Lion of the Blogosphere

Rubio reminder

1. Rubio believes in creationism. Interview with GQ:

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.

2. Rubio attended a church where the pastor peformed exorcisms of demon-possessed members.

3. Rubio for a long time lied about his family history, claiming they had to flee Cuba after Castro took over. The Washington Post reported that Rubio’s version of his family history was a lie, and that his family moved to the United States two years before Castro took over Cuba.

4. This June, the NY Times reported Rubio’s history of mismanaging his personal finances and wasting his money on stupid prole stuff like an $80,000 speedboat.

* * *

ASF writes:

Why does creationism in particular have such a strong hold over evangelicals, whereas things like owning slaves (which was perfectly fine), is not ok? Or keeping the sabbath holy? Is it because the latter things require personal sacrifice but the former is just something you can say?

Why isn’t it enough to believe that God created the universe instead of maintaining the absurdity that the Earth is 6000 years old.

Evolution disproves the Book of Genesis. Of course, archaeology and other scientific methods also disprove the book of Genesis, but that stuff is more easily ignored by biblical literalists.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

October 29, 2015 at 8:07 pm

Posted in Politics

104 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Who was the most prole president?

    chairman

    October 29, 2015 at 8:20 pm

    • LBJ or Truman.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      October 29, 2015 at 8:29 pm

      • LBJ:

        http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2002/nov/07/the-big-guy/

        If so, it was only a very occasional and loose leash. He early became fabled for a Rabelaisian earthiness, urinating in the parking lot of the House Office Building as the urge took him; if a colleague came into a Capitol bathroom as he was finishing at the urinal there, he would sometimes swing around still holding his member, which he liked to call “Jumbo,” hooting once, “Have you ever seen anything as big as this?,” and shaking it in almost a brandishing manner as he began discoursing about some pending legislation. At the same time, he would oblige aides to take dictation standing in the door of his office bathroom while he went about emptying his bowels, as if in some alpha-male ritual assertion of his primacy. Even on the floors of the House and Senate, he would extravagantly rummage away at his groin, sometimes reaching his hand through a pocket and leaning with half-lifted leg for more thorough access.

        Tom

        October 29, 2015 at 8:37 pm

      • Don’t forget about Andrew Jackson. After his inauguration he let everyone off the street into the White House for a party. They all got falling down drunk and trashed the place. Old Hickory was a Scots Irish prole of the highest order….a mean, magnificent bastard.

        B.T.D.T.

        October 29, 2015 at 9:07 pm

      • Regarding LBJ, is sociopathy considered prole?

        Jokah Macpherson

        October 29, 2015 at 9:27 pm

      • Well notice that both of them were great presidents.

        Jonathan

        October 29, 2015 at 9:47 pm

      • I was going to say “Andrew Jackson” but, after reading Tom’s quote, I think LBJ is the clear winner. That’s funny stuff.

        destructure

        October 29, 2015 at 11:11 pm

      • “Well notice that both of them were great presidents.”

        LBJ was arguably the worst President in American history.

        Truman dropped an unnecessary bomb in an unnecessary war with Japan that FDR had provoked. He’s no great shakes either.

        peterike

        October 30, 2015 at 10:15 am

      • LBJ’s behavior was classic southern trolling of northern effetes. It was a somewhat common affectation by southerners residing in northern climes back in the day. The affected hick persona just to get a rise. I’d bet he didn’t behave this way back in Austin with his cronies.

        Curle

        October 30, 2015 at 10:40 am

      • Truman dropped an unnecessary bomb in an unnecessary war with Japan that FDR had provoked. He’s no great shakes either.

        This is stupid. You know nothing about August 1945. The bombs were necessary.

        Truman was an excellent President.

        Tarl

        October 30, 2015 at 11:19 am

      • Truman didn’t start the war, so he can’t be blamed for that. And the bomb may have ended the war sooner and saved more lives. We don’t know enough to say that it was unnecessary or bad.

        Also, Truman reigned in MacArthur during the Korean War from possibly triggering WWIII.

        Tom

        October 30, 2015 at 1:39 pm

      • i remember hearing from my parents that LBJ was a drunk, and they jokingly referred to his signature social program as “The Great Sobriety.” There were also stories of him driving around the LBJ Ranch in his convertible Cadillac with the top down, Secret Service following picking up the beer cans as he threw them out of the vehicle. If his consumption of alcohol was on the scale reported, it’s not a surprise he had heart problems and died at the relatively young age of 64.

        Sgt. Joe Friday

        October 30, 2015 at 4:33 pm

      • Curle,

        D.C. was considered a sleepy Southern town back in the 40s and 50s when LBJ was in Congress.

        Tom

        October 30, 2015 at 4:53 pm

      • Tom,

        But LBJ was operating inside the world of the DC bureaucracy which is entirely dominated by northerners and graduates of northern elite schools. In fact, he was charged with leading this vast bureaucracy of people who were very different from him and viewed his cultural type with contempt.

        Curle

        October 31, 2015 at 5:42 pm

      • Truman didn’t start the war, so he can’t be blamed for that. And the bomb may have ended the war sooner and saved more lives. We don’t know enough to say that it was unnecessary or bad.

        We absolutely know that the bombs were necessary, good, and saved many lives (not just American, but Chinese, Vietnamese, Indonesian, and Japanese).

        Tarl

        November 2, 2015 at 1:25 pm

  2. North Carolina just appointed Margaret Spellings president of the entire state university system, which includes UNC Chapel Hill. Spellings told a NY Times interviewer that she worked in Texas with then Governor George W, Bush to have “both points of view” — evolution and Creationism — taught in the public high schools.

    Mark Caplan

    October 29, 2015 at 8:29 pm

    • If we could only get the schools to teach ‘both points of view’ on population achievement and crime differentials. Evolution and Equalism.

      Curle

      October 30, 2015 at 10:51 am

      • or teach ‘both points of view’ on anthropogenic global warming (a.k.a. climate change).

        Vladimir Dorta

        October 30, 2015 at 4:56 pm

  3. Yeah, but I think Bobby Jindal took the cake when he declared himself unqualified because he wasn’t an evolutionary biologist (he’s just a regular biologist).

    Incidentally, I’m a former creationist, but when I studied the evidence it was overwhelming. I still have doubts, but fact seem to be on the side of evolution.

    Yakov

    October 29, 2015 at 8:32 pm

    • And there’s also no archaeological evidence of the fake history of the Jewish people in the Tanakh.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      October 29, 2015 at 8:34 pm

      • Like what?

        Yakov

        October 29, 2015 at 8:36 pm

      • Leaving aside archaeology, which is now increasingly the preserve of auction houses and collectors more than that of real historians, the linguistic evidence fully supports the proposition that the Jews were a small nation in the ancient world and a nation with off the charts abilities, which they ascribed to conversing directly with G-d now and then.

        howitzer daniel

        October 29, 2015 at 8:49 pm

      • I’m no archaeologist, but I found this list of artifacts which seem to corroborate events described in both Books of Kings, Ezra and Nehemiah. There are few for anything before First Samuel.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artifacts_in_biblical_archaeology

        njguy73

        October 29, 2015 at 11:11 pm

      • Lion, how is the Jewish history contradicted by archeology? I’m waiting.

        Yakov

        October 30, 2015 at 6:15 am

      • There was no first temple, no kingdoms described in the Tanakh, etc.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 30, 2015 at 9:19 am

      • The Tanakh consists of the Torah, the writings of the Prophets and other books. Prophets includes the books describing the kingdoms and first temple.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh

        njguy73

        October 30, 2015 at 9:35 am

      • @Lion
        ‘There was no first temple, no kingdoms described in the Tanakh, etc.’

        I’ve only heard of Muslims denying the veracity of that period in Jewish history. To me these events are absolutely true. Now, according to your archeologists, what did happen?

        Yakov

        October 30, 2015 at 9:53 am

      • …and a nation with off the charts abilities, which they ascribed to conversing directly with G-d now and then.

        LOL. The main “off the charts” ability was the ability to convince themselves that an imaginary sky-god loved them best and wanted them the destroy all their enemies etc etc.

        Their self deception was off the charts, everything else not so much.

        Rifleman

        October 30, 2015 at 11:50 am

      • To be fair, belief in the supernatural was more common back then due to the lack of scientific knowledge and corresponding science education.

        Today, traditional religious beliefs are being replaced with belief in global warming and stuff like that.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 30, 2015 at 12:00 pm

      • Lion, seems like an interesting book. I, like the authors, would not state that the Hebrew Bible is fact-based, but rather has legends based on historical figures. And the authors do say the Bible has been a positive thing for uniting communities.

        njguy73

        October 30, 2015 at 1:39 pm

      • Lion, please read Paul Johnson’s A History of the Jews.

        Vladimir Dorta

        October 30, 2015 at 5:01 pm

      • Lion, I haven’t read the book, but according to reviews the author allegedly proves that Abraham, Moses and Exodus from Egypt had never taken place. This is silly. All of this and certainly the First Temple are historical facts.
        Suppose someone tells you that there is a flying mammal in Australia, can you prove that it doesn’t exist sitting in Park Slope. This book is completely silly. Without bring proficient in Jewish texts you wouldn’t be able to evaluate it anyway. The reason that we’ve got big noses is to keep them in the Five Books of Moses.

        Yakov

        October 31, 2015 at 8:22 pm

    • And there’s also no archaeological evidence of the fake history of the Jewish people in the Tanakh.

      The Haredi will boil you in oil for that.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      October 29, 2015 at 10:45 pm

      • @Howitzer

        Their “off the chart abilities” didn’t seem to impress the Assyrians, nor the Babylonians, nor the Seleucid Greeks, nor the Romans.

        Priv

        October 30, 2015 at 2:29 am

      • Priv – I think you misconstrued the word “linguistic” in my comment. Whether or not the hypothesis that “surrounding ancient cultures left no written record of being impressed by Jewish intelligence” is true, (a question very few, in or out of “HBD” circles, have the capacity to assess), the linguistic evidence we have shows that ancient Hebrew writers of what we call the early Old Testament period did, in fact, write at a level of skill and genius at or far above the writers of every known surrounding culture, and that they ascribed their exceptional talents to G-d.

        howitzer daniel

        October 30, 2015 at 10:38 am

      • This article claims that Egyptian authorities have declined access to King Tut’s DNA for fear it will be interpreted as Jewish (or already has been — the article doesn’t make that claim, it is implicit). Kind of a backhand tribute to Egyptian perceptions of Jewish capability any way you look at it.

        View story at Medium.com

        Curle

        October 30, 2015 at 10:57 am

  4. What do you think his IQ is? I actually don’t think he truly believes in creationism. He just seems remarkably average. And he really comes across as a politician.

    JerseyGuy

    October 29, 2015 at 8:35 pm

  5. The two STEM graduates in the mix, Carson and Paul, are both creationists.

    Mike Street Station

    October 29, 2015 at 9:54 pm

    • The two STEM graduates in the mix, Carson and Paul, are both doctors. I think it’s a lot easier for doctors to be religious and even creationists than it is for people with a background in physical sciences. I’m not sure if it’s causative or self-selection bias.

      destructure

      October 30, 2015 at 10:23 pm

      • Medical doctors aren’t scientists, they are physicians.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        October 30, 2015 at 11:50 pm

      • That’s true of most physicians, but there are M.D./Ph.D.’s who split their time between practice and research. At academic medical centers, plain M.D.’s on tenure track also have to publish or perish, but they tend to do less hardcore bench research with rare exceptions.

        nebbish

        October 31, 2015 at 1:36 am

  6. Why does creationism in particular have such a strong hold over evangelicals, whereas things like owning slaves (which was perfectly fine), is not ok? Or keeping the sabbath holy? Is it because the latter things require personal sacrifice but the former is just something you can say?

    Why isn’t it enough to believe that God created the universe instead of maintaining the absurdity that the Earth is 6000 years old.

    ASF

    October 29, 2015 at 10:15 pm

    • Religious zealots can dismiss some of those Old Testament prescriptions on the grounds that when Christ came he brought with him a “new covenant.” God’s New Deal allows for pork and shellfish. Of course, the New Testament exists on good terms with slavery, but “everyone” believed in the institution when The Very Best Goat-Herders Stories were collected into the Bible.

      In the end, people will choose to believe whatever they want. The Bible talks a lot about the poor and indigent, but the main takeaway for some is that homosexuality is an abomination.

      Vince

      October 30, 2015 at 2:22 am

      • I tend to think Christianity in the US is mainly a permitted (for the time being) expression of white ethnocentrism in an environment where whites feel ethnocentrism matters but they are proscribed from expressing such attitudes. If white ethnocentrism wasn’t so forcefully proscribed by the ruling class Christianity would likely take on a weaker or lesser form, as seems to have happened throughout much of Europe in the last half-century. People like to bind together in self-supporting tribes. Just ask Yakov.

