Rush Limbaugh: Marco Rubio is being “Romneyed”

What if “our current understanding: is incorrect?

http://creation.com/article/6399

davidk on November 22, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Your link doesn’t go to any specific article.

If “our current understanding” is in fact incorrect, which it has been in the past, then we can cross that bridge when we come to it. As of right now, however, the current understanding is 4.5 billion years. Voters will appreciate a candidate that has passing familiarity with current scientific consensus, particular if that candidate might end up having some say in how the voters’ children are educated.

Keep in mind that if radiometric dating is false, then much more than just the age of the Earth is in doubt. The age of pretty much everything is in doubt, plus our basic understanding of how atoms react, which would fly in the face of 200 years of science that was not directly involved in determining the age of the Earth.

People know that scientific understanding changes over time. If a number of scientists offer significant evidence that the Earth is much younger than what we think, then gradually people will accept that.

But for the vast majority of Americans, if a professor with a Ph.D. in geology is claiming that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and a minister is claiming that Earth is 6-10 thousand years old because of how he interpreted a series of passages in the Bible, the scientist will get the benefit of the doubt every time.

That’s the reality of our culture. You may not like it, but you have to deal with it.

JimLennon on November 22, 2012 at 10:55 AM

I think when people say “climate change” it’s a shortcut for “anthropogenic climate change”. You’re probably right it’s good to differentiate, though, since somehow being against illegal immigration has morphed into being against all immigration.

eforhan on November 22, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Thank you. We’re letting the Left set the terms of the debate with their choice of words. You’ll notice how they freely switch from “global warming” to “climate change” when the weather doesn’t seem “warm” enough to convince people that “global warming” is real.

Your immigration analogy is a good one, too.

And with regards to the age of the Earth, I’m not asking anyone to repudiate their religious beliefs. All I’m asking is that candidates at least be familiar with what current science says, regardless of whether or not they agree with it.

None of us agree with socialism or communism, but we all try to have a passing familiarity with it so we can argue against it, right?

JimLennon on November 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM