One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Judas_Thaddeus]

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

That is among my beef with Creationists. Literal interpretation is fine to an
ex-tent, harm-less, but when it get’s to the point when rational believers of
evolution are ostracized from the Christian community, by Creationists, &
that leads to good Christians becoming atheists. Also, when a Christian
invests so much faith in Creationism, only to come to his senses and un-
derstands that evolution is more reasonable than Creationism, there is a
possibility that he’ll drop the faith, become an atheist, for his beliefs have
betrayed him (so he’ll feel).

 

[estesbob]

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?

It’s the best explanation we have using the assumption that God is not involved.

 

[Gricken]

It’s the best explanation we have using the assumption that God is not involved.

I’ve yet to see a person here who claims God was not involved.

 

[vz71]

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

I asked for specifics from two sentences that you wrote days ago.
I quoted them so there would not be confusion.
And I have also gone through the trouble of pointing them out again.

There are only two proofs I asked specifics for, and you cannot answer any further then to keep asking me to be more specific.

I think it fair at this point to move on knowing you cannot answer.

 

[lightbeamrider]

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

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?

 

[Steveabrous]

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,

ok then I saw one Canine evolve into another Canine. Again, Micro-Evolution. I have no problem believing that every canine had the same ancester. Or that all Bacteria comes from the same source. What I have a problem with is that Canines come from bacteria.

That is what I ask for evidence of.

But you know that was what I was saying. So here comes the dodging.

Of course I am told “Well, the process takes millions of years, we can’t demonstrate it.”

True, But if everything started from a primordial soup and then over time evolved into everything on earth, then that evolution should still be happening.

We should be able to see living transitional creatures, forget the fossil record. Yet everything is fully formed. If birds came from reptiles, we should see some reptiles with half formed wings. But we don’t
We should be seeing “life” crawling out of the mud today. If it happened once then under the same conditions it should happen again.

 

[Gricken]

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?

Necessity is the mother of invention. For most of human history, we were hunter gatherers. Without an advanced civilization we had no need of writing. But as we began to settle, it was found that having records for things like tribute at temples, (which is thought by some to be the origin of writing) was useful. You aren’t seriously saying that we have only existed for as long as or writing are you? And even if you are, I fail to see what that has to do with evolution.

 

[Farsight001]

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

Did you not read my post? “bacteria” is an astronomically large classification of living beings. Dogs are not.

You want an example of macro-evolution? Well isn’t according to you guys, macro-evolution just one species changing into another species? So if I can find one species of bacteria and see it change into a DIFFERENT SPECIES of bacteria, that’s macro-evolution isn’t it? Of course it is. The real problem is not that we gave an example of micro-evolution instead. The real problem is that you guys just moved the goal posts on us.

 

[vz71]

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?

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

I have not even discussed any mechanics of evolution, yet somehow you have ascertained that I don’t know the basic elements or major flaws.
Your psychic abilities are leading you astray here.

As to anger…I admit a little irritation at people evading a question instead of simply answering it, but I do not believe that has translated into anger over anyone accepting any belief.

Perhaps if you could quote a few posts in which this anger has betrayed me, I will apologize to all that caught my wrath.

 

[Gricken]

ok then I saw one Canine evolve into another Canine. Again, Micro-Evolution. I have no problem believing that every canine had the same ancester. Or that all Bacteria comes from the same source. What I have a problem with is the Canines come from bacteria.

That is what I ask for evidence of.

Of course I am told “Well, the process takes millions of years, we can’t demonstrate it.”

True, But if everything started from a primordial soup and then over time evolved into everything on earth, then that evolution should still be happening.

We should be able to see living transitional creature, forget the fossil record.
We should be seeing “life” crawling out of the mud today. If it happened once then under the same conditions it should happen again.

I will admit to being unable to answer the first part, I merely wanted to clarify that the difference between types of Bactria is MUCH larger than the difference between two types of dog. But I can answer the last part

Ignoring your reference to a “primordial soup” (not even sure what that is), you say that evolution should still be happening. The answer to that is simple: It is still happening. Evolution happens very slowly, over the course of millions of years. As all life is constantly adapting, all life is a transitional creature.

Um when did any of us claim that life crawled from mud? Unless God wills a new creature to do just that, we aren’t going to see it happen. Nobody here is saying that living things spring out of the ground on their own.

 

[Farsight001]

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?

You are moving the goal posts again. You wanted one species becoming another species. I gave it to you. Now you want something else and you act like I never gave you what you asked for in the first place. Not cool.

Didn’t you know that an Amoeba and E-coli have LESS in common genetically than humans have with dogs?

 

[Gricken]

Didn’t you know that an Amoeba and E-coli have LESS in common genetically than humans have with dogs?

Well I for one just learned something.

 

[Farsight001]

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.

Evolution IS the truth. I’ve even told you where to look for proof of it in this very thread. Thus, rejection of evolution IS, BY DEFINITION, anti-science.

 

[Farsight001]

It’s the best explanation we have using the assumption that God is not involved.

Which is an assumption we MUST make for it to be science, just as historians MUST make the assumption that time travelers from the future did not go back into history and visit and effect events.

 

[Steveabrous]

Did you not read my post? “bacteria” is an astronomically large classification of living beings. Dogs are not.

You want an example of macro-evolution? Well isn’t according to you guys, macro-evolution just one species changing into another species? So if I can find one species of bacteria and see it change into a DIFFERENT SPECIES of bacteria, that’s macro-evolution isn’t it? Of course it is. The real problem is not that we gave an example of micro-evolution instead. The real problem is that you guys just moved the goal posts on us.

Ok yes, speciation happens among Moths, bacteria, etc.

forgive me if I don’t get the terms right. What I’m saying is prove to me that Cats and dogs have the same ancestor. Give me an example of one KIND of animal evolving into another KIND of animal. Say a mammal evolving into a reptile. (Yes, I know that’s not how it happened but you guys are doding the real subject by taking advantage of the fact that us lay people do not know the correct terms. Which is typical)

 

[Farsight001]

I asked for specifics from two sentences that you wrote days ago.
I quoted them so there would not be confusion.
And I have also gone through the trouble of pointing them out again.

There are only two proofs I asked specifics for, and you cannot answer any further then to keep asking me to be more specific.

I think it fair at this point to move on knowing you cannot answer.

And I still need you to be MORE SPECIFIC, especially since I pointed out in my last post that one of the things you wanted proof for was itself proof for the other thing you asked for proof for.

And please stop saying I am avoiding it and cannot answer. It is extremely rude to so blatantly suggest that I am being willingly dishonest.

 

[Gricken]

Ok yes, speciation happens among Moths, bacteria, etc.

forgive me if I don’t get the terms right. What I’m saying is prove to me that Cats and dogs have the same ancestor. Give me an example of one KIND of animal evolving into another KIND of animal. Say a mammal evolving into a reptile. (Yes, I know that’s not how it happened but you guys are doding the real subject by taking advantage of the fact that us lay people do not know the correct terms. Which is typical)

Um. If you are going to criticize something, you should know what you talking about. It almost sounds like you are saying we are taking advantage of the fact that we know more about this subject than you do… but if that’s the case, then you should be coming with questions instead of arguments.

 

[Farsight001]

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?

Well first of all, I don’t see how this effects evolution.

But I must also point out, who gave you that information? Written language has existed for a lot more than 5000 years. Heck, we have beer recipes from 11,000 years ago.

 

[Steveabrous]

I will admit to being unable to answer the first part, I merely wanted to clarify that the difference between types of Bactria is MUCH larger than the difference between two types of dog. But I can answer the last part

Ignoring your reference to a “primordial soup” (not even sure what that is), you say that evolution should still be happening. The answer to that is simple: It is still happening. Evolution happens very slowly, over the course of millions of years. As all life is constantly adapting, all life is a transitional creature.

Um when did any of us claim that life crawled from mud? Unless God wills a new creature to do just that, we aren’t going to see it happen. Nobody here is saying that living things spring out of the ground on their own.

Very honest answer, and I appreciate it.

The part about the crawling out of the mud refers to Abiogenesis which is an Athiest idea. Sorry when I talk about Evolution I automatically start arguing against Atheism.

 

[Gricken]

Very honest answer, and I appreciate it.

The part about the crawling out of the mud refers to Abiogenesis which is an Athiest idea. Sorry when I talk about Evolution I automatically start arguing against Atheism.

I’d ask that you try not to do that in the future. I don’t think anyone on this thread is Atheist, and Atheism and Evolution are two very different topics. Can honestly say I have never heard of Abiogenesis. But as I’ll admit, I’m not expert on this topic.