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 622
    More: Sad, Marco Rubio, GOP  
•       •       •

3985 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Nov 2012 at 2:07 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-19 12:03:11 PM  

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Oh, awkward.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gat, you ignorant slut.


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

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

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

Oh, awkward.


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Gat, you ignorant slut.


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

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

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


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

kingoomieiii: Solipsism ho!


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

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

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

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

Gat, you ignorant slut.

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Gat, you ignorant slut.



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

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


Apology accepted.

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Gat, you ignorant slut.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

GAT_00: Are you an expert on questions?


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

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

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

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

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


You defer to an expert on the physics of black holes. You defer to an expert on the consistency of lava flows. You defer to experts on extraordinary areas that are not general knowledge and simple facts. The age of the planet is a simple fact. That you are unable to see the difference is why you are the problem and why I'm now openly mocking you.
 
2012-11-19 12:56:18 PM  
These elitist scientists think they can "calculate" the age of the universe, but in reality, their calculations are based on heavy assumptions. Assumptions like the speed of light being constant. This is clearly not the case, because timespace changes and you can easily fit the Earth into a 6000 year history if you take this into account. Math is only as good as the input.
 
2012-11-19 12:59:31 PM  
ftfa: Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.

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

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

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


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

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



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

"At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says."

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


and right after he said "i'm not a scientist, man" he said: "I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States."

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

Sybarite: I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all.

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


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

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

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

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


Agreed.

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

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

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

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

and right after he said "i'm not a scientist, man" he said: "I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States."

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


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

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

and right after he said "i'm not a scientist, man" he said: "I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States."

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

lennavan: See how those two are equivalent?


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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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


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

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


We'll never know if Obie weighs 7 lbs or 7 tons.
 
Displayed 50 of 622 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report