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 03:39:32 PM

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

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

FTFY

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


Are you on his campaign or something?

He was asked a question, about the age of the earth, but we all know, and he knew, the real question being asked is, "Will you accept scientific consensus on topics or will you continue to pander to fringe religious beliefs". His answer was he will continue to pander.
 
2012-11-19 03:39:40 PM
So his plan is to make those lazy poor people, who we all know pay absolutely nothing in taxes, richer by cutting their taxes and reducing the burdensome regulation that is keeping your average Wal Mart cashier from striking it rich. Hmmm.... prosperity through tax cuts and deregulation. It's a bold new idea for the Republicans, but it's so crazy it just might work! It's certainly worth a try, since we've never tried doing that before.
 
2012-11-19 03:40:00 PM

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

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

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

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

If they had a proper command of the English language they'd know better.


The words in question are "It is a knowable, factual thing" which is a factual statement, your failed attempts at profundity not withstanding.

Pedantry isn't going to change the equation one bit.
 
2012-11-19 03:40:38 PM

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

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

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

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


The point is not that he avoided controversy.

The point is that in order to avoid it he had to introduce a line of palpably idiotic eyeball-meltingly retarded donkey shiat into the discussion.

The reason that point is worth making is it shows that Rubio, who is being widely discussed as part of the new generation of Republicans, STILL had to demonstrate a willingness to pander to the facefarkingly idiotic movement that is young earth creationism.

Yes everyone knows he did it to avoid a controversy. That's not the pertinent issue.
 
2012-11-19 03:41:00 PM

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


You're being intentionally obtuse. When measurements are 'knowable' there is an understanding that the measuring tool is going to have some level of precision. If I handed you a ruler and asked you how tall you are, the understanding is not that you're going to be able to measure your height in Bohr radius.
 
2012-11-19 03:41:02 PM

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

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

Is your ignorance now the standard by which others should be measured?


I'm just curious, is there some sort of list of facts that everyone should know? I can tell you the molecular mechanism and treatment options with their associated outcomes of pediatric medulloblastoma. I imagine you can't. Does that make you ignorant? Do you not care about child brain cancer? What is wrong with you?
 
2012-11-19 03:41:29 PM

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


Rather, there's been some sort of stable crust on the planet capable of supporting solid mineral formations for about 4.54 billion years give or take 1% (so error bars more on the order of 50 million than 30, but close enough). We're operating on the age of the oldest mineral formations we've found (because of how radio-dating works, you can't really work on non-solid materials). Since this actually also matches the oldest mineral samples we've found elsewhere (mostly meteorites) we've derived that the inner, solid planets and asteroid belt solidified at about the same time.

What they were before that is a bit dodgier, but not all that dodgier, as it ties into the life-cycle of stars and that's fairly well-understood too. In theory the planet could be older, I guess, and just got melted down entire at some point along with the other solid debris in the inner bits of the accretion disc in an incredibly contrived coincidence. But 4.54 billion years is the _floor_ on the earth's age, it cannot possibly be any _newer_ than that.
 
2012-11-19 03:41:50 PM

manimal2878: He was asked a question, about the age of the earth, but we all know, and he knew, the real question being asked is, "Will you accept scientific consensus on topics or will you continue to pander to fringe religious beliefs".


No, we don't all know that:

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

 
2012-11-19 03:42:16 PM

Tigger:
If you use the original meaning of factoid this post is way funnier.


Since when is it the 'original' meaning?

Using the only definition of factoid I know makes this post senseless.
 
2012-11-19 03:42:27 PM

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


Great. And here's the result:

Students in Shanghai who took international exams for the first time outscored every other school system in the world. In the same test, American students ranked 25th in math, 17th in science and 14th in reading. A 2009 study showed that U.S. students ranked 25th among 34 countries in math and science -- behind states like China, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong and Finland.

But hey, that's a study made by study... guys.

I believe in my gut that Jesus thinks we're number 1 in everything and USA! USA! USA!
 
2012-11-19 03:43:02 PM

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

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

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


Wow. Are you suggesting we pass a law preventing parents from teaching their kids religion? You are. Holy fark.
 
2012-11-19 03:43:10 PM

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

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


It does mean that you're incredibly ignorant about the basic facts that every well-educated person in the world knows.
 
2012-11-19 03:43:18 PM

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

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

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


I do the same with accountants. :P
 
2012-11-19 03:43:21 PM
50 years ago? Nobody was alive back then.
 
2012-11-19 03:44:00 PM

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

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

Is your ignorance now the standard by which others should be measured?

I'm just curious, is there some sort of list of facts that everyone should know? I can tell you the molecular mechanism and treatment options with their associated outcomes of pediatric medulloblastoma. I imagine you can't. Does that make you ignorant? Do you not care about child brain cancer? What is wrong with you?


I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone who didn't know - or who offered an alternate viewpoint using mythology - making decisions for those who do.
 
2012-11-19 03:44:17 PM

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

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

Is your ignorance now the standard by which others should be measured?

I'm just curious, is there some sort of list of facts that everyone should know? I can tell you the molecular mechanism and treatment options with their associated outcomes of pediatric medulloblastoma. I imagine you can't. Does that make you ignorant? Do you not care about child brain cancer? What is wrong with you?


Yes, there are basic facts that most people with a rounded education are aware of. Some people are , in fact , more ignorant than others.
 
2012-11-19 03:44:27 PM

Leeds: My point seems lost on you.

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

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


No, I completely understand what you're doing.

You're trying to use semantics to justify any other answer than "4.5 billion years" to the question "What is the age of the earth?" If you don't want to be that precise, "scientists have calculated it to between 4 and 5 billion years" is also an acceptable response. However, in no way is it ever intellectually acceptable to reply with, "I don't know and I don't think we ever will." Such a response will be rewarded with no points and much deserved redicule from everyone not sheltering themselves in superstitious pseudoscientific nonsense.
 
2012-11-19 03:44:37 PM
Time to play the three-player guessing game.

Player one poses the quantitative question, like how tall is Mt Everest. Player two gives a range, saying 22,000 feet to 50,000 feet. Player three decides whether the actual answer is within or beyond the range. The goal for Player one is to find obscure quantities. The goal for Player two is to give convincing ranges so that player three is correct half the time. Player three's goal is to get it right as often as possible.

Questions could be, distance from San Francisco to Manila, Philippines in meters. Or number of issues of Time Magazines published since inception.
 
2012-11-19 03:44:37 PM

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

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

Is your ignorance now the standard by which others should be measured?

I'm just curious, is there some sort of list of facts that everyone should know? I can tell you the molecular mechanism and treatment options with their associated outcomes of pediatric medulloblastoma. I imagine you can't. Does that make you ignorant? Do you not care about child brain cancer? What is wrong with you?


Basics of our solar system are usually taught in grade school, or at least they were in mine. You know, along with learning about the dinosaurs. Maybe they do things differently in other states?
 
2012-11-19 03:44:48 PM

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

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

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

I do the same with accountants. :P


accountants should be questioned at all times no matter what they do

/IANAA
 
2012-11-19 03:45:10 PM

mcwehrle: Tigger:
If you use the original meaning of factoid this post is way funnier.

Since when is it the 'original' meaning?

Using the only definition of factoid I know makes this post senseless.


Norman Mailer invented the term factoid to mean "an incorrect view commonly held to be true as a result of its frequent appearance in media".

Which means the definition of factoid is now a factoid.
 
2012-11-19 03:45:16 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: The fact that you seem to think it does is why so many smart, well educated farkers are hammering the shiat out of you here, and your intransigence is making you look even dumber than SK usually does.


Keep in mind, my argument is "deferring to experts is good." That's what people are trying to hammer on.

Out of curiosity, where does Fark.com post our educational backgrounds?
 
2012-11-19 03:45:32 PM

lennavan: manimal2878: He was asked a question, about the age of the earth, but we all know, and he knew, the real question being asked is, "Will you accept scientific consensus on topics or will you continue to pander to fringe religious beliefs".

No, we don't all know that:

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


Everyone, but you then. Seriously, everyone in the world, but you gets that. Maybe that is why you don't understand why his statement is a problem.

