Do majority of Republicans think Theory of Evolution is a fact ?

[OKTexas]

Maybe you could explain your question. The definition of theory is:
Definition of theory

1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

• the wave theory of light

The definition of fact is: a thing that is indisputably the case

Definition of plausible: (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable

So using those definitions, your question then becomes an Oxymoron: definition: a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g., faith unfaithful kept him falsely true).

As can be seen the theory of evolution is not fact, but could be fact.

So EVERYONE would need to answer your question, "accept the theory of evolution as fact?" with the answer no. Your real question should be, do Republicans accept the theory of evolution as the most plausible explanation for the rise of man, or variety of the animals?

Plausible thus becomes the sticking point but to be honest to substitute fact for plausible seems to me to be a mistake. Or, it is not a mistake, it is a way that people word things to make their point seem more valid. I get from you question, you are actually asking, do Republicans accept the FACT of evolution, or are they a bunch of dumbasses? Again the oxymoron of accepting theory as actual fact.

Then we can get started on micro and macro evolution. It is pretty easy to see micro evolution. But in fact, micro evolution is merely adaptation, survival of the fittest. If the environment changes the animal usually dies, or adapts trait that allows the animal to live, but they stay the same animal with different traits. Those animals that can't adapt die as we have seen from the fossil record.

Macro evolution, where one animal turns into another completely different animal is harder to find the facts to support. Could be just a case of plausibility. In my opinion the fossil record does not support macro evolution. I am far from an expert but I do not see evidence of animals with 1/2 a developed eye. Or do I fully understand why an Ape, or whatever was the common ancestor to man, would move out of the habitat and develop into man. Usually migration of animals is based on pressure from things like availability of food. That would not seem to be the case in the migration of man out of Africa. Or maybe it is like spilling paint and man just grew out of Africa.

Which now gets us into the problem of evolution, did it stop? If man evolved from earlier man in Africa does that mean those in Africa are less evolved? (Africa used as a general term for the origin of man wherever that actually may have occurred.)

The polar bears, global warming isn't happening fast it is happening rather slowly over a period of time. So why have the polar bears not evolved to live in the changing habitat? If evolution theory is accepted as fact, wrongly, then it is the natural course of events for the polar bear to go extinct if it can not adapt or evolve. Who are we, as mere men, to get in the way of nature?

For me the plausibility of the rise of life from non life is not explained by the theory of evolution. There is absolutely no evidence of life starting from non-life. Considering the complexity of the human body it is more plausible to me that life didn't start by a remarkable set of chances all occurring when there was no reason for them to occur. i.e. a single cell evolving into two cells. Let alone DNA happening by chance, adaptation or random selection. Too complicated to believe we happened by chance.

So there really is only one plausible answer to the rise of man, one that since the dawn of man, has been believed.

Ever notice how Creationists never defend creationism, they can only attempt to attack evolution. 100% of the time, creation cannot meet the high standards they impose on evolution.

Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. What makes you think things weren't created to adapt to changing environments?


.

Actually, as I have said twice in this thread, I believe just that.

But that is irrelevant to the post.

Actually creation stands scrutiny as well as the big bang.


.

 

[MarkDuffy]

You have been shown up, and shown yourself up, for being a silly goof ball. A fetus is not a child. There is no way your babbling changes that.

And your semantics won't change the fact that it is a living human.


.

I'm an evolutionary biologist and yes the fetus in the womb is human and has been human since fertilization. Biologically a fetus becomes a child around 20-24 weeks which is the point at which most can survive outside the womb with a lot of medical help.

As for when life begins, it never ended. The egg and sperm are both alive and are BOTH human.

You can attach a hundred names to the different stages of development in a pregnancy, if left alone, in the end you will have a child. You may as well call them, child day 1 through child 275 or what ever, it's all semantics, if left undisturbed by man or nature, you will get a living, breathing infant.


.

You mean most of the time if the woman takes care of herself and her baby in the womb, a child will be born. To a lesser extent, the resulting child will have no birth defects.

