-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...

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2012/11/marco_rubio_i...

"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!




Comment viewing options

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

Shall we start with the

Shall we start with the Gospels? Are you going to rethink your position when your own idolized text proves you wrong? Incidentally, do you think Jesus was a carpenter?

Contradictions are always resolved with more light.

The Word of God is not to be treated carelessly or presumptuously. It is a closed book to the carnal mind. However even the simplest of God's children can understand the message when led by the Spirit.

Proverbs 25:2 "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and it is the glory of a king to search out a matter."

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

The spirit sure leads people

The spirit sure leads people to a lot of different understandings. Then all of the people who understand it differently start to decry that the others don't truly understand it. Infinite regression, ad nauseum.

Quoting the very text in question doesn't help your argument very much. Anyone can write a book that says it is the one true book and all others are the work of false prophets.

We live in an Age of confusion and mixture.

When Christian theologians arrive at different conclusions about the meaning of scripture it usually means they are using their natural intellect rather than being led by the Spirit to read the Word. Either that or the differences in interpretation can be easily resolved in the Spirit of love. By and large the Christian Church has failed in this respect.

Romans 23:3 "What then? If some did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God? 3:4 Absolutely not! Let God be proven true, and every human being shown up as a liar,"

2 Corinthians 3:4 "Now we have such confidence in God through Christ. 3:5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as if it were coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 3:6 who made us adequate to be servants of a new covenant not based on the letter but on the Spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

1 Corinthians 13:9 "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, 13:10 but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside. 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. 13:12 For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known. 13:13 And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love."

As I mentioned in my original comment there are many scriptures throughout the Bible that indicate that evolution, specifically macro-evolution, is impossible. There are also many Christian scientists, physicists, mathematicians, biologists natural historians etc. who base their science on the revelations given in scripture and have developed insights into the past of the planet and the cosmos that form a coherent picture that is in harmony with the revelations of the Word of God. This does not mean they are perfect or that their conclusions are always correct but their presuppositions are sound and they make a clear rebuttal to the claims of the evolutionists.

Romans 5:12 "So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people as a result of which all sinned"

The entire evolutionary scheme of the development of life on Earth is built upon the evidence of death, the fossil record, which allegedly stretches back millions of years. But death only entered the world when Adam disobeyed God and was lowered from his position in and relationship with God into the animal realm. The sin of Adam is the reason why we are in a state of corruption, sin and death. It is this condition the Lord Jesus Christ came to Earth from Heaven to rectify and to return humanity back into relationship with God. So, for Christians to believe in evolution is for them to deny the origin of humanity's condition and therefore the requirement for the work of the only Son of God in putting things right and inaugurating the New Creation as the Second and Last Adam.

Scripture also reveals to us that Life comes from above, not from below as postulated by evolution. It is the Spirit of God that is the origin of Life and it is our separation from that Spirit that condemns us to death. The Lord Jesus Christ in His Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension unites in Himself the Earth and Heaven and so restores humanity permanently into perfect relationship with the source of Life. It is then incumbent upon each of us personally to take hold of this redemption and salvation when it is revealed to us and offered to us. The capacity to take hold of it is given to us and is what we call faith without which is is impossible to please God.

Hebrews 11:6 "Now without faith it is impossible to please him, for the one who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."

Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; 2:9 it is not from works, so that no one can boast."

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

There you go again. Quote

There you go again. Quote quote quote from the very text in question. The bible isn't very good at science. It approximates Pi at 3 to 1. That's really horrible, even by BCE standards.

You are also participating in chalking things up to two different accounts, the criteria for which seem to be whatever you happen to believe. To paraphrase: 'If theologians differ, it is because someone is using their brain instead of being led by the Spirit.'. How convenient or you. Shall we get together and discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Oh, wait, the clergy already did that... My bad.

The comments were really meant for Christians.

I understand that if you do not believe in the Lord Jesus Christ then you cannot hear the Word of God. The theory of evolution is tailor made for the natural mind and I have no problem with those who have no Christian profession endorsing it. My comments have been addressed to Christians who may be reading the discussion we have had. For them it is important to know that if they do accept the tenets of evolutionism then they are denying the Truth of the Gospel. It is a hard word but it is true.

In the context of liberty, which is the ostensible purpose of this website, I would hope that we probably agree on questions of political liberty even if we disagree on questions of ontological liberty. In the case of the latter we hold different views on the nature of our existence on Earth and how we might attain true freedom but we agree that we are free in the context of the former to hold our views and to teach our children those views while endeavouring to demonstrate the reality of them in our lives and to communicate them to others in the hope that they might be able to hear them and come to believe them.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Duplicate

.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

yawwwnnnn...

when you got no logic, just quote scriptures!

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

Matthew 7:26-27

Matthew 7:26 "Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 7:27 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, and it collapsed; it was utterly destroyed!”

You have been warned.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

I believe in a Maker

Have no idea what the bible says (other than a story about a big boat with a lot of animals saved from a flood YAY!) My outlook on religion in general is Whatever gets you through this life is good on you. Be the most helpful and loving person that you can and Do no harm in the name of your god.

Good answer!

Especially the last sentence.

Of course, there WAS a flood, though the Noah's ark thing is a fable of course. In fact, there were many great floods throughout geologic history, and there will be many more. The proof is seeing marine critter fossils in Kansas, for example.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

the relevance of the post...

I doubt there are any candidates that you agree with 100%. So, you pretty much have to add up all of the good things and the bad things... if the bad things have a high enough score, then you turn off the candidate and don't vote for him/her.

So... it's important to know as many of the goods and bads of the candidate... and how much weight each position carries. Maybe to some it doesn't matter, but to many of us, belief in creationism or evolution carries a lot of positive or negative weight. It could actually be the issue that swings you one way or another.

To me, having studied geology/paleontology all of my working career, those creationists running for office probably won't get my vote, as it shows an ignorance for reality and logic -- just my humble opinion, but still my opinion.

Ron Paul says neither can be proven and he wouldn't run for office if it was to be decided on that alone. Ron Paul is so strong in every other way, that he still is WAY into the positive category for me, and I have supported him for 20 years.

Rand... if he were to come out and say he doesn't believe in evolution... well, I'd have to think hard about it, but probably would support him.

I can't think of anybody else I would support if they were creationists, unless they really made up for it in many other ways.

So, while not a deal killer, knowing which side of the fence a candidate is on regarding evolution/creation IS a topic worthy of discussion. If it offends you, don't participate in the dialog.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

I might disagree with your opinion

but I agree with your logic. I dont know why you got so many down votes.

"why you got so many down votes"

It's a badge of honor, thanks to those who downvoted me! The down votes are from those who are threatened by science and logic when it questions the faith they have in their religious roots. We mustn't talk about a candidates beliefs when it comes to things we don't like to talk about! Let's see how many down votes I can get for this... come on thumpers!

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

This just proves to me that...

Atheists are also intolerant. So, somebody is not good just because he doesn't believe in evolution. Evolution has as many or more flaws as creationism. It is all about faith. You believe in God , or evolution, both evolution and God or even FRNs. It is all about what you chose to put your faith in it.

The process of evolution

The process of evolution doesn't require much faith. When better information becomes available, and we have a lot already, the theory will be modified in accordance with the data (or scrapped if it is wrong). This is different from the process of religious dogma where you make new information conform to your beliefs instead of the other way around.

Atheists are not a group at all, and if you want to speak of intolerance, lets compare the wars caused by groups of atheists vs groups of Christians. Only recently have Christians began whining about intolerance now because their numbers are dwindling, but we will be honest to remember how the church acted while it was strong -- murders, wars, witches, slavery, misogyny, abuse, etc...

I dont care

how old he thinks the earth is
What his medical history is
How he works out
what he did in college

I care about his voting record.

Where he finds frisky fun...

Drinks beer or smokes dope
Reads comic books or watches football.

You're right, there are so many UNinteresting things to say about pol A or pol B that it makes me sad to see so many focus on such trivia while ignoring the HUGE issues of the Fe'ral Reserve or the mass murder of thousands of unarmed foreignors.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

Where he finds frisky fun...

Drinks beer or smokes dope
Reads comic books or watches football.

You're right, there are so many UNinteresting things to say about pol A or pol B that it makes me sad to see so many focus on such trivia while ignoring the HUGE issues of the Fe'ral Reserve or the mass murder of thousands of unarmed foreignors.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

I'm not sure how this post is

I'm not sure how this post is important, seeing as this is a personal view and one shared by many people in our movement.

Shouldn't the real title be "Marco Rubio Is Not Sure What The Constitution Is"?

Cyril's picture

The good old evergreen strategy

Opposing Faith, Morality, and Beliefs to Science, Models, and Axiomatics, as if both realms would, for some strangely (!) unquestioned "reason", necessarily "have to" exclude each other or dispute each other's view points..

... an evergreen strategy for the intolerant and their bigot cousins. Indeed. "'works ever time !"

I guess Flatland is a book which has now long been discarded away from anyone's reading curiosity.

Let alone the Open World Assumption vs. the Closed World Assumption, or Godel's theorems, or intuitionist vs. classical vs. modal logics, or ... etc.

Just a kind warning / refresher.

After all... Keynesianism is still the "mainstream" economic science isn't it ? Oh, but nevermind the dimension issue of the elasticity exponents in the Cobb-Douglas function setting. No biggie ... "hey, it's STILL mainstream economics taught in today's top notch universities, don't you get it ?!"

[write down Krugman's office number]
...

Bear with me. I'll stick to Pascal's Wager... and to properly informed, conducted, and non-dogmatic science.

You know, the science that observes, create models and theories, predicts and verifies, refines itself, and loops back. And doesn't speculate more than that, which is quite a bit to keep oneself busy already.

Peace.

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

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

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

Rubio clearly doesn't believe the bible.

Romney didn't believe the bible.

Santorum voted to fund abortion.

And Bachman was a lunatic IRS pagan tax lawyer who falsely pretended to be a Christian.

McCain didn't believe the bible.

George Bush pretended to believe the bible, but did the work of Satan.

I think I am seeing a pattern here and from Fox News.

And they wonder why Christian Conservatives stayed home the last two elections?

Go figure.

Bachmann is unfortunately

Bachmann is unfortunately quite sincere about her religion. But thank you for demonstrating the incessant process by which Christians chalk up bad actions of Christians to another account entirely, saying they are not REAL Christians.

One of the people whose information helped wake me up

Kent Hovind, a young Earth creationist (and supporter of Ron Paul), was the first person I ever heard talk about the evils of the fed and numerous other subjects related to the new world order.

There are reasons to dislike Marco NDAA Rubio. This is not an issue which should divide us. I am a young Earth creationist because of what I learned from Hovind.

Hovind...

epitomizes how ridiculous the creationists are. His argument is that since your grandfather didn't live in a tree, then you could not have evolved from apes.

Very short clip of his stupidity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JPgc8LvElc

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

This pretentious, ponderous man inspires the question:

On which day did God create Marco Rubio and couldn't He have rested then too?

Wow

I guess not everyone knows a Spinal Tap joke when they see it.

I love this...

The Universe is somewhere between 11-15 Billion years old. The Earth itself is somewhere around 3.8 Billion years old. That means it took 4 Billion years of evolution to create a species capable of understanding how insignificant 4 billion years is at the beginning.

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Says who? All science says on

Says who?

All science says on the matter, is that most observable phenomena are explained most succinctly by employing a model that puts the age of the earth somewhere around the numbers you mentioned. That's all.

Noone (competent) practicing science, would ever dispute that science have absolutely no way of differentiating between the earth being that old, and the earth and all it's inhabitants being 3 seconds old, but being created by some deity in such a way as to make it seem like they've been around for a lot longer.

In other words, when drilling for oil, or explaining mountain ranges, employ the geological model you're alluding to. When talking about moral questions, assuming you're a believer in an Abrahamic religion, work with the model in the Bible. When explaining an LSD trip, work with the model that says the earth is a giant orange that all the boring squares are trying to squeeze the juice out of, which arose from from a hemp seed in 1967, or something. Neither is any more "right" than the other. It all depends of what you are trying to illuminate.

Of course, illuminating anything isn't exactly the goal of neither GOP operatives nor political jorno-hacks these days.

I was only joking...

But I do appreciate your well thought reply!

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.