Rubio: “There is no scientific debate on the age of the earth”

Salon.com ^ | 12/5/2012 | Jillian Rayfield

[ksen]

After dabbling in creationism earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., clarified that he does believe that scientists know the Earth is “at least 4.5 billion years old.”

“There is no scientific debate on the age of the earth. I mean, it’s established pretty definitively, it’s at least 4.5 billion years old,” Rubio told Mike Allen of Politico. ”I was referring to a theological debate, which is a pretty healthy debate.

“The theological debate is, how do you reconcile with what science has definitively established with what you may think your faith teaches,” Rubio continued. “Now for me, actually, when it comes to the age of the earth, there is no conflict.”

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.

[tacticalogic]

Ah, so you admit your ignorance.

Personal attacks are always a classy debate tactic. Bravo!

[morphing libertarian]

I can’t wait to hear his opinion on PB&J sandwiches.

[gdani]

Ah, so you admit your ignorance.

Just piping in to say I'd also like to see - in your own words - your problems with that method.

[ksen]

He’d probably get that job before he got the commander-in-chief one.

[MrB]

Assumption of initial conditions (all “parent” elements present?)
Assumption of constant rate of decay
Assumption of non-contamination (gain of material)
Assumption of no leaching (loss of material)
Varying results within one sample in current tests

Remember, no one was around to verify the assumptions above, and there’s no way to verify those assumptions.

[TurkeyLurkey]

They are super related.
God said that He created the heavens and the earth in the beginning—in 3 days. Then He filled the heavens and the earth in another 3 days. He said after each creation day, “there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Genesis 1-2, the beginning)

There are many good boods written by Christian scientists, but two little books that I like are:

1) “Thousands...Not Billions,” by Dr. Don De Young,
“Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth”

2) “Some Call it Science,” the religion of evolution, by Henry M. Morris, PhD

Both books can be purchased from the Institute for Creation Research or any bookstore online or a local bookstore by order.

[longtermmemmory]

why is there a religious group arguing that PB&J sandwiches are not reaaaaaaly PB&J sandwiches because the wrong kind of manufacturing method?

[MrB]

I don’t see how pointing out your ignorance of the problems with a technique is a “personal attack” - you must be pretty thin skinned (THAT’S personal).

[Nota particle]

He would have been smart to say, “I don’t know what year, but I believe it was a Wednesday”

[longtermmemmory]

Does a tree make a sound if it falls and nobody hears it fall?

Does not change the fact the tree fell.

[tacticalogic]

I don’t see how pointing out your ignorance of the problems with a technique is a “personal attack” - you must be pretty thin skinned (THAT’S personal).

That's a convenient blind spot you've got there.

[gdani]

Remember, no one was around to verify the assumptions above, and there’s no way to verify those assumptions.

Is it your belief the Earth is merely several thousand years old?

[morphing libertarian]

LOL. I’m sure there will be a thread on the mormons beliefs visa vis PB&J anytime now.

I would like to avoid any semblance of candidacy by anyone in either party for the next 2.5 years.

Plus IMO this guy needs the supreme court to define natural born citizen before I will every consider voting for him.

[MrB]

Tell me when it fell by a repeatable experiment.

Yeah, obviously the earth is here, so it came into existance somehow, sometime.

How does your tree analogy fit?

[TurkeyLurkey]

I just believe God.
See my post #66

[TurkeyLurkey]

Oh, com’on, you just don’t believe what God said in Genesis 1 & 2.

[MrB]

The argument is not the actual age of the earth,
but the ability of science to determine it.

[CharlesWayneCT]

How many millions of years did it take for this gap to be worn out of the earth's surface?

The strata cover hundreds of millions of years of deposits. The gap was "formed" in less than 2 years.

But if you assume that there is no "creator", you would no doubt conclude that it took millions of years for erosion to wear down this much rock.

Now, I presume your posted picture was meant to be some self-evident "proof" that something I said was silly. There is a reason we use language, so you can effectively communicate, something your post woefully lacked.

So, how many years would it take for man to create the Grand canyon, if money was no object and we really thought it would be cool? 100? 200? we built the Panama canal is a short period of time. We have drilled through miles of the earth. I'm betting we could pull off a grand canyon.

So, how do we know that we didn't create the grand canyon? Well, that's pretty easy, because we have records of humanity, and we see no record of it.

Oddly, there is much discussion about many of the things we find throughout the world that seem more clearly to be "man-made", but which we have no record of. Some people speculate that aliens came. Other people try to figure out exactly HOW such huge edifices might have been created, knowing what human capital existed at the time and what their engineering expertise would have been.

So, could God have created the Grand Canyon, looking pretty much like it does today, about 6,000 years ago? Well, "God" as speculated is an infinitely powerful being who can manipulate both matter and energy. So it seems clear that He could make the Grand Canyon. We could make the Grand Canyon.

Your picture shows the current state of existence of a large quantity of matter. Based on a series of assumptions on the initial state, we can put together a pretty good scientifically plausible history that is, for the most part, internally consistent. Not surprising in that whenever something inconsistent is found, we simply change our historical story. Still, somewhat remarkable that we can actually create a story with consistency -- not a necessary thing if we presume instead that it was created.

But that such a story CAN be constructed does not mean that it is an accurate historical explanation. It is merely a possible explanation.

You come by my desk, there is an empty pencil box. There are 11 pencils on the desk, two hanging over the edge. There is 1 pencil on the floor under the desk.

What is the history? Hmm. A perfectly consistent story is weaved: We see another box of pencils standing on end. The 2nd box is sitting where it would if it was previously standing up next to the first box, and fell over (it is leaning upside down somewhat balanced on some books). The pencils that are on the desk look like they could have slid out from where the box is. So the box fell over, the pencils slid out, started rolling, and one rolled off the table, where gravity (another scientific theory) caused the pencil to fall to the ground.

Except that I just staged this event. I put the pencil on the ground.

See, that is the problem with creation and with evolutionary "history". They are outside the pure realm of science, because they only provide one explanation for what we currently observe, and cannot rule out the magic of creation.

[Eaker]

Why doesn’t someone ask Helen Thomas?

I believe she was in high school at the time.

[MrB]

Have you read the stuff on the Mt. St. Helens canyons?

The strata formed over days/weeks, and the canyon was cut through them in days by rushing water.

Also, gotta tweak you a bit on this part of your post:
“The strata cover [what we’re told are] hundreds of millions of years of deposits.”