-24 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.

A belief in old earth

does not automatically equate to out-of-nothing evolution. There are many old earth creationists. it's not the same as theistic evolution, as they believe in intelligent design for every individual creature, etc.
to say Scientists started teaching old earth at the time of Darwin is bad history! It was around before his day.

the origin of life...

is not the same argument as that of evolution... there is clear evidence of evolution. I'm good with using some version of a 'God' as the origin of life. Anybody who denies the possibility of evolution, however is a blind who will not see. Or just to lazy to look at the evidence.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

What I'm saying is

the old earth theory was predicated upon Darwin's theory on the origin of life. He needed to explain how we got from point A to B and said... more time.

Don't get me wrong, I like that scientists are willing to look at so many possibilities and it's ok to come up with new theories based on new evidence. That's true science. However, I'm just saying not to treat it as fact when it's still theory.


How many times of proving a theory correct does it take before it's "fact"?

Let's take a 1000' core of sedimentary layers from the ocean.
1) start at the deepest layer. This is obviously the oldest layer, right?

2) examine the fossil remains of the coccolithophores (very common single celled critters that lived in the ocean) in a sample from every foot of the core, for example, starting in the oldest or bottom most interval. See pics of some of these beautiful fossils: http://www.bugware.com/gallery.html

3) We then identify the many different species in each layer. As we traverse to younger layers, we see obvious changes in the morphology of most of the species. At some points, we'll stop seeing some of the species... they went extinct and no longer were living in the water. In other layers, we find species that we had not seen before, they had evolved into different forms. We document very carefully the occurences of all species in the cores.

4) Next, go to a different place nearby, take another core, examine the fossils. You'll find the same occurrences in the same relative positions.

5) Take hundreds more cores all over the world. Virutally the same patterns of the same species will occur in every core.

So the evolution of these critters is documented time after time after time, literally thousands of times by hundreds of different scientists.

There is more unbiased evidence of evolution than many of the other things that that you accept as fact... but because of the taboo nature of evolution, many choose to say it's just a theory?

Again, how many times of proving a theory correct does it take before it's "fact"?

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

With geology theories we could take all day

There are a lot of them as I would imagine you know and it's not likely we will come up with anything others haven't debated. As the evolution... if macroevolution has been "proven" how do they explain how we got here from mud? That's a huge leap. From mud the most basic bacteria is like going from mud to a Boeing 747.

Interesting exchange though. Even when we disagree, we learn. Learning for me is the ultimate goal.

The part from mud to....

where we are now is where some greater force comes in to play that none of us can understand. I have no opinion on how it all started, other than it's beyond my comprehension, and probably any other human's comprehension. I would not begin to argue Big Bang with anybody, only what I have seen with my own eyes - the evolution of living things through time.

Evolution is something I see in my daily work, and the age of the earth is something that from what I have learned in my life in geology, it makes the most sense. The solid, unbiased science is there.

I don't buy the 'micro-' and 'macro-' evolution stuff... the bottom line is that things change through time.

Interesting indeed, thanks for your friendly dialog Nate!

'Cause there's a monster on the loose


This is hardly worth a passing comment, let alone a thread that creates a gigantic debate. I mean, really?

I don't know, either! Nobody does! Science can tell us, based on limited observations, how old it likely is, but that's about it. The fact is, the creation of the universe can't be tested over and over, so we really don't have any true idea.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the Earth is pretty freaking old (billions of years) based on my very limited knowledge of science, but I'm willing to listen to those who believe in a young Earth without writing them off as loons. You should be better than smearing a person for being honest about his lack of knowledge. YOU, BugMan, have no idea how old the Earth is, either - you only know scientists' guesses, which, as history has shown, are certainly not set-in-stone facts. It is YOU, BugMan, who are making a fool of yourself by placing yourself on a pedestal and arrogantly pretending that you know the unknowable. At least Rubio - unlike YOU - had the humility to admit that he doesn't know.

I am not a fan of Rubio by any means, but this is just petty and far below what I expected from the Daily Paul. Criticize him for his policies, not for his personal beliefs and his human limitations.


Where in NC are you from? I grew up there, great state.

-DP is a forum. A forum is for discussion, news, and debate. Without the options for debating issues, even ones that you are uncomfortable with, there wouldn't be a DP, nobody would come here.

- The observations on the age of the earth (not the universe) is not based upon limited observations... there are many, many solid observations, and the age is important to geologists. These are not wild guesses.

It's so simple.. you see from the title what the thread is about, it's not cryptic. If you don't want to participate in debate, don't click the link! The fact that you have called it a great debate means that there are some of us who are interested in debating the topic. We're all free, for now anyway, to participate or ignore.

We have no problem calling people who don't understand the principles of freedom ignorant, it's such an obvious thing to us. Anybody who has really studied geology for their entire career probably feels the same way about people who ignore solid science in lieu of their personal religious dogma.

