Gallup poll: "7 in 10 Republicans Don't Believe in Evolution"

[uu_sage]

I am a liberal in the Green Party and I accept evolution as fact.

 

[gseeker]

How can you accept a theory as probable fact? It isn't a fact it is a theory so by believeing in it you are accepting it on faith, faith plus theory equal religion.

 

[gseeker]

Who says they are that old? There are assumptions made when things are dated. There is also evidence that the earth cannot be very old at all, but it is ignored.

True, do you know how they date fossils? A paleontologist discovered a shear cliff. In this cliff where many different layers of earth so he decided to date each layer of earth in a non scientific manner therefore being able to date the fossils in each layer. There was no better system available so paleontology continues to date the layers of earth by the fossils found and date the fossils by the layer of earth they are found in. Every paleontologist I've ever met agrees it is circular reasoning but a better system of dating has yet to be found.

 

[Breathe]

How can you accept a theory as probable fact? It isn't a fact it is a theory so by believeing in it you are accepting it on faith, faith plus theory equal religion.

Not quite the same; a scientist's "theory" is the same as a layman's fact. It's not the same as a layman's "hypothesis".

If we get hung up on "theory", then it's still "the theory of gravity"; we don't have "intelligent falling".

How can we get hung up on it as probable? Well, it has overwhelming support. Overwhelming.

Regarding the OP, I wonder if it's changed at all yet? Latest results don't give me much hope on that, though.

 

[gseeker]

Not quite the same; a scientist's "theory" is the same as a layman's fact. It's not the same as a layman's "hypothesis".

If we get hung up on "theory", then it's still "the theory of gravity"; we don't have "intelligent falling".

How can we get hung up on it as probable? Well, it has overwhelming support. Overwhelming.

Regarding the OP, I wonder if it's changed at all yet? Latest results don't give me much hope on that, though.

Overwhelming? Oh lord I must accept it as fact because a lot of people believe it to be true. Of course a lot of people don't believe it is true either. As for being a layman I don't accept that title. I am completely capable of research, study, and have the capacity of reason. A lot of scientist don't believe in evolution including paleontologist those who actually study fossil records. By saying that you must accept it because it has overwhelming support means nothing other than the THEORY has been promoted and marketed in society. Just because tickle me Elmo dolls had overwhelming support doesn't mean I am going to go out and buy one. Is that how you vote too,you vote for the guy who has the highest popularity rating so he must be the right choice. You know hitler. Had overwhelming support and many people believed in his cause, that didn't make him right.

 

[gseeker]

Other scientific laws contradict evolution for example things break down over time they don't improve, you can't get something from nothing, ect. I made sure to put those two laws in layman's terms for you. Lol

 

[Shuddhasattva]

You are incorrect. Negentropy, as a result of free enthalpy created by the sun's energy, is what powers complexity. Matter organizing itself is a consequence of this.

Also, evolution is not necessarily a program of improvement or increasing complexity. Complexity is a strategy that, in my opinion, will ultimately prove to be the dominant one as complex, self-aware entities begin to self-determine their evolution, and the evolution of their... fellow travelers.

Also, science has yet to reach a conclusive stance on ex nihilio.

 

[johnhanks]

As for being a layman I don't accept that title. I am completely capable of research, study, and have the capacity of reason.

Sorry, sunshine, but unless you have recognised qualifications in an academic discipline and/or are professionally engaged in its work, you are a layman. I too am capable of research, study, and have the capacity of reason: will you therefore agree that I am in fact a doctor, and if you fall ill will you pay me to look after you?

A lot of scientist don't believe in evolution including paleontologist those who actually study fossil records.

Please post a list of qualified professional palaeontologists who are on record as saying they don't believe evolution happened.

 

[Breathe]

Overwhelming? Oh lord I must accept it as fact because a lot of people believe it to be true. Of course a lot of people don't believe it is true either.

There's overwhelming evidence to support it.

As for being a layman I don't accept that title. I am completely capable of research, study, and have the capacity of reason.

