Do 6 Out of 10 Americans Really Not Believe In Evolution?

reply to post by Kailassa

Now first I need to explain that there are two theories of pancakes.
One is that pancakes are made by mixing flour, milk and eggs to a batter and frying it.
The other theory is that Mother did it.

Be accurate if you use sarcasm!

More correctly it would be like telling kids there are two theories of pancakes:
1. If you put flour, milk, and eggs in a bowl, with enough time they will form pancakes all on their own.
2. If you believe really hard, and pray to the correct deity, pancakes will be yours.

Your original sarcasm was slanted toward one view, when both views are equally weak and ridiculous on their own!

Originally posted by thegagefather

Originally posted by Darth Lumina
reply to post by debunky

 

Evolution may only be a theory, but facts are based around theory until the theory is changed.

And as far as the other side of the argument goes - religion - at least with evolution there's some evidence to back it up.

Ok and what are these facts around the theory? We've already established that micro evolution has been proven, but that is not what were talking about here now is it. You bring up religion. Which religion are you talking about? The belief in god or the rules that are established within a given religion? There is more to a religion than just a deity, so you got to stretch a little bit further than that. However, macro evolution could easily be called a religion by many.

What is the point of this thread other than to look down upon those who choose not to believe in the THEORY of evolution?

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Totakeke]

Evolution is unproven?

Tell that to the farmers and ranchers who selectively breed pigs/cows/horses. Tell that to the virologists who literally watch viruses evolve. Tell that to the dog breeders who selectively create new breeds. Tell that to the rose enthusiasts who create new rose varieties through practical application of evolution.

There's quite literally tons of evidence supporting evolution. If you argue that it is only a theory, it simply broadcasts your ignorance of scientific terminology.

What kind of proof are you looking for?

I suspect that aboslutely nothing would sway those of you who make the "unproven" claim. Seems to me that it's like a guy arguing over whether his wife is faithful while standing in line to buy her services.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by apacheman]

reply to post by apacheman


Just because humans can pick and choose the traits they want to see and breed based on those decisions doesn't prove evolution, it proves that humans can pick and choose traits and breed them together. There's a huge difference between evolution and artificial selection.

reply to post by apacheman

Tell that to the farmers and ranchers who selectively breed pigs/cows/horses. Tell that to the virologists who literally watch viruses evolve.

I have known a lot of ranchers and farmers, but not one of them has ever selectively bred a chicken into an eagle! No virus has ever evolved so far as to be self-sustaining like a bacteria!

If a generation of apes is 25 years similar to humans. And a generation of a bacteria is....say 2 minutes. Say it took 500,000 years for apes to turn human, that is approximately 20,000 generations. For a bacteria that would take 40,000 minutes, or 28 days! Have any bacteria ever made that type of evolutionary jump in under a month!

Just for kicks, lets say it took 6 million years for the apes. That is about one year for bacteria! I wonder why we don't see them jumping out of the petri dish and heading for the woods?

Keep in mind, I am not a creationist, I just like pointing out how ludicrous the evolutionary theory is in describing the vast array of life on Earth. If evolution were the only process going, then we should have equal numbers of species for similar environments. (I.E. everything in warm ocean would be similar, everything in deserts, or mountains, etc. Why would millions of different things evolve in a similar environment?)



[edit on 30-6-2009 by getreadyalready]

reply to post by DASFEX


Hi Dasfex,
Welcome to ATS!

I was going to post the question why does it matter!

But you answered my question before I asked it.
Perhaps it was faster than light communication as mentioned in another thread recently?

It's strange

The religious people who have faith, worry that they might be wrong.

The scientists who have evidence, worry that they might be wrong.

No wonder the aliens don't land on the Whitehouse lawn, that would upset nearly everyone.

reply to post by Totakeke


Oh, really?

Kindly explain to me the difference...selective breeding makes use of known evolutionary processes. Lab rats are deliberately evolved to be specifically useful for different research purposes.

The shorter a species' lifespan is, the more obvious the evolutionary processes are.

"just because...." Good grief, don't you realize that that people were applying evolutionary principles for breeding purposes long before they really understood what they were doing in the theoretical sense. That you can selectively breed something is, in and of itself, proof of the process.

Again, what kind of proof are you looking for? A memo from some god? Now there's a concept for which there isn't a single shred of proof. Every god ever dreamt up was nothing more than a delusion or a way to gain money and power.

reply to post by lightchild


Those who have faith don't worry that they might be wrong because they have faith. I believe in God and I don't worry that I'm wrong, because I have faith.

reply to post by apacheman


But they're still mice, just with different traits. They're not a totally new species. Adaptation is different than evolution.

Again, what kind of proof are you looking for? A memo from some god? Now there's a concept for which there isn't a single shred of proof. Every god ever dreamt up was nothing more than a delusion or a way to gain money and power.

Try being a little less condescending.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Totakeke]

reply to post by apacheman



I believe what you just described was creation.

