News Article: Conservatives trust in science has declined sharply

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,555
10,616
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
Have they proven it is 4.6 billion and 300 days?

No.

I'm speaking theoretically.

I neither know nor care. What difference does it make?

You don't know, either - and neither does anyone else. There's just guesses and estimates.
It makes a big difference to scientists whether it is thousands or billions of years old.
 

Bama_Dawg

1st Team
May 17, 2005
727
0
0
57
Have they proven it is 4.6 billion and 300 days?

No.

I'm speaking theoretically.

I neither know nor care. What difference does it make?

You don't know, either - and neither does anyone else. There's just guesses and estimates.
Hmm, I'm a little confused why you keep evading this question. Do you or do you not believe that scientists have definitively proven the Earth is more than, let's say, 100,000 years old?
 

mikes12

All-American
Nov 10, 2005
3,548
0
0
49
Chattanooga, TN
I'd like to contrast this with liberal views on math.

Going from spending 5 billion to spending 6 billion is a spending cut. Next time you pat yourself on the back, check the math.
 
Last edited:

gmart74

Hall of Fame
Oct 9, 2005
12,344
2
57
Baltimore, Md
reading the comments to that story is some amazing comedy. those are some of the rudest anti-pc comments i can imagine and i almost wet myself reading them last night.
 

Bama_Dawg

1st Team
May 17, 2005
727
0
0
57
Hmm, I'm a little confused why you keep evading this question. Do you or do you not believe that scientists have definitively proven the Earth is more than, let's say, 100,000 years old?
That this particular question has caused your disappearance sort of proves my point, no?
 

gmart74

Hall of Fame
Oct 9, 2005
12,344
2
57
Baltimore, Md
What is the science that democrats cherry pick regarding gun control and crime? I'm honestly curious.
selma answered the question but I can extend it by saying that everywhere that has allowed citizens to once again have ccw, has had a drop in crime. but local politicians don't care- they would rather have an unarmed public getting preyed upon by scumbags than have a safe society where the individual can defend themselves.

that and the fact that bamaro liked your post.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
check the dude's book out sometime. he makes a fairly good case. lots of internet links are out there as well concerning ccw and lowering of violent crime. so it forces you to ask a very uncomfortable question- if ccw reduces violent crime, and reduces it most in violent urban areas, then why aren't politicians in those areas leading the movement to allow ccw? why is it, in fact, they are the ones usually leading the movement to outlaw guns across the board?
 
Last edited:

Bama_Dawg

1st Team
May 17, 2005
727
0
0
57
selma answered the question but I can extend it by saying that everywhere that has allowed citizens to once again have ccw, has had a drop in crime. but local politicians don't care- they would rather have an unarmed public getting preyed upon by scumbags than have a safe society where the individual can defend themselves.
Yeah, I checked out a few studies. Looks like urban handguns bans haven't been very effective at reducing crime, although a couple studies found that stricter background checks did lead to a drop in homicide rates. I guess it depends on whether you consider a background check to be gun control.

Still, I haven't really heard any national politicians, democratic or republican, advocating an "across the board" ban on guns, as you say. In fact, I'm not sure I've heard a single word about gun control from Obama. Didn't he even sign a bill that allows citizens to carry loaded weapons in national parks?

Let's see them stinking grizzly bears try to take Cheerios from people now! :)
 

gmart74

Hall of Fame
Oct 9, 2005
12,344
2
57
Baltimore, Md
foxnews so it is definitely biased but it does list the various people and policies he has put into place concerning guns.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/12/28/president-obamas-anti-gun-agenda-shows-no-sign-stopping/

up here in md, most of our politicians arre deadset on diarming the public. lately we have won a few cases in the courts but it is always a struggle here.
depending on how tight your tinfoil hat is, you can say fast and furious was all about attacking the 2nd amendment.
 

BamaNation

Publisher and Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Apr 9, 1999
20,434
16,622
432
Silicon Slopes
TideFans.com
Well, first they're measuring the wrong thing. It's not a lack of trust in SCIENCE. It's the lack of trust in "SCIENTISTS" with obvious agendas that is the problem. And then there's that whole crowd who latch onto pseudo-science and call it science because they're ignorant.

Science is what it is. there's a huge difference in being a scientist that wants to get at the truth - whatever that truth may be - and the scientist who has an outcome in mind and creates theories and analyzes data - or even corrupts data as has happened recently - to support the desired outcome.

It's also kind of like the difference in a journalist who is trying to get at the truth and a journalist who is trying to save the world through their reporting. Can't really do both legitimately.
 
Last edited:

Bama4Ever831

All-American
Sep 13, 2005
2,209
0
45
35
Tuscaloosa, AL
It's not a lack of trust in SCIENCE that is the problem. It's the lack of trust in "SCIENTISTS" with obvious agendas that is the problem. And then there's that whole crowd who latch onto pseudo-science and call it science because they're ignorant.

Science is what it is.
What about those that just say scientists have an agenda when the obvious results disagree with their own beliefs? It happens both ways, but I agree with you.
 

nx4bama

All-SEC
Apr 8, 2010
1,141
1
57
NW Alabama
So do you think conservatives are okay with the science behind evolution? Is that the straw man you're talking about? I'm not so sure. I was part of some of those no-holds-barred threads on TF and I can tell you that posts like "carbon dating is a lie!" were not exactly rare.
doesn't carbon dating depend entirely upon a constant rate of decay for carbon? i know it seems logical to assume a constant rate, but can we prove it? how long have we been observing carbon's rate of decay? if the earth is really billions of years old, is that time frame enough to justifiably conclude that it is constant?
 

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,139
1,295
182
51
Birmingham, AL
doesn't carbon dating depend entirely upon a constant rate of decay for carbon? i know it seems logical to assume a constant rate, but can we prove it? how long have we been observing carbon's rate of decay? if the earth is really billions of years old, is that time frame enough to justifiably conclude that it is constant?
This is the sort of nonsense creationist web sites wrongly try to use to discredit techniques used to date the fossil record. The short answer is that other techniques are used to date very old rocks. I won't insult conservatism by lumping it with the views held by those anti-science buffoons, but these creationists do only seem to come from one side of the political fence. Another stripe of fact-oblivious buffoons occupy the other side.
 

gmart74

Hall of Fame
Oct 9, 2005
12,344
2
57
Baltimore, Md
Science is what it is. there's a huge difference in being a scientist that wants to get at the truth - whatever that truth may be - and the scientist who has an outcome in mind and creates theories and analyzes data - or even corrupts data as has happened recently - to support the desired outcome.
that right there is why i have almost no respect for economists. it seems like all of them have an agenda and use whatever argument they can, while ignoring all other available evidence, to make their case.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.