“I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow”
GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?
Marco Rubio: 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. 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. 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. 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.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
libfreeordie on November 19, 2012 at 12:47 PM
A president of the USA should value Freedom above all.
A Ronald Reagan would have said in Burma “Tear down this Myanmar BS”, alas…
The Retard called the president and the Nobel laureate by the wrong names, not once but twice/4 times, respectively and used Myanmar, for ‘diplomatic reasons’, read communist-appeasing ones.
Meh…the usual Eunuch in Chief, prouncing around the world on tax paid dole, while the land is falling off the cliff into the abyss.
How uninspiring to all.
The free and foolish land deserves him fully and the world does too. In time they will all be less free. Then all this BS in the GQ article will mean little.
The article covers a lot of other BS. This was just one question among many “Let me try to guide you toward Obama’s greatness”. Rubio doesn’t fall for it.
Schadenfreude on November 19, 2012 at 12:54 PM
I think we all know why these questions get put to Republicans and not any, presumably Christian, Democrats. Some have suggested ending any interview in which these questions are posed – bad idea. What we have to do is start using these kinds of questions to mock the radical anti-science beliefs of our opposition: people who think life begins at birth, people who advocate against gender-selective abortions and anti-infantacide laws, people who actually think they can legislate and regulate the climate – that even blizzards are now a sign of global warming, people who think algae-powered cars are realistic.
Seriously, they are bat-sh*t crazy. We need to stop playing defense.
The Count on November 19, 2012 at 12:54 PM
Exactly.
He is probably one of those guys who believes “white men can’t jump.” Olympic high jumpers and Tony Hawk be damned.
Capitalist Hog on November 19, 2012 at 12:56 PM
GQ stopped short of “Do you think the Earth is round?”
Schadenfreude on November 19, 2012 at 12:58 PM
What facts might those be IDIOT?
It is in fact you and others that ignore truth in order to create a false sense of knowledge. You just simply take the word of certain scientists and REGURGITATE them, and never ask yourself what assumptions were made by those scientists in coming up with an answer that they themselves likely know to be just a best guess.
A real scientist and a real rational being is willing to pay attention to what they do not know and understand the limits of their knowledge and thus their pronouncements.
Like AGW adherents. They think they can calculate the temperature of the Earth to within .01 degree Celsius when their instruments are only delineated to tenths of a degree and calibrated to +/- 1 degree, and their adjustments to the temperature are in excess of full degrees in many places.
What they “KNOW” to be true is a false assumption of their ability.
astonerii on November 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM
So, you’re making an argument for slavish devotion? We already know that Ryan failed that test with Rand. He finds some of her points salient, but rejects her atheism.
If you’ve never found this relationship with a spokesman or artist you admire, I’m inclined to doubt how deeply you’ve considered anything.
Axeman on November 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM
Q: More important to know for a US president: The earth is 4.5 billion years old (by estimate) or there are 50 states in the United States of America?
Axeman on November 19, 2012 at 1:01 PM
gwelf on November 19, 2012 at 1:03 PM
Never forget this, for the “smartest man to ever be president”, the actual CiC.
I’m embarrassed for the land every time I think about this.
Schadenfreude on November 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM
haha true
Joseph Russo III on November 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM
It’s millions, and how often it formed and was destroyed too…
Schadenfreude on November 19, 2012 at 1:06 PM
GQ: Did I evolve from a monkey?
MR: Apparently, yes.
Akzed on November 19, 2012 at 1:08 PM
What the frack are you talking about? I guess my point was beyond you. Explain with facts how you know that our solar system is in FACT not the center of the universe.
Frank Enstine on November 19, 2012 at 1:11 PM
But you can’t get that from the answer to this question, can you? We don’t really know how Obama would have answered it, but I’m guessing it would not have stopped him from killing NASA.
Compare “4.5 billion,” to the answer that Rubio gave. Which tells you more about the subject you claim the first answer is about? How can you avoid the implication that you IMPUTE a lot from somebody who gives an answer “4.5 billion”. It shows that you READ a whole lot into this.
My answer is that if you unbundle the myriad inferences you make from a four syllable answer, you’ll find a lot of assumptions, which may or may not hold. I have no problem with agreeing that you’re making a ton of assumptions, though.
In the end, your inability to appreciate Rubio’s statement for what it is, hurts your ability for critical evaluation, but increases your identification with people who would make a lot of the same conclusions.
Axeman on November 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM
Rubio better not run for POTUS if that’s the best answer he can give.
The Dems and the MSM will paint him as either a closet YEC or sympathetic to the notion the earth is 6000 years old, as someone who thinks it is a legitimate scientific point of view and “alternative” theory. They will massacre him with it.
