Marco Rubio doesn't know how old the Earth is

[Ladewig]

Obviously, I know nothing about politics because it seems to me that the best way to distinguish oneself is to simply say "You know what? The world is four billion years old and if you want to teach your kids something else I will support to the death your First Amendment right to do that. But for those of you who are willing to accept an old earth, you and I should get together to talk about economics and the path this country is on. Let's focus on the more important aspects of governing a country."

 

[Corsair 115]

Rubio has strongly opposed the implementation of a cap and trade system ...

Ironically, cap and trade was a conservative idea that was promoted by Republicans as a better, free market-like way to deal with acid rain rather than some sort of a top-down solution imposed by the government. (And it worked quite well in addressing the acid rain issue.)

 

[Elizabeth I]

...and Obama doesn't understand basic economics, so I guess it's a wash.

Except, as POTUS, Obama is going to cause a lot more damage.

As human dependence on technology increases, and as our ability to impact the environment increases, the decisions to be made by those in government will require a greater understanding of science. The thought of a bunch of Know-Nothing-and-Proud-of-Its governing this country is frightening.

 

[eeyore1954]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rubio-declines-to-say-how-old-earth-is
Quote:
GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

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.... I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says.

I'm not a scientist either but I know how old the Earth is. What a joke.

It was a stupid question to ask. He is correct in the bolded part of his statement. Why even ask him that question? Unless he has a history of forcing his beliefs into schools.

 

[rwguinn]

Well, two thirds and two fifths are not equal. Except in classrooms where anyone is given the opportunity to teach their version of arithmetic.

But as someone said upthread, both statistics are pretty shocking.

They can always equal the same number of people, e.g.
2/3 of 75,000=50,000
2/5 of 125000=50,000
so, as long as there are 40% more D's asked than R's, the 58%/41 % will seem shocking, and true--"lookie-Republicans are stoopid!"

 

[RandFan]

It was a stupid question to ask. He is correct in the bolded part of his statement. Why even ask him that question? Unless he has a history of forcing his beliefs into schools.

This has already been dealt with. The question isn't a complex one. Rubio wasn't asked to explain quantum mechanics or relativity. He was asked if he accepts demonstrable fact and scientific consensus.

Q: Do you believe in germ theory?
A: I'm not a scientist.

Willful ignorance. It's not as if there isn't sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion. One must actively ignore facts to make such an idiotic statement. Don't get me wrong, from a right-wing political POV Rubio is being prudent. From a left-wing political POV Rubio stepped in it and rightfully deserves criticism. Citizens need to make informed decisions and the stupid needs to be weeded out.

If some idiot told me he didn't believe in germ theory I damn sure wouldn't likely vote for him. Would you?

 

[DavidJames]

Denial - you gotta love it. I know you don't want to believe your beloved Republican party is the primary home of the religious, but it is. Look at the demographics of the recent elections, both local, state and national. Look at the legislation presented by the Republicans, local, state especially. Look at the publications and media of the major religious leaders.

You are welcome to find excuses, blame "gotchya" questions, the liberal media. You can try and invoke the fallacy of equivalence, whatever you like. It doesn't change reality.

 

[DavidJames]

If some idiot told me he didn't believe in germ theory I damn sure wouldn't likely vote for him. Would you?

I can understand why Republicans on this forum would vote for a candidate who supported creationism vs. evolution if they believed the candidates other positions were more important.

What is fascinating is they don't say (for example).

While I don't agree with their position on Y, I support candidate X because of their views on government spending, taxes and debt.

No, instead they fight, tooth and nail, accusations of Y on their candidate. They dance, bob, weave, make excuses, deny, etc. Exactly like we see in this thread.

Pretty funny, actually.

 

[RandFan]

If some idiot told me he didn't believe in germ theory I damn sure wouldn't likely vote for him. Would you?

BTW: I was a loyal Republican for years. I know what it's like to be dealt such a lousy hand. Buck up it's only going to get worse. The trend for enlightenment is going primarily in one direction and it's against stupid superstitious nonsense that beggars belief.

• Light from the most distant known galaxy took 13.3 billion years to get to Earth.

That's a fact. You don't need to be a scientist to understand how we know that to be true. You do need to be either A.) a giant douche bag to pretend that you don't know that it is true. B.) willfully ignorant.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

It was a stupid question to ask. He is correct in the bolded part of his statement. Why even ask him that question? Unless he has a history of forcing his beliefs into schools.

One good reason to ask it is to find out whether he's going to pander to the Republican base or not. But shouldn't any well informed person, let alone a person aspiring to be president, know the answer to that?

 

[RandFan]

I can understand why Republicans on this forum would vote for a candidate who supported creationism vs. evolution if they believed the candidates other positions were more important.

What is fascinating is they don't say (for example).

While I don't agree with their position on Y, I support candidate X because of their views on government spending, taxes and debt.

No, instead they fight, tooth and nail, accusations of Y on their candidate. They dance, bob, weave, make excuses, deny, etc. Exactly like we see in this thread.

Pretty funny, actually.

Agreed. FTR: I was a Republican not that long ago and I'm not certain how well I fared on that question. I need to find some old posts.

Recently I've been proactively assuming old positions to try and figure out how my emotions and biases shaped my perceptions. Honestly analyzing my posts since I came back to the forum it seems I've swung far left rhetorically. It's kind of interesting to take on various points of view. The key, in more ways than one, is emotion. I can adopt a right-wing perspective by feeling the emotions that I used to about the various issues. And often when I am particularly hard on the right in my rhetoric it comes from an emotional perspective as opposed to a purely rational sense. Guess there's something to be said of the Spock fallacy.

 

[Varanid]

It's either the immutable word of the creator or it is isn't, it can't be both at once.

This pretty much sums it up.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They can always equal the same number of people, e.g.
2/3 of 75,000=50,000
2/5 of 125000=50,000
so, as long as there are 40% more D's asked than R's, the 58%/41 % will seem shocking, and true--"lookie-Republicans are stoopid!"

Numerology, really? !

 

[ravdin]

"What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know."

-Senator Barack Obama, 13 April 2008

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...politicians_hedge_about_whether_universe.html

 

[Unabogie]

"What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know."

-Senator Barack Obama, 13 April 2008

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...politicians_hedge_about_whether_universe.html

Does Obama advocate "teaching the controversy" like the Republicans do? If not, then your equivalence is a false one.

 

[respect]

Does Obama advocate "teaching the controversy" like the Republicans do? If not, then your equivalence is a false one.

Does Rubio? In the quote provided in the OP he only said that parents should be free to teach their faith to their kids, although I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise. I have no idea if he thinks such nonsense belongs in science classrooms.

 

[Unabogie]

Does Rubio? In the quote provided in the OP he only said that parents should be free to teach their faith to their kids, although I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise. I have no idea if he thinks such nonsense belongs in science classrooms.

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.

Ok, but then he's a moron, since there's zero controversy about whether or not parents can teach their kids what they want. Can you name a single person who advocates that parents must teach that the world is billions of years old and be prohibited from teaching their kids that God did it?

No, come on. We all know what he's talking about here, and it's the dumb "teach the controversy" that creationists are all parroting these days. Just because he's being coy doesn't mean that we have to take his pandering in the light most favorable to Marco Rubio.

 

[respect]

Ok, but then he's a moron, since there's zero controversy about whether or not parents can teach their kids what they want. Can you name a single person who advocates that parents must teach that the world is billions of years old and be prohibited from teaching their kids that God did it?

No, come on. We all know what he's talking about here, and it's the dumb "teach the controversy" that creationists are all parroting these days. Just because he's being coy doesn't mean that we have to take his pandering in the light most favorable to Marco Rubio.

I suspect his vague wording was intentional, he doesn't really take a firm position on anything.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

No, come on. We all know what he's talking about here, and it's the dumb "teach the controversy" that creationists are all parroting these days. Just because he's being coy doesn't mean that we have to take his pandering in the light most favorable to Marco Rubio.

Actually, I don't how we should know that. The quote can be explained as not pissing off the base of the party he belongs to. His entry at wikipedia says he Roman Catholic, briefly went briefly to an LDS church, and makes no mention of creationism. A quick google doesn't turn up anything beyond this about him being connected with creationism.

So how should we know that's what he meant?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Numerology, really? !

That word doesn't mean what you think it means:

Numerology is any study of the purported divine, mystical or other special relationship between a number and some coinciding observed (or perceived) events.