Marco Rubio doesn't know how old the Earth is

[Regnad Kcin]

I wish he would also "clarify" how the following makes any sense:

"The more science learns," he continued, "the more I am convinced that God is real."

No one plays both sides of an issue like...

Dun Dun Daaaah

Captain Pander!

 

[respect]

Yes, and he explicitly rejected literalism.

So he knows more than Obama? LOL.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

So he knows more than Obama? LOL.

Obama has endorsed evolution. Are you a partisan idiot?

 

[respect]

Obama has endorsed evolution. Are you a partisan idiot?

He also doesn't, "presume to know" that the Bible isn't accurate. Are you a partisan idiot?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

No.

 

[TimCallahan]

There's a common theme in this thread and the one on vaccination; that of politicians either pandering to ignoramus constituents or themselves being scientific ignoramuses. It would really be great if they could just say, "The creation story in Genesis (actually two stories) was not meant to be taken literally, and the Bible is not a science text. The earth is, according to radiometric dating, 4.5 billion years old." I suspect that if any politician would just come out and say it, adding that, science and religion deal with separate spheres, the others might find that creationists, for example, really don't have enough clout to defeat them.

 

[ravdin]

Update: Marco Rubio now says that science has "pretty definitively" established the age of the Earth as at least 4.5 billion years old. Glad we can finally put this to rest!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/opinion/blow-dinosaurs-and-denial.html

 

[AdMan]

Update: Marco Rubio now says that science has "pretty definitively" established the age of the Earth as at least 4.5 billion years old. Glad we can finally put this to rest!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/opinion/blow-dinosaurs-and-denial.html

Again, that's not surprising, as he's a Catholic and supposedly not a Bible literalist. Earlier he was just pandering to the Republican Evangelical base.

 

[malicus]

Again, that's not surprising, as he's a Catholic and supposedly not a Bible literalist. Earlier he was just pandering to the Republican Evangelical base.

Bingo. This is what the point of the thread has become, i.e. the difference between the first and second answers, and the duration of time between them.

I know I shouldn't be, but I am still staggered that one appears unable to be taken seriously enough to even get a nomination, never mind elected, in your two party system with simply saying something along the lines of:

"My faith is strong, and my faith is personal. There is no place for my religion in policy making. We are a strong nation of many faiths, and you will ALWAYS have the freedom to follow your personal path. Some of my policies you may not approve of. But rest assured these are the policies that will move this country forward, for you, your neighbour, your nation."

*continues to section pandering to whatever corporation is bankrolling them*

Do I hope for too much?

/dreamland