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

[gseeker]

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

Ah but remember, ink in those times were primarily organic so you can go ahead and think of it as primordial ooze. Does that help?

 

[outhouse]

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.

evolution is both fact and theory.

not understanding the topic is not a excuse when argueing against it.

 

[Orias]

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.

Just because you're under the bus doesn't mean you have to throw everyone else under the bus who doesn't believe the same thing you do.

 

[idav]

When I was more conservative in religion I also happend to be republican and believed in evolution but thought perhaps humans were somehow different. This view of mine has evolved over the past 15 or 20 years ( I'm getting old?). I now accept that humans evolved the same way as all the other animal, accept evolution as probable fact and in my current liberal views am now Democrat cause the Republicans irritate me a bit with all the conservative right wing stuff that seems to have gotten worse.

 

[outhouse]

When I was more conservative in religion I also happend to be republican and believed in evolution but thought perhaps humans were somehow different. This view of mine has evolved over the past 15 or 20 years ( I'm getting old?). I now accept that humans evolved the same way as all the other animal, accept evolution as probable fact and in my current liberal views am now Democrat cause the Republicans irritate me a bit with all the conservative right wing stuff that seems to have gotten worse.

Ah yes nothing is greater then tha abilty to keep learning, and having a open mind that accepts new information, reason and logic. :clap

 

[Orias]

When I was more conservative in religion I also happend to be republican and believed in evolution but thought perhaps humans were somehow different. This view of mine has evolved over the past 15 or 20 years ( I'm getting old?). I now accept that humans evolved the same way as all the other animal, accept evolution as probable fact and in my current liberal views am now Democrat cause the Republicans irritate me a bit with all the conservative right wing stuff that seems to have gotten worse.

Yea, conservatives aren't really conservative anymore.

They don't fight for the same thing the founding fathers did.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "I am a Right Wing Extremist, Pro life - Pro bible - Pro American".

It made me sick, literally, and I wanted to find a giant rock and smash that old geezers head in. Did I mention he was an old guy? About 70 years old, going about 5 miles an hour pulling into the Walmart parking lot. I was fuming :fight:, but then again I am a Left Wing Extremist, pro death to those who deserve, pro bible burning (I suppose its because the bible has burned so many other books in its name) and definitely pro American.

Though I have a feeling the European countries got us on a pretty hooky hook.

 

[camanintx]

Ah but remember, ink in those times were primarily organic so you can go ahead and think of it as primordial ooze. Does that help?

No. Evolution only applied to organisms which are already living. Just because something is organic does not make it life or even potential life.

 

[gseeker]

No. Evolution only applied to organisms which are already living. Just because something is organic does not make it life or even potential life.

Oh, then how did single cell organisms come Ito being if they didn't form out of a protein and chemical compound? Evolution states that you had to have that single cell development beefier you could have the evolution process. So that single cell organism developed independently an while that isn't evolution per say it is an evolutional precept.

 

[outhouse]

loosing a debate in evolution, so we steer the debate towards abiogenesis


heading right for gaps in our knowledge to proclaim "godidit" with no evidence at all


and actually abiogenesis is not a mystery at all in chemistry givin the right enviroment and the millions of years avalible .

 

[camanintx]

Oh, then how did single cell organisms come Ito being if they didn't form out of a protein and chemical compound? Evolution states that you had to have that single cell development beefier you could have the evolution process. So that single cell organism developed independently an while that isn't evolution per say it is an evolutional precept.

That's abiogensis, not evolution. Biological evolution is defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Until you have an organism capable of reproduction, you don't have evolution.

 

[gseeker]

True but if an organic compound can become life couldn't that same organic compound theoreticaly produce asexually? And as I've said, it isn't evolution but it is a major facet of evolution even the cornerstone that the theory of evolution is built upon.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Can I ask what people think Independent means, last I knew there wasn't this many Independents.

 

[gseeker]

loosing a debate in evolution, so we steer the debate towards abiogenesis


heading right for gaps in our knowledge to proclaim "godidit" with no evidence at all


and actually abiogenesis is not a mystery at all in chemistry givin the right enviroment and the millions of years avalible .

This conversation is still about evolution, if you can't see the connection between abiogenesis and evolution then your confusion knows no bounds. You are just filled with faith aren't you since abiogenesis is not fact and can't be proven because of the "millions of years and undefined conditions you mentioned. Without visual proof a theory is just a theory and not fact. You seem to want to ignore that and continue to use the word fact even though even science refuses to use that term. Hmm maybe you don't understand the concept of scientific study.

 

[outhouse]

This conversation is still about evolution, if you can't see the connection between abiogenesis and evolution then your confusion knows no bounds. You are just filled with faith aren't you since abiogenesis is not fact and can't be proven because of the "millions of years and undefined conditions you mentioned. Without visual proof a theory is just a theory and not fact. You seem to want to ignore that and continue to use the word fact even though even science refuses to use that term. Hmm maybe you don't understand the concept of scientific study.

and yet you cannot refute a word I stated



evolution has been observed and there are mant facts that have been observed for science to determine its findings.


there has been no real debate about evolution for the last 150 years, only theist who refuse the knowledge debate it.

 

[gseeker]

Can I ask what people think Independent means, last I knew there wasn't this many Independents.

I put independent because I'm not Republican or a Democratic I believe in voting for people not parties and yes I do know independent is a party they just didn't have an answer for unaffiliated.

 

[gseeker]

and yet you cannot refute a word I stated



evolution has been observed and there are mant facts that have been observed for science to determine its findings.


there has been no real debate about evolution for the last 150 years, only theist who refuse the knowledge debate it.

Yet I've asked you multiple times to tell me how and when macro evolution has been observed yet you wont. By giving credibility to macro evolution by saying micro evolution has been observed is like saying because you can prove you can life a ten pound weight its proof you can lift a five thousand pound weight. Proof of genetic changes within a species is not proof that species change from one to another. When you have genetic traits within a species those traits get magnified or minimized due to that species environment and genetic ancestry not that they adapt traits outside their species ultimately becoming other species. Show me one instance of macro evolution being observed in real modern time.

 

[s2a]

This conversation is still about evolution…

NO, it’s not, and I would know, since I instigated this thread

It was lent primarily as a poll, allowing contributors to readily enough express their opinion relative to how the the differing stances were initially presented for expediency and clarity’s sake. Secondarily enough, to illustrate how far we have yet to progress as a society relative to other more modern and enlightened societies today.

This is not a thread designed to debate the merits of evolution theory, per se, despite it’s placement within this particular topical sub-segment.

There are many more suitable threads here within the “Evolution vs. Creationism” heading to better engage counter arguments against the overwhelming facts of evolution theory.

“Without visual proof a theory is just a theory and not fact.

Interesting validation of the confidence of ignorance manifesting punishingly stupid remarks like that one…

You seem to want to ignore that and continue to use the word fact even though even science refuses to use that term.

Of which of course. is simply not the case at all...

Hmm maybe you don't understand the concept of scientific study.

I’m fairly confident is saying that you do not understand much of value in that arena either…

This particular thread and offered poll (which is by no means “scientific”), primarily serves to illustrate the influences of anti-intellectualism as it stands today…especially from a political/ideological classification.

You may consider (if it helps you to seek better engaged debate) that the underlying foundation as premised in this thread is that evolution as both a “common sense” concept and as an overwhelmingly proven scientific theory is essential fact, period.

I deem “Evolution deniers” as the morally/ethically/intellectually detached equivalents of Holocaust deniers, Climate change deniers, and Flat-Earth proponents.

Vote in the poll, make your affiliation known, then debate the subject in a more appropriate thread, please?
Thank you

 

[Skwim]

. . .[abiogenesis] isn't evolution but it is a major facet of evolution even the cornerstone that the theory of evolution is built upon.

May I suggest you read up a bit on evolution before telling others what it is. As it stands you're making quite a fool of yourself. Of course, if that's your intent . . . . . . . . . .

 

[Skwim]

You seem to want to ignore that and continue to use the word fact even though even science refuses to use that term. Hmm maybe you don't understand the concept of scientific study.

Is that right.

Life preys upon life. This is biology's most fundamental fact
—Martin H. Fischer

A fact is a simple statement that everyone believes. It is innocent, unless found guilty. A hypothesis is a novel suggestion that no one wants to believe. It is guilty, until found effective.
—Edward Teller

The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them.
—William Lawrence Bragg

But the great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact - which is so constantly being enacted under the eyes of philosophers...
—T.H. Huxley

The essential fact which emerges ... is that the three smallest and most active reservoirs ( of carbon in the global carbon cycle), the atmosphere, the plants and the soil, are all of roughly the same size.
—Freeman Dyson

As in the experimental sciences, truth cannot be distinguished from error as long as firm principles have not been established through the rigorous observation of facts.
— Louis Pasteur

So long as it remained the mysterious alchemy by which a few devotees, by devious and dubious means, presumed to change baser metals into gold, it did not flourish, but when it dealt with the fact that 56 g. of fine iron, when heated with 32 g. of flowers of sulfur, generated extra heat and gave exactly 88 g. of an entirely new substance, then additional steps could be taken by anyone.
—Willis R. Whitney

From the point of view of the pure morphologist the recapitulation theory is an instrument of research enabling him to reconstruct probable lines of descent; from the standpoint of the student of development and heredity the fact of recapitulation is a difficult problem whose solution would perhaps give the key to a true understanding of the real nature of heredity.
— Edward Stuart Russell

I may conclude this chapter by quoting a saying of Professor Agassiz, that whenever a new and startling fact is brought to light in science, people first say, 'it is not true,' then that 'it is contrary to religion,' and lastly, 'that everybody knew it before.'
— Sir Charles Lyell



"Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.(For an example, see Evolution as theory and fact.)

Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation (details below). Also, rigorous scientific use of the term "fact" is careful to distinguish: 1) states of affairs in the external world; from 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science."
Source: Wikipedia

​

So, I also suggest you read up a bit on basic science before telling others what it is . . . and isn't.

 

[gseeker]

Is that right.

Life preys upon life. This is biology's most fundamental fact
—Martin H. Fischer

A fact is a simple statement that everyone believes. It is innocent, unless found guilty. A hypothesis is a novel suggestion that no one wants to believe. It is guilty, until found effective.
—Edward Teller

The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them.
—William Lawrence Bragg

But the great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact - which is so constantly being enacted under the eyes of philosophers...
—T.H. Huxley

The essential fact which emerges ... is that the three smallest and most active reservoirs ( of carbon in the global carbon cycle), the atmosphere, the plants and the soil, are all of roughly the same size.
—Freeman Dyson

As in the experimental sciences, truth cannot be distinguished from error as long as firm principles have not been established through the rigorous observation of facts.
— Louis Pasteur

So long as it remained the mysterious alchemy by which a few devotees, by devious and dubious means, presumed to change baser metals into gold, it did not flourish, but when it dealt with the fact that 56 g. of fine iron, when heated with 32 g. of flowers of sulfur, generated extra heat and gave exactly 88 g. of an entirely new substance, then additional steps could be taken by anyone.
—Willis R. Whitney

From the point of view of the pure morphologist the recapitulation theory is an instrument of research enabling him to reconstruct probable lines of descent; from the standpoint of the student of development and heredity the fact of recapitulation is a difficult problem whose solution would perhaps give the key to a true understanding of the real nature of heredity.
— Edward Stuart Russell

I may conclude this chapter by quoting a saying of Professor Agassiz, that whenever a new and startling fact is brought to light in science, people first say, 'it is not true,' then that 'it is contrary to religion,' and lastly, 'that everybody knew it before.'
— Sir Charles Lyell



"Just as in philosophy, the scientific concept of fact is central to fundamental questions regarding the nature, methods, scope and validity of scientific reasoning.

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.(For an example, see Evolution as theory and fact.)

Various scholars have offered significant refinements to this basic formulation (details below). Also, rigorous scientific use of the term "fact" is careful to distinguish: 1) states of affairs in the external world; from 2) assertions of fact that may be considered relevant in scientific analysis. The term is used in both senses in the philosophy of science."
Source: Wikipedia

​

So, I also suggest you read up a bit on basic science before telling others what it is . . . and isn't.

First let me say that I never said that science is not based on fact but simply that evolution is a theory not a fact. You can have facts that help the basis of a theory but that theory does not obtain the classification of fact on that alone since a fact has to be directly observed. You say I should have a better understanding of science? I have three years of geological studies at auburn university and Montana tech and I've been studying geology independently since age 16. I could be wrong on things of a biological nature but my knowledge of geology and the fossil record is intact. I will not debate on this thread anymore out of respect to the thread creators but you are welcome to argue your point on my threads.