Rubio another wacko Republican Science idiot..

Jarod

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
"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," Rubio told GQ's Michael Hainey. "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."

Huffingtonpost.com

Edit add by Damocles:
Here is the link that should have been in the post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/marco-rubio-earth-age_n_2158555.html?ir=Politics


You Republicans who love this WACKO, do you really want to keep on with this narrative?

More Republican math to make you feel better? More denial? More pretending your storybook is true?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that," he said. "It's one of the great mysteries."
 
Interesting Jughead.....so tell us, seeing its really NOT one of the great mysteries to you......since you ridicule that idea....

how was the earth (universe) created...????

Not how old it is, but created......

The big bang ? maybe.....how big was that balloon when the big bang went off....and where the hell did it come from ?
 
Although I'm a bit disappointed that Rubio doesn't accept evolution (Romney's acceptance of evolution/reality is one of the many things I liked about him), it wouldn't affect my decision either way. He admitted that he isn't qualified to answer a question like that - that he ultimately doesn't know the answer, which is better than many Republicans...you know, the ones that believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, and if you disagree, well, you're going to burn in Hell.

The part that concerns me is this: "people should have the opportunity to teach them all." Where does it end? Should we teach the geocentric model alongside heliocentrism? The idea that creationism should be taught alongside evolution may seem reasonable to the mind that it is uneducated on matters of science, but those who do possess a rudimentary understanding of how science works see the folly in this approach. Creationism is simply untestable...and the idea that the Earth/universe are 6,000 years old flies in the face of everything we know about astronomy, geology, paleontology, biology, physics - you name it.
 
Jarod said:
"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," Rubio told GQ's Michael Hainey. "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."

Huffingtonpost.com


You Republicans who love this WACKO, do you really want to keep on with this narrative?

More Republican math to make you feel better? More denial? More pretending your storybook is true?
Click to expand...

He's being a politician. Not really taking sides on the mater. I'm sure he believes in evolution but doesn't want to ruffle the feathers of his base.lol
 
bravo said:
Interesting Jughead.....so tell us, seeing its really NOT one of the great mysteries to you......since you ridicule that idea....

how was the earth (universe) created...????

Not how old it is, but created......

The big bang ? maybe.....how big was that balloon when the big bang went off....and where the hell did it come from ?
Click to expand...

Why do you have the universe in parantheses after earth?

Do you believe them to be one & the same?
 
Thing1 said:
Why do you have the universe in parantheses after earth?

Do you believe them to be one & the same?
Click to expand...


Only because Jughead Jarod mentioned "earth" in his second post.....and I too, was wondering if he thought

they were one and the same....

did you miss that ?
 
Last edited:
Heisenberg said:
Although I'm a bit disappointed that Rubio doesn't accept evolution (Romney's acceptance of evolution/reality is one of the many things I liked about him), it wouldn't affect my decision either way. He admitted that he isn't qualified to answer a question like that - that he ultimately doesn't know the answer, which is better than many Republicans...you know, the ones that believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, and if you disagree, well, you're going to burn in Hell.

The part that concerns me is this: "people should have the opportunity to teach them all." Where does it end? Should we teach the geocentric model alongside heliocentrism? The idea that creationism should be taught alongside evolution may seem reasonable to the mind that it is uneducated on matters of science, but those who do possess a rudimentary understanding of how science works see the folly in this approach. Creationism is simply untestable...and the idea that the Earth/universe are 6,000 years old flies in the face of everything we know about astronomy, geology, paleontology, biology, physics - you name it.
Click to expand...

So tell us Mr I Used To Be A Republican, how would one test the theory of evolution creating erf and all of her inhabitants?

GO
 
Science, and creation, point to a Creator period. Science is an excuse to act without morale's, that can't even prove how the universe came into being. My bible does.
 
Any reasonable person can seperate parable from science. Nobody knows exactly how old the Earth or universe are, but I am fairly certian its older than the bible wacks belive, and we all know it was not CREATED in seven DAYS.
 
Rubio is done.

Bachman done.


these types of people will never be in a higher postion than they are now
 
evince said:
Rubio is done.

Bachman done.


these types of people will never be in a higher postion than they are now
Click to expand...

I hope you are correct, but I am often suprised by there resurgence. I do belive that to remain relevant the Republicans are in the process of taking a step forward, how far forward I dont know. But it is evidenced by the fact that Rubio is positioning himself with the "I dont know" instead of a full throated belive in biblical creationism.
 
In trying to reason with church types about sceince in the past I have offered this idea.

Before the world was created how long was Gods year?

The answer is almost always something to the effect of "oh to god one of his own years would be a very long time".

I then postulate that the years mentioned in the creation were Pre earth years and not earht years.


For some this is enough to give them the freedom to accept sceince.
 
To consider God a being that is bound by or measured in time is simply silly.
 
Jarod said:
I hope you are correct, but I am often suprised by there resurgence. I do belive that to remain relevant the Republicans are in the process of taking a step forward, how far forward I dont know. But it is evidenced by the fact that Rubio is positioning himself with the "I dont know" instead of a full throated belive in biblical creationism.
Click to expand...


The game has changed with the internet.

You can roll tape of them saying these idiot things.

Its a much different impact than just quoting something the person is claimed to have said.


There is NO question they said it when you hear it coming out of their mouths with conviction.
 
Jarod said:
To consider God a being that is bound by or measured in time is simply silly.
Click to expand...


In their belief he is all powerful and arguement like I gave give him all the power to even change the meaning of time.


It has worked for me in the past to help christains accept the ideas of sceince without having to deny them by reading the bible and thinking every word has to be exacty correct.
 
We, as a people, start getting in trouble when we start giving God human like qualities. God is not bound by human constraints.
 
Its hard for me because I dont believe in god.

I do agree God is not limited to being a man.

Hes as powerful as the minds who harbor him choose to make him.


He is whatever they need him to be.

His power is endlessly argued by people who imagine him this way and others who imagine that way.



How do you define a myth?

you dont.

You allow the people the myth they need and insist that it NEVER become the LAW over people who dont agree and people like me who know its just a myth created by man to explain what they had no way to explain and yet had human inquiring minds that NEEDED explanations of why life was as it was.


Science will eventually render these myths unnessesary.

People should be free to believwe whatever they want.

They should not be allowed to FORCE others to act in accordance to what they believe about god.


Any state will fail if they base their ideas on myths.

religion not so much.

they can survive and fuction with myths as long as they are relegated to the arena of religion ONLY and are not allowed to run society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top