Harry Dresden
Adamantium Member
Rubio is a zero. He's dumb and homely with big ears. Not a winning combination...
here he comes.....right on cue.....one of the resident Bigots......
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Rubio is a zero. He's dumb and homely with big ears. Not a winning combination...
Pub candidates have to act STUPID for their base. They lose because they're heartless selfish bought off douchebags...
Half the GOP thinks it's 5600 years fcs...
how do you explain the Lefties here with Rep over a Thousand then?.....Change the channel Frankie.....Pub candidates have to act STUPID for their base. They lose because they're heartless selfish bought off douchebags...
Franco, you really need to post some stuff that actually supports your assertions instead of just telling everyone who disagrees with you that they are idiots.
You say "change the channel" a lot and I watch CNN, MSNBC, and NPR. I get the same stuff as FoxNews but with a liberal slant instead of a conservative slant.
If you listened to just Fox and Rush your rep would be over a thousand.
See sig, last line especially.
See my book, search for "Guilty of Just Thinking, the series" at Barnes and Noble.com- it's all there LOL
tyvm
I'm just always right. Douchebag. LOL and good nite.
Marco Rubio's GQ interview: a naked presidential pitch | Richard Adams | World news | guardian.co.uk
My God, the world is having fun at the expense of American Right Wingnuts.
Funny thing about that, I had drinks with two Scientists last month and I asked them both their opinions on the age of the Earth.
The PhD in Analytic Chemistry said it's hard to know for sure but the current vetted evidence says it's 4.5 billion years old. When I asked about the 6000 year "literal interpretation of the Bible" he said that it should be considered in context and with a grain of salt.
The PhD in Geophysics said that Carbon dating is the current method and that it puts the age of the earth at "just over 4.5 billion" and when I asked the same question he said, "Carbon dating is the linchpin. The fundamentalists don't believe in it and strangely enough they have a valid concern. But until it's been proven otherwise, this is what we're going with."
Then they turned the tables on me and asked me my opinion. I told them that I had always been taught 4.5 billion years and my amateur studies in Astronomy have confirmed this. Then they subjected me to a defense of my opinion and they both told me that my reasoning was as inconclusive as theirs.
It was an interesting evening and quite an insight into the process of Scientific "proof."
Now why is Rubio an idiot again? (outside of his political opportunism and you'll get no argument from me on that)
Did the geophysics guy really said that carbon dating could be used to go back 4.5 billion years? If so then why in the hell would you believe anyone so misinformed about his own science? This is a typical error that those who are not into science make so I am thinking you made up this conversation. At best carbon dating goes back only 70,000 years.
The real reason the age of the Earth is put at 4.5 billion years is because it HAS to be that old to support modern theory. There is absolutely no way to measure the age, except maybe with the decay of Uranium, in my opinon. Certainly carbon dating can't be used.
Did the geophysics guy really said that carbon dating could be used to go back 4.5 billion years? If so then why in the hell would you believe anyone so misinformed about his own science? This is a typical error that those who are not into science make so I am thinking you made up this conversation. At best carbon dating goes back only 70,000 years.
The real reason the age of the Earth is put at 4.5 billion years is because it HAS to be that old to support modern theory. There is absolutely no way to measure the age, except maybe with the decay of Uranium, in my opinon. Certainly carbon dating can't be used.
A very valid point. Gimme a few minutes.
Response from the Geophysicist (he's on Facebook right now):
"No you idiot, I said Radiometric dating! Google it."
So there's that.
But I noticed a couple of accusatory statements in your rant. Why, if you think I'm ignorant of some scientific principles (which I just demonstrated I am) would you think it's a bad thing to believe him even if he's misinformed? He's a Geophysicist, how am I to know whether Carbon dating is accurate? I would have no basis to know if he is misinformed of his own science or not.
I think you just disagree with my statement and therefore have to attack the source and exploit a flaw.
I wonder if we could find an example of a Democrat saying the same thing.
I wonder if we could find an example of a Democrat saying the same thing.
That is not the same thing. The Earth being billions of years old is a scientific fact. But science offers no opinion whatsoever on when does "life" begin. That's a theological question, pure and simple.
I wonder if we could find an example of a Democrat saying the same thing.
That is not the same thing. The Earth being billions of years old is a scientific fact. But science offers no opinion whatsoever on when does "life" begin. That's a theological question, pure and simple.
Yes, science does indeed offer and "opinion" on when life began.
When someone like Rubio says basically, who cares when we have bigger problems, that keys their Pavlov dog syndrome and they attack.
The libs know that austerity is at the brink which will aleinate Many of their low brow constiuantcy. They will slander rubio relentlessly, and anyone else who poses a threat to their power - and they are a bunch of racist assholes!I wonder if we could find an example of a Democrat saying the same thing.
That is not the same thing. The Earth being billions of years old is a scientific fact. But science offers no opinion whatsoever on when does "life" begin. That's a theological question, pure and simple.
Yes, science does indeed offer and "opinion" on when life began. Science sets the age of the Earth at about 4.55 billion years with life starting very soon afterwards at about 3.5 billion years. A billion being "relatively soon."
See what we have here is liberals wishing for everyone who is a believer to say that the world is only 6000 years old which for them is easy to attack, doesn't take a lot of thinking. When someone like Rubio says basically, who cares when we have bigger problems, that keys their Pavlov dog syndrome and they attack. Nothing Rubio said is deserving of the smear the left is putting on him. The only logical conclusion is they are trying to crush yet another minority.
