Only 40% of Americans believe in the Theory of Evolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Reread what I said, I will add italics for emphasis.

I don't believe in Evolution.

Hint:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Read my signature which has a gene vs meme theme.

---

Roger roger, nature v. nurture.

My bad. :oops:

The rest of my point remains valid, though. I can still prove evolution occurs in about 12 hours in a test tube. In fact, I just did it last night (no, nothing X-rated! :2thumbsup: ).

Belief is faith based hence lack of facts or proof.

Hence I do not believe nor does any scientist believe in any scientific theory be it Gravity, Newtons or Einsteins one does not believe in it. One understands it, one can perform experiments on it and one can make predictions with the theory.

So any scientist worth his salt doesn't believe in evolution. It is testable therefore it isn't based on belief.

Thats only 79%. What about the rest of them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

1. animals certainly do have morals, just like humans, the only difference is that they can't talk about morals and that their morals differ from ours, often on a per-species basis, but sometimes even on per-population basis. Usually herd animals are more "good" according to human values than lonely-living animals, with more signs of altruism. But it's probably because we're herd animals that we consider herd animals to be more "good", because their morals resemble our own.

---

Metaphorically, the term is used for God, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition (e.g. Psalm 23), and in Christianity especially Jesus, who is called Good Shepherd. The Ancient Israelites were a pastoral people and there were many shepherds among them. It may also be worth noting that many Biblical heroes were shepherds, among them the Old Testament prophet Amos, who was a shepherd in the rugged area around Tekoa, as well as King David, and Moses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Belief is faith based hence lack of facts or proof.

Hence I do not believe nor does any scientist believe in any scientific theory be it Gravity, Newtons or Einsteins one does not believe in it. One understands it, one can perform experiments on it and one can make predictions with the theory.

So any scientist worth his salt doesn't believe in evolution. It is testable therefore it isn't based on belief.

---

Okay, so you were being lippy, and I missed it. :stupido2: I can appreciate that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Belief is faith based hence lack of facts or proof.

Hence I do not believe nor does any scientist believe in any scientific theory be it Gravity, Newtons or Einsteins one does not believe in it. One understands it, one can perform experiments on it and one can make predictions with the theory.

So any scientist worth his salt doesn't believe in evolution. It is testable therefore it isn't based on belief.

---

Nonsense. One can choose to disbelieve anything that one puts their mind to it. For instance, I'm not so sure about this whole gravity thing, since I've never experienced it beyond seeing things fall to the earth. Does the fact that things fall to the earth constitute gravity? No, it just means that things fall to the ground.

Besides, refusing to believe in something that seems to be fact shouldn't be new to you; you've played Dungeons and Dragons, haven't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danfda

Okay, so you were being lippy, and I missed it. :stupido2: I can appreciate that.

---

And pointing out that by using the term belief you are playing the game to a different set of rules then what science is based on. By entering that mindset you are playing into the hands of fundamentalists.

It is also showing that the debate is being incorrectly framed in the first
instance. It would be like asking someone to prove their belief system...

News Headlines:
"40% of Swedes have touched the Hammer of Thor."
"Priest of Thor charged with carnal Knowledge."

We don't measure faith by scientific means nor should we frame science understanding in the term of faith... it only leads to confusion and/or plays into the hands of those who seek confirmation of predetermined conclusions...which is neither scientific nor is it honest.

I would much rather have evolved from the Great Apes as the Scientists have produced enourmous amounts of scientific data to conclude, than to have been created from dirt by a tyrannical "god" as the christians claim without a shread of evidence to support the notion...

Actually our Solar System was created from dust, our Solar system is the product of several other star deaths. Our Sun and Solar System is at least a third generation product as there are elements beyond Iron.

So in a round about way we are created from dirt, star dust to be precise.

I have some questions for the people who don't believe in Evolution.

1. Why does the Bible not mention Dinosuars?
2. Explain Dinosuars.
3. Explain Marsupials and why then they only inhabit Ausralasia.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Might have something to do with it being the first land mass to separate from Pangea

4. Animal Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species.
5. How it's a coincedence that Monkeys have opposable thumbs like Humans, finger nails and Omnivore teeth, but we have nothing in common.
6. Dinosuars

The Bible also doesn't mention earl-grey tea but that still is what I am drinking right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The Bible also doesn't mention earl-grey tea but that still is what I am drinking right now.

---

Mathëus 3:33 ~;)

Now, seriously dinosaurs,.. aren't real proof against the bible nor the fact that monkeys resemble to people. a Mantis walks on two legs en has front legs which could have evolved into hands. That doesn't mean monky's and humans once were matises. Now does it? As we all know that it isn't true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JFC

I have some questions for the people who don't believe in Evolution.

1. Why does the Bible not mention Dinosuars?
2. Explain Dinosuars.
3. Explain Marsupials and why then they only inhabit Ausralasia.
4. Animal Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species.
5. How it's a coincedence that Monkeys have opposable thumbs like Humans, finger nails and Omnivore teeth, but we have nothing in common.
6. Dinosuars

---

Let me play Devil's Advocate for a bit of amusement.

Creationists will always have an answer (usually linked at the one site www.answersincretinism.org) to your questions. The answers however are not subject to the same rational criteria as your questions are seeking, so nothing will be gained in the discussion.

For example, it's not necessary for the Bible to mention dinosaurs - it doesn't mention many things, as Fragony noted - non-mention doesn't prove or disprove their existence. Dinosaurs can easily be explained in their belief system because God can do anything, and doesn't need a rational reason open to human intepretation to do it.

Marsupials don't only inhabit Australasia - they are extant in South America too. It's important when making these arguments to be accurate - creationists love nothing more to jump on such inaccuracy and extrapolate to 'evolution therefore sucks' with barely a whiff of conscience.

Point 4 is just a set of artificial human constructs, used for labelling and understanding. They're not all that different from 'fish that swim, the birds of the air and things that crawl on their belly' (apologies for the inaccurate paraphrase) as a taxonomic system. Taxonomy allows us to see patterns and relationships which can be tested through evolutionary theory. Labelling does not make a thing true - evidence does.

Point 5 seems to state the point from a creationist view. Coincidence and 'having things in common' are woolly concepts that should begin the thought process - and indeed did, leading to the answer - evolution. But from a creationist standpoint, there are also no such concepts as coincidence, because God planned it the way it is now observed.

It is not possible to argue constructively with the latter standpoint using logic and method, as you will always be trumped by deus ex machina. Though it is occasionally fun to indulge oneself.

Also take this into consideration, if you were Noah, how would you get a pair of T-rex on your boat? He was probably ashamed that he couldn't, and that is why he doesn't mention them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Okay, speaking as a former predatory scavenging ape from the plains....

Criminy Goofball. You have Lebanon/Israel, Iran's nuclear bombs, North Korea's nuclear bombs, famines all across Africa, previously unheard of bad weather due to George Bush's dedication to increasing global warming [/sarcasm off], Prince Harry's new girlfriend, Brittney's home video that proves she's human after all and..... oh yeah, a plot to blow up 10 planes and kill thousands of people..... and THIS grabs your attention?

What the hell do you all care? Do a bunch of hicks in Missouri believing in 6 days and not a minute longer even remotely impact your life? Hey, if you think it does.. get a real one!!!

---

Sorry about the delay in replying, Don. I was sitting by a lake at a cottage with no computers in sight all of last week. Quite lovely really...

It matters to me because it demonstrates a disturbing trend: The most powerful nation in the world is sliding more and more toward religious fundamentalism. Your citizens are showing an alarming and increasing desire to insert religious dogma into or in place of scientific theory, law, and government.

We all know how much trouble religious zealots from piss-poor places with no real military might can cause.

I shudder to think what might happen if the trend toward religious fundamentalism continues in the U.S. Perhaps in 50 years or so when some other President gets elected on a faith based platform, he might just decide that us infidel Canadians need a little lesson taught to us...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Also take this into consideration, if you were Noah, how would you get a pair of T-rex on your boat? He was probably ashamed that he couldn't, and that is why he doesn't mention them.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4:
lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Sorry about the delay in replying, Don. I was sitting by a lake at a cottage with no computers in sight all of last week. Quite lovely really...

It matters to me because it demonstrates a disturbing trend: The most powerful nation in the world is sliding more and more toward religious fundamentalism. Your citizens are showing an alarming and increasing desire to insert religious dogma into or in place of scientific theory, law, and government.

---

A generalization such as this begs that one provide some proof. In most of the news that I have read - the county school boards that have tried this have been overturned by the voters of that area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Let me play Devil's Advocate for a bit of amusement.

Creationists will always have an answer (usually linked at the one site www.answersincretinism.org) to your questions. The answers however are not subject to the same rational criteria as your questions are seeking, so nothing will be gained in the discussion.

For example, it's not necessary for the Bible to mention dinosaurs - it doesn't mention many things, as Fragony noted - non-mention doesn't prove or disprove their existence. Dinosaurs can easily be explained in their belief system because God can do anything, and doesn't need a rational reason open to human intepretation to do it.

Marsupials don't only inhabit Australasia - they are extant in South America too. It's important when making these arguments to be accurate - creationists love nothing more to jump on such inaccuracy and extrapolate to 'evolution therefore sucks' with barely a whiff of conscience.

Point 4 is just a set of artificial human constructs, used for labelling and understanding. They're not all that different from 'fish that swim, the birds of the air and things that crawl on their belly' (apologies for the inaccurate paraphrase) as a taxonomic system. Taxonomy allows us to see patterns and relationships which can be tested through evolutionary theory. Labelling does not make a thing true - evidence does.

Point 5 seems to state the point from a creationist view. Coincidence and 'having things in common' are woolly concepts that should begin the thought process - and indeed did, leading to the answer - evolution. But from a creationist standpoint, there are also no such concepts as coincidence, because God planned it the way it is now observed.

It is not possible to argue constructively with the latter standpoint using logic and method, as you will always be trumped by deus ex machina. Though it is occasionally fun to indulge oneself.

---

So then how come the female sterile Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park stared laying eggs? Jeff Goldblum even stated that they would!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

It matters to me because it demonstrates a disturbing trend: The most powerful nation in the world is sliding more and more toward religious fundamentalism. Your citizens are showing an alarming and increasing desire to insert religious dogma into or in place of scientific theory, law, and government.

---

A generalization such as this begs that one provide some proof. In most of the news that I have read - the county school boards that have tried this have been overturned by the voters of that area.

---

True. But how many states have implemented constitutional amendments (a process that as far as I know requires much more than a simple majority in most cases) or laws banning gay marriage?

At any rate Red, I did not say that fundamentalists made up the majority of the American populace. Thankfully, this is why things like whacko school trustees losing their jobs can still take place.

But my general feeling is that religious dogma and its acceptance into mainstream politics is on the rise in America.

Without the religious right, Bush would arguably not have been elected President in the first place.

Here's an article you may find interesting. It doesn't slam religion, but does note the dominance it has played in the formation of the current administration's policies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112301660.html

At any rate, you can't demand prrof of my initial statement, as it is my opinion. I'll provide arguments and articles to support it, but you are correct: it was a generalization and cannot be proven. However, I find it hard to believe that anybody who has been paying attention to American politics and news over the past 20 years would not agree that the religious right is increasing its influence over the governance of the country.

I'll leave you with this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George W. Bush January 2004 at a speech in New Orleans

We want to fund programs that save Americans one soul at a time.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gertgregoor

a Mantis walks on two legs en has front legs which could have evolved into hands. That doesn't mean monky's and humans once were matises. Now does it? As we all know that it isn't true.

---

Naw, it just means that evolution tends to find the best solutions for problems and reuses them. Walking on two legs allows for a greater range of sight, which is a massive boon for the predatory mantis, and having front legs also makes grabbing and killing prey much easier. The fact that mantises have those features is not a coincidence, nor does it mean apes and mantises are descended from a close ancestor species. All that means is that evolution finds the simplest solutions, and copies and pastes them to other species. No Gods needed.

Quote:

---

I'll leave you with this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George W. Bush January 2004 at a speech in New Orleans
We want to fund programs that save Americans one soul at a time.

---

---

Ahh, that made my stomach turn!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danfda

Naw, it just means that evolution tends to find the best solutions for problems and reuses them. Walking on two legs allows for a greater range of sight, which is a massive boon for the predatory mantis, and having front legs also makes grabbing and killing prey much easier. The fact that mantises have those features is not a coincidence, nor does it mean apes and mantises are descended from a close ancestor species. All that means is that evolution finds the simplest solutions, and copies and pastes them to other species. No Gods needed.

---

Yes, I know that and believe that. But my point was just that two animals have similar features that doesn't mean that they have a common ancestor. (Unless you back verry, verry, verry far.)

Yeah, gertgregoor, after I posted I went back and reread the previous few posts, and the second time through I caught your hint o' sarcasm. I'm slow, what can I say. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

True. But how many states have implemented constitutional amendments (a process that as far as I know requires much more than a simple majority in most cases) or laws banning gay marriage?

---

You would have to demonstrate that each state that passed a constitutional ammendment to their constitution to define marriage did it out of religious reasoning. Another situation that you will be hard pressed to make a generalization about.

Now demonstrated to me what states have made laws banning gay marriage and have not had them overturned by their state supreme court as unconstitutional?

Quote:

---

At any rate Red, I did not say that fundamentalists made up the majority of the American populace. Thankfully, this is why things like whacko school trustees losing their jobs can still take place.

---

Is this a quibble?

Quote:

---

But my general feeling is that religious dogma and its acceptance into mainstream politics is on the rise in America.

---

Your feeling only matter's to you - you making another generalization that you have not demonstrated as fact.

Quote:

---

Without the religious right, Bush would arguably not have been elected President in the first place.

---

With a viable democratic party candidate President Bush would not have been elected either.

Quote:

---

Here's an article you may find interesting. It doesn't slam religion, but does note the dominance it has played in the formation of the current administration's policies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112301660.html

---

I will read the article in the next few days..

Quote:

---

At any rate, you can't demand prrof of my initial statement, as it is my opinion. I'll provide arguments and articles to support it, but you are correct: it was a generalization and cannot be proven. However, I find it hard to believe that anybody who has been paying attention to American politics and news over the past 20 years would not agree that the religious right is increasing its influence over the governance of the country.

---

Try reading the statement once again - A generalization such as this begs that one provide some proof. In most of the news that I have read - the county school boards that have tried this have been overturned by the voters of that area. A generalization does indeed have difficultly in being proven correct.

I have seen patterns come and go - the extreme's in this country come into influence and out of influence every few years. Your generalization does not hold true when one looks at the country as a whole.


Notice not to long ago (less then 5 years) that there was a major movement to remove religios symbols from many local level governments. A certain amount of what you are percieving to be an increase in religious fundmentalism is the backlash from the secular fundmentalist movements of earlier days.


Edit: Just so some don't get confused about my postion on this subject: Creationism should not be taught in schools that are attempting to teach science according to the established principles of science. Its fine to teach creationism in a private religious school or in sunday school, but not in a school that is funded by the taxpayer. Personally I want my child to learn science taught by teaching the principles of science and how to use your own mind to draw your well founded conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

You would have to demonstrate that each state that passed a constitutional ammendment to their constitution to define marriage did it out of religious reasoning. Another situation that you will be hard pressed to make a generalization about.

Now demonstrated to me what states have made laws banning gay marriage and have not had them overturned by their state supreme court as unconstitutional?



Is this a quibble?



Your feeling only matter's to you - you making another generalization that you have not demonstrated as fact.



With a viable democratic party candidate President Bush would not have been elected either.



I will read the article in the next few days..



Try reading the statement once again - A generalization such as this begs that one provide some proof. In most of the news that I have read - the county school boards that have tried this have been overturned by the voters of that area. A generalization does indeed have difficultly in being proven correct.

I have seen patterns come and go - the extreme's in this country come into influence and out of influence every few years. Your generalization does not hold true when one looks at the country as a whole.


Notice not to long ago (less then 5 years) that there was a major movement to remove religios symbols from many local level governments. A certain amount of what you are percieving to be an increase in religious fundmentalism is the backlash from the secular fundmentalist movements of earlier days.


Edit: Just so some don't get confused about my postion on this subject: Creationism should not be taught in schools that are attempting to teach science according to the established principles of science. Its fine to teach creationism in a private religious school or in sunday school, but not in a school that is funded by the taxpayer. Personally I want my child to learn science taught by teaching the principles of science and how to use your own mind to draw your well founded conclusions.

---

I really have neither the time nor the inclination to become involved in a lengthy nitpicking contest.

You "win" your point: my statement was a generalizaion about a trend in American politics over the past twenty years or so. My statement cannot be proved. It was based on my own awareness and internal compilation and digestion of a broad spectrum of anecdotal evidence.

In summary: it is my opinion.

And no: you are, as you say, under no obligation to care about it.

Having said all of that, just as you could probably produce hundreds of articles supporting the idea that Christianity is under attack and in danger of extinction in the U.S., so could I also produce a like number of articles supporting the idea that within 5 years all Americans will be forced by the government to attend church at gunpoint.

The difference is that you put more weight in the former, while I put more weight in the latter.

That is how opinions are formed, and also is a demonstration of their inherent "value."

:coffeenews:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I really have neither the time nor the inclination to become involved in a lengthy nitpicking contest.

---

Then one should steer away from unprovable generalizations.

Quote:

---

You "win" your point: my statement was a generalizaion about a trend in American politics over the past twenty years or so. My statement cannot be proved. It was based on my own awareness and internal compilation and digestion of a broad spectrum of anecdotal evidence.

---

Then you missed my point - it was not about winning anything.

Quote:

---

Having said all of that, just as you could probably produce hundreds of articles supporting the idea that Christianity is under attack and in danger of extinction in the U.S., so could I also produce a like number of articles supporting the idea that within 5 years all Americans will be forced by the government to attend church at gunpoint.

The difference is that you put more weight in the former, while I put more weight in the latter.

That is how opinions are formed, and also is a demonstration of their inherent "value."

:coffeenews:

---

Something else that you have gotten completely wrong. But its not to suprising since your basing most of your arguement off of emotional appeal.

You have something in common with those who advocate teaching creationism in school - arguements based upon gross generalizations and emotional appeal ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I really have neither the time nor the inclination to become involved in a lengthy nitpicking contest.

---

Then one should steer away from unprovable generalizations.

---

Red! Are you honestly saying that the Backroom is not an appropriate forum for offering one's opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

You "win" your point: my statement was a generalizaion about a trend in American politics over the past twenty years or so. My statement cannot be proved. It was based on my own awareness and internal compilation and digestion of a broad spectrum of anecdotal evidence.

---

Then you missed my point - it was not about winning anything.

---

No, it never is with you, is it?

~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Having said all of that, just as you could probably produce hundreds of articles supporting the idea that Christianity is under attack and in danger of extinction in the U.S., so could I also produce a like number of articles supporting the idea that within 5 years all Americans will be forced by the government to attend church at gunpoint.

The difference is that you put more weight in the former, while I put more weight in the latter.

That is how opinions are formed, and also is a demonstration of their inherent "value."

:coffeenews:

---

Something else that you have gotten completely wrong. But its not to suprising since your basing most of your arguement off of emotional appeal.

You have something in common with those who advocate teaching creationism in school - arguements based upon gross generalizations and emotional appeal ....

---

I'm sorry you feel that way.

But all I really did was state my own opinion, state how and why I formed that opinion, and then acknowledge that my opinion was certainly not provable, nor worth any more than anybody else's opinion.

Again, please allow me to apologize for bogging down the Backroom with tearful and awkward emotion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Red! Are you honestly saying that the Backroom is not an appropriate forum for offering one's opinion?

---

That was not stated - what was stated is this.

Then one should steer away from unprovable generalizations.

A generalization that is unprovable normally can be associated with certain definitions, such as bigotry and prejudicial.

We have enough problems that one can find fault with many things without making a generalization that smacks more of bigotry and prejudicial intolerance of other people's belief systems because you don't like that particuler belief system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

That was not stated - what was stated is this.

Then one should steer away from unprovable generalizations.

A generalization that is unprovable normally can be associated with certain definitions, such as bigotry and prejudicial.

We have enough problems that one can find fault with many things without making a generalization that smacks more of bigotry and prejudicial intolerance of other people's belief systems because you don't like that particuler belief system.

---

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

I haven't lost my touch folks. Even after an extended absence from the Backroom, I still managed to take Red through his well known, tried and true, patented "three stages of debate":

1. You're generalizing!

2. You're making emotional appeals!

3. Your statements are bigoted!

In the space of 4 posts, I went from being a generalizer to a purveyor of bigotry.

All because I said I believe that American citizens are showing an alarming and increasing desire to insert religious dogma into or in place of scientific theory, law, and government, then acknowledged that this was only my personal opinion supported by nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

I'm glad to see you haven't changed, Red.

~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

All because I said I believe that American citizens are showing an alarming and increasing desire to insert religious dogma into or in place of scientific theory, law, and government, then acknowledged that this was only my personal opinion supported by nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

---

Glad to see you acknowledge that your statement was based upon prejudicial bigotry versus actual facts.

Whats wrong Goofy did I touch a nerve on your unprovable generalization?

Edit: And again there is normally only two stages - one being calling people on their generalization and thier emotional appeal. The other stage we haven't even reached yet.

Well this was going well.

Quite above average for an evolution debate.

So instead of locked and gone. I will give it a 12 to 24 hour timeout.