Young Earth Politico - Worst Person, July 8, 2009

[LouistheHedgehog]

Two creationists voted on this.

[gigisdad]

This country is doooooomed

[AjaPuppy]

He went from Uranium to Carbon dating. Wow Keith, wow. Carbon isn't even remotely involved in the radioactive decay of Uranium, and the same is true for the inverse of that statement

[bicokun]

@AjaPuppy To be fair, carbon dating is often used colloquially as a blanket term for dating using any element, kind of like a lot of people call any carbonated beverage a coke even if it's actually a Pepsi. I guess radiometric dating just doesn't roll off the tongue...

[tommyers]

Even the guy walking behind her is saying to the other guy, "Is she really serious about this 'Earth is 6,000 years old crap?'"

[shadowtygo]

holy shit that waspure awesomeness keith olbermann has recieved the golden chucknorris award for his baddassary!

Lol jesus savesatcitibank that is ROFLpwnage.

[joetylerdale]

Ouch!

I would like to hear "why" she thinks that.

[mastro82mp]

According to Richard Dawkins, there are several Radioactive Clocks to choose from. All have a margin of error of about 1%. Here is a short list of the Clocks: Rubidium, Rhenium, Thorium, Uranium-238, Potassium, Uranium-235, Samarium, Iodine, Aluminum, and Carbon. Carbon decays to Nitrogen and takes 5,730 years. It is the fastest clock of all radioactive clocks. To learn more about it, just pick up Richard Dawkins newest book- The Greatest Show on Earth; The Evidence for Evolution.

[mrbjph]

@mastro82mp The snowflake theory is that stardust from exploding stars created the elements that made the earth. The problem with the earth being the age of the snowflakes rolling into a molten snowball is that all the elements in the earth prevent atomic clock to wind all that happens is decay meaning dating uranium 4.5 billion years goes back to the snowflake before the earth was created somewhere somehow in space. etc...right? Richard Dawkins willfully forget to mention this. etc,,right? duh

[RedlineMMA]

@mrbjph

Could you clarify your comment more, I don't understand your point. If I reading it correctly then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how we know the age of the earth.

[Jesrbryant]

I am staggered by the ignorance and lack f research objectivity reflected on this page. Not to mention the total lack gentlemanly honor.

I mourn for my country.

[orion1anon]

Well he was half right, and the important half at that. True uranium has nothing to do with carbon dating, however it is used (to great effect) in the Uranium-Lead dating system primarily of the mineral zircon, which has proven to be a very accurate and resilient (you can almost melt the rock and it still retains the correct age) dating method which shows the Earth to be 4.56 odd billion years old.

[SmilingJack100]

1. Ok, well, uranium is not used with carbon dating.

2. Carbon dating isn't used to date the globe, they use potassium argon dating.

3. I can forgive olbermann because most people would probably not care that it was wrong but I would have preffered he got it right.

4. Can someone kill this woman?

[misscrazyinaugusta]

this just makes intelligent people hate dumbass christians more and more... 6000 fucking years old??? wow... this has been proven wrong in so many ways...

[ColoradoMikeyS]

What a god damned stupid bitch!

[RhapsodyOfHammerfall]

How the fuck did this woman get her job??? It's mindblowing. Goddamn biblebuffs. Open a fucking sciencebook.

[dangerouslytalented]

She is the elected official from one of the more religious Mormon townships in Arizona. These are the kind of people who were too nutty to even be accepted in Utah.

[cgpears]

I don't know what's worse, that this stupid cow actually believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that people put this stupid cow in a position of authority where she's making decisions on behalf of other people.

[rocketmagnet]

...or that nobody told Keith Olbermann that Uranium has nothing to do with CARBON dating !!

[cgpears]

There's that too.

[1RadicalOne]

He simplifies it, knowing that most will not know the difference.

[Bigbossjin]

....

They use the uranium in carbon dating...

[mtssvnsn]

Ignorant voters creates ignorant politicians, who promotes ignorance, etc etc.

And before you know it, hello new order.

[countess16]

Doesn't Sylvia sound like Roseanne?

[HeyNonyNonymous]

Hey! No insulting Roseanne!

[albitaly]

Jack is thick.

He still hasnt presented any proof for his argument.

He still hasnt presented any proof against our argument.

He has no idea what he is arguing against and how the scientific method works.

He has no desire to analyze facts and evidence, only to reassure his own shoddy superstitions.

He has gotten to the point where he doesnt care if his argument is shit. He will defend it, because in his mind that will get him to heaven.

Its sad, but whatever. Hes happy with it...

[Silberdachs]

Sylvia Allen... one dumb worthless cunt.

[oneznzeroz]

You can see the guy in the powder blue suit walking over and probably asking "What the hell did she just say? 6000 years old?" Then he just looses it.

[IAmTheWarbringer]

I think Jack's argument is so rediculous it goes beyond the strawman argument and beyond the argument of athority and just mixes and matches and shits out whatever he happens to think as he's typing the comments. I'm not going to argue with him anymore because it's impossible. He's already decided he won. I recommend everybody stop watsing time on him and get back to life.

[greyhall1]

A truly stupid, ignorant, deluded wench.

[albitaly]

What the fuck are you guys throwing the word "evolutionist" around for?

Evolution isnt a religion or lifestyle, its scientific fact. Just as much of a scientific fact as gravity and cells. When you come across someone who believes in gravity, you dont call them a "gravitationist", do you? Of course not. Its stupid and pointless.

If anything, those who choose to deny evolution (to remain in the dark) are deserving of a label. I think "ignorant" is quite suitable. Yes, very.

[chessdawgz]

well put

[2105Jack]

I am sorry to advise you that Evolution is in fact a religion and is certainly not scientific fact. On the contrary its a theory without any basis in fact. If we had scientists who proved their theories as some do we would pay attention. However most of these already believe in intelligent design. Just do a little research yourself, instead of wasting your effort swearing and name calling. Too many voices of "fact" here who know nothing of fact.

[SenariXarn]

I'd suggest for you to do your research before you accept religious dogma as truth.

Evolution is a scientific theory which has mountains of evidence supporting its claim that all life on Earth has been evolving since its first propagation.

Now, whether that first propagation was by divine hands or by the naturalistic theory of abiogenesis, that lies completely outside of evolution.

Abiogenesis, however, is a better understanding of our creation than a deity making something out of nothing.

[2105Jack]

I certainly do appreciate your serious and realistic reply. However I expect you lack certain knowledge when it comes to scripture over many centuries and sources not only the bible which would open your understanding. This understanding would answer many questions. In a nutshell the key is in the "spoken" word. This cannot be discussed here. Lets just say everything is connected.

[rubberdown1969]

Prove your god does in fact exist, personal experience & using scripture does not suffice as evidence, I'd change to a theist if you can.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

- Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)

[2105Jack]

Ok well I don't dismiss any of the other gods.

The only difference is the one I have faith in is the God of all. Besides come and live with me for a few weeks and I will prove he exists. Anyone who is able to open their mind and truly seek the truth, whatever it may be, will find it.

[rubberdown1969]

You should be able to prove it by stating what proof you would use to show me or explain how & what you would use as evidence to convince me. I am always open to ideas & have sought the truth & found it, you in contrast have yet to, & instead have clung to dogma.

Btw if there are many gods there cant be a god of all they are all equal.

"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity; when many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

- Robert Pirsig (1948-)

[SenariXarn]

As seen from 2105Jack's statement of dismissing other gods and his fervent belief in the god of them all, his position can be easily refuted by Plato in his piece of Socrates' dialogue with Euthyphro about piety:

Euth: "Piety, then, is that which is dear to the gods, and impiety is that which is not dear to them."

Soc: "Very good, Euthyphro; you have now given me the sort of answer which I wanted. . ."

Gods contradict, and therefore to be pious to one is to be impious to another fundamentally.

[SenariXarn]

More Plato philosophy:

Soc: "They[Gods] have differences of opinion, as you say, about good and evil. . .: there would have been no quarrels among them, if there had been no such differences-would there now? "

Euth: "You are quite right. "

Soc: "And upon this view the same things, Euthyphro, will be pious and also impious?"

Euth: "So I should suppose."

Soc: "Then, my friend, I remark with surprise that you have not answered the question which I asked."

The question was: "What is (im)piety?"

[SenariXarn]

So, from what I've said here, I can hardly see a reason to believe in a god, let alone multiple ones, when a requirement is piety.

Piety: devout fulfillment of religious obligations

How can one sincerely and seriously fulfill religious obligations and be devout in that sense when they are contradictory and illogical in nature?

The act of not dismissing other gods is that of guarding against the "one-more-god" argument that most atheists pose.

Poor choice of defense, 2105Jack.

[2105Jack]

Piety is not a requirement a relationship is.

[SenariXarn]

I may also point out that your understanding of what a theory is is terribly lacking and mistaken.

Scientific theories are supported by facts, they have no need to be "proven beyond a shadow of a doubt", for theories are open to tests (real ones). Hypotheses become theories after substantial testing and reforming.

