by Lone Shark
Well, this is rich- Senator Marco Rubio recently answered a question from GQ Magazine pertaining to his views about the “age of the earth”- a clear gotcha question that Liberals try to entrap conservatives on in hopes that they’ll provide an answer which enables disingenuous Liberals the opportunity to cast conservatives as “anti-science” or worse. Check out Rubio’s clever answer to the question-
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. – Senator Marco Rubio
Rubio’s answer is actually well thought out and displays an intellectual curiosity that you might expect would be applauded rather than ridiculed- unless of course you’re one of the 16,000+ commenters over at the Huffington Post- the clear majority of whom think Rubio is a troglodytic flat-earther for his remarks.
For what it’s worth, the “exact” age of the earth is not set in stone, but many in the so-called “reality based” community treat the estimate as if it were an article of faith. The generally accepted age of the earth in the scientific community is approximately 4.5 Billion years- give or take 50 million years.
Hello, McFly??? The “age” of the earth is an estimate at best, and the now widely “scientifically accepted” date could in fact be well off the mark- by tens of millions of years, at minimum- talk about scientific hubris.
As a matter of fact, 100 years ago the “correct” answer to the question of “how old is the earth” was between 20-400 million years. Who’s to say what the “correct” answer will be 100 years from now? You have to love these so-called sticklers of “science” who love ridiculing thoughtful answers and genuinely intellectually curious people who refuse to kneel at their altar of “conventional wisdom”- much in the same manner that many of the truly great scientists did in the past.
You’ve got to appreciate the irony of those on the Left who deride Rubio for “dodging a basic science question” and yet fail to come to terms with an actual math question that’s much more readily verifiable- that of dealing with a $16,000,000,000,000 dollar debt and trillion dollar annual deficits that don’t require a “consensus” to acknowledge.
If you liked this post, please share it!
18 Responses to “Silly Libs Try in Vain to Cast Rubio as Anti-Science Flat Earther”
The LEFT are going after Rubio because they know he is going to run in 2016 and that he is a meager threat to the Democrat party!
Mr. VIVA RUBIO 2016: With all due respect, I have a few observations regarding your one-sentence comment.
The first one is to commend you for how valiantly you are wrestling the English language. Let me side with English, if you do not mind.
For starters: “The LEFT are” should be “The LEFT is” unless you want to say “The LEFTISTS,” then you can pluralize it (an entity [the LEFT] is singular; the individual components of the entity, when gathered, is plural… got it?) Second: You should not employ the word “meager” to describe Mr Rubio’s threat to Leftists and Liberals. Meager means something that lacks, or is deficient in, a desirable quality (like intelligence or intellect.) Though I would certainly use “meager” to describe Mr. Rubio’s political and intellectual abilities, I doubt that that was your intention. But you did describe Mr. Rubio thus! Finally, there’s no such thing as the “Democrat party.” It is the “Democratic Party.” “Democrat” is an individual that adheres to the Democratic Party.
OMG! And that is in only one sentence!!!
The second observation is about something you, and the others here, display at random or take for granted. That Mr. Rubio is intelligent. He is not. Contrary to Mr. Rubio’s assertion, Geology and Cosmology have determined not only the age of the Earth but also that of our Universe, and it is quite older (by a few billion years) than Bible-thumping anti-Science folks, like Rubio, believe. And when you repudiate (or “refudiate” to quote that immortal English-mangler “conservative,” Ms Palin) Science and replace it with magical thinking (like denying the role of human activity in global warming) you turn your back to progress and understanding.
We in the “LEFT” (or we “LIBERALS,” if you wish) do believe that Mr. Rubio is a nincompoop (i,e., a simpleton)in many things, particularly when it comes to understanding Government, Politics, Economy and Science. To name a few issues. And that he shares this deficiency with Mr. West and most Republicans and Tea Partiers that, for unfathomable reasons, like to call themselves “conservatives.” Though, it has to be admitted, Mr. Rubio is less harsh when it comes to express it, or just ducks the issues… à la Romney/Ryan.
Please, do not take my comments personally. Honestly, most comments in this site are English-deficient. I only chose yours as an example. Please, feel free to extend my concerns to all your pro-Rubio (and pro-West) confreres. They are all deficient at some level. Is it a requirement to have faulty English and limited intellectual capacity to be what you and the others here call a “conservative”? With the exception of some conservative political pundits (like Brooks, Podhoretz, Wills, etc.) it seems to me that the so-called conservative grassroots is a collective of simpleton Limbaugh/Coulter/West followers.
Pompous elitist douchebag,
Mr. Rubio’s response to the gotcha question as to the age of the earth is essentially the same as your messiah’s. Therefore, by your own standard, your messiah is a nincompoop.
I see that you’re an anti-science lefty in that you believe in anthropogenic global warming. The left has bastardized science in that they are willing to falsify data (East Anglia) to support what they “know” must be right, and then declare that the science is settled because scientists have reached a “consensus”. Science is is not a democracy.
And who is Wills? Do you mean George WILL? Regardless, those you have named as conservative pundits are nothing of the sort. I’m sure David Brooks’ declaration that Obama would make a fine president based on the crease in his pants is representative of your own depth of analysis on any given topic.
