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  
•       •       •

4005 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Nov 2012 at 2:07 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



615 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.comView Full Size



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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.netView Full Size
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.netView Full Size
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.netView Full Size
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.
diggercomic.comView Full Size

 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size

 
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.comView Full Size


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

zmangames.comView Full Size


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.comView Full Size
 
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.orgView Full Size


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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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  
ethannonsequitur.comView Full Size


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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
2012-11-19 02:52:38 PM  
csmonitor.comView Full Size


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.