Rubio is getting called out on his pandering, not his personal beliefs. First he defers to science, then quickly backtracks and panders to his evangelical base.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

nice quote mining....how

nice quote mining....how about this: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

*was supposed to be in reply to the Einstein quote

Meaningless Debate

The debate between Science and Religion is meaningless. The science is only concerned with the mechanism of the universe.
Presumably, if your digging a hole, and God decides then that you should find a dinosaur bone, you will find one that science says is a million (or more) years old. Why would God break the rules of his own universe? Of course he could, at will.
To ignore the science, and say "God did it" is analogous (in my opinion) to saying "the drone war is just since the government is doing it" (I have actually heard that from someone).

Science is right. But, so is Religion. I see no inconsistency with discovering the science behind the mechanism, always realizing that God wouldn’t be constrained by any "physical law" we determine. These are the rules humans live by, not God.

To ignore them is to ignore what God wrote (ie. the universe), in favor of an opinion of what God thinks. To say "God did it, period" is to shut down any debate.
Science can only be debated on its own rules. It’s simply the discovery of the mechanism humans exist in. Whether God “wrote” the universe or not is meaningless to Science.

Just open the box and see

as Albert Einstein stated

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Old Dinosaur Media

This is a simple one question gotcha question. In my earlier post I believe on faith this question does not deserve our full attention. The theory of evolution is not proven fact. We should not base our vote on intelligent design, the big bang, intelligent design, the theory of evolution or any other origin of earth ideas. This is a gotcha question from GQ magazine.

I agree..

this does not deserve our full attention, there are more important matters, i.e. NDAA, that deserve more. But a little fun here & there makes the forum more interesting. This post has almost 20 down votes, but the post about the guy pecker-whipping his ex wife made it into the most viewed category.

Evolution is not proven fact only to the blind who will not see. I see which club you're in Will4.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

Understanding the Politics Behind Big or Evolution

I do not disagree that animals evolve or even adapt to their environment. I do point out that their was politics and anti religious individuals associations behind Charles Darwin in 1859, but throughout the 1850s. My contention is challenging the assertion that the earth or universe is 4.6 billion to over 13 billion years old.


Bottom line there are more important issues in which to focus. My final point is that science has been politicized. We should get back to the scientific method and not alter science for political purposes.

but you did state earlier, Will4,

that evolution is not a proven fact. Now you agree that animals evolve.

How is the fact that the earth is billions of years old political? It's just science, geology. It doesn't do any politician any good that the earth is this old instead of thousands of years old.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

Can anyone here state for a

Can anyone here state for a FACT, not theory, not "faith", how old the earth is?

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

Can you say for FACT...

that the earth is round, it revolves around the sun, that it is 7,926.41' in diameter, that it is 92,960,000 miles from the sun.

If the bible said the earth was flat, would you believe it or the scientific evidence otherwise?

Are you going to accept those measurements of the earth? Why or why not?

We have very good evidence on the age of the earth. The estimates are not exact, they are indeed maybe MILLIONS of years off. But the evidence is that the earth is billions of years old, not thousands.

Those that believe that the earth is thousands are choosing to ignore good science for the sake of religious dogma. IMO, this is pure stubborn ignorance, and would affect my opinion of the person, or for the purpose of the discussion, the candidate.

That alone would not be the reason not to vote for Rubio, he sucks plenty in many other ways, but this shows what a panderer he is.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

The Bible Does Not Make the Claim

The Bible in the Old or New Testament does not state the earth is flat, or revolves around the sun. Once again this issues or issues is a distraction and Marco Rubio is being subjected to a gotcha question.

INCORRECT - The Bible CLEARLY Infers the Earth Is Flat

- Daniel 4:11
The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

- Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world [obviously written by someone who believed the world is flat] (KJV)

- Ecclesiastes 1:5 NIV
"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

- Isaiah 11:12l
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

All these, and many more Bible verses inferring the earth is flat can be found here:

Sowing The Seeds For A Peace Revolution - The New Bible:
- http://www.dailypaul.com/241312/sowing-the-seeds-for-a-peace...

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

These arguments are pretty weak

Daniel 4:11 - The tree being talked about was a tree in Nebuchadnezzar's dream. In another of his dreams interpreted by Daniel, the Rock that struck the statue of Nebuchadnezzar made of iron, clay, bronze, silver, and gold became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth. Are we to take the imagery of dreams, including a growing rock that fills the entire earth literally? The 'ends of all the earth' is simply vernacular to communicate that everyone could see the tree. It's said that Ushuaia, Argentina is the End of the Earth. Does everyone who says that believe in a flat earth or they referring to its remoteness and proximity to the end of a map?

