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  
•       •       •

3983 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 03:15:55 PM

Hot Carl To Go: Continual campaign cycle. No breaks, ever.


I'm really bored. This is way better than cleaning up my bug queue.
 
2012-11-19 03:16:13 PM

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


Because the question is so basic. This isn't two sides of a coin where either may be equally valid. This is a, "do you think the earth is flat," question. There is only one correct answer.
 
2012-11-19 03:17:10 PM

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


How about the one that posted up the thread and stated he (and scientists from other disciplines) all have calculated exactly how old the earth is?
 
2012-11-19 03:18:18 PM

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

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

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

The age of the earth is on the same level of "specialized scientific knowledge" as germ theory is currently known. If someone asked Rubio what is the cause of the common cold and he said it's a virus, people would (should) know that he said the right thing. If he said it's because the demons are trying to break out of one's body, people should know that he's kidding or shouldn't be anywhere close to the red buttons. If he said it's a mystery, then we know he's an idiot. It's not a mystery.


Exactly.

If he had replied "bacteria causes colds" we could roll our eyes at his making a depressingly common error and move on.

In the given example he said the equivalent of "two headed monkeys with miniature bicycles cycle up your nose and make sweet love to your humors is what causes a cold."
 
2012-11-19 03:18:28 PM

Rent Party: Shaggy_C: Wow, a politician not forcing his views down anyone else's throat? How refreshing.

Did you have a weird boner when you wrote that?

And as far as "views" go, the age of the earth isn't an opinion. It's a knowable factual thing. You are entitled to your own views, but you are not entitled to your own facts.


I'll preface this statement by saying that I am an atheist and I believe whole heatedly in the Scientific Method.

That said, I also believe that words have meaning and that logic should be respected.

You claim that "the age of the earth ... [is] a knowable factual thing."

Ignoring the fact that you can't possibly tell me how many years old the earth is- can you even tell me which event could be described as the genesis of the Earth?

The definition of a planet includes provisions that it has to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium and it needs to have cleared other junk from its path around the sun. Did that occur before or after the collision that created the moon? If before, how do you know when it cleared enough crap out of it's path to be a planet? If after, how do you know how many years it took to reach hydrostatic equilibrium again?

So to all those who hide behind words like "it's knowable," grow up. We can give incredibly good estimates, but we cannot technically know the exact time when it occurred.

// sheesh
 
2012-11-19 03:19:10 PM

sprawl15: Dr. Whoof: Prior to the election, he would have answered authoritatively "Potato" and Fox News would have excoriated anyone who said he was wrong.

You must have missed the part where he answered "that won't help us with economic growth."


No, no, I get that he's still slinging Republican bullshiat. He's just put some sprinkles on it.

I'm just not expecting these assholes to change overnight. In fact, if they did, we'd all know they were just pandering. Even this smacks of pandering. But it's a step in the right direction. I can't slap the man down for that any more than I could complain about a smoker using nicotine patches to quit. Gotta have that quotient of derp and ween off it slowly.

(not that I think they will ween off it at all)

/also, you can't spell weener without ween.
//i before e can suck it.
 
2012-11-19 03:19:31 PM

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

How about the one that posted up the thread and stated he (and scientists from other disciplines) all have calculated exactly how old the earth is?


I question the credentials of any scientist dumb enough to post on Fark.
 
2012-11-19 03:19:41 PM

Shaggy_C: He didn't state any facts, just vague generalities aimed at pandering to the right-wing Evangelicals while not alienating himself from the rest of the country


The people responding to the spirit of his words are making fun of him for it. I guess you can take what he literally said and use it to apologize for him but why bother...
 
2012-11-19 03:20:15 PM

lennavan: Dan the Schman: It's MOCKERY due to Rubio supposedly being not one of these extremist Republicans who are causing losses of Senate and House seats and even the Presidency.

"I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer." is your example of of an extremist Republican?


You know, when you severely edit comments like this, it's kind of an admission that you're shilling bullsh*t.

That quote doesn't sound "extremist", but that's you being a nitpicky douchebag AGAIN. It's the pandering to religious zealots that belies his status as something other than Typical Republican, and Typical Republicans are pretty extremist, as shown by their policies on birth control and abortion and religious fundamentalism.

Dan the Schman: It's right there in the headline.

You might be surprised to know that a random user submitted headline on Fark.com is not factually correct.


Oh, so now you want to lay the claim that people in the right-leaning media and elected Republicans HAVEN'T suggested Rubio as a new, more modern Republican, different from the likes of Todd Akin and Rick Santorum?

Dan the Schman: And here you admit that Rubio didn't just evade the question with an "I dunno", but intentionally pandered to the religious zealots in his party, which flies in the face of the claim that he's some kind of different Republican.

This is what an extremist sounds like:

"In the clip, Broun, who is a doctor, says that "as a scientist" he has found data that shows the earth is no older than 9,000 years and was created in six days.

Broun also says that theories regarding the origins of the universe and evolution represent "lies to try and keep me and all the folk that were taught that from understanding that they need a saviour".

I will accept your apology.


How about I give you a taste of your own medicine?

I never once called Rubio an extremist. I said he was pandering to them, which doesn't make him very different from the majority of his Party. In fact, your quote sufficiently proves that Rubio was pandering to "extremists". Remember when you admitted that Rubio was pandering to the Young Earth Creationists?
 
2012-11-19 03:20:48 PM

skullkrusher: gilgigamesh: master_dman: Find me ONE scientist that says with certainty how frickin' old it is?

How about the one that posted up the thread and stated he (and scientists from other disciplines) all have calculated exactly how old the earth is?

I question the credentials of any scientist dumb enough to post on Fark.


The entire site, or just certain tabs?
 
2012-11-19 03:21:31 PM

qorkfiend: skullkrusher: gilgigamesh: master_dman: Find me ONE scientist that says with certainty how frickin' old it is?

How about the one that posted up the thread and stated he (and scientists from other disciplines) all have calculated exactly how old the earth is?

I question the credentials of any scientist dumb enough to post on Fark.

The entire site, or just certain tabs?


this one in particular ;)
 
2012-11-19 03:22:37 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: How can you read that and not think "Iowa"? We don't have a ton of polling on this topic, but back in January 2011, Strategic National Consulting asked potential GOP caucus-goers about the origins of the earth. Sixty-eight percent of them believed the planet was created in six days. Forty-five percent believed that the earth was less than 10,000 years old -- something Rubio does not say here, but something that implies all human history can be known from counting the eras in the Bible. Link


That works fine in the primaries. Not so much in the general. Therein lies their problem... The base of the GOP consists of morons
 
2012-11-19 03:22:58 PM

Dr. Whoof: No, no, I get that he's still slinging Republican bullshiat. He's just put some sprinkles on it.


potato with sprinkles is still a carb
 
2012-11-19 03:23:33 PM

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


No, you might not know the exact answer. The point of the question is whether or not you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old or some other very very large number. Without googling I would've said Billions of years, but I'd have to google to get a more accurate answer. He knew the point of the question and dodged it intentionally.
 
2012-11-19 03:24:27 PM

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

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

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

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

Knowing the age of the earth is basically a pointless trivial factoid. But it's a factoid that most people know in the same way that they know the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second, that Mt Everest is 29K and change above sea level, that Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and not 1942, and that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust during WWII. No one except scientist, geographers and historians really need to know those factoids. But because we grew up learning things and being educated, we learn these factoids just in case we get chosen to be on Jeopardy or Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.


I would be absolutely shocked if most people knew those things.
 
2012-11-19 03:24:41 PM
Meh, I don't think he was specifically endorsing Young Earth Creationism, it just sounds like he was posturing himself as Romney did this go-around, "Social issues don't matter, it's the economy economy economy". Big whoop.
 
