Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Meanwhile in Canada...

And meanwhile, our Energy Secretary believes the world is 5000 years old. When did the GOP start accepting stupid as currency?

...remembers why I no longer carry a RNC card.

Where do you see the Dept of Energy head believes the earth is 5,000 years old?

 Frazzled wrote:

It was back in 2006. Perry said he believes in the inerrant bible. That can only mean he believes in a young earth. It also means he disagrees with science in general, electrons, the internet and common sense.

Still no cite on where Perry said the earth was 5,000 years old.
I believe in the Bible too. So does the Catholic Church. Neither say its 5,000 years old. Please show a cite of him saying its 5,000 years old.


A nice summary of attempts to quantify the age of Terra. As time wears on we think we're getting more accurate. I'll note when I was a wee lad the Earth was thought to be a hair over 3.5 billion years, but that has changed over time. Admittedly a portion of that change is that when I was a young lad we'd just killed off the dinosaurs (we just let you think an asteroid did it. Nope mammals for the win!) but that still only account for 100mm years of that difference.
Even this statement below is not exact. I am sure in the future it will be revised again or become more precise.

How Old is Earth?
By Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor | February 27, 2014 11:57pm ET

986 230 30 51 156 MORE

How Old is Earth?
A 'Blue Marble' image of the Earth taken from the VIIRS instrument aboard NASA's Earth-observing satellite - Suomi NPP – on Jan. 4, 2012.
Credit: NASA/NOAA/GSFC/Suomi NPP/VIIRS/Norman Kuring

Since the planet Earth doesn't have a birth certificate to record its formation, scientists have spent hundreds of years struggling to determine the age of the planet. By dating the rocks in the ever-changing crust, as well as neighbors such as the moon and visiting meteorites, scientists have calculated that Earth is 4.54 billion years old, with an error range of 50 million years.
How old are your rocks?

Several attempts to scientifically date the planet have occurred over the past 400 years. Scientists attempted to predict the age based on changing sea levels, the time it took for Earth or the sun to cool to present temperatures, and the salinity of the ocean. As science progressed, these methods were proven to be unreliable; for instance, the rise and fall of the ocean was shown to be an ever-changing process rather than a gradually declining one.

In an effort to calculate the age of the planet, scientists turned to the rocks that cover its surface. However, because plate tectonics constantly changes and revamps the crust, the first rocks have long since been recycled, melted down and reformed into new outcrops.

In the early 20th century, scientists refined the process of radiometric dating. Earlier research had shown that isotopes of some radioactive elements decay into other elements at rates that can be easily predicted. By examining the existing elements, scientists can calculate the initial quantity, and thus how long it took for the elements to decay, allowing them to determine the age of the rock.


The oldest rocks on Earth found to date are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near the Great Slave Lake, which are 4.03 billion years old. Rocks older than 3.5 billion years can be found on all continents. Greenland boasts the Isua Supracrustal rocks (3.7 to 3.8 billion years old), while rocks in Swaziland are 3.4 to 3.5 billion years. Samples in Western Australia run 3.4 to 3.6 billion years old.

Research groups in Australia found the oldest mineral grains on Earth. These tiny zirconium silicate crystals have ages that reach 4.3 billion years, making them the oldest materials found on Earth so far. Their source rocks have not yet been found.

The rocks and zircons set a lower limit on the age of Earth of 4.3 billion years, because the planet itself must be older than anything that lies on its surface.
Meet the neighbors

In an effort to further refine the age of Earth, scientists began to look outward. The material that formed the solar system was a cloud of dust and gas that surrounded the young sun. Gravitational interactions coalesced this material into the planets and moons at roughly the same time. By studying other bodies in the solar system, scientists are able to find out more about the early history of the planet.

The nearest body to Earth, the moon, does not suffer from the resurfacing problems that cover Earth's landscape. As such, rocks from early lunar history should be present on the moon. Samples returned from the Apollo and Luna missions revealed ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years, helping to constrain the age of Earth.

In addition to the large bodies of the solar system, scientists have also studied smaller rocky visitors to that fell to Earth. Meteorites spring from a variety of sources. Some are cast off from other planets after violent collisions, while others are leftover chunks from the early solar system that never grew large enough to form a cohesive body.

Although no rocks have been deliberately returned from Mars, samples exist in the form of meteorites that fell to Earth long ago, allowing scientists to make approximations about the age of rocks on the red planet. Some of these samples have been dated to 4.5 billion years old, supporting other calculations of the date of early planetary formation.

More than 70 meteorites have fallen to Earth to have their ages calculated by radiometric dating. The oldest of these have ages between 4.4 and 4.5 billion years.

Fifty thousand years ago, a rock hurled down from space to form Meteor Crater in Arizona. Shards of that asteroid have been collected from the crater rim and named for the nearby Canyon Diablo. In 1953, Clair Cameron Patterson measured ratios of lead isotopes in samples that put tight constraints on Earth's age.

The Canyon Diablo meteorite is important because it represents a class of meteorites with components that allow for more precise dating. Samples of the meteorite show a spread from 4.53 to 4.58 billion years. Scientists interpret this range as the time it took for the solar system to evolve, a gradual event that took place over approximately 50 million years.

By using not only the rocks on Earth but also information gathered about the system that surrounds it, scientists have been able to place the age of the Earth at approximately 4.54 billion years. For comparison, the Milky Way galaxy that contains the solar system is approximately 13.2 billion years old, while the universe itself has been dated to 13.8 billion years.

Related:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I do have a plan for cutting our energy needs, but it is pretty controversial.

One of the largest future threats to emissions isn't 1st world countries, it's 3rd world countries that want to be like us one day. The problem is that they have HUGE birthrates.

How bad would it look to offer additional financial assistance to women in 3rd world countries if they are under the age of 27 and agree to a permanent birth control procedure?

And yes, I know this sounds dangerously close to eugenics. Then again, as Peregrine all ready stated, there are costs we are going to have to live with.

 whembly wrote:
I can try... but man you're exceptionally verbose at times.

The Democrats ARE in a weak place, especially on the 'leadership bench'.

I think the House is safe in the next 2-4 years for the GOP. The Senate? Possibly since the Democrats are the ones going to have to defend so much more seats than the GOP... kinda the opposite of this year's election.

As for Drumpf... I'm in shruggie mode... he's proven me wrong so many times... I can't even.

I'm not saying the EC is perfect and it could use some tweaks.

But, its a system that gives smaller states "some say" in the Presidential elections, because they are in the union as well and there are regional differences of the voting populations.

Washington (AFP) - US intelligence officials now believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in hacking during the American election campaign as part of a vendetta against Hillary Clinton, NBC News reported.

Putin personally instructed how material hacked from US Democrats was leaked and otherwise used, the US television network said, quoting two senior officials with access to this information.

The officials said they have a "high level of confidence" in this new assessment, NBC reported.

Last weekend The Washington Post reported a CIA evaluation that Russia had hacked the emails of US persons and institutions as a way to sway the election in favor of Republican Donald Trump, who eventually did beat Clinton on November 8.

Putin is said never to have forgiven Clinton -- then secretary of state -- for publicly questioning the integrity of parliamentary elections in 2011 in Russia, and accused her of encouraging street protests.

The intelligence officials told NBC that Putin's goals in the alleged hacking began as revenge against Clinton.

But they transformed into a broader effort to show that the world of US politics was corrupt and to, in the words of one official, "split off key American allies by creating the image that (other countries) couldn't depend on the US to be a credible global leader anymore."

In preparation for possible retaliation, US intelligence agencies have intensified probing of Putin's personal wealth, NBC said, citing US officials.

Trump, who has spoken warmly of Putin, has dismissed as "ridiculous" the allegation that Russia was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and people close to Clinton.

Leading US lawmakers have called for a formal congressional investigation into the hacking.

 LordofHats wrote:
I got my sense of civic duty and what not, but I'm about as understanding as I am upset by how few of the people I know voted this November, because I can see why they didn't. Hillary was uninspiring, Trump is already a clown circus and he hasn't even taken his oath yet, and even having voting for a preferred candidate I did so knowing neither of them were ever going to improve my prospects. The best I could do was hedge that Hillary wouldn't make them any worse, but that's not exactly good motivation.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Also, saw this posted on twitter. Don't know how accurate YouGov is, but sort of surprising.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why? Many poor people pay for it. Why is it barbaric to give poor people the option of a life of continued misery with having more children? Why should the wealthy be the only ones who have the option of small families-thus focusing resources on education in a world where education takes priority over brawn? Why do you hate poor people?

Indeed its viewed as an offense against Humanity when such services are withheld

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
By not voting for Clinton, I think America's youth are smarter than some people here on dakka give them credit for.

Yes, turnout could have been higher, but I can predict with a degree of accuracy that millions of Americans made a conscientious decision not to vote at all, based on facts and logic, and the fact both candidates were awful.

Looking back at elections from yesteryear in America, compared to Trump and Clinton, even some of those 'loser' politicians who were smashed or defeated by landslides, Goldwater/Humphrey/Wallace for example, had more ideas, principal, ideology and 'vision' for the USA than what was served up this year.

The quality of politicians in the western world has been declining for decades. It is perfectly rational not to vote for Trump or Clinton, or David Cameron, or that weasel Nick Clegg*

*A British version of Mitt Romney for puzzled American dakka members, whom I envy for never having encountered Clegg.

I detest that man

 Ahtman wrote:
Putin himself involved in US election hack

Washington (AFP) - US intelligence officials now believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally involved in hacking during the American election campaign as part of a vendetta against Hillary Clinton, NBC News reported.

Putin personally instructed how material hacked from US Democrats was leaked and otherwise used, the US television network said, quoting two senior officials with access to this information.

The officials said they have a "high level of confidence" in this new assessment, NBC reported.

tneva82 wrote:
It's never smart to not vote. There's always better and worse option so by not voting you are saying you don't care that worst option becomes elected. But worst option getting elected is by definition worst result.

It's like "I don't care if I get HIV or flu. Both are diseases.". Just because both options are bad doesn't mean they are equally bad.

By not voting you are showing your foolishness.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
[]Because not having children is easy. If you want to lift people from poverty, paying them to sterilize themselves isn't how to do it. The fact that I needed type that out for you says way more about me than it does you.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
[
There was this post last page with the link to the article where a member of the Trump transition team was being asked about their interactions with the Dept. of Energy:

Spoiler:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
????

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/anthony-scaramucci-global-warming-flat-earth-theory

“Some of the stuff that you're reading and some of the stuff I'm reading is very ideologically-based about the climate. We don't want it to be that way,” he said.

He later added, “I’m saying people have gotten things wrong throughout the 5,500-year history of our planet.”

Well, we have medieval luddites over in Iraq and Syria so....

So, not Perry, but still someone in Trump's team involved with the DoE.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Also, I find that it is a more than a little condescending to assume that because someone is poor they shouldn't be allowed to make life decisions on their own.

Actually, that statement is actually quite accurate. In order to be "history" there has to be a written record. Anything predating that is what is known as "prehistory".

 cuda1179 wrote:
Back to US politics.... It appears that Stein's recount effort in Michigan has turned up massive voting irregularities, in favor of Democrats.

Voting machines, most notably in Detroit, were counting WAY more votes (specifically for Democrats) than people that actually voted. One precinct recorded more than 500% more votes than people that actually voted.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/12/14/steins-recount-turns-more-votes-voters-detroit

 cuda1179 wrote:
Or... the guy simply knew what he was talking about, and used proper terminology.

 sebster wrote:
[Uurgh. Or, to get the news from a place that doesn't treat the reader like a gullible reader happy to spoon fed bs.
http://time.com/4599886/detroit-voting-machine-failures-were-widespread-on-election-day/

There was an issue with voting machines which means the total number of votes counted was unreliable. They are 10 year old machines. New machines will be bought next year.

This is a positive result of a systems audit - finding broken machines and processes and fixing them. This is something that should happen after election, no matter the result. But this process happened only in part before it was shut down by legal nonsense, and only happened in the third place because of a crazy third party candidate acting for reasons I don't think even she understood. Meanwhile almost everyone seems to have played the whole issue for political gain, including the junk news carrier you originally posted.

.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Unless you know of another species that has developed a written language, then YES, history only does apply to human activity. Unless you mean prehistory.

So, in other words, although there was nothing actually factually incorrect about the news article, since you have a bias against them, they can not be trusted. Got it.

 sebster wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Unless you know of another species that has developed a written language, then YES, history only does apply to human activity. Unless you mean prehistory.

Okay, then we'll do this the dumb, patronising way. Here's a wiki link for 'History of Earth'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth

.

 sebster wrote:
[. Because human beings accept that words mean different things in different contexts,.

 d-usa wrote:
Any particular issues with that particular Wikipedia page?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/01/us/ed-koch-obit/

New York's brash former mayor, Ed Koch, dies at 88

By Steve Almasy, CNN

Updated 11:35 AM ET, Thu March 7, 2013

Ed Koch, the brash former New York City mayor who typically greeted constituents with a "How'm I doin'?" died Friday at the age of 88, his spokesman said.
Koch died of congestive heart failure, spokesman George Arzt said. The former mayor felt very tired Thursday morning and was admitted to the intensive care unit, Artz said. Koch lost consciousness that afternoon and passed away around 2 a.m. Friday.
The lawyer-turned-public servant was a U.S. congressman from 1968 until he ran for mayor of the city in 1977. He served three terms until David Dinkins defeated him in a Democratic primary.
New York City has lost "an irrepressible icon," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a statement.
"In elected office and as a private citizen, he was our most tireless, fearless, and guileless civic crusader," Bloomberg said. "We will miss him dearly, but his good works -- and his wit and wisdom -- will forever be a part of the city he loved so much."
Koch told New York magazine in 1998: "I think my personality was helpful in this job. I always had a great sense of humor, though I am also pretty reserved personally. I mean, I don't go to chichi parties; never did. I don't like going to dinners other than small dinners at the homes of people. But I realized that if I was to harness the energies of the people of the city of New York and give them back their pride, I would have to become bigger than life. And I did."

After he left office, Koch -- whose ebullient personality made him popular nationwide -- practiced law, hosted a radio show, was a newspaper columnist and made countless appearances on TV series as himself. His cameos included "Sex and the City," "Spin City" and "Picket Fences."
For two years starting in 1997, he was the judge on the syndicated show "The People's Court."
He also reviewed movies online at The Mayor at the Movies site (mayorkoch.com).
In his later years, Koch became politically motivated again. In 2011, he grew upset after President Barack Obama called for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders, with land swaps, as the basis of a Mideast peace deal.
In his anger, Koch crossed party lines to support Republican Bob Turner in his bid to represent perhaps the most Jewish district in the country, which covers parts of Queens and Brooklyn.
Koch's endorsement was widely seen as a turning point in a race that few expected a Republican to win.
On the day of the special election, Turner won in an upset with 54% of the vote, with Koch standing next to him while he gave his victory speech.
"I like President Obama ... I helped get him elected," Koch said at Turner's election night party. "But he threw Israel under the bus."
But in September 2011, Koch said he was impressed with Obama's handling of the Palestinian bid for statehood at the U.N., where the president expressed support for Israel and called for more negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians.
"I congratulated him on his speech to the United Nations in which he acknowledged Israel's presence in a difficult neighborhood," Koch said, referring to a party he attended that was hosted by Obama and his wife, Michelle, in New York.
Edward Irving Koch was born in the Bronx on December 12, 1924. The family moved to New Jersey when he was 8. He went to the City College of New York until he was drafted into the Army in 1943. After he left the service as a sergeant in 1946, he studied law at New York University.
He began his public service life as a district leader in Greenwich Village in 1963; he also served on the New York City Council before running for Congress.
Opinion: Koch a friend and force to the end
The New York Times said in a 2011 retrospective that Koch seemed an unlikely candidate for mayor in 1977.
"He was a geeky, relatively obscure congressman, considered too liberal to appeal beyond his Greenwich Village constituency," the Times said on its website.
His campaign manager, David Garth, came up with a slogan that helped Koch beat fellow Democrat Mario Cuomo, who many commentators viewed as the more dynamic character, and Republican Roy Goodman.
''After eight years of charisma and four years of the clubhouse, why not try competence?" was a slogan that spoke to New Yorkers who were disappointed by Koch's predecessors, John Lindsay and Abe Beame.
Koch was a popular mayor -- winning a second term with 75% of the vote and a third with 78% -- but as the Times put it: "With New Yorkers wearying of his in-your-face shtick and seeking a balm to racial polarization, Mr. Koch was defeated for the Democratic nomination by Manhattan Borough President David N. Dinkins."
Before he was defeated by Dinkins, he criticized the Rev. Jesse Jackson, a candidate for president in 1988, and some felt he angered many black voters. Race relations in New York were also fractured at the time, especially after a 1986 incident in Howard Beach when white teenagers attacked three black men, killing one.
Koch's third term was beset by corruption scandals involving his political allies. Koch himself was never directly tied to wrongdoing, but the scandals hurt Koch's image with voters.
Only three New York mayors were ever re-elected twice -- Fiorello LaGuardia and Robert Wagner were the others -- and all three left office, as The New York Times put it in 2008, "drained, diminished and disdained."
Some new Yorkers thought Koch, who published an autobiography in 1984, had lost control of his ego.
Koch even said he lost because "voters got tired of me."
Koch, who never married, was often criticized by playwright, novelist and LGBT rights advocate Larry Kramer for not doing more to stop the spread of AIDS in New York.
"He was a closeted gay man, and he did not want in any way to be associated with this," Kramer declared to New York magazine.
Koch found discussions of his sexuality to be humorous.
"Listen, there's no question that some New Yorkers think I'm gay, and voted for me nevertheless. The vast majority don't care, and others don't think I am. And I don't give a (expletive) either way!" he told New York magazine.
There will be a funeral on Monday.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I know Trump is anti-establishment but he should have included at least a couple of boring old white men in his cabinet for diversity.

Reclaiming the Bill of Rights
By Craig Seibert
Today marks the 225th Anniversary of the passing of the Bill of Rights, Dec 15, 1791.

The Founding Fathers originally intended the Bill of Rights to be an additional shield against federal tyranny reinforcing the clear limits that the Constitution already had put in place. Like Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings when he proclaimed to the ancient demon “You Shall Not Pass”, the Bill of Rights was to be an instrument that States and individuals would use to proclaim the same message to the national government, “You Shall Not Pass!”

The Constitution itself could have served this purpose on its own. It was clearly understood at the time of its passing to grant only limited powers to the national government. These powers were clearly enumerated. If a power was not on the list, it did not belong to the federal government. The founders understood the nature of man and they knew that the Constitution needed to “bind men down” that were elected to civil power.

“It is jealousy, and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power. That our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go… In the question of power, then, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

But understanding that the quest for power that lies within the human heart can be almost unquenchable, several of the states required that a Bill of Rights be passed in order for them to approve the Constitution.