Matthew 4:8 - This is another metaphor with multiple interpretations. The people of the first century were not morons who beat each other over the head with clubs and only traveled a few miles from their home town their entire life. They knew that if you climbed a mountain,of which there were many in the region, you could see for many miles, potentially over a hundred miles if you found one large enough, but that doesn't constitute seeing EVERY kingdom of the earth. The multiple interpretations are that they did indeed climb a large mountain or the viewing occurred supernaturally either by a vision or by travel.

Ecclesiastes 1:5 - If you open any newspaper, it's likely that somewhere near the top of the page or on the weather page, it lists times for the sunrise and sunset. Are the newspapers to be accused of believing in geocentricity because they allude to the sun moving around the Earth? Or is it simply an easier way to communicate the times local areas reach the tangeants of sunrays coming from the sun?

Isaiah 11:12 - This is just talking about the 4 cardinal directions of the Earth: north, south, east, and west. Similar to the previous verse, the writers used the "language of appearance," just as people always have, to make the message clearly understood.

I've got some other verses for you:
Isaiah 40:20-21a (NKJV) - Have you not known? Have you not heard Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the circle of the earth.

(Note: the Hebrew word for circle, chuwg, can also mean "round" or "sphere".)

Job 26:10 (NKJV) - He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters, at the boundary of light and darkness.

Proverbs 8:27 (NKJV) - When He prepared the heavens, I was there. When He drew a circle on the face of the deep...

Again INCORRECT - The Bible CLEARLY Infers the Earth Is Flat

From http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_Hebrew_word_Chuwg_mean_a_...

In Job 38:4-5 it says:
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?" If the author would have had a spherical shape in mind, the last question in Job should have read "Who stretched a measuring line around it?"

The root of chûgh (or chug) is mentioned six times in the bible, and it is quite evident from its usage, in context, that it refers to a specific geometrical shape; "A circle as drawn with a compass" or "encompassed".

In Job 26:10 and Prov. 8:27, chûgh is used with choq, intending "to inscribe a circle." This nominal infinitive form also appears in Job 22:14, when signifying "the circle of the heavens"

In Isa. 40:22, where it denotes "the circle of the earth".

Sir. 43:12 uses chûgh as description of the rainbow.

In Isa. 44:13, chûgh appears as mechûghah, which simply means "a compass," in other words the geometrical instrument which you use to can draw circles on a paper.

In contemporary Hebrew cosmology the common belief was that the earth was formed as a plano-concave plate with slightly raised edges covered by high mountains, where the heavens were attached to the earth.

In the second part of the above mentioned verse by Isaiah this becomes quite obvious when god stretched out the heavens over the earth like a canopy - which completely lose all meaning and become utterly absurd if you try to apply the text to an image of a spherical earth. However, it fits perfectly with a flat earth model.

- AMAZING PHOTO delineating where UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM has taken us: http://www.rense.com/general96/whatare.html
- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."-- Mohandas Gandhi

Evolution is simply a theory.

Evolution is simply a theory. It's a FACT that the earth orbits around the sun. That's something that can actually be observed. The age of the earth is simply an educated guess, since none of us were around when time began.

which are you talking about...

evolution or age of the earth? Two different topics.

If you think that evolution is not observable, you're the blind who will not see. Evolution is absolutely as observable as revolution, in thousands upon thousands of sedimentary rock sections all over the world.

I'd be happy to explain more if you'd be willing to listen, without quoting scriptures as your proof.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

If evolution is "observable,"

If evolution is "observable," please provide evidence of someone who's in the transitional phase between an ape and a human being.

Answer this...

Do you acknowledge that other plants and animals, besides humans, have evolved? For the sake of argument, let's leave humans out for now.

If you actually examined the fossil skeletons of oceans critters from sequence of sedimentary layers, and saw with your own eyes that they changed in the older layers to the younger layers, went extinct, became very different forms, would you believe your own eyes and accept this as evolution?

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

I believe in evolution to

I believe in evolution to some extent. I believe in the theory of microevolution. I believe that species adapt to their surroundings and change. That's a part of Darwin's theory that I accept. However, I don't believe in the part of Darwin's theory which states that one species actually evolves into another species over a long period of time. This is the theory of macroevolution which I believe doesn't have nearly as strong scientific evidence behind it as does microevolution. There has never been a fossil found that has shown an animal in a "transitional phase" between two different kinds of species.

"There has never been a fossil found ...

that has shown an animal in a "transitional phase" between two different kinds of species."

That's just totally false. I can show you hundreds of examples of lineages where one species transitions into another.

None of you creationists will answer this question: Did God put every species that ever existed on the earth at the same time?

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

Cyril's picture

How old is the earth ?

Meh. I only know for sure it is older than me.


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


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

No, which was why Rubio was

No, which was why Rubio was absolutely correct in his answer.

"correct", really?

Note that his first response was "I'm not a scientist, man.". So right off the bat he deferred that he would leave it up to scientists to determine the answer.

Then he realized he needed to pander to his base, and backtracked to the stock, old guard, evangelical Republican loser answer.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose