GQ to Marco Rubio: How old is Earth?

posted at 5:22 pm on November 19, 2012 by Allahpundit

You need to read the full interview to appreciate how much of a non sequitur this question was. He’s going back and forth with the author, Michael Hainey, about the standard post-election fare — Obama, 2016, his biography — and then, out of nowhere, “How old do you think the Earth is?” It’s not organically part of the conversation but suddenly there it is, and Hainey doesn’t follow up on it. It has a distinct check-the-box feel to it, as if either he himself or his editors wanted to make sure that the question was asked but weren’t particularly interested in the answer. Which, actually, is exactly the point of a question like this. They want to put Rubio on the spot by seeing if he’ll risk alienating religious conservatives before the 2016 primaries by rejecting Young Earth creationism. If he does, then he may have a problem in famously evangelical Iowa. If he doesn’t, then the media can start hand-wringing over the next big Republican star supposedly pandering to creationists. The point is to discomfort him politically, not to explore the subject. As Bryan Preston says, it’s a small early effort in the project to destroy Rubio before 2016.

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.

Someone on Twitter today pointed back to this poll from over the summer, which suggests that the partisan split on this subject might not be as partisan as the media thinks:

That’s a different question than Rubio was asked but the politics are the same, to gauge which side rejects scientific consensus on religious grounds. Fun fact: Even among Democrats, you’ve got a plurality who reject evolution and nearly three-fourths who see some sort of divine guiding hand in the rise of man. This is why, when you hear conservatives grumble that Obama rarely gets questions like Rubio got, it’s no idle complaint. Coming out strong for Darwin is potentially perilous politically for him too.

Then again, is it? How many Christian Democrats are switching their vote if they find out that The One believes in evolution? How many Iowa Republicans, however religious, would vote against a candidate as strong as Rubio in 2016 simply because he thought that the Earth is five billion years old? I read endless stories online last year about how Romney’s faith would cost him dearly on election day when a critical mass of evangelicals inevitably stayed home in protest of a Mormon candidate. In fact, Romney received as much evangelical support as Bush did in 2004 as a share of the electorate against Obama. Arguably the primaries are different, with Rubio having to worry about Huckabee and/or Santorum potentially outflanking him with evangelicals in a dispute over an issue as tangential as the true age of the Earth. But (a) Huck and Santorum will have to worry about non-religious voters too and frame their answers accordingly and (b) it’s hard for me to believe after the bitterness of this year’s loss that Republican primary voters would let their ballot turn on an issue that has virtually no policy implications and which might lead to a candidate they otherwise prefer losing a key primary state. If you’re a religious conservative who thinks Rubio’s not only the best man for the job but also the GOP’s best bet to win the general, are you really voting for Huckabee or Santorum to make a statement over how old the Earth is? After eight years of Democrats owning the White House and with Hillary potentially waiting in the wings?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Well don’t fret, the public school curriculum is dominated with evolution teaching so no worries about where your homage is directed to.

Just google Darwin’s belief about blacks…alot of white washing but he viewed them as sub human. Darwin is not the noble scientific purist everyone makes him out to be. People suffered from his theories.

Google is not a viable scientific resource. That is the first problem. Darwin’s personal opinions, no matter what (it happened that Darwin was a deeply christian man) have nothing to do with his works on evolution of species.

clemycali on November 20, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Rubio – big on Shamnesty and big on the “Arab Spring” – a regular McCain mini-me.

VorDaj on November 20, 2012 at 12:50 AM

alchemist19 on November 20, 2012 at 12:44 AM

Your ‘noteworthy journal’ is a partisan rag that pushes Obama as the scientific choice and buys into the Global Warming scam.

Your ‘science’ sounds more like Lysenkoism to me.

sharrukin on November 20, 2012 at 12:50 AM

Your ‘noteworthy journal’ is a partisan rag that pushes Obama as the scientific choice and buys into the Global Warming scam.

sharrukin on November 20, 2012 at 12:50 AM

Um. Not to be impertinent or anything, but weren’t you the first one to use Nature as a cite for your argument? By referring to your source as a ‘noteworthy journal’ he was being polite.

HTL on November 20, 2012 at 1:03 AM

Big Frauds (in no particular order):

1) 6,000 year old earth.
2) Apocalyptic Global Warming.
3) Coin applied to Muslims (Lietraues), especially when applied to Afghans.
4) Obama and Holder knew nothing about Fast-and-Furious until they heard about it on TV.
5) Obama knew nothing about what was going on in the first 6 hours at Benghazi, but nonetheless ordered that the thirty some Americans be saved.

VorDaj on November 20, 2012 at 1:03 AM

Um. Not to be impertinent or anything, but weren’t you the first one to use Nature as a cite for your argument? By referring to your source as a ‘noteworthy journal’ he was being polite.

HTL on November 20, 2012 at 1:03 AM

He actually thinks it is ‘noteworthy’, and I know his style. If anyone questions a scientist, it must of course be an anointed scientist who does so.

sharrukin on November 20, 2012 at 1:07 AM

Um. Not to be impertinent or anything, but weren’t you the first one to use Nature as a cite for your argument? By referring to your source as a ‘noteworthy journal’ he was being polite.

HTL on November 20, 2012 at 1:03 AM

I catch that, have to step away for a few minutes before I can respond, I come back and you beat me to pointing out that I’ve got him so tied in knots that he’s attacking his own sources! It’s okay, there’s enough win packed into that one for the both of us. :)

sharrukin on November 20, 2012 at 12:50 AM

Since the approach I’ve been using has made you look so plainly foolish that anyone still reading this can see it I’m going to take a different approach with you; I’m going to go for something a little more homespun, something my grandmother told me back when I was a child. When you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging. You stepped into something you weren’t prepared for, you were measured and found lacking. Time to quit because it’s not going to get any better.

alchemist19 on November 20, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Since the approach I’ve been using has made you look so plainly foolish…

alchemist19 on November 20, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Talk, talk, talk, and yet you haven’t posted a damn thing proving what you claim to be able to prove. There is no way to determine the exact age of the earth, and the various radiometric dating have time and time again been shown not to be as accurate as previously claimed.

sharrukin on November 20, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Talk, talk, talk, and yet you haven’t posted a damn thing proving what you claim to be able to prove. There is no way to determine the exact age of the earth, and the various radiometric dating have time and time again been shown not to be as accurate as previously claimed.

sharrukin on November 20, 2012 at 1:19 AM

First you bring me a Nature article from 1986 and use it as a reference to back up something you were claiming, and then when I mention the journal you attack it as being a partisan rag that pushes Obama. So you were for the journal before you were against it, Senator Kerry? Is it a credible source when you want to talk about an article that was in it in 1986 but will it be a piece of liberal propaganda if I cite a 1988 article by the same research group as the one you cited before?

If I didn’t know better I would think you copied and pasted a reference you didn’t even bother to click (or read) and so you thought it was me who brought up Nature when I first mentioned the source of your article by name and you immediately set about trying to discredit me before it was pointed out you were really attacking yourself and you don’t really understand any of this for yourself. If I didn’t know better……

alchemist19 on November 20, 2012 at 1:29 AM

alchemist19 on November 20, 2012 at 1:29 AM

Do you think Nature is a ‘noteworthy journal’?

sharrukin on November 20, 2012 at 1:33 AM

There is no way to determine the exact age of the earth, and the various radiometric dating have time and time again been shown not to be as accurate as previously claimed.

sharrukin on November 20, 2012 at 1:19 AM

Technically you are correct, because the only way to determine the correct age of the earth would be to find the oldest rock on earth. That doesn’t mean radiometric dating is inaccurate.

HarryBackside on November 20, 2012 at 1:44 AM

Do you think Nature is a ‘noteworthy journal’?

sharrukin on November 20, 2012 at 1:33 AM

Does it really matter what I think at this point, Senator Kerry? You need to argue with yourself and straighten out what you think before you start trying to engage others.

I’m pretty much ready for this to be done because we’re supposed to be on the same side, you’ve made an abject buffoon of yourself and there’s no reason for me to keep twisting the knife.

alchemist19 on November 20, 2012 at 2:05 AM

That doesn’t mean radiometric dating is inaccurate.

HarryBackside on November 20, 2012 at 1:44 AM

As long as the initial conditions are understood and subsequent events can also be accounted for. Frequently this isn’t possible. The problem in fact, isn’t the dating method but often the wild assumptions made about what it means.

As you indicate the oldest known rock does not mean that is in fact the age of the earth, just what we have found. The earth could be far older than imagined. Far too often ‘anomalous’, ‘outliers’ and ‘highly discordant’, ‘impurities’, or ‘contaminations’, ‘excess argon’, are used to discount what they don’t wish to deal with.

The earth is obviously ancient, but we have too often assumed that the dating methodology is far more accurate than it is, or that the adjustments made are scientifically legitimate.

sharrukin on November 20, 2012 at 2:30 AM

Older than a thought and younger than an inspiration.

profitsbeard on November 20, 2012 at 3:01 AM

and rogerb is a flat earther too. Shocka!
 
lester on November 19, 2012 at 10:28 PM
_
 
as a young earth creationist I don’t expect you or him to know better.
 
lester on November 19, 2012 at 10:50 PM

 

I love it when people here start insulting. It’s obvious they’ve lost the argument.
 
lester on May 6, 2012 at 10:47 AM

rogerb on November 20, 2012 at 3:55 AM

Well don’t fret, the public school curriculum is dominated with evolution teaching so no worries about where your homage is directed to.

Republicans need to pay attention here.
I remember all the news shows when the wall came down. Before, during and after. I forget the which nation this was, I remember all the details except the name. Georgia perhaps.

I sat in the living room switching channels as protests were going on in several of these Soviet controlled nations. In this one particular city.. all the major networks showed masses of people standing in the streets against communism. Hundreds of thousands. It was massive. Their leader had fled.

Later that same night I watched the 700 club. They showed the same exact footage of the same exact protest but included footage our media edited out. That entire mass of people got down as one on their knees and began praying giving thanks to God.

You will never remove God from the earth! The Soviet Union and all of it’s satellite nations pushed atheism on it’s people. But it was God and a Christian people who broke free!

Our nation has killed how many innocent babies since abortion was legal? 50,000,000? More? We have taken God out of our schools! Out of our colleges. Out of our Government. Out of our lives. We mock virtue. We mock virginity. But God is not going to be mocked and a man, as a nation, will reap what it sows.

Many of the Jews at the time of Jesus wanted their Messiah to only deliver them from the bondage of Rome. Too many Christians only want God to deliver them from the bondage of big government. We don’t really want Jesus for much else than that.

JellyToast on November 20, 2012 at 6:48 AM

playing gotcha and this election just ended…

cripe…

thank you gop who sat on the couch with cousin pookie a couple of weeks ago….

you own this administration just as much as the dems….

cmsinaz on November 20, 2012 at 6:53 AM

This is a serious problem for the GOP. They are without a doubt tainted as the anti-science party because of things like this. Sorry, but the earth is 4 or 5 billion years old. People evolved from primates. These are scientific conclusions that have been beyond dispute for over a century. Politicians who cannot bring themselves to say as much are laughing stocks in this nation. What’s more, they lose any standing they may have had to dispute science fiction such as global warming which masquerade as science.

These are just the facts. To dispute them is to self-classify one as undeserving of rational discourse.

MJBrutus on November 20, 2012 at 6:56 AM

Rubio was stupid to answer. No chance in 2016.

crash72 on November 20, 2012 at 7:00 AM

Marco Rubio lost a chanse to show himself as a modern mind, opened to science. I was expecting more from him.

clemycali on November 20, 2012 at 12:23 AM

So he showed himself not open by not being closed around your preferred epistemology.

Funny how concepts work.

Axeman on November 20, 2012 at 7:18 AM

your preferred epistemology.

Axeman on November 20, 2012 at 7:18 AM

No, he refused to call a fact a fact. This is not a matter of religion or philosophy. This is a simple question of scientific literacy and he demurred to distance himself from religious fanaticism. He passed up an opportunity to tell America that he is not a lunatic and that he does not stand with lunatics. He passed up an opportunity to establish a measure of credibility as a national leader.

MJBrutus on November 20, 2012 at 7:24 AM

Yawn and walk away.

kregg on November 20, 2012 at 7:28 AM

If you’re a religious conservative who thinks Rubio’s not only the best man for the job but also the GOP’s best bet to win the general, are you really voting for Huckabee or Santorum to make a statement over how old the Earth is?

Santorum and Rubio are both Catholics. What am I missing here?

Buy Danish on November 20, 2012 at 7:30 AM

It was politician-y of Rubio and sort of cynical. Because some Duggar types in Iowa might not vote for him in the primaries over this answer (and they wouldn’t have anyway), he decided not to express an opinion on something that could have been brushed aside in one word.

Illinidiva on November 20, 2012 at 7:30 AM

Do you think Nature is a ‘noteworthy journal’?

sharrukin on November 20, 2012 at 1:33 AM

No, THIS is a noteworthy journal:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj

LOL

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 7:33 AM

Santorum and Rubio are both Catholics. What am I missing here?

Buy Danish on November 20, 2012 at 7:30 AM

Santorum would totes pander on this if it would win him votes. He is delusional enough to believe that he has a chance to be the nominee in 2016.

Illinidiva on November 20, 2012 at 7:42 AM

No, he refused to call a fact a fact. This is not a matter of religion or philosophy. This is a simple question of scientific literacy and he demurred to distance himself from religious fanaticism. He passed up an opportunity to tell America that he is not a lunatic and that he does not stand with lunatics. He passed up an opportunity to establish a measure of credibility as a national leader.

MJBrutus on November 20, 2012 at 7:24 AM

You still confused open and closed, though. When you said that you wanted his mind “opened to science”, his answer does not betray that it is not open to science, just not closed around the regurgitation of text book facts.

How often would he deal with the age of the Earth? Seems like one of us knows less about the office that he would run for. You just want him to say a shibboleth that means less to the right than to the left.

Axeman on November 20, 2012 at 7:53 AM

He should have said “millions of years old” because the whole “Earth is 6,000 years old” nonsense got old a while ago, and those views kill the Republican party. The more they keep running with this, the more elections in store to be lost (due to this and awful rape comments). Religion needs less emphasis in the Republican party – it will tank the party and leave the suck Democrats winning elections.

Freeloader on November 20, 2012 at 7:55 AM

BTW:
 

and rogerb is a flat earther too. Shocka!
 
lester on November 19, 2012 at 10:28 PM

 
I guess you eventually get used to it, but it must be weird, initially at least, to be so wrong about so many things so often:
 

NPR: Did climate change drive human evolution?

 
Yes. In High Science researchers know that each technological surge was tied to a historical warming period. We could potentially end and/or significantly stunt the growth of our species if we (giggle) find a “solution” to them.
 
rogerb on March 22, 2010 at 5:48 PM

 

rogerb on November 20, 2012 at 7:57 AM

You still confused open and closed, though. When you said that you wanted his mind “opened to science”, his answer does not betray that it is not open to science, just not closed around the regurgitation of text book facts.

Again, it’s not about having an “open mind” any more than you have an open mind by considering alchemy an ‘alternative theory’ to chemistry, or ‘demon possession’ an alternative theory to the germ theory of disease.

There is no “alternative” here. There is a correct answer supported by mountains of cross-corroborating evidence.

Being so ‘open-minded’ to nonsense that your brain falls out is no way to go through life.

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 8:07 AM

Rubio’s cowardly pandering to the scientifically illiterate should work in this dumbed down society but alas most of the stupid always vote Democrat as programmed. The willfully ignorant religious fanatics cling to the Republican party yet millions of them stayed home this November because the candidate wasn’t Christian. Stop pandering to the wack jobs.

philw1776 on November 20, 2012 at 8:11 AM

It’s spelled U-r-t-h … Urth. Next question.

kregg on November 20, 2012 at 8:11 AM

Good to see there are so many super-de-duper-intelligent people here who were around when the earth was created.

One could argue for the existence of God simply on the tremendous amount of hatred and vitriol that mention of His name or concepts causes in the minds of the unwashed masses.

Sterling Holobyte on November 20, 2012 at 8:25 AM

I don’t know seems a pretty good answer to such a weighty question. Now that we know anybody but the other guy doesn’t work so well in winning elections, let’s hope that the Rs come up with a better plan in ’16 or we could be saying Prezzy Biden. Think I’m kiddin’?

Kissmygrits on November 20, 2012 at 8:33 AM

I’m an Atheist. I have zero problem with your belief in a higher power. That is all.

DeathtotheSwiss on November 20, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Good to see there are so many super-de-duper-intelligent people here who were around when the earth was created.

Sterling Holobyte on November 20, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Good to see evidence it was “created” by an invisible sky being out of nothing by magic.

One could argue for the nonexistence of God simply on the tremendous amount of hatred and vitriol that mention of His name or concepts causes in the minds of the unwashed masses.

Sterling Holobyte on November 20, 2012 at 8:25 AM

In what world would that pass for ‘evidence?’

We could argue for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster simply by observing the incredulous reaction from believers at the suggestion that one might exist. Heck, there’s an equal amount of ‘evidence’ for both. That is, none.

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 8:50 AM

is rubio THAT stupido? and is THIS who the gop wants as their standard-bearer? from mittens milquetoast to marco ‘flat earth’ rubio….dumb and dumber!

Pragmatic on November 20, 2012 at 8:57 AM

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

So?
I’m not a historian, but I know who won the Battle of Hastings.

This is obviously a killer question to pose to Republican politicians. I hope he is asked what shape he thinks the Earth (ok, Urth) is and whether illness is caused by evil spirits.

It is so easy to confound fundamentalist politicians!

chumpThreads on November 20, 2012 at 9:02 AM

I’m sorry, but this is why “we” are losing. You’re no better than some some hipster claiming organic food is the answer to everything.

UrbanCoyote on November 19, 2012 at 11:27 PM

No we are losing because people like you and Democrats think they are superior to people of faith. That somehow “the age of the earth matters” but basic economics do not. And we are losing because YOU prescribe to the meme that YOUR allies are stupid because they don’t bow on the alter of fallible science.

melle1228 on November 20, 2012 at 9:06 AM

I’m an Atheist. I have zero problem with your belief in a higher power. That is all.

DeathtotheSwiss on November 20, 2012 at 8:37 AM

That is the way it should be. THe same people who spout off that religion has no place in the public square and in policy are on these boards now saying that someone’s personal belief of something inconsequential as the age of the earth should be the be all end all to a political career.

Make up your mind. Should religion be in public policy or shouldn’t it? And if it shouldn’t when you find it convenient, then stop using it as a way to disqualify candidates as well. This won’t happen because those self-same people who belief that people shouldn’t push religion on people have no problem pushing their beliefs on to the religions.

melle1228 on November 20, 2012 at 9:11 AM

The more they keep running with this, the more elections in store to be lost (due to this and awful rape comments). Religion needs less emphasis in the Republican party – it will tank the party and leave the suck Democrats winning elections.

Freeloader on November 20, 2012 at 7:55 AM

You are probably right with the analogy. The left won a lot of votes by pushing GOP candidates into damaging rape comments. Having a candidate, like Rubio, who brushes off the entire science of geology by equating its findings with scripture will continue to hurt the GOP in 2016 with voters who question their ability to discern the difference between religious belief and public service.

dedalus on November 20, 2012 at 9:13 AM

The left won a lot of votes by pushing GOP candidates into damaging rape comments.

dedalus on November 20, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Pushing?
Who pushed Akin to say what he did?
Mourdock was asked a question. How was he pushed?

Both men made “damaging rape comments” entirely of their own volition. To say they were pushed is silly.

chumpThreads on November 20, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Religion needs less emphasis in the Republican party – it will tank the party and leave the suck Democrats winning elections.

Freeloader on November 20, 2012 at 7:55 AM

And yet it is people like YOU who keep bringing up the issue! Rubio didn’t bring up religion- the media did. So what you are saying if the Repubs need a bunch of atheists running the party and we should throw out all of the religious, because ya know as long as there is religious people are gonna be asked these questions. So let’s ban all religious people from office.

like Rubio, who brushes off the entire science of geology by equating its findings with scripture will continue to hurt the

No he said it was a mystery and he didn’t know. OMG someone is uncertain about something that has NO policy effect on our lives. He also said that there is differing opinions on the matter be they theology or science. Some of us want to shut down those different opinions; some of us think debate is good for society.

melle1228 on November 20, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Pushing?
Who pushed Akin to say what he did?
Mourdock was asked a question. How was he pushed?

Both men made “damaging rape comments” entirely of their own volition. To say they were pushed is silly.

chumpThreads on November 20, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Exactly.

It’s not the question that’s the problem. It’s the answers to these questions that are the problem. The answers are moronic.

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 9:23 AM

So, we should assume that you and chumpThreads will attack liberal politicians for their moronic, anti-science statements, too. Right?

blink on November 20, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Of course not, Democrats only attack Repubs and Repubs only attack Repubs.

melle1228 on November 20, 2012 at 9:28 AM

chumpThreads, are you willing to defend the incredibly anti-scientific beliefs harbored by many liberals?

You can start with CAGW and the belief that fracking contaminates ground water.

blink on November 20, 2012 at 9:26 AM

It’s not a matter of liberal/conservative. It’s a matter of what the evidence supports.

Sometimes the evidence is conclusive. The earth is about 4.3 billion years old. Rubio had no reason to dither.

Where the evidence is inconclusive, it’s best to let scientific research continue until the answers become clear.

chumpThreads on November 20, 2012 at 9:38 AM

BTW II, lester:

I understand that your ad hominem was an attempt to distract from your contradiction, but, debate-wise, you do understand that getting tiny things constantly wrong (rogerb’s a young earther! lack of insurance is the number one cause of bankruptcy! etc.) strains your credibility regarding larger, more complex discussions, right?

I know it doesn’t really matter much on HA since you’ll just abandon threads when you can’t touch bottom, but consider it regardless. It might help not only here, but in your life in general.

rogerb on November 20, 2012 at 9:38 AM

The media is suddenly obsessed with when the earth began. If only they had that curiosity about life.

The Zoo Keeper on November 20, 2012 at 9:39 AM

You folks that keep saying, “science says…”, you do realize that these “concrete” numbers keep changing by billions of years, right?

The Zoo Keeper on November 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM

I contently read the evolutionists on this thread are constantly calling believers “stupid, Lunitics, ect”

Sorry boys, if we don’t agree with your “Goo to You by way of the Zoo” thinking, don’t stoop down to the level of slime with name calling.

I can say for believers, they are the ones doing charity out of their pockets. Even going over sees and help starting schools and hospitals WITHOUT any money from government.

Don’t see atheists doing such charitable deeds through organizing.

Keep the circular firing squad tight.

b1jetmech on November 20, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Google is not a viable scientific resource. That is the first problem. Darwin’s personal opinions, no matter what (it happened that Darwin was a deeply christian man) have nothing to do with his works on evolution of species.

clemycali on November 20, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Then be stuck in your little box.

You pass off Darwins beliefs as some personal matter. Good thing you weren’t one of those aborigines tribes men that were taken to England to be studied, put on display like some freak show. Their graves were exhumed and studied like lab specimens.

Darwin’s followers took his beliefs seriously as you see.

Now run along and get viable scientific sources.

b1jetmech on November 20, 2012 at 10:02 AM

When was the last time a reporter threw a curve ball to our truly ignorant and stupid president?

arand on November 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM

melle1228 on November 20, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Pretty much agree with this.

