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.
“...The effects of Mount St. Helens, however, have cast some serious doubt on the long-held uniformitarian theory that the Grand Canyon must have been slowly carved over millions of years. Before the eruption, Spirit Lake (the lake close to Mount St. Helens) drained into the Toutle River. The upper river, however, was buried by up to 600 feet of debris from the eruption, which blocked the lake’s usual drainage site. For two full years, Spirit Lake was unable to drain into the Toutle River. Then, on March 19, 1982, a small eruption around the summit of Mount St. Helens caused a mudflow that was 20 miles long. The mudflow pooled behind the debris dam, and sent mud flowing furiously over the west end of the big steam pit. The flow quickly cut a canyon that was 140 feet deep. “The canyon produced by the mud has been called ‘The Little Grand Canyon’ because it appears to be a one-fortieth scale model of the Grand Canyon” (Morris and Austin, 2003, pp. 74-75).
If the eruption of Mount St. Helens could initiate a situation in which a canyon one-fortieth the size of the Grand Canyon was formed in one day, and the eruption of Mount St. Helens was by no means the largest ever (dwarfed by the last eruption measured at Yellowstone, which produced 2,000 times the explosive power), then what would a person expect to happen when the “fountains of the deep” were broken up and the entire world was covered by water as in Noah’s Flood? Surely, the evidence from Mount St. Helens shows that catastrophic origins of geological features like the Grand Canyon are a possibility. The ideology of those who refuse to acknowledge the Flood’s geological force is discussed in 2 Peter 3:5-6: “For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water” (emp. added)....”
REFERENCES
Morris, John and Steven A. Austin (2003), Footprints in the Ash: The Explosive Story of Mount St. Helens (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
“The Geological Story of the Grand Canyon,” [On-line], URL: http://www.grand.canyon.national-park.com/info.htm.
you are correct;
These are the “scoffers” that Peter warned would come.
2 Peter 3:3-5
Thanks for your post,
keep up the fight
In June 2010, John Matson wrote an article for the Scientific American Web site in which he reported about a huge catastrophic flood in Texas that occurred in 2002. Matson noted: “At Canyon Lake, a reservoir north of San Antonio, water rushed over the dam’s spillway, pouring into the valley below. Within days a 50-meter-wide channel now known as Canyon Lake Gorge had been carved into the soil and bedrock, drastically transforming the landscape on a short timescale” (Matson, 2010). Michael Lamb, a geologist from the California Institute of Technology who studied the effects of the flood, “found that the landscape below Canyon Lake had been remodeled in just three days or so, during which hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of rock and sediment were flushed downstream” (2010). Matson also stated: “The 2002 Texas flood was powerful, plucking meter-sized limestone boulders out of the bedrock and carrying them away to leave a channel that in places exceeds 12 meters in depth.”
The implications of such a flood are clear. If huge channels over three stories deep can be carved in bedrock in a matter of days, then catastrophic flooding on a larger scale could easily be responsible for carving much larger canyons in brief periods of time (cf. Butt, 2002; Butt, 2003; Butt, 2004). The false assumption of uniformitarianism, by which so many people have been taught to believe in billions of years of Earth history, cannot be logically sustained in the face of such clear evidence for the catastrophic origins of geological features like canyons.
REFERENCES
Butt, Kyle (2003), “Changing Their Tune About the Grand Canyon,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1811.
Matson, John (2010), “Data Deluge: Texas Flood Canyon Offers Test of Hydrology Theories for Earth and Mars,” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=canyon-lake-flood.
Satan is unable to distract me, but your post exemplifies how he is distracting many.
Using the “old Earth” lie, he is able to make many believe that the Word of God is mythical. And to call the lie “scientific” is to join Satan in his mission.
Not mythical. It just means your interpretation of Genisis is wrong.
Anyway, it is way way from being crucial.
Not mythical. It just means your interpretation of Genisis is wrong.
Anyway, it is way way from being crucial.
No, what it means is that which you’re calling “science” is in reality deliberate deception, accepted by those whose father is the inventor of the lie.
Satan wouldn’t bother messing with something so irrelevant to the Gospel.
then, there are those “in-between”
Science FICTION does not equal Science Fact.
Thanks
Yes!!!! and we must not forget that a day (yom) does not mean a “day” OOOPs !! except when followed or preceeded by numerical value,! OOOps!! then (because GOD knew clowns would rise in the “Latter Days”) He used “morning and evening”..........
“....is to join Satan in his mission.....”
You called that one!!!
How do YOU know how old the earth is????
“...It shows how idiotic the typical creationist argument that to accept evolution is to not be a Christian actually is....”
WRONG!!!
“....of other Christians disagreeing with your wacky and useless creationism....”
WRONG AGAIN!!!
“....is rather idiotic - but really - what else do Creationists have - it is their #1 fallback position!...”
Does the Foot taste good??? try takingthe shoe off!
“...Sorry that there is no practical application for supernatural causation explanations. Irrationally attacking me about it won’t help....”
WRONG Again...How many times can you be wrong in a day????
“..gorillas are less similar in DNA than a chimp is to a human. According to the science of zoology - that places us within the ape clade...”
Go back to biology, change one protein and you have nothing!!!
Similarity does not prove evilution.
Birds have wings so do planes, insects.
what is your point?
“...Do you call God a liar when you deny that there are literally four corners of the Earth?...”
and you never use analogy or similies and metaphors??
Creationism is popular among the less educated segments of America and in the Islamic world. The majority of the Christian world has no use for it.
Because creationism is useless.
And screaming and shouting and crying about it isn’t going to change the FACT that humans and chimpanzees are more similar to eachother in DNA (in genes and across the entire genome) than either is to a gorilla.
But using caplocks and crying and screaming irrationally might make you feel better about being ignorant of the facts.
“..So the Pope isn’t a Christian?...”
what is your definition of Christian???
“...Creationism is popular among the less educated segments of America and in the Islamic world. The majority of the Christian world has no use for it....”
This shows ignorance on your part, many scientist believe in Creationism.
I can list several. Because they don't agree with you does NOT make them wrong.
“...Because creationism is useless.....”
Why?
“... And screaming and shouting and crying about it isn’t going to change the FACT that humans and chimpanzees are more similar to eachother in DNA (in genes and across the entire genome) than either is to a gorilla.....”
A chimp is still a chimp? what is your point??
You cannot change facts, you simply ignore them (like evilutionist) or accept them.
“.. But using caplocks and crying and screaming irrationally might make you feel better about being ignorant of the facts.....”
See, you're wrong again, I am not irrational.
Nor am I screaming (as stated in opening remarks)
Nor am wrong about the facts, There are facts and there are “lies” to which are you refering???
Thanks for your Reply
It is a fact that the less educated someone is the more likely they are to be a creationist - and that creationism is not popular anywhere else but in the Islamic world. A few scientists that you can list that believe in creationism is anecdotal evidence and does nothing to erase the overwhelming trend that the less educated someone is the more likely it is that they are a creationist.
Creationism is useless because it leads to no further discovery or prediction. It is an ‘answer’ that leads nowhere.
A chimp is still a chimp. And when you look at the DNA of a chimp and compare it to a human and a gorilla - the chimp is more similar in DNA to a human than it is to a gorilla. That is a fact and a reality that you can either deal with or not.
“evilution?” How cretarded.
What explanation are you going to use to describe how differences in human populations came about? What theory is going to explain why we need a different flu shot every year? What explanation are you going to utilize to understand and predict how antibiotic resistance arises within populations of bacteria that plague humans?
How do you explain how all present species arose from those few ‘kinds’ that could fit on the Ark? Do you think all species of rats and mice arose from a rodent ‘kind’?
Thanks. I will pray for you.
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.