Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (2 Viewers)

[QuizGuy66]

Carson is a nutcase. I believe the majority of people supporting him have no idea what beliefs he actually has. It boggles the mind that someone who could achieve so much in a field like neurosurgery could be so stupid.

Speak quietly and hide the crazy.

-QG

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Apparently Rubio is now the favorite according to betting markets, having surpassed Bush. Gamblers don't seem to believe that Trump or Carson can pull it off even though they're leading the polls.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Apparently Rubio is now the favorite according to betting markets, having surpassed Bush. Gamblers don't seem to believe that Trump or Carson can pull it off even though they're leading the polls.

I think that's a fair assessment at the moment.

-QG

 

[Joe Summer]

Carson is a nutcase. I believe the majority of people supporting him have no idea what beliefs he actually has. It boggles the mind that someone who could achieve so much in a field like neurosurgery could be so stupid.

Carson is the biggest beneficiary of Trump. While Trump is spitting out all kinds of ridiculous things and drawing a lot of media attention, I think the average Republican is thinking that they will go with the reserved presumed intellectual former neurosurgeon as some sort of respectable alternative option while overlooking that, in fact, Carson believes some of the craziest stuff of all the GOP candidates.

I think you are underestimating the number of Republicans who agree with everything Carson says about science. They're not overlooking his beliefs; they're embracing them.

 

[Buckfast 1]

Trump continues to troll Rand Paul on Twitter:

@realDonaldTrump: Prediction: Rand Paul has been driven out of the race by my statements about him-- he will announce soon. 1%!

 

[Sweet J]

Apparently Rubio is now the favorite according to betting markets, having surpassed Bush. Gamblers don't seem to believe that Trump or Carson can pull it off even though they're leading the polls.

Rubio reminds me of a little boy demanding to be at the big kids' table. He's too shrill.

 

[Hilts]

When Ben Carson speaks he closes his eyes so often and so long it looks like he has cheat sheets written on the inside of his eyelids.

 

[sublimeone]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ben-carsons-scientific-ignorance?intcid=mod-latest

In attempting to refute the Big Bang, for example—which he characterized as a “ridiculous” idea—Carson said:

You have all these highfalutin scientists, and they’re saying that there was this gigantic explosion and everything came into perfect order. Now, these are the same scientists who go around touting the second law of thermodynamics, which is entropy, which says that things move toward a state of disorganization. So, now you’re going to have this big explosion, and everything becomes perfectly organized. When you ask them about it, they say, “Well we can explain this based on probability theory, because if there’s enough big explosions, over a long enough period of time, billions and billions of years, one of them will be the perfect explosion”…. What you’re telling me is, if I blow a hurricane through a junkyard enough times, over billions and billions of years, eventually, after one of those hurricanes, there will be a 747 fully loaded and ready to fly.

Ben Carson believes the big bang, without the guiding hand of God does not explain the existence of the universe. What's wrong with saying that?

 

[CBusAlex]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ben-carsons-scientific-ignorance?intcid=mod-latest

In attempting to refute the Big Bang, for example—which he characterized as a “ridiculous” idea—Carson said:

You have all these highfalutin scientists, and they’re saying that there was this gigantic explosion and everything came into perfect order. Now, these are the same scientists who go around touting the second law of thermodynamics, which is entropy, which says that things move toward a state of disorganization. So, now you’re going to have this big explosion, and everything becomes perfectly organized. When you ask them about it, they say, “Well we can explain this based on probability theory, because if there’s enough big explosions, over a long enough period of time, billions and billions of years, one of them will be the perfect explosion”…. What you’re telling me is, if I blow a hurricane through a junkyard enough times, over billions and billions of years, eventually, after one of those hurricanes, there will be a 747 fully loaded and ready to fly.

Ben Carson believes the big bang, without the guiding hand of God does not explain the existence of the universe. What's wrong with saying that?

I highlighted the ridiculous parts. HTH.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Latest poll: Donald Trump still in 1st place. Carson in 2nd. Jeb Bush has fallen off the map.

People (including me) keep predicting that at some point Republicans will come to their senses but it ain't happening. What's it going to take? Have conservatives really become this stupid? Is one of these guys really going to be the candidate?

It's still early. Most normal people haven't even started paying attention yet.

That may be true most election cycles but, because of Trump, people are paying attention a lot earlier this time.

 

[Jamesbrownkid]

Rubio is the guy you want to vote for if you want America to become another Mexico.

 

[Fennis]

Rubio is the guy you want to vote for if you want America to become another Mexico.

he's cuban

 

[joffer]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ben-carsons-scientific-ignorance?intcid=mod-latest

In attempting to refute the Big Bang, for example—which he characterized as a “ridiculous” idea—Carson said:

You have all these highfalutin scientists, and they’re saying that there was this gigantic explosion and everything came into perfect order. Now, these are the same scientists who go around touting the second law of thermodynamics, which is entropy, which says that things move toward a state of disorganization. So, now you’re going to have this big explosion, and everything becomes perfectly organized. When you ask them about it, they say, “Well we can explain this based on probability theory, because if there’s enough big explosions, over a long enough period of time, billions and billions of years, one of them will be the perfect explosion”…. What you’re telling me is, if I blow a hurricane through a junkyard enough times, over billions and billions of years, eventually, after one of those hurricanes, there will be a 747 fully loaded and ready to fly.

Ben Carson believes the big bang, without the guiding hand of God does not explain the existence of the universe. What's wrong with saying that?

for starters, his stunning level of ignorance on the subject

 

[timschochet]

Rubio is the guy you want to vote for if you want America to become another Mexico.

Please explain this in more detail, because I'm sure you don't want me to assume the worst about you. Tia

 

[Jamesbrownkid]

Rubio is the guy you want to vote for if you want America to become another Mexico.

Please explain this in more detail, because I'm sure you don't want me to assume the worst about you. Tia

Please explain in more detail why you won't move to Mexico before I assume the worst about you.

 

[timschochet]

I knew I shouldn't have bothered. Worst troll since johnjohn. Could very well be him for all I know.

 

[sublimeone]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ben-carsons-scientific-ignorance?intcid=mod-latest

In attempting to refute the Big Bang, for example—which he characterized as a “ridiculous” idea—Carson said:

You have all these highfalutin scientists, and they’re saying that there was this gigantic explosion and everything came into perfect order. Now, these are the same scientists who go around touting the second law of thermodynamics, which is entropy, which says that things move toward a state of disorganization. So, now you’re going to have this big explosion, and everything becomes perfectly organized. When you ask them about it, they say, “Well we can explain this based on probability theory, because if there’s enough big explosions, over a long enough period of time, billions and billions of years, one of them will be the perfect explosion”…. What you’re telling me is, if I blow a hurricane through a junkyard enough times, over billions and billions of years, eventually, after one of those hurricanes, there will be a 747 fully loaded and ready to fly.

Ben Carson believes the big bang, without the guiding hand of God does not explain the existence of the universe. What's wrong with saying that?

for starters, his stunning level of ignorance on the subject

He hasn't said a whole lot here other than he doesn't believe the big bang explains an organized universe. What specifically displays a "stunning level of ignorance?"

 

[Dickies]

Rubio is the guy you want to vote for if you want America to become another Mexico.

he's cuban

Rubio is the guy you want to vote for if you want America to become another Cuba

 

[General Malaise]

Rubio is the guy you want to vote for if you want America to become another Mexico.

Please explain this in more detail, because I'm sure you don't want me to assume the worst about you. Tia

Please explain in more detail why you won't move to Mexico before I assume the worst about you.

Alias hangman time?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Rubio is the guy you want to vote for if you want America to become another Mexico.

Please explain this in more detail, because I'm sure you don't want me to assume the worst about you. Tia

Please explain in more detail why you won't move to Mexico before I assume the worst about you.

Alias hangman time?

Indiana

 

[joffer]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ben-carsons-scientific-ignorance?intcid=mod-latest

In attempting to refute the Big Bang, for examplewhich he characterized as a ridiculous ideaCarson said:You have all these highfalutin scientists, and theyre saying that there was this gigantic explosion and everything came into perfect order. Now, these are the same scientists who go around touting the second law of thermodynamics, which is entropy, which says that things move toward a state of disorganization. So, now youre going to have this big explosion, and everything becomes perfectly organized. When you ask them about it, they say, Well we can explain this based on probability theory, because if theres enough big explosions, over a long enough period of time, billions and billions of years, one of them will be the perfect explosion. What youre telling me is, if I blow a hurricane through a junkyard enough times, over billions and billions of years, eventually, after one of those hurricanes, there will be a 747 fully loaded and ready to fly.

Ben Carson believes the big bang, without the guiding hand of God does not explain the existence of the universe. What's wrong with saying that?

I highlighted the ridiculous parts. HTH.

He hasn't said a whole lot here other than he doesn't believe the big bang explains an organized universe. What specifically displays a "stunning level of ignorance?"

 

[Blick]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ben-carsons-scientific-ignorance?intcid=mod-latest

In attempting to refute the Big Bang, for example—which he characterized as a “ridiculous” idea—Carson said:

You have all these highfalutin scientists, and they’re saying that there was this gigantic explosion and everything came into perfect order. Now, these are the same scientists who go around touting the second law of thermodynamics, which is entropy, which says that things move toward a state of disorganization. So, now you’re going to have this big explosion, and everything becomes perfectly organized. When you ask them about it, they say, “Well we can explain this based on probability theory, because if there’s enough big explosions, over a long enough period of time, billions and billions of years, one of them will be the perfect explosion”…. What you’re telling me is, if I blow a hurricane through a junkyard enough times, over billions and billions of years, eventually, after one of those hurricanes, there will be a 747 fully loaded and ready to fly.

Ben Carson believes the big bang, without the guiding hand of God does not explain the existence of the universe. What's wrong with saying that?

for starters, his stunning level of ignorance on the subject

He hasn't said a whole lot here other than he doesn't believe the big bang explains an organized universe. What specifically displays a "stunning level of ignorance?"

I tend to agree with him. Maybe I have a stunning level of ignorance too.

 

[joffer]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ben-carsons-scientific-ignorance?intcid=mod-latest

In attempting to refute the Big Bang, for example—which he characterized as a “ridiculous” idea—Carson said:

You have all these highfalutin scientists, and they’re saying that there was this gigantic explosion and everything came into perfect order. Now, these are the same scientists who go around touting the second law of thermodynamics, which is entropy, which says that things move toward a state of disorganization. So, now you’re going to have this big explosion, and everything becomes perfectly organized. When you ask them about it, they say, “Well we can explain this based on probability theory, because if there’s enough big explosions, over a long enough period of time, billions and billions of years, one of them will be the perfect explosion”…. What you’re telling me is, if I blow a hurricane through a junkyard enough times, over billions and billions of years, eventually, after one of those hurricanes, there will be a 747 fully loaded and ready to fly.

Ben Carson believes the big bang, without the guiding hand of God does not explain the existence of the universe. What's wrong with saying that?

for starters, his stunning level of ignorance on the subject

He hasn't said a whole lot here other than he doesn't believe the big bang explains an organized universe. What specifically displays a "stunning level of ignorance?"

I tend to agree with him. Maybe I have a stunning level of ignorance too.

if that paragraph accurately represents your understanding of the Big Bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, and how 747s are built, then on those subjects, you do

 

[Jamesbrownkid]

https://youtu.be/aimgwzV-77U

Sen. Cruz: The Real Story of What Is Happening in Washington

 

[General Malaise]

If life is found on Mars, what does that do to the uber religious with regards to creation?

 

[Blick]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ben-carsons-scientific-ignorance?intcid=mod-latest

In attempting to refute the Big Bang, for example—which he characterized as a “ridiculous” idea—Carson said:

You have all these highfalutin scientists, and they’re saying that there was this gigantic explosion and everything came into perfect order. Now, these are the same scientists who go around touting the second law of thermodynamics, which is entropy, which says that things move toward a state of disorganization. So, now you’re going to have this big explosion, and everything becomes perfectly organized. When you ask them about it, they say, “Well we can explain this based on probability theory, because if there’s enough big explosions, over a long enough period of time, billions and billions of years, one of them will be the perfect explosion”…. What you’re telling me is, if I blow a hurricane through a junkyard enough times, over billions and billions of years, eventually, after one of those hurricanes, there will be a 747 fully loaded and ready to fly.

Ben Carson believes the big bang, without the guiding hand of God does not explain the existence of the universe. What's wrong with saying that?

for starters, his stunning level of ignorance on the subject

He hasn't said a whole lot here other than he doesn't believe the big bang explains an organized universe. What specifically displays a "stunning level of ignorance?"

