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

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, thank you for providing support for my points.

However, as it turns out, the world of science woke up this morning unaffected by the internet squawkings of an uneducated slob. Scientific theories and laws are still separate concepts. Swing and a miss for you, I guess.

Your state of denial is amusing. You spent a fair portion of yesterday claiming a hypothesis was not how theories are made. Then you clearly posted that the scientific method was used, which shows step three is a hypothesis.

You are foisting the idea Newton just had this whole formula, complete with a constant whose value was determined 70 years after his death, pop into his head with no hypothesis, theory or debate about it before it was recognized as a law. You sir, are a complete moron.

I never claimed a hypothesis is not how theories are made. You are either a shameless little liar, or you are deluded.

I said scientific theories and laws are separate, different concepts. Scientific theories do not become laws, or vice versa. This is a fact which undermines your silly "it's only a theory, let me know when it becomes a law" bullshit that would get you laughed right out of a science class.

well actually a theory is proof of a hypothesis. That means there is proof that supports whatever the hypothesis claimed. Where is the proof that we evolved from apes. I'm still waiting. Darwin was the owner of the theory. so how did it get proved?

"well actually a theory is proof of a hypothesis"

Haha, no it isn't. Empirical evidence is proof of a hypothesis .

And youbare asking for the most basic information regarding evolutionary theory. As in, the kind that is taught in middle school science class. So if you are sitting there waiting for this to be spoonfed to you, I suggest you get your best babyface on and go register for 7th grade. I am not your mommy and will not be spoonfeeding you this information.

I grew up that Darwin's theory was the facts to evolution. I merely stated that the word evolve means move on and away from, but we still have apes so I call bullshit.

Which shows you know less than nothing about evolution. And if you were honestly interested in learning, you would take some time to go read up on why what you just said is stupid.

 

[jc456]

Where’s that evidence?

In every cell of your body.

I looked I didn't see any ape cells.

Chimpanzees and humans have DNA similarity at about 95%.

then why don't we use them for kidneys and livers and hearts and things? I mean, we are looking at using pigs organs.

Scientists are Closer To Using Pig Organs For Transplants

Because they are protected species. Duh, man. You ask some pretty stupid questions.

I think humans are a protected species and we kill millions a year through abortion. possible kidney, liver and heart organ donors, merely killed for pleasure.

 

[MarkDuffy]

If you don't believe in Evolution, you have to believe, for example, that the first horse on Earth didn't have parents.
Can you believe that? Seriously?

what came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg. Chickens came from dinosaurs and dinosaurs laid eggs.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In every cell of your body.

I looked I didn't see any ape cells.

Chimpanzees and humans have DNA similarity at about 95%.

then why don't we use them for kidneys and livers and hearts and things? I mean, we are looking at using pigs organs.

Scientists are Closer To Using Pig Organs For Transplants

Because they are protected species. Duh, man. You ask some pretty stupid questions.

That the big reason you are going with?

You suggesting we couldn't raise them on a farm of sorts, if we had a solid reason?

Yes, that's the reason. It's not "my" reason. No, you could not raise great apes on a farm for the purpose of harvesting their organs. Yes, that is illegal.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In every cell of your body.

I looked I didn't see any ape cells.

Chimpanzees and humans have DNA similarity at about 95%.

then why don't we use them for kidneys and livers and hearts and things? I mean, we are looking at using pigs organs.

Scientists are Closer To Using Pig Organs For Transplants

Because they are protected species. Duh, man. You ask some pretty stupid questions.

I think humans are a protected species and we kill millions a year through abortion. possible kidney, liver and heart organ donors, merely killed for pleasure.

My heart breaks for the burden you carry.

 

[jc456]

Your state of denial is amusing. You spent a fair portion of yesterday claiming a hypothesis was not how theories are made. Then you clearly posted that the scientific method was used, which shows step three is a hypothesis.

You are foisting the idea Newton just had this whole formula, complete with a constant whose value was determined 70 years after his death, pop into his head with no hypothesis, theory or debate about it before it was recognized as a law. You sir, are a complete moron.

