Over half of Americans dont believe in evolution

That is absolute hogwash.

How much do you even know about the evidence for evolution?

Exactly

NUTRITION allowing bones to grow to their full potential is NOT evolution.

So a guy starving who is skinny is skinny because of evolution? No it's because he hasn't been fed. omg

I still dont see there is a conflict, you can beleive in god, jesus and the bible and still believe in evolution. God didnt write the bible, he was just the leading character

You need to re-read your bible. Jesus' daddy is the creator. The son is the saviour.

It changes. It's was once apes, now it's rodents. Tomorrow it will be kangaroos.

I prefer a response from someone that actually knows the answer, thank you.

He never once said he beleived in the creation theory

Okay before I even go any further, those who think they know anything about the theory of evolution, read this and then get back to me with your objections:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Ive long suspected that Australians come from Kangaroos, they all have long noses and are good at sports

It's the same thing.

I know that you can't prove or disprove evolution over millions of years the same as you can't prove or disprove we were put here by God. Finding a few varying bones in the ground does no such thing.

Hawking. I have a BS in physics by the way.

OK, so if you read Genesis you see that right away God created the light and the darkness and called the light "day". There's the definition of a day for you. One light rules the day, the other light rules the night to give light upon .. surprise! The Earth! The author called the next evening and morning "the next day". Each new day of "creation" begins with "and the evening and the morning were the nth day".

Also, the creation story has all the "flying fowl" created on the same day as all the creatures of the sea which is very much in conflict with evolution.

The story is clearly in an extremely deep conflict with evolution when the only way you can reconcile the two stories is to assume that day refers to a period of time in an undiscovered place called heaven where either due to a massive gravitational or due to its moving at an extremely high velocity one day is actually millions. "Day" is defined in the bible in a clear enough way.

Nobody "knows" the answer. People become so irrational when it comes to this discussion.

So what do you believe in?

Evolution, creation, something else or just like a good argument?

Or you can not believe in either. I never said they couldn't co-exist, I said there is no way in hell to make me accept evolution based on the information available today.

No it's not the same thing.

If you are truly interested, read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

That sounds pretty far fetched. I'd have to see some convincing poll numbers from groups that I would be willing to believe. Polls funded by people like Kent Hovind don't count.

Someone does know. And you are not that person.

I'm agnostic. I don't know.

What I believe of my own volition, is that man was always man. Rodents were always rodents. Apes were always apes. That's just my gut feeling.

yep but the creation theory people actually have the last laugh. Because if you beleive in evolution and you are right, when we day thats it, you cant say told you so. But if you beleive in the creation theory, when we die the smug fuckers will be saying, I told you so

Not true, evolution can and has been observed by almost every biologist. Speciation has been documented by a few biologists as well. Creationists have issue because someone told them that evolution explains the origins of life, but it doesn't.

Wow, you REALLY need to get yourself into a classroom and read the scientific literature.

The bottom line is that the vast majority of people who argue against evolution have no idea or understanding of the arguments in favour of it or the evidence supporting it.

Way to much misinformation in this thread.

found my answer:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mevolution.html

Dear Straight Dope:

I am not a believer in evolution, but I ran across this expression, and wondered why it isn't used in arguments against evolution. The expression is: If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes? --John Steward

SDSTAFF David replies:

Why isn't this argument used against evolution? Well, it is--it's just used incorrectly. Let's start with a quote from the recently re-released publication, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (Second Edition). In the section on "Human Evolution," the publication notes, "today there is no significant scientific doubt about the close evolutionary relationships among all primates, including humans."

Evolution doesn't work as a simple find-and-replace function. Have you ever seen the evolutionary "tree" diagrams in a science book? Those trees show how different species branch off and go in different evolutionary directions. That doesn't necessarily mean everything else dies. As the National Academy of Sciences document notes, archaeological finds "reveal a well-branched tree, parts of which trace a general evolutionary sequence leading from ape-like forms to modern humans."

The NAS publication actually answers your question directly in its Appendix of Frequently Asked Questions. It says:

"Humans did not evolve from modern apes, but humans and modern apes shared a common ancestor, a species that no longer exists. Because we share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas, we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes orangutans and gibbons and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past.

"Evolution is a branching or splitting process in which populations split off from one another and gradually become different. As the two groups become isolated from each other, they stop sharing genes, and eventually genetic differences increase until members of the groups can no longer interbreed. At this point, they have become separate species. Through time, these two species might give rise to new species, and so on through millennia."

