Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:19 PM

EarlG (13,422 posts)

Pic Of The Moment: QUESTION: How Old Is The Earth?

Rubio: Maybe Earth was created in 7 days because 'I'm not a scientist, man'

Follow @demunderground

68 replies, 6868 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

68 replies	Author	Time	Post
Pic Of The Moment: QUESTION: How Old Is The Earth? (Original post)	EarlG	Nov 2012	OP
Of course, parents can	ann---	Nov 2012	#1
SCHOOLS should not teach fantasy - only factual science.	AlbertCat	Nov 2012	#15
Doubting evolution and accepting modern technology is a form of cognitive dissonance...	teknomanzer	Nov 2012	#57
is same science behind evolution and cosmology.	AlbertCat	Nov 2012	#61
This is what slays me	AldoLeopold	Nov 2012	#2
Science?	blaze	Nov 2012	#3
4.5 billion is also the number of Republican lies we'll hear between now and election day 2016	Auggie	Nov 2012	#4
Closer to 4.5 trillion, methinks	Dont call me Shirley	Nov 2012	#39
Gee, it could top a brazillion!	Auggie	Nov 2012	#45
too scary to actually be funny	Kali	Nov 2012	#5
+1	valerief	Nov 2012	#10
IKR?	Hydra	Nov 2012	#47
In other words: "I'm a creationist." nt	SutaUvaca	Nov 2012	#6
Flat-earthers of the world...	Brooklyn Dame	Nov 2012	#7
Waffles for breakfast again?	JohnnyRingo	Nov 2012	#8
Bingo!	AlbertCat	Nov 2012	#17
To paraphrase: "about 4.5 billion years, but if I say that I'll alienate 40% of the base."	Scuba	Nov 2012	#9
This message was hidden by jury decision.	dropboss11	Nov 2012	#11
Oh give me a break.	Atypical Liberal	Nov 2012	#23
think I'm in the wrong board	PatrynXX	Nov 2012	#59
So you think we should pander to fundamentalist idiocy?	Warren Stupidity	Nov 2012	#66
You never lose with truth.	Atypical Liberal	Nov 2012	#67
And yet these morons get to control the House.	Initech	Nov 2012	#12
What a frikkin' weenie, man!	RevStPatrick	Nov 2012	#13
Crumby politically correct politician answer	Dash87	Nov 2012	#14
Actually, I would guess that he knows full well...	RevStPatrick	Nov 2012	#16
Hidden post .... number 11...	AlbertCat	Nov 2012	#18
Christians base this on the Bible and a Bishop named	Jumping John	Nov 2012	#19
That link was fascinating. Thanks.	Fantastic Anarchist	Nov 2012	#50
Just one of the great mysteries	Coyotl	Nov 2012	#20
There is no correct answer.	Eddie Haskell	Nov 2012	#21
Just as there is no "correct" answer to "What is the population of the U.S.?"	dumbledork	Nov 2012	#31
Yes, but they are educated guesses; not based on some religious belief system.	Eddie Haskell	Nov 2012	#41
could be a little over or under 300 million...	Deep13	Nov 2012	#43
Agree	harun	Nov 2012	#42
both sides should show some humility and respect towards each other.	AlbertCat	Nov 2012	#52
don't particularly find religious intolerance a good thing	PatrynXX	Nov 2012	#60
Simply put your self in the position of a deity trying to explain	harun	Nov 2012	#68
There is no both sides.	Warren Stupidity	Nov 2012	#64
Yeah, THAT'LL get you laughed out of debates . . . .	HughBeaumont	Nov 2012	#22
not qualified to be my cable man.	grantcart	Nov 2012	#24
RepubliCON Exceptionalism!!	ceeRoy	Nov 2012	#25
Rubio and his republican base	Madmiddle	Nov 2012	#26
Oh, yeah?	Wednesdays	Nov 2012	#53
If you don't understand science, Marco, why have you judged against science? Bigot much? nt	patrice	Nov 2012	#27
It's like, turtles all the way down, man.	Kalidurga	Nov 2012	#28
This isn't exactly a GOTCHA question!	MNBrewer	Nov 2012	#29
Shouldn't someone turn him on to at least google?	randr	Nov 2012	#30
Theologians are NOT scientists	silhouete2	Nov 2012	#32
Since G-d 'created TIME itself, this instant (and all instants) is 'created' right NOW.	TahitiNut	Nov 2012	#33
G-d	AlbertCat	Nov 2012	#54
Not qualified to be a Senator, either... man! nt	MADem	Nov 2012	#34
So says the man on science, while utilizing a mic that is satellite savy	toby jo	Nov 2012	#35
The future of the GOP!	mikeysnot	Nov 2012	#36
Yup. That there is presidential material daggumit.	progressoid	Nov 2012	#49
You say Marco, I say Polo !	GraniteDem	Nov 2012	#37
To quote Joe Scarborough	47of74	Nov 2012	#38
I'm not so sure.	Deep13	Nov 2012	#40
Always amazing how STUPID floats on water! n/t	RKP5637	Nov 2012	#44
Gravity and Intelligent Falling are both just theories. nt	Deep13	Nov 2012	#46
I'M no scientist, man, I just pander the religious right.	sarcasmo	Nov 2012	#48
Good lord - he sounds like Brick Tamland from "Anchorman"!	Initech	Nov 2012	#51
Geez, oh man, Marco!	MrMickeysMom	Nov 2012	#55
Stupid little twit.	speedoo	Nov 2012	#56
and here goes the hate from the left :(	PatrynXX	Nov 2012	#58
Hang another ornament on the Loon Tree.	Atman	Nov 2012	#62
I was watching them talk about this on morning joe	JonathanBrowne	Nov 2012	#63
The guy is silly	pipoman	Nov 2012	#65

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:25 PM

ann--- (564 posts)

1. Of course, parents can

and DO teach children what their faith says about creation - however, SCHOOLS should not teach fantasy - only factual science.

Reply to this post

Response to ann--- (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:23 PM

AlbertCat (10,450 posts)

15. SCHOOLS should not teach fantasy - only factual science.

Schools can teach fantasy.... in Lit class, and comparative religions class. But in science class, they do indeed need to stick with science.

This notion that science is just so much guessing has got to stop. All anyone has to do is look around to see how phenomenally successful science has been.

Besides, I dunno why all these religious science nay-sayers are worried about their children learning evolution. THEY were taught it in school, and it didn't stick with them! Why do they think their kids are gonna remember anything they learned for the test?

Reply to this post

Response to AlbertCat (Reply #15)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:42 PM

teknomanzer (1,857 posts)

57. Doubting evolution and accepting modern technology is a form of cognitive dissonance...

The science used by engineers to create the technology we use today from computers to medicine is same science behind evolution and cosmology. Yet they have no doubts about whether or not the TV or cell phone is going to work when they use them. Surely they don't believe that little angels are inside these things making them work. If they doubt one then they should doubt the other. They should join the Amish and abandon this technological world, and leave the rest of us to live in world of reason.

Reply to this post

Response to teknomanzer (Reply #57)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 11:39 PM

AlbertCat (10,450 posts)

61. is same science behind evolution and cosmology.

Egg-zakly.

These poo-pooers of science TRUST THEIR LIVES to that same science. Not just when they take pills or go to the doctor, but when they use the toaster or cut on the electric lights.... or drive in a car...

Ingrates!

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:25 PM

AldoLeopold (600 posts)

2. This is what slays me

Nobody is telling parents what to teach their children at home. He's double talking in this - codespeak for "teach it in schools." He's also hinting that both science and history teaches that the earth was created in 7 days. He just won't come out and say it straight up.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:31 PM

blaze (2,471 posts)

3. Science?

wtf

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:34 PM

Auggie (16,196 posts)

4. 4.5 billion is also the number of Republican lies we'll hear between now and election day 2016

Reply to this post

Response to Auggie (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:13 PM

Dont call me Shirley (1,395 posts)

39. Closer to 4.5 trillion, methinks

Reply to this post

Response to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #39)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:10 PM

Auggie (16,196 posts)

45. Gee, it could top a brazillion!

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:34 PM

Kali (33,868 posts)

5. too scary to actually be funny

Reply to this post

Response to Kali (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:51 PM

valerief (35,681 posts)

10. +1

Reply to this post

Response to Kali (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 06:20 PM

Hydra (9,441 posts)

47. IKR?

He's almost saying that facts and evidence are unimportant- that we should take on as much "doubt" as possible about physical reality while allowing people to float on any cloud they want and call it "truth."