Seriously, why would you ask a politician a question like that? You think they just wanted to throw out some trivia at him?
 
2012-11-19 03:46:48 PM

lennavan: Keep in mind, my argument is "deferring to experts is good." That's what people are trying to hammer on.


No, it's not.
 
2012-11-19 03:46:49 PM

qorkfiend: I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone who didn't know - or who offered an alternate viewpoint using mythology - making decisions for those who do.


How would you feel about a politician leaving it up to you to make that decision?
 
2012-11-19 03:46:52 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: The fact that you seem to think it does is why so many smart, well educated farkers are hammering the shiat out of you here, and your intransigence is making you look even dumber than SK usually does.


I'll take that as a compliment

/no such thing as bad publicity
 
2012-11-19 03:48:21 PM

lennavan: qorkfiend: I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone who didn't know - or who offered an alternate viewpoint using mythology - making decisions for those who do.

How would you feel about a politician leaving it up to you to make that decision?


Unfortunately for us, Senator Rubio sits on the Science and Space Committee in the Senate, so he actually gets to make decisions on these kind of subjects.

I also can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question.
 
2012-11-19 03:48:46 PM

mrshowrules: and IMHO, he was the GOP's best opportunity to re-brand themselves. They are truly farked.


Could've been worse... he could've stated that the Earth is flat and the sun revolved around it.
 
2012-11-19 03:49:08 PM

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

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


It depends. How many jews you think were killed: a) a few, c) several millions.

Really? You don't see anything wrong with not knowing a fact/factoid at least in its order of magnitude?

Saying that the speed of light is 30ft/hr or 186,000miles/second are equally valid to you, because you DON'T KNOW??

Saying that the Dow Jones close last week at is 45.3 or 12,590 are equally valid to you, because you DON'T KNOW??
 
2012-11-19 03:49:39 PM

thurstonxhowell: lennavan: Keep in mind, my argument is "deferring to experts is good." That's what people are trying to hammer on.

No, it's not.


There are more if you like:

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

 
2012-11-19 03:50:25 PM

lennavan: Ctrl-Alt-Del: The fact that you seem to think it does is why so many smart, well educated farkers are hammering the shiat out of you here, and your intransigence is making you look even dumber than SK usually does.

Keep in mind, my argument is "deferring to experts is good." That's what people are trying to hammer on.

Out of curiosity, where does Fark.com post our educational backgrounds?


No, your point, as far as I can tell having read the thread thus far is "I think it's perfectly acceptable for an official elected to high office to foster ignorance and rally the idiot vote for personal gain".

And when I want the opinion of a venomous snake, I'll defer to you.
 
2012-11-19 03:50:53 PM

qorkfiend: lennavan: qorkfiend: I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone who didn't know - or who offered an alternate viewpoint using mythology - making decisions for those who do.

How would you feel about a politician leaving it up to you to make that decision?

Unfortunately for us, Senator Rubio sits on the Science and Space Committee in the Senate, so he actually gets to make decisions on these kind of subjects.

I also can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question.


Did you also notice you didn't ask a question in that post?

I can't help but notice you didn't answer mine.
 
2012-11-19 03:50:53 PM

Pincy: master_dman: I don't get the outrage either.

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

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

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

That settles it, since we can't pinpoint the age of the earth to the exact second then that means God did it. Case settled.


Boy you sure did put words in my mouth. Not even close to what I'm saying.

But you, of course, know JUST what I'm trying to say. Right?
 
2012-11-19 03:51:15 PM

lennavan: gilgigamesh: He wasn't asked about religion.

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

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


I guess the meaning of the question does depend on the audience.

"How old is the earth"? is a question of science, not theology. It is true that the reporter was implying a deeper question, which admittedly was not a scientific question. But it wasn't theological eitehr, it was political:

Q: "Are you ready to lead the so-called 'new republican party' out of the dark ages and into a future where we can begin to compete again with other countries in standards of science and education?"

A: "No."

But you know all this, so I don't know why I am wasting time typing this instead of working so I can go home.
 
2012-11-19 03:51:36 PM

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

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

It does mean that you're incredibly ignorant about the basic facts that every well-educated person in the world knows.


Well to be fair, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what c is in miles/s either, and I majored in Physics.

/3x10^8 m/s, metric ftw
 
2012-11-19 03:51:46 PM

Pincy: Actually, it would still have not been a great answer. He's an adult and supposedly an educated one. Not being able to ballpark that the earth is billions of years old and instead saying that you're not qualified to answer the question should disqualify him from any serious discussion about potential candidates for 2016.


I can explain why I disagree with you in two points:

One, the GOP is far from unique in their politicians being somewhat scientifically illiterate. The biggest head-banger of 2008 was watching both major party candidates have a discussion about nuclear power and alternative energy that a damned five-year-old would have found uninformed and generally stupid. You can't look for scientific literacy in a political candidate-- they're lawyers. All the lawyers that have that level of intelligence are knowledge are in patent law and too busy swimming in their piles of thousand-dollar bank notes scrooge McDuck style to consider running for office.

Two, when a politician is able to outright admit they don't know something, that's usually a good sign. It means that they will rely on advisers, who can't help but know more about the issues than the candidate himself due to point one. This is largely the approach that Mr. Obama has taken, which is why even though I wouldn't trust him to reliably tell me which direction gravity pulls things I don't have a huge objection to him controlling, among other things, the NSF. Or, rather, my objections to his NSF directives have more to do with policy details than his own lack of scientific expertise/literacy.
 
2012-11-19 03:52:37 PM

Tickle Mittens: Microwaves are not witching boxes powered by the devil's lies. If the hot pocket gets hot, the universe is ~13.7 billion years old.


Quoted for profundity.
 
2012-11-19 03:52:38 PM

dwrash: Our current estimate is based on the assumption that the rate of nuclear decay and the speed of light have always been constant... back to what 4.2 billion years?.. so we are basically taking say an observation of 2.3244e-9% of the timespan and saying that is good enough.


Actually, inaccurate; see CF210.

(Also, it's closer to 4.54 gigayears, but that's not too critical.)

master_dman: The only true answer is that we don't really know. We have a pretty good idea


With better than 95% confidence that its within 1% of the correct value. Which is a far cry from "we don't really know".
 
2012-11-19 03:53:03 PM

lennavan: Keep in mind, my argument is "deferring to experts is good."


Good to know that Republicans must now defer to experts on even the simplest scientific facts. I guess they'll be changing their minds any day now on global warming.
 
2012-11-19 03:53:06 PM

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

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

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


This.
 
2012-11-19 03:53:12 PM

MindfulModeration: No, your point, as far as I can tell having read the thread thus far is "I think it's perfectly acceptable for an official elected to high office to foster ignorance and rally the idiot vote for personal gain".


How the fark could you have gotten that from these:

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

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

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

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

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

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

When a Republican politician with national recognition gets up and says "on this scientific topic, we should ask scientists" I think that's something we should celebrate, not chastise. This is what happens when we don't listen to scientists:
 
2012-11-19 03:53:47 PM

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

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

It does mean that you're incredibly ignorant about the basic facts that every well-educated person in the world knows.

Well to be fair, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what c is in miles/s either, and I majored in Physics.

/3x10^8 m/s, metric ftw


But you would not have said "either seven or potato but we should consider asking some priests as well as some scientists and there should be the opportunity to teach the controversy of the great mystery that the speed of light is potato"
 
2012-11-19 03:54:09 PM

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


Only problem is that's not what he said. What was said is closer to "On this scientific topic, we should ask scientists, but I'm not a scientist, and here's what the Bible says."

Your entire argument in this thread deliberately ignores 90% the statement in favor of focusing on a few words.
 
2012-11-19 03:54:12 PM

master_dman: Pincy: master_dman: I don't get the outrage either.

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

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

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

That settles it, since we can't pinpoint the age of the earth to the exact second then that means God did it. Case settled.

Boy you sure did put words in my mouth. Not even close to what I'm saying.

But you, of course, know JUST what I'm trying to say. Right?


You do understand he was mocking you, right?
 
