One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[vz71]

You think there are flaws in evolution? I know of none. Scientists who use evolution
do not always make accurate conclusions within the field of evolution, but such are
always revised in the light of new data, because Evolution WORKS.

Evolution fails to explain us.

 

[John_Lazarus]

On macro evolution. Human writings, for example disappear post 5000 years. If Homo Sapiens have been around for 200,000 why did it take them 195,000 to learn to write things down? Underachievers?

Maybe public education was even worse back then.

Things weren’t always better in the olden days.

 

[lightbeamrider]

It is not “speculation” It is deductive reasoning based on the evidence we have from so long ago.

What evidence? Cite your ancient precedent. If evolution is true and if humans were around for 200,000 years then those who existed 5, or 4, or 3 thousand years ago did not mention anything about it. The moderns all of a sudden know more than the ancients? Based on what you call deductive reasoning? How about evolutionary assumptions?

I haven’t seen any vilification done on their part (though I have seen quite a bit of it done by people here who think evolution is false). Just how how inaccurate do you think dating is to assume that we’re wrong about man being hundreds of thousands of years old?

You never heard of the slur creatards? Start here.

huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/the-party-of-stupid-from-both-a-scientific-and-a-religious-perspective_b_2162795.html

To question macro evolution is construed as being anti science. I can provide examples ad naseam. Most of your hard sciences do not need evolution assumptions to do their work. Its not like Astronomist is telling anybody without macro evolution i could not do my job.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Evolution fails to explain us.

Explain to us what?
Evolution doesn’t fail, it just doesn’t give you the answer you want, whatever it is.

 

[vz71]

Explain to us what?
Evolution doesn’t fail, it just doesn’t give you the answer you want, whatever it is.

Not explain to us.
Explain us.

For a theory that purports to explain how we all got here, it fails to explain humans.

 

[lightbeamrider]

Maybe public education was even worse back then.

Things weren’t always better in the olden days.

Public education teaches evolution in a totally non theistic environment. Some will take it to its natural conclusions.

fullspate.digitalcounterrevolution.co.uk/archive/columbine.html

“Sometime in April [1999] me and V will get revenge and will kick natural selection up a few notches. If we have figured out the art of time bombs beforehand, we will set hundreds of them around houses, roads, bridges, buildings and gas stations, anything that will cause damage and chaos…It’ll be like the LA riots, the Oklahoma bombing, WWII, Vietnam, Duke [Nukem] and Doom all mixed together…I want to leave a lasting impression on the world.”… On the morning of the massacre the two boys drove separately into the two school carparks, each with a view of the school canteen. Both had decided to wear black, Klebold with a T-shirt bearing the word “Wrath” and Harris with a T-shirt saying “Natural Selection” …“But he wrote that strictly for effect,” the psychologist obseved. "That was complete manipulation.” At almost the exact same time, he wrote down his real feelings in his journal: “Isn’t America supposed to be the land of the free? How come, if I’m free, I can’t deprive a stupid f—ing dumbshit of his possessions if he leaves them on the front seat of his f—ing van out in plain sight and in the middle of f—ing nowhere on a f—ing friday night. NATURAL SELECTION. The f—er should be shot. "

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Not explain to us.
Explain us.

For a theory that purports to explain how we all got here, it fails to explain humans.

OOPS! Sorry.
I believe evolution explains us well enough
as far as the physical world is concerned.
How does it fail to explain us humans?

 

[Farsight001]

Why is Berlinski not an expert? Because he’s not a biologist he cannot comment on evolution? Are you telling me that only so-called experts in their fields can comment on their fields? Just cause you say he’s not an expert doesn’t mean he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. So what if his PhD is an philosophy and not “science”. Does that make him any less intelligent? Any less able to do research?

Pretty much, yeah. Don’t let a mathematician teach you history. Don’t let a Chemist teach you literature. And don’t let a philosopher teach you evolution. Its a principle everyone follows all the time.

The science is unconvincing to me as it is to a lot of people and your response is always we’re ignorant or we don’t know what we’re talking about.

BECAUSE YOU DON’T. Your improper terminology usage, your lack of proper terminology, and your confusion at our use of proper terminology PROVES you don’t. Don’t act for one second like you do. We both know you don’t.

 

[Steveabrous]

One kind of bacteria evolving into another kind of bacteria IS EXACTLY what you’re asking for. You seem to be throwing it out just because its microscopic, though I don’t know why that would make a difference.

As for not knowing the correct terms - I want you to mull that over. You know SO LITTLE about evolution that you don’t even know which terminology to use. Then what makes you think you know enough to know it isn’t true, or that scientists are just politicizing it (or any number of other accusations thrown at evolution here)?

I never said it wasn’t true. I said for me I need evidence that every living thing came from 1 living thing to accept it. And asked, as I have for years to no avail, for evidence.

Here is my original post:

ok so here I am on the fence.

On one hand What some call Micro-evolution is undeniable (again, look at dogs) and it’s not that big of a leap to go to Macro-evolution when you add billions of years.

And the hubble telescope has proven the universe is billions of years old. Sorry, but if something is 10 billion light years away, we are seeing what happened 10 billion years ago in the telescope. Case closed

If you look at Genesis with an open mind there is room for evolution. So my faith is not threatened by it.

I have heard (on discovery channel) that science says humans sky rocketed in advancement about 50,000 years ago, just all at once. So I can see God using the process and then infusing a soul.

scientists almost unanomously say EVOLUTION.

And they are a lot smarter then me.

O.K., sounds good. But this is science, and I am from the show-me-state so show me the evidence.

But they always give me an example of micro-evolution. I don’t have a problem with mico-evolution. What I want is evidence of MACO-evolution. And, quite frankly, at that point there is a lot of dodging and insults.

If you really press them the say museums. But the museums are more artist rendition then actual bone. The amount of actual fossilized bone that we have is very small. In fact all the actual fossilized evidence in the world can fit in the back of a pick-up. And it looks like a bunch of rocks. So I say how do they know this is what they think it is. Especially since over the decades what said rock supposedly is has changed. Several times

So in the end we are left with “We are the scientists, we are smarter then you, just accept it”

Sorry but I have a problem with that.

Especially when you have instances such as piltdown man and Nebraska man which were heralded for decades as real missing links, but then turned out to be frauds.

And the best evidence for a missing link today, Lucy, is highly suspect.

I’m sorry but unless someone can show me real evidence for MACO-evolution, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a nice theory and thats it.

So we see radical evolution in the bacteria world, ok fine, what about showing it in the big world?

 

[Farsight001]

Not barking up any tree. Just pointing out the obvious.

In any case, within this thread, there are those claiming God to not be involved.

No one has claimed that God is not involved.

 

[Farsight001]

Lineage to Adam. Ancestry.com

freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~heddins/Adam-Eve-Desc.htm

Lots of people missing there. Also, how is this relevant?

 

[Farsight001]

Not an issue.
But thanks.

You did not account for those that see sufficient flaws in evolution to decide not to take stock in the theory at all.

Then lets hear about these flaws. I bet dollars to donuts its nothing I haven’t heard a hundred times before.

And I also stand by the simply fact that not having a better explanation does not lend any more truth to anything.

No. but the warehouses full of fossils, libraries full of studies, and direct observation of evolution happening does.

 

[Steveabrous]

Ok. But if you don’t know, as you admitted, the terminology, meaning you don’t know the definitions of micro and macro and where the distinction between them really is, then how could you possible recognize macro-evolution when you see it?

But they always give me an example of micro-evolution. I don’t have a problem with mico-evolution. What I want is evidence of MACO-evolution.*** And, quite frankly, at that point there is a lot of dodging and insults.***

 

[Farsight001]

Not explain to us.
Explain us.

For a theory that purports to explain how we all got here, it fails to explain humans.

I gave a couple great links earlier in this very thread that explain human evolution in excruciating detail. As usual, you are told something doesn’t exist, so you don’t go looking for it, and thus never find out that it is indeed quite real.

 

[Farsight001]

I never said it wasn’t true. I said for me I need evidence that every living thing came from 1 living thing to accept it. And asked, as I have for years to no avail, for evidence.

Well, honestly, that’s a ridiculous request. You want evidence for ALL of it? If I were to rattle off the names of every species ever found at 5 a second, it would take at least a decade just to do THAT. Let alone explain which one came from what, and on top of that, provide evidence for each and every transition? NO ONE can do that in a hundred life times.

So we see radical evolution in the bacteria world, ok fine, what about showing it in the big world?

There is no difference. Size does not make evolution easier or harder, more possible or less. Size has ZERO impact on evolution. Hence, proof in the bacteria world should suffice. This is more of that moving the goalposts. You guys wanted one species becoming another. I gave it to you. Your two options are to accept that you were wrong that it doesn’t happen, or disingenuously try to move the goal posts. It is unfortunate that so many of you have chosen the latter.

 

[Steveabrous]

Well, honestly, that’s a ridiculous request. You want evidence for ALL of it? If I were to rattle off the names of every species ever found at 5 a second, it would take at least a decade just to do THAT. Let alone explain which one came from what, and on top of that, provide evidence for each and every transition? NO ONE can do that in a hundred life times.

There is no difference. Size does not make evolution easier or harder, more possible or less. Size has ZERO impact on evolution. Hence, proof in the bacteria world should suffice. This is more of that moving the goalposts. You guys wanted one species becoming another. I gave it to you. Your two options are to accept that you were wrong that it doesn’t happen, or disingenuously try to move the goal posts. It is unfortunate that so many of you have chosen the latter.

But they always give me an example of micro-evolution. I don’t have a problem with mico-evolution. What I want is evidence of MACO-evolution. And, quite frankly, at that point there is a lot of dodging and insults.

 

[vz71]

OOPS! Sorry.
I believe evolution explains us well enough
as far as the physical world is concerned.
How does it fail to explain us humans?

I understand from my friends that advocate evolution that the main vehicle for change is mutation.
And a combination of mutation and natural selection will make a given change more prevalent until sufficient changes result in a new species.

However, we are more than physical. We have an immortal soul.

And this is something that differentiates us from every other species on the planet.

Evolution would seem to fall short in explaining this.

Of course, if we are to only consider the physical world, and ignore the other aspects, then we have something that explains much. And doesn’t explain much.

But I find it difficult to ignore reality.

 

[vz71]

Then lets hear about these flaws. I bet dollars to donuts its nothing I haven’t heard a hundred times before.

No. but the warehouses full of fossils, libraries full of studies, and direct observation of evolution happening does.

I’m still waiting for you to cough up answers to my original query.

Until such, I am not considering anything else you have to say.

 

[ivebeenshown]

No, evolution as a theory does not necessarily exclude God. No, I don’t have enough time or reason to really care about whether or not creatures evolved or how old the universe is. No, I don’t take Genesis for a literal account of Creation, and no, I don’t think that matters and I don’t care if others do take it so. Anyone here in my boat?

 

[vz71]

I gave a couple great links earlier in this very thread that explain human evolution in excruciating detail. As usual, you are told something doesn’t exist, so you don’t go looking for it, and thus never find out that it is indeed quite real.

Sigh…

More accusation. With no basis in fact.