The sage of the Republican party, except when he’s being the lapdog of McCain’s bitter vendettas, actually got it right when he said, ‘When you’re in a hole, stop digging.’ Now this wisdom applies to lightweight prettyboy wannabe Marco Rubio who continues to demonstrate what an empty suit he is.
You might know that Marco stepped in the pile of rotting dung called creationism in his silly pander to the religinuts, getting in his quick bona fides with that crowd in anticipation of Iowa (hey, it did Michelle a lot of good, didn’t it). So Marco goes off, in stupid phrasing “I’m not a scientist” (the one part of his pitch that was true and amply demonstrated by the rest of the pitch) and then proceeds to attempt to sound wise about the “controversy” over the age of the earth (the controversy in this case actually being not the science facts vs religious stupidity, but between the young earth and old earth religious nonsense (whether ‘day’ is literally a day or not).
Fine, write Marco off as another fool (actual believer) or liar (just pandering to the deluded). But I guess he’s worried that this makes him look too stupid to be a viable candidate (you’ve got a lot more than this tidbit to worry about Marco, other than fact and last name, you’ve got nothing).
So he doubles down and admits that he obviously knows the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Ooops, Marco, remember, stuff like that will come back and bite you when you have to go through the primary debates and the other empty suits will continue the pander and say the earth is only 6000 years old, possibly a litmus test in 2016. You’ll have to then pull an Etch-A-Sketch, but it’s better if you didn’t even allow yourself to get pinned down.
Fine, Marco tries to convince the rest of us he’s not a fool, which therefore implies he was a liar by his first comments. But then he does dig the hole deeper with:
But he said it’s possible to believe in both creationism and scientific proof that the Earth is much older.
No, Marco, actually it’s not possible to believe in both. In fact, you’re not even a very good fundamentalist/literalist wingnut. The whole logical consistency to biblical literalism is that we don’t get to pick and chose what to believe and have to swallow the whole thing as is. And actually this is logical consistent. If you believe (stupidly) this is the word of god who are you to disagree (or spin) any of it. IT IS THE WORD AND THOU SHALT LIVE BY IT, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Get it, Marco, there is an absolute and total contradiction. One concept is based on authority/dogma and the other is based on facts/inquiry; nothing could be more contradictory.
So Marco you demonstrated the potency of your reasoning ability, quite clearly, thank you.
But it doesn’t stop there. Now there’s this whopper:
“Science has given us insight into when he did it and how he did it,” Rubio said. “The more science learns, the more I’m convinced that God is real.”
This is so flabbergasting it’s almost impossible to comment since I’m still picking my jaw up off the floor. The only possible way this can make sense is “the more science learns, the less I believe any of it and think it’s all a leftie atheist conspiracy to kill god and therefore I believe it is a test of my faith and so I’m even more convinced that god is real”. Because certainly, Marco, the more science learns, the less you can believe any of the literalism junk from dusty old books (that are forgeries and written by emperors’ drones, not “inspired” prophets). Now, if you’d like to say, Marco, you are now a deist, in the tradition of Thomas Paine and the other founders and thus you’ve discarded your catholic dogma, then maybe your statement, though rather dated, makes sense and puts you in the same category as Jefferson (boy, is that a stretch). But unless that is what you’ve done, you burbling nonsense, Marco.
But of course he is, because then he goes on:
Rubio also addressed how his religious views have shaped his other policy positions. He said he believes that homosexuality is a sin …. He is opposed to same-sex marriage.
He took a somewhat different tack in explaining his opposition to abortion rights, turning the argument about science toward his opponents and saying it has been definitively proven that life begins at conception.
and even worse:
I wish there were more folks in this town who are deeply committed to science and the belief in science [and] would not ignore that scientific fact,” he said. “They’re pretty brave about saying the age of the Earth, but they don’t want to say when life begins?”
WHOPPER ALERT. Citations please Marco. Exactly what peer-reviewed article has declared “life” begins at conception. Biological activity, sure, but biological activity occurs in the stuff we excrete so this is utterly meaningless. To wrap yourself stone-age concept of life beginning at conception as science is an insult and a lie, but to pile on to the insult and then say we (I’m presuming I’m part of ‘they’ as I’d put myself in the science/rationalist camp) ‘don’t want to say’. Oh, I want to say, it’s easy to say. You have absolutely NO factual grounds for your assertion. You can’t even define life. You probably have no clue about the stages of embryogenesis (as demonstrated by your appalling lack of understanding even simple middle school science, of course, you were probably home-schooled and missed biology).
Well, it’s too early to get very worried about Marco Rubio, who I will completely predict as having no chance in 2016 (he could end up being the Rich Perry of the crowd since it appears he is pretty stupid). The only thing you’ve got going for you is your last name and youth which Repubs think is all that is needed to fool the voters. Well, repackaging tea bagger nonsense with an ethnic appeal isn’t good enough. The 47% (or perhaps the 51%) aren’t as stupid as you are and we can see through this kind of silliness.
So Marco, stop digging.