The stages are important cuz you are trying to stop abortions using false semantics.

There are no semantics, abortion ends a life, nothing else to say.


.

War, poverty, death penalty, sickness, old age and other things also ends a life.

Abortions are justified on the basis of individual freedom and human rights. The woman decides, not you.

 

[Old Rocks]

The fact that we are still calling it the THEORY of Evolution rather than the LAW of Evolution suggests it cannot be proven withoit doubt.

Stupid old man, nothing is proven beyond a doubt. Everything is open to question. That being said, the Theory of Evolution is the most robust of the scientific theories. Also, learn that theory in science does not mean the same thing as theory in layman's terms.

 

[Old Rocks]

The fact that we are still calling it the THEORY of Evolution rather than the LAW of Evolution suggests it cannot be proven withoit doubt.

Liberals are too dumb to discuss this topic, science really isn't something they excel at. 2 minutes in and they would be deflecting to Bush or Trump out of frustration.

The fact that you immediatly deflected to Bush and Trump proves that you are the stupid asshole here.

 

[OKTexas]

And your semantics won't change the fact that it is a living human.


.

I'm an evolutionary biologist and yes the fetus in the womb is human and has been human since fertilization. Biologically a fetus becomes a child around 20-24 weeks which is the point at which most can survive outside the womb with a lot of medical help.

As for when life begins, it never ended. The egg and sperm are both alive and are BOTH human.

You can attach a hundred names to the different stages of development in a pregnancy, if left alone, in the end you will have a child. You may as well call them, child day 1 through child 275 or what ever, it's all semantics, if left undisturbed by man or nature, you will get a living, breathing infant.


.

You mean most of the time if the woman takes care of herself and her baby in the womb, a child will be born. To a lesser extent, the resulting child will have no birth defects.

The stages are important cuz you are trying to stop abortions using false semantics.

There are no semantics, abortion ends a life, nothing else to say.


.

War, poverty, death penalty, sickness, old age and other things also ends a life.

Abortions are justified on the basis of individual freedom and human rights. The woman decides, not you.

Rationalize it any way you want, it is what it is, taking a life.


.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, if we evolved from apes there shouldn’t be apes today!

It has never been stated that we evolved from apes.

The theory says that we evolved from a common primate. A hominid that over millions of years branched two ways. On one branch was the upright hominids with ever increasing brain size. The other branch continued on in the ape line, with smaller brains and limited tool making/use capability.

and that common primate was an ape

Again, then why are there still apes if we evolved?

I already answered that one today or yesterday.

Why wouldn't there be apes? Why are there many different species of apes? Once birds evolved, why isn't there just one species of birds? Get the point?

The apes that became us left the other apes in the forest and went walkabout into the savannas. Apes stayed in the forest. Two different environmental niches. No reason for apes to disappear.

Where’s that evidence?

In every cell of your body.

 

[LittleNipper]

I believe the book of Genesis is factual

LMAO!!!!


Such idiots really should be rounded up and put on chain gangs as sub human free labor...

The only idiots are those that let others define what facts are for them.

 

[LittleNipper]

Noticing the Bible is full of expletive in multiple places does not mean such individual is atheist.

It just means they noticed the Bible is full of expletive.

How about YOU show me where the Bible is wrong and I will tell you (with God's help) why it's not.

 

[LittleNipper]

Anyone who follows Trump is a tool of Satan.

Anyone who doesn't follow GOD can be a tool of Satan. Anyone who follows any human is setting himself up for severe disappointment.

 

[Rustic]

The fact that we are still calling it the THEORY of Evolution rather than the LAW of Evolution suggests it cannot be proven withoit doubt.

Stupid old man, nothing is proven beyond a doubt. Everything is open to question. That being said, the Theory of Evolution is the most robust of the scientific theories. Also, learn that theory in science does not mean the same thing as theory in layman's terms.

