How Old is Earth?

[yeahwho]

Well from what I can gather in a few moments research earth is 4.54 billion years (https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=3&tok=JIkho8K58MajjwYqHlPeVA&pq=how%20old%20is%20jean%20enersen&cp=13&gs_id=1x&xhr=t&q=how+old+is+earth&pf=p&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&oq=how+old+is+ea&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=586a88163b2f375f&bpcl=38897761&biw=1600&bih=691). The Republican Party's newest star "Marco Rubio (http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/11/20/marco-rubio-tells-gq-no-scientist-man/)" did not want to answer that question directly when interviewed by GQ magazine (http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201212/marco-rubio-interview-gq-december-2012?printable=true&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitte). His response,

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?
Marco Rubio: 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.

Why can't politicians just be honest and say, hey this planet older than 6000 years? Russ Douthat of the NYTimes (http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/marco-rubio-and-the-age-of-the-earth/)defends Rubio's remarks by saying the GQ interviewer caught the junior senator from Florida in a "Gotcha" question.

More broadly, meanwhile, the fact that this kind of question is a “gotcha” at all is a much bigger problem for American Christianity than for Republican politicians. The goal of a political party is to win 51 percent of the vote and govern effectively, and as Rubio suggests, the ordinary work of politics can proceed even if some national politicians decline to take public views on the geological age of the earth. But the goal of Christianity is supposed to be the conversion of every human heart — yes, scientists and intellectuals included — and the central claim of Christianity is that the faith offers, not a particular political agenda or an economic program, but the true story of the world entire. The more Christians convince themselves that their faith’s core is identical with the modern innovation of fundamentalism, and in direct conflict with the best available modern biology and geology, the less attainable that goal and the less tenable that central claim.

After reading that NYTimes piece the first commenter made my day,

This is about leadership, and the ability to lead. If Marco Rubio cannot look people in the eye and tell them that the Earth is a few billion years old, then how can he lead?

And if you cannot see that this is the ultimate in simple issues, that needs about 50 words, max, to dispose of, then how can you call yourself a commentator?

[yeahwho]

LMAO, Rush Limbaugh weighs in on Rubios' GQ interview. Idiocracy in action.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/11/21/the_romneying_of_marco_rubio

What are they doing? Why is Rubio's answer of 6,000 years of recorded history, you've got to understand -- furthermore, you know, I'm to the point of convening a little confab, a weekend confab of all potential Republican candidates and giving them a short little preview of what they can expect from the media and how to deal with it and what media to avoid. What is Rubio doing with GQ? They're the enemy. Now, that's a side issue. That's a side point.

[kaiser soze]

President Camacho for President!

I know why the repub/gop/conservative label is dying - survival of the fittest ;)

[yeahwho]

I think it's important to call out the bullshit and very expensive tactics this select group Republicans are doing at the expense of us, the citizens...

Here is Boehner, obstructing AHA right out of the election (http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20121121/EDIT02/311210016/House-GOP-angling-repeal-health-care?nclick_check=1),
Below from the NYTimes

Boehner’s Rearguard Guerrilla Action (http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/boehners-rearguard-guerilla-action/)

No one thought it would be easy for President Obama and Republicans in Congress to negotiate a package of tax increases and spending cuts over the next few weeks. But now Speaker John Boehner is trying to make the process even harder. In an op-ed article for the Cincinnati Enquirer today, Mr. Boehner said that “we need to repeal Obamacare” because it adds to the debt and is unaffordable. As a result, he wrote, “the law has to stay on the table as both parties discuss ways to solve our nation’s massive debt challenge.”

That ignores the plain words of the most reliable and non-partisan judge of these things — the Congressional Budget Office — which said in July that the Affordable Care Act doesn’t add to the debt, it lowers the debt. Repealing the law would add $109 billion to the debt through 2022. (The Supreme Court, in fact, made the law $84 billion cheaper when it ruled that states don’t have to accept the law’s Medicaid expansion.)

More broadly, though, Mr. Boehner is not simply ignoring the results of this month’s election, he is openly defying them. Not only did Mr. Obama and many congressional Democrats win with full-throated support for the reform law, but exit polls showed that only 25 percent of voters agree with the Republican goal of full repeal.

Just like before during the first term,

This a selective reading of history. Here, in part, is what the American Jobs Act proposed by Obama contained and which Republicans were adamantly opposed to and voted down:

• Spending $50 billion on both new & pre-existing infrastructure projects.
• Spending $35 billion in additional funding to protect the jobs of teachers, police officers, and firefighters
• Spending $30 billion to modernize at least 35,000 public schools and community colleges.
• Spending $15 billion on a program that would hire construction workers to help rehabilitate and refurbishing hundreds of thousands of foreclosed homes and businesses.
• Creating the National Infrastructure Bank (capitalized with $10 billion), originally proposed in 2007, to help fund infrastructure via private and public capital.
• Creating a nationwide, interoperable wireless network for public safety, while expanding accessibility to high-speed wireless services.
• Loosening regulations on small businesses that wish to raise capital, including through crowdfunding, while retaining investor protections.

In total the legislation included $253 billion in tax credits (56.6%) and $194 billion in spending and extension of unemployment benefits (43.4%).


These guys are painting one of the ugliest obstructionist and isolationist periods in history. It is beginning to look like a seriously fucked up political party.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Any person who still believes in a young Earth is dangerous politically (and economically) and should never be voted into office (wish we could prevent these fools from evening running for political office). It is not a theory that the Earth is far older than 6,000 years. To act like it is 'just a theory' is downright dangerous and misleading. Understanding the history of the planet and its diversity will help us understand the economy and resources for generations to come.

[yeahwho]

The Ed/Op piece that nails Rubio's comments is Paul Krugmans' New York Times article titled, "Grand Old Planet (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/23/opinion/krugman-grand-old-planet.html)".

We are, after all, living in an era when science plays a crucial economic role. How are we going to search effectively for natural resources if schools trying to teach modern geology must give equal time to claims that the world is only 6.000 years old? How are we going to stay competitive in biotechnology if biology classes avoid any material that might offend creationists?

And then there’s the matter of using evidence to shape economic policy. You may have read about the recent study from the Congressional Research Service finding no empirical support for the dogma that cutting taxes on the wealthy leads to higher economic growth. How did Republicans respond? By suppressing the report. On economics, as in hard science, modern conservatives don’t want to hear anything challenging their preconceptions — and they don’t want anyone else to hear about it, either.

So don’t shrug off Mr. Rubio’s awkward moment. His inability to deal with geological evidence was symptomatic of a much broader problem — one that may, in the end, set America on a path of inexorable decline.


I think the age of technology is underestimated by the republican party as a whole and the thing they've been unable to grasp is teenagers in junior high and high school "get It" they understand the difference between bad information and real science readily available to them. We're smart and getting smarter, it isn't about shunning religion or some sort of blasphemous rebellion. It's enlightenment, it can co-exist and actually make God even more wondrous than ever before. These are amazing times.

But like one of the commenter's replied to the NYTimes article,

If we tell the GOP that climate change is caused by the devil, would they start to do something about it?

[HAL 9000]

Although I dont know the context for this (so may be completely wrong here) - I think it would be wrong to assume that when a Republican politician says the world is 6,000 years old that he actually believes that. Like all politicians, he presumably responds to any question with the answer that is most in line with his target voters, in which case, he probably gave the optimal answer.

I always imagine that there is a sensible core in the GOP that knows how things work, but also knows what buttons to push to win the vote of the luinatic contingent of the electorate!

[abbott]

How old is earth is a good question, but I like to wounder how old is the oldest proof of advanced civilization. I know there is older, but just here in New Mexico, Clovis Points date back 20,000 years.

I checked out a history book from my 5th grade and sure enough it was way off.

Kind of reminds me of the time I was told the story about the president who never told a lie.

I could never be a politician as I fucked to much shit up. But, if I had been there under the gun and asked the same question about the age of earth...

How old is the Earth? ... "old enough that I have no fucking clue. What kind of dumb ass question is this? Can someone please get this guy out of here and take him to the museum."

[yeahwho]

Perhaps the question should be, "How flat is Earth"?

Is it any wonder why so many millions of Americans are disenchanted with politics. Any conversation can be conveniently avoided with "What's that got to do with getting the economy going"?

Sure, what does anything have to do with the economy? Besides the fucking economy? It's not the fucking question being asked.

Or lets put it this way, Rubio is a Catholic... Pope John Paul II wasn't a scientist, either, but he didn't doubt the science. Way back on 22 Oct 1996 he stated, Truth Cannot Contradict Truth (http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm);

Similarly, Benedict XVI, on 31 Oct 2008 ( http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/es33.pdf ) said:

"My predecessors Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II noted that there is no opposition between faith’s understanding of creation and the evidence of the empirical sciences."


Catholic Popes don't deny science, just Catholic Republican politicians.

[HAL 9000]

^ He might accept the basic concept of evolution but he still says

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit (http://www.newadvent.org/library/cathen/14220b.htm) as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

which is still denial of science, and common sense if you have ever known someone with alzheimers.

Going back to Rubio, I think a politicians views on these sorts of things are important, it speaks to the role of superstition and ideology in a persons decision making process. I just dont think we find out that much about a politicians views by asking them, they tell you what they think you want them to say, not what they actually think.

[yeahwho]

Scientists distinguish between phenomena and epiphenomena.

I hold scientists in very high regard. The findings they present us with are real. Truth as we can explain, "Not a self fulfilling Prophecy. The more I read about the scientists who've studied and brought forth their findings for a tramp like me the more i am amazed.

None of the work or studies presenting the very beginnings of earth contradict any spiritual belief I hold close to me. It is enlightening to see so much being accomplished by scientists in the light of multiple deniers in there face.

Geologists are doing what they do and Rubio is doing what he does. The contrast and answers are changed to fit his ideal political power base.

The thing is this, what Rubio is saying sounds idiotic. Teach your children whatever fits into your religious base. Ignore all of the scientific hoopla and focus on a line of crap that says the Earth is 6000-20000 years old.

You can make up your own mind. In essence if you believe the 6000 years old you get to go to heaven. Then what? Be happy with a bunch of self delusional people who died denying the realities of their Planet?

That doesn't sound like heaven to me, it sounds like a Tea Party convention.

[abbott]

This Rubio guy, whoever the fuck he is, dose not know shit about politics or the Bible is what it sounds like to me. Then he takes his misunderstandings and tries to make them fit together. The people who follow him must be bigger dumb asses.

I think when people act like a dumb ass it is very telling that they are a dumb ass. It is one thing to not know, but to act like you know when you dont makes for the biggest dumb ass.