The states submitted 189 ideas. James Madison took those ideas and distilled them into 17. Congress reviewed these 17 and approved 12 of them to be sent to the States for ratification. Ultimately, the States ratified 10 of them. These became the first 10 amendments to the Constitution and you will find them in any copy of the Constitution you download or find in print.

But must people do not realize that the Bill of Rights has a preamble of its own. This preamble is usually not included in the printed version of the Constitution, but it clearly sets forth the purpose for which the Bill of Rights was passed.

'The States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."

Here we discover a fundamental key. The Bill of Rights it turns out is not so much a declaration of rights at all, but a further set of declarations of prohibitions against the federal government.

The Founders knew the greatest threat to the liberty of the people was a national government that would constantly attempt to expand its powers. They did not want the federal government to serve as “watchdog” over the States. Their view was that each State would guard the freedom of their people and when this did not happen that pressure would build up at a State level and that correction would come at a State level without interference from the federal government.

We can see these huge restrictions on power expressed in both the 1st Amendment and the 10th Amendment.

The 1st Amendment states –

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

This first five words of this amendment, “Congress shall make no law”, basically removes everything that follows from the field of federal jurisdiction. If Congress can make “no law” then there is “no law” for the president to enforce and there is “no law” for the Supreme Court or federal courts to rule upon.

As originally designed, freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition were completely left to the realm of the states and could not be prevented, molested, or controlled by the federal government in anyway. Talk about freedom!

If you are sick and tired of opening up your paper and finding that some federal judge or federal court is bullying some school or community about a prayer at a football game, a scripture verse in a graduation speech, a Christmas play’s spiritual reference, or a display of the Ten Commandments in a public venue, you would be highly aligned with the founding fathers and their fear of what the federal government would become -- a national bully to the people’s freedom of self-government.

But, just in case the concept was not fully understood the Bill of Rights concludes with the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Dr. Archie Jones makes this point of emphasis:

“Our Tenth Amendment is thereby a key protector of the minority's rights and liberty, for the people of any State are but a minority of the people of the nation. It protects against abuses of power perpetrated by a national majority, a powerful minority, or a popular individual who may have seized the reins of power in the national government. The Tenth Amendment protects localism and local self-government against centralism -- the theory and practice of top-down, centralized government.

The Tenth Amendment does not represent an isolated idea in the Constitution; it is but an additional, explicit protection for federalism, and federalism is, as James Madison tells us in Federalist No. 51, an essential portion of the Constitution's system to secure the blessings of liberty”

This amendment is completely ignored by the federal government today. And States do not stand up for this liberty at all.

So, we find now that rather than the Bill of Rights being a shield that protects us from the tyranny of the federal government, that now the federal government through the federal courts takes the Bill of Rights changes its meaning and beats the states and individuals into submission based on its preferred interpretation of what they say it means.

They have achieved this huge usurpation of power beginning in the 1920s with an expansive interpretation of the 14th Amendment which they insist gives them the right to dictate to the States and to the people what their 1st Amendment rights are. Rather than being inalienable and protected, they are dictated by our federal overlords.

We are seeing the realization of Jefferson’s prophecy:

“The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in... the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States.”

So on this Anniversary Day, “what are we to do?” Well, to begin with, get and read a full copy of the Bill of Rights. Read and understand its original intent. Share these ideas with others. Suggest that the federal courts and federal government are out of control and have usurped power that is not theirs to take. And when the fight comes to your door in your local school or local community, get together with others and take the shield of the Bill of Rights and take a stand.

This first five words of this amendment, “Congress shall make no law”, basically removes everything that follows from the field of federal jurisdiction. If Congress can make “no law” then there is “no law” for the president to enforce and there is “no law” for the Supreme Court or federal courts to rule upon.

 Ustrello wrote:
Oh boy a massive unspoilered whembly post, you realize that screws up people viewing on mobIle right?