Quotes of the day

posted at 10:01 pm on November 20, 2012 by Allahpundit

On CNN Tuesday morning, Jeb Bush Jr. — the son of former Florida governor Jeb Bush — said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) gave “kind of a head-scratching type of answer” to a recent question about the age of the Earth…

“We’ve got to be a kind of pro-science and pro-technology party. And I think Marco Rubio is just that,” Bush said. “On the Earth question, I guess I have to read more closely in terms of getting a better understanding, but, yeah, kind of a strange response, I guess.”

***

To begin with, Rubio’s remarks are not even an accurate description of what’s laid out in the Bible. It was not a seven-day process to make the Earth, according to the King James Bible’s Genesis. The Earth itself was made on the first day, though it took until the third day for the waters to be gathered together and dry land to emerge. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” is first thing that Genesis describes, even if “the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep,” and it was not until the third day that “God called the dry land Earth.”

Secondly, scientists estimate the age of the Earth from geological research on rocks from this planet, the moon, and from meteorites — not from “recorded history.” Recorded history only takes us back to the Sumerians in the 4th millennium B.C., though the history of art takes us back another 34,000 years or so after that. So the dispute is not between the historical record and theological interpretations — history and theology were actually quite intertwined at the start of writing. The dispute is between science and an anti-modern strain of Christian theology rejected by leaders of a number of the major Christian denominations, including Pope Benedict XVI, who has said, “there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

***

Interestingly, although this debate over evolution and the Earth’s age has invaded our politics for almost a century, prior to the era of William Jennings Bryan and the Scopes Monkey trial, many Protestant Christian theologians thought evolution was acceptable as part of God’s plan…

The storm surrounding Rubio’s comments speaks to a larger issue: The Republican Party and the conservative movement need to be more introspective. Conservatives need to think through their responses to these type of questions before they are asked. This is a discussion that conservative politicians of faith need to have; but I suspect, like talking to your kids about sex, it is generally avoided.

I can respect anyone’s faith, and so I respect people who believe in a young Earth. But Christians and conservatives ought to know that science and God do not have to be at odds.

***

For starters, our candidates need to understand that after successfully disqualifying Senate candidates Todd Akin and Richard Murdouck, the media now thinks they’ve cracked a code: First, they ask us a question that pits our faith against policy. They then hope we blow it. Then if we do blow it, they not only beat the individual candidate senseless with it, they use it to tarnish the GOP as a whole…

Stay as far away from the media as possible. Rubio talking to GQ is like a Christian entering the lion’s den. The lack of judgement he showed in subjecting himself to this interview is troublesome. There’s absolutely no upside in subjecting yourself to a GQ, unless you’re under the delusional belief you can win them over…

Because we can’t avoid the media entirely, our side needs to have better answers to these kinds of questions. We now know what the tactic is, so we have to be prepared for it.

***

[H]ere’s then-Sen. Obama, D-Ill., speaking at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. on April 13, 2008:

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…

It seems to me that Rubio is right. Lots of basic scientific questions have no bearing whatsoever on the nation’s short-term economic growth.

***

Here’s an even more disturbing thought – scientists currently believe that the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old because radioactive substances decay at generally stable rates. Accordingly, by observing how much of a radioactive substance has decayed, scientists are able to determine how old that substance is. However, if the Earth is only 9,000 years old, then radioactive decay rates are unstable and subject to rapid acceleration under completely unknown circumstances. This poses an enormous danger to the country’s nuclear power plants, which could undergo an unanticipated meltdown at any time due to currently unpredictable circumstances. Likewise, accelerated decay could lead to the detonation of our nuclear weapons, and cause injuries and death to people undergoing radioactive treatments in hospitals. Any of these circumstances would obviously have a large economic impact.

If the Earth is really 9,000 years old, as Paul Broun believes and Rubio is willing to remain ignorant about, it becomes imperative to shut down our nuclear plants and dismantle our nuclear stockpiles now until such time as scientists are able to ascertain what circumstances exist that could cause deadly acceleration of radioactive decay and determine how to prevent it from happening.

The bottom line is that this economy, at its root, is built on a web of scientific knowledge from physics to chemistry to biology. It’s impossible to just cherry pick out parts we don’t like. If the Earth is 9,000 years old, then virtually the entire construct of modern science is simply wrong. Not only that, most of the technology that we rely on most likely wouldn’t work – as they’re dependent on science that operates on the same physical laws that demonstrate the age of the universe.

***

As I wrote on Sunday, there are more important factors driving the Obama realignment than the supposed triumph of Reason and Progress that many liberals claim to see at work. But it’s still neither politically helpful nor intellectually healthy for a minority political party to pick pointless fights with the nation’s scientific and technical elite. Unless you believe that the 2016 Iowa caucuses are really, truly going to turn on the fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis (they aren’t), there’s no good reason why the “politician’s answer” on the kind of gotcha question GQ tossed at Rubio couldn’t go something more like this:

I’m not a scientist, but I respect the scientific consensus that says that the earth is — what, something like a few billions of years old, right? I don’t have any trouble reconciling that consensus with my faith. I don’t think the 7 days in Genesis have to be literal 24-hour days. I don’t have strong opinions about the specifics of how to teach these issues — that’s for school boards to decide, and I’m not running for school board — but I think religion and science can be conversation partners, and I think kids can benefit from that conversation.

More broadly, meanwhile, the fact that this kind of question is a “gotcha” at all is a much bigger problem for American Christianity than for Republican politicians. The goal of a political party is to win 51 percent of the vote and govern effectively, and as Rubio suggests, the ordinary work of politics can proceed even if some national politicians decline to take public views on the geological age of the earth. But the goal of Christianity is supposed to be the conversion of every human heart — yes, scientists and intellectuals included — and the central claim of Christianity is that the faith offers, not a particular political agenda or an economic program, but the true story of the world entire. The more Christians convince themselves that their faith’s core is identical with the modern innovation of fundamentalism, and in direct conflict with the best available modern biology and geology, the less attainable that goal and the less tenable that central claim.

***

Truth be told, I think the world is billions of years old, but I have no doubt God created it. I believe the same word that many interpret as “days” in Genesis can also honestly be interpreted as “phases,” which I do, i.e. a day at the beginning was not a day as we know it now. But I don’t doubt there were six phases of creation and then a seventh of rest. I certainly don’t have a problem with people who think the world was created in six 24 hour days. For all any of us know, it could have been. God said “Let there be light,” and I think the result was a big bang. I think that God set evolution in motion and over time we have changed and evolved by His own design and plan…

I reject evolution for the sake of evolution and reject that life on this planet, let alone the existence of this universe, is some random act. I reject that we are little better than the animals we evolved from because I reject that we evolved from anything other than God’s own mind. We were created in his image. We did not evolve into it. The only people certain in their belief on this matter are those who accept theory as fact and Truth as mythology…

There was once a time when most everyone in public life professed a faith in the things of the Bible. That time is more and more becoming unacceptable to those who shape the news. These secularists have made a concerted effort to turn the world hostile to that faith and belief and have allied themselves with weak theologians to turn young Christians into more worldly, secularly focused milquetoast weepers worshiping an effeminate Christ who only hugs kids and cries, but does not fight, does not take sides, and is accommodationist to the world and its amorality and increasing immorality because, dude, he hung out with prostitutes and cried about another dude dying. They want to define the Christ they prefer to believe in, rather than believe the Christ that is.


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

wow…are the servers down…or is this the HA record shortest qotd.

r keller on November 21, 2012 at 1:17 AM

I think a lot of posters are battle weary and just not posting here much. I know I am…

OmahaConservative on November 21, 2012 at 6:03 AM

CanofSand

Good ideas.good plan. I hope they listen to you.

SparkPlug on November 21, 2012 at 6:14 AM

The Republicans need to man up, and not be afraid to criticize Obama and his gang of crooks. My take.

kingsjester on November 21, 2012 at 6:37 AM

I think a lot of posters are battle weary and just not posting here much. I know I am…

OmahaConservative on November 21, 2012 at 6:03 AM

I know…only 2 pages? Maybe folks have already started their holidays.

22044 on November 21, 2012 at 6:40 AM

22044 on November 21, 2012 at 6:40 AM

QOTD has been rapidly shrinking since election day, in fact, a lot of the threads have been getting much less hits/posts. Don’t be surprised to see an open reg or two in the very near future…

OmahaConservative on November 21, 2012 at 6:53 AM

For any other early birds, a bus was hit in Tel Aviv about an hour ago.

Some images:

http://i.imgur.com/TEnNu.png
http://i.imgur.com/pGX7t.png

mythicknight on November 21, 2012 at 6:53 AM

22044 on November 21, 2012 at 6:40 AM

QOTD has been rapidly shrinking since election day, in fact, a lot of the threads have been getting much less hits/posts. Don’t be surprised to see an open reg or two in the very near future…

OmahaConservative on November 21, 2012 at 6:53 AM

…or maybe they could do something to bring back the quality people who have left?

KOOLAID2 on November 21, 2012 at 7:11 AM

NONE of the gop inspires “hits” except the one who shall not be named.

PappyD61 on November 21, 2012 at 7:13 AM

Don’t be surprised to see an open reg or two in the very near future…

…I’m not awake yet…so they want to open the septic field?

KOOLAID2 on November 21, 2012 at 7:16 AM

…or maybe they could do something to bring back the quality people who have left?

KOOLAID2 on November 21, 2012 at 7:11 AM

You cannot force or entice people who have left to come back. There are many, many posters from four or five years ago who we haven’t heard from that I used to enjoy posting with. Just the way things cycle. I think once ‘The Boss Emeritus’ sold the site, it started going into decline. JMO…

OmahaConservative on November 21, 2012 at 7:16 AM

NONE of the gop inspires “hits” except the one who shall not be named.

PappyD61 on November 21, 2012 at 7:13 AM

:)

renalin on November 21, 2012 at 7:21 AM

The problem is, this was originally a Blog created by a Reagan Conservative. A great deal of the readership of this blog remains that way, while the blog itself has headed toward a decidedly Moderate, NE Corridor POV.
The last double Open Registration brought in some good folks. Unfortunately, it also brought in some idiots who, through their vulgarity and intimidation, ran some good Conservatives off of here.

And, Omaha’s right. Folks are dejected and rundown right now.

Yep. Another Open Registration’s coming.

kingsjester on November 21, 2012 at 7:29 AM

Rubio, ‘Earth,’ and Why In the World Would a Republican Talk to ‘GQ’?

Do they feel beta males are the future of the Republican Party?

MNHawk on November 21, 2012 at 7:31 AM

I believe the same word that many interpret as “days” in Genesis can also honestly be interpreted as “phases,” which I do, i.e. a day at the beginning was not a day as we know it now.

There is the key. Who are we to tell God what a day is to God? If you get past that you can feel pretty good in that Noah, sitting out in a desert, described the big bang in simplistic terms (he had no education…he had no concept of the word billion, and maybe even million) 3500 years before scientists did.

Pretty faith affirming, if ya ask me.

MNHawk on November 21, 2012 at 7:34 AM

Republicans have their answer. It comes from Obama in 2008…Just quote it.

This ain’t brain surgery.

tomas on November 21, 2012 at 7:42 AM

There was once a time when most everyone in public life professed a faith in the things of the Bible. That time is more and more becoming unacceptable to those who shape the news.

because christian cosmology is mostly just mythology. some aspects of it are quite childish and contradicted by many sciences that are important for us, like geology,astronomy and biology.

These secularists have made a concerted effort to turn the world hostile to that faith and belief and have allied themselves with weak theologians to turn young Christians into more worldly, secularly focused milquetoast weepers worshiping an effeminate Christ who only hugs kids and cries, but does not fight, does not take sides, and is accommodationist to the world and its amorality and increasing immorality because, dude, he hung out with prostitutes and cried about another dude dying. They want to define the Christ they prefer to believe in, rather than believe the Christ that is.

oh oh, attacking other christians because they are not christian enough or just wrong christians? how deliciously islamic.

nathor on November 21, 2012 at 7:46 AM

nathor on November 21, 2012 at 7:46 AM

I rest my case.

kingsjester on November 21, 2012 at 7:48 AM

I think a lot of posters are battle weary and just not posting here much. I know I am…

OmahaConservative on November 21, 2012 at 6:03 AM

Yup and this is the reason I’m weary AND the reason I still come here, from the Christie thread, first sentence:

I keep thinking, “Christie can’t possibly come back from this.” And then I think, “Wait, did we actually just nominate John McCain and the guy responsible for RomneyCare?” ~ AllahP

Fallon on November 21, 2012 at 7:48 AM

NONE of the gop inspires “hits” except the one who shall not be named.

PappyD61 on November 21, 2012 at 7:13 AM

Heh. Ain’t that the truth.

Dongemaharu on November 21, 2012 at 7:53 AM

nathor on November 21, 2012 at 7:46 AM

.
God doesn’t exist, so its OK insert my member into anything I choose, including using the human excretory system a receptacle for my pleasure. Anatomy confused. I don’t get the science in that.

Liberty cannot be established without Morality. And morality without Faith. (Tocqueville) So true.

Kill off Faith, and look what you can achieve.

FlaMurph on November 21, 2012 at 8:06 AM

And, Omaha’s right. Folks are dejected and rundown right now.

kingsjester on November 21, 2012 at 7:29 AM

except for 2010 midterms we have had loss upon loss. now we face another 4 years of obama. both mcconnel/boehner are already caving. the gope is already lining up the usual suspects for 2016 bush, rubio etc.

what to be excited about? benghazi and F&F forever down the wormhole.

evil winning nowadays. our day must come.

renalin on November 21, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Maybe I am alone in this, but I don’t really see much wrong with what Rubio said.

Rubio seemed to understand right away what the intent of the question was; i.e., to put him in an uncomfortable position of having to affirm his faith while not appearing anti-science. Seems like the intent of these kinds of questions is to drive a wedge between different groups of conservatives. Also seems like a way for liberals to get more ammunition in their efforts to paint Republicans as “anti-science.” Rubio’s answer was perfectly acceptable to me. He acknowledged the accepted scientific view and also acknowledged the biblical view.

I am really uncomfortable with candidates being put on the spot to explain their faith and defend their religious beliefs. I understand that some people think everything should be fair game, but I think that candidates and anyone really should be entitled to their faith and shouldn’t have to feel the need to have to defend it against anyone.

Answers to questions like these about the origins of the earth tell me little about what kind of Pres. or Sen. somebody would be. It almost seems like there is an assumption that goes along with the desire to ask candidates questions like this; i.e., that believers are irrational, stupid and should not be considered fit for the presidency.

bluegill on November 21, 2012 at 8:26 AM

I am really uncomfortable with candidates being put on the spot to explain their faith and defend their religious beliefs. I understand that some people think everything should be fair game, but I think that candidates and anyone really should be entitled to their faith and shouldn’t have to feel the need to have to defend it against anyone.

If you’ve supported creationist legislation, yes, you do have to get around that whole “science says you’re 100% wrong” thing.

http://archive.flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm?m&Mode=Bills&SubMenu=1&Tab=session&BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&BillNum=2692&Chamber=Senate&Year=2008&Title=-%3EBill%2520Info%3AS%25202692-%3ESession%25202008

Sorry. Welcome to the 21st century.

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 8:37 AM

I actually like the idea of God’s days being longer than ours… divide 6 days into about 14 billion years or thereabouts for the age of the universe, and on the 7th day the Almighty is taking a rest.

A siesta.

Got out of the old workshop to do something else for a bit.

And in a couple of billion years he’ll be back.

Until then we are on our own. I really don’t want to disturb the guy on his day off, everyone deserves one, you know?

ajacksonian on November 21, 2012 at 8:40 AM

Allahs vulva on November 21, 2012 at 1:57 AM

Coral

Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and grow upon the residues of their calcareous remains. These corals and residues gradually become structures known as coral reefs. This process of growth and deposition is extremely slow, and some of the larger reefs have been “growing” for hundreds of thousands of years. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority estimates that corals have been growing on the Great Barrier Reef for 25 million years, and that coral reef structures have existed on the Great Barrier Reef for at least 600,000 years.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation#Coral

There are complex factors which both add to the growth of a reef and take away from it. For instance, attack by certain organisms and wave destruction will contribute to a decline in reef size. On the other hand, a growing reef can trap sediments as they are moved along by currents, thus adding to its thickness. Storms can dramatically add to the thickness of a reef by bringing in coral from other areas.

For example, in 1972, Cyclone Bebe ‘constructed’ a rampart of coral rubble 3.5 metres high, 37 metres wide and 18 kilometres long in a few hours.4

Given all the above, it seems reasonable to rely on the actual figures reported from depth-sounding measurements for coral reef growth rates, rather than calculations trying to take all these other factors into account. Such reef growth rates have been reported as high as 414 millimetres per year in the Celebes.5 At such a rate, the entire thickness of the Eniwetok Atoll could have been formed in less than 3,500 years.

http://creation.com/how-long-does-a-coral-reef-take-to-grow

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Given all the above, it seems reasonable to rely on the actual figures reported from depth-sounding measurements for coral reef growth rates, rather than calculations trying to take all these other factors into account. Such reef growth rates have been reported as high as 414 millimetres per year in the Celebes.5 At such a rate, the entire thickness of the Eniwetok Atoll could have been formed in less than 3,500 years.

http://creation.com/how-long-does-a-coral-reef-take-to-grow

LOL LOL LOL

And the Grand Canynon was formed in 5 minutes by Noah’s flood as well.

Creationism!

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Since God stands out of time His day doesn’t exist. We use this term because our understanding is finite.

And I do think a person’s religious beliefs are important. I want to know what a candidate thinks about issues and how those issues are informed by his faith. Since all laws are a legislation of morality I need to know what a candidate’s morality is and where it comes from.

IdrilofGondolin on November 21, 2012 at 9:13 AM

DavidK,

Not one of your “101 Evidences for a Young Earth” is remotely valid.

But you knew that, right?

Allahs vulva on November 21, 2012 at 1:57 AM

Geomagnetic reversals

A geomagnetic reversal is a change in the polarity of the Earth’s magnetic field. The frequency at which these reversals occur varies greatly, but they usually happen once every 50,000 to 800,000 years, and generally take thousands of years.[13] This fact is obviously inconsistent with the young earth idea; around 171 reversals are geologically documented, which would make the earth at least several millions of years old.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation#Geomagnetic_reversals

Although evolutionists have no good explanations for the reversals, they maintain that, because of them, the straightforward decay assumed by Dr Barnes is invalid. Also, their model requires at least thousands of years for a reversal. And with their dating assumptions, they believe that the reversals occur at intervals of millions of years, and point to an old earth.

Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction.

Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it.9 And it was no fluke—eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal. This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys’ model.

The earth’s magnetic field is not only a good navigational aid and a shield from space particles, it is powerful evidence against evolution and billions of years. The clear decay pattern shows the earth could not be older than about 10,000 years.

http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 8:37 AM

Sorry, still couldn’t care less how a politician answers that question. If the best you could do to try to justify probing politicians about their religious beliefs is to produce a vote on some state senate proposal, then I think that says a lot. Attack someone for their votes, if you wish, but I am not in favor of putting candidates in a position of having to defend their faith as a prerequisite for office.

Answers to questions about earth’s origins tell me nothing about what kind of president or senator they would be, as I said. I would be more interested to know their positions on specific legislation or how they would apply those beliefs to governing.

What really bothers me is that the drive behind making a big deal of these issues seems to be to shut out and disqualify believers. That is what this is about.

bluegill on November 21, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Rubio, ‘Earth,’ and Why In the World Would a Republican Talk to ‘GQ’?

Do they feel beta males are the future of the Republican Party?

MNHawk on November 21, 2012 at 7:31 AM

Despite all the post-election jabber about blacks, Hispanics and Asians being “naturally” conservative, I’d suggest that white males that can afford $2000 suits and $300 dress shirts (or aspire to) offer far more potential for a young, non-Romney/Sanorum/McCain/Palin candidate than either of those aforementioned ethnic groups.

urban elitist on November 21, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Erosion

Many places on Earth show evidence of erosion taking place over very long time periods. The Grand Canyon, for instance, would have taken millions of years to form using the normal rate of erosion seen in water. Nevertheless, Young Earthers insist it was cut in a few years following the Great Flood – but in order for this to happen the rocks of the Kaibab Plateau would have needed to have the solubility of granulated sugar, rather than the more solid stone that it’s made of. VenomFangX of YouTube claimed that the Grand Canyon would have formed in about “5 minutes”, which at the very least would require the water to travel 5-6 times the speed of sound.

In the case of the Yakima River in Washington State between Ellensburg and Yakima, the river meanders with many oxbows typical of a slow-moving river on a plain, yet it is set within a deep canyon with visible layers of erosion. The only possible explanation is that the pre-existing river maintained its original bed as slow tectonic forces caused the surrounding land to rise underneath and around it.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation#Erosion

How about a date of 4,500 years?

The myriad of dates proposed for the origin of the Canyon calls into question all the uniformitarian dating methods. Creationists have shown that uniformitarian dating methods are inaccurate. [Woodmorappe, J., The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, 1999] As far as the millions-of-year ages are concerned, such old ages are relished because it reinforces their uniformitarian and evolutionary beliefs. A period of accelerated radiometric decay in the past, as creationists have discovered,48,49 makes the age of Grand Canyon much younger.

Other features indicate that the Canyon is very young and rapidly formed, such as the lack of talus and the vertical walled cliffs. It is interesting that a catastrophic origin is usually the first thought that comes to peoples’ minds when they first see Grand Canyon, so we should look for a fairly recent catastrophe for the origin of Grand Canyon.

http://creation.com/grand-canyon-age

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Answers to questions about earth’s origins tell me nothing about what kind of president or senator they would be, as I said. I would be more interested to know their positions on specific legislation or how they would apply those beliefs to governing.

I just showed you that by citing creationist legislation. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

It’s detrimental to science education when the people in government have stupid beliefs that aren’t supported by science or reality.

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM

bluegill on November 21, 2012 at 9:19 AM

The Good Lt. is “good,” but he can’t tell us why.

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 9:28 AM

I just showed you that by citing creationist legislation. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

It’s detrimental to science education when the people in government have stupid beliefs that aren’t supported by science or reality.

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Those evil creationists are destroying the world!

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 9:29 AM

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM

To that, one should add the layering and canyons formed by Mt. St. Helens. The layering in those new canyons resembles the layering in other regions that are claimed to be millions of years old. From an engineer’s standpoint, it appears that the geologists take a uniform flow rate view of volcanic eruptions, expecting each one to deposit material uniformly. In reality, there is probably a significant amount of pulsation during an eruption, causing material of different densities and sizes to be ejected in an oscillating fashion, thus leading to a resulting “layering” that has previously been explained as millions of years of deposition.

Yes, this information came from the Creation Science Institute. It was, however obtained by scientists who actually visited the Mt. St. Helens blast area and gathered video and scientific evidence to support their hypotheses. You expect non-causal spontaneous generation theory supporters to gather evidence that disputes their theories?

AZfederalist on November 21, 2012 at 9:33 AM

urban elitist on November 21, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Yes child. Beta males would indeed be for a neutered Republican.

MNHawk on November 21, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Yes child. Beta males would indeed be for a neutered Republican.

MNHawk on November 21, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Just out of curiosity, why is GQ reader a beta male, and what magazines do the alphas read — Guns & Ammo?

urban elitist on November 21, 2012 at 9:40 AM

What may be the worst consequence of all coming out of this election is that the left now believes they have been given by the voters a green light to launch any attack no matter how sick or depraved.

Speakup on November 21, 2012 at 10:09 AM

You expect non-causal spontaneous generation theory supporters to gather evidence that disputes their theories?

AZfederalist on November 21, 2012 at 9:33 AM

They are in good company:

“I am not prepared to accept anything that disagrees with my naturalistic conceptions.”~Adolf Eichmann

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Of course this whole thing is a Democratic preemptive strike to cripple the perceived favorite Republican 2016 candidate. This and other preemptive strikes (Rubio is not a “true” Hispspanic-rather an “Uncle Tom” Republican one ‘El Tio Tomas’.) But by 2016, with soup kitchen lines a mile long and American military brought home from overseas to guard the White House the Democrats will not be able to get away with the BS they laid on Romney.

MaiDee on November 21, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Can we win with a white president. I mean would hispanic voters vote as the african american community did when Obama was elected or will they stay with the democratics.

tomas on November 21, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Sorry I mean to say would Hispanics not vote for him because he is a republican? Or would they vote for him because he could be the first Hispanic president…party be damned.

tomas on November 21, 2012 at 10:35 AM

2016…….The hell with the Country I want a government office job. Is it any wonder Congress could give a hoot about the Country and start worrying about the next election, after all there are over 23,000 staff to take care of the grunt work of Congress, check me out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_staff

mixplix on November 21, 2012 at 11:07 AM

oh oh, attacking other christians because they are not christian enough or just wrong christians? how deliciously islamic.

nathor on November 21, 2012 at 7:46 AM

Christians are commanded to be imitators of Christ. There is nothing “islamic” about upholding that standard.

22044 on November 21, 2012 at 11:25 AM

The Good Lt. is “good,” but he can’t tell us why.

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 9:28 AM

He’s ridiculous when he comes on these boards and attacks strawmen.

22044 on November 21, 2012 at 11:27 AM

They are in good company:

“I am not prepared to accept anything that disagrees with my naturalistic conceptions.”~Adolf Eichmann

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Hitler was not an atheist.

Spare us the ‘atheist=Hitler/Nazis or something’ routine. It’s exactly the opposite:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html

Next stupid claim, please.

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 11:30 AM

The Good Lt. is “good,” but he can’t tell us why.

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Because an invisible magic subjective being that I can’t prove exists says so but doesn’t, the end. Oh, and you’re Hitler.

/creationist

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM

What may be the worst consequence of all coming out of this election is that the left now believes they have been given by the voters a green light to launch any attack no matter how sick or depraved.

Speakup on November 21, 2012 at 10:09 AM

They’ve been doing that since time immemorial. This isn’t a new development.

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM

First, they ask us a question that pits our faith against policy. They then hope we blow it. Then if we do blow it, they not only beat the individual candidate senseless with it, they use it to tarnish the GOP as a whole…

The correct answer would’ve been shorter than Rubio’s response. “I don’t think the earth affects our current economic situation.” If pressed, continue to redirect “I’m happy to answer questions about solving the problems that Americans face in their daily lives, and in the future. But I’m not going to waste time on science trivia.”

hawksruleva on November 21, 2012 at 12:00 PM

I find this whole discussion quite humorous….especially the small and closed mindedness of all these strong believers of their “High, Infallible and Holy” god….SCIENCE.

I mean whether you believe in God or not, at the very least you should understand that the concept or idea of a God is that he is SUPERnatural! You know…He is above the natural! Natural laws don’t tell him what his limits are; it’s exactly the other way around. How silly it is then for these SCIENCE worshippers to attempt to capture, bind, and destroy the GOD of the bible. I think they really enjoy and feel good about themselves as they “put” GOD in a box and keep him all locked up! HA!

This whole discussion can be summed up and should be asked by every individual with the question, Who or what is greater….GOD or SCIENCE….Who or what is above all things? … Is SCIENCE above GOD? ….Or is GOD above SCIENCE?

Is GOD limited by what your SCIENCE tells him?

Ultimately, will you place your faith in GOD or SCIENCE?

I read somewhere a story about a group of scientist who built themselves a time machine and then went back in time to the exact day after God created the first man Adam. The great scientist told God that not only did he not have any concept of science but he was actually UNTRUE and a LIAR!….and that because their great wealth of knowledge and evidence told them that God couldn’t possibly have created Adam the day before because that would make him very young…one day old in fact!…. and he had to be at a minimum 17 to 25 years old! ….and this would be obvious even to a little child without such a great scientific mind as their own! Boy how they felt so good to be so high and mighty looking down on such a silly small God.

I can just see God smiling all the while! Ha! Ha!

Oh how the small and foolish things so confound the “Wise of this world”!

You should know that all the knowledge in the world can’t and won’t SAVE you! Not only did the people on board the Titanic know and have a good understanding what their problem was….they even had the ship’s engineer on board with them and you can bet he had all the knowledge possible and knew EXACTLY what the problem and even their solution was and we all know how that turned out.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of TRUE WISDOM.

W.KY-hillbilly on November 21, 2012 at 12:06 PM

The Good Lt. is “good,” but he can’t tell us why.

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Because an invisible magic subjective being that I can’t prove exists says so but doesn’t, the end. Oh, and you’re Hitler.

/creationist

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Another thought provoking response from the “Good” Lt.

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 12:11 PM

They are in good company:

“I am not prepared to accept anything that disagrees with my naturalistic conceptions.”~Adolf Eichmann

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Hitler was not an atheist.

Spare us the ‘atheist=Hitler/Nazis or something’ routine. It’s exactly the opposite:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html

Next stupid claim, please.

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 11:30 AM

You know, a careful reading of my comment would have spared you from looking ignorant.

I said nothing about Hitler or Nazis.

I did not specify anyone’s belief or lack thereof.

However, one can assume that a person claiming “naturalistic conceptions” is, by definition, an atheist.

“What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right?”~Richard Dawkins.

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Another thought provoking response from the “Good” Lt.

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 12:11 PM

It was an appropriate response to a stupid statement.

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Ultimately, will you place your faith in GOD or SCIENCE?

When you contract an illness and take medicine or get treatment, fly in a plane, drive in a car, post a comment on the Internet, drink clean water, etc., you’re placing your faith in science.

Not one of those things or any other convenience and technology we enjoy in our modern age was brought about by an invisible skybeing(s) or by praying to the invisible skybeing(s).

Your faith is placed in science implicitly whether you like it or not.

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 1:07 PM

When you contract an illness and take medicine or get treatment, fly in a plane, drive in a car, post a comment on the Internet, drink clean water, etc., you’re placing your faith in science.

Not one of those things or any other convenience and technology we enjoy in our modern age was brought about by an invisible skybeing(s) or by praying to the invisible skybeing(s).

Your faith is placed in science implicitly whether you like it or not.

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 1:07 PM

You realize all those things were developed by creationists?

Your faith is placed in science implicitly whether you like it or not.

Faith?

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Faith?

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Did I stutter?

You realize all those things were developed by creationists?

Who cares? Newton was a Christian who also believed you could turn metals into gold and in the existence of an elixer of eternal life.

Doesn’t have anything to do with his scientific discoveries, which had nothing to do with supernatural invisible skybeings, deities, myths, the Bible or anything else.

The measure of the worth of these contributions is what humanity gets from them. Humanity has derived benefit from Newton’s scientific work, not his beliefs in the supernatural.

The things I listed were certainly not developed because of creationism, due to creationism, with knowledge gained through creationism or with the rejection of science.

I’m sorry this is difficult for you to grok.

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Another thought provoking response from the “Good” Lt.

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 12:11 PM

It was an appropriate response to a stupid statement.

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 1:04 PM

If asking you to explain what you mean by “good” is stupid, then, “Guilty.”

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 1:44 PM

I’m sorry this is difficult for you to grok.

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I really doubt you are sorry. Just a guess.

Science was made possible through a Judeo-Christian worldview. I know this is not just difficult for you to grasp, it is impossible for you to grasp given your naturalistic presuppositions.

Presuppositions. You know–those things you accept to be true without proof, by faith.

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 1:50 PM

It’s ironic that news media outlets are making a big deal of one tentative statement by Senator Rubio that Genesis might be true, yet they ignore the following more incredible “facts” that many Darwinists teach:

–Aliens seeded life on earth
–Life arose from non-life, against a law in biology called Biogenesis
–Humans are just advanced apes
–Aliens from outer space built the pyramids

Many Darwinist textbooks have outdated ideas & “evidence” like the supposed horse evolution series, & that archaeopteryx is a transitional form between birds and reptiles (leading Darwinists have now rejected these claims).

And throughout the decades, Darwinists have put forth deliberate frauds such as Piltdown Man, doctored photos of British dark & light-colored moths, and the fake Haeckel embryo chart, all of which ARE STILL IN SOME SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS.

itsnotaboutme on November 21, 2012 at 2:17 PM

When you contract an illness and take medicine or get treatment, fly in a plane, drive in a car, post a comment on the Internet, drink clean water, etc., you’re placing your faith in science.

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Sure, I place MY FAITH in a lot of things and even people,…pharmacists, bankers, daycare workers, etc…. We all place our faith in so many things at times ….But,….(you left out an important word)…… ULTIMATELY…what are you placing your faith in???

Is science, knowledge, education, money, savings account, or anything else ultimately going to save you?

Perhaps you don’t think you need saving? …You know,…from our biggest and most obvious pressing problem we ever do or will face….sin, corruption, desease,and in the end….DEATH. The bible doesn’t sugar coat the truth. It point blank says that we are under condemnation and all those very things listed are signs of that condemnation. God doesn’t have to condemn us….WE condemn ourselves by not keeping God’s law…just like we would also condemn ourselves if we jumped off the empire state building and tried breaking the law of gravity.
Remember though, God sent not his Son to comdemn the world but to SAVE it from condemnation.

Why place your faith in so many different things but refuse to place just a little tiny amount of faith (like a small mustard seed) just enough to cause you to go seek GOD who created you, the most valuable and important of all treasures anyone could seek. All he asks is that you come to him in spirit and in truth. You can go to him anytime, anywhere and in COMPLETE privacy……and tell him in all earnest your great need for him and ask Him to reveal HIMSELF and TRUTH to you.
He doesn’t want you to get to know him by way of a formula or by gathering enough facts and book smarts to prove himself. He wants to know you personally….on a personal level. After all, in the end isn’t that the most important thing there is? To know God.
If not, please tell me what in your opinion is THE SINGLE most important thing in life.

W.KY-hillbilly on November 21, 2012 at 2:37 PM

DavidK,

Enewitok coral under very generous, optimum coral forming conditions, would still take 54,000 years. Kinda blows your theory out of the water, ehem. This is #26 on the list.

The other 2 instances are also easy to find rebuttals on, but I’m short of time today. The time between now and Christmas is accelerating supernaturally. It’ll be here in the blink of an eye. I must get shopping….

Allahs vulva on November 21, 2012 at 3:20 PM

If asking you to explain what you mean by “good” is stupid, then, “Guilty.”

davidk on November 21, 2012 at 1:44 PM

I gave you an answer perfectly simpatico with what any creationist claiming ‘objective moral authority from the invisible skybeing’ would say, which also has nothing to do with the tread topic.

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM

ULTIMATELY…what are you placing your faith in???

Reality, and what we have learned about it.

I don’t place my faith in invisible sorcerers in the sky and in things for which there is absolutely no evidence.

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Reality, and what we have learned about it.

I don’t place my faith in invisible sorcerers in the sky and in things for which there is absolutely no evidence.

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Sounds like you are saying that you only believe what is visible and what you personally see with your own eyes,… perhaps only those things in the natural physical world that can be touched, heard, felt, etc. If we didn’t know now what we do in these modern times and I told you that EVERYTHING in the universe is made up of things we cannot see or feel,..then you wouldn’t have believed it either. Just like the bible says…that the things that are visible are temporary and the things that are invisible are eternal. I guess You don’t believe that either. The truth is I personally do have evidence in my own spirit that God bears witness to me that I belong to him. However it isn’t something physically tangible that you could see with your eyes so I guess you think I’m lying to you.

Well reality tells me that there is something gravely wrong with this old world. Can you give me any evidence that this world isn’t under condemnation and in need of God and a Savior as the bible says.
Can you give me any evidence that everything is going to be alright and that everything is just rosie? Do you have any evidence to share with everyone that we and our children don’t need to seek God as he instructs us to do. You know,…seek him while he may be found. That there is no garauntee for tomorrow for we don’t know what tomorrow brings?

What is the reality you see and place your faith in when for example you witness someones 6 year old daughter inflicted and suffering from terminal cancer? Or how about when someone’s wife and daughter is attacked, raped, tortured, killed and then set on fire. How about when you are on your own death bed what reality do you place your faith in then?

Do you at that point just put your faith in FATE perhaps? …. What will be, will be? I sure hope you wouldn’t do that with something as valuable as your own life! …. especially since you most likely don’t trust practically anything else you possibly possess of value to just merely fate. I implore you to seek God. Not because I want you to say I’m right but because I know the truth in my spirit as I have told you. I have no reason to lie to you.

W.KY-hillbilly on November 21, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Its the ECONOMY STUPID.

Did anyone hear Rush reading Carol Channings article (Susan Estrogen)
where she says how she loves so much about Obama World, but not the idea of taxing the rich, she thinks she is paying her fair share.

Tax that WOMAN behind the tree.

They better tax Susan, she voted for this guy, tax thelimousine liberals and leave the rest of us alone.

Fleuries on November 21, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Just to be clear, It’s not like I’m asking you to join a church, give an offering or to even try and be a “good” person. I am merely urging you to personally seek God in your own private quiet time as if your life’s eternal destiny depended on it. That’s it.

W.KY-hillbilly on November 21, 2012 at 6:56 PM

FlaMurph and nathor, two bigots in a pod.

CanofSand on November 21, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Oh, and Good Lt. And probably several others but I won’t bother pointing them all out. Seriously, Hot Air, why do you allow these insufferable bigots to post their filth? There’s ZERO value in the rantings of a militant atheist spewing his stereotypical “imaginary friend”/”invisible sky wizard” appeal to ridicule rants.

CanofSand on November 21, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Allahpundit wrote:

If the Earth is 9,000 years old, then virtually the entire construct of modern science is simply wrong.

Not if God created the Earth that recently AND also created the correct amount of radioactive breakdown products that would be there as if the natural processes had actually been at work for billions of years.

Not that I believe that, of course, and it’s an idea that can’t be disproved, so it’s a dead end. And you’d have to go the whole way with it, too. For example, you’d have to posit that God also created the light traveling through space from distant stars as though it had been emitted billions of years ago.

JimC on November 21, 2012 at 11:34 PM

I don’t place my faith in invisible sorcerers in the sky and in things for which there is absolutely no evidence.

Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Hey! We agree on something!

davidk on November 22, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3