Public acceptance of evolution

[Passels]

Even though it's a site created by Creationism people (I gave up on searching sources which doesn't mention creationism or Christian or not one-sided), surprisingly, this one is quite neutral because it highlights issues from evolutionism and creationism and slays/supports them accordingly to the scientific proofs. The claims inside are backed up with scientific papers (you can see at the citations).

There are no peer-reviewed papers that support creationism. None. Because it's inherently unscientific.

And could you stop using terms actual scientists never use? No one talks about the 'scientific proofs' in their field.

 

[Passels]

The missing link is but one of the keys to the evolution theory since those who are disapproving evolutionism is attacking the scientists in this point, saying unless the missing links are found and are not hoax, then the evolution is wrong. That is my point.
.

Again, there is no such thing in modern science as a 'Missing Link'. If you're discussing transitional fossils, read the Wikipedia article. We've found plenty of them.

Honestly, creationists would be better debaters if they actually read something written since the nineteenth century. Studying evolution didn't begin and end with Darwin.

 

[MercuryJones]

The missing link is but one of the keys to the evolution theory since those who are disapproving evolutionism is attacking the scientists in this point, saying unless the missing links are found and are not hoax, then the evolution is wrong. That is my point.

But it's not. There is no particular "missing link". Every thing that ever lived is a link. Modern science is not concerned with a "missing link". You've read too much creationist pseudo-science.

And once again, I'm just saying that science is changing. Anything can happen.

You earlier wrote "there are as many scientific proofs against evolution as there is supporting it", but there aren't. You can't name any. But now you say it CAN happen.

You can't point to any body of science that is "against" evolution. I doubt you could point to any accredited university that would air such claims in its science education.

And yes, it's science in there. There are citations and that is enough to withstand. I've checked some of the papers and the abstracts are mostly present. You can try them.

There are papers referenced. But the link you provided is scientific rebuttal in support of evolution.

The Talk.origins archive even includes the following in its FAQ:

"Why doesn't the archive contain any articles that support creationism?"

The Talk.Origins Archive exists to provide mainstream scientific responses to the frequently asked questions and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins. The archive's policy is that readers should be given easy access to alternative views, but those who espouse alternative views should speak for themselves. Hence, the archive supplies links to relevant creationist web sites within many of its articles. It also maintains a frequently updated and extensive list of creationist and catastrophist web sites so that readers may familiarize themselves with anti-evolutionary perspectives on scientific issues.

Even the site that you claim is neutral isn't - it acknowledges that science supports evolution.

 

[nguypete]

The missing link is but one of the keys to the evolution theory since those who are disapproving evolutionism is attacking the scientists in this point, saying unless the missing links are found and are not hoax, then the evolution is wrong. That is my point.

And once again, I'm just saying that science is changing. Anything can happen. What was once wrong can be correct and oppositely, what was correct can be wrong. So is the same with evolution theory; it can be destructed or it can stand until the end of time, albeit the chances are bigger for it to maintain its position. There are no guessing here.

And yes, it's science in there. There are citations and that is enough to withstand. I've checked some of the papers and the abstracts are mostly present. You can try them.

Oh my god, I don't know how to explain this to you -- there is no missing link.

Do you understand how things evolve? Things don't pop out in phases, it's transitional, growing and dynamic.

You arn't a baby one day and turn into a tween in the next. :grrr

 

[MercuryJones]

Even though it's a site created by Creationism people (I gave up on searching sources which doesn't mention creationism or Christian or not one-sided)...

Here's another thing you're factually wrong about. The archive was created by Brett Vickers, who is emphatically not a creationist.

In fact even in the archive he writes the following (emphasis added):

All scientists (that we know of) are indeed human and therefore have beliefs, biases and blind spots. But the power of science is that -- contrary to the assertions of creationists and postmodernists -- it can paint an accurate picture of the universe in spite of human weaknesses. Science cares little for personal beliefs; it requires only evidence. If you propose a hypothesis, and it is supported by and continues to stand in the face of the scientific evidence, then it doesn't matter what belief system you come from -- you have a scientific theory. Evolution is an example of such a theory; it is supported by all kinds of evidence: geological, biogeographical, genetic, embryological, anatomical, and ecological.

So-called "scientific creationism," on the other hand, continues to exist despite the scientific evidence. The idea that all living organisms were specially created is a purely religious belief, held only by people of certain belief systems. There is no scientific evidence to support it. Indeed, there is much scientific evidence that contradicts it. For instance, the fossil record clearly shows forms changing radically over time, and our genes, even the non-functional ones, exhibit uncanny similarities with other animals. Evidence like this provides the impetus for the dogmatic statements of belief that creationists, like those in the Creation Research Society, are required to sign. Statements of belief allow adherents to maintain their beliefs, even when the scientific evidence contradicts them.

 

[TheFireGod]

I wouldn't believe in evolution either if I watched Jersey Shore, cable news opinion blocks, ESPN commentators, or CSPAN.

