• 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

shrubnose said:
And I don't speak with him, so I guess that I'll have to wait a while for an answer.
Click to expand...

Looks like it...huh?
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Montecresto said:
If when you say "god" that you mean to include the flying spaghetti one, or Zoroaster or Jesus or rah or Yahweh or Allah, etc., then by all means, I suppose.
Click to expand...

No on the first considering that's a modern invention made to fuel an anti-God argument. The rest perhaps (though it's just "Ra"). But the post you're responding to doesn't single out any particular conception of God.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Deuce said:
We have observed macro evolution in action.
Click to expand...

Stop the presses! Details. This is big news.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

calamity said:
No it's not. It's supported in fact. The Moral Majority (today's Southern Evangelicals) and Operation Rescue are the American version of the Taliban.

The American Taliban

American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right: Markos Moulitsas: 9781936227020: Amazon.com: Books

Behind Their Patriotic Disguise The Tea Party Behaves Like The American Taliban

Forward Progressives
Click to expand...

:doh Telling that the three articles you post,

Article one, a link to a book written by arguably one of the worst, bomb throwing leftists in America, founder of DailyKOS

Article two, from a source that declares itself, "real liberal politics" ie; far left screed.

Article three from a borderline socialist site 'forwardprogressive'

Yet somehow, along with your extremist language, you claim yourself a 'centrist'? Now that is funny.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

ethanUNC said:
I don't think you guys appreciate how bad this truly is.

To give you a comparison, this is as bad as saying that 33% of Americans believe that the Earth orbits the Sun.

I am outraged by this.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




So what are you going to do about it?
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

clownboy said:
Stop the presses! Details.
Click to expand...

There's a species of lizard that has some of its higher-altitude members starting to store eggs internally during incubation, then laying them just before they hatch. The lower-lying versions don't do this.

In a lab, scientists observed bacteria evolving the entirely new ability to metabolize citrus. For a bacteria, that's a pretty substantial change, going from being killed by a substance to actually thriving on it.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Deuce said:
You've claimed there are no transitional fossils, and when presented with a list of them you just handwave it away.
Click to expand...

Evidence != conjecture. You think some of those fossils look similar, great, you have a point of faith that they are transitory.

Evolution postulates that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Where are the half-leg-half-wing fossils which MUST exist in the millions?

(there are none)


Deuce said:
You've claimed evolution is based on random chance, but have not presented proof of this.
Click to expand...

It certainly is random chance that symbiotic systems come into being simultaneously. You're thinking of this as linear progression, which is a false conception.

The earth would need to literally spring mutually symbiotic systems into being randomly for life to exist. Plants consuming CO2, animals exhaling it, as a macro-example.

Cellular machinery working with DNA, coalescing into larger symbiotic relationships, all which had to exist simultaneously.

(and that is just for a cell to exist)


Deuce said:
You've claimed evolution is against the laws of physics, but have not presented proof of this.
Click to expand...

Entropy. (evolution relies on the opposite of entropy, an INCREASE in energy / information)

Deuce said:
You've claimed to have read Darwin's Origin book, yet have posted fundamental errors regarding how evolution functions. (You're completely ignoring selection pressures)
Click to expand...

False. I posted quotes of Darwin acknowledging major holes in his theory. Did you read those quotes?


Deuce said:
You didn't watch the video I posted regarding the "blind watchmaker" example, despite your claims to be a software engineer.
Click to expand...

I have in fact watched that video, and dismiss the conjecture as falsifiable. You accept the hypothesis on faith. So be it.

Deuce said:
You seem to believe that evolution research ended a hundred and thirty years ago. You keep talking about evidence, but aren't willing to actually review any of it.
Click to expand...

You posted a wikipedia page .... which as I mentioned, is mere conjecture.

If science = conjecture, I have no problem with that, you're welcome to your faith! I rely on more than speculation before concluding that the universe and life arose from chaos and undirected chances.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

mak2 said:
How long do you think fruit flies have been around? Lots more than 60 years I am betting.
Click to expand...

Well, such a study may require 60,000 or 60,000,000 years of testing to effect any change. The thing that makes evolution work, in part, is slow exposure or change (with EMPHASIS on slow) over a very long period. Sudden exposure to change is often death to the process in a given species.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

mak2 said:
60 years is not very long.
Click to expand...

No, it's not, but he hasn't proven to me that this study ever happened in the first place. I doubt he's presenting it accurately, because 50,000 generations over 60 years would be more than two per day. Fruit fly life cycles are short, but not that short.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

mak2 said:
60 years is not very long.
Click to expand...

In fact, when discussing evolution I might be embarrassed to mention it.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Montecresto said:
Well, such a study may require 60,000 or 60,000,000 years of testing to effect any change. The thing that makes evolution work, in part, is slow exposure or change (with EMPHASIS on slow) over a very long period. Sudden exposure to change is often death to the process in a given species.
Click to expand...

Slow exposure with SLOW change = billions of obvious transitions in the fossil record.

Which doesn't exist.

So you're doing nothing but speculating, poorly.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Deuce said:
There's a species of lizard that has some of its higher-altitude members starting to store eggs internally during incubation, then laying them just before they hatch. The lower-lying versions don't do this.
Click to expand...

Adaptaion does not equal macro evolution. When the higher elevation lizards become a separate species let us know.

Deuce said:
In a lab, scientists observed bacteria evolving the entirely new ability to metabolize citrus. For a bacteria, that's a pretty substantial change, going from being killed by a substance to actually thriving on it.
Click to expand...

Created the ability or observed the bacteria "evolving"? Did they spontaneously become a new species of bacteria?
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Montecresto said:
In fact, when discussing evolution I might be embarrassed to mention it.
Click to expand...

50,000 generations.

Hundreds of intense environmental changes.

And you call evolution science when you can't reproduce it in a lab?

Come now.

What about Mendels law? Can anyone address the recombinant problem this law creates for those who believe all life sprung from one progenitor?

At what point did the first cells decide to form into more complex structures? How does Mendel fit in here?

(Mendelian inheritance)
 
Last edited:
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

It just dawned on me there is a singlecellorganism on a thread about evolution. Lets try not to offend it.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

SingleCellOrganism said:
Slow exposure with SLOW change = billions of obvious transitions in the fossil record.

Which doesn't exist.

So you're doing nothing but speculating, poorly.
Click to expand...

The whole ****ing conversation is rife with speculation sir, else we would all agree and move on. It's not as though you just spoke the profound, now step down from your high chair!
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

clownboy said:
Adaptaion does not equal macro evolution.
Click to expand...
Well, thing is, it really does. The distinction between macro and mico evolution is an invention of creationists.
When the higher elevation lizards become a separate species let us know.
Click to expand...
Read up on the term "ring species." The distinction between one species and another is somewhat arbitrary.

Created the ability or observed the bacteria "evolving". Did they spontaneously become a new species of bacteria?
Click to expand...

The bacteria did it on their own merely by being exposed to an environment containing a lot of citrus for a long enough period. "Species" is a fuzzy term when it comes to a single-cell organism. Hell, it's fuzzy for us multicellular organisms too.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

clownboy said:
Adaptaion does not equal macro evolution. When the higher elevation lizards become a separate species let us know.



Created the ability or observed the bacteria "evolving"? Did they spontaneously become a new species of bacteria?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Evolution is faith in the conjecture of 'modern' researchers.

Not observable.

Hence, not science, but speculation / philosophy / wishful thinking.

The BEST evidence an evolutionist can present is micro-evolution. That is to say, adaptation within the type.

See the Russian Silver Fox experiment for dramatic examples of the changes which can happen within 50 years.
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

SingleCellOrganism said:
Exactly.

Evolution is faith in the conjecture of 'modern' researchers.

Not observable.

Hence, not science, but speculation / philosophy / wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

So, a type of bacteria killed by citrus later being able to eat citrus and reproduce using it as fuel doesn't count as evolution? Why?
 
Re: One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

Just as those that turn their nose up at religious belief, there are problems that exist with evolution as well...Here are at least 5 of them....

1. No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup.

2. Forming Polymers Requires Dehydration Synthesis

3. RNA World Hypothesis Lacks Confirming Evidence

4. Unguided Chemical Processes Cannot Explain the Origin of the Genetic Code.

And the biggie...

5. No Workable Model for the Origin of Life

Solve those, and you have a real argument for evolution, as indisputable....But I don't think that either side has all the answers, or that either side is 100% right on the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom