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.

(Huffington Post)   Let's ask some U.S. politicians about the age of the planet   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 218
    More: Scary, U.S., young Earth, national academies, United States presidential election, Paul Broun, expediencies, first world countries, United States rankings  
•       •       •

6072 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Nov 2012 at 7:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



218 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-21 12:39:41 AM
Riding his boat while listening to In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida on the radio at the creation of the world is scorched, scorched in John Kerry's memory.
 
2012-11-21 12:59:08 AM
Most politicians are intelligent, educated people. They know the geological basics of our planets history. But they also know the very big, very vocal fundamentalist contributors to their campaigns do not want to hear about geological science.
 
2012-11-21 01:11:40 AM

Frederick: Most politicians are intelligent, educated people. They know the geological basics of our planets history. But they also know the very big, very vocal fundamentalist contributors to their campaigns do not want to hear about geological science.


Ummmm... no.

MOST politicians are no more educated, intelligent, or moral than the general populace, and often significantly less so. They go to church and they believe, just like other Americans. Its not an act, for most of them.

I find it very frightening indeed that people who believe that they can communicate telepathically with an invisible, omnipotent being. Seriously - if they can suspend reason that much, their capacity for self-delusion is inestimable.
 
2012-11-21 01:22:12 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: MOST politicians are no more educated, intelligent, or moral than the general populace, and often significantly less so. They go to church and they believe, just like other Americans. Its not an act, for most of them.

I find it very frightening indeed that people who believe that they can communicate telepathically with an invisible, omnipotent being. Seriously - if they can suspend reason that much, their capacity for self-delusion is inestimable.



Beautifully said.
 
2012-11-21 02:05:53 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Frederick: Most politicians are intelligent, educated people. They know the geological basics of our planets history. But they also know the very big, very vocal fundamentalist contributors to their campaigns do not want to hear about geological science.

Ummmm... no.

MOST politicians are no more educated, intelligent, or moral than the general populace, and often significantly less so. They go to church and they believe, just like other Americans. Its not an act, for most of them.

I find it very frightening indeed that people who believe that they can communicate telepathically with an invisible, omnipotent being. Seriously - if they can suspend reason that much, their capacity for self-delusion is inestimable.


Well, I certainly didnt mention morality -I know better than that. The US has an approximate rate of 40% for college degrees among 25+ yo. I havent verified it, but I'd imagine that more than 40% of US politicians have college degrees. That speaks to education and vicariously intelligence (I know college degree and intelligence arent absolutely synonymous).

The point I was trying to make is that politicians likely intentionally misrepresent themselves to appeal to their base. George W Bush was not an observant, practicing Christian but represented himself that way securing the Evangelical vote to win two presidencies.
 
2012-11-21 06:37:36 AM
Georgia should be ashamed they elected Broun, and our nation should be ashamed that he serves on the U.S. House Science and Technology Committee.
 
2012-11-21 07:11:02 AM

Frederick: That speaks to education and vicariously intelligence (I know college degree and intelligence arent absolutely synonymous).


Yeah, I wouldn't relate intelligence and college degrees. Look at any MBA program.
 
2012-11-21 07:16:08 AM
Forget the Twinkie thing, these two and others like them on your F-ing science committee is why the rest of the world points and laughs.
How did you guys get to the moon with guys like this in charge?

/knows they weren't in charge then...
//wonders how they are now.
 
2012-11-21 07:23:24 AM
I'm to depressed by the article to comment on it.
 
2012-11-21 07:24:44 AM
Old enough to know better, too young to care?
 
2012-11-21 07:29:40 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: MOST politicians are no more educated, intelligent, or moral than the general populace, and often significantly less so. They go to church and they believe, just like other Americans. Its not an act, for most of them.


I disagree. MOST politicians are actually more educated and intelligent than the general populace. They're not smarter than everybody; but, they're smarter than most.

But, they're also FAR LESS moral...which is why they say such stupid things: they're pandering to the (very stupid) masses. 

/at least in Washington
//worked in government there for a couple of years
///that town is FULL of well-educated people saying ridiculously stupid things. On purpose.
 
2012-11-21 07:51:20 AM

Frederick: Well, I certainly didnt mention morality -I know better than that. The US has an approximate rate of 40% for college degrees among 25+ yo. I havent verified it, but I'd imagine that more than 40% of US politicians have college degrees. That speaks to education and vicariously intelligence (I know college degree and intelligence arent absolutely synonymous).


But what sort of education? You can get a degree in Law or or Political Science without learning a lick of actual science, particularly if you went to a Christian university. More disturbing, apparently people are getting medical degrees without learning any actual science.
 
2012-11-21 07:52:25 AM
Few things abiut America are more painful to me than that many of our national leaders either hold, or pretend to hold, medieval mindsets, and help to craft national policy based on those mindsets. They should be laughed off the stage; instead they are lionized as champions of religious freedom.

We're doomed--and we'll take the rest of the planet down with us.
 
2012-11-21 07:55:34 AM
Belief in Sky Wizards and fairy tales is all the Rage, don'y ya know.

We don't need no facts or Science affecting the make up of Committees about Science. Don't be silly. God did it, and that's all you need to know.
 
2012-11-21 07:56:41 AM
I wonder if posing the question like the following would change answers:

"How old do scientists say the Earth is?"
 
2012-11-21 07:57:58 AM
In Rubio's "defense," it doesn't matter what he believes. It only matters, to him, what other Republicans thinks he believes. If he were to give any non-young earth creationist answer he risks being declared a RINO and would face a primary challenge and less funds. It's just more in the interest to a Republican to be super vague if not actually stupid in regards to science.
 
2012-11-21 07:58:32 AM
I doubt you could buy an accelerator mass spec for $250. Therefore article is false.
 
2012-11-21 07:58:54 AM
This would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

/fires off a HA HA to the US
 
2012-11-21 08:01:57 AM
Ok... the Bible says the world was created in 6 days. Are these consecutive days? If I start painting my house on Sunday, go to work all week, and then finish the house on Saturday... is that 2 days of painting, or 6 days?

Could God have created the stuff on Day 1, and then, oh... had a nap for 1.2 billion years?
 
2012-11-21 08:02:43 AM
You'd think, after getting asked a question like that, they could just pull out their phone and look it up on Wikipedia.., granted, those yahoos would choose Conservapedia instead..
 
2012-11-21 08:02:47 AM
I don't mind people being religious- it's when they believe that 1. Others can't be moral without religion, and 2. Try to cram it down other people's throats. Want to believe the earth is 6000 years old? Go right ahead- just don't pass any laws saying that others have to learn about it in school. But ignorant people tend to be the most insecure in their beliefs, otherwise they wouldn't care what others believed.
 
2012-11-21 08:02:49 AM
Anything not in the range of 4.3 billion years is a wrong answer. Stop opposing science you morons.
 
2012-11-21 08:04:16 AM

wippit: Could God have created the stuff on Day 1, and then, oh... had a nap for 1.2 billion years?


Or, even if you believe in the judeochristolamic deities, you could agree that the creation myth is a myth, and the details are not meant to be representative of actual events.
 
2012-11-21 08:04:38 AM

rev. dave: Anything not in the range of 4.3 billion years is a wrong answer. Stop opposing science you morons.


Learn to spell, moran.
 
2012-11-21 08:08:12 AM

wippit: Ok... the Bible says the world was created in 6 days. Are these consecutive days? If I start painting my house on Sunday, go to work all week, and then finish the house on Saturday... is that 2 days of painting, or 6 days?

Could God have created the stuff on Day 1, and then, oh... had a nap for 1.2 billion years?


Then specifying a day of rest afterwards makes no sense. If you want to tie Genesis to reality, your best bet is that the days aren't literal days but arbitrary periods of time that represent 7 eras.
 
2012-11-21 08:08:48 AM

wippit: Ok... the Bible says the world was created in 6 days. Are these consecutive days? If I start painting my house on Sunday, go to work all week, and then finish the house on Saturday... is that 2 days of painting, or 6 days?

Could God have created the stuff on Day 1, and then, oh... had a nap for 1.2 billion years?


Or maybe, just maybe, twisting the interpretation of a two-thousand-year-old goat-herder mythology to fit current observation is a meaningless task.
 
2012-11-21 08:09:27 AM
Ironically, the state of Texas is pretty heavily invested in geology. If the creationist geologists are right and established geology is wrong, some creationists could make a killing in the petroleum exploration business, finding oil with better accuracy based on their understanding of how oil deposits were really formed. For some reason, that does not appear to be the case. Instead, creationists who go to work in the oil industry tend to suffer a crisis of faith: Link
 
2012-11-21 08:09:29 AM
USA! USA! USA!
 
2012-11-21 08:10:53 AM
And Americans wonder why the rest of the world laughs at us.
 
2012-11-21 08:10:57 AM
We should ask them, how do we determine the age of the Earth? Radiometric dating, or the old testament? Before answering: do you banish your wife to the desert while she's menstruating? Or do you think only part of the OT is the inspired word of god, and the rest you can ignore?

If you said radiometric dating, which scientist uses that to come up with 9000 years? Or anything less than at least 2.8 billion years? We can use a good laugh.
 
2012-11-21 08:11:17 AM
If I was a politician and asked that, I would say "Not as old as your mother"
 
2012-11-21 08:11:56 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Frederick: Most politicians are intelligent, educated people. They know the geological basics of our planets history. But they also know the very big, very vocal fundamentalist contributors to their campaigns do not want to hear about geological science.

Ummmm... no.

MOST politicians are no more educated, intelligent, or moral than the general populace, and often significantly less so. They go to church and they believe, just like other Americans. Its not an act, for most of them.

I find it very frightening indeed that people who believe that they can communicate telepathically with an invisible, omnipotent being. Seriously - if they can suspend reason that much, their capacity for self-delusion is inestimable.


Hard to disagree with this in the general sense. Then again, I don't have a hard time separating my beliefs (God exists, Jesus rose from the dead, etc.) from what I know (the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, evolution is real, etc.). Belief for me recognizes there's little to no substantial proof.
 
2012-11-21 08:14:01 AM

wippit: Ok... the Bible says the world was created in 6 days. Are these consecutive days? If I start painting my house on Sunday, go to work all week, and then finish the house on Saturday... is that 2 days of painting, or 6 days?

Could God have created the stuff on Day 1, and then, oh... had a nap for 1.2 billion years?


I hate this type of argument. Why not just lead in with the biblical passage "2nd Peter 3:8" and say "A day is like a thousand years" and claim that it isn't a "day" per se, but a period of time and the bible is only using the word "day" as a general period of measurement?

My high school chemistry teacher used to say stuff like that (yes, it was a Catholic school). He used to say "Sure, evolution is the way life developed. But who CAUSED that evolution?" The issue here is that suddenly the creation story is all symbolism and no fact. But he still expected us to believe the "great flood" was literal. And so is the idea of heaven and hell-- they are actual places we will go to. Where does the goal post finally come to rest?
 
2012-11-21 08:16:03 AM

enry: Then again, I don't have a hard time separating my beliefs (God exists, Jesus rose from the dead, etc.) from what I know (the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, evolution is real, etc.). Belief for me recognizes there's little to no substantial proof.


If it's your belief that "God exists, Jesus rose from the dead," why do you believe it?

This is a serious question, by the way. I'm not out to argue with you about your beliefs. I'm just curious as to why you hold them.
 
2012-11-21 08:16:03 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: wippit: Ok... the Bible says the world was created in 6 days. Are these consecutive days? If I start painting my house on Sunday, go to work all week, and then finish the house on Saturday... is that 2 days of painting, or 6 days?

Could God have created the stuff on Day 1, and then, oh... had a nap for 1.2 billion years?

Or maybe, just maybe, twisting the interpretation of a two-thousand-year-old goat-herder mythology to fit current observation is a meaningless task.


It's meaningless to try to get people to accept a 4 billion year old earth, in a way they will accept?
 
2012-11-21 08:16:13 AM

WinoRhino: wippit: Ok... the Bible says the world was created in 6 days. Are these consecutive days? If I start painting my house on Sunday, go to work all week, and then finish the house on Saturday... is that 2 days of painting, or 6 days?

Could God have created the stuff on Day 1, and then, oh... had a nap for 1.2 billion years?

I hate this type of argument. Why not just lead in with the biblical passage "2nd Peter 3:8" and say "A day is like a thousand years" and claim that it isn't a "day" per se, but a period of time and the bible is only using the word "day" as a general period of measurement?

My high school chemistry teacher used to say stuff like that (yes, it was a Catholic school). He used to say "Sure, evolution is the way life developed. But who CAUSED that evolution?" The issue here is that suddenly the creation story is all symbolism and no fact. But he still expected us to believe the "great flood" was literal. And so is the idea of heaven and hell-- they are actual places we will go to. Where does the goal post finally come to rest?


You can either believe its all allegory or you can accept science and reserve God for the unexplained, which unfortunately for the believer means an ever-shrinking god.

Or you can stick your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la-la-la"
 
2012-11-21 08:16:18 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
Sometimes I am entertained by people who think highly of humans and expect good things of them.
 
2012-11-21 08:17:27 AM

WinoRhino: wippit: Ok... the Bible says the world was created in 6 days. Are these consecutive days? If I start painting my house on Sunday, go to work all week, and then finish the house on Saturday... is that 2 days of painting, or 6 days?

Could God have created the stuff on Day 1, and then, oh... had a nap for 1.2 billion years?

I hate this type of argument. Why not just lead in with the biblical passage "2nd Peter 3:8" and say "A day is like a thousand years" and claim that it isn't a "day" per se, but a period of time and the bible is only using the word "day" as a general period of measurement?


Because they will take a literal 1000 years per day, which only makes the earth 10,000 years old.
 
2012-11-21 08:17:46 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: I find it very frightening indeed that people who believe that they can communicate telepathically with an invisible, omnipotent being. Seriously - if they can suspend reason that much, their capacity for self-delusion is inestimable.


You don't understand the concept of a delusion at all, do you?
 
2012-11-21 08:17:53 AM
U.S. politicians 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, the department of heath and human services, the patent office, DARPA, etc. etc.

If the person is a scientifically illiterate dumbass, they has no business running for national office.
 
2012-11-21 08:18:01 AM
I love that some of these clowns think religious dogma and creation myths should be treated as equal to scientific theories based on research and observation.
 
2012-11-21 08:20:09 AM

keylock71: I love that some of these clowns think religious dogma and creation myths should be treated as equal to scientific theories based on research and observation.


The guy who said the big bang theory is a lie straight from the pit of hell sat on the science committee in congress. As an actual scientist that is outrageous and offensive to me. It is like the S.A. in U.S.A stands for Saudi Arabia.
 
2012-11-21 08:21:38 AM

eraser8: I disagree. MOST politicians are actually more educated and intelligent than the general populace. They're not smarter than everybody; but, they're smarter than most.


Oh please. Virtually all members of Congress went to college and come from solid educational backgrounds.

I highly doubt that they've gone their life without learning that the age of the Earth is in the billions of years.
 
2012-11-21 08:23:52 AM

keylock71: I love that some of these clowns think religious dogma and creation myths should be treated as equal to scientific theories based on research and observation.


I don't. If they were deranged street preachers, they would be nothing more than amusing. But instead, they ran the country for eight years and are trying to run it again.
 
2012-11-21 08:24:28 AM

Pochas: The guy who said the big bang theory is a lie straight from the pit of hell sat on the science committee in congress. As an actual scientist that is outrageous and offensive to me. It is like the S.A. in U.S.A stands for Saudi Arabia.


Except for Saudi Arabia being a Muslim country, and Muslims believe in the Big Bang.
 
2012-11-21 08:25:00 AM

SnarfVader: Georgia should be ashamed they elected Broun, and our nation should be ashamed that he serves on the U.S. House Science and Technology Committee.


Broun ran unopposed, be ashamed of the Democratic party for not being able to field an opponent and losing the chance to unseat that nitwit.
 
2012-11-21 08:25:48 AM

Pochas: If the person is a scientifically illiterate dumbass, they has no business running for national office


They have no business in polite society and should be shunned.
 
2012-11-21 08:26:01 AM

keylock71: I love that some of these clowns think religious dogma and creation myths should be treated as equal to scientific theories based on research and observation.


Sometimes I feel like I'm the only Farker who's worked in government (although, I can't possibly be).

Politicians -- and, I'm saying this after observing them up close -- don't care about religious dogma or creation myths. And, they don't care about scientific theories. The vast majority of them care only about their own power and influence. Many will say the most nonsensical, bizarre, outlandish, absurd things if they think the public wants to hear it. The nature of politics naturally attracts egomaniacs and snake oil salesmen.

You want to know what a politician really thinks? Wait till he's retired.  Or, wait till some tragedy brings the meaning of life into focus for him (see Lee Atwater). Then, you might get the truth.
 
2012-11-21 08:26:52 AM

thornhill: eraser8: I disagree. MOST politicians are actually more educated and intelligent than the general populace. They're not smarter than everybody; but, they're smarter than most.

Oh please. Virtually all members of Congress went to college and come from solid educational backgrounds.

I highly doubt that they've gone their life without learning that the age of the Earth is in the billions of years.


Um, that's pretty much my point. Did you somehow miss that?
 
2012-11-21 08:28:52 AM
A sample of why it is impossible to get any answer from a politician.

Interviewer: Do you like twinkies?
Politician: 11
Interviewer: O_O

/Politicians never answer the question asked.
 
2012-11-21 08:29:00 AM

Frederick: The point I was trying to make is that politicians likely intentionally misrepresent themselves to appeal to their base. George W Bush was not an observant, practicing Christian but represented himself that way securing the Evangelical vote to win two presidencies.


He also "read three or four Shakespeares". Guile. This is something I'd never accuse Dubya of.
 
2012-11-21 08:29:44 AM
I think it would be absolutely spectacular if pandering to YECs became a "thing" for republicans in the next election cycle, and here's why:

When Richard Mourdock made his infamous "rape babies are a gift from God" comment, it was more than just an artless gaffe; He had been impaled on the horns of a couple of classic theological dilemmas. One was a very basic version of the Problem of Evil: Is God sovereign? Can God prevent rape? If he can and doesn't, isn't that tantamount to approval? The other, of course was simple "Free Will vs. Predestination:" Does everything happen according to God's plan? Even the birth of children conceived from rape? And if so, was not the rape also part of the plan?

When Mourdock made his comments, he was simply picking possible answers to these questions and stating them briefly, in theologically unsophisticated terms. In plain speech, basically any answer that you give to these questions is either going to offend Christians or make God out to be a...less than agreeable being.

Here's the thing: Trying to reconcile the scientifically determined age of the earth with a religious account that says the earth is much younger is fraught with similar theological (and political) pitfalls. If the Earth is 6000 years old, you've basically got a God who left a ton of evidence to the contrary in order to deceive people and send them to hell. If you come out and say the earth is not 6000 years old, you offend the majority of the Republican base. If you try to reassure your base that the earth can be old and the Bible is still true, you've opened yourself up for a sharp reporter to ask: "What does it even mean to say the Bible is true if you don't know what it's actually saying." (I would absolutely love to see a politician struggle to answer that one on camera.)

If you're expressly pandering to religious voters with religious reasoning, then I would argue that it's absolutely fair game for reporters to ask religious questions. Especially if you've already painted yourself into a corner.
 
2012-11-21 08:29:45 AM

wippit: It's meaningless to try to get people to accept a 4 billion year old earth, in a way they will accept?


In this fashion? Absolutely meaningless. If you have to defer to their creation-fantasy and find ways to slip facts in when they're not looking, you are proclaiming the creation-fantasy to be the authority. You are reinforcing a relationship that needs to be dismantled: that Bible trumps reality. By laying down and giving up authority to one part of it, you add authoritative weight to the rest. What happens when they come back with "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" to justify a Christian theocratic state and you've run out of ways to twist the wording so it points back to reality?

It's not only meaningless, it's downright dangerous. Let them dismiss the observations of the reality-based community if they want to, but make damn sure they're aware that they're doing so.
 
2012-11-21 08:31:29 AM
Also, nobody's posted this yet?

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-11-21 08:32:08 AM

Martian_Astronomer: I think it would be absolutely spectacular if pandering to YECs became a "thing" for republicans in the next election cycle, and here's why:

When Richard Mourdock made his infamous "rape babies are a gift from God" comment, it was more than just an artless gaffe; He had been impaled on the horns of a couple of classic theological dilemmas. One was a very basic version of the Problem of Evil: Is God sovereign? Can God prevent rape? If he can and doesn't, isn't that tantamount to approval? The other, of course was simple "Free Will vs. Predestination:" Does everything happen according to God's plan? Even the birth of children conceived from rape? And if so, was not the rape also part of the plan?

When Mourdock made his comments, he was simply picking possible answers to these questions and stating them briefly, in theologically unsophisticated terms. In plain speech, basically any answer that you give to these questions is either going to offend Christians or make God out to be a...less than agreeable being.

Here's the thing: Trying to reconcile the scientifically determined age of the earth with a religious account that says the earth is much younger is fraught with similar theological (and political) pitfalls. If the Earth is 6000 years old, you've basically got a God who left a ton of evidence to the contrary in order to deceive people and send them to hell. If you come out and say the earth is not 6000 years old, you offend the majority of the Republican base. If you try to reassure your base that the earth can be old and the Bible is still true, you've opened yourself up for a sharp reporter to ask: "What does it even mean to say the Bible is true if you don't know what it's actually saying." (I would absolutely love to see a politician struggle to answer that one on camera.)

If you're expressly pandering to religious voters with religious reasoning, then I would argue that it's absolutely fair game for reporters to ask religious questions. Especially if you ...


Loop hole: The republicans run a Catholic who isn't Santorum. Catholics believe in evolution and the big bang so he can still be religiously fanatic. Have his cake and eat it too, but who know if all those evangelicals would vote for a devout Catholic.
 
2012-11-21 08:32:31 AM

eraser8: thornhill: eraser8: I disagree. MOST politicians are actually more educated and intelligent than the general populace. They're not smarter than everybody; but, they're smarter than most.

Oh please. Virtually all members of Congress went to college and come from solid educational backgrounds.

I highly doubt that they've gone their life without learning that the age of the Earth is in the billions of years.

Um, that's pretty much my point. Did you somehow miss that?


Sorry. You're not smarter than most line through me off. It's early in the morning.
 
2012-11-21 08:35:17 AM

t3knomanser: Or, even if you believe in the judeochristolamic deities, you could agree that the creation myth is a myth, and the details are not meant to be representative of actual events.


My Mythology class at a Catholic High School pointed out that most of the Old Testament were Myths. That every culture has a creation story, that every culture has a great flood story. If the Catholic Church can admit why can't they?
 
2012-11-21 08:35:33 AM

eraser8: Sometimes I feel like I'm the only Farker who's worked in government (although, I can't possibly be).

Politicians -- and, I'm saying this after observing them up close -- don't care about religious dogma or creation myths. And, they don't care about scientific theories. The vast majority of them care only about their own power and influence. Many will say the most nonsensical, bizarre, outlandish, absurd things if they think the public wants to hear it. The nature of politics naturally attracts egomaniacs and snake oil salesmen.


It doesn't matter to me if a person actually believes in young-earth creationism or just says so to get the votes of people who do. Either way, he's a dumbass that has no business being partially in charge of modern society.
 
2012-11-21 08:37:46 AM

Martian_Astronomer: If the Earth is 6000 years old, you've basically got a God who left a ton of evidence to the contrary in order to deceive people and send them to hell.


A believer wouldn't be troubled by that.

It's part of the Biblical tradition that the god of Abraham deceives people in order to punish them. Look at pharaoh (Exodus 4:21): And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

And, what's the purpose of hardening pharaoh's heart? To punish him and Egypt.

Or, look at 2 Thessaloonians:
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
This will not be news to any Christian who's paid attention to his religion.
 
2012-11-21 08:38:22 AM

wademh: [upload.wikimedia.org image 216x318]
Sometimes I am entertained by people who think highly of humans and expect good things of them.


That picture is from Kingsport, TN. Town full of engineers decided the best way to kill an elephant who trampled its trainer was by hanging. Good Times.
 
2012-11-21 08:38:40 AM

eraser8: enry: Then again, I don't have a hard time separating my beliefs (God exists, Jesus rose from the dead, etc.) from what I know (the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, evolution is real, etc.). Belief for me recognizes there's little to no substantial proof.

If it's your belief that "God exists, Jesus rose from the dead," why do you believe it?

This is a serious question, by the way. I'm not out to argue with you about your beliefs. I'm just curious as to why you hold them.


I'll admit it's seemingly irrational. It's partly how I was raised by my parents, it's partly the social structure I've built since then of people that generally believe the same as me, and it's a way of giving me something much larger than me to believe in. It's hard to quantify, and that's part of what also makes up faith.

As I say, it works for me and it doesn't have to work for everyone.
 
2012-11-21 08:42:10 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: wippit: It's meaningless to try to get people to accept a 4 billion year old earth, in a way they will accept?

In this fashion? Absolutely meaningless. If you have to defer to their creation-fantasy and find ways to slip facts in when they're not looking, you are proclaiming the creation-fantasy to be the authority. You are reinforcing a relationship that needs to be dismantled: that Bible trumps reality.


I've read nothing in the Bible that 'trumps' reality.
 
2012-11-21 08:42:19 AM
Sometimes I'm amazed we ever made it this far as a species.
 
2012-11-21 08:42:57 AM

Karac: eraser8: Sometimes I feel like I'm the only Farker who's worked in government (although, I can't possibly be).

Politicians -- and, I'm saying this after observing them up close -- don't care about religious dogma or creation myths. And, they don't care about scientific theories. The vast majority of them care only about their own power and influence. Many will say the most nonsensical, bizarre, outlandish, absurd things if they think the public wants to hear it. The nature of politics naturally attracts egomaniacs and snake oil salesmen.

It doesn't matter to me if a person actually believes in young-earth creationism or just says so to get the votes of people who do. Either way, he's a dumbass that has no business being partially in charge of modern society.


That's fine. I even agree with you. But, it's not really responsive to my point.

I'm not defending any of these politicians. I'm just trying to bring a little reality to the discussion: the fact is that politicians are not stupid. They're smarter and better educated than most Americans. They're just really, really manipulative.
 
2012-11-21 08:44:00 AM
You people are silly. This, like most utterances of the political class, was a worthless, mustn't offend any potential voter non-answer. Behold, the power of aspiring politicians:

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you-and maybe they already have-"Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?," what would you say?

A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it ... it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live-that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know. 

Sen. Obama, D-Ill., speaking at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. on April 13, 2008. 

He doesn't presume to know because he's not a scientist, man. He's a politician.
 
2012-11-21 08:46:23 AM

Karac: eraser8: Sometimes I feel like I'm the only Farker who's worked in government (although, I can't possibly be).

Politicians -- and, I'm saying this after observing them up close -- don't care about religious dogma or creation myths. And, they don't care about scientific theories. The vast majority of them care only about their own power and influence. Many will say the most nonsensical, bizarre, outlandish, absurd things if they think the public wants to hear it. The nature of politics naturally attracts egomaniacs and snake oil salesmen.

It doesn't matter to me if a person actually believes in young-earth creationism or just says so to get the votes of people who do. Either way, he's a dumbass that has no business being partially in charge of modern society.


What kills me is that there had to be a deliberate choice made by leadership to put him on the Science Committee. Like when Bush appointed Bolton as UN ambassador, they're giving everyone a giant middle finger and sending clear signals that they don't want any progress to be made.
 
2012-11-21 08:47:10 AM

Ted Kennedy's Brain Tumor: He doesn't presume to know because he's not a scientist, man.


That's called Humility.

It's considered a virtue in many Abrahamic Faiths.
 
2012-11-21 08:50:24 AM
Science:
www.csmonitor.com

Extra scientificy:
whoyoucallingaskeptic.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-21 08:51:24 AM
At least one of the recent presidential candidates (Texas Governor Rick Perry) similarly responded when asked how old the earth was: "I don't have any idea, I know it's pretty old," but then added that he wasn't sure whether anyone knew "completely and absolutely" the age of the earth.

This is the perfect answer for a politician to give. Particularly if he's in an state/district/etc that has a substantial number of religious people who believe.. whatever... 

He hasn't committed himself in any way and none of the people who elect him have any serious mud to throw at him.
 
2012-11-21 08:52:54 AM
Well, I can confirm that it has been here for at least 32 years. If my great grandfather's stories are to be believed, it's been here at least since 1905.
 
2012-11-21 08:55:06 AM

Pochas: Loop hole: The republicans run a Catholic who isn't Santorum. Catholics believe in evolution and the big bang so he can still be religiously fanatic. Have his cake and eat it too, but who know if all those evangelicals would vote for a devout Catholic.


Good point, but that still doesn't mean a clever reporter couldn't give him just enough rope to hang himself with regarding hermeneutic methods.

eraser8: A believer wouldn't be troubled by that.


Some wouldn't, in much the way that some weren't troubled by "Rape babies are a gift from God." The less devout but still Christian-identifying parts of the electorate might not feel the same way.
 
2012-11-21 08:55:18 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Frederick: Most politicians are intelligent, educated people. They know the geological basics of our planets history. But they also know the very big, very vocal fundamentalist contributors to their campaigns do not want to hear about geological science.

Ummmm... no.

MOST politicians are no more educated, intelligent, or moral than the general populace, and often significantly less so. They go to church and they believe, just like other Americans. Its not an act, for most of them.

I find it very frightening indeed that people who believe that they can communicate telepathically with an invisible, omnipotent being. Seriously - if they can suspend reason that much, their capacity for self-delusion is inestimable.


A Big concur from me.

And as to anyone's "schooling" equating to their education about science... Anyone remember an old PBS show's interview of law students (at their graduation) where they ask the students basic science questions, something like, "Where does a tree get the molecules to get so large?" - I thought it was Frontline but my Google-Fu has failed me this morning. Anyway, the point is that a scary-many of these law graduates were poorly versed in science (and now they are presumably governing it).

I am a High School physics and astronomy teacher (in Texas no less!) and the irony that the same people who could possibly benefit the most from my classes are also those with the greatest influence over what I am required to teach is not lost on me.
 
2012-11-21 08:55:37 AM

wippit: LouDobbsAwaaaay: wippit: It's meaningless to try to get people to accept a 4 billion year old earth, in a way they will accept?

In this fashion? Absolutely meaningless. If you have to defer to their creation-fantasy and find ways to slip facts in when they're not looking, you are proclaiming the creation-fantasy to be the authority. You are reinforcing a relationship that needs to be dismantled: that Bible trumps reality.

I've read nothing in the Bible that 'trumps' reality.


If you advocate the idea that God wished the world into existence in a day and then took a nap for a billion years just to make the math work out correctly, then yeah you are letting the Bible trump reality.
 
2012-11-21 08:56:24 AM

Ted Kennedy's Brain Tumor: You people are silly. This, like most utterances of the political class, was a worthless, mustn't offend any potential voter non-answer. Behold, the power of aspiring politicians:


You're right in regards to Rubio's answer. He gave a nod to the Bible and a slight nod to skepticism, and he left plenty of room to massage his answer later if there are any problems.

Broun's answer, OTOH, was that he knows for an absolute, unassailable fact that the Earth is 9000 years old, which isn't even right under the derpy biblical calculation.
 
2012-11-21 09:00:32 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Frederick: Most politicians are intelligent, educated people. They know the geological basics of our planets history. But they also know the very big, very vocal fundamentalist contributors to their campaigns do not want to hear about geological science.

Ummmm... no.

MOST politicians are no more educated, intelligent, or moral than the general populace, and often significantly less so. They go to church and they believe, just like other Americans. Its not an act, for most of them.

I find it very frightening indeed that people who believe that they can communicate telepathically with an invisible, omnipotent being. Seriously - if they can suspend reason that much, their capacity for self-delusion is inestimable.


Also the level of arrogance it must take to believe that the creator of the universe, with millions (billions?) of galaxies, each with billions of stars,

Benevolent Misanthrope: Frederick: Most politicians are intelligent, educated people. They know the geological basics of our planets history. But they also know the very big, very vocal fundamentalist contributors to their campaigns do not want to hear about geological science.

Ummmm... no.

MOST politicians are no more educated, intelligent, or moral than the general populace, and often significantly less so. They go to church and they believe, just like other Americans. Its not an act, for most of them.

I find it very frightening indeed that people who believe that they can communicate telepathically with an invisible, omnipotent being. Seriously - if they can suspend reason that much, their capacity for self-delusion is inestimable.


Not to mention the level of arrogance it must take to believe that said supreme being would care so much about a soggy exothermic reaction on the side of a mote of dust orbiting a grain of sand at the edge of a ball of lint suspended in the vastness of space that it would alter the natural course of the universe if asked nicely.
 
2012-11-21 09:05:37 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: wippit: LouDobbsAwaaaay: wippit: It's meaningless to try to get people to accept a 4 billion year old earth, in a way they will accept?

In this fashion? Absolutely meaningless. If you have to defer to their creation-fantasy and find ways to slip facts in when they're not looking, you are proclaiming the creation-fantasy to be the authority. You are reinforcing a relationship that needs to be dismantled: that Bible trumps reality.

I've read nothing in the Bible that 'trumps' reality.

If you advocate the idea that God wished the world into existence in a day and then took a nap for a billion years just to make the math work out correctly, then yeah you are letting the Bible trump reality.


If I advocate that God wished the universe into existence 10 billion years ago, and the big bang was the physical manifestation of that wish... where's the conflict?
 
2012-11-21 09:06:43 AM

Martian_Astronomer: Pochas: Loop hole: The republicans run a Catholic who isn't Santorum. Catholics believe in evolution and the big bang so he can still be religiously fanatic. Have his cake and eat it too, but who know if all those evangelicals would vote for a devout Catholic.

Good point, but that still doesn't mean a clever reporter couldn't give him just enough rope to hang himself with regarding hermeneutic methods.

eraser8: A believer wouldn't be troubled by that.

Some wouldn't, in much the way that some weren't troubled by "Rape babies are a gift from God." The less devout but still Christian-identifying parts of the electorate might not feel the same way.


I was raised Catholic and I dont know what hermeneutic methods are. That would probably be an acceptable answer even for other Catholics.
 
2012-11-21 09:07:27 AM

t3knomanser: Frederick: That speaks to education and vicariously intelligence (I know college degree and intelligence arent absolutely synonymous).

Yeah, I wouldn't relate intelligence and college degrees. Look at any MBA program.


After more than a decade of working on a college campus, my conclusion is that higher education is only very weakly correlated with intelligence*. It is much more strongly correlated with perseverance: The ability to set a distant goal and to work towards achieving that goal. That applies to undergrad, grad, and doctoral degrees. I've met many a "Doctor J. Quentin Flimflam, PhD" who couldn't grasp some relatively simple concepts, even ones that I'd expect a high school kid to understand. It's also been my experience that the ones who want you to call them "Doctor Flimflam" or that use their title ostentatiously are the least intelligent of the lot. The ones who are obviously intelligent tend to be low-key about the title. Perhaps they don't have to flaunt it, whereas the ones who do are insecure about their mental abilities.

*There are, of course, degrees that do highly correspond to intelligence, mostly in the hard sciences.
 
2012-11-21 09:11:08 AM
4.54 billion-year-old earth

I memorized this for science class. Now, more than 20 years removed from when I learned it, i forgot the exact number. That disqualifies me from being a senator? I have to go back and memorize everything from 8th grade science again now?
 
2012-11-21 09:11:43 AM

eraser8: Politicians -- and, I'm saying this after observing them up close -- don't care about religious dogma or creation myths. And, they don't care about scientific theories. The vast majority of them care only about their own power and influence. Many will say the most nonsensical, bizarre, outlandish, absurd things if they think the public wants to hear it. The nature of politics naturally attracts egomaniacs and snake oil salesmen.


Rubio, certainly, but I don't know if this applies to the Teabaggers. For example, it's pretty obvious that Akin and Mourdock really believe this whole "Three cheers for RAPE RAPE RAPE" thing, though I suppose that has nothing to do with YEC nonsense.
 
2012-11-21 09:13:26 AM

wippit: LouDobbsAwaaaay: wippit: LouDobbsAwaaaay: wippit: It's meaningless to try to get people to accept a 4 billion year old earth, in a way they will accept?

In this fashion? Absolutely meaningless. If you have to defer to their creation-fantasy and find ways to slip facts in when they're not looking, you are proclaiming the creation-fantasy to be the authority. You are reinforcing a relationship that needs to be dismantled: that Bible trumps reality.

I've read nothing in the Bible that 'trumps' reality.

If you advocate the idea that God wished the world into existence in a day and then took a nap for a billion years just to make the math work out correctly, then yeah you are letting the Bible trump reality.

If I advocate that God wished the universe into existence 10 billion years ago, and the big bang was the physical manifestation of that wish... where's the conflict?


I suppose in that instance there is no conflict, other than believing in something that is not provable either way so what is the point in believing that, or championing a belief in that?

It could lead to fewer scientific endeavors to understand the universe though. If everyone believes that 100% why would we bother looking for answers beyond that arbitrary barrier you set up with God?
 
2012-11-21 09:15:12 AM

thatboyoverthere: If the Catholic Church can admit why can't they?


Because of Protestantism. Yes, really.

Let's rewind to the old days of the Catholic Church. The Church held that they were your gateway to God. Masses were held in Latin, Bibles were written in Latin, and most people were illiterate in their native language, let alone in Latin. Even though the Church is much more egalitarian in that regard, the Church still holds the position that they interpret and explain the Bible for their adherents.

This was one of the many issues that lead to the Reformation. One of the core elements of your Protestant faiths is the idea that man is his own gateway to God- you don't need a priest or a church infrastructure. Your relationship with God is personal.

But this creates a problem- without an authority to state what the Bible means, people could read into it and get anything from it, even things that would be considered heretical. There are many possible solutions to this problem, but the one that's gained the most traction is the logically incoherent "Literalist" approach. This approach claims that there is no need to interpret the Bible, because it means exactly what it says- there are no myths, no allegories, nothing but statements meant to be taken literally. Hence the false claims that the Bible is completely free of contradiction. Hence creationists.

And the chilling thing is that this isn't simply a fundamentalist world-view- this is mainstream Protestantism.
 
2012-11-21 09:15:13 AM

ghall3:
If I advocate that God wished the universe into existence 10 billion years ago, and the big bang was the physical manifestation of that wish... where's the conflict?

I suppose in that instance there is no conflict, other than believing in something that is not provable either way so what is the point in believing that, or championing a belief in that?

It could lead to fewer scientific endeavors to understand the universe though. If everyone believes that 100% why would we bother looking for answers beyond that arbitrary barrier you set up with God?


Why would God have created an entire universe to begin with if he didn't want people to try to understand it?
 
2012-11-21 09:15:34 AM
Marco Rubio doesn't know the earth is 4.54 billion years old.

That means that Obama is automatically president for life and Marco Rubio becomes the new security manager for the US Embassy in Benghazi.
 
2012-11-21 09:16:34 AM

wippit: If I advocate that God wished the universe into existence 10 billion years ago, and the big bang was the physical manifestation of that wish... where's the conflict?


I didn't say there's a conflict. I said you are letting the Bible trump reality. That is to say, any observation by the reality-based community must first be projected through the lens of the Bible. Phrases in the creation-fantasy must be twisted and interpreted to fit those observations. It describes the necessity for the Bible to be an infallible historical account. Which is stupid and unnecessary.
 
2012-11-21 09:17:44 AM
All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says.

Holy mother of God
 
2012-11-21 09:17:45 AM

SlothB77: 4.54 billion-year-old earth

I memorized this for science class. Now, more than 20 years removed from when I learned it, i forgot the exact number. That disqualifies me from being a senator?


Depends. When you forgot the 4,500,000,000 years, did that fact get replace by 7 days? And will you try to write legislation to get the 7 days number taught in public schools?
 
2012-11-21 09:18:11 AM
At least Rick Perry was honest.

"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know."
 
2012-11-21 09:20:32 AM

SlothB77: I memorized this for science class. Now, more than 20 years removed from when I learned it, i forgot the exact number. That disqualifies me from being a senator? I have to go back and memorize everything from 8th grade science again now?


There is a huge difference between forgetting the exact number and 9000 years. It is all about orders of magnitude, how about this:

We know there are 8 planets in the solar system since Pluto was demoted. You probably learned there were 9 planets back in the day. However if you were asked how many planets are in the solar system, even if you did not remember or know about Pluto you wouldn't answer "hmm I believe there are about 3billion planets".

That's how far off or wrong these people are, it is completely insane.
I don't remember how many elements there are on the periodic table, I probably knew it at one time but I bet my guess of "About 120 or so" is reasonable and I wouldn't be ridiculed for saying that, but if I said 20,000 I should be ridiculed and I would STILL be orders of magnitude closer than those claiming the earth is 10,000yrs old or less, just like these senators should be ridiculed, particularly those on the science committee.
 
2012-11-21 09:20:48 AM
It's puzzling to me why this is such an important issue for some conservative christians. Of all science to take issue with, why fight your battles over something as stupid as young earth creation theory? I like the Buddhist approach - they think that how/why/when the earth was created are all pointless and irrelevant questions, and don't waste their energy thinking about them.

Back to our Christians here in real America. Christians, why would you focus your resources on carrying out the actual teachings of jesus - like feeding the poor, reaching out to troubled outcasts of society - when you can instead pour resources into trying to get public schools to teach children that the book of Genesis is a historically accurate account of the earth's creation? Sounds like a good idea to me, and is probably exactly the point jesus was trying to make.
 
2012-11-21 09:24:51 AM

wippit: Why would God have created an entire universe to begin with if he didn't want people to try to understand it?


But if you make an arbitrary line saying "Just before the big bang God created the conditions for the big bang and then all the rest of time flows from that, why would we bother looking BEFORE the big bang to better understand the universe? It would just be Big bang and on that we looked at"
 
2012-11-21 09:25:32 AM
The currently accepted narrative about the age and formation of the earth rests upon the idea that it was cobbled together by gravity and had a homogeneous liquid surface for a long time. So all the rest about strata and tectonics rests on the idea that in the beginning the surface didn't have those features. We can prove that the features may have been created by sediments and tectonics, but we can't prove that those features didn't come about some other way.
 
2012-11-21 09:26:41 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: wippit: If I advocate that God wished the universe into existence 10 billion years ago, and the big bang was the physical manifestation of that wish... where's the conflict?

I didn't say there's a conflict. I said you are letting the Bible trump reality. That is to say, any observation by the reality-based community must first be projected through the lens of the Bible. Phrases in the creation-fantasy must be twisted and interpreted to fit those observations. It describes the necessity for the Bible to be an infallible historical account. Which is stupid and unnecessary.


There is nothing wrong with trying to incorporate outside references to try to get your point across. You teach people using the methods those people will understand. Who cares that they have to see it through the lens of the Bible, as long as they understand the material?
 
2012-11-21 09:28:15 AM

GentDirkly: The currently accepted narrative about the age and formation of the earth rests upon the idea that it was cobbled together by gravity and had a homogeneous liquid surface for a long time. So all the rest about strata and tectonics rests on the idea that in the beginning the surface didn't have those features. We can prove that the features may have been created by sediments and tectonics, but we can't prove that those features didn't come about some other way.



I love false equivalency. Everyone knows that the scientific method = religious explanations of the universe.
 
2012-11-21 09:28:57 AM

t3knomanser: thatboyoverthere: If the Catholic Church can admit why can't they?

Because of Protestantism. Yes, really.

Let's rewind to the old days of the Catholic Church. The Church held that they were your gateway to God. Masses were held in Latin, Bibles were written in Latin, and most people were illiterate in their native language, let alone in Latin. Even though the Church is much more egalitarian in that regard, the Church still holds the position that they interpret and explain the Bible for their adherents.

This was one of the many issues that lead to the Reformation. One of the core elements of your Protestant faiths is the idea that man is his own gateway to God- you don't need a priest or a church infrastructure. Your relationship with God is personal.

But this creates a problem- without an authority to state what the Bible means, people could read into it and get anything from it, even things that would be considered heretical. There are many possible solutions to this problem, but the one that's gained the most traction is the logically incoherent "Literalist" approach. This approach claims that there is no need to interpret the Bible, because it means exactly what it says- there are no myths, no allegories, nothing but statements meant to be taken literally. Hence the false claims that the Bible is completely free of contradiction. Hence creationists.

And the chilling thing is that this isn't simply a fundamentalist world-view- this is mainstream Protestantism.


i was very lucky to be brought up Lutheran. I missed out on all of this fundie garbage.

/my Pastor didn't believe in hell.
 
2012-11-21 09:31:33 AM
To reasonable Christians (not the 6,000-year Creationists - yes, there's a difference), it's clear the Genesis account of 'days' really should be taken as 'periods of time', much like one might say "in my father's day, a gallon of gasoline was 10 cents". No one believes you're talking about one literal day if you make that statement. Much like how the Genesis account should be interpreted.
 
2012-11-21 09:31:40 AM

rev. dave: Anything not in the range of 4.3 billion years is a wrong answer. Stop opposing science you morons.


You namby-pamby spherists are just completely wrong. The proper age of the earth is 4.57 billion years, when the accretion disc first started to form.

I bet you're one of those anti-accretionists, always complaining that you can't count the age of the earth until it becomes a complete sphere. Well, fie on that! If you're going to be that wishy-washy, you might as well count the age to when the crust formed, when the oceans came into being, or even when the earth had an oxygen rich atmosphere!

No, the only proper dating technique is when the rocks themselves formed. All other dates are incorrect.
 
2012-11-21 09:31:47 AM

ghall3: wippit: Why would God have created an entire universe to begin with if he didn't want people to try to understand it?

But if you make an arbitrary line saying "Just before the big bang God created the conditions for the big bang and then all the rest of time flows from that, why would we bother looking BEFORE the big bang to better understand the universe? It would just be Big bang and on that we looked at"


OK, lets say that. So, what conditions did God create before the big bang? If he created them, then they must be something we can study. There's no line there being drawn, it is just another reference point to work backwards to.
 
2012-11-21 09:32:32 AM

sno man: Forget the Twinkie thing, these two and others like them on your F-ing science committee is why the rest of the world points and laughs.
How did you guys get to the moon with guys like this in charge?

/knows they weren't in charge then...
//wonders how they are now.


Short answer: Reagan sold the Republican Party out to the Religious Right in 1980 to assure his win.
 
2012-11-21 09:35:05 AM

wippit: OK, lets say that. So, what conditions did God create before the big bang? If he created them, then they must be something we can study. There's no line there being drawn, it is just another reference point to work backwards to.


So what you are saying is god could have created everything yesterday and implanted all of our memories of the time before yesterday?
 
2012-11-21 09:36:48 AM

rev. dave: Anything not in the range of 4.3 billion years is a wrong answer. Stop opposing science you morons.


The Earth, and everything else is 13.75 myo,

so they say.

You and I are also.
 
2012-11-21 09:38:48 AM

ghall3:
So what you are saying is god could have created everything yesterday and implanted all of our memories of the time before yesterday?


He could have. We cold all just be sprites in a game of Sim Existence, booted up on a cosmic Commodore 64. Would it change how people act? Would we suddenly stop trying to figure things out?
 
2012-11-21 09:38:52 AM

Dwight_Yeast: sno man: Forget the Twinkie thing, these two and others like them on your F-ing science committee is why the rest of the world points and laughs.
How did you guys get to the moon with guys like this in charge?

/knows they weren't in charge then...
//wonders how they are now.

Short answer: Reagan sold the Republican Party out to the Religious Right in 1980 to assure his win.


Then they sold it to the NeoCon fascists.

Profit!

Prophet?
 
2012-11-21 09:39:21 AM
Much ado about nothing
 
2012-11-21 09:42:42 AM

SlothB77: 4.54 billion-year-old earth

I memorized this for science class. Now, more than 20 years removed from when I learned it, i forgot the exact number. That disqualifies me from being a senator? I have to go back and memorize everything from 8th grade science again now?


The difference between 4.5 billion and 6,000 is not that much. I totally agree with you.
 
2012-11-21 09:42:55 AM

wippit: He could have. We cold all just be sprites in a game of Sim Existence, booted up on a cosmic Commodore 64. Would it change how people act? Would we suddenly stop trying to figure things out?


Then what is the point in having religion? Wouldn't it be easier just to base our actions and beliefs around what we can actually prove works?
If there is no way to prove one religion is the "right" religion shouldn't they all just go away because they are a waste of time?
 
2012-11-21 09:45:50 AM

ghall3:
Then what is the point in having religion? Wouldn't it be easier just to base our actions and beliefs around what we can actually prove works?
If there is no way to prove one religion is the "right" religion shouldn't they all just go away because they are a waste of time?


Replace religion with government. Which government is right?

We have religion because it is another way people can gain power. Religion has very little to do with believing in God.
 
2012-11-21 09:49:42 AM

wippit: ... and Muslims believe in the Big Bang.


So long as it goes off near a bunch of Jews.
 
2012-11-21 09:52:33 AM

give me doughnuts: So long as it goes off near a bunch of Jews.


Or Christians, or Buddhists, or Atheists, or women they aren't picky

/I kid, not all of them are completely insane
 
2012-11-21 09:55:03 AM

ghall3: wippit: He could have. We cold all just be sprites in a game of Sim Existence, booted up on a cosmic Commodore 64. Would it change how people act? Would we suddenly stop trying to figure things out?

Then what is the point in having religion? Wouldn't it be easier just to base our actions and beliefs around what we can actually prove works?
If there is no way to prove one religion is the "right" religion shouldn't they all just go away because they are a waste of time?


That's assuming people are perfectly rational players; they are not. When our logical minds fail to understand the world around us they turn to any alternative explanation they can find, and often that is religion. Religion requires far less effort and is much more comforting than often cold nihilistic sounding scientific ideas.
 
2012-11-21 09:55:11 AM

RedVentrue: rev. dave: Anything not in the range of 4.3 billion years is a wrong answer. Stop opposing science you morons.

The Earth, and everything else is 13.75 myo,

so they say.

You and I are also.


Probably much older than that. Bounce theory accounts for expansion much better than bang ever did.
 
2012-11-21 09:57:50 AM

SlothB77: 4.54 billion-year-old earth

I memorized this for science class. Now, more than 20 years removed from when I learned it, i forgot the exact number. That disqualifies me from being a senator? I have to go back and memorize everything from 8th grade science again now?


It's like not remembering how many inches are in a yard, or hours in a day.
 
2012-11-21 09:59:44 AM

MayoSlather: That's assuming people are perfectly rational players; they are not. When our logical minds fail to understand the world around us they turn to any alternative explanation they can find, and often that is religion. Religion requires far less effort and is much more comforting than often cold nihilistic sounding scientific ideas.


I know, it just frustrates me that people setting policy in this country can hold on to such insane ideas. You can have religion if you want, but not at the expense of verifiable facts. The universe doesn't care what you believe as someone said earlier, so just accept how it works so we can advance or get out of the way. As the article points out, all of the technology these idiots rely on everyday breaks down if science is fungible.
 
2012-11-21 10:02:26 AM

give me doughnuts: It's like not remembering how many inches are in a yard, or hours in a day.


And then refusing to ballpark it, or in the case of some of them making a guess like "there are 1/10000000 seconds in a day".
 
2012-11-21 10:04:31 AM

wippit: ghall3:
If I advocate that God wished the universe into existence 10 billion years ago, and the big bang was the physical manifestation of that wish... where's the conflict?

I suppose in that instance there is no conflict, other than believing in something that is not provable either way so what is the point in believing that, or championing a belief in that?

It could lead to fewer scientific endeavors to understand the universe though. If everyone believes that 100% why would we bother looking for answers beyond that arbitrary barrier you set up with God?

Why would God have created an entire universe to begin with if he didn't want people to try to understand it?


Plastic. A$$hole.

/Carlin
 
2012-11-21 10:04:51 AM

Pochas: I was raised Catholic and I dont know what hermeneutic methods are. That would probably be an acceptable answer even for other Catholics.


"Hermeneutics" is a fancy word for "interpretation." The theologically-minded like to at least try to formalize their approach to how scripture is interpreted, so that they can deflect claims that their doctrine is ad-hoc. Hence, you'll see statements like "Interpret less clear passages in light of more clear ones" or "scripture never contradicts scripture," which tend to be fancy ways of saying "we'll give the Bible the benefit of the doubt in such a way that it's impossible, even in principle, to show that it contains contradictions or factual errors."

My point in this particular case was that I would love to see an outspokenly religious politician who accepts an older earth (like the Catholics) get asked "What does it mean to say the Bible is true if you don't know what it's saying (until science comes along and clarifies the facts.)" Trying to answer that on the record is a rhetorical minefield.

I would also add that this doesn't mean I think religious people are somehow unqualified for office, just that when you start to argue this stuff publicly, you've got to be ready to follow your line of reasoning to its conclusion. A perfectly acceptable answer to a question on the age of the Earth would be: "Well, a number of fields of science have provided very good evidence that the Earth is about 4.3 billion years old. A large number of the religious people in this country have made peace with the evidence, but how they do that is ultimately their business."
 
2012-11-21 10:05:32 AM

HallsOfMandos: wippit: ghall3:
If I advocate that God wished the universe into existence 10 billion years ago, and the big bang was the physical manifestation of that wish... where's the conflict?

I suppose in that instance there is no conflict, other than believing in something that is not provable either way so what is the point in believing that, or championing a belief in that?

It could lead to fewer scientific endeavors to understand the universe though. If everyone believes that 100% why would we bother looking for answers beyond that arbitrary barrier you set up with God?

Why would God have created an entire universe to begin with if he didn't want people to try to understand it?

Plastic. A$$hole.

/Carlin


To clarify, I am quoting a George Carlin bit, not trying to call anyone names in here
 
2012-11-21 10:06:41 AM

Martian_Astronomer: Trying to answer that on the record is a rhetorical minefield.


"That's an excellent question, and one that speaks deeply to my faith. You see, I am a man of great faith..."
 
2012-11-21 10:10:35 AM

pxsteel: RedVentrue: rev. dave: Anything not in the range of 4.3 billion years is a wrong answer. Stop opposing science you morons.

The Earth, and everything else is 13.75 myo,

so they say.

You and I are also.

Probably much older than that. Bounce theory accounts for expansion much better than bang ever did.


I have a feeling you are right that the big U is older.

Try telling that to some of the Evangelical Scienticians around here.
 
2012-11-21 10:11:19 AM
This country used to have some respect for science.

moonpans.com
 
2012-11-21 10:13:01 AM

ghall3: MayoSlather: That's assuming people are perfectly rational players; they are not. When our logical minds fail to understand the world around us they turn to any alternative explanation they can find, and often that is religion. Religion requires far less effort and is much more comforting than often cold nihilistic sounding scientific ideas.

I know, it just frustrates me that people setting policy in this country can hold on to such insane ideas. You can have religion if you want, but not at the expense of verifiable facts.


The age of the earth and Universe are not 'verifiable facts', they are estimates. The age of the earth, 4.3-5 is roughly based on the age of our star. The universe is calculated on how long we believe it took 'light' to reach us from a star at the far end of the universe. Are the 4.3 & 13 numbers correct, probably not, but they are a farkload closer than 6k.
 
2012-11-21 10:13:55 AM

wippit: There is nothing wrong with trying to incorporate outside references to try to get your point across. You teach people using the methods those people will understand. Who cares that they have to see it through the lens of the Bible, as long as they understand the material?


Because if they have to see it through the lens of the Bible, then they don't understand the material. That's the whole point. All they see is "the Bible is vindicated again!". That's not helpful. This is the sort of nonsense that perpetuates ridiculous, primitive notions like Jesus riding around on dinosaurs or Satan burying bones in the Earth to tempt us to skepticism. We're a first-world nation and we still can't bring ourselves to say that evolution is real. It's madness, and it holds us back. It permeates into real-world decision making.

If Christians want to reject the observations of the reality-based community, then they are free to do so. But it is neither the job of the reality-based community, nor a particularly good idea, to spoon-feed them little pieces of reality here and there hidden inside of scripture in order to make it more palatable to them. We shouldn't have to sit down with the account of their goat-herder fantasy from thousands of years ago and find ways of twisting the phrasing so that we can fit reality inside of it. To do so is to throw away Occam's Razor and just simulate the legitimacy of any stupid mythology someone can manage to believe in, and for the sake of what? Sparing bruised egos? What an incredible waste of time and energy.
 
2012-11-21 10:14:02 AM

wippit: Pochas: The guy who said the big bang theory is a lie straight from the pit of hell sat on the science committee in congress. As an actual scientist that is outrageous and offensive to me. It is like the S.A. in U.S.A stands for Saudi Arabia.

Except for Saudi Arabia being a Muslim country, and Muslims believe in the Big Bang.


No, devout Muslims are even younger-Earth than the Christian YEC's. Pretty much every bad thing you can say about Christianity applies in spades to Islam.
 
2012-11-21 10:14:37 AM

t3knomanser: Martian_Astronomer: Trying to answer that on the record is a rhetorical minefield.

"That's an excellent question, and one that speaks deeply to my faith. You see, I am a man of great faith..."


...Sigh...I know. I guess I'm just hoping that someone manages to step in that one Todd Akin style...
 
2012-11-21 10:15:55 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: wippit: There is nothing wrong with trying to incorporate outside references to try to get your point across. You teach people using the methods those people will understand. Who cares that they have to see it through the lens of the Bible, as long as they understand the material?

Because if they have to see it through the lens of the Bible, then they don't understand the material. That's the whole point. All they see is "the Bible is vindicated again!". That's not helpful. This is the sort of nonsense that perpetuates ridiculous, primitive notions like Jesus riding around on dinosaurs or Satan burying bones in the Earth to tempt us to skepticism. We're a first-world nation and we still can't bring ourselves to say that evolution is real. It's madness, and it holds us back. It permeates into real-world decision making.

If Christians want to reject the observations of the reality-based community, then they are free to do so. But it is neither the job of the reality-based community, nor a particularly good idea, to spoon-feed them little pieces of reality here and there hidden inside of scripture in order to make it more palatable to them. We shouldn't have to sit down with the account of their goat-herder fantasy from thousands of years ago and find ways of twisting the phrasing so that we can fit reality inside of it. To do so is to throw away Occam's Razor and just simulate the legitimacy of any stupid mythology someone can manage to believe in, and for the sake of what? Sparing bruised egos? What an incredible waste of time and energy.


I hope you're not a teacher for disabled children with that attitude...
 
2012-11-21 10:15:58 AM

pxsteel: ghall3: MayoSlather: That's assuming people are perfectly rational players; they are not. When our logical minds fail to understand the world around us they turn to any alternative explanation they can find, and often that is religion. Religion requires far less effort and is much more comforting than often cold nihilistic sounding scientific ideas.

I know, it just frustrates me that people setting policy in this country can hold on to such insane ideas. You can have religion if you want, but not at the expense of verifiable facts.

The age of the earth and Universe are not 'verifiable facts', they are estimates. The age of the earth, 4.3-5 is roughly based on the age of our star. The universe is calculated on how long we believe it took 'light' to reach us from a star at the far end of the universe. Are the 4.3 & 13 numbers correct, probably not, but they are a farkload closer than 6k.


It's a verifiable fact we can rule out the Earth being 6000 years old.
 
2012-11-21 10:17:28 AM

pxsteel: The age of the earth and Universe are not 'verifiable facts', they are estimates. The age of the earth, 4.3-5 is roughly based on the age of our star. The universe is calculated on how long we believe it took 'light' to reach us from a star at the far end of the universe. Are the 4.3 & 13 numbers correct, probably not, but they are a farkload closer than 6k.


Well it's verifiable that it is in that range. Although there are more than just those methods of getting to those numbers. The age of the universe is also calculated by using the temperature of the universe and other methods that all help narrow it down.
 
2012-11-21 10:17:32 AM

pciszek: wippit: Pochas: The guy who said the big bang theory is a lie straight from the pit of hell sat on the science committee in congress. As an actual scientist that is outrageous and offensive to me. It is like the S.A. in U.S.A stands for Saudi Arabia.

Except for Saudi Arabia being a Muslim country, and Muslims believe in the Big Bang.

No, devout Muslims are even younger-Earth than the Christian YEC's. Pretty much every bad thing you can say about Christianity applies in spades to Islam.


Many Muslim commentators have stated that there are references in the Qur'an to the Big Bang.[21][22] One example of such a finding is a verse from the Qur'an, Sura 21:30, which states: "Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?"[23][24]
 
2012-11-21 10:19:06 AM

t3knomanser: And the chilling thing is that this isn't simply a fundamentalist world-view- this is mainstream Protestantism.


Yes, Protestantism encourages a more personal view of the Bible and religion in general, but most mainline protestants (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists) aren't literalists. Even Baptists don't usually take the Bible as 100% literal truth. That is the realm of Evangelicals.
 
2012-11-21 10:19:59 AM

wippit: Pochas: The guy who said the big bang theory is a lie straight from the pit of hell sat on the science committee in congress. As an actual scientist that is outrageous and offensive to me. It is like the S.A. in U.S.A stands for Saudi Arabia.

Except for Saudi Arabia being a Muslim country, and Muslims believe in the Big Bang.


Then someone needs to tell Turkey.

Acceptance of Evolution in various countries
scienceblogs.com
 
2012-11-21 10:22:08 AM

dywed88: Yes, Protestantism encourages a more personal view of the Bible and religion in general, but most mainline protestants (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists) aren't literalists.


Not always true. The looniest YEC literalist I've ever met was a Lutheran (and a high school science teacher and a med student).
 
2012-11-21 10:22:59 AM

dittybopper: After more than a decade of working on a college campus, my conclusion is that higher education is only very weakly correlated with intelligence*.


So I'm guessing the Mohawk was a post tenure decision.
 
2012-11-21 10:25:37 AM
[ctrl+f] "bevets"

*Phrase not found*

Awww.
 
2012-11-21 10:25:53 AM

SlothB77: 4.54 billion-year-old earth

I memorized this for science class. Now, more than 20 years removed from when I learned it, i forgot the exact number. That disqualifies me from being a senator? I have to go back and memorize everything from 8th grade science again now?


Correct enough answers include:
A few billion years (which is what I would go with if asked without expecting it or a chance to look it up)
I am not sure of the figure, but will look it up. After checking, it is approximately 4.5 billion years.

Incorrect answers include:
Anything that considers 6000 years as a possibility.

And, no, a poor background in science shouldn't preclude you from being elected, but it should keep you off of science committees.
 
2012-11-21 10:27:07 AM

Ted Kennedy's Brain Tumor: You people are silly. This, like most utterances of the political class, was a worthless, mustn't offend any potential voter non-answer. Behold, the power of aspiring politicians:

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you-and maybe they already have-"Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?," what would you say?

A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it ... it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live-that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know. 

Sen. Obama, D-Ill., speaking at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. on April 13, 2008. 

He doesn't presume to know because he's not a scientist, man. He's a politician.


Mugato [TotalFark] 2012-11-19 05:12:45 PM

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

GAT_00 2012-11-19 11:12:27 AM

So much for Rubioclaiming 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.

Nice guys, real nice.
 
2012-11-21 10:27:22 AM

wademh: [upload.wikimedia.org image 216x318]
Sometimes I am entertained by people who think highly of humans and expect good things of them.


Nearly as amusing as people painting the entire human race with an exceptionally wide brush.
 
2012-11-21 10:27:35 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: wippit: There is nothing wrong with trying to incorporate outside references to try to get your point across. You teach people using the methods those people will understand. Who cares that they have to see it through the lens of the Bible, as long as they understand the material?

Because if they have to see it through the lens of the Bible, then they don't understand the material. That's the whole point. All they see is "the Bible is vindicated again!". That's not helpful. This is the sort of nonsense that perpetuates ridiculous, primitive notions like Jesus riding around on dinosaurs or Satan burying bones in the Earth to tempt us to skepticism. We're a first-world nation and we still can't bring ourselves to say that evolution is real. It's madness, and it holds us back. It permeates into real-world decision making.

If Christians want to reject the observations of the reality-based community, then they are free to do so. But it is neither the job of the reality-based community, nor a particularly good idea, to spoon-feed them little pieces of reality here and there hidden inside of scripture in order to make it more palatable to them. We shouldn't have to sit down with the account of their goat-herder fantasy from thousands of years ago and find ways of twisting the phrasing so that we can fit reality inside of it. To do so is to throw away Occam's Razor and just simulate the legitimacy of any stupid mythology someone can manage to believe in, and for the sake of what? Sparing bruised egos? What an incredible waste of time and energy.


Occam's razor is incorrect.
 
2012-11-21 10:29:50 AM

Cubicle Jockey: wippit: Pochas: The guy who said the big bang theory is a lie straight from the pit of hell sat on the science committee in congress. As an actual scientist that is outrageous and offensive to me. It is like the S.A. in U.S.A stands for Saudi Arabia.

Except for Saudi Arabia being a Muslim country, and Muslims believe in the Big Bang.

Then someone needs to tell Turkey.

Acceptance of Evolution in various countries
[scienceblogs.com image 456x646]


Your graphic leaves out over 50% of the population on the planet. No China or India or middle east. Their numbers are lower than Turkeys.
 
2012-11-21 10:30:09 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: dywed88: Yes, Protestantism encourages a more personal view of the Bible and religion in general, but most mainline protestants (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists) aren't literalists.

Not always true. The looniest YEC literalist I've ever met was a Lutheran (and a high school science teacher and a med student).


There are loonies in every group. But if you took a random sample from any mainline Protestant denomination, very few would believe the Earth is 6000 years old. If you went with Evangelical churches there would be far more creationists.
 
2012-11-21 10:30:38 AM

dywed88: SlothB77: 4.54 billion-year-old earth

I memorized this for science class. Now, more than 20 years removed from when I learned it, i forgot the exact number. That disqualifies me from being a senator? I have to go back and memorize everything from 8th grade science again now?

Correct enough answers include:
A few billion years (which is what I would go with if asked without expecting it or a chance to look it up)
I am not sure of the figure, but will look it up. After checking, it is approximately 4.5 billion years.

Incorrect answers include:
Anything that considers 6000 years as a possibility.

And, no, a poor background in science shouldn't preclude you from being elected, but it should keep you off of science committees.


This is true.
 
2012-11-21 10:32:52 AM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Ted Kennedy's Brain Tumor: You people are silly. This, like most utterances of the political class, was a worthless, mustn't offend any potential voter non-answer. Behold, the power of aspiring politicians:

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you-and maybe they already have-"Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?," what would you say?

A: What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it ... it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live-that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know. 

Sen. Obama, D-Ill., speaking at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. on April 13, 2008. 

He doesn't presume to know because he's not a scientist, man. He's a politician.

Mugato [TotalFark] 2012-11-19 05:12:45 PM

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

GAT_00 2012-11-19 11:12:27 AM

So much for Rubioclaiming 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 ...


Obama essentially said: I don't believe the Earth was created in six days, but some Christians do.
Not the same as asserting that nobody knows how old the Earth is.
 
2012-11-21 10:33:28 AM

wippit: I hope you're not a teacher for disabled children with that attitude...


I'm not. But bravo on drawing a direct relationship between religious people and disabled children. Even I'm not that cynical.
 
Ant
2012-11-21 10:35:46 AM

Frederick: Most politicians are intelligent, educated people.


No more intelligent or educated than anyone else.
 
2012-11-21 10:36:55 AM

SlothB77: Marco Rubio doesn't know the earth is 4.54 billion years old.

That means that Obama is automatically president for life and Marco Rubio becomes the new security manager for the US Embassy in Benghazi.


Man, you are trying SOOOO hard here that it's kind of cute and sad at the same time.
 
2012-11-21 10:37:16 AM

wippit: Ok... the Bible says the world was created in 6 days. Are these consecutive days? If I start painting my house on Sunday, go to work all week, and then finish the house on Saturday... is that 2 days of painting, or 6 days?

Could God have created the stuff on Day 1, and then, oh... had a nap for 1.2 billion years?


The start of Genesis is not in any way, shape, or form an attempt to describe the beginning of the world. No creation story for any religion/culture is about how the world started. They are all about reinforcing socio-cultural norms. The stories are meant to imply that the rules of society are baked into the very fabric of reality - you must accept how society works in the same way we accept that the laws of physics work. That's why there are two creation stories in Genesis; they came from different time periods and are different because of changing cultural norms - plus, there are at least two other Jewish creation stories that never made the cut. To look at the Genesis account(s) as anything except religious and social allegories is to so miss the point as to bring into question your very ability to find the target, much less take aim at it.

Also, none of this was written by desert wandering sheep-farkers. It is almost assured that the Israelites never went to Egypt, much less returned, and the Abraham cycle is almost certainly complete fantasy. And even if every word of the Biblical accounts on that score were completely true, the stories themselves were written centuries afterward by thoroughly urbanized academics. But, still, the most believable scenario is that everything was written by the equivalent of latte-sipping Manhattanite PhDs, who wrote about their ancestors living in the desert and traveling about in exactly the same way Americans write about the Western frontier (and with about as much factual accuracy). In fact, reading the Genesis account as a description of the beginning of the universe is slightly more retarded than watching the Magnificent Seven as a true account of US history.
 
2012-11-21 10:38:25 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: wippit: I hope you're not a teacher for disabled children with that attitude...

I'm not. But bravo on drawing a direct relationship between religious people and disabled children. Even I'm not that cynical.


I am. I believe in God :)
 
2012-11-21 10:43:15 AM

wademh: [upload.wikimedia.org image 216x318]
Sometimes I am entertained by people who think highly of humans and expect good things of them.


It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.
 
2012-11-21 10:49:41 AM

error 303: wademh: [upload.wikimedia.org image 216x318]
Sometimes I am entertained by people who think highly of humans and expect good things of them.

It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people farking assholes.


FTFY
 
2012-11-21 10:56:32 AM
I want to punch a creationist in the face really hard. Like fracture his orbital socket or nose hard.
 
2012-11-21 11:09:37 AM
All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says.

Farking.
Moron.
 
2012-11-21 11:12:05 AM

Primum: I want to punch a creationist in the face really hard. Like fracture his orbital socket or nose hard.


I'm a creationist. Why all the hate?
 
2012-11-21 11:16:22 AM

wippit: Primum: I want to punch a creationist in the face really hard. Like fracture his orbital socket or nose hard.

I'm a creationist. Why all the hate?


Creationists try to push their beliefs on other people politically, which is always bad cause of separation of church and state and all that.

For example, state funded schools in Louisiana are teaching creationism in their science classes.

I don't wanna punch you though.
 
2012-11-21 11:18:42 AM

Martian_Astronomer: Pochas


A smart man would just say something like "I'm running to be your senator not your bishop."
 
2012-11-21 11:19:03 AM
Not entirely the same thing, but isn't the question also answered by the speed of light?
I'm no scientist, but if we know the speed of light, and we know that most stars are so far away that it takes a long time for their light to reach us (millions of years,) then how can the universe be 6000-10000 years old?

Or is the argument only about the age of the Earth itself, with the assumption that universe itself is still a zillion years old?
 
2012-11-21 11:20:26 AM

JinxofSpades: Not entirely the same thing, but isn't the question also answered by the speed of light?
I'm no scientist, but if we know the speed of light, and we know that most stars are so far away that it takes a long time for their light to reach us (millions of years,) then how can the universe be 6000-10000 years old?

Or is the argument only about the age of the Earth itself, with the assumption that universe itself is still a zillion years old?


Creationists will just say God used magic to make the light be here at Earth before it should have been.
 
2012-11-21 11:20:29 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: dywed88: Yes, Protestantism encourages a more personal view of the Bible and religion in general, but most mainline protestants (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists) aren't literalists.

Not always true. The looniest YEC literalist I've ever met was a Lutheran (and a high school science teacher and a med student).


I have a Lutheran cousin who, some years ago, told me that the actual Garden of Eden had been discovered.
 
2012-11-21 11:22:12 AM
wippit:
I believe in God :)

wippit:

I'm a creationist. 

i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-11-21 11:22:16 AM

Pochas: wippit: Primum: I want to punch a creationist in the face really hard. Like fracture his orbital socket or nose hard.

I'm a creationist. Why all the hate?

Creationists try to push their beliefs on other people politically, which is always bad cause of separation of church and state and all that.

For example, state funded schools in Louisiana are teaching creationism in their science classes.

I don't wanna punch you though.


That more a Christian Fundamentalist thing than a creationist thing.

In the grand scheme of things, I believe everything about science that you do. I just also happen to believe that there is an entity at some level which began that creation process. I'm of no organized religion (was bought up Catholic), although I am married to a Jehovah's Witness, which makes for some good debates now and then.
 
2012-11-21 11:22:43 AM

Martian_Astronomer: "Hermeneutics" is a fancy word for "interpretation."


Wasn't it also a British Invasion band? Herman's Hermeneutics?
 
2012-11-21 11:23:20 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: The looniest YEC literalist I've ever met was a Lutheran (and a high school science teacher and a med student).


Probably Missouri Synod.
 
2012-11-21 11:25:35 AM

Pochas: A smart man would just say something like "I'm running to be your senator not your bishop."


I would also accept that.
 
2012-11-21 11:26:53 AM

wippit: That more a Christian Fundamentalist thing than a creationist thing.

In the grand scheme of things, I believe everything about science that you do. I just also happen to believe that there is an entity at some level which began that creation process.


Then you are almost certainly a "theistic evolutionist" and not a "creationist". Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, Kenneth Hamm ministries, the creation museum in Kentucky, Kent Hovind ministries, etc. all agree that no one who admits that evolution has happened can be considered a "creationist".
 
2012-11-21 11:30:33 AM

JinxofSpades: Not entirely the same thing, but isn't the question also answered by the speed of light?
I'm no scientist, but if we know the speed of light, and we know that most stars are so far away that it takes a long time for their light to reach us (millions of years,) then how can the universe be 6000-10000 years old?


The light was created "en route", the speed of light has changed over time, and other excuses. It's like Adam's belly button--God tried to fake everthing to look older just so he would have an excuse to send more people to Hell.
 
2012-11-21 11:32:56 AM

Pochas: JinxofSpades: Not entirely the same thing, but isn't the question also answered by the speed of light?
I'm no scientist, but if we know the speed of light, and we know that most stars are so far away that it takes a long time for their light to reach us (millions of years,) then how can the universe be 6000-10000 years old?

Or is the argument only about the age of the Earth itself, with the assumption that universe itself is still a zillion years old?

Creationists will just say God used magic to make the light be here at Earth before it should have been.


He can do that? Wow...maybe I should look into this God guy.

Wait, is he the one who made that branch fall on my car last week?

So, he's kind of a good guy, but kind of a prick.
 
2012-11-21 11:35:04 AM

dittybopper: Wasn't it also a British Invasion band? Herman's Hermeneutics?


Yep. Some of their hits included "Mrs. Brown, you've got Acceptably Orthodox Views on Soteriology" and "That Stance on Predestination is a Must to Avoid."
 
2012-11-21 11:37:27 AM
Yeah, God. What a great guy. "Hey Abraham, kill your only son for me so I can win a bet!"
 
2012-11-21 11:53:08 AM

wippit: Pochas: wippit: Primum: I want to punch a creationist in the face really hard. Like fracture his orbital socket or nose hard.

I'm a creationist. Why all the hate?

Creationists try to push their beliefs on other people politically, which is always bad cause of separation of church and state and all that.

For example, state funded schools in Louisiana are teaching creationism in their science classes.

I don't wanna punch you though.

That more a Christian Fundamentalist thing than a creationist thing.

In the grand scheme of things, I believe everything about science that you do. I just also happen to believe that there is an entity at some level which began that creation process.


Then you're not a Creationist in the sense that that word is used by pretty much everyone in these discussions.
 
2012-11-21 11:53:18 AM

pciszek:
Then you are almost certainly a "theistic evolutionist" and not a "creationist". Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, Kenneth Hamm ministries, the creation museum in Kentucky, Kent Hovind ministries, etc. all agree that no one who admits that evolution has happened can be considered a "creationist".


Unless they trademarked the term, they need to realize that many non-Christians are creationists. Given all but Genesis above is a religious group, I'm amazed they haven't done this yet.
 
2012-11-21 12:06:59 PM

SlothB77: 4.54 billion-year-old earth

I memorized this for science class. Now, more than 20 years removed from when I learned it, i forgot the exact number. That disqualifies me from being a senator? I have to go back and memorize everything from 8th grade science again now?


Very little disqualifies someone from being a senator, certainly not a bit of confusion over whether the earth is 2, 3, 4 or 5 billion years old. There are however reasons to be concerned when elected representatives in the highest levels of goverent either think the earth is a few thousand years old or are so beholden to people who do that they have to pander or face being voted out of office.
 
2012-11-21 12:07:37 PM
So if you are playing the part of a flat-earther, Christian Fundamentalist politician, it means you are either a dipshiat true believer or you are a cynical liar.

It is proven once again: The GOP is the party of the stupid and the evil.
 
2012-11-21 12:16:19 PM

SlothB77: 4.54 billion-year-old earth

I memorized this for science class. Now, more than 20 years removed from when I learned it, i forgot the exact number. That disqualifies me from being a senator? I have to go back and memorize everything from 8th grade science again now?


So you're saying you couldn't ballpark that number? Are you saying that religious viewpoints as to the age of the earth should also be given equal consideration to scientific fact?

What should disqualify you from being a Senator is pretending (or actually believing) that some book written thousands of years ago by people who had no idea how to calculate the age of the earth should be considered a reasonable source for determining the age of the earth.
 
2012-11-21 12:18:38 PM

SlothB77: 4.54 billion-year-old earth

I memorized this for science class. Now, more than 20 years removed from when I learned it, i forgot the exact number. That disqualifies me from being a senator? I have to go back and memorize everything from 8th grade science again now?


Forgetting the exact number does not disqualify you from being a senator. But being so dense you actually think that is even remotely the point does disqualify you from holding any position requiring basic critical thinking and communication skills.
 
2012-11-21 12:24:00 PM

wippit: Pochas: wippit: Primum: I want to punch a creationist in the face really hard. Like fracture his orbital socket or nose hard.

I'm a creationist. Why all the hate?

Creationists try to push their beliefs on other people politically, which is always bad cause of separation of church and state and all that.

For example, state funded schools in Louisiana are teaching creationism in their science classes.

I don't wanna punch you though.

That more a Christian Fundamentalist thing than a creationist thing.

In the grand scheme of things, I believe everything about science that you do. I just also happen to believe that there is an entity at some level which began that creation process. I'm of no organized religion (was bought up Catholic), although I am married to a Jehovah's Witness, which makes for some good debates now and then.


At most that makes you a deist, and that does not even remotely fit the scheme of creationism as it is used and understood.
 
2012-11-21 12:27:55 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: At most that makes you a deist, and that does not even remotely fit the scheme of creationism as it is used and understood.


"Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being"

I cannot help that people have tried to politicize the word, but under the literal definition as written in the Holy Oxford Concise, I am a creationist.
 
2012-11-21 12:32:58 PM
Except nobody cares about the technical definition. Common usage is what matters. And by common usage, you are not a creationist.
 
2012-11-21 12:34:43 PM

wippit: Serious Post on Serious Thread: At most that makes you a deist, and that does not even remotely fit the scheme of creationism as it is used and understood.

"Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being"

I cannot help that people have tried to politicize the word, but under the literal definition as written in the Holy Oxford Concise, I am a creationist.


Believing that is one thing. Pretending it's science is another.
 
2012-11-21 12:37:12 PM

dywed88: Except nobody cares about the technical definition. Common usage is what matters. And by common usage, you are not a creationist.


Common usage? That's not very scientific.
 
2012-11-21 12:50:24 PM

wippit: Serious Post on Serious Thread: At most that makes you a deist, and that does not even remotely fit the scheme of creationism as it is used and understood.

"Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being"

I cannot help that people have tried to politicize the word, but under the literal definition as written in the Holy Oxford Concise, I am a creationist.


Look, if you want that badly to try and shove yourself into that box with that label, I can't stop you. But that is the most watered down definition you could possibly produce, to the point it is devoid of all meaning in a connotative sense, and practically all meaning in a denotative sense. It would essentially mean that anyone of any religion of any era that thought 'god' had a role in the beginning of the universe is a creationist.

I don't see how being that willfully obtuse benefits you or any serious conversation on the matter.

Contemporary U.S. creationism insinuates that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, interventionist, sentient deity specifically created the earth universe and man in essentially the form they are in now over a literal period of 6 earth days as stipulated in the Old Testament.

Words. They mean things. And not always what we want them to mean.

==========================

Oxford online:
creationism
noun
the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

another term for creation science.

creation science
noun
the interpretation of scientific knowledge in accord with belief in the literal truth of the Bible, especially regarding the creation of matter, life, and humankind in six days.

dictionary.com
cre·a·tion·ism [kree-ey-shuh-niz-uhm]
noun
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
 
2012-11-21 12:53:20 PM
Ok, that dictionary.com definition turns me off of the term. I renounce my creationism.

I'm... wippit.
 
2012-11-21 01:04:09 PM

wippit: Ok, that dictionary.com definition turns me off of the term. I renounce my creationism.

I'm... wippit.


You can't renounce being something you never were.

If you remove context and precision from a definition it is pointless.

Humans: Noun; a creature that breathes air and lives on earth.
So now dolphins, dogs and birds are humans.

Sky: Noun: Something that is blue.
So now my pen is the sky.

/See how that works?
 
2012-11-21 01:05:27 PM

wippit: dywed88: Except nobody cares about the technical definition. Common usage is what matters. And by common usage, you are not a creationist.

Common usage? That's not very scientific.


In online discussions of evolution/creationism, the word "creationist" is used to describe a person with a fairly specific set of attributes. This is true of every message board/comment thread I have seen on the topic in the last twenty years. If you think this is unfair, or unserious, or unscientific, or whatever, that's certainly your prerogative, but it doesn't change the fact that everybody else is using a well understood and agreed upon definition. Insisting on using a definition used by pretty much nobody else in the conversation is only going to derail the discussion
 
2012-11-21 01:06:45 PM
I heard that, when the debbil tries to force sinner-deceivin' fossils into the ground, Mother Earth has ways of shutting that whole thing down.
 
2012-11-21 01:08:37 PM
Fossils: They're like a giant Easter egg hunt. And all the kids who find one go to hell!
 
2012-11-21 01:12:48 PM
To: Perdogg

The communist MSM are on a crazy high from the election. They now think they can sway anything from now on. I have never seen a more lying bunch of bond scum as a see in the MSM. Some need jail time.

3 posted on Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:50:05 PM by Bitsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]
 
2012-11-21 01:17:46 PM

Frederick: The US has an approximate rate of 40% for college degrees among 25+ yo. I havent verified it, but I'd imagine that more than 40% of US politicians have college degrees. That speaks to education and vicariously intelligence (I know college degree and intelligence arent absolutely synonymous).


Roughly two in three of US college graduates denies that humans evolved from earlier species of animals; a hair more than one in two, among graduates who identify as strongly Republican.

Frederick: The point I was trying to make is that politicians likely intentionally misrepresent themselves to appeal to their base.


The odds are, better than half the GOP don't need to.

Chummer45: Of all science to take issue with, why fight your battles over something as stupid as young earth creation theory?


It undermines Scriptural Inerrancy, which undermines the garden of Eden story, undermining the concept of original sin, undermining the necessity of the crucifixion sacrifice. Or at least, that's what Answers In Genesis points to.

Warning: that site is a morass of ignorance.

GentDirkly: We can prove that the features may have been created by sediments and tectonics, but we can't prove that those features didn't come about some other way.


Which gets into the nature of what's meant by "proof" in empirical matters, the problem of induction, and the nature of Parsimony. Short form: the proposed alternatives are more probably wrong.

theknuckler_33: Awww.


He's apparently retired from Fark, if you check the link in his profile.
 
2012-11-21 01:22:40 PM
Besides, one can determine the rough age of the earth by a very simple calculation. It is a fact that among all known isotopes found on earth that are not themselves products of radioactive decay, every isotope with a half life less than about 70 million years is absent (evidently because all traces have disappeared during the age of the earth), yet every isotope with a half life greater than about 70 million years is present at some detectable level. Since our current technology can detect isotopes with an abundance of roughly one part in a trillion (corresponding to the amount remaining after 40 half lives), this shows that the material from which our earth formed is at least 40 x 70 million (= 2.8 billion) years old.

I don't know. It would take some time and patience to learn exactly what that all means. Physicists have years of education and experience but they could be lying so they get more grant money in the future for more research to verify their claims. Clearly I have no reason to trust them.

My doctor told me I need antibiotics to fight an infection. I don't completely understand human anatomy and he has years of education and experience but he could be lying so I would have to pay for antibiotics and he probably has stock in a pharmaceutical company and I have to pay the medical bill on top of that. Clearly I have no reason to trust him.

My auto mechanic says I need to replace parts in my car engine. I haven't learned exactly how an engine works and he has years of experience and apprenticeship but I do have to pay him to buy the parts and fix it so clearly I have no reason to trust him.

Well I guess I can't trust anything anybody says because they all make money in some way by practicing their profession. I guess I can only trust the Church as there is no money or power involved in what they do.

Oh wait.
 
2012-11-21 02:11:14 PM

pciszek: Fluorescent Testicle: The looniest YEC literalist I've ever met was a Lutheran (and a high school science teacher and a med student).

Probably Missouri Synod.


Missouri Synod scientist here. I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference. You don't have to lose your religion to be a scientist or vice-versa. The important thing is to have some common sense. I may profess a fundamentalist believe in a omnipotent God and say '6000 years...sure, why not'. But if we had to predict what the earth will be like in the future, the 4.5 billion year model would be the best one to go with. It is the creation-scientists that try to prove creation through the scientific method that are really messed up.
 
2012-11-21 02:18:40 PM

piledhigheranddeeper: I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference.


wow
so you want your daughter to have no understanding of science? LOL
scientists, when listing ranges, typically only include plausible answers.
but go ahead, I am sure that she will make a great homemaker.

/yes, we get the frame of reference point ... still irrational and unscientific. unless you included: one number comes from fiction and one number comes from science ...
 
2012-11-21 02:33:57 PM

wippit: Ok, that dictionary.com definition turns me off of the term. I renounce my creationism.

I'm... wippit.


wippit good.
 
2012-11-21 02:43:03 PM

namatad: piledhigheranddeeper: I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference.

wow
so you want your daughter to have no understanding of science? LOL
scientists, when listing ranges, typically only include plausible answers.
but go ahead, I am sure that she will make a great homemaker.

/yes, we get the frame of reference point ... still irrational and unscientific. unless you included: one number comes from fiction and one number comes from science ...


The 6000 to 4.5 billion range is a philosophical answer, not a scientific one.

A good scientist can talk to the masses and get scientific points across without ticking off the majority of the population. Telling the creationists that they are stupid get us nowhere. Telling them that the 4.5 billion year earth is a model for predicting our geological future is a good teaching moment.
 
2012-11-21 02:46:41 PM

piledhigheranddeeper: pciszek: Fluorescent Testicle: The looniest YEC literalist I've ever met was a Lutheran (and a high school science teacher and a med student).

Probably Missouri Synod.

Missouri Synod scientist here. I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference. You don't have to lose your religion to be a scientist or vice-versa. The important thing is to have some common sense. I may profess a fundamentalist believe in a omnipotent God and say '6000 years...sure, why not'. But if we had to predict what the earth will be like in the future, the 4.5 billion year model would be the best one to go with. It is the creation-scientists that try to prove creation through the scientific method that are really messed up.


So you purposefully distort and lie about reality to a child because you choose to give equal weight to a "frame of reference" that is distorted and a lie?

Gee, how could that ever backfire and mess with a kids mind? Punching people in the face because you don't like them may be OK, depending on your frame of reference. Turning tricks, shooting heroin into your eye, and stealing old ladies' purses is an OK way to support yourself, depending on your frame of reference. 2+2=4, or not, depending on your frame of reference.
 
2012-11-21 02:52:07 PM

namatad: piledhigheranddeeper: I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference.

wow
so you want your daughter to have no understanding of science? LOL


It sounds like a good way to teach his daughter about "error bars".
 
2012-11-21 03:28:46 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: piledhigheranddeeper: pciszek: Fluorescent Testicle: The looniest YEC literalist I've ever met was a Lutheran (and a high school science teacher and a med student).

Probably Missouri Synod.

Missouri Synod scientist here. I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference. You don't have to lose your religion to be a scientist or vice-versa. The important thing is to have some common sense. I may profess a fundamentalist believe in a omnipotent God and say '6000 years...sure, why not'. But if we had to predict what the earth will be like in the future, the 4.5 billion year model would be the best one to go with. It is the creation-scientists that try to prove creation through the scientific method that are really messed up.

So you purposefully distort and lie about reality to a child because you choose to give equal weight to a "frame of reference" that is distorted and a lie?

Gee, how could that ever backfire and mess with a kids mind? Punching people in the face because you don't like them may be OK, depending on your frame of reference. Turning tricks, shooting heroin into your eye, and stealing old ladies' purses is an OK way to support yourself, depending on your frame of reference. 2+2=4, or not, depending on your frame of reference.


Serious Post on Serious Thread: piledhigheranddeeper: pciszek: Fluorescent Testicle: The looniest YEC literalist I've ever met was a Lutheran (and a high school science teacher and a med student).

Probably Missouri Synod.

Missouri Synod scientist here. I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference. You don't have to lose your religion to be a scientist or vice-versa. The important thing is to have some common sense. I may profess a fundamentalist believe in a omnipotent God and say '6000 years...sure, why not'. But if we had to predict what the earth will be like in the future, the 4.5 billion year model would be the best one to go with. It is the creation-scientists that try to prove creation through the scientific method that are really messed up.

So you purposefully distort and lie about reality to a child because you choose to give equal weight to a "frame of reference" that is distorted and a lie?

Gee, how could that ever backfire and mess with a kids mind? Punching people in the face because you don't like them may be OK, depending on your frame of reference. Turning tricks, shooting heroin into your eye, and stealing old ladies' purses is an OK way to support yourself, depending on your frame of reference. 2+2=4, or not, depending on your frame of reference.


I may be religious, but God does not exist in my research lab. My child will be able to discern between God and science as well, and hopefully will be able to converse with her more conservative friends in the future and sway them towards more scientific reasoning without pissing them off.
 
2012-11-21 04:29:48 PM
The article has a pretty obvious point of view and message. I'd like to see a poll of all the senators, reps and governors and see how they respond. Many would avoid the question but if you could get actual numbers from them I'd say less than 25% would be the geological number, less than 25% would be the creationist number, the majority would be neither because most honestly would not know.

I don't care what a politician thinks or believes. I care about how they act and vote while in office. It doesn't matter what they believe, it matters on if they are advocating/voting for spending more or less on science (science in this case could be any budgetary item).
 
2012-11-21 04:42:39 PM

piledhigheranddeeper: I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference.


Do you explain that the "frame of reference" (i.e. science) for the 4.5 billion year answer is the one that brought us computers, the internet, the moon landing, heart transplants, eradication of smallpox and nuclear power?

And that the "frame of reference" for the 6000 year answer is the one that claims that talking snakes are a real thing?
 
2012-11-21 05:40:30 PM
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.

What a farking dipshiat. Bonus: he's one of the people in charge of this country.
 
2012-11-21 05:47:04 PM
I'll just leave this here:

Link
 
2012-11-21 06:00:23 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: piledhigheranddeeper: I tell my 8 year old daughter that the age of the earth is somewhere between 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old, depending on your frame of reference.

Do you explain that the "frame of reference" (i.e. science) for the 4.5 billion year answer is the one that brought us computers, the internet, the moon landing, heart transplants, eradication of smallpox and nuclear power?

And that the "frame of reference" for the 6000 year answer is the one that claims that talking snakes are a real thing?


Why don't you just read the rest of the post.
 
2012-11-21 06:24:16 PM

piledhigheranddeeper: The 6000 to 4.5 billion range is a philosophical answer, not a scientific one.


If your philosophy is "there's no difference between reality and fantasy", yeah. I feel sorry for your child.
 
2012-11-21 07:26:06 PM

phlegmmo: I'll just leave this here:

Link


Why, are we supposed to be outraged by this or something?

Is this supposed to somehow make Rubio not a complete fundie dipshiat?

Just wondering what your motives are?
 
2012-11-21 08:24:35 PM

whidbey: phlegmmo: I'll just leave this here:

Link

Why, are we supposed to be outraged by this or something?

Is this supposed to somehow make Rubio not a complete fundie dipshiat?

Just wondering what your motives are?



I just found it interesting. I don't think it means anything - one way or the other. This is a discussion of how politicians answer questions.
 
2012-11-21 08:51:04 PM

Cubicle Jockey: wippit: Pochas: The guy who said the big bang theory is a lie straight from the pit of hell sat on the science committee in congress. As an actual scientist that is outrageous and offensive to me. It is like the S.A. in U.S.A stands for Saudi Arabia.

Except for Saudi Arabia being a Muslim country, and Muslims believe in the Big Bang.

Then someone needs to tell Turkey.

Acceptance of Evolution in various countries
[scienceblogs.com image 456x646]


Interesting. I wonder why Canada wasn't included. I imagine we would be halfway between Iceland and the US.
 
2012-11-21 09:04:45 PM

phlegmmo: This is a discussion of how politicians answer questions.


No, pretty sure it's a discussion about how some prominent Republicans believe a lot of fundamentalist Christian bullshiat and how they try to defend it when confronted with science.

And nowhere in your link does Obama urge we "teach the controversy" or whatever absurd recommendations these examples in TFA are making.
 
2012-11-21 09:16:38 PM

whidbey: And nowhere in your link does Obama urge we "teach the controversy" or whatever absurd recommendations these examples in TFA are making.


True.  It was an article I stumbled upon today that I thought had some tangential tie-in to the general discussion. Perhaps that assumption was faulty.
 
2012-11-21 09:39:34 PM

mrshowrules: Cubicle Jockey: wippit: Pochas: The guy who said the big bang theory is a lie straight from the pit of hell sat on the science committee in congress. As an actual scientist that is outrageous and offensive to me. It is like the S.A. in U.S.A stands for Saudi Arabia.

Except for Saudi Arabia being a Muslim country, and Muslims believe in the Big Bang.

Then someone needs to tell Turkey.

Acceptance of Evolution in various countries
[scienceblogs.com image 456x646]

Interesting. I wonder why Canada wasn't included. I imagine we would be halfway between Iceland and the US.


I'd like to hope we are in the ballpark of the UK or at least closer to the Iceland end of that chart than even the middle.
 
2012-11-21 10:59:50 PM
FTA -

every isotope with a half life less than about 70 million years is absent (evidently because all traces have disappeared during the age of the earth),

Huh? That does not seem to be factually accurate by a very long shot.

But that aside, I learned in school that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and it didn't seem to shake my faith in God the least little bit.
 
2012-11-21 11:41:49 PM

eraser8: Benevolent Misanthrope: MOST politicians are no more educated, intelligent, or moral than the general populace, and often significantly less so. They go to church and they believe, just like other Americans. Its not an act, for most of them.

I disagree. MOST politicians are actually more educated and intelligent than the general populace. They're not smarter than everybody; but, they're smarter than most.

But, they're also FAR LESS moral...which is why they say such stupid things: they're pandering to the (very stupid) masses. 

/at least in Washington
//worked in government there for a couple of years
///that town is FULL of well-educated people saying ridiculously stupid things. On purpose.


But doesn't one have to be to get into that nasty racket?
 
2012-11-22 12:54:41 AM
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended for us to forgo their use."
-Galileo Galilei
 
2012-11-22 02:37:22 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: wippit: Ok, that dictionary.com definition turns me off of the term. I renounce my creationism.

I'm... wippit.

You can't renounce being something you never were.

If you remove context and precision from a definition it is pointless.

Humans: Noun; a creature that breathes air and lives on earth.
So now dolphins, dogs and birds are humans.

Sky: Noun: Something that is blue.
So now my pen is the sky.

/See how that works?


Stop badgering the witness!
 
2012-11-22 02:39:11 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: piledhigheranddeeper: The 6000 to 4.5 billion range is a philosophical answer, not a scientific one.

If your philosophy is "there's no difference between reality and fantasy", yeah. I feel sorry for your child.


I reject your reality and substitute my own.

NA Na Na Na

Neener Neener Neener.
 
2012-11-22 03:07:42 PM
Ok, so how old is the Earth, or are we more interested in how old it ain't?
 
2012-11-22 03:52:42 PM

wippit: pciszek: wippit: Pochas: The guy who said the big bang theory is a lie straight from the pit of hell sat on the science committee in congress. As an actual scientist that is outrageous and offensive to me. It is like the S.A. in U.S.A stands for Saudi Arabia.

Except for Saudi Arabia being a Muslim country, and Muslims believe in the Big Bang.

No, devout Muslims are even younger-Earth than the Christian YEC's. Pretty much every bad thing you can say about Christianity applies in spades to Islam.

Many Muslim commentators have stated that there are references in the Qur'an to the Big Bang.[21][22] One example of such a finding is a verse from the Qur'an, Sura 21:30, which states: "Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?"[23][24]


Ask a Hindu the age of the Earth, or the universe, for that matter. I think they have the closest estimate.
 
2012-11-22 03:55:22 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: piledhigheranddeeper: The 6000 to 4.5 billion range is a philosophical answer, not a scientific one.

If your philosophy is "there's no difference between reality and fantasy", yeah. I feel sorry for your child.


The more we learn about the universe, the more "reality" looks like fantasy.

Link
 
2012-11-22 03:56:25 PM

RedVentrue: LouDobbsAwaaaay: piledhigheranddeeper: The 6000 to 4.5 billion range is a philosophical answer, not a scientific one.

If your philosophy is "there's no difference between reality and fantasy", yeah. I feel sorry for your child.

The more we learn about the universe, the more "reality" looks like fantasy.

Link


Dammit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
 
2012-11-22 11:22:09 PM

thatboyoverthere: t3knomanser: Or, even if you believe in the judeochristolamic deities, you could agree that the creation myth is a myth, and the details are not meant to be representative of actual events.

My Mythology class at a Catholic High School pointed out that most of the Old Testament were Myths. That every culture has a creation story, that every culture has a great flood story. If the Catholic Church can admit why can't they?


Because the Vatican is evil. Don't you read Chick Tracts?
 
2012-11-23 10:45:08 AM
ANLY HONEST ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION: i HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO farkING IDEA. AND NIETHER DO YOU UNTIL A TIME MACHINE IS INVENTED.
 
2012-11-23 11:57:35 AM
There is no exact number (and there never would be no matter what, because the Earth formed as part of a process and there would be no clear point to apply the date to), but you can say with near certainty that the earth is between 4.4 and 4.6 billion years old.
We have material originating on Earth that is at least 4.4 billion years old and multiple dating methods (using the sun and meteorites) but the Solar System at less than 4.6 billion years old. So we have an upper and lower bound, you can say for certain where in that range it lies, but that is a hell of a lot more precise than "nobody knows" and the accepted range is smaller with something like 4.54 +/- 0.05 billion years.
 
2012-11-23 07:15:34 PM

Jarhead_h: ANLY HONEST ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION: i HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO farkING IDEA. AND NIETHER DO YOU UNTIL A TIME MACHINE IS INVENTED.


Having some uncertainty isn't the same as absolutely no idea.
 
Displayed 218 of 218 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report