Finally, Most Young Americans Now Accept Evolution Over Creationism

originally posted by: Cosmic911
a reply to: Cosmic911

The ‘molecules-to-man’ theory of evolution can be problematic to creationists, not all evolution.

I think its fair to say that any instance of an individual believing that "molecules to man" is a valid hypothesis let alone theory is problematic as the premise is a bit fallacious. The term "molecule to Man" in reference to evolutionary theory isn't used in an scientific application. It is onlyused by people who fervently believe in the tenets of YEC. Peoplelike John Schroeder who espouses that Darwin is 'Sorcery in the Classroom'. it is a conflationof hypothesis such as Abiogenesis and Panspermia and forcefully attaching it to the Theory of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. The 2 are completely deperate topics and fields of discipline investigated by people with drasticallydifferent skill sets. One is a hypothesis and studies early chemistry of the earth. The other is a fact for which which the "how" of it is explained by the theory.

This is the theory that rejects any participation by God; and it is this theory that is incompatible with Christianity.

It isn't a theory at all. It is a complete misunderstanding of MES while attempting to appropriate its terminology. God plkays no part in MES whatsoever. Only the evidence and the data. Francis Collins is a devout Christian yet is one of the worlds most renowned geneticists, former head of the Human Genome Project and one of the first people to decode the human genome. God had nothing to do with his work. What mattered to him was adhering to ther scientific method and where the data led. Just like any good scientist.

This is one of the absolutes that prevents one theory from disseminating with the other to form a more scientifically-palatable theory for proponents of creationism.

The only absolute I'm seeing is the one you have constructed for yourself and was predetermined by confirmation biases. As there is no actual testable, falsifiable, scientific data in support of creationist teachings, it is absolutely impossible to marry real science with creationism. It's also intellectually irresponsible to do so. There is no 'making science more palatable to creationism'. If they refuse to accept or understand the science what are you looking for? To have science ignore actual data in favor of pleasing people who can't be bothered to understand or simply choose to be willfully ignorant towards science? Or are you just looking for someone to say thatits OK for the christian god to have done it? If its ther former...good luck with that. If the latter, once again, people of all faiths are working in every imaginable scientific discipline. It is an extremely minuscule minority of about 2% who aren't able to check their god at the door when they go to work. That means for 98% of Earth Scientists(biologists, geologists, anthropologists etc...) don't factor their personal theological inclinations into their work. Only the evidence matters at the endof the day. If those results aren't acceptable, there's no way to make it moire appealing tosonmeone who already thinks all of science is a massive worldwide conspiracy to hide the truth.

originally posted by: Cosmic911
a reply to: flyingfish

This isn't MY argument. It never was. You'd know that if you read the OP.

My bad..

The argument is invalid.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: MrConspiracy

They aren't necessarily but hard for them to coexist.

Especially from a strictly scientific point since you want to remove the idea of actions of the supernatural.

This is why science will never know the answers, because someone "decides" what and where it should look.

And those clowns are the same ones that brought you, RELIGION.

a reply to: ParasuvO
How is the decision of not looking to super natural means when a gap of knowledge exists a bad thing?

What about that is hindering advancement?
Science is doing a pretty bang up job in explaining thing.

And those clowns are the same ones that brought you, RELIGION.

Elaborate.

originally posted by: Sremmos80

What part do you take issue with?

Who said I took issue with anything? I am merely pointing out that the universe is a predictable, relatively stable environment and everyone seems to take it for granted.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

You haven't pointed out anything...

Why do you call it a predictable, relatively stable environment?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Teikiatsu

You haven't pointed out anything...

Why do you call it a predictable, relatively stable environment?

A universe with laws of nature, where we can apply tried and true physics to what we observe because entropy does not trump order.

Cool, Darwin himself said any evidence of reverse evolution will falsify it's science.
that happened when muscle tissue reversed in certain species.....also he said no way on the eye.....

no explaining the eye he said..........

Good News!!!, but in keeping with the national trends of less religiosity overall, which have been encouraging.

The two worst ideas, notions or concepts of humankind are religion & royalty.
Each have served to enslave & shackle both the mind & body of humankind for far too long.

Knowledge is power & no longer do those in power hold all the means to that knowledge.
The Net is like sand slipping through their fingers, small grains of knowledge available to those seeking to learn.

As tech advances hopefully we can liberate the Net with distributed node networking.

Remember Alexandria.

K~

a reply to: flyingfish

Ah yes, Millennials. The self-absorbed victims of the dumbing down of the US public education system.
I hate to think of a world without you.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
Cool, Darwin himself said any evidence of reverse evolution will falsify it's science.

No, Darwin didn't say any such thing. Also... there is no such thing as reverse evolution or DEvolution.

Thew only falsifiability Darwin wrote about in OtOoS had to do with the fossil record and "transitional" fossils. Which are EVERYWHERE. So no, no aspect of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis has been falsified.

Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172, 280)

Darwin also had THIS to say about falsifiability...

Charles Darwin made the case a little differently when he said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. "

that happened when muscle tissue reversed in certain species....

This is completely untrue. Feel free to provide a citation though if you feel that you are indeed correct.

also he said no way on the eye.....

no explaining the eye he said..........

As you provide no contextual citation or quotes, have to assume you are referring to this-

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

would I be correct?

What most in your position choose to ignore however, is the rest of his statement...

“Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.”

With the proper context applied, yes, Darwin does think that, based on all the available knowledge of the mid 19th century, that the eye is indeed a complex and baffling organ that he can't fathom how it was able to come together as it did. However, he also understood that it may become more easily understood as moreexamples were retrieved from the fossil record. Which is what has happened. We now have a much more complete picture of the developmental evolution of eyes in all their myriad forms.

He also said this when studies of evolutionary biology were in their infancy. DNA wouldnt even be discovered until more than 80 years after the publication of 'On the Origin of Species' and we know full well the developmental history of complex eyes. Or was knowledge supposed to remain at a standstill for the past 160 years?



Just for fun, here are some actual examples of things that would falsify evolution. so far... no dice.

If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

originally posted by: Cosmic911
November 25, 2015 | by Robin Andrews
-African Americans are less likely than are whites to say that evolution has taken place. I find this statistic interesting. I easily understand the differences in opinion between ages, that's apparent to me, however, the differences between races I do not readily understand. I wonder if this figure coincides with similar differences between blacks and whites in regards to those who are religious versus those who are agnostic? I probably shouldn't ASSume, but I'm going to be presumptuous here.

hmmm maybe because all depictions of the "missing links" resemble black people? evolution of man as portrayed through history is racist towards africans.

a reply to: JohnthePhilistine

Ah yes, Millennials. The self-absorbed victims of the dumbing down of the US public education system.

Ah... No. More like the creationist loons influence on the The Texas Board of Education, deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and trying to transmit such ignorance to children. This is the real dumbing down, trying to pass off fiction as science and fictional characters as real history.

linkis.com...
www.huffingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: sociolpath

hmmm maybe because all depictions of the "missing links" resemble black people?

ou might want to blame fundamental Christians in America for that then because in Anthropology and Evolutionary Biology, there is no such thing as a "missing link". There are no depictions of such because the concept is completely foreign to science. It is only promoted by bible belt christians who don't actually understand what the evidence in favor of MES actually is.

evolution of man as portrayed through history is racist towards africans.

This is an entirely ridiculous statement. Let's completely ignore the socioeconomic factors that place some groups in areas where education is drastically underfunded and socially under appreciated necessity and Sunday services are as important as food and water. It couldn't have anything at all to do with any of that right? No... lets imply that institutionalized racism is the backbone of modern biology. It clearly makes far more sense!

a reply to: [post=20079424]peter vlar[.....props...totally awesome and detailed reply....glad to know ya!!

.
now this angle.....what do you think of my buddy's reply.....ol Jimmy....he always says ..." if evolution is factual......stay with me now everybody on this...when we left the dock, we had just enough fuel to get the islan....wait, wait, wrong movie...". if evolution is factual, God invented it. " ......





O K everybody....how about a nice round of applause for the effort there....thank you....thank you

.

and let's hear it for the Holy Spirit, out in full force tonite ....thank you, thank you....We love you seven continents....good night....

It'd blow our feeble minds if "creation" of any sort didn't exist. I'm not religious and see it for what it is, and I doubt evolution because it's just a theory, as is religious myth.

I think evolution is a simple, human-created, way of explaining the unfathomable; as religion is a simple, human-created, way of explaining the unfathomable. We know nothing of space, though allot of us delusion ourselves to thinking we do, the same surety religious people believe in god with the same delusion. There's no real explanation as to why planets (organic spaceships, in reality) are floating around empty space for no reason at all—no explanation our weird brain could begin to conceive, anyway.

The only thing humans know, and will only know for a very long time, are theories created by our brains to explain that which it doesn't understand. And if the brain isn't creating theories, it's writing wild stories that future generations take entirely too seriously.

originally posted by: Flesh699
It'd blow our feeble minds if "creation" of any sort didn't exist.

Speak for yourself. Not all of us are as feeble minded.

I'm not religious and see it for what it is, and I doubt evolution because it's just a theory, as is religious myth.

A scientific theory which is supported by testable, repeatable and falsifiable data and copious amounts of evidence is far superior in every way to a theological or scriptural explanation for nAtural phenomena. The two concepts or "explanations" aren't even in the same ballpark.

I think evolution is a simple, human-created, way of explaining the unfathomable; as religion is a simple, human-created, way of explaining the unfathomable

Except for that pesky evidentiary issue.

We know nothing of space, though allot of us delusion ourselves to thinking we do, the same surety religious people believe in god with the same delusion.

Not at all the same delusion. In science we are all willing to concede the possibility
If being wrong if the data does not prove true. Religion doesn't offer up the same standards.

There's no real explanation as to why planets (organic spaceships, in reality) are floating around empty space for no reason at all—no explanation our weird brain could begin to conceive, anyway.

You're absolutely correct. What was that moron from Germany thinking with all his babble about Gravity and Relativity...

The only thing humans know, and will only know for a very long time, are theories created by our brains to explain that which it doesn't understand. And if the brain isn't creating theories, it's writing wild stories that future generations take entirely too seriously.

Again, this line of thought only makes sense if one purposely chooses to ignore any and all evidence. The science is testable, it is repeatable and it is able to be falsified. Religion doesn't afford anyone the same options. It is simply "accept what we say Or go straight to hell". But somehow in your mind these concepts are equitable? Interesting way of seeing things!

a reply to: Cosmic911

You misunderstand, I was replying to the comment it said 'a reply to:...'
My post suggests no such thing. Thank you for being polite though!

So we are still arguing this topic? I have a simple solution.

God created evolution.

OK...now can we be done with this?

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

That isn't simple... that 'solution' makes god a certainty when it is hardly.

That just ignores all other possibilities. You can't just insert god where things can't be explained.