While it may have nothing to do with the economy it reveals a great deal about how someone deals with and analyzes evidence and data. If someone believes the earth might be 6000 years old what else might they chose to believe in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary?
farsighted on November 19, 2012 at 1:14 PM
LOL
Good Lt on November 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM
Bigoted racist, you!
Schadenfreude on November 19, 2012 at 1:17 PM
Hey, you know what materialists, if I believed frickin’ scientists, because they were scientists , wizened oracles of the material world, I would believe that you typed your posts before you thought about what you wanted to say.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Funny, thing is, I believe that anyway. I just know it’s not defensible … as a critical thinker.
Axeman on November 19, 2012 at 1:18 PM
Gee, you’d think a President who rationally applies the scientific method would:
A. Reject theories based on outright falsehoods and dubious methodology/assumptions (AGW)
B. Reject economic theories that have never proven successful on a large scale (redistributive policies, etc.)
C. Understand math, and realize the fiscal cliff can’t be solved by simply hiking taxes on the rich
D. Understand that abortion destroys a unique human life, and would do everything in his power to discourage abortion, even if he doesn’t believe in overturning Roe v. Wade, instead of suggesting that he wouldn’t want his own daughters to be “punished” with a baby
Good Solid B-Plus on November 19, 2012 at 1:20 PM
Rather than it actually has something to do with the economy, we want to appease those who think it has to do with everything?
Axeman on November 19, 2012 at 1:20 PM
“Mr. President can you convert anything from the metric system…or to it?”
“Da…aa…Jim,….aah..I…aaaa…am the president…and we have…bigger fish to fry, as I always said”.
Schadenfreude on November 19, 2012 at 1:21 PM
That baseless religious hokum such as creationism should be taught as “legitimate scientific knowledge/alternative ‘theory’” in science classes?
Nah. Couldn’t ever happen.
Good Lt on November 19, 2012 at 1:30 PM
So now we’ve moved from not saying the earth is 4.5 years old is irrational to even allowing that someone might believe that it’s not is irrational? It reveals nothing about how people deal with and analyze data other than data on the age of the earth. It not only has nothing to do with the economy, the age of the Earth has nothing to do with any practical purpose at all.
Rocks on November 19, 2012 at 1:31 PM
Really? We all know how old the earth is?
Funny, I remember quite clearly when the earth was 2 billion years old. Then after about 15 years, it was 4.6 billion years old. Amazing how the earth aged 2.6 billion years in just 15 years.
For a fact that everyone should know, the answer seems to change every few years.
tom on November 19, 2012 at 1:32 PM
Given the evidence, it IS irrational to believe the Earth is something other than what evidence suggests.
It is inherently IRRATIONAL to see the evidence and to say “I don’t believe the evidence even though I can see what it suggests.
Good Lt on November 19, 2012 at 1:34 PM
Changes all the time…I bet in a few years the YEC’s will be proven right by science by golly!
Pablo Honey on November 19, 2012 at 1:37 PM
Just to name one practical purpose, it has a lot to do with searching for and finding oil.
farsighted on November 19, 2012 at 1:38 PM
As the methods and technology improves, so does our ability to use it to get a more accurate assessment of the age (dating methods, etc).
There is one thing we do know for certain: The Earth is definitely NOT 6,000 – 10,000 years old.
Good Lt on November 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM
The six days God took to create the universe have neither begun nor ended relative to God. Just sayin’
Knott Buyinit on November 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM
It is more irrational to disregard all the assumptions made and the error bars they create. As you are arguing that we MUST follow science, science itself argues that the age of the Earth is an estimate and not a fact, yet you ask that a person give you a plain jane vanilla answer with no hedging on that. Very unscientific. Very irrational.
Now then, on the other hand, you argue that someone who does not give you the answer you want here cannot be rational in any way at all that allows them to be President of the United States of America. Is the age of the Earth your litmus test for belief in your religion?
astonerii on November 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM
Okay, then ear piercing is the same as intentionally-inflicted head trauma.
29Victor on November 19, 2012 at 1:45 PM
Wow.
Remember how we all scratched out head at George Stephanopolous asking about contraception in that very first debate? We ended up having an entire campaign about it.
Is 2016 going to be about evolution? We had better assume that it will and act accordingly, especially in the candidate we choose.
rockmom on November 19, 2012 at 1:45 PM
The 2.5-4.5M crew is Horde. The 6-10K crew is Alliance.
Jeddite on November 19, 2012 at 1:48 PM
The thing that is sort of annoying is that Rubio is such a politician he can’t even answer this question. Seriously, which other potential nominee is going to challenge him on it? Jindal? Ryan?
