a configuration associated with petrified forests.

I think it's rather egotistical to take a know-it-all stance based on only accepting uniformitarianism as a valid argument. Need to have an open-mind on these things. Kind of like with climate science. Anyone who dares question the orthodox priests of science on what they deem acceptable is subject to these kinds of charges of heresy and witch hunts as you seem to be interested in.

I don't purport to know it all either...

but having done applied (not academic) paleontology for 30 years, I am an expert at the fossils and evolution I have seen with my own eyes. I don't have a political agenda, this is my every day job, which has practical utility in oil exploration.

Not sure of the point you're trying to make regarding uniformitarianism, the sedimentary layers from the volcano would have no fossils in them other than the things they obviously settled around. I hope you can see the difference in that specific example compared to the one I gave with thousands of deep sea cores taken. A little common sense and simple understanding of geology would go a long way here.

Believe me, I do have a more open mind than those that accept the Adam & Eve version of man's beginnings. No witch hunt, just trying to expose the sleepers to some truth to wake up to.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose


Yeah, didn't mean to sound too harsh or hostile towards you. I appreciate the fact you have some paleontological experience behind you, and I probably have a lot of ground to cover to know enough to properly discuss these topics, myself. My point, though, is that just as young-earth theorists should be humble and not come at the evidence with an attitude of 'the earth can't possibly be that old, therefore...', the old-earth theorists should also be careful to not automatically think 'the earth can't possibly be that young, therefore...' If there is a chance that short-term processes can account for what a uniformitarian outlook would describe as the result of long-term processes, and the uniformitarian had blinders on and disregarded that evidence as a result, that is not good for true science. Same goes for the young-earth advocates.

How many times in my physics class did I hear it pooh-poohed that we'd ever have spacecraft travelling at faster-than-light speeds with a warp drive? Now we have experiments being conducted in the lab that could prove otherwise. Humility on 'settled science' is what I'm suggesting, and I need to heed my own advice, and not be quite as dogmatic as I've been in the past on some things. Take the log out of my own eye, and all that... :)

Have to say though

Very cool you're into that! Agree with me or not, you are an expert and no doubt have a lot of great information.

Let's not let our ego drive our beliefs

This idea of "I'm a questioner and a thinker; therefore, I believe in macroevolution" is not productive. So many things they taught us as "fact" in school turned out to be wrong later on.

If "religion" can't explain something, they say God did it. If "science" can't explain something, they make up a theory to fill in the gap and teach it as if it were fact until they come up with another theory they find more plausable. The only thing I see evolving is their theories.

Stop treating believers as blind fools. Both require a leap of faith!

This whole notion of believing geologic evidence..

as a leap of faith is just bulls**t. The evidence of evolution and old earth is solid and clear, based upon good science, not wild guesses.

Theories are not just made up and accepted, they are tested thoroughly over and over, and either accepted or rejected.

Most people's minds are made up on either side, others may have more open minds and come around to reality. People do wake up, debates like this can't hurt.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

Scientists started teaching old earth

when Darwin needed to explain how life just happened out of mud. They still can't duplicate that in a lab or explain how it happened. The most simple cell is VERY complex. They just started building their theories around this idea from that point on. That's not science, that's religion.