Rubio: Age of Earth Remains “One of the Great Mysteries”

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has already started the process for running for president in 2016 with an appearance in Iowa. He has begun in classic form. In 2008, many people were shocked when most of the GOP candidates said that they did not believe in evolution. Rubio has now added his voice as denying scientific reality to court evangelical votes. Rubio insisted in an interview with GQ that the age of the Earth remains β€œone of the great mysteries.” Of course, the age of the Earth is about as much of a “mystery” as whether the Sun revolves around the Earth or the Earth revolves around the Sun. The age is roughly 4.5 billions years — an inconvenient fact to be sure, but a fact.

Rubio insists “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 . . . [w]hether the Earth was created in seven days, or seven actual eras. I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.”

Rubio wants to court people who believe that the Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago despite fossils and radiometric dating going back millions of years. The question is whether we should even consider someone for the presidency who denies such a clear and established fact. At what point is the denial of reality a threat to the nation in a commander and chief. Of course, some of these candidates may secretly accept reality, but that may be ever worse if you are willing to deny established facts (like the rising and setting of the Sun) in order to secure power.

Of course, forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years. However, a president is required to lead one of the most developed nation on Earth into a future that will be shaped by science and technology.

What is striking is that the suggestion that there is still some debate on the age of the Earth is taken that clear proof that he intends to run for President as a touchstone for GOP candidates. That is truly a sad commentary on the state of our political system.

Source: CNN

97 thoughts on “Rubio: Age of Earth Remains “One of the Great Mysteries””

  1. God: Noah!

    Noah: uh-oh!

    God: where did all these theologians get so many false stories to mislead the world in so many different religions?

    Noah: uh-oh!

    God: Noah, where is it written that I will forgive anyone who speaks against God?

    Noah: on bill cosby!

    God: remember Noah, remember! the elephants get charged for their trunks, they carry to much crap, so don’t forget the dung beetles.

  2. David,

    What establishes the limit boundary for the internal structure of a singularity? Does not the Pauli Exclusion Principle require that there can be only one singularity, if that principle is applicable at all scales of feasible observation?

    For those, if any, who wonder about the way I post comments here (and elsewhere) on the Internet, perhaps some sort of explanation may serve the public interest.

    A while ago, my primary care physician’s Physician Assistant informed me by telephone that my being autistic is “a proven diagnosis,” so I obtained a copy of my relevant medical records. Sure enough, it is stated that I am of the “high-functioning autistic” bunch of humans. But wait, there’s more. My medical records also label me as “hyperverbal.”

    For Kanner-type (language-delay) autistic people who are somewhat like me, it is common, in my experience, for language-delay autistic people to use words by the multiple plethora, For me, the reason for this is simple. Because I have had immense difficulty getting words to work as I tend to expect them to work, I suppose I use words in the typical manner of a male hominid mating with a female hominid, if words are like sperm; send out an immense array of sperm, or words, and hope that one of them will complete the journey.

    People who are engaged in labeling autistic spectrum people as an aspect of their work have consistently labeled me as being of the form of autism labeled “autistic savant.” Whatever. I did, alas, score at above college level while in grade school, I did study radio and electronics engineering starting the week after I finished fourth grade, and was doing successful original electronic design and construction work when I started fifth grade, and i did start an electronics business early in sixth grade, in 1950, that is still up and running, now more than 63 years later…

    But wait, there’s more. There are two classes of savants, at least as I peruse the relevant literature, There are savants who have one very narrow area of savant skill, and there are savants who are far more versatile than that. Some of the most versatile savants have what has been named, “:Long Term Working Memory,” (LTWM) which allows holding in conscious awareness thousands of “things”; a vastly larger working memory than that of normal people who may be able to hang on to perhaps a dozen things in conscious working memory.

    Something more than twenty years ago, a QEEG (Quantitative Electroencephalograph) demonstrated that I have LTWM, and use it regularly in my ordinary daily life.

