PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Marco Rubio, Republican Savior?


Pages : [1] 2

Cave Johnson
11-20-2012, 11:53 AM
Moderates will love this guy!

When asked how old he thinks the Earth is, Rubio makes that much clear:

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

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/11/marco-rubio-is-not-a-scientist.html

DJ's left nut
11-20-2012, 11:57 AM
Moderates will love this guy!



http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/11/marco-rubio-is-not-a-scientist.html

Holy crap - I just came....

I love me some Rubio. Here's hoping the hardcore conservative element of the party doesn't kill him off during the primaries.

He's exactly what the Republican Party needs.

Rubio/Haley in 2016!!!

SNR
11-20-2012, 12:04 PM
When was the last time the Republicans put up a guy who would smartly Pioli a question like that? Even Paul Ryan couldn't resist taking a crack at abortion during his debate earlier in the fall.

Saulbadguy
11-20-2012, 12:06 PM
"It’s one of the great mysteries."

Uh. Not really. Dumbass.

DJ's left nut
11-20-2012, 12:08 PM
When was the last time the Republicans put up a guy who would smartly Pioli a question like that? Even Paul Ryan couldn't resist taking a crack at abortion during his debate earlier in the fall.

It was amazing how easily you could get the Republican's to snap up bait through this last election cycle.

The economy is in the shitter and they just could not help but tell women what to do with their vaginas and jump up on soapboxes to preach scripture.

Rubio's response there is just brilliant. It threw a bone to the religious right while making the only salient point there is to be made in response to that question - "Who gives a shit?"

Rubio has to be the 2016 candidate and frankly, if the Republicans ever hope to recover from the ass-beating that the 'War on Women' mantra inflicted on them, they have to stop it now before it becomes an accepted part of the narrative. Nikki Haley could do that phenominally well. She is a woman that actually adheres to a fair number of fairly staunch conservative POVs; she could do a very good job of reconciling with women that it is okay to be a woman, be proud of being a woman and still be a Republican.

It's a perfect ticket, IMO.

blaise
11-20-2012, 12:09 PM
How outlandish. He said the age of the Earth concerns him less than the ecomony. Clearly it should be the other way around.

Ebolapox
11-20-2012, 12:11 PM
PLEASE get me an intelligent right-leaning moderate (fiscal conservative, socially liberal) who has at least a BASIC understanding of science. PLEASE. fucking brutal, there's absolutely no great mystery to any of this shit.

Ebolapox
11-20-2012, 12:11 PM
It was amazing how easily you could get the Republican's to snap up bait through this last election cycle.

The economy is in the shitter and they just could not help but tell women what to do with their vaginas and jump up on soapboxes to preach scripture.

Rubio's response there is just brilliant. It threw a bone to the religious right while making the only salient point there is to be made in response to that question - "Who gives a shit?"

Rubio has to be the 2016 candidate and frankly, if the Republicans ever hope to recover from the ass-beating that the 'War on Women' mantra inflicted on them, they have to stop it now before it becomes an accepted part of the narrative. Nikki Haley could do that phenominally well. She is a woman that actually adheres to a fair number of fairly staunch conservative POVs; she could do a very good job of reconciling with women that it is okay to be a woman, be proud of being a woman and still be a Republican.

It's a perfect ticket, IMO.

I thought you wanted Todd Haley :p

Bump
11-20-2012, 12:12 PM
he sounds like a dumbass to me, uh nobody knows how old the earth is? ya if you are a fucking moron who refuses to learn anything or understand simple scientific reason.

Saulbadguy
11-20-2012, 12:13 PM
PLEASE get me an intelligent right-leaning moderate (fiscal conservative, socially liberal) who has at least a BASIC understanding of science. PLEASE. fucking brutal, there's absolutely no great mystery to any of this shit.

I'm betting that most candidates have a very good understanding of science.

They just pretend not to, as to pander to the dumbasses in the bible belt.

blaise
11-20-2012, 12:14 PM
So, if you asked Obama what the age of the Earth is he's just going to rattle off an actual number? That's what we need from politicians, to be able to quickly tell how old the Earth is estimated to be?

Donger
11-20-2012, 12:14 PM
What evidence is there proving that the Earth wasn't created in seven days?

Ebolapox
11-20-2012, 12:15 PM
I'm betting that most candidates have a very good understanding of science.

They just pretend not to, as to pander to the dumbasses in the bible belt.

when you contemplate their voting record, a lot of them DON'T. I don't expect them to have Ph.D's or anything, but jesus fucking christ--there are sixth grade science students who have a better grasp of things than they do.

Cave Johnson
11-20-2012, 12:15 PM
PLEASE get me an intelligent right-leaning moderate (fiscal conservative, socially liberal) who has at least a BASIC understanding of science. PLEASE. ****ing brutal, there's absolutely no great mystery to any of this shit.

And here's the rub. Why should any halfway intelligent moderate buy his economic prescriptions for the country (supply side economics, prolly) when he's this willfully ignorant on accepted scientific principles.

Donger
11-20-2012, 12:15 PM
I'd also like to see the actual question he was asked.

Bump
11-20-2012, 12:15 PM
I'm betting that most candidates have a very good understanding of science.

They just pretend not to, as to pander to the dumbasses in the bible belt.

would make sense. They appear dumb to appeal to the dumb shits on the right. Gotcha.

Ebolapox
11-20-2012, 12:16 PM
So, if you asked Obama what the age of the Earth is he's just going to rattle off an actual number? That's what we need from politicians, to be able to quickly tell how old the Earth is estimated to be?

I don't give a fuck whether they can cite a number (it's currently estimated at 4.5 billion years), but I care that they keep theology (teaching creationism in school? fuck off) out of things.

jiveturkey
11-20-2012, 12:17 PM
What evidence is there proving that the Earth wasn't created in seven days?I would venture to say that all of the evidence proves that the earth wasn't created in 7 days.

But you're free to believe the opposite.

blaise
11-20-2012, 12:17 PM
would make sense. They appear dumb to appeal to the dumb shits on the right. Gotcha.

It's funny how often you call people dumb.

Donger
11-20-2012, 12:17 PM
I would venture to say that all of the evidence proves that the earth wasn't created in 7 days.

But you're free to believe the opposite.

Like what?

Ebolapox
11-20-2012, 12:18 PM
What evidence is there proving that the Earth wasn't created in seven days?

literally mountains of it, but the issue is that unless you have an understanding of basic science (and some of it is not so basic), it's over your head. it's easier to say that GAWD CREATED TEH EARTH IN SEVEN DAYS than it is to go into cosmology, geology, radiometric dating, etc.

people who believe in creationism also tend not to trust science--so it's easier to try to explain how to go fishing to a pile of rocks than it is to explain this to you.

blaise
11-20-2012, 12:18 PM
I don't give a **** whether they can cite a number (it's currently estimated at 4.5 billion years), but I care that they keep theology (teaching creationism in school? **** off) out of things.

I didn't read the part where he said they need to teach creationism in school. Has he said that somewhere else?

Cave Johnson
11-20-2012, 12:18 PM
I'd also like to see the actual question he was asked.

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

jiveturkey
11-20-2012, 12:19 PM
I'd also like to see the actual question he was asked.

Here's the actual question.

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

Here's a link to the full interview http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201212/marco-rubio-interview-gq-december-2012?printable=true&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitte

Donger
11-20-2012, 12:19 PM
literally mountains of it, but the issue is that unless you have an understanding of basic science (and some of it is not so basic), it's over your head. it's easier to say that GAWD CREATED TEH EARTH IN SEVEN DAYS than it is to go into cosmology, geology, radiometric dating, etc.

people who believe in creationism also tend not to trust science--so it's easier to try to explain how to go fishing to a pile of rocks than it is to explain this to you.

What science proves that Earth wasn't created in seven days?

Bump
11-20-2012, 12:20 PM
Like what?

I could give you 100 facts to back it up, but you wouldn't listen and just laugh and point because it's beyond your capability of understanding. So which makes me ask, why are you asking when you think you already know the answer?

Saulbadguy
11-20-2012, 12:20 PM
What evidence is there proving that the Earth wasn't created in seven days?

The fact that it takes longer than 7 days to make a good bottle of wine.

Ebolapox
11-20-2012, 12:20 PM
I didn't read the part where he said they need to teach creationism in school. Has he said that somewhere else?

go read his quote. it's implied in the 'teach everything in schools' (paraphrased)

Donger
11-20-2012, 12:20 PM
GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Billions of years old.

Bump
11-20-2012, 12:20 PM
GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

he thinks its 6000 yrs old and weed is teh devil, lol

Donger
11-20-2012, 12:21 PM
I could give you 100 facts to back it up, but you wouldn't listen and just laugh and point because it's beyond your capability of understanding. So which makes me ask, why are you asking when you think you already know the answer?

No, I really wouldn't. Present them.

Bump
11-20-2012, 12:21 PM
Billions of years old.

damn, I really thought you were gonna say 6000 :banghead:

blaise
11-20-2012, 12:21 PM
What's the actual problem with what he says? That he said he knows what the Bible says? Everyone here knows what the Bible says. Or is it that he said parents should be able to teach their kids what they want?
I'm not too familiar with him. Maybe he's made additional comments somewhere else that are more specific.
Or is it that he didn't know the number, because I bet most people here couldn't give you a number without looking it up.

Ebolapox
11-20-2012, 12:21 PM
What science proves that Earth wasn't created in seven days?

and typical, you're too obtuse for words. strike the teaching a pile of rocks how to go fishing... it's like trying to teach quantum physics to a bunny rabbit. all I'll get from you the rest of the thread are little pellets of shit.

have fun with the 20 questions game, man. if you want to be informed, there is a metric-shit-ton of information out there from very reputable sources. believe what you want to believe--if you want to go through life as an ignorant dolt, that's your business.

blaise
11-20-2012, 12:22 PM
go read his quote. it's implied in the 'teach everything in schools' (paraphrased)

Yeah, I read his quote. It wasn't in there. That's why I asked.

Ebolapox
11-20-2012, 12:23 PM
What's the actual problem with what he says? That he said he knows what the Bible says? Everyone here knows what the Bible says. Or is it that he said parents should be able to teach their kids what they want?
I'm not too familiar with him. Maybe he's made additional comments somewhere else that are more specific.
Or is it that he didn't know the number, because I bet most people here couldn't give you a number without looking it up.

there is no specific number, technically... there are estimates, that's the best you can get for 'deep-time' time periods. off the top of head--4.5 billion years, give or take. then again, I'm a science ph.d--maybe I'm not 'most people.'

Ebolapox
11-20-2012, 12:24 PM
Yeah, I read his quote. It wasn't in there. That's why I asked.

seriously?

...and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all.

this opens all types of doors, man.

Donger
11-20-2012, 12:24 PM
and typical, you're too obtuse for words. strike the teaching a pile of rocks how to go fishing... it's like trying to teach quantum physics to a bunny rabbit. all I'll get from you the rest of the thread are little pellets of shit.

have fun with the 20 questions game, man. if you want to be informed, there is a metric-shit-ton of information out there from very reputable sources. believe what you want to believe--if you want to go through life as an ignorant dolt, that's your business.

Heh. I assure you I'm quite comfortable with science.

I'm well-aware of the evidence supporting that Earth is billions of years old. I'm also aware that it seems that some people are conflating how quickly Earth was created with how old the Earth is.

FYI, they shouldn't be conflated.

vailpass
11-20-2012, 12:25 PM
Rubio is a little slickster.

blaise
11-20-2012, 12:25 PM
there is no specific number, technically... there are estimates, that's the best you can get for 'deep-time' time periods. off the top of head--4.5 billion years, give or take. then again, I'm a science ph.d--maybe I'm not 'most people.'

It seems like his comment really wasn't much to get worked up about, really.

blaise
11-20-2012, 12:26 PM
seriously?



this opens all types of doors, man.

Well, it did for you. However, he didn't say that they should teach creationism in school. Not there anyway. Maybe he has somewhere else.

vailpass
11-20-2012, 12:27 PM
and typical, you're too obtuse for words. strike the teaching a pile of rocks how to go fishing... it's like trying to teach quantum physics to a bunny rabbit. all I'll get from you the rest of the thread are little pellets of shit.

have fun with the 20 questions game, man. if you want to be informed, there is a metric-shit-ton of information out there from very reputable sources. believe what you want to believe--if you want to go through life as an ignorant dolt, that's your business.

Huh? Donger is anything but obtuse when it comes to science. His Socratic method may get under your skin but you look silly playing the "er you are teh dumbz" card.
Social skill are important even for people who count dandruff among their only non-academic acquaintances.

Ebolapox
11-20-2012, 12:28 PM
Heh. I assure you I'm quite comfortable with science.

I'm well-aware of the evidence supporting that Earth is billions of years old. I'm also aware that it seems that some people are conflating how quickly Earth was created with how old the Earth is.

FYI, they shouldn't be conflated.

I'll play the game, then (at least, until I go on my lunch break here in a bit)...

define 'created?' the current cosmological model has the earth being 'created' via the typical rocky-planet model, in which meteors and other rocky-materials form a mass as a proto-planet in the early days of the solar system. this isn't a quick process in the least-- try to start gathering rocks and tell me how quickly you have something the size of a continent... it's going to take you MUCH longer than seven days, and that's with dedicated effort and non-random. when you randomize things and throw in the vastness of space, you're looking at at LEAST millions of years, if not billions (I'm not completely up on the number for that, but I'm a geneticist, not a cosmologist)

FishingRod
11-20-2012, 12:29 PM
Well I think we have it narrowed down withing 50 million years or so.

I am by no means religious and find the 7 day earth idea silly but, in truth very few of us are scientists and fewer still have preformed the experiments designed to answer these questions. So there is a bit of faith involved in believing they are truthful and actually know what they are doing. I’m more worried about the people that think God has told them how the earth is going to end than the ones arguing how it began. I remember reading an article about scientist using carbon dating to estimate the age of the Sphinx. So riddle me this if you have a 2 billion year old rock you chop it into a different shape how does that change its age. This wasn’t explained but I can only assume they were testing the organic matter mixed in with the mortar but they didn’t bother to explain that since knuckleheads like myself shouldn’t be questioning big brained scientists.

jiveturkey
11-20-2012, 12:34 PM
Heh. I assure you I'm quite comfortable with science.

I'm well-aware of the evidence supporting that Earth is billions of years old. I'm also aware that it seems that some people are conflating how quickly Earth was created with how old the Earth is.

FYI, they shouldn't be conflated.
I can see where you're coming from but then you would have to define what qualifies as earth?

Surely it didn't go from dust floating around the inner solar system to a solid sphere in a matter of 7 days.

FishingRod
11-20-2012, 12:42 PM
I can see where you're coming from but then you would have to define what qualifies as earth?

Surely it didn't go from dust floating around the inner solar system to a solid sphere in a matter of 7 days.

How long is a day to God? :)

oh and what does he need with a Starship?

Donger
11-20-2012, 12:47 PM
I'll play the game, then (at least, until I go on my lunch break here in a bit)...

define 'created?' the current cosmological model has the earth being 'created' via the typical rocky-planet model, in which meteors and other rocky-materials form a mass as a proto-planet in the early days of the solar system. this isn't a quick process in the least-- try to start gathering rocks and tell me how quickly you have something the size of a continent... it's going to take you MUCH longer than seven days, and that's with dedicated effort and non-random. when you randomize things and throw in the vastness of space, you're looking at at LEAST millions of years, if not billions (I'm not completely up on the number for that, but I'm a geneticist, not a cosmologist)

Created as in didn't exist and then there's the big ball of rock we call Earth.

Again, I'm asking for the evidence that Earth wasn't created in seven days. I'm familiar with the cosmological models and the physics and geology that play into it. But as far as I know, there is no evidence that the actual creation didn't take seven days. The seven day creation would obviously involve "God" or some other thing which makes the standard model fly out the window.

That being said, I find it much more likely that it took millions of years for Earth to form and be created, but I just find it really interesting that some people immediately completely dismiss something which they can neither prove or disprove (on both sides).

Donger
11-20-2012, 12:48 PM
I can see where you're coming from but then you would have to define what qualifies as earth?

See above,

Surely it didn't go from dust floating around the inner solar system to a solid sphere in a matter of 7 days.

I don't know that. Neither do you.

jiveturkey
11-20-2012, 12:52 PM
Created as in didn't exist and then there's the big ball of rock we call Earth.

Again, I'm asking for the evidence that Earth wasn't created in seven days. I'm familiar with the cosmological models and the physics and geology that play into it. But as far as I know, there is no evidence that the actual creation didn't take seven days. The seven day creation would obviously involve "God" or some other thing which makes the standard model fly out the window.

That being said, I find it much more likely that it took millions of years for Earth to form and be created, but I just find it really interesting that some people immediately completely dismiss something which they can neither prove or disprove (on both sides).

So what you're saying is knowledge of physics would lead someone to "believe" that the earth took millions of years to create and someone who believes that God was involved would also likely believe that the laws of physics didn't apply at the time???

Donger
11-20-2012, 12:55 PM
So what you're saying is knowledge of physics would lead someone to "believe" that the earth took millions of years to create and someone who believes that God was involved would also likely believe that the laws of physics didn't apply at the time???

Yes. We have plenty of evidence to prove that Earth isn't 6,000 years old (or whatever the Bible people think). Where is the actual scientific evidence that Earth was created over millions of years (or conversely that it wasn't created in seven days)?

jiveturkey
11-20-2012, 01:01 PM
Yes. We have plenty of evidence to prove that Earth isn't 6,000 years old (or whatever the Bible people think). Where is the actual scientific evidence that Earth was created over millions of years (or conversely that it wasn't created in seven days)?

I'll do some searching just because I'm curious to see what theories are out there but I would think the universal law of gravity would put the 7 day option to rest.

La literatura
11-20-2012, 01:05 PM
Yes. We have plenty of evidence to prove that Earth isn't 6,000 years old (or whatever the Bible people think). Where is the actual scientific evidence that Earth was created over millions of years (or conversely that it wasn't created in seven days)?

What do you mean create? You could mean when that rock was thrown into our solar system, grabbed by the gravity of the sun, and began orbiting. But you could also mean the way the mountains were created by colliding land masses (which is still literally being created as we speak). Or you could mean anything in between.

So, what are you viewing?

Donger
11-20-2012, 01:06 PM
What do you mean create? You could mean when that rock was thrown into our solar system, grabbed by the gravity of the sun, and began orbiting. But you could also mean the way the mountains were created by colliding land masses (which is still literally being created as we speak). Or you could mean anything in between.

So, what are you viewing?

I already answered this.

Donger
11-20-2012, 01:07 PM
I'll do some searching just because I'm curious to see what theories are out there but I would think the universal law of gravity would put the 7 day option to rest.

You don't think that "God" could suspend that for seven days?

jiveturkey
11-20-2012, 01:10 PM
You don't think that "God" could suspend that for seven days?

No

Why would he suspend the laws of physics for the formation of planets yet leave us the ability to understand how they are formed using those very laws?

La literatura
11-20-2012, 01:13 PM
I already answered this.

Created as in didn't exist and then there's the big ball of rock we call Earth.

This big ball probably existed as some part of another rock that was hit by another rock.

Taco John
11-20-2012, 01:13 PM
Rubio would get similar results as Romney.

Donger
11-20-2012, 01:15 PM
No

Why would he suspend the laws of physics for the formation of planets yet leave us the ability to understand how they are formed using those very laws?

I don't know.

Donger
11-20-2012, 01:16 PM
This big ball probably existed as some part of another rock that was hit by another rock.

More likely through accretion, IMO.

What's your point?

La literatura
11-20-2012, 01:19 PM
More likely through accretion, IMO.

What's your point?

Probably both.

Anyway, these theories are vastly different the story told in Genesis, yes?

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 01:25 PM
PLEASE get me an intelligent right-leaning moderate (fiscal conservative, socially liberal) who has at least a BASIC understanding of science. PLEASE. ****ing brutal, there's absolutely no great mystery to any of this shit.

Most of them probably do. They just can't go showing it off.

Donger
11-20-2012, 01:27 PM
Probably both.

Anyway, these theories are vastly different the story told in Genesis, yes?

It's been a while, but I don't recall that Genesis was very specific about how the big ball of rock actually formed, no?

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 01:28 PM
So, if you asked Obama what the age of the Earth is he's just going to rattle off an actual number? That's what we need from politicians, to be able to quickly tell how old the Earth is estimated to be?

I don't think anyone expects an exact accurate answer. But if someone answers in the 10,000-year-or-under range, you know who you are dealing with.

Discuss Thrower
11-20-2012, 01:28 PM
I know I'm late to the convo, but what makes you think he won't be the same Evangelical stooge by the time the primaries roll around?

La literatura
11-20-2012, 01:30 PM
It's been a while, but I don't recall that Genesis was very specific about how the big ball of rock actually formed, no?

Not much, if any. On the other hand, there are details about what God did in seven days in creating the earth. So, what do you think Marco Rubio was referencing when he mentioned the "created in seven days" part?

La literatura
11-20-2012, 01:31 PM
I know I'm late to the convo, but what makes you think he won't be the same Evangelical stooge by the time the primaries roll around?

Because he listens to Tupac and Eminem. He's a rebel.

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 01:32 PM
I'd also like to see the actual question he was asked.

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Ah, it was one of those trick / gotcha questions.

Donger
11-20-2012, 01:36 PM
Not much, if any. On the other hand, there are details about what God did in seven days in creating the earth. So, what do you think Marco Rubio was referencing when he mentioned the "created in seven days" part?

I don't know.

listopencil
11-20-2012, 01:38 PM
The seven day creation would obviously involve "God" or some other thing which makes the standard model fly out the window.



OK, that's where I thought you were going with this. There isn't any evidence disproving the existence of God, and there isn't any evidence that He didn't set up the entire universe in a short period of time.

La literatura
11-20-2012, 01:43 PM
I don't know.

Which idea is he more likely referencing?

Donger
11-20-2012, 01:47 PM
OK, that's where I thought you were going with this. There isn't any evidence disproving the existence of God, and there isn't any evidence that He didn't set up the entire universe in a short period of time.

Correct.

Jamie
11-20-2012, 01:50 PM
It's been a while, but I don't recall that Genesis was very specific about how the big ball of rock actually formed, no?

It doesn't talk about it at all, it sort of implies that the Earth was here before anything else. The breakdown is basically:

Day 1: seperated light and darkness
Day 2: created the sky
Day 3: created dry land and vegetation
Day 4: created the sun, moon, and stars
Day 5: created birds and fish
Day 6: created land animals and man
Day 7: rest

Bump
11-20-2012, 01:50 PM
OK, that's where I thought you were going with this. There isn't any evidence disproving the existence of God, and there isn't any evidence that He didn't set up the entire universe in a short period of time.

it's not whether you can prove it, or if you have facts, or if it defies the laws of physics, or even if it's just plain common sense. The important thing is that people are just dumb enough to believe it.

Donger
11-20-2012, 01:51 PM
Which idea is he more likely referencing?

Since he specifically mentions seven days, which IIRC the other six were creating water, trees and critters, it's more likely that Rubio is referring to more than only the creation of the big ball of rock.

jiveturkey
11-20-2012, 01:54 PM
OK, that's where I thought you were going with this. There isn't any evidence disproving the existence of God, and there isn't any evidence that He didn't set up the entire universe in a short period of time.
Setting up the universe and creating earth are two different things. The earth came much later.

And I finally found something regarding accretion. Most of what I found estimated 50 to 100 million years for a planet the size of earth to form using common accretion models. These models have come into question recently though but the timelines aren't the issue.

And to highlight this is a hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis

According to the nebular hypothesis, stars form in massive and dense clouds of molecular hydrogen—giant molecular clouds (GMC). They are gravitationally unstable, and matter coalesces to smaller denser clumps within, which then proceed to collapse and form stars. Star formation is a complex process, which always produces a gaseous protoplanetary disk around the young star. This may give birth to planets in certain circumstances, which are not well known. Thus the formation of planetary systems is thought to be a natural result of star formation. A sun-like star usually takes around 100 million years to form.[5]

The protoplanetary disk is an accretion disk which continues to feed the central star. Initially very hot, the disk later cools in what is known as the T tauri star stage; here, formation of small dust grains made of rocks and ices is possible. The grains may eventually coagulate into kilometer-sized planetesimals. If the disk is massive enough the runaway accretions begin, resulting in the rapid—100,000 to 300,000 years—formation of Moon- to Mars-sized planetary embryos. Near the star, the planetary embryos go through a stage of violent mergers, producing a few terrestrial planets. The last stage takes around 100 million to a billion years.[5]

CoMoChief
11-20-2012, 01:57 PM
Doesn't Rubio have eligibility questions of his own?

DJ's left nut
11-20-2012, 01:59 PM
And here's the rub. Why should any halfway intelligent moderate buy his economic prescriptions for the country (supply side economics, prolly) when he's this willfully ignorant on accepted scientific principles.

I'll bet Barack Obama can't make apple cobbler either...

Who gives a shit?

Democrats are just laughably transparent here and that's why I'm done listening to them talk about what they want in a candidate. All they want in a candidate is someone with a D after their name.

His answer here is incredibly reasonable. He doesn't care. At the same time he recognizes that he has a constituency that does. So what does he do? He sidesteps the question in favor of trying to keep the focus on stuff that actually is relevant.

To which the Democrats start to chirp in unison and call him an idiot.

It just doesn't matter what anyone says to you folks unless it's exactly what you'd have said. And if they don't say what you'd have said on all things, then clearly they can't be trusted to discuss anything.

It's why there's just no point in discussing politics anymore. None of you have anything to actually talk about.

listopencil
11-20-2012, 02:04 PM
Setting up the universe and creating earth are two different things. The earth came much later.




Yes, I am somewhat familiar with the science. The idea is that God could have created the entire universe "as is" before he created Man. A being with ultimate power over time and space would not have to sit around and wait for the laws of physics to apply. He would set them up and allow them to control the universe so that you would have to use faith to determine His existence.

BucEyedPea
11-20-2012, 02:36 PM
Rubio would get similar results as Romney.

Yup! Plus there's indication he has a tendency toward corruption. Like when he used that credit card from the party for personal items. Not a good sign. At any rate, just another BIG govt statist.

SNR
11-20-2012, 02:38 PM
I'll bet Barack Obama can't make apple cobbler either...

Who gives a shit?

Democrats are just laughably transparent here and that's why I'm done listening to them talk about what they want in a candidate. All they want in a candidate is someone with a D after their name.

His answer here is incredibly reasonable. He doesn't care. At the same time he recognizes that he has a constituency that does. So what does he do? He sidesteps the question in favor of trying to keep the focus on stuff that actually is relevant.

To which the Democrats start to chirp in unison and call him an idiot.

It just doesn't matter what anyone says to you folks unless it's exactly what you'd have said. And if they don't say what you'd have said on all things, then clearly they can't be trusted to discuss anything.

It's why there's just no point in discussing politics anymore. None of you have anything to actually talk about.

Thank you.

Saulbadguy
11-20-2012, 02:47 PM
I'll bet Barack Obama can't make apple cobbler either...

Who gives a shit?

Democrats are just laughably transparent here and that's why I'm done listening to them talk about what they want in a candidate. All they want in a candidate is someone with a D after their name.

His answer here is incredibly reasonable. He doesn't care. At the same time he recognizes that he has a constituency that does. So what does he do? He sidesteps the question in favor of trying to keep the focus on stuff that actually is relevant.

To which the Democrats start to chirp in unison and call him an idiot.

It just doesn't matter what anyone says to you folks unless it's exactly what you'd have said. And if they don't say what you'd have said on all things, then clearly they can't be trusted to discuss anything.

It's why there's just no point in discussing politics anymore. None of you have anything to actually talk about.

Maybe he shouldn't sidestep the question then? It's a simple question that i'm sure he can answer, he just chooses not to because he knows a large portion of people that are going to be voting for him are idiots.

It is a better answer than 6,000 years though.

DJ's left nut
11-20-2012, 02:49 PM
Maybe he shouldn't sidestep the question then? It's a simple question that i'm sure he can answer, he just chooses not to because he knows a large portion of people that are going to be voting for him are idiots.

It is a better answer than 6,000 years though.

I'm sure you'd love to see him blow apart his chance at advancing through a primary.

What is gained by answering that question?

He's right - it's !@#$ing irrelevant. But because he doesn't give the exact answer you want to a question that doesn't matter, he's clearly a moron.

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 02:55 PM
I'm sure you'd love to see him blow apart his chance at advancing through a primary.What is gained by answering that question?



This pretty much says it all. An R answering that he thinks the Earth's age is in the billions of years range = blowing a chance at advancing through the R primaries. Quite a club you got there.

vailpass
11-20-2012, 02:56 PM
If we continue to decide who is Potus on based on non-factor issues we will continue to get a non-factor for a Potus.

blaise
11-20-2012, 02:57 PM
I don't think anyone expects an exact accurate answer. But if someone answers in the 10,000-year-or-under range, you know who you are dealing with.

So, then, what was so outrageous about his comments that we need a thread about it?

vailpass
11-20-2012, 02:58 PM
So, then, what was so outrageous about his comments that we need a thread about it?

Absolutely nothing.

listopencil
11-20-2012, 03:01 PM
This pretty much says it all. An R answering that he thinks the Earth's age is in the billions of years range = blowing a chance at advancing through the R primaries. Quite a club you got there.

How would Obama answer the question if he were running for office?

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 03:01 PM
So, then, what was so outrageous about his comments that we need a thread about it?

I wouldn't say it is "outrageous," but it is somewhat newsworthy that a popular R, already campaigning for 2016, already appears to be dumbing-down in order to appeal to the anti-science ignorant R base.

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 03:02 PM
How would Obama answer the question if he were running for office?

I'll ask at the next meeting.

Chocolate Hog
11-20-2012, 03:04 PM
Holy crap - I just came....

I love me some Rubio. Here's hoping the hardcore conservative element of the party doesn't kill him off during the primaries.

He's exactly what the Republican Party needs.

Rubio/Haley in 2016!!!

If you liked Dick Cheney you'll like Rubio.

blaise
11-20-2012, 03:06 PM
I wouldn't say it is "outrageous," but it is somewhat newsworthy that a popular R, already campaigning for 2016, already appears to be dumbing-down in order to appeal to the anti-science ignorant R base.

He said he doesn't know. He said he knows what the Bible says, but he acknowledges that the information there is debatable, and that what it says isn't agreed upon.
I'm not sure what's so dumbed down about it. He basically said, "Who cares?" But for someone as middle of the road as you, sure, it would probably be noteworthy.
Because you're middle of the road and all. That's why you respond to every Obama thread with, "this isn't news," but comment on this one in a different way.

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 03:11 PM
He said he doesn't know. He said he knows what the Bible says, but he acknowledges that the information there is debatable, and that what it says isn't agreed upon.
I'm not sure what's so dumbed down about it. He basically said, "Who cares?" But for someone as middle of the road as you, sure, it would probably be noteworthy.
Because you're middle of the road and all. That's why you respond to every Obama thread with, "this isn't news," but comment on this one in a different way.

Actually, my response is usually "This is made up" due to most assertions about him being the product of right-wing wet dreams without any basis in reality. But hey, you want to pretend that Rubio wasn't simply pandering to ignorance here, that's up to you.

Chocolate Hog
11-20-2012, 03:15 PM
Who gives a shit about this issue anyway?

blaise
11-20-2012, 03:18 PM
Actually, my response is usually "This is made up" due to most assertions about him being the product of right-wing wet dreams without any basis in reality. But hey, you want to pretend that Rubio wasn't simply pandering to ignorance here, that's up to you.

I think he really said, 'I don't know, and I don't know what that has to do with anything." But of course it has to be painted as some sort of crazy talk by middle of the roaders like you.

blaise
11-20-2012, 03:20 PM
Who gives a shit about this issue anyway?

Mostly liberals who realize Hillary Clinton is very unlikable, will probably lose an election in 2016 if she runs, and need to start a campaign against any possible opponents in case she does run.

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 03:20 PM
I think he really said, 'I don't know, and I don't know what that has to do with anything." But of course it has to be painted as some sort of crazy talk by middle of the roaders like you.

Like I said, you want to pretend that Rubio wasn't simply pandering to ignorance, that's up to you.

Chocolate Hog
11-20-2012, 03:22 PM
Mostly liberals who realize Hillary Clinton is very unlikable, will probably lose an election in 2016 if she runs, and need to start a campaign against any possible opponents in case she does run.

Rubio is pro-life he hates women.

Cave Johnson
11-20-2012, 03:23 PM
I'll bet Barack Obama can't make apple cobbler either...

Who gives a shit?

Democrats are just laughably transparent here and that's why I'm done listening to them talk about what they want in a candidate. All they want in a candidate is someone with a D after their name.

His answer here is incredibly reasonable. He doesn't care. At the same time he recognizes that he has a constituency that does. So what does he do? He sidesteps the question in favor of trying to keep the focus on stuff that actually is relevant.

To which the Democrats start to chirp in unison and call him an idiot.

It just doesn't matter what anyone says to you folks unless it's exactly what you'd have said. And if they don't say what you'd have said on all things, then clearly they can't be trusted to discuss anything.

It's why there's just no point in discussing politics anymore. None of you have anything to actually talk about.

He didn't sidestep the question, he said it was a unknowable mystery. Which is, under the most favorable interpretation, pandering to the base. That strategy didn't work out so well the last election, and if I was a R, I'd be a little concerned he's copying a Dabollian playbook.

listopencil
11-20-2012, 03:25 PM
Like I said, you want to pretend that Rubio wasn't simply pandering to ignorance, that's up to you.

He was pandering to Christian fundamentalists, no doubt. I see that he slipped this in:

"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..."

Is there anyone who opposes allowing parents to teach their children about their faith? I took that as a veiled nod to people arguing for teaching creationism in public schools.

blaise
11-20-2012, 03:40 PM
He didn't sidestep the question, he said it was a unknowable mystery. Which is, under the most favorable interpretation, pandering to the base. That strategy didn't work out so well the last election, and if I was a R, I'd be a little concerned he's copying a Dabollian playbook.

No, under the most favorable interpretation he was saying he doesn't really know and doesn't really care. You're interpretation is unfavorable, because you're obviously biased.
And he didn't say it was an, "unknowable mystery."

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 03:43 PM
He was pandering to Christian fundamentalists, no doubt. I see that he slipped this in:

"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..."

Is there anyone who opposes allowing parents to teach their children about their faith? I took that as a veiled nod to people arguing for teaching creationism in public schools.

I think that is pretty clear. But he didn't state it in a no-doubt-about-it direct and straightforward way, so blaise would argue that he didn't mean that at all. No, no, you're way, way off base there.

DJ's left nut
11-20-2012, 03:58 PM
Actually, my response is usually "This is made up" due to most assertions about him being the product of right-wing wet dreams without any basis in reality. But hey, you want to pretend that Rubio wasn't simply pandering to ignorance here, that's up to you.

Yes, because the democrats blatantly pandering to the entitlement class isn't 'pandering to ignorance'.

I just cannot help but laugh at the insistence on the moral highground from the standard screeching O-Bots.

Your politicians are as full of shit as our politicians. Your politicians pander to fears, insecurities and inaccuracies the same as ours do.

Rubio gave the right answer here - "Who gives a !@#$" but of course the open-minded liberal crowd is just dying to excoriate him for it.

Spare me the lectures, you care about nothing more than the initials after their names.

DJ's left nut
11-20-2012, 04:02 PM
He didn't sidestep the question, he said it was a unknowable mystery. Which is, under the most favorable interpretation, pandering to the base. That strategy didn't work out so well the last election, and if I was a R, I'd be a little concerned he's copying a Dabollian playbook.

Same answer - I couldn't give a flying fuck what your side of the aisle thinks the Rs should be worried about.

If Republicans would've given answers like this one throughout the election cycle, they'd have kicked the shit out of the Democrats and come into office with relative ease.

Instead they allowed the Democrats to frame the issues in manners that simply do not matter. Had he answered how you wanted, the Democratic base would've started squealing about how the so-called Christian is rejecting Christian ideals - "FLIP FLOPPER!!!" You'd have tried to get an entire news cycle out of it.

Instead he answered it how it should be answered - I don't know, and I don't care. There are things that matter and this ain't it - lets talk about those.

But please, continue to tell us all what you noble democrats would like to see from a Republican. I'm sure you're being sincere...

La literatura
11-20-2012, 04:05 PM
Same answer - I couldn't give a flying **** what your side of the aisle thinks the Rs should be worried about.

If Republicans would've given answers like this one throughout the election cycle, they'd have kicked the shit out of the Democrats and come into office with relative ease.

Instead they allowed the Democrats to frame the issues in manners that simply do not matter. Had he answered how you wanted, the Democratic base would've started squealing about how the so-called Christian is rejecting Christian ideals - "FLIP FLOPPER!!!" You'd have tried to get an entire news cycle out of it.

Instead he answered it how it should be answered - I don't know, and I don't care. There are things that matter and this ain't it - lets talk about those.

But please, continue to tell us all what you noble democrats would like to see from a Republican. I'm sure you're being sincere...

He says he's Catholic. I am interested in knowing what Catholic politicians believe, even if it's more than dollars and cents.

Calcountry
11-20-2012, 04:05 PM
I'm betting that most candidates have a very good understanding of science.

They just pretend not to, as to pander to the dumbasses in the bible belt.When BO was asked "When do you think life begins", at RIck Warren's Church back in '08, he responded, "That's above my pay grade".

I guess that makes him equally a DUMB ASS.

DJ's left nut
11-20-2012, 04:13 PM
He says he's Catholic. I am interested in knowing what Catholic politicians believe, even if it's more than dollars and cents.

No you aren't.

You can claim all day to be, but regardless of what they say, you know how you're going to respond. You'll either call them naive idiots who don't understand science or liars that are pandering to the middle.

You couldn't give less of a shit about what any of them actually have to say.

But by all means, continue. We all know that the noble Democrats are on a simple search for information and enlightenment while the Republicans are simply mindless racist ideologues.

You have all become quite boring at this point. This thread is just a perfect example of how useless any of you are in actually discussing anything. I cannot for the life of me figure out how anyone can take offense with what Rubio said, apart from the fact that he doesn't claim to actually know how the goddamn universe was created.

Yeah, because we've certainly got that one figured out. :rolleyes:

DJ's left nut
11-20-2012, 04:15 PM
When BO was asked "When do you think life begins", at RIck Warren's Church back in '08, he responded, "That's above my pay grade".

I guess that makes him equally a DUMB ASS.

Not if he has a D after his name.

Only Republicans dodge loaded questions that are irrelevant and designed to create little more than talking points. Barack was simply...well I'm not real sure what he was doing, but we'll come up with something sooner or later. Fearless leader has never deigned to engage in such trifles.

La literatura
11-20-2012, 04:19 PM
No you aren't.

You can claim all day to be, but regardless of what they say, you know how you're going to respond. You'll either call them naive idiots who don't understand science or liars that are pandering to the middle.

LMAO His response was most likely towing the line. I agree it's not that important, and that Democrats will love to use it against him. But on the other hand, I think it's good to know how courageous people will be in these situations.

dirk digler
11-20-2012, 04:20 PM
meh..I don't have a problem with what he said. :shrug:

DJ's left nut
11-20-2012, 04:22 PM
meh..I don't have a problem with what he said. :shrug:

He didn't go all Hawking on their asses.

What a moron. He clearly can't be trusted to govern.

Chocolate Hog
11-20-2012, 04:26 PM
Funny yet predictable Chris Matthews and crew keep going on and on about this.

People really wonder why this country is so fucked? This country is on an economic titanic yet people want to play the race card, science, and debate over hypothetical rape situations.

dirk digler
11-20-2012, 04:33 PM
He didn't go all Hawking on their asses.

What a moron. He clearly can't be trusted to govern.

If I was asked that question I would have said really fucking old because honestly who really knows for sure?

FishingRod
11-20-2012, 04:36 PM
Last I saw about 92% of Americans claim to believe in God. He gave polite answer that wouldn’t offend anyone that wasn’t bending over backwards to be offended.

Frankly those of you making an issue of this are just as, if not more so, dishonest than the people who questioned Obama’s patriotism because he didn’t were a flag pin often enough. I won’t spend the time arguing with a jackass about either because I’m not the friggin donkey whisperer and can’t get people to suddenly open their brains by repeatedly going SHHHH!

DJ's left nut
11-20-2012, 04:49 PM
Funny yet predictable Chris Matthews and crew keep going on and on about this.

People really wonder why this country is so fucked? This country is on an economic titanic yet people want to play the race card, science, and debate over hypothetical rape situations.

Amazing.

It is almost, without question, the single most reasonable answer he could have given there.

And it just doesn't matter to these noble seekers of higher truth.

Wherever would we be without the Democrats to show us the way.

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 05:12 PM
Who gives a shit about this issue anyway?

Two groups--religious nuts and people who would prefer not to have a religious nut (or someone who panders to them) in office.

BucEyedPea
11-20-2012, 05:14 PM
If you liked Dick Cheney you'll like Rubio.

Yup! :thumb:

BigRedChief
11-20-2012, 06:02 PM
Maybe he shouldn't sidestep the question then? It's a simple question that i'm sure he can answer, he just chooses not to because he knows a large portion of people that are going to be voting for him are idiots.

It is a better answer than 6,000 years though.I get it that he is cuban. He's good looking, can put two sentences together and has conservative beliefs. But its never going to happen.

The dude lied about his background for years until he was caught. Loudly proclaimed and jazzed up crowds with his families hardship under Castro and how happy they were to escape Castro. One little tensy wensy problem.........his family came to America two full years before Castro took power. He lied for over 10 years of his political life. It's why he exists as a politician.

Now, he's going to say that Dinosauers are fake? The earth is only 6000 years old? This is the candidate to get past the perception of the Republican party being anti-science?

Calcountry
11-20-2012, 06:15 PM
If we continue to decide who is Potus on based on non-factor issues we will continue to get a non-factor for a Potus.Yeah, don't take away my Big Bird.

This country isn't worth living in if we lose that. First Big Bird, now Twinkies??!! The humanity!

BucEyedPea
11-20-2012, 06:49 PM
I get it that he is cuban. He's good looking, can put two sentences together and has conservative beliefs.

No. He is not a conservative. He said he's for more govt ( than we have now)...that puts him outside of conservatism. He may just have some conservative beliefs.

Gawd! The Republican party is putrid. But the anti-science claim is bogus. This issue is nothing more than the left, try to make hay over non-issues—just a continuation of dirty campaign and look over here tactics to deflect from their economic tyranny.

cdcox
11-20-2012, 07:22 PM
Disqualifying answer for me. He doesn't have the minimal scientific knowledge needed to lead a technological based economy. Why should we fund science if such basic questions are "unanswerable".

blaise
11-20-2012, 07:27 PM
Disqualifying answer for me. He doesn't have the minimal scientific knowledge needed to lead a technological based economy. Why should we fund science if such basic questions are "unanswerable".

You think most candidates would know how old the Earth is if asked?

BucEyedPea
11-20-2012, 07:33 PM
Disqualifying answer for me. He doesn't have the minimal scientific knowledge needed to lead a technological based economy. Why should we fund science if such basic questions are "unanswerable".

JHC, now the president is supposed to lead the economy too? One man?


You don't have minimal economic or civics knowledge to vote. No wonder you project the same thing on Republicans.

BucEyedPea
11-20-2012, 07:35 PM
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XR2w1JbIL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

cdcox
11-20-2012, 07:36 PM
You think most candidates would know how old the Earth is if asked?

"Billions of years" would work for me.

Much of the economy 20 years from now is going to be based on science and technology that will be done in the next 4 years. We can't afford a president that is agnostic about science.

BucEyedPea
11-20-2012, 07:38 PM
"Billions of years" would work for me.

Much of the economy 20 years from now is going to be based on science and technology that will be done in the next 4 years. We can't afford a president that is agnostic about science.

Nor can we afford to have voters that don't know how economies work and grow—which is on their own with millions or billions of individuals doing their own valuing and making their choices off those values. NOT one man in govt or even a few. Any successful entrepreneur doesn't confuse what he likes for what will sell.

You sound like you believe in a command and control type, or one that leans that way, economy. THOSE are the least efficient and don't make people wealthy. The govt just needs to get out of the way, so the creativity of men of science and in other professions can develop the things we need—or to have fun with.

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 07:40 PM
You think most candidates would know how old the Earth is if asked?

They don't need to know exactly. 10,000 years or less, we know we have a religious nut or someone pandering to them. A billion or more--reasonable. Something in between may indicate a lack of basic science knowledge, but we would need more information.

BucEyedPea
11-20-2012, 07:43 PM
They don't need to know exactly. 10,000 years or less, we know we have a religious nut or someone pandering to them. A billion or more--reasonable. Something in between may indicate a lack of basic science knowledge, but we would need more information.

Is the president going to be working in the field of science....say in a lab a few days a week?

Anyone who is religious to a commie such as yourself, is always gonna be a "nut." The thing is you're the real "nut."

I could care less if a president knows how old earth is. That requirement is not necessary to carry out his Constitutional duties. That's what division of labor is for....which is more efficient. A president need not know every field.

cosmo20002
11-20-2012, 08:00 PM
Is the president going to be working in the field of science....say in a lab a few days a week?

Anyone who is religious to a commie such as yourself, is always gonna be a "nut." The thing is you're the real "nut."

I could care less if a president knows how old earth is. That requirement is not necessary to carry out his Constitutional duties. That's what division of labor is for....which is more efficient. A president need not know every field.

Geez--how many times must this point be made? It is not about knowing the number. It is about pandering to the religious nuts and whether the candidate himself is one. Most adults know (or should) that Earth is far older than 10,000 years old. So if an adult says 10K years or less, I know they are among the group of anti-science kooks. I wouldn't trust an anti-science kook to be president. If they are using the Bible as a scientific source, its not a stretch to believe they think the Bible should control govt policy and other beliefs.

BigRedChief
11-20-2012, 08:03 PM
You think most candidates would know how old the Earth is if asked?If they are in Iowa, yes.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/c0.0.843.403/p843x403/12656_563323400349653_1872968965_n.jpg

cdcox
11-20-2012, 08:06 PM
Rubio is saying that the age of the earth is "unanswerable". That science has nothing to say about the matter.

Meanwhile we have people incorrectly stating that humans cannot affect the climate of the earth one way or another, which is patently ridiculous. A single volcanic eruption has changed the climate of entire hemispheres for up to two years. Can all of human activity not surpass a single volcanic eruption? This sort of ignorance is what we reap from a scientifically illiterate populous and candidates.

I'll stick with candidates who think science can answer important questions, thank you.

blaise
11-20-2012, 11:03 PM
They don't need to know exactly. 10,000 years or less, we know we have a religious nut or someone pandering to them. A billion or more--reasonable. Something in between may indicate a lack of basic science knowledge, but we would need more information.

He said it's less than 10,000 years old?

blaise
11-20-2012, 11:03 PM
If they are in Iowa, yes.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/c0.0.843.403/p843x403/12656_563323400349653_1872968965_n.jpg

I don't really feel like you're making a point there.

blaise
11-20-2012, 11:05 PM
Rubio is saying that the age of the earth is "unanswerable". That science has nothing to say about the matter.

Meanwhile we have people incorrectly stating that humans cannot affect the climate of the earth one way or another, which is patently ridiculous. A single volcanic eruption has changed the climate of entire hemispheres for up to two years. Can all of human activity not surpass a single volcanic eruption? This sort of ignorance is what we reap from a scientifically illiterate populous and candidates.

I'll stick with candidates who think science can answer important questions, thank you.

He didn't say it's unanswerable, nor did he say that science has nothing to say about the matter.

blaise
11-20-2012, 11:06 PM
"Billions of years" would work for me.

Much of the economy 20 years from now is going to be based on science and technology that will be done in the next 4 years. We can't afford a president that is agnostic about science.

He actually says, "he's not a scientist." Indicating that he believes a scientist would have the answer. That doesn't really seem like he's discrediting scientists.

That would be like you asking me to diagnose an illness, me saying I'm not a doctor, and then you saying I'm discrediting medicine.

cdcox
11-20-2012, 11:21 PM
He didn't say it's unanswerable, nor did he say that science has nothing to say about the matter.

"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."

La literatura
11-20-2012, 11:30 PM
He actually says, "he's not a scientist." Indicating that he believes a scientist would have the answer. That doesn't really seem like he's discrediting scientists.

That would be like you asking me to diagnose an illness, me saying I'm not a doctor, and then you saying I'm discrediting medicine.

You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

go bowe
11-20-2012, 11:35 PM
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

bob, is that you?

listopencil
11-20-2012, 11:47 PM
"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."

From what I can tell he was referring to the difference in beliefs of those who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God and those that believe in the Bible creation story as allegory. He never addressed any aspect of a scientific answer to the origin of the Earth. To me that is a calculated move to appeal to evangelical Christians. The entire paragraph reads like an off-the-cuff remark intended to pander to a section of Republican voters.

cdcox
11-21-2012, 12:04 AM
From what I can tell he was referring to the difference in beliefs of those who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God and those that believe in the Bible creation story as allegory. He never addressed any aspect of a scientific answer to the origin of the Earth. To me that is a calculated move to appeal to evangelical Christians. The entire paragraph reads like an off-the-cuff remark intended to pander to a section of Republican voters.

That pandering carries a ton of baggage.

In TN, the state legislature passed a bill that allows teachers to teach creationism in public classrooms.

Many Americans openly doubt the age of the Earth, evolution, climate change, ozone depletion, etc without any scientific justification.

We are falling behind much of the world in science education, PhDs graduated, and engineers graduated. Coincidence? If we don't lead in innovation, we won't have world class economy.

It's not harmless and I won't tolerate it in a candidate. I won't vote for republicans as long as they provide safe harbor for these points of view.

listopencil
11-21-2012, 12:56 AM
That pandering carries a ton of baggage.

In TN, the state legislature passed a bill that allows teachers to teach creationism in public classrooms.

Many Americans openly doubt the age of the Earth, evolution, climate change, ozone depletion, etc without any scientific justification.

We are falling behind much of the world in science education, PhDs graduated, and engineers graduated. Coincidence? If we don't lead in innovation, we won't have world class economy.

It's not harmless and I won't tolerate it in a candidate. I won't vote for republicans as long as they provide safe harbor for these points of view.

I agree with you. Not only for the many points you have made, but also because I think it carries over into social policies.

blaise
11-21-2012, 06:50 AM
"Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries."

You put the word unanswerable in quotations as if he said the word.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 08:01 AM
We are falling behind much of the world in science education, PhDs graduated, and engineers graduated. Coincidence? If we don't lead in innovation, we won't have world class economy.


That has nothing to do with a President's duties.

FishingRod
11-21-2012, 08:24 AM
I get it that he is cuban. He's good looking, can put two sentences together and has conservative beliefs. But its never going to happen.

The dude lied about his background for years until he was caught. Loudly proclaimed and jazzed up crowds with his families hardship under Castro and how happy they were to escape Castro. One little tensy wensy problem.........his family came to America two full years before Castro took power. He lied for over 10 years of his political life. It's why he exists as a politician.

Now, he's going to say that Dinosauers are fake? The earth is only 6000 years old? This is the candidate to get past the perception of the Republican party being anti-science?

I really don’t know much about the guy but must admit the embellishment of his family story doesn’t set very well with me. It also didn’t sit well with me when Hilary fabricated the story about being under sniper fire. Unfortunately one must balance our perception of the moral character of a politician with their ability of doing the job. Few would argue that Jimmy carter was a more honest man than Bill Clinton but fewer still would argue that Clinton wasn’t a far more affective president.

dirk digler
11-21-2012, 09:17 AM
Just so we are fair:

"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."

Sen. Barack Obama, quoted by Slate (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/11/rubio_and_obama_and_the_age_of_earth_politicians_hedge_about_whether_universe.single.html) in April 2008, when asked if the Earth was created in six days.

blaise
11-21-2012, 09:22 AM
Just so we are fair:

"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."

Sen. Barack Obama, quoted by Slate (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/11/rubio_and_obama_and_the_age_of_earth_politicians_hedge_about_whether_universe.single.html) in April 2008, when asked if the Earth was created in six days.

Well, that's different, because....

Cave Johnson
11-21-2012, 09:26 AM
Well, that's different, because....

He got the number of biblical days right.

blaise
11-21-2012, 09:30 AM
He got the number of biblical days right.

He must be a religious nut job.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 09:32 AM
That pandering carries a ton of baggage.

It's not harmless and I won't tolerate it in a candidate. I won't vote for republicans as long as they provide safe harbor for these points of view.

Here's something I don't think you look at: While it is true that nothing has reversed the trend of American students not scoring high in math and science since the 1960s, the United States still out performed the former Soviet Union in science and technology. All the govt money the former SU put into science and technology still didn't save them from economic defeat.

Meanwhile, our own govt, in order to compete with the Soviets in the sciences, poured money into it but just got a bunch of psychology or sociology majors to show for it.

So the Soviets went broke because they used it for military conquest.They had hardly any incentives to innovate and produce because there was no freedom and no profit to apply it to goods and services that improved their lives. They actually had to import a lot of technology from us.

So here we have a classic case of govt subsidies being an epic fail. That's because they lacked freedom which allows entrepreneurs to flourish, which is what brings science and technology to markets. Otherwise, those things are useless.

The US defense industry still hires many science and engineering students. But we could reach the same fate as the Soviets if we invest too heavily there ourselves. Other countries in Asia have capital flowing into their private sectors more.

I guess what I am saying is we don't need the govt to command and control what people study in a free country to do well. I'd be more concerned where capital is flowing and how much freedom this country is losing than what some politician believes about the age of the earth.

FishingRod
11-21-2012, 09:40 AM
Disqualifying answer for me. He doesn't have the minimal scientific knowledge needed to lead a technological based economy. Why should we fund science if such basic questions are "unanswerable".

So did Obama’s answer disqualify him in your mind. One would assume you didn’t vote for him either time. I mean he thinks the big invisible man in the sky got out his Playdough and Lincoln logs and created the universe.

blaise
11-21-2012, 09:42 AM
So did Obama’s answer disqualify him in your mind. One would assume you didn’t vote for him either time. I mean he thinks the big invisible man in the sky got out his Playdough and Lincoln logs and created the universe.

It's different because Obama meant it in the most intellectual way possible.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 09:44 AM
cdox, some PhD's are economically ignorant too. Many are Marxists.

dirk digler
11-21-2012, 09:51 AM
Well, that's different, because....

It's not..actually Obama's is probably more religious than Rubio's.

With that being said people don't think Obama is anti-science because he believes in Global Warming etc...

I haven't looked up Rubio's stance on certain scientific subjects.

blaise
11-21-2012, 09:54 AM
It's not..actually Obama's is probably more religious than Rubio's.

With that being said people don't think Obama is anti-science because he believes in Global Warming etc...

I haven't looked up Rubio's stance on certain scientific subjects.

Yeah, I'm defending what Rubio said in the OP, but I don't know very much about him at all. For all I know he's made stronger comments on the subject.

I just think acting like his comments in the OP are some sort of religious kookery is kind of like other people picking apart an innocuous Obama comment and saying he's a Marxist.

Cave Johnson
11-21-2012, 09:56 AM
So did Obama’s answer disqualify him in your mind. One would assume you didn’t vote for him either time. I mean he thinks the big invisible man in the sky got out his Playdough and Lincoln logs and created the universe.

No, because he was asked a different question.

"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?"

dirk digler
11-21-2012, 09:57 AM
Yeah, I'm defending what Rubio said in the OP, but I don't know very much about him at all. For all I know he's made stronger comments on the subject.

I just think acting like his comments in the OP are some sort of religious kookery is kind of like other people picking apart an innocuous Obama comment and saying he's a Marxist.

Totally agree.

blaise
11-21-2012, 09:58 AM
No, because he was asked a different question.

"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?"

Right, dirk's post basically made your post about Rubio look stupid. But nice try.

Cave Johnson
11-21-2012, 10:13 AM
Right, dirk's post basically made your post about Rubio look stupid. But nice try.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/obFHu7DCsEs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Superbowltrashcan
11-21-2012, 10:16 AM
I just find it really interesting that some people immediately completely dismiss something which they can neither prove or disprove (on both sides).

I have always been of a similar opinion on this and find it amusing the inability of people speaking on this issue from the Science side of things to recognize they are trying to refute a piece of a person's faith, which by definition needs no tangible proof, hence the term faith. Likewise those in the conservative faith community always feel they have to provide "proof" of what is in conflict with scientific theory.

The extreme view that it is impossible to prove the existence of the entire universe extends beyond the present instant is one that to most quite silly but nonetheless valid.

HonestChieffan
11-21-2012, 10:18 AM
Here is a tidbit worth reading. Then Senator Obama answering essentially the same question....

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.

In Living color here...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kxDfJU4z2E&feature=youtu.be&t=9m

And for the record. Both Obama and Rubio did a pretty good job

dirk digler
11-21-2012, 10:33 AM
Here is a tidbit worth reading. Then Senator Obama answering essentially the same question....

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.

In Living color here...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kxDfJU4z2E&feature=youtu.be&t=9m

And for the record. Both Obama and Rubio did a pretty good job

Really hcf I didn't know that. Thanks for showing us that Obama quote :p

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 10:36 AM
I have always been of a similar opinion on this and find it amusing the inability of people speaking on this issue from the Science side of things to recognize they are trying to refute a piece of a person's faith, which by definition needs no tangible proof, hence the term faith. Likewise those in the conservative faith community always feel they have to provide "proof" of what is in conflict with scientific theory.

The extreme view that it is impossible to prove the existence of the entire universe extends beyond the present instant is one that to most quite silly but nonetheless valid.

Exactly. Also, that religious people are nuts and can't do science when Isaac Newton was religious and Copernicus was a Catholic monk. Have to wonder if it's not really just a form of ant-religious bigotry by some.

FishingRod
11-21-2012, 11:02 AM
No, because he was asked a different question.

"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?"

I have had the discussion. I said I really don’t know for sure what happened but, I find it far more likely that Man made God in his own image than the opposite but on a number of levels I wish I did had the faith that some others do because, it would make life very simple. The idea of the Big Bang makes sense but, what created the matter and how it came to be from nothing makes no sense to me and it is beyond my intellectual capacity to grasp. Much like those that say God is and has always been so nothing made God. I can’t wrap my mind around that idea either.

cdcox
11-21-2012, 11:03 AM
Differences between Obama's and Rubio's statements on earth
origins and science in general:

1. Obama clearly draws lines around where this debate occurs,"within the Christian community". Rubio makes no such distinction.

2. Obama indicates that in his own personal view, he modifies his religous beliefs to conform to science. Rubio leaves it as unknowable, that theology and science are equally valid ways of approaching the question.

3. Rubio goes out of his way to distance questions of science from public policy. That's fine for BEP's 18th century fantasy America, but here in the real world, science is at the heart of our future as a world leader.

4. Rubio belongs to a party married to the denial of inconvenient science. He denies anthropogenic climate change. Obama's public positions are consistently well informed by consensus main stream science. So the context of the two statements is completely different.

FishingRod
11-21-2012, 12:14 PM
Differences between Obama's and Rubio's statements on earth
origins and science in general:

1. Obama clearly draws lines around where this debate occurs,"within the Christian community". Rubio makes no such distinction.

2. Obama indicates that in his own personal view, he modifies his religous beliefs to conform to science. Rubio leaves it as unknowable, that theology and science are equally valid ways of approaching the question.

3. Rubio goes out of his way to distance questions of science from public policy. That's fine for BEP's 18th century fantasy America, but here in the real world, science is at the heart of our future as a world leader.

4. Rubio belongs to a party married to the denial of inconvenient science. He denies anthropogenic climate change. Obama's public positions are consistently well informed by consensus main stream science. So the context of the two statements is completely different.

“but here in the real world, science is at the heart of our future as a world leader”

Thanks for explaining. So if I understand you correctly, the invisible man in the sky made everything is Scientific , it is the timeframe that is the issue.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 12:19 PM
3. Rubio goes out of his way to distance questions of science from public policy. That's fine for BEP's 18th century fantasy America, but here in the real world, science is at the heart of our future as a world leader.


Yet, you prefer the former world of Marxist countries despite their obvious failings. I'll take the 18th Century Enlightenment over your materialism and slavery. Afterall, that's what was supposed to be the freest nation in the world, but is no longer, was founded on. Not to mention how smaller govt we got from that still allowed us to become the wealthiest nation in the world. For a man of math and science you certainly cannot see cause and effect.

blaise
11-21-2012, 12:38 PM
The quotes are almost identical. How funny that people are flailing around as if they're different.

La literatura
11-21-2012, 12:43 PM
Yet, you prefer the former world of Marxist countries despite their obvious failings. I'll take the 18th Century Enlightenment over your materialism and slavery. Afterall, that's what was supposed to be the freest nation in the world, but is no longer, was founded on.

I always think it's ironic how in only one of the eras (and not the one you endorse as being the 'freest') would you be able to vote for your own government.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 12:47 PM
Voting doesn't necessarily equal freedom.That's the democracy of two wolves and a lamb at a dinner. What brings freedom is restraining that same govt, which is what our Constitution was designed to do.

La literatura
11-21-2012, 12:47 PM
The quotes are almost identical. How funny that people are flailing around as if they're different.

They're not almost identical, but they both give a lot of respectful deference to creationism (for reasons almost certainly having to do with politics, and not truth). Obama at least tells us what he believes.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 12:48 PM
Your sense of property is communistic.

WhiteWhale
11-21-2012, 12:49 PM
Like what?

The onus is not on him, it's on YOU.

Can you prove fairies aren't real? They're totally invisible so you can't see them. People believe in them.

When you make a claim, the onus is on YOU to prove it... the onus is not on others to disprove any claim made. That's ridiculous.

La literatura
11-21-2012, 12:50 PM
Voting doesn't necessarily equal freedom.That's the democracy of two wolves and a lamb at a dinner. What brings freedom is restraining that same govt, which is what our Constitution was designed to do.

Voting is necessary for political freedom. And just as you correctly say that voting doesn't necessarily equal freedom, neither does an originalist construction of the Constitution.

La literatura
11-21-2012, 12:50 PM
Your sense of property is communistic.

Mine?

Donger
11-21-2012, 12:52 PM
The onus is not on him, it's on YOU.

Can you prove fairies aren't real? They're totally invisible so you can't see them. People believe in them.

When you make a claim, the onus is on YOU to prove it... the onus is not on others to disprove any claim made. That's ridiculous.

Huh? Certain people on this thread claimed that there is tons of evidence that the Earth wasn't created in seven days. Call me crazy, but the one making the claim should be able to provide some evidence of their claim.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 12:54 PM
The onus is not on him, it's on YOU.

Can you prove fairies aren't real? They're totally invisible so you can't see them. People believe in them.

When you make a claim, the onus is on YOU to prove it... the onus is not on others to disprove any claim made. That's ridiculous.

Whatever happened to the idea of freedom of religion? I don't see that anyone needs to prove anything on this.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 12:56 PM
I always think it's ironic how in only one of the eras (and not the one you endorse as being the 'freest') would you be able to vote for your own government.

Our govt was voted on when the Constitution was ratified. After that we vote for officials and reps who will uphold that document which protects liberty. The even have to take an oath of office. They can't just do whatever a majority on want in every area.

Democracy does not equal freedom. Marx said "Democracy was the road to socialism.

dirk digler
11-21-2012, 12:58 PM
Differences between Obama's and Rubio's statements on earth
origins and science in general:

1. Obama clearly draws lines around where this debate occurs,"within the Christian community". Rubio makes no such distinction.

2. Obama indicates that in his own personal view, he modifies his religous beliefs to conform to science. Rubio leaves it as unknowable, that theology and science are equally valid ways of approaching the question.

3. Rubio goes out of his way to distance questions of science from public policy. That's fine for BEP's 18th century fantasy America, but here in the real world, science is at the heart of our future as a world leader.

4. Rubio belongs to a party married to the denial of inconvenient science. He denies anthropogenic climate change. Obama's public positions are consistently well informed by consensus main stream science. So the context of the two statements is completely different.

1. Rubio does the same thing... "I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians"

2. Obama says he doesn't know either

3. Don't have enough information to say either way

4. Agree except for the last sentence

La literatura
11-21-2012, 01:01 PM
Our govt was voted on when the Constitution was ratified. After that we vote for officials and reps who will uphold that document which protects liberty. The even have to take an oath of office. They can't just do whatever a majority on want in every area.

Democracy does not equal freedom. Marx said "Democracy was the road to socialism.

Okay, but none of this changes the fact that voting is an essential political freedom. Women were denied that essential political freedom in the era that you hold up as being the epitome of political freedom. This situation (your championing of that era and condoning this era) is situational irony because you are saying "That era (when I would have been denied an essential political freedom) is more free than this era (when I can exercise an essential political freedom)."

Are there any freedoms you can't exercise now than you could have then?

cosmo20002
11-21-2012, 01:16 PM
Voting doesn't necessarily equal freedom.That's the democracy of two wolves and a lamb at a dinner. What brings freedom is restraining that same govt, which is what our Constitution was designed to do.

But the ability to vote for who is in that government doesn't matter. Amazing.

cosmo20002
11-21-2012, 01:20 PM
Whatever happened to the idea of freedom of religion? I don't see that anyone needs to prove anything on this.

You don't need to prove anything in order to stay out of jail. But lack of proof doesn't shield you from being called a nut. Really, for someone who talks about it constantly, your understanding of how the Constition works is pretty weak.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 03:43 PM
But the ability to vote for who is in that government doesn't matter. Amazing.

Straw manning again I see.

I didn't say that but by all means Newspeak and Doublthink it Mr. Orwell.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 03:48 PM
You don't need to prove anything in order to stay out of jail.

You may have to prove your innocence in that example.


But lack of proof doesn't shield you from being called a nut.
That's just Soviet Union-speak.

"Here's To The Crazy Ones. The misfits. The rebels. The trouble-makers. The round pegs in the
square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules, and they have
no respect for the status-quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify, or vilify them.
About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the
human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.
Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world - are the ones who DO !"




Really, for someone who talks about it constantly, your understanding of how the Constition works is pretty weak.
Coming from you that's not saying much since your side thinks it was written on rubber.

BigRedChief
11-21-2012, 04:33 PM
I don't really feel like you're making a point there.
Let me make it clearer for ya.

The majority of Iowa Republicans think the earth was formed 6000 years ago.

Science and facts says billions of years ago.

That dinsaurs bones must be a hoax or skewed dating to further a anti-christian theology or whatever persecution complex they have today.

Dave Lane
11-21-2012, 04:43 PM
PLEASE get me an intelligent right-leaning moderate (fiscal conservative, socially liberal) who has at least a BASIC understanding of science. PLEASE. ****ing brutal, there's absolutely no great mystery to any of this shit.

Yes where is the fiscal conservative social liberal party. I'll ditch the Democrats in a heartbeat.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 04:45 PM
Yes where is the fiscal conservative social liberal party. I'll ditch the Democrats in a heartbeat.

That would be many Ron Paul libertarians. I thought they were all nuts to you. You sound confused.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 04:46 PM
Let me make it clearer for ya.

The majority of Iowa Republicans think the earth was formed 6000 years ago.

Science and facts says billions of years ago.

That dinsaurs bones must be a hoax or skewed dating to further a anti-christian theology or whatever persecution complex they have today.

To my knowledge, I've seen some of them claim that carbon dating is not accurate.
Not that I particularly care. It's a non issue at the national level.

Dave Lane
11-21-2012, 04:48 PM
Huh? Certain people on this thread claimed that there is tons of evidence that the Earth wasn't created in seven days. Call me crazy, but the one making the claim should be able to provide some evidence of their claim.

How many gazzilion links would you like for this. There has to be in the millions if not billions of webpages and books that explain the origins of the cosmos. And quite frankly earth doesn't even deserve a footnote.

Dave Lane
11-21-2012, 04:49 PM
That would be many Ron Paul libertarians. I thought they were all nuts to you. You sound confused.

SOCIAL LIBERAL

Versed in science and reality not crazy clown shows.

Donger
11-21-2012, 04:51 PM
How many gazzilion links would you like for this. There has to be in the millions if not billions of webpages and books that explain the origins of the cosmos. And quite frankly earth doesn't even deserve a footnote.

I'd like to see just one that proves that the Earth wasn't formed in seven days, please.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 04:53 PM
SOCIAL LIBERAL

Versed in science and reality not crazy clown shows.

Many of whom are Paul, a man of medical science, supporters.

cosmo20002
11-21-2012, 06:15 PM
Coming from you that's not saying much since your side thinks it was written on rubber.

Apparently you think the 1st Am protects against mockery for believing the Earth is 6000 years old. Do you think Scalia agrees with that interpretation?

cdcox
11-21-2012, 06:31 PM
I'd like to see just one that proves that the Earth wasn't formed in seven days, please.

I'm defining "Earth wasn't formed in seven days" in the same way as do those who argue from a literal biblical perspective, namely that the earth went from formless and empty to an earth that sustains current life as we know it, including humans, in six 24-hour days. Is this what you are asking for?

stevieray
11-21-2012, 06:41 PM
Let me make it clearer for ya.

The majority of Iowa Republicans think the earth was formed 6000 years ago.

Science says billions of years ago.

That dinsaurs bones must be a hoax or skewed dating to further a anti-christian theology or whatever persecution complex they have today.
fyp


ha! the only complex is when someone mentions God.



the biosphere we live in? absolutely six thousand years...

the earth? "the earth was without form and void..and darkness was on the face of the waters"....there is a reason it was without form....something happened...and chances are it prolly wasn't good.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 06:53 PM
Apparently you think the 1st Am protects against mockery for believing the Earth is 6000 years old. Do you think Scalia agrees with that interpretation?

You'll have to ask Scalia.

listopencil
11-21-2012, 07:21 PM
SOCIAL LIBERAL

Versed in science and reality not crazy clown shows.

What is it you mean by socially liberal then?

Ebolapox
11-21-2012, 09:02 PM
Many of whom are Paul, a man of medical science, supporters.

he may be a doctor, but man of science he isn't. he doesn't believe in evolution. at this point, quack doesn't quite cover it--that's asinine coming from one who supposedly has a firm grasp on biology.

Dave Lane
11-21-2012, 09:05 PM
I'd like to see just one that proves that the Earth wasn't formed in seven days, please.

I'd like to find just one that proves I didn't start it.

Dave Lane
11-21-2012, 09:09 PM
What is it you mean by socially liberal then?

Willing to help those that can't help themselves, doesn't want to to make choice against the law or persecute gays. Knows the role of science and promotes it, makes education a priority for all americans.

Those types of things.

Dave Lane
11-21-2012, 09:39 PM
Your sense of property is communistic.

You are a woman and therefore chattel. You are some mans property.

Maybe the good old days did have something going for them

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 09:55 PM
You are a woman and therefore chattel. You are some mans property.

Maybe the good old days did have something going for them

People aren't property.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 09:56 PM
he may be a doctor, but man of science he isn't. he doesn't believe in evolution. at this point, quack doesn't quite cover it--that's asinine coming from one who supposedly has a firm grasp on biology.

Link?

There are Christians who believe evolution...as part of nature's God. But not accepting evolution does not mean a person rejects science wholesale.

Ebolapox
11-21-2012, 10:05 PM
Link?

There are Christians who believe evolution...as part of nature's God. But not accepting evolution does not mean a person rejects science wholesale.

says the woman who has embraced the belief that there are people in remote villages, devoid of modern health care, that are living to ages of 120+.

it's hard to take anything you say seriously.

evolution is the engine by which biology, life itself, is driven. it's as inherent as the sun coming up in the east--it's undeniable, and to deny it is to invite ridicule. it's beyond asinine, honey.

Ebolapox
11-21-2012, 10:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 10:19 PM
evolution is the engine by which biology, life itself, is driven. it's as inherent as the sun coming up in the east--it's undeniable, and to deny it is to invite ridicule. it's beyond asinine, honey.

No, it's a theory. Even Darwin said it had holes.

Ebolapox
11-21-2012, 10:21 PM
No, it's a theory. Even Darwin said it had holes.

:shake:

gravity is a theory as well. would you like to test out the theory by jumping off of a bridge? didn't think so.

the lay public, you obviously being one of them, don't understand the true connotation of the word 'theory.'

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 10:30 PM
:shake:

gravity is a theory as well. would you like to test out the theory by jumping off of a bridge? didn't think so.
That's more easily observed.

the lay public, you obviously being one of them, don't understand the true connotation of the word 'theory.'

I've heard TipTap clarify it many times. Still Darwin's had doubts on his own theory wondering if it was fantasy himself.

cdcox
11-21-2012, 10:38 PM
Still Darwin's had doubts on his own theory wondering if it was fantasy himself.

And its not like we have 130 more years of scientific research since his death that all supports the theory of evolution.

There are no credentialed biologists who seriously question the main tenants of the theory of evolution. If you say you cannot observe it, you are not looking at the fossil record, at the genetic record, at ecological evidence, at the fact that we can see populations evolve in the laboratory and in nature.

Do a few hours of reading and step into the 21st century.

Ebolapox
11-21-2012, 10:39 PM
That's more easily observed.



I've heard TipTap clarify it many times. Still Darwin's had doubts on his own theory wondering if it was fantasy himself.

and einstein had difficulty believing some of the implications of general relativity.

does that mean that the science isn't sound? not in the least. you're grasping at straws here.

Ebolapox
11-21-2012, 10:41 PM
And its not like we have 130 more years of scientific research since his death that all supports the theory of evolution.

There are no credentialed biologists who seriously question the main tenants of the theory of evolution. If you say you cannot observe it, you are not looking at the fossil record, at the genetic record, at ecological evidence, at the fact that we can see populations evolve in the laboratory and in nature.

Do a few hours of reading and step into the 21st century.

one of my favorite experiments ever is Dr. Lenski's work with E. coli-- AMAZING work.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

(some damned impressive publications there, fwiw)

J Diddy
11-21-2012, 10:44 PM
one of my favorite experiments ever is Dr. Lenski's work with E. coli-- AMAZING work.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

(some damned impressive publications there, fwiw)

You're going to have dumb down that biotechnology for us here bro.

Ebolapox
11-21-2012, 10:48 PM
You're going to have dumb down that biotechnology for us here bro.

ROFL

the key idea here is that he used E. coli to show that random mutations (that occur naturally due to errors in DNA transcription) are the driving force behind evolution. I'd go into more depth, but some of it gets a bit convoluted if you don't have a basic understanding of microbiology (it's a bit pathway-heavy, and those can be a bit of a pain)

go bowe
11-21-2012, 10:48 PM
You're going to have dumb down that biotechnology for us here bro.

yes, please do...

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 10:49 PM
And its not like we have 130 more years of scientific research since his death that all supports the theory of evolution.
True.

There are no credentialed biologists who seriously question the main tenants of the theory of evolution. If you say you cannot observe it, you are not looking at the fossil record, at the genetic record, at ecological evidence, at the fact that we can see populations evolve in the laboratory and in nature.

As far as I know, hearing both sides over the years, one side claims there's gaps; there has never been macro but micro. Tests were done with flies as I recall.

Do a few hours of reading and step into the 21st century.

I never said I didn't believe in evolution—if you noticed.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 10:55 PM
and einstein had difficulty believing some of the implications of general relativity.

does that mean that the science isn't sound? not in the least. you're grasping at straws here.

Some scientists claim Einstein theory of relativity is flawed...that it's arbitrary.

What I do know, is today's science can be tommorrow's fiction. I don't have to be a scientist to see that has happened.

cdcox
11-21-2012, 11:06 PM
I never said I didn't believe in evolution—if you noticed.

So you are trolling?

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 11:06 PM
That's okay, everyone makes mistakes but this video is highly edited. Not that it would mean much to you either way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

Now for the unedited video on what Ron Paul actually said in the transcript to it. Deleted words are bracketed:

"'Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it's a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [it probably doesn't bother me. It's not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think] the Creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. [So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our...if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office.']

"As you can see, half of RP's words were censored. His real message was, 'We're fighting for freedom and can't afford to be split over a debate about fossils.'"


Censoring Paul on Evolution (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/18118.html)

cosmo20002
11-21-2012, 11:06 PM
People aren't property.

Some were, to the Founding Fathers, who were infallible.

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 11:07 PM
Some were, to the Founding Fathers, who were infallible.

I never said they were infallible. You use straw man too much.

go bowe
11-21-2012, 11:08 PM
Some were, to the Founding Fathers, who were infallible.

oh don't bother her with those pesky facts...

what's a few slaves in the land of the free?

BucEyedPea
11-21-2012, 11:10 PM
So you are trolling?

I think you need to look up the word. I didn't bring up evolution regarding Paul or any personal attacks. Someone else did that.
I just don't think what a candidate thinks on evolution is appropriate. That is, unless you want to feed from the public trough which scientists also like to do.

cdcox
11-21-2012, 11:43 PM
I think you need to look up the word. I didn't bring up evolution regarding Paul or any personal attacks. Someone else did that.
I just don't think what a candidate thinks on evolution is appropriate. That is, unless you want to feed from the public trough which scientists also like to do.

You definitely cast doubt on the factuality of evolution.

No, it's a theory. Even Darwin said it had holes.

Then you claim this:

I never said I didn't believe in evolution—if you noticed.

You are not carrying out this conversation with integrity. I'm out.

DementedLogic
11-22-2012, 12:04 AM
I didn't read the while thread because it seemed to be a bible thumper vs science argument.

It's hard to call Rubio the savior considering that he's not eligible to run for president.

stevieray
11-22-2012, 12:16 AM
And its not like we have 130 more years of scientific research since his death that all supports the theory of evolution.

There are no credentialed biologists who seriously question the main tenants of the theory of evolution. If you say you cannot observe it, you are not looking at the fossil record, at the genetic record, at ecological evidence, at the fact that we can see populations evolve in the laboratory and in nature.

Do a few hours of reading and step into the 21st century.
....any biologist who dares question evolution is ostracized. Darwin himself said a simple honeycomb created by bees could prove his theory invalid... there are plenty of animals that could not have evolved, and had to be created as they were...giraffe, hippo, hummingbird, dragonfly to name a few.


and you and I aren't evolving, we're devolving...

J Diddy
11-22-2012, 12:45 AM
....any biologist who dares question evolution is ostracized. Darwin himself said a simple honeycomb created by bees could prove his theory invalid... there are plenty of animals that could not have evolved, and had to be created as they were...giraffe, hippo, hummingbird, dragonfly to name a few.


and you and I aren't evolving, we're devolving...
The simple honeycomb, which in the end strengthened his theory.

Donger
11-22-2012, 09:08 AM
I'm defining "Earth wasn't formed in seven days" in the same way as do those who argue from a literal biblical perspective, namely that the earth went from formless and empty to an earth that sustains current life as we know it, including humans, in six 24-hour days. Is this what you are asking for?

No, I'm not talking about critters and plants. Big ball of rock formation.

Donger
11-22-2012, 09:09 AM
I'd like to find just one that proves I didn't start it.

Yahweh?

BucEyedPea
11-22-2012, 09:19 AM
I didn't read the while thread because it seemed to be a bible thumper vs science argument.

It's hard to call Rubio the savior considering that he's not eligible to run for president.

Why is he not eligible?

BucEyedPea
11-22-2012, 09:22 AM
You definitely cast doubt on the factuality of evolution.

It's called being a devil's advocate. Look it up

Then you claim this:

Those are facts. It's a theory and Darwin did have doubts.

You are not carrying out this conversation with integrity. I'm out.

No, you made assumptions. I was defending Paul originally. I can see points on the other side. I think there's merits on both sides.

BucEyedPea
11-22-2012, 09:23 AM
and you and I aren't evolving, we're devolving...

There's merit in that too! :clap:

Dave Lane
11-22-2012, 09:37 AM
oh don't bother her with those pesky facts...

what's a few slaves in the land of the free?

ROFL:clap::D

Dave Lane
11-22-2012, 09:40 AM
I'm not evolving, I'm devolving...

Beautifully written, fantastic work, couldn't agree more!! :thumb:

Dave Lane
11-22-2012, 09:41 AM
Yahweh?

Yes my son.

chiefzilla1501
11-22-2012, 10:01 AM
He will be a great candidate until the dumbass republican party will march him as their version of Hispanic Jesus for four years, and use the argument that they somehow now appeal to Hispanics because they are friends with one guy who is Hispanic. Based on the way I saw some people march up Herman Cain and a few years ago, J.c. Watts, it's inevitable.

I really like the guy. I just hope and wish the dumbasses in the party will let him run on policy, not showcase his race.

BucEyedPea
11-22-2012, 10:02 AM
He will be a great candidate until the dumbass republican party will march him as their version of Hispanic Jesus for four years, and use the argument that they somehow now appeal to Hispanics because they are friends with one guy who is Hispanic. Based on the way I saw some people march up Herman Cain and a few years ago, J.c. Watts, it's inevitable.

I really like the guy. I just hope and wish the dumbasses in the party will let him run on policy, not showcase his race.

He's a BIG govt Republican...and therefore not the solution for America's rapidly growing statism.

Donger
11-22-2012, 10:29 AM
Yes my son.

LMAO

Brainiac
11-22-2012, 10:40 AM
Still Darwin's had doubts on his own theory wondering if it was fantasy himself.
That actually adds credibility to the conclusions he drew after his examination of the evidence. I'd much rather have a scientist say "Well, this appears to be what's happening here" than have an ideologue say "I know this is what happened, because the Bible (or some other authority) said so".

As has also been pointed out, Einstein expressed reservations about General Relativity, and he flat out refused to believe some of the implications of Quantum Theory. He dismissed the indeterminate nature of it with his famous quote "God doesn't play dice with the universe". The less famous but incredibly awesome rebuttal to that was Neils Bohr's "Don't tell God what to do".

Reservations about a theory by the creator of the theory don't render the theory invalid. They just demonstrate the scientific method at work.

chiefzilla1501
11-22-2012, 11:11 AM
He's a BIG govt Republican...and therefore not the solution for America's rapidly growing statism.

Wanting anything above minimalist government does not make you big government.

stevieray
11-22-2012, 11:27 AM
Beautifully written, fantastic work, couldn't agree more!! :thumb:
Still got nothing dave, other than the deacy of your body and your eminent death?

.....shocked.

stevieray
11-22-2012, 11:28 AM
The simple honeycomb, which in the end strengthened his theory.
uh, no.

|Zach|
11-22-2012, 11:29 AM
I admit I have heard a lot about Rubio but don't know much beyond the basics. I like Chris Christie a lot.

go bowe
11-22-2012, 11:32 AM
rubio is a flawed candidate, too young and inexperienced and too loose with the facts...

i'm sure hillary would much rather run against him than christie...

stevieray
11-22-2012, 11:32 AM
oh don't bother her with those pesky facts...

what's a few slaves in the land of the free?
we still have slaves? I thought that was why there was a revolution against the English controlled colonies? That the king didn't decide, rather, that by inalienble rights bestowed by the Creator, that are man were equal?

....had to start somewhere..glad it was us.

go bowe
11-22-2012, 11:41 AM
we still have slaves? I thought that was why there was a revolution against the English controlled colonies? That the king didn't decide, rather, that by inalienble rights bestowed by the Creator, that are man were equal?

....had to start somewhere..glad it was us.

no, i was mocking bep about her fetish with the founding fathers and all things ron paulian/austian economics...

inalienable rights bestowed by the creator/all men are equal is jefferson's language, a slaveholder...

and when he said men, he meant men and not women or blacks...

but some historians believe he actually meant all people which would have been a truly revolutionary idea at the time...

and it is true that we are the world's oldest democracy and still enjoy peaceful transfers of power and the rule of law, which is at once astonishing and reassuring...

yes, i'm glad it was us since this is my home...

and HAPPY THANKSGIVING to you and the family! go eat alot and then have a nap, that's my plan... :D

listopencil
11-22-2012, 12:11 PM
...there are plenty of animals that could not have evolved, and had to be created as they were...giraffe, hippo, hummingbird, dragonfly to name a few.

That's simply not true.

DementedLogic
11-22-2012, 12:13 PM
Why is he not eligible?

He is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen is someone who inherits their citizenship from their parents. Neither of his parents were citizens, so he could not inherit something from them that they did not have. However, he is a naturalized citizen because he was born on American soil.

This is direct quote from SCOTUS Ruling Minor vs Happersett. It has been requoted in other rulings and has never been redefined.

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

It clearly states that the parents must be citizens for the child to be a "Natural-Born Citizen."

Ebolapox
11-22-2012, 12:35 PM
He is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen is someone who inherits their citizenship from their parents. Neither of his parents were citizens, so he could not inherit something from them that they did not have. However, he is a naturalized citizen because he was born on American soil.

This is direct quote from SCOTUS Ruling Minor vs Happersett. It has been requoted in other rulings and has never been redefined.

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

It clearly states that the parents must be citizens for the child to be a "Natural-Born Citizen."

herp derp obama's dad herp derp

does that mean that only one parent must be a citizen?

stevieray
11-22-2012, 12:42 PM
That's simply not true.
yes, it is.

evoilution can't even explain a feather.

DementedLogic
11-22-2012, 12:51 PM
herp derp obama's dad herp derp

does that mean that only one parent must be a citizen?

You could argue symantics for Obama. Neither of Rubio's parents were citizens, so that argument doesn't work.

Sweet Daddy Hate
11-22-2012, 01:02 PM
There is no such thing, and Jesus weeps at you even insinuating such a comparison.

listopencil
11-22-2012, 01:03 PM
yes, it is.


No, it's not. There is really nothing to explain. The possible evolutionary paths of the giraffe are intriguing and there are a couple of obvious hypotheses. They are based on easily observable behavior. "God did it" is an easy answer, it's also a cop out. In my experience that's an answer born from dishonesty or laziness.