By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - 46% of Americans believe in Creationism

Whitefire on 17 October 2013
dsgrue3 said:
Rushida said:
dsgrue3 said:

It's clearly an issue when the general public (laymen) are telling the experts they are wrong.

Do you tell your doctor (s)he's wrong?

Do you tell your dentist (s)he's wrong?

Do you tell your veterinarian (s)he's wrong?

Do you tell your mechanic (s)he's wrong?

Do you tell your financial advisor (s)he's wrong?

Just a couple of extremely obvious questions which should convey to you why your position is totally and completely ridiculous. Creation isn't science, it's a religious theory based upon nothing.

Your argument is fundamentally fallacious on several levels.

Firstly, these experts you listed are experts in the natural world of what's happening currently (or the recordable past). For example, a mechanic is trustworthy because he and his peers were able to get hands-on interaction with cars do determine how the function most efficiently. The entities in which they study can be studied today in all their glory. Whereas an evolutionary "scientist" finds some bones in the dirt and says, "must be ancestors to humans." Ridiculous, as if they couldn't just be artificial bones our ancestors created for fun. What a load BS.

Secondly, these "experts" you listed were wrong many times. Doctors of the 1800s were not as smarts as doctors today, etc. The reason they are so knowledgeable today is because they've had centuries to refine and improve their profession. They can do this by testing new techniques and seeing if they work. Thus, they can give themselves concrete proof about if their theories work in practise. Whereas a evolutionary "scientists" can never effectively test his theories. They are all just unsupported theories with the only evidence being, "Well it may have happened. I dunno lol. These bones look like human bones. Must be ancestor to human" You cannot prove what happened before humans could recorded history so it's all conjecture.

Btw, if a doctor seemed to want to diagnose a child with ADHD, I would be inclined to call him out on it. I've did it a few times actually. 

Thirdly, I don't have a pet so why would I have a veterinarian? Your lack of logic astounds me.

Fourthly, The implication that a person should never challenge an authority by virtue of the fact that the person is an authority is fundamentally nonsensical. I hope you have a mind that is more free than the propoganda you preach here. I for one welcome asking questions for a quest to knowledge, rather than blind submission. 

Good day

You didn't list any fallacies, just repeatedly claimed I used them. Sorry sport, that isn't how things work.

Alright it's clear you're totally ignorant on the topic. Fossils are totally unnecessary to the theory of evolution. We don't even need them to establish sufficiently that it occurred. It's also laughable that you suggest the entire collection of fossils is fake. 

Evolutionary biologists can test their theories. Any new fossils found are an opportunity to test them. If any fossil is found from the wrong era, that would really put a substantial dagger in evolutionary theory. Furthmore, artificial selection is principled from natural selection (an evolutionary construct) for crops and breeding of animals. 

Yes, because you know better than the doctor about ADHD right? You called them out based upon total ignorance. 

I never said you had a pet. I never made any claims, I asked questions. Maybe understand the difference, okay?

I never said not to challenge authority, I said the authority is in a better position than laymen to form judgements because they have credibility on such topics. 

Your position seems to be that you know everything. Hilarious stuff.


Natural Selection isn't evolution. And the fossil record has done little for evolution. Of course Evolution will never be proven, because no one will ever be alive to see one type of animal evolve into another. So all scientists can do it make the best of what they have. Which is why it is weird that evolutionists nag creationists for the same thing.



Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 17 October 2013
Whitefire said:
dsgrue3 said:

You didn't list any fallacies, just repeatedly claimed I used them. Sorry sport, that isn't how things work.

Alright it's clear you're totally ignorant on the topic. Fossils are totally unnecessary to the theory of evolution. We don't even need them to establish sufficiently that it occurred. It's also laughable that you suggest the entire collection of fossils is fake. 

Evolutionary biologists can test their theories. Any new fossils found are an opportunity to test them. If any fossil is found from the wrong era, that would really put a substantial dagger in evolutionary theory. Furthmore, artificial selection is principled from natural selection (an evolutionary construct) for crops and breeding of animals. 

Yes, because you know better than the doctor about ADHD right? You called them out based upon total ignorance. 

I never said you had a pet. I never made any claims, I asked questions. Maybe understand the difference, okay?

I never said not to challenge authority, I said the authority is in a better position than laymen to form judgements because they have credibility on such topics. 

Your position seems to be that you know everything. Hilarious stuff.


Natural Selection isn't evolution. And the fossil record has done little for evolution. Of course Evolution will never be proven, because no one will ever be alive to see one type of animal evolve into another. So all scientists can do it make the best of what they have. Which is why it is weird that evolutionists nag creationists for the same thing.

Natural Selection isn't part of evolution? Go back to school.

Fossil record isn't needed, like I've said several times in this thread. It simply is an easy way to demonstrate similarities between creatures without a degree in genetics/biology.

Creationists have 0 positive evidence. That's why no one takes them seriously. You do understand that, right? 

Examples of evolution happening:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Start reading.



Anfebious on 17 October 2013

People should live their lives however they want! If people want to belive in a deity let them be! The same applies to people who belive in a deity and try to convince other people. It's not your problem



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

Whitefire on 17 October 2013
dsgrue3 said:
Whitefire said:
dsgrue3 said:

You didn't list any fallacies, just repeatedly claimed I used them. Sorry sport, that isn't how things work.

Alright it's clear you're totally ignorant on the topic. Fossils are totally unnecessary to the theory of evolution. We don't even need them to establish sufficiently that it occurred. It's also laughable that you suggest the entire collection of fossils is fake. 

Evolutionary biologists can test their theories. Any new fossils found are an opportunity to test them. If any fossil is found from the wrong era, that would really put a substantial dagger in evolutionary theory. Furthmore, artificial selection is principled from natural selection (an evolutionary construct) for crops and breeding of animals. 

Yes, because you know better than the doctor about ADHD right? You called them out based upon total ignorance. 

I never said you had a pet. I never made any claims, I asked questions. Maybe understand the difference, okay?

I never said not to challenge authority, I said the authority is in a better position than laymen to form judgements because they have credibility on such topics. 

Your position seems to be that you know everything. Hilarious stuff.


Natural Selection isn't evolution. And the fossil record has done little for evolution. Of course Evolution will never be proven, because no one will ever be alive to see one type of animal evolve into another. So all scientists can do it make the best of what they have. Which is why it is weird that evolutionists nag creationists for the same thing.

Natural Selection isn't part of evolution? Go back to school.

Fossil record isn't needed, like I've said several times in this thread. It simply is an easy way to demonstrate similarities between creatures without a degree in genetics/biology.

Creationists have 0 positive evidence. That's why no one takes them seriously. You do understand that, right? 

Examples of evolution happening:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Start reading.

Natural selection is about inheriting traits. Which is different of what I am trying to say. All of the links you gave me haven't shown me proof of Dawinian Evolution. Which is an animal turning into another animal. These Lizards are still lizards, and the moths are still moths, just different. Which is how we get different species, which is what creationsists believe. What creationsists don't believe is that those lizards won't become birds anytime soon.

 

Like I said true Evolution won't be proven anytime soon, if ever.



dsgrue3 on 17 October 2013
Whitefire said:
dsgrue3 said:

Natural Selection isn't part of evolution? Go back to school.

Fossil record isn't needed, like I've said several times in this thread. It simply is an easy way to demonstrate similarities between creatures without a degree in genetics/biology.

Creationists have 0 positive evidence. That's why no one takes them seriously. You do understand that, right? 

Examples of evolution happening:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Start reading.

Natural selection is about inheriting traits. Which is different of what I am trying to say. All of the links you gave me haven't shown me proof of Dawinian Evolution. Which is an animal turning into another animal. These Lizards are still lizards, and the moths are still moths, just different. Which is how we get different species, which is what creationsists believe. What creationsists don't believe is that those lizards won't become birds anytime soon.

 

Like I said true Evolution won't be proven anytime soon, if ever.

Natural selection is vital to evolution. This is in stark contrast to "God creates each and every human" as is the case with creationists.

They are all wonderful examples of evolution. You've demonstrated that you simply don't know what evolution is.

"Lizards are still lizards, moths are still moths" - this is hilarious stuff. Primates are still primates. Can apes procreate with chimps? Can bonobos procreate with chimps? Can humans procreate with apes?

If they can't they are an entirely different species. You realize lizard is an overarching group, yes? There are many different species of lizard.

Another fundamental error - micro evolution leads to macro evolution. When enough micro evolution occurs making the new group unable to procreate with its ancestral group, that's when you have a new species. 

So by admitting microevolution, you admit macroevolution and evolution itself. Game Over.

 



Around the Network
nuckles87 on 17 October 2013

Actually...what he showed you is exactly what Darwinian evolution is. In fact, the evolution being demonstrated here is EXACTLY the kind of evolutionary changes that gave rise to Darwin's theory to begin with. He developed the theory after spending time on the Galápagos Islands. He noticed slight variations in the various species across the different islands, with many species exhibiting unique adaptations that helped them specifically on their island of origin.

So yeah actually, that is proof of "Darwinian Evolution". Slight adaptations and changes in animals over time is EXACTLY what the theory calls for. It isn't just animals turning into completely different animals,

Of course, for observable, testable proof that birds evolved from reptiles, you need only look at their genes. You can learn a lot from genes. For instance, did you know that the human body lice evolved around 170,000 years ago? It is believed that this is also around the time clothing was invented, since the lice needed clothing in order to survive on the human body outside of our head hair.



AstroGamer on 17 October 2013
dsgrue3 said:
AstroGamer said:
dsgrue3 said:

Wrong again, just go away.

If nature were random, reproducing scientific results would be impossible. USE YOUR BRAIN. 

PS: You didn't answer my question. Then again, you never do. 

I can't believe you are still arguing. Man, you are so stuck on this Evolution vs. Creationism thing when I wasn't arguing about that originally. You imposed the fundamental creationist argument on me. You are just completely stuck on your forgone conclusion that you aren't reading carefully. I said random in a way. Yes, you can replicate in a lab many things that happen in nature individually. However, nature is a system of things that impact each other. We only obtain scientific results when we know all the variables. That's why we can only predict weather on a semiaccurate level only a week in advance excluding things like tropical storms. Even with tropical storms, there are many speculative paths that do not get narrower down until hours before it hits the place. Yes, nature has general patterns but in the real world, they are not sticking to patterns 100%

I could just copy my same response, that's how bad your argument is.

Random doesn't mean we don't have all the variables, it means random. Not having all variables != random. Random means, even with all the variables we cannot come to a definitive conclusion.

The only argument for randomness in nature is quantum physics and it may or may not be the case since it's not well understood, nor does it apply to macro-level where classical physics is still king. 

Imprecise weather models are not a product of randomness, they are a product of incomplete models. 

There is no true randomness in reality. In fact, i was never actually arguing that natural selection is random in the first place. It was some idiot who thought that when I said "randomly"  it meant random. I meant the universe acts in a certain complex way that  it causes several different forces to act on a population that it causes certain traits to be passed.Don't getting hung up a word when it says "in a way". That means it could be described as such. For example, the implications of the Heisenberg Principle can be considered random, but in reality, it just that we cannot determine all the variables at the same moment. If you take nature on an actual macro scale where you consider all the forces of nature, it takes on a randomness like I described. The wind, the moisture, the clouds, the predators, the prey, mutations, the composition of the ground, composition of the air  and the adaptation of the species are only a few of the variables that influence evolution. Now think about all those variables and the way they interact both each other and the examined species. Wouldn't you consider that at least bit chaotic?



My Hummingbird

3DS Friend Code: 047387541842

Whitefire on 17 October 2013
dsgrue3 said:
Whitefire said:
dsgrue3 said:

Natural Selection isn't part of evolution? Go back to school.

Fossil record isn't needed, like I've said several times in this thread. It simply is an easy way to demonstrate similarities between creatures without a degree in genetics/biology.

Creationists have 0 positive evidence. That's why no one takes them seriously. You do understand that, right? 

Examples of evolution happening:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

http://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Start reading.

Natural selection is about inheriting traits. Which is different of what I am trying to say. All of the links you gave me haven't shown me proof of Dawinian Evolution. Which is an animal turning into another animal. These Lizards are still lizards, and the moths are still moths, just different. Which is how we get different species, which is what creationsists believe. What creationsists don't believe is that those lizards won't become birds anytime soon.

 

Like I said true Evolution won't be proven anytime soon, if ever.

Natural selection is vital to evolution. This is in stark contrast to "God creates each and every human" as is the case with creationists.

They are all wonderful examples of evolution. You've demonstrated that you simply don't know what evolution is.

"Lizards are still lizards, moths are still moths" - this is hilarious stuff. Primates are still primates. Can apes procreate with chimps? Can bonobos procreate with chimps? Can humans procreate with apes?

If they can't they are an entirely different species. You realize lizard is an overarching group, yes? There are many different species of lizard.

Another fundamental error - micro evolution leads to macro evolution. When enough micro evolution occurs making the new group unable to procreate with its ancestral group, that's when you have a new species. 

So by admitting microevolution, you admit macroevolution and evolution itself. Game Over.

 

There is no proof that micro evolution leads to macro. You will just post more unobservable ideas of how it could. I bolded the last part because you couldn't be farther from the truth. Macro is not micro yet you are trying to spin it so. I want proof that when the Bible says that animals will reporoduce after it's kind that it is false.

Of course there is none and you have only shown me micro evolution which I have already said creationists believe.

Don't try to spin your opinons as fact. It is a fact there is no proof for a chance of kinds, I'm not lying to you. You are trying ot trap me in an invisible corner. Also no matter how vital Natural Selection is to evolution it can't be evolution. You believe in Evolution through Natual selection yes? A change in traits that lead to a bigger change overall? I only believe in Natual Selection a change in traits. It's that cut and dry, really. Don't spin that.



Screamapillar on 17 October 2013
dsgrue3 said:
Screamapillar said:
dsgrue3 said:

What the hell are you babbling about dude? I don't need ALL the answers to notice that all the evidence is for one scientific theory and there is no evidence for a religious one.

You are ignorant if you claim the Earth is flat or the Sun orbits it. That's patently absurd. Do you know why? Because of the mountain of evidence to the contrary of this position. Evolution is no different.

Well, dude, it's 46% of the US and that's totally disgusting to me. If the other % accept evolution I'm okay with that. It's the science denialists that piss me off.

Someone you've never met not agreeing with you about evolution pisses you off?  That's your argument?  Here I thought I was having a discussion with an adult...

I'm sorry that people not agreeing with you upsets you so much, but perhaps it would be a better use of your time or talents to focus on something else. 

Until you yourself have all of the answers (and of course you don't), then writing off an entire population of people simply because they believe something you don't believe is equally as absurb as anything you believe.

I'm sorry you can't see that.

Apparently you struggle with reading for detail.

My argument is that there is a mountain of evidence for evolution and none at all for creation. I thought I made that incredibly clear, but apparently you have to go above and beyond for certain individuals.

It's clear you've abandoned your original argument because you're now just running away.

Mission accomplished.


I can't have a discussion with you, it appears.  You're unwilling to listen to different points of view, and for that reason I don't see any reason to continue this.  I will try to avoid you as much as I can on these forums, in order to keep my blood pressure at a tolerable level.

Have a nice day.



The Screamapillar is easily identified by its constant screaming—it even screams in its sleep. The Screamapillar is the favorite food of everything, is sexually attracted to fire, and needs constant reassurance or it will die.

dsgrue3 on 17 October 2013
Whitefire said:
dsgrue3 said:

Natural selection is vital to evolution. This is in stark contrast to "God creates each and every human" as is the case with creationists.

They are all wonderful examples of evolution. You've demonstrated that you simply don't know what evolution is.

"Lizards are still lizards, moths are still moths" - this is hilarious stuff. Primates are still primates. Can apes procreate with chimps? Can bonobos procreate with chimps? Can humans procreate with apes?

If they can't they are an entirely different species. You realize lizard is an overarching group, yes? There are many different species of lizard.

Another fundamental error - micro evolution leads to macro evolution. When enough micro evolution occurs making the new group unable to procreate with its ancestral group, that's when you have a new species. 

So by admitting microevolution, you admit macroevolution and evolution itself. Game Over.

 

There is no proof that micro evolution leads to macro. You will just post more unobservable ideas of how it could. I bolded the last part because you couldn't be farther from the truth. Macro is not micro yet you are trying to spin it so. I want proof that when the Bible says that animals will reporoduce after it's kind that it is false.

Of course there is none and you have only shown me micro evolution which I have already said creationists believe.

Don't try to spin your opinons as fact. It is a fact there is no proof for a chance of kinds, I'm not lying to you. You are trying ot trap me in an invisible corner. Also no matter how vital Natural Selection is to evolution it can't be evolution. You believe in Evolution through Natual selection yes? A change in traits that lead to a bigger change overall? I only believe in Natual Selection a change in traits. It's that cut and dry, really. Don't spin that.

Your opinion has no impact upon fact. Fact > your opinion.

Berkeley

"Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

Wikipedia

"Microevolution over time may lead to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution.[2] Contrary to claims by creationists however, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[2][3]"

Sources:

Futuyma, Douglas (1998). Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Associates.

edited by Scott, Eugenie C.; Branch, Glenn (2006). Not in our classrooms : why intelligent design is wrong for our schools (1st ed.). Boston: Beacon Press. p. 47. ISBN 0807032786.

Shout all you want, man. Your opinion is simply flat out wrong.