I am dismayed that some people are insisting we shun young earthers. Why? Did you not see the poll that it’s 58% of republicans and about 40% of independents and democrats believe this? I guarantee you that by mocking young earthers you will loose a lot more votes from the base than you will from moderates by simply saying “You know, I don’t agree, but it really doesn’t matter and I respect your views.”

This topic is completely irrelevant to any public policy. Let it go, we can’t afford to alienate any voters by insisting this be some sort of litmus test for candidates one way or another. Unless you don’t want any Christians in the republican party, and good luck with that, I don’t understand the argument of tying to tell someone who believes in a virgin birth and resurrection of a all-powerful God that there is no way He couldn’t have made the earth in 7 days several thousand years ago. It just doesn’t jibe. Again, not all Christians even must believe in the young earth theory, there are many who will have a wide range of beliefs about how the world began and got into it’s current state, it just doesn’t make sense to alienate some of those religious views unless you want to push for a party of pure atheists.

It in no way makes republicans look bad to respectfully accept someone who doesn’t blindly accept everything current day scientists tell them. If the republican party shuns anyone, I hope it’s those who can’t accept people of differing views on this issue in the party.

rose-of-sharon on November 20, 2012 at 10:50 AM

I am dismayed that some people are insisting we shun young earthers. Why?

Because they have no apparent grasp of the physical reality that we live in, let alone basic elementary school-level science.

That this isn’t a problem to you is telling.

I guarantee you that by mocking young earthers you will loose a lot more votes from the base than you will from moderates by simply saying “You know, I don’t agree, but it really doesn’t matter and I respect your views.”

Disagree with what? There is no evidence the Earth is “young.” All of the evidence suggests old. This isn’t open to debate. This is just a fact.

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 10:56 AM

It in no way makes republicans look bad to respectfully accept someone who doesn’t blindly accept everything current day scientists tell them.

Do you blindly accept medicine your doctor prescribes, or do you challenge him on what he recommends?

Do you blindly fly on planes without challenging what engineers and scientists have done to enable that plan to fly you safely around, or do you proclaim they’re all politically motivated in a unified conspiracy against your personal beliefs?

There are a great many things you accept as fact that science has provided to you, but when it comes to geology and biology, for some reason, you seem to think there is some huge problem and that nobody can be trusted, that everyone is politically motivated, and that data and evidence is rendered meaningless in the face of ‘your personal beliefs.’

There isn’t any problem in geology or biology. The only problem is that it conflicts with religious dogma.

That’s not the sciences’ problem. That’s your problem.

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 11:04 AM

You are welcome to your beliefs, you are wrong and what you say is fact isn’t, but I have no desire to change your mind or make anyone think you are stupid for them. I am confident in my beliefs and could care less what someone on the Internet thinks if them. My point was more to how the republican party will handle the issue successfully. That it’s more important to you to to be “right” on how old the earth is and mock others who don’t agree with you rather than respectfully accept there are going to be differing views so we can attack the ficscal issues that matter, tells a lot more about you.

Playing right into the lefts plans of turning the republicans against each other.

rose-of-sharon on November 20, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Iowahawk hit the nail on the head:

I’m less worried about people who believe in the Biblical creation story than people who believe in the Keynesian creation story.

Unfortuantely, RINOs who eagerly attack Rubio for his answer are much less likely to critisize “socially moderate” GOP politicians like Romney for his Keynesianism.

Norwegian on November 20, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Good Lt, still waiting for an answer.

blink on November 20, 2012 at 11:10 AM

You assume correctly.

Doesn’t mean the candidates in the GOP get a pass on not understanding or grasping very basic, elementary school science.

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 11:32 AM

How about this response:

What you are really asking me is whether I seek to invalidate science with some irrational religious idea, to which I will respond:

In fact, I value science very much. Science is powerful and provides us with useful data about many things when used in the proper context – however fundamentally science is based on philosophy (an unscientific field), notably the philosophical epistemology of empiricism (which is predicated on the entirely unscientific self-defeating proposition: “All knowledge is gained through sense experience.”), and is based on many irrational or unjustified presuppositions (such as the assumption that the laws of physics will not, or cannot ever change or be altered), and relies upon induction (reasoning from the specific, to the general, which by definition cannot provide necessary truths about anything).

So as you can see, while Science clearly has many very practical uses, there are also things in which Science cannot even begin to speak, including the necessary logical justification upon which its own foundations depend.

This is where philosophy plays a major role for me, and religion is nothing more than a branch of philosophy. By in large, my philosophy (and religion) give me some very good justification and reasons to trust in the foundations of science. However, this doesn’t always mean that the things that are considered scientific “fact” at this present time, are or will continue to be true. Especially since the history of science is largely the DISPROVING of things which were previously considered accepted scientific fact.

So when you ask me a simplistic surface question about whether or not I agree with some specific point of science, I will answer when you can demonstrate scientifically whether or not my answer will matter – since you first have to scientifically give me a reason that I and every single other thing you perceive are not simply constructs of your own mind.

B**ch.

whatthecrap on November 20, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Re: Marco Rubio’s ‘flat earth’ answer….the soon-to-be-extinct GOP strikes again!

Pragmatic on November 20, 2012 at 11:34 AM

And just for fun, here is an example from Louisiana of the stupidity creationists and scientific illiterates shoe-horn into public school science class under the guise of ‘teaching all sides:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/here-is-what-louisiana-schoolchildren-learn-about

Isn’t that great? Nobody understands anything about the physical world! And invisible skybeings – never mind what evidence there is for those – are in fact REAL! Science says so, even though it doesn’t!

This is why these questions posed to GOP candidates are relevant. Democrats don’t have this problem for two reasons: A) the media is on their side anyway, and B) because they don’t challenge basic science like geology and biology as if they’re conspiracies.

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 11:41 AM

How about this response:

What you are really asking me is whether I seek to invalidate science with some irrational religious idea, to which I will respond:

In fact, I value science very much. Science is powerful and provides us with useful data about many things when used in the proper context – however fundamentally science is based on philosophy (an unscientific field), notably the philosophical epistemology of empiricism (which is predicated on the entirely unscientific self-defeating proposition: “All knowledge is gained through sense experience.”), and is based on many irrational or unjustified presuppositions (such as the assumption that the laws of physics will not, or cannot ever change or be altered), and relies upon induction (reasoning from the specific, to the general, which by definition cannot provide necessary truths about anything).

So as you can see, while Science clearly has many very practical uses, there are also things in which Science cannot even begin to speak, including the necessary logical justification upon which its own foundations depend.

This is where philosophy plays a major role for me, and religion is nothing more than a branch of philosophy. By in large, my philosophy (and religion) give me some very good justification and reasons to trust in the foundations of science. However, this doesn’t always mean that the things that are considered scientific “fact” at this present time, are or will continue to be true. Especially since the history of science is largely the DISPROVING of things which were previously considered accepted scientific fact.

So when you ask me a simplistic surface question about whether or not I agree with some specific point of science, I will answer when you can demonstrate scientifically whether or not my answer will matter – since you first have to scientifically give me a reason that I and every single other thing you perceive are not simply constructs of your own mind.

B**ch.

That’s a lot of words for just saying “I believe Genesis is an eyewitness account and is an accurate description of how the Earth came into being.”

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Pragmatic.. Since you totally hate the R party and think it’s going extinct, why don’t you just join your friend Mike Bloomberg over at No Labels. Then you can yell at fat people with him and restrict what everyone is allowed to eat.

Illinidiva on November 20, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Just keep stabbing people in the back and we wonder why the Republican party is so fractured.

Keep the circular fire squad tight!

b1jetmech on November 20, 2012 at 11:56 AM

lester on November 20, 2012 at 11:27 AM

 
On another thread and 1/2 hour has passed with no follow up here. This one has been officially abandoned.
 

I know it doesn’t really matter much on HA since you’ll just abandon threads when you can’t touch bottom, but consider it regardless. It might help not only here, but in your life in general.
 
rogerb on November 20, 2012 at 9:38 AM

 
Way to go, lester. Shame it’s so predictable.

rogerb on November 20, 2012 at 12:00 PM

And just for fun, here is an example from Louisiana of the stupidity creationists and scientific illiterates shoe-horn into public school science class under the guise of ‘teaching all sides:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/here-is-what-louisiana-schoolchildren-learn-about

Isn’t that great? Nobody understands anything about the physical world! And invisible skybeings – never mind what evidence there is for those – are in fact REAL! Science says so, even though it doesn’t!
This is why these questions posed to GOP candidates are relevant. Democrats don’t have this problem for two reasons: A) the media is on their side anyway, and B) because they don’t challenge basic science like geology and biology as if they’re conspiracies.
Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 11:41 AM

That is not material from public school, it’s from a religius private schools who parents choose completely voluntarily instead of public school in the LA voucher system. Creationism is not presented this way in LA public schools to all kids unfortunately.

And it’s pretty much what I believe. Mock away, have fun because obviously it’s very important to you and you derive great pleasure from it. I just want you to be happy.

Oh, and I have a graduate engineering degree from Stanford, have read a great deal on the topic, and am teaching my 3 kids the science behind the young earth theory, and if a republican alienates my views, I will not vote for them. Kills ya, doesn’t it?

rose-of-sharon on November 20, 2012 at 12:00 PM

I don’t remember ever seeing you do this before.

That means it never happened, of course. I’ll make sure to run it by you from now on.

Maybe you don’t know anything about the anti-science stuff that liberals love to cling to. That wouldn’t surprise me.

blink on November 20, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Questionable climate science (some, not all)? New age medicine? Homeopathy? Astrology? There aren’t really ‘liberal’ things, but I’d guess that on balance, more liberals engage in that nonsense than conservatives.

Yeah, they’re as baseless and stupid as creationism is.

The difference is that Democrats, as stupid as they are on matters of economics and governance, aren’t trying to make them part of the public school science curriculum. Can you recall any lawsuits alleging that astrology is being forced into science textbooks as an alternative scientific field to astronomy, for example?

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 12:08 PM

You’re obviously ignorant about many of the points he made in that comment.

Would you like to have an in-depth conversation about the concept as time? You think time is comprised of any artificial components at all? Or is your concept of time sophomorically limited to the seconds that pass on your watch?

blink on November 20, 2012 at 12:00 PM

How old is the Earth?

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 12:08 PM

teaching my 3 kids the science behind the young earth theory,

You’re stunting their brains, then.

Are you teaching them the Hovind theory of a flying canopy of ice?

LOL

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 12:10 PM

And just for fun, here is an example from Louisiana of the stupidity creationists and scientific illiterates shoe-horn into public school science class under the guise of ‘teaching all sides

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 11:41 AM

That is not material from public school

rose-of-sharon on November 20, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Oh the irony. “Good Lt” is making up stuff in his effort to claim believers of a religious doctrine are not truthful.

Norwegian on November 20, 2012 at 12:13 PM

You’re stunting their brains, then.

Are you teaching them the Hovind theory of a flying canopy of ice?

LOL

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 12:10 PM

No, they will grow up to be good adults instead of atheistic children bringing guns to shoot up a school.

b1jetmech on November 20, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Provide me with an accurate and thorough definition of time, and I will happily answer your question.

blink on November 20, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Let’s use the standard metric that science is using for this questions -

365 days = 1 year.

Please provide a number of years or an estimate of years to within ~100 million years based on current evidence.

Thanks.

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 12:19 PM

The fact that you claim that liberals haven’t ALREADY made CAGW a part of public school science curriculum is simply astonishing and completely proves my point.

blink on November 20, 2012 at 12:16 PM

You don’t have a point.

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 12:23 PM

The difference is that Democrats, as stupid as they are on matters of economics and governance, aren’t trying to make them part of the public school science curriculum. Can you recall any lawsuits alleging that astrology is being forced into science textbooks as an alternative scientific field to astronomy, for example?
Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Um, yes they are, it’s called global warming.

tteaching my 3 kids the science behind the young earth theory,
You’re stunting their brains, then.
Are you teaching them the Hovind theory of a flying canopy of ice?
LOL
Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Actually, no, I’m teaching them to critically evaluate both sides, and why I personally believe the science of the young earth is stronger, but of course in the process they are learning both theories and the arguments behind them. Of course they can come to their own conclusions and won’t be derided or mocked in this house. And they are learning to question what they are taught, do their own research, and use their own powers of analysis to come to their own understanding. Unlike your ideal vision of the republican party where it’s “accept my conclusions or beliefs or you’re a knuckle dragging moron.” Again, I hope you enjoy the feeling of mocking those you feel are itellectually inferior to you and as a result seriously damaging the republican party over a topic that has no relevance to federal public policy whatsoever.

rose-of-sharon on November 20, 2012 at 12:24 PM

No, they will grow up to be good adults instead of atheistic children bringing guns to shoot up a school.

b1jetmech on November 20, 2012 at 12:14 PM

LOL

Are most of the violent criminals in America atheists or Christians?

Let me know.

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Let’s use the standard metric that science is using for this questions -

365 days = 1 year.

Please provide a number of years or an estimate of years to within ~100 million years based on current evidence.

Thanks.

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Standard Metric? LOL

You do realize that your subsequent definition is not Metric at all but instead our basic Babylonian/Sumerian derived units for measurement of time.

For someone who claimes to adhere to science, you sure are sloppy.

Norwegian on November 20, 2012 at 12:32 PM

LOL

Are most of the violent criminals in America atheists or Christians?

Let me know.

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Let’s go further, What thinking killed the most people in history? Atheists.

Examples:

Vladimir Lenin
Joseph Stalin
Mao ze dong
Pol Pot
Castro

Adds up to over 100 million people in the 20th century. yes, they were Communists but they had no moral boundaries and eliminated anyone who opposed them or to create a new society…utopia.

b1jetmech on November 20, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Adds up to over 100 million people in the 20th century. yes, they were Communists but they had no moral boundaries and eliminated anyone who opposed them or to create a new society…utopia.

b1jetmech on November 20, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Hitler was a creationist.

Try again.

Good Lt on November 20, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5