Originally Posted by BR
We are caught in a loop. I have asked and answered your questions several times. You counter with the same, tired, debunked arguments. I'll give you the highlights briefly one last time.
No, you and I have a different interpretation of what both men said. Nothing has been "debunked."
Promoting science and rational thought benefits this country because the entire technological revolution we have experienced is all based on...drumroll please...SCIENCE!
Promoting the idea that Christianity (or any religion for that matter) has anything meaningful to say about the age of the Earth that isn't based on empirical evidence is completely counterproductive to the goal of inspiring a new generation of scientists and engineers.
I don't agree that Christianity has nothing meaningful to say, nor do I agree that its statements on the subject are "counterproductive" to inspiring a new generation scientists and engineers. In fact, I'm not sure how you support this statement at all.
Denigrating science by taking a very settled question and providing a bullshit answer that only includes two Christian viewpoints (7 days vs 7 eras) while claiming that settled question is a great mystery that may never be answered is absolutely ludicrous.
I don't see how it's "denigrating" science. In fact, one could see their answers as adapting their faiths to the scientific facts at hand.
"god did it" has been a stumbling block for centuries. "god did it" has retarded our civilization's scientific achievements and progress. When Newton was satisfied with "god did it", he ceased his efforts in attempting to explain how all the little gravitational tugs between all the planets could possibly be stable--he understood it for two body systems, but felt without the hand of god holding things steady, there was no way it would work naturally with a larger solar system. Newton INVENTED CALCULUS ON A BET. Figuring out perturbation theory (which took another couple hundred years until Laplace came around) should have been a walk in the park. It was because Newton was satisfied with "god did it." When his curiosity ended, he stopped advancing humanity's knowledge. Religion neutered him, just as it will neuter the next generation of thinkers if the likes of Marco Rubio promote the idea that settled science actually are mysteries that will never be answered.
I understand that you don't believe God created the universe. On this matter however, both Obama and Rubio are in complete agreement.
Religion didn't give us GPS. Einstein's General Relativity did. Religion didn't give us nuclear power. A thorough understanding of nuclear chemistry, nuclear physics, and the predictability of radioactive decay did. Those same fields (amongst others that corroborate it) allow us to know the age of the Earth.
True. They allow us to have a scientific understanding of the age of the Earth (one which I fully accept, by the way). However, those fields do not begin to answer the question of who created the universe, if anyone, nor why it was created, nor the meaning of life, nor whether the Bible is referring to literal days or eras. You may not be interested in such things, but many people are. In fact, some view you and the likes of you to be the closed minded ones, because you simply shut your brain, soul and spirit off at "life is random and meaningless."
Want to proclaim the age of the Earth is some great mystery? Fine. You can turn off your lights, dismantle our nuclear arsenal, and forfeit all the modern day technological comforts that rely upon the VERY SETTLED SCIENCE.
I didn't hear either man reject the scientifically established age of the Earth. I heard each man try to explain how his faith is compatible with science. And then I saw you try to claim that one was unfit for office while the other was perfectly fine.
Spoiler alert--the literal 7 days IS EMPIRICALLY FALSE.
I agree that it is empirically false. And neither man claimed it to be so.
Does Obama hedge and pay some lip service to the ignorant? Sure. Was he asked the same question? **** no. Does his track record point to favoring teaching science over religious dogma in public schools? Absolutely.
Edit: Fixed a grammar error--wasn't to was.
I don't view Obama (nor Rubio) as having paid lip service to the ignorant. I view both as trying to explain how their faith is compatible with scientifically accepted fact for obvious political reasons. It's also unfortunate (yet expected) that you view any believer as "ignorant." What's amazing is that you're having a conversation with people (namely, me) who defy your very caricature of believers.