View Poll Results: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

Voters
71. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    38 53.52%
  • No

    33 46.48%
Page 25 of 42 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 420

Thread: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

  1. #241
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,342
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jzyehoshua View Post
    Furthermore, as someone who has followed the news over the past decade, I'm well aware of how drastically the theory of evolution has been weakening, e.g. the discoveries Homo Erectus and Habilis co-existed (meaning they didn't evolve from each other),
    You are correct, it is commonly believed now that they did not evolve one from the other but branched off from a common ancestor. THis is not a weakening in the theory of evolution as evolution still absolutely accounts for how they are believed to rise.

    dating problems when Sahelanthropus and Orrorin Tungenesis were discovered to have lived too early,
    Earlier than originally believed is not the same thing as "too early". The theory of evolution still can account for primate evolution. Also note that the dating is an estimate and the accuracy of it is still not known for sure. Again, in now way does this weaken or invalidate evolution.

    that Arthipidecus Ramidus (including the famed 'Lucy') walked upright and thus may be another 'offshoot',
    You seem to confuse learning more about how evolution works in one genus with weakening evolution. This, like the previous examples in no way disprove or weaken evolutionary theory They are in fact examples of us learning more about evolution and refining our knowledge of evolution.

    and that Homo Floresiensis, 'Hobbit Man', was not a missing link but yet another offshoot.
    No one really postulated Homo Floresiensis as a missing link seriously. It also once again in no way weakens the theory of evolution. Evolution can and does account for the possibility of Homo Floresiensis.

    As a result of these, scientists have been recently acknowledging the 'tree' is now a 'messy bush' with branches going everywhere, per Newsweek and the New York Times.
    Learning more about the evolution of one genus in no way is a weakening of evolutionary theory. Quite the opposite in fact. This is why I say that the debate is among those who are educated on the subject, and those who are ignorant.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #242
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,539

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    I don't know Red. I know I am biased but I did major in anthropology in college which included allot of archeology. I don't know who it was in this thread that said the fossil record provides even better evidence for evolution but I think it is the exact opposite. I think microbiology actually provides more evidence with the study of DNA being the real kicker.

    The fossil record is a dead end for evolution, or that is how it appeared to me during study.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 03-06-11 at 09:57 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  3. #243
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    03-10-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    49

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You are correct, it is commonly believed now that they did not evolve one from the other but branched off from a common ancestor. THis is not a weakening in the theory of evolution as evolution still absolutely accounts for how they are believed to rise.

    Earlier than originally believed is not the same thing as "too early". The theory of evolution still can account for primate evolution. Also note that the dating is an estimate and the accuracy of it is still not known for sure. Again, in now way does this weaken or invalidate evolution.

    You seem to confuse learning more about how evolution works in one genus with weakening evolution. This, like the previous examples in no way disprove or weaken evolutionary theory They are in fact examples of us learning more about evolution and refining our knowledge of evolution.

    No one really postulated Homo Floresiensis as a missing link seriously. It also once again in no way weakens the theory of evolution. Evolution can and does account for the possibility of Homo Floresiensis.

    Learning more about the evolution of one genus in no way is a weakening of evolutionary theory. Quite the opposite in fact. This is why I say that the debate is among those who are educated on the subject, and those who are ignorant.
    Well, the Newsweek and New York Times articles cited the incidences as linked in the conclusion the human evolutionary tree was now appearing more a 'bush'. Such a statement at the time was evidence of just how monumental such findings were in changing scientific thought. I mainly refer to them in my statement it was weakening the theory of evolution, as the deadends evolution has been forced to acknowledge, to go with previous ones like Neanderthal, are drawing a picture of human evolution far different than the one which has been taught in science textbooks.

    My interest is not in trying to invalidate the theory of evolution or a common ancestor, only to reveal there is some level of growing doubt, and that the theory of parent species, where evolution within species but not between them occurs, is a reasonable theory, and not that of a brainwashed, ignorant buffoon as many of the evolutionist crowd like to condescendingly point out. My interest is not in denying evolution is impossible, which to me would seem akin to disproving a negative, merely to lay claim to a plausible alternative posited by Darwin himself as a reasonable possibility.

    And I know LiveScience did report at the time that Homo Floresiensis was a missing link. They heralded it with a number of articles as such, and then deleted the articles afterward. I still have the links to a number of them with the 404 missing tags. Some would say they are a sloppy science reporting website, and I'm inclined to agree, so it's possible their heralding of it was exclusive to them and not part of a broader pattern.

  4. #244
    Sleeper Agent
    iamitter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NY, NY
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    1,836

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    I don't know Red. I know I am biased but I did major in anthropology in college which included allot of archeology. I don't know who it was in this thread that said the fossil record provides even better evidence for evolution but I think it is the exact opposite. I think microbiology actually provides more evidence with the study of DNA being the real kicker.

    The fossil record is a dead end for evolution, or that is how it appeared to me during study.
    It's not a dead end, it's just very small and paints an incomplete picture from what I can tell.

    @Jzye
    These things arising don't reveal any growing doubt, at least not amongst the evolutionary biologists who study these things. If anything, it reflects good science.
    Give a man a fish, or he will destroy the only existing vial of antidote.

  5. #245
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    03-10-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    49

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    This is another article they didn't delete. They deleted this article, and they've since restored this article as well as this one, although whether they're the same ones I'm not sure. For some time those 2 were deleted, so I'm surprised to see they've put the pages back up once more.

  6. #246
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    03-10-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    49

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by iamitter View Post
    It's not a dead end, it's just very small and paints an incomplete picture from what I can tell.

    @Jzye
    These things arising don't reveal any growing doubt, at least not amongst the evolutionary biologists who study these things. If anything, it reflects good science.
    While I would say there is a growing segment of scientists who identify with the I.D. or creationist crowd, and while I suspect it to be in part based on the recent discoveries I mentioned, they are still certainly in the minority. At the same time though, I don't believe it's become common knowledge yet that Darwin identified a plausible alternative, as I have never seen this mentioned on any creationist or I.D. site before - I found it myself by simply reading his book. I like to read source material like senate transcripts and legislation, and check for myself, doing my own research. Once that changes, I expect even more scientists could begin seriously questioning the alternative Darwin provided.

  7. #247
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Last Seen
    05-06-11 @ 07:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,082

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    What I know about God creationism or evolution is unimportant.

  8. #248
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    03-10-15 @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    49

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by sazerac View Post
    What I know about God creationism or evolution is unimportant.
    Yes, surely too unimportant to waste time even mentioning such a fact on a lowly forum thread like this one.
    Last edited by Jzyehoshua; 03-06-11 at 10:36 PM.

  9. #249
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    No I did not. You just don't understand what I was responding to. Huge difference.
    So you deny that you said that this quote:

    But we cannot ignore the fact that some religious people are ignorant And some are truly retarded. This one creationist I met (a few others tangled with him) argued that the flood and Genesis was literally true. When confronted with the issue of the geological record not sorting species by mass and shape, he basically argued that water doesn't sort by mass and shape. Except that you can test this. In your sink. A 5 lb dinosaur should end up on average, at a higher strata then a woolly mammoth. They don't. Ever. The problem with some evolution deniers is that they basically have a belief that requires their God to be a greatest deceiver of all time.
    made absolutely no mention at all of literal creationism?

    Even after you said about that very quote?

    Nothing about YEC etc.
    You have no clue because you are obsessed with your inaccurate definition.
    Cute. You can't admit you're wrong.

    Then you go on about something I did not respond to and even highlighted in my original post what I directly responded to.
    I guess citing you saying my quote about literal creationism has no mention of literal creationism even when I directly talk about literal creationism means I never proved you wrong?

    Your answers look stupid not because they are wrong, but they have nothing at all to do with my initial responses.
    Got it. You can't admit you are wrong. Even when your own words show you to be a liar.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #250
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,512

    Re: In the US: Is the debate on evolution between scientists and the religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    I consider it more a debate between the educated and the ignorant.
    So how'd you vote? The "ignorant" group would include many Christians, right? lol

Page 25 of 42 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •