• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows[W:571]

Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

So was Calvin Coolidge.



Al Gore's mansion is in Nashville, which last I checked wasn't near the ocean.


EDIT: He also has a place in Montecito, Calif. Also not near the ocean, but closer than Nashville.

Hey Kobie, what do you think is going to happen with our utility bills if THIS stuff ever goes through?

Earlier this month, Democrats in the House and Senate released draft legislation that put a gradually increasing price on carbon emissions to reduce the use of carbon-heavy energy sources, like coal. A move which was cheered on by environmental groups.

“It rightly sets aggressive goals and builds on the progress already underway to clean up pollution from our cars, trucks and new power plants,” said Franz Matzner, associate director of government affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Confronting climate change, though, will require the use of current authority to cut emissions, in addition to complementary measures such as those in the draft bill.”

Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer also introduced legislation to put a fee on carbon emissions which would fund green-energy projects such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass.



Read more: Al Gore says now is the time for a carbon tax | The Daily Caller
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

How did this thread get so derailed?

Why are a majority of those who vote for one party rejecting science? That is the question of the day, I think.

such science has been politicized.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

such science has been politicized.

Same as it ever was.

Heretics, iconoclasts and free thinkers have always been an endangered species.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

PRINCESSES, can we get back to the topic?

Creationism has been debunked for decades and evidence for evolution has been mounted for hundreds of years.

It's not comparable to voting for a candidate where you often have less than a few months to decide.

The Cliffs of Dover have been around for eons and show evolution literally in stone. Let's get back to how Creationist are stupid
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

yeah the dem congress had nothing to do with that

The buck stops at the presidents desk, but then we're off topic.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

If humans evolved from monkeys, specifically chimps, then why are there still chimps?

*sobs*
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

I just read this article. This shows how unbelievably stupid Americans are. Its frightening that acceptance of science is the same rate here as it is in Muslim countries.

Christianity is more detrimental than all of the infectious diseases in the USA.

:roll:
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows


Aw, don't worry, although I was being just a bit tongue in cheek there, it is striking that the reply to it was a wiki page listing "the Ministry of Creationism" as authoritative source. Look, I don't have all the answers, and neither do those who argue evolution, as evidenced above by a poster, not interested in anything but calling those who believe in creation names, and stupid. Great debate right?
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

And then we have complex multi-cellular forms in competition with pathogenic asexual single cell forms which are able to mutate far more quickly. And yet, so far at least, no single sell form has succeeded in wiping out other forms entirely. That really shouldn't be all that difficult either. In other words, with the incentive simple life has to fill the world with it own form, and given that bacteria for instance can mutate so very fast, why has no bacterium ever eliminated all the competition?

This is an interesting point and I thank you. I've never seen anybody present it before. Factors such as: area covered by the species, adaptation to environments, reproduction speed of the species (and thus regeneration of populations) seem to be responsible for answering the question of why there isn't a super bacteria that has annihilated them all. It seem statistically improvable for one species of any kind to wipe out another when both species are native to the environment. Why is it lions haven't wiped out gazelles or wilder beasts? One has evolved to be the prey and the other to be a predator so with such simple data, we might conclude that lions will eventually wipe out their prey. However, we know this isn't true because well lions don't breed in the same numbers as their prey. If anything, the prey easily outnumbers the predator 1000 to 1. The same may apply in the microscopic world. Bacteria who feed on other bacteria may be outnumbered by their prey.

Food sources also plays a role. Bacteria can literally feed on almost anything. So where as one type of bacteria may feed on say plant A exclusively, a second type of bacteria may only feed on the carcass' of animals. This makes it improvable that one bacteria would overcome all others.

I can say that only in environments which have been altered by humans have we seen one species destroy another. We introduced certain plants into Victoria Lake (Namibia) a century ago. Today, the plants have destroyed the cichlid population and threaten to completely wipe it out. In short, by altering the environment, we have successfully managed to destroy a habitat where species became extinct through natural processes (drought, favorable breeding conditions for native predators, competition for food sources).

Now, if we take into consideration that some populations of bacteria can be contained within a petri dish, it seems unlikely that one could prevail over all others when you factor in weather, food sources, adaptations etc.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

This is an interesting point and I thank you. I've never seen anybody present it before. Factors such as: area covered by the species, adaptation to environments, reproduction speed of the species (and thus regeneration of populations) seem to be responsible for answering the question of why there isn't a super bacteria that has annihilated them all. It seem statistically improvable for one species of any kind to wipe out another when both species are native to the environment. Why is it lions haven't wiped out gazelles or wilder beasts? One has evolved to be the prey and the other to be a predator so with such simple data, we might conclude that lions will eventually wipe out their prey. However, we know this isn't true because well lions don't breed in the same numbers as their prey. If anything, the prey easily outnumbers the predator 1000 to 1. The same may apply in the microscopic world. Bacteria who feed on other bacteria may be outnumbered by their prey.

Food sources also plays a role. Bacteria can literally feed on almost anything. So where as one type of bacteria may feed on say plant A exclusively, a second type of bacteria may only feed on the carcass' of animals. This makes it improvable that one bacteria would overcome all others.

I can say that only in environments which have been altered by humans have we seen one species destroy another. We introduced certain plants into Victoria Lake (Namibia) a century ago. Today, the plants have destroyed the cichlid population and threaten to completely wipe it out. In short, by altering the environment, we have successfully managed to destroy a habitat where species became extinct through natural processes (drought, favorable breeding conditions for native predators, competition for food sources).

Now, if we take into consideration that some populations of bacteria can be contained within a petri dish, it seems unlikely that one could prevail over all others when you factor in weather, food sources, adaptations etc.


Why has no terrestrial predator ever eliminated all competitors? Or all pelagic (living in the ocean) predators eliminated all their competitors? Why arent eagles the ONLY avian predator still in existence?

Because a species does not evolve in a vacuum. Again: evolution is nothing more than a RESPONSE to environmental change.

Every living species on earth EXPLOITS its own niches within many diverse habitats. The ones that do not succeed disappear...eventually. Or, they adapt.

So the competitive pressures of OTHER species...predators in this case....drive evolutionary genetic changes in directions where that species is or may be successful.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Why has no terrestrial predator ever eliminated all competitors? Or all pelagic (living in the ocean) predators eliminated all their competitors? Why arent eagles the ONLY avian predator still in existence?

Because a species does not evolve in a vacuum. Again: evolution is nothing more than a RESPONSE to environmental change.

Every living species on earth EXPLOITS its own niches within many diverse habitats. The ones that do not succeed disappear...eventually. Or, they adapt.

So the competitive pressures of OTHER species...predators in this case....drive evolutionary genetic changes in directions where that species is or may be successful.

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just saying the reasons for why there isn't such a thing as a super predator are varied in the macro/micro world. They range from the particular adaptations of a predator to its environment, to the range it covers, to the prey itself.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm just saying the reasons for why there isn't such a thing as a super predator are varied in the macro/micro world. They range from the particular adaptations of a predator to its environment, to the range it covers, to the prey itself.

Apologies...I was actually responding to OftenCold thru you.

I used you....heh heh. No, I'm truly sorry...I just didnt see his original post in recent pages.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Aw, don't worry, although I was being just a bit tongue in cheek there, it is striking that the reply to it was a wiki page listing "the Ministry of Creationism" as authoritative source. Look, I don't have all the answers, and neither do those who argue evolution, as evidenced above by a poster, not interested in anything but calling those who believe in creation names, and stupid. Great debate right?


We dont have all the answers in physics or space travel, yet we've reached the moon and Mars. We VIEWED galaxies millions of light years away. Are you saying that quantum physics is invalid? Just because 'we dont know everything' doesnt mean that the foundation and data isnt valid. Are there still questions? Sure. Is the basic theory not only valid but functional? Yes.

We dont have all the answers for brain surgery. We know lots about the neuroscience that has charted the various sensory centers of the brain. Do we have all the answers about neuroscience? No. Do we understand the basic...and more sophisticated...functioning of the brain? Yes. Is that knowlege functional? Yes...we perform successful brain surgery all the time. But since we dont have all the answers....would you just toss it all out and say 'oh, it's just a theory.'???? Would you deny yourself or a family member surgery because "we dont have all the answers?:

Or do you have the sense to realize that the science is still good and founded on solid evidence, research, and verified proof and let them try to save your life?
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

it is striking that the reply to it was a wiki page

As opposed to those people who use that great oracle of scientific fact - the bible.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Yeah. Certainly sounds as though moveon funded this gem.

Why?

Are you doubting the claims?

Are you suggesting there's a smaller percentage of Americans that reject evolution?
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

So this is good news. Looks like the number rejecting evolution is falling from the study done in 2005 and the number accepting evolution has risen dramatically.

060810-evolution_big.jpg

In reality, it's probably all in the question.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

In reality, it's probably all in the question.

Oddly enough, the issue some how got super politicized in the US. Be interesting to go back and look at how that exactly occurred as to learn how better to educate the public in science.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

As opposed to those people who use that great oracle of scientific fact - the bible.

No one claims that. It's just your own nasty little attack of those that think differently than you. And it's petty.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

No one claims that. It's just your own nasty little attack of those that think differently than you. And it's petty.

Not being nasty at all.

And nothin petty either.

What's petty is ignoring scientific fact and replacing it with thinly veiled religious belief.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Why?

Are you doubting the claims?

Are you suggesting there's a smaller percentage of Americans that reject evolution?

Yeah. I think it's a loaded up poll designed to amp up a base
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

LOL-Gore couldn't even win his home state where he had been a long time senator. Kerry was a fraud and his main skill was marrying women worth lots of bucks so he could whine about the rich. and Bush managed to earn the two degrees he sought while Gore failed to complete two of the three he sought and Bush's academic resume was superior to Kerry's as well

Yea GW was a regular genius......

bush_turkey.jpg

bush_no_missionaccomplished.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom