Only 40% of Americans accept evolution

[Atomic_Piggy]

I think its a plausible theory.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

That Cthulhu's going to wake up?

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Llama]

Indeed. Though his followers might be granted a reward, like eternal slavery or somesuch thing as opposed to death.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Nah, just less-painful death.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Llama]

death through buttsecks?

 

[Beerdude26]

Death through snoo-snoo.

By a gorilla.

Which isn't that painful.

 

[CptStern]

who cares? certainly not me ..after all it's not my schools that are rejecting science and instead embracing fairy tales, it's not my country where the current leader believes he's a man on a mission from god, it's not my country where human rights are ignored in favour of religious doctrine, it's not my country where a woman has no right to choose what she does with her body



who cares indeed

 

[delusional]

our schools still teach evolution, well at least mine.

 

[Max35]

the above post was satirical. Often the best way of getting a meaning effectively across.

 

[kirovman]

What about Hitler's freedom of choice? :O

 

[DeusExMachina]

He had the freedom Terry Schiavo was almost denied.

 

[CptStern]

Threat title: Only 40% of Americans accept evolution.

yes ..we've already established that by the first post. Except it wasnt a threat

The evolution theory is taught within the classrooms of America.

that may change ..sorry, that will change

Regardless, if 60% of the populace chooses to accept such is their decission.

and I would agree ...if not for the fact that they want to ban it from public schools across america ..it's no longer their decision

The freedom of choice, it's a beautiful thing.

except when there's no actual choice

Having said that, your probably going to rant on about abortion, which is legal.

what does that have to do with anything?

By the way Mr. Stern do you attend one of America's fine establishments of education?

what does that have to do anything? are you currently serving in iraq? no? well then never ever comment on the war....in fact lets eradicate all opinion unless you've actually lived it ...btw that means that every single creationist (ever) has no business discussing evolution ...they havent studied it so they have no right to say one word pro or con evolution

 

[Absinthe]

If 60% of Americans choose not to accept evolution, then yes, it is their decision.

Their decision to be complete retards. I find nothing beautiful about the willful sabotage of human intellect.

I think you seriously underestimate the power of evangelical Christianity in this country and the influence it has.

 

[PvtRyan]

Threat title: Only 40% of Americans accept evolution.

The evolution theory is taught within the classrooms of America. Regardless, if 60% of the populace chooses to accept such is their decission. The freedom of choice, it's a beautiful thing. Having said that, your probably going to rant on about abortion, which is legal. By the way Mr. Stern do you attend one of America's fine establishments of education?

It's not a beautiful thing. It's ignorance. You can't be an educated individual and at the same time selectively deny areas of science depending on whether or not they undermine your view on life. Freedom of choice is a stupid thing when it comes to science, it's not a fecking menu where you handpick what you like and what you don't. Science is an attempt to describe the observations we do of the world. You either accept a theory as the best current explanation of observations, or you try to make a more fitting description of the observation. You can't say "O, I like gravity, I'll believe that, but evolution I don't like, so screw that." It doesn't work like that.

 

[CookieCuttah]

Russia would probably be very high on the chart also, because Orthodox doesn't reject it and about 80% of Russia is atheist anyhow. In Communism the theory was required to be taught and today it is still very popular.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I know for a fact creationism isn't going to suddenly be taught in schools all across America and Evolution will one day be banned. That's not going to happen.

If people wanna believe in creationism, hey, good for them. That's their choice. What, we should force everyone to believe in evolution?

 

[CptStern]

I seriously doubt it.

I dont, and I have corroborating evidence ...you?

Never will happen.

again, opinion is meaningless without proper corroborating evidence

The spirit is stronger than the sword.

I dont know what you're getting at ..but that statement (imo) has nothing to do with what I said

In your previously thread you noted:

it's not my country ...

yes it is

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd.abortion/
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jan/06012303.html

Who says Creationist haven't studied evolution?

if they had in any depth ..they wouldnt be creationists :naughty: ..and yes I can PROVE that creationists (specifically creationist leaders) havent researched a stitch of material on evolution

Was just a question by the way. I'm not out to get you, just a fellow citizen of humanity having a friendly discussion about theories of our origins and the presentation of such in our education systems.

no offense taken

If people wanna believe in creationism, hey, good for them. That's their choice. What, we should force everyone to believe in evolution?

yes ..do we not force people to learn mathematics? biology? cursive writing? history? geography? what's the difference? science is science

 

[DeusExMachina]

Your evidence was what exactly?

 

[CptStern]

watch the video ..it's painfully obvious an "authority" on creationism doesnt know the first thing about evolution

 

[DeusExMachina]

yes ..do we not force people to learn mathematics? biology? cursive writing? history? geography? what's the difference? science is science

They're forced to learn it. Learning and believing is two different things.

And I meant, what's your evidence that creationism will one day be taught everywhere in America?

 

[PvtRyan]

Again, evolution is a theory.

Oh my, if I had a penny for everytime I heard that one...

Yeah, it's a theory, so is the earth orbiting the sun. Your point?

 

[Remus]

Oh my, if I had a penny for everytime I heard that one...

Yeah, it's a theory, so is the earth orbiting the sun. Your point?

The Earth orbiting the sun is a FACT evolution isn't...

The problem is that there just isn't enough evidence to prove that either one of these theories is right. So you end up picking the one that sounds better. I for one think that both creationism and evolution are bogus theories.:dozey:

 

[Zeus]

60% of Americans are dumb then.

*gasp* some people actually have different views? how dare they!?!

 

[KagePrototype]

The Earth orbiting the sun is a FACT evolution isn't...

The problem is that there just isn't enough evidence to prove that either one of these theories is right. So you end up picking the one that sounds better. I for one think that both creationism and evolution are bogus theories.:dozey:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-967128149563430244&q=penn+and+teller

 

[PvtRyan]

The Earth orbiting the sun is a FACT evolution isn't...

The problem is that there just isn't enough evidence to prove that either one of these theories is right. So you end up picking the one that sounds better. I for one think that both creationism and evolution are bogus theories.:dozey:

1: Evolution is a fact. Facts are observations done that are beyond reasonable doubt. We observe the earth rotating the sun. We observe common descent and life evolving into increasing complexity. The theory of evolution is the explanation of how these facts of evolution came to being. That is, through natural selection and changes in gene frequency.
2: Creationism isn't a theory. Because it's not science by not even the biggest margins.
3: There's shitloads of evidence for evolution.
4: No, you pick the theory (and evolution is actually the only theory substantiated by evidence to properly explain biodiversity, there isn't anything to pick) based on how it fits the observed facts.
5: Nice that you think that. But then, your thoughts are irrelevant, evidence is the only thing that matters. And going by that, you're WAY outgunned and quite frankly, that 'opinion' is bullshit. It's a conviction based on lack of knowledge, rather than a conclusion drawn from lots of knowledge.

PS: Apos, we need you!

 

[Absinthe]

Everybody who thinks "Evolution is just a theory" should go kill themselves right now. I am dead serious.

*gasp* some people actually have different views? how dare they!?!

Scientologists also have different views. They're still idiots.

We're not discussing some gray area like music tastes or what kind of food you like. This is ignoring and even downright defying sheer scientific fact.

 

[PvtRyan]

It's simple really, if you oppose evolution, you have two options: falsify it, or shut the fuck up.

If you can't falsify it, then you obviously don't have the knowledge about evolution to make claims about its validity in the first place, and need to shut the fuck up as well.

It's waterproof.

 

[Absinthe]

We've reached a sad state when opinions are used as a shield for idiocy.

 

[theotherguy]

Again, evolution is a theory.

So is atomic theory, the theory of gravity, newton's theory of motion, all of mathematics is theory, all of sociology is theory. All of science is theory tested by experiment. If you can't teach something because it is a "theory" then you might as well throw out math and science altogether and teach literature and the arts exclusively.

 

[Remus]

1: Evolution is a fact. Facts are observations done that are beyond reasonable doubt. We observe the earth rotating the sun. We observe common descent and life evolving into increasing complexity. The theory of evolution is the explanation of how these facts of evolution came to being. That is, through natural selection and changes in gene frequency.

Hmm... We observe life evolving into increasing complexity? Can you give me an example of a life form that has changed in time and we have observed it? I mean besides micro organisms.

2: Creationism isn't a theory. Because it's not science by not even the biggest margins.

True Creationism is religious BS

3: There's shitloads of evidence for evolution.

All the evidence is based on observations from nature right? Well the fact of the matter is we just haven't observed any living thing turn into something else.
Like I said before the only things that change at an alarming rate are micro organisms, for example bacteria. Even micro organisms change only minor things when they adapt to lets say a new vaccine but at the core they remain the same.

4: No, you pick the theory (and evolution is actually the only theory substantiated by evidence to properly explain biodiversity, there isn't anything to pick) based on how it fits the observed facts.

Evolution isn't the only theory, but it certainly is the most famous.

5: Nice that you think that. But then, your thoughts are irrelevant, evidence is the only thing that matters. And going by that, you're WAY outgunned and quite frankly, that 'opinion' is bullshit. It's a conviction based on lack of knowledge, rather than a conclusion drawn from lots of knowledge.

Let me explain why I think it's bogus. Take the evolutionary trees with different stages showing an animal change into something else, if you do a little bit of researce you come to the startling conclusion that some of those creatures dubed as "evolutinary stages" actually existed at the same time as the evolutionary result of the tree. What's the logical explanation to this? The creatures that are considered stages are actually complitely different species, but I'm the on with a lack of knowlage so you probably already knew this . So untill I se an animal change into something else I'll still call it BS.
I guess if evolution is true we'll al get super powers soon, X-men for real!

PS: Did you know the changes that can be observed on life forms in nature are called micro evolution?

 

[Raeven0]

So untill I se an animal change into something else I'll still call it BS.

I take it you also deny that Earth revolves around the sun, since you've probably never been in space to see it?

Despite the overwhelming body of evidence to say that the earth does, indeed, revolve around the sun?

It's no different.

 

[Remus]

I take it you also deny that Earth revolves around the sun, since you've probably never been in space to see it?

Despite the overwhelming body of evidence to say that the earth does, indeed, revolve around the sun?

The Earth doesn't revolve around the sun, it's just an optical illusion. The sun is actually a spotlight that moves away thus creating the impression of a sunset.

 

[Absinthe]

You're crazy.

 

[theotherguy]

We see new species of dragonfly evolve in front of our eyes every year. Also, this year for the first time in history pacific and atlantic salmon have seperated into mutually exclusive species.

The reason species can co-exist with their evolutionary ancestors is because the ancestors still fill a niche. Species seperated by geography develop different features and eventually diverge into different species, and oftentimes a population of the original species before the split will remain alive in another part of the world where conditions allow it to survive.

 

[Apos]

Hmm... We observe life evolving into increasing complexity? Can you give me an example of a life form that has changed in time and we have observed it? I mean besides micro organisms.

Dogs. Cows. Fruit flies. And also, pretty much everything we've observed for a significant amount of time. And yes, that includes observations of speciations as well, though generally people wildly misunderstand and overinflate the importance of speciation compared to allele change in general.

In just human beings alone in JUST recent history, we've seen the evolution of four color vision, immunity to the LDH cholesterol that plaugues modern diets, unbreakable bones, immunity from malaria and any number of neat new traits that may or may not spread wide into the human population.

We've seen bacteria evolve entirely new metabolic pathways, right before our eyes. We've watched species of fish, mice, and all sorts of other things change. We've bred different lines of cows into different species. We use genetic algorithms to design things all the time: something that would be impossible is evolution were just speculative.

All the evidence is based on observations from nature right? Well the fact of the matter is we just haven't observed any living thing turn into something else.

First of all, even if we hadn't, the evidence says that it happened, no different than the evidence of past meteor strikes or past volcano eruptions and so on. Just because something doesn't happen right in front of your eyes doesn't mean that we can't prove that it happened. That's a totally ridiculous argument. My favorite is when someone says "how can you know that whales evolved from land mammals: WERE YOU THERE??!??!" which is a question so dumb that it deserves a really amusing response: "Why yes, as a matter of fact, I was there! You can't prove I wasn't: WERE YOU THERE??!!! LOL"

But in fact, we not only have observed this, but we observe it everywhere all the time.

Now, of course, you are going to get creative with exactly how much something has to change to become "something else" shifting the goalpost all over the place to avoid being nailed down on any one claim you have to defend (and I can refute).

But as it happens, this is a pretty good time to point out a basic misunderstanding of evolution that I'm guessing you share with a lot of people: that it predicts that anything will cease being what it is and evolve into something "different" on the same level as what it was. This is 100% wrong. The basic pattern of evolutionary change is called "descent with modification" for a reason. That reason is that things do not turn into other things: they play out variations of existing forms.

The ultimate takeaway point is that evolution does NOT claim that a dog will one day cease to become a dog, any more than it claimed that mammals would ever cease to be mammals. Human beings, for instance, aren't just descended from apes: they are apes. They've been apes, and their descendants, no matter how much they change, no matter what speciation events occur, they will all still be apes, just as they have remained mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes, and so forth. If you thought evolution predicted anything different, you thought wrong.

Like I said before the only things that change at an alarming rate are micro organisms, for example bacteria.

In science, terms like "alarming" don't have much real meaning: they are vague, and alarming compared to what, exactly anyway: on what timescale? Scientists are precise. They haven't just bandied about terms like this: they've gone out and measured the rates of morphological and genetic changes in actual populations in both the wild and captivity. And what do they find? They find that those rates are orders of magnitude faster than the fastest transitions we need to explain in the fossil record.

So, yeah, I think your claim that things other than bacteria don't change at an alarming rate is pretty silly. Bacteria reproduce in a span of hours, and their genetic code is often highly unstable. Multicellular life tends to reproduce much more slowly, and is more stable. But looked at on a scale akin to bacteria, their rates of change are pretty "alarming" too, I guess, though I don't know why you find it alarming.

Even micro organisms change only minor things when they adapt to lets say a new vaccine but at the core they remain the same.

Again, you can only say things like this because you don't know much about biology at all. That things stay basically the "same at the core" is exactly what evolution predicts and requires: cats DON'T give birth to dogs (which would be easy with a miracle!) instead they both are modified forms of a carnivore core that itself is a modifcation variant of the mammal core, and so on.

Evolution isn't the only theory, but it certainly is the most famous.

Fame hasn't anything to do with it: it's the one theory that is consistent with all the evidence and time and time again produces results and matches new evidence.

Let me explain why I think it's bogus.

Oh fantastic: a random internet dude thinks he sees what would be a glaringly obvious and huge issue, if it were true, and simply assumes that people who have spent their lives working on the issue would simply somehow overlook this extremely obvious flaw day after day. But HE can see it! But before we give him tenure, let's see what the error he's discovered is...

Take the evolutionary trees with different stages showing an animal change into something else, if you do a little bit of researce you come to the startling conclusion that some of those creatures dubed as "evolutinary stages" actually existed at the same time as the evolutionary result of the tree. What's the logical explanation to this?

Hmmm, well, actually I dunno: I mean, what's the logical explanation of how you and your cousins are alive at the same time??! OMG HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE!?!?! But that is basically what you are sitting here pretending is crazy. Again, evolution is descent with modification, not "all other ancient apes vanish and are replaced by humans." Different populations of the same species become separated and start to develop, under the influence of different conditions, in different directions. That's how speciation normally happens, and nothing about it requires that the core species vanish, particularly not if it's well suited to its niche already.

Nevertheless, please, do inform us of your research and produce an example that we can discuss.

So untill I se an animal change into something else I'll still call it BS.

I call vague nonsense like "something else" BS. Explain exactly what you mean, and we can demonstrate that it happened. Also, this thing about having to view it via your eyeballs is ridiculous. Do blind people live in a world where they cannot know or prove anything?

PS: Did you know the changes that can be observed on life forms in nature are called micro evolution?

No, because that's a creationist talking point and lousy biology. Microevolution is a term used by biologists, but not in that way, and it doesn't have the significance that people who read creationist nonsense think it has.

Apos is here. Run away.

 

[DeusExMachina]

There he is...

 

[Absinthe]

Where did I say it couldnt be taught because it was theory? I didn't.

Your smartass "it's just a theory" comment obviously implied that it shouldn't be treated as factual. Don't double back because you realized you ****ed up.

Also, just a notice. Putting smiley faces at the end of your sentences makes you a douche. :thumbs:

 

[CptStern]

<pwning goes here>

Apos is here. Run away.

I started to run but doubled back when I realized I'm pro-evolution and had nothing to fear :naughty:

 

[delusional]

evolution can never be fact, since facts are mathematically proven and you cant prove evolution mathematically. the only way evolution can be disproven is something else comes along that better fits the problem

 

[Max35]

Surefire way to prove evolution: the testicles. Why do you think one is higher than the other? (to prevent them from bumping against each other, that is honest, scientific fact).