PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Marco Rubio, Republican Savior?


Pages : 1 [2]

Sweet Daddy Hate
11-22-2012, 12:07 PM
God IS science.

(wrap your head around that one and meditate)

listopencil
11-22-2012, 12:16 PM
God IS science.

(wrap your head around that one and meditate)

Too busy listening to the sound of one hand clapping. I'll do it later.

The_Doctor10
11-22-2012, 12:18 PM
What evidence is there proving that the Earth wasn't created in seven days?

Carbon dating and fossils. Erosion. Glaciers. Life as we know it. Next question.

Sweet Daddy Hate
11-22-2012, 12:24 PM
Too busy listening to the sound of one hand clapping. I'll do it later.

ROFL Nice.

Sweet Daddy Hate
11-22-2012, 12:25 PM
Carbon dating and fossils. Erosion. Glaciers. Life as we know it. Next question.

Who's to say the perfect mind of God did not create the elements necessary to prove those scientific methods?

Beginning and End, First and Last, all-knowing etc.

chiefzilla1501
11-22-2012, 12:28 PM
I admit I have heard a lot about Rubio but don't know much beyond the basics. I like Chris Christie a lot.

I do too. I have to agree that his straight talk could make him a liability. How will that translate into diplomacy? I don't care about that, but plenty of voters will.

stevieray
11-22-2012, 12:28 PM
No, it's not. nothing to explain ...possible ....hypotheses. it's also a cop out.....that's an answer born from dishonesty or laziness.


whoa... major irony.


and you only adressed giraffe... a giraffe couldn't even drink water without the current system and design already in place...there is no evidence to support anything to the contrary.

Donger
11-22-2012, 12:30 PM
Carbon dating and fossils. Erosion. Glaciers. Life as we know it. Next question.

I think you need to keep reading. I was referring to the actual creation of the big ball of rock we call Earth, not flora and fauna. So far, no one has presented anything that proves that Earth was in fact created over millions of years (or conversely, wasn't created in seven/one day(s)).

I fully and completely agree that there is plenty of evidence that Earth is much older than 6,000 years old.

The_Doctor10
11-22-2012, 12:31 PM
Who's to say the perfect mind of God did not create the elements necessary to prove those scientific methods?

Beginning and End, First and Last, all-knowing etc.

Who's to say we don't go to other dimensions when we dream. What's your point?

Donger
11-22-2012, 12:33 PM
He is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen is someone who inherits their citizenship from their parents. Neither of his parents were citizens, so he could not inherit something from them that they did not have. However, he is a naturalized citizen because he was born on American soil.

:spock:

No, he isn't a naturalized US citizen. He was born on US soil. That makes him a natural-born US citizen, even if his parents weren't or aren't.

stevieray
11-22-2012, 12:33 PM
Who's to say the perfect mind of God did not create the elements necessary to prove those scientific methods?

Beginning and End, First and Last, all-knowing etc.

the sun is shrinking.... by their logic, millions of years ago, it would've been too hot to sustain life on Earth..200 million years ago, it would've been touching the Earth...

know why they think God is a fairy tale?...because ultimately, that's all they can offer up...Huxley, Wallace and other proponents of Evolution were more motivated by the denail of the supernatural power of God, rather than fact.

the eye cannot and never will be explained by evolution.

go bowe
11-22-2012, 12:38 PM
Who's to say the perfect mind of God did not create the elements necessary to prove those scientific methods?

Beginning and End, First and Last, all-knowing etc.

bah! what would U know about that?

do you really believe that god created pioli?

cdcox
11-22-2012, 12:49 PM
I think you need to keep reading. I was referring to the actual creation of the big ball of rock we call Earth, not flora and fauna. So far, no one has presented anything that proves that Earth was in fact created over millions of years (or conversely, wasn't created in seven/one day(s)).

I fully and completely agree that there is plenty of evidence that Earth is much older than 6,000 years old.

Creationists don't argue that only the ball of rock was created in 6 days. They argue that it went from formless and void full earth as we experience it, including:

light and darkness
atmosphere
dry land, seas and plants
sun, moon, stars and celestial bodies
animals
humans

Here is a decent simple description of how the earth formed, based on the observable evidence:

http://geology.about.com/od/nutshells/a/aa_earthbirth.htm

If this account is anywhere near accurate, it definitely took more than a few days for the rock to form.

Donger
11-22-2012, 12:52 PM
Creationists don't argue that only the ball of rock was created in 6 days. They argue that it went from formless and void full earth as we experience it, including:

light and darkness
atmosphere
dry land, seas and plants
sun, moon, stars and celestial bodies
animals
humans

Here is a decent simple description of how the earth formed, based on the observable evidence:

http://geology.about.com/od/nutshells/a/aa_earthbirth.htm

Yes, I know

If this account is anywhere near accurate, it definitely took more than a few days for the rock to form.

Definitely took? Based on what quantifiable and present-day observable evidence?

cdcox
11-22-2012, 01:11 PM
Yes, I know



Definitely took? Based on what quantifiable and present-day observable evidence?

First of all, my statement of "definitely took" is dependent on the clause "If this account is anywhere near accurate".

That said, some modern day observable evidence comes from calcium-aluminum rich inclusions. The oldest found in the solar system are 50 to 100 million years older than the oldest found on the earth and moon, which would suggest a planetary formation time greater than 50 to 100 million years (since it took additional time for the inclusions to form from the gases left over after formation of the sun).

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/display.cfm?ST_ID=446

Donger
11-22-2012, 01:43 PM
First of all, my statement of "definitely took" is dependent on the clause "If this account is anywhere near accurate".

That said, some modern day observable evidence comes from calcium-aluminum rich inclusions. The oldest found in the solar system are 50 to 100 million years older than the oldest found on the earth and moon, which would suggest a planetary formation time greater than 50 to 100 million years (since it took additional time for the inclusions to form from the gases left over after formation of the sun).

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/scitech/display.cfm?ST_ID=446

That's good. But maybe the inclusions formed in a day?

cdcox
11-22-2012, 02:29 PM
That's good. But maybe the inclusions formed in a day?

Inclusions are not planets. Inclusions are found in rocks that have to aggregate to form planets. Aggregation is known to be very slow due to probability of collisions based on physics.

http://www.psi.edu/epo/planets/planets.html

stevieray
11-22-2012, 05:31 PM
Inclusions are not planets. Inclusions are found in rocks that have to aggregate to form planets. Aggregation is known to be very slow due to probability of collisions based on physics.

http://www.psi.edu/epo/planets/planets.html

paraphrasing...

....with this program we have a better idea of how planets may or may not form...

cdcox
11-22-2012, 05:43 PM
paraphrasing...

....with this program we have a better idea of how planets may or may not form...

Right now there is no explanation that better conforms with observations and known physical behavior. Pretty much how all science works.

stevieray
11-22-2012, 06:01 PM
Right now there is no explanation that better conforms with observations and known physical behavior. Pretty much how all science works.
based on collisions?

that would be like a fifty car pileup forming a Boeing 747

listopencil
11-22-2012, 06:03 PM
whoa...a dress...a giraffe support...contrary.

Are you unaware that giraffes can bend their necks?

stevieray
11-22-2012, 06:10 PM
Are you unaware that giraffes can bend their necks?

at what? over a ninety degree angle? :spock: they lower their head, but the neck doesn't bend in the middle.

are you aware that they have to spread their front legs just to be able to get to the water...? even then, the system HAD to be in place to fight grvaity

notice how you keep changing the goal posts?

let me know when you have something.

and agian, you've only attempted to dispute giraffes.

BigRedChief
11-22-2012, 06:10 PM
I didn't read the while thread because it seemed to be a bible thumper vs science argument.

It's hard to call Rubio the savior considering that he's not eligible to run for president.He was born in the USA. He's eligible. Your parents dont have to be citizens to be eligible.

But, he lied for years to his supporters, the media and to everyone who asked to further his political career. He got his start in politics on a bald faced lie. Can the public can forgive that? They forgave a President getting a blowjob in the oval office. Ya never know.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIdQF3DO_5_2ttfHpL0LgG3zu-AMAxAdAvZjrn-CCE03LRAcLgU2ucI056

listopencil
11-22-2012, 06:29 PM
at what? over a ninety degree angle? :spock: they lower their head, but the neck doesn't bend in the middle.

are you aware that they have to spread their front legs just to be able to get to the water...? even then, the system HAD to be in place to fight gravity

notice how you keep changing the goal posts?

let me know when you have something.

and again, you've only attempted to dispute giraffes.

