Yahoo - Creationism Controversies The Norm Among Potential Republican 2016 Contenders

[twa]

BTW, when someone when is a committed Christian is also as educated in a relevant scientific discipline as Peter is, and is a teacher (and hasn't given me reasons to be otherwise) talks about his views on teaching creationism/ID in a school setting, I listen with even more attentiveness than the norm no matter what my current position is on the matter.

His is a valuable perspective and I largely agree with it

There is room for better learning though by using them to differentiate between science and philosophy/religion...it might even diffuse some tensions that arise

[alexey]

Seems like a quote that brings people together

Vs ripping them apart. How horrible for a leader type

Great mysteries do bring people together... to join hands and sing kumbaya

[Jumbo]

Media turns people's attention into revenue streams. Actions of potential 2016 candidates may now get people's attention. So there may be a grain of truth in the pile of dung after all.

Well, there is a lot available to learn from any excrement, of any kind. But that learning was not the intention of the organism that made the deposit. :pfft:

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 12:32 PM ----------

His is a valuable perspective and I largely agree with it

There is room for better learning though by using them to differentiate between science and philosophy/religion...it might even diffuse some tensions that arise

I think it's an avenue worth consideration.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 12:33 PM ----------

Great mysteries do bring people together... to join hands and sing kumbaya

I'd rather sing Taylor Swift songs.

(just between all of us....how bad would it be for whatever image I have to say I kind of like and even respect Taylor Swift? Way too damaging? Is this OT?)

[twa]

Rubio said he's not a scientist and therefor not qualified to use science to say how old the Earth is, so he is not qualified by his same logic to use science to state when life begins. he also is not qualified, by his own logic, to say what happens to water when it boils, how plants get energy from the sun, how a microwave heats up a burrito, if the Earth revolves around the sun or vice versa, if the world is round or flat.

You getting the point yet that "I'm not a scientist, man" is a cheap and stupid cop out?

Are scientists qualified?

Why demand one answer but not the other if science asserts them both?

[elkabong82]

Great mysteries do bring people together... to join hands and sing kumbaya

I remember learning in school that the great mystery about whether the sun revolved around the Earth was a lively and spirited debate with nothing but good intentions on both sides and ultimately was concluded peacefully with no ill will.

It's not like supporting or allowing religious fundamentalism to subvert fact has ever led to murders, especially not in the U.S. in friendly Massachusetts towns.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 03:38 PM ----------

Are scientists qualified?

Why demand one answer but not the other if science asserts them both?

The point was clear as day, your choosing to ignore it only speaks to your own character.

The things I mentioned are basic science, proven empirically, and people can comment on them knowing the basic facts.

I turned Rubio's "logic" against him, plain and simple. If you can't see that, it's only because you choose to.

[Larry]

Rubio said he's not a scientist and therefor not qualified to use science to say how old the Earth is, so he is not qualified by his same logic to use science to state when life begins. he also is not qualified, by his own logic, to say what happens to water when it boils, how plants get energy from the sun, how a microwave heats up a burrito, if the Earth revolves around the sun or vice versa, if the world is round or flat.

You getting the point yet that "I'm not a scientist, man" is a cheap and stupid cop out?

Actually, I will observe that I firmly "believe in evolution". (In fact, I firmly believe that Creationism was a lie from the outset, created by Christian Theocrats under the theory of "well, if the Constitution says we can't force the schools to teach our religion, then we'll claim that our religion is a science, and then demand that they teach our 'science'.") (A variation of the "Oh, I know! Let's say that our religion is History, so we can demand that they teach our religion there".)

But if I'd been asked how old the Earth is, My first reaction would be to look at the questioner to try to figure out if he was serious, and to then mentally toss a coin to select between "Who knows?", or "Who cares?"

Me, personally? I'm absolutely certain that it wasn't created on Spring Break, 6,000 years ago. But I don't have the faintest clue how many zeroes there are in the answer.

----------

I have no complaint at all with "I'm not a scientist".

I have a problem with "there is no evidence that it wasn't created one afternoon, a few thousand years ago".

If he'd shut up after his first sentence I wouldn't care.

[deejaydana]

It wasn't.

But keep pushing that Kool Aid. The Party Needs You.

And don't forget the "vast liberal media conspiracy" flavor, either.

It's funny how incredibly intolerant liberals are. Yahoo has left leaning ownership and it bleeds thru in their coverage. This story included. Ron Paul hit it on the head in his exit speech: the right must rely on the Internet to get their message out and counter what's become a largely corrupted d and compliant broadcast media.

[Larry]

It's funny how incredibly intolerant liberals are.

It's funny how quickly Conservatives claim intolerance or persecution when people point out that they're shoveling BS.

[Jumbo]

Ron Paul hit it on the head in his exit speech: the right must rely on the Internet to get their message out and counter what's become a largely corrupted d and compliant broadcast media.

Without even touching anything else there, Fox's huge tv audience is no longer existent and talk radio is no longer enormously top-heavy in rightsiders?

Oops, sorry...we're going OT. Time to stop.

[deejaydana]

It's funny how quickly Conservatives claim intolerance or persecution when people point out that they're shoveling BS.

See I'm not down for taking it to a name calling, let's talk past each other, waste of time posts. I didn't claim you shovel BS, and I'll even admit conservatives do that at times while it serves their purpose (and to their own detriment). I find that some think this interview by Rubio is evidence that he's religious to a degree that makes him politically unviable just laugh out loud stupid. The media treat the general public as fools, don't you agree? Not every exchange has to be about taking sides Larry. The world isn't a black and white place and I think science and religion can actually co-exist.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 01:02 PM ----------

Without even touching anything else there, Fox's huge tv audience is no longer existent and talk radio is no longer enormously top-heavy in rightsiders?

Oops, sorry...we're going OT. Time to stop.

Ok Fox is the bane of all media I get it and I get your point that their news can be biased and sometimes shamelessly so. I'll also point out that my rant isn't a defense of Fox or of shoddy journalism. Radio is heavy with right leaners for sure but heck the scoreboard isn't even slightly close regards its bias (re: television, hollywood and academia) and I could do a quick accounting but I don't want to take the thread off course. The reason for radio presence being dominated by the right is a simple one though: leftists need pictures in order to understand a story

[twa]

The point was clear as day, your choosing to ignore it only speaks to your own character.

The things I mentioned are basic science, proven empirically, and people can comment on them knowing the basic facts.

I turned Rubio's "logic" against him, plain and simple. If you can't see that, it's only because you choose to.

And I'm using your logic of 'if science has a conclusion it must be used as the only acceptable answer' against you.

if you can't see that demanding the 'correct' answer selectively is no better than what he did ,then it speaks to your character

[Jumbo]

Ok Fox is the bane of all media I get it and I get your point that their news can be biased

That wasn't my point, but I'm not surprised (see next sentence). My point was you made a blatantly and revealingly incorrect statement < I did quote just the key phrase, so that should have helped focus> that also reflects your own habitual, seriously ingrained and rigid bias--the degree of which you frequently retreat from to a more moderated position when called on it---that was distressingly easy to refute in its one-dimensional unthinking overstatement. I say "distressing" because it's bothersome when such is so common in these threads from someone with such a workable intellect.

Also, the perpetual irony of poster "a" <specific/fixed> consistently going after poster "x" <variable/changing>, for the same thing they do, was in play. But we all do that; as I often note, hypocrisy is common to us all, but we can have some say over the frequency and degree.

I think the rest of your position, as restated, is more reasonably arguable, and even tilts in a likely correct direction. It all remains fairly debatable and difficult to quantify in any objective measure with any assurance. As with many related things, positions are going be born more of intrapersonal psychology than accurate objective assessment of extra-personal reality.

Moving on.

[Predicto]

It's funny how incredibly intolerant liberals are.

See I'm not down for taking it to a name calling, let's talk past each other, waste of time posts.

:whoknows:

[Larry]

See I'm not down for taking it to a name calling, let's talk past each other, waste of time posts.

It's funny how incredibly intolerant liberals are.

----------

I find that some think this interview by Rubio is evidence that he's religious to a degree that makes him politically unviable just laugh out loud stupid.

That's funny. I haven't noticed a single person making that claim.

Speaking only for myself, I think that the odds are overwhelming that Rubio thinks that anybody who thinks that the Earth was literally created in an afternoon, a few thousand years ago, are complete loons.

(I base this simply on my personal theory that life is not so monumentally unfair that people dumb enough to believe that excrement can be as successful as Rubio has been.)

(A belief that, I'll admit, I hold despite the evidence that, at least in the profession of politics, that yes, sometimes people who really are that dumb, do manage to rise quite far, indeed.)

No, I would say that the odds are overwhelming that Rubio has the same opinion of people who believe that hooey that I do, and that he consciously chose to cater to them, anyway. Because right now, at this point in his campaign, catering to the Loony branch of the GOP helps him more than it hurts him.

[alexey]

Accusations of general bias do not strike me as valuable substitutes for applicable examples of actual bias.

[The Evil Genius]

Accusations of general bias do not strike me as valuable substitutes for applicable examples of actual bias.

Don't be biased against bias accusations.

[Destino]

I'd rather sing Taylor Swift songs.

(just between all of us....how bad would it be for whatever image I have to say I kind of like and even respect Taylor Swift? Way too damaging? Is this OT?)

She grew up and a friggin Christmas tree farm. Her life is too perfect which usually summons the irrational hatred that prowls my interior which, for example, rages at the mere image of Tom Brady. Interestingly enough she does not evoke that reaction however and I haven't cared to think about it enough to come with a reason why.

(phrased that way it seems less image destroying )

[Thiebear]

Some of us don't think science should be sacrificed for that sake. Some of us think religion can adapt to science and that a leader shouldn't forgo basic facts for the sake of placating fundamentalist groups. Some of us are also not happy that Obama didn't give the correct, direct answer to the question (since you mat also go this route), but are at least encouraged by him promoting evolution and not being backed by a notoriously anti-science political party.

Though I think if you had read the whole thread before responding then your post here would have been negated anyways.

Read his whole quote and show where he sacrificed science.

And how appropriate. It used to be we got crucified for going

Against religion.

Being the atheist I'm not the normal one to

Promote religion, what did I miss in his quote?

[alexey]

Read his whole quote and show where he sacrificed science.

And how

Being the atheist I'm not the normal one to

Promote religion, what did I miss in his quote?

It's not the quote itself but the context-dependent subtext:silly:

Some people find some forms of pandering to be unacceptable.

[Thiebear]

That makes sense as I fail on what wasn't said all the time.

Nuance is not my friend

[elkabong82]

And I'm using your logic of 'if science has a conclusion it must be used as the only acceptable answer' against you.

if you can't see that demanding the 'correct' answer selectively is no better than what he did ,then it speaks to your character

No, you're not using logic against me. You're not even using logic at all. If science has definitively proven something, like the age of the Earth and the other things I mentioned, then it is the only acceptable answer, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. I'm demanding the proven correct answer when such exists, as it clearly does in this case.

---------- Post added November-22nd-2012 at 03:24 AM ----------

Read his whole quote and show where he sacrificed science.

And how appropriate. It used to be we got crucified for going

Against religion.

Being the atheist I'm not the normal one to

Promote religion, what did I miss in his quote?

The question he was asked has an actual answer, backed by science. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The fact he even brings up the 7 days or 7 eras stuff is a sacrifice of science because it entertains incorrect theories due to religious fundamentalism instead of deferring to what has been scientifically proven. As I said before, I'm not happy with Obama bringing up the 7 days stuff either, but at least he flat out said that he doesn't think a literal interpretation applies and he has come out in favor of evolution and he doesn't belong to a notoriously anti-science political party.

IMO, all the stuff with faith should never have been mentioned with this answer.

None of us would accept someone using scripture to state the sun revolves around the Earth today because it is scientifically proven to be otherwise, yet once upon a time such was acceptable and enforced by the church. The age of the Earth is scientifically proven, so Rubio mentioning other possibilities based on religion is the same to me as if he was asked if the Earth revolves around the sun and he said maybe, but scripture says the sun revolves around the Earth so that could be correct.

[Thiebear]

When did I don't know become an unacceptable answer

To a question? And isn't it 4.54 with a 1% margin of error for now.

Following your line of reasoning nobody religious

Should be allowed to hold office or be asked a question that could possibly

Be recorded and played for others to hear.

Which goes against the premise of the country itself?

pretty sure in 2000 years we will have some new

Answers to that question.

I watch the science channel every day and

The smartest amongst us are not as sure as you seem

To be. How many universes are there?

[Larry]

When did I don't know become an unacceptable answer

To a question?

When the Republicans decided that the way to try to defend this guy was to pretend that "I don;t know" was all that he said.

Following your line of reasoning nobody religious

Should be allowed to hold office or be asked a question that could possibly

Be recorded and played for others to hear.

Oh, goody. Another "you're persecuting me because of my religion" card.

I watch the science channel every day and

The smartest amongst us are not as sure as you seem

To be. How old is the universe?

And fresh from the "how to deny climate science" tour, a variation of the "Science makes adjustments from time to time, as new evidence is discovered, therefore I can make up any BS I want and it's just as valid" line of "reasoning".

[Burgold]

If science has definitively proven something, like the age of the Earth and the other things I mentioned, then it is the only acceptable answer, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. I'm demanding the proven correct answer when such exists, as it clearly does in this case.

But science almost never says things in such absolute terms. For example, scientists leave oven the possibility that the rate of carbon decay we use in carbon dating may not be absolutely constant. So, by that alone scientists can't absolutely date the age of the world. What we have is a very, very good guess based on observable, repeatable, quantifiable experiments. Now, that's enough convince me it's probably right, but science generally leaves itself some wiggle room.

The question he was asked has an actual answer, backed by science. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The fact he even brings up the 7 days or 7 eras stuff is a sacrifice...

I actually really like his answer because it uses a classic argument which is if we measure days by the passage of the sun how long is a day before there was a Sun. Better yet, how long is a "day" to an eternal being. Why should his 7 days be counted by our reckonning? Perhaps to God, a day is a billion of our years or a trillion? Why not? To someone older than the universe our lifespan would be less than a nanosecond why would he use our timescale to measure it?

It would be lunacy.

What Obama's answer does is embrace both evolution and geology while leaving open the idea that there are different mathematics out there. That the Bible possibly uses a different measurement system than we do today. By the way, we know that to be the case. The simplest example is that the Jewish calendar does not have 365.25 days in a year.

It is possible to reconcile both science and mythology without doing insult to either.

[Thiebear]

When the Republicans decided that the way to try to defend this guy was to pretend that "I don;t know" was all that he said.

Oh, goody. Another "you're persecuting me because of my religion" card.

And fresh from the "how to deny climate science" tour, a variation of the "Science makes adjustments from time to time, as new evidence is discovered, therefore I can make up any BS I want and it's just as valid" line of "reasoning".

Please backup any of these claims with anything I've

Typed on this topic either here or my previous 8 years worth snippy.

Go get your coffee and come back

Actually go back and look at your 3posts per

Average page count in here and it shows

Your disruptive and or sarcastic in all.

I thought he said I'll leave the age of the earth

To scientists, but I will not attack theologians.

You just see the ® and attack