Posted on 11/21/2012 12:48:35 PM PST by unlearner
By now you've heard the outrageous quote from Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., on his doubts about the origins of planet Earth. When asked to give its age, he replied: "I'm not a scientist, man. … 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."
...
I've no doubt that these critiques of Rubio are sound. But I'm hesitant to let the crown prince of the Tea Party be singled out for blame. His shameless dodge and pander on the matter of the Earth's creation don't mark him as a radical, nor even as a soldier in the war on science. They mark him only as a mainstream politician.
Beware, for thou that judgest doest the same things: Members of both parties have had to squiggle through elections by appealing to a hazy sense of geo-history. In fact, the Antichrist himself—Barack Obama—has had a tendency to get a little soft with science. Let's compare Rubio's offending quote to one that came out of Obama's mouth four years ago, when he first campaigned for president.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Rush mentioned this today also.
Mr. Engber's all too common and classic error is to call evolution a fact. In what sense Mr. Engber? If we are discussing fact vs. opinion, then it is a fact that Mr. Engber's opinion is that evolution is true. It is my opinion that he doesn't know fact from fiction.
Are talking fact vs. fiction? That seems to be his confusion. And it is a common one. Science does deal in facts. It also deals in ideas, theories and laws.
One can argue that evolution is a valid theory. Likewise it can be argued it is a well-supported theory. It might even be tolerable to make a case for calling the general theory of evolution a law.
The problem is that this theory has itself evolved. Which instantiation of this theory is a fact, Mr. Engber?
No, Facts are facts. In science we should reserve the term "scientific fact" to what is directly observable and measurable, not our interpretations and theories to explain this data. We must not conflate the data / facts of science with the theories or even laws which help us understand the facts / data.
This is his logical fallacy. It is so common among evolutionists I think it should be called the "law of fact conflation". That is my opinion.
First time I’ve seen a leftwingtard make a claim that Obama is the antichrist ~ which, btw, is not true. Obama is a simple acolyte of the antichrist!
Rubio is the “Crown Prince” of the tea party?
Isn’t he among the more moderate of the tea party supported candidates?
I fail to be able to connect the age of the earth with any meaningful political discussions....
I think it is tongue-in-cheek. He links to a site where Obama has been called that. The author does not receive the message of the Bible or accept its authority. I seriously doubt he thinks the Antichrist is a real person. He probably doesn’t believe in a real Devil.
IF you believe there is a god who used death to bring humans into existence (which is what evolutionists must believe if they believe in a god)and that this god used survival of the fittest methodology to ‘create’ humans, then that god pretty much resembles a terrorist. So if Rubio believes that there is a god and this god used death and survival of the fittest over 7 epochs of millions of years to get humans into existence then who wants to worship this kind of deity? If Rubio was politically and theologically SMART he would have said this - that if evolutionist think there is a god and this god brought us into existence by trial and error or by mutating and then killing off the less fit - then this is not the kind of god I want to believe in nor do I. That would be a very slick political answer to the question of whether he believes in evolution and a good theological shifting of the ground to point out how ridiculous it is to worship that kind of deity. If I believed there was such a trial and error survival of the fittest type of god, I would join forces with those who want to murder this monster if we could find him.
It is for the sake of gotcha questions to be followed by endless commentary by leftist eggheads who are in love with the sound of their own voice.
“Isn’t he among the more moderate of the tea party supported candidates?”
He’s become the latest moderate champion since Romney.
He was for his 15 minutes until we discovered he wasn’t perfect and moved on to await Reagan’s reincarnation. Until then there are apparently 3 million plus conservative purists who will refuse to vote and will instead allow our nation slide further toward oblivion. Or perhaps that number represents conservative voters who were defrauded this election. I’m not sure.
At a recent air pollution conference, I had to listen to some EPA idiot carry on about ‘occult’ emissions. Really sick minds.
Odd idea.
A god who sets up a system and lets it run by itself to see what happens is inherently evil? (Not that this is necessarily what I believe happened, it’s more or less a paraphrase of your description.)
Then what would you call a god who creates intelligent beings but allows them free will to perform evil on each other? Seems that’s an even greater abdication of responsibility.
Scratch a leftist find a red guard, storm trooper, commissar, whatever. People had better wise up fast.
Left-wing fundamentalists want to paint all conservatives as right-wing fundamentalist literalists. The media is more than willing to help them.
It sounds like you have already deified Rubio and want to anoint him, and it is only 2 weeks since the last election.
Just sit back and let the conservatives speak a little bit.
Rubio makes moves in Iowa with 2016 in mind and the liberals are already building his negatives up with “harmless” articles.
Announcing early is dumb.
The age of the earth or the age of the universe? Scientists think the universe is 14.5 billion years old. How they can measure that is a mystery, since the “year” is how long it takes the earth to go around the sun, and there was no sun and no earth at the beginning of the universe.
At this point, all the reporters have left the room, looking for someone else to trap.
“and that this god used survival of the fittest methodology to ‘create’ humans...”
Consider an Olympic runner and a frail man walking through the jungle. They are spotted by a jungle cat, who begins to give chase. The frail man, a lover of books, has read that this particular cat prefers to chase its prey to ground before devouring it. The frail man drops to the earth and lays still.
The Olympic runner, though in the best condition of his life, incredibly fit, is hopelessly outclassed in a run of any length against the cat, and is unaware of the cat’s preference to give chase, so he runs as fast as he can. He is the eventual dinner for the animal.
The frail man rises and walks home, thankful that he was aware of what was the best way to survive...by adapting to the situation. Who was the most fit?
I know that Rubio couldn’t kiss up to Mitt anymore than he did in Florida, that set off my rino antennae.
And the point of such a question is . . . .?????
No one knows the age of the earth. No written or unwritten fact of record can tell us this.
Evolution, rightly understood, occurs, but cannot tell us how life became generated from non-life.
None of this is subject to a political determiniation.
“Then what would you call a god who creates intelligent beings but allows them free will to perform evil on each other? Seems that’s an even greater abdication of responsibility.”
The alternative to free will is slavery to God. How is that am improvement?
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.