Yahoo - Creationism Controversies The Norm Among Potential Republican 2016 Contenders

[Thiebear]

"Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries."

I don't know how some of you can defend that statement. The science on the age of our planet is clear. The evidence is staggering. Yet some ignore it because of anecdotal evidence in ancient text. Seriously, I don't want someone as POTUS who avoids answering a question with a proven answer solely because they don't want to upset some of their voting base, especially not when it has to do with science. Our nation is lagging in science by global education comparisons, we don't need to be taking steps backward.

Rubio is no scientist so he can't say how old the Earth is, yet he'll defend his party's stance on when life begins.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57500491/rubio-opposing-abortion-isnt-about-denying-rights/

DId you read your own quote? He doesn't say when life begins in this quote?

Rubio told "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer that for those opposed to abortion, "this is not an issue about denying anyone rights. This is an issue about protecting the rights of a human being to live - irrespective of what stage in development they may be."

When do you believe life begins by the way as proven by science?

[Larry]

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

You didn't make a claim. You asked a question. (A question which was deliberately created for the purpose of trying to defend political pandering to lunacy by a) distorting his answer, and distorting what his critics are saying.)

I answered it.

You want to know when "I don't know" became an unacceptable answer?

Well, if takes a process something like this:

1. Reporter asks a Republican "What is the value of pi?"
   
2. Republican says "I don't know. And there's no proof that it isn't 0."
   
3. People point out that yes, there is proof that it isn't 0. That yes, it's apparently impossible to answer the question with infinite precision. But that it can be easily demonstrated that 0 isn't even remotely close.
   
4. The Right Wing Spin Machine springs into action. A Republican has said something idiotic. We must quickly create an alternate reality in which his answer isn't idiotic.
   
5. They observe that the first part of his answer is "I don't know". That if he had said that, and stopped there, then people wouldn't think he was pandering.
   
6. They then make a pronouncement.
   
   1. His answer was "I don't know". Pretend that he never said the rest of his answer.
      
   2. Therefore, anybody who objects to him saying that pi might be 0, is actually saying that "I don't know" is unacceptable.

[*]People then go running into Tailgate, fresh prepared with their "argument": If you simply change what the politician said, and change what his critics are saying, then the critics become wrong, and the Republicans become right.

Don't like that answer to your question? (Well, perhaps that's because your question wasn't a question, it was two, untrue, assertions. But let's leave that aside, for now.)

How about this one:

"I don't know" isn't an unacceptable answer. (At least not to me. And I haven't seen anybody else in this thread disagree with that.)

But "I don't know, and there's no proof that pi isn't 0" is.

Or this one:

When did someone say that "I don't know" is an unacceptable answer?

Actually go back and look at your 3posts per

Average page count in here and it shows

Your disruptive and or sarcastic in all.

Yes, I do have a tendency to become sarcastic when I see people posting untrue political spin. And I certainly hope that this is disruptive to the people who are valiantly attempting to alter reality.

[twa]

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

that is what I took it as

comparing the use of pi to the age of the earth is a interesting reach, would bringing in tau help?

[Thiebear]

Larry: not to quote all of that,

What Rubio 'would' have said of pi, (comp. stuffing to stuffing)

I'll leave that to the mathematicians, there

Are the others that say its an endless mystery but Im

Focused on the economy as that is what my

Constituents main concern is now

And others swoop in to disqualify him as President.

[DogofWar1]

As far as I'm concerned, Rubio is no longer fit for the office of Presidency, unless he does a complete about face.

If Rubio had said something like "I don't know exactly how old the Earth is, since I'm not a scientist," and left it at that, that would have been fine. Heck, if I had been asked off the cuff, I would have said something like "I think it's estimated around 4 billion years, but you'd have to ask someone who studied it."

Problem is Rubio didn't quietly defer, he specifically kowtowed to the theological wing of the party, which says one of two things about him. Either Rubio truly believes what he's saying, that he doesn't know and does put some stock into the biblical explanation, or alternatively, he knows the scientific facts, but knows he can't say them, and is basically like Romney, in that he has little intestinal fortitude and just goes with the party line.

Neither is good. Either he's putting stock in theological beliefs where experts should be addressed, which is a problem that extends to any issue tied to the hard sciences, or he's like Romney, and will substitute the party's line instead of having his own views.

And all that economics talk is just deflecting. He took a question that needed only a quick answer, and suddenly turns it into a huge paragraph where he talks about economics and religion and not being a scientist. I mean, that was about as canned of an answer as you could have.

[Thiebear]

Yet Biden is perfectly fine? Such crazy litmus tests.

[Unforgiven]

Yet Biden is perfectly fine? Such crazy litmus tests.

Which quote by Biden are you referring to?

[Larry]

Larry: not to quote all of that,

What Rubio 'would' have said of pi, (comp. stuffing to stuffing)

I'll leave that to the mathematicians, there

Are the others that say its an endless mystery but Im

Focused on the economy as that is what my

Constituents main concern is now

And others swoop in to disqualify him as President.

Unfortunately for your attempt at revising history, though, Rubio didn't say "I don't know how old the Earth is, I care about the economy". He said "I don't know how old the Earth is, and I specifically want to call out to those people who think it was created one afternoon, 6,000 years ago, and to tell all of you that I don't think all of that evidence that shows how grossly wrong you are is important, either."

[Thiebear]

Unfortunately for your attempt at revising history, though, Rubio didn't say "I don't know how old the Earth is, I care about the economy". He said "I don't know how old the Earth is, and I specifically want to call out to those people who think it was created one afternoon, 6,000 years ago, and to tell all of you that I don't think all of that evidence that shows how grossly wrong you are is important, either."

You leave out the middle again?

So your stating he didn't say he would leave that to the scientists?

[Barney B]

So your stating he didn't say he would leave that to the scientists?

I think he did say that, more or less. And if you mean that by even mentioning the word "Scientist", he risks pissing off the GOP's creationist faction, I think you're right.

But then he equivocates by saying, "Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries." This part, IMO, is where he loses all credibility in order to appease the creationists, who act as though they think that evolution is just some competing religion that he'd better not favor over theirs.

It's a shame that he feels that he can't expect to win the nomination without walking the Creationism/Evolution tightrope. The best that we, the non-creationist governed, can hope for is that, if elected, he'd govern with a responsible view towards science, in spite of his religious pandering.

It's not a sure bet, and some of us would rather see a candidate with either more guts or more brains.

[DogofWar1]

You leave out the middle again?

So your stating he didn't say he would leave that to the scientists?

If all he'd said was that he'd leave it to the scientists, that'd be fine.

But he didn't. He mentioned theological beliefs several times. If the top scientists at USGS and the Geological Society of America told him their estimates of the age of the Earth, would he, if asked this question again, say what they told him, and repeat it as the best and most definite answer without any supportive references to theological versions of the Earth's origin? I somewhat doubt it.

[Major Harris]

Yeah, the repubs won't be getting into the White House for a long time....Good.

Wasn't too long ago it seemed like the dems were as much of a mess and longshot than the current repubs. All these guys are idiots and bound to **** up whatever good will they accrue....most of which is by default for a hatred of the other side.