It's the Arizona electorate's moment of shame. The earth has been here for 6000 years and we haven't destroyed it yet, so we don't need no stinkin' laws to protect the environment!
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Search
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
• Quick link to the latest endless thread
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
Christ died for our sins. Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them?
Jules Feiffer
Recent Posts
- We're doomed. It's another sign of the apocalypse.
- A wonderful debate
- The world is ending, again
- Rudeness required
- Now I understand everything
- I get email
- Happy Carl Sagan Day!
- A poll in my own backyard
- A True Scotsman™ keeps his Bible in his sporran!
- Who does he think he is, Charles Dickens?
A Taste of Pharyngula
Recent Comments
- Ellie on A wonderful debate
- Holydust on We're doomed. It's another sign of the apocalypse.
- Ellie on A wonderful debate
- Richard Eis on A wonderful debate
- Ian on A True Scotsman™ keeps his Bible in his sporran!
- Andyo on A wonderful debate
- booger on A wonderful debate
- amyjohnsonxxfrrtdasazx on New thread for Ken Ham's old whines
- Scary Girl on Rudeness required
- Curlew on A wonderful debate
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
Other Information
« Michael Jackson news | Main | Every religion has its insane elements »
Jebus, how do these dingbats get elected?
Category: Creationism
Posted on: July 6, 2009 8:13 PM, by PZ Myers
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Environment
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/114292
Sign in or register with TypePad. Sign up with Movable Type.
Comments
Posted by: Qwerty | July 6, 2009 8:25 PM
I still remember being dumbfounded when my born-again evangelical sister told me the earth was only 6,000 years old.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 6, 2009 8:25 PM
What impressed me about this video was the guy behind her left shoulder, bending over, clearly in pain from all that stoopid.
Posted by: what | July 6, 2009 8:25 PM
(FACEPALM)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 6, 2009 8:28 PM
Jebus, how do these dingbats get elected?
"If you took all the fools out of the legislature, it wouldn't be a representative body."
--Molly Ivins
Posted by: Randy | July 6, 2009 8:32 PM
It is amazing how casually she drops that turd into the pool isn't it... you can tell from her face that she wasn't trying to be particularly controversial.
Posted by: Brian English | July 6, 2009 8:32 PM
That's not a dingbat, now that's a dingbat....
http://www.theage.com.au/national/police-officer-tried-to-exorcise-teen-20090707-danj.html
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 6, 2009 8:33 PM
At least it'll make those Texans who aren't woo-soaked retards breathe a sigh of relief to have some of the pressure taken off them.
In a way I can empathise; I have to live with being from the same state as Ken Ham...
Posted by: VortexGenie | July 6, 2009 8:36 PM
She alludes to technology in use, which hasn't been around very long, regardless of whatever fundie nutjob timeline you choose to employ. So how does the fact that the earth has existed for however long negate the fact that we could screw it up with new technology? Is she banking on the man upstairs (who's already got one global destruction under his belt) reneging on Free Will to put a stop to it?
Her thinking is like an onion: the more you peel away the layers the more it stinks.
Posted by: Michael X | July 6, 2009 8:38 PM
That woman looks and sounds frighteningly like my mother-in-law. And I can easily imagine her saying the same nonsense with a straight face.
Whatever you do Arizona, don't go over to her house for dinner...
Posted by: Raldo | July 6, 2009 8:38 PM
If she can show me where Uranium mining is mentioned in the bible then I'll go along with her crazy, if not she loses and I'll mock her online instead...
Posted by: Raldo | July 6, 2009 8:42 PM
If she can show me where Uranium mining is mentioned in the bible then I'll go along with her crazy, if not she loses and I'll mock her online instead...
Posted by: Caryn | July 6, 2009 8:42 PM
She's from Snowflake. This truly explains all.
Posted by: Peter McKellar | July 6, 2009 8:44 PM
Brian English @6
*hangs head in shame for being an aussie*
Stoopid knows no bounds geographical.
Posted by: me | July 6, 2009 8:46 PM
She right though, destroying the Earth would be rather difficult.
Posted by: Loc | July 6, 2009 8:49 PM
"look forward into the future so our grandchildren can have the same lifestyle that we have"
She's obviously against 'evolution.' She wants nothing to change!
Posted by: Rob C | July 6, 2009 8:49 PM
So, explain to me again why democracy is a good idea.... I am having a hard time believing all the gush over democracy when it results in people like this getting elected.
Posted by: J Moore | July 6, 2009 8:52 PM
When I listen to Christian radio (for the lolz) I notice that one of their main charges against liberals (and atheists--the two are usually grouped as one) is the notion of activist judges hurting the nation and pushing their agendas through their position. Now, I'm no scientist and I certainly don't claim to know with any depth the condition of the environment and the nature of global warming; however, it seems to me that when you disregard scientific facts (either for or against the position) in the favor of religion then you are legislating religion. And that is blindingly retarded.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 6, 2009 8:53 PM
Course, letting her know that it's billions of years old might not exactly help her to understand environmental problems. 6000 years barely counts in geologic time.
So it's two idiocies, the notion that 6000 years sets any kind of precedent geologically, and of course, believing that the world is only 6000 years old.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | July 6, 2009 8:54 PM
Good golly, I've heard 6th grade book reports that were delivered with more eloquence.
Posted by: franz dibbler | July 6, 2009 8:55 PM
I'm always torn whether to vote these up or down. On one hand more upvotes might mean more people can experience "facepalm" and perhaps act on it. By voting down I express my revulsion.
Posted by: J Moore | July 6, 2009 8:55 PM
When I listen to Christian radio (for the lolz) I notice that one of their main charges against liberals (and atheists--the two are usually grouped as one) is the notion of activist judges hurting the nation and pushing their agendas through their position. Now, I'm no scientist and I certainly don't claim to know with any depth the condition of the environment and the nature of global warming; however, it seems to me that when you disregard scientific facts (either for or against the position) in the favor of religion then you are legislating religion. And that is blindingly retarded.
Posted by: pixnlil | July 6, 2009 8:55 PM
Ummm. Yeah. Wow. Just . . . wow.
Posted by: Rob H | July 6, 2009 9:00 PM
Ironically, her point is even more valid with a four billion year old Earth.
Of course, it doesn't matter how many times more valid it is; when you multiply 0 by any number, the result is the same.
Posted by: Doug@tallboyfilms.com | July 6, 2009 9:03 PM
Bleh. Her hair style is older than 6k years. Seems she's just reading her official position from some Chick tract on her laptop screen. Other than that, Arizonans should find the nearest rails suitable to ride someone out on, and do what needs to be done.
Posted by: 386sx | July 6, 2009 9:05 PM
Is she banking on the man upstairs (who's already got one global destruction under his belt) reneging on Free Will to put a stop to it?
She's banking on the "revelation" that Jesus won't let the Earth be destroyed. What does that have to do with pollution? Why, it's a non sequitur of course. Non sequiturs do not matter in la-la land though...
Posted by: dumdum | July 6, 2009 9:07 PM
Somehow dopes like this keep getting reelected. That must mean the people voting for her are just or even more dimwitted. Scary.
Posted by: littlejohn | July 6, 2009 9:08 PM
If you look closely, there appears to be about two pounds of uranium in her hairdo. That would explain a lot.