2012-11-19 03:25:02 PM

Leeds: So to all those who hide behind words like "it's knowable," grow up. We can give incredibly good estimates, but we cannot technically know the exact time when it occurred.


What point are you trying to make again? Is someone actually arguing that we know to the exact second how old the earth is? Or are you just trying to make yourself sound profound?
 
2012-11-19 03:25:13 PM

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


I didn't remember exactly either. I knew it was in the order of billions of years, maybe 6. But you can't say today "7 days or 7 eras...I dunno!". That's dumb. You have at least to have some idea of the order of magnitude of the age of the earth. Any farking 5th grader should. And no, you don't need to be a farking scientist to know that .
 
2012-11-19 03:25:18 PM

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

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


I was leaning towards that sentiment until the very end where he said
Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.

That is a completely disengenuous, bullshiat answer because it is flat out wrong. We can answer the question, and in fact we already have; it is only the religious zealots that refuse to accept the answer science has given. The Earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old, that is science fact. Radioisotope dating leads to some margin of error, but even still you will not find a single reputable geologist that will honestly state that the Earth is less that 10,000 years old.

What he should have said is that it is unlikely that religion will ever fully concede rights to the truth to scientific inquiry, that would have been honest.
 
2012-11-19 03:26:54 PM
to be fair, we'll never know the exact age of the earth to the decimal point because the Sun can age things slower or faster

it's fair to say it's at least billions of years old tho
 
2012-11-19 03:27:20 PM

Tricky Chicken: Not mad so much as pointing out a "You're not helping" weak troll. Nearly half the population is conservative and they look like they will be digging in their heels.


So when there are 4 people, and two of them say 3+3=8 while the other two know the answer is 6, they should compromise and settle for 7 and call it a day?

There are certain things they can be wrong about and have opinions on. Scientific fact which leads to policy is not one of them. When you have GOP members saying wind is god's way of cooling down the Earth and wind power might disrupt this process, or rape can't get you pregnant, or that oil was put here by god, you're dealing with one of two things: a profoundly ignorant person, or someone who is intentionally trying to rally profoundly ignorant voters.

gilgigamesh: the world is a disc that rides on the back of a cosmic turtle


It doesn't stop there. It's turtles all the way down.
 
2012-11-19 03:27:26 PM

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

Wait til you see when both of us are in the same thread. By the way, you do realize you just admitted in those scenarios, we're correct (though he usually isn't). Why is it that we keep hammering the point over and over? Oh right, because the person who is completely wrong never accepts we're right so we can move on.


Funny, you even did it here, in this very response. If you were to follow the template you've been using so far, you would now proceed to point out for two or three dozen posts how I said you were "correct", regardless of the fact that both context and common sense would lead any reasonable person to conclude otherwise.

Because "single cherrypicked technically correct semantic point" =/= "correct"

The fact that you seem to think it does is why so many smart, well educated farkers are hammering the shiat out of you here, and your intransigence is making you look even dumber than SK usually does.
 
2012-11-19 03:28:00 PM
Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that.

If he had just stopped there, and left off the last few sentences advocating teaching creationism in schools, this would have been a great answer. "Why are you even asking me this, it has nothing to do with my profession or expertise as a politician and I don't know offhand," is the kind of incredulous response that question should be getting. It's an embarrassment to the nation and an even bigger embarrassment to Christianity that it's even recognizably a probe about religious beliefs at all.
 
2012-11-19 03:28:42 PM

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

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

would have been way funnier if you used the word "n*gger"


I was going to at first, but there is still an uncomfortably large population out there that would totally agree with it. I figured going with women would better highlight the absurdity of the original.
 
2012-11-19 03:29:00 PM
It's not really "One of the great mysteries"...

We may not have a number for a precise age of the Earth, but geological research has demonstrated that it's, at the very least, a hell of a lot older than 6,000 years.

The beliefs of bible thumpers that the earth is 6,000 years old is not based on research and scientific studies. To say that those beliefs are equal to and counter the mountains of scientific research done by geologists is ridiculous.
 
2012-11-19 03:29:02 PM

Leeds: The definition of a planet includes provisions that it has to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium and it needs to have cleared other junk from its path around the sun. Did that occur before or after the collision that created the moon? If before, how do you know when it cleared enough crap out of it's path to be a planet? If after, how do you know how many years it took to reach hydrostatic equilibrium again?

So to all those who hide behind words like "it's knowable," grow up. We can give incredibly good estimates, but we cannot technically know the exact time when it occurred.

// sheesh


We know within 30 million years or so. On the scale of billions of years, that's pretty damn close, and pretty far off from 6,000 years.

And the question of the moon forming is a red herring, since it formed within that first 30 million years. Its about the same age as the earth.
 
2012-11-19 03:29:03 PM
The U.S. Congress doesn't just deal with the GDP and the economy. They also make decisions concerning global warming, pollution and whether or not to clean particularly bad sites up, NASA, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, The National Institutes of Health, the department of Energy.

If he is a scientifically illiterate dumbass, he has not business being in the U.S. Congress.

Furthermore, the economy involves math and psychology, both sciences.

He's not a scientist though, or an economist, so we shouldn't trust him with the GDP and economy either.
 
2012-11-19 03:29:25 PM

Pincy: Leeds: So to all those who hide behind words like "it's knowable," grow up. We can give incredibly good estimates, but we cannot technically know the exact time when it occurred.

What point are you trying to make again? Is someone actually arguing that we know to the exact second how old the earth is? Or are you just trying to make yourself sound profound?


No, I'm worried that the rabid folks on this thread are forgetting that words have meaning. And that they are choosing to use words that mean things that are not technically possible, thus undermining their arguments.

It's like the idiots who state that there is no answer to the following question: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

If they had a proper command of the English language they'd know better.
 
2012-11-19 03:29:59 PM
I think the important thing here is that we can all agree the earth is somewhat older than 5,000 years, give or take. That's fair, right? I mean, I dunno. Ask a scientist. Or a shaman. Or a small child with brain damage. All thoughts on the subject are valid.
 
2012-11-19 03:30:29 PM

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


One bit of a problem with that logic (such as it is)...most religions assert their God is good. Especially Christians...such trickery for no other purpose other than to sow doubt would not be 'good'? No?

Can a trickster really be considered good? how can such a god trick his creation (humanity) into believing in such things as time and dating etc and then condemn the same to hell for believing the 'false' clues that the god put there to trick them in the first place?

That god sounds like a total douchenozzle.
 
2012-11-19 03:31:15 PM

Jim_Callahan: Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that.

If he had just stopped there, and left off the last few sentences advocating teaching creationism in schools, this would have been a great answer. "Why are you even asking me this, it has nothing to do with my profession or expertise as a politician and I don't know offhand," is the kind of incredulous response that question should be getting. It's an embarrassment to the nation and an even bigger embarrassment to Christianity that it's even recognizably a probe about religious beliefs at all.


Actually, it would still have not been a great answer. He's an adult and supposedly an educated one. Not being able to ballpark that the earth is billions of years old and instead saying that you're not qualified to answer the question should disqualify him from any serious discussion about potential candidates for 2016. But he's a Republican so it is just par for the course.
 
2012-11-19 03:31:27 PM

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

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


This. The answer is irrelevant. It was a stupid question, asked in a clumsy fashion by an idiot reporter. I'm no fan of Rubio, but at least from a political standpoint, there was no correct answer. And you can't really disregard the political component because without it, there was really no reason to talk to Rubio in the first place.
 
2012-11-19 03:31:38 PM

Leeds: Ignoring the fact that you can't possibly tell me how many years old the earth is- can you even tell me which event could be described as the genesis of the Earth?

The definition of a planet includes provisions that it has to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium and it needs to have cleared other junk from its path around the sun. Did that occur before or after the collision that created the moon? If before, how do you know when it cleared enough crap out of it's path to be a planet? If after, how do you know how many years it took to reach hydrostatic equilibrium again?

