AZ State Senator: Earth is 6,000 years old...

headscratcher4 · 8th July 2009, 10:24 AM

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/08/...te-earth-6000/

alexi_drago · 8th July 2009, 11:15 AM

I take it she doesn't believe in the grand canyon.

Marduk · 8th July 2009, 11:33 AM

Is that the same grand canyon that creationists claim was formed by Noahs flood.

Quote:

Not only is the Canyon a testimony to the Creator, but it also presents evidence of God’s judgment of the world. It was a judgment by water of a world broken by sin. The Canyon gives us a glimpse of the effects and scale of a catastrophic global flood, the biblical Flood of Noah’s day.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1222gc.asp

Made me laugh, she says she wants to mine uranium so that her granchildren can have the same lifestyle that she has, thats progress eh. She must love living under the threat of fundemental religious terrorism, perhaps she doesn't realise that her attitude is half the problem. could someone tell her, I'd like to see the look on her face when someone explains to her why shes a fundementalist

alexi_drago · 8th July 2009, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Marduk

Is that the same grand canyon that creationists claim was formed by Noahs flood.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1222gc.asp

Well ok, so a 40 day flood exposed billions of years worth of laid down rock.

ravdin · 8th July 2009, 12:07 PM

I was arguing with a creationist not too long ago who had all kinds of crazy ideas- but when we talked about the age of the earth, he had no problem whatsoever with the idea of our planet being billions of years old. The notion of the earth only being a few thousand years old was too absurd even for him. Maybe he should move to Arizona and run for her seat?

blutoski · 8th July 2009, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by alexi_drago

I take it she doesn't believe in the grand canyon.

On the contraray: she probably took a [Creationist Canyon Tour].

alexi_drago · 8th July 2009, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by blutoski

On the contraray: she probably took a [Creationist Canyon Tour].

Quote:

Several organizations and ministries provide trips each year to the Grand Canyon for rafting and hiking with instructors that can describe the geology of the canyon formation.

I'm afraid to ask this but how do they describe the geology of the canyon formation?

Marduk · 8th July 2009, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by alexi_drago

Well ok, so a 40 day flood exposed billions of years worth of laid down rock.

of course, it wasn't normal water, it was gods water

headscratcher4 · 8th July 2009, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by alexi_drago

I'm afraid to ask this but how do they describe the geology of the canyon formation?

Lots and lots of water over a very short period of time...say 40 days...will displace lots of soil.

MG1962 · 8th July 2009, 12:27 PM

I was watching a doco about the flood the other day with my wife. In all seriousness the narrator explained that the latest theory suggests that enormous amounts of water vapour were held high in the atmosphere. Then said, due to unknown causes using unknown mechanisms, the water suddenly fell on the earth

Took me 5 minutes to clean all the Mountain Dew I sprayed from my nose across the TV screen. I have never heard a 'guess' described in those terms before

)

alexi_drago · 8th July 2009, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Marduk

of course, it wasn't normal water, it was gods water

I'm fine with that bit, a 40 day flood'll do that. It's just the 1 or 2 billion years worth of deposited rock that's there that I'm curious about.

MG1962 · 8th July 2009, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by alexi_drago

I'm fine with that bit, a 40 day flood'll do that. It's just the 1 or 2 billion years worth of deposited rock that's there that I'm curious about.

Ohh stop asking awkward questions

I Ratant · 8th July 2009, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

I was watching a doco about the flood the other day with my wife. In all seriousness the narrator explained that the latest theory suggests that enormous amounts of water vapour were held high in the atmosphere. Then said, due to unknown causes using unknown mechanisms, the water suddenly fell on the earth

Took me 5 minutes to clean all the Mountain Dew I sprayed from my nose across the TV screen. I have never heard a 'guess' described in those terms before

)

.
The "vapor canopy" theory is pretty old.
What it fails to accommodate is how water is suspended in the atmosphere.
And how much water there would have be up there to provide the depth of the Flood.
The air pressure needed to keep that amount of water above the surface is so high, the temperature that would go along with it would prevent life itself from forming.
The thickness of the clouds that water in the form of vapor would "create" would change the sunlight getting to the surface of earth... to none!
And those clouds would change the albedo of the planet from an absorbing blue-green-brown to a totally reflecting white.
IOW, life would not be possible with the "vapor canopy".

FreshHat · 8th July 2009, 01:39 PM

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/08/...te-earth-6000/

I chuckled quietly to myself, imagining the guy in the powder blue blazer was either doubled over in laughter, or maybe retching at the sheer stupidity of the comment.

desertyeti · 8th July 2009, 01:46 PM

We get the politicians we deserve.
With the average person here in the US being about as poorly educated in science as a medieval farmer, it's not too surprising that numbskulls like this senator (and governors like "Bobby" Jindal, Sarah Palin, George Bush, etc.) are the ones in control of making and passing laws.
If given a choice between hard-earned knowledge and quick-fix ignorance...guess which way the majority goes?

Vanda · 8th July 2009, 02:11 PM

This woman was also one of the sponsors of the recent AZ Abortion Bill 2564 vetoed several times by Napolitano, but expected to be signed soon by our current governor.

Among other things, the proposed bill grants healthcare providers, hospitals, and pharmacists who object on “moral or religious grounds” the right to refuse to “facilitate or participate in the provision of an abortion, abortion medication, emergency contraception or any medication or device intended to inhibit or prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum.” They also took the time to change the language of the current legislation from “fetus” to “unborn child.”

So much for assuming that religious beliefs don’t really affect other critical thinking skills or that people can keep their beliefs separate from every thing else they do in the world.

Yeggster · 8th July 2009, 02:30 PM

Sad in of itself .. but a crime when considering the position of power this fool holds

Stellafane · 8th July 2009, 06:16 PM

Ironically, her argument would be stronger if she dropped the creationist stuff. She seems to be saying the planet survived just fine for a long time (6,000 years) without environmental laws. But wouldn't four billion years of survival be orders of magnitude more impressive?*

*I fully recognize her whole argument is stupid; I'm just sayin'.

Lucian · 8th July 2009, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
The "vapor canopy" theory is pretty old.
What it fails to accommodate is how water is suspended in the atmosphere.
And how much water there would have be up there to provide the depth of the Flood.
The air pressure needed to keep that amount of water above the surface is so high, the temperature that would go along with it would prevent life itself from forming.
The thickness of the clouds that water in the form of vapor would "create" would change the sunlight getting to the surface of earth... to none!
And those clouds would change the albedo of the planet from an absorbing blue-green-brown to a totally reflecting white.
IOW, life would not be possible with the "vapor canopy".

I also recently saw a program on The Flood (don't know if it was the same one MG1962 saw). Despite being on the "History" Channel, it actually included sane people explaining the problems with the different flood theories, including the vapor canopy. As I recall, after the vapor canopy came the idea that, on or about the 3rd day of creation, when God separated the whatsit from the thingy, somehow a bunch of water got caught under the surface of the earth (God's really not very good at creating stuff, is he?). At the time of the flood, all the geysers of the world began spewing simultaneously. Then a real scientist sort of guy explained that that wouldn't produce enough water. "It would be kinda cool, though," he said.

I Ratant · 8th July 2009, 07:09 PM

The amount of heat required to evaporate all that fallen water would also incinerate everything alive on the planet at the time.
Where at -is- all that water?
It's like every other physically examinable claim in the book.. Joshua's long day, the parting of the Red Sea, Jonah in the "fish", the rainbow... none of these are supportable with the realities we know today.
Even Exodus itself fails any examination using contemporary records .

Skeptic Ginger · 8th July 2009, 07:34 PM

Cool! Phil has been named as a source on ThinkProgress.

Must have been from a blog entry.

Yep, here it is.

And here's where Phil saw it.

Who got it from MrGuilt on Twitter.
(Geese, who would bother reading through such stuff?) Guess he twits directly with AstroEngine:

Quote:

@astroengine Still plenty of stupidity to go around...it's been around for 6000 years, after all: http://digg.com/u17SJL1:08 PM Jul 6th from twhirl in reply to astroengine

OK, now that's weird. The Digg link is dead (scrolled off the current page) so I searched for it and found instead a link to the Digg story which is really a link to the BA's blog.

So Digg gets a story from the BA, Mr Guilt passes it on via twitter to AstroEngine where phil gets the story and posts it on his blog. Weeeiiirrd.

I wonder if the people in the meeting said anything or even noticed the problem.

themusicteacher · 8th July 2009, 07:53 PM

This just in:

An Arizona state senator who appears to be 7000 years old claims the Earth is only 6000 years old. More at eleven.

Skeptic Ginger · 8th July 2009, 11:41 PM

Olbermann put the State Senator on as worst person but he messed up on the science of radioisotope dating. Like many people, Olbermann seems to think all isotope dating is done with carbon isotopes.

Wangler · 8th July 2009, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by desertyeti

We get the politicians we deserve.
With the average person here in the US being about as poorly educated in science as a medieval farmer, it's not too surprising that numbskulls like this senator (and governors like "Bobby" Jindal, Sarah Palin, George Bush, etc.) are the ones in control of making and passing laws.
If given a choice between hard-earned knowledge and quick-fix ignorance...guess which way the majority goes?

This is an excellent point...a poorly educated electorate is the reason we have a democrat controlled congress and a democrat for president.

You hit the nail on the head!

UnrepentantSinner · 9th July 2009, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by alexi_drago

I'm fine with that bit, a 40 day flood'll do that. It's just the 1 or 2 billion years worth of deposited rock that's there that I'm curious about.

Because the rock wasn't laid down in 2 "billion" years silly. It was laid down during the churning turbid portion of the flood and then the canyon was carved out during the receeding of the waters portion. It's simple if you ~~think about it~~ make stuff up ad hoc.

gambling_cruiser · 9th July 2009, 01:56 AM

Yahweh was unhappy with mankind and drunk to much beer, he had that mighty pressure in his bladder and ... after getting sober he regreted the mess he had made and promised to not do it again.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th July 2009, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Wangler

This is an excellent point...a poorly educated electorate is the reason we have a democrat controlled congress and a democrat for president.

You hit the nail on the head!

Cause we all know Bush and his anti-science minions were really so well informed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E

dudalb · 9th July 2009, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Olbermann put the State Senator on as worst person but he messed up on the science of radioisotope dating. Like many people, Olbermann seems to think all isotope dating is done with carbon isotopes.

Ouch.
I have come of the opinion that the Scientific Literacy of ANY Celeb should be suspect until proven otherwise.

UncaYimmy · 9th July 2009, 05:10 PM

I live in Phoenix, Arizona. We know the Earth is only 6,000 years old because Sheriff Joe tells us so. He was there when it all started, and he never lies. Alright, maybe he didn't actually say it, but if he said it, people in Phoenix would believe him.

Skeptic Ginger · 9th July 2009, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Ouch.
I have come of the opinion that the Scientific Literacy of ANY Celeb should be suspect until proven otherwise.

And now Ed Schultz (also MSNBC) disappointingly said the Earth was one billion years old instead of 4.5 while reporting on the same story.

I would have expected better of both of them. Don't their staff do any fact checking?

Subduction Zone · 9th July 2009, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Cause we all know Bush and his anti-science minions were really so well informed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E

skeptigirl, only 3 out of 10 Republicans said they did not believe in evolution. That is much better than the at least 40% average for the U.S. as a whole. The only Republican of any note that did not believe was Mike Huckabee.

Skeptic Ginger · 10th July 2009, 02:20 AM

Originally Posted by Subduction Zone

skeptigirl, only 3 out of 10 Republicans said they did not believe in evolution. That is much better than the at least 40% average for the U.S. as a whole. The only Republican of any note that did not believe was Mike Huckabee.

You need more examples? No problem, they are not hard to find. How many do you want?

Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution

Quote:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 - A sharp debate between scientists and religious conservatives escalated Tuesday over comments by President Bush that the theory of intelligent design should be taught with evolution in the nation's public schools.

In an interview at the White House on Monday with a group of Texas newspaper reporters, Mr. Bush appeared to endorse the push by many of his conservative Christian supporters to give intelligent design equal treatment with the theory of evolution.

Recalling his days as Texas governor, Mr. Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught." Asked again by a reporter whether he believed that both sides in the debate between evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the schools, Mr. Bush replied that he did, "so people can understand what the debate is about."

... On Tuesday, the president's conservative Christian supporters and the leading institute advancing intelligent design embraced Mr. Bush's comments while scientists and advocates of the separation of church and state disparaged them. At the White House, where intelligent design has been discussed in a weekly Bible study group, Mr. Bush's science adviser, John H. Marburger 3rd, sought to play down the president's remarks as common sense and old news.

"Common sense and old news", yet Marburger apparently knew full well that wasn't common sense.

Quote:

n February 2005, while serving as the the Science Adviser to President Bush, in a speech at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, he stated, "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory." and "I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topic."

(Note: There is no Wiki reference cited for the comment.)

Subduction Zone · 13th July 2009, 12:25 PM

skeptigirl, you emboldened the most important part of Bush's response. He said "both sides ought to be properly taught". To properly teach the IDiots side they should heavily refer to the Dover trial where it was clearly shown that ID is not a science, but rather religion. In fact I wish everybody was exposed to the Dover trial, it would show them many of the flaws in ID and also give students a good basic grasp of evolution.

shadron · 13th July 2009, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Ouch.
I have come of the opinion that the Scientific Literacy of ANY Celeb should be suspect until proven otherwise.

Johnny Carson and Steve Allen seemed to have it together. I think that the attitude of scientific skepticism and fame are pretty much orthogonal and independent characteristics.

shadron · 13th July 2009, 07:05 PM

It seems a real pity that science subjects seem to be only fit for discussion during Bible study in the Bush White House.

shadron · 13th July 2009, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by Subduction Zone

skeptigirl, only 3 out of 10 Republicans said they did not believe in evolution. That is much better than the at least 40% average for the U.S. as a whole. The only Republican of any note that did not believe was Mike Huckabee.

Gov. Brownback and Sen. Tancredo weren't Republicans of note? I presume that Republicans (which party made its own rules about how to nominate a president from that party) only want "men of note" among those who are trying to become the president of the US.

Marduk · 13th July 2009, 07:13 PM

Originally Posted by alexi_drago

I'm fine with that bit, a 40 day flood'll do that. It's just the 1 or 2 billion years worth of deposited rock that's there that I'm curious about.

satan did that, and fossils

Corsair 115 · 13th July 2009, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by MG1962

I was watching a doco about the flood the other day with my wife. In all seriousness the narrator explained that the latest theory suggests that enormous amounts of water vapour were held high in the atmosphere. Then said, due to unknown causes using unknown mechanisms, the water suddenly fell on the earth

I assume they offered a similar explanation as to why the refraction of light only began happening after the Flood...

ponderingturtle · 14th July 2009, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by alexi_drago

I'm fine with that bit, a 40 day flood'll do that. It's just the 1 or 2 billion years worth of deposited rock that's there that I'm curious about.

That was the flood too. See the flood laid down the rock and then cut through it as the waters receeded after the flood was over.

See all creationist geology is about the flood, as it is the answer to everything.

shadron · 14th July 2009, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by shadron

Johnny Carson and Steve Allen seemed to have it together. I think that the attitude of scientific skepticism and fame are pretty much orthogonal and independent characteristics.

Except for the Scientology effect, because they particularly seek out celebs.

8th July 2009, 10:24 AM	#1
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 6,424	AZ State Senator: Earth is 6,000 years old... http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/08/...te-earth-6000/
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

8th July 2009, 11:15 AM	#2
alexi_drago Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 503	I take it she doesn't believe in the grand canyon.
alexi_drago Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 503	__________________ Thank you for flying Delta Business Express. We hope you enjoyed giving us the business as much as we enjoyed taking you for a ride. Remember, nobody loves you, or your money, more than Delta.

