Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Marco Rubio, shining star of The New Improved Modern GOP, thinks the age of the Earth is "one of the great mysteries"   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, Marco Rubio, GOP  
•       •       •

3999 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Nov 2012 at 2:07 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



621 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-19 10:31:11 AM  
Life is to the moon
as facts to republicans
never really there
 
2012-11-19 10:33:58 AM  
Republicans love
money, guns, and industry
but they hate science
 
2012-11-19 10:35:43 AM  

3.bp.blogspot.com



Hey, might be a marginally better strategy than trying to pass bullshiat as science.
 
2012-11-19 10:35:58 AM  
♫ He's so ab-sur-urd... Ru-Ru-Rubio... ♫
 
2012-11-19 10:38:31 AM  
Reminds me of the Senator in Religulous that says, apparently as a somewhat positive thing, something to the effect of not having to have an IQ test to be elected to the senate.
 
2012-11-19 10:38:58 AM  
He's not even sure when him family left Cuba.
 
2012-11-19 10:42:44 AM  

SurfaceTension: Reminds me of the Senator in Religulous that says, apparently as a somewhat positive thing, something to the effect of not having to have an IQ test to be elected to the senate.


Hah, yeah, the best thing about that is how he laughs like he just made a great joke, but Bill keeps a straight face, and the smile drains off the senator.
 
2012-11-19 10:55:18 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-19 10:56:19 AM  
I can agree with that. Those scientists that say that they know the age of the universe, or less so, the age of the Earth, or how many planets or stars there are are overly presumptuous.

Although, we can have a decent guess about the Earth, you would think. Not like the mystery if life and all that.
 
2012-11-19 10:59:38 AM  
Considering all the rape sound bites in the past few weeks he is probably doing himself a favor by shutting up
 
2012-11-19 10:59:50 AM  
Farking geology... how does it work?
 
2012-11-19 11:01:32 AM  

cman: Considering all the rape sound bites in the past few weeks he is probably doing himself a favor by shutting up


Republicans - You'll like us more when we keep our farking stupid mouths shut.
 
2012-11-19 11:04:16 AM  
Reposted from another thread because it applies here, too...

One thing the Republicans don't seem to grasp:

Even if they nominate "a Hispanic," Mexicans generally HATE Cubans, and vice-versa. And there are lots more Chicanos/Mexicans/Mexican-Americans in the US than Cubans. Rubio might carry Florida, but "the hispanic vote" won't go Republican in any other state.

So, keep talking Rubio. Remind us why we voted for Obama again.
 
2012-11-19 11:06:45 AM  
How can you read that and not think "Iowa"? We don't have a ton of polling on this topic, but back in January 2011, Strategic National Consulting asked potential GOP caucus-goers about the origins of the earth. Sixty-eight percent of them believed the planet was created in six days. Forty-five percent believed that the earth was less than 10,000 years old -- something Rubio does not say here, but something that implies all human history can be known from counting the eras in the Bible. Link
 
2012-11-19 11:07:55 AM  
Marco Rubio: 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.

I'm struggling to see the poutrage here. I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with. Indeed, I wish all politicians echoed this exact sentiment.

He's right, he is not the correct person to answer this question, and the journalist should feel bad for asking a politician it.
 
2012-11-19 11:10:42 AM  
Rufio?

i249.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-19 11:11:56 AM  

lennavan: Marco Rubio: 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.

I'm struggling to see the poutrage here. I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with. Indeed, I wish all politicians echoed this exact sentiment.

He's right, he is not the correct person to answer this question, and the journalist should feel bad for asking a politician it.


NO!

There has to be some minimum baseline for acceptable farkwittage.

In order to not be sure how old the earth is you have to be in the "total farking moron with no business doing anything more important than sticking your cock in a toaster" level of farkwittage.

This isn't "a topic he shouldn't know about" this is "a topic that is basic knowledge in 2012".

He has demonstrate he is either too stupid to be trusted with anything or a pandering asshole.
 
2012-11-19 11:12:27 AM  
So much for Rubio claiming he wanted to move the GOP away from social values. You're just as bad as Huckabee. At least he's honest that he thinks Jebus made the planet and that's why he should be President. You claim to disavow these people yet you still play lip service to them, 4 years out from the next election! You're not changing a damn thing, you're still the problem.

Not that I expected anything else. The next GOP nominee will be even further to the right than Romney was, probably will openly run on the 47% bullshiat.
 
2012-11-19 11:13:51 AM  

lennavan: Marco Rubio: 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.

I'm struggling to see the poutrage here. I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with. Indeed, I wish all politicians echoed this exact sentiment.

He's right, he is not the correct person to answer this question, and the journalist should feel bad for asking a politician it.


To be fair, unless there was someone a few billion years ago to record the earths history, we truly shall never know. When can theorize to our hearts content, but we can never be 100% certain. We have yet to leave our own solar system; we have only seen other planets through telescopes. How are we most certain that our grasp is right when we have nothing tangible to compare it to?
 
2012-11-19 11:14:28 AM  
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.


It's not what "people" teach that I'm concerned about; it's what schools teach.
 
2012-11-19 11:22:02 AM  

Tigger: In order to not be sure how old the earth is you have to be in the "total farking moron with no business doing anything more important than sticking your cock in a toaster" level of farkwittage.


How many people in this thread do you think knew how old the Earth is before googling it? I'm thinkin, on the spot, without access to Google, I also would have said "Farked if I know, I'm not the right person to ask." And I'm a scientist.

Tigger: This isn't "a topic he shouldn't know about" this is "a topic that is basic knowledge in 2012".


I guess this is where I admit I had no idea how old the Earth was before I googled it. I assume you did though, right? Because that would be hilariously hypocritical of you and would totally undermine your point right now and everyone reading this back-and-forth who also didn't know the number off of the top of their head is going to agree with this run-on sentence. But I'm sure you knew.
 
2012-11-19 11:22:03 AM  

lennavan: He's right, he is not the correct person to answer this question, and the journalist should feel bad for asking a politician it.


Wrong...it speaks to someone's belief in science which to me is very important. It is a very valid question.

The age of the Earth is not a great mystery with competing theories. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. This is a fact.
 
2012-11-19 11:23:20 AM  

lennavan: But I'm sure you knew.


How is it possible to be educated and not know the age of the Earth?
 
2012-11-19 11:23:27 AM  
It is. But we can widdle it down to a few hundred million years.
 
2012-11-19 11:23:55 AM  
and IMHO, he was the GOP's best opportunity to re-brand themselves. They are truly farked.
 
2012-11-19 11:26:53 AM  

joshiz: Wrong...it speaks to someone's belief in science which to me is very important. It is a very valid question.


And he answered it by saying: "Ask a scientist." That fundamentally tells you he believes in science and that we should defer to science when asking such science questions.

If he answered it right, if he said 4.5 billion years, would that hold any weight? No. Because he is not a scientist. Put it this way, what if the journalist asked "what is the genetic cause of Down Syndrome" and he replied "an extra copy of Dyrk1a." Is that true or false? You have no idea. That some random politician answered a science question doesn't give it any extra weight. He's a farking politician, if you're getting science information from politicians, you're an idiot. So he's the smart one telling you to ask a farking scientist.
 
2012-11-19 11:28:22 AM  

lennavan: But I'm sure you knew.


Actually, I thought about it and came up with "about 4 billion years give or take" which is what I remember from the last time I had a science class. Turns out the estimate according to google is 4.54 billion years. That's a big farking difference than "I dunno, could be 7 days, could be more."
 
2012-11-19 11:28:24 AM  

lennavan: Marco Rubio: 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.

I'm struggling to see the poutrage here. I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with. Indeed, I wish all politicians echoed this exact sentiment.

He's right, he is not the correct person to answer this question, and the journalist should feel bad for asking a politician it.


Too chickenshiat to state a position isn't a "sentiment." It's being chickenshiat.
 
2012-11-19 11:29:09 AM  

GAT_00: How is it possible to be educated and not know the age of the Earth?


These are the same people who can't understand basic economics and who think that you can tip over an island if too many people are on it.

We have the government we deserve
 
2012-11-19 11:29:54 AM  

IronTom: I can agree with that. Those scientists that say that they know the age of the universe, or less so, the age of the Earth, or how many planets or stars there are are overly presumptuous.

Although, we can have a decent guess about the Earth, you would think. Not like the mystery if life and all that.


There is the issue of how far off the creationists are on the estimates. I don't know precisely what Romney's net worth is but I'm pretty sure it is more than 37 cents which is relatively speaking how far off they are.
 
2012-11-19 11:30:14 AM  

give me doughnuts: lennavan: Marco Rubio: 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.

I'm struggling to see the poutrage here. I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with. Indeed, I wish all politicians echoed this exact sentiment.

He's right, he is not the correct person to answer this question, and the journalist should feel bad for asking a politician it.

Too chickenshiat to state a position isn't a "sentiment." It's being chickenshiat.


Good god, man.
 
2012-11-19 11:30:45 AM  

Hoban Washburne: lennavan: But I'm sure you knew.

Actually, I thought about it and came up with "about 4 billion years give or take" which is what I remember from the last time I had a science class. Turns out the estimate according to google is 4.54 billion years. That's a big farking difference than "I dunno, could be 7 days, could be more."


But that would be 0.54 billion years off if you asked a scientist, like he answered.

give me doughnuts: Too chickenshiat to state a position isn't a "sentiment." It's being chickenshiat.


His position was "that is a science question, ask a farking scientist."
 
2012-11-19 11:34:59 AM  

lennavan: Tigger: In order to not be sure how old the earth is you have to be in the "total farking moron with no business doing anything more important than sticking your cock in a toaster" level of farkwittage.

How many people in this thread do you think knew how old the Earth is before googling it? I'm thinkin, on the spot, without access to Google, I also would have said "Farked if I know, I'm not the right person to ask." And I'm a scientist.

Tigger: This isn't "a topic he shouldn't know about" this is "a topic that is basic knowledge in 2012".

I guess this is where I admit I had no idea how old the Earth was before I googled it. I assume you did though, right? Because that would be hilariously hypocritical of you and would totally undermine your point right now and everyone reading this back-and-forth who also didn't know the number off of the top of their head is going to agree with this run-on sentence. But I'm sure you knew.


Of course I knew.

And you had "no idea" how old the earth was. So if I said "It's 6000 years" you would have no idea if that was close. What if I said "75 years"?
 
2012-11-19 11:35:02 AM  

Tigger: In order to not be sure how old the earth is you have to be in the "total farking moron with no business doing anything more important than sticking your cock in a toaster" level of farkwittage.


So you're saying I SHOULDN'T stick my cock in the toaster? But what if it's cold?
 
2012-11-19 11:37:25 AM  

lennavan: But that would be 0.54 billion years off if you asked a scientist, like he answered."


You're right. I'd be off by about 13.5 percent of the ESTIMATED age of the earth. Any guess as to how far off his "maybe 7 days" statement is? I'm no mathematician, but I can tell you it's a farkload. 

If he said "From what I remember, scientists agree it's about 4 billion years old," people wouldn't be giving him a hard time.
 
2012-11-19 11:38:31 AM  
Watching the first series of Connections should be enough to give a moment of clarity to anyone arguing that a basic curiosity of things married to an acceptance of provable truths isn't important to someone like a politician.

The only time imbeciles like him have ever given anything worthwhile to humanity is by pure farking accident.
 
2012-11-19 11:41:38 AM  

lennavan: Hoban Washburne: lennavan: But I'm sure you knew.

Actually, I thought about it and came up with "about 4 billion years give or take" which is what I remember from the last time I had a science class. Turns out the estimate according to google is 4.54 billion years. That's a big farking difference than "I dunno, could be 7 days, could be more."

But that would be 0.54 billion years off if you asked a scientist, like he answered.

give me doughnuts: Too chickenshiat to state a position isn't a "sentiment." It's being chickenshiat.

His position was "that is a science question, ask a farking scientist."


His position was, "I'm going to avoid giving any kind of definite answer because I'm afraid of offending any voting blocs."
Like I said: chickenshiat.
 
2012-11-19 11:47:55 AM  

lennavan: joshiz: Wrong...it speaks to someone's belief in science which to me is very important. It is a very valid question.

And he answered it by saying: "Ask a scientist." That fundamentally tells you he believes in science and that we should defer to science when asking such science questions.

If he answered it right, if he said 4.5 billion years, would that hold any weight? No. Because he is not a scientist. Put it this way, what if the journalist asked "what is the genetic cause of Down Syndrome" and he replied "an extra copy of Dyrk1a." Is that true or false? You have no idea. That some random politician answered a science question doesn't give it any extra weight. He's a farking politician, if you're getting science information from politicians, you're an idiot. So he's the smart one telling you to ask a farking scientist.


This is the most roundabout way of saying "I approve of uneducated politicians" I've ever seen.
 
2012-11-19 11:51:31 AM  

lennavan: And he answered it by saying: "Ask a scientist." That fundamentally tells you he believes in science and that we should defer to science when asking such science questions.


I read that as "ask a scientist or a clergyman" which is the wrong answer.
 
2012-11-19 11:54:21 AM  
Even "I dunno lol" would have been a better answer.
 
2012-11-19 11:54:43 AM  

cman: lennavan: Marco Rubio: 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.

I'm struggling to see the poutrage here. I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with. Indeed, I wish all politicians echoed this exact sentiment.

He's right, he is not the correct person to answer this question, and the journalist should feel bad for asking a politician it.

To be fair, unless there was someone a few billion years ago to record the earths history, we truly shall never know. When can theorize to our hearts content, but we can never be 100% certain. We have yet to leave our own solar system; we have only seen other planets through telescopes. How are we most certain that our grasp is right when we have nothing tangible to compare it to?


The age of the earth is calculated on the basis of known and measurable rates of decay of a variety of radioisotopes. We can be certain that the rate of decay is constant because, if it were otherwise, nuclear reactors and the internet would not work. Both of those are indeed relevant to the economic productivity of the US.

I can understand Rubio not wanting to offend his "base," and I can even be sympathetic to the suggestion that politicians can't be expected to know things like that (although frankly, I think they should), but we can be certain- within the limits of scientific certainty (which, you are correct, is never quite 100%) - that the earth is far, far older than just a few thousand years.
 
2012-11-19 11:55:32 AM  

Hoban Washburne: If he said "From what I remember, scientists agree it's about 4 billion years old," people wouldn't be giving him a hard time.


But he said "I'm not a scientist... I'm not qualified to answer that question" and that's truly poutrageous?

Hoban Washburne: You're right. I'd be off by about 13.5 percent of the ESTIMATED age of the earth. Any guess as to how far off his "maybe 7 days" statement is? I'm no mathematician, but I can tell you it's a farkload.


He never said the earth was 7 days old. Here's what happened, you read Rubio, you saw the Fark headline, and immediately assumed the headline was not misleading and he was just gonna derp. Turned out he didn't. This may shock you - Fark headlines are not always truthful. So that led you to completely misread what Rubio was saying.

He never said the earth was 7 days old.
 
2012-11-19 11:55:48 AM  

GAT_00: lennavan: joshiz: Wrong...it speaks to someone's belief in science which to me is very important. It is a very valid question.

And he answered it by saying: "Ask a scientist." That fundamentally tells you he believes in science and that we should defer to science when asking such science questions.

If he answered it right, if he said 4.5 billion years, would that hold any weight? No. Because he is not a scientist. Put it this way, what if the journalist asked "what is the genetic cause of Down Syndrome" and he replied "an extra copy of Dyrk1a." Is that true or false? You have no idea. That some random politician answered a science question doesn't give it any extra weight. He's a farking politician, if you're getting science information from politicians, you're an idiot. So he's the smart one telling you to ask a farking scientist.

This is the most roundabout way of saying "I approve of uneducated politicians" I've ever seen.


Education just leads to intellectual elitism

/can't have them smart folks a'runnin' things
 
2012-11-19 11:56:27 AM  

FloydA: The age of the earth is calculated on the basis of known and measurable rates of decay of a variety of radioisotopes. We can be certain that the rate of decay is constant because, if it were otherwise, nuclear reactors and the internet would not work. Both of those are indeed relevant to the economic productivity of the US.

I can understand Rubio not wanting to offend his "base," and I can even be sympathetic to the suggestion that politicians can't be expected to know things like that (although frankly, I think they should), but we can be certain- within the limits of scientific certainty (which, you are correct, is never quite 100%) - that the earth is far, far older than just a few thousand years.


And this is right after Rubio said he wasn't going to pander to the social conservatives any more. What else can this be? He's openly pandering to the morons.
 
2012-11-19 11:57:02 AM  

lennavan: Hoban Washburne: If he said "From what I remember, scientists agree it's about 4 billion years old," people wouldn't be giving him a hard time.

But he said "I'm not a scientist... I'm not qualified to answer that question" and that's truly poutrageous?

Hoban Washburne: You're right. I'd be off by about 13.5 percent of the ESTIMATED age of the earth. Any guess as to how far off his "maybe 7 days" statement is? I'm no mathematician, but I can tell you it's a farkload.

He never said the earth was 7 days old. Here's what happened, you read Rubio, you saw the Fark headline, and immediately assumed the headline was not misleading and he was just gonna derp. Turned out he didn't. This may shock you - Fark headlines are not always truthful. So that led you to completely misread what Rubio was saying.

He never said the earth was 7 days old.


No he dodged the question because he doesn't want to offend a metric shiatton of pig ignorant farkwits that he may need support from in future.

In short he's a pandering asshole.

Or he's just so dumb he shouldn't ever run for office.
 
2012-11-19 11:58:25 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Education just leads to intellectual elitism

/can't have them smart folks a'runnin' things


Yep. The legacy of Wallace and Nixon still lives strong.
 
2012-11-19 11:58:29 AM  

cman: To be fair, unless there was someone a few billion years ago to record the earths history, we truly shall never know. When can theorize to our hearts content, but we can never be 100% certain.


If you want to go down that path, you might as well say that we don't know anything ever, because our senses could be deceiving us.
 
2012-11-19 12:02:17 PM  
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

Who gives a flying fark what theologians say about this.
 
2012-11-19 12:03:08 PM  

sweetmelissa31: cman: To be fair, unless there was someone a few billion years ago to record the earths history, we truly shall never know. When can theorize to our hearts content, but we can never be 100% certain.

If you want to go down that path, you might as well say that we don't know anything ever, because our senses could be deceiving us.


j.wigflip.com
 
2012-11-19 12:03:08 PM  

GAT_00: lennavan: joshiz: Wrong...it speaks to someone's belief in science which to me is very important. It is a very valid question.

And he answered it by saying: "Ask a scientist." That fundamentally tells you he believes in science and that we should defer to science when asking such science questions.

If he answered it right, if he said 4.5 billion years, would that hold any weight? No. Because he is not a scientist. Put it this way, what if the journalist asked "what is the genetic cause of Down Syndrome" and he replied "an extra copy of Dyrk1a." Is that true or false? You have no idea. That some random politician answered a science question doesn't give it any extra weight. He's a farking politician, if you're getting science information from politicians, you're an idiot. So he's the smart one telling you to ask a farking scientist.

This is the most roundabout way of saying "I approve of uneducated politicians" I've ever seen.



This is the strangest way of saying "deferring to experts is bad."
 
2012-11-19 12:03:11 PM  

DamnYankees: Who gives a flying fark what theologians say about this.


People trying to impress slow Iowans.
 
2012-11-19 12:05:21 PM  

lennavan: GAT_00: lennavan: joshiz: Wrong...it speaks to someone's belief in science which to me is very important. It is a very valid question.

And he answered it by saying: "Ask a scientist." That fundamentally tells you he believes in science and that we should defer to science when asking such science questions.

If he answered it right, if he said 4.5 billion years, would that hold any weight? No. Because he is not a scientist. Put it this way, what if the journalist asked "what is the genetic cause of Down Syndrome" and he replied "an extra copy of Dyrk1a." Is that true or false? You have no idea. That some random politician answered a science question doesn't give it any extra weight. He's a farking politician, if you're getting science information from politicians, you're an idiot. So he's the smart one telling you to ask a farking scientist.

This is the most roundabout way of saying "I approve of uneducated politicians" I've ever seen.

This is the strangest way of saying "deferring to experts is bad."


Why is it so important to you that Rubio isn't pandering for votes from the religious right?

Everyone can see that he avoided a question because he has a base to worry about. Yet you seem to really need that to not be the case? Why? It's weird?

What do you stand to lose by saying what everyone else can see - he doesn't want to offend an incredibly powerful group within his own party?
 
2012-11-19 12:06:56 PM  

lennavan: This is the strangest way of saying "deferring to experts is bad."


That's not what you're doing. You're defending ignorance.
 
2012-11-19 12:07:40 PM  
One of the Earth's great mysteries is why people watch Here Comes Honey Boo Boo and Jersey Shore, not how old the planet is. I saw several people up-thread say the planet is 4.54 billion years old, and I wouldn't have guessed that exact number if you asked me, but I would have said "several billion years old", and it would have been an acceptable answer. Why would I have said that? Because it's an intelligent-sounding response that puts me in the ballpark of the actual number, which for someone like myself who has no scientific knowledge or experience, isn't half bad.

If you don't know something, say you don't know it. Don't say something is a "great mystery" when it's not. Maybe the age of the Earth was a great mystery in 1512, but not so much in 2012.
 
2012-11-19 12:07:51 PM  
j.wigflip.com
 
2012-11-19 12:10:20 PM  

GAT_00: lennavan: This is the strangest way of saying "deferring to experts is bad."

That's not what you're doing. You're defending ignorance.


Only on Fark.com can a guy who admits he is not the right person to ask, he doesn't know the answer to a question and suggests you ask an expert instead be considered "ignorance."

Gat, you ignorant slut.
 
2012-11-19 12:11:15 PM  

sweetmelissa31: cman: To be fair, unless there was someone a few billion years ago to record the earths history, we truly shall never know. When can theorize to our hearts content, but we can never be 100% certain.

If you want to go down that path, you might as well say that we don't know anything ever, because our senses could be deceiving us.


Solipsism ho!
 
2012-11-19 12:12:06 PM  

Coco LaFemme: If you don't know something, say you don't know it.


I know, right? If only he had said something like: I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that.

Oh, awkward.

Coco LaFemme: Don't say something is a "great mystery" when it's not. Maybe the age of the Earth was a great mystery in 1512, but not so much in 2012.


He didn't call the age of the earth a great mystery. If you didn't know what he was referring to as a great mystery, you should have said it. Someone could have answered.
 
2012-11-19 12:14:31 PM  
I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow.

Actually, this has everything to do with it.... when you wonder why we are getting our asses handed to ourselves as far as U.S. students vs. the other major countries in science and math scores, when you can't have an agreement from the top on fairly basic level science issues, that kills off a large number of kids who are raised to believe that, in their ability to get into those fields at a fundamental level.

This isn't an argument about whether the earth is 4.4 billion years old or 4.7 billion years old. This is an argument between 4.4 billion and 10,000. One side has decades or even centuries of data to fall back on. The other side has a book that they don't want to become irrelevant as their only basis.

The fact that we even give people saying the earth is 10,000 years old the time of day is a sad state of american discourse.
 
2012-11-19 12:14:58 PM  

lennavan: GAT_00: lennavan: This is the strangest way of saying "deferring to experts is bad."

That's not what you're doing. You're defending ignorance.

Only on Fark.com can a guy who admits he is not the right person to ask, he doesn't know the answer to a question and suggests you ask an expert instead be considered "ignorance."

Gat, you ignorant slut.


I'm sort of on your side on this controversy (dategate), but I really like how his dichotomous either/or at the end was two interpretations of the bible. He's honest in not being an expert, but he's pure politician in his answer.
 
2012-11-19 12:15:51 PM  

lennavan: Coco LaFemme: If you don't know something, say you don't know it.

I know, right? If only he had said something like: I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that.

Oh, awkward.


I'm not a scientist either, but if someone asked me, I could answer with reasonable certainty. It's because I read books and stuff.
 
2012-11-19 12:16:09 PM  

lennavan: Only on Fark.com can a guy who admits he is not the right person to ask, he doesn't know the answer to a question and suggests you ask an expert instead be considered "ignorance."


It is ignorance when the experts you defer to are not, in fact, experts, and are in fact purveyors or ignorance.
 
2012-11-19 12:18:28 PM  

GAT_00: FloydA: The age of the earth is calculated on the basis of known and measurable rates of decay of a variety of radioisotopes. We can be certain that the rate of decay is constant because, if it were otherwise, nuclear reactors and the internet would not work. Both of those are indeed relevant to the economic productivity of the US.

I can understand Rubio not wanting to offend his "base," and I can even be sympathetic to the suggestion that politicians can't be expected to know things like that (although frankly, I think they should), but we can be certain- within the limits of scientific certainty (which, you are correct, is never quite 100%) - that the earth is far, far older than just a few thousand years.

And this is right after Rubio said he wasn't going to pander to the social conservatives any more. What else can this be? He's openly pandering to the morons.


Morons are a super-set of social conservatives.
 
2012-11-19 12:20:26 PM  

lennavan: GAT_00: lennavan: This is the strangest way of saying "deferring to experts is bad."

That's not what you're doing. You're defending ignorance.

Only on Fark.com can a guy who admits he is not the right person to ask, he doesn't know the answer to a question and suggests you ask an expert instead be considered "ignorance."

Gat, you ignorant slut.


The age of the Earth is something you learn in high school. You don't have to be an expert to know that, and there are plenty of easy reading science writers out there like Bill Bryson who explain things in an easily readable manner. To pretend that not answering a basic question because you aren't an "expert" is ridiculous. Would he refuse to answer what the weather is supposed to be tomorrow because he isn't a meteorologist? Would you refuse to acknowledge earthquakes exist because you aren't a geologist?

You are fully defending ignorance, and you are the problem.
 
2012-11-19 12:23:28 PM  
I do not know if the earth is flat or not. I mean that is not my job.
 
2012-11-19 12:27:10 PM  

sweetmelissa31: I do not know if the earth is flat or not. I mean that is not my job.


It's flat. Trust me, I've seen the end of the Earth before.
 
2012-11-19 12:27:22 PM  

kingoomieiii: Solipsism ho!


woah that is no way to talk to a lady, bro
 
2012-11-19 12:29:05 PM  

GAT_00: lennavan: GAT_00: lennavan: This is the strangest way of saying "deferring to experts is bad."

That's not what you're doing. You're defending ignorance.

Only on Fark.com can a guy who admits he is not the right person to ask, he doesn't know the answer to a question and suggests you ask an expert instead be considered "ignorance."

Gat, you ignorant slut.

The age of the Earth is something you learn in high school.


It has been a few years since I graduated high school. Same goes for Marco Rubio. I'm gonna go ahead and give him a pass on not being able to recall a scientific fact from high school. Is that cool with you?

GAT_00: Would he refuse to answer what the weather is supposed to be tomorrow because he isn't a meteorologist?


Would you be equally upset if he replied "Got me, check weather.com?" It seems you would. What a dick, amirite?

GAT_00: Would you refuse to acknowledge earthquakes exist because you aren't a geologist?


I don't think the job of a geologist is to acknowledge earthquakes exist. If Rubio said he had no idea when/where the next earthquake would be, ask a geologist, I'd be okay with that. You'd probably want to burn him at the stake though, amirite?

GAT_00: You are fully defending ignorance, and you are the problem.


I am defending the practice of deferring to the experts. It'd be really good if we did that instead of saying shiat like "you can't get pregnant from rape" and "It's cold today, so global warming does not exist."

You are defending the continuation of ignorance. I am defending a practice that will drive us away from ignorance. You ignorant slut.
 
2012-11-19 12:29:12 PM  

lennavan: He never said the earth was 7 days old.


He said that it might have taken 7 days to create. You don't reconcile a 7 day creation with billions of years of existence. He was giving credence to a creationist young earth theory.
 
2012-11-19 12:29:33 PM  

Cythraul: sweetmelissa31: I do not know if the earth is flat or not. I mean that is not my job.

It's flat. Trust me, I've seen the end of the Earth before.


Yeah, I've been to Kansas too.
 
2012-11-19 12:31:08 PM  
You know, this is the first time I've seen someone claim that ignorance is good because everyone should refuse to ever acknowledge that experts exist.
 
2012-11-19 12:32:00 PM  

lennavan: GAT_00: lennavan: This is the strangest way of saying "deferring to experts is bad."

That's not what you're doing. You're defending ignorance.

Only on Fark.com can a guy who admits he is not the right person to ask, he doesn't know the answer to a question and suggests you ask an expert instead be considered "ignorance."

Gat, you ignorant slut.



I'm not going to ask that he be an expert, but I would prefer it if senators on the science committee have a high schooler's understanding of science.
i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-19 12:33:27 PM  

Hoban Washburne: He said that it might have taken 7 days to create.


Apology accepted.

Hoban Washburne: You don't reconcile a 7 day creation with billions of years of existence.


It took 7 days to create the earth billions of years ago. Looks like I just did.

Hoban Washburne: He was giving credence to a creationist young earth theory.


He also differentiated between being taught science and religion. So in science class kids learn all scientific evidence points to the earth is 4.5 billion years old and was created with a big bang. In religion class the kids learn with absolutely no evidence whatsoever the bible says it was created in 7 days and is a few thousand years old.

I don't get the outrage.
 
2012-11-19 12:35:32 PM  

WI241TH: I'm not going to ask that he be an expert, but I would prefer it if senators on the science committee have a high schooler's understanding of science.


I'm okay with him just asking a scientist to show up to the meeting so they can ask the scientist. Truly that is outrageous.
 
2012-11-19 12:40:41 PM  

lennavan: GAT_00: lennavan: GAT_00: lennavan: This is the strangest way of saying "deferring to experts is bad."

That's not what you're doing. You're defending ignorance.

Only on Fark.com can a guy who admits he is not the right person to ask, he doesn't know the answer to a question and suggests you ask an expert instead be considered "ignorance."

Gat, you ignorant slut.

The age of the Earth is something you learn in high school.

It has been a few years since I graduated high school. Same goes for Marco Rubio. I'm gonna go ahead and give him a pass on not being able to recall a scientific fact from high school. Is that cool with you?

GAT_00: Would he refuse to answer what the weather is supposed to be tomorrow because he isn't a meteorologist?

Would you be equally upset if he replied "Got me, check weather.com?" It seems you would. What a dick, amirite?

GAT_00: Would you refuse to acknowledge earthquakes exist because you aren't a geologist?

I don't think the job of a geologist is to acknowledge earthquakes exist. If Rubio said he had no idea when/where the next earthquake would be, ask a geologist, I'd be okay with that. You'd probably want to burn him at the stake though, amirite?

GAT_00: You are fully defending ignorance, and you are the problem.

I am defending the practice of deferring to the experts. It'd be really good if we did that instead of saying shiat like "you can't get pregnant from rape" and "It's cold today, so global warming does not exist."

You are defending the continuation of ignorance. I am defending a practice that will drive us away from ignorance. You ignorant slut.


Again, though, if he would have said "I think somewhere around 50 million years old" even... at least we know he isn't thinking it is 10,000 years old.

Nobody is saying he even had to be "close". But, he should be closer than 10,000. And he wasn't discounting that posulation in his answer.

lennavan: I'm okay with him just asking a scientist to show up to the meeting so they can ask the scientist. Truly that is outrageous.


Lennavan... you don't need a scientist there to answer what the question was really trying to figure out from Rubio..... and only an idiot doesn't know what the real meaning behind the question was.
 
2012-11-19 12:44:45 PM  

Cythraul: sweetmelissa31: I do not know if the earth is flat or not. I mean that is not my job.

It's flat. Trust me, I've seen the end of the Earth before.


I am going to remain agnostic about this. It's a mystery, but both sides are worth considering.
 
2012-11-19 12:47:14 PM  

dletter: Lennavan... you don't need a scientist there to answer what the question was really trying to figure out from Rubio..... and only an idiot doesn't know what the real meaning behind the question was.


Are you an expert on questions? Then you and he can't answer that. You must defer to a question expert.
 
2012-11-19 12:48:29 PM  

dletter: Again, though, if he would have said "I think somewhere around 50 million years old" even... at least we know he isn't thinking it is 10,000 years old.


What the fark is so wrong with admitting you don't know? Why is this so egregious?

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?
Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man.

dletter: Lennavan... you don't need a scientist there to answer what the question was really trying to figure out from Rubio..... and only an idiot doesn't know what the real meaning behind the question was.


Perhaps that is why he continued on talking about teaching faith and science after saying "I'm not a scientist" right? I think if you stopped searching really hard for something to hate on Rubio for, you'd realize this isn't really that bad. No worries, there will be plenty of opportunity in the future. But this isn't it.
 
2012-11-19 12:50:15 PM  
j.wigflip.com
 
2012-11-19 12:50:31 PM  

GAT_00: dletter: Lennavan... you don't need a scientist there to answer what the question was really trying to figure out from Rubio..... and only an idiot doesn't know what the real meaning behind the question was.

Are you an expert on questions? Then you and he can't answer that. You must defer to a question expert.


Yes, deferring to a scientist on science questions is just as silly as deferring to a question expert when asked a question.

Did you feel really stupid posting that? Seems beneath you, I dunno.
 
2012-11-19 12:52:09 PM  

lennavan: Yes, deferring to a scientist on science questions is just as silly as deferring to a question expert when asked a question.


Maybe I'm just reading his answer very differently than you, but it sounds to me like he wasn't deferring to scientists - he was deferring to theologians at least as much.
 
2012-11-19 12:52:57 PM  
j.wigflip.com
 
2012-11-19 12:53:06 PM  

cman: To be fair, unless there was someone a few billion years ago to record the earths history, we truly shall never know. When can theorize to our hearts content, but we can never be 100% certain. We have yet to leave our own solar system; we have only seen other planets through telescopes. How are we most certain that our grasp is right when we have nothing tangible to compare it to?


No. We can reasonably infer that the age of the earth is around 4 billion years, give or take a few hundred million. Why? Because science allows us to infer events that happen, will happen, or have happened without us needing to directly observe that event.

Any other answer to the question "how old is the earth" is pandering to religious conservatives.
 
2012-11-19 12:53:53 PM  

GAT_00: dletter: Lennavan... you don't need a scientist there to answer what the question was really trying to figure out from Rubio..... and only an idiot doesn't know what the real meaning behind the question was.

Are you an expert on questions? Then you and he can't answer that. You must defer to a question expert.


Again though, only an idiot doesn't realize that the reason behind the question wasn't to make sure Rubio pulled the number 4.5 billion out of his hat, vs 3 billion or 6 billion or even 50 million as I said. It was to see if he said a huge number or 10,000.

So, I am asking you... you think the reporter was really just trying to ask him an "academic" question and wanting a very accurate result? Would you have been happier if the reporter would have been more specific and asked "Do you think the earth is closer to 10,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old?" And, "deferring to a question expert" would mean bringing in a scientist, who is going to tell you roughly 4.5 billion, and that doesn't help him dodge the question like he was attempting to do.
 
2012-11-19 12:54:47 PM  

GAT_00: Are you an expert on questions?


i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-19 12:55:01 PM  

lennavan: GAT_00: dletter: Lennavan... you don't need a scientist there to answer what the question was really trying to figure out from Rubio..... and only an idiot doesn't know what the real meaning behind the question was.

Are you an expert on questions? Then you and he can't answer that. You must defer to a question expert.

Yes, deferring to a scientist on science questions is just as silly as deferring to a question expert when asked a question.

Did you feel really stupid posting that? Seems beneath you, I dunno.


You defer to an expert on the physics of black holes. You defer to an expert on the consistency of lava flows. You defer to experts on extraordinary areas that are not general knowledge and simple facts. The age of the planet is a simple fact. That you are unable to see the difference is why you are the problem and why I'm now openly mocking you.
 
2012-11-19 12:56:18 PM  
These elitist scientists think they can "calculate" the age of the universe, but in reality, their calculations are based on heavy assumptions. Assumptions like the speed of light being constant. This is clearly not the case, because timespace changes and you can easily fit the Earth into a 6000 year history if you take this into account. Math is only as good as the input.
 
2012-11-19 12:59:31 PM  
ftfa: 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.

the only important thing here is that it took seven somethings for the earth to be created. we can never know what those somethings are, but we know for a fact that there were seven of those biatches.
 
2012-11-19 12:59:36 PM  

DamnYankees: lennavan: Yes, deferring to a scientist on science questions is just as silly as deferring to a question expert when asked a question.

Maybe I'm just reading his answer very differently than you, but it sounds to me like he wasn't deferring to scientists - he was deferring to theologians at least as much.


I think so. If you re-read his answer, it seems pretty clear if you want to know the answer, you ask a scientist. He said "I'm not a scientist." He did not say "I'm not a priest." The question on its face asked for recollection of a single fact. As was suggested by someone else:

dletter: you don't need a scientist there to answer what the question was really trying to figure out from Rubio..... and only an idiot doesn't know what the real meaning behind the question was.



It was really getting at something else. He's a politician, ultimately these questions are viewed in the light, what will he do policy wise:

"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."

He's going to allow for teaching of both faith and science. So what? The way he answered the question implies parents will be able to say "This is what faith says... and this is what science says..." What's so wrong with that? Shiat, I think that's ideal. Juxtaposing the two that way, "all evidence and science points towards this one but some book with no support says this one instead." What could be better?
 
2012-11-19 01:02:01 PM  

dletter: GAT_00: dletter: Lennavan... you don't need a scientist there to answer what the question was really trying to figure out from Rubio..... and only an idiot doesn't know what the real meaning behind the question was.

Are you an expert on questions? Then you and he can't answer that. You must defer to a question expert.

Again though, only an idiot doesn't realize that the reason behind the question wasn't to make sure Rubio pulled the number 4.5 billion out of his hat, vs 3 billion or 6 billion or even 50 million as I said. It was to see if he said a huge number or 10,000.

So, I am asking you... you think the reporter was really just trying to ask him an "academic" question and wanting a very accurate result? Would you have been happier if the reporter would have been more specific and asked "Do you think the earth is closer to 10,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old?" And, "deferring to a question expert" would mean bringing in a scientist, who is going to tell you roughly 4.5 billion, and that doesn't help him dodge the question like he was attempting to do.


I think the reporter was using the question as a dummy to ask the real question: are you serious about kicking out the social conservatives or are you still pandering to them. Rubio answered definitely that he is still pandering. There is a host of answers that would have been acceptable here. Yes the reporter could have directly given him the choice, but then Rubio could have answered exactly the same way he did here with the dodge. Basically, Rubio could have said any number of ways "I trust science" and he didn't. He said "I don't want to piss off social conservatives."
 
2012-11-19 01:03:28 PM  

lennavan: I think so. If you re-read his answer, it seems pretty clear if you want to know the answer, you ask a scientist. He said "I'm not a scientist." He did not say "I'm not a priest." The question on its face asked for recollection of a single fact. As was suggested by someone else:


and right after he said "i'm not a scientist, man" he said: "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."

so yes he says scientists have a say, but he also says the bible has an equally valid say. also i think he's referring to scientists as theologians...
 
2012-11-19 01:04:10 PM  

Sybarite: 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.

It's not what "people" teach that I'm concerned about; it's what schools teach.


Precisely, it's not what is being taught it's where.

If the religious right stuck to just wanting to teach Bible stories in Sunday School and not insert their faux-science into the classroom this wouldn't even be an issue. But they do try and so it is. Rubio can't afford to piss off any of the base who may actually believe the earth is literally 7000 years old so he makes stupid statements like this trying to please everyone and, of course, it doesn't work. It was a dumb question really because what he really should have asked was "do you think Creationism has a rightful place in public schools?" but the reporter went roundabout.

Fail all around.
 
2012-11-19 01:05:46 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-11-19 01:06:41 PM  

dletter: And, "deferring to a question expert" would mean bringing in a scientist, who is going to tell you roughly 4.5 billion


Agreed.

Q: How old is the earth?
A: 4.5 billion years.

Q: How old is the earth?
A: Ask a scientist:
Scientist: 4.5 billion years.

See how those two are equivalent? The second one is even better because you're hearing it from an expert, so you should trust that answer even more.
 
2012-11-19 01:07:02 PM  

thomps: lennavan: I think so. If you re-read his answer, it seems pretty clear if you want to know the answer, you ask a scientist. He said "I'm not a scientist." He did not say "I'm not a priest." The question on its face asked for recollection of a single fact. As was suggested by someone else:

and right after he said "i'm not a scientist, man" he said: "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."

so yes he says scientists have a say, but he also says the bible has an equally valid say. also i think he's referring to scientists as theologians...


Plus, if you don't think there's high profile people in the US who believe that scientific investigation and creation stories told by goat herders over the campfire 5000 years ago are equally valid explanations of the world around us, you haven't been paying attention.
 
2012-11-19 01:09:06 PM  

thomps: lennavan: I think so. If you re-read his answer, it seems pretty clear if you want to know the answer, you ask a scientist. He said "I'm not a scientist." He did not say "I'm not a priest." The question on its face asked for recollection of a single fact. As was suggested by someone else:

and right after he said "i'm not a scientist, man" he said: "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."

so yes he says scientists have a say, but he also says the bible has an equally valid say. also i think he's referring to scientists as theologians...


He said "I'm not a scientist man." That means if you want to know, you have to ask a scientist. He then goes on to say there are multiple people who their own answers to the question. But he has already clearly demonstrated if you want to know the answer, you ask a scientist.

Just in case you may have possibly missed it, he reiterates it:

I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that.

This says you must be a scientist to be qualified to answer that sort of question.
 
2012-11-19 01:09:13 PM  

GAT_00: dletter: GAT_00: dletter: Lennavan... you don't need a scientist there to answer what the question was really trying to figure out from Rubio..... and only an idiot doesn't know what the real meaning behind the question was.

Are you an expert on questions? Then you and he can't answer that. You must defer to a question expert.

Again though, only an idiot doesn't realize that the reason behind the question wasn't to make sure Rubio pulled the number 4.5 billion out of his hat, vs 3 billion or 6 billion or even 50 million as I said. It was to see if he said a huge number or 10,000.

So, I am asking you... you think the reporter was really just trying to ask him an "academic" question and wanting a very accurate result? Would you have been happier if the reporter would have been more specific and asked "Do you think the earth is closer to 10,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old?" And, "deferring to a question expert" would mean bringing in a scientist, who is going to tell you roughly 4.5 billion, and that doesn't help him dodge the question like he was attempting to do.

I think the reporter was using the question as a dummy to ask the real question: are you serious about kicking out the social conservatives or are you still pandering to them. Rubio answered definitely that he is still pandering. There is a host of answers that would have been acceptable here. Yes the reporter could have directly given him the choice, but then Rubio could have answered exactly the same way he did here with the dodge. Basically, Rubio could have said any number of ways "I trust science" and he didn't. He said "I don't want to piss off social conservatives."


And I agree with you on that... I am on your side on this one GAT.
 
2012-11-19 01:09:41 PM  

lennavan: See how those two are equivalent?


Not even close.
 
2012-11-19 01:10:19 PM  

lennavan: dletter: And, "deferring to a question expert" would mean bringing in a scientist, who is going to tell you roughly 4.5 billion

Agreed.

Q: How old is the earth?
A: 4.5 billion years.

Q: How old is the earth?
A: Ask a scientist:
Scientist: 4.5 billion years.

See how those two are equivalent? The second one is even better because you're hearing it from an expert, so you should trust that answer even more.


Or he could have brought up some guy from the "Christian Science" museum in Kentucky and had him say 10,000. Now what?
 
2012-11-19 01:10:27 PM  

Jackson Herring: [25.media.tumblr.com image 500x323]


We'll never know if Obie weighs 7 lbs or 7 tons.
 
2012-11-19 01:10:58 PM  

dletter: And I agree with you on that... I am on your side on this one GAT.


I'm not really disagreeing with you. You're giving me a dummy to lay out my side here. Sorry if that came off as anger at you.

This blind ignorance to the meaning of political statements, I don't get it.
 
2012-11-19 01:11:31 PM  

GAT_00: I think the reporter was using the question as a dummy to ask the real question: are you serious about kicking out the social conservatives or are you still pandering to them. Rubio answered definitely that he is still pandering. There is a host of answers that would have been acceptable here. Yes the reporter could have directly given him the choice, but then Rubio could have answered exactly the same way he did here with the dodge. Basically, Rubio could have said any number of ways "I trust science" and he didn't. He said "I don't want to piss off social conservatives."


He said both. If you wanna know, ask a scientist. He said that twice. The rest of his answer was to say I'm not gonna piss off the social conservatives, I'm okay with that being taught as well.

GAT_00: lennavan: See how those two are equivalent?

Not even close.


Oh well if you say so, no explanation required.
 
2012-11-19 01:12:02 PM  
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.

Right here, he's explicitly saying that what faith says and what science says contradict each other.
 
2012-11-19 01:13:07 PM  

lennavan: Marco Rubio: 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.

I'm struggling to see the poutrage here. I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with. Indeed, I wish all politicians echoed this exact sentiment.

He's right, he is not the correct person to answer this question, and the journalist should feel bad for asking a politician it.


It would be an acceptable answer in another country: one where more people believe in the process of natural selection than in angels, a country where most people accept basic 8th grade principles of natural science over Bronze Age mythology, and one that was not getting routinely trounced by every other developed nation in science education standards.

But sadly, this country is scientifically remedial. Short bus. So we need leaders who acknowledge reality and encourage people to embrace modern educational standards; if necessary, the will to drag this nation kicking and screaming into the 21st (or even the 18th) century.

We do not need leaders who pander to the willful ignorance of their constituency. This is part of the problem. This is a matter of patriotism, and any politician who knows better but says "sure, I think its ok for parents to teach their kids that God created the universe 6,000 years ago" is no patriot because he is hurting America.

SENATOR RUBIO, YOU KNOW BETTER. YOU ARE HURTING AMERICA, AND YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
 
2012-11-19 01:15:13 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: [25.media.tumblr.com image 500x323]

We'll never know if Obie weighs 7 lbs or 7 tons.


Which is heavier? 7 pounds of Obie or 7 pounds of MooMoo?
 
2012-11-19 01:15:48 PM  

gilgigamesh: But sadly, this country is scientifically remedial. Short bus.


Agreed.

gilgigamesh: So we need leaders who acknowledge reality and encourage people to embrace modern educational standards; if necessary, the will to drag this nation kicking and screaming into the 21st (or even the 18th) century.


I'm thinkin a leader who tells us to put our trust in the scientists is the person you are looking for. You wanna know how old the earth is? Ask a scientist, not a politician.
 
2012-11-19 01:17:00 PM  

lennavan: Just in case you may have possibly missed it, he reiterates it:

I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that.


right after which he spends a couple of sentences reiterating his belief that the creation of the earth is an unanswerable mystery. he's talking out of both sides of his mouth for very obvious reasons. the fact that he's doing it and the reasons he has to are both despicable.
 
2012-11-19 01:17:51 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-19 01:20:10 PM  

lennavan: He said both. If you wanna know, ask a scientist. He said that twice.


That isn't an acceptable answer. It may if the question was "what is the smallest known particle". Or "Is Pluto a planet".

For this, no. It would be ok if ths US wasn't full of scientific retards. But refusing to acknowledge scientific facts in this country is hurting our ability to progress.
 
2012-11-19 01:20:11 PM  

gilgigamesh: We do not need leaders who pander to the willful ignorance of their constituency. This is part of the problem. This is a matter of patriotism, and any politician who knows better but says "sure, I think its ok for parents to teach their kids that God created the universe 6,000 years ago" is no patriot because he is hurting America.


This leads to a very different discussion. Normally I'm with you on this one. But you're arguing from an idealistic point of view. In a perfect world you're right. But in the world we live in, politicians are the ones enacting policy. To even be elected to that position where you can enact change you gotta pander.

To pander, Obama agreed $249,000 was "middle class." To pander, he had to extend tax cuts for the top bracket. To pander he had to cave on a public option. But had he patriotically fought the good fight, we wouldn't have made significant reforms to the insurance industry and actual middle class/poor families hurting during the recession would have been paying more in taxes.

Rubio said ask a scientist but he won't prevent people from teaching faith. It's not really that bad.
 
2012-11-19 01:20:15 PM  

lennavan: I'm struggling to see the poutrage here.


It's about "I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created". From the State's education standards...

img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
img1.fark.net Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.


It's disappointing he's not even up to sixth-grade science.

lennavan: How many people in this thread do you think knew how old the Earth is before googling it?


I find it's hard to forget an anthropomorphic wombat discussing that with a statue of the god Ganesh.

www.diggercomic.com

 
2012-11-19 01:20:15 PM  

lennavan: DamnYankees: lennavan: Yes, deferring to a scientist on science questions is just as silly as deferring to a question expert when asked a question.

Maybe I'm just reading his answer very differently than you, but it sounds to me like he wasn't deferring to scientists - he was deferring to theologians at least as much.

I think so. If you re-read his answer, it seems pretty clear if you want to know the answer, you ask a scientist. He said "I'm not a scientist." He did not say "I'm not a priest." The question on its face asked for recollection of a single fact. As was suggested by someone else:

dletter: you don't need a scientist there to answer what the question was really trying to figure out from Rubio..... and only an idiot doesn't know what the real meaning behind the question was.

It was really getting at something else. He's a politician, ultimately these questions are viewed in the light, what will he do policy wise:

"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."

He's going to allow for teaching of both faith and science. So what? The way he answered the question implies parents will be able to say "This is what faith says... and this is what science says..." What's so wrong with that? Shiat, I think that's ideal. Juxtaposing the two that way, "all evidence and science points towards this one but some book with no support says this one instead." What could be better?


Let me put it to you this way:

What does religion answer have to do with a scientific question?

It's like going up to a mechanic and asking "what's the best quality car?" And the Mechanic saying-"Well, Consumer Reports, Top Gear and Motor Trend says one thing, but The Senators and Congresmen says another... So it's a great mystery"

If he had said- ask a scientist, that would be one thing... But he included the whole "religious debate" side of it. And that only shows his comments about leaving social issues behind ringing false.
 
2012-11-19 01:22:51 PM  

lennavan: I'm thinkin a leader who tells us to put our trust in the scientists is the person you are looking for.


I don't think he said we should put our trust in scientists. I don't think he said that at all.

I think he spewed some PC crap about all viewpoints having validity. Well, they don't. There is a right and a wrong answer to this question, one everyone should know, and if he wants to lead this country, he needs to send a message that some things are true and some things aren't.
 
2012-11-19 01:23:30 PM  

gilgigamesh: lennavan: He said both. If you wanna know, ask a scientist. He said that twice.

That isn't an acceptable answer. It may if the question was "what is the smallest known particle". Or "Is Pluto a planet".

For this, no.


Why? What makes that question different?

gilgigamesh: It would be ok if ths US wasn't full of scientific retards.


It's funny, this is the exact reason I think you are completely wrong. The US is full of scientific dipshiats. That's exactly why we should all just defer to scientists. Do vaccines cause autism? Wouldn't it be glorious for us to defer to scientists? Instead the US is full of idiots who listen to Jenny McCarthy.
 
2012-11-19 01:25:02 PM  

lennavan: gilgigamesh: We do not need leaders who pander to the willful ignorance of their constituency. This is part of the problem. This is a matter of patriotism, and any politician who knows better but says "sure, I think its ok for parents to teach their kids that God created the universe 6,000 years ago" is no patriot because he is hurting America.

This leads to a very different discussion. Normally I'm with you on this one. But you're arguing from an idealistic point of view. In a perfect world you're right. But in the world we live in, politicians are the ones enacting policy. To even be elected to that position where you can enact change you gotta pander.

To pander, Obama agreed $249,000 was "middle class." To pander, he had to extend tax cuts for the top bracket. To pander he had to cave on a public option. But had he patriotically fought the good fight, we wouldn't have made significant reforms to the insurance industry and actual middle class/poor families hurting during the recession would have been paying more in taxes.

Rubio said ask a scientist but he won't prevent people from teaching faith. It's not really that bad.


I guess we have to agree to disagree.

This nation is addicted to ignorance, and I think this is as bad as telling a heroin addict that just a little heroin will be ok, as long as he doesn't go nuts with it.
 
2012-11-19 01:25:15 PM  
j.wigflip.com
 
2012-11-19 01:27:30 PM  

gilgigamesh: lennavan: I'm thinkin a leader who tells us to put our trust in the scientists is the person you are looking for.

I don't think he said we should put our trust in scientists. I don't think he said that at all.


"I'm not a scientist, man. ... I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that."

Darth_Lukecash: If he had said- ask a scientist, that would be one thing


"I'm not a scientist, man. ... I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that."

Darth_Lukecash: It's like going up to a mechanic and asking "what's the best quality car?" And the Mechanic saying-"Well, Consumer Reports, Top Gear and Motor Trend says one thing, but The Senators and Congresmen says another... So it's a great mystery"


It's like going up to Marco Rubio and saying "what's the best quality car" and Marco Rubio saying "farked if I know, ask a Mechanic. Some people swear by Toyotas some people swear by Subarus." WHAT AN OUTRAGE.

Darth_Lukecash: What does religion answer have to do with a scientific question?


Nothing. That is why he differentiated between the two.

"I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says."
 
2012-11-19 01:29:24 PM  

lennavan: gilgigamesh: lennavan: He said both. If you wanna know, ask a scientist. He said that twice.

That isn't an acceptable answer. It may if the question was "what is the smallest known particle". Or "Is Pluto a planet".

For this, no.

Why? What makes that question different?

gilgigamesh: It would be ok if ths US wasn't full of scientific retards.

It's funny, this is the exact reason I think you are completely wrong. The US is full of scientific dipshiats. That's exactly why we should all just defer to scientists. Do vaccines cause autism? Wouldn't it be glorious for us to defer to scientists? Instead the US is full of idiots who listen to Jenny McCarthy.


So, if he was asked if Vaccines cause autism, and he said he wasn't sure, you'd like that answer as well? Or does he need to say "ask a scientist" on that? What if he was asked at what temperature water freezes at?
 
2012-11-19 01:29:47 PM  

lennavan: Why? What makes that question different?


Because those are things that not every one does or should know. I don't know what the smallest known particle is. And while I know that Pluto is not classified as a planet, it was at least a point of scientific debate until a few years ago.

There is no scientific basis whatsoever for believing that earth is 6,000 years old. If it was, writing and cities would predate the earth. It is just plain flat out wrong as wrong can be, and yet a majority of Americans believe it to be true or at least in the ballpark. And any leader who is willing to stab America in the brain by validating that idiocy has no business leading anybody.
 
2012-11-19 01:30:51 PM  

lennavan: Darth_Lukecash: It's like going up to a mechanic and asking "what's the best quality car?" And the Mechanic saying-"Well, Consumer Reports, Top Gear and Motor Trend says one thing, but The Senators and Congresmen says another... So it's a great mystery"

It's like going up to Marco Rubio and saying "what's the best quality car" and Marco Rubio saying "farked if I know, ask a Mechanic. Some people swear by Toyotas some people swear by Subarus." WHAT AN OUTRAGE.


No, it's like asking "does the earth revolve around the sun."

You're going through a lot of mental gymnastics in order to excuse Rubio's clearly pandering stance, taken for the sake of preserving the creationist vote in his party.
 
2012-11-19 01:31:42 PM  

lennavan: I don't think he said we should put our trust in scientists. I don't think he said that at all.

"I'm not a scientist, man. ... I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that."


That's not an answer. Its a cop out. And he doesn't say anything about trusting scientists.
 