So to all those who hide behind words like "it's knowable," grow up. We can give incredibly good estimates, but we cannot technically know the exact time when it occurred.

// sheesh


You're hiding behind semantics.

If the question is how long since the Earth-moon collision, we can estimate it.

If the question is how long since the Earth's crust cooled to the point where it was no longer a sea of magma we can estimate it.

If the question is when did the Earth cool enough to allow water in the atmosphere to condense and first fall as rain and fill in the Earth's oceans, we can estimate that.

Ask a specific question and you'll get a specific answer; if you choose to keep it intentionally vague don't be surprised when you receive an inprecise answer.
 
2012-11-19 03:32:01 PM

Jim_Callahan: It's an embarrassment to the nation and an even bigger embarrassment to Christianity that it's even recognizably a probe about religious beliefs at all.


6,000 year old Earth or not, if you want to be involved in federal politics it matters to me whether or not you think there's something magical about Israeli ground. If you believe that the end of the world will occur in your lifetime and it's related to our foreign policy we have something very important to talk about if you're potentially positioning yourself to be POTUS.
 
2012-11-19 03:32:10 PM

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

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

would have been way funnier if you used the word "n*gger"

I was going to at first, but there is still an uncomfortably large population out there that would totally agree with it. I figured going with women would better highlight the absurdity of the original.


missed opportunity, if you had you might have been able to sell the joke to Chris Rock...
 
2012-11-19 03:33:15 PM

qorkfiend: lennavan: "I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer." is your example of of an extremist Republican?

"I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer. Here's the religious view on the subject, which I believe should be treated with equal validity under the law" is what he said. Since this is indistinguishable from the views of extremist Republicans on this issue, then yes, the label is accurate.


FTFY

He never said both sides were equally valid scientifically, or equally likely.
 
2012-11-19 03:33:34 PM

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

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

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


Bollocks. He's a politican and he gave a politician's answer. That is to say, he dodged the question. He mentioned science and he mentioned theology and didn't commit to anything because he knows perfectly well that a solid answer would either make him look like an idiot or offend the religious right. Both being losing prospects, he answered in a way that said nothing. That's all it is. No more, no less, and any competent politician would do the same in his situation. Avoiding scandal and controversy is more important to their needs than complete candor.
 
2012-11-19 03:34:11 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Bloody William: Anti_illuminati: This is where everyone is getting confused in this thread. It's quite hilarious to watch.

It's not even confused. lennavan's outright ignoring the half dozen times I've showed the exact quotes Rubio said.

Well, look on the bright side, it gives us all something to do as we avoid working on these couple of days before the Thanksgiving break. I salute your dedicated to sophistry, len, I'd probably be bored without it.


Hey thanks. And I certainly appreciate the diversion from cleaning, which is what I'm supposed to be doing.
 
2012-11-19 03:34:49 PM

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

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

This. The answer is irrelevant. It was a stupid question, asked in a clumsy fashion by an idiot reporter. I'm no fan of Rubio, but at least from a political standpoint, there was no correct answer. And you can't really disregard the political component because without it, there was really no reason to talk to Rubio in the first place.


The question was stupid, but there are dozens of ways for Rubio to answer the question and not inject theology.
 
2012-11-19 03:35:59 PM

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

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

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

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


Ummm.......why does faith need to be taught? Isn't that sort of anathema to the idea of faith?
 
2012-11-19 03:36:06 PM

StrangeQ: Leeds: Ignoring the fact that you can't possibly tell me how many years old the earth is- can you even tell me which event could be described as the genesis of the Earth?

The definition of a planet includes provisions that it has to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium and it needs to have cleared other junk from its path around the sun. Did that occur before or after the collision that created the moon? If before, how do you know when it cleared enough crap out of it's path to be a planet? If after, how do you know how many years it took to reach hydrostatic equilibrium again?

