20 thoughts on “Rubio on Earth's age: 'I'm not a scientist'”

  1. News flash. The Bible does not state in any way the age of the Earth or creation. That 6000 year thing is from Bishop Ussher. The 6 day thing is metaphorical/allegorical way of relating a before and after set of events. Besides, the way evolution is presented, it is just a way of saying God did it without referencing God.

  2. I agree. In spite of what very closed-minded people think, there are not just two views on the age of the earth. To the science worshipers, there is only one–that currently being 4.5 billion years, subject to change at any time with any new measurement method. The other is 6000 or 4000 or whatever the religious groups profess. It fascinates me that climate change is dogmatic but the age of the earth is not. Age of the earth does share its methodology, but it is rabid about insisting this is factual. I expect you to call me names (or compare me to a pedophile) because I do not believe we KNOW the age of the earth. Scientists can all be just like climate scientists when their fundamental beliefs are not endorsed. There are many legitimate questions on the age of the earth calculations but just like warmists, 4.5 billion yearers just call names and refuse to consider they might be wrong. Science is fascinating. One can denounce name-calling if they are the ones being called names, but they can turn around and call names all day long when it suits their fancy. Not very logical or objective, but then scientists are just human.
    The correct answer to this question is: “Science’s most current estimate is 4.5 billion years”. No religious references need to be added.
    (If the number has changed and I missed the memo, please let me know. This was the number I found most often.)

  3. Gone grunts: “90% of what Paul says is good and reasonable Libertarian politics and 10% is pure nutcase tinfoil hat stupidity.”

    Every goddam time one of you pinhead yellow-dog Republicans pukes up crap like this about Dr. Paul’s principles and policies, you never say word one about which of his positions are acceptable and which are supposed to be “tinfoil hat” unworkability.


    No analysis of why or how anything to which you incoherently take exception isn’t correct, isn’t truthfully related, or wouldn’t be a helluva lot better than the catastrophic bankster-fellating criminality of your RINO “leadership.”

    I met Ron Paul at a convention more than two decades ago, and we talked for about an hour. Some of it was professional, some personal (about what you’d expect when a couple of doctors sit down over coffee), some political. Most of it was economics.

    The guy proved himself to be above-average bright, extremely well-read, and entirely aware of how his accurate and unflinching assessment of government thuggery in violation of the U.S. Constitution disquiets the confused wool.

    Which includes you, pretty obviously.

    Those of us in the medical profession have to deal with your kind of bewildered anxieties all the time. Diagnosis and treatment requires recognition of reality.

    Something you “establishment” Republicans obviously ain’t good at, as is proven by your rejection of Dr. Ron Paul’s plain constitutional good sense.

  4. Dirty tricks didn’t scuttle Ron Paul’s political carear he did. 90% of what Paul says is good and reasonable Libertarian politics and 10% is pure nutcase tinfoil hat stupidity. He cannot help himself he repeats stupid beliefs without even being prompted by a harassing reporter or political opponent. Worse he is clueless about how his bizarre beliefs scare of would-be supporters.

  5. Agreed. But It appears many here waded into the debate anyway, thereby giving it some legitimacy. Whoever was writing for GQ should have been called out as the political hack they are, and there should have been no further debate of the question in regards to Rubio.

    Save that for another time and stop abetting the media’s attack on political conservatives. The question got the desired traction, so expect more of the same “have you stopped beating your wife yet?” type of questions aimed at conservatives.

  6. Those who pose the “gotcha” question, give it false legitimacy and turn it into a political expose are one in the same…

  7. It was a setup question and he knew it. He’s says 6000 years, and he’s mocked as a flat-earther. He says 4.5 billion years, and the media runs with how he’s not in line with his base. He says “I won’t answer that question”, and the media protrays him as being dishonest. An absolute no-win question. The real problem is that some people take a purely political “gotcha” question, give it false legitimacy, and turn it into some kind of expose.

  8. Actually the ignorance about what the Bible says and doesn’t say about the age of the earth is pervasive even coming from ‘pulpits’…..and the subject of common descent or ‘undirected’ descent of man is a different question.

    So much for the value of gottca journalism (but we knew that so why do we respond to it?)…….but the answer is in fact too nuanced for much public discourse today and most people don’t read to stave of ignorance. It’s too easy to take a grandiose position about something they know next to nothing about…..like many politicians.

    How’s your Hebrew?


  9. There are Young Earth Creationists among your midst, Todd. Rubio appears to be one.

    “stop pigeon-holing all of us Christians”

    Politico pigeon-holed Rubio. Not “all of us Christians.”

    “The wicked flee when no man pursueth.” Proverbs 28:1

  10. The part that bothers me the most here is that as usual, the christian charicature of six 24 hour creation days is said to be the only position allowable for Bible believers. To all of you non-Bible believers out there: there are several positions on creationism, so stop pigeon-holing all of us Christians into a 24 hour creation day view. It is obvious from the comments above, not to mention the original article, that there is plenty of illiteracy on the origins topic. What’s worse is that it’s now used as a silly headline-grabber in order to further polarize an already extremely divided electorate. Why on earth should Rubio’s views on origins matter at all for his bid to run for public office? Politico was just asking a question that they planned to make a big deal out of no matter how he answered it.

  11. “This was nothing but a dirty political trick.”


    Plus, all’s fair in politics. Rubio is a good man; he needs to be prepared to handle such questions.

  12. “Dirty tricks is all the left has — ask Mitt Romney.”

    Well, dirty tricks is all the Republican Party “establishment” (emphasis on the Etch-A-Sketch) has, too — ask Dr. Ron Paul.

    If Mr. Rubio were absolutely scrupulous in his adherence to solid, principled defense of the U.S. Constitution – as Dr. Paul has been throughout his political career – Mr. Rubio wouldn’t have to worry about his chameleon pretense of playing the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.

    Or is the analogy better if we make it “the prostitute in every alley”?

  13. Dirty tricks is all the left has — ask Mitt Romney. If Rubio hasn’t figured this out yet, he has no business in conservative politics.

  14. At 11:07 AM on 20 November, Coach Springer had posted:

    And please don’t dismiss every politician and lawyer, government runs more and more of everything, they run the government and they are your only hope.

    Our “only hope,” eh? Egad.

    Bubbeleh, you’re claiming that the cure in which we’re supposed to trust is, in truth, the disease itself.

    It’s precisely because such spineless, havering, fact-evading smoke-and-mirrors shysters control government in our republic and “government runs more and more of everything” that we’re in our present and rapidly worsening catastrophic situation to begin with.

    Tell the truth, now. If you had a “Destruct” button under your fingertips at this moment, capable of making every incumbent politician in these United States disappear in a viscous explosion of blood and guts right out of that 10:10 “No Pressure” climate fraudster public relations video disaster, wouldn’t you?

  15. This is a unfair attack on Rubio. The point of the question was to force Rubio to say something that could be a sound bite they could use to hurt him. This is a lose/lose situation for a politician if he speaks the “truth” as he knows it then they attack him as being a phony about his religion. If he speaks the belief of his religion then they attack him for being a creationist or ignorant. This was nothing but a dirty political trick.

  16. I’d hold out for a little more context in what the setting and surrounding conversations were, but he doesn’t exhibit a lot of polish in handling questions possibly designed to distract while walking toward a doorjamb. Other than that, candid slips are not permissible if you’re thinking of running for President anytime in the next 40 years. I wonder if that reduces us to candidates that never half-think out loud because they never think at all.

    And please don’t dismiss every politician and lawyer, government runs more and more of everything, they run the government and they are your only hope.

  17. “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion”.

    Augustine of Hippo, ~400 AD

  18. My grandmother taught me that I should never lie, because the more someone lies the more comfortable they become with lies. Eventually they become so comfortable with the lies that they cannot tell them apart from the truth. The best way to tell when someone is lying to you is to always be a truth-teller. Then lies will always make you uncomfortable. That is why I became a scientist, and I will not associate with politicians or lawyers – like Rubio.

  19. “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,” he continued. “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.”

    C’mon. He’s a lawyer. He’s a highly-trained professional lying weasel.

    Might as well try to nail liquid snot to the wall as get a definite answer out of this logrolling career obfuscator.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.