2012-11-19 01:32:19 PM  
I do have to wonder... if you ask this question to democrats, would they even give you a straight up answer that says "It isn't 6 or 10,000 years, I know that much".

Unfortunately, I think both sides have to pander on it. Are there any examples where democrats are asked the question?
 
2012-11-19 01:32:38 PM  

gilgigamesh: I guess we have to agree to disagree.

This nation is addicted to ignorance, and I think this is as bad as telling a heroin addict that just a little heroin will be ok, as long as he doesn't go nuts with it.


For clarity, we only disagree on the solution. This is more like admitting you can't fix all the heroin addicts.

I actually had a chance to chat with Sean Carroll, one of the scientists in this debate. I asked him this very question, what do you do when faced with someone who sees all of the evidence and still doesn't believe. He said (slight paraphrase) you just gotta let 'em go man, because man, they're gone.

That's what I'm reading here. You wanna know the answer? Ask a scientist. But the rest of you all cracked up on religion, carry on.
 
2012-11-19 01:33:17 PM  

gilgigamesh: lennavan: I don't think he said we should put our trust in scientists. I don't think he said that at all.

"I'm not a scientist, man. ... I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that."

That's not an answer. Its a cop out. And he doesn't say anything about trusting scientists.


he's also editing out significant portions of a really sh*tty answer with his ellipses.
 
2012-11-19 01:34:38 PM  

WI241TH: I'm not going to ask that he be an expert, but I would prefer it if senators on the science committee have a high schooler's understanding of science.


Ob:

imgs.xkcd.com

 
2012-11-19 01:35:16 PM  

sweetmelissa31: [j.wigflip.com image 592x405]


Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 600x524]


sweetmelissa31: [j.wigflip.com image 700x448]


Jackson Herring: [25.media.tumblr.com image 500x323]


Is there a fat dog site you guys are getting these images from...or, are you just googling?
 
2012-11-19 01:37:32 PM  

dletter: So, if he was asked if Vaccines cause autism, and he said he wasn't sure, you'd like that answer as well?


You have no idea if vaccines cause autism. Your "knowledge" is deferral to the experts. The only reason you "know" is because you read an article on CNN.com that reiterated what a scientist said. So I'm saying if someone wanted to know if vaccines cause autism, they would be incredibly stupid if they asked you. It would be significantly better if they asked the scientists who actually did the study. You get that, right? Because it really seems you don't.

gilgigamesh: "I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that."

That's not an answer. Its a cop out. And he doesn't say anything about trusting scientists.


So you think those two statements are completely independent of each other? I dunno man, I'm thinkin at this point you've just thrown all reason out the window. GOP is surely full of idiots, I get it. You want to pounce on one, me too. But that's blinding you here. I can't help you.
 
2012-11-19 01:37:37 PM  

lennavan: gilgigamesh: lennavan: I'm thinkin a leader who tells us to put our trust in the scientists is the person you are looking for.

I don't think he said we should put our trust in scientists. I don't think he said that at all.

"I'm not a scientist, man. ... I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that."

Darth_Lukecash: If he had said- ask a scientist, that would be one thing

"I'm not a scientist, man. ... I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that."

Darth_Lukecash: It's like going up to a mechanic and asking "what's the best quality car?" And the Mechanic saying-"Well, Consumer Reports, Top Gear and Motor Trend says one thing, but The Senators and Congresmen says another... So it's a great mystery"

It's like going up to Marco Rubio and saying "what's the best quality car" and Marco Rubio saying "farked if I know, ask a Mechanic. Some people swear by Toyotas some people swear by Subarus." WHAT AN OUTRAGE.

Darth_Lukecash: What does religion answer have to do with a scientific question?

Nothing. That is why he differentiated between the two.

"I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says."


Except he didn't differentiate between the two. He put them on equal footing.

Yes he said "ask a scientist" but he also threw in theologians. Theologians study religion, not geology.

And Theologians are technically scientist-but wholly unqualified to judge matters outside their feild of study-like the age of the earth.
 
2012-11-19 01:38:46 PM  

thomps: he's also editing out significant portions of a really sh*tty answer with his ellipses.


Wouldn't it be really awkward if the first time I posted in this thread I posted his entire comment and since then have just been quoting portions because constantly reposting the entire thing would take up a whole shiatload of space?

Yeah, that'd be awkward.
 
2012-11-19 01:39:18 PM  

eraser8: Is there a fat dog site you guys are getting these images from...or, are you just googling?


why don't you google it and find out
 
2012-11-19 01:39:35 PM  

Tigger: What if I said "75 years"?


Based on what I just did in the bathroom, the earth is definitely more than two days old. Because I had corn two days ago.
 
2012-11-19 01:40:07 PM  

lennavan: dletter: And, "deferring to a question expert" would mean bringing in a scientist, who is going to tell you roughly 4.5 billion

Agreed.

Q: How old is the earth?
A: 4.5 billion years.

Q: How old is the earth?
A: Ask a scientist:
Scientist: 4.5 billion years.

See how those two are equivalent? The second one is even better because you're hearing it from an expert, so you should trust that answer even more.


What Rubio actually said was:

Q: How old is the Earth?
Rubio: I'm not a scientist, but ask a scientist or a theologian.
Scientist: 4.54 billion years with +/-100M years.
Theologian: 10,000 years.
Rubio: Both of those should be taught to kids.

See this part of the answer:

Rubio: 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.

So, uh, yeah, he's definitely advocating teaching kids that there are multiple theories about how old the earth is. Some of those theories are scientific, some are religious.

I think the reason that everyone's a bit tiffed at you is that the word "theories" should automatically exclude religious speculation. The Bible doesn't provide "theories" about how old the Earth is.
 
2012-11-19 01:40:41 PM  

Jackson Herring: eraser8: Is there a fat dog site you guys are getting these images from...or, are you just googling?

why don't you google it and find out


I'm not allowed to google.

Court order.

/bender
 
2012-11-19 01:41:06 PM  

eraser8: Is there a fat dog site you guys are getting these images from...or, are you just googling?


I made those fat dogs all by myself without any help.
 
2012-11-19 01:44:19 PM  

sweetmelissa31: eraser8: Is there a fat dog site you guys are getting these images from...or, are you just googling?

I made those fat dogs all by myself without any help.


this post sponsored by

discountpetsandsupplies.com

it's a condition :(
 
2012-11-19 01:44:20 PM  

lennavan: thomps: he's also editing out significant portions of a really sh*tty answer with his ellipses.

Wouldn't it be really awkward if the first time I posted in this thread I posted his entire comment and since then have just been quoting portions because constantly reposting the entire thing would take up a whole shiatload of space?

Yeah, that'd be awkward.


but it ignores the whole point. instead of just saying "i dunno dude go ask a scientist" he says "i dunno dude go ask a scientist, although we will never know because it is an argument for theologians." it's a terrible answer that would have been much better had the ellipses been a dramatic pause rather than snipping out a non-sequitur.
 
2012-11-19 01:45:41 PM  

sweetmelissa31: eraser8: Is there a fat dog site you guys are getting these images from...or, are you just googling?

I made those fat dogs all by myself without any help.


Just for the sake of a few image macros? Well, you've got the pics now. It's time to put them on a diet.
 
2012-11-19 01:45:48 PM  

lennavan: gilgigamesh: lennavan: I'm thinkin a leader who tells us to put our trust in the scientists is the person you are looking for.

I don't think he said we should put our trust in scientists. I don't think he said that at all.

"I'm not a scientist, man. ... I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that."

Darth_Lukecash: If he had said- ask a scientist, that would be one thing

"I'm not a scientist, man. ... I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that."

Darth_Lukecash: It's like going up to a mechanic and asking "what's the best quality car?" And the Mechanic saying-"Well, Consumer Reports, Top Gear and Motor Trend says one thing, but The Senators and Congresmen says another... So it's a great mystery"

It's like going up to Marco Rubio and saying "what's the best quality car" and Marco Rubio saying "farked if I know, ask a Mechanic. Some people swear by Toyotas some people swear by Subarus." WHAT AN OUTRAGE.

Darth_Lukecash: What does religion answer have to do with a scientific question?

Nothing. That is why he differentiated between the two.

"I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says."


You don't think a Senator on the Science Committee should have a junior high understanding of science?

You think it's okay for a Senator to suggest that theologians be included in the discussion of the age of the Earth?

Oh wait, you're just trolling. Why else would you try to suggest his "7 days" comment could refer to ANYTHING OTHER THAN the Biblical Creation Myth?
 
2012-11-19 01:45:49 PM  

SphericalTime: I think the reason that everyone's a bit tiffed at you is that the word "theories" should automatically exclude religious speculation. The Bible doesn't provide "theories" about how old the Earth is.


He certainly did bastardize the word theory. But he's not a scientist so I gave him a pass. Especially after he twice said "I'm not a scientist" and "I'm not qualified" implying you'd have to be a scientist to be qualified to answer that question. He also differentiated between science and religion:

SphericalTime: So, uh, yeah, he's definitely advocating teaching kids that there are multiple theories about how old the earth is. Some of those theories are scientific, some are religious.


Yes, exactly. So in science class you learn what the word "theory" means to scientists. In religion class you learn what the word "theory" means to that religion. I don't see anything wrong about this. He wants you to trust the scientists. I want you to trust the science teachers. Here's hoping a science teacher can drill home the difference.
 
2012-11-19 01:47:33 PM  

Dan the Schman: You don't think a Senator on the Science Committee should have a junior high understanding of science?

You think it's okay for a Senator to suggest that theologians be included in the discussion of the age of the Earth?

Oh wait, you're just trolling. Why else would you try to suggest his "7 days" comment could refer to ANYTHING OTHER THAN the Biblical Creation Myth?


I don't think it's okay to completely and purposefully misportray what Rubio, or myself for that matter, is saying. But that won't stop you. Carry on my wayward friend.
 
2012-11-19 01:49:25 PM  
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.

Yggdrasil

www.zmangames.com

Teach the controversy
 
2012-11-19 01:50:12 PM  

thomps: he says "i dunno dude go ask a scientist, although we will never know because it is an argument for theologians."


I don't think that is the correct way to distill it.

He wrote: "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"

Here is how I interpret it: "I dunno dude, go ask a scientist. I can tell you what these various people say (though admittedly some theologians dispute what is in the bible)"

The dispute he refers to is amongst theologians as to what the Bible says.
 
2012-11-19 01:50:44 PM  

lennavan: SphericalTime: I think the reason that everyone's a bit tiffed at you is that the word "theories" should automatically exclude religious speculation. The Bible doesn't provide "theories" about how old the Earth is.

He certainly did bastardize the word theory. But he's not a scientist so I gave him a pass. Especially after he twice said "I'm not a scientist" and "I'm not qualified" implying you'd have to be a scientist to be qualified to answer that question. He also differentiated between science and religion:


*sputter* Okay, I'm sorry, but even if he couldn't remember how old the Earth is, he should have known enough to know that the question was explicitly one for scientists. He didn't.

lennavan: SphericalTime: So, uh, yeah, he's definitely advocating teaching kids that there are multiple theories about how old the earth is. Some of those theories are scientific, some are religious.

Yes, exactly. So in science class you learn what the word "theory" means to scientists. In religion class you learn what the word "theory" means to that religion. I don't see anything wrong about this. He wants you to trust the scientists. I want you to trust the science teachers. Here's hoping a science teacher can drill home the difference.


. . . This is actually what causes the confusion that results in poor science education for American students. Exactly this confusion between religious and scientific questions and word usage.
 
2012-11-19 01:52:06 PM  

SphericalTime: *sputter* Okay, I'm sorry, but even if he couldn't remember how old the Earth is, he should have known enough to know that the question was explicitly one for scientists. He didn't.


Sure, except for those two times he explicitly stated it was, you're right he didn't.

SphericalTime: . . . This is actually what causes the confusion that results in poor science education for American students. Exactly this confusion between religious and scientific questions and word usage.


So you think the solution is for a politician to get up on TV and clear it up for us? Yeah, that'll be effective.
 
2012-11-19 02:01:06 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Farking geology... how does it work?


Very, very slowly.
 
2012-11-19 02:02:30 PM  

lennavan: SphericalTime: *sputter* Okay, I'm sorry, but even if he couldn't remember how old the Earth is, he should have known enough to know that the question was explicitly one for scientists. He didn't.

Sure, except for those two times he explicitly stated it was, you're right he didn't.


He didn't exclude theologians from answering what is a scientific question, and suggested that those answers should be taught. And mind you, he didn't say that he wanted to explain the difference between the word "theory," he said that "people" should be allowed to teach the controversy.

Following from the rather vague statement that he made, it sounds like Sen. Rubio would be fine with science teachers choosing to teach Biblical theories on the origin of the Earth in science class, if they wanted to.
 
2012-11-19 02:05:46 PM  
*sigh*

theocrats.
 
2012-11-19 02:08:25 PM  

Weaver95: *sigh*

theocrats.


I find myself weirdly affected by the people that don't mind the theocrats as much as the theocrats themselves.
 
2012-11-19 02:09:40 PM  
A lot of outrage over a politician side-stepping a thinly-veiled theological question. 
 
Lennavan
 
i107.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-19 02:10:47 PM  
Excellent. The Republicans are already giving the Democrats soundbites for 2016. Keep it up Republicans. I love your honesty.
 
2012-11-19 02:11:00 PM  

SphericalTime: Weaver95: *sigh*

theocrats.

I find myself weirdly affected by the people that don't mind the theocrats as much as the theocrats themselves.


past a certain point, the only thing you can do is limit the damage the GOP theocrats can do, and then ride out the rest of the storm. look - the Republicans got beat down hard this past election. But did they stop and ponder the root causes of their crushing defeat? hells no, they seem to be doubling down on the stupid and using it to rally the troops.

we're not going to convince the True Believers that they're wrong. that's a pointless waste of time. instead, lets focus on making sure the religious nut balls can't do too much damage while working to phase them out of office fast as possible.
 
2012-11-19 02:11:05 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Farking geology... how does it work?


I believe the consensus is that it's them evil intellectuals trying to pull a fast one.
 
2012-11-19 02:11:31 PM  

dugitman: A lot of outrage over a politician side-stepping a thinly-veiled theological question. 
 
Lennavan
 
[i107.photobucket.com image 270x203]


The age of the earth isn't a theological question. If you think it is then you are a retard.
 
2012-11-19 02:11:44 PM  
newsbusters.org

Wow, my ignore list isn't that long, but over half the thread is missing now. There must be some Miss Teen South Carolina-style debate here.
 
2012-11-19 02:12:06 PM  
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.

Yeah, I bet he also listens to both kinds of music, country and western.


Weaver95: *sigh*

theocrats.


^
 
2012-11-19 02:13:53 PM  

hutchkc: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Farking geology... how does it work?

I believe the consensus is that it's them evil intellectuals trying to pull a fast really, really slow one.


FTFY
 
2012-11-19 02:13:55 PM  
FWIW I just wrote a blog post eviscerating Rubio.

Man, this kind of stuff pisses me off to no end.

/Yes, I just quoted Lo Pan.
 
2012-11-19 02:15:22 PM  
You know the worst thing about Republicans, the WORST thing about the GOP? Republicans love to not know. Nothing makes a conservative happier than not knowing the answer to your question. 'Hey man, what's the capital of Kenya?' 'Shucks, I don't know that! The only 3 letters i need to know are U..S..and..A, just keeping it real.' Yeah, you're keeping it real, real dumb. Republicans hate knowledge. shiat, if you're afraid a Romney voter will break into your house, and you wanna save your money, you know what you do? You put the money in a book. Cause conservatives don't read. Books are like kryptonite to a member of the GOP. 'Here's a science book.' 'NOOOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Not a science book!'"
 
2012-11-19 02:15:33 PM  
It was, then we used science to estimate its age with some degree of accuracy.

Besides, if they want to claim the Christian god is a trickster god, well, I know more than a few people that consider that blasphemy.
 
2012-11-19 02:15:51 PM  

lennavan: I'm struggling to see the poutrage here. I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with. Indeed, I wish all politicians echoed this exact sentiment.

He's right, he is not the correct person to answer this question, and the journalist should feel bad for asking a politician it.


My 14 year old nephew can answer this question. I expect a politician who sets policy to be able to answer questions on settled science.

/i weep for America because of people like you
 
2012-11-19 02:15:57 PM  

lennavan: Marco Rubio: 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.

I'm struggling to see the poutrage here. I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with. Indeed, I wish all politicians echoed this exact sentiment.


No. The right answer is 'about 4 billion years old'.
 
2012-11-19 02:16:09 PM  
If by mystery he means, exact time of the big bang. Sure.
 
2012-11-19 02:16:19 PM  

cman: When can theorize to our hearts content, but we can never be 100% certain.


Sh:t, ask him the same thing about God or even Jesus... "I know, with all my hearts content, I'm 100% certain Jesus is our Lord and Savior".

What his is, is nothing but a pandering twatwaffle. Then again, this isn't news at all.
 
2012-11-19 02:16:49 PM  
There are a lot of perfectly fine ways to answer that question. "WELP DUNNO THEM SCIENTISTS MIGHT BE RIGHT OR THEM CULTISTS MIGHT BE RIGHT PURDY MUCH THE SAME EITHER WAY NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT I WANNA TALK ABOUT" is not one of them.
 
2012-11-19 02:17:14 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: GAT_00: How is it possible to be educated and not know the age of the Earth?

These are the same people who can't understand basic economics and who think that you can tip over an island if too many people are on it.

We have the government we deserve


We'd better hope HI doesn't float away from us someday....
 
2012-11-19 02:17:33 PM  
When you put the same weight of Biblical texts as science there is going to be a problem.
 
2012-11-19 02:18:41 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Reposted from another thread because it applies here, too...

One thing the Republicans don't seem to grasp:

Even if they nominate "a Hispanic," Mexicans generally HATE Cubans, and vice-versa. And there are lots more Chicanos/Mexicans/Mexican-Americans in the US than Cubans. Rubio might carry Florida, but "the hispanic vote" won't go Republican in any other state.

So, keep talking Rubio. Remind us why we voted for Obama again.


It's sort of like how not all white folks are English. It's like the EU putting up a French candidate (or whatever fake elected position I'm making up right now) and expecting the English to just go along because hey, they're white, too!
 
2012-11-19 02:19:37 PM  

GAT_00: lennavan: But I'm sure you knew.

How is it possible to be educated and not know the age of the Earth?


You redefine what it is to be educated. Duh!
 
2012-11-19 02:20:04 PM  

SphericalTime: He didn't exclude theologians from answering what is a scientific question, and suggested that those answers should be taught. And mind you, he didn't say that he wanted to explain the difference between the word "theory," he said that "people" should be allowed to teach the controversy.


He actually said "parents." I extrapolated to schools. I don't think Rubio actually knows the different usages of the word theory.

SphericalTime: He didn't exclude theologians from answering what is a scientific question


While he did not exclude it, he pretty clearly only deferred to scientists. "I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer that question." He left room open for the zealots in the country.

When a Republican politician with national recognition gets up and says "on this scientific topic, we should ask scientists" I think that's something we should celebrate, not chastise. This is what happens when we don't listen to scientists:

BARTON: Isn't it obvious that at one time it was a lot warmer in Alaska and on the North Pole? It wasn't a big pipeline that we've created from Texas and shipped it up there and put it under ground so we can now pump it up and ship it back?

CHU: No, there are continental plates that have been drifting around throughout the geological ages.

BARTON: So it just drifted up there.

CHU: Uh.... That's certainly what happened. It's a result of things like that.
 
2012-11-19 02:20:21 PM  

Pincy: The age of the earth isn't a theological question. If you think it is then you are a retard.


No it isn't. But the question was asked to open the theological discussion. If he says "it's 4.5 billion years old" then the next question is something like "So do you reject creationism as the cause of our planet's formation?". If he says it's 6000 years old then he is labeled a retard who is going to force new earth education into public schools.
 
/apatheist
// it's a stupid question to ask politicians if you expect a straight answer
 
2012-11-19 02:21:25 PM  
This is outrageous behavior toward Marco Rubio! His father did not flee Cuba in a paper bag, singlehandedly defeat the Luftwaffen , and then paddle the bag to America with nothing more than his hands for paddles, his cock for a rudder, and a map of Florida just so his son could be treated this way.
 
2012-11-19 02:21:31 PM  
Ask Chris Christie what he thinks about this.

1) He'll probably give you an honest answer.
2) He won't be able to run in 2016. See #1.
 
2012-11-19 02:21:45 PM  
five billion, 356 million, 348 thousand 159 years, 4 months, and 21 days old.

give or take an hour.
 
2012-11-19 02:21:56 PM  

DamnYankees: 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

Who gives a flying fark what theologians say about this.


His constituents.

Can you really blame him for dodging the question? There's no margin in giving the correct answer. And there's no margin in blatantly pandering to the idiots that vote for him. He KNOWS the correct answer, but he also knows if he gives it he's f*cked.

This is why you can have a party like the Republican party. It's full of educated people doing their level best to look like reasonable idiots. Sad state of affairs.
 
2012-11-19 02:22:35 PM  

lennavan: How many people in this thread do you think knew how old the Earth is before googling it? I'm thinkin, on the spot, without access to Google, I also would have said "Farked if I know, I'm not the right person to ask." And I'm a scientist.


but that's not the issue. The question is How many people in this thread know that SCIENTISTS know the age of the earth.

He didn't say "I personally don't know what it is but others do".
 
2012-11-19 02:24:41 PM  

EyeballKid: This is outrageous behavior toward Marco Rubio! His father did not flee Cuba in a paper bag, singlehandedly defeat the Luftwaffen , and then paddle the bag to America with nothing more than his hands for paddles, his cock for a rudder, and a map of Florida just so his son could be treated this way.


Dutch rudder?
 
2012-11-19 02:24:58 PM  

dugitman: Pincy: The age of the earth isn't a theological question. If you think it is then you are a retard.

No it isn't. But the question was asked to open the theological discussion. If he says "it's 4.5 billion years old" then the next question is something like "So do you reject creationism as the cause of our planet's formation?". If he says it's 6000 years old then he is labeled a retard who is going to force new earth education into public schools.
 
/apatheist
// it's a stupid question to ask politicians if you expect a straight answer


Isn't any question a stupid question to ask a politician if you expect a straight answer :-)

But seriously, people have a right to know if a politician doesn't accept scientific fact.
 
2012-11-19 02:25:00 PM  
The Repubs have a tenuous grasp on reality, me thinks.
 
2012-11-19 02:25:55 PM  

gingerjet: lennavan: I'm struggling to see the poutrage here. I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with. Indeed, I wish all politicians echoed this exact sentiment.

He's right, he is not the correct person to answer this question, and the journalist should feel bad for asking a politician it.

My 14 year old nephew can answer this question. I expect a politician who sets policy to be able to answer questions on settled science.

/i weep for America because of people like you


I expect a politician who sets policy who when presented with a question or a problem, will inform himself from the experts and then make a decision. Whether he recalled that fact from 8th grade, or got it from the Stanford Science Professor who serves as his advisor is mostly irrelevant - except to say I'd trust the professor slightly more than my recollection of 8th grade.

That you would attack someone for suggesting we ask an expert makes me weep for the country.
 
2012-11-19 02:26:44 PM  

Tigger: lennavan: Hoban Washburne: If he said "From what I remember, scientists agree it's about 4 billion years old," people wouldn't be giving him a hard time.

But he said "I'm not a scientist... I'm not qualified to answer that question" and that's truly poutrageous?

Hoban Washburne: You're right. I'd be off by about 13.5 percent of the ESTIMATED age of the earth. Any guess as to how far off his "maybe 7 days" statement is? I'm no mathematician, but I can tell you it's a farkload.

He never said the earth was 7 days old. Here's what happened, you read Rubio, you saw the Fark headline, and immediately assumed the headline was not misleading and he was just gonna derp. Turned out he didn't. This may shock you - Fark headlines are not always truthful. So that led you to completely misread what Rubio was saying.

He never said the earth was 7 days old.

No he dodged the question because he doesn't want to offend a metric shiatton of pig ignorant farkwits that he may need support from in future.

In short he's a pandering asshole.

Or he's just so dumb he shouldn't ever run for office.


The correct answer is B)

/always has been, and always will be one
 
2012-11-19 02:26:44 PM  

Cuthbert Allgood: The Repubs have a tenuous grasp on reality, me thinks.


you should hear Limbaugh today. one of his talking points is that 'libruls' were afraid of the GOP convention. which is flat out delusional.
 
2012-11-19 02:27:08 PM  

Corvus: lennavan: How many people in this thread do you think knew how old the Earth is before googling it? I'm thinkin, on the spot, without access to Google, I also would have said "Farked if I know, I'm not the right person to ask." And I'm a scientist.

but that's not the issue. The question is How many people in this thread know that SCIENTISTS know the age of the earth.


Marco Rubio also knows scientists know that answer. He said so, twice.

Relax, trust me, we will have ample opportunity to hate on the GOP. We'll have ample opportunity to hate on Rubio too.
 
2012-11-19 02:27:51 PM  
This is simply the new strategy for the GOP. They've realized their nutty assed beliefs scare the crap out of the common man, so they're going back to the old "Don't tell people what you actually believe" strategy.

You're going to hear a lot of "I dunno! People should look into that!" answers from these clowns over the coming months.
 
2012-11-19 02:28:12 PM  

lennavan: I'm okay with him just asking a scientist to show up to the meeting so they can ask the scientist.


He didn't just defer to a scientist, he also deferred to theologians. Why would Rubio defer a science question to a theologian?
 
2012-11-19 02:28:19 PM  

coeyagi: Ask Chris Christie what he thinks about this.

1) He'll probably give you an honest answer.
2) He won't be able to run in 2016. See #1.


He'd actually be much more likely to tell you to STFU and GTFO. Which is still better than calling it a mystery or quoting the Bible.

Say what you will about his politics, I'm no fan myself, but that guy's personality is perfect for Jersey.
 
2012-11-19 02:28:42 PM  

Rent Party: This is simply the new strategy for the GOP. They've realized their nutty assed beliefs scare the crap out of the common man, so they're going back to the old "Don't tell people what you actually believe" strategy.

You're going to hear a lot of "I dunno! People should look into that!" answers from these clowns over the coming months.


can the GOP stuff that genie back in the bottle tho? i'm not convinced it'll play out well.
 
2012-11-19 02:29:15 PM  

lennavan: gilgigamesh: But sadly, this country is scientifically remedial. Short bus.

Agreed.

gilgigamesh: So we need leaders who acknowledge reality and encourage people to embrace modern educational standards; if necessary, the will to drag this nation kicking and screaming into the 21st (or even the 18th) century.

I'm thinkin a leader who tells us to put our trust in the scientists is the person you are looking for. You wanna know how old the earth is? Ask a scientist, not a politician.


He didn't defer to the scientists, though. He cited several religious ideas, and said that he matter is "still debated among theologists" and that the answer is "one of the great mysteries". Deferring to the scientists would be "Current scientific theory suggests the age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years; I would ask a scientist if you want more details." Instead, he threw out a nonsense, muddy-waters answer with direct citations of religion and absolutely no sense of deference.
 
2012-11-19 02:29:37 PM  

Rent Party: You're going to hear a lot of "I dunno! People should look into that!" answers from these clowns over the coming months.


Let me tell you, if the GOP starts saying "I don't know" that is a huge step forward. If next the GOP says "I don't know, let's ask some experts" well holy fark, that GOP will be absolutely unrecognizable.

I love that you mock it though. Presumably you prefer the one that says shiat like "you can't get pregnant from rape" and "global warming doesn't exist."
 
2012-11-19 02:30:23 PM  

Rent Party: GAT_00: lennavan: But I'm sure you knew.

How is it possible to be educated and not know the age of the Earth?

You redefine what it is to be educated. Duh!


That's lennavan's entire argument more or less. To be uneducated and to openly proclaim it is suddenly educated.
 