I tend to agree with him. Maybe I have a stunning level of ignorance too.

if that paragraph accurately represents your understanding of the Big Bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, and how 747s are built, then on those subjects, you do

I get the ever expanding universe and equal entropy thing. From that perspective, he is obviously wrong. However, I tend to agree with his overarching "opinion" that there must be some level of intelligent design in order to create something as complicated as life. Or maybe I'm reading too much into the quote.

I don't really care if our president understands the second law of thermodynamics. I'm sure many haven't.

 

[The Commish]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ben-carsons-scientific-ignorance?intcid=mod-latest

In attempting to refute the Big Bang, for examplewhich he characterized as a ridiculous ideaCarson said:You have all these highfalutin scientists, and theyre saying that there was this gigantic explosion and everything came into perfect order. Now, these are the same scientists who go around touting the second law of thermodynamics, which is entropy, which says that things move toward a state of disorganization. So, now youre going to have this big explosion, and everything becomes perfectly organized. When you ask them about it, they say, Well we can explain this based on probability theory, because if theres enough big explosions, over a long enough period of time, billions and billions of years, one of them will be the perfect explosion. What youre telling me is, if I blow a hurricane through a junkyard enough times, over billions and billions of years, eventually, after one of those hurricanes, there will be a 747 fully loaded and ready to fly.

Ben Carson believes the big bang, without the guiding hand of God does not explain the existence of the universe. What's wrong with saying that?

I highlighted the ridiculous parts. HTH.

He hasn't said a whole lot here other than he doesn't believe the big bang explains an organized universe. What specifically displays a "stunning level of ignorance?"

He's referring to arguments similar to arguments made here by our very own FFA brethren that if you give a monkey enough opportunities on a typewriter, they could eventually produce a Shakespearean masterpiece. Don't have a dog in the fight, but I'm not seeing the fauxrage. .

 

[The Commish]

if that paragraph accurately represents your understanding of the Big Bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, and how 747s are built, then on those subjects, you do

I'm not sure we want to hold any of our politicians to this standard do we? Seems like they'd all pretty much fail a test trying to explain the big bang or the second law of thermodynamics

 

[bigbottom]

if that paragraph accurately represents your understanding of the Big Bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, and how 747s are built, then on those subjects, you do

I'm not sure we want to hold any of our politicians to this standard do we? Seems like they'd all pretty much fail a test trying to explain the big bang or the second law of thermodynamics

It's not so much the inability to explain specific scientific principles as it is the casual and uninformed dismissal of, and disdain toward, scientific knowledge and those who pursue it.

 

[joffer]

if that paragraph accurately represents your understanding of the Big Bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, and how 747s are built, then on those subjects, you do

I'm not sure we want to hold any of our politicians to this standard do we? Seems like they'd all pretty much fail a test trying to explain the big bang or the second law of thermodynamics

then why is he trying to refute them if he doesn't understand them. He could simply say: "there are scientific theories as to the origin of our universe. I believe God must have had a hand in it." Done. His statement is the equivalent of saying he doesn't believe in evolution because a cat has never given birth to a dog. He's refuting an argument that no one is making, and again it demonstrates ignorance on a subject he is choosing to discuss.

 

[The Commish]

if that paragraph accurately represents your understanding of the Big Bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, and how 747s are built, then on those subjects, you do

I'm not sure we want to hold any of our politicians to this standard do we? Seems like they'd all pretty much fail a test trying to explain the big bang or the second law of thermodynamics

It's not so much the inability to explain specific scientific principles as it is the casual and uninformed dismissal of, and disdain toward, scientific knowledge and those who pursue it.

I was going by what joffer had said. If Carson does indeed have disdain towards science or condemns those who are knee deep in it, I agree with you.

 

[bigbottom]

if that paragraph accurately represents your understanding of the Big Bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, and how 747s are built, then on those subjects, you do

I'm not sure we want to hold any of our politicians to this standard do we? Seems like they'd all pretty much fail a test trying to explain the big bang or the second law of thermodynamics

It's not so much the inability to explain specific scientific principles as it is the casual and uninformed dismissal of, and disdain toward, scientific knowledge and those who pursue it.

I was going by what joffer had said. If Carson does indeed have disdain towards science or condemns those who are knee deep in it, I agree with you.

Well, he describes them pejoratively, and then misstates scientific principles in a failed effort to show that their positions are both contradictory and preposterous. Doesn't seem like he holds scientists in high esteem to me.

 

[The Commish]

if that paragraph accurately represents your understanding of the Big Bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, and how 747s are built, then on those subjects, you do

I'm not sure we want to hold any of our politicians to this standard do we? Seems like they'd all pretty much fail a test trying to explain the big bang or the second law of thermodynamics

then why is he trying to refute them if he doesn't understand them. He could simply say: "there are scientific theories as to the origin of our universe. I believe God must have had a hand in it." Done. His statement is the equivalent of saying he doesn't believe in evolution because a cat has never given birth to a dog. He's refuting an argument that no one is making, and again it demonstrates ignorance on a subject he is choosing to discuss.

In what you quoted he was talking about a specific comment about the randomness of the universe and how it was presented. He didn't seem to think it was very helpful and said such. Should he be above the snark? I dunno. I know it's hard to do that sometimes and both sides get pretty petty and quippish with each other. I don't believe for a second anyone here condemning him for his remarks would all of a sudden like him if he took the approach you outline here either. As I said before, I don't even know why this really matters all that much to be honest. I don't really care about my President's belief in the creation of the universe. Seems relatively low on the list of things I want them to know/understand.

 

[joffer]

if that paragraph accurately represents your understanding of the Big Bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, and how 747s are built, then on those subjects, you do

I'm not sure we want to hold any of our politicians to this standard do we? Seems like they'd all pretty much fail a test trying to explain the big bang or the second law of thermodynamics

then why is he trying to refute them if he doesn't understand them. He could simply say: "there are scientific theories as to the origin of our universe. I believe God must have had a hand in it." Done. His statement is the equivalent of saying he doesn't believe in evolution because a cat has never given birth to a dog. He's refuting an argument that no one is making, and again it demonstrates ignorance on a subject he is choosing to discuss.

In what you quoted he was talking about a specific comment about the randomness of the universe and how it was presented. He didn't seem to think it was very helpful and said such. Should he be above the snark? I dunno. I know it's hard to do that sometimes and both sides get pretty petty and quippish with each other. I don't believe for a second anyone here condemning him for his remarks would all of a sudden like him if he took the approach you outline here either. As I said before, I don't even know why this really matters all that much to be honest. I don't really care about my President's belief in the creation of the universe. Seems relatively low on the list of things I want them to know/understand.

i would simply like my president to be scientifically literate. Carson has demonstrated that he is not on subjects that conflict with his faith, or climate change. and his comments on vaccines are shaky.

 

[The Commish]

if that paragraph accurately represents your understanding of the Big Bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, and how 747s are built, then on those subjects, you do

I'm not sure we want to hold any of our politicians to this standard do we? Seems like they'd all pretty much fail a test trying to explain the big bang or the second law of thermodynamics

It's not so much the inability to explain specific scientific principles as it is the casual and uninformed dismissal of, and disdain toward, scientific knowledge and those who pursue it.

I was going by what joffer had said. If Carson does indeed have disdain towards science or condemns those who are knee deep in it, I agree with you.

Well, he describes them pejoratively, and then misstates scientific principles in a failed effort to show that their positions are both contradictory and preposterous. Doesn't seem like he holds scientists in high esteem to me.

From where I stand, I know he's a neurosurgeon. He has to hold science in some sort of esteem. I'm not sure it's a contempt for scientists rather the "statistical probability" assertion he was presented. I've never heard that retort made with any sort of seriousness, but I wasn't there, so what the hell do I know?

 

[The Commish]

if that paragraph accurately represents your understanding of the Big Bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, and how 747s are built, then on those subjects, you do

I'm not sure we want to hold any of our politicians to this standard do we? Seems like they'd all pretty much fail a test trying to explain the big bang or the second law of thermodynamics

then why is he trying to refute them if he doesn't understand them. He could simply say: "there are scientific theories as to the origin of our universe. I believe God must have had a hand in it." Done. His statement is the equivalent of saying he doesn't believe in evolution because a cat has never given birth to a dog. He's refuting an argument that no one is making, and again it demonstrates ignorance on a subject he is choosing to discuss.