You may not accept the title, but it's not up to you to decide if you're a layman or not. Being able to study is great -- but I doubt you're on par with a scientist.

A lot of scientist don't believe in evolution including paleontologist those who actually study fossil records. By saying that you must accept it because it has overwhelming support means nothing other than the THEORY has been promoted and marketed in society.

There aren't many reputable scientists (if any) who do not believe in evolution. Should we accept any theory that has been promoted and marketed in society? If it has overwhelming evidence, yes. I can't deny gravity because I don't like it, nor can I deny the shape of the earth, and so on.

Just because tickle me Elmo dolls had overwhelming support doesn't mean I am going to go out and buy one. Is that how you vote too,you vote for the guy who has the highest popularity rating so he must be the right choice. You know hitler. Had overwhelming support and many people believed in his cause, that didn't make him right.

The difference between this and that is that one isn't a popularity contest: one is just accepted as fact by the vast majority of scientists because there is so much evidence to support it. The other is a toy.

I don't know why you even brought up Hitler; it just reminded me of the law: the longer a topic continues online, the probability that it will mention Hitler increases. :angel2:

 

[gseeker]

Sorry, sunshine, but unless you have recognised qualifications in an academic discipline and/or are professionally engaged in its work, you are a layman. I too am capable of research, study, and have the capacity of reason: will you therefore agree that I am in fact a doctor, and if you fall ill will you pay me to look after you?
Please post a list of qualified professional palaeontologists who are on record as saying they don't believe evolution happened.

Here is your list Dr john whitmore Dr Gary e Pennington Dr Carlton c Murrumbidgee Dr Harold coffin Dr Louis Agassiz. Dr joachim schevien Marcus r Ross Dr Kurt wise most have doctorates in that list and several were Harvard educated. As for the term layman, only in modern times has that changed to mean someone without a degree the old definition is someone with no or little education. Trust me, I'm well educated through vocational schools college and personal study and I have an I.Q. of 144 so the term layman offended my sensibility. Lol

 

[gseeker]

There's overwhelming evidence to support it.


You may not accept the title, but it's not up to you to decide if you're a layman or not. Being able to study is great -- but I doubt you're on par with a scientist.


There aren't many reputable scientists (if any) who do not believe in evolution. Should we accept any theory that has been promoted and marketed in society? If it has overwhelming evidence, yes. I can't deny gravity because I don't like it, nor can I deny the shape of the earth, and so on.


The difference between this and that is that one isn't a popularity contest: one is just accepted as fact by the vast majority of scientists because there is so much evidence to support it. The other is a toy.

I don't know why you even brought up Hitler; it just reminded me of the law: the longer a topic continues online, the probability that it will mention Hitler increases. :angel2:

You give me your evidence for evolution and I will argue against it without using the word God once purely through scientific research and terms. You say there aren't any reputable scientists who disagree with evolution. Really you know every scientist in the world and what they believe? Shocking. Of course in the layman's mind the fact that a scientist doesn't believe in evolution must mean he isn't reputable. Again that list of paleontologist I gave you many have Harvard educations and not only do they not believe in evolution they do believe in God or at the least a higher life form. I can also give you a list of biologists, microbiologists and physicists.

 

[mycorrhiza]

You give me your evidence for evolution and I will argue against it without using the word God once purely through scientific research and terms. You say there aren't any reputable scientists who disagree with evolution. Really you know every scientist in the world and what they believe? Shocking. Of course in the layman's mind the fact that a scientist doesn't believe in evolution must mean he isn't reputable. Again that list of paleontologist I gave you many have Harvard educations and not only do they not believe in evolution they do believe in God or at the least a higher life form. I can also give you a list of biologists, microbiologists and physicists.

There are indeed a few scientists who don't accept evolution, but they are few and far between. Nearly every single one of them are Biblical creationists, which is something we know have no scientific support whatsoever.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? Fossil records, genetic evidence, direct observations of speciation? I have a topic on plant evolution that you could visit. Many users posted great pieces of evidence there. There are several other topics on the Evolution Vs. Creationism board that go into detail about evolution.

Project Steve allows me to mention a few scientists named Steve (or Stephen, Stephanie, etc) that support evolution for every creationist scientist you name. There's a reason why evolution is accepted by the huge majority of all biologists and paleontologists, and that is that it's fully supported by facts and has been directly observed. The only reason not to accept evolution is due to religious beliefs.

 

[Breathe]

You give me your evidence for evolution and I will argue against it without using the word God once purely through scientific research and terms.

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

That'll do.

You say there aren't any reputable scientists who disagree with evolution. Really you know every scientist in the world and what they believe? Shocking.

I laughed.

Of course in the layman's mind the fact that a scientist doesn't believe in evolution must mean he isn't reputable.

Well, yeah. If a scientist doesn't believe in evolution, I'm going to find him a bit suspect. It's that easy.

Again that list of paleontologist I gave you many have Harvard educations and not only do they not believe in evolution they do believe in God or at the least a higher life form. I can also give you a list of biologists, microbiologists and physicists.

Evolution and God don't oppose one another. This misunderstanding is part of the root of the "evolution controversy". I'm a believer and I accept evolution.

What other "alternatives" to evolution do we have, really? Creationism? Aliens?

 

[gseeker]

Is the idea that there is an entity so powerful intelligent and creative that that being might create the world and everything in it? There is an old saying, normally the simplest answer is normally the correct answer. Glad I could make you laugh.

 

[camanintx]

Is the idea that there is an entity so powerful intelligent and creative that that being might create the world and everything in it? There is an old saying, normally the simplest answer is normally the correct answer. Glad I could make you laugh.

You really think that an entity so powerful, intelligent and creative that it might create the world and everything in it is the simplest answer?

 

[Breathe]

Is the idea that there is an entity so powerful intelligent and creative that that being might create the world and everything in it? There is an old saying, normally the simplest answer is normally the correct answer. Glad I could make you laugh.

It's more about the mechanisms involved in it: "poomf"ing into existence seems a little odd.

 

[gseeker]

You really think that an entity so powerful, intelligent and creative that it might create the world and everything in it is the simplest answer?

That depends. When you see the painting starry night by Vincent van going OS your first thought that a little black ink got spilled on canvas, that ink reproduced evolved into multiple colors and arranged itself into an image of life spontaneous over a long period of time? Sorry if that is your view but I think it is easier to believe an artist created it.

 

[Revoltingest]

That depends. When you see the painting starry night by Vincent van going OS your first thought that a little black ink got spilled on canvas, that ink reproduced evolved into multiple colors and arranged itself into an image of life spontaneous over a long period of time? Sorry if that is your view but I think it is easier to believe an artist created it.

I've no problem with that perspective. (You could be right. I cannot prove otherwise.)
I just don't share it.
I prefer the scientific way because it's more interesting (complicated) & has predictive value.

Back to the OP.....it looks like a lot of both Dems & Pubs prefer creationism to evolution.
We're just quibbling about differences in the percentages. I wonder where we Libertarians
would fall in such a survey?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That depends. When you see the painting starry night by Vincent van going OS your first thought that a little black ink got spilled on canvas, that ink reproduced evolved into multiple colors and arranged itself into an image of life spontaneous over a long period of time? Sorry if that is your view but I think it is easier to believe an artist created it.

That you cannot see the difference between a painting (something that we know is produced and for which there is no naturalistic explanation) and the developing complexity of biological systems (something that we know reproduces naturally and we have a naturalistic explanation for) indicates nothing except that you are sorely lacking in perception.

 

[camanintx]

That depends. When you see the painting starry night by Vincent van going OS your first thought that a little black ink got spilled on canvas, that ink reproduced evolved into multiple colors and arranged itself into an image of life spontaneous over a long period of time? Sorry if that is your view but I think it is easier to believe an artist created it.

Since ink doesn't reproduce, I wouldn't expect it to evolve. Life on the other hand, does nothing else.