Marco Rubio, Republican Savior?

[Cave Johnson]

Moderates will love this guy!

When asked how old he thinks the Earth is, Rubio makes that much clear:

I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....scientist.html

[Ebolapox]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

You're going to have dumb down that biotechnology for us here bro.

the key idea here is that he used E. coli to show that random mutations (that occur naturally due to errors in DNA transcription) are the driving force behind evolution. I'd go into more depth, but some of it gets a bit convoluted if you don't have a basic understanding of microbiology (it's a bit pathway-heavy, and those can be a bit of a pain)

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

You're going to have dumb down that biotechnology for us here bro.

yes, please do...

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cdcox

And its not like we have 130 more years of scientific research since his death that all supports the theory of evolution.

True.

There are no credentialed biologists who seriously question the main tenants of the theory of evolution. If you say you cannot observe it, you are not looking at the fossil record, at the genetic record, at ecological evidence, at the fact that we can see populations evolve in the laboratory and in nature.

As far as I know, hearing both sides over the years, one side claims there's gaps; there has never been macro but micro. Tests were done with flies as I recall.

Do a few hours of reading and step into the 21st century.

I never said I didn't believe in evolution—if you noticed.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by h5n1

and einstein had difficulty believing some of the implications of general relativity.

does that mean that the science isn't sound? not in the least. you're grasping at straws here.

Some scientists claim Einstein theory of relativity is flawed...that it's arbitrary.

What I do know, is today's science can be tommorrow's fiction. I don't have to be a scientist to see that has happened.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I never said I didn't believe in evolution—if you noticed.

So you are trolling?

[BucEyedPea]

That's okay, everyone makes mistakes but this video is highly edited. Not that it would mean much to you either way.

Originally Posted by h5n1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

Now for the unedited video on what Ron Paul actually said in the transcript to it. Deleted words are bracketed:

"'Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it's a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [it probably doesn't bother me. It's not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think] the Creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. [So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our...if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office.']

"As you can see, half of RP's words were censored. His real message was, 'We're fighting for freedom and can't afford to be split over a debate about fossils.'"

Censoring Paul on Evolution

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

People aren't property.

Some were, to the Founding Fathers, who were infallible.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Some were, to the Founding Fathers, who were infallible.

I never said they were infallible. You use straw man too much.

[go bowe]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Some were, to the Founding Fathers, who were infallible.

oh don't bother her with those pesky facts...

what's a few slaves in the land of the free?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cdcox

So you are trolling?

I think you need to look up the word. I didn't bring up evolution regarding Paul or any personal attacks. Someone else did that.
I just don't think what a candidate thinks on evolution is appropriate. That is, unless you want to feed from the public trough which scientists also like to do.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I think you need to look up the word. I didn't bring up evolution regarding Paul or any personal attacks. Someone else did that.
I just don't think what a candidate thinks on evolution is appropriate. That is, unless you want to feed from the public trough which scientists also like to do.

You definitely cast doubt on the factuality of evolution.

No, it's a theory. Even Darwin said it had holes.

Then you claim this:

I never said I didn't believe in evolution—if you noticed.

You are not carrying out this conversation with integrity. I'm out.

[DementedLogic]

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.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by cdcox

And its not like we have 130 more years of scientific research since his death that all supports the theory of evolution.

There are no credentialed biologists who seriously question the main tenants of the theory of evolution. If you say you cannot observe it, you are not looking at the fossil record, at the genetic record, at ecological evidence, at the fact that we can see populations evolve in the laboratory and in nature.

Do a few hours of reading and step into the 21st century.

....any biologist who dares question evolution is ostracized. Darwin himself said a simple honeycomb created by bees could prove his theory invalid... there are plenty of animals that could not have evolved, and had to be created as they were...giraffe, hippo, hummingbird, dragonfly to name a few.


and you and I aren't evolving, we're devolving...

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by stevieray

....any biologist who dares question evolution is ostracized. Darwin himself said a simple honeycomb created by bees could prove his theory invalid... there are plenty of animals that could not have evolved, and had to be created as they were...giraffe, hippo, hummingbird, dragonfly to name a few.


and you and I aren't evolving, we're devolving...

The simple honeycomb, which in the end strengthened his theory.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by cdcox

I'm defining "Earth wasn't formed in seven days" in the same way as do those who argue from a literal biblical perspective, namely that the earth went from formless and empty to an earth that sustains current life as we know it, including humans, in six 24-hour days. Is this what you are asking for?

No, I'm not talking about critters and plants. Big ball of rock formation.