So to all those who hide behind words like "it's knowable," grow up. We can give incredibly good estimates, but we cannot technically know the exact time when it occurred.

// sheesh

You're hiding behind semantics.

If the question is how long since the Earth-moon collision, we can estimate it.

If the question is how long since the Earth's crust cooled to the point where it was no longer a sea of magma we can estimate it.

If the question is when did the Earth cool enough to allow water in the atmosphere to condense and first fall as rain and fill in the Earth's oceans, we can estimate that.

Ask a specific question and you'll get a specific answer; if you choose to keep it intentionally vague don't be surprised when you receive an inprecise answer.


My point seems lost on you.

I'm saying that people who say that we know the age of the Earth mean to say that we "have a great estimate of the Earth's age."

People who pretend to back scientists but choose to loosely use unscientific terms to approximate what Science has proven are simply idiots. They aren't as bad as derpers who say that the Earth is younger than the fossil record (etc) but they are idiots none the less.
 
2012-11-19 03:36:27 PM

dericwater: Knowing the age of the earth is basically a pointless trivial factoid. But it's a factoid that most people know in the same way that they know the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second, that Mt Everest is 29K and change above sea level, that Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and not 1942, and that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust during WWII.


The only fact amongst those that I knew off the top of my head was the Columbus thing. Does that mean you think I deny the holocaust?
 
2012-11-19 03:36:54 PM

lennavan: qorkfiend: lennavan: "I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer." is your example of of an extremist Republican?

"I'm not a scientist. I'm not qualified to answer. Here's the religious view on the subject, which I believe should be treated with equal validity under the law" is what he said. Since this is indistinguishable from the views of extremist Republicans on this issue, then yes, the label is accurate.

FTFY

He never said both sides were equally valid scientifically, or equally likely.


He wasn't asked about religion. All on his own he invoked theology to answer a scientific question. His answer would have been equally valid if he had invoked the Time Cube guy as an authority.
 
2012-11-19 03:37:06 PM

Leeds: People who pretend to back scientists but choose to loosely use unscientific terms to approximate what Science has proven are simply idiots.


I like that. "Laymen using laymen's terms are idiots."
 
2012-11-19 03:37:06 PM

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

Ummm.......why does faith need to be taught? Isn't that sort of anathema to the idea of faith?


It doesn't. Who the fark are you to prevent someone from teaching their kid faith if they want to?
 
2012-11-19 03:38:02 PM

lennavan: dericwater: Knowing the age of the earth is basically a pointless trivial factoid. But it's a factoid that most people know in the same way that they know the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second, that Mt Everest is 29K and change above sea level, that Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and not 1942, and that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust during WWII.

The only fact amongst those that I knew off the top of my head was the Columbus thing. Does that mean you think I deny the holocaust?


Is your ignorance now the standard by which others should be measured?
 
2012-11-19 03:38:32 PM

More_Like_A_Stain: I'm no fan of Rubio, but at least from a political standpoint, there was no correct answer.


BS. There is a correct answer, the scientific one. If the correct answer isn't good for you politically then that is your problem. Also, according to Wikipedia, he's on the subcommittee on science and space. I repeat, he's on the subcommittee on science and space and he doesn't feel qualified to ballpark the age of the earth?

The Republican party is a joke if they can't answer a simple question about the age of the earth. Stop being upset at the people asking the "gotcha" questions and start being upset at politicians who are either truly that stupid or cater to people who are that stupid.
 
2012-11-19 03:38:57 PM
This thread is seriously dildos.

Seriously.
Dildos.
 
2012-11-19 03:39:15 PM

lennavan: He never said both sides were equally valid scientifically, or equally likely.


and yet Rubio wants all sides to be treated equally regardless of their validity....

"....I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all."
 
2012-11-19 03:39:17 PM

gilgigamesh: He wasn't asked about religion.


Pretty much everyone in this thread disagrees with you. Myself included. Here's someone who like you, disagrees with my position.

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

 
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