Illinidiva on November 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM
As pointed out, that evidence has suggested a new figure many times over. What is does suggest doesn’t make it any less irrelevant to anyone anyone other than those who place importance on what the age of the Earth is.
People of faith are not saying they don’t believe the evidence. They are saying they do not believe the evidence says what you say it does. The evidence right now says the Earth is 4 billion years old. Does that evidence preclude a creator from creating an Earth that looks to be billions of years old? No.
Rocks on November 19, 2012 at 1:53 PM
That’s not what he said. It’s what YOU think he said. Yet, you saw the evidence of what he said and constructed a story about what you THINK he said.
This is why I ignore people like you, eventually we get down to the idea that because you’re slavish to pronouncements of Science, what you think is based on Science, and thus Science blesses every notion your muddled brain can conjure.
Axeman on November 19, 2012 at 1:53 PM
I’m glad you agree that Obama has no business being president. After all, he ignores science and pretends that abortion is nothing more than a convenient way to get rid of unwanted cells.
If he actually valued science, he would accept the scientific fact that a baby is a live human being from the moment of conception.
Funny how the test for accepting science always steers clear of any science that might cut against standard Democratic pandering policies. No, it always depends on some statement of faith that you completely accept an irrelevant scientific theory.
Again, I accept no lectures of science from people who can’t accept the scientific fact that life begins at conception.
tom on November 19, 2012 at 1:58 PM
No, really it doesn’t. The rocks determine that. How old they are doesn’t matter. Just so long as it’s the same as others rocks where you do find it. The ability to find oil didn’t suddenly improve when the age of the Earth changed from 2 billion to 4 billion years.
If we could prove beyond any doubt the Earth was created 4 years ago it wouldn’t change what we use to determine if certain areas contain oil or not.
Rocks on November 19, 2012 at 1:58 PM
Why not instantaneously.
Pablo Honey on November 19, 2012 at 2:09 PM
So much for a “strong bench”.
Pablo Honey on November 19, 2012 at 2:10 PM
You KNOW no such thing. Unless, of course, you’re claiming to have been there from the beginning. You surmise that to be the truth, given the assumptions under which you read the evidence. Not recognizing that limitation is ignorance or arrogance – and un-scientific.
GWB on November 19, 2012 at 2:13 PM
Why not faster than instantaneously? How do you know it was not instantaneously?
astonerii on November 19, 2012 at 2:20 PM
You’re doing a great job of ignoring me (natch), but the evidence speaks for itself.
And it supports the ~4.5 billion-year-old Earth. Not the Biblical myth of ‘creation.’
Good Lt on November 19, 2012 at 2:21 PM
It begins before conception. Sperm and egg are both “life”.
Pablo Honey on November 19, 2012 at 2:24 PM
Exactly.
A God can just as easily create the Earth/Universe with a history built into it without if ever having been through that actual history.
Just like I can model up something in my computer to appear as though it was built a certain way, the reality is that it was actually just poofed into the memory just exactly the way it is with no history of building.
The evidence indicates the Earth is billions of years old. I personally think the time scale God works on fits the model of the Earth being old. My faith. I personally also think that 4.5 billion is a low number, and it is probably much much older.
The evidence used to date the Earth is simply the oldest appearing rock plus an ARBITRARY number of years for that rock to have formed from a molten Earth. Thus, if the Earth was Molten for 500 septillion years, the date of the age of the Earth is way off, by more orders of magnitude than the difference between thousands and billions of years.
astonerii on November 19, 2012 at 2:25 PM
Wrong. Any atheist, excuse me, rational person, worth their salt would know that the age of the Earth does not prove or disprove creationism. Indeed, it has nothing to do with it. You’d have won a gold medal for that leap though. The age of the Earth is simply an argument against a theory held by some Christians that the Earth is literally only a few thousand years old based on their reading of the Bible. If you’re putting all of your eggs in the age of the Earth basket to disprove something that simply cannot be disproved (or proved, hence faith), then you’re only convincing yourself and not really helping your cause.
change is for suckers on November 19, 2012 at 2:36 PM
So do you believe the Earth is 6-10,000 years old?
Good Lt on November 19, 2012 at 2:52 PM
That doesn’t count or something.
Good Lt on November 19, 2012 at 2:56 PM
You expect people to take your scientific arguments seriously as you fail to read anything for what is presented. I guess this is why you are so totally stuck on 4.5 billion years old. You never actually looked a millimeter past that statement to find out the reality behind the number and what it really means.
astonerii on November 19, 2012 at 2:57 PM
Like all good science people, you ignore the reason for protecting life. HUMAN LIFE. A sperm and an EGG are not HUMAN life, they are exactly HALF a human life. Half a helix each. STUPID PEOPLE apparently claim to be atheists.
astonerii on November 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »