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

[blaise]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Disqualifying answer for me. He doesn't have the minimal scientific knowledge needed to lead a technological based economy. Why should we fund science if such basic questions are "unanswerable".

You think most candidates would know how old the Earth is if asked?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Disqualifying answer for me. He doesn't have the minimal scientific knowledge needed to lead a technological based economy. Why should we fund science if such basic questions are "unanswerable".

JHC, now the president is supposed to lead the economy too? One man?


You don't have minimal economic or civics knowledge to vote. No wonder you project the same thing on Republicans.

[BucEyedPea]

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by blaise

You think most candidates would know how old the Earth is if asked?

"Billions of years" would work for me.

Much of the economy 20 years from now is going to be based on science and technology that will be done in the next 4 years. We can't afford a president that is agnostic about science.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cdcox

"Billions of years" would work for me.

Much of the economy 20 years from now is going to be based on science and technology that will be done in the next 4 years. We can't afford a president that is agnostic about science.

Nor can we afford to have voters that don't know how economies work and grow—which is on their own with millions or billions of individuals doing their own valuing and making their choices off those values. NOT one man in govt or even a few. Any successful entrepreneur doesn't confuse what he likes for what will sell.

You sound like you believe in a command and control type, or one that leans that way, economy. THOSE are the least efficient and don't make people wealthy. The govt just needs to get out of the way, so the creativity of men of science and in other professions can develop the things we need—or to have fun with.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by blaise

You think most candidates would know how old the Earth is if asked?

They don't need to know exactly. 10,000 years or less, we know we have a religious nut or someone pandering to them. A billion or more--reasonable. Something in between may indicate a lack of basic science knowledge, but we would need more information.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

They don't need to know exactly. 10,000 years or less, we know we have a religious nut or someone pandering to them. A billion or more--reasonable. Something in between may indicate a lack of basic science knowledge, but we would need more information.

Is the president going to be working in the field of science....say in a lab a few days a week?

Anyone who is religious to a commie such as yourself, is always gonna be a "nut." The thing is you're the real "nut."

I could care less if a president knows how old earth is. That requirement is not necessary to carry out his Constitutional duties. That's what division of labor is for....which is more efficient. A president need not know every field.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Is the president going to be working in the field of science....say in a lab a few days a week?

Anyone who is religious to a commie such as yourself, is always gonna be a "nut." The thing is you're the real "nut."

I could care less if a president knows how old earth is. That requirement is not necessary to carry out his Constitutional duties. That's what division of labor is for....which is more efficient. A president need not know every field.

Geez--how many times must this point be made? It is not about knowing the number. It is about pandering to the religious nuts and whether the candidate himself is one. Most adults know (or should) that Earth is far older than 10,000 years old. So if an adult says 10K years or less, I know they are among the group of anti-science kooks. I wouldn't trust an anti-science kook to be president. If they are using the Bible as a scientific source, its not a stretch to believe they think the Bible should control govt policy and other beliefs.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by blaise

You think most candidates would know how old the Earth is if asked?

If they are in Iowa, yes.

[cdcox]

Rubio is saying that the age of the earth is "unanswerable". That science has nothing to say about the matter.

Meanwhile we have people incorrectly stating that humans cannot affect the climate of the earth one way or another, which is patently ridiculous. A single volcanic eruption has changed the climate of entire hemispheres for up to two years. Can all of human activity not surpass a single volcanic eruption? This sort of ignorance is what we reap from a scientifically illiterate populous and candidates.

I'll stick with candidates who think science can answer important questions, thank you.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

They don't need to know exactly. 10,000 years or less, we know we have a religious nut or someone pandering to them. A billion or more--reasonable. Something in between may indicate a lack of basic science knowledge, but we would need more information.

He said it's less than 10,000 years old?

[blaise]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

If they are in Iowa, yes.

I don't really feel like you're making a point there.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Rubio is saying that the age of the earth is "unanswerable". That science has nothing to say about the matter.

Meanwhile we have people incorrectly stating that humans cannot affect the climate of the earth one way or another, which is patently ridiculous. A single volcanic eruption has changed the climate of entire hemispheres for up to two years. Can all of human activity not surpass a single volcanic eruption? This sort of ignorance is what we reap from a scientifically illiterate populous and candidates.

I'll stick with candidates who think science can answer important questions, thank you.

He didn't say it's unanswerable, nor did he say that science has nothing to say about the matter.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by cdcox

"Billions of years" would work for me.

Much of the economy 20 years from now is going to be based on science and technology that will be done in the next 4 years. We can't afford a president that is agnostic about science.

He actually says, "he's not a scientist." Indicating that he believes a scientist would have the answer. That doesn't really seem like he's discrediting scientists.

That would be like you asking me to diagnose an illness, me saying I'm not a doctor, and then you saying I'm discrediting medicine.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by blaise

He didn't say it's unanswerable, nor did he say that science has nothing to say about the matter.

"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."