Yahoo - Creationism Controversies The Norm Among Potential Republican 2016 Contenders

[twa]

BTW, when someone when is a committed Christian is also as educated in a relevant scientific discipline as Peter is, and is a teacher (and hasn't given me reasons to be otherwise) talks about his views on teaching creationism/ID in a school setting, I listen with even more attentiveness than the norm no matter what my current position is on the matter.

His is a valuable perspective and I largely agree with it
There is room for better learning though by using them to differentiate between science and philosophy/religion...it might even diffuse some tensions that arise

[alexey]

Seems like a quote that brings people together
Vs ripping them apart. How horrible for a leader type

Great mysteries do bring people together... to join hands and sing kumbaya

[Jumbo]

Media turns people's attention into revenue streams. Actions of potential 2016 candidates may now get people's attention. So there may be a grain of truth in the pile of dung after all.

Well, there is a lot available to learn from any excrement, of any kind. But that learning was not the intention of the organism that made the deposit.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 12:32 PM ----------

His is a valuable perspective and I largely agree with it
There is room for better learning though by using them to differentiate between science and philosophy/religion...it might even diffuse some tensions that arise

I think it's an avenue worth consideration.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 12:33 PM ----------

Great mysteries do bring people together... to join hands and sing kumbaya

I'd rather sing Taylor Swift songs.

(just between all of us....how bad would it be for whatever image I have to say I kind of like and even respect Taylor Swift? Way too damaging? Is this OT?)

[twa]

Rubio said he's not a scientist and therefor not qualified to use science to say how old the Earth is, so he is not qualified by his same logic to use science to state when life begins. he also is not qualified, by his own logic, to say what happens to water when it boils, how plants get energy from the sun, how a microwave heats up a burrito, if the Earth revolves around the sun or vice versa, if the world is round or flat.

You getting the point yet that "I'm not a scientist, man" is a cheap and stupid cop out?

Are scientists qualified?
Why demand one answer but not the other if science asserts them both?

[elkabong82]

Great mysteries do bring people together... to join hands and sing kumbaya

I remember learning in school that the great mystery about whether the sun revolved around the Earth was a lively and spirited debate with nothing but good intentions on both sides and ultimately was concluded peacefully with no ill will.

It's not like supporting or allowing religious fundamentalism to subvert fact has ever led to murders, especially not in the U.S. in friendly Massachusetts towns.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 03:38 PM ----------

Are scientists qualified?
Why demand one answer but not the other if science asserts them both?

The point was clear as day, your choosing to ignore it only speaks to your own character.

The things I mentioned are basic science, proven empirically, and people can comment on them knowing the basic facts.

I turned Rubio's "logic" against him, plain and simple. If you can't see that, it's only because you choose to.

[Larry]

Rubio said he's not a scientist and therefor not qualified to use science to say how old the Earth is, so he is not qualified by his same logic to use science to state when life begins. he also is not qualified, by his own logic, to say what happens to water when it boils, how plants get energy from the sun, how a microwave heats up a burrito, if the Earth revolves around the sun or vice versa, if the world is round or flat.

You getting the point yet that "I'm not a scientist, man" is a cheap and stupid cop out?

Actually, I will observe that I firmly "believe in evolution". (In fact, I firmly believe that Creationism was a lie from the outset, created by Christian Theocrats under the theory of "well, if the Constitution says we can't force the schools to teach our religion, then we'll claim that our religion is a science, and then demand that they teach our 'science'.") (A variation of the "Oh, I know! Let's say that our religion is History, so we can demand that they teach our religion there".)

But if I'd been asked how old the Earth is, My first reaction would be to look at the questioner to try to figure out if he was serious, and to then mentally toss a coin to select between "Who knows?", or "Who cares?"

Me, personally? I'm absolutely certain that it wasn't created on Spring Break, 6,000 years ago. But I don't have the faintest clue how many zeroes there are in the answer.

----------

I have no complaint at all with "I'm not a scientist".

I have a problem with "there is no evidence that it wasn't created one afternoon, a few thousand years ago".

If he'd shut up after his first sentence I wouldn't care.

[deejaydana]

It wasn't.

But keep pushing that Kool Aid. The Party Needs You.



And don't forget the "vast liberal media conspiracy" flavor, either.

It's funny how incredibly intolerant liberals are. Yahoo has left leaning ownership and it bleeds thru in their coverage. This story included. Ron Paul hit it on the head in his exit speech: the right must rely on the Internet to get their message out and counter what's become a largely corrupted d and compliant broadcast media.

[Larry]

It's funny how incredibly intolerant liberals are.

It's funny how quickly Conservatives claim intolerance or persecution when people point out that they're shoveling BS.

[Jumbo]

Ron Paul hit it on the head in his exit speech: the right must rely on the Internet to get their message out and counter what's become a largely corrupted d and compliant broadcast media.

Without even touching anything else there, Fox's huge tv audience is no longer existent and talk radio is no longer enormously top-heavy in rightsiders?

Oops, sorry...we're going OT. Time to stop.

[deejaydana]

It's funny how quickly Conservatives claim intolerance or persecution when people point out that they're shoveling BS.

See I'm not down for taking it to a name calling, let's talk past each other, waste of time posts. I didn't claim you shovel BS, and I'll even admit conservatives do that at times while it serves their purpose (and to their own detriment). I find that some think this interview by Rubio is evidence that he's religious to a degree that makes him politically unviable just laugh out loud stupid. The media treat the general public as fools, don't you agree? Not every exchange has to be about taking sides Larry. The world isn't a black and white place and I think science and religion can actually co-exist.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 01:02 PM ----------

Without even touching anything else there, Fox's huge tv audience is no longer existent and talk radio is no longer enormously top-heavy in rightsiders?

Oops, sorry...we're going OT. Time to stop.

Ok Fox is the bane of all media I get it and I get your point that their news can be biased and sometimes shamelessly so. I'll also point out that my rant isn't a defense of Fox or of shoddy journalism. Radio is heavy with right leaners for sure but heck the scoreboard isn't even slightly close regards its bias (re: television, hollywood and academia) and I could do a quick accounting but I don't want to take the thread off course. The reason for radio presence being dominated by the right is a simple one though: leftists need pictures in order to understand a story

[twa]

The point was clear as day, your choosing to ignore it only speaks to your own character.

The things I mentioned are basic science, proven empirically, and people can comment on them knowing the basic facts.

I turned Rubio's "logic" against him, plain and simple. If you can't see that, it's only because you choose to.

And I'm using your logic of 'if science has a conclusion it must be used as the only acceptable answer' against you.

if you can't see that demanding the 'correct' answer selectively is no better than what he did ,then it speaks to your character

[Jumbo]

Ok Fox is the bane of all media I get it and I get your point that their news can be biased

That wasn't my point, but I'm not surprised (see next sentence). My point was you made a blatantly and revealingly incorrect statement < I did quote just the key phrase, so that should have helped focus> that also reflects your own habitual, seriously ingrained and rigid bias--the degree of which you frequently retreat from to a more moderated position when called on it---that was distressingly easy to refute in its one-dimensional unthinking overstatement. I say "distressing" because it's bothersome when such is so common in these threads from someone with such a workable intellect.

Also, the perpetual irony of poster "a" <specific/fixed> consistently going after poster "x" <variable/changing>, for the same thing they do, was in play. But we all do that; as I often note, hypocrisy is common to us all, but we can have some say over the frequency and degree.

I think the rest of your position, as restated, is more reasonably arguable, and even tilts in a likely correct direction. It all remains fairly debatable and difficult to quantify in any objective measure with any assurance. As with many related things, positions are going be born more of intrapersonal psychology than accurate objective assessment of extra-personal reality.


Moving on.

[Predicto]

It's funny how incredibly intolerant liberals are.

See I'm not down for taking it to a name calling, let's talk past each other, waste of time posts.

[Larry]

See I'm not down for taking it to a name calling, let's talk past each other, waste of time posts.

It's funny how incredibly intolerant liberals are.

----------

I find that some think this interview by Rubio is evidence that he's religious to a degree that makes him politically unviable just laugh out loud stupid.

That's funny. I haven't noticed a single person making that claim.

Speaking only for myself, I think that the odds are overwhelming that Rubio thinks that anybody who thinks that the Earth was literally created in an afternoon, a few thousand years ago, are complete loons.

(I base this simply on my personal theory that life is not so monumentally unfair that people dumb enough to believe that excrement can be as successful as Rubio has been.)

(A belief that, I'll admit, I hold despite the evidence that, at least in the profession of politics, that yes, sometimes people who really are that dumb, do manage to rise quite far, indeed.)

No, I would say that the odds are overwhelming that Rubio has the same opinion of people who believe that hooey that I do, and that he consciously chose to cater to them, anyway. Because right now, at this point in his campaign, catering to the Loony branch of the GOP helps him more than it hurts him.

[alexey]

Accusations of general bias do not strike me as valuable substitutes for applicable examples of actual bias.