Over half of Americans dont believe in evolution

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by Mike33
The fact that we have something in common called DNA to mean that we are related is an assumption.
I'm sure all living things have something in common.

Yes, and for some reason when you compare the DNA of all species you find similarity such that apes are like apes, humans like apes, apes like monkeys, and so on so that all mammals have DNA more similar than to reptiles, reptiles more similar to other reptiles, amphibians to amphibians and so on. This is what makes evolution a scientific theory. The molecular evidence was similar to that predicted by cladistics. Evolution made a prediction that rang true.

[CET]

Originally posted by Mike33
Sounds like a wacky idea to me. It doesn't to you?

Quantum physics is a wacky idea that goes almost completely against common sense, yet it is the most tested and well established theory in the history of physics, more so then general relativity and even gravity. Wacky does not mean untrue. The universe is a far stranger place then you or I can possibly imagine and common sense won't tell you much of anything about it.

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by CET
Those that just happened to have longer necks were able to eat more then those with shorter necks. Thus those with shorter necks died and those with longer necks had more children. The children with the longest necks could reach the most food, thus giving thier children the trait of having longer necks. Etc.

Mike,

This is exactly like the cold-survival you brought up earlier combined with the gene passing probability that I discussed.

[Joe Citizen]

Originally posted by stocktrader23
So before they "evolved" longer necks they couldn't reach this food and died? Nothing left to evolve from eh?

No, only giraffes with longer necks survived because they had a competitive advantage.

They then had long necked offspring.

[Drake]

Originally posted by sacX
Uh that's a long discredited theory of evolution. No modern day evolutionist believes that.

uhh whether it's discredited today or not doesn't matter. It's from this that our modern theory of evolution "evolved" .

The fact that we have an established religion of evolution now and we look back and say Darwin wasn't the first dude to think it up makes no difference to my point. His premise is what got it to where it is today. It's what we were taught within the last 6 yeras.

[Drake]

Originally posted by Colin
Yes, and for some reason when you compare the DNA of all species you find similarity such that apes are like apes, humans like apes, apes like monkeys, and so on so that all mammals have DNA more similar than to reptiles, reptiles more similar to other reptiles, amphibians to amphibians and so on. This is what makes evolution a scientific theory. The molecular evidence was similar to that predicted by cladistics. Evolution made a prediction that rang true.

We have things similar to apes more than we do with fish. We're land animals, we're warm blooded. Is is any surprise that our make-up might look similar?

[Johny Traffic]

Not exactly... very few examples of battle armor survived, for obvious reasons. But from the few that do, it is clear that these were big guys. Pretty much what you would expect when you figure out the strength it takes to wield a sword that is 4-6 feet long.

I live in Sussex, in England, we have real castles, with real armour, worn by real knights, you can see this everywhere. You are just wrong on this point. We were smaller, the suits are smaller, we have hundreds around us to see. Its a plain fact that we were smaller and by a long way, plus these would have been like you said the bigger stronger men around, but they were still alot smaller.

[CET]

Originally posted by Mike33
CET, this whole evolution thing started with Darwin. He had a premise that things evolved over time. That's the premise that runs through to today. It's the premise upon which all evolutionary inquiry rests.

He came up with the idea to explain the diversity of life that exists in the world and how it is possible that one species does not populate indefinitely. From the very beginning scientists have been trying to prove him wrong, but instead they end up prove him right. The scientist that truly debunks evolution will get a Nobel Peace Prize for biology and their name forever recorded in scientific history.

[stocktrader23]

Originally posted by CET
Those that just happened to have longer necks were able to eat more then those with shorter necks. Thus those with shorter necks died and those with longer necks had more children. The children with the longest necks could reach the most food, thus giving thier children the trait of having longer necks. Etc.

Makes sense. Now we just have to figure out why every other part of their body would have evolved the exact way it did. Surely every part of the body has a specific purpose since it wouldn't have evolved into it from whatever form it started at if it weren't needed.

BTW, since those with shorter necks died I'm guessing the mother or father has to feed the babies until they are tall enough to reach the leaves they need so dearly to survive? Wonder how long it takes a giraffe to mature....

[CET]

Originally posted by Joe Citizen
When I say 'creationism' I refer to what is known as 'scientific' creationism, not the idea that there is a creator.

What the hell is "scientific creationism"?

[titmowse]

Originally posted by Johny Traffic
QUOTE]Not exactly... very few examples of battle armor survived, for obvious reasons. But from the few that do, it is clear that these were big guys. Pretty much what you would expect when you figure out the strength it takes to wield a sword that is 4-6 feet long.

I live in Sussex, in England, we have real castles, with real armour, worn by real knights, you can see this everywhere. You are just wrong on this point. We were smaller, the suits are smaller, we have hundreds around us to see. Its a plain fact that we were smaller and by a long way, plus these would have been like you said the bigger stronger men around, but they were still alot smaller. [/QUOTE]

Wasn't Charlemagne suppose to have been 7 feet tall?

[Drake]

Originally posted by CET
Quantum physics is a wacky idea that goes almost completely against common sense, yet it is the most tested and well established theory in the history of physics, more so then general relativity and even gravity. Wacky does not mean untrue. The universe is a far stranger place then you or I can possibly imagine and common sense won't tell you much of anything about it.

I agree. However evolution is not "the most tested" or even tested. That's the difference.

[Joe Citizen]

Originally posted by CET
What the hell is "scientific creationism"?

No, it's 'scientific' creationism, not 'scientific creationism'.

http://www.scientificcreationism.org/

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by Mike33
uhh whether it's discredited today or not doesn't matter. It's from this that our modern theory of evolution "evolved" .

The fact that we have an established religion of evolution now and we look back and say Darwin wasn't the first dude to think it up makes no difference to my point. His premise is what got it to where it is today. It's what we were taught within the last 6 yeras.

You think that religion and science are the same? Science sent us into space, to the depths of the oceans, explained how stars are fueled, showed how atoms are combined into molecules to give us the elements and has given us modern medicine.

So we don't have a scientific theory of rocket propulsion but rather just a religious theory of rocket propulsion? Or is evolution the only scientific theory which you place into the category of religious?

[Johny Traffic]

Wasn't Charlemagne suppose to have been 7 feet tall?

Wasnt William Wallace suppose to breath fire?

[theking]

Originally posted by CET
What the hell is "scientific creationism"?

Yeah...where did you come up with "scientific creationism"? I have never heard the time before.

[CET]

Originally posted by Mike33
CET, this isn't rocket science. Whenever you don't have the answer referring somebody to go to see a biologist just doesn't cut it.

If you understood what you're talking about you'd be able to paraphrase. The general idea is what we're looking for. We've challenged it and showed where there are assumptions. All you need to do is show why they're aren't assumptions but that they're true. You can't.

There is some stuff that just can't be paraphrased. You can't take a hundred years of knowledge and compact it into a few sentences. I'm telling you to research it, because you will learn a great deal in your studies. I've done enough to be more or less convinced that evolution is the best theory for the change of life forms we currently have. Maybe a better one will come along, I don't know. But if you don't believe it and it is for faulty reasons, as has been pointed out too many times to count, perhaps it is because you really don't understand the subject and should learn more about it.

[CET]

Originally posted by Mike33
uhh whether it's discredited today or not doesn't matter. It's from this that our modern theory of evolution "evolved" .

The fact that we have an established religion of evolution now and we look back and say Darwin wasn't the first dude to think it up makes no difference to my point. His premise is what got it to where it is today. It's what we were taught within the last 6 yeras.

"Religion of evolution"? Have you been reading Kent Hovind's work?

[Drake]

Originally posted by Colin
You think that religion and science are the same? Science sent us into space, to the depths of the oceans, explained how stars are fueled, showed how atoms are combined into molecules to give us the elements and has given us modern medicine.

So we don't have a scientific theory of rocket propulsion but rather just a religious theory of rocket propulsion? Or is evolution the only scientific theory which you place into the category of religious?

It was used as a figure of speech. The way you're shoving dogma at me is similar in the way religion was shoved down non-believers.

[Drake]

Originally posted by CET
"Religion of evolution"? Have you been reading Kent Hovind's work?

It was used as a figure of speech. The way you're shoving dogma at me is similar in the way religion was shoved down non-believers.

You guys are way too 'tunnel-vision' today

[CET]

Originally posted by stocktrader23
Makes sense. Now we just have to figure out why every other part of their body would have evolved the exact way it did. Surely every part of the body has a specific purpose since it wouldn't have evolved into it from whatever form it started at if it weren't needed.

BTW, since those with shorter necks died I'm guessing the mother or father has to feed the babies until they are tall enough to reach the leaves they need so dearly to survive? Wonder how long it takes a giraffe to mature....

Take a look at a girraffe, they have long necks AND long legs.

[Drake]

Originally posted by CET
There is some stuff that just can't be paraphrased. You can't take a hundred years of knowledge and compact it into a few sentences. I'm telling you to research it, because you will learn a great deal in your studies. I've done enough to be more or less convinced that evolution is the best theory for the change of life forms we currently have. Maybe a better one will come along, I don't know. But if you don't believe it and it is for faulty reasons, as has been pointed out too many times to count, perhaps it is because you really don't understand the subject and should learn more about it.

Yes you can. I can define evolution in one sentence. You should be able to also. The same with physics or anything for that matter.

Psychology is the study of human behavior. Full stop.

[sacX]

Ok 4th time..

Mike33, mutations do they happen?
Has a population of bacterial always had antibiotic resistance? (even before antibiotics were invented?)

[ADL Colin]

This is silly. People are getting "I don't know anything about evolution" confused with "there is nothing known about evolution".

[CET]

Originally posted by Mike33
I agree. However evolution is not "the most tested" or even tested. That's the difference.

Evolution gets tested all the time. The peppered moth experiment in England, thousands of experiments on germs, virus' and fruit flies.

You never did explain why we need a new flu vaccine every year if there is no such thing as evolution.

Nor did you ever answer how there can be natural selection without mutation.

[Joe Citizen]

Giving equal time to creationism in biology classrooms is like giving witch doctors equal time at medical school.

[Drake]

Originally posted by Colin
You think that religion and science are the same? Science sent us into space, to the depths of the oceans, explained how stars are fueled, showed how atoms are combined into molecules to give us the elements and has given us modern medicine.

So we don't have a scientific theory of rocket propulsion but rather just a religious theory of rocket propulsion? Or is evolution the only scientific theory which you place into the category of religious?

Btw, you guys completely changed topics. This reply about me comparing "religion" didn't even address the point I was making.

Lamrack, Darwin, whoever. Who cares who originated the premise/idea. It served as the foundation for all future evolutionary thought. And that thought was to find support for the theory that things evolve over time into new species.

[sacX]

Natural selection can be expressed as the following general law (taken from the conclusion of The Origin of Species):

1. IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
2. IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and
3. IF there is variability of traits, and
4. IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,
5. THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
6. THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive

[Drake]

Originally posted by sacX
Ok 4th time..

Mike33, mutations do they happen?
Has a population of bacterial always had antibiotic resistance? (even before antibiotics were invented?)

I don't know.

Hey, even if bacteria "mutates" as you call it (why do you call it this instead of evolve?), they're still bacteria right? They're not some other species or animal, right?

I'm not in that particular area. I'm thinking it's most likely a form of natural selection. But I could be wrong.

Either way, it's a very weak way of supporting the evolution of man, whales, and other beasts of the earth.

[CET]

Originally posted by Joe Citizen
No, it's 'scientific' creationism, not 'scientific creationism'.

http://www.scientificcreationism.org/

This is not directed at you personally.

Creationism, not "scientific" creationism. This is a misnomer, beacuse there is NOTHING scientific about creationism and I detest the usage of that word in that phrase. It's an insult to science as we know it.

[kenny]

Evolution is the most popular hypothesis.

It can't be proven one way or the other.

It's difficult to conceive another way that makes more sense, but that doesn't mean something else can't be responsible.

It's possible that the answer is beyond our current knowledge, I doubt it though

Evolution is becoming more and more calculated.

All life on this planet evolved from single cell organisms from the oceans. It can't be proven but it makes the most sense as of today.

Prehaps in a couple hundred years they will laugh at the theory altogether

[theking]

Originally posted by Colin
You think that religion and science are the same? Science sent us into space, to the depths of the oceans, explained how stars are fueled, showed how atoms are combined into molecules to give us the elements and has given us modern medicine.

So we don't have a scientific theory of rocket propulsion but rather just a religious theory of rocket propulsion? Or is evolution the only scientific theory which you place into the category of religious?

I belive he meant that people like Joe Sixpack are zealots as in "religious zealots"...as defined in 4.

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2.. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

[webseth]

Originally posted by Mike33
1) Dig up all the missing links and put them in a row so we can see how apes turned into man. C'mon there has to be tons of them. We keep finding bones that are "millions" of years old. We even find bones of animals that were extinct millions of years ago, only to discover live ones.
...

We've done that, all species are transitional.

natural selection and evolution is real, it happens. the debate isnt in that, the debate is the origin of the first amoeba, was it a chemical reaction in primordial soup? was it seeded by comets? alien space ships? if so, what are the origins of the seeders? Was it god? that proves nothing too, now we need to origin of god. and on and on turtles standing on turtles standing on turtles. THAT is the argument, the mechanics of evolution HAPPENS, its PROVEN.

the big thing to wait for is life on other planets, and the conditions in which this life exists. if its similar to something on earth, then that would support that life is a natural occurance giving the right raw material.

- Seth

[Joe Citizen]

Originally posted by CET
This is not directed at you personally.

Creationism, not "scientific" creationism. This is a misnomer, beacuse there is NOTHING scientific about creationism and I detest the usage of that word in that phrase. It's an insult to science as we know it.

I agree but that is how they refer to themselves, only they don't use the apostrophes.

[CET]

Originally posted by Mike33
It was used as a figure of speech. The way you're shoving dogma at me is similar in the way religion was shoved down non-believers.

None of this is dogmatic, except maybe the creationist junk coming out of a certain individual. Stop playing the victim and just admit that you're being willfully ignorant.

[Drake]

Originally posted by kenny
Evolution is the most popular hypothesis.

It can't be proven one way or the other.

It's difficult to conceive another way that makes more sense, but that doesn't mean something else can't be responsible.

It's possible that the answer is beyond our current knowledge, I doubt it though

Evolution is becoming more and more calculated.

All life on this planet evolved from single cell organisms from the oceans. It can't be proven but it makes the most sense as of today.

Prehaps in a couple hundred years they will laugh at the theory altogether

It makes just as much sense as a religious zealot who believes we were put here *bam* one day instantly just the way were are now without a zillion years of evolution in between.

[stocktrader23]

Originally posted by CET
Take a look at a girraffe, they have long necks AND long legs.

Yes that's 2 parts of their body out of how many?

"Interestingly, a giraffe has the greatest chance of being attacked when it is drinking at a water hole. Normally, giraffes absorb most of the water they need from the food they eat. But when a giraffe needs to drink from a pool, it has to spread its legs wide so that its head can reach the water. In this position, a giraffe is hardly a match for an attacking lion."

So by giraffes evolving longer necks and legs to eat leaves higher up a tree they have to crouch to drink water which puts them at greater risk of being killed? Time to evolve longer necks and shorter legs I guess.

[CET]

Originally posted by Mike33
It was used as a figure of speech. The way you're shoving dogma at me is similar in the way religion was shoved down non-believers.

You guys are way too 'tunnel-vision' today

You've shown in almost every post that you know squat about evolution, insist that it's not really scientific and insist on being willfully ignorant and WE'RE the ones with "tunnel-vision"?

[ADL Colin]

Originally posted by Mike33
Btw, you guys completely changed topics. This reply about me comparing "religion" didn't even address the point I was making.

Lamrack, Darwin, whoever. Who cares who originated the premise/idea. It served as the foundation for all future evolutionary thought. And that thought was to find support for the theory that things evolve over time into new species.

Now, wait a minute. You are claiming that evolution is a religion and not scientific. This despite the fact that there have been thousands of papers on the subject from paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, even mathematics.

I agree. Who cares who originated an idea. In science, some ideas stand up to scrutiny and some don't. The general principle of evolution has. Lamarckism did not.

[Drake]

Originally posted by CET
None of this is dogmatic, except maybe the creationist junk coming out of a certain individual. Stop playing the victim and just admit that you're being willfully ignorant.

CET, if you were me and people starting asssuming I was religious, calling me names, just because I challenge evolution, maybe you would see that their is a similarity of it being dogmatic.

Most of the people, not including you or joe, have no idea what evolution is all about yet their willing to jump down my throat because it is believed to be the truth today. There was a guy earlier in the thread trying to convince me that aging was evolution. I was the "ignorant" one for correcting him because that's completely false.

People claiming I'm religious or believe in aliens or other dubious alternatives just because I don't succumb to evolutionary theory. That's like osctrazigng somebody or labelling them.

So, I'm not playing the victim at all.

[CET]

Originally posted by Mike33
Yes you can. I can define evolution in one sentence. You should be able to also. The same with physics or anything for that matter.

Psychology is the study of human behavior. Full stop.

That's a simple definition of a general science, you're asking that specific areas of molecular biology turned into a bumper sticker. How about you go take a few classes and read the scientific literature. I'm not your biology professor, but I can tell you where to go to get one.

[stocktrader23]

Originally posted by CET
You've shown in almost every post that you know squat about evolution, insist that it's not really scientific and insist on being willfully ignorant and WE'RE the ones with "tunnel-vision"?

Wow, no offense but this article really sums up the attitude here today.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-332.htm

"The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator."

[Drake]

Originally posted by CET
That's a simple definition of a general science, you're asking that specific areas of molecular biology turned into a bumper sticker. How about you go take a few classes and read the scientific literature. I'm not your biology professor, but I can tell you where to go to get one.

I've been in my share of classes. EVERYTHING can be broken down into English that can be understood by the common man. you think universities are packed with people with big brains that understand things you and I are incapable of? No, most are average students and we can understand just as much as they do. So, I ask you again, to break this one down for me. The fact that it's a subset, a specific area, could even mean it's easier to do so. Don't give me the cop out.

[CET]

Originally posted by Mike33
I don't know.

Hey, even if bacteria "mutates" as you call it (why do you call it this instead of evolve?), they're still bacteria right? They're not some other species or animal, right?

I'm not in that particular area. I'm thinking it's most likely a form of natural selection. But I could be wrong.

Either way, it's a very weak way of supporting the evolution of man, whales, and other beasts of the earth.

We have bacteria as integral parts of our bodies. Mitochondria, for example. Without mitochondria there would be no such thing as the Krebs cycle, which is what allows you to use your slow twitch muscle fibers (a muscle fiber that only allows use of less then 60% of your total capable workload).

[Libertine]

I'm not gonna bother to read this trainwreck of a thread, and will instead just state the obvious: evolution is a logical necessity.

[sacX]

Originally posted by Mike33
I don't know.

Hey, even if bacteria "mutates" as you call it (why do you call it this instead of evolve?), they're still bacteria right? They're not some other species or animal, right?

I'm not in that particular area. I'm thinking it's most likely a form of natural selection. But I could be wrong.

Either way, it's a very weak way of supporting the evolution of man, whales, and other beasts of the earth.

you don't know if mutations occur? Well it's kind of important to understanding evolution.

[ADL Colin]

Now I know what it must have been like trying to convince people that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. "It's only a theory, Copernicus!"

[Joe Citizen]

Originally posted by stocktrader23
Wow, no offense but this article really sums up the attitude here today.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-332.htm

"The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator."

More creation 'scientists'

[CET]

Originally posted by Mike33
It makes just as much sense as a religious zealot who believes we were put here *bam* one day instantly just the way were are now without a zillion years of evolution in between.

Evolution can be tested and observed, creation cannot. Therefore your comparisson fails.

[Joe Citizen]

Originally posted by Colin
Now I know what it must have been like trying to convince people that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa.

Galileo was not a happy man.