Scientific Laws do not spring from theories, they are merely explanations of observed reality. Even Laws, however, dissolve at some points and must use theories to solve problems.

[albitaly]

Everything you reject has been proven time and time again.

Seriously, Jack. Do some research on evolution, its proof, its infallibility. Its pretty obvious that you only reject it because youre completely uneducated in the subject.

Whats even worse is that youre unaware of your ignorance. Its like you dont care that you know nothing about science. Its like you dont care that you get guidance from an old fallible book.

To learn, discover. You just dont care.

Saddening.

[2105Jack]

Actually its proof is not infallible. It is completely flawed and it is not science since it cannot be reproduced. It is a very poor theory at best. In fact any sane thinking man could not believe in it.

You simply have chosen a side and wish to win an argument but have no desire to know the truth of the subject.

Any true scientist will open his mind to learn all there is to know on both sides. You don't know either .

[rubberdown1969]

& i'm still waiting on your proof of your god & an answer to my question.

& tell me how can you have a relationship with a concept that does not have any evidence of its existance other than percieved personal experience.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

-Charles Darwin

[albitaly]

Hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers written by biologists. Lol, i dont think this theory is wrong. Evolution is fact. The only thing that biologist still argue about is how it happens.

Yea, Ive choosen a side. I chose the side with evidence for its beliefs. Just as you chose a side for wether or not to believe in unicorns.

Please, before you go o, please give me some proof againts evolution. Please. Try it. Go ahead. If you reply without it Ill simply ignore you.

[2105Jack]

Your still not ignoring me are you!

Evolution is not a fact. No Scientist Biologist or educated man would state that its a fact.

Its a theory. Its not a fact!

We would be searching for proof because?

God is a fact however and the proof of that is evident throughout all arenas of life.

Even Satanists acknowledge it.

There are more people in the world who believe in God than all the scientists in every sphere put together.

Only a fool says in his heart there is no God..

[theshadowify]

You are so stupid. Evolution is a FACT. The theory is how evolution occured. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 6013 years old. Just because there are more people who believe in God than scientist is no proof of God. Its is only proof that som many people were brainwashed since birth to believe that God is real. Repeat after me, THERE IS NO GOD.

[2105Jack]

Be sure to remember that statement when one of your kids is dying from cancer. Be sure you remember. Remember when you ask for someone to pray for you. remember! The power of life and death is in your tongue. Don't blame God one day for the curses you have made!

I take it you are very young or you must be 4.5 billion years old one of the two.

[theshadowify]

Oh foolish one. I do not have to be 4.5 billion years old to know that the Earth is that old. I know how to read and come to my own conclusions. I am sure you are just a child, because children believe in fairytales. Oh by the way, I was once on my death bed but I survived no thanks to a god. So yes an atheist can be close to death and not revert to religion. A priest come in to give me my last rights and I turned him away.

[2105Jack]

Hmm you sound proud! Well the sun is dying. It will only be around another 5 billion years according to you guys. Just long enough to evolve a feather on your right finger to scratch your ear.

[theshadowify]

2105Jack, you still live in the dark ages, wake up and come to the 21st century. Dinosaurs lived on this planet. The Earth is NOT flat. The Earth is not the center of the universe. The Sun does NOT revolve around the Earth. Heaven is not up in the clouds where angels with wings reside.

[cyxgun]

Yeah! And don't blame me either when you step on a crack and break your mother's back! And that broken mirror is going to cost you 7 years bad luck too!

Superstitions like god are for the weak minded and cowardly. Fearing death is the same as fearing the dark, it's just the unknown.

As far as my daughter having cancer... That would be a sad event to be sure, but why should I pray when it doesn't even work for you? Christians get cancer and die at the same rate atheists do...

[DaytonaRoadster]

Evolution is fact, and it is a theory, in science, both terms are interchangable, Gravity is both a fact and a theory. Would you deny its existance? EVERY Biologist will say its a fact, all modern pharmecudical research is based on Evolution, you cant make anti-biotics without it.

There is not evidence for God, no one has ever found any, because none exists, anyone who found any would win the Noble Prize, and would change human understanding.

Most people used to think the earth was flat too

[2105Jack]

Well according to that statement , God is a fact.

Your example regarding anti-biotics is totally irrelevant to this argument and cannot hold the weight of your full argument and you know it.

The theory of evolution has certainly not been proved. It has been damaged in every sphere by new discoveries. It is"PC" to say its a fact. Evolution employs a group of people who will not entertain any evidence, which may alter their desired result.

It has political expediency.

[rubberdown1969]

"The theory of evolution has certainly not been proved. It has been damaged in every sphere by new discoveries."

Name them, dont assert it, the same goes for your god, I'm still waiting for your proof that your imaginary friend exists, tell me! what are the properties of your god? lets define exactly what you mean by god & you attribute to it, how about answering questions instead of dodging them by making assertions that you cant back up with evidence.

Man made god in his own image.

[cyxgun]

I don't think you even know anything about evolution. Why don't you prove me wrong and sum it up in a few short sentences though? I'd like to see what the level of understanding you have of the 'mere theory' you dismiss so easily. Be sure to include after your description, what specific part of it you think is bogus.

[HeyNonyNonymous]

97% of all scientists (that is people with an academic degree in the various fields of natural science) accept the theory of evolution. It is backed by discoveries, new and old, in every relevant science field: geology, anatomy, genetics, paleontology, biology and zoology. If you have real evidence that it is not true, please post a link so that we could all enjoy them, if they are true, or enjoy to mock them, if they are not.

[RexMundi71]

Define fact, please. I don't think you know what one is. While you're at it, define theory, and define God. I'm sure a lot of your confusion lies in your inability/unwillingness to clearly delineate the first two from the third. You have to keep things fuzzy, which is exactly what your feelings require.

[2105Jack]

The reality is you are so ignorant of the realities of life. You are completely unaware of the motivational forces at play to promote all this junk that you have become blinded. Trying to answer your quite frankly childish need to win this argument is immaterial when you know what's happening and has been happening for so long in the World.

[therrydicule]

"No Scientist Biologist or educated man would state that its a fact.".

Wow, that mean that all of them are uneducated: George Simpson, H. J. Muller ,Kenneth R. Miller, Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lenski,R. C. Lewontin, Douglas Futuyma, Richard Dawkins, Neil Campbell,James Melton, Judith Hayes,James D. Watson,Stephen Jay Gould...

I'm sarcastic ;) But we get a lot of different definition of god. So much that "god is a fact" is meaningless without knowing what is meant by "god"?

[shadowtygo]

@2105Jack thats not a religion or a secular group, it's a term for how animals change over the course of time, evolution has nothing to do with "Gods" or "angels" or anything of that nature.

[Peziza0]

Oh, and as previously noted, Mr. Olbermann incorrectly states that Carbon dating is utilized to approximate the age of the Earth. This is especially disappointing because he outright uses the term RADIOMETRIC dating, and then suddenly shifts to dating of the carbon variety.

For the record, the age of the Earth is determined using methods like Potassium-Argon, Uranium-Lead, Rubidium-Strontium, etc.

It is sad that Keith (or his writers) didn't go a couple minutes of fact-checking first.

[dilheval]

Love Keith!

[rebjiii]

these moronic conservatives are ridiculous..they all refuse to accept any scientific research on the subjects of evolution, climate change, and stem cell research...their pea-sized brains can not comprehend the most basic evidence that shoots down their shallow religious beliefs.

this woman (sylvia allen) should crawl back to her cave and whittle an eating utensil.

[2105Jack]

There is one common denominator amongst Evolutionists. They always resort to name calling in their retort. To my mind that simply proves they do not have the answers. Most people who believe in creation still continue to search for the facts. Facts which continue to surface. Facts which are reasonable and scientific and can be reproduced.

[rebjiii]

2105JACK....Debating with moronic creationists like u on the topic of evolution is like trying to play chess with a pigeon...the pigeon knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and then flies back to its flock to claim victory.

[MetalEagle95]

rebjiii = Epic Win

[MetalEagle95]

You can make all the speculations about Evolutionists all you want...but the point is you haven't given any proof nor made any rational statement to prove your point.

So name calling is expected when you fail to present an arguement that isn't humorous.

[steveoah]

An argument that isn't humorous? Like the earth being created in 6 days by an all-seeing man in the sky 6,000 years ago despite all evidence to the contrary?

[MetalEagle95]

The Earth being created in 6 days is the worst excuse of all time. Right up there with "the Earth is flat".

[2105Jack]

CARBON DATING!! Well guess what I have read that there is some speculation in scientific circles if in fact carbon dating is accurate.

I think the foolish will confound the wise!

[sugarcanegray]

Carbon dating is a very basic scientific principle that if was wrong, scientists wouldn't understand the atomic world at all. Things like the atomic bomb and nuclear power, for example, wouldn't exist. Yet somehow they do.

Where did you read that?

[2105Jack]

You know you dont have to search too far to find out that its bogus. Just open your mind to another side and do some searches even just through you tube and you will get enough information from eminent scientists themselves. According to Charles Darwin himself. Certain discoveries will declare his theory dead. These have long since been found.

[Peziza0]

It seems like you're dodging mr. sugarcane's question. Who are these "eminent scientists"? What evidence have they presented? What particular "discoveries" are you referring to? Why do these cause the Theory of evolution to be "dead"?

[IAmTheWarbringer]

The thing about the scientific world is that we know that the world is constantly changing and our amount of knowlage is rapidly increasing. We constantly revise and test theories to make sure they are accurate. Creationists think they have the one, true answer that doesn't need revision or editing because it is perfect. If we all stooped to that level, society would halt all forward progress and we would get nowhere. The computer you are using came from those same scientists

[2105Jack]

I Beg to differ Creationists are just as interested in the science. If science is used to prove the truth we would all be happy. But that is not what's happening.. Every year the number of years grow. Its now billions of years ago that a frog became a bird. Yet there are still no fossils of intermediate animals. Many species have become extinct and none have evolved in contemporary recorded history.

[albitaly]

Because youre unaware of intermediate fossils doesnt mean they dont exist. Do some research, Jack. Youll be surprised how much you learn.

Oh, youre wrong again, what a surprise: Species have evolved in "contemporary recorded history". When a bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics, thats an example of evolution. It has changed in an effort to survive. Not as drastic as dinosaurs (not frogs, dumbass) becoming birds, but stuff like that takes much longer.

Your whole comment is wrong.

[2105Jack]

I wonder just who the dumbass is. Intelligence is expected from anything God designs.

[IAmTheWarbringer]

The frog and the bird have a common ancestor. It was most likely a fish or amphibian. We don't see a frog turning into a bird, we see that one species separated from itself and took a different evolutionary path. Evolution has more evidence to back it up than the theory of gravity or germ theory. You obviously don't understand evolution or you wouldn't say such things. We aren't ever going to find a half-bird half-frog because it doesn't exist. We never claimed it did.

[2105Jack]

Typical answer. The frong and the bird "HAVE" Then in the next sentance it was most "

PROBABLY" This is not evidence and is typical of the "Evidence" evolutionists use. None! Besides I was using as silly an example as billions and billions. When I was a child it was millions and millions. That too has had babies and evolved.

[IAmTheWarbringer]

There's no evidence for god whatsoever. You fail to point out one flaw in my argument. At this point I give up on you. Shut the fuck up

[2105Jack]

I have heard many an uneducated fool behave just like this in my life. Many a child has more manners and intelligence. You are as childish as your argument.

[Peziza0]

Jack, I'm afraid that you're going to have to give support for your accusations. You can't just say that you read something, and think that this is proof of anything. It's, at best, an argument from authority.

Regardless, carbon dating, when done properly, has been tested and proven to be a reasonable device to date organic material.

So yeah, I want a source, and evidence that carbon dating is inaccurate.

[nafaidni]

"Carbon-dating!? See, I told you what would happen when those gays started getting married! Now, people are dating carbon!!!"

LMFAO!!! SO ACCURATE! Just like animal husbandry. "Great, thanks a lot, Newsom! Now people are taking animals as husbands!!!"

[DeletedDelusion]

Obviously, knowledge and/or intelligence are not a requirement to hold office....

It's a disgrace.

And not only that, her lack of any scientific knowledge makes her a very real and serious danger for all the good people of Arizona.

Somebody kick her out of that room please?

[Inferno41]

uh, i don't think carbon dating is used to measure dates longer than 10,000 years. There are other tests performed to test dates beyond that.

[katey1dog]

I don't know what kind of education this human has, yet, I AM SMARTER THAN HER.

Idiocracy is rapidly coming true.

[NwZ2]

"I know, I've been there"

I almost choked on my drink. This is total WIN.

[Atheistjeremy]

How do these idiots get elected?

[hal2017]

Maybe not the WORST, but certainly one of the most STUPID persons in the world.

[Fordi]

Keith. Carbon dating is a different method from the various methods of radiodating used with Uranium series nucleotides.

If you're going to (rightly) call someone a moron, it helps if you don't make mistakes.

[DeletedDelusion]

Yeah, he totally failed there...

He had the chance to mention all the different radiometric dating methods there are today, but he chose the one which has the least to do with the age of the earth. :(

[lucidatheist]

She looks like a 6 000 pound cunt.

[tekfunk]

Now people are dating carbon!

hahaha keith is awesome