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 04:34:18 PM

thurstonxhowell: They're arguing that Marco Rubio went further than deferring to experts. You disagree, but pretend that they're arguing that they're saying deferring to experts is bad. This isn't rocket surgery.


Rocket surgery is a topic for either scientist or theologians.
 
2012-11-19 04:34:33 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?


I'm more concerned with the numerical quantity and where you value lies within a range of acceptable numbers. Everyone knows the earth has not been around for an infinite amount of time. If you guessed 16 billion years, you're somewhat aware, but got the wrong information. If you guessed 7000 years, we know that you've been indoctrinated into Christian mythology. If you guessed 20,000 years, we know that you're indoctrinated into a different version of Christian mythology. If you guessed 20,000,000 years, then we know that you mistakenly heard the number, and so forth.

If you think only 3 million jews died in the holocaust, we might have a legitimate debate on where you got your information. If you qualitatively deny the holocaust, then you're a holocaust denier (i.e., a denier of some rather well known fact).

If you thought Columbus landed in the Caribbean islands in 1482, we can safely assume that you misheard the last few digits. If you thought Columbus landed in 1942, we can safely assume you're an idiot.

The actual answer is not as important as whether you're in the proper range. And if you're in a specific range, then we sort of know where and how you got that information. Like, if you said that the speed of light is 1100 feet/second, then we know that you probably got that mixed up with the speed of sound, and you're not smart enough to do a quick test to verify. That is, you're quick to just accept the "fact".
 
2012-11-19 04:34:33 PM

Trivia Jockey: colon_pow: maybe he just recognized it as a gotcha type question and didn't feel like playing that little game.

It's not a "gotcha" question if the answer can expose you either as (a) a scientifically-literate thinking person or (b) a religious whackjob.

For a politican, this is a relevant dichotomy.


For republicans being asked what you really believe is a "gotcha question."
 
2012-11-19 04:34:55 PM

Leeds: colon_pow: lennavan: You wouldn't ask a Chemist about evolution.

actually, i've read, right on this site, that chemical evolution preceded evolution. something about self-replicating enzymes or something.

Correct me if I'm wrong here- But if evolution proceeded evolution, you're dividing by zero in at least a couple of your equations.


dividing by zero is undefined. A mystery, if you will.

QED
 
2012-11-19 04:35:27 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: I would think the geologist would have pretty detailed knowledge of evolution since there are geological layers that were produced of biological elements at various points in the evolutionary cycle.


They tend to focus on the practical interactions and evolution (in the other sense) of geological formations with time. The dumping of calcium into the system and the formation of petroleum from plant matter have been going on almost since the origin of life, the fine delineations and changes in the biosphere aren't directly relevant to most of it. Geological timescales also make the statistical variation that drives evolution pretty much moot.

Kind of like a biologist is probably aware of the existence of air-- the stuff he studies breathes it, after all-- but he's unlikely to be familiar with the fluid dynamics of compressible systems in a spherical geometry under irregular heating. Just because two general disciplines have phenomena relevant to both doesn't mean that one can or even cares to really be all that familiar with the other.

//There is a crossover discipline, of course: Paleontology. They'd be moderately familiar with both biology and geology without necessarily being a full-on expert in either.
 
2012-11-19 04:36:29 PM

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

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

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

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


Well some people are 100% certain the earth is 4002 years old. They are also 100% certain there is an invisible guy in the sky watching you when you have sex, swear, masturbate, murder, and any other "bad" thing and doesn't seem to care if you do good things if you are not willing prostrate yourself to him.

So, while we can never get the date 100% accurate. We can have an in the ball park estimation. 4002 is probably a bit further off than the estimation of several billion years.
 
2012-11-19 04:41:54 PM

lennavan: Gwyrddu: I wouldn't ask a chemist specific questions about cladistics or the Lotka-Volterra equation for example, but I if someone told me he was a chemist and then said he didn't know what evolution was, I'd have good reason to doubt he was a chemist.

What if he didn't know how old the Earth was off the top of his head?

Gwyrddu: So yeah, there are undoubtedly some scientists who totally fail in unrelated fields, but I'm pretty sure that is the exception rather than the rule, that actually most scientists can answer casual science questions whether it is in their field or not.

Quite the contrary. Scientists who can cross disciplines are the exception to the rule. They are the ones who go on to do truly great work.


Nevertheless, I doubt there are any scientists in the hard sciences (biology included) who would disagree with the 4.5 billion year estimate for the age of the earth. Such information is so pervasive and basic that all scientists know them. If I were to ask, "how many cells are there in the human body." I would imagine physicists and chemists may be off by a factor of 100 to 1000, and may be off from each other by that amount. I'm guessing biologists would get the closest estimate. Ask a geologist, and he'll give a different order of magnitude answer, probably. But, how many atoms in a mole should be known to almost all scientists, whether they're physicists, chemists (definitely!), biologists or geologists. Everyone's got that 6.023 x 10^23 memorized, burned into their brains. You either answer it correctly or you ask, "what's a mole?" There's no in-between.
 
2012-11-19 04:42:54 PM

lennavan: What if he didn't know how old the Earth was off the top of his head?


Well, that depends. Does he say "I don't know?" Or does he say "maybe it was created in seven days, or maybe it has existed for seven geological eras. Theologians can argue about that stuff, but I think that kids should learn it both ways in school?"

Because, if he said the first thing, I'd understand. If he said the second thing, he'd be an idiot, just like Marco Rubio.
 
2012-11-19 04:44:45 PM
"See the TURTLE of enormous girth!
On his back he hold the Earth!"

This is what Republicans actually believe.
 
2012-11-19 04:46:14 PM

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

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

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

Gat, you ignorant slut.


Technical Note: Theologians are probably not the ideal "experts" to defer to for answers to physics questions.
 
2012-11-19 04:46:32 PM

dericwater: You either answer it correctly or you ask, "what's a mole?" There's no in-between.


There's also "I've had a lot of beer since chemistry class".
 
2012-11-19 04:46:39 PM

The Larch: lennavan: What if he didn't know how old the Earth was off the top of his head?

Well, that depends. Does he say "I don't know?" Or does he say "maybe it was created in seven days, or maybe it has existed for seven geological eras. Theologians can argue about that stuff, but I think that kids should learn it both ways in school?"

Because, if he said the first thing, I'd understand. If he said the second thing, he'd be an idiot, just like Marco Rubio.


that's why the reporter should have asked him to clarify what he's saying - ya know, ask a followup. As reporters should do.

Rubio is a Catholic - I have never met a Catholic who subscribes to the new earth fundi bullshiat. Hell, even the Church doesn't. I'd be interested in seeing what he actually believes and, more importantly, whether he thinks biblescience should be taugh in actualscience class
 
2012-11-19 04:46:51 PM

dericwater: Everyone's got that 6.023 x 10^23 memorized, burned into their brains.


I only remember this because my high school celebrated "Mole Day" on Oct. 23. They tried to add further refinements and "Mole Time", but no one who cares is in the school at 6:02:30 AM or PM.

/public education ftw!
//CSB
 
2012-11-19 04:47:52 PM

valar_morghulis: "See the TURTLE of enormous girth!
On his back he hold the Earth!"

This is what Republicans actually believe.


well, maybe Bobby Jindal.
 
2012-11-19 04:48:00 PM

kapaso: Trivia Jockey: colon_pow: maybe he just recognized it as a gotcha type question and didn't feel like playing that little game.

It's not a "gotcha" question if the answer can expose you either as (a) a scientifically-literate thinking person or (b) a religious whackjob.

For a politican, this is a relevant dichotomy.

For republicans being asked what you really believe is a "gotcha question."



I disagree with that, but even if it were so, it would only be so because what they really believe is often asinine.
 
2012-11-19 04:48:09 PM
He started off kind of OK, then he jumped off the "science and scripture both present equally valid theories" cliff.

FAIL

And this is one of their "rising stars."
 
2012-11-19 04:49:02 PM

valar_morghulis: "See the TURTLE of enormous girth!
On his back he hold the Earth!"

This is what Republicans actually believe.


Well, Marco Rubio never said that he believed it.

He just said that theologians might be debating about the exact girth of the turtle, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't teach about the turtles in schools and let kids make their own choices.

See, Marco Rubio is a perfectly reasonable guy.
 
2012-11-19 04:49:48 PM

lennavan: ... 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...

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 agree. What exactly is the problem here? What does this question have to do with politics? He is not a scientist and leaves it to science. Isn't that what people want? For scientists to determine these things??? I thought it was a great answer to a particularly stupid question.
 
2012-11-19 04:51:32 PM

skullkrusher: The Larch: lennavan: What if he didn't know how old the Earth was off the top of his head?

Well, that depends. Does he say "I don't know?" Or does he say "maybe it was created in seven days, or maybe it has existed for seven geological eras. Theologians can argue about that stuff, but I think that kids should learn it both ways in school?"

Because, if he said the first thing, I'd understand. If he said the second thing, he'd be an idiot, just like Marco Rubio.

that's why the reporter should have asked him to clarify what he's saying - ya know, ask a followup. As reporters should do.

Rubio is a Catholic - I have never met a Catholic who subscribes to the new earth fundi bullshiat. Hell, even the Church doesn't. I'd be interested in seeing what he actually believes and, more importantly, whether he thinks biblescience should be taugh in actualscience class


I think it's pretty clear to everyone that Rubio was dodging the question to avoid alienating creationist voters, however.

I think the fact that he answered in a way that suggests he knows that science says one thing and his base wants to hear another is the most damning. I can stomach ignorant people, you can sometimes get through to them. People who foster and exploit ignorance, however, have nothing but my undying hatred.
 
2012-11-19 04:54:45 PM
In other words he's too much of a weasel to say what he thinks because he doesn't want to piss off anyonbe who disagrees with him.

Teaching young earth creationism to children is child abuse. Rubio supports a parents right to abuse their children. I'll remember that.
 
2012-11-19 04:55:08 PM

k1j2b3: He is not a scientist and leaves it to science.


No, that's not what he did. He said he was not a scientist and left it to both science and theology. He acknowledged that the age of the Earth is a "great mystery" that "theologians" should have a say in.

And why is it significant that a well-known and influential politician says this? Well, it's like Tigger said...either he is stupid and truly believes that the age of the Earth is in ANY WAY a theological question, or he is pandering to the Christian right in disgusting (if not typical) fashion.

It was the hope of some that the "new" GOP would not do either of these things.
 
2012-11-19 04:55:43 PM

k1j2b3: lennavan: ... 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...

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 agree. What exactly is the problem here? What does this question have to do with politics? He is not a scientist and leaves it to science. Isn't that what people want? For scientists to determine these things??? I thought it was a great answer to a particularly stupid question.


The problem is he likened theologians to scientists, and claimed that the age of the Earth is "a great mystery". It's not. It's approximately 4.5 billion years old. Not six-thousand years, not ten-thousand, but four-point-five billion.
 
2012-11-19 04:56:00 PM
He could have responded:

"That's above my pay grade."

'cause, you know, that wouldn't be political pandering at all.
 
2012-11-19 04:56:30 PM

lennavan: 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:


Dude, stop farking this chicken already. All that's left is a beak and some bloody feathers.

The question wasn't asked to get a specific numerical answer, it was a lefty 'dog-whistle' style question. It was calculated to see if he'd nut up and go with some version of what is accepted science; of if he'd answer with a 'dog-whistle' answer meant to at least superficially placate the mouth-breathing bible-thumping creationist-museum-going textbook-destroying ignorant asshats that he is gonna have to court as part of the GOP big tent of derp.

He went with the latter.

He fails as an intelligent and/or principled human. Take your pick, neither is worthy of voting for.
 
2012-11-19 04:56:54 PM

MindfulModeration: I think it's pretty clear to everyone that Rubio was dodging the question to avoid alienating creationist voters, however.


that's fine with me. Politicians pander. If he isn't going to force those views on others, I don't care.

MindfulModeration: I think the fact that he answered in a way that suggests he knows that science says one thing and his base wants to hear another is the most damning. I can stomach ignorant people, you can sometimes get through to them. People who foster and exploit ignorance, however, have nothing but my undying hatred.


which is why I would like to have seen a followup. Maybe he was just talking about parents teaching faith to their kids. We'll have to wait and see when and if he is more on the forefront of the national stage where his opinion lies.
 
2012-11-19 05:01:52 PM

qorkfiend: dericwater: Everyone's got that 6.023 x 10^23 memorized, burned into their brains.

I only remember this because my high school celebrated "Mole Day" on Oct. 23. They tried to add further refinements and "Mole Time", but no one who cares is in the school at 6:02:30 AM or PM.

/public education ftw!
//CSB


Isn't it just easier to remember 6.023 x 10^23 than to remember 6:02:30AM on October 23rd? It's like using mnemonics to remember things. Resistance values? Bad beer rots our young guts but vodka goes well - get some now. But is it black, brown or brown, black...
 
2012-11-19 05:02:40 PM

k1j2b3: lennavan: ... 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...

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 agree. What exactly is the problem here? What does this question have to do with politics? He is not a scientist and leaves it to science. Isn't that what people want? For scientists to determine these things??? I thought it was a great answer to a particularly stupid question.


Should the people who will be determining our nation's policies with regard to science, technology, and education base their decisions on the daily horoscopes?

If not, why not?
 
2012-11-19 05:04:13 PM

skullkrusher: MindfulModeration: I think it's pretty clear to everyone that Rubio was dodging the question to avoid alienating creationist voters, however.

that's fine with me. Politicians pander. If he isn't going to force those views on others, I don't care.

MindfulModeration: I think the fact that he answered in a way that suggests he knows that science says one thing and his base wants to hear another is the most damning. I can stomach ignorant people, you can sometimes get through to them. People who foster and exploit ignorance, however, have nothing but my undying hatred.

which is why I would like to have seen a followup. Maybe he was just talking about parents teaching faith to their kids. We'll have to wait and see when and if he is more on the forefront of the national stage where his opinion lies.


Maybe I'm an idealist, or maybe I'm just a pissed-off biology undergrad who's sick of seeing scientific ignorance go on unabated, but I can't stand pandering politicians. Using ignorance to leverage votes means you have a vested interest in keeping he population ignorant. Based on what I've seen from the national Republican party since the day I cast my first vote, I can't say that voting Republican would do anything to stop our plummet from the top of the academic heap. If anything, I feel as though it would accelerate it.
 
2012-11-19 05:04:24 PM
GQ: How much do you think 15 times 15 is?

Marco Rubio: I'm not a mathematician, man. I can tell you what a calculator 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 fifteen times fifteen has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a mathematician. 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 much fifteen times fifteen is 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 math says. Whether fifteen times fifteen is 12, or 225, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.


Made some small changes, but kept the basic level of knowledge the same. This would clearly be OK, since he repeatedly says he's not a mathematician.
 
2012-11-19 05:06:53 PM

MindfulModeration: Maybe I'm an idealist, or maybe I'm just a pissed-off biology undergrad who's sick of seeing scientific ignorance go on unabated, but I can't stand pandering politicians. Using ignorance to leverage votes means you have a vested interest in keeping he population ignorant. Based on what I've seen from the national Republican party since the day I cast my first vote, I can't say that voting Republican would do anything to stop our plummet from the top of the academic heap. If anything, I feel as though it would accelerate it.


they're certainly not the party of modernity and enlightenment as currently constructed
 
2012-11-19 05:07:22 PM

MindfulModeration: skullkrusher: The Larch: lennavan: What if he didn't know how old the Earth was off the top of his head?

Well, that depends. Does he say "I don't know?" Or does he say "maybe it was created in seven days, or maybe it has existed for seven geological eras. Theologians can argue about that stuff, but I think that kids should learn it both ways in school?"

Because, if he said the first thing, I'd understand. If he said the second thing, he'd be an idiot, just like Marco Rubio.

that's why the reporter should have asked him to clarify what he's saying - ya know, ask a followup. As reporters should do.

Rubio is a Catholic - I have never met a Catholic who subscribes to the new earth fundi bullshiat. Hell, even the Church doesn't. I'd be interested in seeing what he actually believes and, more importantly, whether he thinks biblescience should be taugh in actualscience class

I think it's pretty clear to everyone that Rubio was dodging the question to avoid alienating creationist voters, however.

I think the fact that he answered in a way that suggests he knows that science says one thing and his base wants to hear another is the most damning. I can stomach ignorant people, you can sometimes get through to them. People who foster and exploit ignorance, however, have nothing but my undying hatred.


Yes. If he really knows the answer (and I'm more than sure that he does), but refuses to give that answer for fear of alienating his base, then he is perpetuating the problems. Those ignorant yokels that form his base should be lifted out of their ignorance and he should be that leader. Instead, he's the dog that being wagged by the tail. The ignorati among the GOP side of the population are woefully, terribly, stupidly, pathetically ignorant. They really need to be awaken to some facts. At least let the facts drip into their veins safely by presenting the least damaging ones, like the age of the earth. (If 4.5 billion years is way different than their 7000 year estimate, it's way off in magnitude, but it won't affect their day-to-day life. If we tell them that tax cuts won't help improve the economy, their fretting about a non-existent-to-them tax increase may affect their day-to-day life.)
 
2012-11-19 05:07:47 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.


Suppose that the rate of radioactive decay was higher at creation and dropped to the present observed rate on the day that Becquerel set that vial of uranium salts on that photographic plate. To make a 4.5 Gy universe look six thousand years old, the rate of decay would have to be about 750,000 times what it is now. That means 750,000 times the background radiation, and Adam and Eve would have been toast long before they got hold of that apple.
 
2012-11-19 05:08:29 PM

lennavan:
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.


Being a scientist is not like being a priest. You don't need to have another scientist anoint you with oil.
The question is not if it was a scientist who said X, it's a question of iff what X said was scientifically valid. Scientifically valid involves being consistent with objectively observed reality. Today, that requires a bit of education so you can know what has been repeatedly observed by others in telescopes and microscopes. Scientific thus involves a reasonable education. Lacking one, you are likely to make ignorant decisions.
 
2012-11-19 05:08:52 PM

k1j2b3: lennavan: ... 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...

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 agree. What exactly is the problem here? What does this question have to do with politics? He is not a scientist and leaves it to science. Isn't that what people want? For scientists to determine these things??? I thought it was a great answer to a particularly stupid question.


Right, sure. This question has no political ramifications nor implications, none whatsoever. There isn't an entire body of jurisprudence over the acceptability of what gets taught in schools as science vs. religion; or who decides what's acceptable as science vs. religion in scientific textbooks; or bitter fights over legislation pertaining to the place of religion vs. science in schools etc.

/Obtuse right wind defenders are being obtuse.
 
2012-11-19 05:11:49 PM
If answering a simple science questiion gives you the same career ending anxiety it gave Galileo in the 17th century, you just might be a republican.
 
2012-11-19 05:12:45 PM
Would you people try to stop being deliberately obtuse for one minute? Of course we're most likely never going to know how old the earth is to the minute. That's not what he's saying. He's saying that he doesn't want to piss off the mouth breathers who still think the earth is less than 10,000 years old, based on the ramblings of a book that also said some guy got every species of creature known and unknown to man at the time to fark on a boat.
 
2012-11-19 05:12:49 PM

Leeds: colon_pow: lennavan: You wouldn't ask a Chemist about evolution.

actually, i've read, right on this site, that chemical evolution preceded evolution. something about self-replicating enzymes or something.

Correct me if I'm wrong here- But if evolution proceeded evolution, you're dividing by zero in at least a couple of your equations.


Evolution sensu biological evolution of entities that qualify as "life" was preceded by a process of natural selection, loosely termed evolution, of self-replicating chemical hypercycles. The bumperstick form of that is that chemical evolution gave rise to evolution. You need to read "chemical evolution" as a single term and the final evolution to be "biological evolution". No zeros were divided or concurred in the process.
 
2012-11-19 05:14:18 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: He could have responded:

"That's above my pay grade."

'cause, you know, that wouldn't be political pandering at all.


It wouldn't be a great answer, but there are few ways to politely say "I'm not going to answer the question". So, I'd give him that.

But instead, he derp-o-derp'ed it up with some bullshiat about how theologians and scientists might argue about whether or not the world took seven days to make or has existed for seven geological eras, but for now we should just admit that there is absolutely no way to use evidence or reason to figure out the correct answer so we should teach it both ways in school.
 
2012-11-19 05:14:51 PM

Mugato: Would you people try to stop being deliberately obtuse for one minute? Of course we're most likely never going to know how old the earth is to the minute. That's not what he's saying. He's saying that he doesn't want to piss off the mouth breathers who still think the earth is less than 10,000 years old, based on the ramblings of a book that also said some guy got every species of creature known and unknown to man at the time to fark on a boat.


All that various animal splooge must make that boat smell like the set with Bella Donna and 10,000 guys in a bukkake scene. Minus the "lysol" smell.
 
2012-11-19 05:17:29 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?


Uh-huh. So if a Dem were asked "when does life start" and he just mumbled something about go ask a scientist, the Right-tards would TOTALLY accept that as an OK answer

/Totally
 
2012-11-19 05:18:37 PM

Tricky Chicken: Theologans start from God exists, and go on from there. Scientists start from nothing and need a proof that God exists.


The above quoted text is HORRIBLE especially if you're trying to defend the religious side of things. You just said that theologians start from an unproven conclusion with no evidence and try to work backwards, and somehow that is as legitimate as the scientific method.
 
2012-11-19 05:18:55 PM

wademh: Leeds: colon_pow: lennavan: You wouldn't ask a Chemist about evolution.

actually, i've read, right on this site, that chemical evolution preceded evolution. something about self-replicating enzymes or something.

Correct me if I'm wrong here- But if evolution proceeded evolution, you're dividing by zero in at least a couple of your equations.

Evolution sensu biological evolution of entities that qualify as "life" was preceded by a process of natural selection, loosely termed evolution, of self-replicating chemical hypercycles. The bumperstick form of that is that chemical evolution gave rise to evolution. You need to read "chemical evolution" as a single term and the final evolution to be "biological evolution". No zeros were divided or concurred in the process.


Indeed, if the second "evolution" was expanded to indicate what it was meant to indicate, the statement would no longer be invalid. "Chemical evolution preceded biological evolution" is a perfectly acceptable statement.

It's just a pain in the ass when people back the right team (Science) but are too stupid to realize that they aren't saying what they think they are saying. This thread is chock full of such idiots.
 
2012-11-19 05:19:00 PM

Pincy: This is basic knowledge that is taught in grade school.


Circa 7th grade, these days.

colon_pow: actually, i've read, right on this site, that chemical evolution preceded evolution. something about self-replicating enzymes or something.


"Prevolution" is the technical term that seems to be currently in vogue; essentially, autocatalytic chemistry. The phrase "chemical evolution" is pretty uncommon, outside of creationists quoting Chick tracts.
 
2012-11-19 05:22:39 PM

MindfulModeration: colon_pow: maybe he just recognized it as a gotcha type question and didn't feel like playing that little game.

Please tell me that's sarcasm. "Gotcha" questions are things like "have you stopped beating your wife?", not questions like "do you have a basic mastery of high-school geology?"


If the Ministry of Love might be watching, expecting anything but duckspeak as an answer is a Gotcha thoughtcrime.
 
2012-11-19 05:30:08 PM

skullkrusher: Leeds: colon_pow: lennavan: You wouldn't ask a Chemist about evolution.

actually, i've read, right on this site, that chemical evolution preceded evolution. something about self-replicating enzymes or something.

Correct me if I'm wrong here- But if evolution proceeded evolution, you're dividing by zero in at least a couple of your equations.

dividing by zero is undefined. A mystery, if you will.

QED


I'll have to tell my old Signals professor that using poles and zeros in a Bode plot is useless

Link
 
2012-11-19 05:31:57 PM

Im_Gumby: give me doughnuts: Rufio?

[i249.photobucket.com image 432x265]

Ralphio?

[media.avclub.com image 627x352]


Rubio?

i419.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-19 05:35:38 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: skullkrusher: Leeds: colon_pow: lennavan: You wouldn't ask a Chemist about evolution.

actually, i've read, right on this site, that chemical evolution preceded evolution. something about self-replicating enzymes or something.

Correct me if I'm wrong here- But if evolution proceeded evolution, you're dividing by zero in at least a couple of your equations.

dividing by zero is undefined. A mystery, if you will.

QED

I'll have to tell my old Signals professor that using poles and zeros in a Bode plot is useless

Link


that doesn't bode well for his worldview
 
2012-11-19 05:38:53 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: Reposted from another thread because it applies here, too...

One thing the Republicans don't seem to grasp:

Even if they nominate "a Hispanic," Mexicans generally HATE Cubans, and vice-versa. And there are lots more Chicanos/Mexicans/Mexican-Americans in the US than Cubans. Rubio might carry Florida, but "the hispanic vote" won't go Republican in any other state...


From what I understand, it goes something like this: Cubans look down on Mexicans as uneducated, barbaric indians and Mexicans sneer at Cubans as uppity atheists who dance too much.
 
2012-11-19 05:41:25 PM

Leeds: colon_pow: lennavan: You wouldn't ask a Chemist about evolution.

actually, i've read, right on this site, that chemical evolution preceded evolution. something about self-replicating enzymes or something.

Correct me if I'm wrong here- But if evolution proceeded evolution, you're dividing by zero in at least a couple of your equations.


I'm mainly interested in increasing efficiency. Would you mind if I save time and point out the rare occasions when you are not wrong instead? It would be much easier. That way, if I don't respond to you, you can just assume that you're wrong and move on from there.

What do you say? Efficiency really should be part of the new economy, right?
 
2012-11-19 05:48:54 PM

FloydA: Leeds: colon_pow: lennavan: You wouldn't ask a Chemist about evolution.

actually, i've read, right on this site, that chemical evolution preceded evolution. something about self-replicating enzymes or something.

Correct me if I'm wrong here- But if evolution proceeded evolution, you're dividing by zero in at least a couple of your equations.

I'm mainly interested in increasing efficiency. Would you mind if I save time and point out the rare occasions when you are not wrong instead? It would be much easier. That way, if I don't respond to you, you can just assume that you're wrong and move on from there.

What do you say? Efficiency really should be part of the new economy, right?


what he said.
 
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