Junkyard tornado - Wikipedia

 

[LittleNipper]

The fact that we are still calling it the THEORY of Evolution rather than the LAW of Evolution suggests it cannot be proven withoit doubt.

Stupid old man, nothing is proven beyond a doubt. Everything is open to question. That being said, the Theory of Evolution is the most robust of the scientific theories. Also, learn that theory in science does not mean the same thing as theory in layman's terms.

Junkyard tornado - Wikipedia

I believe the reality is that there have been attempts by not a few scientists to thoughtfully generate a new species from one already existing. This has proven to be a total failure. So in fact, multiple geniuses have been totally unable to accomplish what random chance is presented as having accomplished entirely on its own................................... given enough time.

 

[Freewill]

Liberals love science, really?
I had a liberal just the other day tell me that an unborn child wasn't an unborn child, it was something else. That to me certainly seems like they deny science especially biology.

Let's get you right (heh) before you are left: a fetus is not a child.

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser. It's all human, from conception to the last gasps of breath at death from old age. The particular stage of development at the time doesn't alter that FACT..

Only in the mind of the fanatic, like you. No fetus has parity or primary authority over the mother.

And that alters the FACT that a fetus is just a human child in a pre-birth stage of development, HOW???????? Damn you regressives are ignorant when you want to justify ending the life of a human..

There is no fact that the fetus is a human child. That is conferred upon birth. You can yell all you want, but you can't change reality or biology.

You mean can't change biology like you just did? What's the difference between a 1 minute old child and a child 1 minute from birth?

Using your statement the only difference must be that the unborn child hasn't been touched by the fairy that conveys life.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Evolution has tons of evidence!

Lets all admit that there's no giant in the clouds!

 

[Mac1958]

It will probably remain unknowable through our lifetimes, just as it has for everyone else on this planet.

We know where we came from
You need to get out more, perhaps read a science book

Oh good, thanks so much.

Hey everybody, MarkDuffy is going to explain to us what caused the Big Bang, when no scientist on the planet can.

He's that smart. Much smarter than the rest of us. I'm not kidding here. HE KNOWS. How cool is this! Right here, at USMB!

Okay MarkDuffy, tell us. I'm taking notes. And thanks in advance.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Kinda funny seeing phrases like "prove it" in a conversation about evolution and religion. Nobody can prove any of this stuff, gang, it's all theory and faith. We know that, right?

Exactly we are to young of a species ...

Yep. I can certainly understand the craving to know where we came from and why we're here, but at this time it's simply unknowable. It will probably remain unknowable through our lifetimes, just as it has for everyone else on this planet. It's just mental masturbation.
.

We know where we came from

You need to get out more, perhaps ready a science book

You going with the visiting aliens theory, monkey decided to face the ridicule of the other monkeys and walked into the savannah or man was formed from clay (primordial soup) and life was breathed into him.

No, wait, shhh, he's gonna tell us where we came from.

HE KNOWS.

Here we go.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser. It's all human, from conception to the last gasps of breath at death from old age. The particular stage of development at the time doesn't alter that FACT.

There's a lot of pro-choicers who are simply unwilling to be honest about this. Most likely, they play intellectual games on other issues as well, so this is just how they roll all the time.

It's obviously human life from the first moment. I admit that and I'm pro choice. Denying the obvious is just weak.
.

Yep, just weak minded.


.

Watch the game they play: If you ask "is it human life?" - those four specific words - they will respond with "it's not a child", or "it's not a person" or "it's not a man or woman", but they won't say the four words "it's not human life" unless they're completely lying or delusional. It's obviously human life.

Their impulse is to lie and keep lying. That's just who they are.

The debate should be about decisions a civilization makes, not about whether human life is human life. I'm pro choice, and I'm perfectly comfortable with that discussion, because it's a reasonable, rational and honest discussion.
.

 

[Theowl32]

Both sides with this issue are absurd. I mean really. Anyone thinking the earth is 6000 years old are ridiculous. Need to grow up at some point.

