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 05:57:42 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.


Here. Let me help you.

"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."

This is code-speak for acceptance of creationism. Creationists have tried again and again to force theology into the public education system. First with creationism, then with bondo and a new label slapped on reading "intelligent design". Politicians pandering to the religious right tend to verbally support creationism without directly saying it. Instead, they'll say things like "teach the controversy" and "what is taught should be decided at the state/local level". Additionally, they'll sew additional confusion by intentionally misrepresenting a scientific theory as a theory in the english sense of the word.

These people think reality is something that is determined by vote or consensus. The universe just doesn't freaking work that way.
 
2012-11-19 05:57:47 PM
Why do politicians keep having to lie to fundamentalists like they're children. Just get over it already, just because it's science doesn't automatically rule out the existence of god. They can continue to believe that, but we actually do have knowledge about things like the age of the Earth. Those things are not a mystery.

I will never vote for anyone who can't answer a simple question like that. I'm sure he knows the answer, but if you're going to pander for the moran vote, I don't want you in office.
 
2012-11-19 05:58:33 PM
At least he's not complaining about GMO, Nuclear Power, vaccines, or any other stand-by-conspiracy theory of the Left.
 
2012-11-19 05:58:59 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: These elitist scientists think they can "calculate" the age of the universe, but in reality, their calculations are based on heavy assumptions. Assumptions like the speed of light being constant. This is clearly not the case, because timespace changes and you can easily fit the Earth into a 6000 year history if you take this into account. Math is only as good as the input.


I know you trollin′, but just in case anyone here actually seriously tries to use that argument:

Einstein′s famous ‶E=mc²" equation thoroughly demolishes that usual Young Earth Creationist explanation for the distant things we see in the sky, namely, that the speed of light had been much greater a few thousand years ago, giving a false impression of billions of years of the Universe′s existence.

No, sorry, that doesn′t work. Basic math: E(nergy) = m(ass) × c². This equation governs every energy-using or energy-producing process, including the metabolism of all living beings.

When we metabolize nutrients from food (the ADP/ATP process), a tiny amount of mass from the molecular bonds is converted into the energy that our bodies use.

Since c² (the square of the speed of light) is the multiplier affecting the relationship between how much energy is produced from any conversion from mass, if c (the speed of light) were increased, the resulting energy from a given amount of mass would be increased by the square of the increase in c! If c were doubled, E would be quadrupled! If c were tripled, E would be increased (nine-fold). If c were quadrupled, E would be increased 16× (sixteen-fold), and so on, and so on, and so on.

If c were increased by the incredible amount that it would take to account for squeezing 14 billion years of observable universe′s lifespan into only six thousand years, E would be increased by the square of that enormous amount!

Result: the very first time that any of God′s created living beings metabolized any nutrients at all in the Garden of Eden, the energy released from that alone would′ve vaporized the entire Earth, if not the whole solar system!

Never mind what would′ve happened with the Sun doing its nuclear fusion thing! Ditto all those other stars in the sky.

The Universe simply could not exist with c being anywhere even remotely near such a value. It′d tear itself apart and vaporize itself.
 
2012-11-19 06:08:25 PM

abb3w: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 450x544]

Hey, might be a marginally better strategy than trying to pass bullshiat as science.


Only if they don't try to get schools to teach myth as being on a par with science.
 
2012-11-19 06:08:46 PM
Floyd, so you believe that if someone miss state something or leave out important modifying words in a statement rendering that statement to be completely false, you will still back that person because you believe that they had the right intent?
 
2012-11-19 06:11:13 PM

Leeds: 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.


With a moniker like "Leeds" one would hope you were familiar with English as a language. As practiced in a form such as this, one needs to apply ones intellect to fit the appropriate word meaning(s) while parsing sentences. You have trivially noted the potential problem with saying "Chemical evolution proceeded evolution". If you were a software program, after your subroutine found an irregularity in parsing that sentence using the top match definitions for each word, it should next invoke a resolution routine. In this case, the resolution is obvious and should trivially be achieved by intellects from the shady side of the bell curve, unless they have some particular axe to grind that subverts the standard language processing routines into the "Aha, I got them" processing loop. Engage your introspection routine to resolve the matter.
 
2012-11-19 06:24:00 PM
i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-11-19 06:24:25 PM

Hunter_Worthington: At least he's not complaining about GMO, Nuclear Power, vaccines, or any other stand-by-conspiracy theory of the Left.


Please tell me which elected officials are promoting those ridiculous conspiracy theories, so I can avoid voting for them too. A list of names would be helpful. Thanks in advance.
 
2012-11-19 06:28:05 PM

Leeds: Floyd, so you believe that if someone miss state something or leave out important modifying words in a statement rendering that statement to be completely false, you will still back that person because you believe that they had the right intent?


Would you be so kind as to re-phrase that in English? Thanks.
 
2012-11-19 06:31:57 PM
The fact that we're having an Internet argument in the year 2012 about whether or not the entire Universe is 6,000 years old is precisely why I believe the long-term prognosis for the human race is particularly grim.
 
2012-11-19 06:36:16 PM

seventypercent: The fact that we're having an Internet argument in the year 2012 about whether or not the entire Universe is 6,000 years old is precisely why I believe the long-term prognosis for the human race is particularly grim.


Technically speaking we're not "having an argument" we're "ridiculing a moron".

Admittedly the seemingly endless supply of morons to ridicule is a potential cause for concern.
 
2012-11-19 06:40:40 PM

seventypercent: The fact that we're having an Internet argument in the year 2012 about whether or not the entire Universe is 6,000 years old is precisely why I believe the long-term prognosis for the human race is particularly grim.


I think that we're doing the arguing on the internet, and we're using words and not clubs and spears, both do indicate that the human race will just fine in the long run.

/It's not so much the germ of the argument, but the method of arguing being civil, that indicates we're going in the right path.
 
2012-11-19 06:43:14 PM
Salon's article on Rubio blatantly pandering to the socially conservative set puts this down to Rubio making his first play for Iowa in 2016.

...he's become the first potential 2016 candidate to take any of the traditional steps one makes when laying the groundwork for a presidential bid, traveling to Iowa this weekend for a political event.

Whether Rubio is winking at the social conservatives of Iowa, honestly believes this, or just answered the question thoughtlessly is unclear. As Dave Weigel points out, a poll of Iowa GOP caucus-goers from January 2011 found that 68 percent said they believed the planet was created in six days.


Even more offensive than his False Equivalency Theatre performance to me was this gem...

"I hope Mitt will stay involved in politics. I thought he was a great candidate, would have made a great president, and I hope he stays involved in our party,"

Link
 
2012-11-19 06:44:32 PM

Tigger: Technically speaking we're not "having an argument" we're "ridiculing a moron".


Sorry, I probably should have been more specific. By "we", I didn't mean "this specific Fark thread." It's a little larger phenomenon than that.
 
2012-11-19 07:03:12 PM
yeah

FloydA: Leeds: Floyd, so you believe that if someone misstates something or leaves out important modifying words in a statement rendering that statement to be completely false, you will still back that person because you believe that they had the right intent?

Would you be so kind as to re-phrase that in English?


Yeah, speech to text is useful when driving but a pain in the ass when it comes to clarity.

My point is this- We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard otherwise we are no better than the creationists.
 
2012-11-19 07:06:09 PM

quatchi:

Even more offensive than his False Equivalency Theatre performance to me was this gem...

"I hope Mitt will stay involved in politics. I thought he was a great candidate, would have made a great president, and I hope he stays involved in our party,"

Link


Oh I'm not offended by that either. I also hope that Mitt Romney remains in the forefront of the leadership of the GOP. If they can get Bachmann, Perry, West, King, and Aiken up there too, even better.
 
2012-11-19 07:09:12 PM

Leeds: yeahFloydA: Leeds: Floyd, so you believe that if someone misstates something or leaves out important modifying words in a statement rendering that statement to be completely false, you will still back that person because you believe that they had the right intent?

Would you be so kind as to re-phrase that in English?

Yeah, speech to text is useful when driving but a pain in the ass when it comes to clarity.

My point is this- We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard otherwise we are no better than the creationists.


I seem to have inadvertently conflated your comments with colon_pow's. If you don't agree with him, then I was in error and misinterpreted your comment.
 
2012-11-19 07:10:05 PM
cache.boston.com

"Sorry, that's not a hair question."
 
2012-11-19 07:17:30 PM

Leeds: My point is this - We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard otherwise we are no better than the creationists.


Well I'll be damned! Something I can heartily agree with Leeds about. This happies kitty.

/cracks open a beer for Leeds
 
2012-11-19 07:22:54 PM

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


That's pretty basic scientific literacy - politicians are often called upon to consider scientific issues in the course of their duties - I'd expect any competent government policy maker to at least have a basic (7th grade level) grasp of general science.

Also, this bit : "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." is nothing more than a silent nod to the young earth creationist crowd.
 
2012-11-19 07:28:19 PM

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.


I knew.
 
2012-11-19 07:29:51 PM

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

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

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

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

Education just leads to intellectual elitism

/can't have them smart folks a'runnin' things


Buncha snobs.


FloydA: Hunter_Worthington: At least he's not complaining about GMO, Nuclear Power, vaccines, or any other stand-by-conspiracy theory of the Left.

Please tell me which elected officials are promoting those ridiculous conspiracy theories, so I can avoid voting for them too. A list of names would be helpful. Thanks in advance.


Good luck getting an answer from that one.

I'm not saying it's a troll... but it's a troll.
 
2012-11-19 07:46:03 PM
This is now a fat dog thread.

dogkinetics.com
 
2012-11-19 07:46:41 PM
Can't Rubio just sit down and watch this? It's only an hour long, and it's done entirely in cool-looking CGI and its narrated at a 7th grade level of understanding.

Is that so much to ask? Can't our elected representatives watch a god damn science documentary every now and then?
 
2012-11-19 07:47:57 PM
Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist's blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblica l-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.
 
2012-11-19 07:55:03 PM

dregstudios: Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist's blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblica l-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.


They'll get smacked around by the courts, just like every single other time they've tried this.
 
2012-11-19 08:06:23 PM

qorkfiend: dregstudios: Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist's blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblica l-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

They'll get smacked around by the courts, just like every single other time they've tried this.


Yeah, case law is pretty damn solid on this. Doesn't stop them from trying though.

And most amusingly is every time they try, they just add to the mountain of case law that tells them they cannot push a specific religion in a public school classroom.

You can learn about them in a social studies class, and really should, but you still aren't allowed to advocate one above all others as correct.
 
2012-11-19 08:08:30 PM

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


Republicans: Where "What Newspapers do you read?", "How old is the Earth?", and "Do you know how to get to 2nd and Jefferson?" are "gotcha questions"!
 
2012-11-19 08:12:01 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.


Is he not a member of the Subcommittee on Science and Space? It doesn't sound like he knows much about science.
 
2012-11-19 08:15:56 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?


Radiometric Dating
 
2012-11-19 08:35:17 PM
This guy is just the douchenozzle of the month now that Romney has been booted off the stage. He won't get anywhere in a republican primary, and everyone knows it.


So this guy basically says - I'm not a scientist and so I can't answer this question. But I do know there are lots of non-science based answers, like 6000 years old, and what the other theologians say, and tuesday and blah blah blah.


It's a really weak case to say he absolutely, end of story, meant that *you* should ask a scientist. If so, why would he keep harping on these 7 day creation relics, which even the catholic church doesn't believe in anymore.

So he's another republican empty suit - he knows damn well that the earth is billions of years old (how many isn't something we all know), but he's gonna say whatever these farking morons in the south need to hear. Because, lets face it, basic religious issues are the only things that many of dumb asses can understand from the world of politics (which is ironic, because most politicians seem to be pretty stupid anyways). So they do their fact checking on - no abortions - check - loves baby jesus - check - earth is 7 days old - check - creationist - check (extra bonus - hates all non-whites - check). Pandering to morons - go USA!!!

These guys must have a great time swapping stories at the 'no morons allowed' republican get togethers..

If there wasn't a constant flood of republicans broadcasting how proud they are to be morons, you'd think this was a pretty lame stereotype. But sadly its the truth.

Screw educating the kids in the south - educate the parents first. It's the only way those kids have a chance.

\rambling
\\really hate morons
\\\especially racist southern morons
 
2012-11-19 08:43:13 PM

GAT_00: Not that I expected anything else. The next GOP nominee will be even further to the right than Romney was, probably will openly run on the 47% bullshiat.


Santorum in 2016?
 
2012-11-19 09:08:04 PM

zetar: Can somebody translate Freepertalk?

Over in Freeperland they're saying Rubio was:

"born in miami of 2 cuban citizens.
a US citizen... but not a natural born citizen."

So, this means Sarah Palin is automatically President?


Short Translation: He's brown. Brown is bad, m'kay?

Alternately: We have no bloody idea what the relevant US law has to say about citizenship, so we're gonna make shiat up so people don't vote for the brown guy. Brown is bad, m'kay?

/You're welcome.
 
2012-11-19 10:03:42 PM
"I think that's a dispute amongst theologians"

Anytime someone says that in response to a question that requires some amount of scientific background to answer, is a f**king, uncorrectable retard. Why would anyone expect a thoughtful answer from a religious person? That's like asking a blind person about color.

Maybe all news reports should just rubber stamp their bylines with "We Asked Another Christian Something and (S)He Said Something Idiotic."
 
2012-11-19 10:23:42 PM
Anything you can't prove by dunking a witch in a pond IS a great mystery. Cmon...
 
2012-11-19 10:32:41 PM
How the fark did you ever get someone to the moon?
 
2012-11-19 10:47:18 PM

Diogenes: He's not even sure when him family left Cuba.


That's because he was actually born there, and has a forged birf sertifikut. I will be sending Sheriff Joe to investigate.
 
2012-11-19 10:58:18 PM
I've been trying to tell you - he's just not that bright.
 
2012-11-19 11:06:24 PM

Diogenes: He's not even sure when him family left Cuba.


when yo family leave da islands, bruddah?
 
2012-11-19 11:24:56 PM

wademh: Leeds: 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.

With a moniker like "Leeds" one would hope you were familiar with English as a language. As practiced in a form such as this, one needs to apply ones intellect to fit the appropriate word meaning(s) while parsing sentences. You have trivially noted the potential problem with saying "Chemical evolution proceeded evolution". If you were a software program, after your subroutine found an irregularity in parsing that sentence using the top match definitions for each word, it should next invoke a resolution routine. In this case, the resolution is obvious and should trivially be achieved by intellects from the shady side of the bell curve, unless they have some particular axe to grind that subverts the standard language processing routines into the "Aha, I got them" processing l ...


Have you ever heard someone from Leeds try to speak English? Outside of the London area the English are truly amongst the worst speakers of English in the world.
 
2012-11-19 11:27:59 PM

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

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


Exactly. I can't tell you FOR SURE how old the earth is, because I"m not a geologist, but I can with certainty say, if a journalist asks me, "it's about 4.5 billion years old," because I can read. Or if someone asks, as the puerile example raised above suggests "What is the cause of Down syndrome?" I'm not going to trot out which exact chromosome it is, but I DO know "it's caused by an extra chromosome," because that's pretty much common knowledge. There are things that are known to be known, like the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. You don't have to defer to an expert about that.

So if a journalist asks a politician "How old is the Earth?" and his response is "I don't think we can ever know for sure," he's either a) lying or b) prevaricating to keep his dumbass constituents happy. He's not "deferring to the experts" because the journalist wasn't asking him to be precise down to the minutes and seconds. Although to be fair, it is a gotcha question, and the journalist knew it.
 
2012-11-19 11:28:59 PM

COMALite J: PC LOAD LETTER: These elitist scientists think they can "calculate" the age of the universe, but in reality, their calculations are based on heavy assumptions. Assumptions like the speed of light being constant. This is clearly not the case, because timespace changes and you can easily fit the Earth into a 6000 year history if you take this into account. Math is only as good as the input.

I know you trollin′, but just in case anyone here actually seriously tries to use that argument:

Einstein′s famous ‶E=mc²" equation thoroughly demolishes that usual Young Earth Creationist explanation for the distant things we see in the sky, namely, that the speed of light had been much greater a few thousand years ago, giving a false impression of billions of years of the Universe′s existence.

No, sorry, that doesn′t work. Basic math: E(nergy) = m(ass) × c². This equation governs every energy-using or energy-producing process, including the metabolism of all living beings.

When we metabolize nutrients from food (the ADP/ATP process), a tiny amount of mass from the molecular bonds is converted into the energy that our bodies use.

Since c² (the square of the speed of light) is the multiplier affecting the relationship between how much energy is produced from any conversion from mass, if c (the speed of light) were increased, the resulting energy from a given amount of mass would be increased by the square of the increase in c! If c were doubled, E would be quadrupled! If c were tripled, E would be increased 9× (nine-fold). If c were quadrupled, E would be increased 16× (sixteen-fold), and so on, and so on, and so on.

If c were increased by the incredible amount that it would take to account for squeezing 14 billion years of observable universe′s lifespan into only six thousand years, E would be increased by the square of that enormous amount!

Result: the very first time that any of God′s created living beings metabolized any nutrients at all in the Garden of Eden, the energy ...


I had a vague notion buzzing in my head about this when I wrote it, but you really broke it down well. Good stuff.
 
2012-11-19 11:30:39 PM
Marco Rubio is a creationist who opposes teaching evolution in science class:
The "crux" of the disagreement, according Rubio, is "whether what a parent teaches their children at home should be mocked and derided and undone at the public school level. It goes to the fundamental core of who is ultimately, primarily responsible for the upbringing of children. Is it your public education system or is it your parents?"

Rubio added, "And for me, personally, I don't want a school system that teaches kids that what they're learning at home is wrong."
 
2012-11-19 11:32:21 PM

usernameguy: Marco Rubio is a creationist who opposes teaching evolution in science class:The "crux" of the disagreement, according Rubio, is "whether what a parent teaches their children at home should be mocked and derided and undone at the public school level. It goes to the fundamental core of who is ultimately, primarily responsible for the upbringing of children. Is it your public education system or is it your parents?"

Rubio added, "And for me, personally, I don't want a school system that teaches kids that what they're learning at home is wrong."


If that was our standard for schools, they wouldn't be teaching kids anything.
 
2012-11-19 11:32:24 PM

FloydA: quatchi:

Even more offensive than his False Equivalency Theatre performance to me was this gem...

"I hope Mitt will stay involved in politics. I thought he was a great candidate, would have made a great president, and I hope he stays involved in our party,"

Link

Oh I'm not offended by that either. I also hope that Mitt Romney remains in the forefront of the leadership of the GOP. If they can get Bachmann, Perry, West, King, and Aiken up there too, even better.


I predict that Mittens will context the primaries again, using a slightly unusual and very misguided strategy to woo the African American electorate.

lh3.googleusercontent.com

When you think about him trying to adopt a southern accent recently it's not so unlikely.
 
2012-11-19 11:59:44 PM

usernameguy: Marco Rubio is a creationist who opposes teaching evolution in science class:The "crux" of the disagreement, according Rubio, is "whether what a parent teaches their children at home should be mocked and derided and undone at the public school level. It goes to the fundamental core of who is ultimately, primarily responsible for the upbringing of children. Is it your public education system or is it your parents?"

Rubio added, "And for me, personally, I don't want a school system that teaches kids that what they're learning at home is wrong."


So, like Paul Ryan, a Catholic in name only. CINO.
 
2012-11-20 12:13:51 AM
The same science that gave you this here internet and gave you that there smartphone is the one that says the earth is 4 point whatever billion years old. I hope no one who rejects geological history would be so hypocritical as to at the same time benefit from the very science they reject.
 
2012-11-20 01:22:49 AM
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 know I'm way late to the thread, but it kind of helps that when I read it, I heard it in my head in Jeff Bridges as The Dude's voice.

/New information has come to light, Marco.
 
2012-11-20 01:35:46 AM

kg2095: Have you ever heard someone from Leeds try to speak English? Outside of the London area the English are truly amongst the worst speakers of English in the world.


Actually, I figured he was trying to pretend he was from Leeds but was really a Monkey Hanging Hartlepudlian.
 
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