Florida’s very own U.S. Senator Marco Rubio had previously told GQ that the age of the earth was in question.
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.
See his full response in this previous post.
Now, however, he tells Politico that he was kinda sorta answering a different question from what people thought he was answering.
“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. â€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.â€
Come on! The original question was simple: How old do you think the Earth is? He wasn’t asked what the theological debate was. The question was rather blunt and hard to misinterpret.
Keep in mind that when Rubio was Florida House Speaker and the debate over evolution in our state standards came up, he said this:
The “crux†of the disagreement, according Rubio, is “whether what a parent teaches their children at home should be mocked and derided and undone at the public school level. It goes to the fundamental core of who is ultimately, primarily responsible for the upbringing of children. Is it your public education system or is it your parents?â€
Rubio added, “And for me, personally, I don’t want a school system that teaches kids that what they’re learning at home is wrong.â€
Rubio, a Cuban-American, made a comparison to the strategy employed by the Communist Party in Cuba where schools encouraged children to turn in parents who criticized Fidel Castro.
“Of course, I’m not equating the evolution people with Fidel Castro,†he quickly added, while noting that undermining the family and the church were key means the Communist Party used to gain control in Cuba.
“In order to impose their totalitarian regime, they destroyed the family; they destroyed the faith links that existed in that society,†he said.
So, his recent “clarification” of his age of the earth answer is nothing more than political doublespeak.
Rubio’s political two -step only made him stumble into a pile of disingenuous manure. “Science has given us insight into when he (god) did it and how he did it,” Rubio said. Really? Then perhaps Rubio can explain just how science shows Goddidit and the scientific methods it used? Also just how he/science confirms that it was Rubio’s particular deity that was responsible?
There are two totally different explanations for the age of the earth, both having different sources for validity. He, Rubio answered to both wrong in my opinion. His reference to a theological debate over the seven days of creation is not a great mystery. The biblical reference is quite clear in context. The description of morning and evening, day one, day two and the original word ‘yom’ associated with evening, morning and day number signify seven literal days. Eluding to the seven literal 24 hour days is referenced and validated throughout the bible. Adam along with the land animals were made on the sixth day. Those who study biblical genealogy put around four thousand years between Adam an Christ. Which gives us roughly 6000 years today from creation. Following the biblical example of the creation week most of the world recognizes a seven day week which includes a day of rest. There are other theories like day-age theory and progressive creationism which attempt to establish compatibility with the modern day old age assumptions. Seven unknown eras of time is not biblical and the idea comes from outside of the bible. So there is really no mystery here. Either you believe it or you don’t.
The stated 4.5 billion year age of the earth is not settled science and may change at anytime as it has in the past. Even though the age has a large following of believers the actual age number is an assumption. And that assumption is validated only by stacks of other assumptions.
The presupposition of age must be established to support evolution’s unverifiable claims. It can now said that the number now refined to 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years is very close based on the criteria selected. But the age is not documented by unquestionable processes, Unlike the bible, there is no eye witness account. The elapsed time was not observed nor can it be repeated through experimentation. The assumption the earth is 4.5 billion years old is a matter of belief, not science. So Rubio’s comment “science has definitively established” reduces the definition’s value of definitively to pixie dust.
The promotion of the earth’s age with either idea is a matter of belief. Both are controversial requiring a level of faith for acceptance. Both can be used as tools for indoctrination by their respective believers to promote one’s personal ideology or world view. Neither of should be taught in the public school system as conclusive.
So is the age of the earth in question? That depends on what you believe.
Well here is Chris back to show us, yet again, what an impotent, ignorant Liar For Jesus he always is. He has opened his ill informed mouth, to show us, yet again; how little knowledge he has of biology, geology, scientific dating methods and science in general Only a brain dead retard like Chris would buy into the pedantic drivel found in the babble.
He spouts the same old creationist nonsense. “was you there†dressed up in cheap tuxedo with food stains all over it. News flash Chris, you weren’t there either. And since when is eyewitness testimony by a biased and untrained gang of Bronze Age goat herders given more weight than good forensic evidence, including independent data sets that converge on the same answer? Exactly why are assumptions “unverifiableâ€, especially after they have been verified? And please explain to us what “anti biblical assumptions†are used in radiometric dating? Oh, you mean assuming that the bible might not have all the answers and we can learn something from actually studying nature. Seems like all the God bots missed the memo on using radiometric dating somehow. Perhaps they should try clicking their heels together three times and say “I believeâ€, that’ll sure get rid of all that nasty scientific reality.
Even Rubio knows when to stop lying about something. Obviously dumb ass Chris does not.
Ivorygirl, perhaps you might try opening your mind before you mouth.
“The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such ‘confirmation’ may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.”
Evolutionist Frederick B. Jueneman
Chris,
It’s obvious that you know pretty much nothing about any subject scientific, and won’t ever shut up, despite thoroughly demonstrating your incompetence in biology, geology, general science, history, theology, law, spelling, grammar and style. You’re poorly-formatted and un-proofread ramblings do an excellent job of showing the abject ignorance and nonsense of your pet idea and its sheep-like supporters. Your holy myths are lies. Your mentality is impaired by your religious fanaticism. You keep repeating your lies, but can’t back them up. All you can do is whine like a wiped puppy.
