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

Well it is a good thing Darwin never said the world was flat. Imagine if people believed that garbage as well. And now pluto is no longer a planet. YES! Science is always acurrate! No freaking way a human could ever make a mistake as long as he has that degree or can find people willing to go along with his ASSUMPTION. There is no God because we say there is no God and now that he no longer exists we are finally free and no longer have anyone to answer to. A VERY safe train of thought. When you meet your creator be sure to remind Him he does not exist because I dont think He knows. Someone should inform Him.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Well it is a good thing Darwin never said the world was flat. Imagine if people believed that garbage as well. And now pluto is no longer a planet. YES! Science is always accurate! No freaking way a human could ever make a mistake as long as he has that degree or can find people willing to go along with his ASSUMPTION. There is no God because we say there is no God and now that he no longer exists we are finally free and no longer have anyone to answer to. A VERY safe train of thought. When you meet your creator be sure to remind Him he does not exist because I dont think He knows. Someone should inform Him.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by getreadyalready



Wait, so you're saying that you want a bacteria to turn into a 6 foot tall bipedal organism in the same amount of generations it took early hominids to form modern humans?

I can guarantee you in the same amount of generations, bacteria would go from one species to another. As documented in the links below or just google speciation in bacteria.

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The same things do exist in each environment, if you think in niches. Every environment has a food chain going from smaller plant eating animals all the way up to your apex predators. Millions of different things evolve to fill the same niches.

Take Australia and New Zealand for example. Before man got there, these are two of the most distinct places on earth. Australia was like taking a trip back in time, dominated by giant reptiles and (by today's standards) primitive mammals. Yet you had the same niches being filled. Kangaroos are grazers, filling the niche deer or other hookstock take up in other parts of the world. On the other end of the spectrum, the now extinct Tasmanian Tiger and Megalania occupied the apex predator niches that would have been occupied by Big Cats, Wolves, Bears, etc.

The pre-human New Zealand may have been the most unique enviornment on earth. It's niches were almost exclusives occupied with Birds. The Haast's Eagle(50% larger than either the Harpy or Stellar's Sea Eagles) was the apex predator, while the Moa occupied the grazer niche.

reply to post by Totakeke


Just what evidence is there to suggest the world is 6,000 years old?

What is so startling that they do not believe in this THEORY.

The reason it is a THEORY is because it has NOT been PROVEN to be fact.

Those 6 out of 10 people are the smart ones unless of course they believe in majickal creation. In which case they are totally, hopelssly lost.

reply to post by max.is.awake

And now pluto is no longer a planet

OMG, why does everyone think just because the IAU actually set criteria for planets for the first time in 2006 and Pluto did not make the cut that all the sudden space sciences do not know anything?! It was redefined only because of our profound advancement in the space sciences and the discovery of many Kuiper Belt Objects and exosolar planets. Pluto is still there, it has not shrunk, and the only thing that changed is the semantics and thus the definition of what three criteria a body must meet to become recognized as a planet. Jeez, I wish people would drop that already.

Reply to post by jkrog08

My post was not about the fact that they changed it from a planet but that the fact it changed. What will the skeptics say if SCIENCE says tomorrow they miscalculated or misdiagnosed or forgot to dot an i and say we are here because of intelligent design? Will you go against the name of SCIENCE or will you hop over the fence? The word of God never changes since God never changes and if you took the time to think for yourself you would be able to see the proof of a higher power. I ABSOLUTELY agree the bible we read today MAY have important info left out intentionally by the Church but there is enough there to shed light on the truth. Even Jesus and some of the Apostles who contributed gave warnings about the church. Before you blast God, whoever or whatever He may be, go to the source and ask for proof. He did it for Thomas after the Resurrection. He will do it for you. Please give Him a chance and forget the wrongdoings of false teachers and preachers. They will have their Judgement Day as well.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by max.is.awake


That's the beauty of science. It figures out where it is wrong and moves forward. However, there have been plenty of chances for evolution to be thrown by the wayside. The discovery of genetics, the fossil record, and other studies could've put a stake in evolution's heart. Instead, they helped strengthen the theory.

Reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse

Is it not possible God designed us to evolve? Is it not possible when He said Let there be light He used the Big Bang? What is so wrong with even slightly admitting this didnot happen by chance? If that IS true then why is there more order in the universe than chaos?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Kaytagg


Well, there's nothing to believe in. It's scientific fact. There might as well be a study that ways 4 out of 5 people don't believe in gravity.

The bible even says we came from the earth which would is backed by the Theory of Evolution. And for the ones who only have memorized snippets of the Bible to disprove it , it says a day in heaven is like a thousand on earth, and a day on earth is like a thousand in heaven. In other words it may have taken 7,000 years to for Creation to implement itself. Also there is a time gap between the Old Testament and the New Testament of 6,000 years. And in the last 2 years scientists have acknowledged they may be wrong about carbon dating and instead of the earth being millions of years old it is possible it is thousands of years old. That would make Earth around 15,000 years old. Which would pretty much fit the timeline of the events in the bible. Not to mention the artifacts being found now that coincide with the Bible such as Noahs Ark , Ark of the Covenant, grain bins that were just uncovered and much more. And its discussed in threads on ATS! (applause)


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by weedwhacker

4) Could a single celled life form begin by happenstance from ammonia, methane and water?

"questions" 1 thru 3 are fallacious and ridiculous, and you know it!!!

Weed, weed weed,, I'm only going to say this once, Please refrain from offering your distractions and calls to emotionalism your ad-hom opinions are irrelevant. You thinking they are ridiculous or that they are nonsense is an argument for another thread and in no way does THIS discussion benefit from your opinions which have nothing to do with the four questions I asked.

They MAY seem fallacious they may even seem like nonsense and it may even look like I'm talking about a biogenesis but if you would hold your presumptuous "gotcha!'s" to yourself until the exercise has run its course, then perhaps you would understand my taking such a serious resolve in adding anyone that uses such tactics be relegated to my ignore list.

The questions given were not about you but you may participate and I'll be more than happy to furnish you with the cognition explosion that usually hits like a punch line in a joke only this kind doesn't manifest the same biochemical reactions release of substance P and the endorphin rush as a beneficial side effect of laughter. No this kind usual has the individual feeling like he just unclogged his brain and says " aaah yeah!"

I also want to congratulate you weed, on your uncanny ability to correctly deduce that an elephant jumping over the moon is in fact Ridiculous. How does he do it everyone! Most of us would be buried in books all night to figure that one out. Bravo! Did it ever occur to you that their may still be a perfectly good reason for its absurd presence in my list?

#4 is a question about a biogenesis, NOT evolution!!!!

:

Weed, why is it you seem to be acting like Sherlock Holmes and just realized you caught me in something spurious and now you're about to BUST the case wide open? First you have no idea what my question is "about" moreover is this common practice among hobby scientists we put the smack down on questions regarding chemistry just in case it gets too close to that "OFF LIMITS ZONE called a biogenesis?

Since we know very little about a biogenesis, who are you to tell me there is absolutely no possibility there was anything evolutionary happening there? You see the problem is that you assume you are right and that you know what I am thinking.

My question was not an introduction to an argument about a biogenesis.

But, here is [I]why your question #4 is phrased incorrectly

No it was not phrased incorrectly weed, you only think that because it is easier for you to think you are right and I made a mistake about my alleged intro to abiogenist. It never occurred to you that the reason you think it is phrased wrong regarding abiogenists, is because YOU'RE wrong.

MY question was NOT about introducing the a biogenesis as the dirty creationist trick, which is why YOU think I phrased it wrong.
,

even in addition to being off topic:

Seeing that you have been completely wrong about everything in my post, why would you think it is off topic in light of my making it clear to you your assumptions were ehh pre-mature.

Single-celled organisms didn't just appear, fully formed, from "ammonia, methane and water" as you snorted!

That was not my question sans the snort. Again attempting to raise the temperature in here weed? Try staying at cause and not at effect, and I will assure you I will do the same for you. Weed any more wisecracks or sarcastic remarks, referring to spaghetti monsters or flying teapots, we will have nothing to share ever again. I will treat you with respect and if I think I have any questions rather than be presumptuous I will ask you for clarity and not jump to conclusions adding labels of whose "trick" or nonsense I think it might be. You don't know me; I am not like any creationist you have gotten away with this before.

If you are going to accuse me of being off topic about a biogenesis, why is it any less an infraction for you to go right ahead and introduce a video about it as my accomplice?. If you do not want to talk about a biogenesis weed, I only hope that video has nothing to do with it then. Because if it does, then you are introducing that into the discussion

[edit on 30-6-2009 by DASFEX]


[edit on 30-6-2009 by DASFEX]

Originally posted by apacheman
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]

It looks like you haven't read or paid attention to this thread. MACRO-evolution has not been proven, MICRO-evolution / natural selection has been proven, but does NOT prove macro-evolution and does NOT disprove creation. My mistake, maybe I should've said macro-evolution has not been proven. I just assumed anyone reading this thread would know I mean macro-evolution.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
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!

Well I don't know about that , ya see,, the only one of those two scenarios that has a possibility of happening is number two.

Yeah yours was more plausible, I have never had a stack of pancakes that were not prepared by an intelligent guided hand.

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


I'll quote a website.

Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began, during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found.

[edit on 30-6-2009 by Totakeke]

Originally posted by Lannock

Originally posted by apacheman
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]

It looks like you haven't read or paid attention to this thread. MACRO-evolution has not been proven, MICRO-evolution / natural selection has been proven, but does NOT prove macro-evolution and does NOT disprove creation. My mistake, maybe I should've said macro-evolution has not been proven. I just assumed anyone reading this thread would know I mean macro-evolution.

How do you know it isnt him that should be apologising. The issue with equivocating between the many varied definitions of evolution has made this theory so elastic you can stretch any evidence to fit the theory and equivocating between macro and micro evoluton is one of the most often seen fallacys. The idea that we would be talking about micro evolution is not very likely especially for a Creationst because it was in the Bible long before Darwin stole his idea for Natural selection from Lord Blythe.

I think he knew what you were talking or if he didn't he does now.

Now let him show us that mountain of evidene for an airtight case proving transpeciation does in fact happen, is happening etc.

Should be easy

Originally posted by thegagefather
5 out of 10 Americans still believe a 2000 year old guy that preached meditation and reincarnation is going to come save them, even though it's clear his messages were altered completely 800 years later by some guy named Paul.

Yes, the majority of Americans are slightly retarded.
Does this really surprise you?

No but YOU surprised me.

Umm I take it you have issues with Paul of Tarsus and that anyone who hasn't had the exquisite benefit of the superior education you have had which I assume is why you are so fond of your opinion, the rest of us are all retards.

mmmm My question is,,,

*WHAT*!?!?!??

reply to post by WhatTheory


I've never heard the sludge theory. It's actually far more complicated than that. I'm wondering if you have ever actually studied it? You say "it makes no sense", which is kind of an all-encompassing statement, so better to say "it makes no sense to you". Or instead of "there is no proof", perhaps, say it hasn't been proven to your personal satisfaction.
To understand it you can't just look at the picture of an ape standing beside a man. It's more of understanding of the chemicals involved, and how they interacted with one another over a very long period of time....what takes place, and the introduction of carbon, which really gets things stewing.......and to see that all those original "chemicals" are what make us all up now. With the water as our base, of course.
Deliciously complex.
As far as your thoughts about it being more believable that we came from "ancient astronauts", you might want to study up on scientology.
Or join up, whatever the case may be. You might find some kindred spirits among them.
.....But this all, which I well believe, does not exclude God or creationism.
So how did it all come to be? He thought it. He thought it, and BANG!
as they say. The rest is history. Just the thought of it cheers me up.

My personal belief is that basic things and lifeforms were created and were expected to learn on their own.

reply to post by DASFEX


Well, here's some proof.

www.naplesnews.com...

Since 1953, scientists have been able to synthesize amino acids in their laboratories. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. Now they have created a building block of RNA. What the scientists have done in months of work, in lab flasks, nature apparently did in the vast oceans and shores of Earth over millions of years.

This is powerful evidence that life arose on Earth quite naturally. Opponents of this explanation for life’s origin claim that it’s ludicrous to expect inert chemicals to just happen to randomly combine in such a way as to produce life. The probabilities strain belief, they say.

But chemicals don’t combine at random, as anyone who has suffered through high-school chemistry will remember. Chemicals are rather choosy about how they combine. Scientists have shown how simple chemicals tend to build up into more complex molecules, producing an “organic soup” in which all the ingredients for life were present.

Now they have produced the building blocks both for proteins and RNA. No special outside force needed: ordinary organic chemistry does the job.

In time, researchers will produce living cells out of non-living chemicals. Test-tube life. Not a Frankenstein monster but a single cell that lives, eats, moves and reproduces.

Religious faithful need not be dismayed, though. If you believe that God created life on Earth (and on other worlds, too) all the scientists are doing are showing the steps involved in the creation.

As far as transpeciation goes, if we are talking about the evolution of, say, sea dwellers to land creatures, the fossil record is pretty clear; we can trace the lineages of many species back in time and show through the fossil record, how one species evolved into several.

"Understanding evolution is essential to identifying and treating disease," said Harvey Fineberg, president of IOM. "For example, the SARS virus evolved from an ancestor virus that was discovered by DNA sequencing. Learning about SARS' genetic similarities and mutations has helped scientists understand how the virus evolved. This kind of knowledge can help us anticipate and contain infections that emerge in the future."

DNA sequencing and molecular biology have provided a wealth of information about evolutionary relationships among species. As existing infectious agents evolve into new and more dangerous forms, scientists track the changes so they can detect, treat, and vaccinate to prevent the spread of disease.

Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of populations of organisms, usually over multiple generations. One recent example highlighted in the book is the 2004 fossil discovery in Canada of fish with "intermediate" features -- four finlike legs -- that allowed the creature to pull itself through shallow water onto land. Scientists around the world cite this evidence as an important discovery in identifying the transition from ocean-dwelling creatures to land animals. By understanding and employing the principles of evolution, the discoverers of this fossil focused their search on layers of the Earth that are approximately 375 million years old and in a region that would have been much warmer during that period. Evolution not only best explains the biodiversity on Earth, it also helps scientists predict what they are likely to discover in the future.

Over very long periods of time, the same processes that enable evolution to occur within species also can result in the appearance of new species. The formation of a new species generally takes place when one subgroup within a species mates for an extended period largely within that subgroup, often following geographical separation from other members of the species. If such reproductive isolation continues, members of the subgroup may no longer respond to courtship from members of the original population. Eventually, genetic changes become so substantial that members of different subgroups can no longer produce viable offspring. In this way, new species can continually "bud off" of existing species.

Now show me some proof that your stupid god exists.