Skip to comments.Who Said It: Marco Rubio or Barack Obama? Willful ignorance of science is a bipartisan value.
Posted on 11/21/2012 12:48:35 PM PST by unlearner
By now you've heard the outrageous quote from Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., on his doubts about the origins of planet Earth. When asked to give its age, he replied: "I'm not a scientist, man. 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've no doubt that these critiques of Rubio are sound. But I'm hesitant to let the crown prince of the Tea Party be singled out for blame. His shameless dodge and pander on the matter of the Earth's creation don't mark him as a radical, nor even as a soldier in the war on science. They mark him only as a mainstream politician.
Beware, for thou that judgest doest the same things: Members of both parties have had to squiggle through elections by appealing to a hazy sense of geo-history. In fact, the Antichrist himselfBarack Obamahas had a tendency to get a little soft with science. Let's compare Rubio's offending quote to one that came out of Obama's mouth four years ago, when he first campaigned for president.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Rush mentioned this today also.
Mr. Engber's all too common and classic error is to call evolution a fact. In what sense Mr. Engber? If we are discussing fact vs. opinion, then it is a fact that Mr. Engber's opinion is that evolution is true. It is my opinion that he doesn't know fact from fiction.
Are talking fact vs. fiction? That seems to be his confusion. And it is a common one. Science does deal in facts. It also deals in ideas, theories and laws.
One can argue that evolution is a valid theory. Likewise it can be argued it is a well-supported theory. It might even be tolerable to make a case for calling the general theory of evolution a law.
The problem is that this theory has itself evolved. Which instantiation of this theory is a fact, Mr. Engber?
No, Facts are facts. In science we should reserve the term "scientific fact" to what is directly observable and measurable, not our interpretations and theories to explain this data. We must not conflate the data / facts of science with the theories or even laws which help us understand the facts / data.
This is his logical fallacy. It is so common among evolutionists I think it should be called the "law of fact conflation". That is my opinion.
First time I’ve seen a leftwingtard make a claim that Obama is the antichrist ~ which, btw, is not true. Obama is a simple acolyte of the antichrist!
Rubio is the “Crown Prince” of the tea party?
Isn’t he among the more moderate of the tea party supported candidates?
I fail to be able to connect the age of the earth with any meaningful political discussions....
I think it is tongue-in-cheek. He links to a site where Obama has been called that. The author does not receive the message of the Bible or accept its authority. I seriously doubt he thinks the Antichrist is a real person. He probably doesn’t believe in a real Devil.
IF you believe there is a god who used death to bring humans into existence (which is what evolutionists must believe if they believe in a god)and that this god used survival of the fittest methodology to ‘create’ humans, then that god pretty much resembles a terrorist. So if Rubio believes that there is a god and this god used death and survival of the fittest over 7 epochs of millions of years to get humans into existence then who wants to worship this kind of deity? If Rubio was politically and theologically SMART he would have said this - that if evolutionist think there is a god and this god brought us into existence by trial and error or by mutating and then killing off the less fit - then this is not the kind of god I want to believe in nor do I. That would be a very slick political answer to the question of whether he believes in evolution and a good theological shifting of the ground to point out how ridiculous it is to worship that kind of deity. If I believed there was such a trial and error survival of the fittest type of god, I would join forces with those who want to murder this monster if we could find him.
It is for the sake of gotcha questions to be followed by endless commentary by leftist eggheads who are in love with the sound of their own voice.
“Isnt he among the more moderate of the tea party supported candidates?”
He’s become the latest moderate champion since Romney.
He was for his 15 minutes until we discovered he wasn’t perfect and moved on to await Reagan’s reincarnation. Until then there are apparently 3 million plus conservative purists who will refuse to vote and will instead allow our nation slide further toward oblivion. Or perhaps that number represents conservative voters who were defrauded this election. I’m not sure.
At a recent air pollution conference, I had to listen to some EPA idiot carry on about ‘occult’ emissions. Really sick minds.
A god who sets up a system and lets it run by itself to see what happens is inherently evil? (Not that this is necessarily what I believe happened, it’s more or less a paraphrase of your description.)
Then what would you call a god who creates intelligent beings but allows them free will to perform evil on each other? Seems that’s an even greater abdication of responsibility.
Scratch a leftist find a red guard, storm trooper, commissar, whatever. People had better wise up fast.
Left-wing fundamentalists want to paint all conservatives as right-wing fundamentalist literalists. The media is more than willing to help them.
It sounds like you have already deified Rubio and want to anoint him, and it is only 2 weeks since the last election.
Just sit back and let the conservatives speak a little bit.
Rubio makes moves in Iowa with 2016 in mind and the liberals are already building his negatives up with “harmless” articles.
Announcing early is dumb.
The age of the earth or the age of the universe? Scientists think the universe is 14.5 billion years old. How they can measure that is a mystery, since the “year” is how long it takes the earth to go around the sun, and there was no sun and no earth at the beginning of the universe.
At this point, all the reporters have left the room, looking for someone else to trap.
“and that this god used survival of the fittest methodology to create humans...”
Consider an Olympic runner and a frail man walking through the jungle. They are spotted by a jungle cat, who begins to give chase. The frail man, a lover of books, has read that this particular cat prefers to chase its prey to ground before devouring it. The frail man drops to the earth and lays still.
The Olympic runner, though in the best condition of his life, incredibly fit, is hopelessly outclassed in a run of any length against the cat, and is unaware of the cat’s preference to give chase, so he runs as fast as he can. He is the eventual dinner for the animal.
The frail man rises and walks home, thankful that he was aware of what was the best way to survive...by adapting to the situation. Who was the most fit?
I know that Rubio couldn’t kiss up to Mitt anymore than he did in Florida, that set off my rino antennae.
And the point of such a question is . . . .?????
No one knows the age of the earth. No written or unwritten fact of record can tell us this.
Evolution, rightly understood, occurs, but cannot tell us how life became generated from non-life.
None of this is subject to a political determiniation.
“Then what would you call a god who creates intelligent beings but allows them free will to perform evil on each other? Seems thats an even greater abdication of responsibility.”
The alternative to free will is slavery to God. How is that am improvement?
The fact is that DNA is mutable and is absolutely incapable of staying the same generation to generation - thus evolution is a fact.
The theory of evolution through natural selection explains the fact of evolution, in that there is variation within populations (because of the fact that DNA cannot stay the same), and that some variations lead to greater reproductive success than other variations based upon the environment the population is currently experiencing.
Lamark had a theory that attempted to explain the facts of evolution as well, it wasn't a successful explanation.
Darwin's theory of evolution; i.e. natural selection IS very successful at explaining the facts of biological evolution.
“I know that Rubio couldnt kiss up to Mitt anymore than he did in Florida, that set off my rino antennae.”
Ohhhhhh noooooo...really? We’re gonna start NOW?
Plus, Rubio jumping on the bandwagon to demonize Romney’s very accurate observations about “gifts” further reveals his RINO tendencies, IMHO.
You have identified the very reason this is not the God of the Bible.
How come Obama got away with his crap-weasel response to the question about when life begins. He said, “That’s above my pay grade.” The end. No further questions. Rubio is raked over the coals.
Good ol’ double standard.
The earth is about 4 and a half billion years old give or take. Evolution does not try to explain hi life came from non life. Scientifically and logically I’ll side with the Catholics. God created life and he worked through evolution. God and evolution are not exclusive.
Analyzing politicians and their actions and positions?
Or do you want to end doing that?
Well the So Cons better start now cuz everyone else is so if you a day late and a dollar short please don’t start blaming a conspiracy by the shadowy “gop e” You know the one with the secret handshake.
Also a good idea would be to prep your candidates to say rape is bad and the earth is really old.
I didn’t say it was. I like free will. I think it indicates God wants friends, not slaves.
My response was to the Knight, who seems to believe that if God allowed his created life forms to evolve using the laws of nature he created, as presumably opposed to creating each organism individually in its final form, this would for some reason make Him evil.
Possibly I just look at it from an odd angle, but it seems to me there is somewhat of a parallel between the notion of evolution and free will. In neither case is the outcome completely predictable.
Maybe God likes that.
You’re right it’s a double standard, but why can’t republicans think through the reasoning of the question before leaving themselves vulnerable to the media and press?
The question wasn’t relevant to anything, so it isn’t so difficult. No upside and only potential for downside.
Ok, I get it. Dirt is old, maybe even older than dirt.
Frankly, I am not so much concerned with exactly when Earth/life began, as I am with it’s ‘use by’ date. If someone didn’t put a “use by” date on sour cream packaging, mine might actually turn sour.
Oh, I have a question....
**WHO in the hell gave the damn order to NOT rescue our men in Benghazi?**
“Start what? Analyzing politicians and their actions and positions? Or do you want to end doing that?”
The post was directed at timing, not actions. We have plenty of time to destroy our potential candidates, at ever getting Dems out of the White House. Enjoy a month or two without the destruction derby...it’s not too much to ask.
Unless it’s what you LIKE to do?
Or the earth was created in 6 days and is approximately 6000 years old. More proof against evolution than for it.
Occult can also be used to describe things hidden from normal view. An occult fracture in medicine merely means a fracture that cannot be seen in an X-Ray. A occult emission is one not measured in normal monitoring. It’s like a sneaky fart. ;-)
In a sensical world perhaps. In today’s hostile political / leftist-media environment, it is better not to play their gotcha game. Just say it is “not relevant to why I am running for office, because I am running to ...” then fill in the blank with the message that needs to get out. That would be something like “get America working again” or “protect the civil liberties of Americans who are being deprived of them.”
I have had it with politicians who will not answer a simple direct question. Religion is a part of politics in this country. The question is valid and goes to his philosophy. I can’t stand it when I can see the wheels turning in their minds saying “now how can I take a middle of the road approach that won’t offend anyone”. Just say what you believe and be prepared to give your reasons for what you believe.
True that. But the horrible downside is going after there emissions, calling them significant - it gives the Agency an even more blank slate to hit whomever they want, regardless of verifiability.
What????!!! Who told you that? 6000 years ago man was spread across the planet and had even invented the plough and was harvesting crops
They have discovered cave paintings that are 30,000 years old. Jeez I don’t even know when the Jurassic period ended but it was 10ns of thousands of years before the cave paintings. 6000 years....the whole earth? C’mon.
Nah. I have no particular fascination with Rubio. I was in fact surprised at how eager some around here were to put him up on a pedestal without really knowing much about him.
But I am sure he would be better than Obama. So would a moderate like Romney. What I want is a conservative who has at least a remote chance of winning presidency. Until then I will pragmatically vote for the lesser of two evils. That was my only point.
Al Gore: Earth’s Interior ‘Extremely Hot, Several Million Degrees’
Algore could make it obvious for you.
I think Rubio gave a spot-on answer to a stupid, “Gotcha” question, yet the lefty media still smears him despite the fact they haven’t asked Obama a question of any substance in over 5+ years.
The media will “Palinize” Rubio no matter what he says and they will twist and distort his answers and statements and they have 4 years to do so.
When Palin gave her acceptance speech, I stated on this forum that the media would skewer her, which they did.
They will do the same to any GOP candidate that has a chance of winning and will pick our candidate for us - Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney.
I would’ve paid to see Newt Gingrich debate the Empty Suit, but the media would never allow it, knowing that Gingrich would utterly embarrass Zero and thus win the election.
Instead, they picked a RINO that didn’t excite true conservatives the way Sarah Palin did, which is why the media spent so much time and energy smearing her and her family.
Notice how they stopped once she stated she would not run in 2012?
“- thus evolution is a fact.”
Uh. No it’s not. Not if you are talking about Darwin’s theory. Maybe if you are talking about Obama’s position on gay marriage evolving then it is a fact that some activity that can be described as “evolving” does indeed exist.
But if you are talking about a whole systematic organization of biological data into paradigm describing the origin of not only species in general but specifically the human species, then no.
Or if you want to say it is a fact that evolution is a theory then evolution is a fact in the sense that it exists as a theory. But that is just semantics. You could say that about anything. I could say my opinion is that liberals are crazy. Since I know it is truly my opinion, then it is a fact that I think it so. It does not follow that it is a fact that liberals are crazy. It still remains my opinion.
Adaptation is a fact because it has been observed. Adaptation is a lynch pin of evolution. Some would describe it as a step of evolution and therefore we are witnessing evolution. Nope. Circular. That would only be true if evolution as whole were an observable fact. It is not. There is much extrapolation of the data.
And it does not matter if facts are predicted or randomly discovered. Either kind of fact adds credibility to a theory equally. This is because hypothesizing does not cause the prediction to be true or false. Weighting one type of fact over another is purely emotion. Prediction is only meaningful if it is the result of controlled experimentation. That is because it illustrates causality rather than coincidence. It is like if predict the Texans will beat the Packers in the Super Bowl by two points. If that turns out to be true it will be an amazing coincidence. It does not constitute a scientific test for my ability to predict super bowl outcomes. This is true even if the game was rigged and I knew the inside scoop.
The “predictions” of evolution are almost universally of finding facts about things that have already happened. These are not directly observable. They are not in a controlled environment. I have read hundreds of news articles which describe surprised evolutionary scientists because of some startling discovery that did not match their predictions, or at least their expectations. Did they throw out evolutionary theory. No. Why not? You expect successful “predictions” to support the theory. These “tests” are not falsifiable. That’s why. And that’s why they provide little real support to the theory. The theory itself evolves. It adapts to the observable facts. As such, it is hardly worthy of the name “theory”. As a whole, there are no tests which could ever possibly falsify it. If it were up to me I would label it a biological data organization schema, because that is all it really is. It is nothing more than the Dewey decimal system of biology - a paradigm rather than a theory.
I accept adaptation because it is observed. I accept speciation because it is well supported. I reject the popular idea of all life on the planet having a common ancestor. It is pure speculation driven by a need to know, understand and explain what we can observe. But the need to know does not constitute the basis to call your best guess a fact.
Saying evolution is a fact is nonsensical. It is like saying biology is a fact. No, biology is a science, a study of facts and the theories that explain those facts. Except some want to use multiple meanings for the word, but then turn around and claim they are the same thing.
The only way evolution could ever be a fact is if you could accelerate the process to the point of observing speciation of known species into other, drastically different, known species. Or, build a time machine and observe the process. Otherwise, it remains, at best, a theory to explain the facts.
Face it. Evolution is NOT a fact. Saying so just confirms my “law of fact conflation”.
It's just, "Trip Wire Politics". Designed by the LibTard Media.
There is No Real Answer. Just an answer that will divide People.
Evolution is the change in a species, now known to be through change in DNA, over time. That is a fact. What you called adaptation is a consequence of that fact. Speciation, common descent of species, the historical consequences of such are all theoretical consequences of that fact. Natural selection is the theory that explains the fact of what you want to call adaptation, but is more accurately defined in biology as evolution. Evolution is change and it is inevitable. DNA cannot replicate itself with 100% accuracy or keep itself inert.
You call talking about politicians destroying them, and you think that it is still not the proper time to discuss a Senator that has been in office 2 years, that he needs more of some kind of, what, a grace period longer than 2 years?
You may not want to be visiting a political site, if politics is off the table for discussion, in your mind.
You may not want to be visiting a political site, if politics is off the table for discussion, in your mind.
Ohhhh. OK. Thanks your honor.
Rubio was the lesser of evils....him or Charlie Crist! The TEA Party did support him but he is no conservative.
You have to admit that your request was goofy.
Really??? You guys are already drawing the wagons around the rinos before you even find out who they are? When the election is 4 years away?