Your latest round of obfuscations, (cut and pasted from a Christian/ Creationist web page), offers a quote from (evolutionist-your words) Frederic Jueneman. Jueneman is a chemist and music composer who wrote a couple of books on speculative science, 37 years ago! Any port in a storm Chris? The top 100 most published expert geologists (starting with Stephen Sparks) all agree on the age of the earth, based on scientific evidence that you in your abject ignorance choose to ignore. Your pathetic lies and double talk is once again evident for all to see.
Ivorygirl
I see you still are unable to tell fact from fiction. Being hopelessly indoctrinated with the minority view that nothing made everything, I suppose you find comfort in meaningless psychobabble.
Which dating method has no assumptions?
Chris,
I read this today and thought of you.
“Someone needs to do a study to look at the correlation between increased religiosity and a decrease in honesty and ethics, to look for a causal relationship. It could be entitled “Liars for Jesus: which comes first – lying or extreme faith?â€
You could be one of the test subjects.
Ivorygirl
I know that you are bound and determined to stay stupid for the cause, but you might consider a reality check from time to time.
Which modern dating method has no assumptions?
Chris
“Which modern dating method has no assumptions?†None as far as I’m aware of. The Rb-Sr isochron method requires no knowledge or assumptions about either the isotopic composition or the amount of the initial daughter isotope — in fact, these are learned from the method. But the others are based on scientific assumptions.
Ivorygirl
How about that. What’s interesting is the earth 4.5 billion plus years, the universe is 13.75 billion years old and the Rb-Sr method is based on the radioactivity of 87Rb, which undergoes simple beta decay to 87Sr with a half -life of 48.8 billion years according to several references. 48.8 billion years sounds fairly stable.
Chris,
I can just imagine you writing your latest post and upon finishing folding your arms with that “gottcha†moment spread all over your face. Does it not bother your Christian conscience that you lie and totally distort the truth in order to bolster you religious delusions? You come to this site to lie about how Evolution is somehow magically in trouble, while Young Earth Creationism is (perpetually) poised to take over and magically become Science for Jesus.
Your reference to RB/SR dating came from a creationist web site quoting John Woodmorappe (alias Jan Peczkis) an 8th grade, out of work school teacher. He apparently is a person of questionable character, who in a documented debate with Talk Origins author Steven Schimmrich compared his opponent to a Nazi. A number of devastating critics of his pathetic work on radiometric dating can be found at http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/henke_on_woody.htm http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html I give a quote from one of them.
“Many more examples of Woodmorappe’s (1999) misuse of the literature could be cited. Although a few of the dates mentioned in his book are significantly anomalous (e.g., Beakhouse et al., 1988), most of them are taken out of context. Frequently, Woodmorappe (1999) unjustifiably omits critical structural, geochemical, metamorphic, crystallographic, thin section, and other data from his citations to bolster his completely false assumptions.â€
Woodmorappe is another liar for Jesus just like you Steve. Proud of yourself?
Ivorygirl
Actually, I was kind of amused at the fact the process requires no knowledge or assumption.
Regurgitating your humanist propaganda has apparently damaged your brain’s ability to carry on a coherent conversation. My reference to RB/SR came from one of your religious sites, “The Rb-Sr method is based on the radioactivity of 87Rb, which undergoes simple beta decay to 87Sr with a half-life of 48.8 billion years.
“http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html
Several other places I looked.
http://www.sciencecourseware.org/VirtualDatingDemo/files/50RbSr.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubidium-strontium_dating
http://www.fleming-group.com/Misc/Dalrymple/How%20Old%20is%20the%20Earth%20-%20A%20Reply%20to%20Scientific%20Creationism.pdf
I’d never heard of Woodmorappe until you mentioned his name, so I have no knowledge of him or assumption.
The question was rather blunt and hard to misinterpret.
Never let it be said that Florida’s junior senator doesn’t work hard, when he wants to.
… I don’t want a school system that teaches kids that what they’re learning at home is wrong.
So if one parent echoes, say, Rush Limbaugh or False Noise, all fact-based lessons involving science, history, or the news must be aborted. If a parent ever says, “There ain’t no …”, do we forbid teaching about double negatives, or just cancel English classes all around?
… undermining the family and the church were key means the Communist Party used to gain control in Cuba.
Actually, they used guns and the widespread resentment of the Bautista regime.
Pierce R. Butler
Bautista may have been a crummy dictator, but I would imagine Castor appreciated Bautista for helping him out. It was Bautista who implemented gun registration. All Castor had to do was read the list, confiscate personal firearms, line up those who questioned his authority and shoot em. Which is exactly what he did, by the thousands. Execution may be the end game, but it begins with education.
According to this former KGB official we can expect the same thing in the US. “Marcist Leninest ideologies is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged”
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2010/08/video-former-kgb-official-explains-plan-unfolding-in-america-127665.html
Gee, Chris, trying to change the subject or something?
The bad news: your political and historical sources are as good as your biological material.
The good news: you can improve in multiple areas!
Mr Butler
Change the subject?
You’re the one who brought up Castor’s guns. I think you’re 100% right.
And Rubio’s concern is a real one.
The undermining of family values is a viable communist tactic. Along with rewriting history, igniting class warfare the indoctrination of leftist atheist propaganda has proven to be and effective weapon for communism. It might appear Cuba is a good example of our future if we stay on our present path of decline.
The youtube Obama stuff was unnecessary, by now everybody whose looking knows where he is at. But I thought the supposed KGB guy was interesting with his processes and reference to our public schools.