Yahoo - Creationism Controversies The Norm Among Potential Republican 2016 Contenders

[elkabong82]

Rubio said that the age of the Earth is a debate between theologians, "forgetting" to mention that scientists are a part of that debate not just theorists. He also said he doesn't know if we'll ever know.

Obama said he doesn't think the 6 days, 7th day rest are literal days. Obama has said he believes in evolution. I see with him a person who has been willing to adapt his faith to science. I see with Rubio someone who stated that scientific offerings are theory on equal ground with other theories.

Obama: And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.” I didn't catch anything rational like that from Rubio.

[Bang]

And if he is elected and his cronies try to change school curricula to reflect the idiocy of the more fundamentalist of his support base, then it becomes a major problem down the line.

we should not encourage ignorance by feigning a lack of knowledge to appease them.

It shows a weakness in actively courting such nonsense , a willingness to give credence to fairy tales in order to either garner votes, or that he actually believes them himself.

Here's the thing the modern ignorant right fails to get.

This isn't helping your cause.

.

Rubio MIGHT run in four years and hes already severely damaged his ability to earn my vote in one moronic swoop of a dodged question.

I wonder,, am I alone?

I'm one of those middle of the road folks who tries to weigh candidates and decide which I like without basing it simply on membership in a party.. (the ones that both sides just fought so hard over this past year, and who clearly rejected what the right offered up.)

Course, it's a free country. he is free to ignore what the people just said and gamble on that changing.. but I doubt it will.

~Bang

[twa]

Rubio said that the age of the Earth is a debate between theologians, "forgetting" to mention that scientists are a part of that debate not just theorists. He also said he doesn't know if we'll ever know.

.

I'm not a scientist indicates he clearly believes scientists are the one to ask that question or theologians

probably should have went with it's above my pay grade

[Bang]

I'm not a scientist indicates he clearly believes scientists are the one to ask that question or theologians

probably should have went with it's above my pay grade

to a narrowminded fool ,looking to make up reasons for his non-answer.

He said what he said so he wouldn't piss off the GOP overlords and the Bible Belt vote.

to believe otherwise is simply ignorance.. or the usual willingness to give political stars the lengthy passes they require to remain palatable to people who only vote based on the R after his name.

I suppose he better have advanced degrees in pretty much everything from economics to military tactics.. Because if he doesn't, how can he possibly have an answer as to what he might do if he's president?

If he's so mystified by this that he refuses to answer because he doesn't know, well damn, what else doesn't he know?

pretty much everything if this is the way to answer such a question. (a leading question, to be sure.. a question that is the softest of softballs to toss up .. an opportunity for him try and reach out to moderates and middle-of-the-roaders and the vast numbers of people who feel his non-answer IS news.

but he decied not to take it... a stupid political mistake, or an indicator that he really IS so ignorant as to accept the opportunity to dismiss science.

Encouraging ignorance in our leaders encourages an ignorant future.

~Bang

[PeterMP]

I suppose he better have advanced degrees in pretty much everything from economics to military tactics.. Because if he doesn't, how can he possibly have an answer as to what he might do if he's president?

Or even what about increasing GDP or balancing the budget.

He isn't an economist either.

[twa]

Did he forget to mention scientists or not?

[Bang]

Or even what about increasing GDP or balancing the budget.

He isn't an economist either.

Well hell, how can he even count change then?

He probably needs an advisor to go along with him to the store when he buys a soda.

~Bang

[deejaydana]

GQ isn't feigning outrage...

You crack me up. A conservative politician says something stupid to try and conserve votes in his favor, people laugh at what he said. You come along and quickly try to change the subject from the stupid thing he said to some ridiculous drummed up left wing media conspiracy. It fools no one, stop it.

It's completely a manufactured outrage here amigo. You know it even if u can't admit it.

[Bang]

Did he forget to mention scientists or not?

I don't know,, unlessd he has a degree in english, who knows what he's trying to say?

He could be just babbling,, how's anyone to know??

Awfully brave of him to speak without a masters degree in language. How can anyone understand what he has to say when he's so unsure of himself?

~Bang

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 02:45 PM ----------

It's completely a manufactured outrage here amigo. You know it even if u can't admit it.

well, in my case it's not outrage.. it's just a checkmark i can already make for 2016.

Rubio> no. too stupid.

~Bang

[twa]

I don't know,, unlessd he has a degree in english, who knows what he's trying to say?

He could be just babbling,, how's anyone to know??

~Bang

By knowing what he said

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man.

gee, first response is to clearly delegate that knowledge to science ....Puzzling how it is missed

[Bang]

By knowing what he said

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man.

gee, first response is to clearly delegate that knowledge to science ....Puzzling how it is missed

if you say so.

~Bang

[The Evil Genius]

On a serious note---this thread should be mainly about the politics of these matters, and even about candidates being honest about controversial positions v. currying/alienating voters.

It should not be yet another "evolution" or "evolution v. creationism/ID" thread.

The OP can correct me if I'm wrong

Don't be silly. The OP would never think of correcting Jumbo the great and powerful.

He's been intelligenty designed to know better.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 07:33 AM ----------

Now - the real question is...should flat earth theory be taught in geography class too? What about the geocentric model? Should it be taught as a theory in science class?

I mean, religions did mandate those theories for quite some time.

:evilg:

[elkabong82]

to believe otherwise is simply ignorance.. or the usual willingness to give political stars the lengthy passes they require to remain palatable to people who only vote based on the R after his name.

I suppose he better have advanced degrees in pretty much everything from economics to military tactics.. Because if he doesn't, how can he possibly have an answer as to what he might do if he's president?

~Bang

I pointed out earlier that Rubio claims he's not a scientist so he doesn't know the age of Earth, yet he defends the party stance on abortion and when life begins. So basically his answer was BS and simply an attempt to dodge the question, otherwise he'd have given the same answer in regards to abortion.

Either that or he truly feels science isn't needed to determine when life begins.

[JimboDaMan]

It's completely a manufactured outrage here amigo. You know it even if u can't admit it.

I'm with Bang. I don't see much outrage. I see an automatic disqualification, and a sad omen that we might revisit the cavalcade of knuckleheads again in 2016. I'm hoping for a real option from the Republican Party and Rubio will not be one under these circumstances.

[Bang]

I pointed out earlier that Rubio claims he's not a scientist so he doesn't know the age of Earth, yet he defends the party stance on abortion and when life begins. So basically his answer was BS and simply an attempt to dodge the question, otherwise he'd have given the same answer in regards to abortion.

Either that or he truly feels science isn't needed to determine when life begins.

I've agreed with you completely in this discussion.

it's a clear dodge, and it's meant to appease his fundamentalist base.

unfortunately, the expense of appeasing them is very high.

and really, considering how they got behind the Mormon this time while screaming since i can remember that it was a cult... shows me that all he ever has to do to get their vote is point at the R after his name.

Byond that, they don't really care what he says or who he is. They prove this each and every election.

After all the Lie Pie they just swallowed, voted for, and defended.. i don't think that it is even questionable.

~Bang

[elkabong82]

Does the Earth revolve around the Sun?

I don't know, I'm not a scientist man.

Instead of accepting what science has proven I will use a cop out so as not to offend the 17th century Catholic church. There are many theories out there, and they should all be taught, including the belief based on man's interpretation of scripture that the sun revolves around the Earth. Gee, what's the harm there? What's the big deal in perpetuating ignorance?

[alexey]

well, in my case it's not outrage.. it's just a checkmark i can already make for 2016.

Rubio> no. too stupid.

~Bang

My outrage is continuous... These kinds of statements actually ease my outrage because I am mostly outraged about nobody mentioning these outrageous issues.

I do not think this is stupidity. I think Rubio knows that the age of the Earth is not a great mystery.

You can tell a lot about a politician by looking at who he panders to and how he panders. I'm not voting for Rubio.

[PeterMP]

By knowing what he said

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man.

gee, first response is to clearly delegate that knowledge to science ....Puzzling how it is missed

Science says the Earth is about 4 billion years old, and there is no way the Earth was made in a few days.

The fact of the matter is that he didn't delegate to science or its easy answer.

He mentioned science and then went on to two Biblical interpertations 7 actual days or 7 eras. Neither of which have much of anything to do with science.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

By knowing what he said

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man.

gee, first response is to clearly delegate that knowledge to science ....Puzzling how it is missed

What is the red stuff that flows through your veins?

I'm not a doctor, man.

What is that green stuff in your wallet?

I'm not a banker, man.

What is that animal with wings sitting in that tree?

I'm not a zoologist, man.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 12:19 PM ----------

By the way, I forget who said it, but believing in "creationism" to me is not as big a deal as believing in Young Earth Creationism. The latter is a far more troubling position for a public official to take because how it impacts any number of public policy decisions.

More importantly, it is a canary in a coal mine. If you believe the world is only 6,000 years old than I have to assume that you have other fundamentalists beliefs that could include really nasty stuff like the "Curse of Ham."

At the very least, I assume that you are going to listen to adivsors with those types of beliefs.

The safe answer is always "I don't presume to know the mind of God. Science can tell us the how but not the why."

[RedskinsFan44]

By knowing what he said

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Marco Rubio: I'm not a scientist, man.

gee, first response is to clearly delegate that knowledge to science ....Puzzling how it is missed

Think he would answer that way if he was asked about AGW? I agree this is largely trumped up, however. If you look at the Obama response it is clear that he, like Rubio and all other politicians, don't want to lose the votes of a large chunk of the population by offending their religious beliefs.

[Bang]

What is the red stuff that flows through your veins?

I'm not a doctor' date=' man.

What is that green stuff in your wallet?

I'm not a banker, man.

What is that animal with wings sitting in that tree?

I'm not a zoologist, man.."[/quote']

Brilliant. What a perfect summary.

~Bang

[twa]

Science says the Earth is about 4 billion years old, and there is no way the Earth was made in a few days.

The fact of the matter is that he didn't delegate to science or its easy answer.

He mentioned science and then went on to two Biblical interpertations 7 actual days or 7 eras. Neither of which have much of anything to do with science.

If someone believes in a creator God, how can you limit the possibility?

Time more of a constraint than creation of a universe? :evilg:

The FACT of the matter is he referred experts, scientists being the first mentioned.

[PeterMP]

If someone believes in a creator God, how can you limit the possibility?

Time more of a constraint than creation of a universe? :evilg:

The FACT of the matter is he referred experts, scientists being the first mentioned.

And then he gave answers that have nothing to do with the work done by said experts:

7 days, 7 eras, or a mystery

(I think logically/philosophically and from a Christian perspective a "trickster" God that would create the Earth in 7 days and then make it appear as if it took billions of years is very unappealing and therefore there can be limits.

Beyond that, I think it is difficult to reject other possibilities.

But then I wouldn't be talking about 7 days or 7 era either.)

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

If someone believes in a creator God, how can you limit the possibility?

Time more of a constraint than creation of a universe? :evilg:

I hate this argument. It turns God into some kind of Trickster god, like Loki.

"I'm going to create a totally fabricated fossil record just to screw with humanity."

I have far more respect for God than that.

[Larry]

But, if you pretend that he said one sentence, and then quit, then his answer looks better.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 12:02 PM ----------

I hate this argument. It turns God into some kind of Trickster god' date=' like Loki.[/quote']

Or like a Republican?