    Savants who have LTWM may be classified as prodigious savants, and the last guess I came upon proposed that there may be about 50 prodigious savants alive now in the world, about half of which are, somewhat like me, prodigious autistic savants.

    So what? (Or, is it “sew what?”)

    Well before I was 18 months of age, it had come to my attention that, if I had access to the necessary data for solving a supposedly difficult problem, I could, as best I could tell, “out-think” anyone and everyone I had met. That led me to ponder what might be the most difficult problem in the world, based on the notion that the way my thinking worked, I might have a decent chance of making progress on a problem so difficult as to be a hopeless task for anyone else.

    The problem that has been the core of my life work is understanding both the cause, and the prevention, of human destructiveness, as it takes the forms of war, murder, prejudice, and their ilk.

    It took me until I was about fifty to, as best I can yet discern, solve the problem of the causation of human destructiveness; it took me until I was 58 to write and successfully defend a bioengineering doctoral dissertation in which the causal mechanism was described and the hypothetical remedy also described. It has taken me until now to become ready to share the remedy with the public at large.

    The cause of human destructiveness is simply human ignorance, and human ignorance is simply the natural consequence of the incompleteness of human social evolution.

    While it is often useful to model “things” as closed systems in the sense of classical thermodynamics (as one engineering professor put the three laws of thermodynamics, “1. You can’t lose. 2. You can’t win. 3. You can’t get out of the game.”)

    Alas, while closed system thermodynamics may be useful for improving the efficiency of a steam engine, closed system thermodynamics alone never actually built a steam engine.

    The Process of Existence, in order to exist, has to be an open system, else it could never have come into existence in the first place?

    When I was born, I had a conscience. I have never found any reason to improve it. My conscience works thus:

    If it is right, it is helpful. If it is helpful, it is right. If it is hurtful, it is wrong. If it is wrong, it is hurtful. And, it is helpful to learn what is hurtful, so as to be able to learn how to avoid what is hurtful; therefore, nothing actually wrong or actually hurtful ever actually happens. Whatever happens, as it happens, is necessary and sufficient. Because all the apparent wrongdoing that actually happens is of the learning of what is hurtful and how to avoid it, no actual wrongdoing is ever tangibly achievable.

    For those who profess Biblical literalism, I literally suggest actually reading the Bible literally. all of it. Then go back and re-read Genesis 11, and observe that literal reading of the Bible informs us that the only language we have is one of misunderstanding and confusion, and that nowhere whatsoever in the Bible is it stated that we have any language not of misunderstanding and confusion.

    Is hypocrisy a useful word to describe claiming to read the Bible literally while not noticing that the Bible literally puts for the notion that reading the Bible literally is impossible because the language, being of misunderstanding and confusion, is anything but literal?

    Kind of a contradiction? Like, gravity is something and no something can escape from a Black Hole?

    One attorney I knew had what i thought was a sense of humor. Okay. I have Wilson Huhn, “The Five Types of Legal Argument: Second Edition,” which happens to contain Seven Types of Legal Argument.

    That attorney, now deceased in old age, put it differently:

    “If the truth is on your side, argue the truth. If the truth is not on your side but the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither the truth nor the facts are on your side, argue the law. If none of the truth, the facts, or the law, are on your side, lie like Hell and hope to not get caught.”

    Can anyone propose a more ridiculous, cynically sarcastic, account for human destructiveness?

  3. BF,

    I saw that about the oldest galaxy earlier this week. What was especially interesting is that it is a dwarf galaxy, tending to prove the theory that modern galaxies formed from smaller constituent groupings.

  4. J.Brian, Awesome, I think I got about 75% of that. I got the substrate part from one of your earlier posts. As I have carried it around in my mind, it is a humbling yet true enough analysis, that checks any ego explosions I may entertain. I am built from all before, I will be part of all after. We all are. We are all equal in this. This is humbling and freeing. Though not universally recognized. I believe Bhuddism has close to a similar universal togetherness and interdependence. I am far from knowledgeable.
    My joy here is, YES gravity must escape from black holes. Or it has no physical relevance subject to any form of universal physics man knows.
    Either gravity IS the undefinable nothingness that gives all else its claim to not nothing. Or ??? …..that’s as far as my brain got ….then it stared hurting.. LOL.
    Now I spittle, one singularity IS nothing. For nothingness can not be measured without something to measure it against. Therefore it takes two.
    Nothing AND something in order for existence to exist.

    Now on to me stuff. Eternal joy is not what it is cracked up to be.
    One moment of joy is as eternal as it gets. Joy always is, it is as elusive as eternal pain. I welcome joy and try to be as elusive to pain as it is to me.
    When I am fortunate to step on the field of joy it is a familiar territory. I now look around and breath and open my pores to it. For one can not march up and down its’ fields, plant a flag in it claiming it as ours. No the landscape dissapates into the fog of now. And the balancing teeter totter of joy and pain reshapes beneath my feet challenging me again to find the perfect balance, so I can rise up to see the fields of joy again.
    It took me a long time to understand I am responsible for my perceptions. I am responsible for acknowledging the various substrates within me. I am still ignorant of almost all, but I now have a new term that is useful for searching.
    I am on my way to have a beer. My neurons seem to approve.
    J.Brian, you used a fascinating term a few comments ago. Inner consciousness. I have a 12 week old grandson I recently visited. I know his brain is functioning “a million miles an hour” right now. Does he know it ??
    Do we adults remember our 12 week old self? Is the adult mind as capable as functioning at the speed of an infants mind that is unimpeded by all the BS think, and daily menial BS details, that adult minds have to put up with?
    My grandson exists, he only expresses himself quite rudimentary.
    This is where your inner conscious remark grabs me. He must have an inner conscious right now. By extrapolation I certainly do, we all do. Our own inner consciousness were the first guides of ourselves. I now proceed to jump the shark. I believe the unrecognized inner conscious we all MUST have, our first guide, though unknown to our infant selves, is the basis for the God myth that is evolutionary seen in the historical record. ?????
    Okay maybe I should have gone for that beer prior to writing this paragraph. ……Usually I write stuff like this AFTER I have a few beers LOL.
    Well lets see what happens when I do it in reverse. …BYE BYE.

  5. The Earth is not older than the Bible says. So what does the Bible say on this topic? Rubio from Cubio can you weight in on this topic for us while you are fresh back from Iowa. If the Bible says ten thousand years then that is it. And if Rubio says different then I aint voting for him ever. Maybe never. Not for at least ten thousand years. We folks from Remulak are awaiting the truth here from Rubio. It is getting late and I need to report back. Our time bark platitude shows this planet to be millions plus in your years. And what about the sex act on this planet.
    What is the role of the two bathtubs in the back yard after the couple eats the pill? Do you humanoids conceive in the tub? And what is in that Viagra stuff to make you want to bathe?

  6. The wall between religion and state is very flawed when the politicians need to profess an incredible level of ignorance to gain votes.
    The religious teaching in the bible based on myth, superstition, and fear of eternal damnation, is a sure fired way to get 30% of the vote.
    Our constitution is brilliant, our politicians are not.

  7. OS

    I agree. Also 1st generation stars and galaxies are starting with only hydrogen is my understanding. So the scale/size of the stars may have been on average much more massive than the current universe, fusing H into He at higher rates, living shorter lives, and going supernova at a much higher frequency than we observe now. Few gravitational interactions leaves the galaxy formless or blob-like, possibly.

  8. From Wikipedia (the infallible source of some aspects of fallibility?), the first sentence of the article on Black Holes:

    “A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity prevents anything, including light, from escaping.”

    Does “the standard model” have it that, in the manner that light is made of photons and light waves, so gravity is made of gravitons and gravity waves?

