Posted on 11/19/2012 2:35:17 PM PST by SeekAndFind
You need to read the full interview to appreciate how much of a non sequitur this question was. He's going back and forth with the author, Michael Hainey, about the standard post-election fare --- Obama, 2016, his biography --- and then, out of nowhere, "How old do you think the Earth is?" It's not organically part of the conversation but suddenly there it is, and Hainey doesn't follow up on it. It has a distinct check-the-box feel to it, as if either he himself or his editors wanted to make sure that the question was asked but weren't particularly interested in the answer. Which, actually, is exactly the point of a question like this. They want to put Rubio on the spot by seeing if he'll risk alienating religious conservatives before the 2016 primaries by rejecting Young Earth creationism. If he does, then he may have a problem in famously evangelical Iowa. If he doesn't, then the media can start hand-wringing over the next big Republican star supposedly pandering to creationists. The point is to discomfort him politically, not to explore the subject. As Bryan Preston says, it’s a small early effort in the project to destroy Rubio before 2016.
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.
Someone on Twitter today pointed back to this poll from over the summer, which suggests that the partisan split on this subject might not be as partisan as the media thinks:
That’s a different question than Rubio was asked but the politics are the same, to gauge which side rejects scientific consensus on religious grounds. Fun fact: Even among Democrats, you’ve got a plurality who reject evolution and nearly three-fourths who see some sort of divine guiding hand in the rise of man. This is why, when you hear conservatives grumble that Obama rarely gets questions like Rubio got, it’s no idle complaint. Coming out strong for Darwin is potentially perilous politically for him too.
Then again, is it? How many Christian Democrats are switching their vote if they find out that The One believes in evolution? How many Iowa Republicans, however religious, would vote against a candidate as strong as Rubio in 2016 simply because he thought that the Earth is five billion years old? I read endless stories online last year about how Romney’s faith would cost him dearly on election day when a critical mass of evangelicals inevitably stayed home in protest of a Mormon candidate. In fact, Romney received as much evangelical support as Bush did in 2004 as a share of the electorate against Obama. Arguably the primaries are different, with Rubio having to worry about Huckabee and/or Santorum potentially outflanking him with evangelicals in a dispute over an issue as tangential as the true age of the Earth. But (a) Huck and Santorum will have to worry about non-religious voters too and frame their answers accordingly and (b) it’s hard for me to believe after the bitterness of this year’s loss that Republican primary voters would let their ballot turn on an issue that has virtually no policy implications and which might lead to a candidate they otherwise prefer losing a key primary state. If you’re a religious conservative who thinks Rubio’s not only the best man for the job but also the GOP’s best bet to win the general, are you really voting for Huckabee or Santorum to make a statement over how old the Earth is? After eight years of Democrats owning the White House and with Hillary potentially waiting in the wings?
I’d say, You’ll have ta ask Helen Thomas, I wasn’t there at the creation.”........
Just a little older than Nancy Pelosi
My answer: it’s old enough for the United States to be $16T in debt.
Next question.
I think from now on when a conservative is asked one of these idiotic questions he should whip out his phone and say, “Let’s ask Siri! Siri, how old is the earth?” or Siri, is abortion acceptable in cases of rape?” or, “Siri, does this journalist have a measurable IQ?”
everybody knows the answer is 4.5 billion years +/-
IMO, the appropriate answer is that we don’t know.
Science changes it’s mind every so often, so why should we stuck with an exact time? So the proper response is...
Well Michael, we really don’t know. And by the way, have you stopped beating your wife?
They are all idiots.
From "Man Piaba"
It was clear as mud, but it covered the ground And the confusion made me brain go round
So I went and asked a good friend of mine known to the world as Albert Einstein
He said "Son, from the beginning of time and creativity there existed the force of relativity
Pi R square and minus ten is rooted only when
the solar system in one light year Make the Hyden planitarium disapear
So if Mt. Everest doesn't move, I am positive that it will prove
That the woman piaba and the man piaba
And the dan dan coal back lemon grass
The lilly root, gully root, belly root Ungh!
And the famous granny scratch scratch
Rubio gave a good answer.
Since when does the left get to tell people what to think about the origins of life, the age of the earth, or when an unborn baby gets to be cut up in utero?
Not everyone. Just look at the poll results.
I'd wager that the majority of black Americans, who just HAPPEN to be democrats, actually believe in creationism.
Probably way more percentage-wise than white Christians.
“Old enough to know better.”
tired of this “gotcha” question by people who pretend to understand science.
The universe is 13.7 billion years old. The universe is 7 days +6k years old are there about. Both statements are true. It is just a matter of understand the Law of Relativity and the Special Law of Relativity. Science consistent with the Bible. When it is not, our understanding of either Science or the Bible is lacking.
How long did Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden? The Bible does not say. It could have been billions of years.
Rubio SHOULD say...How the HELL do I know.....if you find JESUS ASK HIM!!!
That will be the October surprise in 2016. Until then, no one is allowed to ask it.
No, the Bible does not say directly, but it could not have been billions of years. The Bible clearly says that Adam only lived 930 years, and that Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old. It’s probably safe to assume that Seth, along with Cain and Abel who preceded him, were born after Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden, since they aren’t mentioned in the narrative of the Garden, and their conception and birth is told of immediately after the expulsion.
If Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old, after Cain killed Abel, then the expulsion probably happened at least a couple decades earlier, since Cain and Abel seem to be adults, offering their own sacrifices to God, at the time of Abel’s murder. So, there is probably a maximum of around 110 years that Adam could have spent in the Garden.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.