Posted by: Asteranx | July 6, 2009 9:11 PM
What I don't get is who cares if you believe it? Go ahead and _say_ 4 billion years. It sounds a heck of a lot more impressive than 6000. It's a horrible travesty of logic either way, so you might as well be using the bigger number.
Posted by: Jason Thibeault
|
July 6, 2009 9:12 PM
Um... doesn't uranium figure heavily into how we figured out how old the Earth actually is, via radiometric dating? This is a fractal fail.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 6, 2009 9:15 PM
oh yeah. "we need that uranium... and you won't even notice when they're done". because, you know, mining never leaves behind even the slightest trace...
*facepalm*
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 6, 2009 9:17 PM
#16 - So, explain to me again why democracy is a good idea.... I am having a hard time believing all the gush over democracy when it results in people like this getting elected.
At least they can get unelected.
Other than that, I refer to the Ivins quote @ #4.
Posted by: DavidCOG
|
July 6, 2009 9:20 PM
But Noah and the gang didn't pump and dig millions of years of stored carbon out of the ground and burn it all in the space of ~200 years.
Ah, that argument ain't going to work on her is it?
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | July 6, 2009 9:27 PM
@ Jason Thibeault #29
Actually it was lead (oddly enough), but radioactive decay figured into it. You may want to read up on Claire Patterson (a man, again, oddly enough) who accomplished the dating of the earth in 1953. I could not find any links with any free info that looked interesting.
Oh, and the Allen the legi-loon score at least 2 face-palms, maybe three for the casual delivery (like everyone knows the earth is 6K years old - duh). Yikes.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 6, 2009 9:31 PM
Is this where I'm supposed to scream bloody murder and be pissed off at PZ for insulting all Arizonans for the actions of just one? ;o)
I stopped listening to talk radio here in AZ a couple of years ago because the stupid nearly drove me off the road. The truly scary thing is, I live in the "liberal" part of the state ... I haven't seen any actual signs of this "liberal-ness" but I keep hearing from others that this is the liberal area, that Tucson is the "Madison of the west," and so on...
I've said it before, I've been to Madison, this ain't it.
Posted by: --E | July 6, 2009 9:45 PM
People like this are why I won't own a gun. I would be too tempted to use it. (Possibly on myself, because the fact that I may be breathing molecules that have passed through this woman's lungs as well gives me major heebie-jeebies.)
She hasn't got the wit to realize that her sophistry would actually be stronger if she said the world was 4.5 billion years old. Not just ignorant, but demonstrably dumb as shit as well.
But I understand how she has trouble with simple math. People like this have trouble understanding numbers higher than 20. "Oh no, I've run out of toes!"
Posted by: Matthew Segall
|
July 6, 2009 9:45 PM
Her ignorance of the age of the earth is only slightly more disconcerting than her ignorance of the effect of industrialism on planetary ecosystems.
Posted by: No Bs | July 6, 2009 9:45 PM
This woman has never had an orgasm. She's taking it out on the rest of us.
Posted by: hje | July 6, 2009 9:45 PM
Sigh. I was thinking of retiring to Snowflake, AZ, but with idiots like this maybe it's best I stay in the sensible midwest.
Tucson is fairly liberal (for Arizona), but it is increasingly surrounded by conclaves of the pissed-off, right-wing, tea-baggin', Palin-lovin' types that are scared to death whenever they see someone who isn't pasty white like they are.
Posted by: peter | July 6, 2009 9:49 PM
I was under the impression to be an idiot is a requirement for being elected to position of a senator in the US.
Ours here get appointed by the prime minister, so they only indirectly reflect the intellectual capacities of the populace.
On the other hand, to have elected someone like Harper and members of his fundy gang doesn't speak too well for Canadians either.
Posted by: Freidenker | July 6, 2009 9:50 PM
Interesting. So the world was created 2500 years AFTER the domestication of the cow?
It's not an earthquake, it's just millions of facepalms and headdesks all occurring at the same time.
Posted by: Mike0301 | July 6, 2009 9:55 PM
"...and you'll never even know the mine was there when they're done." (~0:38)
Am I wrong or doesn't Moab, Utha have a little hillock in town where there are some uranium mine tailings? Yeah, it would barely be noticed save for the fence around it, the little white RADIATION monitoring boxes festooned all about it, the big Keep Out signs and the estimated million bucks per acre clean up cost.
She's for it cause they ain't no Urayneeum in Snowflake. Does Jeebus' loin girding ensemble include lead shielding
Posted by: And-U-Say
|
July 6, 2009 9:56 PM
Did this woman reproduce? One wonders if she would know how.
Yes, 6000 years stated as if it were casual fact.
Posted by: And-U-Say
|
July 6, 2009 9:59 PM
Did this woman reproduce? One wonders if she would know how.
Yes, 6000 years stated as if it were casual fact.
Posted by: Lsuoma | July 6, 2009 10:04 PM
what@3
You need this.
Posted by: JD | July 6, 2009 10:09 PM
But her hairdo began its emergence around 1.3 mya.
Posted by: wrpd | July 6, 2009 10:09 PM
I was kinda hoping that the man in back of her would turn around and slap her.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 6, 2009 10:10 PM
"whenever they see someone who isn't pasty white like they are."
Don't they at least tan a little there?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 6, 2009 10:12 PM
Dear Brother And-U-Say,
You wrote: "Did this woman reproduce? One wonders if she would know how."
Women like this always know how to reproduce. They may not like having to do so, but they know that it is their heavenly duty to populate our 6000-year-old world with children whose craniums will be similarly insulated against anything that smacks of logic or reason.
In Catholic countries such women worship the patron saint of mindless conformity, St. Epford--who likened a godly marriage to being killed by having a nest of wasps forced down over one's head while copulating with cold pasta. In bizarre rituals these women emulate the blessed saint. Calling themselves St.Epford Wives, they swear to always keep their hair permed to rock solidity, and to spread their legs once a month in the pitch darkness while their husband slips his deflatus within them and spasms weakly.
Posted by: Kobra | July 6, 2009 10:16 PM
At least she isn't on the Arizona Board of Education. *shudder*
Posted by: KarinNH | July 6, 2009 10:21 PM
You know, I am not sure which is a dumber thing to say:
- the earth is only 6,000 years old
- there is no need for environmental laws
- you'll never know the mine was there
Individually, each is a stupid thing to say. Collectively? The mind boggles.
Posted by: Cowcakes | July 6, 2009 10:29 PM
Is this woman an oxygen breather? Obliviously not as her brain appears to have been asphyxiated many moons ago.
Please oh please somebody tell me she is sterile.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 6, 2009 10:29 PM
J Moore #17 & 21
When conservatives complain about activist judges, what they mean is that some judge made a decision they don't agree with. It's similar to when the same conservatives insist on "strict Constitutional interpretation." That means "I'm sure the Founding Fathers had the same opinion that I have on this particular subject." Since the Founding Fathers are all dead, they can hardly disagree.
Posted by: Dr. P | July 6, 2009 10:38 PM
Jeebus I knew it was a matter of time; we've got enough migrant hatin', flag waving,gun totin',health and education slashing assbags in the house and senate to do any state proud;and no, she's not on our education board. But we have Tom Horne, who's no better.
