Finally! More Young Americans Accept Evolution than Believe in Creationism...

[Altfish]

There are other things like... the lack of "inbetweener" species in fossil records, and modern day examples of mutation into new species that leave great holes in the best fit logic used to define evolution. Sounds great on paper and it makes sense... Taxonomic categorizations are nearly completely arbitrary as a result. Associations are drawn where nothing is proven to exist, but seems to make sense.

The problem with the "the lack of inbetweener" argument is that if you have fossil A and fossil B with no intermediates. When we discover the intermediate fossil X, we then have twice as many missing 'inbetweeners', i.e. we have a gap between A and X and a gap between X and B.

The fact that we have so many fossils is amazing, the fact that there are so few gaps (and those gaps are getting smaller) is even more amazing.

 

[Mindmaster]

What lack? Our own species alone has seven documented members of the homo genus. Of course the fossil record is incomplete, and it never will be complete, but if you think there is this "lack of inbetweeners" then perhaps you should reexamine the evidence of evolution that we do have on hand.

No offense, but if you understood how much art goes into reconstructing entire skulls and bones from a few chips... They're not doing science as much as inventing it to fit their theories.

I can't blame them though great swaths of evidence are just missing. But, this is the kind of silliness that creationists do all the time... They make up things to plug the holes in the boat! I'm against it when either one of them do it.

 

[Mindmaster]

Who created God?

The question is always the one someone is trying to answer, but I think it's funny when you ask a science-minded person... Why was the big bang something that happened? It seems unimportant and unnecessary... Thus, there is some reason why that probably gets down to something more than "it just did"... That wouldn't be a good enough answer to explain a chemical reaction in a college class let alone explain the origin of the universe. All of the creation theories are as plausible as anything science comes up with after they point; they both have ideas... and that's all they are.. We should hit these problems in a unified fashion using the lore of our past with the science of now. If we're interested in the truth we don't care where it comes from just that it is.

My pet theory was always that "God" (not Yahweh) killed itself to make the rest... Much like when you have a bacteria reproduce asexually by dividing. But, it's just a theory... It's not something I believe, but more something that I see nature do.

As far as the gaps I think the real problem is we can't get DNA/genes from fossils that are really old. We have a fundamental problem proving their ancestry due to the fact that it doesn't survive well past 250,000 years. All of the taxonomic assumptions past that time may be completely wrong -- these are educated guesses, but they are still guesses. There are four species of hominid that we know existed in that period so we have better clues, but past that... It's a crap shoot - let's separate science fact from science fiction.

 

[Demonslayer]

Who created God?

MegaGod, duh.

 

[Demonslayer]

The more our nation turns away from God, the more decadent it becomes.

LOL. So we're more decadent now than say when American was 99% Christian during the slave days? That wonderful, holy, kind society that kept, raped and beat human slaves while quoting Bible verse to justify it?

Me thinks the moral decay of America is imaginary. We're far more moral now, despite horrors like kids wearing pants too low around the waist and showing an unclothed human buttock on TV.

 

[Papoon]

I

For the first time, more young Americans accept evolution than believe in creationism. Older people, however, still believe in some form of creationism by a wide margin.



Please discuss. Is evolution denial going the way of the dinosaurs? Why or why not?

If 'majority view' had a strong correlation with 'correct view' this would be good news for the current view of evolution.

 

[Thief]

I believe God can tweak a molecule of dna....whenever it suits Him.
such is evolution

I also suspect an event of manipulation.
Man made a leap of development.

there is a story of God performing such manipulation.
see Genesis Chapter Two

 

[Papoon]

No offense, but if you understood how much art goes into reconstructing entire skulls and bones from a few chips... They're not doing science as much as inventing it to fit their theories.

I can't blame them though great swaths of evidence are just missing. But, this is the kind of silliness that creationists do all the time... They make up things to plug the holes in the boat! I'm against it when either one of them do it.

I like the way you think.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

My argument vs. evolution is best fit proofs stink. I never liked them when science uses them, and I like them even less when religious people use them to graft the universe into their cosmology. I respectfully decline to be a part of either side of this conceptual madness which borders on lunacy regardless of your side of the aisle. I happily await more proof... I don't consider shared genes or other building block material to be enough to assume there is derivation from species. it's possible species are created independently of similar materials for example. Both a table and chair may be made of metal or wood, but they are not related -- a table didn't grow from a chair just for sharing physical properties. In essence, this is what science is asking people to believe -- I think not enough work has been done.

There are other things like... the lack of "inbetweener" species in fossil records, and modern day examples of mutation into new species that leave great holes in the best fit logic used to define evolution. Sounds great on paper and it makes sense... Taxonomic categorizations are nearly completely arbitrary as a result. Associations are drawn where nothing is proven to exist, but seems to make sense.

I'm happy with the "I'm not sure" position for now. There are gaping holes in modern science in regard to this information... The holes are just as wide as those used by the creationists to defend their positions...

Classical physics and static universes were 'best fit' explanations also- atheism makes the repeated mistake of taking the most superficial observation- and extrapolating it to a complete, final, God refuting answer.
'Nature is the executor of God's laws' permits us to look a little deeper, to expect more than meets the eye, it's no coincidence that Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism.

 

[Deathbydefault]

What's important about evolution and creationalism, anyway? I know one is a mystery the other is, well, interesting; but...whats up with why its so popular topic in general?

Evolution is a fact. Creationism is a cluster of hypothesized, mind ridden ideas on how the universe came to be.
Not sure why the topic is popular, I tend to just ignore people who can't accept what a fact is.
The others here might just enjoy throwing evidence in the opposing sides face to see the next way they can deny it.

 

[Revoltingest]

The question is always the one someone is trying to answer, but I think it's funny when you ask a science-minded person... Why was the big bang something that happened? It seems unimportant and unnecessary... Thus, there is some reason why that probably gets down to something more than "it just did"... That wouldn't be a good enough answer to explain a chemical reaction in a college class let alone explain the origin of the universe.

Some questions aren't amenable to the scientific method.
Is it a fatal shortcoming to lack answers to such questions?
No.
But to believe in the superiority of a method which provides unverifiable answers as THE TRUTH is problematic.
The answers will be varied & fanciful.

All of the creation theories are as plausible as anything science comes up with after they point; they both have ideas... and that's all they are.. We should hit these problems in a unified fashion using the lore of our past with the science of now. If we're interested in the truth we don't care where it comes from just that it is.

Many creation theories don't stand up to scrutiny as our knowledge of the material world advances.
But some are so scaled back that nothing about them is testable.
To be plausible isn't a high hurdle, but to be testable is.
Anything less is a fairy tale.

As far as the gaps I think the real problem is we can't get DNA/genes from fossils that are really old. We have a fundamental problem proving their ancestry due to the fact that it doesn't survive well past 250,000 years. All of the taxonomic assumptions past that time may be completely wrong -- these are educated guesses, but they are still guesses. There are four species of hominid that we know existed in that period so we have better clues, but past that... It's a crap shoot - let's separate science fact from science fiction.

The possibility of being wrong is crucial.
Without this, it isn't science because it isn't testable.

Example:
I say 6 angels can dance on the head of a pin.
There's no way to ever falsify this claim.
So it's plausible, but neither right nor wrong.

 

[Mindmaster]

Classical physics and static universes were 'best fit' explanations also- atheism makes the repeated mistake of taking the most superficial observation- and extrapolating it to a complete, final, God refuting answer.
'Nature is the executor of God's laws' permits us to look a little deeper, to expect more than meets the eye, it's no coincidence that Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism.

Not that I disagree with your remarks, but I think modern physics mostly uses causality to prove their theories... It is a bit different in that basically you are building a timeline that reflects "the current result" based on what you know is the only way it could happen. There is not really as much wiggle room in that regard... It's based on a whole lot of hard physics and chemistry that we understand pretty well.

But, yea... Polarized viewpoints are always troubling regardless of who the source is. We should encourage dissenting views just to make sure our assumptions can withstand a trial-by-fire.

 

[Revoltingest]

Classical physics and static universes were 'best fit' explanations also- atheism makes the repeated mistake of taking the most superficial observation- and extrapolating it to a complete, final, God refuting answer.
'Nature is the executor of God's laws' permits us to look a little deeper, to expect more than meets the eye, it's no coincidence that Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism.

This is to over-state what atheism is.
Science didn't lead me to disbelieve in gods.
I was born not believing, & then remained unchanged in the face of bizarre claims with no evidenced argument.
We also see that many scientists are believers, their faith surviving the scientific method.
So atheism & science aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Thief]

Some questions aren't amenable to the scientific method.
Is it a fatal shortcoming to lack answers to such questions?
No.
But to believe in the superiority of a method which provides unverifiable answers as THE TRUTH is problematic.
The answers will be varied & fanciful.

Many creation theories don't stand up to scrutiny as our knowledge of the material world advances.
But some are so scaled back that nothing about them is testable.
To be plausible isn't a high hurdle, but to be testable is.
Anything less is a fairy tale.

The possibility of being wrong is crucial.
Without this, it isn't science because it isn't testable.