I never claimed a hypothesis is not how theories are made. You are either a shameless little liar, or you are deluded.

I said scientific theories and laws are separate, different concepts. Scientific theories do not become laws, or vice versa. This is a fact which undermines your silly "it's only a theory, let me know when it becomes a law" bullshit that would get you laughed right out of a science class.

well actually a theory is proof of a hypothesis. That means there is proof that supports whatever the hypothesis claimed. Where is the proof that we evolved from apes. I'm still waiting. Darwin was the owner of the theory. so how did it get proved?

"well actually a theory is proof of a hypothesis"

Haha, no it isn't. Empirical evidence is proof of a hypothesis .

And youbare asking for the most basic information regarding evolutionary theory. As in, the kind that is taught in middle school science class. So if you are sitting there waiting for this to be spoonfed to you, I suggest you get your best babyface on and go register for 7th grade. I am not your mommy and will not be spoonfeeding you this information.

I grew up that Darwin's theory was the facts to evolution. I merely stated that the word evolve means move on and away from, but we still have apes so I call bullshit.

Which shows you know less than nothing about evolution. And if you were honestly interested in learning, you would take some time to go read up on why what you just said is stupid.

dude i did read up and the question i have is based on the words being used. evolved. evolve means to move on transition, not stay the same. so either the ape evolved into a human or not. there are still apes, so I can't find a scenario there that fits your word usage.

 

[jc456]

I looked I didn't see any ape cells.

Chimpanzees and humans have DNA similarity at about 95%.

then why don't we use them for kidneys and livers and hearts and things? I mean, we are looking at using pigs organs.

Scientists are Closer To Using Pig Organs For Transplants

Because they are protected species. Duh, man. You ask some pretty stupid questions.

I think humans are a protected species and we kill millions a year through abortion. possible kidney, liver and heart organ donors, merely killed for pleasure.

My heart breaks for the burden you carry.

well maybe they can find a pig to replace it.

 

[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.

It sounds like an interesting book and I will look further into it. Thank you.

When I read Genesis I focus on the relationship aspect. For instance, when I read the story of Noah the message I get is that God gave us free will and that His way of dealing with the our sins cannot be to destroy us whenever we do evil things. If God did hold us accountable for the evil we do because of the free will He gave us then He would be destroying the world about every generation, wouldn't He? To me that was the message, not that the earth was flooded for 40 days and that only one family survived.

I look at the story of Adam and Eve being driven from Eden as being as being the consequence of having free will and being controlled by God. The same as the story of Cain and Abel.

Genesis is a fascinating book. However, I look at it allegorically more than scientifically. It helps me to understand the Grace of God much better..

"
Genesis is a fascinating book. However, I look at it allegorically more than scientifically."

And you are forced to do so by our secular knowledge. Had you lived 250 years ago, you would be singing a different tune.

The most significant term in the post, and the central theme of every Leftist doctrine....is "forced."

Quite an inadvertent admission, you dunce.

 

[jc456]

Your state of denial is amusing. You spent a fair portion of yesterday claiming a hypothesis was not how theories are made. Then you clearly posted that the scientific method was used, which shows step three is a hypothesis.

You are foisting the idea Newton just had this whole formula, complete with a constant whose value was determined 70 years after his death, pop into his head with no hypothesis, theory or debate about it before it was recognized as a law. You sir, are a complete moron.

I never claimed a hypothesis is not how theories are made. You are either a shameless little liar, or you are deluded.

I said scientific theories and laws are separate, different concepts. Scientific theories do not become laws, or vice versa. This is a fact which undermines your silly "it's only a theory, let me know when it becomes a law" bullshit that would get you laughed right out of a science class.

well actually a theory is proof of a hypothesis. That means there is proof that supports whatever the hypothesis claimed. Where is the proof that we evolved from apes. I'm still waiting. Darwin was the owner of the theory. so how did it get proved?

"well actually a theory is proof of a hypothesis"

Haha, no it isn't. Empirical evidence is proof of a hypothesis .

And youbare asking for the most basic information regarding evolutionary theory. As in, the kind that is taught in middle school science class. So if you are sitting there waiting for this to be spoonfed to you, I suggest you get your best babyface on and go register for 7th grade. I am not your mommy and will not be spoonfeeding you this information.

I grew up that Darwin's theory was the facts to evolution. I merely stated that the word evolve means move on and away from, but we still have apes so I call bullshit.

Which shows you know less than nothing about evolution. And if you were honestly interested in learning, you would take some time to go read up on why what you just said is stupid.

so show me the link that proves your nonsense.

 

[OKTexas]

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.


.

So? Some of us are able to tell the difference between a zygote and a 20 year old man. Are you?

The only difference is time, just like the difference between a 20 year old man and a 40 year old man. Without some kind of intervention one will become the other.


.

 

[saveliberty]

Chimpanzees and humans have DNA similarity at about 95%.

Mice and humans have 85%, your point?

The point is that the larger percentage shows we are more closely related to the other great apes than we are to mice. In fact, we are more closely related to them than to any other species on Earth. And the empirical evidence bears this out, every single time.

Any reason you feel a need to be related to mice? We are all mammals, no kidding, but we are not giraffes, elephants or mice. If you admit to being an ass, I might have a hard time arguing.

 

[MarkDuffy]

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.

I looked I didn't see any ape cells.

Chimpanzees and humans have DNA similarity at about 95%.

then why don't we use them for kidneys and livers and hearts and things? I mean, we are looking at using pigs organs.

Scientists are Closer To Using Pig Organs For Transplants

That is an interesting question. The answer is most likely that we value our evolutionary closeness to the other apes and kinda consider that immoral, whereas since pigs are considered food, that is OK.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

If you don't believe in Evolution, you have to believe, for example, that the first horse on Earth didn't have parents.
Can you believe that? Seriously?

what came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg. Chickens came from dinosaurs and dinosaurs laid eggs.

And we need to remember that fish and amphibians lay eggs also, and they predate the reptiles. They may not be hard shelled, but they are still eggs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Chimpanzees and humans have DNA similarity at about 95%.

Mice and humans have 85%, your point?

The point is that the larger percentage shows we are more closely related to the other great apes than we are to mice. In fact, we are more closely related to them than to any other species on Earth. And the empirical evidence bears this out, every single time.

Any reason you feel a need to be related to mice? We are all mammals, no kidding, but we are not giraffes, elephants or mice. If you admit to being an ass, I might have a hard time arguing.

Any reason you don't believe in Evolution?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.


.

So? Some of us are able to tell the difference between a zygote and a 20 year old man. Are you?

The only difference is time, just like the difference between a 20 year old man and a 40 year old man. Without some kind of intervention one will become the other.


.

lol, then our Constitution needs to be amended, doesn't it?

 

[Flash]

Some Republicans may think that evolution is not a fact but all Democrats think that gender is determined by individual will and not genitals. All Democrats also think that prosperity is created by increased taxation. How silly is that?

And corporatist liars on both sides of the aisle say that lower corporate tax rates menas greater economic growth, when the facts show the opposite to be true:

Corporate tax rates and economic growth since 1947

Yea right Moon Bat. Taking money away from the American people and giving it to stupid bureaucrats, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups creates all kinds of prosperity, doesn't it?

However, that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread so if you want to discuss the stupidity of taxation then start another thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In every cell of your body.

I looked I didn't see any ape cells.

Chimpanzees and humans have DNA similarity at about 95%.

then why don't we use them for kidneys and livers and hearts and things? I mean, we are looking at using pigs organs.

Scientists are Closer To Using Pig Organs For Transplants

Because they are protected species. Duh, man. You ask some pretty stupid questions.

I think humans are a protected species and we kill millions a year through abortion. possible kidney, liver and heart organ donors, merely killed for pleasure.

Well, you'll just have to suffer then because there is no chance that enough Americans will ever agree with you to make abortion the crime of murder.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I never claimed a hypothesis is not how theories are made. You are either a shameless little liar, or you are deluded.

I said scientific theories and laws are separate, different concepts. Scientific theories do not become laws, or vice versa. This is a fact which undermines your silly "it's only a theory, let me know when it becomes a law" bullshit that would get you laughed right out of a science class.

well actually a theory is proof of a hypothesis. That means there is proof that supports whatever the hypothesis claimed. Where is the proof that we evolved from apes. I'm still waiting. Darwin was the owner of the theory. so how did it get proved?

"well actually a theory is proof of a hypothesis"

Haha, no it isn't. Empirical evidence is proof of a hypothesis .

And youbare asking for the most basic information regarding evolutionary theory. As in, the kind that is taught in middle school science class. So if you are sitting there waiting for this to be spoonfed to you, I suggest you get your best babyface on and go register for 7th grade. I am not your mommy and will not be spoonfeeding you this information.

I grew up that Darwin's theory was the facts to evolution. I merely stated that the word evolve means move on and away from, but we still have apes so I call bullshit.

Which shows you know less than nothing about evolution. And if you were honestly interested in learning, you would take some time to go read up on why what you just said is stupid.

dude i did read up and the question i have is based on the words being used. evolved. evolve means to move on transition, not stay the same. so either the ape evolved into a human or not. there are still apes, so I can't find a scenario there that fits your word usage.

No, you did not read up. Anyone who knows anything about this topic understands why your question is stupid. A rational adult would look around and realize that people from 7th grade science students on up to publishing biologists don't struggle with the issue that is leaving you scratching your head, and then ask himself, "What am I missing, to not understand this?" That rational person would first feel embarrassment for being more ignorant of the topoc than is a 12-year old, then would make an honest effort to educate himself.

But you are not a rational, honest person seeking knowledge. You are a superstitious denier.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Some Republicans may think that evolution is not a fact but all Democrats think that gender is determined by individual will and not genitals. All Democrats also think that prosperity is created by increased taxation. How silly is that?

And corporatist liars on both sides of the aisle say that lower corporate tax rates menas greater economic growth, when the facts show the opposite to be true:

Corporate tax rates and economic growth since 1947

Yea right Moon Bat. Taking money away from the American people and giving it to stupid bureaucrats, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups creates all kinds of prosperity, doesn't it?

However, that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread so if you want to discuss the stupidity of taxation then start another thread.

Why the juvenile behavior and lashing out? I didn't cnduct that economic study, or the many others in agreement with it. What kind of irrational fool counters these facts by whing like a little baby at a stranger on the internet? Embarrassing.

 

[jc456]

well actually a theory is proof of a hypothesis. That means there is proof that supports whatever the hypothesis claimed. Where is the proof that we evolved from apes. I'm still waiting. Darwin was the owner of the theory. so how did it get proved?

"well actually a theory is proof of a hypothesis"

Haha, no it isn't. Empirical evidence is proof of a hypothesis .

And youbare asking for the most basic information regarding evolutionary theory. As in, the kind that is taught in middle school science class. So if you are sitting there waiting for this to be spoonfed to you, I suggest you get your best babyface on and go register for 7th grade. I am not your mommy and will not be spoonfeeding you this information.

I grew up that Darwin's theory was the facts to evolution. I merely stated that the word evolve means move on and away from, but we still have apes so I call bullshit.

Which shows you know less than nothing about evolution. And if you were honestly interested in learning, you would take some time to go read up on why what you just said is stupid.

dude i did read up and the question i have is based on the words being used. evolved. evolve means to move on transition, not stay the same. so either the ape evolved into a human or not. there are still apes, so I can't find a scenario there that fits your word usage.

No, you did not read up. Anyone who knows anything about this topic understands why your question is stupid. A rational adult would look around and realize that people from 7th grade science students on up to publishing biologists don't struggle with the issue that is leaving you scratching your head, and then ask himself, "What am I missing, to not understand this?" That rational person would first feel embarrassment for being more ignorant of the topoc than is a 12-year old, then would make an honest effort to educate himself.

But you are not a rational, honest person seeking knowledge. You are a superstitious denier.

then why can't you post up a link? I mean, shit it's that fking known.