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.

[DManA]

There are many ways to test a theory. The estimate of the distance between galaxies is much more than a guess.

I think He reveals himself in His Word and His Creation.

I see no reason to denigrate His gift of intelligence and curiosity.

Your thanks are disingenuous. Stop it.

[kimtom]

“...bump into a wall with stars painted on it.....”

Maybe, it will curve back and we’ll see earth and claim , “we have discovered another habitable planet..”

“..Let’s colonize it!!!...”

[MrB]

“ah, crap, there are already a bunch of idiots on it”

[kimtom]

“...Your thanks are disingenuous. Stop it...”

I like questions and I like your posts.

You don't even know me, I am grateful for sincere replies and commentary.
(from anybody)

SO, as long as I see your replies to me I will say Thank You!!!

If you don't like it , Don't reply!

Thanks!

[DManA]

I told you it offended me. I asked you to stop. You are being a jerk.

[kimtom]

A place to ship Libs off too, should feel right at home!

[kimtom]

If you are a believer in GOD, I am perplexed that gratitude offends you!

Now I am a “jerk”?????

Do not Reply to me if I offend you.

thx

[DManA]

Your attitude offends me. It is not Christian to offend deliberately.

[MD Expat in PA]

Run the water on a fresh pad and watch a miniature grand canyon form before your eyes. It happens every time perfectly.

No. No it doesn’t. If you run water, even hot boiling water or even volcanic lava (the hottest materials found at the Earth’s surface), at very high speeds through a flat surface of mud or wet dirt, you don’t see features anything like a “miniature Grand Canyon”. No experiment running water on a “fresh pad” would result in anything like the Grand Canyon and it wouldn’t result in the sharp turns, u-shaped turns. If you can duplicate that result, I’d really like to see it.

Many variants of rock formations could occur during catastrophic events, so inclination can form (vertical or otherwise). The reformulation of material and other events can occur over time, several times (i.e. stages)

See Mount Saint Helens.

For one thing the erosion on Mt. St. Helen’s after the eruption looks nothing like the Grand Canyon and for another the Mt. St. Helen’s erosion field is only about 20m deep compared to the 1.5km of the Grand Canyon and the debris fields around Mt. St. Helens are made up of rocks & gravels, ash & mud, & the remains of pyroclastic flows, sitting loosely atop each other – they’re not compacted or consolidated. And all this is sitting on steep slopes, pretty much unprotected by any plant cover (particularly immediately after the eruption sequence), and in an area where the average annual rainfall is about 3m for year – a recipe for some pretty impressive erosion. The Grand Canyon is different.

This (Grand Canyon) significant geological feature cuts through layers of limestone, sandstone, shale and metamorphic granite, a mile down to the Colorado River. Those types of rocks are simply not formed overnight or in a few days or weeks even during catastrophic events.

A bit snarky but a good explanation is illustrated here:

Grand Canyon carved by floodwater -- debunked

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.

So would you be willing to dig a trench in a “sea of mud” to the scale of the Grand Canyon, say a 1/16th scale and would you be willing to stand in it for as long as it takes for that mud to turn to limestone, sandstone, shale and metamorphic granite?

See at about 2:19 (Water Accumulation) and get back to me.

Trenching & Excavation Safety

[DManA]

Why aren’t there hundreds of Grand Canyons on every continent?

[DManA]

The only reason to make this young Earth, WWFlood argument is you think your eternal soul is at stake.

It’s irrelevant to my faith. And beyond that the subject is a relatively irrelevant curiosity to me.

The “truth” of the matter isn’t going to change my destiny on Earth or Eternity.

[editor-surveyor]

You can repeat your lie as many times as you wish, but those of us that have witnessed the exact kind of errosion happen for the same reasons in the same conditions know better.

Run storm drainage, or a loose hose, it makes little difference; the result is a true microcosm of the grand canyon every time. The only prerequsite is that the soil has to be dampened by a prior storm. If you do it dry, all it does is dig a deep narrow gouge instead of a broad cut like the GC.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “Why aren’t there hundreds of Grand Canyons on every continent?” <<

Actually, there are. Thousands. They are not all large, since they are governed by the quantity of water that was trapped in the upstream basin, but they are found on most creeks and rivers that run through sediment that was damp from the flood.

[editor-surveyor]

It doesn’t affect your soul or mine, but the old Earth lie was invented by the inventor of the original lie to drive a wedge between men and Christ.

[DManA]

Exactly how does Satan benefit from this “lie”?

[editor-surveyor]

By guiding men away from their hope for salvation with his deception, convincing them that their savior is a lie.

[DManA]

Satan is distracting you. The Gospel has NOTHING to do scientific theories about the age of the Earth.

[SunkenCiv]

The correct answer to such partisan media shills is to redirect to real issues, such as Obama and Holder running Fast and Furious; Obama, Hillary, Jarrett et al running various covert operations to overthrow friendly regimes and install jihadists; Obama’s undermining of the US economy; basically, this isn’t a real issue, everyone knows it, and his immediate response should have been to pick up a fire extinguisher or other blunt instrument and beat the asshole to death in front of the cameras. It wouldn’t have done any worse for ending his political prospects than his humoring the asshole. Thanks ksen.

[kimtom]

I am sorry if showing gratitude by saying “thanks for your reply” is offensive. But I will NOT stop showing gratitude because you have a problem with it.

You are only imagining that I am ungracious.
You don't know me, you can't assume anything about me and be correct.

You are Not correct.

PS,I will not reply to any more False arguments that are baseless.

Thanks Anyway Goodbye!!

[DManA]

It is offensive when you use it in a passive aggressive manner. That is how I perceive your use of it to me.

The fact that you continue to use it in this way proves my perception was correct.

No thank YOU.