[The Earth] been here 6,000 years, long before anybody had environmental laws

[Firestorm]

Alright, this is just something I found interesting, but there are two ludicrous statements here:

A) That Earth has been around for only 6,000 years
B) That the fact it's still here after 6,000 years - only a few hundred of which we've had much impact on - means we shouldn't think about these things

Which part of the statement did you react to first? I saw this on another forum and found it fascinating how many people zeroed in on one and didn't really it was a two hit punch - myself included! I saw the environmental part, but completely missed that he said 6000 years.

Note: Do not argue creationism/evolution or climate change in this topic. There are other active topics for you to do that in. This is more about reactions than anything.

Full Quote

I can’t say enough how it’s time that we get beyond and start focusing on this technology we have and move forward into the future so that our grandchildren can have the same lifestyle we have.

This Earth’s been hear 6,000 years — and I know I’m going on and on and I’ll shut up — it’s been here 6,000 years, long before anybody had environmental laws, and somehow it hasn’t been done away with.

We need to get the uranium here in Arizona so this state can get the money from it and the revenues from it. It can be done safely and you’ll never even know the mine was there when they’re done.

So I am for this.

 

[eric the espeon]

Probably A first, simply because it was first. But B was pretty noticeable...

Though the first fault I picked up on was "here" being misspelled just before 6,000.

Edit: 2,211th post.. kinda interesting, can't wait for 2,222nd.

 

[Xia]

I pikced up on the 6,000 years part, partially because of the thread name on the front page being something like [The Earth] been here 6,000...

 

[SMZ]

I reacted to the 6000 years first; I was like "WTF, no it hasn't..."

 

[Amelia]

6000 years first, but probably because I read it first... and i'm a learner of history.

 

[FDS]

I reacted to A first probably because I've watched so many outer space/big bang theory documentaries on History Channel.

According to Wikipedia the age of the earth is estimated at ~4.54 billion years so he was way off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

 

[Marisa Kirisame]

Didn't the Bible start in 4000 B.C.?

Maybe that's where he got the idea?

 

[Euthanasia]

He was probably referring to the fact that homo sapiens have been recording their history in some form for an estimated 6,000 years [a contested point, but that's another discussion]. Regardless, it's a silly statement. I noticed the 6,000 right away.

 

[Brawley]

I reacted to B, but thats just me.

 

[100kvolts]

I picked up on A because I honestly thought that nobody believed that anymore.

 

[Tangerine]

Didn't the Bible start in 4000 B.C.?

Maybe that's where he got the idea?

If you take the bible completely literally, yes.

IE: 7 days = 7 literal days, blah blah.

 

[Fuzznip]

6 000 years? Part A for sure.

 

[The Requiem]

only a few hundred of which we've had much impact on

At first, the 6000 years bit dropped my jaw, but THIS? And these are the people we choose to run things. Explains a LOT.

 

[NikLink]

Well in the Jewish calendar it is currently the year 5769 so I believe he was referring to that.

 

[Wes]

The title of the tread gave it away :s
So yeah, I first saw the 6000 years part

 

[b0b3rt]

Part B..

 

[jrrrrrrr]

With leaders like this, its no wonder why Arizona consistently ranks at or near the bottom in every educational category in the US (although maybe its the other way around...education could be impacting the leaders too)

While part B is still laughable (humans have only been outputting enough gasses to impact climate for 150 out of "6,000" years, even by using the most conservative estimate, and already we are noticing a dramatic change in climate patterns...and she thinks that we should continue at this pace because we havent been destroyed yet), part A sticks out like a sore thumb to me as just a blatant lie. Every time I see "Earth" and "6,000" in the same sentence, I cringe a little bit.

Although the one thing I do commend her on is being honest about what she really thinks, even if the whole world is laughing at us right now for electing her to public office. At least we finally have Republicans who want to help make the future better!

 

[Wishy]

The part of the quote that kinda stunned me was the 'so our grandchildren can have the same lifestyles we did'.

?_? how about they have better ones eh

 

[Magmortified]

I reacted more when I read the name of the person who made the statement than the statements themselves.

What a time we live in.

 

[UberMunch]

I noticed A first, simply because it was first.

I didn't react that strongly because my close-minded, uber-conservative, turbo-christian father has been trying to feed everyone this shit for years.

Its weird that he can somehow be convinced of such a completely ludicrous idea. Whenever he starts with his "6,000 year old earth" nonsense i close my ears. >_<

 

[chenman333]

A....the fuck. And this guy is a senator?

Maybe that is what is wrong with this country.

 

[Luduan]

Didn't the Bible start in 4000 B.C.?

Maybe that's where he got the idea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

And I most immediately reacted to the 6000 years part, as it is the first part of the sentence.

 

[CaptKirby]

I guess I was already just barely thinking about it specifically, but I always read the whole of a question or grouping before beginning analysis, and then my response was something along the lines of "yes, both points are very valid, as the billions of years old sun could kill us any day since we stopped worshiping it!," so I think that means I reacted to both at once!

 

[Alpha/Omega]

Hey, maybe the dinosaurs lived on the moon instead?

 

[ferron]

i read the title of the thread and instantly started fuming. "i thought you were better than this, firestorm" is roughly what went through my head, though lacking some more colorful language.

then i openned the thread...

you could say, that it is not what i expected...

based on the question you asked, i reacted to both at the same time due to the title.

as a side note;lol at alpha/omega for both the post, and the fact that you didn't defend the 6000 years, regardless of your name