On the other hand, I do find it fascinating that it is an actual mathematical impossibility that everything in life happened by chance. It is literally impossible to calculate the probability. Many physicists are all too aware of this. Sir Isaac Newton believed in God as well as Copernicus as a result of this fact.

Not quite sure why evolution cannot be creation. Those terms are not mutually exclusive imo. However, the nature of human pride will not allow to consider that.

Btw, just wondering when the bible stops referring to the 6th day. Meaning, from the 2nd chapter of Genesis, the bible is describing the 6th day. It never stops referring to it.

Is it possible that we are living within the 6th day NOW, and the 7th day has not arrived yet? Not possible? When does the bible stop describing the 6th day? It doesn't.

 

[LittleNipper]

Both sides with this issue are absurd. I mean really. Anyone thinking the earth is 6000 years old are ridiculous. Need to grow up at some point.

On the other hand, I do find it fascinating that it is an actual mathematical impossibility that everything in life happened by chance. It is literally impossible to calculate the probability. Many physicists are all too aware of this. Sir Isaac Newton believed in God as well as Copernicus as a result of this fact.

Not quite sure why evolution cannot be creation. Those terms are not mutually exclusive imo. However, the nature of human pride will not allow to consider that.

Btw, just wondering when the bible stops referring to the 6th day. Meaning, from the 2nd chapter of Genesis, the bible is describing the 6th day. It never stops referring to it.

Is it possible that we are living within the 6th day NOW, and the 7th day has not arrived yet? Not possible? When does the bible stop describing the 6th day? It doesn't.

Nothing is impossible with GOD! One day is like 1000 years with the Lord is speaking of Christ's return and not "the evening and the morning" which define each creation day. Animals do not perceive eternity --- they were not created in GOD's image. Only man reaches out to GOD. The 7th day is the day of rest and GOD set the ultimate example for man. Man was a separate creation.

If it helps anything I do believe that each group of the animal kingdom was separately created and that after the Fall of Man --- GOD permitted lifeforms an ability to adapt to the corrupting environment. And yes, I do believe the entire Universe is now in the process of dying. And all life is now trying to cope for thousands of years of moving away from the perfect creation GOD originally designed.

 

[JimBowie1958]

As for what Republicans think about the Theory of Evolution, well, I have no way to say credibly what they think. For all I know, they perceive it to be every bit as linear a thing as Darwin did. Hell, I don't know even whether most of them who'd refute it's validity have even read so much as the documents cited above, to say nothing of many or most of the myriad others that support (scientifically and with sound reasoning, not merely judgmentally) the Theory, so as to position themselves to be in legitimate mental state of comprehensive understanding about it to in turn refute it. Moreover, I don't know whether Republicans on the whole are fully aware of how the Scientific Method works.

As for what Trump thinks about the Theory of Evolution, well, I'll just say that as goes math and science (natural or social), the guy doesn't strike me as being anything even close to a prolific reader of rigorously developed content pertaining to those disciplines. But for his being POTUS, nobody would care what he thinks or might have to say about the Theory of Evolution. That he is POTUS doesn't make what he has to say any more meritorious; however, his being so can make his statements ominous, depending on what he says.

Republicans are generally like every other random group of Americans when it comes to Evolution.

Which is not encouraging, when you think about it.

I fixed your chart for you, BTW.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To me as a Christian I don't think the book of Genesis is either a history or a science book. It describes the relationship between God and Man.

If you have the time, Flash.....here is a book by a scientist, who shows that the timelline for evolution provided by Genesis is identical with the one established by modern science.

It is amazing.

"...he found parallels between Genesis and accepted scientific truths about the evolution of life. In The Genesis Enigma, Parker steps day by day through the week of biblical creation to explain the science that verifies its account. A brilliant work of scholarship,..."
https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Enig...&sr=1-1&keywords=genesis+enigma&tag=ff0d01-20


I'd certainly be interested in your view after you read this.