Ok great thanks Marco. Now can we get back to Benghazi?
Actually, the title is pretty accurate.
There’s no way to use the scientific method to ascertain the age of the earth.
Not a big deal but could be handled a bit better.
In 04 Duncan Hunter gave a great answer to the question. He said it wasn’t important to him how God did it or how long it took.
OK, Salon, now start asking the Obamadork about some of his beliefs. I believe there are N quotes out there showing Obamadork contradictions - get to them.
And, by the way, I don’t give a smelly Obama about Rubio’s beliefs on the age of the earth.
I do care about his beliefs on economics, which are a great deal more based in logic than are those of the dork.
The GOP candidates and potential candidates should not answer these types of questions. Do what the Democrats do, respond with scripted talking points.
Is that the number of illegals Rubio would like to give amnesty to?
So the MSM hits Rubio with a question out of the blue, and after he answers it he's accused of "dabbling" in the subject?
Is that like saying that Romney "dabbled" with contraception during the primary debate?
“Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, Im not sure well ever be able to answer that. Its one of the great mysteries.”
There’s no mystery, Genesis speaks of the Earth being replenished. Prior, there was the fall of Lucifer and the destruction that followed. If God says it took 7 days to make things right again then so be it. How old the Earth was prior to the destruction only God knows for sure, nevertheless there have been many scientific estimates.
I'd like to see reporters start asking a better “set-up” question for candidates: “Do you oppose the United Nations and it's efforts to establish world government.
This means that the left sees Rubio as a threat to their stranglehold on power. They know that he could defeat their leftist-marxist-hate-America phonies.
In their distorted world-view Republicans are all White males.
Everytime the Republicans start looking at someone who is not a White male, the left whips out the file of lies and distortions that it has created for every Republican. The media does its job getting the word out, and he/she steps out of the picture.
paleogeologist.. not many of them around,, much less in the Senate.. but it’s nice to know he knows his roots and origin.
He’d make a good Sec’y of State... or who knows?
What percentage of people think the Earth is 10000 years old? Must be very small.
To portray the two as such is simply an effort to say, “This fellow was “dabbling” (whatever that describes) in creationism (or voodoo, or bigfoot chasing, something odd) but now he's come around”.
Well, on the other hand, there is no repeatable experiment which shows the age of the earth. So it isn’t science in that sense, it is really history.
We use science as a forensics tool when determining historical events, but it’s not science. We know it’s not science, because periodically new announcements are made that change the “scientific understanding” of some presumed historical event, and when that happens, nobody complains that the previous belief was fraud.
And of course, forensics, which is both an art and a science, also deals in the realm of hypothesis. You have to adapt certain preconditions. We are pretty good at those, and they are tested as you compare the resulting determinations to what you figure out by other methods.
But one big presumption in all scientific forensics of origins is that there is NO GOD, and therefore NO “Magic”.
Given the presumption that nothing could just be created fully formed, it is easy to understand why the age of the earth is currently estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. That is how old it would have to be to get to where we are today from “nothing”.
Now, suppose we had an infintely powerful, all-knowledgeable being. And suppose he wanted to make a copy of our universe, and he did so. We certainly understand the mechanism of cloning, and so we see the theoretical possibility of an exact duplicate of our universe being created.
Well, if you lived in that alternative universe, you would of course believe that it was 4.5 billion years old, as it would have the identical CURRENT STATE as our universe.
BUT, you would be wrong, because it is 5 minutes old. Science would give you the wrong answer.
Well, if we believe God created the universe, how can we prove He didn’t do so 6000 years ago, or 60,000 years ago? Some might complain that God wouldn’t have a reason to create all these apparent age items in his creation, but given the Bible’s references to wanting to keep some blind to His existence, how better to do that than to give us a theological challenge — Do we believe in God, or not?
I understand and accept most of the evolutionary “science”, meaning what we observe today. Some of it is crazy on it’s face, sorry, but mostly it’s stuff we can test out for ourselves. I simply don’t believe that the history this science predicts is the real history of our universe.
I don’t reject science, I simply understand its limitations. Meanwhile, there is ample evidence that the story spun of origins by evolutionists is more of a fanciful wish — probabilities being just one, complexity of design for another, and the still-evident lack of viable genetic steps from one species to another (this last point is becoming more clear as we map more of the genomes)
He is technically correct. Among the scientific community there is no real serious debate. It is all just radiological dating and who has
creationists may debate the issue but they are going nowhere fast.
Is he now campaigning for Geologist-in-Chief?