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.
There is no magic of creation.
BTW, where was that photo taken. It looks alot like US23 at the Virginia Kentucky line
lol
No candidate is ever too liberal for some folks.
Sure, then apparently neither does the Pope and millions of other Christians. Science is useful. Creationism is useless.
Over the years I’ve found it fruitless to argue over the age of the earth. You are not likely to change anyone’s position.
I do know and believe that we can not directly measure that age, and can only estimate it based on indirect measurements and observations. As such, there are numerous presuppositions, assumptions, perspectives and world-views that color the way data is and can be interpreted - leading to vastly different conclusions.
What I do know and believe by faith, is that someday, I’ll have all the time needed to ask the Creator just how He did it! (see tagline)
you prove my point, just not in the way you think
Not everyone will acknowledge this fact.
And then there was that award he received for Norway, but I digress.....
Do you know what you’re talking about???
You are absolutely right, as noted by some poster’s comments...
Thanks for your reply
No accurate readings are possible.
“...On the other hand, I don’t need pinpoint accuracy to know the planet is far older than several thousand years.
...”
How??
And the earth was “Hayah - became” without form, and void”
Of course, God would not initially create the earth without form and void:
Isaiah 45:18
“For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain “Tohuw - empty, formless and chaos”, Who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the LORD, and there is no other.”
Thanks, I will think on this. very good
English your second language?
Beautiful picture, to be sure.
But it proves what?
Or rather since nothing in science is ever proved, it disproves what?
Rubio is an establishment weather vane, not a source of truth.
The grand canyon was cut while it was still wet, and probably in a week or two.
The lowest portion of the canyon demonstrates how it would have been cut if it had been cut after drying out.
Recognizing that you are ignorant is not an attack.
Seems that evos, while hung up on evolutionary theory, are pretty weak in their understanding of physics, especially in regard to time dilation.
>> “I believe she was in high school at the time.” <<
.
Yes, but she was held back.
The assumption was made and the claim leveled that I am ignorant of the arguments presented against the validity of radiometric dating.
It is either a personal attack or an attempt to establish these arguments as unassailable truth by implying that no one who was aware of them could possibly disagree with them.
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.