8th July 2009, 11:33 AM	#3
Marduk Dragon Killer Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 3,075	Is that the same grand canyon that creationists claim was formed by Noahs flood. Quote: Not only is the Canyon a testimony to the Creator, but it also presents evidence of God’s judgment of the world. It was a judgment by water of a world broken by sin. The Canyon gives us a glimpse of the effects and scale of a catastrophic global flood, the biblical Flood of Noah’s day. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1222gc.asp Made me laugh, she says she wants to mine uranium so that her granchildren can have the same lifestyle that she has, thats progress eh. She must love living under the threat of fundemental religious terrorism, perhaps she doesn't realise that her attitude is half the problem. could someone tell her, I'd like to see the look on her face when someone explains to her why shes a fundementalist
	__________________ Senno Ecto Gama ĝae haš dug zae ama kibid "Stupid humans" (Wollery) "Kill all humans" (Bender) "for while heaven may be closed I am always open, even on Christmas." (Lucifer)

8th July 2009, 11:36 AM	#4
alexi_drago Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 503	Originally Posted by Marduk Is that the same grand canyon that creationists claim was formed by Noahs flood. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/1222gc.asp Well ok, so a 40 day flood exposed billions of years worth of laid down rock.
alexi_drago Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 503	__________________ Thank you for flying Delta Business Express. We hope you enjoyed giving us the business as much as we enjoyed taking you for a ride. Remember, nobody loves you, or your money, more than Delta.

8th July 2009, 12:07 PM	#5
ravdin Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: The People's Republic of Berkeley, CA Posts: 1,652	I was arguing with a creationist not too long ago who had all kinds of crazy ideas- but when we talked about the age of the earth, he had no problem whatsoever with the idea of our planet being billions of years old. The notion of the earth only being a few thousand years old was too absurd even for him. Maybe he should move to Arizona and run for her seat?
	__________________ No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while Congress is in session. -Mark Twain

8th July 2009, 12:08 PM	#6
blutoski Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4,415	Originally Posted by alexi_drago I take it she doesn't believe in the grand canyon. On the contraray: she probably took a [Creationist Canyon Tour].
blutoski Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4,415	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

8th July 2009, 12:16 PM	#7
alexi_drago Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 503	Originally Posted by blutoski On the contraray: she probably took a [Creationist Canyon Tour]. Quote: Several organizations and ministries provide trips each year to the Grand Canyon for rafting and hiking with instructors that can describe the geology of the canyon formation. I'm afraid to ask this but how do they describe the geology of the canyon formation?
alexi_drago Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 503	__________________ Thank you for flying Delta Business Express. We hope you enjoyed giving us the business as much as we enjoyed taking you for a ride. Remember, nobody loves you, or your money, more than Delta.

8th July 2009, 12:18 PM	#8
Marduk Dragon Killer Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 3,075	Originally Posted by alexi_drago Well ok, so a 40 day flood exposed billions of years worth of laid down rock. of course, it wasn't normal water, it was gods water
	__________________ Senno Ecto Gama ĝae haš dug zae ama kibid "Stupid humans" (Wollery) "Kill all humans" (Bender) "for while heaven may be closed I am always open, even on Christmas." (Lucifer)

8th July 2009, 12:23 PM	#9
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 6,424	Originally Posted by alexi_drago I'm afraid to ask this but how do they describe the geology of the canyon formation? Lots and lots of water over a very short period of time...say 40 days...will displace lots of soil.
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

8th July 2009, 12:27 PM	#10
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031	I was watching a doco about the flood the other day with my wife. In all seriousness the narrator explained that the latest theory suggests that enormous amounts of water vapour were held high in the atmosphere. Then said, due to unknown causes using unknown mechanisms, the water suddenly fell on the earth Took me 5 minutes to clean all the Mountain Dew I sprayed from my nose across the TV screen. I have never heard a 'guess' described in those terms before )
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031

8th July 2009, 12:29 PM	#11
alexi_drago Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 503	Originally Posted by Marduk of course, it wasn't normal water, it was gods water I'm fine with that bit, a 40 day flood'll do that. It's just the 1 or 2 billion years worth of deposited rock that's there that I'm curious about.
alexi_drago Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 503	__________________ Thank you for flying Delta Business Express. We hope you enjoyed giving us the business as much as we enjoyed taking you for a ride. Remember, nobody loves you, or your money, more than Delta.

8th July 2009, 12:31 PM	#12
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031	Originally Posted by alexi_drago I'm fine with that bit, a 40 day flood'll do that. It's just the 1 or 2 billion years worth of deposited rock that's there that I'm curious about. Ohh stop asking awkward questions
MG1962 Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,031

8th July 2009, 01:05 PM	#13
I Ratant Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 4,593	Originally Posted by MG1962 I was watching a doco about the flood the other day with my wife. In all seriousness the narrator explained that the latest theory suggests that enormous amounts of water vapour were held high in the atmosphere. Then said, due to unknown causes using unknown mechanisms, the water suddenly fell on the earth Took me 5 minutes to clean all the Mountain Dew I sprayed from my nose across the TV screen. I have never heard a 'guess' described in those terms before ) . The "vapor canopy" theory is pretty old. What it fails to accommodate is how water is suspended in the atmosphere. And how much water there would have be up there to provide the depth of the Flood. The air pressure needed to keep that amount of water above the surface is so high, the temperature that would go along with it would prevent life itself from forming. The thickness of the clouds that water in the form of vapor would "create" would change the sunlight getting to the surface of earth... to none! And those clouds would change the albedo of the planet from an absorbing blue-green-brown to a totally reflecting white. IOW, life would not be possible with the "vapor canopy".
I Ratant Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 4,593

8th July 2009, 01:39 PM	#14
FreshHat Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: It's Just A Jump To The Left Posts: 400	Quote: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/08/...te-earth-6000/ I chuckled quietly to myself, imagining the guy in the powder blue blazer was either doubled over in laughter, or maybe retching at the sheer stupidity of the comment.

8th July 2009, 01:46 PM	#15
desertyeti Muse Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: down by the river Posts: 818	We get the politicians we deserve. With the average person here in the US being about as poorly educated in science as a medieval farmer, it's not too surprising that numbskulls like this senator (and governors like "Bobby" Jindal, Sarah Palin, George Bush, etc.) are the ones in control of making and passing laws. If given a choice between hard-earned knowledge and quick-fix ignorance...guess which way the majority goes?
	__________________ "He is a sick, demented yeti." They only poo in other dimensions!

8th July 2009, 02:11 PM	#16
Vanda Scholar Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 79	This woman was also one of the sponsors of the recent AZ Abortion Bill 2564 vetoed several times by Napolitano, but expected to be signed soon by our current governor. Among other things, the proposed bill grants healthcare providers, hospitals, and pharmacists who object on “moral or religious grounds” the right to refuse to “facilitate or participate in the provision of an abortion, abortion medication, emergency contraception or any medication or device intended to inhibit or prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum.” They also took the time to change the language of the current legislation from “fetus” to “unborn child.” So much for assuming that religious beliefs don’t really affect other critical thinking skills or that people can keep their beliefs separate from every thing else they do in the world.
	__________________ "The path of my life is strewn with cowpats from the Devil's own Satanic herd!" - Sir Edmund Blackadder

8th July 2009, 02:30 PM	#17
Yeggster Thinker Join Date: May 2009 Location: Orillia, Ontario, Canada Posts: 134	Sad in of itself .. but a crime when considering the position of power this fool holds

8th July 2009, 06:16 PM	#18
Stellafane Village Idiot. Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Green Mountains Posts: 3,568	Ironically, her argument would be stronger if she dropped the creationist stuff. She seems to be saying the planet survived just fine for a long time (6,000 years) without environmental laws. But wouldn't four billion years of survival be orders of magnitude more impressive?* *I fully recognize her whole argument is stupid; I'm just sayin'.
	__________________ Another Shameless Googlebomb Plug for www.stopsylvia.com

8th July 2009, 06:36 PM	#19
Lucian Muse Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 705	Originally Posted by I Ratant . The "vapor canopy" theory is pretty old. What it fails to accommodate is how water is suspended in the atmosphere. And how much water there would have be up there to provide the depth of the Flood. The air pressure needed to keep that amount of water above the surface is so high, the temperature that would go along with it would prevent life itself from forming. The thickness of the clouds that water in the form of vapor would "create" would change the sunlight getting to the surface of earth... to none! And those clouds would change the albedo of the planet from an absorbing blue-green-brown to a totally reflecting white. IOW, life would not be possible with the "vapor canopy". I also recently saw a program on The Flood (don't know if it was the same one MG1962 saw). Despite being on the "History" Channel, it actually included sane people explaining the problems with the different flood theories, including the vapor canopy. As I recall, after the vapor canopy came the idea that, on or about the 3rd day of creation, when God separated the whatsit from the thingy, somehow a bunch of water got caught under the surface of the earth (God's really not very good at creating stuff, is he?). At the time of the flood, all the geysers of the world began spewing simultaneously. Then a real scientist sort of guy explained that that wouldn't produce enough water. "It would be kinda cool, though," he said.
Lucian Muse Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 705	__________________ …nealles druncne slog heorðgeneatas…

8th July 2009, 07:09 PM	#20
I Ratant Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 4,593	The amount of heat required to evaporate all that fallen water would also incinerate everything alive on the planet at the time. Where at -is- all that water? It's like every other physically examinable claim in the book.. Joshua's long day, the parting of the Red Sea, Jonah in the "fish", the rainbow... none of these are supportable with the realities we know today. Even Exodus itself fails any examination using contemporary records .
I Ratant Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 4,593

8th July 2009, 07:34 PM	#21
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 19,317	Cool! Phil has been named as a source on ThinkProgress. Must have been from a blog entry. Yep, here it is. And here's where Phil saw it. Who got it from MrGuilt on Twitter. (Geese, who would bother reading through such stuff?) Guess he twits directly with AstroEngine: Quote: @astroengine Still plenty of stupidity to go around...it's been around for 6000 years, after all: http://digg.com/u17SJL1:08 PM Jul 6th from twhirl in reply to astroengine OK, now that's weird. The Digg link is dead (scrolled off the current page) so I searched for it and found instead a link to the Digg story which is really a link to the BA's blog. So Digg gets a story from the BA, Mr Guilt passes it on via twitter to AstroEngine where phil gets the story and posts it on his blog. Weeeiiirrd. I wonder if the people in the meeting said anything or even noticed the problem.
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 8th July 2009 at 07:53 PM.*

8th July 2009, 07:53 PM	#22
themusicteacher Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Burque, NM Posts: 462	This just in: An Arizona state senator who appears to be 7000 years old claims the Earth is only 6000 years old. More at eleven.

8th July 2009, 11:41 PM	#23
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 19,317	Olbermann put the State Senator on as worst person but he messed up on the science of radioisotope dating. Like many people, Olbermann seems to think all isotope dating is done with carbon isotopes.
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (*Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.)

8th July 2009, 11:49 PM	#24
Wangler Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: WA State Posts: 1,734	Originally Posted by desertyeti We get the politicians we deserve. With the average person here in the US being about as poorly educated in science as a medieval farmer, it's not too surprising that numbskulls like this senator (and governors like "Bobby" Jindal, Sarah Palin, George Bush, etc.) are the ones in control of making and passing laws. If given a choice between hard-earned knowledge and quick-fix ignorance...guess which way the majority goes? This is an excellent point...a poorly educated electorate is the reason we have a democrat controlled congress and a democrat for president. You hit the nail on the head!

9th July 2009, 12:31 AM	#25
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 23,209	Originally Posted by alexi_drago I'm fine with that bit, a 40 day flood'll do that. It's just the 1 or 2 billion years worth of deposited rock that's there that I'm curious about. Because the rock wasn't laid down in 2 "billion" years silly. It was laid down during the churning turbid portion of the flood and then the canyon was carved out during the receeding of the waters portion. It's simple if you ~~think about it~~ make stuff up ad hoc.
	__________________ "The permanence of the stars was questioned, the justice of slavery was not" - Carl Sagan in Cosmos discussing the content of the Library of Alexandria. a post by Alan Smithee explained. Blutoski's taxonomy of woo Join my The Not Cool Kids Club

9th July 2009, 01:56 AM	#26
gambling_cruiser Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Vienna, Austria Posts: 356	Yahweh was unhappy with mankind and drunk to much beer, he had that mighty pressure in his bladder and ... after getting sober he regreted the mess he had made and promised to not do it again.

9th July 2009, 03:06 PM	#27
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 19,317	Originally Posted by Wangler This is an excellent point...a poorly educated electorate is the reason we have a democrat controlled congress and a democrat for president. You hit the nail on the head! Cause we all know Bush and his anti-science minions were really so well informed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 9th July 2009 at 03:09 PM.*

9th July 2009, 04:13 PM	#28
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 14,454	Originally Posted by skeptigirl Olbermann put the State Senator on as worst person but he messed up on the science of radioisotope dating. Like many people, Olbermann seems to think all isotope dating is done with carbon isotopes. Ouch. I have come of the opinion that the Scientific Literacy of ANY Celeb should be suspect until proven otherwise.

9th July 2009, 05:10 PM	#29
UncaYimmy Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,582	I live in Phoenix, Arizona. We know the Earth is only 6,000 years old because Sheriff Joe tells us so. He was there when it all started, and he never lies. Alright, maybe he didn't actually say it, but if he said it, people in Phoenix would believe him.

9th July 2009, 08:07 PM	#30
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 19,317	Originally Posted by dudalb Ouch. I have come of the opinion that the Scientific Literacy of ANY Celeb should be suspect until proven otherwise. And now Ed Schultz (also MSNBC) disappointingly said the Earth was one billion years old instead of 4.5 while reporting on the same story. I would have expected better of both of them. Don't their staff do any fact checking?
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (*Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.)

9th July 2009, 09:21 PM	#31
Subduction Zone Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 494	Originally Posted by skeptigirl Cause we all know Bush and his anti-science minions were really so well informed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E skeptigirl, only 3 out of 10 Republicans said they did not believe in evolution. That is much better than the at least 40% average for the U.S. as a whole. The only Republican of any note that did not believe was Mike Huckabee.

10th July 2009, 02:20 AM	#32
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 19,317	Originally Posted by Subduction Zone skeptigirl, only 3 out of 10 Republicans said they did not believe in evolution. That is much better than the at least 40% average for the U.S. as a whole. The only Republican of any note that did not believe was Mike Huckabee. You need more examples? No problem, they are not hard to find. How many do you want? Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution Quote: WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 - A sharp debate between scientists and religious conservatives escalated Tuesday over comments by President Bush that the theory of intelligent design should be taught with evolution in the nation's public schools. In an interview at the White House on Monday with a group of Texas newspaper reporters, Mr. Bush appeared to endorse the push by many of his conservative Christian supporters to give intelligent design equal treatment with the theory of evolution. Recalling his days as Texas governor, Mr. Bush said in the interview, according to a transcript, "I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught." Asked again by a reporter whether he believed that both sides in the debate between evolution and intelligent design should be taught in the schools, Mr. Bush replied that he did, "so people can understand what the debate is about." ... On Tuesday, the president's conservative Christian supporters and the leading institute advancing intelligent design embraced Mr. Bush's comments while scientists and advocates of the separation of church and state disparaged them. At the White House, where intelligent design has been discussed in a weekly Bible study group, Mr. Bush's science adviser, John H. Marburger 3rd, sought to play down the president's remarks as common sense and old news. "Common sense and old news", yet Marburger apparently knew full well that wasn't common sense. Quote: n February 2005, while serving as the the Science Adviser to President Bush, in a speech at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, he stated, "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory." and "I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topic." (Note: There is no Wiki reference cited for the comment.)
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (*Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.)

13th July 2009, 12:25 PM	#33
Subduction Zone Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 494	skeptigirl, you emboldened the most important part of Bush's response. He said "both sides ought to be properly taught". To properly teach the IDiots side they should heavily refer to the Dover trial where it was clearly shown that ID is not a science, but rather religion. In fact I wish everybody was exposed to the Dover trial, it would show them many of the flaws in ID and also give students a good basic grasp of evolution.

13th July 2009, 07:00 PM	#34
shadron Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,856	Originally Posted by dudalb Ouch. I have come of the opinion that the Scientific Literacy of ANY Celeb should be suspect until proven otherwise. Johnny Carson and Steve Allen seemed to have it together. I think that the attitude of scientific skepticism and fame are pretty much orthogonal and independent characteristics.

13th July 2009, 07:05 PM	#35
shadron Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,856	It seems a real pity that science subjects seem to be only fit for discussion during Bible study in the Bush White House.