Romney mentions mopologists in debate

[_Bob Loblaw]

I underestimated the press and their ability to deal in trivialities.

[_Rambo]

I never liked big bird and I don't think borrowing money to pay for him is worth it.

A TV program should be run by the private sector. I would put big bird under a want not a need to have.

[_Rambo]

I underestimated the press and their ability to deal in trivialities.

It's kind of funny the only thing that the liberal media can get out of the debate to try and make Romney look bad is this big bird thing.

Romney was trying to make a point that things that aren't worth borrowing money from china should be done away with.

[Guest]

Perhaps I spoke too soon. Looking at the news outlets:

On CNN's web site, Big Bird is tenth and last out of all the stories about the debate. 5 of the 10 talked about Romney's debate success.

Big Bird is nowhere to be seen on the sites for CBS, ABC, or NBC news. (But this one was on ABC.)

USA Today? Nope. New York Times? Nope. Washington Post? No, but one headline reads: "Obama's worst week" and "Obama's off night." Los Angeles Times? Nope.

Twitter? The only mentions come from BarackObama, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and Roger Ebert. Yep, hot topic there.

Most of my friends on Facebook are pretty liberal, but no one is talking about Big Bird, but about the poor performance by the president. But then that's not much of a sample.

Colbert pairs the Big Bird story with Obama not being there for the debate. "Mitt smoked Obama, metaphorically of course. Mormons can't smoke. ... He hasn't done this poorly since he debated Clint Eastwood."

So Markos thinks it's the hottest topic. Maybe not.

[_DrW]

How old is the Universe in your honest educated opinion?

I also do not mock or digard the position or beliefs of those that speak of the Universe being somewhere north of 13 billion years old............... as if it were absolute fact.

Ceeboo,

The approximate 13.75 billion year estimate for age of the universe is a result that can be derived from, and/or is consistent with, several lines of physical evidence. And I am aware of no physical evidence that is not consistent with this estimate.

Those who believe that the universe came into existence less than 10,000 years ago have no physical evidence on which to base this belief. Their "evidence" happens to stem from a Judeo-Christian creation myth that is no more valid than any of the hundreds of other such myths found in various cultures around the world and through history.

People who believe things in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary should expect their unfounded beliefs to be challenged. The problems that accrue to a society when a significant proportion of its population maintains unfounded beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence can be significant. I happen to live in one now that is so affected - and it is not pretty.

[_Ceeboo]

Hello DrW

Ceeboo,

The approximate 13.75 billion year estimate for age of the universe is a result that can be derived from, and/or is consistent with, several lines of physical evidence. And I am aware of no physical evidence that is not consistent with this estimate.

Those who believe that the universe came into existence less than 10,000 years ago have no physical evidence on which to base this belief. Their "evidence" happens to stem from a Judeo-Christian creation myth that is no more valid than any of the hundreds of other such myths found in various cultures around the world and through history.

People who believe things in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary should expect their unfounded beliefs to be challenged. The problems that accrue to a society when a significant proportion of its population maintains unfounded beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence can be significant. I happen to live in one now that is so affected - and it is not pretty.

Yes, as you have been kind enough to share with me before on the MDB, I understand and appreciate, at least in part, your position.

Even more than that ( if I may) I greatly appreciate the manner with which you choose to offer your position to me.

Please consider that the possibility exists that I realize how my stance (I do not know how old the Universe is) can be frustrating and/or difficult for you - as you attempt to share a post regarding your position with me. I appreciate you and that!

Peace,
Ceeboo

Edited to add: Sorry to all for the thread derail (Romney debate & Ceeboo's age of the Universe thoughts on the very same thread. Only at the MDB)

[_Bob Loblaw]

Hello DrW
Yes, as you have been kind enough to share with me before on the MDB, I understand and appreciate, at least in part, your position.

Even more than that ( if I may) I greatly appreciate the manner with which you choose to offer your position to me.

Please consider that the possibility exists that I realize how my stance (I do not know how old the Universe is) can be frustrating and/or difficult for you - as you attempt to share a post regarding your position with me. I appreciate you and that!

Peace,
Ceeboo

Edited to add: Sorry to all for the thread derail (Romney debate & Ceeboo's age of the Universe thoughts on the very same thread. Only at the MDB)

If you don't know, perhaps you should investigate the scientific evidence for the age of the universe. As DrW mentioned, there is a lot of disparate and overlapping evidence that tells us the age of the universe. For example, scientists hypothesized that, if the Big Bang had occurred when it was believed, there would be a certain amount of cosmic microwave background radiation as well as a certain measurable temperature in the universe. When these two hypotheses were confirmed by the evidence, which was exactly what had been hypothesized, scientists had a major piece of evidence both for the Big Bang and for when it occurred.

[_Ceeboo]

Hello DrW
Yes, as you have been kind enough to share with me before on the MDB, I understand and appreciate, at least in part, your position.

Even more than that ( if I may) I greatly appreciate the manner with which you choose to offer your position to me.

Please consider that the possibility exists that I realize how my stance (I do not know how old the Universe is) can be frustrating and/or difficult for you - as you attempt to share a post regarding your position with me. I appreciate you and that!

Peace,
Ceeboo

Edited to add: Sorry to all for the thread derail (Romney debate & Ceeboo's age of the Universe thoughts on the very same thread. Only at the MDB)

If you don't know, perhaps you should investigate the scientific evidence for the age of the universe. As DrW mentioned, there is a lot of disparate and overlapping evidence that tells us the age of the universe. For example, scientists hypothesized that, if the Big Bang had occurred when it was believed, there would be a certain amount of cosmic microwave background radiation as well as a certain measurable temperature in the universe. When these two hypotheses were confirmed by the evidence, which was exactly what had been hypothesized, scientists had a major piece of evidence both for the Big Bang and for when it occurred.

Hey Bob,

Thanks for the reply.

Ohhh, and I don't believe the Big Bang to be a fact, either!

(Ceeboo takes cover)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Bob Loblaw]

Hey Bob,

Thanks for the reply.

Ohhh, and I don't believe the Big Bang to be a fact, either!

(Ceeboo takes cover)

Peace,
Ceeboo

Do you agree that there is significant solid evidence for the Big Bang, such as that I mentioned above? It's one thing to say you don't believe in something, but quite another to simply reject evidence because it contradicts what you believe. The thing about science is that it's based on hypotheses and experiments; if the experiment supports the hypotheses, we say the hypothesis is true. For some reason, the hypotheses about the Big Bang theory keep being confirmed. I just wonder at what point disagreement becomes willful rejection of evidence.

And I don't have any hostility toward you, so no need to duck. I'm just interested in knowing why you reject the evidence I provided and also what evidence you believe makes the age of the universe so uncertain.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Bob,

Thanks for the reply.

Ohhh, and I don't believe the Big Bang to be a fact, either!

(Ceeboo takes cover)

Peace,
Ceeboo

Do you agree that there is significant solid evidence for the Big Bang, such as that I mentioned above? It's one thing to say you don't believe in something, but quite another to simply reject evidence because it contradicts what you believe. The thing about science is that it's based on hypotheses and experiments; if the experiment supports the hypotheses, we say the hypothesis is true. For some reason, the hypotheses about the Big Bang theory keep being confirmed. I just wonder at what point disagreement becomes willful rejection of evidence.

And I don't have any hostility toward you, so no need to duck. I'm just interested in knowing why you reject the evidence I provided and also what evidence you believe makes the age of the universe so uncertain.

Het again, Bob

Thanks for the warm reply.

Leaving in 2 minutes to go to my son's game, so I am very short on time right now (Perhaps I can answer in full later. Or perhaps a more appropriate thread?) but a very short answer would be that I believe the Big Bang Theory has many and rather large problems within the disciplines of science and I also believe that a belief in it demands a leap as large as (if not larger) than any "religious" leap that is placed on the table of options.

Peace,
Ceeboo