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 300
    More: Sad, Marco Rubio, GOP  
•       •       •

3986 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Nov 2012 at 2:07 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-19 12:32:00 PM  
12 votes:

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.



I'm not going to ask that he be an expert, but I would prefer it if senators on the science committee have a high schooler's understanding of science.
i.imgur.com
2012-11-19 11:11:56 AM  
11 votes:

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.


NO!

There has to be some minimum baseline for acceptable farkwittage.

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.

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

He has demonstrate he is either too stupid to be trusted with anything or a pandering asshole.
2012-11-19 02:47:21 PM  
9 votes:

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.


NO. It is not acceptable to be scientifically illiterate in this day and age and to still seek decision-making power over other people. Too many decisions rely on some ability to reason and employ the scientific method. It's not just up to scientists to answer that question. You ought to be able to say, based on everything you've learned in school and in college, referring to your understanding of how everything else works in nature that you understand why the Earth is the age that that is. And it most certainly is not a question for theologians, for fark sake. It's not the farking middle ages.

What Rubio did here was demonstrate that he is willing to excuse himself from fact-based decisions.
2012-11-19 11:22:03 AM  
9 votes:

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.


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

The age of the Earth is not a great mystery with competing theories. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. This is a fact.
2012-11-19 01:40:07 PM  
8 votes:

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

Agreed.

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

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

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


What Rubio actually said was:

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

See this part of the answer:

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

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

I think the reason that everyone's a bit tiffed at you is that the word "theories" should automatically exclude religious speculation. The Bible doesn't provide "theories" about how old the Earth is.
2012-11-19 02:58:45 PM  
7 votes:

lennavan: From his answer he clearly is not. But he is also willing to pander to them. Welcome to politics.


And here is the crux of the matter.

You have spent dozens of posts defending a strawman you built when you first came into the thread. That people were "poutraged" about his comments. This isn't outrage, nobody is shocked or surprised at a Right-Wing politician pandering to ignorant religious zealots... It's MOCKERY due to Rubio supposedly being not one of these extremist Republicans who are causing losses of Senate and House seats and even the Presidency.

It's right there in the headline.

Yet you changed the debate, twice over... you changed the tone from mockery to anger, and reframed and defended his statements.

I've seen you do this quite a few times. You nitpick so that you can be technically correct from a certain angle if you throw out common sense, but your extrapolation is completely impractical and unreasonable. And here you admit that Rubio didn't just evade the question with an "I dunno", but intentionally pandered to the religious zealots in his party, which flies in the face of the claim that he's some kind of different Republican.
2012-11-19 02:53:31 PM  
6 votes:

lennavan: Tigger: What I've taken away from this is neither Rubio nor Lennavan are educated enough to hold office.

I'd be one of those guys who admits he doesn't know. Like when a vote came up about stimulating the economy or regulating the banks and whatnot, I'd be like "Got me, I'm not an economist. Let's call some and ask." But you're right, that would be truly outrageous, we don't need leaders like that.


Well, economics is hardly settled science. The geological age of the Earth, however, is. It's quite settled. We're really quite done deciding it. It's a known fact. It's not up for debate. It's a knowable known thing. It's not a question for theologians. It's not a question scientists are asking, it's a fact scientists know. You can ask a scientist: how old is the Earth? And he will tell you: "this is the correct answer for how old the Earth is". Because we know the number very well. There's no hemming and hawing. There's no room for interpretation.

I don't think Rubio doesn't know the answer. I know he knows the answer. The reporter wasn't asking him that question because the reporter doesn't know the answer. The reporter knows the answer. Everybody in that exchange knew the answer.

What the reporter was asking was: "Are you, Marco Rubio, now prepared to swear your allegiance publicly to knowable facts that are known, or are you going to continue pandering to that segment of your voting base that rejects knowable known facts in favor of superstitious mumbo jumbo?"

Despite attempting to not answer the question, he answered the question loud and clear. What Rubio actually said was "I'm going to try much harder to make it sound like I won't reject known facts while doing my best to not alienate the loud and angry base of voters that do." It was a simple test, and his failure to pass it is manifest for everybody that's capable of parsing the English language by using a modest application of a thing called "context." Rubio's words don't exist in a vacuum, they exist in a context where the Republican party was just badly beaten in part because they rejected knowable facts in favor of their picture of the universe. The reporter wanted to know if Rubio was going to continue doing that. He told them he was, but he was going to use less absolute language while doing it. This isn't that hard.
2012-11-19 02:13:55 PM  
6 votes:
FWIW I just wrote a blog post eviscerating Rubio.

Man, this kind of stuff pisses me off to no end.

/Yes, I just quoted Lo Pan.
2012-11-19 11:54:43 AM  
6 votes:

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?


The age of the earth is calculated on the basis of known and measurable rates of decay of a variety of radioisotopes. We can be certain that the rate of decay is constant because, if it were otherwise, nuclear reactors and the internet would not work. Both of those are indeed relevant to the economic productivity of the US.

I can understand Rubio not wanting to offend his "base," and I can even be sympathetic to the suggestion that politicians can't be expected to know things like that (although frankly, I think they should), but we can be certain- within the limits of scientific certainty (which, you are correct, is never quite 100%) - that the earth is far, far older than just a few thousand years.
2012-11-19 04:10:02 PM  
5 votes:

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


Now you're lying. Your argument has not been "deferring to experts is good." Your argument has been that "deferring to experts is good" is Rubio's position. And the full context of the little cherryypicked snippet you keep presenting as "proof" that you are right demonstrates that this isn't Rubio's position at all.

Seriously, believing that Rubio's answer is the equivalent of "let's trust scientists - they're the experts" requires willful ignorance, lack of reading comprehension, or some profound doublethink. Or some combination of all three. Your position here is no more honest than that of proponents of Intelligent Design when they tell us "it's not creationism!"
2012-11-19 03:32:01 PM  
5 votes:

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


6,000 year old Earth or not, if you want to be involved in federal politics it matters to me whether or not you think there's something magical about Israeli ground. If you believe that the end of the world will occur in your lifetime and it's related to our foreign policy we have something very important to talk about if you're potentially positioning yourself to be POTUS.
2012-11-19 02:29:15 PM  
5 votes:

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

Agreed.

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

I'm thinkin a leader who tells us to put our trust in the scientists is the person you are looking for. You wanna know how old the earth is? Ask a scientist, not a politician.


He didn't defer to the scientists, though. He cited several religious ideas, and said that he matter is "still debated among theologists" and that the answer is "one of the great mysteries". Deferring to the scientists would be "Current scientific theory suggests the age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years; I would ask a scientist if you want more details." Instead, he threw out a nonsense, muddy-waters answer with direct citations of religion and absolutely no sense of deference.
2012-11-19 01:30:51 PM  
5 votes:

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

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


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

You're going through a lot of mental gymnastics in order to excuse Rubio's clearly pandering stance, taken for the sake of preserving the creationist vote in his party.
2012-11-19 01:22:51 PM  
5 votes:

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


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

I think he spewed some PC crap about all viewpoints having validity. Well, they don't. There is a right and a wrong answer to this question, one everyone should know, and if he wants to lead this country, he needs to send a message that some things are true and some things aren't.
2012-11-19 12:29:12 PM  
5 votes:

lennavan: He never said the earth was 7 days old.


He said that it might have taken 7 days to create. You don't reconcile a 7 day creation with billions of years of existence. He was giving credence to a creationist young earth theory.
2012-11-19 12:02:17 PM  
5 votes:
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

Who gives a flying fark what theologians say about this.
2012-11-19 11:28:22 AM  
5 votes:

lennavan: But I'm sure you knew.


Actually, I thought about it and came up with "about 4 billion years give or take" which is what I remember from the last time I had a science class. Turns out the estimate according to google is 4.54 billion years. That's a big farking difference than "I dunno, could be 7 days, could be more."
2012-11-19 11:14:28 AM  
5 votes:
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.


It's not what "people" teach that I'm concerned about; it's what schools teach.
2012-11-19 04:34:33 PM  
4 votes:

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 04:09:45 PM  
4 votes:
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.

Here's how it affects the GDP and economic growth you insincere piece of shiat:

Acceptance of scientific theories and research leads to a greater focus on education and knowledge. More money is raised/funded/poured into schools and colleges. Kids go to school, learn established scientific facts and become doctors, engineers and scientists. This leads to more research, more technological development, and a greater understanding of our world. Economic booms always follow technological leaps forward.

And we know this works because it worked in the farking 60s which put 17 American men on the god damn farking moon.

To say that science is specious and unreliable is discrediting hundreds of years of work by very smart people doing very smart studies. It results in decreased enthusiasm and confidence in scientific discourse, discourages students from pursuing science as a discipline, funding gets cut for studies and research for schools, children get stupider and less educated, the United States falls behind the rest of the world in scientific progress and it graduates into a new era of insulating fundamentalism before being usurped by a better empire (probably from the far east) within the next century.

And we know this is what happens when you turn your back on science and learning because it happened in the 11th and 12th centuries to the once opulent and intellectual golden age of Islam.
2012-11-19 03:54:09 PM  
4 votes:

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 03:39:32 PM  
4 votes:

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 03:29:03 PM  
4 votes:
The U.S. Congress doesn't just deal with the GDP and the economy. They also make decisions concerning global warming, pollution and whether or not to clean particularly bad sites up, NASA, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, The National Institutes of Health, the department of Energy.

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

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

He's not a scientist though, or an economist, so we shouldn't trust him with the GDP and economy either.
2012-11-19 02:51:09 PM  
4 votes:

lennavan: DirkValentine: lennavan: 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

lenny, i pretty much agree with most of what you post. But the above statement is bullshiat and has ZERO place in modern society.

Assume you are the science teacher at every school, explaining the difference between science and religion, facts and faith and how science uses theory and religion uses theory. You don't think that would be okay? Indeed, you don't think having the opportunity to juxtapose those would be a good thing?

Religion is a huge part of modern society, whether you like it or not. I don't. So I would love a chance to teach the "controversy."


It's only a huge

lennavan: DirkValentine: lennavan: 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

lenny, i pretty much agree with most of what you post. But the above statement is bullshiat and has ZERO place in modern society.

Assume you are the science teacher at every school, explaining the difference between science and religion, facts and faith and how science uses theory and religion uses theory. You don't think that would be okay? Indeed, you don't think having the opportunity to juxtapose those would be a good thing?

Religion is a huge part of modern society, whether you like it or not. I don't. So I would love a chance to teach the "controversy."


And now we're at the bottom of it.

It all comes down to "I want to teach retarded bullshiat in science class"

I knew we'd get you there in the end.
2012-11-19 02:46:24 PM  
4 votes:
What are you plans to address climate change?

"I'm not a scientist, man."

Do you think alternative energy can be made viable?

"I'm not a scientist, man."

When does life begin?

"I'm not a scientist, man."

Do you understand how a cyberattack could bring down our economy and infrastructure?

"I'm not a scientist, man."

Is the world flat?

"I'm not a scientist, man."
2012-11-19 02:41:26 PM  
4 votes:
Why a Roman Catholic politician like Rubio would be afraid to publicly support some scientific facts that the Vatican itself has no problem with in the first place?

To pander the derpish base of his ignorant and anti-intellectual party? sad. indeed.
2012-11-19 02:35:56 PM  
4 votes:

lennavan: Corvus: lennavan: 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.

but that's not the issue. The question is How many people in this thread know that SCIENTISTS know the age of the earth.

Marco Rubio also knows scientists know that answer. He said so, twice.

Relax, trust me, we will have ample opportunity to hate on the GOP. We'll have ample opportunity to hate on Rubio too.


He said:

Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.

That's demonstrably false. There is actual geological evidence of long eras forming the earth we know as it is today. They are not disputed by the scientific community.

He didn't say "I don't know, ask a scientist." He said, "I don't know, but it could be either a scientist or a priest who might have the right answer, I don't want to piss of the conservatives who will vote for me."
2012-11-19 02:35:04 PM  
4 votes:
What I've taken away from this is neither Rubio nor Lennavan are educated enough to hold office.
2012-11-19 02:33:41 PM  
4 votes:

lennavan: Rent Party: You're going to hear a lot of "I dunno! People should look into that!" answers from these clowns over the coming months.

Let me tell you, if the GOP starts saying "I don't know" that is a huge step forward. If next the GOP says "I don't know, let's ask some experts" well holy fark, that GOP will be absolutely unrecognizable.

I love that you mock it though. Presumably you prefer the one that says shiat like "you can't get pregnant from rape" and "global warming doesn't exist."


I do prefer it. You seem to think these guys are suddenly claiming ignorance because they, you know, *actually don't know.* They are not deferring the answer out of enlightenment, they are deferring the answer because they know that if the told you what they really thought, you would run screaming from the room.

This isn't progress, it's regression. They are now actively hiding their true mind from you. I'd much rather have them tell me what they really think, so I can vote accordingly.
2012-11-19 02:30:31 PM  
4 votes:

IronTom: I can agree with that. Those scientists that say that they know the age of the universe, or less so, the age of the Earth, or how many planets or stars there are are overly presumptuous.

Although, we can have a decent guess about the Earth, you would think. Not like the mystery if life and all that.


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. If you fundementally lack the capacity to appreciate this, you carry the legacy of why slavery was invented.
2012-11-19 01:34:38 PM  
4 votes:

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


Ob:
imgs.xkcd.com
2012-11-19 01:20:15 PM  
4 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Let me put it to you this way:

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

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

If he had said- ask a scientist, that would be one thing... But he included the whole "religious debate" side of it. And that only shows his comments about leaving social issues behind ringing false.
2012-11-19 01:20:10 PM  
4 votes:

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


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

For this, no. It would be ok if ths US wasn't full of scientific retards. But refusing to acknowledge scientific facts in this country is hurting our ability to progress.
2012-11-19 12:14:31 PM  
4 votes:
I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow.

Actually, this has everything to do with it.... when you wonder why we are getting our asses handed to ourselves as far as U.S. students vs. the other major countries in science and math scores, when you can't have an agreement from the top on fairly basic level science issues, that kills off a large number of kids who are raised to believe that, in their ability to get into those fields at a fundamental level.

This isn't an argument about whether the earth is 4.4 billion years old or 4.7 billion years old. This is an argument between 4.4 billion and 10,000. One side has decades or even centuries of data to fall back on. The other side has a book that they don't want to become irrelevant as their only basis.

The fact that we even give people saying the earth is 10,000 years old the time of day is a sad state of american discourse.
2012-11-19 12:07:40 PM  
4 votes:
One of the Earth's great mysteries is why people watch Here Comes Honey Boo Boo and Jersey Shore, not how old the planet is. I saw several people up-thread say the planet is 4.54 billion years old, and I wouldn't have guessed that exact number if you asked me, but I would have said "several billion years old", and it would have been an acceptable answer. Why would I have said that? Because it's an intelligent-sounding response that puts me in the ballpark of the actual number, which for someone like myself who has no scientific knowledge or experience, isn't half bad.

If you don't know something, say you don't know it. Don't say something is a "great mystery" when it's not. Maybe the age of the Earth was a great mystery in 1512, but not so much in 2012.
2012-11-19 11:51:31 AM  
4 votes:

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.


I read that as "ask a scientist or a clergyman" which is the wrong answer.
2012-11-19 11:41:38 AM  
4 votes:

lennavan: Hoban Washburne: lennavan: But I'm sure you knew.

Actually, I thought about it and came up with "about 4 billion years give or take" which is what I remember from the last time I had a science class. Turns out the estimate according to google is 4.54 billion years. That's a big farking difference than "I dunno, could be 7 days, could be more."

But that would be 0.54 billion years off if you asked a scientist, like he answered.

give me doughnuts: Too chickenshiat to state a position isn't a "sentiment." It's being chickenshiat.

His position was "that is a science question, ask a farking scientist."


His position was, "I'm going to avoid giving any kind of definite answer because I'm afraid of offending any voting blocs."
Like I said: chickenshiat.
2012-11-19 11:28:24 AM  
4 votes:

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.


Too chickenshiat to state a position isn't a "sentiment." It's being chickenshiat.
2012-11-19 11:04:16 AM  
4 votes:
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.

So, keep talking Rubio. Remind us why we voted for Obama again.
2012-11-19 11:27:59 PM  
3 votes:

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 05:04:13 PM  
3 votes:

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 04:55:08 PM  
3 votes:

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 04:51:32 PM  
3 votes:

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 04:20:28 PM  
3 votes:

lennavan: I was hoping no one would catch that one. This of course requires a discussion about how not all scientists are the same. You wouldn't ask a Chemist about evolution.


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.

I understand that in graduate school you learn more and more about less and less, but there is some basic science knowledge that nearly everyone should have learned by middle school, and probably reinforced both in high school and possible as an undergraduate. And the kids most likely to pick that science up are the ones excited about science who go on to become scientists, a career field that discourages more casual pursuit of the subject by it's high entry bar and low pay compared to education achievement.

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.
2012-11-19 04:18:48 PM  
3 votes:
I like to imagine that this transpired with the reporter and Rubio somewhere near a private space. And the reporter asked the question, thumb on his recorder, and Rubio gave him this look.

"You mind, son? Just for a minute." He says, gesturing to the thumb. Understanding, the rporter raises his thumb just a bit, and just like that, they're off the record.

"I know what you're asking. You know what you're asking. And you're right. It's damn terrible, just terrible, that this is the kind of question that influences politics. I know! You're not - just sit. Listen. There are three hundred million people in this country, and roughly half of them aren't comfortable with the world they've come to live in. I'm a Cuban with ambitions of going places some day - but the second I answer that question with a fact, you know, you know that I might as well plan on running for President with a D after my name. So. In a few seconds, you're going to put your thumb back and I'm going to say something that makes me look like an idiot. Better that someone who isn't willing to say stands on the Science committee than someone who genuinely doesn't farking know, right? Now... you can start recording again. Time for you to make me look stupid and act proud of yourself."

But that's giving everyone involved too much credit.
2012-11-19 03:58:16 PM  
3 votes:

lennavan: 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


I don't know how to make it clearer

1) No one is concerned about the part where he said "I'm not a scientist"
2) People are talking about the part after that where he said "It's a great mystery" also "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."

It's part 2 that's the dumb part.
2012-11-19 03:51:15 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:42:27 PM  
3 votes:

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 03:38:57 PM  
3 votes:
This thread is seriously dildos.

Seriously.
Dildos.
2012-11-19 03:38:32 PM  
3 votes:

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


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

The Republican party is a joke if they can't answer a simple question about the age of the earth. Stop being upset at the people asking the "gotcha" questions and start being upset at politicians who are either truly that stupid or cater to people who are that stupid.
2012-11-19 03:31:38 PM  
3 votes:

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

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

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

// sheesh


You're hiding behind semantics.

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

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

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

Ask a specific question and you'll get a specific answer; if you choose to keep it intentionally vague don't be surprised when you receive an inprecise answer.
2012-11-19 03:30:29 PM  
3 votes:

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


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

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

That god sounds like a total douchenozzle.
2012-11-19 03:27:26 PM  
3 votes:

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

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


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

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

The fact that you seem to think it does is why so many smart, well educated farkers are hammering the shiat out of you here, and your intransigence is making you look even dumber than SK usually does.
2012-11-19 03:20:15 PM  
3 votes:

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

This is what an extremist sounds like:

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

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

I will accept your apology.


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

I never once called Rubio an extremist. I said he was pandering to them, which doesn't make him very different from the majority of his Party. In fact, your quote sufficiently proves that Rubio was pandering to "extremists". Remember when you admitted that Rubio was pandering to the Young Earth Creationists?
2012-11-19 03:16:13 PM  
3 votes:

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


Because the question is so basic. This isn't two sides of a coin where either may be equally valid. This is a, "do you think the earth is flat," question. There is only one correct answer.
2012-11-19 03:15:43 PM  
3 votes:

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

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

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


The age of the earth is on the same level of "specialized scientific knowledge" as germ theory is currently known. If someone asked Rubio what is the cause of the common cold and he said it's a virus, people would (should) know that he said the right thing. If he said it's because the demons are trying to break out of one's body, people should know that he's kidding or shouldn't be anywhere close to the red buttons. If he said it's a mystery, then we know he's an idiot. It's not a mystery.
2012-11-19 03:13:21 PM  
3 votes:

lennavan: Let us return to what he actually said. "I'm not a scientist, man."


...said the senator who sits on both the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and Subcommittee on Science and Space.

Yeah, so he thinks there might be some validity to the idea that the world is a disc that rides on the back of a cosmic turtle. Big deal, amirite?
2012-11-19 03:12:00 PM  
3 votes:
"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."

That's the part of his answer that bothers me. This is pure creationism.You don't have to remember what is the estimate age of the earth, but at least have some order of magnitude correct in your answer. Saying 7 days or 7 eras is just pandering to the religious crazies.
2012-11-19 03:11:10 PM  
3 votes:

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" is what he said. Since this is indistinguishable from the views of extremist Republicans on this issue, then yes, the label is accurate.
2012-11-19 03:10:26 PM  
3 votes:

Anti_illuminati: This is where everyone is getting confused in this thread. It's quite hilarious to watch.


It's not even confused. lennavan's outright ignoring the half dozen times I've showed the exact quotes Rubio said.
2012-11-19 03:10:14 PM  
3 votes:

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

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


No, "There are a variety of theories as to the age of the earth, including theological ones and we should teach them all because the God theory could be the correct one" is an example of an idiot Republican.
2012-11-19 03:02:38 PM  
3 votes:

Fluorescent Testicle: You guys know that Lennavan is (more likely than not) one of Skullkrusher's alts, right?


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

Dan the Schman: And here is the crux of the matter.

You have spent dozens of posts defending a strawman you built when you first came into the thread. That people were "poutraged" about his comments. This isn't outrage, nobody is shocked or surprised at a Right-Wing politician pandering to ignorant religious zealots... It's MOCKERY due to Rubio supposedly being not one of these extremist Republicans who are causing losses of Senate and House seats and even the Presidency.

It's right there in the headline.

Yet you changed the debate, twice over... you changed the tone from mockery to anger, and reframed and defended his statements.

I've seen you do this quite a few times. You nitpick so that you can be technically correct from a certain angle if you throw out common sense, but your extrapolation is completely impractical and unreasonable. And here you admit that Rubio didn't just evade the question with an "I dunno", but intentionally pandered to the religious zealots in his party, which flies in the face of the claim that he's some kind of different Republican.


That's a much better summation of what I was trying to say
2012-11-19 03:00:31 PM  
3 votes:

lennavan: So I would love a chance to teach the "controversy."


There are a lot of controversies in science. As long as the controversies being taught were proven out via the scientific method then I am cool with 'teaching the controversy'. Has the 6000 y.o. Earth 'theory' been demonstrated using the scientific method?
2012-11-19 02:50:17 PM  
3 votes:

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?"


Yes, I'm sure it was the fact that he couldn't recall the exact figure that was the problem. Nor did Senator Rubio need to cite any figures, if he couldn't recall them, in his answer; he could have left it at "I'm not a scientist, man" but he didn't, preferring instead to deliberately introduce theology into his answer.

lennavan: The religious ideas are indeed still debated amongst theologians. If you re-read his statement, you will realize that is what he is referring to as debated:


He wasn't asked a religious question, he was asked a scientific question. The only reason to bring theology into the debate at all is to intentionally muddy the waters.

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

Nope, no sense of deference at all.


Except he then gave an answer that was heavy on theology and contained only passing references to science. Saying "that's a science question and I don't know the answer, but here's the religious view" is not deference in any sense of the word.
2012-11-19 02:49:51 PM  
3 votes:

lennavan: dletter: Again, though, if he would have said "I think somewhere around 50 million years old" even... at least we know he isn't thinking it is 10,000 years old.

What the fark is so wrong with admitting you don't know? Why is this so egregious?

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?
Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man.

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.

Perhaps that is why he continued on talking about teaching faith and science after saying "I'm not a scientist" right? I think if you stopped searching really hard for something to hate on Rubio for, you'd realize this isn't really that bad. No worries, there will be plenty of opportunity in the future. But this isn't it.


If he had said "I don't know" that would be fine. He actually said "I don't know, but..." and then started mouth-farting about the Bible and theologians as if those things were at all relevant to answering the question.
2012-11-19 02:43:42 PM  
3 votes:

lennavan: Tigger: What I've taken away from this is neither Rubio nor Lennavan are educated enough to hold office.

I'd be one of those guys who admits he doesn't know. Like when a vote came up about stimulating the economy or regulating the banks and whatnot, I'd be like "Got me, I'm not an economist. Let's call some and ask." But you're right, that would be truly outrageous, we don't need leaders like that.


We do not need leaders like either you or Rubio who seem to think it's totally ok to pretend that you're just not sure about something because there's a fake debate between 'science' and 'theologians'.

He described something as a "great mystery" which isn't. At all.

Again the interesting question for me is why you need to defend him so. Couldn't you just say "Look he has a lot of religious people in his base who think the world is 6,0000 years old so he dodged the question"?

I mean what about saying that is so painful?
2012-11-19 02:43:38 PM  
3 votes:

lennavan: 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


lenny, i pretty much agree with most of what you post. But the above statement is bullshiat and has ZERO place in modern society.
2012-11-19 02:36:58 PM  
3 votes:

lennavan: GAT_00: That's lennavan's entire argument more or less. To be uneducated and to openly proclaim it is suddenly educated.

Admitting you don't know something is a good thing. I'm sorry you don't realize that. I really am.


Right, but once again that's not only what he did. Then he went on to say no one really knows the answer and that people who think the earth is 4000 years old belief is as valid as scientists.

You keep pretending that part didn't happen.
2012-11-19 02:31:44 PM  
3 votes:
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.

So many things wrong with this statement, it's hard to know where to start. First, studying the age of the cosmos (as is done in NASA, and various laboratories across the world) contributes massively to our gross domestic product, and is the core of an innovative economy. Second, learn to understand there is a difference between the age of the universe, and the age of the Earth. These are very different questions. Third, why are you concerned about what a theologian says about the age of anything? They have nothing but recopied transcripts of passed-down oral stories, conversations and musings between the most fanatical members of genocidal desert tribes, translated through multiple languages and a dozen centuries.

I wouldn't trust those documents to tell me color of shiat, let alone the age of a planetary body.
2012-11-19 02:15:51 PM  
3 votes:

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

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


My 14 year old nephew can answer this question. I expect a politician who sets policy to be able to answer questions on settled science.

/i weep for America because of people like you
2012-11-19 02:11:00 PM  
3 votes:

SphericalTime: Weaver95: *sigh*

theocrats.

I find myself weirdly affected by the people that don't mind the theocrats as much as the theocrats themselves.


past a certain point, the only thing you can do is limit the damage the GOP theocrats can do, and then ride out the rest of the storm. look - the Republicans got beat down hard this past election. But did they stop and ponder the root causes of their crushing defeat? hells no, they seem to be doubling down on the stupid and using it to rally the troops.

we're not going to convince the True Believers that they're wrong. that's a pointless waste of time. instead, lets focus on making sure the religious nut balls can't do too much damage while working to phase them out of office fast as possible.
2012-11-19 02:08:25 PM  
3 votes:

Weaver95: *sigh*

theocrats.


I find myself weirdly affected by the people that don't mind the theocrats as much as the theocrats themselves.
2012-11-19 02:02:30 PM  
3 votes:

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

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


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

Following from the rather vague statement that he made, it sounds like Sen. Rubio would be fine with science teachers choosing to teach Biblical theories on the origin of the Earth in science class, if they wanted to.
2012-11-19 02:01:06 PM  
3 votes:

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


Very, very slowly.
2012-11-19 01:25:02 PM  
3 votes:

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

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

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

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


I guess we have to agree to disagree.

This nation is addicted to ignorance, and I think this is as bad as telling a heroin addict that just a little heroin will be ok, as long as he doesn't go nuts with it.
2012-11-19 01:20:15 PM  
3 votes:

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


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

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


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

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


I find it's hard to forget an anthropomorphic wombat discussing that with a statue of the god Ganesh.
www.diggercomic.com
2012-11-19 01:12:02 PM  
3 votes:
I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.

Right here, he's explicitly saying that what faith says and what science says contradict each other.
2012-11-19 01:02:01 PM  
3 votes:

dletter: GAT_00: 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.

Are you an expert on questions? Then you and he can't answer that. You must defer to a question expert.

Again though, only an idiot doesn't realize that the reason behind the question wasn't to make sure Rubio pulled the number 4.5 billion out of his hat, vs 3 billion or 6 billion or even 50 million as I said. It was to see if he said a huge number or 10,000.

So, I am asking you... you think the reporter was really just trying to ask him an "academic" question and wanting a very accurate result? Would you have been happier if the reporter would have been more specific and asked "Do you think the earth is closer to 10,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old?" And, "deferring to a question expert" would mean bringing in a scientist, who is going to tell you roughly 4.5 billion, and that doesn't help him dodge the question like he was attempting to do.


I think the reporter was using the question as a dummy to ask the real question: are you serious about kicking out the social conservatives or are you still pandering to them. Rubio answered definitely that he is still pandering. There is a host of answers that would have been acceptable here. Yes the reporter could have directly given him the choice, but then Rubio could have answered exactly the same way he did here with the dodge. Basically, Rubio could have said any number of ways "I trust science" and he didn't. He said "I don't want to piss off social conservatives."
2012-11-19 12:53:06 PM  
3 votes:

cman: 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?


No. We can reasonably infer that the age of the earth is around 4 billion years, give or take a few hundred million. Why? Because science allows us to infer events that happen, will happen, or have happened without us needing to directly observe that event.

Any other answer to the question "how old is the earth" is pandering to religious conservatives.
2012-11-19 12:52:09 PM  
3 votes:

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


Maybe I'm just reading his answer very differently than you, but it sounds to me like he wasn't deferring to scientists - he was deferring to theologians at least as much.
2012-11-19 12:20:26 PM  
3 votes:

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.


The age of the Earth is something you learn in high school. You don't have to be an expert to know that, and there are plenty of easy reading science writers out there like Bill Bryson who explain things in an easily readable manner. To pretend that not answering a basic question because you aren't an "expert" is ridiculous. Would he refuse to answer what the weather is supposed to be tomorrow because he isn't a meteorologist? Would you refuse to acknowledge earthquakes exist because you aren't a geologist?

You are fully defending ignorance, and you are the problem.
2012-11-19 12:16:09 PM  
3 votes:

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


It is ignorance when the experts you defer to are not, in fact, experts, and are in fact purveyors or ignorance.
2012-11-19 12:14:58 PM  
3 votes:

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.


I'm sort of on your side on this controversy (dategate), but I really like how his dichotomous either/or at the end was two interpretations of the bible. He's honest in not being an expert, but he's pure politician in his answer.
2012-11-19 11:58:29 AM  
3 votes:

cman: 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.


If you want to go down that path, you might as well say that we don't know anything ever, because our senses could be deceiving us.
2012-11-19 11:57:02 AM  
3 votes:

lennavan: Hoban Washburne: If he said "From what I remember, scientists agree it's about 4 billion years old," people wouldn't be giving him a hard time.

But he said "I'm not a scientist... I'm not qualified to answer that question" and that's truly poutrageous?

Hoban Washburne: You're right. I'd be off by about 13.5 percent of the ESTIMATED age of the earth. Any guess as to how far off his "maybe 7 days" statement is? I'm no mathematician, but I can tell you it's a farkload.

He never said the earth was 7 days old. Here's what happened, you read Rubio, you saw the Fark headline, and immediately assumed the headline was not misleading and he was just gonna derp. Turned out he didn't. This may shock you - Fark headlines are not always truthful. So that led you to completely misread what Rubio was saying.

He never said the earth was 7 days old.


No he dodged the question because he doesn't want to offend a metric shiatton of pig ignorant farkwits that he may need support from in future.

In short he's a pandering asshole.

Or he's just so dumb he shouldn't ever run for office.
2012-11-19 11:47:55 AM  
3 votes:

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.
2012-11-19 11:37:25 AM  
3 votes:

lennavan: But that would be 0.54 billion years off if you asked a scientist, like he answered."


You're right. I'd be off by about 13.5 percent of the ESTIMATED age of the earth. Any guess as to how far off his "maybe 7 days" statement is? I'm no mathematician, but I can tell you it's a farkload. 

If he said "From what I remember, scientists agree it's about 4 billion years old," people wouldn't be giving him a hard time.
2012-11-19 11:23:20 AM  
3 votes:

lennavan: But I'm sure you knew.


How is it possible to be educated and not know the age of the Earth?
2012-11-19 10:33:58 AM  
3 votes:
Republicans love
money, guns, and industry
but they hate science
2012-11-19 07:47:57 PM  
2 votes:
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 07:17:30 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:36:16 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:24:25 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:57:42 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:19:00 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:08:52 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:08:29 PM  
2 votes:

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 05:07:47 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:56:30 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:54:45 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:48:09 PM  
2 votes:
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 04:42:54 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:32:15 PM  
2 votes:

lennavan: thurstonxhowell: lennavan: There are more if you like:

That's you insisting that that's what people are hammering you on, not people hammering you on that. There's a difference.

So if I follow - I have been arguing one thing all along and people are hammering me on something else.

[strawman.jpg]

Hey, it's not often someone openly admits it. Kudos to you, sir.


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.
2012-11-19 04:29:02 PM  
2 votes:

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.


There are two possible problems:
A) he does not have a highschool education
or
b) he is pretending not to, so that he doesn't insult his constituents who think a high school education is incompatible with faith in god.
2012-11-19 04:28:34 PM  
2 votes:
I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow.


How different demographics with different beliefs vote certainly will.
2012-11-19 04:27:50 PM  
2 votes:

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?"
2012-11-19 04:27:30 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-11-19 04:20:53 PM  
2 votes:

Jim_Callahan: qorkfiend: You wouldn't expect a chemist to understand the basic principles of evolution? Why not?

A chemist, yes, the same math informs the basis of chemistry (though it's really the other way, modern evolutionary theory is more of an application of the principles of chemistry to an ecological system).

Wouldn't expect, say, a psychologist to know more than the grade-school version, though. Or a geologist. Less crossover, there. They'd probably just write directions to the biology department on a bit of paper and hand it to you. Or possibly the library.


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.
2012-11-19 04:16:33 PM  
2 votes:

Leeds: qorkfiend: skullkrusher: Holocaust Agnostic: skullkrusher: Pharque-it: These idiots do not even know when their idol, Jesus, was born. Neither day nor year.

December 25, 0

suck on that!

Soometime in summer, 35BC.

how the fark is there snow on the manger in summertime in the middle east?

That's a dispute among theologians.

I don't think that there's any dispute that Jesus's birthday was celebrated in April for the first few hundred years. Until the need arose to co-opt the solstice party the pagans threw every year.

Even the Catholics readily admit that: Catholic.com


I'm not a theologist, man. 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 when Jesus was born 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 Jesus was born April, or December, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.
2012-11-19 04:15:05 PM  
2 votes:

lennavan: Anti_illuminati: lennavan: I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with.

"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."

You do not disagree with this statement?

I think figuring out how existence came to be is one of the great mysteries. I of course did not read this as "7 days or 7 eras are the only two possibilities."


"Existance" and "the creation of the Earth" are not synonyms you puerile cretin.

And the relative time frame for when both of those events occurred is not particularly mysterious.

/Christ, I bit hard. Time to step away from the computer.
2012-11-19 04:14:49 PM  
2 votes:

lennavan: I was hoping no one would catch that one. This of course requires a discussion about how not all scientists are the same. You wouldn't ask a Chemist about evolution.


Imagine you were giving a job interview to a Chemist, and you asked him what his favorite programming language was for doing numerical simulations. And suppose he answered:
Boy, that's a real good question. Some people are really starting to like the Python package NumPy for that type of thing, but I personally just like to use the Bible. Now, I don't know if Python or the Bible are better for doing numerical simulations, but I think people should be allowed to teach their children to use both. If you want to know which one is better, maybe you should ask a theologian.
Would you hire that chemist? What if it turned out later that job you were hiring him or her for ultimately involved no numerical simulations of any kind, so the question wasn't really pertinent to the job? Would you hire that chemist then?
2012-11-19 04:09:26 PM  
2 votes:

The Larch: StrangeQ: 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.

Actually, that's a good point. The speed of light in miles / second is one of those things that stopped being a thing sometime in the 80's. It's sort of an age shibboleth now. Americans over 40 mostly know that the speed of light is 186K miles / second. Americans under 40 mostly know that the speed of light is 300K kilometers / second.

But for some reason, Americans still seem to mostly know that the height of Everest in feet. Go figure...


Was being snarky, but yeah, the point stands that if he had been asked "what is the speed of light?" any answer beginning with "well, I know what the Bible says..." would have been face-palm-through-the-back-of-the-head incorrect, pandering, and utterly ignorant.
2012-11-19 04:08:05 PM  
2 votes:

lennavan: Gwyrddu: lennavan: 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.

This seems to undermine your whole "ask a scientist" point if you are a scientist and don't know how old the earth is.

I was hoping no one would catch that one. This of course requires a discussion about how not all scientists are the same. You wouldn't ask a Chemist about evolution.


You wouldn't expect a chemist to understand the basic principles of evolution? Why not?
2012-11-19 04:02:14 PM  
2 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: I guess "I'm not a scientist, man" is at least an oblique acknowledgment that the question is suitable to those among us who are scientists. Maybe.

Baby elephant steps...


If only he hadn't qualified it with all those religious references...
2012-11-19 04:01:29 PM  
2 votes:

lennavan: 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.


This seems to undermine your whole "ask a scientist" point if you are a scientist and don't know how old the earth is.

Maybe Marco Rubio would have been better off asking a fifth grader, because I'd bet money a fifth grader knowing how old the earth is (at least if said fifth grader doesn't live south of the Mason-Dixon line). Seriously, this isn't hard. If you don't know the earth is billions of years old I'm never going to vote for you because you are ignorant farkwad who lacks even the basic curiosity about the world around him to know what's going on . If you pretend to not know how old the earth like Marco Rubio did I'm never going to vote for you because you are a pandering asshole which can't even take a stand on basic facts like the age of the earth.
2012-11-19 04:00:49 PM  
2 votes:

Jim_Callahan: 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.


First, the age of the earth is not something you need to be an expert in science in to answer. This is basic knowledge that is taught in grade school. And he outright equates the scientific answer with faith-based answers and says they should both be taught, so he's damn well aware of what the different answers are. So no, he's not deferring to the experts. He knows what the real experts (the scientific ones) will say, he either doesn't want to say it because he's pandering to his base or he's really that ignorant. But if you are OK with Rubio, who is on the subcommittee on science and space, deferring to religious experts on scientific issues then I guess that's your choice.
2012-11-19 03:55:12 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:54:59 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:53:03 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:52:38 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:52:37 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:51:46 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:49:08 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:44:27 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:41:00 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:40:38 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:38:02 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


Is your ignorance now the standard by which others should be measured?
2012-11-19 03:36:54 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

FTFY

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


He wasn't asked about religion. All on his own he invoked theology to answer a scientific question. His answer would have been equally valid if he had invoked the Time Cube guy as an authority.
2012-11-19 03:29:02 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

// sheesh


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

And the question of the moon forming is a red herring, since it formed within that first 30 million years. Its about the same age as the earth.
2012-11-19 03:27:20 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

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

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


It doesn't stop there. It's turtles all the way down.
2012-11-19 03:25:18 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


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

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

What he should have said is that it is unlikely that religion will ever fully concede rights to the truth to scientific inquiry, that would have been honest.
2012-11-19 03:18:18 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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

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


Exactly.

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

In the given example he said the equivalent of "two headed monkeys with miniature bicycles cycle up your nose and make sweet love to your humors is what causes a cold."
2012-11-19 03:17:10 PM  
2 votes:

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


How about the one that posted up the thread and stated he (and scientists from other disciplines) all have calculated exactly how old the earth is?
2012-11-19 03:12:38 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


Well, look on the bright side, it gives us all something to do as we avoid working on these couple of days before the Thanksgiving break. I salute your dedicated to sophistry, len, I'd probably be bored without it.
2012-11-19 03:07:26 PM  
2 votes:

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.

So, keep talking Rubio. Remind us why we voted for Obama again.


This is the reason why the GOP will never get it. They lump Koreans with Japanese with Chinese, not realizing that the Koreans and the Chinese hate the Japanese for what the Japanese did to them in the 1930s. The GOP lump the Hutus and the Tutsis like they're just all "black". They lump the mexicans with the cubans as the generic "hispanics". They lump Ukrainians with Russians not realizing that Ukrainians hate what Russia did to their country right after WWII. They lump Poles with Bulgarians not realizing that they speak completely different languages. They lump Iranians and Iraqis, not realizing one group is semitic with a semitic language and are primarily Sunnis and the other is oriental (asian-ish) with an asian language and are primarily Shi'ites. How they can do international diplomacy is beyond me.
2012-11-19 03:06:28 PM  
2 votes:

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.


fark that. He wants to claim he can (or his party) make the best choice regarding economics, well, what is he basing those choices on? I would hope it is fact based research conducted using the scientific method, but since he fails to accept science on a question like the age of the earth, why would I expect him to accept the science on something like the economy. What evidence is there that he won't do what he feels is right even if it is the totally wrong thing to do?

That is the problem with his statement.
2012-11-19 03:03:25 PM  
2 votes:

gshepnyc: NO. It is not acceptable to be scientifically illiterate in this day and age and to still seek decision-making power over other people. Too many decisions rely on some ability to reason and employ the scientific method. It's not just up to scientists to answer that question. You ought to be able to say, based on everything you've learned in school and in college, referring to your understanding of how everything else works in nature that you understand why the Earth is the age that that is. And it most certainly is not a question for theologians, for fark sake. It's not the farking middle ages.

What Rubio did here was demonstrate that he is willing to excuse himself from fact-based decisions.


Absolutely. He's pandering to farkwit creationists by implying an equivalence between science and superstition. I don't need a president who knows the exact age, but I do want a president who would ask a scientist - rather than a theologian - for the answer.
2012-11-19 03:03:19 PM  
2 votes:
In his defense, the GOP came pretty close to winning the popular vote without proposing anything more specific than "Obama bad".
If anything, Rubio's answer in this case was probably too detailed and concrete. A better choice would have been:

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Answer: All of them.
2012-11-19 02:57:39 PM  
2 votes:
Rubio will be the first to reach for a chart showing rises in carbon dioxide from volcanoes millions of years ago if necessary. They trumpet him as the future of the GOP, but it's the same old hypocrisy behind the baby face. Paul Ryan is the same way. Good luck, pretty boys.
2012-11-19 02:54:30 PM  
2 votes:

lennavan: The great mystery to which he referred is the beginning of existence. Not the age of the Earth.


According to science, also not a great mystery either.
2012-11-19 02:49:09 PM  
2 votes:

lennavan: Assume you are the science teacher at every school, explaining the difference between science and religion, facts and faith and how science uses theory and religion uses theory. You don't think that would be okay? Indeed, you don't think having the opportunity to juxtapose those would be a good thing?

Religion is a huge part of modern society, whether you like it or not. I don't. So I would love a chance to teach the "controversy."


Juxtaposing those things only makes faith look bad by not having any evidence and weakens science by putting it up against things with absolutely no material evidence.

They are two different things, and it is a disservice to say "I don't know what the truth is, but this unsupported belief that's been passed down as tradition over generations is just as valid as these observations made that actually look at how the world works."

Religion is a huge part of modern society. I don't think that's a reason we should coddle it and hold it up as being equal to science in terms of describing reality..
2012-11-19 02:42:12 PM  
2 votes:

Corvus: lennavan: GAT_00: That's lennavan's entire argument more or less. To be uneducated and to openly proclaim it is suddenly educated.

Admitting you don't know something is a good thing. I'm sorry you don't realize that. I really am.

Right, but once again that's not only what he did. Then he went on to say no one really knows the answer and that people who think the earth is 4000 years old belief is as valid as scientists.

You keep pretending that part didn't happen.


What he could have said: "Whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade."
2012-11-19 02:41:26 PM  
2 votes:

Tigger: What I've taken away from this is neither Rubio nor Lennavan are educated enough to hold office.


I've learned that "I'm not a scientist, but..." is the new "I'm not a racist, but..."
2012-11-19 02:40:45 PM  
2 votes:
www.ethannonsequitur.com

Don't say that it could be any answer when once answer is clearly better supported than the other.

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


If somebody believes in magic, then there is no topic that cannot be explained with magic.

You seem to have more of an issue with theological explanations questions in general.

Personally I prefer to use a bit of Occam's razor in my approach.
A. An omnipotent being that I do not understand and cannot detect used magic to create the Earth.
B. Gravity acted over massive time periods to coalesce the Earth through the process of accretion.


It's a theist-deist problem. If a god is all-powerful, that's one thing. If a god is all-powerful and all-subtle, then why bother with him?
2012-11-19 02:40:08 PM  
2 votes:

lennavan: Rent Party: You're going to hear a lot of "I dunno! People should look into that!" answers from these clowns over the coming months.

Let me tell you, if the GOP starts saying "I don't know" that is a huge step forward. If next the GOP says "I don't know, let's ask some experts" well holy fark, that GOP will be absolutely unrecognizable.

I love that you mock it though. Presumably you prefer the one that says shiat like "you can't get pregnant from rape" and "global warming doesn't exist."



Jesus, can your expectations get any lower? I'm not into rewarding "C" students because they're no longer "D" students. And I'm not into giving someone a cookie for acknowledging that science exists, or that MAYBE he was wrong about the vagina's ability to evict rape sperm. No sir, I'm not giving the brownie points.
2012-11-19 02:39:54 PM  
2 votes:

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.


Normally that would be a fair point, but in this instance he went out of his way to bring creationism into his answer - more than once. His answer wasn't 'I dunno man, a few billion years? A few hundred million?' it was (to paraphrase) 'who knows - could be billions of years old, could be 6000 years and god buried those fossils to mess with us - teach the controversy.'

He seems like a smart guy and I'd be surprised if he really is a young earth creationist but it's a sad and worrying state of affairs when a serious contender for the presidency has to pander to people who believe the earth is a few thousand years old in order to have a future in politics. It's an even worse state of affairs if he believes it - how can you address issues like pollution, long term energy plans or climate change when you think "god did it" is how all that oil got underground?
2012-11-19 02:37:01 PM  
2 votes:

lennavan: Let me tell you, if the GOP starts saying "I don't know" that is a huge step forward. If next the GOP says "I don't know, let's ask some experts" well holy fark, that GOP will be absolutely unrecognizable.


That would be nice, but I don't think we should give them much credit for "I don't know, but it might be something really farking stupid, and that deserves as much consideration as the thing that is backed up by science."
2012-11-19 02:32:56 PM  
2 votes:

lennavan: Corvus: lennavan: 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.

but that's not the issue. The question is How many people in this thread know that SCIENTISTS know the age of the earth.

Marco Rubio also knows scientists know that answer. He said so, twice.

Relax, trust me, we will have ample opportunity to hate on the GOP. We'll have ample opportunity to hate on Rubio too.


Bullshiat he said scientist had one of "many theories". He said no one knows for sure and implied that people who think the earth is 4000 years old are just as valid as real scientists.
2012-11-19 02:32:18 PM  
2 votes:

lennavan: Marco Rubio also knows scientists know that answer. He said so, twice.


He absolutely did not. He said scientists have a theory on that and that "[a]t 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."
2012-11-19 02:28:12 PM  
2 votes:

lennavan: I'm okay with him just asking a scientist to show up to the meeting so they can ask the scientist.


He didn't just defer to a scientist, he also deferred to theologians. Why would Rubio defer a science question to a theologian?
2012-11-19 02:21:31 PM  
2 votes:
Ask Chris Christie what he thinks about this.

1) He'll probably give you an honest answer.
2) He won't be able to run in 2016. See #1.
2012-11-19 02:17:33 PM  
2 votes:
When you put the same weight of Biblical texts as science there is going to be a problem.
2012-11-19 02:16:49 PM  
2 votes:
There are a lot of perfectly fine ways to answer that question. "WELP DUNNO THEM SCIENTISTS MIGHT BE RIGHT OR THEM CULTISTS MIGHT BE RIGHT PURDY MUCH THE SAME EITHER WAY NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT I WANNA TALK ABOUT" is not one of them.
2012-11-19 02:16:19 PM  
2 votes:

cman: When can theorize to our hearts content, but we can never be 100% certain.


Sh:t, ask him the same thing about God or even Jesus... "I know, with all my hearts content, I'm 100% certain Jesus is our Lord and Savior".

What his is, is nothing but a pandering twatwaffle. Then again, this isn't news at all.
2012-11-19 02:15:22 PM  
2 votes:
You know the worst thing about Republicans, the WORST thing about the GOP? Republicans love to not know. Nothing makes a conservative happier than not knowing the answer to your question. 'Hey man, what's the capital of Kenya?' 'Shucks, I don't know that! The only 3 letters i need to know are U..S..and..A, just keeping it real.' Yeah, you're keeping it real, real dumb. Republicans hate knowledge. shiat, if you're afraid a Romney voter will break into your house, and you wanna save your money, you know what you do? You put the money in a book. Cause conservatives don't read. Books are like kryptonite to a member of the GOP. 'Here's a science book.' 'NOOOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Not a science book!'"
2012-11-19 02:11:31 PM  
2 votes:

dugitman: A lot of outrage over a politician side-stepping a thinly-veiled theological question. 
 
Lennavan
 
[i107.photobucket.com image 270x203]


The age of the earth isn't a theological question. If you think it is then you are a retard.
2012-11-19 01:50:44 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


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

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

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


. . . This is actually what causes the confusion that results in poor science education for American students. Exactly this confusion between religious and scientific questions and word usage.
2012-11-19 01:45:48 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing. That is why he differentiated between the two.

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


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

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

Oh wait, you're just trolling. Why else would you try to suggest his "7 days" comment could refer to ANYTHING OTHER THAN the Biblical Creation Myth?
2012-11-19 01:33:17 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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


he's also editing out significant portions of a really sh*tty answer with his ellipses.
2012-11-19 01:29:47 PM  
2 votes:

lennavan: Why? What makes that question different?


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

There is no scientific basis whatsoever for believing that earth is 6,000 years old. If it was, writing and cities would predate the earth. It is just plain flat out wrong as wrong can be, and yet a majority of Americans believe it to be true or at least in the ballpark. And any leader who is willing to stab America in the brain by validating that idiocy has no business leading anybody.
2012-11-19 01:17:00 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


right after which he spends a couple of sentences reiterating his belief that the creation of the earth is an unanswerable mystery. he's talking out of both sides of his mouth for very obvious reasons. the fact that he's doing it and the reasons he has to are both despicable.
2012-11-19 01:13:07 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

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

SENATOR RUBIO, YOU KNOW BETTER. YOU ARE HURTING AMERICA, AND YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
2012-11-19 01:10:19 PM  
2 votes:

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

Agreed.

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

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

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


Or he could have brought up some guy from the "Christian Science" museum in Kentucky and had him say 10,000. Now what?
2012-11-19 01:04:10 PM  
2 votes:

Sybarite: 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.

It's not what "people" teach that I'm concerned about; it's what schools teach.


Precisely, it's not what is being taught it's where.

If the religious right stuck to just wanting to teach Bible stories in Sunday School and not insert their faux-science into the classroom this wouldn't even be an issue. But they do try and so it is. Rubio can't afford to piss off any of the base who may actually believe the earth is literally 7000 years old so he makes stupid statements like this trying to please everyone and, of course, it doesn't work. It was a dumb question really because what he really should have asked was "do you think Creationism has a rightful place in public schools?" but the reporter went roundabout.

Fail all around.
2012-11-19 12:55:01 PM  
2 votes:

lennavan: GAT_00: 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.

Are you an expert on questions? Then you and he can't answer that. You must defer to a question expert.

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

Did you feel really stupid posting that? Seems beneath you, I dunno.


You defer to an expert on the physics of black holes. You defer to an expert on the consistency of lava flows. You defer to experts on extraordinary areas that are not general knowledge and simple facts. The age of the planet is a simple fact. That you are unable to see the difference is why you are the problem and why I'm now openly mocking you.
2012-11-19 11:55:32 AM  
2 votes:

Hoban Washburne: If he said "From what I remember, scientists agree it's about 4 billion years old," people wouldn't be giving him a hard time.


But he said "I'm not a scientist... I'm not qualified to answer that question" and that's truly poutrageous?

Hoban Washburne: You're right. I'd be off by about 13.5 percent of the ESTIMATED age of the earth. Any guess as to how far off his "maybe 7 days" statement is? I'm no mathematician, but I can tell you it's a farkload.


He never said the earth was 7 days old. Here's what happened, you read Rubio, you saw the Fark headline, and immediately assumed the headline was not misleading and he was just gonna derp. Turned out he didn't. This may shock you - Fark headlines are not always truthful. So that led you to completely misread what Rubio was saying.

He never said the earth was 7 days old.
2012-11-19 11:29:09 AM  
2 votes:

GAT_00: How is it possible to be educated and not know the age of the Earth?


These are the same people who can't understand basic economics and who think that you can tip over an island if too many people are on it.

We have the government we deserve
2012-11-19 11:26:53 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-11-19 11:12:27 AM  
2 votes:
So much for Rubio claiming he wanted to move the GOP away from social values. You're just as bad as Huckabee. At least he's honest that he thinks Jebus made the planet and that's why he should be President. You claim to disavow these people yet you still play lip service to them, 4 years out from the next election! You're not changing a damn thing, you're still the problem.

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.
2012-11-19 10:59:38 AM  
2 votes:
Considering all the rape sound bites in the past few weeks he is probably doing himself a favor by shutting up
2012-11-19 10:35:58 AM  
2 votes:
♫ He's so ab-sur-urd... Ru-Ru-Rubio... ♫
2012-11-20 11:39:28 PM  
1 votes:

lennavan: '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.


Wow. I had no idea you were in favor of the creationist-led movement to "teach the controversy".

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... 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.

And, FYI, he doesn't even really support science educators being able to teach the "controversy" i.e. evolution. He thinks teachers should STFU about evolution because parents teaching their kids creationism at home takes precedence:

The "crux" of the disagreement [over public school education about evolution], 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."


I expected better from you. Jesus fark.
2012-11-19 11:32:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:30:39 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:15:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:22:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:06:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:03:12 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:57:47 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:41:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:18:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:17:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:11:49 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:07:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:55:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:46:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:41:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:36:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:34:33 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:34:10 PM  
1 votes:

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


Same deal, the chances of any scientists not knowing such a common science fact are so low that I'd doubt such a person was a scientist until presented with further proof.


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.

Those are people who become experts in more than one field. There is a big difference between being an expert and having at least a grade school understanding of a subject that would inform you that the earth is billions of years old for example. If just having some general knowledge was enough I would be a rather exceptional individual for knowing a little bit about a lot of different subjects. But in reality, I does me little good as I'm not an expert in any of these areas.
2012-11-19 04:33:29 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-19 04:31:17 PM  
1 votes:
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?
2012-11-19 04:28:24 PM  
1 votes:

Corvus: lennavan: So if I follow - I have been arguing one thing all along and people are hammering me on something else.

Yes you are arguing he only said "I don't know I am not a scientist" BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY THING HE SAID!!


You are misrepresenting what he said. this has been explained to you multiple times and you keep ignoring it because it shows you are being an idiot.


That's because he's been trolling this thread for over 400 posts now.

But I bet you know that.

*Golf clap*; nicely done. Extra points for the fact that there's no loss of outrage 400 posts in. Even more extra points for sticking with it.
2012-11-19 04:25:49 PM  
1 votes:

lennavan: So if I follow - I have been arguing one thing all along and people are hammering me on something else.


Yes you are arguing he only said "I don't know I am not a scientist" BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY THING HE SAID!!


You are misrepresenting what he said. this has been explained to you multiple times and you keep ignoring it because it shows you are being an idiot.
2012-11-19 04:24:51 PM  
1 votes:

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


Maybe because some of us think that it would be nice if our elected officials could at least display a grade-school level of basic knowledge about the world around them when "challenged" with deep material like this.

I mean... if he doesn't know the exact answer that's fine, I'm sure most people don't. But to not even be able to say something generic like "a few billion years" and then to follow it up with the "great mystery" bit just exposes a very, very deep well of ignorance.
2012-11-19 04:23:42 PM  
1 votes:

lennavan: Anti_illuminati: lennavan: I can't find a single portion of his statement I disagree with.

"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."

You do not disagree with this statement?

I think figuring out how existence came to be is one of the great mysteries. I of course did not read this as "7 days or 7 eras are the only two possibilities."


What? He was clearly contrasting the two positions on the table - theological and scientific. What type of mental acrobatics are you using? This isn't "existence", this is the creation of the earth and its duration.
2012-11-19 04:16:03 PM  
1 votes:
Can't we all agree that Rubio is a pandering little shiat who saw fit to bring up the Bible in a response about the age of the Earth, and therefore is not qualified to be President of anything, so I can stop hearing about his stupid ass? Seriously.
2012-11-19 04:13:28 PM  
1 votes:

qorkfiend: skullkrusher: Holocaust Agnostic: skullkrusher: Pharque-it: These idiots do not even know when their idol, Jesus, was born. Neither day nor year.

December 25, 0

suck on that!

Soometime in summer, 35BC.

how the fark is there snow on the manger in summertime in the middle east?

That's a dispute among theologians.


I don't think that there's any dispute that Jesus's birthday was celebrated in April for the first few hundred years. Until the need arose to co-opt the solstice party the pagans threw every year.

Even the Catholics readily admit that: Catholic.com
2012-11-19 04:10:46 PM  
1 votes:

lennavan: thurstonxhowell: lennavan: There are more if you like:

That's you insisting that that's what people are hammering you on, not people hammering you on that. There's a difference.

So if I follow - I have been arguing one thing all along and people are hammering me on something else.

[strawman.jpg]

Hey, it's not often someone openly admits it. Kudos to you, sir.


Rubio: "I dunno, ask a scientist or a priest, either of them is just as good."

The thread: "But that's wrong, you farking retard."

You: "But don't you see guys? He admitted his own ignorance to a question! Clearly he's an enlightened individual."

The rest of the thread: "No, he's not, fark off."
2012-11-19 04:10:08 PM  
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Holocaust Agnostic: skullkrusher: Holocaust Agnostic: skullkrusher: Pharque-it: These idiots do not even know when their idol, Jesus, was born. Neither day nor year.

December 25, 0

suck on that!

Soometime in summer, 35BC.

how the fark is there snow on the manger in summertime in the middle east?

Why are shepherds out in the fields with their flocks on a friged winter night?

because God hired them as extras to fill out the Nativity scene


Yes, by sending an angel too them to tell them to leg it over their. An angel which found them in their fields.
2012-11-19 04:05:58 PM  
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Holocaust Agnostic: skullkrusher: Pharque-it: These idiots do not even know when their idol, Jesus, was born. Neither day nor year.

December 25, 0

suck on that!

Soometime in summer, 35BC.

how the fark is there snow on the manger in summertime in the middle east?


Why are shepherds out in the fields with their flocks on a friged winter night?
2012-11-19 04:03:58 PM  
1 votes:

Tigger: lennavan: 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

I don't know how to make it clearer

1) No one is concerned about the part where he said "I'm not a scientist"
2) People are talking about the part after that where he said "It's a great mystery" also "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."

It's part 2 that's the dumb part.


Well, there's also the part that says that it is possible that the earth was created in seven days, and the part where he said that disputes about the age of the earth should be resolved be theologians. That stuff is weapons-grade derp, too.
2012-11-19 04:02:31 PM  
1 votes:

lennavan: 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


I would equate that to "does the universe revolve around the earth", which is also a question of science. If the answer is anything but "no" that person is either ignorant or an extremist, or pandering to ignorant extremists.
2012-11-19 03:59:40 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

My 14 year old nephew can answer this question. I expect a politician who sets policy to be able to answer questions on settled science.

/i weep for America because of people like you

I expect a politician who sets policy who when presented with a question or a problem, will inform himself from the experts and then make a decision. Whether he recalled that fact from 8th grade, or got it from the Stanford Science Professor who serves as his advisor is mostly irrelevant - except to say I'd trust the professor slightly more than my recollection of 8th grade.

That you would attack someone for suggesting we ask an expert makes me weep for the country.


Hrmmm....i would expect that someone that sits on the House Science comittee to be enough of an expert to answer what is a commonly established fact. I'll admit, i thought it was 6 billion. So, you know, that's not correct but it's in line with what is common farking knowledge if you aren't farking stupid - the earth isn't 10,000, 20,000 or 100,000 years old - it's like, you know, at LEAST 4 billion.
2012-11-19 03:57:25 PM  
1 votes:

RevMercutio: 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.


You just "This'd" without actually thinking it through, huh Rev?
2012-11-19 03:56:37 PM  
1 votes:

lennavan: There are more if you like:


That's you insisting that that's what people are hammering you on, not people hammering you on that. There's a difference.
2012-11-19 03:53:47 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:50:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:48:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:45:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:45:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:44:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:44:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:43:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:41:29 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:40:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:39:15 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

"....I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all."
2012-11-19 03:37:06 PM  
1 votes:

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


I like that. "Laymen using laymen's terms are idiots."
2012-11-19 03:35:59 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


Ummm.......why does faith need to be taught? Isn't that sort of anathema to the idea of faith?
2012-11-19 03:31:15 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


Actually, it would still have not been a great answer. He's an adult and supposedly an educated one. Not being able to ballpark that the earth is billions of years old and instead saying that you're not qualified to answer the question should disqualify him from any serious discussion about potential candidates for 2016. But he's a Republican so it is just par for the course.
2012-11-19 03:29:59 PM  
1 votes:
I think the important thing here is that we can all agree the earth is somewhat older than 5,000 years, give or take. That's fair, right? I mean, I dunno. Ask a scientist. Or a shaman. Or a small child with brain damage. All thoughts on the subject are valid.
2012-11-19 03:28:00 PM  
1 votes:
Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that.

If he had just stopped there, and left off the last few sentences advocating teaching creationism in schools, this would have been a great answer. "Why are you even asking me this, it has nothing to do with my profession or expertise as a politician and I don't know offhand," is the kind of incredulous response that question should be getting. It's an embarrassment to the nation and an even bigger embarrassment to Christianity that it's even recognizably a probe about religious beliefs at all.
2012-11-19 03:25:02 PM  
1 votes:

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


What point are you trying to make again? Is someone actually arguing that we know to the exact second how old the earth is? Or are you just trying to make yourself sound profound?
2012-11-19 03:23:33 PM  
1 votes:

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


No, you might not know the exact answer. The point of the question is whether or not you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old or some other very very large number. Without googling I would've said Billions of years, but I'd have to google to get a more accurate answer. He knew the point of the question and dodged it intentionally.
2012-11-19 03:22:58 PM  
1 votes:

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


potato with sprinkles is still a carb
2012-11-19 03:20:48 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


The entire site, or just certain tabs?
2012-11-19 03:19:10 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


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

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

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

/also, you can't spell weener without ween.
//i before e can suck it.
2012-11-19 03:15:55 PM  
1 votes:

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


I'm really bored. This is way better than cleaning up my bug queue.
2012-11-19 03:13:30 PM  
1 votes:
genealogyreligion.net
It's turtles all the way down.
2012-11-19 03:12:38 PM  
1 votes:

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


You must have missed the part where he answered "that won't help us with economic growth."
2012-11-19 03:12:26 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


Knowing the age of the earth is basically a pointless trivial factoid. But it's a factoid that most people know in the same way that they know the speed of light is about 186,000 miles/second, that Mt Everest is 29K and change above sea level, that Columbus came to the New World in 1492 and not 1942, and that 6 million jews were killed in the holocaust during WWII. No one except scientist, geographers and historians really need to know those factoids. But because we grew up learning things and being educated, we learn these factoids just in case we get chosen to be on Jeopardy or Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.
2012-11-19 03:09:15 PM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: lennavan: GAT_00: That's lennavan's entire argument more or less. To be uneducated and to openly proclaim it is suddenly educated.

Admitting you don't know something is a good thing. I'm sorry you don't realize that. I really am.

He didn't admit that HE didn't know something. He said that "science" doesn't know.


This is where everyone is getting confused in this thread. It's quite hilarious to watch.
2012-11-19 03:08:02 PM  
1 votes:

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


Did you have a weird boner when you wrote that?

And as far as "views" go, the age of the earth isn't an opinion. It's a knowable factual thing. You are entitled to your own views, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
2012-11-19 03:07:29 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


More proof that America's educational system is on straight decline into the shiatter.
2012-11-19 03:03:54 PM  
1 votes:
Wow, a politician not forcing his views down anyone else's throat? How refreshing.
2012-11-19 03:01:43 PM  
1 votes:
I have to agree with those who say that Rubio saying this is a step forward for Republicans. Prior to the election, he would have answered authoritatively "Potato" and Fox News would have excoriated anyone who said he was wrong.

/I also like using "excoriated" in a sentence.
2012-11-19 03:01:26 PM  
1 votes:

lennavan:

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: It's an even worse state of affairs if he believes it - how can you address issues like pollution, long term energy plans or climate change when you think "god did it" is how all that oil got underground?

Let us return to what he actually said. "I'm not a scientist, man." He wants you to ask a scientist. Take that answer and apply to your scenarios. Wouldn't it be great to have a Marco Rubio deferring to scientists when it comes to policy with respect to climate change? Have you seen what we have instead?


Which would be fine if he stopped there. But he didn't - he decided to bring the bible into it and then go on to say we should teach religion in the science classroom.

We both know why he said it - my point is that the fact there are so many people in this country who reject science that politicians in a mainstream political party can't even give a straight answer to a question like that is a big farking problem for the country now that we're in an economy heavily dependent on being ahead of the curve in science and technology.
2012-11-19 02:57:22 PM  
1 votes:

Tricky Chicken: Pincy: dugitman: A lot of outrage over a politician side-stepping a thinly-veiled theological question. 
 
Lennavan
 
[i107.photobucket.com image 270x203]

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

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


If somebody believes in magic, then there is no topic that cannot be explained with magic.

You seem to have more of an issue with theological explanations questions in general.

Personally I prefer to use a bit of Occam's razor in my approach.
A. An omnipotent being that I do not understand and cannot detect used magic to create the Earth.
B. Gravity acted over massive time periods to coalesce the Earth through the process of accretion.


Personally, I prefer to use the logic that "if you think the earth is thousands of years old instead of billions then you are a complete idiot".
2012-11-19 02:55:00 PM  
1 votes:

lennavan: The great mystery to which he referred is the beginning of existence. Not the age of the Earth.


Stop. Lying.

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.
2012-11-19 02:54:40 PM  
1 votes:
Love how the anti-intellectual party is running a Science Committee.
2012-11-19 02:53:43 PM  
1 votes:

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.


you just lost my vote.
2012-11-19 02:53:23 PM  
1 votes:

Bloody William: [www.ethannonsequitur.com image 499x720]

It's a theist-deist problem. If a god is all-powerful, that's one thing. If a god is all-powerful and all-subtle, then why bother with him?


Oh, I don't wish to justify or explain any particular theological belief set. I just think that as soon as somebody chooses to accept any divinity based belief structure then there is no scientific process that cannot also be explained by magic. I have no idea why you would want to bother with a subtle god. If I am forced to choose a theology, I will go with a god that became self aware and created the big bang and all the rules of physics in that instant to see what would eventually happen.
2012-11-19 02:53:13 PM  
1 votes:

lennavan: GAT_00: That's lennavan's entire argument more or less. To be uneducated and to openly proclaim it is suddenly educated.

Admitting you don't know something is a good thing. I'm sorry you don't realize that. I really am.


He didn't admit that HE didn't know something. He said that "science" doesn't know.
2012-11-19 02:52:51 PM  
1 votes:

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

Nope, no sense of deference at all.


And this is why you're a liar:

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.

That doesn't show deference to scientists. That shows that he's willing to give religious beliefs the same credence in terms of reality as scientific observations.
2012-11-19 02:43:01 PM  
1 votes:
I've always had a bit of difficulty with the age of the Earth. It seems so preposterous. The universe itself is 13.7 billion years old. Some people take issue with this bit of evidence or that bit of evidence, but then they go back and review some of their calculations and find that they made some mistakes. It seems pretty clear that it's 13.7 billion years old. I get that, and I can accept it.

But then people tell me that the Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old. That's an incredible statement! That means that the Earth itself is about one-third the age of the entire universe. The universe has been in a state of flux so great that entire solar systems have been created and destroyed in the first 8 billion years, but our own Earth has stayed the same for half that time already. Our sun is almost the same age.

Life took only about a billion years to start forming here, but it took another 3 billion years to evolve from single-celled organisms to, well, anything else. And it took longer for those Cambrian organisms to evolve into man than it took the Earth to find its home around the Sun.

If you tell me that the Earth is a third of the age of the universe, I don't know how I can wrap my head around that. It's the only way the math works, but I've never been able to accept it. It's just too amazing.
2012-11-19 02:40:53 PM  
1 votes:

Weaver95:
problem with that is while almost everyone will easily forget boring minutia on policy details almost NOBODY forgets it when Rush Limbaugh gets in their faces and calls them fat, lazy assholes. And that's what the GOP pundocracy is doing right now - yelling and screaming about how stupid voters are for not picking Romney.


You might be right, but GOP temper tantrums over elections have been ramping up since Clinton first got elected. That's what made Rush in the first place. And we still managed to elect George Bush once in the meantime.

We have very short memories. The GOP's entire election campaign was essentially "The Democrats haven't cleaned up our mess fast enough." And 47.8% of the people were dumb enough to believe it.
2012-11-19 02:37:31 PM  
1 votes:

Pincy: dugitman: A lot of outrage over a politician side-stepping a thinly-veiled theological question. 
 
Lennavan
 
[i107.photobucket.com image 270x203]

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


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


If somebody believes in magic, then there is no topic that cannot be explained with magic.

You seem to have more of an issue with theological explanations questions in general.

Personally I prefer to use a bit of Occam's razor in my approach.
A. An omnipotent being that I do not understand and cannot detect used magic to create the Earth.
B. Gravity acted over massive time periods to coalesce the Earth through the process of accretion.
2012-11-19 02:34:53 PM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: That's lennavan's entire argument more or less. To be uneducated and to openly proclaim it is suddenly educated.


Admitting you don't know something is a good thing. I'm sorry you don't realize that. I really am.
2012-11-19 02:33:54 PM  
1 votes:

joshiz: 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.

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

The age of the Earth is not a great mystery with competing theories. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. This is a fact.



Pfffft! When I was in school they used to say that the Earth was 4.5 Billion years old and that was in the 90s! You mean to tell me that the Earth is still the same damn age that it was 20+ years ago??

/I GOTCHA Science, you biatch!
2012-11-19 02:32:16 PM  
1 votes:

SoupJohnB: Tigger: lennavan: Hoban Washburne: If he said "From what I remember, scientists agree it's about 4 billion years old," people wouldn't be giving him a hard time.

But he said "I'm not a scientist... I'm not qualified to answer that question" and that's truly poutrageous?

Hoban Washburne: You're right. I'd be off by about 13.5 percent of the ESTIMATED age of the earth. Any guess as to how far off his "maybe 7 days" statement is? I'm no mathematician, but I can tell you it's a farkload.

He never said the earth was 7 days old. Here's what happened, you read Rubio, you saw the Fark headline, and immediately assumed the headline was not misleading and he was just gonna derp. Turned out he didn't. This may shock you - Fark headlines are not always truthful. So that led you to completely misread what Rubio was saying.

He never said the earth was 7 days old.

No he dodged the question because he doesn't want to offend a metric shiatton of pig ignorant farkwits that he may need support from in future.

In short he's a pandering asshole.

Or he's just so dumb he shouldn't ever run for office.

The correct answer is B)

/always has been, and always will be one


Or rather, A). He was a pandering a-hole in the Florida Legislature

/sources say...
2012-11-19 02:31:52 PM  
1 votes:
You guys know that Lennavan is (more likely than not) one of Skullkrusher's alts, right?
2012-11-19 02:31:42 PM  
1 votes:

give me doughnuts: Rufio?

[i249.photobucket.com image 432x265]


Ralphio?

media.avclub.com
2012-11-19 02:30:23 PM  
1 votes:

Rent Party: GAT_00: lennavan: But I'm sure you knew.

How is it possible to be educated and not know the age of the Earth?

You redefine what it is to be educated. Duh!


That's lennavan's entire argument more or less. To be uneducated and to openly proclaim it is suddenly educated.
2012-11-19 02:28:42 PM  
1 votes:

Rent Party: This is simply the new strategy for the GOP. They've realized their nutty assed beliefs scare the crap out of the common man, so they're going back to the old "Don't tell people what you actually believe" strategy.

You're going to hear a lot of "I dunno! People should look into that!" answers from these clowns over the coming months.


can the GOP stuff that genie back in the bottle tho? i'm not convinced it'll play out well.
2012-11-19 02:27:51 PM  
1 votes:
This is simply the new strategy for the GOP. They've realized their nutty assed beliefs scare the crap out of the common man, so they're going back to the old "Don't tell people what you actually believe" strategy.

You're going to hear a lot of "I dunno! People should look into that!" answers from these clowns over the coming months.
2012-11-19 02:25:55 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

My 14 year old nephew can answer this question. I expect a politician who sets policy to be able to answer questions on settled science.

/i weep for America because of people like you


I expect a politician who sets policy who when presented with a question or a problem, will inform himself from the experts and then make a decision. Whether he recalled that fact from 8th grade, or got it from the Stanford Science Professor who serves as his advisor is mostly irrelevant - except to say I'd trust the professor slightly more than my recollection of 8th grade.

That you would attack someone for suggesting we ask an expert makes me weep for the country.
2012-11-19 02:22:35 PM  
1 votes:

lennavan: 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.


but that's not the issue. The question is How many people in this thread know that SCIENTISTS know the age of the earth.

He didn't say "I personally don't know what it is but others do".
2012-11-19 02:21:56 PM  
1 votes:

DamnYankees: 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

Who gives a flying fark what theologians say about this.


His constituents.

Can you really blame him for dodging the question? There's no margin in giving the correct answer. And there's no margin in blatantly pandering to the idiots that vote for him. He KNOWS the correct answer, but he also knows if he gives it he's f*cked.

This is why you can have a party like the Republican party. It's full of educated people doing their level best to look like reasonable idiots. Sad state of affairs.
2012-11-19 02:19:37 PM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: lennavan: But I'm sure you knew.

How is it possible to be educated and not know the age of the Earth?


You redefine what it is to be educated. Duh!
2012-11-19 02:15:57 PM  
1 votes:

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.


No. The right answer is 'about 4 billion years old'.
2012-11-19 02:11:44 PM  
1 votes:
newsbusters.org

Wow, my ignore list isn't that long, but over half the thread is missing now. There must be some Miss Teen South Carolina-style debate here.
2012-11-19 02:10:47 PM  
1 votes:
Excellent. The Republicans are already giving the Democrats soundbites for 2016. Keep it up Republicans. I love your honesty.
2012-11-19 02:09:40 PM  
1 votes:
A lot of outrage over a politician side-stepping a thinly-veiled theological question. 
 
Lennavan
 
i107.photobucket.com
2012-11-19 02:05:46 PM  
1 votes:
*sigh*

theocrats.
2012-11-19 01:44:20 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

Yeah, that'd be awkward.


but it ignores the whole point. instead of just saying "i dunno dude go ask a scientist" he says "i dunno dude go ask a scientist, although we will never know because it is an argument for theologians." it's a terrible answer that would have been much better had the ellipses been a dramatic pause rather than snipping out a non-sequitur.
2012-11-19 01:37:37 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing. That is why he differentiated between the two.

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


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

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

And Theologians are technically scientist-but wholly unqualified to judge matters outside their feild of study-like the age of the earth.
2012-11-19 01:37:32 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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

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


So you think those two statements are completely independent of each other? I dunno man, I'm thinkin at this point you've just thrown all reason out the window. GOP is surely full of idiots, I get it. You want to pounce on one, me too. But that's blinding you here. I can't help you.
2012-11-19 01:32:38 PM  
1 votes:

gilgigamesh: I guess we have to agree to disagree.

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


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

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

That's what I'm reading here. You wanna know the answer? Ask a scientist. But the rest of you all cracked up on religion, carry on.
2012-11-19 01:32:19 PM  
1 votes:
I do have to wonder... if you ask this question to democrats, would they even give you a straight up answer that says "It isn't 6 or 10,000 years, I know that much".

Unfortunately, I think both sides have to pander on it. Are there any examples where democrats are asked the question?
2012-11-19 01:31:42 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


That's not an answer. Its a cop out. And he doesn't say anything about trusting scientists.
2012-11-19 01:29:24 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

For this, no.

Why? What makes that question different?

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

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


So, if he was asked if Vaccines cause autism, and he said he wasn't sure, you'd like that answer as well? Or does he need to say "ask a scientist" on that? What if he was asked at what temperature water freezes at?
2012-11-19 01:17:51 PM  
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-11-19 01:09:41 PM  
1 votes:

lennavan: See how those two are equivalent?


Not even close.
2012-11-19 01:07:02 PM  
1 votes:

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

and right after he said "i'm not a scientist, man" he said: "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."

so yes he says scientists have a say, but he also says the bible has an equally valid say. also i think he's referring to scientists as theologians...


Plus, if you don't think there's high profile people in the US who believe that scientific investigation and creation stories told by goat herders over the campfire 5000 years ago are equally valid explanations of the world around us, you haven't been paying attention.
2012-11-19 01:06:41 PM  
1 votes:

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


Agreed.

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

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

See how those two are equivalent? The second one is even better because you're hearing it from an expert, so you should trust that answer even more.
2012-11-19 01:03:28 PM  
1 votes:

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


and right after he said "i'm not a scientist, man" he said: "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."

so yes he says scientists have a say, but he also says the bible has an equally valid say. also i think he's referring to scientists as theologians...
2012-11-19 12:53:53 PM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: 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.

Are you an expert on questions? Then you and he can't answer that. You must defer to a question expert.


Again though, only an idiot doesn't realize that the reason behind the question wasn't to make sure Rubio pulled the number 4.5 billion out of his hat, vs 3 billion or 6 billion or even 50 million as I said. It was to see if he said a huge number or 10,000.

So, I am asking you... you think the reporter was really just trying to ask him an "academic" question and wanting a very accurate result? Would you have been happier if the reporter would have been more specific and asked "Do you think the earth is closer to 10,000 years old or 4.5 billion years old?" And, "deferring to a question expert" would mean bringing in a scientist, who is going to tell you roughly 4.5 billion, and that doesn't help him dodge the question like he was attempting to do.
2012-11-19 12:52:57 PM  
1 votes:
j.wigflip.com
2012-11-19 12:50:15 PM  
1 votes:
j.wigflip.com
2012-11-19 12:48:29 PM  
1 votes:

dletter: Again, though, if he would have said "I think somewhere around 50 million years old" even... at least we know he isn't thinking it is 10,000 years old.


What the fark is so wrong with admitting you don't know? Why is this so egregious?

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?
Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man.

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.


Perhaps that is why he continued on talking about teaching faith and science after saying "I'm not a scientist" right? I think if you stopped searching really hard for something to hate on Rubio for, you'd realize this isn't really that bad. No worries, there will be plenty of opportunity in the future. But this isn't it.
2012-11-19 12:40:41 PM  
1 votes:

lennavan: GAT_00: 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.

The age of the Earth is something you learn in high school.

It has been a few years since I graduated high school. Same goes for Marco Rubio. I'm gonna go ahead and give him a pass on not being able to recall a scientific fact from high school. Is that cool with you?

GAT_00: Would he refuse to answer what the weather is supposed to be tomorrow because he isn't a meteorologist?

Would you be equally upset if he replied "Got me, check weather.com?" It seems you would. What a dick, amirite?

GAT_00: Would you refuse to acknowledge earthquakes exist because you aren't a geologist?

I don't think the job of a geologist is to acknowledge earthquakes exist. If Rubio said he had no idea when/where the next earthquake would be, ask a geologist, I'd be okay with that. You'd probably want to burn him at the stake though, amirite?

GAT_00: You are fully defending ignorance, and you are the problem.

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."

You are defending the continuation of ignorance. I am defending a practice that will drive us away from ignorance. You ignorant slut.


Again, though, if he would have said "I think somewhere around 50 million years old" even... at least we know he isn't thinking it is 10,000 years old.

Nobody is saying he even had to be "close". But, he should be closer than 10,000. And he wasn't discounting that posulation in his answer.

lennavan: I'm okay with him just asking a scientist to show up to the meeting so they can ask the scientist. Truly that is outrageous.


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.
2012-11-19 12:33:27 PM  
1 votes:

Hoban Washburne: He said that it might have taken 7 days to create.


Apology accepted.

Hoban Washburne: You don't reconcile a 7 day creation with billions of years of existence.


It took 7 days to create the earth billions of years ago. Looks like I just did.

Hoban Washburne: He was giving credence to a creationist young earth theory.


He also differentiated between being taught science and religion. So in science class kids learn all scientific evidence points to the earth is 4.5 billion years old and was created with a big bang. In religion class the kids learn with absolutely no evidence whatsoever the bible says it was created in 7 days and is a few thousand years old.

I don't get the outrage.
2012-11-19 12:29:05 PM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: 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.

The age of the Earth is something you learn in high school.


It has been a few years since I graduated high school. Same goes for Marco Rubio. I'm gonna go ahead and give him a pass on not being able to recall a scientific fact from high school. Is that cool with you?

GAT_00: Would he refuse to answer what the weather is supposed to be tomorrow because he isn't a meteorologist?


Would you be equally upset if he replied "Got me, check weather.com?" It seems you would. What a dick, amirite?

GAT_00: Would you refuse to acknowledge earthquakes exist because you aren't a geologist?


I don't think the job of a geologist is to acknowledge earthquakes exist. If Rubio said he had no idea when/where the next earthquake would be, ask a geologist, I'd be okay with that. You'd probably want to burn him at the stake though, amirite?

GAT_00: You are fully defending ignorance, and you are the problem.


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."

You are defending the continuation of ignorance. I am defending a practice that will drive us away from ignorance. You ignorant slut.
2012-11-19 12:15:51 PM  
1 votes:

lennavan: Coco LaFemme: If you don't know something, say you don't know it.

I know, right? If only he had said something like: I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that.

Oh, awkward.


I'm not a scientist either, but if someone asked me, I could answer with reasonable certainty. It's because I read books and stuff.
2012-11-19 12:12:06 PM  
1 votes:

Coco LaFemme: If you don't know something, say you don't know it.


I know, right? If only he had said something like: I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that.

Oh, awkward.

Coco LaFemme: Don't say something is a "great mystery" when it's not. Maybe the age of the Earth was a great mystery in 1512, but not so much in 2012.


He didn't call the age of the earth a great mystery. If you didn't know what he was referring to as a great mystery, you should have said it. Someone could have answered.
2012-11-19 12:07:51 PM  
1 votes:
j.wigflip.com
2012-11-19 12:06:56 PM  
1 votes:

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


That's not what you're doing. You're defending ignorance.
2012-11-19 12:05:21 PM  
1 votes:

lennavan: 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.

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


Why is it so important to you that Rubio isn't pandering for votes from the religious right?

Everyone can see that he avoided a question because he has a base to worry about. Yet you seem to really need that to not be the case? Why? It's weird?

What do you stand to lose by saying what everyone else can see - he doesn't want to offend an incredibly powerful group within his own party?
2012-11-19 12:03:11 PM  
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Who gives a flying fark what theologians say about this.


People trying to impress slow Iowans.
2012-11-19 11:54:21 AM  
1 votes:
Even "I dunno lol" would have been a better answer.
2012-11-19 11:34:59 AM  
1 votes:

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.


Of course I knew.

And you had "no idea" how old the earth was. So if I said "It's 6000 years" you would have no idea if that was close. What if I said "75 years"?
2012-11-19 11:30:45 AM  
1 votes:

Hoban Washburne: lennavan: But I'm sure you knew.

Actually, I thought about it and came up with "about 4 billion years give or take" which is what I remember from the last time I had a science class. Turns out the estimate according to google is 4.54 billion years. That's a big farking difference than "I dunno, could be 7 days, could be more."


But that would be 0.54 billion years off if you asked a scientist, like he answered.

give me doughnuts: Too chickenshiat to state a position isn't a "sentiment." It's being chickenshiat.


His position was "that is a science question, ask a farking scientist."
2012-11-19 11:29:54 AM  
1 votes:

IronTom: I can agree with that. Those scientists that say that they know the age of the universe, or less so, the age of the Earth, or how many planets or stars there are are overly presumptuous.

Although, we can have a decent guess about the Earth, you would think. Not like the mystery if life and all that.


There is the issue of how far off the creationists are on the estimates. I don't know precisely what Romney's net worth is but I'm pretty sure it is more than 37 cents which is relatively speaking how far off they are.
2012-11-19 11:23:55 AM  
1 votes:
and IMHO, he was the GOP's best opportunity to re-brand themselves. They are truly farked.
2012-11-19 11:22:02 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-19 11:13:51 AM  
1 votes:

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?
2012-11-19 11:07:55 AM  
1 votes:
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.
2012-11-19 11:01:32 AM  
1 votes:

cman: Considering all the rape sound bites in the past few weeks he is probably doing himself a favor by shutting up


Republicans - You'll like us more when we keep our farking stupid mouths shut.
2012-11-19 10:38:31 AM  
1 votes:
Reminds me of the Senator in Religulous that says, apparently as a somewhat positive thing, something to the effect of not having to have an IQ test to be elected to the senate.
2012-11-19 10:35:43 AM  
1 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com


Hey, might be a marginally better strategy than trying to pass bullshiat as science.
 
Displayed 300 of 300 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report