LOL, I'm not changing any goalposts. You threw several animals out there as "proof" against evolution without actually making any points in reference to those animals. Did you want to enumerate all the aspects of every animal you've listed that can't have possibly been the result of evolution? I picked giraffes out of your list. There are remains of what appears to be animals that would fit the intermediate stages between the modern giraffe and it's ancestors. We can witness inherited physical changes in multiple organisms even now. Again, "God did it" is an easy answer. It's also a cop out.

listopencil
11-22-2012, 06:32 PM
Perhaps the problem here is that your looking at the possibility/effect of evolution along that six thousand (ten thousand?) year time period. I'm looking at it as a process involving billions of years of continual change.

stevieray
11-22-2012, 06:42 PM
There are remains of what appears to be animals that would fit the intermediate stages between the modern giraffe and it's ancestors Again, "God did it" is an easy answer. It's also a cop out.

I'd love to see it...your key word is APPEARS.

I never said God did it..but I have no problem with that assessment..it's not a cop out...it would do nothing but point to the His ominous magnificance.

listopencil
11-22-2012, 07:30 PM
...your key word is APPEARS.


Well, of course. Neither of us were there. All we can do is sift through the leftovers. If you'd truly love to see it go look for it. Google is your friend.

teedubya
11-22-2012, 08:30 PM
I'm betting that most candidates have a very good understanding of science.

They just pretend not to, as to pander to the dumbasses in the bible belt.

I read that in all of Congress, there is one engineer and 2 scientists.

RJ
11-22-2012, 08:52 PM
I read that in all of Congress, there is one engineer and 2 scientists.

And a shitload of lawyers. Which probably explains a lot of our problems.

RNR
11-22-2012, 09:37 PM
And a shitload of lawyers. Which probably explains a lot of our problems.

What do you have when you have a bunch of lawyers buried up to their neck in shit? Not enough shit~

BucEyedPea
11-22-2012, 10:54 PM
Wanting anything above minimalist government does not make you big government.

He said at the convention something to the tune of wanting more govt...even in today's climate. That means he for BIG govt. BTW, I am not for minimalist govt, I am for a balance between group and individual...but we're way beyond that at this point. I am for limited govt as set forth in the Constitution which strikes that balance. That was not minimalist. If you think it is, then you're looking at it from the side of big govt or mistake me for being a libertarian which is for minimalist govt aka mini-anarchy.

BucEyedPea
11-22-2012, 10:56 PM
I read that in all of Congress, there is one engineer and 2 scientists.

Would you really want an engineer and scientists writing laws? Not that I don't think, anyone else can't serve. Language skills are where lawyers have skills. I suppose that could be pro and con since they get a bit too clever with language when they want too.

My brother is an engineer, but was formerly a meteorology major. He doesn't believe in man-made GW. Nor does Richard Lindzen
Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT support the idea.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

BucEyedPea
11-22-2012, 11:02 PM
That actually adds credibility to the conclusions he drew after his examination of the evidence. I'd much rather have a scientist say "Well, this appears to be what's happening here" than have an ideologue say "I know this is what happened, because the Bible (or some other authority) said so".

As has also been pointed out, Einstein expressed reservations about General Relativity, and he flat out refused to believe some of the implications of Quantum Theory. He dismissed the indeterminate nature of it with his famous quote "God doesn't play dice with the universe". The less famous but incredibly awesome rebuttal to that was Neils Bohr's "Don't tell God what to do".

Reservations about a theory by the creator of the theory don't render the theory invalid. They just demonstrate the scientific method at work.

I thought the scientific method was engaging in experiments to prove a theory or hypothesis?
As far as I know there has been no experiments that have created a new species but only micro-evolution.
I don't know if I said Einstein doubted his own theory, but that it was others who claimed it was arbitrary.

DementedLogic
11-23-2012, 01:14 AM
:spock:

No, he isn't a naturalized US citizen. He was born on US soil. That makes him a natural-born US citizen, even if his parents weren't or aren't.

I cited a specific SCOTUS definition of natural-born citizen that says you are wrong.

DementedLogic
11-23-2012, 01:15 AM
He was born in the USA. He's eligible. Your parents dont have to be citizens to be eligible.

But, he lied for years to his supporters, the media and to everyone who asked to further his political career. He got his start in politics on a bald faced lie. Can the public can forgive that? They forgave a President getting a blowjob in the oval office. Ya never know.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIdQF3DO_5_2ttfHpL0LgG3zu-AMAxAdAvZjrn-CCE03LRAcLgU2ucI056

The supreme court disagrees with you.

BigRedChief
11-23-2012, 05:33 AM
The supreme court disagrees with you.BS. It's as plain as it could be in the constitution.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Qualifications_for_office) of the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible to the office of president. A president must:


be a natural-born citizen of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen_of_the_United_States);<sup id="cite_ref-65" class="reference">[note 1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#cite_note-65)</sup>
be at least thirty-five years old;
have been a permanent resident in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residency_%28domicile%29#United_States_of_America) for at least fourteen years.

BucEyedPea
11-23-2012, 08:30 AM
BS. It's as plain as it could be in the constitution.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Qualifications_for_office) of the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible to the office of president. A president must:


be a natural-born citizen of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen_of_the_United_States);<sup id="cite_ref-65" class="reference">[note 1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#cite_note-65)</sup>
be at least thirty-five years old;
have been a permanent resident in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residency_%28domicile%29#United_States_of_America) for at least fourteen years.


'Cept the term "natural-born" was never defined at that time. That's where the dispute lies.


The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. ~ wiki ( at least it's correct on this sentence.)

Donger
11-23-2012, 08:34 AM
I cited a specific SCOTUS definition of natural-born citizen that says you are wrong.

Do me a favor and post the source of that quote, would you?

Sweet Daddy Hate
11-23-2012, 09:47 AM
bah! what would U know about that?

do you really believe that god created pioli?

LMAO

They say God does not create garbage but.......

BucEyedPea
11-23-2012, 10:58 AM
Do me a favor and post the source of that quote, would you?

This page covers some cases, but definition varies. Sounds like it could be this case:


Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

Then we get this, next:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

Take a look at the conclusion too.
http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582

listopencil
11-23-2012, 12:18 PM
As far as I know there has been no experiments that have created a new species but only micro-evolution.


That's kind of a catch-22. I don't know how you can recreate the required timeline in a laboratory environment to demonstrate something like that. The closest that I could think of would be an organism with a high rate of reproduction.

one of my favorite experiments ever is Dr. Lenski's work with E. coli-- AMAZING work.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

(some damned impressive publications there, fwiw)

BucEyedPea
11-23-2012, 12:36 PM
That's kind of a catch-22. I don't know how you can recreate the required timeline in a laboratory environment to demonstrate something like that. The closest that I could think of would be an organism with a high rate of reproduction.

As far as I know, that was done with fruit flies because they have a high rate of reproduction. No changes into a new species resulted. I already saw the mention of Dr. Lenski earlier in the thread by h5n1. Never heard of that one before, but from a quick glance through it still looks like microevolution.

listopencil
11-23-2012, 12:37 PM
As far as I know, that was done with fruit flies because they have a high rate of reproduction. No changes into a new species resulted. I already saw the mention of Dr. Lenski earlier in the thread by h5n1. Never heard of that one before, but from a quick glance through it still looks like microevolution.

Give it some time. Check back in a few million years.

BucEyedPea
11-23-2012, 12:47 PM
Give it some time. Check back in a few million years.

I see that as "belief" it will turn out as you "believe." My understanding is that Lenski started in 1988 and produced over 50,000 generations. My understanding, further is that a lot more time is not needed; that the number of generations provides the evidence. Yet they were all still ecoli but now they could digest citrate.

Dave Lane
11-23-2012, 12:48 PM
yes, it is.

evoilution can't even explain a feather.

Opps I think your ignorance is showing. You do know many dinosaurs had feathers?

BucEyedPea
11-23-2012, 12:50 PM
Opps I think your ignorance is showing. You do know many dinosaurs had feathers?

Speaking of ignorance, I see you never corrected your own mistake about me predicting a certain number electoral landslide for Mitt Romney.

listopencil
11-23-2012, 01:48 PM
I see that as "belief" it will turn out as you "believe." My understanding is that Lenski started in 1988 and produced over 50,000 generations. My understanding, further is that a lot more time is not needed; that the number of generations provides the evidence. Yet they were all still ecoli but now they could digest citrate.

Not really. The number of generations is important in that it provides a chance for mutation. That mutation did occur. To really get into the meat of this we would need to provide an environment where a mutation serves to increase the reproductive efficiency of an organism and to observe that situation happening over and over again, through an incredibly long period of time. All we (as humans) seem to be capable of right now is to set up experiments that show that mutations do happen and that some of them might be beneficial. It's disingenuous to view this experiment as a failure because it hasn't demonstrated the effects of billions of years of evolution in a twenty five year span.

Ebolapox
11-23-2012, 02:01 PM
As far as I know, that was done with fruit flies because they have a high rate of reproduction. No changes into a new species resulted. I already saw the mention of Dr. Lenski earlier in the thread by h5n1. Never heard of that one before, but from a quick glance through it still looks like microevolution.

not that this will satisfy you, but...


http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

exquisitely sourced, full of great information.

Ebolapox
11-23-2012, 02:03 PM
I see that as "belief" it will turn out as you "believe." My understanding is that Lenski started in 1988 and produced over 50,000 generations. My understanding, further is that a lot more time is not needed; that the number of generations provides the evidence. Yet they were all still ecoli but now they could digest citrate.

the issue with bacteria, inherently, is how we classify bacteria. speciation is MUCH more stringent with bacteria--there are tens of thousands of different 'strains' of just E. coli, some of which only share 50% of the same genetic material. that kind of difference WOULD lead to different classification of species in larger mammals and even kingdom protista--but not in bacteria.

the devil is in the details.

Ebolapox
11-23-2012, 02:07 PM
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48

shall I keep going? this is only after a quick google search. that's all it freaking takes.

MOUNTAINS of data. this, once more, proves the adage that ALWAYS holds true in this forum, and indeed, among our species as a whole... people see and believe what they want to believe regardless of data presented to them. it's true in politics, it's true in almost any situation you can come up with.

BucEyedPea
11-23-2012, 02:56 PM
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48

shall I keep going? this is only after a quick google search. that's all it freaking takes.
Yes, I did that and saw some of them. ( not those but Lenski's work) I still haven't seen a new species evolve from the ones I did. I admit, it was merely a quick viewing due to time constraints.

MOUNTAINS of data. this, once more, proves the adage that ALWAYS holds true in this forum, and indeed, among our species as a whole... people see and believe what they want to believe regardless of data presented to them. it's true in politics, it's true in almost any situation you can come up with.
It's not "belief" for me. I just have not seen a new species yet. I am not saying it's not plausible either.

Ebolapox
11-23-2012, 03:18 PM
Yes, I did that and saw some of them. I still haven't seen a new species evolve from the ones I did. I admit, it was merely a quick viewing due to time constraints.


It's not "belief" for me. I just have not seen a new species yet. I am not saying it's not plausible either.

do yourself a favor and try to allow yourself the privilege of becoming familiar with 'deep time.' study the fossil record. speciation is not a common event in the time-scale that we're used to, but in deep-time, it's incredibly common. the evidence is out there, don't be so constrained by the 'here and now' that you miss the answer right in front of you.

BucEyedPea
11-23-2012, 03:20 PM
do yourself a favor and try to allow yourself the privilege of becoming familiar with 'deep time.' study the fossil record. speciation is not a common event in the time-scale that we're used to, but in deep-time, it's incredibly common. the evidence is out there, don't be so constrained by the 'here and now' that you miss the answer right in front of you.

I looked at your Berkley link on evolution while you were posting and saw that. ( I also edited my last post.)

ROYC75
11-24-2012, 01:07 PM
LMAO

They say God does not create garbage but.......

He does not, it's just that man decides to get trashy.

Cave Johnson
11-30-2012, 01:49 PM
Rubio's to the right of Pat Robertson, lol.

"You go back in time, you've got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you've got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas. They're out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don't try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That's not the Bible. ... If you fight science, you are going to lose your children, and I believe in telling them the way it was,"

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/pat-robertson-challenges-creationism/

blaise
12-01-2012, 06:45 AM
Rubio's to the right of Pat Robertson, lol.



http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/29/pat-robertson-challenges-creationism/

Remember that part of the thread where Obama made a comment very similar to Rubio's and then all the people that said Rubio was a kook had to pretend the comments weren't similar?

Yeah, that was neat, huh?

FishingRod
12-03-2012, 10:52 AM
Remember that part of the thread where Obama made a comment very similar to Rubio's and then all the people that said Rubio was a kook had to pretend the comments weren't similar?

Yeah, that was neat, huh?

yes it was. If we ever get to the point that Republicans and Democrats hold their own people to 30 % of the scrutiny that they hold the opposition, our representative will be replaced in droves.