In other words, the "ape-like" animals that eventually gave rise to humans split up into several branches, all of which evolved in different directions. Some of those lines became become extinct; others survived. One of the surviving groups includes you and me (and in theory P.E. teachers, although one wonders). Other survivors include the various species of monkeys and apes we find today.

So, John, I've convinced you, right? Attaboy--always nice to have another ally in the fight against ignorance. Incidentally, you can find the NAS publication on the web at http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/. Lots of good info in there!

Yeah God knows I guess, huh?

Hey, here's a little something to chew on. If you weren't around 200 million years ago when this process supposedly took place, you can not know for certain.

I'm glad you have that much faith in other mortal men. It's nice to know authority figures out there can tell you anything and as long as they have a Phd and are called a Scientist you'll accept what they believe without questioning it. That's one of the reassosn why patients wind up dead in hospitals. They don't question their doctor.

Humans and chimps are believed to have an ancestor about 5-7 million years ago. It would have been ape-like, not rodent like. But of course if you go much further back you will eventually have a rodent-like ancestor as all mammals are (as are all animals) related.

I thought you were never going to show up.

At least you have some idea about the subject at hand.

I remember from a previous thread.

Mine is an example of Evolution over a few hundred years, multiply that by thousands, factor in enviroment and breeding and you have evolution.

Too clever for you?

If I showed you a 1,000 piece jigsaw with only 200 pieces would you deny the existance of the jigsaw?

That is evolution and unfinished jigsaw.

So come on what do you believe in?

lol yeah sucks either way.

Thank you Colin

There are LOTS of found missing links, read the literature.

They do it with fruit flies all the time, because the time between generations is extremely short.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Whoever told you that is full of it. You have thoroughly proven that you know squat about squat.

And that's coming from someone who asks for a "demonstration" of evolution? Give me a break! Aging IS a part of evolution. One could not exist without the other. You are the one who needs to read more, and more importantly, understand what you read... IF you read. If you understood what evolution was, you wouldn't ask for a "demonstration".

So it finally emerges, eh Mike?

It's not the EVIDENCE for evolution you have a problem with, it's the IDEA of evolution.

Thanks for playing!

Evolution: The changing of lifeforms through random mutations which are naturally selected to make the species more fit in its environment.

There are lots of substantial claims based on findings proposed to be missing links. The fruit flies experiment is not an example of evolution.

Evolution DOES have a lot do to with origin of life. It proposes we came from single cells. Don't go with what you're told in the classroom only. Think for yourself. It makes a difference if it was a single cell versus a complete person.....that would mean there was no evolution if we were complete human beings that we are today.

What I was saying is that IF we could create life, we would have a greater understanding and it would add merit to the argument of evolution. Any understanding of life adds to it. Common, don't be ignorant. That's what science is all about.

So I'm debating with your stomach? WTF......................

But if you believe in god you also believe that he controls everything including time, hes not living the the same bounderies as we are, so to that effect, his days may be different than ours.

Im not expert, I dont have a degree in physics like you, so you can explain, is the worl slowing down or speeding up or something, the effects of the big bang or whatever, if this is the case then isnt it at all possible that his day was different than ours? After all he did create time

Itss not if you beleive god controls time

NP :-)

A life cycle of a human or animal is not evolution. Do some reading. Maybe I'll turn into a new species when I'm 80.

Explain that to the guy who thinks aging is an example of evolution

lol thanks Charly. See, you didn't have to bash me, I'm not religious. You're arguing with a guy that doesn't feel the need to swallow a new theory of life, just because we know that the Bible is bullshit.

I don't know if evolution is right or wrong. As it stands it does not have enough to support it.

That's rediculous. I don't believe or disbelieve in evolution. The entire point is there is no way to prove or disprove it.

Evolution At The Bar by Philip Mauro

Chapter I

The Theory Defined

"Evolution" is a philosophical and speculative theory, of recent origin, whereby it is sought to account for the various elements and compounds of the inorganic world, and also for the countless species of living creatures in the organic world.

By the "inorganic world" is meant the elements and compounds, as minerals and gases, which are without life; and by the "organic world" is meant organisms (plants and animals) which have life.

Although sometimes spoken of as a "scientific" theory, Evolution is not scientific; for science has to do only with facts. Evolution belongs wholly in the realm of speculative philosophy.

The basic assumption of this theory is that all things in nature? living and not living?had a common origin; and that all the diverse elements, compounds, and organisms were developed by the Cumulative effect of changes, in themselves imperceptibly small, all of which changes were brought about by the energy of "forces resident in nature."

The theory assumes the existence of Matter and Force, without attempting to account for the origin of either. Matter is supposed to have existed originally in a perfectly simple and undifferentiated condition. Its form is supposed to have been that of an exceedingly tenuous, highly heated mist or vapor, filling all space. Force is also assumed to have been exceedingly simple at the first, being nothing more than a tendency on the part of the entire mass of undifferentiated Matter to keep in motion.

As to where Matter came from, and Force, and the tremendous uniform Heat, necessary to keep Matter in a gaseous state, the theory is silent.

The theory further assumes that, at some time, and for some unexplained reason, the motion of the particles of matter began to take different directions, and also that, by the radiation of the heat of parts of the mass, liquefaction and ultimately solidification resulted. Where the heat so radiated could have gone?seeing that all parts of infinite space were supposedly heated alike?is not explained; nor how, in a perfectly uniform mass, parts could assume a permanently solid form, and other parts a normally liquid form, while other parts remained normally gaseous. Upon the theory of Cosmic Evolution all gases and liquids should long ago have evolved into solids.

These great changes in Matter are supposed to have been accompanied by equally notable changes in Force. Differences of "Environment" having now arisen, of which differences the theory has no explanation, the effects of Force or Energy would be influenced thereby, in such wise as to produce diversities of forms, until, by the continuous operation of those processes, with ever increasing ramifications and complexities, the infinite varieties of creatures, animate and inanimate, which now compose the universe, came to be what they are.

Such are the words by which the theory of Evolution is set forth; but the only clear thing about them is that they do not explain the origin of the universe or of any of its parts.

Other principles are called to the aid of Evolution at different stages of the cosmic process; e.g. Heredity, Environment, Natural Selection, Struggle for Existence, Survival of the Fittest, Transmission of Acquired Characters, etc.

With these auxiliary factors we have but little concern, our object being to inquire what, if any, foundation in fact there is for the basic theory. If that falls, the auxiliary factors must of necessity fall with it.

According to Mr. Herbert Spencer, the leading exponent of the theory, evolutionary changes are of three principal sorts: (1) a change from a less coherent to a more coherent state; (2) a change from a more homogeneous to a less homogeneous state; (3) a change from a less

definite to a more definite state.

Le Conte defines Evolution as "(1) continuous progressive change, (2) according to fixed laws, (3) by means of resident forces."

It is important to note the expression "resident forces," which excludes the idea of a Creator acting in or upon the universe.

Such is the theory in its broad outlines; and it is evident that thus far it is wholly imaginative and speculative, every essential feature being assumed without a particle of proof. Indeed it may be clearly seen that the theory is self-contradictory, as in assuming that (under the supposed conditions) latent heat could discharge so as to permit concentration to take place, when there were no cooler regions into which it could discharge.

Further it is self-evident that the action of Infinite Wisdom and Power would be as much needed for the creation of the supposed Matter and Force, with their supposed capacity for development and diversification, as for the creation of separate elements, compounds, and living species. In fact both Darwin and his co-laborer Wallace had to admit that it was necessary to concede, at various points in the supposed evolution of the world, as well as at the starting point, the working of an outside power, a power not resident in matter. From this admission it follows that there is nothing "unscientific" in the doctrine of Creation by an intelligent Creator.

"Cosmic" And "Organic" Evolution

Nature is seen to exist in two great departments, one comprising things having life, the other things not having life. The former is the "organic" department of nature, the latter the "inorganic." Between these two departments is an impassable gulf. Evolutionists have to concede this; for as Mr. Huxley said, "The present state of knowledge furnishes us with no link between the living and the not-living."

This is a fatal admission; for assuredly, ff the entire organic kingdom emerged out of the inorganic, there would be innumerable "links" between the two. It is simply impossible that all traces of such a stupendous transformation should have been obliterated.

To accommodate the theory to this state of the division of nature, Evolution has been correspondingly divided into "Organic Evolution" and "Inorganic" or "Cosmic Evolution.? Thus we have, at present, two distinct Evolutions, each rigidly confined to its own department of nature. The original Evolution, which evolved living creatures out of inanimate matter, no longer exists. It has gone entirely out of business, and has ceased to exist from the time, whenever it was, that the world of living creatures was separated, by an impassable barrier, from the not-living. It would follow that Evolution is not what it once was. Having once crossed the line which separates the living from the not-living it has lost the power to do so again.

Cosmic Evolution

Cosmic Evolution, or Evolution as it is supposed to operate in the universe at large the starry heavens, the earth and sea and air?calls for but brief notice in this article. Proof of the existence, either now or in past ages, of any such "law" as that of Evolution, is altogether lacking.

Suffice it, therefore, to say that if, anywhere in the universe, at any stage of its existence, undifferentiated matter has been gradually transformed by means of resident forces, into the various substances of earth, sea, and sky, with their widely different and often antagonistic properties, there has never been discovered by mortal man the shadow of a shade of a proof thereof. The results of all investigations that have been made up to the present hour bear accordant witness to the fact that stability of forms and of the properties of inorganic substances, is the fixed rule of nature. Those who accept the idea of Cosmic Evolution must needs do so without any evidence whatever to support it, for none exists.

Organic How then stands the case with respect to Evolution "Organic Evolution"? Is it any better supported than "Cosmic Evolution"! In this field it will be necessary to make a closer examination of facts and phenomena; for living creatures do undergo changes. In fact their existence is one of continuous change.

What characterizes the organic department of nature is the existence of individuals, each living an independent life of its own, and each having its own life-history. Each of these individual organisms comes suddenly into being; it goes through various stages of growth until maturity is reached; it reproduces its kind; it declines and suddenly ceases to exist. This is what we find throughout the entire organic field. But there is nothing in the inorganic department of nature which even remotely resembles this life-story of individuals. That field will be searched in vain for anything out of which the details of the organic world, comprising several millions of species, each with an infinitude of structural and other peculiarities, could conceivably have been evolved. Yet, the theory of Evolution, as an universal or cosmic process, requires us to believe that the entire organic world emerged, at some past era, from the inorganic.

Surely, if such were indeed the case, then the latter would contain abundant evidences thereof, showing how individual entities, with their characteristic life-changes, came into existence. And not only so, but we should also find everywhere inorganic groupings of atoms gradually reaching forth towards organic existence; and most certainly it would be possible by laboratory methods to transform the one into the other.

Due notice should also be taken of the striking fact that the beginning of the existence of each living creature is sudden, that its term of life is short, and that its changes are rapid. Whereas Evolution requires a very gradual coming into existence, exceedingly long histories, and changes of prodigious slowness. The fact then is that, in the field of the living, as in that of the not-living, there is no evidence whatever in support of evolution; but on the contrary every fact and phenomenon cognizable by the senses strongly contradicts that theory. This will become more and more apparent as we proceed.

Man the only thing I can tell you is that if you are seriously interested you can find all the scientific evidence for evolution here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

YAY! Read THAT definition. THAT's what evolution is. It's a SPECULATIVE THEORY! BRAVO!

YAY! So true!

Evolution At The Bar by Philip Mauro

Chapter II

Breaks In The Continuity

As we trace in imagination the supposed course of evolution from its assumed beginning in undifferentiated matter onward and upward to the infinite diversities of the organic kingdom, we not only encounter difficulties at every step and in connection with every detail, but we also find certain gaps, deep and wide, for which evolutionists themselves can offer no definite explanation. The first and greatest of these is the gap between the living and the not living. The entire world of living creatures is assumed to have emerged, sometime and somehow, and through "resident forces," out of the inorganic realm. Yet no trace of this marvelous process remains, and the inorganic world exhibits no progressiveness at all, no power or disposition to advance one hair?s breadth.

The next gap is that between the vegetable and animal kingdoms. If the latter, in its entirety, arose out of the former through gradual and infinitesimal changes, no trace of that marvelous development remains; nor can there be found in the vegetable kingdom anything from which the characteristic features of animal life could be evolved.

Next we encounter the great gap between the vertebrates and the invertebrates; then that between the mammals and other vertebrates; then the gaps between each of the two million or so of distinct species of organisms and every other; and finally the immense gap between Man and the highest of the brutes.

In considering these great gaps, and the many lesser ones, it should be borne in mind that Evolution is set forth expressly as a theory of origins, that is to say, as an explanation of how all the infinite varieties of things, living and not-living, came into existence.

But origins, including those of the very broadest kind, are just what the theory conspicuously fails to explain. Thus, to begin with, the evolutionist makes no pretence that his theory can explain the origin of either Matter or Force. The existence of these he must take for granted, and attribute them to an Unknowable First Cause.

The Origin Of Life

Going on further we come to creatures having that mysterious thing called Life. Does Evolution account for the origin of that? Quite the contrary; Darwin himself declared that spontaneous generation is "absolutely inconceivable." His co-discoverer, Alfred Russel Wallace, says that "the very first vegetable cell must have possessed altogether new powers"; and he adds, "Here we have indications of a new power at work." Huxley admits that there is no evidence of any link between the living and the not living; and other leading evolutionists could be quoted to the same effect. So, just where an explanation of the origin of a new and extraordinary thing is needed, Evolution?that great theory of origins?completely breaks down. Matter and force do not account for the origin of life. Therefore Darwin had to accept the truth of divine fiat to explain it. He seems, in accepting this truth, to seek, by the use of fine language, to disguise the fact that it is fatal to his theory. Note his words: "There is a grandeur in this view of Life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into the first forms or into one." If so, then is there not the same "grandeur" in the view of the direct action of the Creator in the origin of every substance and species? Mr. Darwin admits (because he must) that there is nothing "unscientific" in assuming the direct intervention of the Creator in originating the first living forms; and if so there is nothing unscientific in assuming His intervention to create all living species.

The Origin Of The Animal Kingdom

Going still further, we come to the animal kingdom, whose species have powers (as locomotion, feelings, etc.) not possessed by the vegetable. What has Evolution to say as to the origin of that? Not a word. Here again Mr. Wallace admits that the advance from the vegetable to the animal kingdom is "completely beyond all possibility of explanation by Matter, its laws and forces. It is the introduction of sensation or consciousness, constituting the fundamental distinction between the animal and vegetable kingdoms."

Thus, in respect to the origins of the major divisions of nature, the theory of Evolution is a confessed failure. It cannot even pretend to account for them. This fact will be emphasized when we come to point out, later on, that the foremost evolutionists, including Spencer, Huxley and Romanes, before their death, utterly repudiated the Darwinian theory of the Origin of Species. It would be difficult or impossible to find a naturalist of the first rank who would support that theory today. Haeckel alone, of the older naturalists, stood for its defense; and he was utterly discredited because of his audacious and unscrupulous conduct in forging evidences to support the theory. But we would at this point ask, what is the value of, and what credence should be given to, a Theory of Origins which admittedly is unable to account for the origin of Matter, Force, Life, the Animal Kingdom, and the Species!

Other Origins

Passing on, in our general survey of nature, and without further reference at present to the Origin of Species (of which we have more to say later), we come to the Vertebrates, that is to say, that large and superior order of living creatures which have a backbone.

Does Evolution give us any explanation of that? None whatever. While the difference between the vertebrates and invertebrates is not so conspicuous and notable as that between the living and not-living, or that between the vegetable and animal kingdom, yet Evolution is just as impotent to explain the one as the other. There is not the slightest evidence to show that creatures having no backbone "evolved" the many species of vertebrates, nor is there even a plausible suggestion as to how such a thing could be brought to pass.

Looking further, we come to the large and important class of Mammals, that is to say, species whereof the female imparts nourishment to its young from the breast. Certain species of vertebrates?the birds, reptiles and fishes?have not this peculiarity, nor anything approaching it. These, however, are far inferior to those creatures which have the nourishing breast. So we ask again the question: Does Evolution account for it? And again the answer must be in the negative. There is no connecting link between the two classes; nor are there any groups of non-mammals that are reaching out to enter the great class of Mammalia.

We would at this point dispose of an unwarranted inference which is often urged (in the total absence of proofs) in support of the theory of Evolution. That inference is that because there are many species which have features in common?as backbones, and nourishing breasts?those species must have had a common origin. That is to say, resemblances are supposed to point to an ancestor common to all. But the inference is without warrant. Such resemblances are just as consistent with the dogma of Creation as with the theory of Evolution. Resemblances are to be expected in the works of an all-wise Creator.

For when He has devised a contrivance, as a backbone, to serve a certain purpose, He would inevitably use the same device in whatever place that purpose was to be served, with only such modifications and adaptations as the varying needs of individual species might require.

We need not continue any further, for our present purpose, our general survey of the field of the organic kingdoms of nature. We deem it sufficient under this heading to say that, in not one of these orders and species, and in not one of the countless billions of organisms comprised in them, has there ever been seen the slightest tendency to advance, or to depart from its type. On the contrary, there is found in every living creature the most stubborn and unconquerable determination not to evolve. The whole universe, therefore, and every member of it, is a witness against Evolution.

Furthermore, if Evolution were the law of progress of the universe, it is manifest that there would be no species or other lines of division. There would be only individual forms, shading imperceptibly one into another, each in the process of becoming something else, so that classification would be an impossibility. The world that lies before us, composed of clearly marked divisions, orders, classes, species, all sharply defined and separated one from another by impassable barriers, is just the opposite of such a world as the supposed law of Evolution would produce. We can, therefore, summon heaven and earth, land and sea, and all the hosts of them to bear witness, that Evolution is a myth.

Maybe the dinos were too big to fit in the Noahs ark?