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  
•       •       •

3984 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Nov 2012 at 2:07 PM (1 year 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 01:10:58 PM

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


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

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

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


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

GAT_00: lennavan: See how those two are equivalent?

Not even close.


Oh well if you say so, no explanation required.
 
2012-11-19 01:12:02 PM
I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.

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

lennavan: Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Agreed.

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


I find it's hard to forget an anthropomorphic wombat discussing that with a statue of the god Ganesh.
www.diggercomic.com
 
2012-11-19 01:20:15 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Let me put it to you this way:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

For this, no.


Why? What makes that question different?

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


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

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

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

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

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


I guess we have to agree to disagree.

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


Nothing. That is why he differentiated between the two.

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

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

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

For this, no.

Why? What makes that question different?

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

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


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

lennavan: Why? What makes that question different?


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

gilgigamesh: I guess we have to agree to disagree.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Ob:
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-11-19 01:35:16 PM

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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing. That is why he differentiated between the two.

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

Tigger: What if I said "75 years"?


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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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


What Rubio actually said was:

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

See this part of the answer:

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

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

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

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

why don't you google it and find out


I'm not allowed to google.

Court order.

/bender
 
2012-11-19 01:41:06 PM

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


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

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

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


this post sponsored by

discountpetsandsupplies.com

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

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

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

Yeah, that'd be awkward.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing. That is why he differentiated between the two.

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


I don't think it's okay to completely and purposefully misportray what Rubio, or myself for that matter, is saying. But that won't stop you. Carry on my wayward friend.
 
2012-11-19 01:49:25 PM
I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all.

Yggdrasil

www.zmangames.com

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

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


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

He wrote: "I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians"

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

theocrats.
 
2012-11-19 02:08:25 PM

Weaver95: *sigh*

theocrats.


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