Evolution is a natural process and what you stated is man intervening in nature and CREATING his own design.

There will never be absolute proof of either creation or otherwise. That is the way God intended it to be. The door is open for you to make a choice between either believing God or believing scientific fact. Let me explain:

This life is a test. The test began with Adam and Eve. They were given information by God, and they had a choice to believe it or disbelieve it. They chose to disbelieve God and to believe Satan. They believed that the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was not going to make them die. That free will choice was essential to proving if they loved God, or loved themselves more.

We are undergoing tests daily. God has shown us throughout the Bible that these are tests of love, to see if you love Him or if you love the messenger that counters what He said. For example, Deuteronomy 13:1-3.

1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, 2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; 3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

So, today our dreamers of dreams who are presenting opposing views would be scientists with theories, backed up with scientific facts. When they prove these facts, they disprove the Bible, and by disproving the Bible they replace it with another set of beliefs (other gods, so to speak) that you will serve. You will believe that man is an evolved animal, that there is no God, and morals are defined by man, to name a few things.

So, we can deduce from this that the scientific data will be right. It will state that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Tests will prove it. Evolution will be proven, with transitional forms. Scientists will absolutely prove that man came from apes. However, God said He made it in 6 days. Who will you choose to believe? If you choose to believe it is old, do you lose faith in the Bible? Of course you do. Who wants you to lose faith in the Bible? The same entity that wanted Adam and Eve to lose faith in God.

So, God made the world aged. The starlight was enroute and already arrived. Adam was able to eat ripe fruit and name existing animals. Animals were able to eat grass and herbs that were fully mature. Adam and Eve were not embryonic, but were fully grown. Atomic structures had moved through much of their half-lifes, etc. Everything, including a fossil record, was aged and in existence. Why? Well, logically, if it all scientifically tested to be around 6000 years old, you wouldn't have a choice, would you?

Well, God can do anything He wants. It is no big problem for Him to make an aged world. Take a look at the earth from space in this photo grebz.fr... and with an understanding that God made the entire universe, do you see a problem with Him having the ability to make this world aged?

Lucky for us, there is a help for the Christian believer from Jesus on this very important topic. Jesus gives the believer some confidence. The Bible says that Jesus made everything that was made:

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Well, in the New Testament we find a curious verse: John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

So, the first miracle He did in the Old Testament was making the creation of everything. The first miracle He did in the New Testament was the miracle at Cana, where He turned water into wine. Let's look further: The creation occurred in 6 days. There were six waterpots of water turned into wine. The creation was made aged. The wine was made aged. The water was turned into wine in a town named Cana. The meaning of Cana is "to create, build".

Believe in the scientific facts. I do. I absolutely believe that the scientific facts show the world is 4.5 billion years old, and that the universe is over 13 billion years old. I believe the fossil record shows that man and animals have either gone through an extinction process from their original creation, or else they have evolved. I believe the scientific data shows this quite conclusively. However, God said He made it in six days.

He made it aged. There never was a conflict between creationists and scientific data. Even the Bible says that in 1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

The oppositions of science are not oppositions. They are called that falsely. The have nothing to do with what God said. In fact, they cause you to "err concerning the faith." You have abandoned the Almighty God, who made the world aged, and put your faith in other "gods," if you will, leading you to disbelieve in the God that made you and loves you.

Consider this picture of the Earth www.grebz.fr... and consider that it is nothing in comparison to the universe that God made. Do you think God would have a problem making it appear aged? Perhaps you think of God as a man, instead of God. If so, please read this: Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man...

Take heart, those who believe in Jesus. 2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, ...

Here's a scientific tidbit for those who do not believe in a six day creation: www.halos.com....


Return unto me and I will return unto you, saith the Lord.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Jim Scott]

Forget about evolution, the amount of Americans who believe in god is what's truly terrifying.

reply to post by Jim Scott


Why would God make an aged world? To trick people into thinking it was always here? God wouldn't do something like that. There's a lot more evidence to suggest that the world is 6000 years old than 4.5 billion.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Totakeke]

reply to post by judoka


Amen to that!

All I know is that anyone who talks to invisible gods and expects them to intervene on their behalf is at least half insane. I'll buy ghosts before I'll buy gods, there's actually more proof of the one than the other.

And if, if, a god actually exists, that prick has a lot to answer for. If this is its "plan", then it sucks at planning.

reply to post by apacheman


Actually, if you're talking about all of the problems in the world, blame sin, not God.

reply to post by getreadyalready


getreadyalready,

Well - yes - in fact I posted simply to make it clear that their are plenty of logically minded scientists whom believe evolution was put into motion by God, and that God existing as an observer before evolution on Earth began in this universe, irrevocably influenced the evolutionary process by "his" mere observation of it, as predicted by the theory of quantum physics.

To believe this, though, one has to see much of the Book of Genesis as a parable - and this is internally consistant with Christ's utilization of parables to convey many important truth's about the nature of the Universe.

I also believe it elegantly solves the problem of the existance of Free Will - for if God had revealed to much specific understanding about Human Biology in Genesis, than such foreknowledge would have proven his existance and nullified man's ability to exercise true Free Will.

He could still rebel - but - like the angels - only with absolute certainty to the consequences of such rebeliion.

Thus submitting to God would be all about Fear, instead of all about Faith and Love.

I think the more people learn about both sides of the debate - the more they will understand that both Christianity and Evolution are not inherrently mutally exclusive - but rather quite complimentary.

First off I think that poll is extremely inaccurate, but if it is accurate than I really fear for this country.

Secondly, looking at this from my standpoint of cosmology, biology, and my own personal religious thoughts I believe that evolution did happen but was made possible because of some higher, multidimensional being. I think that God was created likely when the multiverse was created. It is possible that either God made it possible or helped other life form and evolve or did not play a role in our creation at all and could simply be some type of omnidimensional, multiversal conscious. It is also possible that "God" is nothing more than the collective consciousness of all things in the multiverse. I mean think about it, if quantum theory is true, as well one of the string theories then we have an infinite amount of parallel universes, a near infinite amount of origional universes, and likely 11 dimensions of spatial orientation. Okay, now assuming that hyperspace is either 11 dimensional or infinite dimensional we can add that to the list of an infinite medium for a conscious of all things, living and non that have ever been, are, and will be in in all probability distrubutions.

In conclusion, this would CERTAINTLY be a plausible way to explain the enormity of Gods supposed power, this makes sense enough to where we can see how God can exist in ways we can not comprehend, how he (it) can get all this power, and how the power of creation can truly be attributed to both nature AND God, if God is simply the 'core' or 'connection' of everything everywhere. Someone asked how does nature explain the consciousness or soul transfer, well IMO this can be explained by string and membrane theories, as well high energy quantum mechanics and particle physics. But this is only all my own opinion and could be very, very wrong. I am still currently trying to modify my own personal belief as I search for answers myself. But to sum it up I think BOTH God and evolution are right, in fact they are one in my opinion. God my have helped it along or interfered at points or might not have had a part at all, other than being the force of all things that exist.

[edit on 6/30/2009 by jkrog08]

reply to post by apacheman


Actually there isn't any evidence that evolution is proven. Could you perhaps enlighten us all on these facts? I've already covered micro evolution, so no need to go there. And if i did tell ranchers and farmers that evolution is unproven, they'll probably just look at me, shrug and go about there day. I'm origionally from the midwest, surrounded by farms and such. Evidence waiting....

If someone has a thought, an idea of how something may do or be, that is called a postulate. If there is enough evidence, it progresses to a theory. When it is established as fact, it is a Law. Like, say, the Second Law of Thermodynamics; EVERYTHING moves from an ordered state, to a disordered state. Now, Evolution is well known as a Theory, not a Law. However, it is not well known that among paleontolgists there is exasperation at the dearth of evidence, of links, to show evolution. They have been working feverishly to try and find A link. Not just man, but all of life. IE there is not enough evidence to call the Evolutionary Postulate, a theory. Just like the Theory of Gravity now has another Theory that would seem to explain gravity much better; the Theory of Everything. The more educated you become, the more you realize you don't know anything. Only a sophmore thinks he has a firm grasp on reality.

What (Not who) produced the rules ie the environment of evolution?

What (Not who) produced The All, for Evolution to occur in?

So we are looking at the purpose behind All not whether Evolution truly exists or Not!

Perhaps it is Not just religious people that can't accept the theory of evolution according to humankind.

I know of a number of people in the Scientific community, that laugh at the idea of Evolution being the control on the future, of any species and that something else (Not Someone) is behind the story of this little Universe we look into.

Why is humankind so obsessed with trying to prove anything whether Evolution is a fact or Not ???

Why should we accept either side of the argument???

Sounds a bit like a "vote" for the understanding of human primates that know next to nothing at all about themselves but pretend to have knowledge... LOL..

Knowledge in itself means nothing at all....

We can have knowledge of fantasies, or knowledge of fact!

Evolution is Not a Fact, but is only the product of human understanding involving an obsession, to explain away their obsessive insecurity regarding the identification of Life (component) in the true sense of the word.

What is Life ??? My body is dead but "I" am alive.

When we refer to "I" what are we really relating to ???

The Body and Environment we experience or something else???

The human Primate or the Conscious Entity that is aware of the human Primate as the human Primate (Animal) is Not aware of my Conscious Entity!

There are two things involved here...

The entity experiencing the world and what is being experienced.

The Brain is only a Decoder/Encoder in a process that involves the observer and what is being observed or experienced....

What I am saying is that perhaps we should dig a little further, rather than being in so much of a hurry and assuming ???



[edit on 30-6-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]