Bringing Teh Stoopid

Filed in National by on July 6, 2009

She wants to give our children the same lifestyle we had — not a better one. Oh wait, that’s not it, she said the Earth was 6,000 years old. Facepalm.

h/t Bad Astronomy

Tags:

About the Author ()

A Dad, a husband and a data guru

Comments (27)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Delaware Dem says:
    July 6, 2009 at 7:02 pm

    God. They really are stupid, aren’t they? I mean, an elementary school student possesses more knowledge than these willfully blind and ignorant Republicans.

  2. PI says:
    July 6, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    She looks a little like Patty Blevins.

  3. PI says:
    July 6, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    Bigger hair though.

  4. Rich Boucher says:
    July 6, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    Sweet Jesus Christ in a thong and matching tassles!

    Seriously? This can’t be real.

  5. Rich Boucher says:
    July 6, 2009 at 7:46 pm

    And I like the way she says it all matter-of-factly, as though it’s just assumed and taken for granted.

  6. Unstable Isotope says:
    July 6, 2009 at 7:53 pm

    6000 whole years! Such a long time.

  7. cassandra_m says:
    July 6, 2009 at 8:41 pm

    She doesn’t know the John McCain sidekick auditions are over.

  8. Phil says:
    July 6, 2009 at 11:02 pm

    Even though she probably meant 6 billion, it’s still as bad as saying your faith is muslim. Definitely facepalm worthy.

  9. Republican David says:
    July 6, 2009 at 11:33 pm

    No Phil, a lot of people believe the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. It is a perfectly reasonable position. If one believe the earth was created in a mature state then it is impossible to test to see how old it is.

    I think the mocking of this woman shows how out of touch this blog is from the majority of Americans. About half agree with her and most of the rest hold the same position as do I. It is a perfectly reasonable theory which can be defended. I just don’t happen to hold to it because I think others explain our world more consistently. The mocking of her beliefs is tasteless.

  10. pandora says:
    July 6, 2009 at 11:38 pm

    Are you kidding me, David? 6000 years old? You failed your science classes, didn’t you? And go on and knock yourself out by defending this “theory.” I will, however, require credible links. Good luck with that.

  11. Phil says:
    July 6, 2009 at 11:42 pm

    In David’s defense, he said he doesn’t personally agree with it, but feels we shouldn’t be mocking her for her beliefs.

    Hw is making the same statement that you can’t prove or dispove God, faith is exactly what it is.

  12. Rhymes With Right says:
    July 6, 2009 at 11:44 pm

    I’ll say it — i believe that the earth is six thousand years old.

    And then some — to the tune of 5 billion years.

  13. Rhymes With Right says:
    July 6, 2009 at 11:58 pm

    But David does have a point, in and among the landmines.

    There is no way of disproving the idea that God created the earth only 6 thousand years ago, and included in it evidence of an older earth to test our faith in His word.

    Except, of course, that such a course of action would be incompatible with the notion that God is loving and wants us all to share eternal life with him. For God to intentionally deceive us so as to misdirect us towards damnation would not fit with the traditional Christian notion of God.

    Of course, there could be another source for that evidence. Could it be. . . Satan?

  14. liberalgeek says:
    July 7, 2009 at 12:03 am

    See Phil? These are your peeps. She in no way meant 6 billion.

  15. Phil says:
    July 7, 2009 at 12:16 am

    Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen (I)?

  16. pandora says:
    July 7, 2009 at 12:23 am

    Nice try, sport.

  17. Phil says:
    July 7, 2009 at 12:42 am

    Well, although I don’t agree with like 90% of that bill, it is passed by that states legislature. Should the people feel outraged, it will be repealed.

    The things I don’t wrong with this bill:

    -24-wait period (as long as the situation is not life threatening). If costs to the woman are the same fand not increased for another vist, I don’t see a problem with that.

    -Risks with any medical procedure should always be explained. But doesn’t everyone know the alternativeis to have the baby? I don’t think that needs to be beaten in anymore.

    -Surgical abortions should be done by a doctor.

    Now allowing pharmacists to refuse morning after pills. That is garbage.

    Knowing the pros and cons of something is one thing, but that bill is pretty far reaching.

  18. Republican David says:
    July 7, 2009 at 1:29 am

    I doubt the people will be outraged. This type of legislation is typically supported by 70% of the public. If you can have 3 days to consider the consequences of buying a car, surely you can take a day to look over the options before you end a life or forsake of argument potential life.

  19. Republican David says:
    July 7, 2009 at 1:45 am

    BTW RWR thanks for keeping them focused and accurately quoting me. Just as a discussion point, I would not consider it deception because someone misreads something. If as the young earth creationists say, GOD told us the age of the earth and how he created it in 6 consecutive days of 24 hours, then it would not be deception. (I happen to believe as did half of the Church Fathers, that they may have misinterpreted Genesis 1, and I believe that advances in scientific evidence support my side of the theological argument.)

    If I make a movie where I play twins, I am not deceiving a person if I told him that we used special effects that he may not understand. The fact that he may insist that I am wrong because it looks otherwise to him won’t make me a deceiver. It would make him misinformed and mistaken.

    Every dating system gives a different age for the earth. Why should I believe anyone of them is absolute truth? Why would I call someone stupid for not adopting the belief that I have? I think you and I are on the same page.

    Pandora wants me to give links that they are reasonable. http://www.icr.org/ This particular site gives reasoned opinions from well educated scientists. I will let her read their view. I do not feel like defending the particulars because that is not my point of view. Mine is more closely related to reason.org .

  20. Rich Boucher says:
    July 7, 2009 at 1:51 am

    Republican David said, “The mocking of her beliefs is tasteless.”

    No. It is not tasteless.

  21. nemski says:
    July 7, 2009 at 7:05 am

    No Phil, a lot of people believe the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old. It is a perfectly reasonable position. If one believe the earth was created in a mature state then it is impossible to test to see how old it is.

    No GOPDave, you are absolutely wrong on this. I see your science is a accurate as your politics.

  22. callerRick says:
    July 7, 2009 at 7:53 am

    I say God created the ‘Big Bang’…..prove me wrong!

    Read Toynbee and C.S. Lewis, and learn to understand the function of religion. Warning; this will require some prolonged intellectual effort.

  23. anon says:
    July 7, 2009 at 8:19 am

    I say God created the ‘Big Bang’…..prove me wrong!

    Actually, you probably will be proved wrong. The Big Bang itself is still just a theory, which may be proved wrong one day. We will eventually obtain observational evidence to explain everything up to the Big Bang (or whatever it turns out to be).

    You are correct though that ultimately there needs to be a Prime Mover. The question that can probably never be answered is “Why is there something instead of nothing?” But after that, all the rules of the universe can be explained without relying on the supernatural.

  24. Dorian Gray says:
    July 7, 2009 at 8:57 am

    Just for the record – I see Nemski mentioned this as well but the 6,000 year earth thing has been categorically debunked ‘igitur’ the statement is neither reasonable nor defensible. It is tantamount to saying 2 + 2 = 6.

    Just because you chose to believe some Bronze Age fairy tale, we needn’t respect it. We evaluate your reasons then mock and ridicule you for your stupidiy. Which, ironically enough, was the point of the original post.

  25. nemski says:
    July 7, 2009 at 9:11 am

    You are correct though that ultimately there needs to be a Prime Mover.

    If by Prime Mover, you mean God . . . umm . . . no.

  26. anon says:
    July 7, 2009 at 9:57 am

    If by Prime Mover, you mean God

    Nope. Just saying, right now all science is based on an axiom (the existence of the universe).

  27. callerRick says:
    July 7, 2009 at 8:16 pm

    “But after that, all the rules of the universe can be explained without relying on the supernatural.”

    The mind that discerns the secrets may itself be ‘supernatural,’ if it was created.

    “There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy.”

«
»