http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/does-gop-religious-retreat-103526580--election.html
QuoteIt's no surprise that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio took heat for an interview he gave to GQ magazine this month: Departing from scientific consensus, the rising Republican star refused to state whether the Earth is billions of years old or a few thousand, as many fundamentalist Christians believe.
What no one expected was the rebuke from televangelist and longtime Christian conservative leader Pat Robertson, dismissing theories of a "young Earth."
"If you fight science, you are going to lose your children," Robertson said last week during an appearance on the Christian Broadcast Network, the television empire he founded three decades ago.
Robertson wasn't directly speaking to Rubio, but the senator and others in his party might heed the advice. Viewed by many voters as anti-science and too conservative on social issues such as gay marriage, the Republican Party is in danger of losing young and less religious voters for years to come.
There's more of this op-ed about Republicans and religion but I thought these were the interesting bits.
I wonder if Robertson is really not a believer in the young earth or if he just wants to stay politically relevant.
Everyone who is on the big business level of religion must be perfectly aware that it is a load of bullshit.
I'm still trying to figure out what the big deal was over Rubio's answer.
QuoteWhether 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.
:yeahright:
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 10:17:31 AM
QuoteWhether 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.
:yeahright:
It's a throwaway answer to an irrelevant question.
At best his answer in full was pandering to people who'd be upset if he said that he agreed with modern science. As a Republican, I'm tired of that.
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 10:28:06 AM
At best his answer in full was pandering to people who'd be upset if he said that he agreed with modern science. As a Republican, I'm tired of that.
No, it's a non-answer trying not to alienate either side. If he were pandering to the young-earth crowd, he'd state his agreement with them.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 10:22:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 10:17:31 AM
QuoteWhether 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.
:yeahright:
It's a throwaway answer to an irrelevant question.
It's a profile interview. How can any question about the subject's life or beliefs be irrelevant.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 10:31:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 10:28:06 AM
At best his answer in full was pandering to people who'd be upset if he said that he agreed with modern science. As a Republican, I'm tired of that.
No, it's a non-answer trying not to alienate either side. If he were pandering to the young-earth crowd, he'd state his agreement with them.
Except it is alienating to one side. There's no real reason to dodge and weave on a question on which there is no scientific controversy short of wanting to make sure that some segment of religious folks don't get upset. I also liked this bit from the WSJ:
QuoteThe age of the Earth and the rejection of evolution aren't core Christian beliefs. Neither appears in the Nicene or Apostle's Creed. Nor did Jesus teach them. Historical Christianity has not focused on how God created the universe, but on how God saves humanity through Jesus' death and resurrection.
They are in King James bible's Genese tho. The source of all this crap.
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 10:39:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 10:22:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 10:17:31 AM
QuoteWhether 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.
:yeahright:
It's a throwaway answer to an irrelevant question.
It's a profile interview. How can any question about the subject's life or beliefs be irrelevant.
Because very few people have strong beliefs on that, either way. The age of the planet earth has very little bearing on current issues.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 04, 2012, 10:54:10 AM
They are in King James bible's Genese tho. The source of all this crap.
Lot's of things are in the bible. There aren't really that many people who are out championing every bit of the bible as literally true - and not all of those bits become battleground issues.
It has bearing on whether you are bat shit insane though.
And/or pandering to the bat shit insane
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 10:59:23 AM
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 10:39:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 10:22:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 10:17:31 AM
QuoteWhether 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.
:yeahright:
It's a throwaway answer to an irrelevant question.
It's a profile interview. How can any question about the subject's life or beliefs be irrelevant.
Because very few people have strong beliefs on that, either way. The age of the planet earth has very little bearing on current issues.
I grant you that's an irrelevant answer! He wasn't being asked about current issues. When asked about how much his grandfather inspired him he didn't say that had nothing to do with the state of the economy.
And I disagree anyway. I am as near to certain as you can be that the earth is more than 7,000 years and I think most people who are not religious fundamentalists are too. Those who are equally have a strong belief that it is.
I personally would not vote for anyone of any party who is unable to say that the earth is more than 7,000 years old.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 10:31:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 10:28:06 AM
At best his answer in full was pandering to people who'd be upset if he said that he agreed with modern science. As a Republican, I'm tired of that.
No, it's a non-answer trying not to alienate either side. If he were pandering to the young-earth crowd, he'd state his agreement with them.
Only that it's not one of these "there are two sides to a story" issues or "the truth is in the middle". One side is patently, obviously and painfully wrong and the other is right. "Trying not to alienate either side" is pandering of the most vile type.
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 11:10:04 AM
I grant you that's an irrelevant answer! He wasn't being asked about current issues. When asked about how much his grandfather inspired him he didn't say that had nothing to do with the state of the economy.
And I disagree anyway. I am as near to certain as you can be that the earth is more than 7,000 years and I think most people who are not religious fundamentalists are too. Those who are equally have a strong belief that it is.
I personally would not vote for anyone of any party who is unable to say that the earth is more than 7,000 years old.
I guess I'm saying that few people outside of small circles like Languish give a shit.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 10:59:23 AM
Because very few people have strong beliefs on that, either way. The age of the planet earth has very little bearing on current issues.
What. the. fuck. It is not about having "strong beliefs". It is about statements that are right or wrong in a binary fashion. I also do not have a "strong belief" about sun being a star but if someone claims something different, he is a fucking moron.
Seriously, is derspiess representative of how a certain portion of the US population thinks? :huh:
And ultimately, it is not about "feeling strongly about some issues" (just as well, probably most of the people do not "feel strongly" about the value of the number Pi or the Avogadro number) but a rejection of universally accepted scientific facts and with it the entire scientific/rational mindset. This quality is something that is a cause for a great concern in someone who wants to govern and lead people.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 11:17:51 AM
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 11:10:04 AM
I grant you that's an irrelevant answer! He wasn't being asked about current issues. When asked about how much his grandfather inspired him he didn't say that had nothing to do with the state of the economy.
And I disagree anyway. I am as near to certain as you can be that the earth is more than 7,000 years and I think most people who are not religious fundamentalists are too. Those who are equally have a strong belief that it is.
I personally would not vote for anyone of any party who is unable to say that the earth is more than 7,000 years old.
I guess I'm saying that few people outside of small circles like Languish give a shit.
According to you, he daren't say what he thinks for fear of alienating one side or another. Make your mind up.
Quote from: Martinus on December 04, 2012, 11:25:15 AM
And ultimately, it is not about "feeling strongly about some issues" (just as well, probably most of the people do not "feel strongly" about the value of the number Pi or the Avogadro number) but a rejection of universally accepted scientific facts and with it the entire scientific/rational mindset. This quality is something that is a cause for a great concern in someone who wants to govern and lead people.
Rant all you want, but I'm only saying that nobody really gives a shit. It's definitely not as relevant to most people as various economic and social issues are.
It's relevant to one set of people, the fundy religious crazies, and the gop knows they can't win national elections without them.
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 11:32:59 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 11:17:51 AM
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 11:10:04 AM
I grant you that's an irrelevant answer! He wasn't being asked about current issues. When asked about how much his grandfather inspired him he didn't say that had nothing to do with the state of the economy.
And I disagree anyway. I am as near to certain as you can be that the earth is more than 7,000 years and I think most people who are not religious fundamentalists are too. Those who are equally have a strong belief that it is.
I personally would not vote for anyone of any party who is unable to say that the earth is more than 7,000 years old.
I guess I'm saying that few people outside of small circles like Languish give a shit.
According to you, he daren't say what he thinks for fear of alienating one side or another. Make your mind up.
:huh: He's a politician. They give vague answers all the time. Just like Obama did when faced with a similar question a while back.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 11:35:35 AM
Rant all you want, but I'm only saying that nobody really gives a shit. It's definitely not as relevant to most people as various economic and social issues are.
It's a symptom of a crappy or at best incomplete science education. There's no way you can be a thinking nuclear physicist and go "yes, I know the uranium has a half-life of 4 1/2 billion years, and based on the amount of material left plus decay products it's been around for at least 3 billion years. Obviously this was all set up this way when the earth was created 7000 years ago." I don't have a problem with people who believe in the divine, but Young Earthers aren't any better than Flat Earthers and should be equally ridiculed.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 11:35:35 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 04, 2012, 11:25:15 AM
And ultimately, it is not about "feeling strongly about some issues" (just as well, probably most of the people do not "feel strongly" about the value of the number Pi or the Avogadro number) but a rejection of universally accepted scientific facts and with it the entire scientific/rational mindset. This quality is something that is a cause for a great concern in someone who wants to govern and lead people.
Rant all you want, but I'm only saying that nobody really gives a shit. It's definitely not as relevant to most people as various economic and social issues are.
But Marty is right. Denying evolution and the general age of the planet is equal to saying that the Sun orbits the Earth.
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 11:32:59 AM
According to you, he daren't say what he thinks for fear of alienating one side or another. Make your mind up.
The best way to square the circle is to say that no one cares except for the base of the GOP, who Rubio is in thrall to based on this sattement.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 04, 2012, 11:49:09 AM
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 11:32:59 AM
According to you, he daren't say what he thinks for fear of alienating one side or another. Make your mind up.
The best way to square the circle is to say that no one cares except for the base of the GOP, who Rubio is in thrall to based on this sattement.
But is that really the base of the Republican party? Based on that Pat Robertson bit and the rest that I clipped out of the article (as well as personal experience), I'm not sure I believe that the base of the Republican Party believes that.
Which is exactly why Republicans have lost two Presidential elections in the row despite a lackluster incumbent.
It's funny how every time it seems as if they finally got it right and understood that they can't win BECAUSE they are in thrall to the religious right, they fall back to their old habits.
:rolleyes: I forget where I am sometimes. Yes, I agree with you guys that the earth is more than 7000 years old. But there are many more relevant issues to me & most other Americans, and it doesn't bother me that Rubio and Obama gave vague answers.
Quote from: Martinus on December 04, 2012, 11:54:23 AM
Which is exactly why Republicans have lost two Presidential elections in the row despite a lackluster incumbent.
It's funny how every time it seems as if they finally got it right and understood that they can't win BECAUSE they are in thrall to the religious right, they fall back to their old habits.
Do you think that cost the GOP the election either in 2008 or 2012?
They don't believe you, Spiess. If it wasn't an issue then no one would vote republican. Why would you side with the crazy religious people?
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 11:17:51 AM
I guess I'm saying that few people outside of small circles like Languish give a shit.
As long as you keep pandering to the religious morons, people will see you as the party of religious morons. That hurts the party now, and the effect will only increase with time.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 12:07:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 04, 2012, 11:54:23 AM
Which is exactly why Republicans have lost two Presidential elections in the row despite a lackluster incumbent.
It's funny how every time it seems as if they finally got it right and understood that they can't win BECAUSE they are in thrall to the religious right, they fall back to their old habits.
Do you think that cost the GOP the election either in 2008 or 2012?
I think that some conservative (informed by religion) stances on social issues have been problematic.
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 12:23:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 12:07:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 04, 2012, 11:54:23 AM
Which is exactly why Republicans have lost two Presidential elections in the row despite a lackluster incumbent.
It's funny how every time it seems as if they finally got it right and understood that they can't win BECAUSE they are in thrall to the religious right, they fall back to their old habits.
Do you think that cost the GOP the election either in 2008 or 2012?
I think that some conservative (informed by religion) stances on social issues have been problematic.
Which ones, and do you think they cost the GOP either election?
It seems to be widely acknoledged that extreme stances on abortion/rape lost meant that the GOP lost several senate seats.
As far as presidential elections are concerned, its a branding issue. You can't point to a single issue and say the GOP lost the elections because of that but it all adds to a serious issue problem. The Tories had the same problem a few years ago and made a concerted attempt to, as they called it "detoxify" the brand.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 12:29:41 PMWhich ones, and do you think they cost the GOP either election?
Whore pills?
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 12:33:45 PM
It seems to be widely acknoledged that extreme stances on abortion/rape lost meant that the GOP lost several senate seats.
Two seats. Did not cost the GOP the Senate. But both were stupid mistakes, I'll agree.
QuoteAs far as presidential elections are concerned, its a branding issue. You can't point to a single issue and say the GOP lost the elections because of that but it all adds to a serious issue problem.
Hmm.
QuoteThe Tories had the same problem a few years ago and made a concerted attempt to, as they called it "detoxify" the brand.
From my perspective, they simply became less conservative.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 12:29:41 PM
Which ones, and do you think they cost the GOP either election?
I am not sure if they specifically cost the GOP this election but the primary negative impact is the way good candidates get swept out in the Primaries to make way for crazies. Now granted that happens in both parties but it seems to be a bigger problem in the GOP these days. Particularly when those guys start talking about legitimate rape or whatever.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 12:49:07 PM
From my perspective, they simply became less conservative.
From their perspective they stopped losing elections.
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 12:53:13 PMFrom their perspective they stopped losing elections.
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 10:22:14 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 10:17:31 AM
QuoteWhether 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.
:yeahright:
It's a throwaway answer to an irrelevant question.
Not an irrelevant question. The point of the question is to force Rubio to announce a side, which it did.
It's funny that Robertson's thing is even news. Even the vast majority of hardcore religious fundies don't believe the young earth crap.
I think my mother in law believes it. :ph34r:
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 10:06:44 AM
I'm still trying to figure out what the big deal was over Rubio's answer.
The problem is that he is willing to pander to special interests by giving credit to pseudoscience and conspiracy theory. Is this the kind of man you want with the nuclear trigger?
Quote from: Viking on December 04, 2012, 02:10:31 PM
The problem is that he is willing to pander to special interests by giving credit to pseudoscience and conspiracy theory. Is this the kind of man you want with the nuclear trigger?
As I've stated, it doesn't bother me. Not any more than Obama's answer to a similar question in 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCmBgWdoOoE&feature=player_embedded#! starts at 2:20
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 02:16:42 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 04, 2012, 02:10:31 PM
The problem is that he is willing to pander to special interests by giving credit to pseudoscience and conspiracy theory. Is this the kind of man you want with the nuclear trigger?
As I've stated, it doesn't bother me. Not any more than Obama's answer to a similar question in 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCmBgWdoOoE&feature=player_embedded#! starts at 2:20
Obama's answer is a lot better. No claims of "I'm not a scientist!" Instead, Obama firmly placed biblical literalism as a discussion for Christian theology.
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 02:25:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 02:16:42 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 04, 2012, 02:10:31 PM
The problem is that he is willing to pander to special interests by giving credit to pseudoscience and conspiracy theory. Is this the kind of man you want with the nuclear trigger?
As I've stated, it doesn't bother me. Not any more than Obama's answer to a similar question in 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCmBgWdoOoE&feature=player_embedded#! starts at 2:20
Obama's answer is a lot better. No claims of "I'm not a scientist!" Instead, Obama firmly placed biblical literalism as a discussion for Christian theology.
It's equally vague.
Rubio is a United States Senator serving on Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, including the subcomittees covering science and space, and communciations, technology and the internet among others. He is one of a very small, select group of people who determine the science policy of the United States. Thus, his apparent willingness to give credit to theories utterly at odds with basic facts known through science is a matter of general public concern. Kind of like Ford's line about there being no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe casting doubt on his competence to manage foreign policy.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 02:31:00 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 02:25:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 02:16:42 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 04, 2012, 02:10:31 PM
The problem is that he is willing to pander to special interests by giving credit to pseudoscience and conspiracy theory. Is this the kind of man you want with the nuclear trigger?
As I've stated, it doesn't bother me. Not any more than Obama's answer to a similar question in 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCmBgWdoOoE&feature=player_embedded#! starts at 2:20
Obama's answer is a lot better. No claims of "I'm not a scientist!" Instead, Obama firmly placed biblical literalism as a discussion for Christian theology.
It's equally vague.
Sorry but it isn't. Much clearer what Obama's actual feeling is.
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 02:57:04 PM
Sorry but it isn't. Much clearer what Obama's actual feeling is.
So anything else you don't like about Rubio beyond this?
Rubio isn't really even on my radar yet, why do you ask?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2012, 02:45:53 PM
Rubio is a United States Senator serving on Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, including the subcomittees covering science and space, and communciations, technology and the internet among others. He is one of a very small, select group of people who determine the science policy of the United States. Thus, his apparent willingness to give credit to theories utterly at odds with basic facts known through science is a matter of general public concern.
Lucky for us he's not as goofy as the rest of the Republicans on the Space, Science and Technology Subcommittee.
I think that becomes a relevant question considering he for a on that committee.
Is Public Polling Policy a partisan outfit?
Some interesting numbers: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/12/republicans-not-handling-election-results-well.html
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 03:25:19 PM
Rubio isn't really even on my radar yet, why do you ask?
Just a little hunch back at the office.
Quote from: Jacob on December 04, 2012, 03:47:19 PM
Is Public Polling Policy a partisan outfit?
Some interesting numbers: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/12/republicans-not-handling-election-results-well.html
They lean Democrat, but don't let that stop you.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 04, 2012, 02:45:53 PM
Rubio is a United States Senator serving on Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, including the subcomittees covering science and space, and communciations, technology and the internet among others. He is one of a very small, select group of people who determine the science policy of the United States. Thus, his apparent willingness to give credit to theories utterly at odds with basic facts known through science is a matter of general public concern. Kind of like Ford's line about there being no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe casting doubt on his competence to manage foreign policy.
Well, no. Ford's statement wasn't a matter of religious conviction.
Lots of religious faiths believe in lots of things that are at odds with our scientific understanding of things. Catholics believe that the Eucharist transforms into the body of Christ. Mormons believe that the Native Indians are the descendents of the 13th tribe of Israel. But those beliefs, on their own, don't or shouldn't disqualify a Catholic from helping to decide food policy, or a Mormon trying to decide on archaeological issues.
Don't get me wrong - I have my undergrad in geology. I well appreciate that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. But let's not get too carried away in insulting the faith of others.
As an aside - I friend of mine in undergrad was a fundamentalist, and liked to argue about evolution with people. I tried to take a different tact one night, and was trying to argue zircon dating. He refused to discuss it, because he didn't "know very much about" that stuff, and couldn't therefore rebut my argument before I even started. :lol:
Still a nice guy though. He just liked to be contrary.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 03:50:03 PMThey lean Democrat, but don't let that stop you.
"They lean Democrat and are thoroughly biased and thus should be ignored" or "they lean Democrat but are a reputable source of numbers"?
Quote from: Jacob on December 04, 2012, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 03:50:03 PMThey lean Democrat, but don't let that stop you.
"They lean Democrat and are thoroughly biased and thus should be ignored" or "they lean Democrat but are a reputable source of numbers"?
Hey, you just asked if they were partisan. I'd say somewhere in between but I'm sure you already have your mind made up.
Quote from: Jacob on December 04, 2012, 03:55:09 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 03:50:03 PMThey lean Democrat, but don't let that stop you.
"They lean Democrat and are thoroughly biased and thus should be ignored" or "they lean Democrat but are a reputable source of numbers"?
It's "they provide information I don't want to hear, so they lean Democratic and thus can safety be ignored." Anyway, this all pales in comparison to the terrible crimes of Susan Rice.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 04:03:00 PMHey, you just asked if they were partisan. I'd say somewhere in between but I'm sure you already have your mind made up.
:lol: :console:
It was a genuine question. I have no idea about PPP whatsoever.
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 04:12:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 04:01:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 03:52:00 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 03:48:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 03:25:19 PM
Rubio isn't really even on my radar yet, why do you ask?
Just a little hunch back at the office.
:huh:
Police Squad joke. Hoping Seedy recognizes it.
So you're ignoring my question though I answered yours? -_-
Seriously. It was just a hunch that you already had something against Rubio.
FWIW I had a few doubts about him as a potential Romney VP now that we're past the election I think he may be 2016 Prez material.
Quote from: Jacob on December 04, 2012, 04:19:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 04:03:00 PMHey, you just asked if they were partisan. I'd say somewhere in between but I'm sure you already have your mind made up.
:lol: :console:
It was a genuine question. I have no idea about PPP whatsoever.
Well you usually shoot first & ask questions later when it comes to US politics.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 04:26:55 PMWell you usually shoot first & ask questions later when it comes to US politics.
That's like the pot calling alcohol a drug.
Quote from: Jacob on December 04, 2012, 04:29:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 04:26:55 PMWell you usually shoot first & ask questions later when it comes to US politics.
That's like the pot calling alcohol a drug.
:yawn: Damn, I'm tired. Time to get out the yerba mate.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 04:26:21 PM
Seriously. It was just a hunch that you already had something against Rubio.
FWIW I had a few doubts about him as a potential Romney VP now that we're past the election I think he may be 2016 Prez material.
Oh no. Nothing against him and generally the news I have seen on him has been positive - so perhaps why this bad press caught my eye.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 04:30:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 04, 2012, 04:29:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 04:26:55 PMWell you usually shoot first & ask questions later when it comes to US politics.
That's like the pot calling alcohol a drug.
:yawn: Damn, I'm tired. Time to get out the yerba mate.
That's hippie speak.
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 04:30:39 PM:yawn: Damn, I'm tired. Time to get out the yerba mate.
What's that? A band like your Grateful Dead or something?
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 02:16:42 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 04, 2012, 02:10:31 PM
The problem is that he is willing to pander to special interests by giving credit to pseudoscience and conspiracy theory. Is this the kind of man you want with the nuclear trigger?
As I've stated, it doesn't bother me. Not any more than Obama's answer to a similar question in 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCmBgWdoOoE&feature=player_embedded#! starts at 2:20
one little youtube trick is to right click on the progress marker when the video reaches the part you want to show and pick the option that copys the url of the video at that point.. like this..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hCmBgWdoOoE#t=140s
Obama references the old Day Age Creationist view of the universe. Basically the argument goes that the days of creation were not as long as modern solar days. The best argument for this is the observation that the Sun wasn't created until after light and not on day 1. The day age issue here is beside the point. Obama agreed (at least implicitely) that the universe was at least 13 billion years old, Rubio did not. Rubio was unable to speak truth to pulpit and clearly state that the universe is more than 13 billion years old. I am naturally assuming that he knows this, if he doesn't know this there is even more reason to criticize him.
Personally I think that republican should take the same tack the creationists do in school districts where evolution is on the exam and needed to get into college. Answer the question in this manner "The scientific consensus is....." and give the right answer. I know this is merely shifting the emphasis but what Rubio was trying to achieve is to not insult Robertson and his ilk by telling them that they are stupid; he can achieve that by merely pointing out that NASA thinks Robertson and his ilk are stupid.
Quote from: Viking on December 04, 2012, 04:56:10 PM
Personally I think that republican should take the same tack the creationists do in school districts where evolution is on the exam and needed to get into college. Answer the question in this manner "The scientific consensus is....." and give the right answer. I know this is merely shifting the emphasis but what Rubio was trying to achieve is to not insult Robertson and his ilk by telling them that they are stupid; he can achieve that by merely pointing out that NASA thinks Robertson and his ilk are stupid.
Umm but Robertson was the one bashing Young Earth Creationists.
Quote from: Jacob on December 04, 2012, 04:56:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 04:30:39 PM:yawn: Damn, I'm tired. Time to get out the yerba mate.
What's that? A band like your Grateful Dead or something?
A habit I picked up in South America :ph34r:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fguayaki.com%2Fimages%2Fuploads%2Fpages%2FImage%2Fall%2520about%2520mate%2FWreath-Gourd-image.jpg&hash=14b7e66b9c52e8005c7d5a52e6ac3bbfce05303b)
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 05:06:01 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 04, 2012, 04:56:10 PM
Personally I think that republican should take the same tack the creationists do in school districts where evolution is on the exam and needed to get into college. Answer the question in this manner "The scientific consensus is....." and give the right answer. I know this is merely shifting the emphasis but what Rubio was trying to achieve is to not insult <INSERT CRAZY FUNDY NAME HERE> and his ilk by telling them that they are stupid; he can achieve that by merely pointing out that NASA thinks <INSERT CRAZY FUNDY NAME HERE> and his ilk are stupid.
Umm but Robertson was the one bashing Young Earth Creationists.
:rolleyes:
There. Now the point stands.
Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 05:08:17 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 05:06:01 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 04, 2012, 04:56:10 PM
Personally I think that republican should take the same tack the creationists do in school districts where evolution is on the exam and needed to get into college. Answer the question in this manner "The scientific consensus is....." and give the right answer. I know this is merely shifting the emphasis but what Rubio was trying to achieve is to not insult <INSERT CRAZY FUNDY NAME HERE> and his ilk by telling them that they are stupid; he can achieve that by merely pointing out that NASA thinks <INSERT CRAZY FUNDY NAME HERE> and his ilk are stupid.
Umm but Robertson was the one bashing Young Earth Creationists.
:rolleyes:
There. Now the point stands.
It isn't a nitpick though but a key part of my intention in posting this thread. The party and even prominent parts of the religious right don't support the view that Rubio just pandered to.
Also, it highlights for MiM why this is news as there's tendency, especially among the liberal of us, to just assume everyone on the religious right can be painted with the same crazy brush.
Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 05:14:00 PM
It isn't a nitpick though but a key part of my intention in posting this thread. The party and even prominent parts of the religious right don't support the view that Rubio just pandered to.
Also, it highlights for MiM why this is news as there's tendency, especially among the liberal of us, to just assume everyone on the religious right can be painted with the same crazy brush.
Fair enough. I take back the rolled eyes. :hug:
Quote from: Caliga on December 04, 2012, 01:58:32 PM
I think my mother in law believes it. :ph34r:
Why did you marry into a family of stupid women?
Quote from: Martinus on December 04, 2012, 05:22:14 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 04, 2012, 01:58:32 PM
I think my mother in law believes it. :ph34r:
Why did you marry into a family of stupid women?
Because the one he married is brilliant?
Quote from: Caliga on December 04, 2012, 01:58:32 PM
I think my mother in law believes it. :ph34r:
My entire family believes it.
Quote from: Maximus on December 04, 2012, 05:30:33 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 04, 2012, 01:58:32 PM
I think my mother in law believes it. :ph34r:
My entire family believes it.
Meri, why did you marry into a stupid family? :)
It's pretty strange. My entire family is a bunch of hyper-religious people, including members of the ministry, and not one of them believes it. Nor have I ever met anyone in real life who does. That I know of, anyway. Even growing up in that environment.
Max's family I suppose is understandable as a bit of an outlier. I didn't grow up in Kentucky, of course. :P
You know, I can't say for certain my mother in law believes in creationism. I'll ask Princesca tonight. :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on December 04, 2012, 05:37:06 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 04, 2012, 05:30:33 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 04, 2012, 01:58:32 PM
I think my mother in law believes it. :ph34r:
My entire family believes it.
Meri, why did you marry into a stupid family? :)
Because the one I married is brilliant! :D
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 04, 2012, 05:37:51 PM
It's pretty strange. My entire family is a bunch of hyper-religious people, including members of the ministry, and not one of them believes it. Nor have I ever met anyone in real life who does. That I know of, anyway. Even growing up in that environment.
Max's family I suppose is understandable as a bit of an outlier. I didn't grow up in Kentucky, of course. :P
There are a ridiculous number of my old high school classmates who believe it. I was kind of shocked when a discussion on FB brought it up. Of course, I'm kind of shocked at how many of my old high school classmates have gone over-the-top religious right. They sure as hell weren't when we were in school.
The other thing (since Mart started this sub-thread) is I'd wager lots of rural people in Poland believe in creationism too. I mean, they believe it's ok to put screen doors on submarines over there, so why not in creationism? :showoff:
Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 05:45:43 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 04, 2012, 05:37:51 PM
It's pretty strange. My entire family is a bunch of hyper-religious people, including members of the ministry, and not one of them believes it. Nor have I ever met anyone in real life who does. That I know of, anyway. Even growing up in that environment.
Max's family I suppose is understandable as a bit of an outlier. I didn't grow up in Kentucky, of course. :P
There are a ridiculous number of my old high school classmates who believe it. I was kind of shocked when a discussion on FB brought it up. Of course, I'm kind of shocked at how many of my old high school classmates have gone over-the-top religious right. They sure as hell weren't when we were in school.
Perhaps they weren't bitter yet. ^_^
Quote from: Maximus on December 04, 2012, 05:30:33 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 04, 2012, 01:58:32 PM
I think my mother in law believes it. :ph34r:
My entire family believes it.
Does your youngest sister and her husband? (I'm trying to avoid putting names out there; can you tell? :D)
Couldn't say. I haven't discussed it with them.
I have no idea if my inlaws are creationists. Apparently, Catholicism isn't officially invested in that particular form of wilful stupidity.
Quote from: Maximus on December 04, 2012, 05:30:33 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 04, 2012, 01:58:32 PM
I think my mother in law believes it. :ph34r:
My entire family believes it.
My GF's family believes it. My father in law loves The Big Bang theory show, I don't understand how he can.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 04, 2012, 06:23:19 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 04, 2012, 05:30:33 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 04, 2012, 01:58:32 PM
I think my mother in law believes it. :ph34r:
My entire family believes it.
My GF's family believes it. My father in law loves The Big Bang theory show, I don't understand how he can.
He identifies with Penny? :D
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 04, 2012, 06:23:19 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 04, 2012, 05:30:33 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 04, 2012, 01:58:32 PM
I think my mother in law believes it. :ph34r:
My entire family believes it.
My GF's family believes it. My father in law loves The Big Bang theory show, I don't understand how he can.
Term "Big Bang" was used in an effort to discredit the theory, by likening it to Creationism.
I checked and I was wrong... Princesca's mom does believe in evolution and doesn't believe in the young Earth, etc. She is in the "evolution is real but God created it" camp.
Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 06:30:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 04, 2012, 06:23:19 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 04, 2012, 05:30:33 PM
Quote from: Caliga on December 04, 2012, 01:58:32 PM
I think my mother in law believes it. :ph34r:
My entire family believes it.
My GF's family believes it. My father in law loves The Big Bang theory show, I don't understand how he can.
He identifies with Penny? :D
Maybe, I should ask him. He really likes Sheldon.
Quote from: Barrister on December 04, 2012, 03:54:53 PM
Well, no. Ford's statement wasn't a matter of religious conviction.
Lots of religious faiths believe in lots of things that are at odds with our scientific understanding of things. Catholics believe that the Eucharist transforms into the body of Christ. Mormons believe that the Native Indians are the descendents of the 13th tribe of Israel. But those beliefs, on their own, don't or shouldn't disqualify a Catholic from helping to decide food policy, or a Mormon trying to decide on archaeological issues.
Don't get me wrong - I have my undergrad in geology. I well appreciate that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. But let's not get too carried away in insulting the faith of others.
BB - generally I am on your side on this issue as against the Dawkinsians like Martinus and Viking.
But there are limits. One may have a religious conviction that heretics should be punished by death; such a belief no matter how solidly based in faith and truly believed ought to be a disqualification for say the position of Attorney General.
This issue isn't quite as extreme - I wouldn't say that Young Earthism should disqualify one from the legislature, although personally it would be close to dealbreaker for me as a voter. But such a person has no business on a science-related committee.
It's all a false dichotomy anyway. There is no conflict between the story of the origin of Earth as presented in the Bible and the Theory of Evolution.
Quote from: dps on December 04, 2012, 08:40:21 PM
It's all a false dichotomy anyway. There is no conflict between the story of the origin of Earth as presented in the Bible and the Theory of Evolution.
I agree. :)
I fall into the category of: God made the Big Bang.
:bleeding:
You assholes are gonna make me watch those again.
Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 09:13:01 PM
Quote from: dps on December 04, 2012, 08:40:21 PM
It's all a false dichotomy anyway. There is no conflict between the story of the origin of Earth as presented in the Bible and the Theory of Evolution.
I agree. :)
I fall into the category of: God made the Big Bang.
Prepare to have your asshole ripped by Viking. That guy is crazy as fuck when it comes to anyone, anywhere believing in the existance of a god.
Quote from: Neil on December 05, 2012, 01:10:41 AM
Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 09:13:01 PM
Quote from: dps on December 04, 2012, 08:40:21 PM
It's all a false dichotomy anyway. There is no conflict between the story of the origin of Earth as presented in the Bible and the Theory of Evolution.
I agree. :)
I fall into the category of: God made the Big Bang.
Prepare to have your asshole ripped by Viking. That guy is crazy as fuck when it comes to anyone, anywhere believing in the existance of a god.
I stopped caring about what Viking said regarding gods and religion... oh wait, I never cared what he said. Nevermind.
The fairy goddess queefed, and the universe was born.
Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 09:13:01 PM
Quote from: dps on December 04, 2012, 08:40:21 PM
It's all a false dichotomy anyway. There is no conflict between the story of the origin of Earth as presented in the Bible and the Theory of Evolution.
I agree. :)
I fall into the category of: God made the Big Bang.
Me too!! :hug:
Of course, I believe God is a man-- an old man with a white beard and robe :P
Quote from: derspiess on December 05, 2012, 10:02:52 AM
Me too!! :hug:
Of course, I believe God is a man-- an old man with a white beard and robe :P
Me too!!!! :hug:
Well, one of the gods looks likes that. Others, not so much. ;)
Great. god love.
:puke:
Jesus hates tats.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 05, 2012, 10:36:58 AM
Jesus hates tats.
Hmm. I'm fairly sure that any mention of the body as a temple was OT. In which case, Jesus couldn't care less. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 05, 2012, 10:36:58 AM
Jesus hates tats.
Other mexican love them tho.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.mamapop.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F08%2Fdanny-trejo-600x371.jpg&hash=6b51a11c4cd2f064019d9f6075cb31e9a07451a4)
Except for Jesus tats. He's a hypocrit that way.
I think he pruned my branches a couple of weeks ago.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 05, 2012, 10:33:32 AM
Great. god love.
:puke:
:rolleyes: You missed the subtext. We sometimes agree on something at first but find a way to come to a disagreement on the same issue.
Quote from: derspiess on December 05, 2012, 10:41:57 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 05, 2012, 10:33:32 AM
Great. god love.
:puke:
:rolleyes: You missed the subtext. We sometimes agree on something at first but find a way to come to a disagreement on the same issue.
Can you really blame me? This whole thread is full of subtext from all over the spectrum.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 05, 2012, 10:49:18 AM
Can you really blame me? This whole thread is full of subtext from all over the spectrum.
I guess I can. Not sure if I will or not :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on December 05, 2012, 10:55:45 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 05, 2012, 10:49:18 AM
Can you really blame me? This whole thread is full of subtext from all over the spectrum.
I guess I can. Not sure if I will or not :hmm:
:hmm:
MENDRIVE!
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 05, 2012, 11:03:36 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 05, 2012, 10:55:45 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 05, 2012, 10:49:18 AM
Can you really blame me? This whole thread is full of subtext from all over the spectrum.
I guess I can. Not sure if I will or not :hmm:
:hmm:
MENDRIVE!
You forgot whore pills :rolleyes:
You're against contraception?
For that Sandra Flake ugly woman, yes.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 05, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
You're against contraception?
No.
Wait, would that get a big reaction out of you?
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 05, 2012, 11:15:36 AM
For that Sandra Flake ugly woman, yes.
You're against them for her? You want her to procreate? :unsure:
Quote from: merithyn on December 05, 2012, 11:33:29 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 05, 2012, 11:15:36 AM
For that Sandra Flake ugly woman, yes.
You're against them for her? You want her to procreate? :unsure:
I'd like to see her knocked up. repeatedly.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 05, 2012, 11:36:23 AM
Quote from: merithyn on December 05, 2012, 11:33:29 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 05, 2012, 11:15:36 AM
For that Sandra Flake ugly woman, yes.
You're against them for her? You want her to procreate? :unsure:
I'd like to see her knocked up. repeatedly.
Well, it'd keep her busy. And hopefully off of the TV.
Quote from: derspiess on December 05, 2012, 11:22:29 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 05, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
You're against contraception?
No.
Wait, would that get a big reaction out of you?
Maybe, I'm not sure. I have to be in the mood for it, I'm no Berkut/Raz.
Quote from: Gups on December 04, 2012, 12:53:13 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 12:49:07 PM
From my perspective, they simply became less conservative.
From their perspective they stopped losing elections.
High five :lol:
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 05, 2012, 11:53:37 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 05, 2012, 11:22:29 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 05, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
You're against contraception?
No.
Wait, would that get a big reaction out of you?
Maybe, I'm not sure. I have to be in the mood for it, I'm no Berkut/Raz.
Then no. I mean, hell,
that's what being a Protestant is all about!
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 04:26:21 PM
FWIW I had a few doubts about him as a potential Romney VP now that we're past the election I think he may be 2016 Prez material.
I said in 2010 that his speech was by far the best I saw that night. I still think he's very charming and could be a star. The worry I have is that he seems a bit shallow, not quite as substantial as other GOP potential candidates in 2016.
I don't think this will necessarily hurt him or Republicans because there's lots of people who care about the age of the earth. I think it hurts because it just seems to be a view that's not really connected to the way most people think. Similarly I think gay marriage will come to hurt Republicans not because there's a significant number of people who care hugely about that issue but because, increasingly, more and more people don't really get why it's an issue.
It reminds me of the Tories seeming discomfort with ethnic minorities and single parents in the 90s. It just felt like they were culturally from a different country. A further problem for the Tories then and Republicans now is that very often it seems like they don't really like the country they live in any more. I was amazed that the Democrat convention was the one that seemed more optimistic and hopeful which is a symptom of that.
A person who believes in Young Earth is intellectually bankrupt. He may or may not be fit for American public office.