The irony is we've got whole strips of AZ that have tailings and blight that are beautiful examples of just what this mine won't do.She's just not looking hard enough.Posted by: Epikt
|
July 6, 2009 10:44 PM
Mike0301
Yes. Cunningly placed right next to the Colorado River.
Posted by: Dust | July 6, 2009 10:44 PM
Well, if the mining can be done safely and one
would never know when they are done, I hope they dig in her backyard!
As for her grandchildren living the same lifestyle she does----Dawg No! Get a decent hair stylist for FSMs sake!
Posted by: Ronald Brak | July 6, 2009 10:51 PM
I take it the Senator from Arizona is immortal? After all, she's been alive for 50+ years and hasn't died yet therefore it's logical to conclude that she won't ever die.
Posted by: JHS
|
July 6, 2009 11:03 PM
A theory taken from personal experience: they rise through the ranks, starting at the town or county level, then slowly edge their way up the ladder. By the time they are in the state house, or sec of state's office, or, scarily enough, governor or senator, people are just beginning to figure out how nutty they are.
A girl from my high school class tried to do that. She was a regular mini Michele Bachmann on the county board, complete with drama. (Who the hell can whip up an ethics scandal in a county of 20,000 at the ripe old age of 22?). She tried running for state senate but was roundly slapped down by the local GOP, who saw the train wreck coming a mile away. With a little more luck and tact, she would've risen through the ranks, just like Bachmann or the above Ms. Allen. Wingnutty to the very end.
Posted by: BobbyEarle
|
July 6, 2009 11:06 PM
Smoggy @2...
When I saw that, I was sure he was going to grab her by the hair, and yank her right off camera. Unfortunately, he was just pulling up his socks.
Posted by: Chris Richards | July 6, 2009 11:08 PM
I'm a native Arizonan living in Texas.
Will I ever get to live somewhere where this sort of nonsense doesn't happen (the answer is no)?
Posted by: llewelly | July 6, 2009 11:09 PM
J Moore | July 6, 2009 8:52 PM
Please read this.
Posted by: TomP | July 6, 2009 11:11 PM
By her logic, we really shouldn't worry about the environmental impact of anything we do. I guess if we decide to cut down the entire amazon rainforest, then that is quite ok. If God has a problem with this, he will tell us, right?
Posted by: TomP | July 6, 2009 11:15 PM
By her logic, we really shouldn't worry about the environmental impact of anything we do. I guess if we decide to cut down the entire amazon rainforest, then that is quite ok. If God has a problem with this, he will tell us, right?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 6, 2009 11:26 PM
The thing to understand about Snowflake is that it was founded in the 19th century by Mr. Snow and Mr. Flake. Everyone there is closely related to everyone else there -- and has been for many generations.
Closely related.
Posted by: Mat in Sydney | July 6, 2009 11:39 PM
Is the guy behind her trying to hit the reset button?
Posted by: LionDancer | July 6, 2009 11:40 PM
Given that her assertion that the earth is 6000 yrs old is as valid as the assertions that magic windmills and sunbeams will solve global warming; I find it humorous that people laugh at her "ignorance". Without a significant and immediate investment in nuclear energy I personally doubt humanity lasting another 6000 years.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 6, 2009 11:43 PM
Thankfully, she's only a State Senator, not one of the State's Senators.
On the other hand, they are John McCain and John Kyl. Do you have any idea what it's like living in a State where it's necessary to remind oneself that if not for Kyl and McCain, we might have someone like Allen "representing" us in Washington?
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 6, 2009 11:44 PM
It's not a requirement, but it helps.
Posted by: LionDancer | July 6, 2009 11:45 PM
Given that her assertion that the earth is 6000 yrs old is as valid as the assertions that magic windmills and sunbeams will solve global warming; I find it humorous that people laugh at her "ignorance". Without a significant and immediate investment in nuclear energy I personally doubt humanity lasting another 6000 years.
Posted by: Andyman | July 6, 2009 11:45 PM
Sylvia Allen. Just because you were created 6000 years ago doesn't mean the world was created at the same time.
Posted by: AxonZ
|
July 6, 2009 11:48 PM
I like the fact that she said it twice. WWFSMD?
Posted by: Fordi | July 7, 2009 12:02 AM
What's more offensive is: "So that our grandchildren can have the same lifestyle we have"
I would hope my grandchildren receive vast improvements in their lifestyle - just as I have over my grandparents.
Posted by: debg | July 7, 2009 12:07 AM
What a frickin dingbat. And she reminds me of my step-mother-in-law.
*shudder*
Posted by: JHS
|
July 7, 2009 12:17 AM
I also see a little of the ol' Palin "logic" in this. If things don't go your way with little or no effort...quit! Then say it's the obvious and best choice for those placed in your charge. After all, its hard doing the thing you were elected to do (and, btw, running for and being elected to any office implies no real desire to, you know, do the job).
So you think earth has been here for 6000 years...and it has yet to implode entirely...? Clearly it doesn't need any help!
You could extrapolate such (il)logic to any number of amusing conclusions. Find that you can't type well? Cut your fingers off! Want to be president but weren't handed the sash at birth? Just end it all, the window's right there!
(facepalm)
Posted by: No Bs | July 7, 2009 12:23 AM
LionDancer #68
1) Windmills are not majic. They have been producing power hundreds of years.
2) Are you disparaging the sun as a power source? Have you ever heard of photosynthesis?
3) Current use of uranium to produce steam is actually very inefficient. And of course there is the problem of what to do with radioactive waste that hangs out for 20K years or so.
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | July 7, 2009 12:25 AM
--E at 31;
I assume you mean 21.
Posted by: Nominal Egg | July 7, 2009 12:31 AM
LyingDanger @ 65 (&68):
Your "given" is factually inaccurate. And you find it humorous because you are a demented fool.Posted by: AxonZ
|
July 7, 2009 12:35 AM
Liondancer writes
Did I miss that segment of her speech where she proposes that uraniumm mining will solve global warming? She's for mining because of the revenue. She scoffed at environmental issues.Bwahhahahaha. That's good. You are kidding, right?
How does that saying go...It's better to keep people guessing than to prove beyond a shadow of doubt, by opening your mouth, that you're an IDiot.
Posted by: Tom Coward | July 7, 2009 12:41 AM
To Chris Richards @ #59: Go East, young man (or woman, atcmb)!
Posted by: Abber | July 7, 2009 12:42 AM
My eyes are startled wide and my jaw is in the depths of incomprehension somewhere at my feet. What? How? I cannot believe any reasonably intelligent person - that's someone who can tie their own shoe laces, read, write and generally function independently as a member of society - can lack such a basic level of education and yet attain such a high level of office. Tell me that she was joking or that I've just entered the Twilight Zone. Just don't tell me this is reality.
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 7, 2009 12:45 AM
Humanity can survive using much less energy than we use now, just at a much lower level of technology and with a smaller population size. Electricity energy is important to our society, but it isn't a requirement for survival of the species.
Posted by: Saint Brian the Godless | July 7, 2009 12:52 AM
A Poem:
Jesus loves me, yes I know
Cause the Bible tells me so
That is all I need to hear
And so I know I'll never fear
Nothing else is in my head
Except a book by guys long dead
Science isn't telling me
What I can and cannot see
I never, ever take a look
Since I only own one book
Jesus is my only thought
When others ask me what I've bought
I’d rather pluck out both my eyes
So that I can't see the lies
That Science tells us are the truth
I think that Science is uncouth!