2012-11-19 02:30:31 PM  

IronTom: I can agree with that. Those scientists that say that they know the age of the universe, or less so, the age of the Earth, or how many planets or stars there are are overly presumptuous.

Although, we can have a decent guess about the Earth, you would think. Not like the mystery if life and all that.


Microwaves are not witching boxes powered by the devil's lies. If the hot pocket gets hot, the universe is ~13.7 billion years old. If you fundementally lack the capacity to appreciate this, you carry the legacy of why slavery was invented.
 
2012-11-19 02:31:19 PM  

Weaver95: Rent Party: This is simply the new strategy for the GOP. They've realized their nutty assed beliefs scare the crap out of the common man, so they're going back to the old "Don't tell people what you actually believe" strategy.

You're going to hear a lot of "I dunno! People should look into that!" answers from these clowns over the coming months.

can the GOP stuff that genie back in the bottle tho? i'm not convinced it'll play out well.


With the American electorate? We are a nation that is happy to believe we have always been at war with Eastasia. Two years from now, the GOP will deny that there was ever a genie to begin with, and people will believe it.
 
2012-11-19 02:31:42 PM  

give me doughnuts: Rufio?

[i249.photobucket.com image 432x265]


Ralphio?

media.avclub.com
 
2012-11-19 02:31:44 PM  
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.

So many things wrong with this statement, it's hard to know where to start. First, studying the age of the cosmos (as is done in NASA, and various laboratories across the world) contributes massively to our gross domestic product, and is the core of an innovative economy. Second, learn to understand there is a difference between the age of the universe, and the age of the Earth. These are very different questions. Third, why are you concerned about what a theologian says about the age of anything? They have nothing but recopied transcripts of passed-down oral stories, conversations and musings between the most fanatical members of genocidal desert tribes, translated through multiple languages and a dozen centuries.

I wouldn't trust those documents to tell me color of shiat, let alone the age of a planetary body.
 
2012-11-19 02:31:52 PM  
You guys know that Lennavan is (more likely than not) one of Skullkrusher's alts, right?
 
2012-11-19 02:32:16 PM  

SoupJohnB: Tigger: lennavan: Hoban Washburne: If he said "From what I remember, scientists agree it's about 4 billion years old," people wouldn't be giving him a hard time.

But he said "I'm not a scientist... I'm not qualified to answer that question" and that's truly poutrageous?

Hoban Washburne: You're right. I'd be off by about 13.5 percent of the ESTIMATED age of the earth. Any guess as to how far off his "maybe 7 days" statement is? I'm no mathematician, but I can tell you it's a farkload.

He never said the earth was 7 days old. Here's what happened, you read Rubio, you saw the Fark headline, and immediately assumed the headline was not misleading and he was just gonna derp. Turned out he didn't. This may shock you - Fark headlines are not always truthful. So that led you to completely misread what Rubio was saying.

He never said the earth was 7 days old.

No he dodged the question because he doesn't want to offend a metric shiatton of pig ignorant farkwits that he may need support from in future.

In short he's a pandering asshole.

Or he's just so dumb he shouldn't ever run for office.

The correct answer is B)

/always has been, and always will be one


Or rather, A). He was a pandering a-hole in the Florida Legislature

/sources say...
 
2012-11-19 02:32:18 PM  

lennavan: Marco Rubio also knows scientists know that answer. He said so, twice.


He absolutely did not. He said scientists have a theory on that and that "[a]t 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."
 
2012-11-19 02:32:56 PM  

lennavan: Corvus: lennavan: How many people in this thread do you think knew how old the Earth is before googling it? I'm thinkin, on the spot, without access to Google, I also would have said "Farked if I know, I'm not the right person to ask." And I'm a scientist.

but that's not the issue. The question is How many people in this thread know that SCIENTISTS know the age of the earth.

Marco Rubio also knows scientists know that answer. He said so, twice.

Relax, trust me, we will have ample opportunity to hate on the GOP. We'll have ample opportunity to hate on Rubio too.


Bullshiat he said scientist had one of "many theories". He said no one knows for sure and implied that people who think the earth is 4000 years old are just as valid as real scientists.
 
2012-11-19 02:33:03 PM  

qorkfiend: Deferring to the scientists would be "Current scientific theory suggests the age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years; I would ask a scientist if you want more details."


How would you defer to scientists if you did not remember the 4.5 billion number? Would it be something like "I'm not a scientist, man?"

qorkfiend: He cited several religious ideas, and said that he matter is "still debated among theologists"


The religious ideas are indeed still debated amongst theologians. If you re-read his statement, you will realize that is what he is referring to as debated:

I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians

The things said in the bible are disputed amongst theologians. This is a statement I am sure you absolutely agree with. Yet you attack Rubio for saying it? Craziness I tell you.

qorkfiend: absolutely no sense of deference.


"I'm not a scientist, man... I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that."

Nope, no sense of deference at all.
 
2012-11-19 02:33:41 PM  

lennavan: Rent Party: You're going to hear a lot of "I dunno! People should look into that!" answers from these clowns over the coming months.

Let me tell you, if the GOP starts saying "I don't know" that is a huge step forward. If next the GOP says "I don't know, let's ask some experts" well holy fark, that GOP will be absolutely unrecognizable.

I love that you mock it though. Presumably you prefer the one that says shiat like "you can't get pregnant from rape" and "global warming doesn't exist."


I do prefer it. You seem to think these guys are suddenly claiming ignorance because they, you know, *actually don't know.* They are not deferring the answer out of enlightenment, they are deferring the answer because they know that if the told you what they really thought, you would run screaming from the room.

This isn't progress, it's regression. They are now actively hiding their true mind from you. I'd much rather have them tell me what they really think, so I can vote accordingly.
 
2012-11-19 02:33:54 PM  

joshiz: lennavan: He's right, he is not the correct person to answer this question, and the journalist should feel bad for asking a politician it.

Wrong...it speaks to someone's belief in science which to me is very important. It is a very valid question.

The age of the Earth is not a great mystery with competing theories. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. This is a fact.



Pfffft! When I was in school they used to say that the Earth was 4.5 Billion years old and that was in the 90s! You mean to tell me that the Earth is still the same damn age that it was 20+ years ago??

/I GOTCHA Science, you biatch!
 
2012-11-19 02:34:42 PM  

Rent Party: Weaver95: Rent Party: This is simply the new strategy for the GOP. They've realized their nutty assed beliefs scare the crap out of the common man, so they're going back to the old "Don't tell people what you actually believe" strategy.

You're going to hear a lot of "I dunno! People should look into that!" answers from these clowns over the coming months.

can the GOP stuff that genie back in the bottle tho? i'm not convinced it'll play out well.

With the American electorate? We are a nation that is happy to believe we have always been at war with Eastasia. Two years from now, the GOP will deny that there was ever a genie to begin with, and people will believe it.


problem with that is while almost everyone will easily forget boring minutia on policy details almost NOBODY forgets it when Rush Limbaugh gets in their faces and calls them fat, lazy assholes. And that's what the GOP pundocracy is doing right now - yelling and screaming about how stupid voters are for not picking Romney.
 
2012-11-19 02:34:53 PM  

GAT_00: That's lennavan's entire argument more or less. To be uneducated and to openly proclaim it is suddenly educated.


Admitting you don't know something is a good thing. I'm sorry you don't realize that. I really am.
 
2012-11-19 02:35:04 PM  
What I've taken away from this is neither Rubio nor Lennavan are educated enough to hold office.
 
2012-11-19 02:35:50 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: You guys know that Lennavan is (more likely than not) one of Skullkrusher's alts, right?


leatherfootthong.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-19 02:35:56 PM  

lennavan: Corvus: lennavan: How many people in this thread do you think knew how old the Earth is before googling it? I'm thinkin, on the spot, without access to Google, I also would have said "Farked if I know, I'm not the right person to ask." And I'm a scientist.

but that's not the issue. The question is How many people in this thread know that SCIENTISTS know the age of the earth.

Marco Rubio also knows scientists know that answer. He said so, twice.

Relax, trust me, we will have ample opportunity to hate on the GOP. We'll have ample opportunity to hate on Rubio too.


He said:

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.

That's demonstrably false. There is actual geological evidence of long eras forming the earth we know as it is today. They are not disputed by the scientific community.

He didn't say "I don't know, ask a scientist." He said, "I don't know, but it could be either a scientist or a priest who might have the right answer, I don't want to piss of the conservatives who will vote for me."
 
2012-11-19 02:36:33 PM  

Headso: You know the worst thing about Republicans, the WORST thing about the GOP? Republicans love to not know. Nothing makes a conservative happier than not knowing the answer to your question. 'Hey man, what's the capital of Kenya?' 'Shucks, I don't know that! The only 3 letters i need to know are U..S..and..A, just keeping it real.' Yeah, you're keeping it real, real dumb. Republicans hate knowledge. shiat, if you're afraid a Romney voter will break into your house, and you wanna save your money, you know what you do? You put the money in a book. Cause conservatives don't read. Books are like kryptonite to a member of the GOP. 'Here's a science book.' 'NOOOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Not a science book!'"


I see what you did there...
 
2012-11-19 02:36:53 PM  
You know, I was sad when Rubio died in Hook.
 
2012-11-19 02:36:58 PM  

lennavan: GAT_00: That's lennavan's entire argument more or less. To be uneducated and to openly proclaim it is suddenly educated.

Admitting you don't know something is a good thing. I'm sorry you don't realize that. I really am.


Right, but once again that's not only what he did. Then he went on to say no one really knows the answer and that people who think the earth is 4000 years old belief is as valid as scientists.

You keep pretending that part didn't happen.
 
2012-11-19 02:37:01 PM  

lennavan: Let me tell you, if the GOP starts saying "I don't know" that is a huge step forward. If next the GOP says "I don't know, let's ask some experts" well holy fark, that GOP will be absolutely unrecognizable.


That would be nice, but I don't think we should give them much credit for "I don't know, but it might be something really farking stupid, and that deserves as much consideration as the thing that is backed up by science."
 
2012-11-19 02:37:31 PM  

Pincy: dugitman: A lot of outrage over a politician side-stepping a thinly-veiled theological question. 
 
Lennavan
 
[i107.photobucket.com image 270x203]

The age of the earth isn't a theological question. If you think it is then you are a retard.


Actually, it is a very valid theological question. If your god is all powerful, then he can easily manipulate the way objects are percieved over time. He could manipulate time in any way he wished. If you accept the dogma of your church when they tell you the Earth if 5,000 years old then that is a purely acceptable theological position. If a god can create a universe, he can alter the ratios of C-12 and C-14 in any way he chooses.


If somebody believes in magic, then there is no topic that cannot be explained with magic.

You seem to have more of an issue with theological explanations questions in general.

Personally I prefer to use a bit of Occam's razor in my approach.
A. An omnipotent being that I do not understand and cannot detect used magic to create the Earth.
B. Gravity acted over massive time periods to coalesce the Earth through the process of accretion.
 
2012-11-19 02:39:10 PM  

The Bad Astronomer: FWIW I just wrote a blog post eviscerating Rubio.

Man, this kind of stuff pisses me off to no end.

/Yes, I just quoted Lo Pan.


Awesome
 
2012-11-19 02:39:20 PM  

Tigger: What I've taken away from this is neither Rubio nor Lennavan are educated enough to hold office.


I'd be one of those guys who admits he doesn't know. Like when a vote came up about stimulating the economy or regulating the banks and whatnot, I'd be like "Got me, I'm not an economist. Let's call some and ask." But you're right, that would be truly outrageous, we don't need leaders like that.
 
2012-11-19 02:39:54 PM  

lennavan: Tigger: In order to not be sure how old the earth is you have to be in the "total farking moron with no business doing anything more important than sticking your cock in a toaster" level of farkwittage.

How many people in this thread do you think knew how old the Earth is before googling it? I'm thinkin, on the spot, without access to Google, I also would have said "Farked if I know, I'm not the right person to ask." And I'm a scientist.


Normally that would be a fair point, but in this instance he went out of his way to bring creationism into his answer - more than once. His answer wasn't 'I dunno man, a few billion years? A few hundred million?' it was (to paraphrase) 'who knows - could be billions of years old, could be 6000 years and god buried those fossils to mess with us - teach the controversy.'

He seems like a smart guy and I'd be surprised if he really is a young earth creationist but it's a sad and worrying state of affairs when a serious contender for the presidency has to pander to people who believe the earth is a few thousand years old in order to have a future in politics. It's an even worse state of affairs if he believes it - how can you address issues like pollution, long term energy plans or climate change when you think "god did it" is how all that oil got underground?
 
2012-11-19 02:40:08 PM  

lennavan: Rent Party: You're going to hear a lot of "I dunno! People should look into that!" answers from these clowns over the coming months.

Let me tell you, if the GOP starts saying "I don't know" that is a huge step forward. If next the GOP says "I don't know, let's ask some experts" well holy fark, that GOP will be absolutely unrecognizable.

I love that you mock it though. Presumably you prefer the one that says shiat like "you can't get pregnant from rape" and "global warming doesn't exist."



Jesus, can your expectations get any lower? I'm not into rewarding "C" students because they're no longer "D" students. And I'm not into giving someone a cookie for acknowledging that science exists, or that MAYBE he was wrong about the vagina's ability to evict rape sperm. No sir, I'm not giving the brownie points.
 
2012-11-19 02:40:45 PM  
www.ethannonsequitur.com

Don't say that it could be any answer when once answer is clearly better supported than the other.

Tricky Chicken: Actually, it is a very valid theological question. If your god is all powerful, then he can easily manipulate the way objects are percieved over time. He could manipulate time in any way he wished. If you accept the dogma of your church when they tell you the Earth if 5,000 years old then that is a purely acceptable theological position. If a god can create a universe, he can alter the ratios of C-12 and C-14 in any way he chooses.


If somebody believes in magic, then there is no topic that cannot be explained with magic.

You seem to have more of an issue with theological explanations questions in general.

Personally I prefer to use a bit of Occam's razor in my approach.
A. An omnipotent being that I do not understand and cannot detect used magic to create the Earth.
B. Gravity acted over massive time periods to coalesce the Earth through the process of accretion.


It's a theist-deist problem. If a god is all-powerful, that's one thing. If a god is all-powerful and all-subtle, then why bother with him?
 
2012-11-19 02:40:53 PM  

Weaver95:
problem with that is while almost everyone will easily forget boring minutia on policy details almost NOBODY forgets it when Rush Limbaugh gets in their faces and calls them fat, lazy assholes. And that's what the GOP pundocracy is doing right now - yelling and screaming about how stupid voters are for not picking Romney.


You might be right, but GOP temper tantrums over elections have been ramping up since Clinton first got elected. That's what made Rush in the first place. And we still managed to elect George Bush once in the meantime.

We have very short memories. The GOP's entire election campaign was essentially "The Democrats haven't cleaned up our mess fast enough." And 47.8% of the people were dumb enough to believe it.
 
2012-11-19 02:41:26 PM  

Tigger: What I've taken away from this is neither Rubio nor Lennavan are educated enough to hold office.


I've learned that "I'm not a scientist, but..." is the new "I'm not a racist, but..."
 
2012-11-19 02:41:26 PM  
Why a Roman Catholic politician like Rubio would be afraid to publicly support some scientific facts that the Vatican itself has no problem with in the first place?

To pander the derpish base of his ignorant and anti-intellectual party? sad. indeed.
 
2012-11-19 02:42:12 PM  

Corvus: lennavan: GAT_00: That's lennavan's entire argument more or less. To be uneducated and to openly proclaim it is suddenly educated.

Admitting you don't know something is a good thing. I'm sorry you don't realize that. I really am.

Right, but once again that's not only what he did. Then he went on to say no one really knows the answer and that people who think the earth is 4000 years old belief is as valid as scientists.

You keep pretending that part didn't happen.


What he could have said: "Whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade."
 
2012-11-19 02:43:01 PM  
I've always had a bit of difficulty with the age of the Earth. It seems so preposterous. The universe itself is 13.7 billion years old. Some people take issue with this bit of evidence or that bit of evidence, but then they go back and review some of their calculations and find that they made some mistakes. It seems pretty clear that it's 13.7 billion years old. I get that, and I can accept it.

But then people tell me that the Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old. That's an incredible statement! That means that the Earth itself is about one-third the age of the entire universe. The universe has been in a state of flux so great that entire solar systems have been created and destroyed in the first 8 billion years, but our own Earth has stayed the same for half that time already. Our sun is almost the same age.

Life took only about a billion years to start forming here, but it took another 3 billion years to evolve from single-celled organisms to, well, anything else. And it took longer for those Cambrian organisms to evolve into man than it took the Earth to find its home around the Sun.

If you tell me that the Earth is a third of the age of the universe, I don't know how I can wrap my head around that. It's the only way the math works, but I've never been able to accept it. It's just too amazing.
 
2012-11-19 02:43:37 PM  

Weaver95: Cuthbert Allgood: The Repubs have a tenuous grasp on reality, me thinks.

you should hear Limbaugh today. one of his talking points is that 'libruls' were afraid of the GOP convention. which is flat out delusional.


Let's make sure they actually believe that.

Hold the course, Repubs! We liberals are teh scared and frightened! You've got us right where you want us!
 
2012-11-19 02:43:38 PM  

lennavan: 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


lenny, i pretty much agree with most of what you post. But the above statement is bullshiat and has ZERO place in modern society.
 
2012-11-19 02:43:42 PM  

lennavan: Tigger: What I've taken away from this is neither Rubio nor Lennavan are educated enough to hold office.

I'd be one of those guys who admits he doesn't know. Like when a vote came up about stimulating the economy or regulating the banks and whatnot, I'd be like "Got me, I'm not an economist. Let's call some and ask." But you're right, that would be truly outrageous, we don't need leaders like that.


We do not need leaders like either you or Rubio who seem to think it's totally ok to pretend that you're just not sure about something because there's a fake debate between 'science' and 'theologians'.

He described something as a "great mystery" which isn't. At all.

Again the interesting question for me is why you need to defend him so. Couldn't you just say "Look he has a lot of religious people in his base who think the world is 6,0000 years old so he dodged the question"?

I mean what about saying that is so painful?
 
2012-11-19 02:43:46 PM  
So, since he's capable of forming opinions about economics, does that mean he's an economist?

Bucket head.
 
2012-11-19 02:44:26 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Normally that would be a fair point, but in this instance he went out of his way to bring creationism into his answer


What exactly do you think the question was getting at? A magazine is interviewing a politician and asks how old the earth is. He didn't exactly go out of his way.

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: He seems like a smart guy and I'd be surprised if he really is a young earth creationist


From his answer he clearly is not. But he is also willing to pander to them. Welcome to politics.

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: It's an even worse state of affairs if he believes it - how can you address issues like pollution, long term energy plans or climate change when you think "god did it" is how all that oil got underground?


Let us return to what he actually said. "I'm not a scientist, man." He wants you to ask a scientist. Take that answer and apply to your scenarios. Wouldn't it be great to have a Marco Rubio deferring to scientists when it comes to policy with respect to climate change? Have you seen what we have instead?
 
2012-11-19 02:44:54 PM  

Headso: You know the worst thing about Republicans, the WORST thing about the GOP? Republicans love to not know. Nothing makes a conservative happier than not knowing the answer to your question. 'Hey man, what's the capital of Kenya?' 'Shucks, I don't know that! The only 3 letters i need to know are U..S..and..A, just keeping it real.' Yeah, you're keeping it real, real dumb. Republicans hate knowledge. shiat, if you're afraid a Romney voter will break into your house, and you wanna save your money, you know what you do? You put the money in a book. Cause conservatives don't read. Books are like kryptonite to a member of the GOP. 'Here's a science book.' 'NOOOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Not a science book!'"


Wow, nice derp you got there. Let me change a couple words and you can see how dumb you look.

You know the worst thing about women, the WORST thing about NOW? Chicks love to not know. Nothing makes a girl happier than not knowing the answer to your question. 'Hey man, what's the capital of Kenya?' 'Shucks, I don't know that! The only 4 letters i need to know are D..W.T.and..S, just keeping it real.' Yeah, you're keeping it real, real dumb. ladies hate knowledge. shiat, if you're afraid a feminist voter will break into your house, and you wanna save your money, you know what you do? You put the money in a book. Cause ladies don't read. Books are like kryptonite to a member of NOW. 'Here's a science book.' 'NOOOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Not a science book!
 
2012-11-19 02:45:25 PM  

Rent Party: Weaver95:
problem with that is while almost everyone will easily forget boring minutia on policy details almost NOBODY forgets it when Rush Limbaugh gets in their faces and calls them fat, lazy assholes. And that's what the GOP pundocracy is doing right now - yelling and screaming about how stupid voters are for not picking Romney.

You might be right, but GOP temper tantrums over elections have been ramping up since Clinton first got elected. That's what made Rush in the first place. And we still managed to elect George Bush once in the meantime.

We have very short memories. The GOP's entire election campaign was essentially "The Democrats haven't cleaned up our mess fast enough." And 47.8% of the people were dumb enough to believe it.


i'm not disagreeing with you here but I do want to point out that I've NEVER seen this level of sheer asshole-ish behavior from the GOP pundits before. radio, TV and internet forces are coordinated in their 24/7 poutrage and working hard to alienate as many voters as they can reach.

i'm also pretty sure that quite a lot of Republican rank and file are quietly voting Democrat when nobody's watching 'em. will any of this translate into more GOP defeats? f*ck man, got me. i'm just an opinionated guy on the internets. But I hope it does.
 
2012-11-19 02:45:43 PM  
Our current estimate is based on the assumption that the rate of nuclear decay and the speed of light have always been constant... back to what 4.2 billion years?.. so we are basically taking say an observation of 2.3244e-9% of the timespan and saying that is good enough.

Who knows, in the future we may be able to observe some phenonom that may change our view by either making it longer or shorter.

But to me, the 4.2 billion year folks better watch out or they will become nothing more than the flat earthers of this generation.

What bothers me with Christians most is that when they take the bible litterally they tend to forget whom the scriptures were written to in the first place. i.e. if God told Moses that it took a billion years for something to happen, do you think Moses or any of the Israelites would have understood that number?... let alone have a way to describe it?
 
2012-11-19 02:46:24 PM  
What are you plans to address climate change?

"I'm not a scientist, man."

Do you think alternative energy can be made viable?

"I'm not a scientist, man."

When does life begin?

"I'm not a scientist, man."

Do you understand how a cyberattack could bring down our economy and infrastructure?

"I'm not a scientist, man."

Is the world flat?

"I'm not a scientist, man."
 
2012-11-19 02:46:40 PM  
Pffft, more gotcha questions from the brainstream media. Go read a book, nerds!
 
2012-11-19 02:47:06 PM  

DirkValentine: lennavan: 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

lenny, i pretty much agree with most of what you post. But the above statement is bullshiat and has ZERO place in modern society.


Assume you are the science teacher at every school, explaining the difference between science and religion, facts and faith and how science uses theory and religion uses theory. You don't think that would be okay? Indeed, you don't think having the opportunity to juxtapose those would be a good thing?

Religion is a huge part of modern society, whether you like it or not. I don't. So I would love a chance to teach the "controversy."
 
2012-11-19 02:47:21 PM  

lennavan: Marco Rubio: 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.

I'm struggling to see the poutrage here. I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with. Indeed, I wish all politicians echoed this exact sentiment.

He's right, he is not the correct person to answer this question, and the journalist should feel bad for asking a politician it.


NO. It is not acceptable to be scientifically illiterate in this day and age and to still seek decision-making power over other people. Too many decisions rely on some ability to reason and employ the scientific method. It's not just up to scientists to answer that question. You ought to be able to say, based on everything you've learned in school and in college, referring to your understanding of how everything else works in nature that you understand why the Earth is the age that that is. And it most certainly is not a question for theologians, for fark sake. It's not the farking middle ages.

What Rubio did here was demonstrate that he is willing to excuse himself from fact-based decisions.
 
2012-11-19 02:49:03 PM  
Rubio knew it was a trick question. Had he said earth is 4.54 billion years old then the libtards would have punished him for not saying earth is 4.5323 billion years, 3 months and 7 days, 14 housrs and 12 minutes old.
 
2012-11-19 02:49:09 PM  

lennavan: Assume you are the science teacher at every school, explaining the difference between science and religion, facts and faith and how science uses theory and religion uses theory. You don't think that would be okay? Indeed, you don't think having the opportunity to juxtapose those would be a good thing?

Religion is a huge part of modern society, whether you like it or not. I don't. So I would love a chance to teach the "controversy."


Juxtaposing those things only makes faith look bad by not having any evidence and weakens science by putting it up against things with absolutely no material evidence.

They are two different things, and it is a disservice to say "I don't know what the truth is, but this unsupported belief that's been passed down as tradition over generations is just as valid as these observations made that actually look at how the world works."

Religion is a huge part of modern society. I don't think that's a reason we should coddle it and hold it up as being equal to science in terms of describing reality..
 
2012-11-19 02:49:12 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Wow, nice derp you got there. Let me change a couple words and you can see how dumb you look.


community.us.playstation.com
 
2012-11-19 02:49:51 PM  

lennavan: dletter: Again, though, if he would have said "I think somewhere around 50 million years old" even... at least we know he isn't thinking it is 10,000 years old.

What the fark is so wrong with admitting you don't know? Why is this so egregious?

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?
Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man.

dletter: Lennavan... you don't need a scientist there to answer what the question was really trying to figure out from Rubio..... and only an idiot doesn't know what the real meaning behind the question was.

Perhaps that is why he continued on talking about teaching faith and science after saying "I'm not a scientist" right? I think if you stopped searching really hard for something to hate on Rubio for, you'd realize this isn't really that bad. No worries, there will be plenty of opportunity in the future. But this isn't it.


If he had said "I don't know" that would be fine. He actually said "I don't know, but..." and then started mouth-farting about the Bible and theologians as if those things were at all relevant to answering the question.
 
2012-11-19 02:49:54 PM  

DirkValentine: lennavan: 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

lenny, i pretty much agree with most of what you post. But the above statement is bullshiat and has ZERO place in modern society.


You don't think we should debate the differences and merits of, say, M-theory versus chaotic inflation?
 
2012-11-19 02:50:17 PM  

lennavan: How would you defer to scientists if you did not remember the 4.5 billion number? Would it be something like "I'm not a scientist, man?"


Yes, I'm sure it was the fact that he couldn't recall the exact figure that was the problem. Nor did Senator Rubio need to cite any figures, if he couldn't recall them, in his answer; he could have left it at "I'm not a scientist, man" but he didn't, preferring instead to deliberately introduce theology into his answer.

lennavan: The religious ideas are indeed still debated amongst theologians. If you re-read his statement, you will realize that is what he is referring to as debated:


He wasn't asked a religious question, he was asked a scientific question. The only reason to bring theology into the debate at all is to intentionally muddy the waters.

lennavan: "I'm not a scientist, man... I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that."

Nope, no sense of deference at all.


Except he then gave an answer that was heavy on theology and contained only passing references to science. Saying "that's a science question and I don't know the answer, but here's the religious view" is not deference in any sense of the word.
 
2012-11-19 02:51:09 PM  

lennavan: DirkValentine: lennavan: 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

lenny, i pretty much agree with most of what you post. But the above statement is bullshiat and has ZERO place in modern society.

Assume you are the science teacher at every school, explaining the difference between science and religion, facts and faith and how science uses theory and religion uses theory. You don't think that would be okay? Indeed, you don't think having the opportunity to juxtapose those would be a good thing?

Religion is a huge part of modern society, whether you like it or not. I don't. So I would love a chance to teach the "controversy."


It's only a huge

lennavan: DirkValentine: lennavan: 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

lenny, i pretty much agree with most of what you post. But the above statement is bullshiat and has ZERO place in modern society.

Assume you are the science teacher at every school, explaining the difference between science and religion, facts and faith and how science uses theory and religion uses theory. You don't think that would be okay? Indeed, you don't think having the opportunity to juxtapose those would be a good thing?

Religion is a huge part of modern society, whether you like it or not. I don't. So I would love a chance to teach the "controversy."


And now we're at the bottom of it.

It all comes down to "I want to teach retarded bullshiat in science class"

I knew we'd get you there in the end.
 
2012-11-19 02:52:05 PM  
From what I gather, here in the US, people are entitled to their beliefs. They have the right to believe that utter fabrications are facts. They have the right to simultaneously hold those beliefs, vote for others who hold those beliefs, and also hold public office while believing those beliefs. As long as no existing laws are broken, they even have the right to set policy based on or guided by their beliefs.They have the right to instill those beliefs in their children, and gather together to reinforce those beliefs in each other.

This isn't going away.
 
2012-11-19 02:52:07 PM  
I don't get the outrage either.

So your absolutely positive on exactly how old the earth is?

Find me ONE scientist that says with certainty how frickin' old it is?

The only true answer is that we don't really know. We have a pretty good idea.. but thats it.
 
2012-11-19 02:52:23 PM  

Weaver95:
We have very short memories. The GOP's entire election campaign was essentially "The Democrats haven't cleaned up our mess fast enough." And 47.8% of the people were dumb enough to believe it.

i'm not disagreeing with you here but I do want to point out that I've NEVER seen this level of sheer asshole-ish behavior from the GOP pundits before. radio, TV and internet forces are coordinated in their 24/7 poutrage and working hard to alienate as many voters as they can reach.


Oh yeah, well I'm not disagreeing with you either, man!

The rhetoric on the right will continue to ramp up as they become more and more radical and therefore more marginalized. They have to get louder so people will continue to pay attention to them.
 
2012-11-19 02:52:32 PM  
controversy.wearscience.com
 
2012-11-19 02:52:38 PM  
www.csmonitor.com

Keep pandering GOP, this worked so well last time
 
2012-11-19 02:52:51 PM  

lennavan: "I'm not a scientist, man... I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that."

Nope, no sense of deference at all.


And this is why you're a liar:

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.

That doesn't show deference to scientists. That shows that he's willing to give religious beliefs the same credence in terms of reality as scientific observations.
 
2012-11-19 02:53:13 PM  

lennavan: GAT_00: That's lennavan's entire argument more or less. To be uneducated and to openly proclaim it is suddenly educated.

Admitting you don't know something is a good thing. I'm sorry you don't realize that. I really am.


He didn't admit that HE didn't know something. He said that "science" doesn't know.
 
2012-11-19 02:53:23 PM  

Bloody William: [www.ethannonsequitur.com image 499x720]

It's a theist-deist problem. If a god is all-powerful, that's one thing. If a god is all-powerful and all-subtle, then why bother with him?


Oh, I don't wish to justify or explain any particular theological belief set. I just think that as soon as somebody chooses to accept any divinity based belief structure then there is no scientific process that cannot also be explained by magic. I have no idea why you would want to bother with a subtle god. If I am forced to choose a theology, I will go with a god that became self aware and created the big bang and all the rules of physics in that instant to see what would eventually happen.
 
2012-11-19 02:53:24 PM  

Tigger: He described something as a "great mystery" which isn't. At all.


The great mystery to which he referred is the beginning of existence. Not the age of the Earth.

Tigger: Again the interesting question for me is why you need to defend him so.


Because the guy essentially said "I don't know, ask a scientist." That is an amazingly large step forward for a nationally recognized Republican politician. Currently we have GOP candidates denying global warming. Wouldn't it be nice to replace them with a version that says "I don't know, ask a scientist?"

Indeed, even those that accept global warming, it would be even better to say "I don't know, ask a scientist." Because the very next thing that should happen is we ask a scientist and then the scientist is the one that gets up and explains the way things are. I'd love to get the public in the habit of the process:

Step 1: I have a question.
Step 2: I admit, I don't know the answer.
Step 3: I'll ask an expert.

Perhaps then, when Jenny McCarthy got on TV and said vaccines cause autism, the country would be like:

Step 1: Do they?
Step 2: I dunno
Step 3: Jenny McCarthy is no expert, I'll ask one.
 
2012-11-19 02:53:31 PM  

lennavan: Tigger: What I've taken away from this is neither Rubio nor Lennavan are educated enough to hold office.

I'd be one of those guys who admits he doesn't know. Like when a vote came up about stimulating the economy or regulating the banks and whatnot, I'd be like "Got me, I'm not an economist. Let's call some and ask." But you're right, that would be truly outrageous, we don't need leaders like that.


Well, economics is hardly settled science. The geological age of the Earth, however, is. It's quite settled. We're really quite done deciding it. It's a known fact. It's not up for debate. It's a knowable known thing. It's not a question for theologians. It's not a question scientists are asking, it's a fact scientists know. You can ask a scientist: how old is the Earth? And he will tell you: "this is the correct answer for how old the Earth is". Because we know the number very well. There's no hemming and hawing. There's no room for interpretation.

I don't think Rubio doesn't know the answer. I know he knows the answer. The reporter wasn't asking him that question because the reporter doesn't know the answer. The reporter knows the answer. Everybody in that exchange knew the answer.

What the reporter was asking was: "Are you, Marco Rubio, now prepared to swear your allegiance publicly to knowable facts that are known, or are you going to continue pandering to that segment of your voting base that rejects knowable known facts in favor of superstitious mumbo jumbo?"

Despite attempting to not answer the question, he answered the question loud and clear. What Rubio actually said was "I'm going to try much harder to make it sound like I won't reject known facts while doing my best to not alienate the loud and angry base of voters that do." It was a simple test, and his failure to pass it is manifest for everybody that's capable of parsing the English language by using a modest application of a thing called "context." Rubio's words don't exist in a vacuum, they exist in a context where the Republican party was just badly beaten in part because they rejected knowable facts in favor of their picture of the universe. The reporter wanted to know if Rubio was going to continue doing that. He told them he was, but he was going to use less absolute language while doing it. This isn't that hard.
 
2012-11-19 02:53:43 PM  

master_dman: I don't get the outrage either.

So your absolutely positive on exactly how old the earth is?

Find me ONE scientist that says with certainty how frickin' old it is?

The only true answer is that we don't really know. We have a pretty good idea.. but thats it.


you just lost my vote.
 
2012-11-19 02:54:30 PM  

lennavan: The great mystery to which he referred is the beginning of existence. Not the age of the Earth.


According to science, also not a great mystery either.
 
2012-11-19 02:54:40 PM  
Love how the anti-intellectual party is running a Science Committee.
 
2012-11-19 02:55:00 PM  

lennavan: The great mystery to which he referred is the beginning of existence. Not the age of the Earth.


Stop. Lying.

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.
 
2012-11-19 02:55:17 PM  

lennavan: The great mystery to which he referred is the beginning of existence. Not the age of the Earth.


"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."
 
2012-11-19 02:57:22 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Pincy: dugitman: A lot of outrage over a politician side-stepping a thinly-veiled theological question. 
 
Lennavan
 
[i107.photobucket.com image 270x203]

The age of the earth isn't a theological question. If you think it is then you are a retard.

Actually, it is a very valid theological question. If your god is all powerful, then he can easily manipulate the way objects are percieved over time. He could manipulate time in any way he wished. If you accept the dogma of your church when they tell you the Earth if 5,000 years old then that is a purely acceptable theological position. If a god can create a universe, he can alter the ratios of C-12 and C-14 in any way he chooses.


If somebody believes in magic, then there is no topic that cannot be explained with magic.

You seem to have more of an issue with theological explanations questions in general.

Personally I prefer to use a bit of Occam's razor in my approach.
A. An omnipotent being that I do not understand and cannot detect used magic to create the Earth.
B. Gravity acted over massive time periods to coalesce the Earth through the process of accretion.


Personally, I prefer to use the logic that "if you think the earth is thousands of years old instead of billions then you are a complete idiot".
 
2012-11-19 02:57:25 PM  

gshepnyc: NO. It is not acceptable to be scientifically illiterate in this day and age and to still seek decision-making power over other people.


Exactly how many politicians do you consider "scientifically literate?" I'm gonna go with zero but leave room for the possibility there is one.
 
2012-11-19 02:57:39 PM  
Rubio will be the first to reach for a chart showing rises in carbon dioxide from volcanoes millions of years ago if necessary. They trumpet him as the future of the GOP, but it's the same old hypocrisy behind the baby face. Paul Ryan is the same way. Good luck, pretty boys.
 
2012-11-19 02:58:45 PM  

lennavan: From his answer he clearly is not. But he is also willing to pander to them. Welcome to politics.


And here is the crux of the matter.

You have spent dozens of posts defending a strawman you built when you first came into the thread. That people were "poutraged" about his comments. This isn't outrage, nobody is shocked or surprised at a Right-Wing politician pandering to ignorant religious zealots... It's MOCKERY due to Rubio supposedly being not one of these extremist Republicans who are causing losses of Senate and House seats and even the Presidency.

It's right there in the headline.

Yet you changed the debate, twice over... you changed the tone from mockery to anger, and reframed and defended his statements.

I've seen you do this quite a few times. You nitpick so that you can be technically correct from a certain angle if you throw out common sense, but your extrapolation is completely impractical and unreasonable. And here you admit that Rubio didn't just evade the question with an "I dunno", but intentionally pandered to the religious zealots in his party, which flies in the face of the claim that he's some kind of different Republican.
 
2012-11-19 02:59:13 PM  

master_dman: I don't get the outrage either.

So your absolutely positive on exactly how old the earth is?

Find me ONE scientist that says with certainty how frickin' old it is?

The only true answer is that we don't really know. We have a pretty good idea.. but thats it.


That settles it, since we can't pinpoint the age of the earth to the exact second then that means God did it. Case settled.
 
2012-11-19 02:59:41 PM  
Vote Peter Venkman in '16. He is a scientist.
 
2012-11-19 03:00:24 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Tricky Chicken: Wow, nice derp you got there. Let me change a couple words and you can see how dumb you look.

[community.us.playstation.com image 397x295]


Not mad so much as pointing out a "You're not helping" weak troll. Nearly half the population is conservative and they look like they will be digging in their heels. There aren't enough of them to take over, just enough to stop anything from happening. To dismiss nearly half of the populace out of hand is beyond foolhardy and is only asking for them to screw with you out of spite.
 
2012-11-19 03:00:31 PM  

lennavan: So I would love a chance to teach the "controversy."


There are a lot of controversies in science. As long as the controversies being taught were proven out via the scientific method then I am cool with 'teaching the controversy'. Has the 6000 y.o. Earth 'theory' been demonstrated using the scientific method?
 
2012-11-19 03:01:26 PM  

lennavan:

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: It's an even worse state of affairs if he believes it - how can you address issues like pollution, long term energy plans or climate change when you think "god did it" is how all that oil got underground?

Let us return to what he actually said. "I'm not a scientist, man." He wants you to ask a scientist. Take that answer and apply to your scenarios. Wouldn't it be great to have a Marco Rubio deferring to scientists when it comes to policy with respect to climate change? Have you seen what we have instead?


Which would be fine if he stopped there. But he didn't - he decided to bring the bible into it and then go on to say we should teach religion in the science classroom.

We both know why he said it - my point is that the fact there are so many people in this country who reject science that politicians in a mainstream political party can't even give a straight answer to a question like that is a big farking problem for the country now that we're in an economy heavily dependent on being ahead of the curve in science and technology.
 
2012-11-19 03:01:43 PM  
I have to agree with those who say that Rubio saying this is a step forward for Republicans. Prior to the election, he would have answered authoritatively "Potato" and Fox News would have excoriated anyone who said he was wrong.

/I also like using "excoriated" in a sentence.
 
2012-11-19 03:02:28 PM  

lennavan: I guess this is where I admit I had no idea how old the Earth was before I googled it.


"Billions" would have been a good start. I guessed 4.3 but plead not having thought about it for decades.
 
2012-11-19 03:02:38 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: You guys know that Lennavan is (more likely than not) one of Skullkrusher's alts, right?


You know, I've never thought this, but now that you mention it, they have always both annoyed me in the same exact "Imma repeat my single cherrypicked technically correct semantic point over and over and over as if it is the only piece of evidence that needs to be considered" repetitive bullshiat way.

Dan the Schman: And here is the crux of the matter.

You have spent dozens of posts defending a strawman you built when you first came into the thread. That people were "poutraged" about his comments. This isn't outrage, nobody is shocked or surprised at a Right-Wing politician pandering to ignorant religious zealots... It's MOCKERY due to Rubio supposedly being not one of these extremist Republicans who are causing losses of Senate and House seats and even the Presidency.

It's right there in the headline.

Yet you changed the debate, twice over... you changed the tone from mockery to anger, and reframed and defended his statements.

I've seen you do this quite a few times. You nitpick so that you can be technically correct from a certain angle if you throw out common sense, but your extrapolation is completely impractical and unreasonable. And here you admit that Rubio didn't just evade the question with an "I dunno", but intentionally pandered to the religious zealots in his party, which flies in the face of the claim that he's some kind of different Republican.


That's a much better summation of what I was trying to say
 
2012-11-19 03:02:43 PM  

abb3w: lennavan: I'm struggling to see the poutrage here.

It's about "I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created". From the State's education standards...

[img1.fark.net image 54x11] Benchmark SC.3.N.3.1: Recognize that words in science can have different or more specific meanings than their use in everyday language; for example, energy, cell, heat/cold, and evidence.
[img1.fark.net image 54x11] Benchmark SC.6.N.3.1: Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.
[img1.fark.net image 54x11] Benchmark SC.912.N.3.1: Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.

It's disappointing he's not even up to sixth-grade science.

lennavan: How many people in this thread do you think knew how old the Earth is before googling it?

I find it's hard to forget an anthropomorphic wombat discussing that with a statue of the god Ganesh.
[www.diggercomic.com image 600x800]


Beaten to the Digger reference, Argh!
 
2012-11-19 03:02:46 PM  
Rubio only pawn in game of life.
 
2012-11-19 03:03:19 PM  
In his defense, the GOP came pretty close to winning the popular vote without proposing anything more specific than "Obama bad".
If anything, Rubio's answer in this case was probably too detailed and concrete. A better choice would have been:

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Answer: All of them.
 
2012-11-19 03:03:25 PM  

gshepnyc: NO. It is not acceptable to be scientifically illiterate in this day and age and to still seek decision-making power over other people. Too many decisions rely on some ability to reason and employ the scientific method. It's not just up to scientists to answer that question. You ought to be able to say, based on everything you've learned in school and in college, referring to your understanding of how everything else works in nature that you understand why the Earth is the age that that is. And it most certainly is not a question for theologians, for fark sake. It's not the farking middle ages.

What Rubio did here was demonstrate that he is willing to excuse himself from fact-based decisions.


Absolutely. He's pandering to farkwit creationists by implying an equivalence between science and superstition. I don't need a president who knows the exact age, but I do want a president who would ask a scientist - rather than a theologian - for the answer.
 
2012-11-19 03:03:35 PM  

sprawl15: DirkValentine: lennavan: 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

lenny, i pretty much agree with most of what you post. But the above statement is bullshiat and has ZERO place in modern society.

You don't think we should debate the differences and merits of, say, M-theory versus chaotic inflation?


Listen, you aren't going to woo me with that kind of pillow talk.
 
2012-11-19 03:03:54 PM  
Wow, a politician not forcing his views down anyone else's throat? How refreshing.
 
2012-11-19 03:04:11 PM  
Tricky Chicken:
Wow, nice derp you got there. Let me change a couple words and you can see how dumb you look.

You know the worst thing about women, the WORST thing about NOW? Chicks love to not know. Nothing makes a girl happier than not knowing the answer to your question. 'Hey man, what's the capital of Kenya?' 'Shucks, I don't know that! The only 4 letters i need to know are D..W.T.and..S, just keeping it real.' Yeah, you're keeping it real, real dumb. ladies hate knowledge. shiat, if you're afraid a feminist voter will break into your house, and you wanna save your money, you know what you do? You put the money in a book. Cause ladies don't read. Books are like kryptonite to a member of NOW. 'Here's a science book.' 'NOOOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Not a science book!

would have been way funnier if you used the word "n*gger"
 
2012-11-19 03:05:43 PM  

Dan the Schman: It's MOCKERY due to Rubio supposedly being not one of these extremist Republicans who are causing losses of Senate and House seats and even the Presidency.


"I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer." is your example of of an extremist Republican?

Dan the Schman: It's right there in the headline.


You might be surprised to know that a random user submitted headline on Fark.com is not factually correct.

Dan the Schman: And here you admit that Rubio didn't just evade the question with an "I dunno", but intentionally pandered to the religious zealots in his party, which flies in the face of the claim that he's some kind of different Republican.


This is what an extremist sounds like:

"In the clip, Broun, who is a doctor, says that "as a scientist" he has found data that shows the earth is no older than 9,000 years and was created in six days.

Broun also says that theories regarding the origins of the universe and evolution represent "lies to try and keep me and all the folk that were taught that from understanding that they need a saviour".


I will accept your apology.
 
2012-11-19 03:06:28 PM  

lennavan: Marco Rubio: 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.

I'm struggling to see the poutrage here. I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with. Indeed, I wish all politicians echoed this exact sentiment.

He's right, he is not the correct person to answer this question, and the journalist should feel bad for asking a politician it.


fark that. He wants to claim he can (or his party) make the best choice regarding economics, well, what is he basing those choices on? I would hope it is fact based research conducted using the scientific method, but since he fails to accept science on a question like the age of the earth, why would I expect him to accept the science on something like the economy. What evidence is there that he won't do what he feels is right even if it is the totally wrong thing to do?

That is the problem with his statement.
 
2012-11-19 03:07:25 PM  

Shaggy_C: Wow, a politician not forcing his views down anyone else's throat? How refreshing.


Indeed.

And I would like to challenge any farker who knows the age of the earth to speak up now. Difficulty- I'm talking down to the minute, not this +- a few million years crap.

:-P
 
2012-11-19 03:07:26 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Reposted from another thread because it applies here, too...

One thing the Republicans don't seem to grasp:

Even if they nominate "a Hispanic," Mexicans generally HATE Cubans, and vice-versa. And there are lots more Chicanos/Mexicans/Mexican-Americans in the US than Cubans. Rubio might carry Florida, but "the hispanic vote" won't go Republican in any other state.

So, keep talking Rubio. Remind us why we voted for Obama again.


This is the reason why the GOP will never get it. They lump Koreans with Japanese with Chinese, not realizing that the Koreans and the Chinese hate the Japanese for what the Japanese did to them in the 1930s. The GOP lump the Hutus and the Tutsis like they're just all "black". They lump the mexicans with the cubans as the generic "hispanics". They lump Ukrainians with Russians not realizing that Ukrainians hate what Russia did to their country right after WWII. They lump Poles with Bulgarians not realizing that they speak completely different languages. They lump Iranians and Iraqis, not realizing one group is semitic with a semitic language and are primarily Sunnis and the other is oriental (asian-ish) with an asian language and are primarily Shi'ites. How they can do international diplomacy is beyond me.
 
2012-11-19 03:07:29 PM  

master_dman: So your absolutely positive on exactly how old the earth is?

Find me ONE scientist that says with certainty how frickin' old it is?


More proof that America's educational system is on straight decline into the shiatter.
 
2012-11-19 03:08:02 PM  

Shaggy_C: Wow, a politician not forcing his views down anyone else's throat? How refreshing.


Did you have a weird boner when you wrote that?

And as far as "views" go, the age of the earth isn't an opinion. It's a knowable factual thing. You are entitled to your own views, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
 
2012-11-19 03:08:15 PM  

Isitoveryet: Rubio only pawn in game of life.


*Snerk.*

/Thanks for making me laugh during a Comparative Religions class.
//Now all the Jews hate me.
 
2012-11-19 03:08:39 PM  
 
2012-11-19 03:08:56 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: then go on to say we should teach religion in the science classroom.


Where did you get that from?

Ctrl-Alt-Del: You know, I've never thought this, but now that you mention it, they have always both annoyed me in the same exact "Imma repeat my single cherrypicked technically correct semantic point over and over and over as if it is the only piece of evidence that needs to be considered" repetitive bullshiat way.


Wait til you see when both of us are in the same thread. By the way, you do realize you just admitted in those scenarios, we're correct (though he usually isn't). Why is it that we keep hammering the point over and over? Oh right, because the person who is completely wrong never accepts we're right so we can move on.

For instance in this thread, people think Rubio's "7 days" comment refers to the age of the Earth. That is completely false. Yet it keeps coming up over and over again. How can you discuss what Rubio meant with someone who has a fundamentally incorrect view of what he said?
 
2012-11-19 03:08:58 PM  

Pincy:
Personally, I prefer to use the logic that "if you think the earth is thousands of years old instead of billions then you are a complete idiot".


I would disagree with your "if" "then" statement. In your set up they posited an assertion that the earth is thousands of years old. It is then incumbent upon them to defend their statement. In my experience all of their arguments will eventually reduce to a variant of 'because this book says so'. I would then like to see some argument in favor of the vreacity of their book. Something more than 'because it is very old'.
 
2012-11-19 03:09:15 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: lennavan: GAT_00: That's lennavan's entire argument more or less. To be uneducated and to openly proclaim it is suddenly educated.

Admitting you don't know something is a good thing. I'm sorry you don't realize that. I really am.

He didn't admit that HE didn't know something. He said that "science" doesn't know.


This is where everyone is getting confused in this thread. It's quite hilarious to watch.
 
2012-11-19 03:10:14 PM  

lennavan: Dan the Schman: It's MOCKERY due to Rubio supposedly being not one of these extremist Republicans who are causing losses of Senate and House seats and even the Presidency.

"I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer." is your example of of an extremist Republican?


No, "There are a variety of theories as to the age of the earth, including theological ones and we should teach them all because the God theory could be the correct one" is an example of an idiot Republican.
 
2012-11-19 03:10:26 PM  

Anti_illuminati: This is where everyone is getting confused in this thread. It's quite hilarious to watch.


It's not even confused. lennavan's outright ignoring the half dozen times I've showed the exact quotes Rubio said.
 
2012-11-19 03:11:10 PM  

lennavan: "I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer." is your example of of an extremist Republican?


"I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer. Here's the religious view on the subject, which I believe should be treated with equal validity" is what he said. Since this is indistinguishable from the views of extremist Republicans on this issue, then yes, the label is accurate.
 
2012-11-19 03:12:00 PM  
"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."

That's the part of his answer that bothers me. This is pure creationism.You don't have to remember what is the estimate age of the earth, but at least have some order of magnitude correct in your answer. Saying 7 days or 7 eras is just pandering to the religious crazies.
 
2012-11-19 03:12:26 PM  

lennavan: Tigger: In order to not be sure how old the earth is you have to be in the "total farking moron with no business doing anything more important than sticking your cock in a toaster" level of farkwittage.

How many people in this thread do you think knew how old the Earth is before googling it? I'm thinkin, on the spot, without access to Google, I also would have said "Farked if I know, I'm not the right person to ask." And I'm a scientist.

Tigger: This isn't "a topic he shouldn't know about" this is "a topic that is basic knowledge in 2012".

I guess this is where I admit I had no idea how old the Earth was before I googled it. I assume you did though, right? Because that would be hilariously hypocritical of you and would totally undermine your point right now and everyone reading this back-and-forth who also didn't know the number off of the top of their head is going to agree with this run-on sentence. But I'm sure you knew.


Knowing the age of the earth is basically a pointless trivial factoid. But it's a factoid that most people know in the same way that they know the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second, that Mt Everest is 29K and change above sea level, that Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and not 1942, and that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust during WWII. No one except scientist, geographers and historians really need to know those factoids. But because we grew up learning things and being educated, we learn these factoids just in case we get chosen to be on Jeopardy or Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.
 
2012-11-19 03:12:38 PM  

Dr. Whoof: Prior to the election, he would have answered authoritatively "Potato" and Fox News would have excoriated anyone who said he was wrong.


You must have missed the part where he answered "that won't help us with economic growth."
 
2012-11-19 03:12:38 PM  

Bloody William: Anti_illuminati: This is where everyone is getting confused in this thread. It's quite hilarious to watch.

It's not even confused. lennavan's outright ignoring the half dozen times I've showed the exact quotes Rubio said.


Well, look on the bright side, it gives us all something to do as we avoid working on these couple of days before the Thanksgiving break. I salute your dedicated to sophistry, len, I'd probably be bored without it.
 
2012-11-19 03:13:04 PM  
"Whether the Earth was created in 7 days"

6 days, you Papist heathen.
 
2012-11-19 03:13:17 PM  

dericwater: that Mt Everest is 29K


Wait, which peak of Mt. Everest?
 
2012-11-19 03:13:21 PM  

lennavan: Let us return to what he actually said. "I'm not a scientist, man."


...said the senator who sits on both the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and Subcommittee on Science and Space.

Yeah, so he thinks there might be some validity to the idea that the world is a disc that rides on the back of a cosmic turtle. Big deal, amirite?
 
2012-11-19 03:13:30 PM  
genealogyreligion.net
It's turtles all the way down.
 
2012-11-19 03:13:34 PM  

Rent Party: And as far as "views" go, the age of the earth isn't an opinion. It's a knowable factual thing. You are entitled to your own views, but you are not entitled to your own facts.


He didn't state any facts, just vague generalities aimed at pandering to the right-wing Evangelicals while not alienating himself from the rest of the country. The only "fact" that he listed was that there are many different theories out there. It's a dumb question to begin with, why not just ask if he interprets the bible literally instead of trying to make it seem like a science question?
 
2012-11-19 03:14:38 PM  

dericwater: lennavan: Tigger: In order to not be sure how old the earth is you have to be in the "total farking moron with no business doing anything more important than sticking your cock in a toaster" level of farkwittage.

How many people in this thread do you think knew how old the Earth is before googling it? I'm thinkin, on the spot, without access to Google, I also would have said "Farked if I know, I'm not the right person to ask." And I'm a scientist.

Tigger: This isn't "a topic he shouldn't know about" this is "a topic that is basic knowledge in 2012".

I guess this is where I admit I had no idea how old the Earth was before I googled it. I assume you did though, right? Because that would be hilariously hypocritical of you and would totally undermine your point right now and everyone reading this back-and-forth who also didn't know the number off of the top of their head is going to agree with this run-on sentence. But I'm sure you knew.

Knowing the age of the earth is basically a pointless trivial factoid. But it's a factoid that most people know in the same way that they know the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second, that Mt Everest is 29K and change above sea level, that Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and not 1942, and that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust during WWII. No one except scientist, geographers and historians really need to know those factoids. But because we grew up learning things and being educated, we learn these factoids just in case we get chosen to be on Jeopardy or Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.


If you use the original meaning of factoid this post is way funnier.
 
2012-11-19 03:15:18 PM  
Continual campaign cycle. No breaks, ever.
 
2012-11-19 03:15:43 PM  

lennavan: joshiz: Wrong...it speaks to someone's belief in science which to me is very important. It is a very valid question.

And he answered it by saying: "Ask a scientist." That fundamentally tells you he believes in science and that we should defer to science when asking such science questions.

If he answered it right, if he said 4.5 billion years, would that hold any weight? No. Because he is not a scientist. Put it this way, what if the journalist asked "what is the genetic cause of Down Syndrome" and he replied "an extra copy of Dyrk1a." Is that true or false? You have no idea. That some random politician answered a science question doesn't give it any extra weight. He's a farking politician, if you're getting science information from politicians, you're an idiot. So he's the smart one telling you to ask a farking scientist.


The age of the earth is on the same level of "specialized scientific knowledge" as germ theory is currently known. If someone asked Rubio what is the cause of the common cold and he said it's a virus, people would (should) know that he said the right thing. If he said it's because the demons are trying to break out of one's body, people should know that he's kidding or shouldn't be anywhere close to the red buttons. If he said it's a mystery, then we know he's an idiot. It's not a mystery.
 
2012-11-19 03:15:53 PM  

dletter: I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow.

Actually, this has everything to do with it.... when you wonder why we are getting our asses handed to ourselves as far as U.S. students vs. the other major countries in science and math scores, when you can't have an agreement from the top on fairly basic level science issues, that kills off a large number of kids who are raised to believe that, in their ability to get into those fields at a fundamental level.

This isn't an argument about whether the earth is 4.4 billion years old or 4.7 billion years old. This is an argument between 4.4 billion and 10,000. One side has decades or even centuries of data to fall back on. The other side has a book that they don't want to become irrelevant as their only basis.

The fact that we even give people saying the earth is 10,000 years old the time of day is a sad state of american discourse.


WIN
 
2012-11-19 03:15:55 PM  

Hot Carl To Go: Continual campaign cycle. No breaks, ever.


I'm really bored. This is way better than cleaning up my bug queue.
 
2012-11-19 03:16:13 PM  

lennavan: Only on Fark.com can a guy who admits he is not the right person to ask, he doesn't know the answer to a question and suggests you ask an expert instead be considered "ignorance."


Because the question is so basic. This isn't two sides of a coin where either may be equally valid. This is a, "do you think the earth is flat," question. There is only one correct answer.
 
2012-11-19 03:17:10 PM  

master_dman: Find me ONE scientist that says with certainty how frickin' old it is?


How about the one that posted up the thread and stated he (and scientists from other disciplines) all have calculated exactly how old the earth is?
 
2012-11-19 03:18:18 PM  

dericwater: lennavan: joshiz: Wrong...it speaks to someone's belief in science which to me is very important. It is a very valid question.

And he answered it by saying: "Ask a scientist." That fundamentally tells you he believes in science and that we should defer to science when asking such science questions.

If he answered it right, if he said 4.5 billion years, would that hold any weight? No. Because he is not a scientist. Put it this way, what if the journalist asked "what is the genetic cause of Down Syndrome" and he replied "an extra copy of Dyrk1a." Is that true or false? You have no idea. That some random politician answered a science question doesn't give it any extra weight. He's a farking politician, if you're getting science information from politicians, you're an idiot. So he's the smart one telling you to ask a farking scientist.

The age of the earth is on the same level of "specialized scientific knowledge" as germ theory is currently known. If someone asked Rubio what is the cause of the common cold and he said it's a virus, people would (should) know that he said the right thing. If he said it's because the demons are trying to break out of one's body, people should know that he's kidding or shouldn't be anywhere close to the red buttons. If he said it's a mystery, then we know he's an idiot. It's not a mystery.


Exactly.

If he had replied "bacteria causes colds" we could roll our eyes at his making a depressingly common error and move on.

In the given example he said the equivalent of "two headed monkeys with miniature bicycles cycle up your nose and make sweet love to your humors is what causes a cold."
 
2012-11-19 03:18:28 PM  

Rent Party: Shaggy_C: Wow, a politician not forcing his views down anyone else's throat? How refreshing.

Did you have a weird boner when you wrote that?

And as far as "views" go, the age of the earth isn't an opinion. It's a knowable factual thing. You are entitled to your own views, but you are not entitled to your own facts.


I'll preface this statement by saying that I am an atheist and I believe whole heatedly in the Scientific Method.

That said, I also believe that words have meaning and that logic should be respected.

You claim that "the age of the earth ... [is] a knowable factual thing."

Ignoring the fact that you can't possibly tell me how many years old the earth is- can you even tell me which event could be described as the genesis of the Earth?

The definition of a planet includes provisions that it has to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium and it needs to have cleared other junk from its path around the sun. Did that occur before or after the collision that created the moon? If before, how do you know when it cleared enough crap out of it's path to be a planet? If after, how do you know how many years it took to reach hydrostatic equilibrium again?

So to all those who hide behind words like "it's knowable," grow up. We can give incredibly good estimates, but we cannot technically know the exact time when it occurred.

// sheesh
 
2012-11-19 03:19:10 PM  

sprawl15: Dr. Whoof: Prior to the election, he would have answered authoritatively "Potato" and Fox News would have excoriated anyone who said he was wrong.

You must have missed the part where he answered "that won't help us with economic growth."


No, no, I get that he's still slinging Republican bullshiat. He's just put some sprinkles on it.

I'm just not expecting these assholes to change overnight. In fact, if they did, we'd all know they were just pandering. Even this smacks of pandering. But it's a step in the right direction. I can't slap the man down for that any more than I could complain about a smoker using nicotine patches to quit. Gotta have that quotient of derp and ween off it slowly.

(not that I think they will ween off it at all)

/also, you can't spell weener without ween.
//i before e can suck it.
 
2012-11-19 03:19:31 PM  

gilgigamesh: master_dman: Find me ONE scientist that says with certainty how frickin' old it is?

How about the one that posted up the thread and stated he (and scientists from other disciplines) all have calculated exactly how old the earth is?


I question the credentials of any scientist dumb enough to post on Fark.
 
2012-11-19 03:19:41 PM  

Shaggy_C: He didn't state any facts, just vague generalities aimed at pandering to the right-wing Evangelicals while not alienating himself from the rest of the country


The people responding to the spirit of his words are making fun of him for it. I guess you can take what he literally said and use it to apologize for him but why bother...
 
2012-11-19 03:20:15 PM  

lennavan: Dan the Schman: It's MOCKERY due to Rubio supposedly being not one of these extremist Republicans who are causing losses of Senate and House seats and even the Presidency.

"I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer." is your example of of an extremist Republican?


You know, when you severely edit comments like this, it's kind of an admission that you're shilling bullsh*t.

That quote doesn't sound "extremist", but that's you being a nitpicky douchebag AGAIN. It's the pandering to religious zealots that belies his status as something other than Typical Republican, and Typical Republicans are pretty extremist, as shown by their policies on birth control and abortion and religious fundamentalism.

Dan the Schman: It's right there in the headline.

You might be surprised to know that a random user submitted headline on Fark.com is not factually correct.


Oh, so now you want to lay the claim that people in the right-leaning media and elected Republicans HAVEN'T suggested Rubio as a new, more modern Republican, different from the likes of Todd Akin and Rick Santorum?

Dan the Schman: And here you admit that Rubio didn't just evade the question with an "I dunno", but intentionally pandered to the religious zealots in his party, which flies in the face of the claim that he's some kind of different Republican.

This is what an extremist sounds like:

"In the clip, Broun, who is a doctor, says that "as a scientist" he has found data that shows the earth is no older than 9,000 years and was created in six days.

Broun also says that theories regarding the origins of the universe and evolution represent "lies to try and keep me and all the folk that were taught that from understanding that they need a saviour".

I will accept your apology.


How about I give you a taste of your own medicine?

I never once called Rubio an extremist. I said he was pandering to them, which doesn't make him very different from the majority of his Party. In fact, your quote sufficiently proves that Rubio was pandering to "extremists". Remember when you admitted that Rubio was pandering to the Young Earth Creationists?
 
2012-11-19 03:20:48 PM  

skullkrusher: gilgigamesh: master_dman: Find me ONE scientist that says with certainty how frickin' old it is?

How about the one that posted up the thread and stated he (and scientists from other disciplines) all have calculated exactly how old the earth is?

I question the credentials of any scientist dumb enough to post on Fark.


The entire site, or just certain tabs?
 
2012-11-19 03:21:31 PM  

qorkfiend: skullkrusher: gilgigamesh: master_dman: Find me ONE scientist that says with certainty how frickin' old it is?

How about the one that posted up the thread and stated he (and scientists from other disciplines) all have calculated exactly how old the earth is?

I question the credentials of any scientist dumb enough to post on Fark.

The entire site, or just certain tabs?


this one in particular ;)
 
2012-11-19 03:22:37 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: How can you read that and not think "Iowa"? We don't have a ton of polling on this topic, but back in January 2011, Strategic National Consulting asked potential GOP caucus-goers about the origins of the earth. Sixty-eight percent of them believed the planet was created in six days. Forty-five percent believed that the earth was less than 10,000 years old -- something Rubio does not say here, but something that implies all human history can be known from counting the eras in the Bible. Link


That works fine in the primaries. Not so much in the general. Therein lies their problem... The base of the GOP consists of morons
 
2012-11-19 03:22:58 PM  

Dr. Whoof: No, no, I get that he's still slinging Republican bullshiat. He's just put some sprinkles on it.


potato with sprinkles is still a carb
 
2012-11-19 03:23:33 PM  

lennavan: I guess this is where I admit I had no idea how old the Earth was before I googled it. I assume you did though, right? Because that would be hilariously hypocritical of you and would totally undermine your point right now and everyone reading this back-and-forth who also didn't know the number off of the top of their head is going to agree with this run-on sentence. But I'm sure you knew.


No, you might not know the exact answer. The point of the question is whether or not you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old or some other very very large number. Without googling I would've said Billions of years, but I'd have to google to get a more accurate answer. He knew the point of the question and dodged it intentionally.
 
2012-11-19 03:24:27 PM  

dericwater: lennavan: Tigger: In order to not be sure how old the earth is you have to be in the "total farking moron with no business doing anything more important than sticking your cock in a toaster" level of farkwittage.

How many people in this thread do you think knew how old the Earth is before googling it? I'm thinkin, on the spot, without access to Google, I also would have said "Farked if I know, I'm not the right person to ask." And I'm a scientist.

Tigger: This isn't "a topic he shouldn't know about" this is "a topic that is basic knowledge in 2012".

I guess this is where I admit I had no idea how old the Earth was before I googled it. I assume you did though, right? Because that would be hilariously hypocritical of you and would totally undermine your point right now and everyone reading this back-and-forth who also didn't know the number off of the top of their head is going to agree with this run-on sentence. But I'm sure you knew.

Knowing the age of the earth is basically a pointless trivial factoid. But it's a factoid that most people know in the same way that they know the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second, that Mt Everest is 29K and change above sea level, that Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and not 1942, and that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust during WWII. No one except scientist, geographers and historians really need to know those factoids. But because we grew up learning things and being educated, we learn these factoids just in case we get chosen to be on Jeopardy or Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.


I would be absolutely shocked if most people knew those things.
 
2012-11-19 03:24:41 PM  
Meh, I don't think he was specifically endorsing Young Earth Creationism, it just sounds like he was posturing himself as Romney did this go-around, "Social issues don't matter, it's the economy economy economy". Big whoop.
 
2012-11-19 03:25:02 PM  

Leeds: So to all those who hide behind words like "it's knowable," grow up. We can give incredibly good estimates, but we cannot technically know the exact time when it occurred.


What point are you trying to make again? Is someone actually arguing that we know to the exact second how old the earth is? Or are you just trying to make yourself sound profound?
 
2012-11-19 03:25:13 PM  

lennavan: I guess this is where I admit I had no idea how old the Earth was before I googled it.


I didn't remember exactly either. I knew it was in the order of billions of years, maybe 6. But you can't say today "7 days or 7 eras...I dunno!". That's dumb. You have at least to have some idea of the order of magnitude of the age of the earth. Any farking 5th grader should. And no, you don't need to be a farking scientist to know that .
 
2012-11-19 03:25:18 PM  

lennavan: I'm struggling to see the poutrage here. I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with. Indeed, I wish all politicians echoed this exact sentiment.

He's right, he is not the correct person to answer this question, and the journalist should feel bad for asking a politician it.


I was leaning towards that sentiment until the very end where he said
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.

That is a completely disengenuous, bullshiat answer because it is flat out wrong. We can answer the question, and in fact we already have; it is only the religious zealots that refuse to accept the answer science has given. The Earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old, that is science fact. Radioisotope dating leads to some margin of error, but even still you will not find a single reputable geologist that will honestly state that the Earth is less that 10,000 years old.

What he should have said is that it is unlikely that religion will ever fully concede rights to the truth to scientific inquiry, that would have been honest.
 
2012-11-19 03:26:54 PM  
to be fair, we'll never know the exact age of the earth to the decimal point because the Sun can age things slower or faster

it's fair to say it's at least billions of years old tho
 
2012-11-19 03:27:20 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Not mad so much as pointing out a "You're not helping" weak troll. Nearly half the population is conservative and they look like they will be digging in their heels.


So when there are 4 people, and two of them say 3+3=8 while the other two know the answer is 6, they should compromise and settle for 7 and call it a day?

There are certain things they can be wrong about and have opinions on. Scientific fact which leads to policy is not one of them. When you have GOP members saying wind is god's way of cooling down the Earth and wind power might disrupt this process, or rape can't get you pregnant, or that oil was put here by god, you're dealing with one of two things: a profoundly ignorant person, or someone who is intentionally trying to rally profoundly ignorant voters.

gilgigamesh: the world is a disc that rides on the back of a cosmic turtle


It doesn't stop there. It's turtles all the way down.
 
2012-11-19 03:27:26 PM  

lennavan: Ctrl-Alt-Del: You know, I've never thought this, but now that you mention it, they have always both annoyed me in the same exact "Imma repeat my single cherrypicked technically correct semantic point over and over and over as if it is the only piece of evidence that needs to be considered" repetitive bullshiat way.

Wait til you see when both of us are in the same thread. By the way, you do realize you just admitted in those scenarios, we're correct (though he usually isn't). Why is it that we keep hammering the point over and over? Oh right, because the person who is completely wrong never accepts we're right so we can move on.


Funny, you even did it here, in this very response. If you were to follow the template you've been using so far, you would now proceed to point out for two or three dozen posts how I said you were "correct", regardless of the fact that both context and common sense would lead any reasonable person to conclude otherwise.

Because "single cherrypicked technically correct semantic point" =/= "correct"

The fact that you seem to think it does is why so many smart, well educated farkers are hammering the shiat out of you here, and your intransigence is making you look even dumber than SK usually does.
 
2012-11-19 03:28:00 PM  
Marco Rubio: 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.

If he had just stopped there, and left off the last few sentences advocating teaching creationism in schools, this would have been a great answer. "Why are you even asking me this, it has nothing to do with my profession or expertise as a politician and I don't know offhand," is the kind of incredulous response that question should be getting. It's an embarrassment to the nation and an even bigger embarrassment to Christianity that it's even recognizably a probe about religious beliefs at all.
 
2012-11-19 03:28:42 PM  

Headso: Tricky Chicken:
Wow, nice derp you got there. Let me change a couple words and you can see how dumb you look.

You know the worst thing about women, the WORST thing about NOW? Chicks love to not know. Nothing makes a girl happier than not knowing the answer to your question. 'Hey man, what's the capital of Kenya?' 'Shucks, I don't know that! The only 4 letters i need to know are D..W.T.and..S, just keeping it real.' Yeah, you're keeping it real, real dumb. ladies hate knowledge. shiat, if you're afraid a feminist voter will break into your house, and you wanna save your money, you know what you do? You put the money in a book. Cause ladies don't read. Books are like kryptonite to a member of NOW. 'Here's a science book.' 'NOOOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Not a science book!

would have been way funnier if you used the word "n*gger"


I was going to at first, but there is still an uncomfortably large population out there that would totally agree with it. I figured going with women would better highlight the absurdity of the original.
 
2012-11-19 03:29:00 PM  
It's not really "One of the great mysteries"...

We may not have a number for a precise age of the Earth, but geological research has demonstrated that it's, at the very least, a hell of a lot older than 6,000 years.

The beliefs of bible thumpers that the earth is 6,000 years old is not based on research and scientific studies. To say that those beliefs are equal to and counter the mountains of scientific research done by geologists is ridiculous.
 
2012-11-19 03:29:02 PM  

Leeds: The definition of a planet includes provisions that it has to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium and it needs to have cleared other junk from its path around the sun. Did that occur before or after the collision that created the moon? If before, how do you know when it cleared enough crap out of it's path to be a planet? If after, how do you know how many years it took to reach hydrostatic equilibrium again?

So to all those who hide behind words like "it's knowable," grow up. We can give incredibly good estimates, but we cannot technically know the exact time when it occurred.

// sheesh


We know within 30 million years or so. On the scale of billions of years, that's pretty damn close, and pretty far off from 6,000 years.

And the question of the moon forming is a red herring, since it formed within that first 30 million years. Its about the same age as the earth.
 
2012-11-19 03:29:03 PM  
The U.S. Congress doesn't just deal with the GDP and the economy. They also make decisions concerning global warming, pollution and whether or not to clean particularly bad sites up, NASA, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, The National Institutes of Health, the department of Energy.

If he is a scientifically illiterate dumbass, he has not business being in the U.S. Congress.

Furthermore, the economy involves math and psychology, both sciences.

He's not a scientist though, or an economist, so we shouldn't trust him with the GDP and economy either.
 
2012-11-19 03:29:25 PM  

Pincy: Leeds: So to all those who hide behind words like "it's knowable," grow up. We can give incredibly good estimates, but we cannot technically know the exact time when it occurred.

What point are you trying to make again? Is someone actually arguing that we know to the exact second how old the earth is? Or are you just trying to make yourself sound profound?


No, I'm worried that the rabid folks on this thread are forgetting that words have meaning. And that they are choosing to use words that mean things that are not technically possible, thus undermining their arguments.

It's like the idiots who state that there is no answer to the following question: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

If they had a proper command of the English language they'd know better.
 
2012-11-19 03:29:59 PM  
I think the important thing here is that we can all agree the earth is somewhat older than 5,000 years, give or take. That's fair, right? I mean, I dunno. Ask a scientist. Or a shaman. Or a small child with brain damage. All thoughts on the subject are valid.
 
2012-11-19 03:30:29 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Actually, it is a very valid theological question. If your god is all powerful, then he can easily manipulate the way objects are percieved over time. He could manipulate time in any way he wished. If you accept the dogma of your church when they tell you the Earth if 5,000 years old then that is a purely acceptable theological position. If a god can create a universe, he can alter the ratios of C-12 and C-14 in any way he chooses.


One bit of a problem with that logic (such as it is)...most religions assert their God is good. Especially Christians...such trickery for no other purpose other than to sow doubt would not be 'good'? No?

Can a trickster really be considered good? how can such a god trick his creation (humanity) into believing in such things as time and dating etc and then condemn the same to hell for believing the 'false' clues that the god put there to trick them in the first place?

That god sounds like a total douchenozzle.
 
2012-11-19 03:31:15 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Marco Rubio: 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.

If he had just stopped there, and left off the last few sentences advocating teaching creationism in schools, this would have been a great answer. "Why are you even asking me this, it has nothing to do with my profession or expertise as a politician and I don't know offhand," is the kind of incredulous response that question should be getting. It's an embarrassment to the nation and an even bigger embarrassment to Christianity that it's even recognizably a probe about religious beliefs at all.


Actually, it would still have not been a great answer. He's an adult and supposedly an educated one. Not being able to ballpark that the earth is billions of years old and instead saying that you're not qualified to answer the question should disqualify him from any serious discussion about potential candidates for 2016. But he's a Republican so it is just par for the course.
 
2012-11-19 03:31:27 PM  

dugitman: Pincy: The age of the earth isn't a theological question. If you think it is then you are a retard.

No it isn't. But the question was asked to open the theological discussion. If he says "it's 4.5 billion years old" then the next question is something like "So do you reject creationism as the cause of our planet's formation?". If he says it's 6000 years old then he is labeled a retard who is going to force new earth education into public schools.
 
/apatheist
// it's a stupid question to ask politicians if you expect a straight answer


This. The answer is irrelevant. It was a stupid question, asked in a clumsy fashion by an idiot reporter. I'm no fan of Rubio, but at least from a political standpoint, there was no correct answer. And you can't really disregard the political component because without it, there was really no reason to talk to Rubio in the first place.
 
2012-11-19 03:31:38 PM  

Leeds: Ignoring the fact that you can't possibly tell me how many years old the earth is- can you even tell me which event could be described as the genesis of the Earth?

The definition of a planet includes provisions that it has to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium and it needs to have cleared other junk from its path around the sun. Did that occur before or after the collision that created the moon? If before, how do you know when it cleared enough crap out of it's path to be a planet? If after, how do you know how many years it took to reach hydrostatic equilibrium again?

So to all those who hide behind words like "it's knowable," grow up. We can give incredibly good estimates, but we cannot technically know the exact time when it occurred.

// sheesh


You're hiding behind semantics.

If the question is how long since the Earth-moon collision, we can estimate it.

If the question is how long since the Earth's crust cooled to the point where it was no longer a sea of magma we can estimate it.

If the question is when did the Earth cool enough to allow water in the atmosphere to condense and first fall as rain and fill in the Earth's oceans, we can estimate that.

Ask a specific question and you'll get a specific answer; if you choose to keep it intentionally vague don't be surprised when you receive an inprecise answer.
 
2012-11-19 03:32:01 PM  

Jim_Callahan: It's an embarrassment to the nation and an even bigger embarrassment to Christianity that it's even recognizably a probe about religious beliefs at all.


6,000 year old Earth or not, if you want to be involved in federal politics it matters to me whether or not you think there's something magical about Israeli ground. If you believe that the end of the world will occur in your lifetime and it's related to our foreign policy we have something very important to talk about if you're potentially positioning yourself to be POTUS.
 
2012-11-19 03:32:10 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Headso: Tricky Chicken:
Wow, nice derp you got there. Let me change a couple words and you can see how dumb you look.

You know the worst thing about women, the WORST thing about NOW? Chicks love to not know. Nothing makes a girl happier than not knowing the answer to your question. 'Hey man, what's the capital of Kenya?' 'Shucks, I don't know that! The only 4 letters i need to know are D..W.T.and..S, just keeping it real.' Yeah, you're keeping it real, real dumb. ladies hate knowledge. shiat, if you're afraid a feminist voter will break into your house, and you wanna save your money, you know what you do? You put the money in a book. Cause ladies don't read. Books are like kryptonite to a member of NOW. 'Here's a science book.' 'NOOOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Not a science book!

would have been way funnier if you used the word "n*gger"

I was going to at first, but there is still an uncomfortably large population out there that would totally agree with it. I figured going with women would better highlight the absurdity of the original.


missed opportunity, if you had you might have been able to sell the joke to Chris Rock...
 
2012-11-19 03:33:15 PM  

qorkfiend: lennavan: "I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer." is your example of of an extremist Republican?

"I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer. Here's the religious view on the subject, which I believe should be treated with equal validity under the law" is what he said. Since this is indistinguishable from the views of extremist Republicans on this issue, then yes, the label is accurate.


FTFY

He never said both sides were equally valid scientifically, or equally likely.
 
2012-11-19 03:33:34 PM  

lennavan: joshiz: Wrong...it speaks to someone's belief in science which to me is very important. It is a very valid question.

And he answered it by saying: "Ask a scientist." That fundamentally tells you he believes in science and that we should defer to science when asking such science questions.

If he answered it right, if he said 4.5 billion years, would that hold any weight? No. Because he is not a scientist. Put it this way, what if the journalist asked "what is the genetic cause of Down Syndrome" and he replied "an extra copy of Dyrk1a." Is that true or false? You have no idea. That some random politician answered a science question doesn't give it any extra weight. He's a farking politician, if you're getting science information from politicians, you're an idiot. So he's the smart one telling you to ask a farking scientist.


Bollocks. He's a politican and he gave a politician's answer. That is to say, he dodged the question. He mentioned science and he mentioned theology and didn't commit to anything because he knows perfectly well that a solid answer would either make him look like an idiot or offend the religious right. Both being losing prospects, he answered in a way that said nothing. That's all it is. No more, no less, and any competent politician would do the same in his situation. Avoiding scandal and controversy is more important to their needs than complete candor.
 
2012-11-19 03:34:11 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Bloody William: Anti_illuminati: This is where everyone is getting confused in this thread. It's quite hilarious to watch.

It's not even confused. lennavan's outright ignoring the half dozen times I've showed the exact quotes Rubio said.

Well, look on the bright side, it gives us all something to do as we avoid working on these couple of days before the Thanksgiving break. I salute your dedicated to sophistry, len, I'd probably be bored without it.


Hey thanks. And I certainly appreciate the diversion from cleaning, which is what I'm supposed to be doing.
 
2012-11-19 03:34:49 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: dugitman: Pincy: The age of the earth isn't a theological question. If you think it is then you are a retard.

No it isn't. But the question was asked to open the theological discussion. If he says "it's 4.5 billion years old" then the next question is something like "So do you reject creationism as the cause of our planet's formation?". If he says it's 6000 years old then he is labeled a retard who is going to force new earth education into public schools.
 
/apatheist
// it's a stupid question to ask politicians if you expect a straight answer

This. The answer is irrelevant. It was a stupid question, asked in a clumsy fashion by an idiot reporter. I'm no fan of Rubio, but at least from a political standpoint, there was no correct answer. And you can't really disregard the political component because without it, there was really no reason to talk to Rubio in the first place.


The question was stupid, but there are dozens of ways for Rubio to answer the question and not inject theology.
 
2012-11-19 03:35:59 PM  

lennavan: gilgigamesh: We do not need leaders who pander to the willful ignorance of their constituency. This is part of the problem. This is a matter of patriotism, and any politician who knows better but says "sure, I think its ok for parents to teach their kids that God created the universe 6,000 years ago" is no patriot because he is hurting America.

This leads to a very different discussion. Normally I'm with you on this one. But you're arguing from an idealistic point of view. In a perfect world you're right. But in the world we live in, politicians are the ones enacting policy. To even be elected to that position where you can enact change you gotta pander.

To pander, Obama agreed $249,000 was "middle class." To pander, he had to extend tax cuts for the top bracket. To pander he had to cave on a public option. But had he patriotically fought the good fight, we wouldn't have made significant reforms to the insurance industry and actual middle class/poor families hurting during the recession would have been paying more in taxes.

Rubio said ask a scientist but he won't prevent people from teaching faith. It's not really that bad.


Ummm.......why does faith need to be taught? Isn't that sort of anathema to the idea of faith?
 
2012-11-19 03:36:06 PM  

StrangeQ: Leeds: Ignoring the fact that you can't possibly tell me how many years old the earth is- can you even tell me which event could be described as the genesis of the Earth?

The definition of a planet includes provisions that it has to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium and it needs to have cleared other junk from its path around the sun. Did that occur before or after the collision that created the moon? If before, how do you know when it cleared enough crap out of it's path to be a planet? If after, how do you know how many years it took to reach hydrostatic equilibrium again?

So to all those who hide behind words like "it's knowable," grow up. We can give incredibly good estimates, but we cannot technically know the exact time when it occurred.

// sheesh

You're hiding behind semantics.

If the question is how long since the Earth-moon collision, we can estimate it.

If the question is how long since the Earth's crust cooled to the point where it was no longer a sea of magma we can estimate it.

If the question is when did the Earth cool enough to allow water in the atmosphere to condense and first fall as rain and fill in the Earth's oceans, we can estimate that.

Ask a specific question and you'll get a specific answer; if you choose to keep it intentionally vague don't be surprised when you receive an inprecise answer.


My point seems lost on you.

I'm saying that people who say that we know the age of the Earth mean to say that we "have a great estimate of the Earth's age."

People who pretend to back scientists but choose to loosely use unscientific terms to approximate what Science has proven are simply idiots. They aren't as bad as derpers who say that the Earth is younger than the fossil record (etc) but they are idiots none the less.
 
2012-11-19 03:36:27 PM  

dericwater: Knowing the age of the earth is basically a pointless trivial factoid. But it's a factoid that most people know in the same way that they know the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second, that Mt Everest is 29K and change above sea level, that Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and not 1942, and that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust during WWII.


The only fact amongst those that I knew off the top of my head was the Columbus thing. Does that mean you think I deny the holocaust?
 
2012-11-19 03:36:54 PM  

lennavan: qorkfiend: lennavan: "I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer." is your example of of an extremist Republican?

"I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer. Here's the religious view on the subject, which I believe should be treated with equal validity under the law" is what he said. Since this is indistinguishable from the views of extremist Republicans on this issue, then yes, the label is accurate.

FTFY

He never said both sides were equally valid scientifically, or equally likely.


He wasn't asked about religion. All on his own he invoked theology to answer a scientific question. His answer would have been equally valid if he had invoked the Time Cube guy as an authority.
 
2012-11-19 03:37:06 PM  

Leeds: People who pretend to back scientists but choose to loosely use unscientific terms to approximate what Science has proven are simply idiots.


I like that. "Laymen using laymen's terms are idiots."
 
2012-11-19 03:37:06 PM  

DirkValentine: Rubio said ask a scientist but he won't prevent people from teaching faith. It's not really that bad.

Ummm.......why does faith need to be taught? Isn't that sort of anathema to the idea of faith?


It doesn't. Who the fark are you to prevent someone from teaching their kid faith if they want to?
 
2012-11-19 03:38:02 PM  

lennavan: dericwater: Knowing the age of the earth is basically a pointless trivial factoid. But it's a factoid that most people know in the same way that they know the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second, that Mt Everest is 29K and change above sea level, that Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and not 1942, and that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust during WWII.

The only fact amongst those that I knew off the top of my head was the Columbus thing. Does that mean you think I deny the holocaust?


Is your ignorance now the standard by which others should be measured?
 
2012-11-19 03:38:32 PM  

More_Like_A_Stain: I'm no fan of Rubio, but at least from a political standpoint, there was no correct answer.


BS. There is a correct answer, the scientific one. If the correct answer isn't good for you politically then that is your problem. Also, according to Wikipedia, he's on the subcommittee on science and space. I repeat, he's on the subcommittee on science and space and he doesn't feel qualified to ballpark the age of the earth?

The Republican party is a joke if they can't answer a simple question about the age of the earth. Stop being upset at the people asking the "gotcha" questions and start being upset at politicians who are either truly that stupid or cater to people who are that stupid.
 
2012-11-19 03:38:57 PM  
This thread is seriously dildos.

Seriously.
Dildos.
 
2012-11-19 03:39:15 PM  

lennavan: He never said both sides were equally valid scientifically, or equally likely.


and yet Rubio wants all sides to be treated equally regardless of their validity....

"....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."
 
2012-11-19 03:39:17 PM  

gilgigamesh: He wasn't asked about religion.


Pretty much everyone in this thread disagrees with you. Myself included. Here's someone who like you, disagrees with my position.

dletter: Lennavan... you don't need a scientist there to answer what the question was really trying to figure out from Rubio..... and only an idiot doesn't know what the real meaning behind the question was.

 
2012-11-19 03:39:32 PM  

lennavan: qorkfiend: lennavan: "I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer." is your example of of an extremist Republican?

"I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer. Here's the religious view on the subject, which I believe should be treated with equal validity under the law" is what he said. Since this is indistinguishable from the views of extremist Republicans on this issue, then yes, the label is accurate.

FTFY

He never said both sides were equally valid scientifically, or equally likely.


Are you on his campaign or something?

He was asked a question, about the age of the earth, but we all know, and he knew, the real question being asked is, "Will you accept scientific consensus on topics or will you continue to pander to fringe religious beliefs". His answer was he will continue to pander.
 
2012-11-19 03:39:40 PM  
So his plan is to make those lazy poor people, who we all know pay absolutely nothing in taxes, richer by cutting their taxes and reducing the burdensome regulation that is keeping your average Wal Mart cashier from striking it rich. Hmmm.... prosperity through tax cuts and deregulation. It's a bold new idea for the Republicans, but it's so crazy it just might work! It's certainly worth a try, since we've never tried doing that before.
 
2012-11-19 03:40:00 PM  

Leeds: Pincy: Leeds: So to all those who hide behind words like "it's knowable," grow up. We can give incredibly good estimates, but we cannot technically know the exact time when it occurred.

What point are you trying to make again? Is someone actually arguing that we know to the exact second how old the earth is? Or are you just trying to make yourself sound profound?

No, I'm worried that the rabid folks on this thread are forgetting that words have meaning. And that they are choosing to use words that mean things that are not technically possible, thus undermining their arguments.

It's like the idiots who state that there is no answer to the following question: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

If they had a proper command of the English language they'd know better.


The words in question are "It is a knowable, factual thing" which is a factual statement, your failed attempts at profundity not withstanding.

Pedantry isn't going to change the equation one bit.
 
2012-11-19 03:40:38 PM  

Gordon Bennett: lennavan: joshiz: Wrong...it speaks to someone's belief in science which to me is very important. It is a very valid question.

And he answered it by saying: "Ask a scientist." That fundamentally tells you he believes in science and that we should defer to science when asking such science questions.

If he answered it right, if he said 4.5 billion years, would that hold any weight? No. Because he is not a scientist. Put it this way, what if the journalist asked "what is the genetic cause of Down Syndrome" and he replied "an extra copy of Dyrk1a." Is that true or false? You have no idea. That some random politician answered a science question doesn't give it any extra weight. He's a farking politician, if you're getting science information from politicians, you're an idiot. So he's the smart one telling you to ask a farking scientist.

Bollocks. He's a politican and he gave a politician's answer. That is to say, he dodged the question. He mentioned science and he mentioned theology and didn't commit to anything because he knows perfectly well that a solid answer would either make him look like an idiot or offend the religious right. Both being losing prospects, he answered in a way that said nothing. That's all it is. No more, no less, and any competent politician would do the same in his situation. Avoiding scandal and controversy is more important to their needs than complete candor.


The point is not that he avoided controversy.

The point is that in order to avoid it he had to introduce a line of palpably idiotic eyeball-meltingly retarded donkey shiat into the discussion.

The reason that point is worth making is it shows that Rubio, who is being widely discussed as part of the new generation of Republicans, STILL had to demonstrate a willingness to pander to the facefarkingly idiotic movement that is young earth creationism.

Yes everyone knows he did it to avoid a controversy. That's not the pertinent issue.
 
2012-11-19 03:41:00 PM  

Leeds: No, I'm worried that the rabid folks on this thread are forgetting that words have meaning. And that they are choosing to use words that mean things that are not technically possible, thus undermining their arguments.


You're being intentionally obtuse. When measurements are 'knowable' there is an understanding that the measuring tool is going to have some level of precision. If I handed you a ruler and asked you how tall you are, the understanding is not that you're going to be able to measure your height in Bohr radius.
 
2012-11-19 03:41:02 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: dericwater: Knowing the age of the earth is basically a pointless trivial factoid. But it's a factoid that most people know in the same way that they know the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second, that Mt Everest is 29K and change above sea level, that Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and not 1942, and that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust during WWII.

The only fact amongst those that I knew off the top of my head was the Columbus thing. Does that mean you think I deny the holocaust?

Is your ignorance now the standard by which others should be measured?


I'm just curious, is there some sort of list of facts that everyone should know? I can tell you the molecular mechanism and treatment options with their associated outcomes of pediatric medulloblastoma. I imagine you can't. Does that make you ignorant? Do you not care about child brain cancer? What is wrong with you?
 
2012-11-19 03:41:29 PM  

gilgigamesh: We know within 30 million years or so. On the scale of billions of years, that's pretty damn close, and pretty far off from 6,000 years.


Rather, there's been some sort of stable crust on the planet capable of supporting solid mineral formations for about 4.54 billion years give or take 1% (so error bars more on the order of 50 million than 30, but close enough). We're operating on the age of the oldest mineral formations we've found (because of how radio-dating works, you can't really work on non-solid materials). Since this actually also matches the oldest mineral samples we've found elsewhere (mostly meteorites) we've derived that the inner, solid planets and asteroid belt solidified at about the same time.

What they were before that is a bit dodgier, but not all that dodgier, as it ties into the life-cycle of stars and that's fairly well-understood too. In theory the planet could be older, I guess, and just got melted down entire at some point along with the other solid debris in the inner bits of the accretion disc in an incredibly contrived coincidence. But 4.54 billion years is the _floor_ on the earth's age, it cannot possibly be any _newer_ than that.
 
2012-11-19 03:41:50 PM  

manimal2878: He was asked a question, about the age of the earth, but we all know, and he knew, the real question being asked is, "Will you accept scientific consensus on topics or will you continue to pander to fringe religious beliefs".


No, we don't all know that:

gilgigamesh: He wasn't asked about religion. All on his own he invoked theology to answer a scientific question. His answer would have been equally valid if he had invoked the Time Cube guy as an authority.

 
2012-11-19 03:42:16 PM  

Tigger:
If you use the original meaning of factoid this post is way funnier.


Since when is it the 'original' meaning?

Using the only definition of factoid I know makes this post senseless.
 
2012-11-19 03:42:27 PM  

Gordon Bennett: Bollocks. He's a politican and he gave a politician's answer. That is to say, he dodged the question. He mentioned science and he mentioned theology and didn't commit to anything because he knows perfectly well that a solid answer would either make him look like an idiot or offend the religious right. Both being losing prospects, he answered in a way that said nothing. That's all it is. No more, no less, and any competent politician would do the same in his situation. Avoiding scandal and controversy is more important to their needs than complete candor.


Great. And here's the result:

Students in Shanghai who took international exams for the first time outscored every other school system in the world. In the same test, American students ranked 25th in math, 17th in science and 14th in reading. A 2009 study showed that U.S. students ranked 25th among 34 countries in math and science -- behind states like China, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong and Finland.

But hey, that's a study made by study... guys.

I believe in my gut that Jesus thinks we're number 1 in everything and USA! USA! USA!
 
2012-11-19 03:43:02 PM  

Jairzinho: lennavan: He never said both sides were equally valid scientifically, or equally likely.

and yet Rubio wants all sides to be treated equally regardless of their validity....

"....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."


Wow. Are you suggesting we pass a law preventing parents from teaching their kids religion? You are. Holy fark.
 
2012-11-19 03:43:10 PM  

lennavan: dericwater: Knowing the age of the earth is basically a pointless trivial factoid. But it's a factoid that most people know in the same way that they know the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second, that Mt Everest is 29K and change above sea level, that Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and not 1942, and that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust during WWII.

The only fact amongst those that I knew off the top of my head was the Columbus thing. Does that mean you think I deny the holocaust?


It does mean that you're incredibly ignorant about the basic facts that every well-educated person in the world knows.
 
2012-11-19 03:43:18 PM  

skullkrusher: gilgigamesh: master_dman: Find me ONE scientist that says with certainty how frickin' old it is?

How about the one that posted up the thread and stated he (and scientists from other disciplines) all have calculated exactly how old the earth is?

I question the credentials of any scientist dumb enough to post on Fark.


I do the same with accountants. :P
 
2012-11-19 03:43:21 PM  
50 years ago? Nobody was alive back then.
 
2012-11-19 03:44:00 PM  

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: dericwater: Knowing the age of the earth is basically a pointless trivial factoid. But it's a factoid that most people know in the same way that they know the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second, that Mt Everest is 29K and change above sea level, that Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and not 1942, and that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust during WWII.

The only fact amongst those that I knew off the top of my head was the Columbus thing. Does that mean you think I deny the holocaust?

Is your ignorance now the standard by which others should be measured?

I'm just curious, is there some sort of list of facts that everyone should know? I can tell you the molecular mechanism and treatment options with their associated outcomes of pediatric medulloblastoma. I imagine you can't. Does that make you ignorant? Do you not care about child brain cancer? What is wrong with you?


I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone who didn't know - or who offered an alternate viewpoint using mythology - making decisions for those who do.
 
2012-11-19 03:44:17 PM  

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: dericwater: Knowing the age of the earth is basically a pointless trivial factoid. But it's a factoid that most people know in the same way that they know the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second, that Mt Everest is 29K and change above sea level, that Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and not 1942, and that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust during WWII.

The only fact amongst those that I knew off the top of my head was the Columbus thing. Does that mean you think I deny the holocaust?

Is your ignorance now the standard by which others should be measured?

I'm just curious, is there some sort of list of facts that everyone should know? I can tell you the molecular mechanism and treatment options with their associated outcomes of pediatric medulloblastoma. I imagine you can't. Does that make you ignorant? Do you not care about child brain cancer? What is wrong with you?


Yes, there are basic facts that most people with a rounded education are aware of. Some people are , in fact , more ignorant than others.
 
2012-11-19 03:44:27 PM  

Leeds: My point seems lost on you.

I'm saying that people who say that we know the age of the Earth mean to say that we "have a great estimate of the Earth's age."

People who pretend to back scientists but choose to loosely use unscientific terms to approximate what Science has proven are simply idiots. They aren't as bad as derpers who say that the Earth is younger than the fossil record (etc) but they are idiots none the less.


No, I completely understand what you're doing.

You're trying to use semantics to justify any other answer than "4.5 billion years" to the question "What is the age of the earth?" If you don't want to be that precise, "scientists have calculated it to between 4 and 5 billion years" is also an acceptable response. However, in no way is it ever intellectually acceptable to reply with, "I don't know and I don't think we ever will." Such a response will be rewarded with no points and much deserved redicule from everyone not sheltering themselves in superstitious pseudoscientific nonsense.
 
2012-11-19 03:44:37 PM  
Time to play the three-player guessing game.

Player one poses the quantitative question, like how tall is Mt Everest. Player two gives a range, saying 22,000 feet to 50,000 feet. Player three decides whether the actual answer is within or beyond the range. The goal for Player one is to find obscure quantities. The goal for Player two is to give convincing ranges so that player three is correct half the time. Player three's goal is to get it right as often as possible.

Questions could be, distance from San Francisco to Manila, Philippines in meters. Or number of issues of Time Magazines published since inception.
 
2012-11-19 03:44:37 PM  

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: dericwater: Knowing the age of the earth is basically a pointless trivial factoid. But it's a factoid that most people know in the same way that they know the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second, that Mt Everest is 29K and change above sea level, that Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and not 1942, and that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust during WWII.

The only fact amongst those that I knew off the top of my head was the Columbus thing. Does that mean you think I deny the holocaust?

Is your ignorance now the standard by which others should be measured?

I'm just curious, is there some sort of list of facts that everyone should know? I can tell you the molecular mechanism and treatment options with their associated outcomes of pediatric medulloblastoma. I imagine you can't. Does that make you ignorant? Do you not care about child brain cancer? What is wrong with you?


Basics of our solar system are usually taught in grade school, or at least they were in mine. You know, along with learning about the dinosaurs. Maybe they do things differently in other states?
 
2012-11-19 03:44:48 PM  

Anti_illuminati: skullkrusher: gilgigamesh: master_dman: Find me ONE scientist that says with certainty how frickin' old it is?

How about the one that posted up the thread and stated he (and scientists from other disciplines) all have calculated exactly how old the earth is?

I question the credentials of any scientist dumb enough to post on Fark.

I do the same with accountants. :P


accountants should be questioned at all times no matter what they do

/IANAA
 
2012-11-19 03:45:10 PM  

mcwehrle: Tigger:
If you use the original meaning of factoid this post is way funnier.

Since when is it the 'original' meaning?

Using the only definition of factoid I know makes this post senseless.


Norman Mailer invented the term factoid to mean "an incorrect view commonly held to be true as a result of its frequent appearance in media".

Which means the definition of factoid is now a factoid.
 
2012-11-19 03:45:16 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: The fact that you seem to think it does is why so many smart, well educated farkers are hammering the shiat out of you here, and your intransigence is making you look even dumber than SK usually does.


Keep in mind, my argument is "deferring to experts is good." That's what people are trying to hammer on.

Out of curiosity, where does Fark.com post our educational backgrounds?
 
2012-11-19 03:45:32 PM  

lennavan: manimal2878: He was asked a question, about the age of the earth, but we all know, and he knew, the real question being asked is, "Will you accept scientific consensus on topics or will you continue to pander to fringe religious beliefs".

No, we don't all know that:

gilgigamesh: He wasn't asked about religion. All on his own he invoked theology to answer a scientific question. His answer would have been equally valid if he had invoked the Time Cube guy as an authority.


Everyone, but you then. Seriously, everyone in the world, but you gets that. Maybe that is why you don't understand why his statement is a problem.

Seriously, why would you ask a politician a question like that? You think they just wanted to throw out some trivia at him?
 
2012-11-19 03:46:48 PM  

lennavan: Keep in mind, my argument is "deferring to experts is good." That's what people are trying to hammer on.


No, it's not.
 
2012-11-19 03:46:49 PM  

qorkfiend: I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone who didn't know - or who offered an alternate viewpoint using mythology - making decisions for those who do.


How would you feel about a politician leaving it up to you to make that decision?
 
2012-11-19 03:46:52 PM  

Ctrl-Alt-Del: The fact that you seem to think it does is why so many smart, well educated farkers are hammering the shiat out of you here, and your intransigence is making you look even dumber than SK usually does.


I'll take that as a compliment

/no such thing as bad publicity
 
2012-11-19 03:48:21 PM  

lennavan: qorkfiend: I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone who didn't know - or who offered an alternate viewpoint using mythology - making decisions for those who do.

How would you feel about a politician leaving it up to you to make that decision?


Unfortunately for us, Senator Rubio sits on the Science and Space Committee in the Senate, so he actually gets to make decisions on these kind of subjects.

I also can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question.
 
2012-11-19 03:48:46 PM  

mrshowrules: and IMHO, he was the GOP's best opportunity to re-brand themselves. They are truly farked.


Could've been worse... he could've stated that the Earth is flat and the sun revolved around it.
 
2012-11-19 03:49:08 PM  

lennavan: dericwater: Knowing the age of the earth is basically a pointless trivial factoid. But it's a factoid that most people know in the same way that they know the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second, that Mt Everest is 29K and change above sea level, that Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and not 1942, and that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust during WWII.

The only fact amongst those that I knew off the top of my head was the Columbus thing. Does that mean you think I deny the holocaust?


It depends. How many jews you think were killed: a) a few, c) several millions.

Really? You don't see anything wrong with not knowing a fact/factoid at least in its order of magnitude?

Saying that the speed of light is 30ft/hr or 186,000miles/second are equally valid to you, because you DON'T KNOW??

Saying that the Dow Jones close last week at is 45.3 or 12,590 are equally valid to you, because you DON'T KNOW??
 
2012-11-19 03:49:39 PM  

thurstonxhowell: lennavan: Keep in mind, my argument is "deferring to experts is good." That's what people are trying to hammer on.

No, it's not.


There are more if you like:

lennavan: How would you defer to scientists if you did not remember the 4.5 billion number? Would it be something like "I'm not a scientist, man?"


lennavan: I am defending the practice of deferring to the experts. It'd be really good if we did that instead of saying shiat like "you can't get pregnant from rape" and "It's cold today, so global warming does not exist."


lennavan: And he answered it by saying: "Ask a scientist." That fundamentally tells you he believes in science and that we should defer to science when asking such science questions.


lennavan: This is the strangest way of saying "deferring to experts is bad."


lennavan: Yes, deferring to a scientist on science questions is just as silly as deferring to a question expert when asked a question.


lennavan: While he did not exclude it, he pretty clearly only deferred to scientists. "I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer that question." He left room open for the zealots in the country.

When a Republican politician with national recognition gets up and says "on this scientific topic, we should ask scientists" I think that's something we should celebrate, not chastise. This is what happens when we don't listen to scientists:

 
2012-11-19 03:50:25 PM  

lennavan: Ctrl-Alt-Del: The fact that you seem to think it does is why so many smart, well educated farkers are hammering the shiat out of you here, and your intransigence is making you look even dumber than SK usually does.

Keep in mind, my argument is "deferring to experts is good." That's what people are trying to hammer on.

Out of curiosity, where does Fark.com post our educational backgrounds?


No, your point, as far as I can tell having read the thread thus far is "I think it's perfectly acceptable for an official elected to high office to foster ignorance and rally the idiot vote for personal gain".

And when I want the opinion of a venomous snake, I'll defer to you.
 
2012-11-19 03:50:53 PM  

qorkfiend: lennavan: qorkfiend: I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone who didn't know - or who offered an alternate viewpoint using mythology - making decisions for those who do.

How would you feel about a politician leaving it up to you to make that decision?

Unfortunately for us, Senator Rubio sits on the Science and Space Committee in the Senate, so he actually gets to make decisions on these kind of subjects.

I also can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question.


Did you also notice you didn't ask a question in that post?

I can't help but notice you didn't answer mine.
 
2012-11-19 03:50:53 PM  

Pincy: master_dman: I don't get the outrage either.

So your absolutely positive on exactly how old the earth is?

Find me ONE scientist that says with certainty how frickin' old it is?

The only true answer is that we don't really know. We have a pretty good idea.. but thats it.

That settles it, since we can't pinpoint the age of the earth to the exact second then that means God did it. Case settled.


Boy you sure did put words in my mouth. Not even close to what I'm saying.

But you, of course, know JUST what I'm trying to say. Right?
 
2012-11-19 03:51:15 PM  

lennavan: gilgigamesh: He wasn't asked about religion.

Pretty much everyone in this thread disagrees with you. Myself included. Here's someone who like you, disagrees with my position.

dletter: Lennavan... you don't need a scientist there to answer what the question was really trying to figure out from Rubio..... and only an idiot doesn't know what the real meaning behind the question was.


I guess the meaning of the question does depend on the audience.

"How old is the earth"? is a question of science, not theology. It is true that the reporter was implying a deeper question, which admittedly was not a scientific question. But it wasn't theological eitehr, it was political:

Q: "Are you ready to lead the so-called 'new republican party' out of the dark ages and into a future where we can begin to compete again with other countries in standards of science and education?"

A: "No."

But you know all this, so I don't know why I am wasting time typing this instead of working so I can go home.
 
2012-11-19 03:51:36 PM  

The Larch: lennavan: dericwater: Knowing the age of the earth is basically a pointless trivial factoid. But it's a factoid that most people know in the same way that they know the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second, that Mt Everest is 29K and change above sea level, that Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and not 1942, and that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust during WWII.

The only fact amongst those that I knew off the top of my head was the Columbus thing. Does that mean you think I deny the holocaust?

It does mean that you're incredibly ignorant about the basic facts that every well-educated person in the world knows.


Well to be fair, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what c is in miles/s either, and I majored in Physics.

/3x10^8 m/s, metric ftw
 
2012-11-19 03:51:46 PM  

Pincy: Actually, it would still have not been a great answer. He's an adult and supposedly an educated one. Not being able to ballpark that the earth is billions of years old and instead saying that you're not qualified to answer the question should disqualify him from any serious discussion about potential candidates for 2016.


I can explain why I disagree with you in two points:

One, the GOP is far from unique in their politicians being somewhat scientifically illiterate. The biggest head-banger of 2008 was watching both major party candidates have a discussion about nuclear power and alternative energy that a damned five-year-old would have found uninformed and generally stupid. You can't look for scientific literacy in a political candidate-- they're lawyers. All the lawyers that have that level of intelligence are knowledge are in patent law and too busy swimming in their piles of thousand-dollar bank notes scrooge McDuck style to consider running for office.

Two, when a politician is able to outright admit they don't know something, that's usually a good sign. It means that they will rely on advisers, who can't help but know more about the issues than the candidate himself due to point one. This is largely the approach that Mr. Obama has taken, which is why even though I wouldn't trust him to reliably tell me which direction gravity pulls things I don't have a huge objection to him controlling, among other things, the NSF. Or, rather, my objections to his NSF directives have more to do with policy details than his own lack of scientific expertise/literacy.
 
2012-11-19 03:52:37 PM  

Tickle Mittens: Microwaves are not witching boxes powered by the devil's lies. If the hot pocket gets hot, the universe is ~13.7 billion years old.


Quoted for profundity.
 
2012-11-19 03:52:38 PM  

dwrash: Our current estimate is based on the assumption that the rate of nuclear decay and the speed of light have always been constant... back to what 4.2 billion years?.. so we are basically taking say an observation of 2.3244e-9% of the timespan and saying that is good enough.


Actually, inaccurate; see CF210.

(Also, it's closer to 4.54 gigayears, but that's not too critical.)

master_dman: The only true answer is that we don't really know. We have a pretty good idea


With better than 95% confidence that its within 1% of the correct value. Which is a far cry from "we don't really know".
 
2012-11-19 03:53:03 PM  

lennavan: Keep in mind, my argument is "deferring to experts is good."


Good to know that Republicans must now defer to experts on even the simplest scientific facts. I guess they'll be changing their minds any day now on global warming.
 
2012-11-19 03:53:06 PM  

lennavan: Marco Rubio: 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.

I'm struggling to see the poutrage here. I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with. Indeed, I wish all politicians echoed this exact sentiment.

He's right, he is not the correct person to answer this question, and the journalist should feel bad for asking a politician it.


This.
 
2012-11-19 03:53:12 PM  

MindfulModeration: No, your point, as far as I can tell having read the thread thus far is "I think it's perfectly acceptable for an official elected to high office to foster ignorance and rally the idiot vote for personal gain".


How the fark could you have gotten that from these:

lennavan: How would you defer to scientists if you did not remember the 4.5 billion number? Would it be something like "I'm not a scientist, man?"

lennavan: I am defending the practice of deferring to the experts. It'd be really good if we did that instead of saying shiat like "you can't get pregnant from rape" and "It's cold today, so global warming does not exist."

lennavan: And he answered it by saying: "Ask a scientist." That fundamentally tells you he believes in science and that we should defer to science when asking such science questions.

lennavan: This is the strangest way of saying "deferring to experts is bad."

lennavan: Yes, deferring to a scientist on science questions is just as silly as deferring to a question expert when asked a question.

lennavan: While he did not exclude it, he pretty clearly only deferred to scientists. "I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer that question." He left room open for the zealots in the country.

When a Republican politician with national recognition gets up and says "on this scientific topic, we should ask scientists" I think that's something we should celebrate, not chastise. This is what happens when we don't listen to scientists:
 
2012-11-19 03:53:47 PM  

StrangeQ: The Larch: lennavan: dericwater: Knowing the age of the earth is basically a pointless trivial factoid. But it's a factoid that most people know in the same way that they know the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second, that Mt Everest is 29K and change above sea level, that Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and not 1942, and that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust during WWII.

The only fact amongst those that I knew off the top of my head was the Columbus thing. Does that mean you think I deny the holocaust?

It does mean that you're incredibly ignorant about the basic facts that every well-educated person in the world knows.

Well to be fair, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what c is in miles/s either, and I majored in Physics.

/3x10^8 m/s, metric ftw


But you would not have said "either seven or potato but we should consider asking some priests as well as some scientists and there should be the opportunity to teach the controversy of the great mystery that the speed of light is potato"
 
2012-11-19 03:54:09 PM  

lennavan: When a Republican politician with national recognition gets up and says "on this scientific topic, we should ask scientists" I think that's something we should celebrate, not chastise. This is what happens when we don't listen to scientists:


Only problem is that's not what he said. What was said is closer to "On this scientific topic, we should ask scientists, but I'm not a scientist, and here's what the Bible says."

Your entire argument in this thread deliberately ignores 90% the statement in favor of focusing on a few words.
 
2012-11-19 03:54:12 PM  

master_dman: Pincy: master_dman: I don't get the outrage either.

So your absolutely positive on exactly how old the earth is?

Find me ONE scientist that says with certainty how frickin' old it is?

The only true answer is that we don't really know. We have a pretty good idea.. but thats it.

That settles it, since we can't pinpoint the age of the earth to the exact second then that means God did it. Case settled.

Boy you sure did put words in my mouth. Not even close to what I'm saying.

But you, of course, know JUST what I'm trying to say. Right?


You do understand he was mocking you, right?
 
2012-11-19 03:54:59 PM  

gilgigamesh: "How old is the earth"? is a question of science


So how outrageous would you find it if someone asked that question would answer "I'm not a scientist."

1) Not at all
2) The most outrageous thing ever uttered from a Republican extremist
 
2012-11-19 03:54:59 PM  

lennavan: DirkValentine: Rubio said ask a scientist but he won't prevent people from teaching faith. It's not really that bad.

Ummm.......why does faith need to be taught? Isn't that sort of anathema to the idea of faith?

It doesn't. Who the fark are you to prevent someone from teaching their kid faith if they want to?


Faith. You can't teach faith. It's just faith. that's it. You believe something b/c you do. Logic and facts don't matter, therefore there is nothing to be taught. Now, you can be indoctrinated (brainwashed) with other's faith. See : Organized Religion.

Also, i'm not for "preventing" anything except the spread of delusional behavior based on what some people 2000 years ago wrote while stomping around the desert. If someone wants to "teach" their kid faith - fine! Go for it! But don't presume that I, my kid, my family believes it.
 
2012-11-19 03:55:12 PM  

lennavan: Jairzinho: lennavan: He never said both sides were equally valid scientifically, or equally likely.

and yet Rubio wants all sides to be treated equally regardless of their validity....

"....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."

Wow. Are you suggesting we pass a law preventing parents from teaching their kids religion? You are. Holy fark.


Some days, like today, I think it would be a good thing. I have to admit it. My wife thinks so whole heartedly: she thinks imposing religion on children is akin to child abuse. And I think she has a point, because you are essentially chaining them to a myth that, if they accept it, will likely stunt their emotional and intellectual growth their entire lives.

Unfortunately, the broader ramifications of that are too dire to contemplate seriously.
 
2012-11-19 03:55:38 PM  

lennavan: qorkfiend: lennavan: qorkfiend: I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone who didn't know - or who offered an alternate viewpoint using mythology - making decisions for those who do.

How would you feel about a politician leaving it up to you to make that decision?

Unfortunately for us, Senator Rubio sits on the Science and Space Committee in the Senate, so he actually gets to make decisions on these kind of subjects.

I also can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question.

Did you also notice you didn't ask a question in that post?

I can't help but notice you didn't answer mine.


Yes, yes. Continue with your nitpicking. It's very endearing.
 
2012-11-19 03:55:54 PM  

WinoRhino: Tricky Chicken: Not mad so much as pointing out a "You're not helping" weak troll. Nearly half the population is conservative and they look like they will be digging in their heels.

So when there are 4 people, and two of them say 3+3=8 while the other two know the answer is 6, they should compromise and settle for 7 and call it a day?

There are certain things they can be wrong about and have opinions on. Scientific fact which leads to policy is not one of them. When you have GOP members saying wind is god's way of cooling down the Earth and wind power might disrupt this process, or rape can't get you pregnant, or that oil was put here by god, you're dealing with one of two things: a profoundly ignorant person, or someone who is intentionally trying to rally profoundly ignorant voters.


I agree that there are some fringe kooks out there that hold some dangerously ignorant ideas such as; legitimate rape vs illegitimate rape. However, when conservatives see the left as disregarding all of their most cherished beliefs with unveiled contempt, they are driven to support the only available alternative. This can lead voters that think the rape comments were abhorrent to still vote for the guy just because he isn't a mamber of the party that hates them. Disrespect will not lead to cooperation. You can personally discount their religious structure, but you should always be mindful that they will not. So we should accept that people believe a great many unprovable notions, but we should all agree to make laws based upon what we have a consensus of evidence for.

Also, you posted your equation using one significant digit. Accepting that 3 could be anywhere from 2.5 to 3.4, the sum could total anywhere from 5 to 6.8. So the compromise of seven is not so bad. If there were a couple of 0.4 terms that were rounded to 0, we could even get to 8. I know that is a snarky idea, but theologans and scientists are always approaching the question from differing positions of what they are willing to accept as source data. Theologans start from God exists, and go on from there. Scientists start from nothing and need a proof that God exists.

You do not need to agree with them, but you do need their consent to govern them. If they are half of the populace, then you need to work with what they are willing to believe, or you will have an ungovernable situation.
 
2012-11-19 03:56:27 PM  

mcwehrle: Tigger:
If you use the original meaning of factoid this post is way funnier.

Since when is it the 'original' meaning?

Using the only definition of factoid I know makes this post senseless.


Here's an interesting factoid: Norman Mailer made up the word "factoid" in his MarilynMonroe biography. From wikipedia:
Factoid was coined by Norman Mailer in his 1973 biography of Marilyn Monroe. Mailer described a factoid as "facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper", and created the word by combining the word fact and the ending -oid to mean "similar but not the same". The Washington Times described Mailer's new word as referring to "something that looks like a fact, could be a fact, but in fact is not a fact".
Here's another interesting factoid: Factoid has now come to mean "a brief and usually unimportant fact".

Here's a final factoid: A contronym is a word that is its own antonym. Factoid is a contronym.
 
2012-11-19 03:56:37 PM  

lennavan: There are more if you like:


That's you insisting that that's what people are hammering you on, not people hammering you on that. There's a difference.
 
2012-11-19 03:57:19 PM  

Tigger: mcwehrle: Tigger:
If you use the original meaning of factoid this post is way funnier.

Since when is it the 'original' meaning?

Using the only definition of factoid I know makes this post senseless.

Norman Mailer invented the term factoid to mean "an incorrect view commonly held to be true as a result of its frequent appearance in media".

Which means the definition of factoid is now a factoid.


great. now my head hurts. (that also may be the hangover)

:)
 
2012-11-19 03:57:25 PM  

RevMercutio: lennavan: Marco Rubio: 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.

I'm struggling to see the poutrage here. I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with. Indeed, I wish all politicians echoed this exact sentiment.

He's right, he is not the correct person to answer this question, and the journalist should feel bad for asking a politician it.

This.


You just "This'd" without actually thinking it through, huh Rev?
 
2012-11-19 03:57:40 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Two, when a politician is able to outright admit they don't know something, that's usually a good sign.


No, because it usually means they have gone into pander mode and simply do not want to give a quantitative and factually correct answer to a question and risk alienating their ignorant base.
 
2012-11-19 03:57:50 PM  
I guess "I'm not a scientist, man" is at least an oblique acknowledgment that the question is suitable to those among us who are scientists. Maybe.

Baby elephant steps...
 
2012-11-19 03:58:11 PM  
These idiots do not even know when their idol, Jesus, was born. Neither day nor year.
 
2012-11-19 03:58:16 PM  

lennavan: gilgigamesh: "How old is the earth"? is a question of science

So how outrageous would you find it if someone asked that question would answer "I'm not a scientist."

1) Not at all
2) The most outrageous thing ever uttered from a Republican extremist


I don't know how to make it clearer

1) No one is concerned about the part where he said "I'm not a scientist"
2) People are talking about the part after that where he said "It's a great mystery" also "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."

It's part 2 that's the dumb part.
 
2012-11-19 03:58:37 PM  
He didn't say 6,000 years, so that's a step in the right direction, if you ask me.
 
2012-11-19 03:59:21 PM  
Apparently, he didn't study it out.
 
2012-11-19 03:59:21 PM  

Pharque-it: These idiots do not even know when their idol, Jesus, was born. Neither day nor year.


December 25, 0

suck on that!
 
2012-11-19 03:59:31 PM  

mcwehrle: Tigger: mcwehrle: Tigger:
If you use the original meaning of factoid this post is way funnier.

Since when is it the 'original' meaning?

Using the only definition of factoid I know makes this post senseless.

Norman Mailer invented the term factoid to mean "an incorrect view commonly held to be true as a result of its frequent appearance in media".

Which means the definition of factoid is now a factoid.

great. now my head hurts. (that also may be the hangover)

:)


Have you considered the fact that factoid is a factoid for both the correct and incorrect definitions of factoid?
 
2012-11-19 03:59:40 PM  

lennavan: gingerjet: lennavan: I'm struggling to see the poutrage here. I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with. Indeed, I wish all politicians echoed this exact sentiment.

He's right, he is not the correct person to answer this question, and the journalist should feel bad for asking a politician it.

My 14 year old nephew can answer this question. I expect a politician who sets policy to be able to answer questions on settled science.

/i weep for America because of people like you

I expect a politician who sets policy who when presented with a question or a problem, will inform himself from the experts and then make a decision. Whether he recalled that fact from 8th grade, or got it from the Stanford Science Professor who serves as his advisor is mostly irrelevant - except to say I'd trust the professor slightly more than my recollection of 8th grade.

That you would attack someone for suggesting we ask an expert makes me weep for the country.


Hrmmm....i would expect that someone that sits on the House Science comittee to be enough of an expert to answer what is a commonly established fact. I'll admit, i thought it was 6 billion. So, you know, that's not correct but it's in line with what is common farking knowledge if you aren't farking stupid - the earth isn't 10,000, 20,000 or 100,000 years old - it's like, you know, at LEAST 4 billion.
 
2012-11-19 03:59:57 PM  

DirkValentine: If someone wants to "teach" their kid faith - fine! Go for it! But don't presume that I, my kid, my family believes it.


This is exactly what Marco Rubio just said. You get that, right? No, you clearly don't.

"That is a science question, I am not a scientist. I am aware of what the bible says but none of this has to do with the economy, which I find way more relevant. Like I said, I'm not a scientist, I'm not qualified to answer your question. Go ask a scientist. Ultimately, different people have different ideas and I'm gonna support their right to teach their kids whatever they want. However existence came to be I don't know that we'll ever answer."

Marco Rubio: 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.
 
2012-11-19 04:00:49 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Pincy: Actually, it would still have not been a great answer. He's an adult and supposedly an educated one. Not being able to ballpark that the earth is billions of years old and instead saying that you're not qualified to answer the question should disqualify him from any serious discussion about potential candidates for 2016.

I can explain why I disagree with you in two points:

One, the GOP is far from unique in their politicians being somewhat scientifically illiterate. The biggest head-banger of 2008 was watching both major party candidates have a discussion about nuclear power and alternative energy that a damned five-year-old would have found uninformed and generally stupid. You can't look for scientific literacy in a political candidate-- they're lawyers. All the lawyers that have that level of intelligence are knowledge are in patent law and too busy swimming in their piles of thousand-dollar bank notes scrooge McDuck style to consider running for office.

Two, when a politician is able to outright admit they don't know something, that's usually a good sign. It means that they will rely on advisers, who can't help but know more about the issues than the candidate himself due to point one. This is largely the approach that Mr. Obama has taken, which is why even though I wouldn't trust him to reliably tell me which direction gravity pulls things I don't have a huge objection to him controlling, among other things, the NSF. Or, rather, my objections to his NSF directives have more to do with policy details than his own lack of scientific expertise/literacy.


First, the age of the earth is not something you need to be an expert in science in to answer. This is basic knowledge that is taught in grade school. And he outright equates the scientific answer with faith-based answers and says they should both be taught, so he's damn well aware of what the different answers are. So no, he's not deferring to the experts. He knows what the real experts (the scientific ones) will say, he either doesn't want to say it because he's pandering to his base or he's really that ignorant. But if you are OK with Rubio, who is on the subcommittee on science and space, deferring to religious experts on scientific issues then I guess that's your choice.
 
2012-11-19 04:01:01 PM  

qorkfiend: lennavan: qorkfiend: lennavan: qorkfiend: I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone who didn't know - or who offered an alternate viewpoint using mythology - making decisions for those who do.

How would you feel about a politician leaving it up to you to make that decision?

Unfortunately for us, Senator Rubio sits on the Science and Space Committee in the Senate, so he actually gets to make decisions on these kind of subjects.

I also can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question.

Did you also notice you didn't ask a question in that post?

I can't help but notice you didn't answer mine.

Yes, yes. Continue with your nitpicking. It's very endearing.



Right. You complain I didn't answer your question, so clearly replying "you didn't ask a question" is nitpicking. How could that be relevant in the least?
 
2012-11-19 04:01:05 PM  

StrangeQ: /3x10^8 m/s, metric ftw


2.998 E8 m/s for engineers.

I thought physics majors just used 'c' and left the variable in like for everything else? Find a way to throw pi and lambda in there and everyone's happy.

c = λE/(2πħ), there you go.
 
2012-11-19 04:01:07 PM  

skullkrusher: Pharque-it: These idiots do not even know when their idol, Jesus, was born. Neither day nor year.

December 25, 0

suck on that!


Soometime in summer, 35BC.
 
2012-11-19 04:01:25 PM  

the_geek: Leeds: No, I'm worried that the rabid folks on this thread are forgetting that words have meaning. And that they are choosing to use words that mean things that are not technically possible, thus undermining their arguments.

You're being intentionally obtuse. When measurements are 'knowable' there is an understanding that the measuring tool is going to have some level of precision. If I handed you a ruler and asked you how tall you are, the understanding is not that you're going to be able to measure your height in Bohr radius.


The word you neglected to take into account is this one: "Approximately."

If people want to bash the people who believe that the earth is not as old as the fossil record, have at it, I'll join you every time. But at least refrain from making obviously incorrect statements to counter the idiots. Leaving the word "approximately" out of the counter argument is sloppy and indicative of a weak minded individual.
 
2012-11-19 04:01:26 PM  

StrangeQ: Well to be fair, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what c is in miles/s either, and I majored in Physics.


Actually, that's a good point. The speed of light in miles / second is one of those things that stopped being a thing sometime in the 80's. It's sort of an age shibboleth now. Americans over 40 mostly know that the speed of light is 186K miles / second. Americans under 40 mostly know that the speed of light is 300K kilometers / second.

But for some reason, Americans still seem to mostly know that the height of Everest in feet. Go figure...
 
2012-11-19 04:01:29 PM  

lennavan: How many people in this thread do you think knew how old the Earth is before googling it? I'm thinkin, on the spot, without access to Google, I also would have said "Farked if I know, I'm not the right person to ask." And I'm a scientist.


This seems to undermine your whole "ask a scientist" point if you are a scientist and don't know how old the earth is.

Maybe Marco Rubio would have been better off asking a fifth grader, because I'd bet money a fifth grader knowing how old the earth is (at least if said fifth grader doesn't live south of the Mason-Dixon line). Seriously, this isn't hard. If you don't know the earth is billions of years old I'm never going to vote for you because you are ignorant farkwad who lacks even the basic curiosity about the world around him to know what's going on . If you pretend to not know how old the earth like Marco Rubio did I'm never going to vote for you because you are a pandering asshole which can't even take a stand on basic facts like the age of the earth.
 
2012-11-19 04:02:14 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: I guess "I'm not a scientist, man" is at least an oblique acknowledgment that the question is suitable to those among us who are scientists. Maybe.

Baby elephant steps...


If only he hadn't qualified it with all those religious references...
 
2012-11-19 04:02:21 PM  

Tigger: StrangeQ: The Larch: lennavan: dericwater: Knowing the age of the earth is basically a pointless trivial factoid. But it's a factoid that most people know in the same way that they know the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second, that Mt Everest is 29K and change above sea level, that Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and not 1942, and that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust during WWII.

The only fact amongst those that I knew off the top of my head was the Columbus thing. Does that mean you think I deny the holocaust?

It does mean that you're incredibly ignorant about the basic facts that every well-educated person in the world knows.

Well to be fair, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what c is in miles/s either, and I majored in Physics.

/3x10^8 m/s, metric ftw

But you would not have said "either seven or potato but we should consider asking some priests as well as some scientists and there should be the opportunity to teach the controversy of the great mystery that the speed of light is potato"


Hm, my Fark sarcasm post-o-tron must be broken again. I'll take a look at it..
 
2012-11-19 04:02:31 PM  

lennavan: gilgigamesh: "How old is the earth"? is a question of science

So how outrageous would you find it if someone asked that question would answer "I'm not a scientist."

1) Not at all
2) The most outrageous thing ever uttered from a Republican extremist


I would equate that to "does the universe revolve around the earth", which is also a question of science. If the answer is anything but "no" that person is either ignorant or an extremist, or pandering to ignorant extremists.
 
2012-11-19 04:02:43 PM  

thurstonxhowell: lennavan: There are more if you like:

That's you insisting that that's what people are hammering you on, not people hammering you on that. There's a difference.


So if I follow - I have been arguing one thing all along and people are hammering me on something else.

[strawman.jpg]

Hey, it's not often someone openly admits it. Kudos to you, sir.
 
2012-11-19 04:03:06 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: skullkrusher: Pharque-it: These idiots do not even know when their idol, Jesus, was born. Neither day nor year.

December 25, 0

suck on that!

Soometime in summer, 35BC.


how the fark is there snow on the manger in summertime in the middle east?
 
2012-11-19 04:03:11 PM  
www.afunnystuff.com

and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again
 
2012-11-19 04:03:58 PM  

Tigger: lennavan: gilgigamesh: "How old is the earth"? is a question of science

So how outrageous would you find it if someone asked that question would answer "I'm not a scientist."

1) Not at all
2) The most outrageous thing ever uttered from a Republican extremist

I don't know how to make it clearer

1) No one is concerned about the part where he said "I'm not a scientist"
2) People are talking about the part after that where he said "It's a great mystery" also "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."

It's part 2 that's the dumb part.


Well, there's also the part that says that it is possible that the earth was created in seven days, and the part where he said that disputes about the age of the earth should be resolved be theologians. That stuff is weapons-grade derp, too.
 
2012-11-19 04:04:19 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: You guys know that Lennavan is (more likely than not) one of Skullkrusher's alts, right?


Seriously, this is one of the most successful troll threads I've ever seen on Fark. There's a certain purity to it, such that it can be repeated over and over and snag dozens of farkers each time in the same thread. Someone should keep count, but not me because I just stopped giving a shiat.
 
2012-11-19 04:05:11 PM  

Jim_Callahan: StrangeQ: /3x10^8 m/s, metric ftw

2.998 E8 m/s for engineers.

I thought physics majors just used 'c' and left the variable in like for everything else? Find a way to throw pi and lambda in there and everyone's happy.

c = λE/(2πħ), there you go.


Well it depends. Once you get into cosmology and relativity we like to just set c = 1 and pretend it doesn't exist.
 
2012-11-19 04:05:27 PM  

lennavan: DirkValentine: If someone wants to "teach" their kid faith - fine! Go for it! But don't presume that I, my kid, my family believes it.

This is exactly what Marco Rubio just said. You get that, right? No, you clearly don't.

"That is a science question, I am not a scientist. I am aware of what the bible says but none of this has to do with the economy, which I find way more relevant. Like I said, I'm not a scientist, I'm not qualified to answer your question. Go ask a scientist. Ultimately, different people have different ideas and I'm gonna support their right to teach their kids whatever they want. However existence came to be I don't know that we'll ever answer."

Marco Rubio: 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.


You know what, you are right. He definitely did say what I bolded above. As long as that's all that he's advocating, I'm good with it. I'm not ok with it being "taught" in schools.
 
2012-11-19 04:05:58 PM  

skullkrusher: Holocaust Agnostic: skullkrusher: Pharque-it: These idiots do not even know when their idol, Jesus, was born. Neither day nor year.

December 25, 0

suck on that!

Soometime in summer, 35BC.

how the fark is there snow on the manger in summertime in the middle east?


Why are shepherds out in the fields with their flocks on a friged winter night?
 
2012-11-19 04:06:04 PM  

Bacontastesgood: Fluorescent Testicle: You guys know that Lennavan is (more likely than not) one of Skullkrusher's alts, right?

Seriously, this is one of the most successful troll threads I've ever seen on Fark. There's a certain purity to it, such that it can be repeated over and over and snag dozens of farkers each time in the same thread. Someone should keep count, but not me because I just stopped giving a shiat.


please, he's an amateur.
 
2012-11-19 04:06:15 PM  

The Larch: Tigger: lennavan: gilgigamesh: "How old is the earth"? is a question of science

So how outrageous would you find it if someone asked that question would answer "I'm not a scientist."

1) Not at all
2) The most outrageous thing ever uttered from a Republican extremist

I don't know how to make it clearer

1) No one is concerned about the part where he said "I'm not a scientist"
2) People are talking about the part after that where he said "It's a great mystery" also "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."

It's part 2 that's the dumb part.

Well, there's also the part that says that it is possible that the earth was created in seven days, and the part where he said that disputes about the age of the earth should be resolved be theologians. That stuff is weapons-grade derp, too.


I'm trying to keep it simple.

We're dealing with some weapons grade tard right here.
 
2012-11-19 04:06:20 PM  

skullkrusher: Holocaust Agnostic: skullkrusher: Pharque-it: These idiots do not even know when their idol, Jesus, was born. Neither day nor year.

December 25, 0

suck on that!

Soometime in summer, 35BC.

how the fark is there snow on the manger in summertime in the middle east?


That's a dispute among theologians.
 
2012-11-19 04:06:33 PM  

Gwyrddu: lennavan: How many people in this thread do you think knew how old the Earth is before googling it? I'm thinkin, on the spot, without access to Google, I also would have said "Farked if I know, I'm not the right person to ask." And I'm a scientist.

This seems to undermine your whole "ask a scientist" point if you are a scientist and don't know how old the earth is.


I was hoping no one would catch that one. This of course requires a discussion about how not all scientists are the same. You wouldn't ask a Chemist about evolution.
 
2012-11-19 04:06:45 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: skullkrusher: Holocaust Agnostic: skullkrusher: Pharque-it: These idiots do not even know when their idol, Jesus, was born. Neither day nor year.

December 25, 0

suck on that!

Soometime in summer, 35BC.

how the fark is there snow on the manger in summertime in the middle east?

Why are shepherds out in the fields with their flocks on a friged winter night?


because God hired them as extras to fill out the Nativity scene
 
2012-11-19 04:06:47 PM  

lennavan: I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with.


"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."

You do not disagree with this statement?
 
2012-11-19 04:07:36 PM  

skullkrusher: Holocaust Agnostic: skullkrusher: Pharque-it: These idiots do not even know when their idol, Jesus, was born. Neither day nor year.

December 25, 0

suck on that!

Soometime in summer, 35BC.

how the fark is there snow on the manger in summertime in the middle east?


because JESUS!

/christ!
 
2012-11-19 04:07:44 PM  

qorkfiend: skullkrusher: Holocaust Agnostic: skullkrusher: Pharque-it: These idiots do not even know when their idol, Jesus, was born. Neither day nor year.

December 25, 0

suck on that!

Soometime in summer, 35BC.

how the fark is there snow on the manger in summertime in the middle east?

That's a dispute among theologians.


I'm no scientician but I'll defer to someone who is:

citizenscientician.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-19 04:08:05 PM  

lennavan: Gwyrddu: lennavan: How many people in this thread do you think knew how old the Earth is before googling it? I'm thinkin, on the spot, without access to Google, I also would have said "Farked if I know, I'm not the right person to ask." And I'm a scientist.

This seems to undermine your whole "ask a scientist" point if you are a scientist and don't know how old the earth is.

I was hoping no one would catch that one. This of course requires a discussion about how not all scientists are the same. You wouldn't ask a Chemist about evolution.


You wouldn't expect a chemist to understand the basic principles of evolution? Why not?
 
2012-11-19 04:08:38 PM  

skullkrusher: please, he's an amateur.


LOL well played.
 
2012-11-19 04:09:26 PM  

The Larch: StrangeQ: Well to be fair, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what c is in miles/s either, and I majored in Physics.

Actually, that's a good point. The speed of light in miles / second is one of those things that stopped being a thing sometime in the 80's. It's sort of an age shibboleth now. Americans over 40 mostly know that the speed of light is 186K miles / second. Americans under 40 mostly know that the speed of light is 300K kilometers / second.

But for some reason, Americans still seem to mostly know that the height of Everest in feet. Go figure...


Was being snarky, but yeah, the point stands that if he had been asked "what is the speed of light?" any answer beginning with "well, I know what the Bible says..." would have been face-palm-through-the-back-of-the-head incorrect, pandering, and utterly ignorant.
 
2012-11-19 04:09:45 PM  
Marco Rubio: 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.

Here's how it affects the GDP and economic growth you insincere piece of shiat:

Acceptance of scientific theories and research leads to a greater focus on education and knowledge. More money is raised/funded/poured into schools and colleges. Kids go to school, learn established scientific facts and become doctors, engineers and scientists. This leads to more research, more technological development, and a greater understanding of our world. Economic booms always follow technological leaps forward.

And we know this works because it worked in the farking 60s which put 17 American men on the god damn farking moon.

To say that science is specious and unreliable is discrediting hundreds of years of work by very smart people doing very smart studies. It results in decreased enthusiasm and confidence in scientific discourse, discourages students from pursuing science as a discipline, funding gets cut for studies and research for schools, children get stupider and less educated, the United States falls behind the rest of the world in scientific progress and it graduates into a new era of insulating fundamentalism before being usurped by a better empire (probably from the far east) within the next century.

And we know this is what happens when you turn your back on science and learning because it happened in the 11th and 12th centuries to the once opulent and intellectual golden age of Islam.
 
2012-11-19 04:10:02 PM  

lennavan: Keep in mind, my argument is "deferring to experts is good." That's what people are trying to hammer on.


Now you're lying. Your argument has not been "deferring to experts is good." Your argument has been that "deferring to experts is good" is Rubio's position. And the full context of the little cherryypicked snippet you keep presenting as "proof" that you are right demonstrates that this isn't Rubio's position at all.

Seriously, believing that Rubio's answer is the equivalent of "let's trust scientists - they're the experts" requires willful ignorance, lack of reading comprehension, or some profound doublethink. Or some combination of all three. Your position here is no more honest than that of proponents of Intelligent Design when they tell us "it's not creationism!"
 
2012-11-19 04:10:08 PM  

skullkrusher: Holocaust Agnostic: skullkrusher: Holocaust Agnostic: skullkrusher: Pharque-it: These idiots do not even know when their idol, Jesus, was born. Neither day nor year.

December 25, 0

suck on that!

Soometime in summer, 35BC.

how the fark is there snow on the manger in summertime in the middle east?

Why are shepherds out in the fields with their flocks on a friged winter night?

because God hired them as extras to fill out the Nativity scene


Yes, by sending an angel too them to tell them to leg it over their. An angel which found them in their fields.
 
2012-11-19 04:10:24 PM  

Bacontastesgood: skullkrusher: please, he's an amateur.

LOL well played.


I just make my skullkrusher alt a whole shiatload smarter than my lennavan one
 
2012-11-19 04:10:46 PM  

lennavan: thurstonxhowell: lennavan: There are more if you like:

That's you insisting that that's what people are hammering you on, not people hammering you on that. There's a difference.

So if I follow - I have been arguing one thing all along and people are hammering me on something else.

[strawman.jpg]

Hey, it's not often someone openly admits it. Kudos to you, sir.


Rubio: "I dunno, ask a scientist or a priest, either of them is just as good."

The thread: "But that's wrong, you farking retard."

You: "But don't you see guys? He admitted his own ignorance to a question! Clearly he's an enlightened individual."

The rest of the thread: "No, he's not, fark off."
 
2012-11-19 04:10:49 PM  

StrangeQ: Jim_Callahan: StrangeQ: /3x10^8 m/s, metric ftw

2.998 E8 m/s for engineers.

I thought physics majors just used 'c' and left the variable in like for everything else? Find a way to throw pi and lambda in there and everyone's happy.

c = λE/(2πħ), there you go.

Well it depends. Once you get into cosmology and relativity we like to just set c = 1 and pretend it doesn't exist.


Oh, yeah, I remember that from when I took pure-physics quantum in undergrad.

TA: "So, we're going to set the units so that all these simplify to 1, on all these terms"

me: "Math doesn't work like...."

TA: "..."

me: "... fine. Let's solve this completely unrelated problem, then."

//And then they get mad at us for correlative dimensional analysis and treating d/dx as the division of two separable quantities.
 
2012-11-19 04:11:43 PM  

Anti_illuminati: lennavan: I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with.

"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."

You do not disagree with this statement?


I think figuring out how existence came to be is one of the great mysteries. I of course did not read this as "7 days or 7 eras are the only two possibilities."
 
2012-11-19 04:12:02 PM