In what you quoted he was talking about a specific comment about the randomness of the universe and how it was presented. He didn't seem to think it was very helpful and said such. Should he be above the snark? I dunno. I know it's hard to do that sometimes and both sides get pretty petty and quippish with each other. I don't believe for a second anyone here condemning him for his remarks would all of a sudden like him if he took the approach you outline here either. As I said before, I don't even know why this really matters all that much to be honest. I don't really care about my President's belief in the creation of the universe. Seems relatively low on the list of things I want them to know/understand.

i would simply like my president to be scientifically literate. Carson has demonstrated that he is not on subjects that conflict with his faith, or climate change. and his comments on vaccines are shaky.

I would too....no question. I can't remember one of my lifetime that has been though. A neurosurgeon is probably going to be as close as you'll ever get. It's way down the list of importance for me. It's like the 5-6th tie breaker IMO.

ETA: I probably shouldn't say "as close as you'll ever get". That's a bold statement, but I think you get my point.

 

[joffer]

Actually, when he goes into probability theory, I have no idea what he's saying. "Billions and billions of explosions"? Is he talking about multi-verse theory? Sounds like gibberish.

 

[joffer]

if that paragraph accurately represents your understanding of the Big Bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, and how 747s are built, then on those subjects, you do

I'm not sure we want to hold any of our politicians to this standard do we? Seems like they'd all pretty much fail a test trying to explain the big bang or the second law of thermodynamics

then why is he trying to refute them if he doesn't understand them. He could simply say: "there are scientific theories as to the origin of our universe. I believe God must have had a hand in it." Done. His statement is the equivalent of saying he doesn't believe in evolution because a cat has never given birth to a dog. He's refuting an argument that no one is making, and again it demonstrates ignorance on a subject he is choosing to discuss.

In what you quoted he was talking about a specific comment about the randomness of the universe and how it was presented. He didn't seem to think it was very helpful and said such. Should he be above the snark? I dunno. I know it's hard to do that sometimes and both sides get pretty petty and quippish with each other. I don't believe for a second anyone here condemning him for his remarks would all of a sudden like him if he took the approach you outline here either. As I said before, I don't even know why this really matters all that much to be honest. I don't really care about my President's belief in the creation of the universe. Seems relatively low on the list of things I want them to know/understand.

i would simply like my president to be scientifically literate. Carson has demonstrated that he is not on subjects that conflict with his faith, or climate change. and his comments on vaccines are shaky.

I would too....no question. I can't remember one of my lifetime that has been though. A neurosurgeon is probably going to be as close as you'll ever get. It's way down the list of importance for me. It's like the 5-6th tie breaker IMO.

again, not knowing a subject vs. trying to dismiss it when you're ignorant on it aren't the same.

 

[The Commish]

if that paragraph accurately represents your understanding of the Big Bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, and how 747s are built, then on those subjects, you do

I'm not sure we want to hold any of our politicians to this standard do we? Seems like they'd all pretty much fail a test trying to explain the big bang or the second law of thermodynamics

then why is he trying to refute them if he doesn't understand them. He could simply say: "there are scientific theories as to the origin of our universe. I believe God must have had a hand in it." Done. His statement is the equivalent of saying he doesn't believe in evolution because a cat has never given birth to a dog. He's refuting an argument that no one is making, and again it demonstrates ignorance on a subject he is choosing to discuss.

In what you quoted he was talking about a specific comment about the randomness of the universe and how it was presented. He didn't seem to think it was very helpful and said such. Should he be above the snark? I dunno. I know it's hard to do that sometimes and both sides get pretty petty and quippish with each other. I don't believe for a second anyone here condemning him for his remarks would all of a sudden like him if he took the approach you outline here either. As I said before, I don't even know why this really matters all that much to be honest. I don't really care about my President's belief in the creation of the universe. Seems relatively low on the list of things I want them to know/understand.

i would simply like my president to be scientifically literate. Carson has demonstrated that he is not on subjects that conflict with his faith, or climate change. and his comments on vaccines are shaky.

I would too....no question. I can't remember one of my lifetime that has been though. A neurosurgeon is probably going to be as close as you'll ever get. It's way down the list of importance for me. It's like the 5-6th tie breaker IMO.

again, not knowing a subject vs. trying to dismiss it when you're ignorant on it aren't the same.

ok?

ETA: Is that what you mean by "scientifically literate"? Is one "scientifically literate" if they say "I don't know" and just moves on or if they say "I'll leave that to the scientists" or some such?

 

[joffer]

if that paragraph accurately represents your understanding of the Big Bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, and how 747s are built, then on those subjects, you do

I'm not sure we want to hold any of our politicians to this standard do we? Seems like they'd all pretty much fail a test trying to explain the big bang or the second law of thermodynamics

then why is he trying to refute them if he doesn't understand them. He could simply say: "there are scientific theories as to the origin of our universe. I believe God must have had a hand in it." Done. His statement is the equivalent of saying he doesn't believe in evolution because a cat has never given birth to a dog. He's refuting an argument that no one is making, and again it demonstrates ignorance on a subject he is choosing to discuss.

In what you quoted he was talking about a specific comment about the randomness of the universe and how it was presented. He didn't seem to think it was very helpful and said such. Should he be above the snark? I dunno. I know it's hard to do that sometimes and both sides get pretty petty and quippish with each other. I don't believe for a second anyone here condemning him for his remarks would all of a sudden like him if he took the approach you outline here either. As I said before, I don't even know why this really matters all that much to be honest. I don't really care about my President's belief in the creation of the universe. Seems relatively low on the list of things I want them to know/understand.

i would simply like my president to be scientifically literate. Carson has demonstrated that he is not on subjects that conflict with his faith, or climate change. and his comments on vaccines are shaky.

I would too....no question. I can't remember one of my lifetime that has been though. A neurosurgeon is probably going to be as close as you'll ever get. It's way down the list of importance for me. It's like the 5-6th tie breaker IMO.

again, not knowing a subject vs. trying to dismiss it when you're ignorant on it aren't the same.

ok?ETA: Is that what you mean by "scientifically literate"? Is one "scientifically literate" if they say "I don't know" and just moves on or if they say "I'll leave that to the scientists" or some such?

Good question. Id say:1. Somewhat knowledgeable on subjects that affect public policy (nuclear energy, climate change, vaccines, etc.). Mueller's book "Physics for Future Presidents" is really good.

2. Smart enough to know what you don't know and willing to listen to those who do.

 

[The Commish]

if that paragraph accurately represents your understanding of the Big Bang theory, the second law of thermodynamics, and how 747s are built, then on those subjects, you do

I'm not sure we want to hold any of our politicians to this standard do we? Seems like they'd all pretty much fail a test trying to explain the big bang or the second law of thermodynamics

then why is he trying to refute them if he doesn't understand them. He could simply say: "there are scientific theories as to the origin of our universe. I believe God must have had a hand in it." Done. His statement is the equivalent of saying he doesn't believe in evolution because a cat has never given birth to a dog. He's refuting an argument that no one is making, and again it demonstrates ignorance on a subject he is choosing to discuss.

In what you quoted he was talking about a specific comment about the randomness of the universe and how it was presented. He didn't seem to think it was very helpful and said such. Should he be above the snark? I dunno. I know it's hard to do that sometimes and both sides get pretty petty and quippish with each other. I don't believe for a second anyone here condemning him for his remarks would all of a sudden like him if he took the approach you outline here either. As I said before, I don't even know why this really matters all that much to be honest. I don't really care about my President's belief in the creation of the universe. Seems relatively low on the list of things I want them to know/understand.

i would simply like my president to be scientifically literate. Carson has demonstrated that he is not on subjects that conflict with his faith, or climate change. and his comments on vaccines are shaky.

I would too....no question. I can't remember one of my lifetime that has been though. A neurosurgeon is probably going to be as close as you'll ever get. It's way down the list of importance for me. It's like the 5-6th tie breaker IMO.

again, not knowing a subject vs. trying to dismiss it when you're ignorant on it aren't the same.

ok?ETA: Is that what you mean by "scientifically literate"? Is one "scientifically literate" if they say "I don't know" and just moves on or if they say "I'll leave that to the scientists" or some such?

Good question. Id say:1. Somewhat knowledgeable on subjects that affect public policy (nuclear energy, climate change, vaccines, etc.). Mueller's book "Physics for Future Presidents" is really good.

2. Smart enough to know what you don't know and willing to listen to those who do.

Thanks for the clarification...wouldn't have gotten this from "scientifically literate" in the context that you initially posted. Sadly, even this bar has probably never been cleared by one of our presidents.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

You know how you can tell the GOP is just the bees knees?

When you can sit back and just for a moment, actually have the thought in your head that says, "at least Dan Quayle wasn't this bad."

And at that point you know you're crazy.

 

[CBusAlex]

Carson is a nutcase. I believe the majority of people supporting him have no idea what beliefs he actually has. It boggles the mind that someone who could achieve so much in a field like neurosurgery could be so stupid.

It's not all that surprising. Neurosurgery is a made-up field that doesn't actually help anyone. I've never even been to med school, and I could perform brain surgery as well as "Doctor" Carson.

 

[Joe Summer]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ben-carsons-scientific-ignorance?intcid=mod-latest

In attempting to refute the Big Bang, for example—which he characterized as a “ridiculous” idea—Carson said:

You have all these highfalutin scientists, and they’re saying that there was this gigantic explosion and everything came into perfect order. Now, these are the same scientists who go around touting the second law of thermodynamics, which is entropy, which says that things move toward a state of disorganization. So, now you’re going to have this big explosion, and everything becomes perfectly organized. When you ask them about it, they say, “Well we can explain this based on probability theory, because if there’s enough big explosions, over a long enough period of time, billions and billions of years, one of them will be the perfect explosion”…. What you’re telling me is, if I blow a hurricane through a junkyard enough times, over billions and billions of years, eventually, after one of those hurricanes, there will be a 747 fully loaded and ready to fly.

Ben Carson believes the big bang, without the guiding hand of God does not explain the existence of the universe. What's wrong with saying that?

There's nothing wrong with saying "The big bang theory, without the guiding hand of God, does not fully explain the existence of the universe."But that's not even close to what Carson said.

 

[The Commish]

Carson is a nutcase. I believe the majority of people supporting him have no idea what beliefs he actually has. It boggles the mind that someone who could achieve so much in a field like neurosurgery could be so stupid.

It's not all that surprising. Neurosurgery is a made-up field that doesn't actually help anyone. I've never even been to med school, and I could perform brain surgery as well as "Doctor" Carson.

You understand that "neurosurgery" isn't just limited to brain surgery right? The NIH dumps millions into the field. You should probably get up with them and tell them it's a waste of time

 

[bigbottom]

All those hifalutin neurosurgeons think they know what's what.

 

[CBusAlex]

Carson is a nutcase. I believe the majority of people supporting him have no idea what beliefs he actually has. It boggles the mind that someone who could achieve so much in a field like neurosurgery could be so stupid.

It's not all that surprising. Neurosurgery is a made-up field that doesn't actually help anyone. I've never even been to med school, and I could perform brain surgery as well as "Doctor" Carson.

You understand that "neurosurgery" isn't just limited to brain surgery right? The NIH dumps millions into the field. You should probably get up with them and tell them it's a waste of time

So? The government wastes millions on studying duck penises and useless stuff like that all the time.

 

[Capella]

Apparently Rubio is now the favorite according to betting markets, having surpassed Bush. Gamblers don't seem to believe that Trump or Carson can pull it off even though they're leading the polls.

Jeb is +250, Rubio is 350 and trump 450 for the repub bid.

 

[shadrap]

His crazy assertions, as many are submitted, are his opinion. He is not forcing anything down your throats Most of the scientific facts people spout on here have been refuted, are unsettled or contradicted, from both sides! Apparently Carson's opinions on some social issues make him crazy or a loon. The dude was against both Afghanastan & Iraq wars, but since he dismisses the Big Bang theory he's nuts. Wish I could be so crazy.

Carry on.

 

[Joe Summer]

His crazy assertions, as many are submitted, are his opinion. He is not forcing anything down your throats Most of the scientific facts people spout on here have been refuted, are unsettled or contradicted, from both sides! Apparently Carson's opinions on some social issues make him crazy or a loon. The dude was against both Afghanastan & Iraq wars, but since he dismisses the Big Bang theory he's nuts. Wish I could be so crazy.

Carry on.

He doesn't simply "dispute" the Big Bang Theory. He shows such a willful ignorance of basic scientific principles, even principles that are widely accepted by most creationists. He is certainly entitled to his opinion on such matters, but the voters should be allowed to have access to that information so they can make an educated choice when they vote.