or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Marco Rubio--not fit for public office
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Marco Rubio--not fit for public office

post #1 of 121
Thread Starter 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/marco-rubio-tells-gq-scientist-man-article-1.1204747

 

 

 

Quote:
The Florida senator appeared to be caught off guard when the GQ Q&A turned from recollections about his father and grandfather to a basic science question that is controversial for many on the religious right: “How old do you think the Earth is?”
 
Rubio, a Catholic and favorite of the Tea Party, responded with the following: 
 
"I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. 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."

Politicians should make decisions based on evidence.  They should weigh the facts and allow those facts to govern their decision-making process.  What should not happen is facts getting ignored or a false equivalence being created between evidence-based reality and crackpot wishful thinking.  

 

Yet, when asked a very uncontroversial question about how old the Earth is, Marco Rubio vomited a gallon of logical fallacies in response.  

 

It does not take a scientist to know the Earth is in the order of billions of years old.  It is well established.  It is common knowledge.  It's not like Rubio was asked about the ramifications of the discovery of a Higgs-like particle.  He was asked how old the Earth is.  It's as if he were asked if alcohol could get someone drunk and he responds that he's not a doctor and doesn't feel qualified to answer.  

 

The age of the Earth is not a great mystery.  Not at all.  When the future of our economy depends upon the next generation of scientists and engineers innovating here, spreading this sort of nonsense absolutely will affect our gross domestic product and economic growth.  

 

What's worse is Rubio's very own zombie-worshiping, cannibalistic cult doesn't have any trouble answering this question.  

 

 

 

Quote:
In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of theCongregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:
 
According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth(formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.[5]

 

So, Rubio is either too dumb to understand his own cult's perspective, or is blatantly pandering to the more ignorant American evangelicals on whom he relies to get elected.

 

Republicans need to face reality after the Romney debacle.  Folks like Rubio need to be purged from the party if they are to have any relevance or positive effect on this nation.  Rubio sure as hell isn't fit to serve the American public.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2 of 121

BR:  All Christians not fit to hold public office.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #3 of 121
Thread Starter 

Not what I said at all.  If one can withstand the cognitive dissonance to appropriately compartmentalize their cultish beliefs with an evidence-based reality, it's fine.  Had Marco Rubio said "Roughly 4.5 billion years old" or "I don't know the exact number, but it's billions of years old", this thread would not have been started and the objection to his public service wouldn't exist on these grounds.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #4 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Not what I said at all.  If one can withstand the cognitive dissonance to appropriately compartmentalize their cultish beliefs with an evidence-based reality, it's fine.  Had Marco Rubio said "Roughly 4.5 billion years old" or "I don't know the exact number, but it's billions of years old", this thread would not have been started and the objection to his public service wouldn't exist.

 

Bullsh**

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #5 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Bullsh**

I'm glad you're making a well-reasoned defense of your initial assertion. 

 

Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you the magnificent defense of Marco Rubio's scientific illiteracy.  Such poignancy.  Such eloquence.  If only everyone could argue as well as SDW.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #6 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'm glad you're making a well-reasoned defense of your initial assertion. 

 

Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you the magnificent defense of Marco Rubio's scientific illiteracy.  Such poignancy.  Such eloquence.  If only everyone could argue as well as SDW.

 

This thread is not deserving of any more of my time.  Goodbye.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #7 of 121
Thread Starter 

I wish I had read Phil Plait's wonderful discussion about Marco Rubio's statement before posting this thread.  It's fantastic.  Here's his post in its entirety.  You might listen to him--he's a scientist.  Or maybe that might make you not want to listen.  The last few paragraphs are especially important.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Why Doesn't Florida Senator Marco Rubio Know How Old the Earth Is?

 

 

Image of Earth from Apollo

Image credit: NASA

The Earth is 4.54 billion years old.

We know this because science works. A large number of independent fields of science show that the Earth is terribly old, and all these different scientific areas—highly successful in their own rights—converge on the same age of the Earth. This number is very well known, very well understood, and the process behind its determination is a foundational assumption across all fields of science.

So why does U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) say he doesn’t know how old the Earth is?

In an interview published by GQ magazine, reporter Michael Hainey asks the senator simply, “How old do you think the Earth is?” The answer too should be simple. Rubio’s reply, however is anything but:

I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. 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.

Actually, it's not a great mystery. It used to be ... a century ago. I am a scientist, and I can tell you that nowadays—thanks to science—we know the age to amazing accuracy. The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years … plus or minus 50 million years. That’s a number known to an accuracy of 99 percent, which is pretty dang good.

Sen. Rubio’s answer, however, is so confused and error-riddled its difficult to know where to start.

121119_BA_MarcoRubio
Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla).

Image credit: Getty images

Right off the bat, he mentions the Bible in terms of the Earth’s age several times, including the “seven days” part. This is not necessarily an indication he’s a young-Earth creationist—that is, he thinks the Earth is ten thousand years old or less—but it does indicate some pretty fuzzy thinking on his part, and it makes me think he supports religious findings over scientific ones (or is trying to not tick off an electorate who does). The fact that he says theologians argue over interpreting the biblical age of the Earth, and doesn’t mention that scientists know the actual number, is distressing to say the least.

When he does mention science, he downplays it. About the age of the Earth, he says, “I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that.” In fact, the age of the Earth and the solar system is one of the unifying concepts of science specifically mentioned in the U.S. National Education Standards—an educator-created list of concepts which all students should know upon graduating high school.

Which makes his equivocation all the more tragic. I know that a large fraction of the people in the United States think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. These people are wrong, and provably so, but of course they have the right to believe anything they want. But when someone believes in something that is provably false, and then they act on this belief … that’s when it gets very, very dangerous.

I got a chill when I read Rubio’s statements, “I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow.”

Perhaps Senator Rubio is unaware that science—and its sisters engineering and technology— are actually the very foundation of our country’s economy? All of our industry, all of our technology, everything that keeps our country functioning at all can be traced back to scientific research and a scientific understanding of the Universe.

Cell phones, computers, cars, machinery, medicine, the Internet, manufacturing, communication, agriculture, transportation, on and on … all of these industries rely on science to work. Without basic research none of these would exist.

And all of science points to the age of the Earth being much, much older than Senator Rubio intimates. Astronomy, biology, relativity, chemistry, physics, anatomy, sociology, linguistics, cosmology, anthropology, evolutionary science, and especially radiometric dating of rocks all indicate the Universe, and our home planet Earth, are far older than any claims of a few thousand years. The overwhelming consensus is that the Earth is billions of years old.* And all of these sciences are the basis of the technology that is our country’s life blood.

Senator Rubio is exactly and precisely wrong. Science, and how it tells us the age of the Earth, has everything to do to do with how our economy will grow. By teaching our kids actual science, we can guarantee the future of this country and its economic growth. By hiding it from them, by equivocating about it with them, by providing false balance between reality and wishful thinking, what we guarantee is a future workforce that can’t distinguish between what’s real and what isn’t.

That’s a formula for failure. And you don’t need to be a scientist to see that.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #8 of 121
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

This thread is not deserving of any more of my time.  Goodbye.  

No more irrelevant quips, drive-by strawmen, or eloquent single-profane-word rebuttals?  1frown.gif

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #9 of 121

Given the number of politicians in Washington, and given the number of Republican politicians who have embarrassed themselves scientifically, I would expect at least a few Democrats to be equally clueless. I don't recall seeing any news reports on that, but there must be some. Suggestions?

post #10 of 121
Thread Starter 

It's entirely possible.  Let's be careful not to fall into a tu quoque fallacy, though. 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #11 of 121

I still remember the interview where Pelosi was ratting off a bunch of green energy solutions to reduce CO2. She included natural gas in the list. That dumb **** is unfit for office. She's got to be the stupidest person on the hill.

post #12 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Politicians should make decisions based on evidence.  They should weigh the facts and allow those facts to govern their decision-making process.  What should not happen is facts getting ignored or a false equivalence being created between evidence-based reality and crackpot wishful thinking.  

 

Then why do you support politicians who buy votes with wealth redistribution when it is in no form helpful to the economy and mostly consists of wishful thinking about making life better?  We have had $5 trillion dollars in borrowing and folks like yourself have ignored the outcome because of your wishful thinking.

 

 

Quote:

Yet, when asked a very uncontroversial question about how old the Earth is, Marco Rubio vomited a gallon of logical fallacies in response.  

 

It does not take a scientist to know the Earth is in the order of billions of years old.  It is well established.  It is common knowledge.  It's not like Rubio was asked about the ramifications of the discovery of a Higgs-like particle.  He was asked how old the Earth is.  It's as if he were asked if alcohol could get someone drunk and he responds that he's not a doctor and doesn't feel qualified to answer. 

 

Actually he didn't commit any logical fallacies because he wasn't making an assertion in saying he didn't want to just give one answer. Also your analogy is completely wrong because it can be answered with a yes or no whereas the age of the earth cannot be answered with a yes or no. To make it analogous, you'd have to ask Rubio how many drinks does it take to get a person drunk, to which he might reply he's not a doctor.

 

 

Quote:

The age of the Earth is not a great mystery.  Not at all.  When the future of our economy depends upon the next generation of scientists and engineers innovating here, spreading this sort of nonsense absolutely will affect our gross domestic product and economic growth.  

 

What's worse is Rubio's very own zombie-worshiping, cannibalistic cult doesn't have any trouble answering this question.  

 

You are asserting that our economic outcomes rely on correctly answering the age of the earth.......

 

You are seriously asserting that? Please prove it. I'd suggest everyone in this thread repeat that question until BR answers it. It is the premise of the thread. It is an unproven assertion. He should prove it.

 

Quote:

So, Rubio is either too dumb to understand his own cult's perspective, or is blatantly pandering to the more ignorant American evangelicals on whom he relies to get elected.

 

Republicans need to face reality after the Romney debacle.  Folks like Rubio need to be purged from the party if they are to have any relevance or positive effect on this nation.  Rubio sure as hell isn't fit to serve the American public.

 

So pandering to a group makes one unfit for office? What do you call changing your view on homosexual marriage to a state's rights issue? Issuing an executive order to create a sort of pseudo dream act, running ads promising free birth control, putting record numbers of people on food stamps and social security disability and so forth?

 

It's all pandering. Every politician does it. You're being hypocritical and also not supporting your own premise. Worse still you undermining by acting like the antithesis of it. Someone using science for decision making wouldn't ignore information or people with whom they disagree. They wouldn't be a foaming at the mouth, profanity spewing ball of anger.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #13 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I still remember the interview where Pelosi was ratting off a bunch of green energy solutions to reduce CO2. She included natural gas in the list. That dumb **** is unfit for office. She's got to be the stupidest person on the hill.

You ought to do at least a little research before posting. The combustion of natural gas produces substantially less CO2 per unit heat evolved than gasoline or coal (30% and 45% respectively).
post #14 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


You ought to do at least a little research before posting. The combustion of natural gas produces substantially less CO2 per unit heat evolved than gasoline or coal (30% and 45% respectively).

She was trying to talk about technology that produces no CO2. Funny she left nuclear off the list. It either because she a stupid bitch (which she is) or it's not in her parties talking points.

post #15 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

You ought to do at least a little research before posting. The combustion of natural gas produces substantially less CO2 per unit heat evolved than gasoline or coal (30% and 45% respectively).
She was trying to talk about technology that produces no CO2. Funny she left nuclear off the list. It either because she a stupid bitch (which she is) or it's not in her parties talking points.

Perhaps you could cite where she said that it produces no CO2. Not that I doubt your objectivity, of course.
post #16 of 121
post #17 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


Perhaps you could cite where she said that it produces no CO2. Not that I doubt your objectivity, of course.

Yea I'll go find that TV interview from 4 years ago. Does anyone really doubt that Pelosi is a dumb bunny?

post #18 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Perhaps you could cite where she said that it produces no CO2. Not that I doubt your objectivity, of course.
Yea I'll go find that TV interview from 4 years ago. Does anyone really doubt that Pelosi is a dumb bunny?

Certainly no "conservative" does.
post #19 of 121

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

 

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?

 

A: What I’ve said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it . . . it may not be 24-hour days, and that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don’t presume to know. [H/T]

 

-------

 

I think it's appalling that BR thinks Barack Obama is unfit for public office. That's seems kinda racist. 1wink.gif

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #20 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

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

 

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?

 

A: What I’ve said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it . . . it may not be 24-hour days, and that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don’t presume to know. [H/T]

 

-------

 

I think it's appalling that BR thinks Barack Obama is unfit for public office. That's seems kinda racist. 1wink.gif

 

That's the last time I'm voting for him. Or does he lie to his daughters too. I think we should be told...

post #21 of 121
Thread Starter 

If you can find somewhere where Rubio says the same thing here, I'll retract my initial point.

Quote:
Should creationism and Intelligent Design be taught as science in schools along with evolution?
 
“I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. 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.”
 
-Barack Obama

http://2012election.procon.org/view.answers.election.php?questionID=1758

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #22 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

If you can find somewhere where Rubio says the same thing here, I'll retract my initial point.

Quote:
Should creationism and Intelligent Design be taught as science in schools along with evolution?
 
“I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. 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.”
 
-Barack Obama

http://2012election.procon.org/view.answers.election.php?questionID=1758

 

 

This is called moving the goal posts. If someone is unfit to serve in public office because they don't give a straight answer detailed the age of the earth as roughly 4.5 billion years old, then President Obama has failed that criteria. He even declares he "doesn't presume to know" what the exact answer should be.

 

Don't be a hypocrite.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #23 of 121

So Obama said one thing at a Christian college and another to a newspaper on the campaign trail? Is this a good thing?

 

And you pronounce Rubio "unfit for office" for simply ducking the question?

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #24 of 121
Thread Starter 

Rubio did more than duck the question.  He said that scientific knowledge has no bearing on the economy.  That's far different from what Obama said.  You are creating a false equivalence.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #25 of 121

I think Rubio knew the answer and was playing dumb.He is a shrewd politician and knows what he is doing pertaining to his party.
 

post #26 of 121

I think BR is suffering from a little cognitive dissonance.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #27 of 121

This may be interesting to those here:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/11/19/why-marco-rubio-needs-to-know-that-the-earth-is-billions-of-years-old/

 

 

It also raises the issue of why do our politicians have to pander to the religious nuts in our country who benefit from science yet pick and choose what elements of it to not accept.  Literally, their entire lives would be turned upside down by the elimination of a single concept, and that is too much for them to grasp.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #28 of 121
Thread Starter 

Indeed, Berger.  That is an excellent article. 

 

 

 

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

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #29 of 121
Thread Starter 

I fully agree with of PZ Myers' take on Marco Rubio deciding to embrace scientific reality.

 

 

 

Quote:

Marco Rubio backs off

Rubio has changed his mind: he now concedes that the earth is 4½ billion years old.

“There is no scientific debate on the age of the earth. I mean, it’s established pretty definitively, it’s at least 4.5 billion years old,” Rubio told Mike Allen of Politico. ”I was referring to a theological debate, which is a pretty healthy debate.”

“The theological debate is, how do you reconcile with what science has definitively established with what you may think your faith teaches,” Rubio continued. “Now for me, actually, when it comes to the age of the earth, there is no conflict.”

I’d actually agree with that statement, although I’d go on to mention that reality and faith are irreconcilable, so that theological debate is pretty damned pointless.

But of course now the Teabaggers will be gasping in horror. He is also now officially a flip-flopper.

Man, it’s got to be fun to be jockeying for a position in the 2016 presidential run…trying to simultaneously seem rational and intelligent while looking just stupid enough to appeal to the far right base.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #30 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

 

Quote:
although I’d go on to mention that reality and faith are irreconcilable, so that theological debate is pretty damned pointless

 

What the hell does that mean?!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #31 of 121
Thread Starter 

That reality is real and god is Santa for grownups?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #32 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

That reality is real and god is Santa for grownups?

 

Oh, I see...so he (and you) are declaring your personal belief as if it were fact. Got it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #33 of 121
Thread Starter 

If you assert god is real, it is a logical fallacy to attempt to force me to disprove the existence.  It is up to you to support it.  You cannot, thus your assertion is dismissed as nothing but childish fantasy.

 

I lack a belief in your deity because no adequate self-consistent definition of said deity exists nor has any evidence been presented that would hint at such a being existing.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #34 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

If you assert god is real, it is a logical fallacy to attempt to force me to disprove the existence.

 

I'm not forcing or even asking you do do any such thing.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It is up to you to support it.

 

Agreed, if I want to.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You cannot, thus your assertion is dismissed as nothing but childish fantasy.

 

You are engaging in a fallacy here. Just because I have not, or cannot prove God's existence to you does not mean that his existence is a "childish fantasy." Here again you are stating a belief or opinion of your own about my beliefs.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I lack a belief in your deity because no adequate self-consistent definition of said deity exists nor has any evidence been presented that would hint at such a being existing.

 

That's all fine, but you've gone further and stated a specific belief (that "god is santa claus for adults.") This is a belief, a position of faith.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #35 of 121
Thread Starter 

Nope, not a position of faith in the least. It's an observation of the attributes associated with each and a reasoned conclusion that the two are relevantly similar.

santa_vs_god.png

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #36 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Nope, not a position of faith in the least.

 

 

Of course it is:

 

  1. The statement is either true or it is not.
  2. The statement assumes that God does not exist.
  3. The statement is not provable either way.
  4. Therefore, the statement is a statement of faith.

 

Now, granted, cute info graphics aside, you may believe that there are number of observations and your interpretations of those observations that makes this seems much less like a position of faith but, make no mistake, it is, in point of fact, a position of faith. It is simply not provable either way.

 

BR, it's okay to have faith. You certainly live your life based on a variety of faith propositions though I'm sure you either don't see these or will admit it even if they were pointed out.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #37 of 121
Thread Starter 

That's not logic.  I don't have to prove a negative.  I don't say god doesn't exist.  I say that the idea of god is outrageous and requires extraordinary evidence to support.  With the lack of a single shred of evidence, I have no reason to pay it any heed.  I will lack the belief in this insane thing you describe as god, just as I lack belief in unicorns, leprechauns, and Santa Claus.

 

Faith is belief without evidence. When you attempt to claim I have faith in other every day things, you are most likely confusing faith with trust based on prior observations, utilizing inductive reasoning.  Faith is no virtue.  Not in the least.


Edited by BR - 12/5/12 at 9:22pm

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #38 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

That's not logic.

 

Yes it is.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I don't have to prove a negative.

 

I didn't say that you did.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I don't say god doesn't exist.

 

Actually, you kinda did. You said that god is like santa claus for adults. I assume you believe that santa claus doesn't exist so your implication is that God does not exist.

 

Either way though, the statement "god is like santa claus for adults" is not a provable statement. Therefore it is a statement of faith. It is something you believe to be true.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I say that the idea of god is outrageous and requires extraordinary evidence to support.

 

Agreed.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

With the lack of a single shred of evidence...

 

Well, it is more likely lack of any evidence that you will accept.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I will lack the belief in this insane thing you describe as god, just as I lack belief in unicorns, leprechauns, and Santa Claus.

 

You're playing a semantical game here. You continue to assert that the idea of god is simply so fantastic that it cannot be believed by a reasonable person. In essence you are saying that god does not exist. Your word smithing doesn't alter this fact.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Faith is belief without evidence.

 

Well there are certainly degrees of faith. There are things for which there is some evidence but not ironclad evidence. There are many things we all live our life on for which we do not have 100% evidence. The gap between the amount evidence we have and what we claim to be true is covered by faith.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

When you attempt to claim I have faith in other every day things, you are most likely confusing faith with trust based on prior observations, utilizing inductive reasoning.

 

Again, you are playing games with words here.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Faith is no virtue.  Not in the least.

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #39 of 121
Thread Starter 

You are committing the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, part of the argumentum ad ignorantiam family of fallacies.  Furthermore, I never once stated that Santa Claus, leprechauns, or god does not exist.  I do not have perfect knowledge of the universe and I cannot claim to know those things don't exist.  However, those who do claim such creatures exist have the burden of proof to demonstrate that they do.  Without evidence, the odds of such beings existing are astronomically low, so low that for all intents and purposes, the probability of such things existing is 0.  For the sake of brevity, I will not go around saying

 

P(Santa Claus) = 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

...

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

 

I will just round down and say there is no reason for me to believe in Santa as the odds are astronomically small.  I lack a belief in Santa.  I lack a belief in god in the same way.

 

 

 

Quote:
The gap between the amount evidence we have and what we claim to be true is covered by faith.

Absolutely not.  It's covered by probability based on the strength of said evidence.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #40 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You are committing the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof

 

Not at all. I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm saying that you have made a claim that is either true or false and that you cannot prove your claim therefore it is a statement of faith.

 

This isn't that hard.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Furthermore, I never once stated that Santa Claus, leprechauns, or god does not exist.  I do not have perfect knowledge of the universe and I cannot claim to know those things don't exist.

 

Correct, you cannot know these these for sure.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Without evidence, the odds of such beings existing are astronomically low, so low that for all intents and purposes, the probability of such things existing is 0.

 

Untrue.

 

Anyway...later.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Marco Rubio--not fit for public office