The only winning move is not to play.

deadrody on November 19, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Which is why Rubio should have curtly dismissed the question, giving no answer at all, and moved on.

Instead he tripped all over himself trying to formulate an answer that wouldn’t offend some of his constituency, making it appear he might actually consider a 6000 year old earth a serious possiblity.

I don’t know what he really believes, but there is no way no how anyone perceived to think the earth might be 6000 years old will ever get elected President of the US.

So let’s see…the MSM (i.e. handy villain) tries to trap a politician into saying something he doesn’t want to say, to reveal some facet of the politician relevant to voters that the politician doesn’t want to reveal. Which is, like, part of the media’s JOB. And they reveal Rubio’s FRIGHTENINGLY ideological and values-driven equivocation about of the age of the earth. It is a fair question whether we want someone with such fundamentalist (literal truth of the word of the Bible vs. scientific evidence) values-driven views making decisions at the top of government that will impact our lives. Totally fair game for the media, who must be manipulative as part of the constant combat with politicians who try not to say anything that would get them in trouble. So the problem here is that the media are picking on a guy from your tribe, right? Because if this went the other way and they were picking on somebody from the other tribe (which does actually happen sometimes) you’d have no problem, right? Which means the problem really isn’t the media, right?

Nary a shred of sanity to be found and all it takes it the media being allowed to ask an entirely irrelevant question. If this guy wants to vehemently oppose Marco Rubio on some legislative initiative fueled by his christian faith, great. But how about we let Rubio PROPOSE something for him to oppose rather than allowing the media to create a caricature of Rubio by which everything the man does can be lumped under the umbrella of nutjob creationist or some such idiocy. Do you NOT get that there is no correct answer to this question ? The only winning move is not to play.

No, when it comes to the age of the Earth, the way the Bible depicts the world is categorically, factually incorrect. We know this because there is evidence that the Earth is on the order of 4.5 billion years old (not 6-10,000 years). There is no evidence suggesting otherwise.

Good Lt on November 19, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Mind finding where I have argued that the Earth is young? Please, feel free to find that statement.

You are dead set on the argument the Earth is Precisely 4.5 billion years old with a +/- range of 70 million years.

You willing to kill yourself when scientist find that the Earth is older than say, I dunno, 4.8 billion years old? You are the ass wipe that said there was one and only ONE answer for the question of how old the Earth is. I never said that. I said when making statements about the age of the Earth, there are many assumptions, and thus no one KNOWS and can PROVE how old it is. They have ideas, guesses based on evidence, but no proof. It all depends on what new information becomes available.

Here is a big, big, BIG reason the right continues to lose elections:

Why can two sides of a question of BELIEF not let it go ? Whether or not someone can prove the age of the earth has no effect on someone’s belief in the Bible. Ok ? LET.IT.GO.

Oh, and those that DO believe ? You think your God is really keen on you going around picking fights with people over the age of the Earth ? Really ? LET.IT.GO.

Unbelievable. This question and the answers to it are not relevant to any public discussion. PERIOD.

Try to find an oil business caring what age the rocks are. It doesn’t matter. It matters whats in them. It’s not required you know the age at alil to find oil.

Rocks on November 19, 2012 at 4:08 PM

LOL.

So it doesn’t matter to oil exploration companies if a possible oil bearing formation is 100 million years old or 133 years old?

Where did that 133 year number come form you ask? 100 million is to 4.5 billion as 133 is to 6000.

Name one successful oil exploration company that doesn’t care what the age of potential oil bearing geologic formations are? And verify this by showing me some documentation in which they state they would have no problem finding oil if they assumed the earth is 6000 years old. I’ll wait.

But until then I’m done with this nonsense.

Good Lt on November 19, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Do you get dizzy with that circular reasoning? There’s no convincing one so firm in his faith, so I’m out of here.

You are stuck on stupid here idiot. You actually USE WIKI as a freaking resource!

astonerii on November 19, 2012 at 3:44 PM

What is your evidence that contradicts the scientific community on this point?

Please present it, and roll out the red carpet for your Nobel prize.

That would be an assertion, not a statement of fact

No, when it comes to the age of the Earth, the way the Bible depicts the world is categorically, factually incorrect. We know this because there is evidence that the Earth is on the order of 4.5 billion years old (not 6-10,000 years). There is no evidence suggesting otherwise.

Try to find oil operating under the assumption the earth is 6000 years old. No one in the oil exploration business does that. Anyone that tried would go quickly out of business.

farsighted on November 19, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Try to find an oil business caring what age the rocks are. It doesn’t matter. It matters whats in them. It’s not required you know the age at all to find oil.

And we know that the Bible is WRONG, which has also been known for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Good Lt on November 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM

That would be an assertion, not a statement of fact. And, it reinforces the impression of your arrogance in your own belief system. And, yes, it is a belief system, as it is not falsifiable. Ironically, if Christians (and Jews or Muslims or other believers in a still extant creator) are right, their viewpoint is falsifiable – they just have to ask the big guy with the beard (or that freaky dude with the four arms).

It begins before conception. Sperm and egg are both “life”.

Pablo Honey on November 19, 2012 at 2:24 PM

No, PH, you’re wrong. They do not meet the scientific criteria for life, as they cannot (without merging with the other) reproduce themselves, no matter how long they are given to mature. And, when they do meet the other and reproduce, they aren’t reproducing themselves, but a new being, to which they have contributed 1/2 the DNA instructions. Hence, a life begins at conception.