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

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

The supreme court disagrees with you.

BS. It's as plain as it could be in the constitution.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the 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;^{[note 1]}
• be at least thirty-five years old;
• have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

BS. It's as plain as it could be in the constitution.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the 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;^{[note 1]}
• be at least thirty-five years old;
• have been a permanent resident in the United States 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]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

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]

Originally Posted by go bowe

bah! what would U know about that?

do you really believe that god created *****?

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

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Donger

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_d...p?q=1308252582

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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.

Originally Posted by h5n1

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]

Originally Posted by listopencil

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]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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]

Originally Posted by listopencil

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]

Originally Posted by stevieray

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]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

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]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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/20...-evidence.html

exquisitely sourced, full of great information.

[Ebolapox]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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]

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.