Marco Rubio, Republican Savior?

[Cave Johnson]

Moderates will love this guy!

When asked how old he thinks the Earth is, Rubio makes that much clear:

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.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....scientist.html

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by h5n1

PLEASE get me an intelligent right-leaning moderate (fiscal conservative, socially liberal) who has at least a BASIC understanding of science. PLEASE. ****ing brutal, there's absolutely no great mystery to any of this shit.

Most of them probably do. They just can't go showing it off.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Literature

Probably both.

Anyway, these theories are vastly different the story told in Genesis, yes?

It's been a while, but I don't recall that Genesis was very specific about how the big ball of rock actually formed, no?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by blaise

So, if you asked Obama what the age of the Earth is he's just going to rattle off an actual number? That's what we need from politicians, to be able to quickly tell how old the Earth is estimated to be?

I don't think anyone expects an exact accurate answer. But if someone answers in the 10,000-year-or-under range, you know who you are dealing with.

[Discuss Thrower]

I know I'm late to the convo, but what makes you think he won't be the same Evangelical stooge by the time the primaries roll around?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Donger

It's been a while, but I don't recall that Genesis was very specific about how the big ball of rock actually formed, no?

Not much, if any. On the other hand, there are details about what God did in seven days in creating the earth. So, what do you think Marco Rubio was referencing when he mentioned the "created in seven days" part?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

I know I'm late to the convo, but what makes you think he won't be the same Evangelical stooge by the time the primaries roll around?

Because he listens to Tupac and Eminem. He's a rebel.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Donger

I'd also like to see the actual question he was asked.

Originally Posted by Cave Johnson

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Ah, it was one of those trick / gotcha questions.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Literature

Not much, if any. On the other hand, there are details about what God did in seven days in creating the earth. So, what do you think Marco Rubio was referencing when he mentioned the "created in seven days" part?

I don't know.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Donger

The seven day creation would obviously involve "God" or some other thing which makes the standard model fly out the window.

OK, that's where I thought you were going with this. There isn't any evidence disproving the existence of God, and there isn't any evidence that He didn't set up the entire universe in a short period of time.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by Donger

I don't know.

Which idea is he more likely referencing?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by listopencil

OK, that's where I thought you were going with this. There isn't any evidence disproving the existence of God, and there isn't any evidence that He didn't set up the entire universe in a short period of time.

Correct.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Donger

It's been a while, but I don't recall that Genesis was very specific about how the big ball of rock actually formed, no?

It doesn't talk about it at all, it sort of implies that the Earth was here before anything else. The breakdown is basically:

Day 1: seperated light and darkness
Day 2: created the sky
Day 3: created dry land and vegetation
Day 4: created the sun, moon, and stars
Day 5: created birds and fish
Day 6: created land animals and man
Day 7: rest

[Bump]

Originally Posted by listopencil

OK, that's where I thought you were going with this. There isn't any evidence disproving the existence of God, and there isn't any evidence that He didn't set up the entire universe in a short period of time.

it's not whether you can prove it, or if you have facts, or if it defies the laws of physics, or even if it's just plain common sense. The important thing is that people are just dumb enough to believe it.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Literature

Which idea is he more likely referencing?

Since he specifically mentions seven days, which IIRC the other six were creating water, trees and critters, it's more likely that Rubio is referring to more than only the creation of the big ball of rock.

[jiveturkey]

Originally Posted by listopencil

OK, that's where I thought you were going with this. There isn't any evidence disproving the existence of God, and there isn't any evidence that He didn't set up the entire universe in a short period of time.

Setting up the universe and creating earth are two different things. The earth came much later.

And I finally found something regarding accretion. Most of what I found estimated 50 to 100 million years for a planet the size of earth to form using common accretion models. These models have come into question recently though but the timelines aren't the issue.

And to highlight this is a hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis

According to the nebular hypothesis, stars form in massive and dense clouds of molecular hydrogen—giant molecular clouds (GMC). They are gravitationally unstable, and matter coalesces to smaller denser clumps within, which then proceed to collapse and form stars. Star formation is a complex process, which always produces a gaseous protoplanetary disk around the young star. This may give birth to planets in certain circumstances, which are not well known. Thus the formation of planetary systems is thought to be a natural result of star formation. A sun-like star usually takes around 100 million years to form.[5]

The protoplanetary disk is an accretion disk which continues to feed the central star. Initially very hot, the disk later cools in what is known as the T tauri star stage; here, formation of small dust grains made of rocks and ices is possible. The grains may eventually coagulate into kilometer-sized planetesimals. If the disk is massive enough the runaway accretions begin, resulting in the rapid—100,000 to 300,000 years—formation of Moon- to Mars-sized planetary embryos. Near the star, the planetary embryos go through a stage of violent mergers, producing a few terrestrial planets. The last stage takes around 100 million to a billion years.[5]