    If so, and if gravity prevents anything, including light (as photons and light waves) from escaping, and if gravity is anything (like gravitons and gravity waves?), then the external gravitational field of a black hole cannot exist outside the event horizon of the black hole, and black holes, therefore, do not attract matter.

    Of course, if gravity is not anything, it would easily escape from a black hole, yes? That anything cannot escape from a black hole says nothing about what is not anything. Only, if gravity is not anything, what is it, or is it not anything at all, such that asking what gravity is, is absolute nonsense?

    However, were gravity to be a stability criterion for the persistence of the observability of existence from within existence, gravity might not actually exist save as an aspect of the observability of itself; as in a circular reference dance of the intrinsic self-referential nature of a model of the interior of a singularity such as that named in the title of a book by Paul Tillich, “The Eternal Now.”

    If existence is modeled as a singularity, it would be vastly too small to hold anything that is what it isn’t, and that might explain the law of identity. Alas, if existence is a singularity, then it would only contain what the law of identity allows, and would surely be defined by the identity of itself.

    Would that not allow the sentient awareness of existence, from which human sentient awareness surely is a natural consequence, to be of an eternal now, because of being the timeless, “I Am.”?

    As it may be useful to distinguish the observer from the observation and from the observed, so it may be useful to distinguish the modeler from the model from the modeled?

    Why does existence exist? Perhaps because, for something to stop existence from existing, said something would have to exist, and, if said something were to stop existence from existing, it surely would stop itself from stopping existence from existing, therefore, existence may exist because nothing can exist that can completely stop existence from existing.

    Infinitely, recursively nested sets of sets which contain themselves as members of empty sets may offer a way out of the existential predicament, if there is a predicament.

    If I do not exist, then I cannot realize that I am not typing these words into a computer, and and I cannot realize that am not posting them on the Internet.

    If the universe of all parallel and perpendicular and other-oriented universes is the totality of all actual and non-actual existence, is existence itself aught else than unbounded non-existent self-reference?

    Perhaps analytical reductionism is insufficient for making viable sense of observable existential reality. Perhaps Jan Christiaan Smuts had some wisdom to offer, Perhaps holistic relationalism is needed for a meaningful modeling of existence after all.

    I suppose others here, rather like me, have, and have read, Smuts, “Holism and Evolution,” Macmillan, 1926…

    In my work in theoretical biology, I find it useful to regard existence as comprised of organisms and their substrates, since I have never encountered an organism that is totally without any substrate. Indeed, for any particular individual organism, the whole remainder of existence is its substrate.

    Hence, from a holistic and relational view, the entire universe is life itself, and, I also allow, more than life itself. For those who enjoy reading theoretical biology, there are the books, Robert Rose, :”Life Itself,” and A. H. Louie, “More Than Life Itself.” Robert Rosen’s “Anticipatory Systems, Second Edition” was readily available from booksellers when I last checked a few weeks ago.

  9. BF:
    Thanks. I was just rummaging around Teh Google and found that. That is way cool. It appears to be a kind of amorphous blob of a galaxy, which is what one would expect of a brand new one in the process of formation. By now, it is probably much larger and well formed.

  10. @Darren

    I agree with you and JT. What if he said that Hindu god’s danced the universe and Earth into being, as is their belief. Or that the sun and moon chase each other through the sky, doing battle every dawn, as the ancient Egyptian’s claimed.

    The only reason these claims don’t get laughed out of town is obvious to anyone that isn’t completely biased by the religion of their own. Many, many are full of blind faithiness and science does not reconcile with religion, as hoped and promised by many a theologian.

  11. Also, with regards to Rubio’s “I’m not a scientist, man” pandering and feigning, he is on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. Not sure if that was mentioned already, but, personally I’d like the people making choices about science funding and policy to have at least a 9th grade understanding of fundamental science. Is that too much to ask?

Comments are closed.