        Curle

        October 30, 2015 at 11:17 am

      • @Curlie

        True that!

        Yakov

        October 30, 2015 at 2:38 pm

      • “The Bible talks a lot about the poor and indigent, but the main takeaway for some is that homosexuality is an abomination.

        Religious denominations have historically been the main providers of charitable support for “the poor and indigent” and still are. But pinkos confuse lazy and immoral with being “poor and indigent”. Why should taxpayers provide illegals, drug addicts, criminals, lazy people and single women with multiple illegitimate kids a middle class lifestyle? Aside from the unfairness of being exploited, people bristle at being forced to support immorality.

        Speaking of immorality, adultery, promiscuity, prostitution along with unnatural sex acts have always been condemned by society as being bad for children, families and society. Because it causes illegitimately and spreads disease. It’s no more acceptable for heteros to be promiscuous or stick it in someone’s poop chute than it is for homos. Fortunately for heteros, women limit the promiscuity and poop chuting. Without this limitation, men would run wild. And that’s exactly what happens with homosexuals which causes all kinds of disease. Then the bisexuals bring the diseases back and give them to heterosexuals. Society has a right to protect itself from this the same as society has a right to protect itself from people dumping toxic waste in lakes and rivers.

        https://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity

        destructure

        October 30, 2015 at 4:49 pm

      • Yes I think the people who wrote the books of the Bible might have known a thing or two about sodomy and its consequences. Funny how young libtards seem to think it’s all quite “new” and hip.

        Mrs Stitch

        October 30, 2015 at 9:03 pm

    • @ASF

      Owning slaves isn’t a positive Divine commandment. Sabbath has been abrogated together with other commandments by Jesus. In a well known New Testament story Jesus publicly desecrated the Sabbath by reaping stalks of wheat. When asked about it by his desiples, he replied: ‘Was the Sabbath created for the man, or the man for the Sabbath?’. If the the story of creation is not literal, what does it come to teach us? If pascal lamb can be Jesus, why the seven days of creation cannot be something else? This is a good question for evangelicals.

      There are many ways to interpret it. Here is one, for example, and I have to run so I’m just going to touch on the idea. The Bible gives a monotheistic version of the popular contemporary beleifs regarding the creation of the universe and the flood. The purpose is to teach the monotheistic faith, man’s free choice and full responsibility for his actions, that productive labor is the proper occuation and the consequences of immoral and criminal behaviour.

      Yakov

      October 30, 2015 at 6:46 am

    • Owning slaves is fine with me. It is even endorsed in the Bible!

      I remember asking my Sunday school teacher why slavery was bad, given that God didn’t tell Moses “thou shalt not keep slaves”, and Jesus and the Apostles never gave any sermons against slavery.

      “Shut up,” she explained.

      Tarl

      October 30, 2015 at 1:57 pm

      • Well, I guess you told that straw woman.

        That reminds me of the time some ignorant fools posting blog comments were clueless about the fact that evangelicals the abolition movement and apparently never heard of John Brown or William Wilberforce. I straighten them out by noting that all of the protestant churches went against slavery forcing southerners to create their own splinter groups.

        Furthermore, in the context of western civilization the very notion that slavery is wrong came from the Bible and specifically the teaching that all people are equal in the eyes of God. In the Roman empire from whenc it arose, Christianity was a slave religion that spread to masters, not the other way around.

        Christianity was never about trying to overthrow the existing political order and thus addresses how people in that society should behave towards each other.

        Mercy

        http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Abolitionism

        Galations 3:26 – 29

        26So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

        Mercy Vetsel

        October 30, 2015 at 4:08 pm

      • Perfect Divine service is not for the sake of material or spiritual reward in the this world or the world to come, but only because G-d is the Truth. A man who has a master cannot serve his true Master properly. This is why ideally everyone should be a free man and slavery should be abolished.

        Yakov

        October 30, 2015 at 5:17 pm

      • “I straighten them out by noting that all of the protestant churches went against slavery forcing southerners to create their own splinter groups.”

        Seems odd to call one side of a church division, sometimes the largest side, a splinter group. The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) split from the northern Baptists over the civil war and eventually became the world’s largest Baptist denomination and the largest Protestant body in the United States. The abolitionists were northern protestants (mostly) adhering to a particularly Puritan strain of Protestantism. Edgar Lee Masters in his masterful Lincoln, A Life (recommended by HL Menken by the way) does an excellent job putting these folks, and their melodramatic form of religious expression, in proper context. The abolitionists were never characteristic of American Protestantism or even northern Protestantism but were more an outlier.

        Remember, in the days leading up to war Congress, with northern majorities, voted overwhelmingly to send a constitutional amendment to the states preserving slavery in perpetuity. Lincoln, up to the day he died, was still working on a colonization project to export the slaves.

        Curle

        October 31, 2015 at 6:11 pm

      • evangelicals the abolition movement and apparently never heard of John Brown or William Wilberforce.

        Gee, whoever heard of anyone misusing and misquoting straightforward texts – like, say, the Bible or the Constitution – to promote their political agenda?

        the very notion that slavery is wrong came from the Bible and specifically the teaching that all people are equal in the eyes of God.

        The claim that “all people are equal in the eyes of God” is WRONG and STUPID. It exists nowhere in the Bible. It is a bastardization of the Declaration of Independence.

        Tarl

        November 2, 2015 at 1:30 pm

  7. You’re talking up the wrong Cuban. Cruz will get Carson’s voters once they realize gentle Ben is running only to get a talk show gig with Fox.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    October 29, 2015 at 10:45 pm

  8. This is going to be great election. Rubio is by far the favorite in prediction markets, nearing 50%. (Trump is 15% to 19%.) Looks like Rubio will be able to capture the Carson/Huckabee religious right votes that Trump can’t yet manage to touch.

    And Rubio is going to embarrass his whole party again and again. Hillary can start measuring drapes for 1600 as soon as Rubio wins Florida.

    Rubio also promised to ban marijuana again in CO; he’ll do great there.

    behiker57w

    October 29, 2015 at 10:52 pm

  9. > GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

    Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man.

    Presidents aren’t allowed to say “man”

    shiva1008

    October 29, 2015 at 11:28 pm

    • Yes, that is a brilliant interview.

      Andrew E.

      October 30, 2015 at 10:07 am

  10. While even the Pope (last several) accepts the reality of evolution, he (they) and a surprising large number of STEM faculty at our universities doubt Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection. They get hung up on the random mutation part and forget the selection part. Of course, no one in the humanities and social sciences believes in evolution. The only reliable believers are the biologists and geologists.

    bob sykes

    October 30, 2015 at 8:14 am

    • “Of course, no one in the humanities and social sciences believes in evolution.”

      What are you talking about? I imagine it’s almost 100% support for evolution in Humanities and Social Sciences departments. They may not understand science, but they f*ing love it.

      Mike Street Station

      October 30, 2015 at 9:35 am

      • “I imagine it’s almost 100% support for evolution in Humanities and Social Sciences departments.”

        There isn’t really, because they believe in race and gender creationism: i.e. that all races and genders are created equal and that different types of humans never evolved above the neck. Of course they mouth a believe in evolution because saying they are creationists would tie them with those icky, disgusting evangelical white people (the real enemy). But in fact, nearly everyone in the humanities is a creationist.

        peterike

        October 30, 2015 at 10:22 am

      • “There isn’t really, because they believe in race and gender creationism”

        They get to define evolution. So they can still be evolutionists in one way and creationists in another

        Mike Street Station

        October 30, 2015 at 12:10 pm

  11. Rubio also gets a D- on immigration from Numbers USA.

    Black Death

    October 30, 2015 at 8:52 am

  12. Rubio’s version of his family history was a lie, and that his family moved to the United States two years before Castro took over Cuba.

    Leaving aside the issue of how the WaPo never corrects Obama or Hillary when they lie…

    The civil war was in progress when his parents left Cuba. They were fleeing communist terror for all that they did so before the terrorists formally took over the government.

    Tarl

    October 30, 2015 at 11:27 am

  13. I’d love to hear a candidate say that he can’t speak to racial equality because he’s “not a scientist, man”.

    • I’d love to hear a journalist ask a question requiring a defense of equality beliefs.

      Curle

      November 1, 2015 at 10:16 am

  14. Why is a speedboat prole? What else is prole that we may not think otherwise?

    Brian

    October 30, 2015 at 4:52 pm

  15. Is being “easily bored” prole? The need for constant stimulation? My friend’s girlfriend comes from a poor, single parent household who worked at a warehouse their whole life. Friend’s GF now works retail and does off the books babysitting. I noticed that she always complains about “being bored” and the need to “do something”, like go to the movies, even if it’s a bunch of movies that she’s not necessarily interested in. My friend routinely complains about her (he has a degree in Graphic Design and a minor in English Lit and does freelance work). Very odd couple and they have broken up twice in a course of a year, with my friend initiating both break ups.

    She worships him. Everything he cooks, like this awful Vegetable Lasagna with whole wheat pasta (he’s a vegetarian) is the “greatest thing ever”. And then he makes his [awful] version of mac n’ cheese and that is now the “best mac n’ cheese in the whole world”. She’s not even vegetarian.

    Anyway, he complains about never having any “quiet time” and he occasionally comes over to my house to complain and actually have quiet time, such as reading newspaper articles or learning new graphic design techniques and software. She’s always nagging him about “wanting to do stuff” and is “bored” and when he demands peace and quiet, she will get mad and blast an episode of (the worst show in the world) “Family Guy”.

    Just seems like that’s of the main, general differences between those who are middle-class oriented and those who are prole or beneath. The middle-class types appreciate quiet and concentration while proles have a need for constant stimulation.

    Brian

    October 30, 2015 at 5:33 pm

    • Yes. Being easily bored is prole. This stems from the prole tendency toward excessive extroversion and the resulting need for loud chatter and mindless entertainment. The upper classes exhibit higher levels of introversion and hence the resulting love of reading, privacy and the peak experiences that only self actualization can bring.

      B.T.D.T.

      October 30, 2015 at 8:11 pm

    • “while proles have a need for constant stimulation.”

      Which includes having sex, lots of it. Often without a condom. Which is probably why your friend stays with her and why the ratio of proles to smarties won’t likely turn to the benefit of smarties.

      Curle

      October 31, 2015 at 6:19 pm

      • To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are horny while the intelligent are full of restraint.

        njguy73

        October 31, 2015 at 9:53 pm

    • Does it bother you that one of the main characters in Family Guy shares your name?

      Also, it’s a great show.

      ScarletNumber

      November 3, 2015 at 7:12 am

  16. “I’m not an economist, man. I’m not qualified to tell you if capitalism or socialism is better. That’s a dispute between the economists.”

    Jimi

    October 30, 2015 at 6:32 pm

  17. I’m not a Christian, but I get the impression that the only Christians who really care about evolution as an “issue” are those who are also very big into Republican politics. For them, ostentatiously denying evolution is just as much a matter libertarian-ish principle of refusing to be told what to think by some ivory tower liberal egghead as it is a matter of respectingtheology.

    I sometimes feel like Republicanism is a new denomination of Christianity.

    Freddy

    October 30, 2015 at 10:21 pm

    • The language of Christianity is the socially permissible language of white ethnocentric culture and interest. The Republican party is the white ethnocentric culture party. Republicans can’t come out and oppose welfare by making reference to ethnic groups that don’t pull their weight and complain that whites are paying the freight for black mating practices so they instead use the language of the Bible and find passages about self-reliance, etc. to justify their political positions. If politicians were permitted by the ruling class to speak openly about group evolutionary strategies they might refer less to the Bible.

      Curle

      October 31, 2015 at 6:30 pm

      • How do blacks fit into this theory? They’re much more ostentatiously Christian than whites, particularly their politicians. Doc Carson is running on a much more explicitly theological platform than even Huckabee or Santorum, what with his tithing based tax regime and all.

        Freddy

        October 31, 2015 at 8:22 pm

      • Blacks have their own form of Christianity for all intents and purposes. More liberation theology and God as the great fixer. There’s an amazing article floating out there on the web by a disenchanted public defender discussing blacks and their faith and it’s bizarre interaction with their behavior. Put simply he contends that God is this being who covers for their misdeeds and wants them to have stuff. Carson seems more characteristic of the white Christians who’ve drunk the diversity kool aid. I doubt most white Christians are operating with an overt ethnocentric sensibility but people understand things they can’t or don’t express.

        Curle

        November 1, 2015 at 10:34 am

      • The central idea of Christianity is crucifixion, G-d sacrificing his son for the benefit of Man. I don’t see how blacks’ interpretation differs from this fundamental idea that G-d is there to serve men. In Judaism, on the other hand, it’s Abraham sacrificing his son for G-d. The idea being that the perfect Divine service is not for any reward – material or spiritual. It’s the highest reward in and by itself.

        Yakov

        November 2, 2015 at 10:54 am

  18. Sorry, evolution is merely another “just so” story similar to creationism. If creationism posits a transcendent agency as the cause of everything, evolution posits impersonal forces and material reductionism. There is nothing scientific about this position, since both are empty of the empiricism that is a central feature of science. Evolution is worse since creationism reasons inductively from human agency while evolution is simply a leap of faith that primordial oozes and random forces are involved.

    Evo is the epitome of junk science.

    map

    October 30, 2015 at 11:51 pm

    • Evolution is a scientific synthesis of biological evidence such as from fossils, it’s not a religion like Christianity.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      October 30, 2015 at 11:53 pm

      • who you going to believe…your lying pieces of stone or your ancestors written record?

        cesqy

        October 31, 2015 at 3:41 am

      • Ah…but therein lies the rub, Lion. Darwin’s theory of evolution does not answer what it claims to answer.

        Darwinism is about the origin of species. It is about how a new species comes into existence. Nothing within Darwin own theory presents any evidence of the mechanism by which a previously non-existing species comes into existence.

        What there is is evidence of how existing species change over time. But this “small e” definition of evolution is unremarkable and trivially true. So, modern evolutionists engage in bait and switch…they take the evidence of “small e” evolution and pass that off as “large e” evolution, without anyone noticing what is being done.

        If you focus on the question of the Origin of species, you find that all the fossil records and other evidence come up empty. And it’s easy to see why.

        Evolution is made up of three components:

        1) Movement from simplicity to complexity.
        2) The movement is caused by natural selection through random mutation.
        3) The complexity become so great that new species eventually ememrge.

        There is no evidence establishing any of this.

        We now know, thanks to genetics, that random mutation cannot really do anything since most mutations are deleterious. In fact, sexual reproduction is supposed to preserve the genetic code and protect against mutation.

        Furthermore, it’s easy to illustrate why evolution is nonsense. According to this theory, not only will a man and woman eventually give birth to a baby that is a completely different species from the parents, but that such an event will occur among millions of parents so a sufficiently large population is established to avoid inbreeding. Even worse, if evolution is correct, then Bigfoot should exist, since there is no reason to believe that “random mutation” could not create such a one-off creature.

        Darwin had no knowledge of genetics. He did not understand dominant and recessive traits and how environmental pressure that influence the survival of populations of animals. He had no concept of genotype and phenotype. He mistakenly assumes that the “endless variety” of, say, Galapagos finches implies widespread speciation where none actually existed.

        The fraud of Darwinism is pushed simply to attack God and common sense.

        map

        October 31, 2015 at 10:29 pm

      • map,

        Excellent response. And if you talk to honest Darwinists, such as Michael Hart, they will tell you that the fossil record doesn’t show what the theory says it should show (notwithstanding they still choose to believe the theory).

        Andrew E.

        November 1, 2015 at 8:41 am

      • Because we don’t know everything there is to know about evolution, that means that fossil evidence is decoys put there by Satan to trick people into not believing in God and Jesus. OK.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 1, 2015 at 9:58 am

      • We now know, thanks to genetics, that random mutation cannot really do anything since most mutations are deleterious. In fact, sexual reproduction is supposed to preserve the genetic code and protect against mutation.

        Evolution is about trait combinations; technically a mutation is not considered a trait adaptation.

        Of course this still leaves to be explained how previously non-existent traits come into existence, and squaring this fact with the lack of transitional fossils. To this, I would still side with Michael Hart and admit that while details about the evolutionary process have holes in them, evolutionary theory is still best explains the emergence of species.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        November 1, 2015 at 11:06 am

      • Undiscovered Jew,

        “Of course this still leaves to be explained how previously non-existent traits come into existence, and squaring this fact with the lack of transitional fossils. To this, I would still side with Michael Hart and admit that while details about the evolutionary process have holes in them, evolutionary theory is still best explains the emergence of species.”

        Origin of Species and is the whole point of evolution. However true “trait combinations” may be, they do not explain the creation of new species.

        The point is that evolution is merely an article of faith. You can believe in it whatever you want, but there is no real science behind it as science would normally be understood.

        map

        November 2, 2015 at 3:24 am

      • Origin of Species and is the whole point of evolution. However true “trait combinations” may be, they do not explain the creation of new species.

        It has to contend with the same problem the fossil record presents: fewer transitory species than expected to completely explain speciation and the emergence of novel characteristics.

        The point is that evolution is merely an article of faith.

        There are points where evolution seems unsatisfactory, but it’s not weak enough to downgrade it to faith. There are transitions between different species, indicating the theory is at least on the right track.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        November 2, 2015 at 10:58 pm

      • UJ,

        “There are points where evolution seems unsatisfactory, but it’s not weak enough to downgrade it to faith. There are transitions between different species, indicating the theory is at least on the right track.”

        On the matter on which immigration is mostly promoted, the creation of new species, Evolution is an article of faith.

        map

        November 4, 2015 at 3:33 pm

      • On the matter on which immigration is mostly promoted, the creation of new species, Evolution is an article of faith.

        Evolution should be judged no more by its liberal promoters than statistics should. If I had a dollar for every time I’ve seen the New York Times confuse a percentage increase for a percentage point increase, and the reverse, I would own a dealership worth of Porsche convertibles.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        November 4, 2015 at 7:14 pm

  19. “She studied at Miami-Dade Community College and worked as a part-time bank teller while Marco was in law school at the University of Miami.”

    real brains.

    http://heavy.com/news/2015/04/marco-rubio-wife-jeannette-dousdebes-rubio-children-photos-miami-cheerleader-bio-job-colombian-kids/

    rivelino

    October 31, 2015 at 5:37 am

    • Who cares? She is beautiful and a good mother. That is what all real women should aspire to. If she were any smarter she would be less attractive, miserable and living with a brood of cats instead of a United States Senator.

      B.T.D.T.

      October 31, 2015 at 10:21 am

      • “Who cares? She is beautiful and a good mother. That is what all real women should aspire to. If she were any smarter she would be less attractive, miserable and living with a brood of cats instead of a United States Senator.”

        well said.

        actually my point was about the two of them. i am from south florida, and MDCC — as you might have guessed — is for the really dumb kids who couldn’t even get into UF or FSU — or maybe her parents were just really strict and didn’t want her to leave the house — and UM law school is probably top 100 or top 500 in the country. so, between the two of them, they aren’t exactly lighting up the IQ tests.

        rivelino

        November 1, 2015 at 6:03 pm

  20. ‘Evolution disproves the Book of Genesis. Of course, archaeology and other scientific methods also disprove the book of Genesis, but that stuff is more easily ignored by biblical literalists.’

    The book of Genesis isn’t exact history, it’s value is in its theology. Science doesn’t and cannot disprove that. Science and theology are different fields.

    Yakov

    October 31, 2015 at 8:29 pm

  21. Shaking my head. Rubio? The Republican party bosses want (or demand?) their voters to take this guy?

    Rending of garments and gnashing of teeth. This is the end of the Republican party.

    The Dems have checkmated them. The donors are completely unaligned with the voters.

    The coalition is dead. If you are against abortion and gay marriage – well, you’ve lost. You failed.
    Libertarian economics – works great – for a few. Not everyone is stupid enough to not notice their circumstances.
    National Defense – don’t make me laugh.

    What’s left the R’s can agree on? Hating Obama/Clinton, et al? Anti gun control?

    Over. Over. Over.

    Dead party walking.

    ModernReader

    October 31, 2015 at 10:39 pm

    • True when you assume that things continue in the same direction, or that the status quo is maintained. But it is not close to sustainable. The people who are running things will run us off the track within a few more years, then it is anyone’s guess.

      Copperhead Joe

      November 1, 2015 at 3:20 pm

      • You’re point is well taken. Where things go is an open book.

        ModernReader

        November 1, 2015 at 6:58 pm

  22. The problem for creationists is: Who made the Sky God? That he always existed is no answer.

    jef

    November 2, 2015 at 3:03 am

  23. I’m disappointed that Lion has adopted the rhetoric of other anti-religious types in describing anything less than total 100% certainty in evolution as “creationism.” Rubio wasn’t even asked about evolution, he was asked about the age of the earth (in other contexts, evolution promoters are always telling us the two have nothing to do with each other.) And that’s what he answered–he didn’t say anything about the origin of species. The fact is, you don’t know what he believes. He could be a creationist, he could be conflicted and not know what to believe, he could believe in evolution but figure he needs the votes of people who don’t so he’d better dodge. But it seems to atheists, it seems if you say anything other than “evolution is a patently obvious fact as plain as gravity, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a subhuman troglodyte,” you’re a “creationist.”

    Hermes

    November 3, 2015 at 8:37 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: