One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Farsight001]

Yeah, right. It’s the ID people who forcing an agenda on everyone. We’re the ones showing caricatures of apes and man in a nice little row in textbooks as if it actually happened and we know for sure that it did.

We DO know for sure it did. I’ve been explaining that for several pages now.

But I must clarify, it did not happen as that image of apes in a neat row display and many scientists have been trying to get that “caricature”, which was created by a cartoonist, not a scientist, out of science textbooks for a long time now.

I don’t think we’re even close to the Truth, and we all should be careful of those who just want something to be true so bad so that it fits their political and/or personal agenda.

You mean the ID advocates? Yeah, I’m usually pretty wary of them.

Education on these matters is sorely needed. One time I had an “in-depth” discussion, pro-evolution folks thought Panspermia was a sexual fantasy of mine.

And what does the idea that live exists throughout the universe have to do with evolution? Not knowing the meaning of an obscure word that is not related to the theory of evolution does not make that guy ignorant. If I HAD to call someone ignorant here, I would have to call you ignorant for thinking its relevant.

 

[vz71]

What part of “I don’t know what you mean, can you be more specific” don’t you understand? There are entire reference libraries full of books on just one tiny subject. You have GOT to narrow it down, or I have no way of knowing what I’m supposed to be addressing. Try this. Pretend I’m really really stupid and spell it out for me. What do you want?

OK, let me go back in this thread and pull the quote.
the same quote I pulled when I asked initially for specifics so I could review the proof myself.
Here it is…

Frankly, most educated people know that micro and macro are imaginary constructs. You think there is no evidence of species changing into other species? Sure there is. Some museums have buckets of proof in their gift shops that they give away for free, that’s how common it is. And lets not forget the famous nylon-eating bacteria experiment that gave proof years ago and is continuing to give more and more.

Wow. That was a long quote.

Now then, I asked for specifics so I could review the proof.
You evaded, and then decided you did not know which proof as there could be any number I was referring to (it was a long post, there are so many possibilities to choose from).

So I asked for specifics on all of the proofs you mentioned.
Keep in mind, I am still trying to get answers to review the proofs provided in the second quote above. I see only a few things mentioned, “All of them” is not an unreasonable request.

Let’s look carefully…
“You think there is no evidence of species changing into other species? Sure there is. Some museums have buckets of proof in their gift shops that they give away for free, that’s how common it is.”
Well, there is one proof mentioned.
I guess it is difficult to miss in the vastness of the four sentences.

Let’s see if there are more…
" And lets not forget the famous nylon-eating bacteria experiment that gave proof years ago and is continuing to give more and more."
And there is another.

Both are actually highlighted with the word ‘proof’

It is not difficult to look at what I quoted and what I asked for.
But you keep asking me to be specific.

Is it no wonder I believe evasion to be the operative word here.

This is typically how I see the debate going.
Specifics or proof is asked for of the evolution believing side and instead evasion is provided.

I have been open to viewing evidence for and against evolution.
However I see issues that it simply will never be able to overcome, so the theory is disbelieved by myself.
However it is becoming more and more difficult to believe the pro-evolution side of this debate is being entirely honest when they cannot answer a simple request for proofs.

 

[vz71]

No, bad science would be to say that God did it, without any evidence at all.
You Creationists, just shrugging it off, “So WHat?!”

Did I say that? Can you please provide the quote, I may have missed it.

Here’s bad science, “Creationist Science”: Grand Canyon formed by the Flood.
People do say that.

You are free to argue that if you wish.
It is a good diversion from the real points.

Don’t ask for proof then “move the goalpost,” that is a cliché Intelligent Design 101 tactic.

Indeed.
I didn’t bring up the flood. you did.
I did not bring up “creationist science” either. That was you again.

Where exactly did we put these goalposts again?
I want to make sure I’m facing the right direction when the ball is thrown.

 

[vz71]

By that logic, nothing in science can be believed because there’s always going to be another explanation. We can always conclude that the universe was created 5 minutes ago in exactly the way it is now, with all our memories in our heads already, and no way to prove that that’s not how it happened. Use your common sense, man. This was judicial application of Occam’s Razor - the simplest answer is most often the correct one - which is GOOD science, not bad science. Do YOU have an alternative explanation that is SCIENTIFIC?

No, I do not have an alternative.

But that does not mean I have to take evolution theory as gospel.

I recognize major flaws with it and know it cannot be the right explanation.

 

[vz71]

And contrary to the furor in the media, global warming research is trucking along just as strongly as anything else.

And this has to do wit the subject at hand…how?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Did I say that? Can you please provide the quote, I may have missed it.
You are free to argue that if you wish.
It is a good diversion from the real points.
Indeed.
I didn’t bring up the flood. you did.
I did not bring up “creationist science” either. That was you again.
Where exactly did we put these goalposts again?
I want to make sure I’m facing the right direction when the ball is thrown.

I didn’t say you said “So WHat?!” That is
just how I illustrate the essence of you’re
response.

You called that video I showed bad science, I’m saying that it is not, then I showed you
what real “bad science” is. I didn’t intend to deviate the subject. You can remain stuck
on that if you’d like, but I was just throwing food for thought.

To “move the goalpost” is a logical fallacy, in which you ask for proof, then no matter
what the person you ask says, he can never meet your standards, because you will
then change the rules as you did by declaring what I shared as “bad science.”

Again, I was only throwing out an example of “bad science” because you
clearly have no idea what “bad science” is, and I did bring up “Creationist
Science” as that is what Evolution is up against, the side you’re on, so it
seems anyway.

What other alternative is there instead of Evolution if the Fictional Creationism isn’t?

 

[vz71]

I didn’t say you said “So WHat?!” That is
just how I illustrate the essence of you’re
response.

I see.
So it is not something I said, but just something you theorize I might say.
Good argument.

You called that video I showed bad science, I’m saying that it is not, then I showed you
what real “bad science” is. I didn’t intend to deviate the subject. You can remain stuck
on that if you’d like, but I was just throwing food for thought.

To “move the goalpost” is a logical fallacy, in which you ask for proof, then no matter
what the person you ask says, he can never meet your standards, because you will
then change the rules as you did by declaring what I shared as “bad science.”

I see.
So in asking for proof I should accept anything at all whether or not it is truth.
Amazingly good point.
Can I use that sometime? It may help me win some other debate.

Again, I was only throwing out an example of “bad science” because you
clearly have no idea what “bad science” is, and I did bring up “Creationist
Science” as that is what Evolution is up against, the side you’re on, so it
seems anyway.

What other alternative is there instead of Evolution if the Fictional Creationism isn’t?

I was unaware I had picked a side.
Thanks for clarifying my position for me.

 

[Gricken]

Okay so 1/3 of the The U.S’s population disagrees with the majority of biologists. This is news?

 

[Farsight001]

OK, let me go back in this thread and pull the quote.
the same quote I pulled when I asked initially for specifics so I could review the proof myself.
Here it is…

Wow. That was a long quote.

Now then, I asked for specifics so I could review the proof.

But specifics of WHAT, specifically, are you looking for? So its a short quote. Whoopdy doo. There’s still more than one thought going on in that post. Which thought do you want specifics on? You STILL can’t tell me that.

You evaded, and then decided you did not know which proof as there could be any number I was referring to (it was a long post, there are so many possibilities to choose from).

It was not an evasion. As I said, I REALLY DON’T KNOW what you want and you need to be more specific. Please stop insinuating that I am a liar. It is anything but kind.

So I asked for specifics on all of the proofs you mentioned.

And I said you’re still going to have to narrow it down, as there are entire reference libraries full of information on just one of those issues, and I can’t possibly adequately answer them all because I simply don’t have the time to post theses on all of it.

Keep in mind, I am still trying to get answers to review the proofs provided in the second quote above. I see only a few things mentioned, “All of them” is not an unreasonable request.

If you REALLY want an answer, then clarify what you want an answer to. Don’t act incredulous and accuse me of dishonest tactics when I ask you to clarify.

Let’s look carefully…
“You think there is no evidence of species changing into other species? Sure there is. Some museums have buckets of proof in their gift shops that they give away for free, that’s how common it is.”
Well, there is one proof mentioned.
I guess it is difficult to miss in the vastness of the four sentences.

Let’s see if there are more…
" And lets not forget the famous nylon-eating bacteria experiment that gave proof years ago and is continuing to give more and more."
And there is another.

The nylon-eating bacteria experiment IS proof of species changing into another species. Google it. Or were you expecting me to somehow digitally upload bacteria to the internet for you to look at? As the saying goes, you can guide a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink it. I told you where to look. You have to be the one to actually look. I can’t do that for you.

is typically how I see the debate going.
Specifics or proof is asked for of the evolution believing side and instead evasion is provided.

Asking for clarification or for someone to be more specific is not evasion and I must again object to the continued insinuation of dishonesty.

 

[Gricken]

If, by evolution, they mean differentiation of species, that species develop and pass on traits, then I would agree that would be wrong. One look at a dachshund would tell anyone that differentiation of species is true.

If, by evolution they mean that life on Earth came about and developed into human absent the hand of a Creator, they I too would disagree with ‘evolution’

That second part… nobody means that when they say evolution. At the very least, nobody I have talked to. That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution does not address the question of a creator. So I don’t understand why you felt the need to throw that in.

 

[Farsight001]

No, I do not have an alternative.

But that does not mean I have to take evolution theory as gospel.

I recognize major flaws with it and know it cannot be the right explanation.

If its the best explanation we have (and I doubt you recognize any major flaws, as you have proven time and again you don’t know the most basic elements of evolution, so you cannot possibly know about major flaws), and there are no alternatives, then why are you so angry about people accepting it? What else are they supposed to believe about it?

 

[Gricken]

You seem rather invested in your opinion that evolution is the only explanation. What if you’re wrong?

The thing I know about science is that you can’t trust that what you know today won’t be disproven tomorrow.

It isn’t wrong to be invested in something you believe to be true. Furthermore, are you suggesting that we just not trust any science on the basis that it “could” be disproved tomorrow?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I see.
So it is not something I said, but just something you theorize I might say.
Good argument.

No, I did what I said, you’re essential point was “So What.”

I see.
So in asking for proof I should accept anything at all whether or not it is truth.
Amazingly good point.
Can I use that sometime? It may help me win some other debate.

The Fact is, Science uses evidence, Creationism makes up evidence.
I presented evidence, as a rational person would, and you didn’t refute
it, you just denied it, without any real reason, except you want to pre-
serve your literal interpretation of the Bible.

No matter what proof I offer, so it seems, you’re default train of thought would be “That’s not proof at all!”

I was unaware I had picked a side.
Thanks for clarifying my position for me.

Are you not a Creationist? You had led me to assume that by
denying evolution and being reluctant even towards that video
I provided. What is your position for real?

 

[edwest2]

The more I see posts like this, the more I see evidence that this concern for some has nothing to do with science.

I really like science, but this particular subject is like - “What? One-third don’t believe? We must convert the blasphemers!”

Sad.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farsight001]

The more I see posts like this, the more I see evidence that this concern for some has nothing to do with science.

I really like science, but this particular subject is like - “What? One-third don’t believe? We must convert the blasphemers!”

Sad.

Peace,
Ed

How about it also having to do with the preservation of the human race and the very real threat that the anti-science crowd is inadvertently trying to make it very dangerous to be a human being around here? There is nothing sad about wanting to fight to save lives and preserve the planet.

 

[Gricken]

The more I see posts like this, the more I see evidence that this concern for some has nothing to do with science.

I really like science, but this particular subject is like - “What? One-third don’t believe? We must convert the blasphemers!”

Sad.

Peace,
Ed

The more I see post like this, the more convinced I become that you are out to vilify everyone who believes in evolution.

Of COURSE we would be interested in educating somebody. Science is all about knowledge. It isn’t a matter of “conversion” we simply wish to point out what is a faulty understanding of evolution. I don’t care for your characterization of people who believe in evolution, it’s anything but charitable

 

[Steveabrous]

So bacteria evolves into bacteria and that proves macro evolution?

That’s like saying I saw 1 type of dog evolve into another type of dog.

This my point when you ask for evidence to support MACRO-evolution they always give you an example of MICRO_evolution

 

[estesbob]

One species of bacteria becomes an entirely different species of bacteria. Species to species change is the most common ID advocate’s definition of macroevolution, and I do believe, the one suggested here in this thread as well. So now you have two options - accept this as evidence because it meets the criteria for one species becoming another species and thus admit that “macroevolution” happens, or dishonestly move the goal posts (which you seem to be trying to do)

You have provided evidence that bacteria “evolves” into bacteria. In the billions and billions of reproducing bacteria observed by scientists has it ever “evolved” into anything other than bacteria?

 

[edwest2]

How about it also having to do with the preservation of the human race and the very real threat that the anti-science crowd is inadvertently trying to make it very dangerous to be a human being around here? There is nothing sad about wanting to fight to save lives and preserve the planet.

That point of view is incorrect. “anti-science”? No. There are people who want the whole truth. This particular subject does not concern all of science, which should be obvious.

Example. When I was taking chemistry in college, it had zero to do with this subject. The same when I was taking courses in electronics at a specialized school. No connection whatsoever.

This is not “anti-science.” It is a fear based agenda.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Gricken]

That’s like saying I saw 1 type of dog evolve into another type of dog.

This my point when you ask for evidence to support MACRO-evolution they always give you an example of MICRO_evolution

as he pointed out. “Bactria” is a much bigger classification than “dog” so no, the difference is much more than that. Dog is a subspecies of the wolf. Bactria is an entire classification of living things,