It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Surprising Number Of Americans Still Don't Believe In Evolution

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 05:00 AM
link   

antonia
reply to post by leostokes
 


Do you mean Macroevolution?

Micro and Macroevolution are the same processes on different time scales. There is plenty of evidence for it. This is referred to as "Speciation" and it's easy to accomplish.


do it then. how long will it take?

i can make bread evolve into stuffing in 5mins.
edit on 31030312531am2014 by tsingtao because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 05:07 AM
link   
Its more surprising how many DO believe in "the world is a coincidence" model constantly shoved down our throats by atheists and leftists.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 05:56 AM
link   
what does Charles Darwin say about God?

To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual

Read more: www.americanthinker.com...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


There is grandeur in this [natural selection] view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Read more: www.americanthinker.com...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


Even the man credited with the theory of evolution was not so stupid or shortsighted to think or believe that God did not rule over all of creation/evolution, but current practitioners of the evolutionary faith certainly are.

edit on 31-12-2013 by spirited75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
 


I never said this in the post you replied to. Are you just making things up now?



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by TLomon
 


What's even funnier? Some of you on here believe we came from monkeys....LOLOLOL

WOW, we have so many smart people on here......How did that monkey get here?? hmmmm...

Oh we developed from bacteria....Okay, I will play ball....Where did that bacteria come from?? hmmm....

Anything you link to intelligent life points back to intelligent creation....Sorry evolutionists but you can't evolve into an intelligent species from nothing.....Take bacteria, any kind you like, and run an experiment to turn it intelligent over time.....It won't happen...

But I am leaving, so don't try to bash me as a bible thumper....Just some food for thought.


wow, no facts just your opinion



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Witness2008

Xcalibur254
This just shows how much America has fallen. I don't know of a single other First World country where the reality of evolution is still consistently debated. How can we ever hope to be the best when a third of our population can't even grasp basic scientific principles?


The theory of evolution serves the same purpose that the theory of creation does....and that is to shut down a discussion that should never be shut down.

Perhaps our existence is a combination of evolution and creationism. I appreciate the fact that we don't all follow the same dogma.


creationism is not a theory



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

antonia
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe
 


I never said this in the post you replied to. Are you just making things up now?


Uh, you do see that link to my post right? You do realize that when you click it that it links to your post, right? I'm staring at your post where you said it, which was posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:25 PM

Given the available evidence, one of us is making things up. Hint: it ain't me.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I don't see why it has to be such a cut and dry choice between two theories. Other things could have happened in there that we don't know about or do know about. A creationist could easily say that "God" built everything and evolution was Gods plan. I have no clue BUT , the building blocks , atoms, molecules, , where did it initially derive from in space ? or gasses to create explosions in an infinite universe.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 




I think some people are forgetting that Creationism does NOT equal Intelligent Design. One does not have to be the adherent of a religious tradition to believe in Intelligent Design. As an irreligious agnostic, I lean more towards the possibility of Intelligent Design (regardless who/what created all life, e.g.: God, Aliens, or our Higher Selves) than Evolution.


Precisely. While I am not a Biblical Creationist in any way, shape, or form, I certainly lean towards ID rather than DE, but I see it as Intelligence Designing. It's not evolution I have trouble with, but the materialist strictures of Darwinian Evolution, since they are arbitrarily placed by the a priori assumptions of materialism.

It's those assumptions that have produced the mess we have because they operate under that ABG principle, Anything But God. I can understand this to some extent given the historical order, but as science it is just bass ackwards.

I started a thread in the Origins and Creationism forum if anyone wants to discuss some of the inherent difficulties in the ABG approach.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   

leostokes
reply to post by peter vlar
 

A lot of us will believe evolution when we are presented with an example of an animal that links two major animal groups.


We have the evidence for it and any further evidence that is produced will be rejected out of hand as well because it does not fit into a predetermined rreligious view. That is fine, though there is no need to lie about it.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Wow. A surprising number of ATS posters do not believe in evolution either.

Like a posted before, science and religion have different goals. Science is based on observations, fact and the scientific method. Religion is based on faith.

The downside to evolution, at least macro evolution is we simply cannot observe it directly or recreate it under a controlled environment so it will always be a theory because it can never be fully proofed.

Another thing most anti-evolutionist miss understand is the time it takes for evolution to do its thing on a large scale. A million years is essentially an unimaginable frame of time and the Earth is over a billion years old. Also I think it is likely we live in a multiverse with an unlimited number of possibilities so the fact we are here and able to comprehend our existence merely by coincidence is entirely possible.

This begs the question, what created the universe/multiverse. The answer to that is of course is 42!



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   

jrod
Wow. A surprising number of ATS posters do not believe in evolution either.

Like a posted before, science and religion have different goals. Science is based on observations, fact and the scientific method. Religion is based on faith.

The downside to evolution, at least macro evolution is we simply cannot observe it directly or recreate it under a controlled environment so it will always be a theory because it can never be fully proofed.

Another thing most anti-evolutionist miss understand is the time it takes for evolution to do its thing on a large scale. A million years is essentially an unimaginable frame of time and the Earth is over a billion years old. Also I think it is likely we live in a multiverse with an unlimited number of possibilities so the fact we are here and able to comprehend our existence merely by coincidence is entirely possible.

This begs the question, what created the universe/multiverse. The answer to that is of course is 42!


The irony of your post being that HGTTG is explained in a later book as a story he traded for an alchemist to convert his fat into gold while meditating in an isolation tank . . . .

That and the number 42 is most likely a reference to the last 42 months of the reign of the anti-christ . . .

How would address the inability to actually observe macro evolution due to the time scale involved and insisting it is true. You stated previously in the same statement that science is based on observation.

Basically the issue is that you are insisting on the veracity of a scientific theory while admitting that it cannot be verified by the scientific method due to the time frame.

It is not much different then people telling you that you wont know if there is an afterlife until after you die, but you should believe in it because it makes sense.

I am curious as to how you deal with this?

If you cannot observe it then would you not merely be taking macro evolution as truth based on faith?

-FBB



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


No after life makes sense. Do you think animals have souls and have an after life too?

The reason I am okay with macro-evolution is because there is evidence to support. Just because it can never be fully proofed does not mean it is not true.

Many math theorems were just theorems until the computer age. It would have taken a person thousands of years or more to prove them by doing the math needed to proof it. A super computer can do that in the blink of an eye.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
The problem remains that if evolution is nothing and man was created as is. What is the creation story or truth? There are thousands of creation stories so....that's the problem. There is a unified, more or less, theory of evolution and natural selection etc, etc. but the opposing theory is fractured into a thousand pieces. yes?



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   

jrod
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


No after life makes sense. Do you think animals have souls and have an after life too?

The reason I am okay with macro-evolution is because there is evidence to support. Just because it can never be fully proofed does not mean it is not true.

Many math theorems were just theorems until the computer age. It would have taken a person thousands of years or more to prove them by doing the math needed to proof it. A super computer can do that in the blink of an eye.


If it cannot be fully proofed it must be taken on FAITH, that is the point I have been trying to make.

No matter how much evidence is thought to exist, if you cannot provide a proof there will always be an element of superstition about the matter.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Not exactly true. Science is not a faith based study like religion. All scientists agree that the evidence is strong enough for evolution that it keep assumed to be true. No leap of faith needed.

Science vs Religion, it should not be that way. They should complement each other.

One of my biggest gripes about the creationists(at least most of them) is they are certain there is an after life for humans and certain there is NOT an after life for animals. That makes no sense.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by xDeadcowx
 



So if i don't personally verify the evidence it doesn't count? Why would i waste time verifying the fossil record? I am that well renowned that its up to me to make sure everyone else is doing their job? Its not my responsibility to verify evidence that has already been verified. That's what the peer-review system is for, every last bit of accepted evidence for evolution has been peer-reviewed over and over again, yet no one has been able to show that it is false. It IS the responsibility of those that claim a theory is false to provide evidence that shows it to be false.


I didn't say you had to validate the evidence. I said your assertion regarding the evidence being undisputed was false and you cannot validate that assertion.

To be clear, we are talking about Darwinian Evolution. which is based upon the idea of gradualiam. To say that there has been hundreds of years of undisputed evidence is simply wrong.


I don't "believe" in the fossil record because i don't need to have any faith to know it's real.


Oh, it's real as rain. Only problem is it doesn't support Darwinian Evolution nearly to the extent you believe it does. In fact, it's been quite problematic on that score, so your faith may be misplaced.


There is zero faith in peer-reviewed science, you may like to think there is, but there is not. period.


Oh, I'll admit it's deeply flawed, but I think it's a bit extreme to say there is zero faith in it.


On the other hand, the fact that you seem to have placed total faith in it is disturbing, given its well-documented problems.


You tell me i am wrong, that there is evidence, yet you fail to provide any of this so called evidence? Please share with the class. Before you do, a feeling is not evidence, A story or book is not evidence.


Here's a few nuggets re the fossil record and that undisputed evidence you were speaking of. If you don't like these, whatever you do don't go into the link. Don't know who compiled it, but it is massive and quite damning.


"Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record." Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myth of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.

“It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse.”
-Dr. Mark McMenamin - 2013
Paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and author of The Emergence of Animals

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."
David Kitts - Paleontologist - D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467.

"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." -
Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University

"What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types."
Robert L Carroll (born 1938) - vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians
en.wikipedia.org...

"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record."
Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9

"The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be .... We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated".
David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History


"A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God."
Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki
www.mcleanbible.org...



Anybody can make any claim they want, but until its peer reviewed its meaningless. This is where the so called evidence for anything supernatural gets rejected. If it cant stand up to peer review then it is meaningless and worthless. It doesn't matter what a scientist believes, all that matters are the facts and data.


I see. If it's not peer-reviewed it's meaningless and worthless. Got it.

Say, you do realize that Origin of Species did not undergo peer-review, don't you? According to your assertions here, that makes it meaningless and worthless.

As for your peer-review fetish, what to say? It seems to be another one of those unsubstantiated faith claims that is repeated over and over until it is taken as true without question.

Regardless, the problems of peer-review are no secret.


Turning peer review into modern-day holy scripture
The treatment of peer-reviewed science as an unquestionable form of authority is corrupting the peer-review system and damaging public debate.
www.spiked-online.com...

For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap
Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed studies in medical and scientific journals have called into question as never before the merits of their peer-review system.
www.nytimes.com...

Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science
Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed www.theguardian.com...



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tsingtao
 


Grapes don't evolve into wine, they ferment into wine. All kinds of natural things will ferment into alcohol. One of my favorite is blueberries.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Cypress
 




That is fine, though there is no need to lie about it.

Are you calling me a liar?



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Cypress
 




We have the evidence for it and any further evidence that is produced will be rejected out of hand as well because it does not fit into a predetermined rreligious view.

Are you saying I have a predetermined view?




top topics



 
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join