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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   

DocScurlock
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


I like the ones that inhale over the counter meds every time they get the sniffels, and get there xanax refilled everytime there having a bad day, and then need medication just to have sex, and then on top of that take more medication to ease the side effects of the current medication they are on. Then wonder how they got cancer or(Put disease here). Their FAITH in modern medicine seems to be just as fatal as praying to a dude hanging out in the clouds.


Heh. Apropos to nothing regarding the topic, I have a basic litmus test when it comes to medication. When listing the possible side effects takes up the majority of the commercial, DON'T buy it.




posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   

amazing
True that! But then where's the middle ground where God Created the Universe by creating evolution and the Big bang or something else...where's the middle ground for believing in God and in Science and not the Old Testament. When Talking about Creationism it's like asking "What kind of tea do you want?"

There's more than one kind?


The middle ground is apophatic theology carried through to the cloud of unknowing.


edit on 30-12-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 




Please tell me what cross species evolution is. They must have skipped over that in evolutionary biology. A far as evidence, the only way it doesn't exist is if you walk through the world with your eyes closed. Between observable phenomena, the fossil record and the genetic evidence we have and keep adding to every day it makes me sad when people claim there. Isn't evidence to support evolutionary theory.

Evolutionists suffer from a great fault. After studying the fossil they can not give an example of any link between two animal groups.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   

BlueMule

amazing
True that! But then where's the middle ground where God Created the Universe by creating evolution and the Big bang or something else...where's the middle ground for believing in God and in Science and not the Old Testament. When Talking about Creationism it's like asking "What kind of tea do you want?"

There's more than one kind?


The middle ground is apophatic theology.


Nah...don't like that term or it's negative connotations. But again that's just one thing. There are literally thousands of religions, some much, much older than Christianity. I'm not really a Deist either. Belief in God is a serious thing for me also and not some metaphysical pie in the sky new age crap either.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   

amazing

BlueMule

amazing
True that! But then where's the middle ground where God Created the Universe by creating evolution and the Big bang or something else...where's the middle ground for believing in God and in Science and not the Old Testament. When Talking about Creationism it's like asking "What kind of tea do you want?"

There's more than one kind?


The middle ground is apophatic theology.


Nah...don't like that term or it's negative connotations


I see what you did there.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:42 PM
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.


You literally just admitted you can not prove time is linear . . . . or that it even exists.

What is this supposed time scale you are proposing now?

-FBB

PS
I don't have to worry about whether my thoughts are real because I never invalidated the concept of faith as you did. The onus is on you to prove your thoughts are real and thus credible.
edit on 30-12-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
So "What" is the alternative theory to evolution? Serious question...in a small easily digestible summary please.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Brotherman
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Hey Peter again not surprised to see you here
nice to see ya

I have a question for you about adaptation and survival of the fittest. Why is (or is there) any grounds to believe that humans and animals can rapidly evolve to become survivors in an environment that is harsher then its previous due to great change in its ecosystem?
edit on 30-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)


Hey Brotherman, sorry I missed this earlier. There really isn't any mechanism for rapid biological response to sudden ecological changes. If there were, Europe might still be inhabited by Neanderthals and N. America would be overrun with Smilodons and Mammoths. In regards to anatomically modern humans, it was our ability to adapt to our localized environments that allowed us to be so successful as we moved into other niches whereas Neanderthal were very well adapted to Ice Age Europe but did not do very well in more moderate climates. It's one of the main reasons they never ventured back into Africa and only entered the Middle East when there was a drop in global temperatures allowing them to compete in areas they were not previously suited for. In other words, they chased the environment that favored them whereas we went where the resources were and made the environment work for US.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   

amazing
So "What" is the alternative theory to evolution? Serious question...in a small easily digestible summary please.


To paraphrase Gully Foyle, it's not necessary to have a theory to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's a theory worthy of belief.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   

antonia

FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by antonia
 


How can evolution take place over long periods of time if you cannot prove the existence of time.


Time is not a causative force. The Earth is not moving through the fourth dimension into tomorrow. It's already there. It (your perception of it) is an emergent effect of physical motion-Ex: The Earth moving around the Sun. This is one of the basic tenants of the Theory of Relativity. Space and time are not separate. One's perception of time depends on velocity. One can actually argue the fossil record is evidence for the existence of time.


Time is not a force . . . . FYI

I am only asking because I am working on a model of the argument methods of individuals who are involved or experienced in the scientific pursuit as opposed to those who are not. I have an associates of electrical engineering and should finish up my bachelors and FE certification within two years. My initial BS was business with a heavy focus on consumer behavior and occasionally miss my time with the old discipline, so I like to apply the concepts to issues I find myself encountering frequently enough.

In conclusion I only ask your background to validate data points.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   

leostokes
reply to post by peter vlar
 




Please tell me what cross species evolution is. They must have skipped over that in evolutionary biology. A far as evidence, the only way it doesn't exist is if you walk through the world with your eyes closed. Between observable phenomena, the fossil record and the genetic evidence we have and keep adding to every day it makes me sad when people claim there. Isn't evidence to support evolutionary theory.

Evolutionists suffer from a great fault. After studying the fossil they can not give an example of any link between two animal groups.


First, evolutionists don't study fossils. Those people are called Anthropologists, paleontologists and paleoanthropologists.

Second, thank goodness we don't rely solely on the fossil record then isn't it? as I stated earlier to another poster...



peter vlar

spirited75
reply to post by peter vlar
 


the fossil record does NOT prove evolution with cross species evolution.


Interesting. You and I must be looking at differs fossils then. If the fossil record doesn't do anything for you what about these-

jvi.asm.org...

mbe.oxfordjournals.org...

link.springer.com...

press.endocrine.org...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   

FriedBabelBroccoli

PS
I don't have to worry about whether my thoughts are real because I never invalidated the concept of faith as you did. The onus is on you to prove your thoughts are real and thus credible.
edit on 30-12-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101


No it's not. You brought it up, if it's not real for me then it isn't real for you either. You've entered into a regress argument. There are several philosophical answers to the question and frankly, I don't have the time or inclination to discuss them. We both know we are not going to convince each other of anything. Let's not waste the time that may or may not exist.


edit on 30-12-2013 by antonia because: opps



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   

BlueMule

amazing
So "What" is the alternative theory to evolution? Serious question...in a small easily digestible summary please.


To paraphrase Gully Foyle, it's not necessary to have a theory to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's a theory worthy of belief.



Agreed!



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Considering evolution is based on the same science that brings you "dark matter". It's hardly surprising.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   

amazing
So "What" is the alternative theory to evolution? Serious question...in a small easily digestible summary please.


Macro or micro evolution?

First you have to locate fundamental principles based in PHYSICS.

Micro evolution requires as per the current model requires to randomness to function, also a MUCH better understanding of quantum physic's implications on DNA to be properly fitted into the model. Oh and time must exist in a linear fashion for the model to not require tweaking.

Macro evolution requires the assumptions to true randomness (VERY difficult to prove something like this exists) to allow for micro evolutionary changes to occur which would benefit the entity in way which would conform to its habitat/consumption and increase odds of reproduction. MORE importantly than reproduction would be that these traits were transferable to the offspring and would allow them to do the same all while retaining some channel to facilitate mutations.

Predestination (a mix of evolution and intelligent design) would likely be the strongest alternative.

That or some concept we have yet to explore or develop. A paradigm change.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Helious
Considering evolution is based on the same science that brings you "dark matter". It's hardly surprising.


You think Darwin was a physicist? Or did you mean something else...?



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Elton
 


Did you think Darwin came up with Evolution or were you thinking of something else?



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   

FriedBabelBroccoli
Oh and time must exist in a linear fashion for the model to not require tweaking.


You should see how many Americans still believe in space, time, and reality TV.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


Yes, Darwin was the first to postulate evolution. He was the first to formulate the argument. So, he did indeed come up with it.

Dark matter has nothing to do with the subject.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join