 

[frankfrank]

you don't need to "completely prove" evolution. you can see it fucking happening right here on earth. with insects, bacteria .. even with mankind.
there are some not a 100% clear details, as the model that we have of our world never is a 100% solid. but it's idiotic to pretend that evolution is just a "theory"

Entirely true, in my opinion, as well.

As a believer in God, I have been known to say that "GOD CREATED EVOLUTION."

That's heresy, of course, to those who cling to the rubbish that the world is less than 7,000 years old and that men and dinosaurs co-existed.

 

[Corny]

As a believer in God, I have been known to say that "GOD CREATED EVOLUTION."

And I see no problem with that statement. If people believe that god created everything, then I wonder why they just can't believe something like "and god created all life, and decided to make us so that we constantly try to better ourselves and that every generation should try to improve over the past one". that actually sounds quite sensible for a religious "theory". but probably that's the problem

so far, it seems this thread is backing up the graph ..

 

[mbamike]

I believe in God, but as someone with an engineering background, I also believe in science. I do not believe that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive.

God is omnipotent. He spoke and the elements obeyed. Evolution is the label science has placed on the process of the elements obeying God's command to continuously improve. Creationism tells us what happened; evolution tells us how it happened.

God is omniscience and we were made in his image. Man today is unevolved compared to man in the future. They will look back on us as we look back on the Neanderthals. This is because of the inertia of the elements obeying God's initial command to improve.

 

[Passels]

God is omniscience and we were made in his image. Man today is unevolved compared to man in the future. They will look back on us as we look back on the Neanderthals. This is because of the inertia of the elements obeying God's initial command to improve.

Humans are only 'unevolved' compared to future humans because evolution does not stop. Evolution isn't a process of objectively 'improving' things, it's about adaptation to a given environment, and the occasional random non-beneficial mutation that gets passed along.

 

[gsdx]

the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow is a theory.

it's extremely likely to occur, but still... just a theory

That's hardly a theory. It's a scientific fact. Theories are no longer theories when they are proved by objective evidence.

 

[MercuryJones]

^

I don't think things that haven't yet happened can be "proved".

 

[gsdx]

^ There are only 2 ways for the sun not to rise in the morning:

1 - The sun stops burning.

2 - The Earth stops turning.

Either way, it's quite likely that there would be nobody left to say, "See? I told you so."

 

[bankside]

What I find disturbing is sentiments like "For me personally, evolution is just a theory."

First of all, let's clear up the definition of "theory." And "just a theory."

People talk about evolution being "just a theory" when they mean to say "Your guess is as good as mine."

No; my guess is far better. My theory explains something in an intelligent way about evidence that has been collected over the centuries.

Evidence:
It is a fact that fossils have been uncovered that appear to resemble bones of unfamiliar creatures.

Theory:
Theory 1: Satan put them there to fool you.
Theory 2: Different kinds of animals lived millions of years ago. They died. Their remains were covered with sediment. Minerals leached into the structure of their bones, replacing perishable tissues with stone.
Theory 3: They're just ordinary mineral seams that look surprisingly like bones. Nothing to see except coincidence.

Three different theories, but they don't all stand up equally well.
But unlike evidence, over which we have no control, we do get to pick the theory, based on which one best fits the evidence best. Which means that really isn't a choice either.

Which brings me to my larger concern: "For me personally..." Science isn't for me, personally. Science makes far larger claims: For all of us, universally. Even though any one of us can enjoy the benefits of a scientific approach, it isn't a personal thing. It's actually one of the most impersonal things going.

 

[geloge]

I'm surprised to see Spain over Germany in that list

 

[Corny]

^ in some areas of bavaria and around hamburg (weird .. yeah) this sort of nonsense is swapping over from the US (baptist churches). still far from a majority

 

[fetaby]

I can be Neutral

What is there to be neutral about? You're belief or lack of belief that evolution exists has absolutely no impact on the fact that evolution does indeed exist.

That's like being neutral about air.

 

[unloadonme]

I believe in God, but as someone with an engineering background, I also believe in science. I do not believe that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive.

God is omnipotent. He spoke and the elements obeyed. Evolution is the label science has placed on the process of the elements obeying God's command to continuously improve. Creationism tells us what happened; evolution tells us how it happened.

God is omniscience and we were made in his image. Man today is unevolved compared to man in the future. They will look back on us as we look back on the Neanderthals. This is because of the inertia of the elements obeying God's initial command to improve.

A novel attempt to square the circle but utter poppycock.

 

[fetaby]

with the exception that I still cannot get myself to believe that we evolved from Apes,

Again? The fact that we did is independent of you believing. And besides, why would you not want to appreciate that?

 

[Corny]

And besides, why would you not want to appreciate that?

he probably ticks like mrs garrison

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_kN0BSqkD8[/ame]