2012-11-19 03:54:59 PM

gilgigamesh: "How old is the earth"? is a question of science


So how outrageous would you find it if someone asked that question would answer "I'm not a scientist."

1) Not at all
2) The most outrageous thing ever uttered from a Republican extremist
 
2012-11-19 03:54:59 PM

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

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

It doesn't. Who the fark are you to prevent someone from teaching their kid faith if they want to?


Faith. You can't teach faith. It's just faith. that's it. You believe something b/c you do. Logic and facts don't matter, therefore there is nothing to be taught. Now, you can be indoctrinated (brainwashed) with other's faith. See : Organized Religion.

Also, i'm not for "preventing" anything except the spread of delusional behavior based on what some people 2000 years ago wrote while stomping around the desert. If someone wants to "teach" their kid faith - fine! Go for it! But don't presume that I, my kid, my family believes it.
 
2012-11-19 03:55:12 PM

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

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

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

Wow. Are you suggesting we pass a law preventing parents from teaching their kids religion? You are. Holy fark.


Some days, like today, I think it would be a good thing. I have to admit it. My wife thinks so whole heartedly: she thinks imposing religion on children is akin to child abuse. And I think she has a point, because you are essentially chaining them to a myth that, if they accept it, will likely stunt their emotional and intellectual growth their entire lives.

Unfortunately, the broader ramifications of that are too dire to contemplate seriously.
 
2012-11-19 03:55:38 PM

lennavan: qorkfiend: lennavan: qorkfiend: I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone who didn't know - or who offered an alternate viewpoint using mythology - making decisions for those who do.

How would you feel about a politician leaving it up to you to make that decision?

Unfortunately for us, Senator Rubio sits on the Science and Space Committee in the Senate, so he actually gets to make decisions on these kind of subjects.

I also can't help but notice that you didn't answer the question.

Did you also notice you didn't ask a question in that post?

I can't help but notice you didn't answer mine.


Yes, yes. Continue with your nitpicking. It's very endearing.
 
2012-11-19 03:55:54 PM

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

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

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


I agree that there are some fringe kooks out there that hold some dangerously ignorant ideas such as; legitimate rape vs illegitimate rape. However, when conservatives see the left as disregarding all of their most cherished beliefs with unveiled contempt, they are driven to support the only available alternative. This can lead voters that think the rape comments were abhorrent to still vote for the guy just because he isn't a mamber of the party that hates them. Disrespect will not lead to cooperation. You can personally discount their religious structure, but you should always be mindful that they will not. So we should accept that people believe a great many unprovable notions, but we should all agree to make laws based upon what we have a consensus of evidence for.

Also, you posted your equation using one significant digit. Accepting that 3 could be anywhere from 2.5 to 3.4, the sum could total anywhere from 5 to 6.8. So the compromise of seven is not so bad. If there were a couple of 0.4 terms that were rounded to 0, we could even get to 8. I know that is a snarky idea, but theologans and scientists are always approaching the question from differing positions of what they are willing to accept as source data. Theologans start from God exists, and go on from there. Scientists start from nothing and need a proof that God exists.

You do not need to agree with them, but you do need their consent to govern them. If they are half of the populace, then you need to work with what they are willing to believe, or you will have an ungovernable situation.
 
2012-11-19 03:56:27 PM

mcwehrle: Tigger:
If you use the original meaning of factoid this post is way funnier.

Since when is it the 'original' meaning?

Using the only definition of factoid I know makes this post senseless.


Here's an interesting factoid: Norman Mailer made up the word "factoid" in his MarilynMonroe biography. From wikipedia:
Factoid was coined by Norman Mailer in his 1973 biography of Marilyn Monroe. Mailer described a factoid as "facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper", and created the word by combining the word fact and the ending -oid to mean "similar but not the same". The Washington Times described Mailer's new word as referring to "something that looks like a fact, could be a fact, but in fact is not a fact".
Here's another interesting factoid: Factoid has now come to mean "a brief and usually unimportant fact".

Here's a final factoid: A contronym is a word that is its own antonym. Factoid is a contronym.
 
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