That is not the same thing. The Earth being billions of years old is a scientific fact. But science offers no opinion whatsoever on when does "life" begin. That's a theological question, pure and simple.
Yes, science does indeed offer and "opinion" on when life began.
It was about the question on whether "life" begins at conception, and if not -- when. That question science does not attempt to answer.
When someone like Rubio says basically, who cares when we have bigger problems, that keys their Pavlov dog syndrome and they attack.
Rubio represents a party that rejects any evidence, no matter how compelling, if it contradicts their views -- be it about geology, or about economy. Their willful ignorance has practical consequences.
HuffinPaint.
So, that it was on HuffPo, that proves that Rubio didn't say it?
You guys are pathetic. You can't deny that your candidates are idiots so you attack the source of the link.
Here's a few more links that quote him as having said this. You really gonna say all of them are wrong or lying?
STOOOOOPID.
Marco Rubio Interview - GQ December 2012: Politics: GQ
Marco Rubio Muses to GQ On The Earth's Age, Hip Hop, And His Best Friend - ABC News
'I'm not a scientist, man': Marco Rubio doesn't know how old the Earth is Telegraph Blogs
Marco Rubio Not Sure Whether the Earth Was Created 'in 7 Days or 7 Actual Eras'| News | Towleroad
Quote of the Day: Marco Rubio Is Not a Scientist | Mother Jones
'I'm not a scientist, man': Marco Rubio doesn't know how old the Earth is : TomChivers
Marco Rubio, Flirting With Creationism, Says, I
Rubio: Maybe Earth was created in 7 days because Im not a scientist, man | The Raw Story
Rubio Declines To Say How Old Earth Is: 'I'm Not A Scientist, Man' | TPM LiveWire
I wonder if we could find an example of a Democrat saying the same thing.
That is not the same thing. The Earth being billions of years old is a scientific fact being taught in schools. But science offers no opinion whatsoever on when does "life" begin. That's a theological or ethical question, pure and simple.
That is not the same thing. The Earth being billions of years old is a scientific fact. But science offers no opinion whatsoever on when does "life" begin. That's a theological question, pure and simple.
Yes, science does indeed offer and "opinion" on when life began.
It was about the question on whether "life" begins at conception, and if not -- when. That question science does not attempt to answer.
Rubio represents a party that rejects any evidence, no matter how compelling, if it contradicts their views -- be it about geology, or about economy. Their willful ignorance has practical consequences.When someone like Rubio says basically, who cares when we have bigger problems, that keys their Pavlov dog syndrome and they attack.
Marco Rubio: Actual Age Of Earth Is 'One Of The Great Mysteries'
True that it has nothing to do with the GDP or economic growth but the last thing we need is another who can't make a decision or stand up to nutter creationists."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," Rubio told GQ's Michael Hainey. "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'm not a scientist either but I knew that.Rubio continued, refusing to take a stance on the planet's age, which scientists have long estimated at 4.54 billion years.
Oh yeah, that's right - I have an education and I read books (on such things as critical thinking) - both of which is against GObP/pubpot brainwashing.
Yes, science does indeed offer and "opinion" on when life began.
It was about the question on whether "life" begins at conception, and if not -- when. That question science does not attempt to answer.
When someone like Rubio says basically, who cares when we have bigger problems, that keys their Pavlov dog syndrome and they attack.
Rubio represents a party that rejects any evidence, no matter how compelling, if it contradicts their views -- be it about geology, or about economy. Their willful ignorance has practical consequences.
Your last diatribe is nothing more then a liberal story line. Here is Obama's answer to the same question, you tell me the difference. BTW you need to go to the 9:11 minute mark of the video to see the following:
Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?
A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know.
It was about the question on whether "life" begins at conception, and if not -- when. That question science does not attempt to answer.
Rubio represents a party that rejects any evidence, no matter how compelling, if it contradicts their views -- be it about geology, or about economy. Their willful ignorance has practical consequences.
Your last diatribe is nothing more then a liberal story line. Here is Obama's answer to the same question, you tell me the difference. BTW you need to go to the 9:11 minute mark of the video to see the following:
Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked youand maybe they already haveDaddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?, what would you say?
A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we livethat is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know.
Thanks for pointing me to the right part in the interview, I thought it was about abortion.
As for whether Obama said the same thing as Rubio -- I don't think so. Obama makes it pretty clear from the start that he does not believe that 6 days in the Bible mean literally six 24-hour days. Later he goes on to say that he believes in evolution and that he does not think that science is incompatible with Christian faith.
As an atheist I think his answer was pretty lame, I believe science makes any religion less believable, not more. But Obama was pretty clear that he accepts scientific view of the world, including Earth being billions years old.
Your last diatribe is nothing more then a liberal story line. Here is Obama's answer to the same question, you tell me the difference. BTW you need to go to the 9:11 minute mark of the video to see the following:
Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?
A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know.
Thanks for pointing me to the right part in the interview, I thought it was about abortion.
As for whether Obama said the same thing as Rubio -- I don't think so. Obama makes it pretty clear from the start that he does not believe that 6 days in the Bible mean literally six 24-hour days. Later he goes on to say that he believes in evolution and that he does not think that science is incompatible with Christian faith.
As an atheist I think his answer was pretty lame, I believe science makes any religion less believable, not more. But Obama was pretty clear that he accepts scientific view of the world, including Earth being billions years old.
Rubio makes the same statement Obama did