The left are desperate and they have been for years. The idea of a moderate, talented minority speaking off-message (or off tele-prompter!) from the white liberal speaking points is sacrilege! Don’t we know that we don’t know what’s good for us, that we need to listen to the Democrats and when we do votes, do what we are told?!?! The nerve of Rubio, the nerve!!
“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.”
He’s right, such things don’t have anything to do with the economic growth of the US economy but it DOES provide the opportunity to ask the “pro-science” liberal questioner just what economic model they are following, what country has successfully pursued such policies, and what outcomes were demonstrably better for their citizens.
After all, if it’s faith they wish to challenge, why should we not challenge liberal progressives to provide us with “scientific” answers to their economic hypotheses and assumptions, i.e. their faith in nonsensical economic policies, and where we can measure results of such theories and policies being tested and implemented.
Marco Rubio gave a thoughtful, well-reasoned response. The inane, silly actions of numerous Lefty commentors are self-indicting words of intolerance and stupidity. They are mindless lemmings. Our educational system has failed.
One thing is for sure; Marco Rubio is not AL GORE.
HE IS MUCH, MUCH SMARTER.
Just one more thing; He did not go to the same college where they gave a college degree as birthday gift to JOE BIDEN.
Rubio is going to be the next President.
Who are the socialists going to run against him in 2016? Joe Biden? Hillary “stand by my man” Clinton? She’ll be 70 years old and look like an ugly Helen Thomas! lol
Biden will be 100 and he already looks like Helen Thomas!
ALEXIA. What a wonderfully apt name for your hideous comment. Using age and looks to qualify an individual is a sure sign of ignorance. Would you have felt comfortable if somebody would have applied comments like yours to “conservative” Ronald Reagan? He became President at age 70 and left office at age 79, and he looked like a leather saddle left too long in the sun. Or to George Bush, the 43rd? He became President at age 65 and left office at age 69, and, in his best days, he looked like Howdy Doody, the puppet. And both were struggling with the first symptoms of dementia.
And 69 years old patrician-looking Biden? In the debate he intellectually devoured 42 years-old Dracula-looking Ryan. So much for age and looks.
Now, let us go to the name ALEXIA. If they tell you that is a name derived from “Alexis,” that in Greek means “defender”… don’t believe them. It actually means something else. In Greek, LEXIS means “word” or “diction” or “reading.” In Greek, when “a” is added to the beginning of a word it is called an “alpha-privative”, a modifier that denies the meaning or action of the word that follows. Simply put, ALEXIA means “without words” or “unable to read.” The problem is that the Alexias do not know they can’t read or understand what they write and they go ahead and write, resulting in the idiocies that you, ALEXIA, wrote.
Stop criticising Alexia for using “looks”. How many of the people used his “looks” to justify voting for Obama.
An old woman, a young half black/half white. Either one is a visual evaluation of the individual.
And Maarty seems to have a fine recollection not of deeds, but appearance in his (or her) description of everyone. Got to love libs.
But then, none of us can expect a lib to be consistent now, can we?
Rubio is the quickest on his feet of anyone who will run for president in 2016–and he is absolutely going to need it. He will be the right man for the moment.
RUBIO FOR PRESIDENT 2016 !!!!!!!!!
NO PRIMARIES – NO CHOOSING A CANDIDATE – LET’S UNITE NOW!!!!!
LET’S BEGIN TO RAISE MONEY. lET’S GET OT HISPANICS, SINGLE MOM’S
LETS DO THE WORK NOW FOR RUBIO 2016
NO MORE WASTING TIME ON OTHER CANDIDATES –
RUBIO 2016
saveFlorida – Sorry you are wrong. You have to go by the laws of primaries and choice of a candidate. I have supported Rubio since he first ran for Senator. He was behind charlie c. but I knew he would pull it off. I am not hispanic but go by the character not the color of the skin. I also hope Rubio will run.
He could have said, “I’m not sure, but if you accept scientists at their word for how old THEY think the world is, I can tell you that our government has spent $3,555.56 for every year our planet has been in existence since the dawn of its’ creation.
He could also ask how high a stack of sixteen trillion one dollar bills is. The answer is that if you stacked sixteen trillion one dollar bills on top of one another, it would reach from the earth to the moon, and back twice!!
That was not a gotcha question. Rubio gave the answer of a politician because he didn’t want to offend anybody. All he has to do is read the Bible and he would know that the earth is about 6000 years old. God created the Heavens and the earth, and Adam and Eve about 6000 years ago. Rubio needs to tell the truth and stop acting like a politician. And I emphasize politician.
If the earth is 4.5 billion, plus or minus, what was “it” before that? The matter/rock was somewhere, just not in its present form or shape. Of course, the Earth as we know it today was not in its present shape 1,000 years ago either. So first define “created”. Rubio’s answer was correct. These are different “opinions”, since no one can prove either the Biblical version or the “scientific” version (checked the climate trend lately to see how good some science is?).
So let communitites teach or comment on it all as Rubio sugegsts, and the future scuientists will have more information on which to form their own conculsions.
I have read articles with the comments on hp. They are the nastiest articles and comments I have ever seen. They wrote an article siding with the palestinians against Israel. They use disgusting language and are a bunch of God haters. Alot of Conservatives comments are not put in the comment section. If I play a game on aol before the election barry or his side kick would pop up for your vote.