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 147
    More: Sad, Marco Rubio, GOP  
•       •       •

3984 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Nov 2012 at 2:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2012-11-19 12:07:51 PM
8 votes:
j.wigflip.com
2012-11-19 11:35:02 AM
7 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.


So you're saying I SHOULDN'T stick my cock in the toaster? But what if it's cold?
2012-11-19 02:33:54 PM
6 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 12:52:57 PM
6 votes:
j.wigflip.com
2012-11-19 01:34:38 PM
5 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 10:35:58 AM
5 votes:
♫ He's so ab-sur-urd... Ru-Ru-Rubio... ♫
2012-11-19 10:35:43 AM
5 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com


Hey, might be a marginally better strategy than trying to pass bullshiat as science.
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 02:11:44 PM
4 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 12:59:31 PM
4 votes:
ftfa: 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.

the only important thing here is that it took seven somethings for the earth to be created. we can never know what those somethings are, but we know for a fact that there were seven of those biatches.
2012-11-19 12:50:15 PM
4 votes:
j.wigflip.com
2012-11-19 11:29:09 AM
4 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 11:10:42 AM
4 votes:
Rufio?

i249.photobucket.com
2012-11-19 11:01:32 AM
4 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 10:59:50 AM
4 votes:
Farking geology... how does it work?
2012-11-19 10:55:18 AM
4 votes:
25.media.tumblr.com
2012-11-19 10:38:58 AM
4 votes:
He's not even sure when him family left Cuba.
2012-11-19 02:35:04 PM
3 votes:
What I've taken away from this is neither Rubio nor Lennavan are educated enough to hold office.
2012-11-19 12:23:28 PM
3 votes:
I do not know if the earth is flat or not. I mean that is not my job.
2012-11-19 12:03:08 PM
3 votes:

sweetmelissa31: 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.


j.wigflip.com
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 11:29:54 AM
3 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 11:11:56 AM
3 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 10:31:11 AM
3 votes:
Life is to the moon
as facts to republicans
never really there
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 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 04:34:33 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?


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

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

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

The actual answer is not as important as whether you're in the proper range. And if you're in a specific range, then we sort of know where and how you got that information. Like, if you said that the speed of light is 1100 feet/second, then we know that you probably got that mixed up with the speed of sound, and you're not smart enough to do a quick test to verify. That is, you're quick to just accept the "fact".
2012-11-19 04:34:18 PM
2 votes:

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


Rocket surgery is a topic for either scientist or theologians.
2012-11-19 04:21:01 PM
2 votes:
I GAVE YOU HUMANS THE ABILITY TO THINK INDEPENDENTLY OF ME FOR A REASON!!

USE YOUR MINDS!!

YOU DARE TO INSULT YOUR CREATOR BY SLAMMING SHUT THE DOORS OF INQUIRY?

-- God
2012-11-19 04:18:48 PM
2 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 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 04:10:46 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.


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 03:59:21 PM
2 votes:
Apparently, he didn't study it out.
2012-11-19 03:13:30 PM
2 votes:
genealogyreligion.net
It's turtles all the way down.
2012-11-19 03:13:04 PM
2 votes:
"Whether the Earth was created in 7 days"

6 days, you Papist heathen.
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 02:30:31 PM
2 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 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 02:01:06 PM
2 votes:

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


Very, very slowly.
2012-11-19 01:05:46 PM
2 votes:
25.media.tumblr.com
2012-11-19 12:47:14 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-11-19 12:44:45 PM
2 votes:

Cythraul: sweetmelissa31: I do not know if the earth is flat or not. I mean that is not my job.

It's flat. Trust me, I've seen the end of the Earth before.


I am going to remain agnostic about this. It's a mystery, but both sides are worth considering.
2012-11-19 12:32:00 PM
2 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 11:28:24 AM
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.


Too chickenshiat to state a position isn't a "sentiment." It's being chickenshiat.
2012-11-19 11:28:22 AM
2 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 10:42:44 AM
2 votes:

SurfaceTension: 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.


Hah, yeah, the best thing about that is how he laughs like he just made a great joke, but Bill keeps a straight face, and the smile drains off the senator.
2012-11-19 08:08:30 PM
1 votes:

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


Republicans: Where "What Newspapers do you read?", "How old is the Earth?", and "Do you know how to get to 2nd and Jefferson?" are "gotcha questions"!
2012-11-19 07:17:30 PM
1 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 07:10:05 PM
1 votes:
cache.boston.com

"Sorry, that's not a hair question."
2012-11-19 06:24:25 PM
1 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 06:24:00 PM
1 votes:
i1.kym-cdn.com
2012-11-19 06:11:13 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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


With a moniker like "Leeds" one would hope you were familiar with English as a language. As practiced in a form such as this, one needs to apply ones intellect to fit the appropriate word meaning(s) while parsing sentences. You have trivially noted the potential problem with saying "Chemical evolution proceeded evolution". If you were a software program, after your subroutine found an irregularity in parsing that sentence using the top match definitions for each word, it should next invoke a resolution routine. In this case, the resolution is obvious and should trivially be achieved by intellects from the shady side of the bell curve, unless they have some particular axe to grind that subverts the standard language processing routines into the "Aha, I got them" processing loop. Engage your introspection routine to resolve the matter.
2012-11-19 05:58:59 PM
1 votes:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Universe simply could not exist with c being anywhere even remotely near such a value. It′d tear itself apart and vaporize itself.
2012-11-19 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 05:38:53 PM
1 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...


From what I understand, it goes something like this: Cubans look down on Mexicans as uneducated, barbaric indians and Mexicans sneer at Cubans as uppity atheists who dance too much.
2012-11-19 05:19:00 PM
1 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 05:11:49 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 05:07:47 PM
1 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 05:04:13 PM
1 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 04:51:32 PM
1 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 04:48:09 PM
1 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 04:46:51 PM
1 votes:

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


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

/public education ftw!
//CSB
2012-11-19 04:46:32 PM
1 votes:

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


There's also "I've had a lot of beer since chemistry class".
2012-11-19 04:46:14 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 04:35:27 PM
1 votes:

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


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

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

//There is a crossover discipline, of course: Paleontology. They'd be moderately familiar with both biology and geology without necessarily being a full-on expert in either.
2012-11-19 04:34:33 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 04:31:17 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 04:27:40 PM
1 votes:

lordjupiter: Mluh mluh mluh

Don't talk science with people who don't believe in it.


myscriptx.com
2012-11-19 04:24:19 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: GoldSpider: MindfulModeration: "Existance" and "the creation of the Earth" are not synonyms you puerile cretin.

The word "cretin" is pathetically underused.

especially in such lulzy fashion


No kidding. That'll farking teach me to think I'm better than auto-correct.
2012-11-19 04:23:12 PM
1 votes:

abb3w: 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".


static.cdn-seekingalpha.com
2012-11-19 04:20:53 PM
1 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
1 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 04:15:39 PM
1 votes:

asmodeus224: 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.


That is a different argument altogether. If you look at the concept of Satan, you find that for some reason he wants to collect souls. His major challenge would be deathbed repentance. What good would it be to corrupt a guy for so long only to lose him at the last second? He needs to get you to sin in such a way that you think it is a virtue and you are proud of your sin. He needs to get sin into the bible as a virtue. Now any god with half a brain would be able to predict that some people will eventually get isolated from the general population. He would give them a built in way to know if something is right or wrong. When you do something that is wrong, you naturally feel bad about it. The Bible does not predict the development of the internet, but you automatically know that writing a virus that makes porn immages show up on a childs screen is wrong.

But the first two moral statements in the Bible are 1. It is good go procreate the species "Be fruitful and multiply", and 2. It is wrong to know right from wrong on your own "Don't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

What god would ever come up with that second one and why so early in the Bible? It is clearly in there to preclude you from making a judgement on your own about any of the other sins that were snuck in there later. Things like killing homosexuals, and making women marry their rapists.

If Satan didn't write the bible, he surely deserves an editorial credit.
2012-11-19 04:10:24 PM
1 votes:

Bacontastesgood: skullkrusher: please, he's an amateur.

LOL well played.


I just make my skullkrusher alt a whole shiatload smarter than my lennavan one
2012-11-19 04:10:02 PM
1 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 04:09:45 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.

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 04:06:45 PM
1 votes:

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
2012-11-19 04:06:20 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?


That's a dispute among theologians.
2012-11-19 04:06:04 PM
1 votes:

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

Seriously, this is one of the most successful troll threads I've ever seen on Fark. There's a certain purity to it, such that it can be repeated over and over and snag dozens of farkers each time in the same thread. Someone should keep count, but not me because I just stopped giving a shiat.


please, he's an amateur.
2012-11-19 04:04:19 PM
1 votes:

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


Seriously, this is one of the most successful troll threads I've ever seen on Fark. There's a certain purity to it, such that it can be repeated over and over and snag dozens of farkers each time in the same thread. Someone should keep count, but not me because I just stopped giving a shiat.
2012-11-19 04:01:07 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-19 03:59:21 PM
1 votes:

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


December 25, 0

suck on that!
2012-11-19 03:58:16 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 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 03:58:11 PM
1 votes:
These idiots do not even know when their idol, Jesus, was born. Neither day nor year.
2012-11-19 03:57:50 PM
1 votes:
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...
2012-11-19 03:56:27 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.


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

Here's a final factoid: A contronym is a word that is its own antonym. Factoid is a contronym.
2012-11-19 03:55:12 PM
1 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 03:54:09 PM
1 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 03:53:47 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 03:53:03 PM
1 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 03:52:37 PM
1 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
1 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 03:51:15 PM
1 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 03:45:10 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 03:42:27 PM
1 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 03:41:00 PM
1 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 03:38:57 PM
1 votes:
This thread is seriously dildos.

Seriously.
Dildos.
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 03:27:20 PM
1 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 03:25:02 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 03:20:15 PM
1 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 03:19:31 PM
1 votes:

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

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


I question the credentials of any scientist dumb enough to post on Fark.
2012-11-19 03:17:10 PM
1 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 03:15:43 PM
1 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 03:08:39 PM
1 votes:
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 03:00:31 PM
1 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 02:52:32 PM
1 votes:
controversy.wearscience.com
2012-11-19 02:49:12 PM
1 votes:

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


community.us.playstation.com
2012-11-19 02:49:03 PM
1 votes:
Rubio knew it was a trick question. Had he said earth is 4.54 billion years old then the libtards would have punished him for not saying earth is 4.5323 billion years, 3 months and 7 days, 14 housrs and 12 minutes old.
2012-11-19 02:44:54 PM
1 votes:

Headso: 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!'"


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

You know the worst thing about women, the WORST thing about NOW? Chicks love to not know. Nothing makes a girl happier than not knowing the answer to your question. 'Hey man, what's the capital of Kenya?' 'Shucks, I don't know that! The only 4 letters i need to know are D..W.T.and..S, just keeping it real.' Yeah, you're keeping it real, real dumb. ladies hate knowledge. shiat, if you're afraid a feminist voter will break into your house, and you wanna save your money, you know what you do? You put the money in a book. Cause ladies don't read. Books are like kryptonite to a member of NOW. 'Here's a science book.' 'NOOOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Not a science book!
2012-11-19 02:42:12 PM
1 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
1 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 02:36:53 PM
1 votes:
You know, I was sad when Rubio died in Hook.
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 02:21:45 PM
1 votes:
five billion, 356 million, 348 thousand 159 years, 4 months, and 21 days old.

give or take an hour.
2012-11-19 02:21:25 PM
1 votes:
This is outrageous behavior toward Marco Rubio! His father did not flee Cuba in a paper bag, singlehandedly defeat the Luftwaffen , and then paddle the bag to America with nothing more than his hands for paddles, his cock for a rudder, and a map of Florida just so his son could be treated this way.
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 02:12:06 PM
1 votes:
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.

Yeah, I bet he also listens to both kinds of music, country and western.


Weaver95: *sigh*

theocrats.


^
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 01:44:19 PM
1 votes:

sweetmelissa31: eraser8: Is there a fat dog site you guys are getting these images from...or, are you just googling?

I made those fat dogs all by myself without any help.


this post sponsored by

discountpetsandsupplies.com

it's a condition :(
2012-11-19 01:41:06 PM
1 votes:

eraser8: Is there a fat dog site you guys are getting these images from...or, are you just googling?


I made those fat dogs all by myself without any help.
2012-11-19 01:39:35 PM
1 votes:

Tigger: What if I said "75 years"?


Based on what I just did in the bathroom, the earth is definitely more than two days old. Because I had corn two days ago.
2012-11-19 01:25:15 PM
1 votes:
j.wigflip.com
2012-11-19 01:22:51 PM
1 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 01:20:15 PM
1 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 01:17:51 PM
1 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-11-19 12:56:18 PM
1 votes:
These elitist scientists think they can "calculate" the age of the universe, but in reality, their calculations are based on heavy assumptions. Assumptions like the speed of light being constant. This is clearly not the case, because timespace changes and you can easily fit the Earth into a 6000 year history if you take this into account. Math is only as good as the input.
2012-11-19 12:54:47 PM
1 votes:

GAT_00: Are you an expert on questions?


i.imgur.com
2012-11-19 12:29:33 PM
1 votes:

Cythraul: sweetmelissa31: I do not know if the earth is flat or not. I mean that is not my job.

It's flat. Trust me, I've seen the end of the Earth before.


Yeah, I've been to Kansas too.
2012-11-19 12:27:22 PM
1 votes:

kingoomieiii: Solipsism ho!


woah that is no way to talk to a lady, bro
2012-11-19 12:14:58 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.


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 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 12:02:17 PM
1 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 11:54:21 AM
1 votes:
Even "I dunno lol" would have been a better answer.
2012-11-19 11:51:31 AM
1 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 11:47:55 AM
1 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 11:38:31 AM
1 votes:
Watching the first series of Connections should be enough to give a moment of clarity to anyone arguing that a basic curiosity of things married to an acceptance of provable truths isn't important to someone like a politician.

The only time imbeciles like him have ever given anything worthwhile to humanity is by pure farking accident.
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 11:22:03 AM
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.


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 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 11:04:16 AM
1 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 10:56:19 AM
1 votes:
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.
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 10:33:58 AM
1 votes:
Republicans love
money, guns, and industry
but they hate science
 
Displayed 147 of 147 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report