Marco Rubio and the Progressive Atheist Orthodoxy
To read some of the reactions to Senator Marco Rubio’s comments on the age of the earth, you’d think that he’d proposed rounding up scientists and imprisoning them in gulags. Liberals apparently think this is a plank in the vast right-wing “anti-science” conspiracy. At the very least, a man who refuses to swear a blood oath to the current orthodoxy that the earth is 4.5 billion years old is not fit to hold any job that requires any more intellectual heft beyond knowing the proper temperature for grilling burgers.
In case you missed it, Rubio was interviewed by the great intellectual journal men’s fashion magazine GQ. No doubt interviewer Michael Hainey is congratulating himself for asking the first “gotcha” question of the 2016 presidential campaign and is contemplating where he’ll display his Pulitzer Prize. In the middle of the interview, Hainey asked the random, drive-by question, “How old do you think the Earth is?” Rubio’s response:
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.
Rubio, widely regarded as the GOP’s rhetorical Wunderkind, tried to walk the politi-religious tightrope by giving a non-answer answer because he could smell his own blood in the water. Blowing up the campaigns of conservatives with controversial questions has become the favorite sport for left-wing (so-called) journalists, a contest that conservatives have sadly begun to participate in.
Aside from the goal of derailing any future political ambitions of Rubio, the basic premise behind Hainey’s question is “Do you believe in God or science?” — as if they are mutually exclusive. It’s actually an insidious question, rooted in the Progressive philosophy which demands that “progress” and the evolution of history be seen as superior to Natural Law, our Judeo-Christian heritage, and antiquated notions of God.
Hillsdale College professor Ronald Pestritto describes the competing visions of Progressives and the Founders:
The founders had posited what they had held to be a permanent understanding of just government, and they had derived this understanding of government from the “laws of nature and nature’s God,” as asserted in the Declaration of Independence. The progressives countered that the ends and scope of government were to be defined anew in each historical epoch. They coupled this perspective of historical contingency with a deep faith in historical progress, suggesting that, due to historical evolution, government was becoming less of a danger to the governed and more capable of solving the great array of problems besetting the human race.
What I’d like to hear him say is, “The Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the temperature has gone up and down a lot for a bunch of different reasons.” This turns a gotcha question into something useful, and shows Rubio is not himself an idiot.
If he then wants to throw a bone to the creationists, flat earthers, or other wack jobs go ahead, that’s part of a politicians job, too. Politicians have to handle gotcha questions, he can’t dodge it forever.
The progressives accept evolution for the purpose of social status, not for its scientific value. If they truly knew what it was and understood its implications, they wouldn’t be wasting taxpayers’ dollars on closing the Black and White achievement gap or imposing quotas to increase the number of women in STEM disciplines.
See The Star of Bethlehem. There Rick Larson presents hard evidence of both the accuracy of Bible statements (both Old Testament and New Testament) and also absolute proof of a cosmological scheme that simply could not be there by chance. Don’t bark at me. You can get the DVD (10 bucks) and be amazed. Marco Rubio should watch that one too–and every Conservative politician. I apologize for the double post.
You are a bigot.
We’re not “wack jobs”. He’s not “throwing a bone” – maybe he actually respects those people.
Deal with it, or go join the left with your goosestepping insistence on conformity; just don’t call it “science” or being “open minded”; you’ve demonstrated quite clearly that your mind is entirely closed on this issue.
You’ve cratered your own argument.
Irony is not what your wife uses to get wrinkles out of your shirts.
Christians are welcome in the GOP.
Atheists are welcome in the GOP.
Young-Earth Creationists are welcome in the GOP.
Evolutionists are welcome in the GOP.
Bigots are not welcome.
There’s no irony there.
Problem is, Creationists are not welcome in our schools, the Democrat Party, the news media, or even in most of our Churches. This is how Democrats win elections. They pick issues that don’t make any difference to most of us, and hammer the Republicans for acceptance of the religious views of a shrinking minority of the voting population. The Republicans should be rewarded by the voters for such an inclusive position, but the media and the schools paint such people as being the “flat earth society” and tar the Republicans for their efforts to win the votes of these people. Meanwhile, “single motherhood” (PC for producers of bastard children) and “undocumented workers” (PC for illegal border crashers) are heralded by the media and the schools as examples of our heroically diverse society and are coddled by our more inclusive Democrat Party. Which groups are more destructive to our society? The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the Democrats supporting minorities are growing into large tribal voting blocks. This country is already run by Communists and we want to waste our time arguing about the age of the earth? Rubio did what he could do with a losing hand. But, the interviewer will get a Pulitzer Prize for this shenanigans because, as usual, it worked. Sheesh.
“Atheists are welcome in the GOP”?! Surely you jest.
The ONE thing my spouse and I despise about being atheist conservatives is that we might as well forget ever again having a social life; liberals hate us for being conservative, and we have yet to meet EVEN ONE conservative on any of these boards who does not excoriate us for being atheists.
Oh well. We have our books, we have each other, and we’ll keep voting conservative no matter WHO hates us.
Spikeygrrl, I am sorry that you have had such a negative experience among Conservatives. I, for one, could not care less about the religious beliefs, or lack there of, of my fellow Conservatives. If you and your husband believe in individual liberty and individual responsibility than we are members of the same club.
Please name a species, any species, and identify with evidence the species from which it allegedly “evolved.”
Also please explain how sex “evolved.”
And please explain how chance produces encoded information within living cells.
Or go with the ruling atheist paradigm: Dark Age a priori pseudo-science.
Sounds like some great arguments, Eubulus. But your thesis appears to be that evolution is wrong, so creationism is right. That may be the actual thing Democraps hate about creationists. You can’t give faith to the unbelieving and faith is your only argument for creationism, although I think faith is also the only argument for evolution. I say you are all fools for making articles of faith into a political argument.
You are completely missing the point. I don’t really care what you (not you personally) believe, but stop insisting it be taught in schools as fact.
If Evolution was wrong modern medicine wouldn’t work.
Darwin’s theory of Evokution is to biology what Newton’s laws are to physics. A means to bring together and explain a vide variety of observations and a way to make useful predictions. They both turned out to wrong in certain regimes, but they’re a damn sight better than what came before.
Most of the underpinnings of modern medicine were already in place when Darwin came out with his theory; check your chronology. By contrast, the inability of Newtonian physics to explain what was being observed as we started studying smaller and smaller particles prompted the field of quantum physics.
Actually, the same thing should be happening with the theory of evolution. It’s incompleteness and inability to explain things observed at the level of cell biology/physiology and biogenesis should be prompting a similar rash of new investigation. That it hasn’t is attributable to the zealots who seem to think that any questioning of their orthodoxy can only be explained by people who want to automatically revert us to Biblical literalness.
I’m sure Darwin’s theory is a great framework and has down the basic gist, but like Newtonian physics, it’s likely no more than a crude frameword full of holes and fine details that still need filling in to complete our understnding. So long as the orthodoxy zealots stand in the way and impede scientific questioning, we’ll remain in the dark.
What came first on a turtle…the top shell, the bottom shell, or did both shells on their body evolve at the same time?
Using the genetic code of a variety of living turtles, geneticist were able to map the genome and predict that the bottom shell (on their belly) developed first…along with predicting a time frame (approximately 200-250 million years ago) for said existence and the most likely location (which was in brackish water).
Using the theory of plate tectonics and the concepts of a long aged earth, geologists predicted the best potential locations for dig sites for areas that existed meeting the needed conditions for the time period (which turned out to be mainland China). Within a month of looking for it, 3 samples of Odontochelys semistestacea were found. While they has some characteristics of turtles we know of today, it also has others (such as teeth) which are not seen in modern turtles. If one was able to clone a living Odontochelys semistestacea, it would not be able to mate or breed with any modern turtle as it is a separate species, yet the genetic code, along with the fossil evidence, shows that the two are very distant relatives.
Evolution predicts this biodiversity. Until there is another theory that can explain the indications of a common descent better than the current one, it will remain. It will also be constantly tested…as is all other theories in science.
Lord-all-mighty, I wanna tear my hair out every time I see this kind of crap vomited by you ‘evolutionists.’
From your post:
Using the genetic code of a variety of living turtles, geneticist were able to map the genome and predict that the bottom shell (on their belly) developed first…along with predicting a time frame (approximately 200-250 million years ago) for said existence and the most likely location (which was in brackish water).
I would also suggest you learn the difference between interpolation and extrapolation.
“geneticist were able to …. predict …” Predict what? Something that has already happened? That is a helluva prediction. Your word, not mine.
“….predicting a time frame (approximately 200-250 million years ago)….” Letsee, error bars of 50 million years? I dunno, that might be science, just not very good science. What makes it non-science is that it is not testable. Or was this conclusion arrived at by observation? Back when I was a kid I remember watching this program called “It’s About Time” but I thought it was a science fiction comedy. Did NASA actually shoot some astronauts back in time? Or maybe that dude that broke the speed of light when he fell out of a balloon made an observation or two? (Thank you Andrea Mitchell…. MSNBC.)
“….the most likely location (which was in brackish water).” I am going to laugh for days over this one. Again, patently non-testable. Got any other opinions about as worthless as this statement? ‘Most likely….’ Oh, heavy sigh.
But, here is the real winner:
“Evolution predicts this biodiversity.”
And exactly how does Darwinian Evolution Theory account for the Cambrian Explosion? You don’t need to try and answer this. You can’t. Even the big-shots haven’t been able to answer that question. But, if you want to try, be sure and explain both the huge diversity and the diversity occurring in such a short period of time. How short… well, look at it this way… if all of earth’s time was relegated to a 24hr clock, the Cambrian Explosion would take up about 2 minutes. In real time… what? 35million years for ‘billions n billions’ of species. Ok, I’m being a little facetious here with the ‘billions’ stuff, but your theory will need to account for lots and lots of species boot-strapping themselves into existence. The fossil record just does not support that kind of darwinian-evolutionary explosion.
But if you really want to amaze the world, use the predictive power of evolution theory to tell me how many eyes and what color eyes a trilobite will have in 2.5 billion years. (I think some of those Arthropods are gonna evolve (ok, maybe de-evolve) back into trilobites… and if you disagree, use that dumb theory to prove me wrong. A lot can happen in 2.5 billion years!)
And after all that…. please explain to me why scientist using Einstein’s metric to describe the evolution of the cosmos ignores the ‘t’ in the evolutionary process when the metric is clearly functionally dependent on both ‘r’ and ‘t’. And just who says the rate of ‘evolution’ of ‘t’ has to be constant? If these scientists allow ‘r’ to ‘grow’ why can’t ‘t’? I’ll tell ya why…. because we are embedded in the experiment! We don’t know jack about how ‘t’ is evolving. Jack…. Heck, we don’t even know what ‘t’ is! But if you can explain to me what time exactly is I’ll start wearing a wrist watch again. Half the people in the world can’t tell me what time it is, much less what time actually is… but we use it everyday like we actually know what time is… And to ask how old something is! In keeping with the season, I think I will retire to Bedlam now. (Stupid, dumbmass reporters… don’t know what a frame of reference is.)
Obvious troll is obvious…
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Go. Learn.
He should have stayed on topic and said,”The past is not in question, the future is.”
I’d like to know what is so mutually exclusive and politically incorrect to answer: “I have no idea, 4.5 billion years old is fine by me if that’s what the geophysicists say it is, and I still think God created it…”
?
Tex, your response is the best one so far because it lends itself to the real issue/question – why exactly are they so afraid of the concept of a higher power, and terrified of its implications?
Here are some thoughts, as to why those who posit such ‘heretical’ thinking…if one is a die hard leftist must be trashed and smashed – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/01/leftist-dogma-the-same-world-over-freedom-loving-people-beware-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki-32-2/
And its roots/tentacles are viruses which morph all over the globe. And if not for the fact that ultimate power is their end goal, all of the above would be beside the point.
Except…that they aren’t.
It seems to be becoming a dogmatic point that the left is full of Atheists. The problem is, it’s not even close to being true.
Atheists compose about 15% of the population. Most of those are left wing, but there are exceptions. The majority of Democrats in America are Christians (And please, don’t give me any BS about them not being “real Christians”. You don’t get to decide that. Only He does.)
I’m an engineeer. I work with science and scientists every day of my life. I have no problem with the Earth being both 4.5 billion years old and made by god. The same is true of the majority of my colleagues and friends – left wing, right-wing, whichever.
I have a problem with Rubio, because he’s denying the evidence. Reality doesn’t play favourites – either you accept what the world has to say, or you’re living in fantasy land.
You’re absolutely correct! Good science should be embraced by all regardless of one’s religion. Actually, good science enhances Christianity. Many important scientific facts & theories were discovered &/or formulated by religious Christians. For ex, The Big Bang Theory (not the sitcom) was 1st proposed by a Catholic priest, Fr Lamaitre.
Prove that he’s a crackpot believing in fantasy over facts. He SAID he didn’t know – but that’s not good enough for you. Prove you know better!
You can’t because you.don’t.know! You CAN’T know!
You know, I’ve about HAD it with scientists lately! You’ve got this global warming garbage going (fraud!). All these little fact-toids are coming out lately that SHOCK the scientific communtity (why?). Most of the fossil evidence for evolution we come to find out was an out and out fraud. And now we find out (hold on – scientific community is agian shaken to its core!) that neanderthal was a separate species and NOT part of homo-SAPS lineage.
But, hold on! Now the libtards can say that it just shows, once again what ANIMALS (that’s what they want us to think – that we are the same as a dung-beetle) mankind is because of the genocide we OBVIOSLY committed against the neanderthals!
“You know, I’ve about HAD it with scientists lately!”
How dare they be wrong. Let’s shoot them every time they are, okay?
“You’ve got this global warming garbage going (fraud!).”
And most scientists are against that. All except those, of course, who are getting paid somehow for global warming, uh, excuse me, CLIMATE CHANGE to exist. They can’t let it go, or there would be no money.
“All these little fact-toids are coming out lately that SHOCK the scientific communtity (why?).”
Name a couple, we’ll discuss it, but, the scientists do their best, the honest ones, anyhow. With new information comes new information, what can you do? Would you like them to decide something, and then never change after that, even if it turns out they were wrong? Or do you expect someone who’s a “scientist” to just NEVER BE WRONG? Cause, it sounds like it’s one or the other.
“Most of the fossil evidence for evolution we come to find out was an out and out fraud.”
I understand that you can think this, and even believe this, but it isn’t true. The MOUNTAIN of evidence for evolution hardly rests on the piltdown skull, or any of the other “forgeries”. It does rest, however, and the soundest, provable logic and an ever-increasing body of evidence, so much so that the theory is no longer really in question, and you religious types are left to demand idiotic nonsense you’ve made up, like the difference in micro and macro evolution, which nobody but you clowns claim exists, and you only claim it so you can shoot it down as evidence of us being wrong. Talk about a straw man.
“And now we find out (hold on – scientific community is agian shaken to its core!) that neanderthal was a separate species and NOT part of homo-SAPS lineage.”
First of all, the scientific community was not even shaken, much less to its core, drama queen. Secondly, we already knew this, or at least, I’ve known it for twenty or thirty years, ever since I went to college the first time, and I just read about it in the library doing research, it wasn’t even the class subject. If you look at a DNA tree, you’ll find that it was allowed for a long time ago, when they started doing the genetic testing to unlock the code. Glad you’re finally on board. Welcome to the future.
“But, hold on! Now the libtards can say that it just shows, once again what ANIMALS (that’s what they want us to think – that we are the same as a dung-beetle) mankind is because of the genocide we OBVIOSLY committed against the neanderthals!”
Animal, vegetable, or mineral….which one are you? My money is on vegetable, but you could be as dumb as a rock, I guess. Just going by your own admission that you are NOT an animal, like those lowly dung-beetles.
Sorry, Doc – you’ve missed the point. That scientists have lost all credibility because they are churning out junk science because someone paid them to do so. In other words, they produce the results they are paid (grant) to obtain.
My other point was that evolutionists have LIED and produced fraudulent evident to prove their claims. This is also not science.
I’m all for science and discovery. Too bad scientists are not.
Doc, the straw man would be yours, lol. You claim that there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence proving evolution. That claim is NOTHING but an out and out lie. There is not a single bit of evidence proving evolution. NO scientist EVER in the ENTIRE history of this planet has EVER found evidence proving evolution. They thought they did several times throughout the past century. Guess what, though. What scientists thought they found proving evolution ended up to be NOTHING more than fraud. Try again.
Also, Doc, the difference between micro and macro evolution is NOT idiotic nonsense as you claim. Those are terms ACTUALLY USED BY ACTUAL SCIENTISTS trying to prove evolution, lol. Micro evolution is not in question. Heck, macro evolution isn’t either. It is DARWINIAN evolution, which is neither micro nor macro, that has yet to be proven or observed. Might do you well to read up on the differences there.
“And please, don’t give me any BS about them not being “real Christians”. You don’t get to decide that. Only He does.”
“Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.” (Mt 7:20 KJV)
“For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” (Heb 5:12-14 KJV)
I may not be able to decide their eternal fate, (nor would I want to) but I can – and, by instruction, should – make an informed decision about their current state.
No Kevin, I submit that you have a problem with Rubio because he is a Republican. Read his answer to the question and you will see that he has no dog in this argument, just like you. Eh?
No. I have a problem with Rubio because of what he said, no more, no less.
I’m not a member of either party. I don’t honestly give a damn about party affiliation.
“I have a problem with Rubio, because he’s denying the evidence.”
No, he’s not.
Stop being such a GD bigot.
Kevin, Rubio is NOT denying the evidence at all. News flash, but there is NO reliable evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The ONLY evidence used to date the earth to 4.5 billion years old is highly questionable, unreliable, inaccurate, and variable. Why, only a couple decades ago, the EXACT SAME method used to date the earth to 4.5 billion years old dated it to NO MORE than 4 billion years old, lol. I guess within a matter of 20 years, the earth got 500 million years older. Geesh, at that rate, the earth will become 5 billion years old in the next 20 years, lol.
NO ONE on this planet can reliably say how old the earth is because there is absolutely NO reliable or accurate way of measuring the age of the earth. There HAS NEVER BEEN and WILL NEVER BE a reliable or accurate way of measuring the age of the earth because the ONLY way to reliably and accurately measure the age of the earth is to ask someone who has been on this planet since this planet was created to begin with. Since such a person does NOT exist, it takes a rather arrogant egoist to even make such a claim that the earth IS 4.5 billion years old without doubt.
“why exactly are they so afraid of the concept of a higher power, and terrified of its implications?”
Because then all of there “plans” and “truths” fall apart. They have nothing to stand on if the statement “Govenrment can perfect amn” is proven not to be true.
Religion seeks to make better people. The progtressive movement seeks to make a few “man” as powerful as god, that is why progressives need to remove religion from the “common” man.
Actually, biology disproved that, which is why the USSR put Lysenko, an advacate of of discredited Lamarckian theory, in charge.
NOTE: Every single thing people “know” about the Scopes trial is false. Darrow was the fanatic. (Most people mix it up with the play Inherit the Wind.)
Don’t forget, if they remove God, they can remove the reason for our unalienable rights to exist and remain unalienable. Once that happens, they can be removed without our protest.
“Tex, your response is the best one so far because it lends itself to the real issue/question – why exactly are they so afraid of the concept of a higher power, and terrified of its implications?”
They’re not afraid of the concept of a higher power nor its implications. Please try to understand this: The concept has no more impact on them than claims of giant invisible spiders living on Mars. They know that many Republicans are religious. Religion is superstitious claptrap on stilts and the Left will try to provoke the most outlandish responses from religious republicans to score political points against ~ALL~ Republicans and the GOP. It really is as simple as that.
Tony, YOURS is the best response so far…by a country mile.
I have a hunch the self-styled “progressive” war against Christianity and Judiasm has far less to do with religious beliefs than the persistence of popular adherence to traditional moral standards. Like their Soviet predecessors, “progressives” demand absolute authority over moral, scientific, cultural, and all other standards.
Unfortuntely for “progressives,” their very claim of authority over moral standards disqualifies them from any such thing: political power isn’t now, never has been, nor ever will be sufficient to define moral standards, and to assert such a claim first makes a mockery of morality, then betrays autocratic intent. “The end justifies the means” and asserting the primacy of the state aren’t moral statements at all, but crude rationales for uncivilized behavior. Their vehement insistence upon the validity of the obvious hoax of “anthropogenic global warming” disqualifies them from having anything to say about science.
What, you might reasonably wonder, are “progressives” qualified to speak on with authority?
• Eviscerating a national government from within so all that remains of the original constitutional republic are the name and some buildings.
• Reducing a once free press to a shameless propaganda operation.
• Perverting the English language at every opportunity for base political purpose.
• Massive, systematic election fraud.
• Turning a nation’s freedom of speech into a weapon to silence those who dare think and speak independently.
The original progressives were not atheistic at all, but reformers who preached the Christian Gospel, adopting the methods of Britain to contain revolutionary energies. But my big objection to this blog, as to many others, is that there is little attempt by some writers and readers to acknowledge the real conflicts in American history. Too many reject history altogether, sticking with a religious mentality that explains everything. I challenged the superpatriots here: http://clarespark.com/2012/11/13/orwell-superpatriots-and-the-election/. It is possible to defend capitalism without lying about social movements, past and present.
The irony is that progressives don’t really know what evolution is or its implications (men and women’s brains are different, there are average intelligence differences between racial groups). For young men, the American church is useless, it panders to women while blaming young men (and gays) for women filing frivolous divorces. The Churchians are the achilles heel of the GOP.
What the GOP needs is more ALT-right, less Evangelitard.
The problem is that Protestants are, fundamentally, rebels against the Catholic Church. Catholics have a lot of problems these days, but equivocating on divorce ain’t one of them. Catholic teaching is unequivocal: a valid, consummated, sacramental marriage is impossible to dissolve except by death, and if anyone obtains a civil divorce from one and marries another while the first spouse still lives, then both the divorced person and the new spouse commit adultery every time they have relations, and as such, they are forbidden to receive Communion until making a good Confession, and forbidden even from going to Confession until they are prepared to swear off sexual relations with their so-called new spouse.
Unless you’re a Kennedy.
This was true, at least back in the dark ages, we are told. I was raised as a chicken eating Methodist and I never knew we were rebelling against the Catholic Church. I did know that most of us Methodists were pretty stupid, as were those nefarious Catholics, in my estimation. Had I been in contact with any actual Atheists, I would have known that about them, too. Lets worry about whose religion is the most stupid while the Communists are running our country. Sheesh. Democrats should be wanting to purge their party of these vermin but, instead, they think having Democraps in charge is more important than having a country that is based on liberty. And that, folks, is what I want us arguing about in political forums.
The irony of all of this is that the people asking the question, having foregone thinking by accepting the current line, probably know less about evelutionary theory less than say, Sarah Palin, who actually bothered thinking about the issue (as for that matter, did Bryan).
I am sick of these “heresey trials”?
One of the major practical application of paleontology is in oill drilling. Do you think for five seconds that Sarah Palin, extrememly involved in oil exploration issues, told the experts how to check for likely sites? Of course not! This is just an inqusition, nothing more and nothing less.
Sorry, “heresy”.
R7: Good luck with that. I’ve been searching for YEARS (without success) for a conservative board on which views like yours and mine can be stated and discussed without endless _ad hominems_ from anti-intellectual religionists.
The progressive atheist media would like you to think that all creationists believe the earth is ~6000 yrs old. They like the idea of a straw man so that they can discredit the voices of traditional (conservative) religious people in all matters that touch politics, which for progs is, well, everything.
In point of fact, there are two camps of creationists — Young Earth and Old Earth. Where the ages of the universe & the earth are concerned, OE creationists do not differ from those cited by the scientists that the progs would list as (their) authorities on the subject.
Most prog journalists are well-trained monkeys who have learned to lob this type of question at conservative politital candidates just like a chimpanzee is an expert at poo-flinging. Which is to say, these same journalists have little understanding of the complexity of the science nor the internal debates even among the non-creationists (i.e. the evolutionists, i.e. “their” side).
I would love a conservative pol to toss the question right back at the media chihuahua by asking them to explain (A) the different schools of thought (gap creationism, progressive creationism, etc.) among OE creationists, (B) the difference between Darwinian gradualists & those who believe in punctuated equilibrium, and (C) the main differences between how those in (A) and (B) interpret the fossil record.
And if the journalist cannot give a coherent, informed & detailed answer to the above, the conservative pol should then ask the journalist why the f*** he or she is asking an earth-age question to begin with since they have demonstrated so little knowledge of the subject themselves.
Breitbart was right. The media are the palace guard. It is LONG PAST TIME to go after them. Question their every question. Expose their agenda & their assumptions. Reject their attempts to frame the debate in terms favorable to their agenda. Bring your own recording device to every recorded interview. Let the crapweasels know we are not just onto them … we are COMING AFTER them.
For that matter, some people believe in a young earth and evolution. They are two different things.
I don’t think you can “believe” in a scientific theory. It’s either true or not, and we probably will never know for sure.
Bogie Wheel,
Exactly. The evidence from biology, geology and astrophysics overwhelmingly point to a universe and earth billions of years old. I believe this with no reservations but still do not doubt that Jesus Christ is my Savior and Redeemer.
Check out astrophysicist Hugh Ross’s web site, Reasons to Believe (http://www.reasons.org/). He and his team provides clearly reasoned articles that integrate the latest scientific data with Christian beliefs.
He and other Christian scientists (including my father, a Christian and a geologist) demonstrate that you can both believe in an old Earth and a Creator. They don’t negate each other, never have and never will.
There are two correct answers to questions like “Is the Earth 4.5 billion years old?” or “Is all life on Earth descended from a common ancestor?”. The first is “yes,” the second is “I don’t know.” The latter is an acceptable answer to any question. Nobody can know everything about every subject. Rubio has demonstrated some good instincts here, but I wish he wouldn’t try and split the baby by bringing up 4.7 billion years and the 7 days. I think it would be better to say “I don’t know, and since I doubt the information will be any use in solving our economic problems I don’t plan on finding out.”
Here is how Genesis is accurate.
1. God is in the void. God creates Time. As soon as God creates Time, God has time and nothing to do. God is bored. God creates the Laws of Physics. Then
God says “Let there be light”.
Light is energy. Atheists call this moment the Big Bang.
2. God enjoys watching light particles bump into each other and form bits of dust following the laws of Physics He created. Eventually, galaxies form and God thinks “This universe needs a little Life”.
3.God is Life and so he spreads life through the universe and he creates evolution so that life can adapt to an ever changing universe. And life is in God’s image because it lives. So, as you can see everything is part of God’s plan.
4. In order to make life interesting, God gives it free will. Otherwise watching the universe and the things that live in it would be boring. God has the equivalent of cable TV with a gazillion channels watching a gazillion places where life is evolving.
5. There are 2 types of energy in the universe. There is the light energy which God created. And there is the dark energy which just showed up. God divided the light from the darkness. The darkness is ruled by the Prince of Darkness.
6. Sometimes a life forms has a really interesting life and God invites the lifeform over for a chat.
7. Sometimes God lets one of these guests go back to its home world.
I think such contortions are disrespectful to the text. Genesis portrays an omnipotent God creating a flat world surrounded by an ocean in seven days, very much in keeping with the Canaanite creation myths out of which proto-Judaism emerged. This is far more interesting to me than attempts to make an ancient story conform to modern science.
To an Israelite of the Old Testament era, a helicopter looks like
‘A wheel within a wheel within a wheel, way up in the middle of the air’
To a native American of the pre-colonial era, an exploring sailing ship looks
like a huge swan swimming up the river, which disgorges men from its belly.
To an agnostic engineer of our time with a Physics/Math degree, Genesis
reads like a highly abstracted version of the beginning of our universe;
What Grey Eagle said, minus the snark.
To Rubio: A ‘gotcha’ question deserves to be identified as such, and
the ‘reporter’ in question needs to be identified as a partisan hack:
‘Ask me an honest question and I will give you an honest answer;
Ask me the other kind, and I have answers to match.’
This will not cost Rubio any votes, on balance; It may gain him some.
No – the Heavens and the Earth include the entire universe and apparently Heaven (where God and the Angels live) exists outside the universe and is not subject to time/space at all.
When God separates the waters from the firmament the book is not referring to our planet.
Hey Lolly. Up in number 4 you said emphatically that “you can’t know” such things. But apparently you can know some things – as long as they are your things. So where does us leave us all in this ridiculous circular argument.
The point is that as science and technology has improved over the years we actually get to know a lot more about all disciplines with a higher degree of certainty. We also improve our understanding of what is probably not true to a high degree of certainty. It takes a while for all of society to accept new understandings but in the realm of our most profound questions, nothing is ever 100% certain or 100% accepted.
One thing I do know with a high degree of certainty is that the Progressives just love when we have these kinds of discussions in the political arena. The author of this article has provided more fodder for 2016 than did the journalist from GQ. Why? Because many people fear religious fundamentalism and intolerance way more than they fear fiscal mismanagement, bungling bureaucrats and crashing economies. And they do make the connection . . i.e. they feel that anyone who believes that the earth was created in 6 days and that humans are only 10,000 years old – in spite of all of the evidence and modern learning – should not be in charge of the lives of others.
I was addressing a specific statement regarding a libtard who said the bible was the “Canaanite creation myths out of which proto-Judaism emerged.” In other words, flat earth BS.
What I was talking about in #4 was scientists can’t know how old the earth is, nor the universe, nor any of their evolution “theory” because they can’t deplicate it. Tree rings and ice core samples also can’t account for quirky things that might “stun” scientists. Even carbon dating is suspect. Shoot, they can’t even explain why the strataverius sounds the way it does…..
Actually, it was #2 – not #4.
@Geeze:
And the 46% of Americans (likely crossing all demographic and party lines) who believe that man was created in his current form less than 10,000 years ago? Should we continue to marginalize them and ignore they exist? Are you arguing for some sort of (additional) coercive state action to correct their thinking since the public schools have clearly failed at teaching these important scientific lessons?
I was addressing a specific statement regarding a libtard
If you disagree with lolly, et al, you are therefore a “libtard” and/or a liar. This is “tolerance”. From there to “logic” and thus unto “science”. QED and you godless bastards be damned unto the lake of hell fire.
Well, you may “think such contortions are disrespectful to the text”, and you may well be right. But it is wrong to imply that they arise from a desire to evade the findings of modern science. St Augustine denied the literal interpretation of Genesis. Since he died in 430, I very much doubt he did so to accommodate 20th C scientific consensus. And whatever you may think of him, there is no doubt whatever that he was the most influential theologian in the Western Church.
I think modern apologetics such as we’re seeing here are attempts to either deny or somehow get around the findings of modern science which contradict the Bible’s assertions about the physical world.
Augustine, I think, was trying to conform the Biblical story to Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle, which claimed that the world was eternal. Ironically, had he stuck with the pure concept of creation ex nihilo, he would have been closer to the truth; though this would be, again, coincidence.
I think you err here. Your interpretation entails it being “ironic” that Augustine kept to creation, instead of going along with Aristotle’s eternal world. Surely it is better to assume he meant what he said and said what he meant. The alternative, your method, inevitably entails divining the hidden intention of writers. This, also inevitably, leads to reading our own views and models of history into others. At best this is a shaky and dangerous method.
On the more general point, I don’t doubt that you believe that modern apologists are accommodating modern science. And to a degree, that is true. The trouble is that, if you read older, pre-scientific apologists, you find that they are just as willing to use non-literal interpretations of scripture as the modern ones. It is only in a few schools that we find the kind of modern literalism which is nowadays read back onto the history of the church. And I believe that is a really bass-ackwards way of reading history. It does lead to the currently dominant view that all modern apologetics is a sort of fighting retreat. But that simply isn’t true, not if you read what earlier people actually wrote. The reality is much more complex.
In a nutshell, I simply do not believe that it is correct EVER to assume that the fundamentalism was the pure and original form of religion.
The reality is that nobody knows the age of the Earth. There was a time when the scientific consesus was that the Earth was over 20 billion years old. That consensus gradually dropped to around 4 billion years old as measurement methods improved. It’s, frankly, anti-scientific to claim the issue is “settled”.
The best answer Sen Rubio could have given is along the lines of:
“Less than a trillion, which is less than the yearly deficit under the Obama Administration.”
It is settled that the earth is of immense age; certainly not 6,000 years old as the Bible claims.
FWIW, the Bible makes no such claim. The 6,000 figure comes from a literal reading of Genesis by a 17th-century archbishop. Look up “Ussher chronology.”
I think it should be clear by now to anyone on a conservative alt media site that the legacy media has been spreading their own disinformation & propaganda for generations now. That is a large reason why we are here, no? And did you think that somehow, traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs would be exempt from what the media lies about?
If you have been receiving your assumptions on creationism & the Bible from the education-media complex, you need to check those assumptions & do some first-hand self-(re)education. It is imperative not to blithely go on accepting your own indoctrination.
Strange, I must have missed that passage. Would you mind letting me know where exactly it says that?
It was calculated from the ages mentioned in the Bible’s genealogical passages. The date is hardly confined to the Christian tradition, which is why the current Jewish calendar declares that we are in the year 5773. This date is calculated from the creation of the world. This age of the earth – with small variations – was considered accurate in both the Jewish and Christian traditions until the modern era.
So it is not something the Bible claims, but is an interpretation of some passages.
This is only partly true.
The Jewish calander is relatively recent (middle ages) and is NOT definitive. It depends on certain issues even at later dates that are not universally agreed on even by the most traditional authorities. It is there for practical use in documents and for calculating the calendar. At any rate, it dates from Adam, not creation, even though we describe it as from creation.
There also is the tradition in Judaism that “God creates worlds and destroys them”. One version yields a very old universe. Then there is the fact that the Rabbis did not understand the literal meaning of the Bible the way others might; for example there is one opinion that the Sun was not created on the fourth day, just put in place then.
“the earth is of immense age; certainly not 6,000 years old as the Bible claims.”
Provide a Biblical passage that proves that “the Bible claims” that the Earth is “6,000 years old”.
Provide a quote from my statement that demonstrates that I claim the Earth is 6,000 years old and not “of immense age”.
You claimed that the issue is not “settled,” but it is settled to the extent that the Bible is clearly wrong as to the age of the earth.
As I said, the Bible sets forth that the creation occurred in six days. Following man’s creation, there are a series of genealogies with precise ages given. I think those who read the text literally were quite correct as to dating. The Bible says what it says, and on this issue it is wrong.
While there are issues with the precise date, the Jewish and Christian traditions agreed for centuries that the earth is approximately 6,000 years old. Certainly, the Judeo-Christian tradition has NEVER claimed that the earth is billions of years old, which it certainly is.
You addressed neither of my requests. Please address both requests directly.
Oscar, Benjamin is not here to have a conversation, to ask questions, or answer them. He is here to show off how much smarter he is than us knuckle-dragging, Bible-addicted Conservatives.
He is an ass, Oscar, and one who is not willing to work, so the only thing left for him is a bullet in the brain and a trip to the glue factory.
Edward is right. Benjamin Kerstein is a fraud and a pompous ass believing in the sovereignty of man. But he isa beautiful caricature of what represents academia and so called intelligentsia these days. He and his ilk are real enemy of Christianity and to a lesser degree Judaism. It’s not the garden variety atheist or agnostic who simply say, “I do not know” – it’s the militant humanist like Benjamin who seeks to marginalize and destroy.
There is absolutely no place in the Bible where it says anything of the age of the earth. It fact, it makes it abundantly clear since God created time and space, God is not limited by those constructs. Time for the Almighty is irrelevant because He Is.
Genesis is not a story of science. If Benjamin understood anything of the Bible, he would understand the most important points of the first two Chapters of Genesis is who is responsible, the acknowledgement of man granted dominion by God to exploit its resources, marriage, and the emphasis of the Sabbath – a practice still in place as there is no real other reason for a seven day week.
Ignore Benjamin. In his profession of his own wisdom, he has demonstrated utter foolishness, incorrectness, bigotry, and hate. It way overdue to shake the dust of our feet from his ilk.
I wonder what Keith Ellison thinks about the age of the earth. Has anybody ever asked him?
Actually I do not wonder because it does not matter, and the question should properly be put this way: “Has any journalist ever tried to humiliate and destroy him by asking him that question?”
It is a rhetorical question.
“You claimed that the issue is not “settled,” but it is settled to the extent that the Bible is clearly wrong as to the age of the earth.”
Quote the passage from the Bible giving a literal age for the earth. Don’t wave your hands like a spaz and say “some dude put together an estimate” — that’s the claim made by Sum Dude, not a direct statement from the Bible. His estimate is based on, among other things, taking ages that may have been originally in lunar months as solar years — and very few people take his interpretation as, ahem, gospel.
The reason people are (correctly) disgusted with your approach is that you’re taking a SINGLE interpretation and imposing it on ALL believers. Your approach to theology is as restrictive as the most fanatic literalist.
The only real issue about someone’s beliefs is “do they motivate them to do harm to me and mine?” I don’t care if someone believes the Earth is a disc on the back of four elephants who stand on the back of a gigantic turtle, if they have no intention of doing me harm they’re OK.
C.S. Lewis said,’ All knowledge is but an interpretation not an explanation.” Meaning, we know what we know because the facts, as we presently know them, lead us to think so. Science is in a constant state of evolution, no pun intended. Secularists tend to simplify everything as an absolute in defense of their defiance of the Deity who asks nothing of them but to believe. But they see greater wisdom in putting their faith in the Gov. of Man than the God of Man. “Man is opposed to fair play. He wants it all and he wants it his way.” Bob Dylan.
The bible doesn’t claim the planet is 6,000 years old. God doesn’t even put up the clock (the sun) until verse 14. Also, He created human being to last around 1,000 years. Scientists have found that the human body was “designed” to last for 1,000 years.
God said sin would shorten our years and you can see were lifespans halved and then halved again until our current span of years.
As far as the age of the earth, what is being measured is the time when the rocks were cool enough to start their isotopic clocks. We know the half-life of these isotopes, we can measure how much has decayed away, and how long that must have taken. The oldest rocks found in situ in Greenland are >3.8 billion years, although there are zircons eroded from older rocks that have been dated to >4.1 b.y. However, we assume that the Earth is older because of isotopic ages obtained from the moon (4.4 b.y.) and meteorites (4.56 b.y.).
Ohiolad said: “…we can measure…how long that must have taken..we assume that the Earth is older…”
At least you’re honest that much of the current theory rests on assumptions and estimates rather than on observable science. No one can say with any degree of certainty that extrapolating the models out 4.6 billion years (or even a million years) actually works. There are millions/billions/trillions of potential variables that we can’t even begin to imagine. Clearly there’s a huge element of faith involved.
Clearly there’s a huge element of faith involved.
Utter horsepiddle. The moon, which has been dated conclusively, is also composed of the *precise* same materials mixtures as the earth, which also tells us about the moon’s origin. Science is about theory and evidence. Not faith. The oldest rocks on earth are younger than on the moon due to subduction (the moon ain’t got this.) Of course, one of my daughters is an earth scientist, but I’m certain you know a lot more about her specialty than she does.
You are a fairly typical evangelical. Things would be a lot simpler in life if you people would confine your vapid “opinions” to the one or two things you actually know something about like Nascar or trailer house maintenance. Leave the science to the pros. So far on this site I’ve seen other twits here who know more about human culture, evolution and anthropology than another of my daughters (yeah another scientist.) This place is a hoot.
Wow! Welcome, random-Eng.;
You must be smarter than S. Hawking, although your snotty comment shows rather random use of the famous ‘cogito ergo sum’ at best. The moon dated conclusively? What have you been tossing down? That’s your theory but where’s the evidence, or maybe a fact or two? Pluuuuhse, enlighten us, oh wise one. I get it, you were sitting on an asteroid sipping kool-aid while the moon popped up at the perfect distance & orbit & size, jist like that.
Did it ever occur to you that we don’t know whether the radioactive decay is constant over time? We’re tossing billions of years around without anyone (including me) having the foggiest idea how long it is. (That’s why the gov can waste trillions of $$$ & the pukes on the dole want more goodies.) The modern man knows quite a bit about the physical phenomena & laws of nature. However, our knowledge & perceptions are very subjective & puny & often faulty compared w/ the Infinite (math or God). Were we to live again a 1000 years as the OT Patriarchs did, we’d know squat about what happened a million years ago just the same. Even a billion years (or any units) remains but a singularity on the line of the infinite. I am arguing the obvious for the benefit of other readers here who are educated & believers, not for you.
The 6K earth age is a wrong translation from Hebrew; it’s not days or 1000 years but six long creative periods. Since Hebrew’d been dealing w/ Eternity for over four thousand years it has ~14 words for ‘time.’ English has but one; Czech & German have two. Maybe you could explain to us, believing dimwits, how the random universe & blind nature created the mind, consciousness, ethics, creativity, emotions, like love & hate, huh?
Since you’re bragging re: your two kids, I’ll do likewise. All of my paternal male ancestors were/are atheists & scientists (hard & exact ones) for generations. My grandpa was an MD at 21, at 25 a nuclear physicist (in Berlin, class of 1928; he said then that nuclear power is either bringing us to the moon or killing us all). He mingled w/ Max Planck, Mme Curie, Rutherford, Bohr, Albert, etc. (you don’t have to admit to looking up the names). My uncle was a biochemist & molecular biologist (double PhD). My cousin is a PhD in isotope chemistry. My dad is a R&D veep in organic chemistry (invented ~20 products). Yours truly is a measly geologist/geophysicist who’d studied also astronomy/astrophysics, genetics, microbiology, anthropology (the ‘missing link’ is still missing or AWOL), paleontology, neuroscience, ancient cultures, mysticism, etc.
I admit being a black sheep in the family being a scientist & a convert Christian yet we don’t insult each other. I came to the conclusion of God’s existence & creation by study, observation, thinking & logic. I believe in evolution within species.
BTW, M. Planck said at the dawn of quantum physics that deep within matter is an intelligent matrix holding it all together. Albert wasn’t very religious, yet said: “Religion w/out science is blind & science w/out religion is lame. I’d say that these two men were smarter than all of us on this forum. My grandpa was smarter than you & all the other detractors here. That includes the 6K old earth truthers as well as you, intellectually dishonest limo-lefties who can’t see the snot below your nostrils. It could be the horsepiddle inside your cranium or did you have it for supper? Indeed, leave science to the honest pros not on the gubmint dole. BTW, have you heard or did you look up HuffPost yet?
As a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian, I have no problem with people who believe that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago and who believe that life begins at conception. I do not agree but, so what. Such beliefs do not harm me in any way as long as they are not Federalized as laws. I believe that federal taxes that support Planned Parenthood support abortion and are thus a violation of the 1st Amendment because they force some religious tax payers who abhor abortions on religious grounds to pay for them. Likewise, I believe that federal drug laws based on the Commerce Clause that pretend that commerce also governs what you grow or brew for yourself are an abomination of the Constitution that violates the 9th and 10th Amendments.
In the mean time, we have issues with Gasoline because States like California require a Special Blend of Gasoline that differs from other states.
Funny how a Real Commerce Clause issue never gets any traction.
Actually, it is the pro-death forces who need to prove that life starts at birth. This is not a scientific issue; in fact science really doesn’t deal in such things. (Remember the recent aper denying a difference between abortion and infanticide.)
I still think the best argument against abortion is secular.
As I said, just because Sarah Palin actually bothered thinking about evolution and decided she did not accept macro-evolution, did not stop her from allowing the exploration companies to use current scientific theory to locate oil. That’s all that matters. On the other hand, people have commited many atrocifties i nthe name of evolutionary theory, starting with removing organ unnecessarily.
Yes, but the state can certainly make it illegal, and the commerce clasue should at least allow the feds to jail you for transporting across state lines. In Federal territory, they shouldn’t even need that.
DING! DING! DING! We have a winner! It’s about liberty, not the age of the earth. Thank you, RB6!
Sorry, that was to Ceteris Paribus.
As a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian, I have no problem with people who believe that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago and who believe that life begins at conception.
As a fellow fiscal conservative and a social libertarian, I disagree, and vehemently so. We live in a society that depends on complex technologies and science. People who don’t get science ought to be nowhere near the decision making process. They’re hell bent on disqualifying themselves from having an **informed** opinion. I do not want their idiotic fears, ignorance, and religious prejudices affecting me.
Please explain how a your heart surgeon’s views about macroevolution affect your chances of survival on the operating table. Or how those views affect the quality of the prescriptions your receive from your pharmacist. Or the safety of the bridge you drive across that was designed by an engineer who is a young earth creationist. Please share any studies you have documenting how such views have endangered the public or produced employees in the “hard sciences” who cannot perform their jobs capably. Since 46% of Americans hold to this view, chances are, they walk among us. (And this may rock your world, but I happen to know doctors, engineers, architects, computer programmers, and nuclear physicists who share this belief.)
Paula B — Please explain how a your heart surgeon’s views about macroevolution affect your chances of survival on the operating table.
I was talking about that which affects public policy and the creation thereof. You would have a better argument if you could prove that half or more of JPL were afflicted with fundamentalist religion and still managed world class science and discovery. Nobody cares about Joe Schmoe in downtown Peoria; we’re talking about the vanguard, and the vanguard (those who invent the world we live in, for the most part) aren’t fundamentalists. Find the vanguard for any profession. Same story. The inventors, the leaders, the brilliant minds boldly going where most don’t? They’re never fundamentalists.
You seem to have a rather skewed view of atheist perception. None of them (us) cares whether or not people are religious. Faith is perfectly acceptable. Faith is admirable. It is an individual choice. However there’s a vast gulf between faith and fundamentalism where the latter is used as substitute for science; religion is fine when it confines itself to answer WHY god created stuff, and fundamentalism is an attempt to override science to explain HOW. Science has no answer as to why god created the universe. That’s not what science does. Science is the glimpse into HOW the natural universe was created. Fundamentalism is barking mad. If you want to be religious go home and do whatever religious people do. Sacrifice a goat. We don’t care. But when you assert that your limited understanding of science is equivalent to JPL, yeah, we have a problem. It’s always been rather curious that the fundies and evangelists screech about moral relativism and how perverted it is but assume that scientific relativism is their inherent right. It’s not. You don’t know science, you don’t get science, so what makes you think you have a say?
Now, JPL is busy doing eeevil science and using eeevil methods to derive the ages of planets and their geologies. One of the current science missions is to ascertain the amount of available lunar water. To ascertain water content they need to understand the geology, origin, etc. Why? Because there’s a lot of stuff that could be manufactured in that environment that could otherwise prove problematic (pollution, etc) or expensive on earth. This is the pathway for economic and capitalist efforts for the near future. What we don’t want here is young earth creation types who naturally substitute HOW for WHY re science being near the policy end of this effort. Counter productive. Sure there are *some* individuals who might to a good job, but as a group, they’re already proven as untrustworthy.
There, the argument I made in slightly longer format.
First, that’s a seriously bigoted screed (which is the point of this article). Where are the tolerance police when you need them?
Second, why does a scientist need to swear allegiance to macroevolution to conduct an experiment that measures lunar water? Does that belief somehow alter the scientific method? Does being a “fundie” as you call it somehow render one incapable of conducting scientific experiments? I happen to know someone who works for NASA who is in this exact situation. He’s been published in Science and has designed experiments for the space shuttle. (He’s really pulling a fast one on those brilliant NASA folks..if they only knew!) I also know a professor at a public university who is conducting lifesaving medical research and is highly regarded in his field. You would dismiss him as a “fundie” because of his beliefs on the age of the earth.
The problem is that these people can’t talk openly about their beliefs. It would be potentially career-ending. It’s people like you who make certain that students have to hide their true beliefs all through high school, college, grad and professional school. They are required to demonstrate expertise in the “settled science” while all opposing views are suppressed and mocked. There are severe consequences for any student who dares to question the accepted orthodoxy.
And my question is (as I stated in my article) WHY IS THIS ACCEPTABLE IN A COUNTRY WITH A FIRST AMENDMENT? Our instincts and default should always, always, AlWAYS be in the direction of more speech rather than less speech.
Second, why does a scientist need to swear allegiance to macroevolution to conduct an experiment that measures lunar water?
Name a xenobiologist working on the problem of discovering the precursors to life on mars who’s also a wingnut fundie, and you’ll have a salient point, one that requires me to think.
The problem is that these people can’t talk openly about their beliefs. It would be potentially career-ending.
That’s called peer pressure, not a violation of the first amendment. Scientists and engineers like me — the absolute majority of us — reckon creationists as wingnuts. I will rarely hire a wingnut. I have worked with wingnuts; most of them are perfectly capable of junior level task oriented work but the big picture stuff? Usually, no. At least as a rule. But like all rules there are exceptions. Some scientists and engineers have other oddball beliefs as well; the brilliant ones regardless of oddball belief we simply regard as merely eccentric. One of the better roboticists I worked with was a creationist, an exception to the general rule. Is this an unfair characterisation? Depends on your POV. Mine? No. Yours? Yes. But the important thing here is that there are no government goons who will beat down your door at 3 AM because you have crank beliefs. In the US you can have these beliefs, you can express them. But I’m not compelled to hire you. Perhaps learning to distinguish between peer pressure (i.e. expectations of professional calibre thought processes) and the right to express beliefs is something you need to look into.
If God were capable of creating the entire universe and all life, why wouldn’t God also be capable of creating the clues that lead most scientists to think the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? Why couldn’t God create clues that lead all leftists to believe in macroevolution without question? /tongue_in_cheek
Ceteris (all things) — there are people who forward that argument in all seriousness and my response is always “who would worship a malevolent prick deity who designed stuff just to f**k with us?”
Randomengineer said, In the US you can have these beliefs, you can express them. But I’m not compelled to hire you.” I’m wondering if you think that standard should apply to Democrats who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster God of Obamacare. Surely they are demonstrating a severe deficiency in their math and critical reading skills – not to mention their ability to reason – which would seemingly disqualify them from most scientific fields.
Paula
I have mixed feelings re Obamacare. On the plus side my spouse has fought cancer twice (and won!) but insuring said spouse is a nightmare; without Obamacare reforms I’m compelled to work for the same employer forever to keep our insurance affordable or else go through the nightmare of megabucks for new insurance (which the spouse would never qualify for.) We were lucky enough to be able to pay for it; most are not (e.g. an $85k bill for just one radiation procedure insurance refused, and we did that from savings and never lost the house, etc.) There is no question that there are serious problems with a healthcare system that works great for simpler things and bankrupts most families unlucky enough to have a real problem.
On the minus side, I wasn’t born in the US (I’m here by choice) and the country of my birth has *real* socialised medicine. I’m thankful I’m not part of it. I have watched helplessly as overseas relatives died of the same cancers and/or maladies that friends in the US were cured of (or if not cured, at least given an extra 15 years of quality life.) Hell, the cancer the spouse had has a US survival rate of 60% at 10 years and well under 10% where I was born. Socialised medicine scares me a great deal, as it should any sane person who’s paying attention. (And of course being an engineer math speaks to me more than it does to others.)
There is an answer, and this answer is in the middle. Demonising the democrats isn’t helpful. They do have some valid points. I’d like to suggest that we address whatever problems we can identify and drop the partisan posturing.
Random . . You apparently believe that science has the answers to all questions.
This is philsophically improbable, because science deals with is the known given given, to find, and solutions that lead from hypothesis to theory.
Thomas Kuhn dealt with the theory issue rather well in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.”
When science, any science, reaches the limits of science, the discussion swims off into philosophy and theology.
But even philosophy and theology have their limits. We acknowledge that. But your unwritten definition of science assumes you answer all questions. You simply do not.
And where your quest ends, you either fall silent or assume philosophic airs.
Sorry about that.
Ranch Dude — Random . . You apparently believe that science has the answers to all questions.
Apparently nothing of the sort. Science isn’t suitable to answer WHY god did anything, just HOW. Why is the stuff of philosophy. How is what science does. That’s it. The problem with fundies is that they take a perfectly good religion that is the pre-eminent philosophical construct of modern thought and then try to use their beliefs as a way to insert themselves into HOW questions. I don’t get it. You would think that the wonder of evolution would be evidence of the immense and awesome genius of god in the “so that’s how he did it, and we’re all blessed to live in a time where we can glimpse this” vein. But no, it never occurs to them; people who think think as I just illustrated are denounced as doing the work of satan, indoctrinated leftist sheep, etc. I have no use for fundies. They’re barking mad.
Progressives are moral relativists. As such, they cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. This makes them legally insane.
Really? Then I presume that withiout some absolute source of “morality” you would be instantly transformed into a a raving psychopath and rapist?
Get over yourself and your superiority complex. Morality comes from our society, not any gift of god. Any properly socialized person has the morality of their society, the concepts of right and wrong, inculcated from childhood, regardless of their politics.
Thank you. You just proved Ceteris correct. If morals are derived from society, your words and not mine, then morality is by definition relative, each of us determining what is moral and what is not.
That used to be called chaos and anarchy. Now morality masquerades under the guise of tolerance – another word in the game of semantics now so twisted to be rendered almost meaningless.
Really? Because since the relativists got in charge and started knocking down our traditional values society has gone straight to hell.
By whose measure? Compared against what? Our society today is no better nor any worse than average in most ways, save one: we are much freer than almost any other time.
I know it looks like there is more violence and crime, and in some places, there is a lot. But if you were to compare any of the current areas in the US to, say, New York or London of the 1880′s, well, there is no similarity to the level of lawlessness back then. Even our long-term bad zones are not as bad as they once were – Watts in LA or Cabrini-Green in Chicago are not good places, but they aren’t the hellholes they were in the 1970s.
Many of our social problems are getting better. Racism is far from beaten, but is less than it once was. Homelessness is decreasing. Our schools need work, but we are working at that.
So, tell me, how is it that our society “has gone straight to hell”? Because we accept that we don’t have the right to tell other people how to live their lives? Because we allow other faiths to stick their heads up and say, “Hey! What I think matters too!”? Because we acknowledge that family members are people, not property? And what, may I ask, are these “traditional values” that we should be so enamoured of them?
Really? Checked in to the airport recently? Tried to get a passport? Ever dealt with the IRS? Ever had a dispute in property tax? Or disputed the EPA? Why do we have multiple locks on our doors, scared for our children to play in the front yard if we are so free? Mind you, this has all changed in 40 years.
Uh huh. Taken a stroll through Detroit, Flint or Gary, IN? You call South Central L.A. lawful?
What universe do you live in? Are you a product of recent public education? Racism is far from beaten? LOL. The colors have changed, but we’ve never been more divided. This last election showed entire precincts of group think due to race color. We’re slowly getting to the point of apartheid and tribalization in urban areas. I’ve watched Dallas, TX, not 25 years ago America’s most livable big city become an utter cesspool. You must live in a different country than I do.
Working on that and solving the problems are two different results. Our public school systems are an abject failure, in many instances the lowest test scores in the civilized world, though we spend the highest per student. Board scores are not even in the same league as 40 years ago. We have rampant teenage suicide, metal detectors in our schools, gun fights in the halls, a blatant lack of respect of authority that any public school teacher will attest, with classrooms of incorrigible students.
Utterly blind to what is going on around you, or you are so steeped in deceit you don’t even recognize the changes. You’re lying to yourself in order to cover the decay around you, or you are so young you’ve never known anything else.
I’m with Tex! You have NO idea what you are talking about! 40 years ago this place was a paradise (warts and all) compared to today!
This country is nothing but a decayed husk of its former glory. All thanks to the deconstruction of the relativists.
You have destroyed your own case. First you made the perfectly defensible claim that morality comes from society. One may not agree, but it is a coherent view. Then you say that there is one respect in which our society is “better” than most others. This is ridiculous. It follows, from the 1st, that the only possible way to make a moral judgement between societies, is how well they live up to their own self-defined morals. Any other judgement, such as the one you make, necessarily implies some standard by which both can be judged, a notion which you have already denied.
Who says it can’t be judged?
I stand by the statement that our morality comes from the society around us. And one of those moral points, something basic to America and Americans, is freedom.
If we are increasing our freedom, then are we not, by the ideals and morality of our society, getting better?
We can judge relative things – as long as we are clear what we’re comparing them to. Which was the whole pont of my previous post, though none of the above seem to have gotten that (may be my fault. Was too subtle.)
Certainly, as I meant to make clear, saying that morals come from society doesn’t rule out any judgement of a society. It does allow one to criticize on the basis of how well they live up to their own standards. If that is what you mean, then we agree.
But you still don’t show how one can judge the values of any society. The most you can say is “I prefer American values to French ones.” The trouble is that, by the standard you have set up, that comes to nothing more significant than “I prefer chocolate to vanilla.” Perhaps you could go one step further, to say “The French have values incompatible to my American ones”, but that still doesn’t take one any further than subjective preference. It is the essence of moral judgements that they say “It doesn’t matter whether you think it’s OK, it’s wrong.” If you make a weaker statement, it is still a judgement of a sort, but it’s not a moral judgement.
To critique, morally, any one, any action, any group, one must have some standard by which to do so. I just do not see how it is possible, if you say all standards are created by each society, one can do this. For these standards necessarily (on this model) can be applied only to the society which created them. They have no moral force outside that context, and cannot be used as an overarching basis for criticism.
I hope I’ve made myself obscure.
The simple answer to this BS question is this: “If you are asking me how I think we got here, this is what I believe. I believe that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights – that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
After making that statement, the following question should be asked: “Do you believe that?”
Good one. Thanx Dave.
Answer: “Why are you asking theological questions of a politician? No wonder you’re confused, you should go talk to a Priest or Rabbi instead. Next question…”
He should have just replied: “I have learned to never ask a lady about her age”.
It’s odd to hear/read of scientific proof as definitive to ancient – and modern – questions about the fundamentals of our selves/lives/world/worlds.
Scientific answers are partial even those of scientific genius. There is as yet no definitive scientific proof of the size of, age of, the beginning of, the why of, etc of the universe. Each scientific advance adduces more questions and more work on the questions evoked and on and on…
Many people, those with social and political science, and liberal arts credentials, appear to believe the answer/s definitive by authority of investigating scientists. Are the investigating scientists sure theirs are THE answers to the question/questions? What to make then of continuing disagreements among scientists worth their salt about fundamentals? Why then in scientific journals is the last comment virtually always “more work is needed…”?
Scientists do not have the happy assurance in their answers to the questions because whatever answers they find provoke even more questions. Scientists, theoretical and applied, know this, and for the most part respect it.
For example, Francis Collins, doctor and scientist Chief of the NHS of the USA Genome Project is atheist converted to avowed and unapologetic Christian. What he makes of the dogma of Christianity must be as with all other Christians or of any religious, personal. Despite the hierarchical’ teachings the foundation remains WHAT, to whom, why, is THE question?
We keep calling it a “war on religion”, when it’s just a war on Christianity and Judaism; 95% of Progressives are perfectly fine with Islam, and in fact embrace it as “hip” and “cool” because it wants to tear down the current culture.
But it is fake, though.
I’m in Israel, and three ads come up on tis screen. One is for a “comendy” called “just friends”, and it shows a guy with two girls, one pecking him on the cheek and the other with his lower lip in her mouth. The other ad shows a smiling woman shows a smiling woman in a black sweater and a black Moslem head-covering, and the ad says, “I make $250 every day! Work from home”.
Is the first image closer to my religion? I don’t think so.
“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
John Adams
There exists other forms that are perfectly suited to a sacrilegious and immoral people. They are typically repressive, despotic and bereft of religious freedom and liberty. This is no accident. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are embedded in our constitution because they are granted by God and therefore inalienable. A simple perusal of History will document that a sacrilegious and immoral people inevitably will be ruled by a government not restrained by any such “quaint” concepts. The “self-governance principles the founding fathers wove into our constitution are not exclusively an electoral process but extend from the personal conduct of a “religious and moral” individual. In short: “A people will get the government that they deserve!”
The Democrats, Atheists, promoters of gay “rights”, pandering politicians, the ACLU and now a self-declared muslim president are sadly correct in their claim that: “America is not a Christian nation”. Now this nation is declining in every measure (other than the number of people on welfare rolls and masses of undocumented democrats pouring across our borders). As Adams stated, the governmental structure that he and the other founding fathers gave so much to create is “wholly unsuited”. The resultant social and and economic collapse we are mired in now spawns a concerted attack by a perverted government on the God-given rights and liberties that has been the foundation for the unprecedented success of this nation. If this nation is ever again to become the world’s beacon of liberty and freedom, we must return to the Grace of God or we must separate from those who will not. We absolutely will not survive on this road of moral decay and political corruption now being promoted and accelerated by the highest office in the land.
It is relevant to point out that the Constitutional clause prohibiting congressional regulation of religion was placed there to preserve the individual colonies’ right to continue the worship of God as they had came to this continent to do (not to allow a free rein for terrorists to operate under the guise of religion: koran 9-5 & 9-29) Those early European Protestants who were forced by conviction to separate from corrupt and morally decadent despotic governments, founded under the words of Christ the most remarkable nation ever to exist on His creation. We who still value God’s word now find ourselves in a similar situation.
This past Democratic National Convention was startling in the revelation of its’ true disregard for Christ. For those of you who did not witness it: On national television, three times by voice vote the democratic national delegates voted to exclude the word: God from the official wording of the party platform. It is frighteningly reminiscent of Christ’s prediction of : “Three times ye shall deny me”. It is past time that those in this nation who still value the word of God and a constitution based on them separate and allow the godless to create their own nation (Sodom & Gomorrah?) where they can sink into their own mire (and invite the wrath of God). Do not doubt it, the alternative is absolute failure and dissolution of this nation.
There was a study done at the end of World War ll wherein it was asked of America’s fighting men why they were so willing to give so much. The answers took many forms but in essence it was the love they held for their family and the consequences to them if they failed.
This nation was created and preserved by the blood of people who did not doubt that they had the God-Given right to determine their own fate and possessed the moral fiber to to defend that right. I pray that there still remain enough of us still willing to hold forth the Declaration of Independence and do the hard work that now must be done.
Excellent post!
My only issue with this is that this was followed by a prayer by a Catholic priest that in many ways attacked them, yet they listened reverently and stood and applauded (?).
It wasn’t God they were voting against.
His people, maybe.
The crowds welcomed Christ into Jerusalem, but within a few days all those worshipers were either demanding His crucifixion or cowering in fear of those who were.
In the year I was born, 1959, a number of prominent scientists were asked the age of the earth. The majority answered: eternal. This is one of the oldest beliefs of Science, going back to Aristotle.
Within ten years, it was gone.
Science is great, science is wonderful, we should study science and accept most of its conclusions. But science is also a soap bubble; to base one’s beliefs or policies solely on the official scientific doctrine (which for all we know was already refuted in the journals; popular understanding tends to lag) is foolhardy.
If any scientists was answering that way in 1959 those were truly uninformed scientists. Since the discoveries of Hubble thirty years earlier it was evident that it was possible to calculate the age of the Universe and that was going to be billions of years and not an infinite number of years.
A simple model of an immanent static Universe would have resulted in the light of ALL existing stars reaching us by 1959 (by then we already new the speed of light and the size of the Milky Way.) That would have meant no darkness at night. So, those scientists were not thinking much. I am sorry I could not help them at all at that time–I was only five years old–but any of the scientists participating in the Geophysical Year Studies of 1958 could have explained to those immanent Universe supporters that the Universe was in fact expanding and that the Marquis of Laplace had died in 1827.
I meant to write “If any scientists were answering” and “by then we already knew the speed of light”
My apologies.
First of all, thank you.
As I said, the popular (even to scientists) conception of science lags behind the actual science in the journals.
But change the year to 1859, and what do you get then? This is a millenial-old belief. Even as late as 1980 scientists were struggling with the idea of a created (in the generic sense) universe, as it completely contrasted with the philosophy of those who make a religion out of science. (I think I saw an example from Juneman in Chemtech, where he basically said this about himself, but its been a long time; perhaps it was a different author and journal.)
Naw, it is beleiveable that Scientists in general thought the earth was eternal and certianly the universe was. Remember when confronted with the conclusion that his theory on Relativity suggested a start of the universe (Big Bang) and thus the end of Steady State model, Einstien refused to beleive it.
Infact it was during the 1960′s that the big bang theory was foudn to have the better evidence. There are still issues with both big bang and steady state, but at this point, big bang has better evidence and less problems. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t scientist who argue for steady state today, or that they are ultimately wrong, as frankly the science isn’t settled. Personally I think big bang makes more sense, but maybe my prof’s in college just showed me one set of evidence. Either way, it doesn’t matter when it comes to figuring out how to pay for a 16T debt.
There you go, talking sense…
Has anyone looked at this problem from the point of view of the History of Science? Please allow me to illuminate this point. Ever since the dawn of History the overwhelming majority of religions and philosophers thought that the Universe was IMMANENT. That is that it had existed FOREVER and would exist FOREVER MORE unchanged. That was the SCIENTIFICALLY ACCEPTED understanding–even for Albert Einstein–until Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies were moving away from each other. By 1929 it was proven to be consistent with Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, showing that our universe was expanding, although even Einstein initially resisted the idea. Eventually A CATHOLIC JESUIT PRIEST published an article in the Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels titled Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extragalactiques In his report, Father Georges Lemaître presented the idea of the expanding universe. In time, he completed a mathematical study of the observations of Hubble and his team. Conclusion of the study: the Universe had a beginning and in time its age could be determined (about 13.5 billion years.)
Here’s the rub: today the SCIENTIFICALLY ACCEPTED understanding is that the Universe IS NOT IMMANENT. Now science has the certainty that the Universe had a BEGINNING. Pretty much the way it is clearly stated contra mundum by the Hebrew writer of Genesis: Beresit bara ELOHIM that is Hebrew for In the beginning GOD created… etc.
Now my question is simple: How did the Hebrews ended up disagreeing so hardheadedly with the entire world until 1929? How did they get it right? Well, here we have a serious example of Science being WRONG at least for 500 years and at most for 4000 years while the Hebrew religion was right: the Universe had a BEGINNING. Luck? Jewish contrariness? Divine revelation?
As for the meaning of the Hebrew word YOM (day) those familiar with the Hebrew language know well that it may mean many things among them a day of 24 hours. May be Ms. Adina Kutnicki can clarify this point since she knows Hebrew. But in any case even if the writers of Genesis meant to write about a 24 hour day let us be truly scientific and very rigorous about this: there is no way to prove that TIME flows at an EVEN RATE with reference to the material components of the Universe. On the contrary RELATIVITY seems to indicate that at least in some special circumstances TIME can flow, or appear to flow at a slower or faster rate.
Progressives rarely think of these FACTS of registered History and Science. Well, Progressives rarely think. I should have stopped there but I needed to be more specific.
BTW the predictions emanating from Fr. Georges Lemaître’s mathematical model of the BIG BANG were eventually verified by Penzias and Woodrow. They got the Nobel Prize of Physics, Fr. Lemaître did not get the Nobel Prize but he eventually became a Monsignor. One of the few genius Monsignors of all times.
The ancient Hebrew myth happens to coincide – in one aspect alone – with modern science; nothing more than that. I find it very strange that everyone here who claims to be religious is torturing the Biblical text out of all recognition, while I am simply claiming that the Bible says what it says.
“Yom,” by the way, simply means “day.” It does not refer to a billion years. Sorry.
In I Kings 11:42, it says “And the time (yom) that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years.” In this case, Yom translated as the word “time” is equivalent to a 40 year period. There are about dozen different ways to use the word “Yom” in Hebrew.
Ben, you are not looking good. Read your comments here and you’ll find out you sound like an bitter little man. Be well, buddy and see if you can get help.
איר זענט אַ אָנגעבלאָזן ומוויסנדיק טאָכעס
The passage reads:
והימים אשר מלך שלמה בירושלם על כל ישראל ארבעים שנה
Which means “And the days that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel [were] forty years.”
DAYS “yamim” is plural, meaning multiple days. I suggest you get some help, i.e., Hebrew lessons, before shooting your mouth off.
And I suggest you learn some manners. Truth should always be exposed cordially. I wonder why you and those of your ilk are tolerated here. As long as you behave as you do whatever you say has not the slightest value. Your moronic ideas are devalued even more by you asinine style, sir.
Sorry Benjamin…that’s simply not a true statement. There are multiple instances of correlation of scientific fact and Biblical statements:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/biblical-forecasts-of-scientific-discoveries
The author of the page is engaged in desperate apologetics. A few examples:
The passage from Isaiah does NOT, in fact, describe a sphere.
The passage from Jeremiah does not refer to billions of stars, but to the “countless” or “uncountable” “host of Heaven”, that is, the heavenly armies, i.e., the angels.
The passage from Job does not refer to light moving.
The second passage from Job does not refer to “air”, but to “wind” רוח (“ruach”), referring to the force of wind against the body, which anyone notices by physical experience.
Shall I go on?
And all this time I was under the impression that one of the really great things about our country was we are all allowed to have our own opinions and ideas. I am a conservative. I believe the Earth is 4.3 to 4.7 billion years old. I do not see evolution as an impossibility if fact I have a suspicion it’s closer to the truth than is Genesis. What Rubio said is pretty much the way I feel, “I don’t know”, but for me, I lean towards evolution. The reason I say “I don’t know” is I was not there to observe what happened during those 4.3 to 4.7 billion years therefore it can be said that it is a THEORY.
The ridiculous liberal mantra, all conservatives are flat Earthers, they all believe the earth is 6,000 to 7,000 years old simply underscores their “lemming” attitudes about anyone that thinks differently than they do.
The whole thing is based on the ignorant interpretations of Genesis by many simple “believers” who have no idea of what the Bible is or how is supposed to be read.
This short video by Fr. Barron: “Comments on Misreading Genesis”
There he says rightly: “Genesis IS NOT Science”
Thank you for your elucid comments. Don’t have to be a Catholic to agree. (I happen to be one.)
“The ridiculous liberal mantra, all conservatives are flat Earthers, they all believe the earth is 6,000 to 7,000 years old simply underscores their “lemming” attitudes about anyone that thinks differently than they do.”
Quite frankly, the American left is the most bigoted population in the country. Their bigotry — and the ignorance that both forms and is formed by it — is profound in that it is ignorance of people literally living next door to them.
Simple things for simple people I guess. Here’s a reality check; many progressives also buy into middle eastern mythology, many of us don’t buy into either.
A progressive reporter wants progressive candidates to win Said reporter knows (or at least suspects) that Rubio isn’t a progressive and hits him with a simple question in hopes he will vapor lock, which he apparently did.
There is politics and there is religion, while all religions are political, not all politics is about religion.
“How old do you think the Earth is?”
“I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that.”
Ashmore’s paradox suggests the universe is very much older than the 13.6 billion year time frame currently endorsed by mainstream cosmologists.
http://lyndonashmore.com/hydrogen_cloud_separation_suppor.htm
By contrast, significant astronomical evidence exists that the solar system and universe are actually quite recent events (cf w/ Astronomical evidence for a young(er) age of the earth and the universe).
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Since there are good arguments being made today by at least three different camps of cosmology, it would be safe to say that the Earth’s age is an open question and that cosmologists will never be able to answer the question to everyone’s satisfaction.
Rubio’s blunder was the suggestion that scientists can offer a definitive, or incontrovertible answer to the question.
All Rubio had to say was: “According to science, the Earth is billions of years old”–and stop there. He did not have to riff into all that other stuff about differing opinions and what should be taught, any more than Akin had to riff into “legitimate rape” and whether rape victims can get pregnant.
To a factual question, there is usually a factual answer. A factual question like what is the age of the Earth, or what is the top marginal income tax rate today, or what is the average American human lifespan, does not require hemming and hawing and spinning and balancing “on the one hand…on the other hand.” It requires a factual response ONLY. The more you riff, the more likely you will stumble and make a gaffe.
The factual response to the age of the Earth is: “According to science, the Earth is billions of years old.” Simple.
Every human being “needs” something to believe in. Even progressives. That is exactly why climate change has become the new religion of the godless.
The “need” to believe in something is inherent in human beings. Even progressives. That explains exactly why “climate change” has become the religion of the godless.
Sorry for double post
We will know how old the Earth is when God tells us, after all He made it. Until then it is only speculation or maybe and educated guess.
Scientists can’t even find a God particle, say nothing of the larger God without whom nothing exists, not even atheists. A bad scientist would be one who is an atheist because he has drawn a conclusion without any definitive proof or vetting from a dispassionate set of eyes.
Dependecy of the scientists and science in the leftist states is well-known and the Soviet pseudo-scientific discoveries too.But the historical fate of the Science enemies is mournful.We must always distinguish the leftist academics opinion from the scientific one.We must remember that there are no bases in the leftist,progressist “teachings” about the society future,human relations and the “social justice”.Consrvatives must not be affraid of science.
I don’t know anyone who fears real science.
What *I* fear is the masking of lies in the clothing of science. Like taking a series of mathematical operations that can create a rising curve from random numbers, feeding estimates of temperatures from poorly sourced, inaccurate proxies into the process, pointing to the graph, and declaring that society has to be fundamentally transformed because of the results. Like declaring that those in a certain percentile of income are “impoverished”, seeing the total population grow, and pointing to the larger numbers of people who qualify as “impoverished” as proof that society has to be fundamentally transformed.
What *I* fear are the pseudo-scientists and charlatans in lab coats who promise paradise — if only we surrender our liberty to them.
Religious zealots don’t worry me that much — excepting the few groups of those that the left has declared culturally acceptable — because we’ve built a strong cultural rejection of them. But put a guy in a lab coat, declare it “science!” and it’s like we go blind.
(cue Thomas Dolby… and extra credit for anyone who can connect him to Pykrete…)
the basic premise behind Hainey’s question is “Do you believe in God or science?” — as if they are mutually exclusive
Actually, the basic premise is to find out whether Rubio knows how old the Earth is. If the reporter had wanted to hear Rubio’s cogitations on the much more difficult question of compatibility between religion and science, I’m sure he would have asked about it directly.
It’s actually an insidious question, rooted in the Progressive philosophy which demands that “progress” and the evolution of history be seen as superior to Natural Law, our Judeo-Christian heritage, and antiquated notions of God.
Nothing so grand. I know this may sound disappointing to some, but the question was to find out whether Rubio knew how old the Earth is. And Rubio was weighed in the balance, and found wanting.
How could Marco Rubio know the age of the Earth when science is only able to estimate how old it is? Since you have the same expectaion of Senator Rubio, I challenge you to provide the age of the Earth to nearest ten million years for the record. At any rate, Rubio is an attorney with a BA, not a physicist or scientist of any stripe. The most recent education he would have had with regards physical science would have occurred no less than twenty years ago, during his undergraduate program or perhaps as early as his primary schooling. This would have yielded a different albeit close estimate to what radiation dating has suggested (assuming that Rubio was in class and attentive on the day that his science teacher glossed over this).
GQ was not asking Rubio the question for an article about about geophysics and public policy, he was being interviewed as a prominent Republican politician and and possible 2016 presidential candidate. The subject of the question does not concern Republicans or politicians et al in any way, shape or form it is logical to assume that the question is being asked for a reason independent of its content. It is well known that among the MSM entertainment media is particularly hostile to right-of-center and religious points of view and can be presumed that the interviewer’s best possible intention was to marginalize Rubio or to ridicule and demonize him at worst. You must be willfully blinded to GQ’s bias or incredibly naive to not see through such a transparent attack on Senator Rubio.
You silly little liar – why in the world would you ask a politician the age of the earth unless you wanted to cudgel him over the head with his answer?
When asked, obama said it was above his pay grade and instead of saying he was found wanting you were just fine with his non-answer.
Run along now.
If Rubio had done it my way, and simply answered, “4.5 billion years,” the obvious attempt by the questioner to trip up Rubio would have fallen flat.
I still remember the Ford-Carter debate in 1976. Ford lost the debate because he made a gaffe which seemed to suggest that he was unaware of how Eastern Europe was under the Soviet jackboot, which even liberals knew it was.
It sure helps to know your facts when you’re asked questions. And it sure helps to not substitute political spin and rambling for actual facts.
“Actually, the basic premise is to find out whether Rubio knows how old the Earth is.”
Why does that matter, “Stan”?
The irony is that Christianity and Judaism spawned Science–Science(and the modern world)is a product of European civilization. Science exists nowhere else–It is true that the Chinese invented the compass but they used it for magic. Astrology became astronomy in Europe but in Islam it remained the purview of the necromancer.
God created the universe and set up natural law for its operation. God made man rational with free will so he could discover and use God’s creation. This statement is orthodoxy and has been since Acquinas.
The irony is that Christianity and Judaism spawned Science–Science(and the modern world)is a product of European civilization.
Do the ancient Greeks know this? They were doing science things like estimating the diameter of the earth and building stuff like the Parthenon while the hebrews were puzzling over how to build hovels. The Greeks were inventing fully modern military tactics and beating the Persians while the hebrews were wondering what all those scribbles were on stolen Greek pottery.
Your comment is typical of this place — bizarre claims of christian superiority and denigration of “the left” or other non-christians as being indoctrinated, meanwhile getting the chronology (and everything else) utterly upside down.
The greeks invented science. Science was rediscovered by the europeans during the enlightenment, the same movement that began to finally overthrow the yoke of christian tyranny.
I can understand and sympathize with your ignorance; we are all ignorant. What I do not get is your stubbornness in holding to falsehood.
Greek science was (a) not lost until the renaissance, and (b) was a barrier, not a source of inspiration to the rise of modern science. It was precisely the people who most adhered to Greek science whom Francis Bacon and Galileo had to fight.
Why do you keep lying?
What is wrong with all these postings! We have scientific proof that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old & the earth is approximately 4.5 billions yrs old. Knowing these facts in no way diminishes the value of Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Let’s move on & figure out how to loosen the Democratic grip on 50% of Americans!
Because people who believe differently , or – heaven forbid! – do not the full line on evolution, should not be subjected to heresy trials, unless they actually will, for example, tell petroleum engineers not to use fossils in exploring for oil. Sarah Palin didn’t, so her beliefs on evolution should not be an issue.
No more inquisitions, please.
I’m writing about the age of the universe & earth. How did fossils come into the picture?
Ugh! Please pay attention and keep up!
There are and always will remain fundamental problems with dating methods that claim to settle the age of the earth.
1. Have the radioactive decay rates ever changed?
2. Was the radioactive element in question pure to start with, or was it contaminated with non-radiogenic end product?
3. Has there been any possibility of leaching of either the parent radioactive element or the radiogenic end proct, or both?
4. Since an intermediate decay product from uranium and thorium is a gas(radon) can one be sure that loss of that has not resulted in wrong end result?
5. Most important of all: since radioactive elements are inherently unstable, how did they originate in the first place? After all, water doesn’t naturally run up hill, does it?
6. With regard to erosion and deposition, can we be sure that it has always been the same for all time?
7. Since fossils are regarded as important on this score, has due regard been taken of the problems that attend fossil formation?
8. Since there have been cases of either fraud(e.g. Piltdown Man) or else supposedly extinct species have been known to turn up flourishing in modern times, not to mention “missing links” still missing, is not the whole business of evolution completely wrong anyway?
Finally, has not evolution proved to be the logical godfather of all racist ideologies, even though disproved by a)different races being able to intermarry and produce fertime progeny and b)supposedly inferior races being able to catch up with supposedly superior ones – at least, when not stopped by lawless violence from the latter!
There are and always will remain fundamental problems with dating methods that claim to settle the age of the earth.
Not to the people who do this as a profession or to those whose own work relies on the same principles (like physicists and engineers.) The only people disputing “dating methods” are cranks, poorly educated twits with an axe to grind, typically fundamentalist bible beaters of one stripe or another.
Who uses fossils to search for oil? I thought they used SONAR and radiation for that.
Geologists’ theories as to where to start looking for oil, are based on the slow changes in rock strata that take place over millions of years (folding, faulting, etc.). If everything just popped into existence 10,000 years ago, there would be no particular reason to look for oil in one region than in another region.
I think it telling that the author himself and the scholars he quotes fall for the indoctrination of “correct” speech he is describing by using the term Founders instead of Founding Fathers, which is now considered verboten by the left because of their re-assignment of misogyny and patriarchal sexism to the phrase.
Speaking for myself (as the author of this article), there was no intentional neglect of the Founding “Fathers,” perhaps just a little editorial laziness. As for Dr. Pestritto, a 13-second google search will turn up many references to the Founding Fathers with his name attached. And you might be interested in an essay by Matthew Spaulding called “Faith of our Fathers” about the contributions of Catholics to our American heritage.
http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/spalding/06808.html
Religious questions are minefields and conservative candidates need to stay away from them. I believe that and I am myself religious. Even if America was grounded in religion originally religious belief and practice was fractured (often by state) and the separation of church and state was meant to make sure any particular dogmatism was kept separate from the state.
The conservative answer to gotcha questions should be the nitty-gritty details of my beliefs are not relevant because unless the electorate wants to use them as the blueprint for their own spiritual lives they are not pertinent to the body politic. We should also be actively identifying the source of progressive dogmas, questioning them and forcing politicians to state their beliefs towards them because it is far more likely we will be living under a socialist philosophical belief or economic plan than any specifically religious tenet. It really doesn’t matter what Rubio believes the true age of the Earth is but it does matter that the Democrats formally define what they mean by Fairness (which they never do).
“…and the separation of church and state was meant to make sure any particular dogmatism was kept separate from the state.”
Yes, but it never meant that politicians cannot be religious. Quite the opposite. “Congress shall make no law” means just that – not that politicians have to pass a sort of reverse religious test that only atheists and pagans can pass. Politicians should not have to leave or change their religion before they can enter office.
But that is not the whole point here. No liberal journalist would ever put that question of Keith Ellison. Obviously, we are not dealing with constitutional concerns here but with the politics of personal destruction.
That is why I agree that Rubio and others should refuse to take the bait. In fact I think they should lie to reporters. It is just common sense. Democrats lie about their true beliefs all the time, but they sure vote on them. There is no virtue in not doing so when it means losing.
“It really doesn’t matter what Rubio believes the true age of the Earth is but it does matter that the Democrats formally define what they mean by Fairness (which they never do).”
Excellent point. After all, fairness is actually the reason given for most their policies.
“No liberal journalist would ever put that question of Keith Ellison.”
It would be amusing to see someone have the guts to ask him about particular items of Muslim doctrine, wouldn’t it?
Or ask members of the Nation of Islam about some of their teachings.
Don´t be unfair to atheists. I am an atheist. Many liberals who claim to be agnostic or atheist are in fact pagan. They generally worship pantheistic idols, especially mother nature, and they put their faith in the state or certain leaders (so do some conservatives, but not typically in the US). They practice scientism more than science. They are vaguely spiritual, but their hatred for the competing Christian and Jewish faiths and their demands is very concrete. They do not hate Islam because they do not feel to be in competition with it, but rather in alliance.
I like Christians because I understand western civilization was built by Christians and Jews (their faith being compatible with science). And without western civilization, live would be unbearable. Because they are pagan, they do not love our civilization. They want to replace it. With what, they do not really know.
An honest Atheist. So nice to find one. The atheists I have had the misfortune of meeting believe that when people don’t believe in a supreme being they automatically believe in socialized medicine. To them discussing socialized medicine using rational and logical methods is propaganda.
I’m a Catholic, myself, and a devout one.
No offense intended, El Gordo, but I’m not trusting regarding atheists claiming they support Christians.
I had a friend once who used to be a Catholic, but then turned into an atheist, claiming he can’t believe in a God who knows all his destiny and then will send him to hell anyways. I tried to explain an incident to that friend about a science project that some scientists decided to do: an experiment to see what caused some people to have visions of God. They discovered two things in their experiments that could not be explained: One of which was that the brainwave machines when the people experienced visions registered them as being asleep, even when they were quite clearly awake. The scientists conducting the experiment weren’t even religious anyways (most of them were at the very least agnostic, and probably atheistic, and only two of them had any ties to religion, being Jewish in terms of ethnicity), yet after the experiment, most of them actually converted to religion. When he heard that explanation, despite his stating that he’d start believing in God again if I gave proof to God existing, not only did he dismiss it, he actually mocked it and claimed that it was a construct from primitive minds, or that the Communists, during the early stages of the Soviet Union, often targeted largely liberal Christians and attempted to trick them into thinking they wouldn’t harm religion when in fact they have every intention of doing so (I know because of a book written by a guy who was not only a Soviet defector, but was among the highest ranking defectors from the Soviet Union to America, called Big Dupes, that did an exposee on this sort of thing based on his experiences in the Soviet Union).
Besides which, I know from History that groups with Atheistic bents tend to persecute Religion (Particularly Christianity and Judaism) with death or worse. It happened in the French Revolution, it happened in the USSR, it happened in Communist Europe, it happened in China and Vietnam (why do you think one of the slogans for the Vietnam War was that the “Virgin Mary has gone South”?), heck, believe it or not, it even happened in Nazi Germany (yep, they were largely atheistic). I’m pretty sure Marxism (which was explicitly stated to be Atheistic) actually advocated the destruction of religion.
I was also the byproduct of a sex therapy session (my mom and dad’s chemical balances would have rendered even my conception incompatable otherwise, and I was the only success, as the hormones changed afterwards that made further procreation impossible), so I know that God himself was most likely responsible for my creation, so God most likely exists because of that as well.
These reasons and more make me unable to trust atheists. Plus, I also am certain, and fear, that, had I become an atheist (which I have absolutely no intention of ever doing so), I’d probably abandon ALL of God’s laws, and commit all sorts of heinous actions, since there would be no real reason to follow any of the laws created by God if he didn’t exist (and God does exist).
Again, sorry, but that’s just my viewpoint on things, and my experiences and knowledge.
Eric, I do not speak for all atheists, just for myself. I´m a minority. I´m personally atheist, but not ideologically, if that makes sense.
I simply find it a useful distinction that many people who claim to be atheists are dominated by semi-religious, pantheistic ideas and feelings. They worship idols. They talk about science and rationality, but as they saying goes, they don´t believe in nothing but everything. And so the 20th century has given us forest-worshipping, vegan nazis and fanatics who want to find transcendent meaning in the eternal struggle of their collective.
One cannot help noticing that with the crisis of faith came the most bloodthirsty regimes in history and they all had a pseudo-scientific basis. But you know this already.
I will not always support the Christian view of things, but I will take the Christian side over the pagan side every time.
Count this apathetic agnostic with you.
Oscar – I answered both your requests. That you did not like the answers is unfortunate, but not particularly relevant.
Edward Smith – Your comment is in violation of PJM’s comment guidelines. It’s also a strong indication of your lack of an argument.
Made ya look, asshole.
BTW, there is no Code of Conduct here. Otherwise you would not have been allowed in.
“PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.”
I am so very sorry for having offended you tender feelings.
Next time you come into a room, drop drawers and moon everyone else, expect a kick in your pimply ass.
Now be off with ye, ye addle-brained fool!
Since you have nothing to offer except incomprehensible insults, I won’t bother to continue.
The Torah is my bible. While commonly referred to as the ” old testament ” it’s true name is the Torah. The attempt to prove that science is at odds with The Torah necessitates ignoring the numerous scientific advances that have done just the opposite- they have confirmed biblical narrative ( not that we Jews needed any confirmation ).
for instance -
http://www.doronnof.net/downloads/ny-times1.pdf
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/familylemba.html
There are literally dozens of examples in which biblical narrative has been confirmed by scientific method and theory.
From String Theory to the Hubble Telescope from archeology to zoology the more we know the more our faith is enhanced.
That is completely absurd. The Bible describes the world as a flat disc surrounded by an ocean that extended beneath the disc. Its writers did not even know the world was a sphere.
Benny,
Is this when you astound us with your incredible fluency in Biblical Hebrew?
To Benny,
Actually that last comment was a little strong. However if you have studied with someone who is fluent in biblical hebrew (I myself am not) you would know Bereishit describes a world already in motion. The question is not what came first the chicken or the egg but that concurrently there were eggs and birds and birds laying eggs. Since the Creator exists outside of time he is not restrained by time. It is what he says it is and what he says it is we understand as natural laws and physical evidence. The real lesson is that man was central to creation and so were the moral laws which are as inherently part of our world as the actual physical sphere.
If you question applicability of the Biblical narrative to physics that is fine. What is more important is that we question the main thrust of the modern University and its philosophies. We have been told that since there are quantifiable sciences being studied that use the scientific methold that the whole edifice (humanities, social sciences, music, art, etc.) somehow acquires a scientific aspect. That is an absurdity and yet it undergirds everything and we are paying the price. Let us look at that instead of the more abstract portions of the Bible.
Science claims that it can quantify what it can measure. There is nothing absurd in that. That science is incompatible with the Bible’s claims about the physical world is self-evident. That it is not incompatible with its moral or philosophical claims is also self-evident; since science has nothing to say about them. The creation story is as an assertion of physical and historical reality, and therefore science is perfectly entitled to prove or disprove it. I think it has been conclusively disproven.
“Bereishit” literally means “first” or “in the first.” One can interpret that as implying a world already in motion, though this would somewhat contradict the claim that the world was created from nothing. In any event, it is irrelevant, since, as I have said, the claims the Bible makes about physical reality are untrue. This is the result of it being the product of a civilization that lacked the scientific method or even a system of formal logic and had little scientific knowledge. That civilization did have a genius of its own, which changed human history; but it lay in other realms of human thought – literary, moral, philosophical, etc.
Nice try. Now we are at the real point. You believe there is some kind of floating philosophical, moral and ethical thought totally outside of the Bible which magically exists in the Universities and is quite functional, identifiable and just magically creates a so-called better way than what religious believers come up with. That ethical moral and philosphical construct is basically a scam. Ideas are individual, life is continually changing, people have terrible grasp of the whole sense of creation (we are very small and our talents are often unique and limited). People are far too often driven by neediness, selfishness, corruption and greed. Just because you believe the Bible doesn’t answer your false questions (you aren’t really a physicist are you) you believe you have a magic bullet.
I’ve noticed the Atheistic technique is to use a few unique scientific theories which only have relevance to them because they seem to contradict the Bible and ignore the fact that almost the entirety of mathematics and science works just fine if you believe in a higher being. Why should the Big Bang or Darwinism matter more than geometry, etc? You are using a false construct. You are using pre-picked facts that are only relevant because they seem to contradict another belief. Logically you can not support that this is more important than any particular mathematical or scientific belief. I believe fractals are mystical and show that the free market works better than communistic systems. Care to prove me wrong? I doubt you do but you seem to believe that because a mathematician in a University came up with fractals there is suddenly an ethical construct created by some slob with a philosophy phd that is demonstrably real. Believe me. If you removed religious belief entirely from the world, humanity would collapse. There is something very real behind it.
Once again I ask the biblically illiterate, where?
This Benjamin stooge is a shallow list of generational humanist talking points, long ago proven wrong virtually ad nauseam, but still making the rounds of the militant humanist propaganda. He must be a newbie to the cause.
zzzz…
I told you where. You refuse to hear it, which isn’t my problem. In any case, my guess is that you are incapable of reading Hebrew, which would make you entirely Biblically illiterate. At the very least, far more illiterate than I.
Hebrew? Well, the problem is that the Bible is penned in three different languages, spans 1,500 years, was written by 40 authors. So I suppose I can come back with you can’t read Greek – therefore, you can’t understand most of the New Testament.
And we are still waiting on your answers…be specific, chapter and verse if you will.
Not true – and if anything it describes a creation more complex than our poor addled little brains can handle.
I especially liked the part where science proved that the inky black stuff between galaxies was liquid – as in the waters between the firmaments…..
Ot that the big bangs proved there was an, “in the beginning,”……
I’ve read the Bible many time and I say the Bible does no such thing. You’ve misinterpreted it. There is no ‘disk’ mentioned. I think you’ve been watching episodes of the “Dinosaurs”.
“The Bible describes the world as a flat disc surrounded by an ocean that extended beneath the disc.”
Citation. Literally, chapter and verse.
The Bible nowhere refers to the earth as a sphere. It contains many references to a sea beneath the earth, and to a surrounding ocean around the dry land. This implies a flat disc with sky above and a subterranean ocean below, which seems to be identified with She’ol, or the closest thing the Bible has to an underworld. You’ll have to read a bit more than one chapter and verse to get it. Sorry to tax your abilities.
Earth is a sphere according to Isaiah 40:22.
“It is he that sits on the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in.KJV.
I don’t deny that the Bible is consistent with a flat earth. However, your case isn’t so clear as you imply. The notion of a sea beneath the earth could imply a sea at the core. And the notion of land divided by water cannot be said to imply more than a single land mass (Asia-Africa-Europe would qualify).
I am no bible scholar, and I don’t claim your view is outright wrong. But you do seem to read into the evidence more than it really entails.
Psalm 139 speaks of a land beyond the sea, which context demonstrates to be the Mediterranean. If you start in Israel and head west until you hit land again, you wind up in Virginia.
Benny,
Judaism has always stated the world to be round -
Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth.”
Two thousand years ago Rabbi Hamnuna Saba wrote-
“The entire world and those upon it, spin round in a circle like a ball,’ both those at the bottom of the ball and those at the top. All God’s creatures, wherever they live on the different parts of the ball, look different (in color, in their features) because the air is different in each place, but they stand erect as all other human beings.
Therefore there are places in the world where, when some have light, others have darkness; when some have day, others have night.
There is a place in the world where the day is long and night is but a short time. It is written: ‘I acknowledge You, for I am awesomely, wondrously fashioned,
wondrous are Your works and my soul knows it well’ (Psalms 139:14).
And this secret has been passed on to men of wisdom – the wisdom of the Torah.”
The Torah cannot be read like some dime store novel. It must be studied. Before you make false accusations you should check your facts.
The quote from Isaiah does not indicate a sphere, but only a rounded shape. This is compatible with the flat disk implied by other parts of the Bible. The rabbi’s interpretation has no bearing on the matter, since by the rabbinical era Judaism had already begun to be influenced by Greek thought, which had concluded quite early that the world was spherical in shape. The writers of the Bible came from an earlier era and would not have had the same view.
The word ” circle ” in The Torah may also be translated as sphere.
Your intention to disprove what is true is a complete failure. I suggest you study before you dismiss.
Very true – especially regarding the archeology. Scientists claimed all the biblical stories were fables – until they started uncovering the cities mentioned in the bible. Jericho, Sodom, Gamorrah. I especially like the layer of glass on the destroyed twin cities of evil.
Science has been busy in the last few years trying to provide a scientific explaination for all the evidence they’ve found – from the plaques to the shallow bridge in the sea of reeds.
What they CAN’T explain away is the TIMING! Why these things happened when they did.
There is archeological evidence for some of the Biblical narratives, but by no means all. The entire Exodus story, for example, has no corroborating evidence whatsoever; while the empire of David and Solomon appears to be exaggerated in extent and power by the Biblical writers. There is some evidence that David existed, but he was certainly not the imperial overlord the Bible paints him as.
Nonsense.
Your knowledge and eloquence shame me.
My heavens, look at all the shot wooden ducks: what a waste.
Paul Kruger believed the world was flat, and it was seen as a charming eccentricity. If atheist were really atheists they would feel the same way about people who believe otherwise, but they don’t.
Atheism is really a religion, which like all revealed religions appeals to a faith based on will. The object of worship is humanity as creative agency in the world, working for its own ends on a passive insensate matter. Anything that competes with the vision is odious and must be destroyed.
Reveal to have trouble with historicism certainly and tend, like schizophrenics, to interpret metaphor literally. Unfortunately many people in the world make the noises without the insight, much to their ultimate harm.
Paul Kruger believed the world was flat, and it was seen as a charming eccentricity. If atheist were really atheists they would feel the same way about people who believe otherwise, but they don’t.
Flat earthers are eccentric, rare, and harmless. Bible beating fundies are none of these. Fundies want schools to teach their beliefs in place of science. Fundies would be just as happy in 1400′s europe, the good old days when everyone not pious was put to death or gotten rid of one way or another.
“…1400′s europe, the good old days when everyone not pious was put to death or gotten rid of one way or another.”
You really don’t know much about much, do you. If you wish to make historical assertions, I’d suggest you do something like, say, study history.
Recently I read Rivers Of Gold, the author is one of the foremost historians of the era (late 1400′s spain) and knows more than pretty much anybody, perhaps even you. Other fun sources are people like David Starkey, expert in tudor england. These guys paint a picture of the late 1400′s that you don’t like. Sorry about that. I choose to believe what the experts say.
Starkey’s hardly a major historian. It’s a stretch to call him an expert, rather something of a pop historian, and a fiercely tendentious partisan. His works start, at the earliest, with the end of the story we’re talking about here. I don’t think many actual historians would put much weight on him.
Thomas is vastly better, but remember is closely focused on Spain, and not on the European culture of a whole.
Neither is an historian of the Middle Ages; both essentially start with Early Modern, and not the sources of that culture.
No one knows what happened 6,000 years ago much less 4.5 billion years ago. Or was it 6.5 billion? A/T Einstein’s special theory of relativity, at the speed of light time = 0. 30 examples of scientific incompetence on the part of the National Academy of Sciences(NAS) have been posted at outingthemoronocracy dot com. The NAS hierarchy consists of atheist ideologues, not truth-seeking scientists.
I don’t ask people if they believe in “evolution” because of its many vague meanings. I ask, “Do you believe that you are descended from reptiles by chance?” Often, that gets them to THINK about it. Once you start thinking for yourself, you’ll find that there is not a shred of evidence for chance human reptile descent. The NAS employs Dark Age a priori pseudo-science: As atheists, they say there is no God; therefore to them, chance human reptile descent must be true.
Darwin’s “science” is a joke. Nothing but speculation. His ideas should have been ridiculed upon publication. The discovery of DNA – encoded information – should have put an end to Darwinian speculation entirely. Information, much more so encoded information, always has an intelligent source. Nature appears to be designed because it is.
Science answers the questions of when, how and what happened.
However humans also ask “why?”.
The “why?” cannot be answered by science, religion is the search for “why?”.
If one can understand the distinction between the questions being asked, then it is very possible to be both religious and scientific.
Rubio has an otherworldly air about him.
In contrast Paul Ryan is the suburban guy down the street who was the backup guard on the HS basketball team.
I actually don’t care if the Earth is 6000 years old, 4.8 billion years old, or only 3 seconds old.
Nor should anyone really care how old the Earth is.
What am I doing on this Earth? Right now I am in the process of making certain a client gets the appropriate page of the lease for the apartment she has rented while repairing her home, damaged by Hurricane Sandy. FEMA (or her insurance company) will compensate her for part of the rent.
What difference does it make how old the Earth is, how clever a Cheeky Twat like Benjamin Kerstein is, or whether or not I have an answer to his Utterly Irrelevent Question? None.
Now, my client getting compensated for having to rent an apartment while repairing her storm damaged home? That makes a difference!
Well, I’ve done as much as I can to ensure that my client gets the compensation she has applied for from FEMA.
Yes, she is sucking of the government teat, but when it comes to having to rent an apartment while repairing your flood damaged home, you take what you can get and give a solid slap in the face to anyone who tells you otherwise.
And I am quite certain more than a few people here will agree with me on that.
Benjamin, I hope your search for a meaningful life, with a purpose worthy of what intelligence you possibly possess (your writings here suggest some intelligence, but how much is not clear) greater than being a Smartass is successful.
OK! I admit this is going to be hard to swallow! However
This party has got to stop being scared of the CHRISTIANS & MSM. WHO CARES WHAT THE AGE OF THE PLANET IS!?, WHAT IS THE LAME ANSWER GIVEN. Hey folks my Geology professors say 4 Billion years give or take a few thousand, who cares?
I you, we have to take 3 items off the political table.
Immigration, you know who pays a fine, goes to the back of the line, can’t bring relatives in until he-she-they are processed in on a normalized schedule, they begging to pay taxes and SS, Thereby the income they earn-some of it stays here with uncle instead off most of it going to Mexico!
The tax issue, give the Mules what they purport they want, all of it. In two years in a deep recession (yes it will drastically affect me personally) hell even the Smurfs will send the Mules packing!
This is going to be heresy: Let the iIranians get the bomb, (Yes I know I already organized my do it yourself drop dead kit) but here me out, as soon as the rag heads announce they got’em a Nuke. ITS! a foot race by the rest of the Arab world to 1600 and Pentagon circle -their first question; can we purchase nukes and you show us how to use ‘em or (Nut job continues) or maybe we will put you under our nuclear umbrella-since you don’t want our troops on your soil, but Nukes are ok! right? If we can’t get Egypt, the Saudis the Turks and others to deal with “US” then its hopeless anyway.
Of course this has as much chance as happening as the sun rising in the west tomorrow. More than likely BeBe will have to resolve the problem, and thats almost as good because they will start fighting among themselves even more fiercely than currently. Say we can to a legitimate Fast & Furious on a monumental scale. Hell I might go purchase some Remington or Winchester stock today!
Scientists claim that the Earth is 5 billion or so years old, while (some) creationists say it’s 6,000 years young. Clearly, God works on a different calendar.
Whenever I hear of such disputes, I can’t help but think if the recent trial in Italy in which some seismologists were found guilty of criminal negligence for failing to accurately predict an earthquake. If scientists want to be regarded as unquestionable authorities on everything, then they should expect to be held accountable when things go wrong. Otherwise, they should just admit that all they do is take wild-assed guesses like everybody else.
I would dearly love to know why he had to add all that extraneous stuff to his non-answer. He should have just said, “I’m not a scientist; I’m not qualified to answer that question.” Period. Next question.
Politicians are infamous for this; too many of them even answer important, relevant questions with six minutes of BS in which there may be a few significant words; most times, though, they deliver speeches with no substance. What ever happened to plain speaking?
The same reason that amphibians and lizards and mammals, who all evolved (there are still fish capable of crawling from one pond to another, so this makes sense) from fish that crawled out of the sea, exist in the same world as fish (the ceolacanth being one of the older species).
Evolution does not decree the extinction of the species from which new species evolved. Why should it?
If man evolved from the ape (and I’m not arguing either way), why does the ape still exist?
Science does NOT say that Man evolved from apes. It says that Man and apes share a common ancestor.
BTW, by your logic: “America was originally settled by colonists from Europe–so why are there still Europeans?”
sinz: Well done! Reminds me of the homely wisdom of “if the Bible proves the existence of God, then Marvel Comics must prove the existence of Superman.”
The Bible does not “prove” the existence of God. It makes claims of His existence that you may either accept or reject, because of His gift of free will.
It does make the claim that He created us: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27)
It does make the claim that He is terribly distressed when His own creations will not acknowledge Him. Jesus, in the Temple and knowing He was to die in just a few days, cried out with anguish, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. (Matthew 23:36-38)
It does make the claim that there will be consequences for rejecting Him: “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” (Jude 1: 14-15)
Finally and best of all for us, it does make the claim that there is a way to avoid this fate: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
How you personally decide on those claims is up to you, but there will never be “proof.”
Choose wisely.
The explanation for Rubio’s extraneous stuff is sadly prosaic.
People either clam up in front of the microphone or talk too damned much.
Politicians, who should know better, too often don’t and dig twice as deep a grave as people “unused to public speaking”.
Calvin Coolidge had the advantage of being taciturn down to his bones, so he was more naturally resistant to this speechifying pathology.
Can everyone (but the man-child himself) agree that we’re all very happy that none of of could trip over Benjamin Kerstein’s dead body on the street and not recognize him – and not care beyond the generic health & hygiene issues?
My apologies to everyone else here who came for a conversation.
I dislike Trolls.
Especially Pseudo-Intellectual Trolls.
I used once to be as Snarky and Sophisticated as they were and have learned to despise that sort of False Intelligence.
As to Entertainment Value of conversation with them, well, I would rather attend a symposium run by hard-core pornographers on how to produce Snuff Films laced with Sado-Masochism that leave behind real corpses and not get caught (I can imagine the Discussion Group on How to Dig a Grave, How to Mix Quick-Hardening Cement, and Proper Use of Quicklime – don’t worry folks some of this – the part about the Quicklime – came from Flaubert’s COUSIN BETTE) than spend five minutes more than necessary acknowledging even the existence of these Wannabe Brain Trusters.
The amusing thing is, if they truly believed as they proclaim, they wouldn’t give a rat’s patoot what other people believe. What harm is there in someone else praying, if you think it’s just a form of meditation? What harm is there in someone else thinking you’re condemned to hell, if you don’t believe in life after death anyway? Does it matter if an accountant is a young-earth creationist?
The loud-mouthed atheists are, I’m convinced, desperate to shut up any voices of disagreement. They fear they are wrong, and for whatever reason (likely self-identity and the conceit that atheism is somehow the more intelligent position) cannot tolerate even the slightest reminder of that possibility.
I never cared about atheists either until they started messing up our fun traditional celebrations, activities and holidays. When they started suing – and WINNING – in court to halt such practices is when I started to caring.
Why these selfish SOBs have to mess it up for everyone is beyond me. All they do is tear communities apart – which must be their goal, because they are so good at it.
I care for this reason: It calls into question one’s credulity.
Someone who rejects out of hand a vast amount of evidence that the Earth is billions of years old, because it conflicts with his preconceived notions, is not someone I want sitting on a jury in a criminal trial. Someone who rejects vast amounts of evidence out of hand and sticks with preconceived notions is not qualified to judge anyone’s guilt or innocence either.
If someone rejects a vast amount of scientific evidence to stick with preconceived notions, will he also reject vast amounts of evidence in other spheres? Evidence about Iran’s true intentions and military capabilities? Evidence about which economic policies have worked in the past and which have failed?
Sorry JMC.
I replied to you when I mean to reply to whatisliberal.
“Maybe you have now come to understand why we recently decided to further promulgate atheism. If we let theology from the West into China and empty us from the inside, if we let all Chinese people listen to God and follow God, who will obediently listen to us and follow us?”
From a speech by Comrade Chi Haotian
Vice-Chairman of China’s Military Commission
December, 2005
The problem you see, is that those on the left, like all other totalitarians, despise competition. Even among themselves.
Well, they lost that war. About 10,000 Chinese are converting to Christianity daily and China is now the largest producers of……….Bibles!
The jury’s still out on that assertion. The Chinese penchant for mass extermination has never gone away.
Irrelevant. Christians reproduce and convert others faster than any government can exterminate us.
The saddest thing about the Shrill Atheists is that if they pursue their present course of living, they will never have the opportunity to be this magnificent:
In the film [THE LONGEST DAY], we catch brief glimpses of a bagpiper accompanying Lord Lovat and his commandoes. The man playing the piper is actually the late Pipe Major Leslie de Laspee who was at the time Pipe Major of the London Scottish Pipe Band, and personal piper to HM the Queen Mother. Daryl F. Zanuck was able to cast such a prestigious piper because the real man, Bill Millin, was an amazing man in his own right.
[. . .]
Millin was the only piper to lead troops on D-Day.
Prime Minister Winston Churchill had specifically forbidden them. The British War Office believed that they would attract sniper fire. His commander, Brigadier Lord Lovat – Simon Fraser, hereditary chief of the Clan Fraser – was a law unto himself. “Ah, but that’s the English War Office, Millin,” Lovat told him. “You and I are both Scottish so that doesn’t apply.” Millin reminisced, “The water was freezing. The next thing I remember is my kilt floating in the water, like a ballerina.” He was the only man during the landing who wore a kilt – it was the same Cameron tartan kilt his dad had worn in Flanders during the Great War – and he was armed only with his pipes and the ceremonial Skean Dhu dirk sheathed inside his right sock. “I didn’t notice I was being shot at. When you’re young, you do things you wouldn’t dream of doing when you’re older.”
After the war, German soldiers defending Sword Beach said they had not shot him because they thought, “he must have gone off his head.” Other British commandos cheered and waved, Mr. Millin recalled, though he said he felt bad as he marched among ranks of wounded soldiers needing medical help. However, those who survived the landings never complained.
“I shall never forget hearing the skirl of Bill Millin’s pipes,” one of the commandos, Tom Duncan, said. “As well as the pride we felt, it reminded us of home, and why we were fighting there for our lives and those of our loved ones.”
From the beach, Private Millin moved inland with the commandos to relieve British paratroopers who had seized a bridge near the village of Ouistreham that was vital to German attempts to move reinforcements toward the beaches.
[. . .]
British glider troops led by Major John Howard (played by Richard Todd, who actually landed at that bridge with paratroopers reinforcing the glider troops, on D-Day) seized a bridge over the Orne River at Ouistreham (now called Pegasus Bridge). They had been told to “hold until relieved.” They had no idea if the beach landings were successful. They were shelled by mortars and suffered countless German counterattacks. They were less determined than they were resigned. They would hold to the last man. Then, across the bridge, they heard Millin’s pipes. “Black Beer” was the first sign that the landings had succeeded, and that the glider troops and their airborne reinforcements might see home again.
The last tune Millin piped on D-Day was “The Nut-Brown Maiden,” played for a small red-haired French girl who, with her folks cowering behind her, had asked him for music as he passed their farm. He gave the pipes later to the museum at the Pegasus Bridge. He often revisited that bridge, and sometimes piped across it, during his long and quiet post-war career as a mental nurse at Dawlish in Devon. On one such visit, in full Highland rig with his pipes in his arms, he felt a tap on his shoulder. When he turned around, he saw a red-haired woman, who remembered him fondly, and kissed his cheek.
You sound like you’re regugitating talking point. I said nothing about “floating philosophical, moral and ethical thought” or about universities or a “better way” than religious believers or anything else of the kind. Then you go on some kind of metaphysical rant about greed or bad people or… something. Quite frankly, you make no sense whatsoever. I think you’re angry at something or someone that has nothing at all to do with me, but you seem to read it into everything I say. I presented no “false questions” or questions of any kind. I pointed out what the Bible says about the physical world and that science has disproved it. That’s all.
As for the rest, I have no idea what you’re trying to say. I didn’t mention Darwinism or the Big Bang or anything else but the age of the earth. When you say “you seem to believe that because a mathematician in a University came up with fractals there is suddenly an ethical construct created by some slob with a philosophy phd that is demonstrably real,” I confess that I don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about or where you came up with it. I made no such claim whatsoever.
Nah Benny,
I called you out and I did so in a correct manner. You lost a bit of your snide so I know I hit home. Bereishit is not a how-to manual on how to create the Earth. It is an explanation of who created it and that mankind answers to him. You well know that. You don’t want to acknowledge it because you have skin in the game in something else. What it is would be rather revealing. No, I am not really angry but I know that with certain types of people it gets their attention. Those with no real belief system but a need for a flimsy sophistication. Those who do believe in something appreciate the emotion. It tells them they are dealing with someone who is talking to them for real and not for hidden objectives.
I think I’ve been remarkably indulgent considering the abuse and outright threats I’ve been receiving here. In any event, I think you ought to take a look in the mirror and realize that you are saying that people who question the Biblical narrative have no belief system, are somehow sinister in their hidden intentions, and are pseudo-intellectual fakes. These are all false assumptions you make for reasons of your own. I have no idea what those reasons are and I honestly don’t really care. I was simply pointing out that the Biblical narrative of creation is untrue. Bereishit may be many things, but it is clearly a description of the physical creation of the world. That description is wrong. What it may mean morally, metaphysically, or philosophically is open to endless interpretation and it is your right to interpret it however you like. Why you think other people should be bound by that, or are evil if they believe they are not, is a matter for you and your psychiatrist.
Yeah Benny, you’ve been remarkably indulgent. No, you’ve been an arrogant thread lurking slob looking to show your friends your comments and puff yourself up. This thread was initially about the press’ propensity to use gotcha questions to marginalize a good portion of the American electorate. You jumped in and attempted to slap down the rubes who objected to that goal. If you merely wanted to say the physical description doesn’t seem to match the biblical description but religion postulates a Creator that stands outside the realm of physical reality as we can experience it you would have simply been stating a fact. No you had to correct, and chuckle and goad. Sorry if people aren’t willing to stand around and take it.
But my psychiatrist thinks it will help me if I reach out and see others as more human. So tell me how do we prevent the press from engaging in gotcha questions and start a real dialogue on the future of this country???
Yep, no question about it. That guy had the unmitigated gall to state FACTS, based on real evidence, and we’re not gonna stand around and take it!!! I mean really – how dare he?
Yeah, again, I don’t know who you’re arguing with, but it isn’t me. I suggest you find the person you’re so angry with and argue with him.
The war between science and religion is one of the Devil’s most successful coups, which is bad for us. Being a bookworm, I revel in the works of Francis Collins, Lee Strobel, and Gerald Schroeder. They prove the reality of the Bible using science.
Schroeder is especially helpful. In “The Science of God”, he uses Einstein’s Law of Relativity to explain that the universe was created in 6 days, and also over 15 billion years. Time, you see, is not a universal constant, and varies with gravity and velocity. Creation seems ancient to us on Earth because we’re poking along our little orbit around the sun. But the universe has been in rapid expansion since the Big Bang, and by Schroeder’s calculations, the “overall” age of creation is less than 7 days.
Schroeder also has neat things to say about the origins of man. There’s no use denying the existence of prehistoric hominids. Schroeder speculates that the creation of Adam (about 6,000 years ago, Earth time) marks the moment when Cro-Magnon Man EVOLVED into Modern Man.
This is a small reply among many, so it probably won’t be read, but you guys are just proving that we’ll never win another election. As long as we play by the liberals’ rules, we will fall into their traps.
You KNOW they had this question lined up. They KNOW we’ll firebomb ourselves with this stupid non-issue, and they’re more than willing to chum the waters for us.
Bill Whittle was right — we’ll never win again if we meet them on their terms. Rubio’s answer should have been:
“I will answer that question if you can justify what the hell you think that has to do with effectively filling the office of Chief Executive of the United States. If you can’t do that I will ask you to leave the room. … You can’t? Goodbye. [to security] See this man out. [to audience] I won’t stoop to answering pointless questions that have no relevance to the issue at hand. It cheapens both of us. Next question?”
The only way we will win is to smack the idiots down, consistently and repeatedly.
Agree completely.
Except I would not say “It cheapens both of us.”
I would say “It cheapens me. This schmuck is already so reduced in value you gotta break a penny into fourths to buy him.”
Why didn’t Rubio just say, “I don’t know. Do you?”
We are at war.
We need to know we are at war.
Against the Media, against the Liberal Trolls (this is why I no longer bother to be civil to them – why be civil when it is my intent to run them through with 4 feet of steel, pull out their intestines, feed their intestines to them while they still breathe, throw their bodies into a heap, burn their bodies, and scatter their ashes from the highest mountain I can find to be scattered by the four winds), against the Democrats.
When you are at war, allowing them sidetrack you with Meaningless Questions (Who in their Right Mind cares how old the Earth is? The Entitlement Programs and the Various QE’s have seen the Deficit rise and our Bond Rating drop, leaving the bill to grandchildren not yet conceived by children also not yet conceived.) is the height of folly.
It is time to slap these slimesuckers so hard they need dentures to replace all their teeth.
Overdone but no less true.
The recent election has heightened my emotions & my rhetoric, but hardened my resolve.
Consider yourself a member of a very large club.
It’s probably too late to post this, but for those who insist on believing that “the Bible claims the Earth is 6,000 years old” (Benjamin Kerstein, for instance)…
http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis
“Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presented the main doctrines of Christianity and defended them against pagan accusations. Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story. Origen’s views were also influential for other early church thinkers who came after him.1
St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, was another central figure of the period. Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1–2.2 In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.3
In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.”
The belief that God created the universe is an essential Judeo/Christian doctrine.
However, Jews and Christians CAN disagree – and clearly have for centuries – on exactly HOW God created the universe. The HOW is not essential.
As Saint Augustine wrote, “In the essentials, unity. In the non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.”
” The belief that God created the universe is an essential Judeo/Christian doctrine. ”
There really is no such thing. That Christianity has expropriated some Jewish doctrine cannot be used to make the claim that we share common principals so Christianity is just as valid.
It would help if you pointed out who made that claim.
Menachem – As you can see here http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/2328.htm “חוג” refers to an inscribed circle, not to a sphere, as in a circle drawn around something to enclose it is, much like the border of a flat, circular disk.
I think you need more Bible study.
See The Star of Bethlehem. There Rick Larson presents hard evidence of both the accuracy of Bible statements (both Old Testament and New Testament) and also absolute proof of a cosmological scheme that simply could not be there by chance. Don’t bark at me. You can get the DVD (10 bucks) and be amazed. Marco Rubio should watch that one too–and every Conservative politician.
I also would like to ask PM to enforce its own rules. Some of the comments simply have the wrong tone. Of course that only goes to show the sad mental state of those posting them but nevertheless they should not be given a space to display their stupidity IMHO.
Keith Tolleson – I suggest you take your own advice. When you call someone a “bitter little man” and suggest they “get help,” you give up the right to preach about someone else’s bad manners.
And Keith, just because you used Yiddish to call me a pompous ignorant ass doesn’t make you any less of a hypocrite.
לך ותזדיין יא מניאק
Try it, you pathetic blowhard. By the way, threatening people on the Internet is not smart. It’s the sort of evidence that doesn’t go away.
Oh, please don’t hurt me. I’m very intimidated by grown men brave enough to threaten strangers over the Internet. Again, not smart. Not smart at all.
Mr. Kerstein – just wanted to say I appreciate your educated and well reasoned postings. The rude, arrogant responses of other posters here to your simple presentation of facts reveals both their ignorance and irrational fear of reality, at which they desperately flail from the safety of religious fantasy.
You are to be commended for your patience.
Liz, provided you’re not being sarcastic (my sincere apologies, but it’s hard to tell considering the responses I’ve been getting), you have my profuse thanks.
You’re welcome! And no – no sarcasm.
It is hilarious, though, your being accused of rudeness by the most appallingly rude commentors here, who all the while profess such devotion to their religion.
Come on, this is ridiculous. Every educated person should know about how old the Earth is. It’s not that difficult of a concept. Carbon dating, potassium-argon dating, uranium-lead dating, tree rings, fossil records, the law of superposition… all this stuff is real. Take a week or two off politics and read a science textbook.
I have said nothing here I would not repeat again to the faces I have said them. I have said nothing here that I feel at all ashamed of saying.
The people I have said them too should be ashamed of themselves. They should be ashamed of their Childish Sophistry. They should burn with shame over their stubborn inability to recognize that there are questions that no one in their Right Mind bothers to ask, because the questions are less relevant and less important than any question that appears on a Trivial Pursuit card or is reveal when the panel flips over on a game of Jeopardy.
Yes, I would lose on Jeopardy. But then again, I don’t watch the show any more. Haven’t done so for years. The people on the show, not much better than trained chimpanzees.
It is their stubborn belief in their own Cleverness that enrages me. And yes, I would slap each every one of them in the face were I to meet any of them for being such Inexorably Determined Idiots.
AXED: The End of Green – Kickstarter Project
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X375vBgJ0GY
How about this for a policy statement:
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
This article is an illustration re why the age of the earth is important vis a vis the focus of science projects and the requisite funding.
http://spaceref.com/extrasolar-planets/do-missing-jupiters-mean-massive-comet-belts.html
The age of the earth in this case is never mentioned; it’s taken for granted that this is known, not seriously in any sort of dispute, and this is part of the body of knowledge that this science builds on.
Rubio nor any other politician who can’t present a reasonably correct answer regarding something so basic and mundane as the age of the earth needs to be nowhere near the decision making process for science policy. As I see it, he and those like him should be sent home immediately.
What the GOP needs is smart people like Dana Rohrbacher. Not clowns like Rubio.
Another conservative entertains a question designed to identify him, freeze and then destroy him! When will our side become more saavy and refuse to engage in such philosophical/religious/scientific debates? I do believe we might be the stupid party, after all.
I am a biology professor who believes that scientific ignorance is voting issue. Why is it out of line for voters like myself to have this information?
George LeS – You are right about fundamentalism. There have been allegorical interpretations of the Bible since the Bible itself. Nonetheless, I think the literal meaning of the text is important since it reveals a) the worldview of its authors, and b) is usually the one cited by the anti-science forces among the religious today.
My presumptions regarding Augustine’s intentions are not my own, and there has long been a consensus that Augustine sought to reconcile Christian doctrine with Greek philosophy. Indeed, this is considered one of his greatest achievements. In addition, we know from his Confessions that before his conversion he was extremely well versed in Greek thought and religion, and worked from within its vocabulary and worldview. The dominant Greek schools of thought at the time were either Aristotelean or Neo-Platonic, and both proposed an eternal world; or, at least, a world whose essential material was eternal, though formed into the world by an “artisan,” as in the Platonic tradition. At least, these would have been the only schools of thought available to Augustine as a Christian. He could not, for example, have reconciled the Greek atomists with Christianity, as they denied both the creation and the influence of the gods on this world. I think it reasonable, then, to reach some conclusions as to Augustine’s intentions.
Rubio, one of the current favorites is starting to run for the 2016 presidency. Neither he or Jinda are NaturalBornCitizen, as required by the Constitution. se Article2,Section1, Clause5. To run for president one must have been born of the soil, by the soil, that means Citizen Parents. Republicans need to quit the progressive move to bypass the founding document even if we omit two of our favorite people. It’s the law.