Geological Time: A Republican Explains

[itsmejeff]

someone gets it.

It is hilarious that either team tries to claim intellectual superiority. Each side calls the other dumb. "look at the dumb things that they believe." Reality? Both parties are filled with morons. Religious hooey is no better our worse than fears about islands capsizing (look that one up, kids).

Most people are dumb. Basic understanding of math and science is non-existent in the us. Political discussions end up as appeals to emotion.

There is also a desire to claim superiority for the individual. This happened a lot with Bush. Absolute morons working in retail were calling an ivy league grad dumb. That makes sense.

 

[Jack Springer]

LMAO IRONY OH THE IRONY!

The republican party is all about believing in a certain way to belong... if you don't, you get kicked out and ostracized.

As far as Marco Rubio... I always said he was a fraud trying to be a Latino... but with this report, he's also a moron like most in the GOP.

You did it again -- saying that a minority cannot be a republican or conservative. You're saying they have to be a liberal or democrat.

I do not understand your logic.

Why not look beyond ethnicity and background and accept people as people.

... looks like you just did what you accuse republicans of -- you kicked him out because he didn't fit your form of a latino.

 

[rareboy]

As long as Rubio does not support the exclusion of fact based scientific teaching in the curriculum....even for the moronic fundamentalist kids who are home schooled...then I could care less if he thinks that their dumb fuck parents and wilfully ignorant preachers or mullahs or whoever, should be permittted to offer a poetic fantasy alternate creationist myth.

But Rubio, the Catholic.... and the claque of knuckle dragging southern Baptists had better get used to the idea that the creation myths in the Book or Mormon, Scientology, Hinduism, Wicca and the Native American folktales all deserve equal time in the classroom as well.

 

[Jack Springer]

^^^^^

Obama answered the question the same way.

If you can't treat him the same way - your opinion means nothing.

 

[bankside]

The Senator indicates that he is not qualified to render an absolute answer to this controversial issue. He seems to favor an approach that accommodates a variety of different viewpoints, while suggesting that the mystery of the Earth’s creation is not particularly relevant to his role as a senator.

The trouble is there is no controversy. The arguments amongst theologians have nothing to do with it. It's like watching an argument between two electricians about how to do the plumbing. Their dispute was rendered obsolete by a couple of centuries of scientific observation.

Would the Senator feel equally ill-prepared to talk about gravity on earth being 9.81 m/s[sup]2[/sup] or any other kinds of general knowledge questions?

This isn't an issue about controversy. It is an issue about whether someone is ignorant or not.

 

[rareboy]

^^^^^

Obama answered the question the same way.

If you can't treat him the same way - your opinion means nothing.

Oh nonsense. He did not answere the question the same way as Rubio.

 

[rareboy]

The trouble is there is no controversy. The arguments amongst theologians have nothing to do with it. It's like watching an argument between two electricians about how to do the plumbing. Their dispute was rendered obsolete by a couple of centuries of scientific observation.

Would the Senator feel equally ill-prepared to talk about gravity on earth being 9.81 m/s[sup]2[/sup] or any other kinds of general knowledge questions?

This isn't an issue about controversy. It is an issue about whether someone is ignorant or not.

It is really about glorifying and elevating ignorance over facts.

 

[HoodedRat]

The trouble is there is no controversy. The arguments amongst theologians have nothing to do with it. It's like watching an argument between two electricians about how to do the plumbing. Their dispute was rendered obsolete by a couple of centuries of scientific observation.

Quoted for truth.

Almost all arguments between theologians are utterly irrelevant outside of their own particular religious world view.

 

[Kulindahr]

someone gets it.

It is hilarious that either team tries to claim intellectual superiority. Each side calls the other dumb. "look at the dumb things that they believe." Reality? Both parties are filled with morons. Religious hooey is no better our worse than fears about islands capsizing (look that one up, kids).

Yeah -- that was a particularly embarrassing moment for the Republic. I pity the poor general who had to sit there and maintain his composure in the face of what had to be the most bizzarely ignorant "concern" he'd ever faced.

 

[Kulindahr]

The trouble is there is no controversy. The arguments amongst theologians have nothing to do with it. It's like watching an argument between two electricians about how to do the plumbing. Their dispute was rendered obsolete by a couple of centuries of scientific observation.

Would the Senator feel equally ill-prepared to talk about gravity on earth being 9.81 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] or any other kinds of general knowledge questions?

This isn't an issue about controversy. It is an issue about whether someone is ignorant or not.

It is really about glorifying and elevating ignorance over facts.

I'm going to go with this without even addressing the scientific issue.

It's been most of a generation since scholars discovered the royal chronicle literary type in ancient near eastern literature. Shortly thereafter it was established that the first creation account in Genesis not only falls into that type but is a superb example of it. Yet most Christians have never heard of this, and when fundamentalist types do, they reject it "because I can read it with my eyes". That's quite like saying that the kitchen dishrag must be sanitary because they can't see the germs with their own eyes.

Making that claim would be simply calling all bacterial scientists frauds -- and insisting that Genesis 1 is history written in English just for them is calling God a fraud. So indeed it is an exaltation of ignorance, because it's making a refusal to think into a virtue.

 

[EastMed]

The Senator indicates that he is not qualified to render an absolute answer to this controversial issue. He seems to favor an approach that accommodates a variety of different viewpoints, while suggesting that the mystery of the Earth’s creation is not particularly relevant to his role as a senator.

As an infant, the senator was originally baptized as a Catholic. Prior to adulthood, he was later baptized as a Mormon and then reverted back to Catholicism.

As an adult, Rubio became married in a Catholic church and his children were baptized under the auspices of that same religion. Though he has regularly attended a Southern Baptist church, he considers himself to be a practicing Catholic.

From what I have read online, it appears that the Catholic Church is not particularly concerned about the timeline relating to the appearance of life on Earth, but indicates that to the extent evolution may have played a role, that development occurred under the guidance of God. The Catholic Church specifically denounces any belief in atheistic evolution and holds a special reverence for what it describes as “the human soul.”

In much the same way that Senator Rubio described how the age of the Earth lacks relevance to the role of a senator, the Catholic Church appears to indicate that sacred writings are not intended to provide a scientific exposition of nature, but rather to address matters relating to salvation. Is this the concept you intended to reference by mention of a justification through epistemic relativism?

Opinterph, the actual age of the earth is not controversial - and it is not a viewpoint.
Mr Rubio appears to think it is a mystery. So be it.

Your description of Catholic teaching seems correct. In my second question, I was reflecting more generally on the status of knowledge and evidence and the implications arising from Mr Rubio's answer.
I imagine Mr Rubio is best placed to address these implications, should he care to do so.

 

[Jack Springer]

Oh nonsense. He did not answere the question the same way as Rubio.

Both men said basically the same thing. You just can't accept it.

 

[rareboy]

Both men said basically the same thing. You just can't accept it.

No they didn't.

You just can't understand it.

 

[Rolyo85]

^^^^^

Obama answered the question the same way.

If you can't treat him the same way - your opinion means nothing.

Obama did not say both religious theories and scientific theories are equally viable to be taught to children AT SCHOOLS.

HE DID NOT SAY BOTH SHOULD BE TAUGHT AT SCHOOLS.

OBAMA DOES NOT THINK CREATIONISM SHOULD BE TAUGHT AT SCHOOLS.



Seriously, are you blind, trolling or just cognitively impaired?

 

[opinterph]

Would the Senator feel equally ill-prepared to talk about gravity on earth being 9.81 m/s[sup]2[/sup] or any other kinds of general knowledge questions?

When I studied physics the force of Earth’s gravity was 32.2 ft/s[SUP]2[/SUP]. When did it change?

This isn't an issue about controversy. It is an issue about whether someone is ignorant or not.

 

[rareboy]

^ Lol

For most of the world it has been 9.81 m/s2 since Napoleon.

How quaint.

 

[bankside]

When I studied physics the force of Earth’s gravity was 32.2 ft/s[SUP]2[/SUP]. When did it change?

​

Shit man, how long ago did you study gravity?

The scientists changed the gravity of the planet at least 30 years ago, right before they went on to make global warming.

 

[Jack Springer]

Obama did not say both religious theories and scientific theories are equally viable to be taught to children AT SCHOOLS.

HE DID NOT SAY BOTH SHOULD BE TAUGHT AT SCHOOLS.

OBAMA DOES NOT THINK CREATIONISM SHOULD BE TAUGHT AT SCHOOLS.



Seriously, are you blind, trolling or just cognitively impaired?

Seriously, why not just say you were mistaken and go on. Everyone makes mistakes. Both politicians said basically the same thing.

Here's a quote from Slate . . .

How do these quotes stack up? It seems to me that they're exactly in agreement on four crucial and dismaying points:

1) Both senators refuse to give an honest answer to the question. Neither deigns to mention that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.

2) They both go so far as to disqualify themselves from even pronouncing an opinion. I'm not a scientist, says Rubio. I don’t presume to know, says Obama.

3) That's because they both agree that the question is a tough one, and subject to vigorous debate. I think there are multiple theories out there on how this universe was created, says Rubio. I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part, says Obama.

4) Finally they both profess confusion over whether the Bible should be taken literally. Maybe the "days" in Genesis were actual eras, says Rubio. They might not have been standard 24-hour days, says Obama.

In light of these concordances, to call Rubio a liar or a fool would be to call our nation's president the same, along with every other politician who might like to occupy the Oval Office. If a reporter asks a candidate to name the age of Earth, there's only one acceptable response: Well, you know, that's a complicated issue … and who am I to say?

BTW: Rubio did not say that creationism should be taught in schools.

 

[TX-Beau]

SOoooooooo.......

TELL US Jack, do YOU believe in Creationism? DO YOU think it should be taught in schools?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Kulindahr]

BTW: Rubio did not say that creationism should be taught in schools.

He may not have said it flat out, but that's what his indication that it should be taught will mean to his target audience.