The devaluing of knowledge never leads us to good places.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:39 PM

SutaUvaca (482 posts)

6. In other words: "I'm a creationist." nt

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:45 PM

Brooklyn Dame (169 posts)

7. Flat-earthers of the world...

Unite!

*Good grief...* And they expect to be taken seriously by anyone other than Faux News watchers and low-information voters?

http://borderlessnewsandviews.com

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:49 PM

JohnnyRingo (9,328 posts)

8. Waffles for breakfast again?

Rubio obviously doesn't want to upset his base while at the same time being careful not to give the impression he dropped out of school in the 6th grade.

Even Ihop will let you substitute links for patties, but you can't have both..

Reply to this post

Response to JohnnyRingo (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:26 PM

AlbertCat (10,450 posts)

17. Bingo!

He's so mushy, I'm surprised his suit stays on him!

Can you say "pandering"?....without pandering?

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 12:51 PM

Scuba (26,778 posts)

9. To paraphrase: "about 4.5 billion years, but if I say that I'll alienate 40% of the base."

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

dropboss11 This message was hidden by Jury decision.

Response to dropboss11 (Reply #11)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:31 PM

Atypical Liberal (5,412 posts)

23. Oh give me a break.

No one knows how old the earth is. No one was there when it was created. All Science can do is an estimated guess. And with the methods of dating in dispute and attacked for inaccuracy, that estimated guess is quite suspect.

I can't believe I'm taking the time to respond to this.

Look. All of science is about making estimated guesses. These "guesses" are then validated or refuted by gathering evidence. The more evidence you get, the more confidence you have in your guess, and the more precise your guess becomes.

People have been studying this subject scientifically for hundreds of years.

Right now, science is confident in the age of the Earth to within one percent, or plus or minus half a billion years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

The Earth is thus at least four billion years old.

But even if they were off by a factor of 4, the Earth would still be over a billion years old!

No matter how you want to twist and squirm, you are never, ever, ever going to square the age of the Earth with the "Young Earth Creationism":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

So face it, dropboss11, the Earth is probably about 4.5 billion years old.

Reply to this post

Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #23)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:56 PM

PatrynXX (2,564 posts)

59. think I'm in the wrong board

definately the anti religion area if that comment was offensive. no this entire thread is rude and offensive

We'll lose if we go this route.

Reply to this post

Response to PatrynXX (Reply #59)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 07:47 AM

Warren Stupidity (31,939 posts)

66. So you think we should pander to fundamentalist idiocy?

There are many religions and religious people who do not reject rationalism or science and do not embrace fundamentalist idiocy. There is no reason at all for us to pander to the religious right and its anti-science irrationalism.

Reply to this post

Response to PatrynXX (Reply #59)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 08:42 AM

Atypical Liberal (5,412 posts)

67. You never lose with truth.

I'm not going to tolerate magical thinking like that displayed by Young Earth Creationists who believe the world is 6000 years old.

I don't care if that is considered "rude and offensive". I find it rude and offensive that we have to devote so much effort advancing humanity in the face of such anti-science people.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:00 PM

Initech (38,915 posts)

12. And yet these morons get to control the House.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:01 PM

RevStPatrick (1,887 posts)

13. What a frikkin' weenie, man!

And this guy is like, supposedly, one of the best they've got?

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:02 PM

Dash87 (1,576 posts)

14. Crumby politically correct politician answer

You know he believes that the earth was created in 7 days, and is 6000 years old, but he knows that answer would be universally panned. Therefore, he goes with the wishy-washy, "It might have been created in 7 days. I'm not a scientist!"

Yeah right. The Repubs love pandering to their ignorant base.

I wonder what his explanation is for layers of rocks found in places like the Grand Canyon, or dinosaur fossils?

Reply to this post

Response to Dash87 (Reply #14)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:24 PM

RevStPatrick (1,887 posts)

16. Actually, I would guess that he knows full well...

...that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and totally believes it, but doesn't want to alienate his wing-nut supporters.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:28 PM

AlbertCat (10,450 posts)

18. Hidden post .... number 11...

"This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See Community Standards.)"

You guys forgot..."just plain wrong"

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:29 PM

Jumping John (930 posts)

19. Christians base this on the Bible and a Bishop named

Ussher. He based it on when events happened in the bible and came up with the exact date that the G-d created the Earth.

Here is more about that:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html

I just posted this because I was wondering where the 6000 year figure originated and so I looked it up on the net.

Reply to this post

Response to Jumping John (Reply #19)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 06:55 PM

Fantastic Anarchist (2,359 posts)

50. That link was fascinating. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:30 PM

Coyotl (5,159 posts)

20. Just one of the great mysteries

right up there with why people elected you.

Oh wait, because they are told life is a mystery by non-scientists? We scientists can fix that!

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:30 PM

Eddie Haskell (1,147 posts)

21. There is no correct answer.

Just a best approximation.

Reply to this post

Response to Eddie Haskell (Reply #21)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:22 PM

dumbledork (46 posts)

31. Just as there is no "correct" answer to "What is the population of the U.S.?"

That's a 'guess' too...

Reply to this post

Response to dumbledork (Reply #31)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:27 PM

Eddie Haskell (1,147 posts)

41. Yes, but they are educated guesses; not based on some religious belief system.

Reply to this post

Response to dumbledork (Reply #31)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:30 PM

Deep13 (37,263 posts)

43. could be a little over or under 300 million...

Claiming the population is only 125 persons is, however, dead wrong. Saying the USA used to be a colony of Nepal and that we gained independence last week is also wrong.

Reply to this post

Response to Eddie Haskell (Reply #21)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:30 PM

harun (9,743 posts)

42. Agree

One can say "According to our best estimates based on the evidence aquired we can approximate the age to be X".

I think Rubio was just saying both sides should show some humility and respect towards each other. Nothing wrong with that.

Reply to this post

Response to harun (Reply #42)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:46 PM

AlbertCat (10,450 posts)

52. both sides should show some humility and respect towards each other.

Except one side is a complete guess.... and one has mountains of evidence to back it up.

One is wrong, and one is so close to correct it's not worth even considering the other.

There is no equivalency here.

Reply to this post

Response to AlbertCat (Reply #52)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:58 PM

PatrynXX (2,564 posts)

60. don't particularly find religious intolerance a good thing

This site run my China?

I know it isn't but to have any Christian comment like one above as rude which actually the picture above is rude is ironic. and one of the problems with the jury system which I'll have no part of. there's no democracy in it.

Reply to this post

Response to AlbertCat (Reply #52)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 09:16 AM

harun (9,743 posts)

68. Simply put your self in the position of a deity trying to explain

to people 2k years ago how the Universe was made.

Would you drop the Hubble Constant on them? How about General Relativity or the Standard Model of Quantum Mechanics?

If you are the Creator of all things you need to communicate with language your audience will understand. You need to get accross the point that you as an Omnipotent Absolute being can create, and are the creator of all things.

How would you improve upon the message to your creation?

Reply to this post

Response to harun (Reply #42)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 07:42 AM

Warren Stupidity (31,939 posts)

64. There is no both sides.

The earth was not created by a deity a few thousand years ago in 7 days or 7 eras. The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. There is no credible other side to that fact.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:31 PM

HughBeaumont (20,461 posts)

22. Yeah, THAT'LL get you laughed out of debates . . . .

. . . . in any place EXCEPT UHmericUH.

Unbelievable. UNbelievable.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:37 PM

grantcart (38,759 posts)

24. not qualified to be my cable man.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:40 PM

ceeRoy (48 posts)

25. RepubliCON Exceptionalism!!

...Freaking Moron!

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:41 PM

Madmiddle (115 posts)

26. Rubio and his republican base

pander to their religious base to the point of madness. Most fifth graders can tell anyone what scientists say. Reasoning from the right is so stupid it's gringe worthy at best. They will never win another election again.

Reply to this post

Response to Madmiddle (Reply #26)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:54 PM

Wednesdays (9,259 posts)

53. Oh, yeah?

Repugs never win an election again?

Come on over to Oklahoma and see the political climate here!
(Not that I'm happy about it, mind you.)

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:42 PM

patrice (47,427 posts)

27. If you don't understand science, Marco, why have you judged against science? Bigot much? nt

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:54 PM

Kalidurga (4,822 posts)

28. It's like, turtles all the way down, man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

We can't see what is supporting the earth or when it was created. So, it might as well be a tiger on and elephant that is standing on a turtle. Or turtles to infinity. Or maybe there never were any turtles. Anyway, it's a theory so we should teach it in school, even though there is no evidence that it's even connected to a religion. But, that's ok cause we aren't supposed to teach religion in school anyway. Of course, this leaves out the alien theory of the origins of life. Which I think could be true. It's very possible that the constant bombardment of earth by comets created the chemical soup that created life. Or aliens sent the seeds of life, whatever, we should teach that in school too. And don't forget that it was rabbits carrying oester eggs that started life on earth, even if we don't believe it we should teach it, cause it's like a theory man.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 01:58 PM

MNBrewer (5,713 posts)

29. This isn't exactly a GOTCHA question!

It's akin to "what is the molecular weight of carbon"?

It's not even CLOSE to "when does a fertilized egg become a person", or "please define non-forcible rape."

And this A) willfully ignorant, B) illiterate man is on a science committee.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:17 PM

randr (4,683 posts)

30. Shouldn't someone turn him on to at least google?

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:27 PM

silhouete2 (80 posts)

32. Theologians are NOT scientists

I could care less what the theologians think---it's what the science PROVES that matters. But to Bible thumpers, it matters not. They are so taken with the "Word of God" (Which I will postulate is NOT the word of God they are actually following, but the Word of Paul of Taursus, which makes it irrelevant but I digress) that they must change the reality to fit their beliefs. Problem is, that children are being taught this drivel and are believing it as fact. We might as well go back to throwing rocks at each other as science obviously means nothing to these people. Unbelievable!

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:36 PM

TahitiNut (71,568 posts)

33. Since G-d 'created TIME itself, this instant (and all instants) is 'created' right NOW.

I find this infantile 'argument' to be idiotic on BOTH a scientific and theological basis. No "G-d" that I could believe in would age or be otherwise constrained by time ... since time itself is PART of "Creation." The astounding ARROGANCE of folks who claim to have "faith" and, at the same time, insist on G-d being subordinate to their own ignorant and cartoonish viewpoints is beyond any bound imaginable.

Reply to this post

Response to TahitiNut (Reply #33)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:54 PM

AlbertCat (10,450 posts)

54. G-d

Last edited Tue Nov 20, 2012, 08:59 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

If you can't even type out g-o-d....

why should I or anyone care what you think of science?

How superstitious!

Now I will go walk the d-g.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:40 PM

MADem (86,104 posts)

34. Not qualified to be a Senator, either... man! nt

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 02:53 PM

toby jo (449 posts)

35. So says the man on science, while utilizing a mic that is satellite savy

before getting into an automobile with 70 years of engineering behind it, on his way to a home with computers, microwaves, hot water tanks, circuit boxes, tvs', cable networking in, medicine in his cabinet engineered by scientists, outfitted with the latest in warmth/cooling technology, computer games for the kiddies, refrigeration...

All while running for office in a country with a war machine that kills people electronically via satellite, sends space modules into outer space, has telescopes that see in terms of light-years, and can follow our every keystroke if they don't like us.

Talk about your cognitive dissonance.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:01 PM

mikeysnot (1,476 posts)

36. The future of the GOP!

they are truly the party of stupid.

Reply to this post

Response to mikeysnot (Reply #36)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 06:25 PM

progressoid (27,329 posts)

49. Yup. That there is presidential material daggumit.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:12 PM

GraniteDem (24 posts)

37. You say Marco, I say Polo !

Marco Polo!

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 03:51 PM

47of74 (6,661 posts)

38. To quote Joe Scarborough

Oh....SWEET JESUS!

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 04:27 PM

Deep13 (37,263 posts)

40. I'm not so sure.

The Earth could be as old as 4.6 billion years or as young as 4.4 billion years. It really depends when you think the cooling blob of molten material stopped being a blob and started being the Earth. At what point was there enough rocky material from meteor strikes to go from being a proto-planet to being a planet?

I'm being a smart-ass, of course. The real point is that no reasonable person can possibly conclude that it was 6 or 10 thousand years old or that it was created as-is in six (not 7, you even got that wrong) days. Seven actual eras? What does that even mean? What he really means to say is, "I'm too stupid to be a Senator, let alone President. Anyway, Miss America is already our Queen and--not being a scientist--I would not want to usurp her royal authority."

There are no theories on how the universe was created, because no one capable of creating such a theory accepts that an outside divinity created it. How it formed or otherwise came to be, OTOH, yeah, there are a number of theories. They all involve some version of a big bang followed by rapid expansion.

I don't know what keeps us stuck to the ground. I'm not a scientist. I could be "gravity" or it could be foot glue.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:09 PM

RKP5637 (25,597 posts)

44. Always amazing how STUPID floats on water! n/t

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 05:50 PM

Deep13 (37,263 posts)

46. Gravity and Intelligent Falling are both just theories. nt

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 06:20 PM

sarcasmo (13,550 posts)

48. I'M no scientist, man, I just pander the religious right.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 07:55 PM

Initech (38,915 posts)

51. Good lord - he sounds like Brick Tamland from "Anchorman"!

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:17 PM

MrMickeysMom (10,686 posts)

55. Geez, oh man, Marco!

Just admit your sniveling spineless, teabag alliance has made your IQ drop to your shoe size, you skeezer...

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 09:41 PM

speedoo (11,229 posts)

56. Stupid little twit.

He will never be a serious presidential contender.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Nov 20, 2012, 10:53 PM

PatrynXX (2,564 posts)

58. and here goes the hate from the left :(

Hope I'm not on the Atheist forum this time. Sickens me to see these .. So much for freedom of religion. Why not burn the constitution while yall are are it. Tolerate other peoples religion. Instead of treating it as a joke. There are left wing Christians. we don't need to prove the Republicans right

It's extremely hard to offend me. But this takes the cake. Think I'll wipe my ass with that green correct / but religiously wrong answer. Not that Rubio knew wtf he was talking about ....

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:19 AM

Atman (26,078 posts)

62. Hang another ornament on the Loon Tree.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 06:50 AM

JonathanBrowne (39 posts)

63. I was watching them talk about this on morning joe

It kind of pisses me off that people are being so flippant about this.

I'm not a Christian, but let's be honest....

No ONE knows the exact age of the universe. There could be mutability in radioactive dating, and the earth was probably molten as it formed.

There could be quite a bit of variance.

Of course, this doesn't mean its 6000 years old haha.

He did say something about "7 actual eras" which would imply hes open to the idea of it describing eras.

Lol but in general people should chill about questions like this...

No one is 100% certain of anything involving how the universe got here, how the earth got here, how old it all is etc.

And if anyone says they are certain, they are making a religion out of a particular theory, and they are way off base.

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 07:43 AM

pipoman (10,400 posts)

65. The guy is silly

but I am also leery of believing "science", so in that I sort of agree with, "I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.". Over the last 10 decades "science" has answered this question 'definitively' hundreds of times..every time with a different answer..

Reply to this post

Video & Multimedia (Forum)