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: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Helious
reply to post by Elton
 


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


Since he didn't is it OK if I think of someone else? evolutionary thought can be traced back to ancient Greece and there were several people through the 18th century to posit it prior to Darwin.




posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:11 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.

Do you mean that Darwin Finches change into crows?



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

Helious
reply to post by Elton
 


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


No he wrote a book describing natural selection. It's pretty good, you should read it sometime.


Seriously, do you equate 1850's era biology with contemporary physics? I really do not understand what you were saying in your original post.



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

Elton

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...?


They could possibly be attempting to link the problem of dark matter to time via the bend of "space-time" which probably has something to do with wondering where the hell all the energy of the light as a wave went in the red shift.

Or possibly indicating that time may not always have been experienced in this region of "space-time" as it is now due to the possibility of a gravitational pull from other universes affecting how time is experienced in this locale.

Who knows there is a actually a possibility that the comment to which you were responding to actually reconciles the disparity between "ancient" fossils and the creation theory.


Basically physics is F'ing craaaaaaaayyyyyzzzzz amigo.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   

antonia
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.


Your so wrong.

The same scientific method used to fill in the gaps of the theory of evolution is used to fill in the gaps of the missing math for dark matter.

The asinine assumption that what is currently held true is absolute at any given time is mind blowing in this day and age. Einstein was labeled a heretic because his ideas defied what was obviously completely correct at the time, newtonian theory, on and on but it's just so boring.

Science is great but people who defend it blindly and excuse the leaps in the faith it makes in so many instances and then try and claim it's not the same leap of faith that those who believe other things make is rediculous.

Science makes the same leaps of faith all the time as many believers of intelligent design, the only difference is one side claims to base their argument on "sound" logic instead of faith when in reality, both hold about the same water because you can't have a serious argument about evolution or the lack thereof without having the conversation about the origin of our universe and nature of our reality.

Also, Darwin was the champion of natural selection, not evolution, the two ideas while intertwined in a basic premise are wholly different as it pertains to the scope of Darwin's work.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 

Darwin proposed a theory of evolution. He found no examples. He advised his followers to look at the fossil record.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Helious
Einstein was labeled a heretic because his ideas defied what was obviously completely correct at the time, newtonian theory, on and on but it's just so boring.



Einstein's theories do not defy Newton's laws. In fact, Einstein is one of the highest examples of the scientific method. All of his theories were informed by the data and not his previous beliefs. That's the same method you just declared faulty, by default you should not accept Einstein's work.




The asinine assumption that what is currently held true is absolute at any given time is mind blowing in this day and age


No, that's not what the scientific method is. If you can present evidence through observation or experimentation which proves creationism then it would be accepted. This has yet to happen, therefore it is not accepted.
edit on 30-12-2013 by antonia because: added a thought



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by xDeadcowx
 





There is also a fairly large sub community of religious fundamentalists on this board these days that are very anti-science. They will play mind games and use blatant logical fallacies to try and prove that all of the evidence for evolution is faulty, wrong, faked, or just doesn't count despite hundreds of years worth of undisputed evidence.


I am not a religious fundamentalist. I am positvely pro-science. I do not play mind games and I do not use logical fallacies.

The assertion that there is hundred of years of undisputed evidence for Darwinian evolution is false. You cannot validate it and you wouldn’t even know where to start if you had to. Your statement is just a reheated faith statement which is repeated over and over and accepted as true.




They consider science to be a religion, so they take all of the logical arguments against their religion and try to use them on science. It never works because science is not a religion, but that's just another thing on the long list of things they are willfully ignorant about.


Science is not a religion. But if you believe that your beliefs regarding evolution and its ‟undisputed evidence” are based soley on science, you are as willfully ignorant as any religious fundamentalist you look down your nose on.

The a priori materialist assumptions that are the metaphysical underpinnings of Darwinian evolution are not science. They are faith statements with no more concrete evidence than any flying spaghetti monster you can name. These materialist assumptions are what people are pointing to when the accuse science of being a religion because the a priori assumptions themselves are closer to religion than they are to science.




You would think with all the people that have "irrefutable proof" that evolution is wrong, there would be some kind of published paper laying out the evidence. Something as simple as fossils being found in the wrong date order would set the study of evolution, and the world back hundreds of years, but despite everything the anti-evolution crowd claims to have not a piece of real evidence has been presented.


This notion that no evidence has been presented is flagrantly false. It's a bs meme that gets repeated over and over and it is simply taken on faith, whether the topic is evolution, archaeology, or anything regarded as ‟supernatural.” Again, you wouldn’t even know where to begin in order to validate it and could only look to the choir of fellow believers to back you up in your recitation.

It’s not that there has been no evidence presented, but that no matter what the evidence or how much, it will be categorically rejected because the a priori assumptions of materialism will not allow it because to do so would cause the entire edifice to collapse.

The cousin claim to the lack of evidence is that if there were evidence presented that could be verified, it would gladly be accepted because scientists go where the evidence leads. This has been demonstrated over and over throughout the history of science to be patently false, yet it is one of the favorite hymns in the choir book.

Science is a methodology, but scientists are all too human and hence will cling to their particular beliefs with the same tenacity as the most fervent fundamentalist.

As the illustrious quantum physicist Max Planck said:


A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

This has been famously paraphrased as ‟science proceeds one funeral at a time.”



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Helious
The asinine assumption that what is currently held true is absolute at any given time is mind blowing in this day and age. Einstein was labeled a heretic because his ideas defied what was obviously completely correct at the time, newtonian theory, on and on but it's just so boring.


actually, when relativity was verified in 1919 it actually unified Newtonian physics with everything else at the time. Much the same way evolution unifies the biological sciences.



Also, Darwin was the champion of natural selection, not evolution, the two ideas while intertwined in a basic premise are wholly different as it pertains to the scope of Darwin's work.


this, spot on.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 

Give us an example of a animal link between two major animal groups.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   

peter vlar

Helious
The asinine assumption that what is currently held true is absolute at any given time is mind blowing in this day and age. Einstein was labeled a heretic because his ideas defied what was obviously completely correct at the time, newtonian theory, on and on but it's just so boring.


actually, when relativity was verified in 1919 it actually unified Newtonian physics with everything else at the time. Much the same way evolution unifies the biological sciences.



Also, Darwin was the champion of natural selection, not evolution, the two ideas while intertwined in a basic premise are wholly different as it pertains to the scope of Darwin's work.


this, spot on.


So what is the quantum physics of biological sciences in your opinion?

-FBB



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


darwiniana.org...

There you go.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   

leostokes
reply to post by peter vlar
 

Darwin proposed a theory of evolution. He found no examples. He advised his followers to look at the fossil record.



Darwin posited a hypothesis of natural selection and published it in book for in 1859. You can't propose a theory, you propose a hypothesis and test it. if you can test it and the results can be independently verified then you get to call it a theory. This isn't Scooby Doo and Darwin didn't have a hunch that the ghost was just a man in a mask stealing Scooby snacks.
He found no examples? You've never cracked open "On the Origin of Species" have you?
He didn't advise anyone to do anything, he made a statement in his first book that the fossil record would vindicate his thesis, but there were no followers to direct. You're confusing science with religion and Darwin with the local priest.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 

Give us an example of a animal link between two major animal groups.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 

Give us an example of a animal link between two major animal groups.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


I've posted that information twice in this thread now, I'm not doing the legwork a 3rd time. read the thread, it's there.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


We are running into a big problem: People can't seem to wrap their minds around the idea that science is not a subjective discipline.

Either way, for some of them we would show everything and prove it without doubt, yet they still would not believe as their subjective world view won't allow it.



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   

peter vlar
reply to post by leostokes
 


I've posted that information twice in this thread now, I'm not doing the legwork a 3rd time. read the thread, it's there.


I've read some of your links here, the one that confuses me as evidence is the one regarding SIV between species, what exactly was the purpose of that one to prove that 2 species can get this virus or that the virus could mutate to a different host or something I missed

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



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Scientific Theory
www.britannica.com...


Empirical laws and scientific theories differ in several ways. In a law, reasonably clear observational rules are available for determining the meaning of each of its terms; thus, a law can be tested by carefully observing the things and properties referred to by these terms. Indeed, they are initially formulated by generalizing or schematizing from observed relationships.

In the case of scientific theories, however, some of the terms commonly refer to things that are not observed. Thus, it is evident that theories are imaginative constructions of the human mind—the results of philosophical and aesthetic judgments as well as of observation—for they are only suggested by observational information rather than inductively generalized from it.

Moreover, theories cannot ordinarily be tested and accepted on the same grounds as laws. Thus, whereas an empirical law expresses a unifying relationship among a small selection of observables, scientific theories have much greater scope, explaining a variety of such laws and predicting others as yet undiscovered. A theory may be characterized as a postulational system (a set of premises) from which empirical laws are deducible as theorems. Thus, it can have an abstract logical form, with axioms, formation rules, and rules for drawing deductions from the axioms, as well as definitions for empirically interpreting its symbols.

In practice, however, theories are seldom structured so carefully.



Lets keep the definitions straight here please.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 30 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   

FriedBabelBroccoli

peter vlar

Helious
The asinine assumption that what is currently held true is absolute at any given time is mind blowing in this day and age. Einstein was labeled a heretic because his ideas defied what was obviously completely correct at the time, newtonian theory, on and on but it's just so boring.


actually, when relativity was verified in 1919 it actually unified Newtonian physics with everything else at the time. Much the same way evolution unifies the biological sciences.



Also, Darwin was the champion of natural selection, not evolution, the two ideas while intertwined in a basic premise are wholly different as it pertains to the scope of Darwin's work.


this, spot on.


So what is the quantum physics of biological sciences in your opinion?

-FBB


I'll be honest, I've usually either got a good answer or a smart _ss answer ready for just about any question and you've got me stumped with that one! Let me think about that and I'll get back to you on it. it's a great question by the way and I'd prefer to give you an honest answer as opposed to something snarky like saying intelligent design and ducking for cover!



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join