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

[BucEyedPea]

cdox, some PhD's are economically ignorant too. Many are Marxists.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by blaise

Well, that's different, because....

It's not..actually Obama's is probably more religious than Rubio's.

With that being said people don't think Obama is anti-science because he believes in Global Warming etc...

I haven't looked up Rubio's stance on certain scientific subjects.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

It's not..actually Obama's is probably more religious than Rubio's.

With that being said people don't think Obama is anti-science because he believes in Global Warming etc...

I haven't looked up Rubio's stance on certain scientific subjects.

Yeah, I'm defending what Rubio said in the OP, but I don't know very much about him at all. For all I know he's made stronger comments on the subject.

I just think acting like his comments in the OP are some sort of religious kookery is kind of like other people picking apart an innocuous Obama comment and saying he's a Marxist.

[Cave Johnson]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

So did Obama’s answer disqualify him in your mind. One would assume you didn’t vote for him either time. I mean he thinks the big invisible man in the sky got out his Playdough and Lincoln logs and created the universe.

No, because he was asked a different question.

"Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?"

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by blaise

Yeah, I'm defending what Rubio said in the OP, but I don't know very much about him at all. For all I know he's made stronger comments on the subject.

I just think acting like his comments in the OP are some sort of religious kookery is kind of like other people picking apart an innocuous Obama comment and saying he's a Marxist.

Totally agree.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by Cave Johnson

No, because he was asked a different question.

"Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?"

Right, dirk's post basically made your post about Rubio look stupid. But nice try.

[Cave Johnson]

Originally Posted by blaise

Right, dirk's post basically made your post about Rubio look stupid. But nice try.

[Superbowltrashcan]

Originally Posted by Donger

I just find it really interesting that some people immediately completely dismiss something which they can neither prove or disprove (on both sides).

I have always been of a similar opinion on this and find it amusing the inability of people speaking on this issue from the Science side of things to recognize they are trying to refute a piece of a person's faith, which by definition needs no tangible proof, hence the term faith. Likewise those in the conservative faith community always feel they have to provide "proof" of what is in conflict with scientific theory.

The extreme view that it is impossible to prove the existence of the entire universe extends beyond the present instant is one that to most quite silly but nonetheless valid.

[HonestChieffan]

Here is a tidbit worth reading. Then Senator Obama answering essentially the same question....

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?


A: What I’ve said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don’t presume to know.

In Living color here...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kxDf...=youtu.be&t=9m

And for the record. Both Obama and Rubio did a pretty good job

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Here is a tidbit worth reading. Then Senator Obama answering essentially the same question....

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?


A: What I’ve said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don’t presume to know.

In Living color here...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kxDf...=youtu.be&t=9m

And for the record. Both Obama and Rubio did a pretty good job

Really hcf I didn't know that. Thanks for showing us that Obama quote

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Superbowltrashcan

I have always been of a similar opinion on this and find it amusing the inability of people speaking on this issue from the Science side of things to recognize they are trying to refute a piece of a person's faith, which by definition needs no tangible proof, hence the term faith. Likewise those in the conservative faith community always feel they have to provide "proof" of what is in conflict with scientific theory.

The extreme view that it is impossible to prove the existence of the entire universe extends beyond the present instant is one that to most quite silly but nonetheless valid.

Exactly. Also, that religious people are nuts and can't do science when Isaac Newton was religious and Copernicus was a Catholic monk. Have to wonder if it's not really just a form of ant-religious bigotry by some.

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by Cave Johnson

No, because he was asked a different question.

"Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?"

I have had the discussion. I said I really don’t know for sure what happened but, I find it far more likely that Man made God in his own image than the opposite but on a number of levels I wish I did had the faith that some others do because, it would make life very simple. The idea of the Big Bang makes sense but, what created the matter and how it came to be from nothing makes no sense to me and it is beyond my intellectual capacity to grasp. Much like those that say God is and has always been so nothing made God. I can’t wrap my mind around that idea either.

[cdcox]

Differences between Obama's and Rubio's statements on earth
origins and science in general:

1. Obama clearly draws lines around where this debate occurs,"within the Christian community". Rubio makes no such distinction.

2. Obama indicates that in his own personal view, he modifies his religous beliefs to conform to science. Rubio leaves it as unknowable, that theology and science are equally valid ways of approaching the question.

3. Rubio goes out of his way to distance questions of science from public policy. That's fine for BEP's 18th century fantasy America, but here in the real world, science is at the heart of our future as a world leader.

4. Rubio belongs to a party married to the denial of inconvenient science. He denies anthropogenic climate change. Obama's public positions are consistently well informed by consensus main stream science. So the context of the two statements is completely different.

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Differences between Obama's and Rubio's statements on earth
origins and science in general:

1. Obama clearly draws lines around where this debate occurs,"within the Christian community". Rubio makes no such distinction.

2. Obama indicates that in his own personal view, he modifies his religous beliefs to conform to science. Rubio leaves it as unknowable, that theology and science are equally valid ways of approaching the question.

3. Rubio goes out of his way to distance questions of science from public policy. That's fine for BEP's 18th century fantasy America, but here in the real world, science is at the heart of our future as a world leader.

4. Rubio belongs to a party married to the denial of inconvenient science. He denies anthropogenic climate change. Obama's public positions are consistently well informed by consensus main stream science. So the context of the two statements is completely different.

“but here in the real world, science is at the heart of our future as a world leader”

Thanks for explaining. So if I understand you correctly, the invisible man in the sky made everything is Scientific , it is the timeframe that is the issue.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cdcox

3. Rubio goes out of his way to distance questions of science from public policy. That's fine for BEP's 18th century fantasy America, but here in the real world, science is at the heart of our future as a world leader.

Yet, you prefer the former world of Marxist countries despite their obvious failings. I'll take the 18th Century Enlightenment over your materialism and slavery. Afterall, that's what was supposed to be the freest nation in the world, but is no longer, was founded on. Not to mention how smaller govt we got from that still allowed us to become the wealthiest nation in the world. For a man of math and science you certainly cannot see cause and effect.