More than 2/3 of Republicans Don't Believe in Evolution

[KevinWestern]

Guys, guys! Evolution aside, I think it's quite a bit more concerning that 50% of Democrats don't know both that the Earth revolves around the sun & takes a year to do so.

I mean, before we talk about evolution shouldn't that be the main focus of the convo?

 

[aaronleland]

You can discuss a scientific theory all you want too, but it is still just a theory. btw, I have a BSEE degree if you know what that is.

Just a theory?

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

Please, get a refund on your BSEE....

He can't get a refund. He ate all of the Cracker Jacks that it came with.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[J.E.D]

Guys, guys! Evolution aside, I think it's quite a bit more concerning that 50% of Democrats don't know both that the Earth revolves around the sun & takes a year to do so.

I mean, before we talk about evolution shouldn't that be the main focus of the convo?

No, that's the focus of the convo in the thread that already exists about that part of the study. Take your posts there.

 

[aaronleland]

Guys, guys! Evolution aside, I think it's quite a bit more concerning that 50% of Democrats don't know both that the Earth revolves around the sun & takes a year to do so.

I mean, before we talk about evolution shouldn't that be the main focus of the convo?

The problem is that Democrats in this case are at least using actual science as a basis for their beliefs. They may be wrong, but it's an attempt at some scientific understanding. If you are rejecting evolution because you believe a sky wizard poofed us into existence, I find that much more troubling.

 

[KevinWestern]

Guys, guys! Evolution aside, I think it's quite a bit more concerning that 50% of Democrats don't know both that the Earth revolves around the sun & takes a year to do so.

I mean, before we talk about evolution shouldn't that be the main focus of the convo?

The problem is that Democrats in this case are at least using actual science as a basis for their beliefs. They may be wrong, but it's an attempt at some scientific understanding. If you are rejecting evolution because you believe a sky wizard poofed us into existence, I find that much more troubling.

Well, I guess this is a focus in another thread so I’ll quit chatting about it, however how is believing that the sun revolves around the earth based in “actual scientific beliefs”? That sounds more or less like a belief of a religious peasant from 1356 who thinks the universe revolves around the earth.

Also, I thought that the majority of Christians do believe in the existence of evolution (and that over time animals will begin to look different, etc), however just differ from the belief that we all evolved from single-cell organisms (and were instead “created” at some point).

 

[SteadyMercury]

That doesn't make the dinosaur a different species though. It makes those dinosaurs that evolved into birds an earlier version of bird not a separate species.

Wow you are explaining your earlier ignorance with even more ignorance.

Please review the biological classification tree you learned in 10th grade then come back to the thread, it will save you a lot of looking like a dumbass.

 

[rdean]

"Gravity" is a theory....

Yep.

So, it isn't real - its just a theory.
You might fall off the planet.

Just don't get too close to the edge.

 

[SteadyMercury]

A scientific theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Theories are one of the pinnacles of science and are widely accepted in the scientific community as being true. To remain a theory, it must never be shown to be wrong; if it is, the theory is disproven (this also happens). Theories can also evolve. This means the old theory wasn’t wrong, but it wasn’t complete either.

Dude at least credit your source when you copy and paste.

 

[rdean]

Name one! What kind of a fish did your ancestors evolve from?

You can't discuss evolution with your "kind". When you bring up clear cases of divergent evolution, like lions and tigers or horses and donkeys, you guys come up with "kinds". You say lions and tigers are a "kind" of cat so that's why they can still breed, even if it's imperfect.

A scientist would say they diverged so far that their genetics don't line up completely and that's why the offspring end up with so many hereditary issues.

We can look at genomes now. It's not like it's a secret. We can tell if they are diverging and how long they've diverged and measure the rate of genetic change.

That ship has sailed on the idea that evolution is still debatable.

Even Pat Robertson, mister nutbag, right wing fruit cake says you can't debate evolution and he wishes his "kind" would stop. It makes them look like "jokes". I don't believe it's just "that" which makes his "kind" look like jokes.

Have they figured out when evolution stopped?

When conservatives fled the Democratic Party and joined the GOP in the middle 60's.

Finally, one time I can say, "Listen to Pat Robertson".

 

[Old Rocks]

At best, at the very most, human beings evolved from an earlier species of human beings. There has never been a species that evolved from another species.

Oh jeeez.

Hey Puddly, it's called a theory rahter than a fact for a reason.

Oh boy, here we go again. Another ignoramous demonstrating his profound ignorance. Look up what a theory means in scientific terminology.

 

[Old Rocks]

Guys, guys! Evolution aside, I think it's quite a bit more concerning that 50% of Democrats don't know both that the Earth revolves around the sun & takes a year to do so.

I mean, before we talk about evolution shouldn't that be the main focus of the convo?

The problem is that Democrats in this case are at least using actual science as a basis for their beliefs. They may be wrong, but it's an attempt at some scientific understanding. If you are rejecting evolution because you believe a sky wizard poofed us into existence, I find that much more troubling.

Well, I guess this is a focus in another thread so I’ll quit chatting about it, however how is believing that the sun revolves around the earth based in “actual scientific beliefs”? That sounds more or less like a belief of a religious peasant from 1356 who thinks the universe revolves around the earth.

Also, I thought that the majority of Christians do believe in the existence of evolution (and that over time animals will begin to look different, etc), however just differ from the belief that we all evolved from single-cell organisms (and were instead “created” at some point).

Now if a creator endowed the universe with laws that favored abiogenesis, why would that creator need the 'poof' act?

 

[Katzndogz]

That doesn't make the dinosaur a different species though. It makes those dinosaurs that evolved into birds an earlier version of bird not a separate species.

Wow you are explaining your earlier ignorance with even more ignorance.

Please review the biological classification tree you learned in 10th grade then come back to the thread, it will save you a lot of looking like a dumbass.

So far, you are the only dumbass. You need a science course.

 

[TooTall]

You can discuss a scientific theory all you want too, but it is still just a theory. btw, I have a BSEE degree if you know what that is.

Just a theory?

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation."

Please, get a refund on your BSEE....

He can't get a refund. He ate all of the Cracker Jacks that it came with.

I know that the earth revolves around the son, which is probably more than you two know.

 

[KevinWestern]

The problem is that Democrats in this case are at least using actual science as a basis for their beliefs. They may be wrong, but it's an attempt at some scientific understanding. If you are rejecting evolution because you believe a sky wizard poofed us into existence, I find that much more troubling.

Well, I guess this is a focus in another thread so I’ll quit chatting about it, however how is believing that the sun revolves around the earth based in “actual scientific beliefs”? That sounds more or less like a belief of a religious peasant from 1356 who thinks the universe revolves around the earth.

Also, I thought that the majority of Christians do believe in the existence of evolution (and that over time animals will begin to look different, etc), however just differ from the belief that we all evolved from single-cell organisms (and were instead “created” at some point).

Now if a creator endowed the universe with laws that favored abiogenesis, why would that creator need the 'poof' act?

Not sure I follow..

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

So gravity is a theory, eh? Exactly what I said.

And a law. Exactly what you didn't say. Tell us, is evolution a law or a theory? Then use the lesson I provided to tell us the difference between a law and a theory.

A scientific theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Theories are one of the pinnacles of science and are widely accepted in the scientific community as being true. To remain a theory, it must never be shown to be wrong; if it is, the theory is disproven (this also happens). Theories can also evolve. This means the old theory wasn’t wrong, but it wasn’t complete either.

A law is used to describe an action under certain circumstances (Evolution is a law – it happens but the law doesn’t describe how). A theory describes how and why something happens (Evolution by natural selection, in which there are a host of descriptions for various mechanisms, describes the method in which evolution works)

The fact that evolution is considered a law by the scientific community does not require me to accept it as fact. I always ask the question, if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes walking around?

That's a fair question; It's because they fill a niche. They occupy a place in nature that they are able to exploit. Apes have also evolved, but not in the same direction - they have evolved more slowly. Why didn't fish evolve? Again, they have, but a place in nature will always allow for them, unless there is no water.

 

[TooTall]

A scientific theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Theories are one of the pinnacles of science and are widely accepted in the scientific community as being true. To remain a theory, it must never be shown to be wrong; if it is, the theory is disproven (this also happens). Theories can also evolve. This means the old theory wasn’t wrong, but it wasn’t complete either.

Dude at least credit your source when you copy and paste.

Why?

 

[Katzndogz]

The theory of gravity won't be proved until the Bosun-Higgs finds the God Particle and what it is that gives mass, its mass.

 

[peach174]

Did they find the talking monkeys??????

Not sure what you are saying here. Humans were probably the first animal to speak.

They are part of a very long line of evolution that goes back about 20 million years.

I call it pseudoscience.
Look at your chart and see how very little actual bones are there and then they fill in the rest.
Rather than gathering facts, they take fragments and turn them into our ancestors.

The facts show, there are no living intermediates – all of the supposed ancestors of man have died out – they are extinct. Therefore it is the task of “science” to reconstruct these alleged ancestors. We have monkeys and we have humans in the world today – but we don’t have the living relatives between. It is the responsibility, therefore, of “science,” to fill in the gaps.

This is where it becomes interesting. Especially for people who are not so easily convinced that the “story of our origins” is “good science.” Good science must be based on good observations that provide sound conclusions.

When I see a painting, or a mode,l or the chart you put up, of an alleged ancestor that is based on a fragment of a jaw, a toe bone, or a footprint that looks like modern humans, I wonder how scientific this “story” really is. Is it possible a story is being told that is based on biased assumptions in order to provide evidence that isn’t evidence at all?
Many people question this.

 

[Katzndogz]

No wonder liberals believe that men can become women and women can become men. Basic science eludes them.