Republican Acceptance of Evolution Plummets

There are only two viable explenations to as to how life formed and developed on Earth:

1. Evolution.

2. We don't know.



anything else is mere fantasy.

 

Sorry if I don't spend my entire life 24/7 in this forum like you do. But since you asked....

I'd say I believe with roughly 95% of the current leading evolutionary theory. I doubt you'd understand me if I went into details regarding the parts I disagree with so I won't go into those here. However, as I noted before, even the most ardent evolution supporter admits that we all have no idea how life started in the first place.

Wow!! Looks like I totally blew away all your ignorant, closed-minded, prejudicial assumptions you made about me, huh!

Just out of curiosity, do you have the same hatred and intolerance of people who believe in reincarnation?

- - - Updated - - -

Spoken like a true flat earther.

 

Uh oh, you better watch out my friend. There is a ridiculously ignorant person running around this forum saying that evolution has nothing to do with how life formed and developed.

 

Just me but I think we are just a Truman show thought up by some alien screen writer

 

That experiment, while quaint and appropriate for the time, has long since been discarded as having produced any real results. They were not accurately simulating what we now believe were the conditions of the early Earth, nor were they using properly sanitized instruments.

Don't get me wrong, the work was groundbreaking for the time, but comparing those experiments to what we have today is like comparing a 1950's telephone to my iPhone.

 

You have a severe lack of understanding of what evolution is.

It's not "An ape turned into a man" It's several apes in a population of apes were less hairy than the other apes. This less hairy version of the species was able to survive in their environment better and so that gene was more likely to survive to give birth to more less hairy apes. Over millions of years we were left with a particular hairless ape that was better able to survive because it could run down its pray over large distances due to it's lack of hair which enabled it to prevent overheating.

It's not a ape one day just gave birth to a human. It gave birth to a slightly less hairy or slightly more erect or slightly smarter ape. Then that ape mated with another ape that had similar features and made an even less hairy even more erect and even more intelligent ape. It took millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations to get from ape to human.

This ape species that humans link their ancestry to doesn't exist today. We didn't come from any ape that is currently alive. If you could see the apes that existed half a million years ago that are our direct ancestors you would be more likely to believe we came from them.



this is Homo Rhodesiensis and is one of the closest ape ancestor we have. You can clearly see this ape looks VERY human.

And I don't have a clue where you got the idea that a robin evolved from a sparrow to an eagle. Those are all just different species of birds. They didn't evolve from one another. But they share the same ancestors. Birds evolved as relatives of the dinosaurs. Of whom only the smallest were able to survive to pass on their genes after the metor that caused their extinction.

And whales evolved from a large coastal land predator who gave birth

 

You'd be surprised at how many learned people, including some prominent atheists, believe something along those lines is very much possible.

 

Evolution requires time as the changes are slow. The lab experiments are creating a substance that is required for life but not life correct?

Almost all forms of complex life have each male and female versions? This is required for procreation correct? Without it the species die correct? Which evolution of a human came first? Without both sexes how would evolution continue without the ability to procreate? Are you suggesting they both evolved at the same time?

 

Feel free to actually provide a link to support your claims.

- - - Updated - - -

Which has nothing to do with anything I said.

 

Well, here's a couple thousand links.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Miller/Urey+Experiment+flaws

 

Whip out the link. It is your assertion, right? Surely you have an easy reference. Surely you can support your argument.

 

Are you suggesting we were created via speciation?

"He ... hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7) which was written around 1500 BC. Science discovered the earth hung upon nothing around 1650 AD.

"It is he who sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). Isaiah was written between 740 and 680 BC a minimum of 300 years before Aristotle suggested the earth was a sphere.

 

I could see where Earth could be a giant petri dish for an experiment. If I had to pick a side in this argument it would be neither. Now I am not extremely religious myself but I respect those who are. Just my opinion here but I think religion serves as the thread that holds civilization together. Once a civilization loses it's morals the people begin to suffer. In times and places where the government is scarce or non existent religion serves as government. Guess that is why the big government people are so down on religion.

 

The mechanisms behind "micro" and "macro" evolution are identical. The theory of evolution makes no distinction. I'm so tired of the macro/micro argument, though. As long as you recognize that "it doesn't explain the origin of life" is an irrelevant critique of the theory, then I think that's enough disabuse of ignorant ideas for one day.

 

Then you should have no problem providing scientific proof of human evolution from the beginning.

 

I'm sorry, where did I make any claim that requires that kind of proof?

 

Oh I apologize. I misunderstood your reply.

Have a happy New Year!

 

Sorry, I read your comment saying you were being sarcastic, but I wasn't aware whether your sarcasm was for or against. I only read the post I replied to, and a reference to a fictional Colonel isn't much help, I'm afraid. Please don't consider the reply personal anyway: I was just discrediting the argument.

Actually, that's false. The Big Bang Theory has been losing popularity ever since 2001 in favour of Inflation Theory. Most physicists now favour Inflation Theory over its predecessor on account of the experimental data from WMAP.

If that's an implication that Jesus had access to some type of advanced technology then I think the reality is probably much simpler. I have quite a cynical mind, and when I see a book written by Jews, about a Jew, claiming that Jews are the chosen people of God, then my natural disposition for scrutiny goes into overdrive.

It's information, buddy. Information is quite literally power. It's the entire reason there are people still denying evolution, global warming, that 9/11 was a false flag etc... The introduction of democratic politics has made a massive change to the way our society works, but it is a sidestep rather than a step forward. People used to be bashed on the head when conformity to the dominant paradigm was an issue, but now they rarely dissent in the first place, because governments realise that they don't have to tell you the truth. From a political perspective, it is demonstrably illogical to tell people the truth because nine out of ten times it's bad.

The bottom line is that plausibility is the only thing that matters. If you can construct your language in such a way so that people believe (or are fooled) by what you are saying, it matters not if you are lying through your back teeth. Welcome to the Republican Party.

 

Via evolution, yes.

The Earth isn't hung on nothing. That implies it is stationary. It isn't.

The Earth isn't a circle, it's a sphere. A circle is a flat object.

 

Yeah... Uh, Mr. Smug, inflation is a part of the Big Bang Theory.

 

Do not science believe that life came about from a single strain that came to earth and evolved into every living thing we have today over billions of years?

 

How can you claim that the mechanisms are identical when we have no way to ascertain that? There is ample evidence of intra-species evolution, and nearly none of inter-species evolution. That simply is a hole in the entire story of Evolution, and not one likely to be filled anytime soon.

There is a dearth of fossil evidence of all species, but to explain the lack of transitionary states, evolutionists had to create 'punctuated equilibrium', even though there is no way to support the notion.

 

Ah. Lying with use of statistics. Horribly massaged; entirely misleading statistics.

This topic should be about the attempt by secularists to separate Christians from cultural acceptance. What this is really about is secularists attempting to make enemies of Christians by playing fast and loose with science, and co-opting a discipline which should be driven by facts and - instead - injecting presupposition in the pursuit of illegitimizing the need for 'God' to explain our existence.

So - to the degree that Republicans reject Evolution as a legitimate explanation of our existence - all you're seeing is the objection that many of us have to this transparent attempt to make the study of evolution something it is not, and can never be: an alternative to belief in God.

 

I doubt many believe life existed JUST AS WE SEE IT TODAY. But I also don't think many think man evolved from apes either.

 

I agree. Religion is not causing anyone in this country any hardship unless their immorality is hard core that they are suffering extreme guilt and don't want to be reminded how they got AIDS.

Read Geneses and see if it doesn't fit the accepted scientific take on the way the Universe was formed. There was nothing before the Big Bang, Then there was light, the Earth formed and life sprang from the duct. Clearly humanity has known for some time that the Earth and the Universe was created out of nothing but we have tried to articulate that creation in human terms.

Jesus didn't tell anyone that the Earth was round or that the Earth circled the Sun. He didn't know any more than that there were stars way high in the sky and only a few people knew that there were planets in the sky. In the age of Galileo we didn't know that we were part of a galaxy and not until a few decades ago did we learn that our galaxy was a very small part of the Universe.

Why humanity believed and tried to explain how the Earth and the stars were created out of nothing is a question that is worth pondering. To create a moral foundation for a stable and productive society people have tried to explain how we came to be and we did the best we could do at the time.