Telling me that things fall down
And how a cricket makes a sound
And how planets spin around the sun
And how the gears in watches run
I do not need to hear the facts
I only need religious tracts
And prayers to our Great Lord above
Who blinded me with Bible Love
It feels so good to be so dense
To live behind an iron fence
To shelter fragile minds from truth
(Indoctrinate them in their youth)
Feed them tales of God above
And all of His undying Love
And how he put things in this place
Plain as the nose there on your face
That seem to say that He's not real
That's just the lying Science deal!
He put them here to fool us guys
When we try to use our eyes
We know better, yes we do
Science is at best, untrue
At worst a strange Satanic plot
To show what is real, and what is not
Why should we care what is real?
We still have the Christian deal
Believe in God, at any cost
And look to others like we're lost
Hope for God to make it clear
When the Rapture cometh near
With nonbelievers left behind
You'll all be sorry that you whined
Of how we're descended from some beast
(I don't believe it in the least)
“No Thanks” I say to Science stuff
I think that I have had enough
Of facts and reason, Truth and Hope
I'd much prefer to be a dope.
-Saint Brian the Godless
http://saintbrianthegodless.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Apologus | July 7, 2009 1:00 AM
Well, I think first we need to determine if she meant man years or god years. If she meant god years, then she is not as off the track as we think.
Ok, I admit it, there is no way to help her out. Even if you used her own understanding it would work against her. For instance, if the world is only 6000yrs old. Then we are mucking it up pretty fast.
Well, my guess is she thinks she will go to heaven, so what difference does it make what happens to the earth.
Jesus Christ - give the woman a break. She tried.
Posted by: Apologus | July 7, 2009 1:02 AM
Well, I think first we need to determine if she meant man years or god years. If she meant god years, then she is not as off the track as we think.
Ok, I admit it, there is no way to help her out. Even if you used her own understanding it would work against her. For instance, if the world is only 6000yrs old. Then we are mucking it up pretty fast.
Well, my guess is she thinks she will go to heaven, so what difference does it make what happens to the earth.
Jesus Christ - give the woman a break. She tried.
Posted by: Drazzel | July 7, 2009 1:05 AM
The guy behind her walked over to the other guy and incredulously asked him, "Did she really say the earth is 6000 years old?" The other guy said, "Yes, twice." His brain hurt so much that he couldn't facepalm. He just remained doubled over.
Posted by: Bill | July 7, 2009 1:21 AM
Just look at her hair!
She is not living in the year 2009...
Posted by: ted | July 7, 2009 1:24 AM
*vomit*
Posted by: Bill | July 7, 2009 1:26 AM
Just look at her hair!
She is not living in the year 2009...
Posted by: bill | July 7, 2009 1:30 AM
Just look at her hair!
She's not living in the year 2009!
Posted by: Tired | July 7, 2009 1:38 AM
MAJeff #4
That's one t-shirt worthy quote. Good one!
Posted by: Matrim | July 7, 2009 1:53 AM
Now here's a video she should watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWjtRFNSl2s
Posted by: kodyfrog | July 7, 2009 1:54 AM
Electorate FAIL
Posted by: Beth B. | July 7, 2009 2:28 AM
1) Why can't everyone who agrees with me on nuclear power be as informed, intelligent, eloquent, and modest as I am?
2) I find it beyond ironic that the state of Arizona can manage to simultaneously build up truly enviable university geology programs and still elect people to public office who believe the entire span of the universe's history would fit well within the Holocene.
Posted by: MonkeyBoy | July 7, 2009 2:32 AM
Poll Time
Christianity Today is running a poll - "What is your overall opinion of Sarah Palin?" Currently with 734 votes the results are
30% Very favorable
30% Mostly favorable
19% Mostly unfavorable
21% Very unfavorable
Posted by: Felix | July 7, 2009 2:45 AM
I had to vote it 5 stars. People need to see this and wake up. There are still people (incredible, I know) who think that ignoring it will make it go away.
Posted by: Felix | July 7, 2009 2:47 AM
Oh and the answer to 'how do these dingbats get elected' is of course that people think it's impolite or improper to ask candidates about their religion.
Posted by: Drekohuk | July 7, 2009 3:47 AM
I was hoping that the person that walked behind her would whisper in her ear the correct age of the earth.
Posted by: Drekoguk | July 7, 2009 3:49 AM
I was hoping that the person that walked behind her would whisper in her ear the correct age of the earth.
Posted by: AZ Brian | July 7, 2009 4:31 AM
(Facepalm) Yup, that's our legislature for you. Past actions on their part have convinced me that the GOP decided to use Arizona as a dumping ground for Republicans who were too stupid to function elsewhere. They recently tried to force through a flat income tax and cut a property tax that funds education. For some reason they were surprised when the governor vetoed it!
Posted by: DLC | July 7, 2009 5:22 AM
To answer the title question: These people get elected largely because the general population can't be bothered to find out if the candidate for office is a YEC loonie or not, they merely mark the box next to the party they support.
Most of the republicans in her district couldn't care less if she is a YEC, UFO-Ologist or JFK-Conspiracy-fan, they just marked the freakin R. (or pulled the R Lever) Oh, and because of the laws of crank magnetism, she probably *is* at least one of those other two as well. (see former Gov. Fife Symington for an example)
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | July 7, 2009 5:24 AM
it's not even the 6000 years that bothers me. it's that she uses 6000 years as part of an argument that the world's survived that (unimaginably) long amount of time without environmental laws, so who are we to put one in place now? I mean that's the stupid part.
Posted by: Kermit Rabb | July 7, 2009 5:39 AM
--James LovelockLionDancer is in relatively good company.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 7, 2009 5:53 AM
At least on the federal level the U.S. now have some reasonable people again, that's a start.
Just saw Obama's speech in Moscow,very encouraging,very positive.
That on the state level the USA is mostly run by dingbats,remains a big concern, however.
To the overseas observer,this kind of ignorance in someone holding public office is just totally inconceivable.
I would give a lot to be able to tell whether these people are dumb,or lying, or both, when they spout this "6000 years old" nonsense.It amazes me.
Posted by: Raffen | July 7, 2009 6:04 AM
Is the guy behind her crying or laughing? Or, giving that we're talking about Arizona here, praying?
Posted by: Troy
|
July 7, 2009 6:23 AM
And people complain when I say US(majority of its population) is retarded...
Posted by: Rorschach | July 7, 2009 6:28 AM
Well Troy, probably because that is a very stupid thing to say.
Posted by: Troy
|
July 7, 2009 6:37 AM
How can it be stupid?
Across every conceivable society ranking scale this is apparent and your political and societal infrastructure systematically demonstrates the fact that US is retarded on practically daily basis.
You contrarians without a cause are really annoying and intellectually bankrupt...
Posted by: DebinOz | July 7, 2009 7:03 AM
Man oh man!
This is going up on my facebook!
Posted by: bornagain77 | July 7, 2009 7:07 AM
This following video suggests that Politicians aren't too brite in the first place
Evolution Explained In Less Than Two Minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUYxiRcZjcc
Posted by: DebinOz | July 7, 2009 7:21 AM
Rorschach at #102:
I am also Australian, and moved to the USA in the 80s. When I first met my fundie (now ex) parents-in-law, some part of me thought they were kidding with this shit. After all, they both had university educations, and my FIL actually has a PhD in history!!! But no, they believe that god created the world complete with fossils to test our faith.
And to top it off, their family was THE most dysfunctional family I have ever met. If you lived in Melbourne, we should get together for a drink - the stories are amazing! Fortunately for my ex, he discovered mind-altering substances and got the hell out of Dodge, er, Arkansas.
Six thousand years old! You couldn't tell that the mine had been there! WTF???
Posted by: Rorschach | July 7, 2009 7:28 AM
I do, and we've been through this previously LOL !
Maybe you can join the Bride of Shrek and me in October for a drink or 2 !
Yes,there are plenty of anecdotes like that.
However, while a lot of Americans are misguided, brainwashed, uneducated, whatever,they are not retarded.Let's try and be exact with our criticisms.
Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 7:34 AM
Prove to me that the earth is not 6000 years old. Bet you can't
Posted by: Felix | July 7, 2009 7:42 AM
boring troll is boring
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | July 7, 2009 7:43 AM
PZ, you've got it backwards.
"How do these dingbats get elected? Jebus."
Posted by: Drosera
|
July 7, 2009 7:47 AM
Grant, I can prove it, but not to you.
Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 8:01 AM
Drosera, you can't because science CANNOT prove what happened in the past. Simple.
Posted by: DebinOz | July 7, 2009 8:07 AM
Utter crap!
I had minestrone for dinner a few hours ago - IN THE PAST - and I can prove it.
Posted by: Monkey Deathcar | July 7, 2009 8:11 AM
Grant, prove to me that you aren't a fucking idiot... I'll be waiting.
Posted by: BobbyEarle
|
July 7, 2009 8:12 AM
Well, you certainly will a little later on ;)
Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 8:15 AM
DebinOz: typical narrow-minded ignorant response, sorry.
Monkey Deathcar: you just proved the YOU were...
Seems to be normal for those who believe in older than 6000 years to continue to insult the intelligence of those who disagree even though both theories are unprovable. I didn't insult anyone here, I just said I disagree, so anyone who insulted me back just diminished their own argument. I am always happy to discuss, but, no, we have to be rude and insulting don't we - pathetic, and a shame.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 7, 2009 8:26 AM
Incorrect, you insulted a good number of people here. Displays of wilful ignorance are just plain rude. You also insulted anyone here who is a scientist, since you decided to totally disregard their expertise.
Nothing in science is provable, again you show a total disdain to those who understand how science works by making silly comments like that. Science relies on evidence. There is overwhelming evidence the earth is around 4.5 Billion years old. There is zero evidence it is a mere 6000 years old. Even simply dendrochronology shows that the Earth is more than 6000 years old. We can trace tree rings back further than that. Coral growth patterns also show the Earth is more than 6000 years old, as do ice cores from Greenland and the South Pole. You show us a total lack of respect by claiming such evidence counts for nothing.
Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 8:35 AM
Matt Penfold: proves you just don't get it! Tree rings, coral growth etc only suggest long age if you already have an expectation of how long it would take to grow that much to start with. They don't prove anything in themselves (unless they actually have the age written there in actual digits!)
Mine is not wilful ignorance - it is intelligent decision making, just as I hope your decision was. There are many many scientists who agree with me, so I didn't insult them, although you did.
The evidence is interpreted by people according to their existing views. Different people come up with different interpretations of the evidence ALL the time, not just in this case, so why is it such a problem here (actually I know why it is such a problem, but that's a story for another day)
Are you saying nothing in science is provable? Cause I didn't say that.
I'm not saying the evidence counts for nothing. On the contrary, I am saying the evidence is all we have, but our interpretations of the evidence (scientifically) is what leads us to different conclusions (standard practice in science)
I respect your decision to believe in an old earth - I just disagree with you.
Posted by: Monkey Deathcar | July 7, 2009 8:37 AM
Grant says:
"you just proved the YOU were..."
I asked you to prove to me that you are not an idiot. This sentence does the opposite. For this, you owe me... a... um... camera or something.
Posted by: Josh
|
July 7, 2009 8:40 AM
Please elaborate on this point.
Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 8:44 AM
Josh , you cut down a tree and see the tree rings. How do you know how old it is from that? You nyst already have an idea about how old each ring makes the tree. If people have different ideas about what the rings mean, they get different results. Same with the other measures. Also, the rate of coral growth, trees, etc is not constant so it can't be used accurately to measure age.
Monkey Deathcar: I don't have to prove it. People who know me, know that I am not, and that's what matters to me. You however... are not getting a camera! :-)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 7, 2009 8:45 AM
Grant,
I see you are not willing to be honest.
You are indeed entitled to you own opinions, and I am free to ridicule you if you think the Earth is a mere 6000 years old.
However you are not entitled to make up your own facts. We know dendrochronology works. We can use it to date wood where we have independent evidence of when it was used. The fact that we always end up with felling dates consistent with when we know the wood was used in construction tells us it is a good dating method. We have preserved trees where we can trace growth patterns back even further than any living tree.
Now unless and until you show how and why dendro is a flawed method, and likewise with ice core and coral growth ring dating, I must assume you are unable to support your claims with evidence.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | July 7, 2009 8:49 AM
#14
Well, now you've done it. You linked to a "How to Destroy the Earth" website and now every pimple-faced teenaged anarchist will want to try it for themselves.
Posted by: Josh
|
July 7, 2009 8:50 AM
Grant, can you show me one piece of non-cultural evidence that argues for the Earth being 6000 years old?
Posted by: Lorax | July 7, 2009 8:51 AM
Two words. Easter fucking Island....wait that was 3, Easterfucking Island, that's better.
Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 8:51 AM
Matt Penfold: how reliable is that for long long ages? Do we know that?
Dating methods have a long history of inconsistency: one rock from a volcanic eruption in New Zealand last century was dated at between 5000 and 50 000 000 years by different places...
The truth is we don't KNOW anything about how or when the world began: both ideas are a matter of FAITH (believing in an idea without proof) You ridicule me, then you ridicule all scientists who at some time have disagreed with others after looking at the same evidence. (which I think you will find is ALL of them!)
Also, you try living for 6000 years and tell me if that is a "mere" amount of time.
And I am being honest to my understanding, interpretations of evidence, readings of the science behind it, etc. Don't DARE say I am not!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 7, 2009 8:52 AM
We know what causes tree rings. There is no mystery about it.
Nor are dating methods used in isolation. Dendo can be validated by using historical records and carbon dating. We do that we get results that are consistent with each other. Here in the UK there are good records of where and when wood was felled to be used in the construction of a number of buildings. We can compare those written records with dendro, and with carbon dating. The results come back the same. To ensure that those carrying out the tests were not biased by already having an idea of the age, some of the tests have been done without telling the labs the expected dates. The results still came back the same.
Posted by: John Morales | July 7, 2009 8:53 AM
Grant, since you claim science is wrong about the age of the Earth, and Young Earth Creationists are also so, would you care to state how old you consider it to be, and the basis for your conclusion?
(That is, unless all you can do is say others are wrong, without stating your own position; that would be cowardly but I would not be surprised).
Posted by: Drosera
|
July 7, 2009 8:55 AM
That’s perhaps an overstatement. I can prove that Mt. Everest is more than 8000 m high. I can prove that insects usually have 6 legs.
While it is good to stress the provisional or approximate nature of many scientific statements, it is not necessary to make them seem less reliable than they are.
Posted by: DebinOz | July 7, 2009 8:55 AM
"Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood (from long-dead trees) using carbon-14 dating.
by Don Batten, Ph.D.
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow. The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines (Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4,723 years old. This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straightforward approach to Biblical chronology.
However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It’s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’.."
Sorry, don't know how to do the indented thing.
This is a cut-and-paste from a creation/science (LOL) website. This 'ahem' scientist clearly states that observations and interpretation of the data will be wrong if it doesn't co-incide with what is written in the bible!!!
A real scientist will not have any preconceived notion of the results, and certainly won't change the interpretion if it doesn't fit with the bible. We call it as we see it! Scientists learn from their observations; they don't interpret to fit their beliefs.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 7, 2009 8:55 AM
Ok, I withdraw my claim you were being dishonest.
Instead I will call stupid and ignorant, and clearly devoid of the intellect required to understand all this.
Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 8:59 AM
John Morales: I'm not sure where you have been.
Firstly, don't put science against Young Earth Creationists like they are mutually exlusive. They are not.
I did not say that either group was wrong in its belief. I said that neither side can PROVE their belief on the age of the earth - very different indeed.
I believe the earth is 6000 years old approximately, based on scientific readings of the available evidence. In the same way that others, with different interpretations of the same evidence (a scientific reality) believe that it is much older.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 7, 2009 9:02 AM
This is simply a lie.
You do not rely on the same evidence. You have already indicated to us you choose to ignore large parts of it.
Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 9:05 AM
Matt Penfold: Typical. Just what I expected. Right back at you...
DebinOz: I'm sorry what? All people look at EVERYTHING through the eyes of their beliefs and experience. That's human nature. It can't be negated. Even Darwin ignored some of the things he found because they didn't fit his theory at the time. All people have that filter. Don't make "real" scientists out to be some super-perfect totally unbiassed group of people!
Posted by: Rick Schauer | July 7, 2009 9:06 AM
Sadly, Sylvia Allen's inadequate education stems directly from religious retardation.
Posted by: John Morales | July 7, 2009 9:07 AM
Grant, never mind. It's late where I am, been a long day, I'm tired and not sober, and so I misread your posts.
I failed to realise you consider the Earth is ~6,000 years old based on scientific evidence, the which is open to interpretation by anyone, scientist or not.
This is out-of-topic, however. There's an open thread where you can explain to us how YEC and science are mutually consistent, and where you won't disrupt the thread topic. It's here.
Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 9:09 AM
Matt Penfold : What evidence did I say that I ignore?
Rick Schauer: do you know what education she had at school? university? her previous job results? IQ? anything about her except that she disagrees with you on this issue?
Posted by: Drosera
|
July 7, 2009 9:09 AM
OK, Grant. Then show us how you arrive at that figure of 6000 years based on scientific arguments.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 7, 2009 9:10 AM
Grant,
Stop playing the idiot.
The Earth is NOT 6000 years old. The evidence, despite your dishonest claims to the contrary, does not support such a claim.
It has been noted that you still refuse to offer any evidence to support your claim. So far all you have done is said dating methods can be wrong.
Time for you to put up or shut up. Produce your evidence or piss off.
Posted by: DebinOz | July 7, 2009 9:10 AM
Grant,
I suggest you do a bit of reading on the 'null hypothesis'.
Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 9:19 AM
My last word on this because I have other work to do.
My main point in all of this to try and encourage people to not insult others' intelligence just because they believe something different from what you believe. I would hope that I have never attacked someone's intellect here based on what they believe about the age of the earth, even though I may disagree.
It is a sign of maturity to be able to discuss or just disagree without resorting to cheap insults about a person, especially if you don't know them. Whether you ever choose to believe in a "young" earth, or if I were to change my mind to believe in billions of years, neither idea can be proven. That is an incontrovertible fact. One's decision can only be based on an interpretation of the evidence available. That some people choose a different interpretation to yours is not a sign of their lack of intelligence, etc, and it lessens your argument to just insult them.
Mr PZ Meyers started this by insulting the Senator because she believed something different from him. I would hope for better behaviour from him on this matter.
And from people on my side of the argument as well.
Posted by: recovering catholic | July 7, 2009 9:21 AM
What is it with people like Grant and Troy who feel they have to use caps or bold in their posts? It's just like reading a religious website. I think it's because they're afraid nobody will read their comments without this tactic, when their idiocy in fact would come through loud and clear even if they weren't html savvy.
But hey, it's useful to know that I can just skip reading the posts that have bold or italic text in them...
Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 9:23 AM
catholic: my point is proven again.
Posted by: DebinOz | July 7, 2009 9:23 AM
Grant,
It is a travesty that someone in a high-level political position 'believes' this stuff.
Would she be your mother, by any chance?
Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 9:26 AM
DebinOz: it's a travesty that you think all people in high-level political positions have to believe the same thing as you, and can't have their own beliefs like everyone else.
And no, I am Australian, and my mother is not a politician.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 7, 2009 9:30 AM
You come here insisting the Earth is 6000 years old. You are repeatedly asked for evidence to support that, and you repeatedly failed to provide any. You dismissed years of scientific research on dating methods without ever once offering a reason why, other than you do not agree.
In short you have been highly insulting to anyone here with even a modicum of intellect and and interest in science. Where do you get off claiming the moral high ground for your behaviour ?
Posted by: PGPWNIT
|
July 7, 2009 9:33 AM
I would argue that, but I'm sure it'd fall on deaf ears. The assumption that all points of views are valid is insane, however.
Posted by: Scott | July 7, 2009 9:33 AM
I'm amazed at the *hate* here if you have a different view.
PZ I voted for Sylvia, and if she continues to do the right thing I'll continue to vote for her. It takes sand to say what you believe, when you know everyone around you is going to jump all over you about it. Especially when you mention a young earth, which pretty much means you believe in a creator. No one wants to be accountable to a creator someday, if you live too proud to ever accept the possibility that He exists.
Posted by: John Morales | July 7, 2009 9:33 AM
Grant @144:
Grant then comments #146 & #148.
The evidence is clear: Grant does not keep his word.
The implication is clear: Whatever Grant writes, it may well be a lie.
The more Grant comments, the more the conclusion that Grant is a liar is supported by the evidence.
Posted by: recovering catholic | July 7, 2009 9:34 AM
Grant--that's "recovering catholic" to you. And which of your many pointless points are you referring to?
Posted by: Josh
|
July 7, 2009 9:34 AM
Again, Grant, what evidence are you referring to? If you can "scientifically read" the "available evidence," then it should be trivially easy for you to point me to the speciifc evidence that you have read, so that I can read it too.
Posted by: Josh
|
July 7, 2009 9:39 AM
You count the rings, Grant. Many tree types tend to generate one ring in a given year. Are you trying to discuss the issue that some tree species, in certain climate regimes, can take longer than one year to produce a ring? If that's what you're arguing, then sure, that is an issue that sometimes crops up. But it's not a crippling issue; it doesn't happen in all climate regimes and for all tree species
I don't know what you mean by this. Please explain.
Perhaps you could point me at papers where people are looking at tree rings and getting wildly different results from counting them?
Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 9:39 AM
Matt Penfold: I am not insulting people here who disagree with my belief, I am annoyed at those who refuse to acknowledge that there are other options without resorting to insults. Feel free to have different ideas (plus I have an interest in science and more than a modicum of intellect also)
I don't insist that the earth is 6000 years old, I believe it, and I reject insults from people who disagree
I'm not claiming any moral high ground. If I ever called anyone here stupid etc for believing in billions of years, I apologise because I don't believe that, but I don't believe I did say that.
As for evidence, I am using the same physical evidence as everyone else - after all, that is all there is. As for dating methods, I did give an example of a wildly inaccurate dating situation. I don't have piles of scientific books here with me.
But also, no one here could prove me wrong, because the scientific methods used to determine dates, etc, all all seen with human filters, based on our experiences, ideas, expectations, etc, so while they look at the same evidence, they can come up with wildly different ideas.
Which is right? which is wrong? we will not know in this lifetime.
Anyhow, good night all. I will continue to try, as I hope you do as well, to be friendly to those who disagree with my ideas/beliefs rather than insult them.
Posted by: Jason | July 7, 2009 9:42 AM
Funny, I always spell it Jeebus. I wonder which is correct?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 7, 2009 9:42 AM
So you have a problem with us demanding evidence is someone wants to claim the Earth is a mere 6000 years old ?
Thinking the Earth is 6000 years old, as compared to the reality of 4.5 Billion is a mistake in order of magnitude in thinking LA is a couple of feet outside of New York. If you can understand why someone who thinks LA is that close to New York is laughed at, maybe you can begin to understand why we laugh at someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old.
If you want to vote for someone as scientifically ignorant as Sylivia Allen, that is your right. However we also have the right to laugh at her public displays of ignorance, and that those who would vote for her.
Posted by: PGPWNIT
|
July 7, 2009 9:43 AM
Grant, do you attest that just the Earth, or the whole universe is 6000 years old. Because you can prove an older universe through simple geometry.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 7, 2009 9:45 AM
Grant has now resorted to pleas by email -- deal with him at that link, please.
Jebus, these dingbats with no science and no evidence always fall back on these pitiful demands for civility, don't they?
Posted by: Drosera
|
July 7, 2009 9:47 AM
Grant, I note that you didn’t answer my simple question, so I will assume that you were just bluffing. As for your notions of proof and evidence, I don’t think you know what these words imply. In science we look for the most parsimonious theory that explains the available evidence. What you are doing is to distort the evidence to make it fit an utterly bizarre theory. You have it backwards.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 7, 2009 9:53 AM
You keep saying the Earth is 6000 years old, and yet you have failed to offer any evidence.
You have been asked to do so more than once, so the conclusion must be you have none. In which case your claim is dishonest.
"I'm not claiming any moral high ground. If I ever called anyone here stupid etc for believing in billions of years, I apologise because I don't believe that, but I don't believe I did say that."
You have refused to back your claims with evidence. That is neither honest nor polite. In polite circles if you cannot support a claim you withdraw it. You, despite being asked for evidence, have neither produced that evidence nor withdrawn the claim.
"As for evidence, I am using the same physical evidence as everyone else - after all, that is all there is. As for dating methods, I did give an example of a wildly inaccurate dating situation. I don't have piles of scientific books here with me.
But also, no one here could prove me wrong, because the scientific methods used to determine dates, etc, all all seen with human filters, based on our experiences, ideas, expectations, etc, so while they look at the same evidence, they can come up with wildly different ideas.
Which is right? which is wrong? we will not know in this lifetime."
You gave the New Zealand example. That was not very clever of you, as the reasons for the spurious results in that case are well known. That you failed to report those reasons when you gave your example is another example of how rude you are being. Dating methods have been tested independently, so as to remove the potential for bias when the anticipated result is known. The results were consistent even when the labs doing the testing were not informed of the known age.
"Anyhow, good night all. I will continue to try, as I hope you do as well, to be friendly to those who disagree with my ideas/beliefs rather than insult them."
You are not being friendly. Also your ideas/beliefs are not what are in question. What is in question is evidence. Why do you refuse to produce any ?
You simply do not seem to understand that you cannot just claim the Earth is 6000 years old, refuse to produce evidence to support that claim, and then demand to have your views respected. You also have no idea about civilised discourse it would seem, else you would not be making such mistakes whilest insisting you are being polite. You may not have told people to fuck off in so many words, but you have stuck two fingers up at us.
Posted by: Monkey Deathcar | July 7, 2009 9:54 AM
I think I called him an idiot. I didn't want to be mean and call him something insulting like a creationist. I mean, we're not animals.
Oh, we are animals... nevermind then.
Posted by: What? | July 7, 2009 10:41 AM
This woman should be hospitalized!
Posted by: What? | July 7, 2009 10:46 AM
This woman should be hospitalized!
Posted by: TJ | July 7, 2009 10:50 AM
Almost makes me sad enough to move out of Arizona. The most I can say is that I didn't vote for her.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 7, 2009 11:21 AM
And the mere fact that they're insulting our intelligence, and calling us liars, when we're the ones upholding standards of truth, means nothing to them. Supposedly they're civil because they're not using any of the seven banned words.
Invariably, however, it's these clods who begin being uncivil, by insulting us for telling the truth, and demanding that lies be treated the same as truth.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Tyler | July 7, 2009 12:39 PM
Well obviously the 6,000 years part is true, but lol at the rest.
Posted by: Tyler | July 7, 2009 12:41 PM
Well obviously the 6,000 years part is true, but lol at the rest.
Posted by: Tyler | July 7, 2009 12:41 PM
Well obviously the 6,000 years part is true, but lol at the rest.
Posted by: Tommykey | July 7, 2009 1:01 PM
Sorry, but that lady reminds of the one from No Country For Old Men whom Anton Chigurh keeps asking "Where does he work?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG_YiAWn8qM
Posted by: shrimplate | July 7, 2009 2:28 PM
Grant is a narcissist. He thinks that just because he himself sees the world through rose-colored housefly-eyeball prism glasses (heh!) then each of us must also harbor unsurmountable biases in our views of the world. Yet we are not all like him.
He is also a sophist.
Hence his uncivil behavior.
Posted by: Mike | July 7, 2009 2:37 PM
Well, she's right. No matter how old the Earth is, it has done well without any environmental laws for much of existence. It will be doing just fine no matter what we do (save blowing it up into a million trillion little pieces).
Humans and our fellow flora and fauna on this wonderful planet are the ones the "environmental laws" are here to protect. If we poison ourselves out of a home, well the earth will do just fine. Maybe in a couple hundred thousand years another dominant species will arise. Hopefully they don't wind up cleansing themselves from the face of the earth, like we are doing our best to.
Posted by: Slaughter | July 7, 2009 2:44 PM
This is probably too late for this thread, but Grant and Scott (you who voted for Allen), please answer this question:
How is crude oil formed?
Then we'll discuss.
Posted by: Fry | July 7, 2009 3:03 PM
It always strikes me as pretty odd that creationists who use the whole god will provide and has done so thus far line of thought are so willing to pay scientists (in most cases pretty handsomely) to find it for them. It is not easy doing oil exploration and it takes a good understanding of stratigraphy to even start. The same tends to be true for modern uranium exploration.
Posted by: Monkey Deathcar | July 7, 2009 3:16 PM
Slaughter,
Isn't it obvious? Joe Barton put it there by magic.
Posted by: blitz79 | July 7, 2009 6:12 PM
(ARIZONA NATIVE FACEPALM)
Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2009 6:40 PM
Good morning all. Thanks for continuing to add your wonderfully entertaining messages overnight. Giving me a good chuckle here. You guys are so much fun to play with.
Sylvia Allen is a complete idiot because of this one thing? (And me also?) Surely you aren't that narrow in your focus. What about everything else that she/i/others believe etc.
Anyhow, the night's entertainment was definitely worth it. Thanks for playing, everyone, and have a good day!
Posted by: Nominal Egg | July 7, 2009 6:43 PM
Without ever once explaining your position. Coward.Posted by: John Morales | July 7, 2009 6:48 PM
Grant, I draw your attention to my #152.
There's a whole thread set up just for you; why not go there and sustain your contentions?
There're probably dozens of people with clue-bats who are poised and ready to help you get a clue. Pharynguloids are nothing if not selflessly helpful, and most of us suffer SIWOTI syndrome.
Posted by: hterrya | July 7, 2009 8:09 PM
Grant is a TROLL.
He has come in to obscure the fact that State Senator Allen is misusing her religious beliefs to support actions that will harm the envirornment, because it will bring money to the State.
Obviously she believes in a 6,000 year old Earth, which is NOT in the Bible, but is controlled by the LOVE of Money (the Root of All Evil - which IS in the Bible).
Sen. Allen and Troll Grant sound more like heathen than believers.
Posted by: Kristine | July 7, 2009 9:17 PM
I'm beginning to feel six thousand years old...
Posted by: Nikolai | July 7, 2009 10:18 PM
HUMMPPH!! Some Christian! Not even a mention about the bell found in a lump of coal! http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/bell/bell.htm
Posted by: MaxH
|
July 7, 2009 11:16 PM
We've had many, many moments of shame here in Arizona - ESPECIALLY when it comes to the State Legislature... let's see... there was the amendment of 'marriage being one man and one woman' as well as the amendment that's going through that'll prevent a public health care plan from taking effect in our great state. Yep. I need to leave this state.
Meh.
Posted by: ambulocetus | July 8, 2009 1:11 AM
I don't think she neccesarily believes it herself (or, I should say, really even cares); she just wants everyone to believe it. Subconsciously, she knows that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to act as though it were true.
Posted by: Scott M | July 8, 2009 3:35 AM
"Sylvia Allen is a complete idiot because of this one thing? (And me also?) Surely you aren't that narrow in your focus. What about everything else that she/i/others believe etc."
Sylvia Allen is a complete idiot because believing that the Earth is only 6000 years old means that she is dangerously ignorant of a host of things including basic science, critical thinking, and things like the ability to analyze evidence over dogma. The fact that she is making policy based on that ignorance is even worse.
Being a devout Creationist also involves unthinking acceptance of every bit of tripe, misanthropy, and outright dishonesty from anyone of authority within the Creationist structure...AiG, DI, and people like Ken Ham, Richard Hovind, Duane Gish, and so many others.
Posted by: wasd | July 8, 2009 7:01 AM
Yes I heard the 6000 years old thing
Yes I also heard something about most of those years not having environmental legislation
Normally I would be worried about this, I really would... but...
But it was another word that caught my attention. Was she talking about uranium? Cause I am pretty sure I heard her mention "uranium". I fact I fear I heard her say "uranium" more than once.
Please tell me this woman is not in charge of anything involving Uranium?
Posted by: Jesse | July 8, 2009 7:43 AM
Where do you even begin with someone like this?
Even if shes right about the 6000 years (and she sure as hell fucking isn't)... This "the earth's always been here and it hasn't been destroyed yet is ridiculous because humans clearly haven't had the capacity to pollute and toxify the earth on such a large scale until very recently.
Its like saying "this house hasn't burned down yet!" as you are dousing it with kerosene and lighting a match. Recent events are altering that "immutable truth" a bit, aren't they.
Posted by: uncle frogy | July 8, 2009 12:34 PM
look "Mr Grant" you are a jive ass lier you come on this board just to start a ruckus. what you believe or not I have no idea and by your "reasoning" is no different than that of the homeless paranoid schizophrenic out on the street corner in a tin foil hat haranguing the traffic about the alien invasion mind control that is out to seduce the human world. Go see a good therapist I am pretty sure you insurance or the Australian government social services department can assist you.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 8, 2009 5:14 PM
Sylvia Allen is a complete idiot because of this one thing?
Sylvia Allen is a complete idiot because of a number of things, this just happens to be one of them.
She also advocates concealed handgun ownership with no background checks, permits, or training to purchase the gun. She was also the idiot who tried to expand the places you could take that concealed weapon into, schools, courthouses, the state building including the public galleries in the house and senate.
Her plan for the budget and projected $2 billion deficit for the state of Arizona? Eliminate regulation of businesses, taxes and fees for businesses. Also she wants to cut construction of new schools and reduce the number of people eligible for AHCCCS, a health care program similar to Medicare for the elderly and disabled.
She is a major supporter of Uranium mining in a state that is one of the leaders in the nation in solar power and, because of the 330+ days of sunshine, is literally capable of powering itself and selling that excess energy. She also argues that when done, no one will know that the mine was even there ... apparently in all of her years in Arizona, she never actually went anywhere. I can tell you from personal experience that, in southern Arizona, you can see the impact of mines for miles.
She is a major advocate for opening up public land for development, which is interesting because her pre-government profession was real estate ... conflict?
So, conservative Republican who believes that the solution for our economic collapse caused by an unregulated market is to deregulate. The solution for our deficit is to cut taxes, the solution for education is to pack more kids into the existing schools, the solution for health care is to remove low income disabled people from existing health care programs, the solution to environmental issues is to open up public land for development, the solution for the energy crisis in a state with 330+ days of sunshine and major wind patterns is uranium mining.
Oh, and the earth is only 6000 years old.
She is a moron from beginning to end, the 6000 year old thing is just a dipshit cherry on a dipshit sundae.
Posted by: grenangle | July 9, 2009 3:20 AM
A bit late but you should give her a oi
http://www.statesurge.com/members/208675-sylvia-allen-arizona
Posted by: Dinah | July 9, 2009 11:16 AM
She was Olbermann's Worst Person last night.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 9, 2009 1:39 PM
She was Olbermann's Worst Person last night.
I kind of disagree with this when he includes a moron in "worst persons." Personally I think the recognition should be reserved for those who do something terrible, say something terrible/racist, etc. For being a moron? Sure, she stated the idiotic Biblical age of the earth as if it were a fact, but still, that just makes her a moron, not evil. Now if you want to nominate her for worst person because of her handgun carry/conceal legislation, I'm all for that, it's the most idiotic and one could argue evil, short-sighted, dangerous legislation I've seen since it was sponsored two years ago and shot down for being incredibly stupid then.