Posted on 12/06/2012 9:47:52 AM PST by 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.
I am a Christian and I believe God AND His Word, as I already told you. I study it hard and learn many things, by His grace and His indwelling Holy Spirit. With it He will judge the world, John 12:48.
Let me tell you where it came from.
the dreamer believes that he can simply pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe in the Bible.
THEN, all knowing as the dreamer is...his standard of measure for what's pious and true being himself and himself alone...oh and his fellow liberal scientists...
he then actually would have you believe his delusion that he knows better than God.
Ask dreamer if he honestly believes the Pope doesn't believe that God made all we know, see touch, smell, taste, experience in ANY way...
...and watch a liberal head explode! It's kinda FUN! LOL
His answer was fair enough. He said he isn’t a scientist or a theologian, and that folks should be able to teach their kids what they want to on the subject.
I don’t really see a problem with that given that his opponents have thrown at him a trick question in the vein of “should we pay taxes to Caesar?”.
Do you understand that Popes are human beings dreamer?
Thank God some of us don’t depend on zoology today for scripture and fling poo like apes at people all day dreamer.
“Wasn’t it Al Sharpton that said the zerrhoid wasn’t black enough?”
Yes but he still voted for Obama instead of some third part candidate.
Yep, the Greek and Hebrew words used never meant “corners” as the English language would have you believe. I do believe the Catholic Church would like to take credit for “writing” the scriptures as we have them today also. It’s miss translating portions like that that have caused much misunderstanding.
of course ! Just like all Republicans that voted voted for Romney.
You should read through your own post and see how absurd and unrealistic each of your assertions is.
Having considerable experience with water running over recently placed earth embankments, it is obvious that they are a perfect microcosm of the creation of the Grand Canyon. The size of the area is irrelevent, since the amount of water was proportional. The “hardening into stone” is the same issue the world over, and is due to the fact that all of the deposited material was dissolved in hot water loaded with carbonates, the world over, and by cooling and drying it would inevitably become some form of calcareous stone.
Water gushing over a sedimentary plateau does not simply spread out. It never does. It quickly cuts numerous gouges in completely random fashion, just like the Grand Canyon. There really is no other way it could have formed. Were it already solidified, it would be nothing but deep, narrow gouges, like the gouge cut into the bottom of the Grand canyon, long after it had solidified.
>> “The Grand Canyon is a mile deep and has vertical walls of over a thousand feet in height.” <<
.
Nowhere in the canyon does that condition exist.
All of the walls of the canyon are in typical repose for rapidly erroded sedimentary mud.
Truth is only found in God, who IS truth, and hence in Scripture which is the Holy Spirit, God breathed revelation to us about things which we would have no other way of finding out about.
no sci deb on age of E? Stellar Psychics work on this stuff all day ... The Sun is 4 b yrs so the E is 4 b yrs. it is easier to study the Sun ... hydrogen into helium is pretty simplistic so cannot see how much could ever change ... but the 4 bill could be 3.6 bill in the future when physics changes ... we are in a paradigm.
But does Rubio know that we are a second generation? The sun already burned out after 8 b ... recondensed and started the cycle again. 4 b into the next cycle with 4 b to go.
But even if one were to "agree" that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, that still would not be enough time to explain how "natural selection," working on "dumb" matter, produced the biological diversity that we see all around us today.
The evolution from bacterium to man, hypothesized as fully explicable as the outcome of matter + "random" process — i.e., as a trial-and-error sort of thing — seems to involve a huge stretch of credulity. For how much time would it actually take for a trial-and-error process to produce man — not just from a single-celled organism, but from matter itself?
And, by the way, how does such an hypothesis account for the rise of mind? There is a vast categorical difference between the "mind" of a bacterium, and the mind of homo sapiens sapiens. But if both are simply the result of material "accidents" constrained only by "natural selection," how much time do we actually need for man to occur, and what particular "hidden genius" must non-living, inert matter possess in order to account for this result?
Case in point, abiogenesis, which holds that life "spontaneously" arose from non-living matter. Yet the credulous person does not ask: Where did matter itself come from?
Plus there's no explanation of where "natural selection" came from. It's just suddenly "there." And looks to me more like an act of faith than anything else.
You don't need a "young" — i.e., six-thousand-year-old Earth — to raise these issues.
Nowhere in the canyon does that condition exist.
Sure. Nowhere in the Grand Canyon are there vertical cliffs….except for ones like these:
http://www.terragalleria.com/photos/?keyword=grand-canyon-cliff
Having considerable experience with water running over recently placed earth embankments, it is obvious that they are a perfect microcosm of the creation of the Grand Canyon. The size of the area is irrelevent, since the amount of water was proportional. The “hardening into stone” is the same issue the world over, and is due to the fact that all of the deposited material was dissolved in hot water loaded with carbonates, the world over, and by cooling and drying it would inevitably become some form of calcareous stone.
You are a surveyor so I presume you’ve been to many construction sites. So let me ask you what happens to say an 8’ to 10’ deep earthen trench without shoring or a building foundation without shoring and before being poured with concrete or being lined with foundation stone? Would you be willing to stand in either of those without shoring? And most importantly, would you be willing to stand in either of them during a rainstorm absent any shoring?
and is due to the fact that all of the deposited material was dissolved in hot water loaded with carbonates
So the water was hot? Because….
This has nothing to do with whether God exists or not only silly biblical literalism.
Humans believe what they want to believe.. has nothing at all to do with facts..
The recent election is all the proof that is needed..
Its always been so from time past to present..
Perception is very fickle.. even “bitchy” at times..
Otherwise how can it be explained that republicans ran
the inventor of Romney-care to offset the inventor of Obama-care..
AND IT WASN’t A JOKE.... a dalliance.. a cheeky display of... “up yours”..
But a serious effort to combat Obama-care?.. and it was!...
Apes can only imitate humans but humans actually BE APES..
YES.. even “SCIENTISTS!”.....................
NOTE; Next week will be my dialog on primates and spirits..
some of our most intelligent.... ((( AREN’T )))....
I’ve seen this debate posted here 6,000+ times, one for each year of God’s beloved Earth!
What republicans?
The water was hot because it came from scores of miles below the surface as “the fountains of the great deep” were ruptured.
And your question re: a trench is a nonsequitur WRT this discussion. Trench failures are always due to wedge pressures on the side of the trench; no such pressures exist in a sea of mud.
Run the water on a fresh pad and watch a miniature grand canyon form before your eyes. It happens every time perfectly.
[ What republicans? ]
The ones that selected him(Romney) and elected him as candidate for President in the primarys.. those republicans..
The same ones that selected and elected Juan McLaim and Shrub Jr..
A bunch of very confused indidviduals.. delusional maybe..
I'd be willing to bet most of them couldn't give you a proper definition of a republic without Google. I think to qualify as a republican you ought to at least be able to do that.
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.