Example:
I say 6 angels can dance on the head of a pin.
There's no way to ever falsify this claim.
So it's plausible, but neither right nor wrong.

I say God can alter six dna molecules just whenever.

 

[Parsimony]

I've seen this piece of news. I was happy to read it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I say God can alter six dna molecules just whenever.

That's certainly not wrong.

 

[Mindmaster]

Spoiler

Some questions aren't amenable to the scientific method.
Is it a fatal shortcoming to lack answers to such questions?
No.
But to believe in the superiority of a method which provides unverifiable answers as THE TRUTH is problematic.
The answers will be varied & fanciful.

Many creation theories don't stand up to scrutiny as our knowledge of the material world advances.
But some are so scaled back that nothing about them is testable.
To be plausible isn't a high hurdle, but to be testable is.
Anything less is a fairy tale.

The possibility of being wrong is crucial.
Without this, it isn't science because it isn't testable.

Example:
I say 6 angels can dance on the head of a pin.
There's no way to ever falsify this claim.
So it's plausible, but neither right nor wrong.

@Revoltingest

Your viewpoint is considerably less annoying than most other skeptics and scientists, and I don't see you as the problem here... Most fairy tales have their basis in truth... They've just been given the "Michael Bay" treatment... I think it is erroneous to assume our ancestors are stupider than we are. In fact, it is just downright arrogant...

The scientific method is rarely the problem, but rather the scientists and their own biases. Even the "big bang" isn't testable.. It's still a theory...

I do find issues with your use of obviously fantastical situations as being representative of stories in our past. Just because one part of a story written in the past seems false doesn't mean all parts are false.

For example:

Bible says that X, Y, and Z occur and we find all of them are wrong it doesn't mean that stories A-W are invalid. To defend that position would be a logical fallacy. It's also an error to assume that because part of the story is wrong the whole story is wrong. (Which is what I see evolutionists often doing...)

I have no love for the Bible, but I am just using it to illustrate the point. I'll twist your example though to something funnier...

Example:
I say 6 angels can dance on the head of a pin.
How do you know unless you have the ability to see them?
Is there a way to learn? A: Historically, yes...
Then why isn't anyone doing it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is to over-state what atheism is.
Science didn't lead me to disbelieve in gods.
I was born not believing, & then remained unchanged in the face of bizarre claims with no evidenced argument.
We also see that many scientists are believers, their faith surviving the scientific method.
So atheism & science aren't mutually exclusive.

Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.
Max Planck

 

[Revoltingest]

@Revoltingest

Your viewpoint is considerably less annoying than most other skeptics and scientists....

Rats!
I must try harder.

....and I don't see you as the problem here... Most fairy tales have their basis in truth... They've just been given the "Michael Bay" treatment... I think it is erroneous to assume our ancestors are stupider than we are. In fact, it is just downright arrogant...

I don't claim that our ancestors were less intelligent than we are.
They had different knowledge, methods, & perspective.
I take issue with those.
It isn't personal.

The scientific method is rarely the problem, but rather the scientists and their own biases. Even the "big bang" isn't testable.. It's still a theory...

The Big Bang Theory made predictions & has been tested (eg, cosmic background radiation).
So it is falsifiable, which is why it is a theory under the definition of the scientific method.
No matter how many times it's verified, it will remain a theory.
This isn't a problem.

I do find issues with your use of obviously fantastical situations as being representative of stories in our past. Just because one part of a story written in the past seems false doesn't mean all parts are false.
For example:
Bible says that X, Y, and Z occur and we find all of them are wrong it doesn't mean that stories A-W are invalid. To defend that position would be a logical fallacy. It's also an error to assume that because part of the story is wrong the whole story is wrong. (Which is what I see evolutionists often doing...)

This is to overstate my criticism of the Bible.
Where it's found to be wrong, it is then wrong.
Where it's not found to be wrong, I don't say it's wrong.
But neither do I accept it as factual.

I have no love for the Bible, but I am just using it to illustrate the point. I'll twist your example though to something funnier...
Example:
I say 6 angels can dance on the head of a pin.
How do you know unless you have the ability to see them?
Is there a way to learn? A: Historically, yes...
Then why isn't anyone doing it?

I don't understand this.
But I know of no cromulent history of angels dancing on pinheads.
So I still say it's neither right nor wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.
Max Planck

I've no idea if Planck ever said such a thing.
But it would be one man's opinion.
Many others know that we don't need faith for scientific work.

Remember that scientists are mere humans.
And one can always find examples who say & do wrong things.
Science remains useful, even if its practitioners are flawed.