Only 15% of Americans accept evolution.

[Mavorpen]

Wrong. There is zero evidence that any supernatural forces have ever had any effect on evolution.

And there is no zero evidence that there hasn't been a God or any other deity involved. We can't know until after death.

Which means that for all intents and purposes, you're wrong.

[Parhe]

Exactly.

Wrong. There is zero evidence that any supernatural forces have ever had any effect on evolution.

That being my point...

There is zero evidence forces did or not, and a lack of evidence that is not really possible to prove anyway does not equal as proof against

[Jedi8246]

No it doesn't. Nothing in the Theory of Evolution states that a higher being can't be involved.

Which doesn't matter concerning science. You don't change models on a whim because it makes you feel better.

Putting something into a theory that can't be tested doesn't invalidate. Unless you'd like to say that all the physicists out there testing string theory are not conducting real science.

False equivalence, since you CAN conduct tests for string theory.

And I CAN conduct tests for the existence of God. I can shout to the sky and ask God to answer me. Whether He shines down in a light of groovy fun or not, that is still a test.

[Farnhamia]

Evolution has even less evidence. Yes creationalism is based on faith which in my view contributes more to society when the actual teachings are followed through the moral demands it imposes of its followers. It falls apart with corrupt organized religion. However that is another topic. There really is no proof of evolution, there is more proof of events in the bible than evolution. Nothing has ever evolved but de-evolved, in other words it loses dna not gains DNA. Dogs are a good example. They say dogs evolved from a wolf but it did not gain DNA when it changed from a wolf to a dog it lost DNA therefor it de-evolved. There are so many holes in the evolution theory it really has no stronger stance than creationalism. I believe in creationalism because it is my faith but I admit it can not be proven scientifically as most will also admit. Evolutionist try to say science backs up its belief when science has not proven that anything evolves into something else, we only know of things that de-evolved. Slight adaptions may happen but to say something jumped to a different species is really far fetched and their isn't any more evidence to support that than their is that some superior conscious being created us, weather it be God or some other conscious life form.
I personally believe in God but that is my own belief for personal reasons that are not set in science.

So much wrong, so little time.

Please provide sources for all of your statements about evolution. Thank you.

[Laerod]

Evolution has even less evidence. Yes creationalism is based on faith which in my view contributes more to society when the actual teachings are followed through the moral demands it imposes of its followers. It falls apart with corrupt organized religion. However that is another topic. There really is no proof of evolution, there is more proof of events in the bible than evolution. Nothing has ever evolved but de-evolved, in other words it loses dna not gains DNA. Dogs are a good example. They say dogs evolved from a wolf but it did not gain DNA when it changed from a wolf to a dog it lost DNA therefor it de-evolved. There are so many holes in the evolution theory it really has no stronger stance than creationalism. I believe in creationalism because it is my faith but I admit it can not be proven scientifically as most will also admit. Evolutionist try to say science backs up its belief when science has not proven that anything evolves into something else, we only know of things that de-evolved. Slight adaptions may happen but to say something jumped to a different species is really far fetched and their isn't any more evidence to support that than their is that some superior conscious being created us, weather it be God or some other conscious life form.
I personally believe in God but that is my own belief for personal reasons that are not set in science.

Your premise is false.

[Mavorpen]

Wrong. There is zero evidence that any supernatural forces have ever had any effect on evolution.

That being my point...

There is zero evidence forces did or not, and a lack of evidence that is not really possible to prove anyway does not equal as proof against

No, it just means that for intents and purposes involving science or reality, you're wrong. You can be as philosophical as you want about it, but until you can demonstrate any evidence for your claim, you might as well be wrong.

[Jedi8246]

And there is no zero evidence that there hasn't been a God or any other deity involved. We can't know until after death.

Which means that for all intents and purposes, you're wrong.

It means nobody is right or wrong until we can know for certainty.

[Conscentia]

Evolution has even less evidence. Yes creationalism is based on faith which in my view contributes more to society when the actual teachings are followed through the moral demands it imposes of its followers. It falls apart with corrupt organized religion. However that is another topic. There really is no proof of evolution, there is more proof of events in the bible than evolution. Nothing has ever evolved but de-evolved, in other words it loses dna not gains DNA. Dogs are a good example. They say dogs evolved from a wolf but it did not gain DNA when it changed from a wolf to a dog it lost DNA therefor it de-evolved. There are so many holes in the evolution theory it really has no stronger stance than creationalism. I believe in creationalism because it is my faith but I admit it can not be proven scientifically as most will also admit. Evolutionist try to say science backs up its belief when science has not proven that anything evolves into something else, we only know of things that de-evolved. Slight adaptions may happen but to say something jumped to a different species is really far fetched and their isn't any more evidence to support that than their is that some superior conscious being created us, weather it be God or some other conscious life form.
I personally believe in God but that is my own belief for personal reasons that are not set in science.

· WHAT?!

Evolution isn't about gaining DNA, it's about changing DNA.

[Mavorpen]

And I CAN conduct tests for the existence of God. I can shout to the sky and ask God to answer me. Whether He shines down in a light of groovy fun or not, that is still a test.

No it isn't, and it's downright intellectually dishonest for you to pretend as though I wasn't talking about actual tests used in science.

[Esternial]

False equivalence, since you CAN conduct tests for string theory.

Now now, if we can reproduce a small scale big bang, it's obvious that we can conclude that God is a bunch of scientist with a LHC and we're just infinitely smaller compared to 'Him', but in addition those people are also created by a group of scientists.

So the day we tested our LHC, we created a very small universe which went from it's birth to its end in just a few microseconds, but since the time is relative in comparison, those micropeople in our microverse will have lives out the whole lifetime of their universe.

Eventually this will result in a chain of scientists with their LHC and their own microverses, meaning that as soon as we built ours we beat the game.

10 tickets, go buy yourself a teddy bear.

[Mavorpen]

Which means that for all intents and purposes, you're wrong.

It means nobody is right or wrong until we can know for certainty.

Do you live your life as though leprechauns exist?

[Farnhamia]

Wrong. There is zero evidence that any supernatural forces have ever had any effect on evolution.

That being my point...

There is zero evidence forces did or not, and a lack of evidence that is not really possible to prove anyway does not equal as proof against

No, there is zero evidence that supernatural forces did anything. "Supernatural" outweighs "natural" in the extraordinariness category, therefore the burden, old chap, is yours.

[Forster Keys]

Wrong. There is zero evidence that any supernatural forces have ever had any effect on evolution.

And there is no zero evidence that there hasn't been a God or any other deity involved. We can't know until after death.

Well there's no way to prove that I am not in fact a large crustacean with extremely flexible claws and a good sense of co-ordination.

[Parhe]

And there is no zero evidence that there hasn't been a God or any other deity involved. We can't know until after death.

Which means that for all intents and purposes, you're wrong.

Elaborate on the reasoning please. I have seen statemebts along these lines often on this forum but do not really understand it.

[Laerod]

Wrong. There is zero evidence that any supernatural forces have ever had any effect on evolution.

That being my point...

There is zero evidence forces did or not, and a lack of evidence that is not really possible to prove anyway does not equal as proof against

No, but Occam's Razor.

[Esternial]

Evolution has even less evidence. Yes creationalism is based on faith which in my view contributes more to society when the actual teachings are followed through the moral demands it imposes of its followers. It falls apart with corrupt organized religion. However that is another topic. There really is no proof of evolution, there is more proof of events in the bible than evolution. Nothing has ever evolved but de-evolved, in other words it loses dna not gains DNA. Dogs are a good example. They say dogs evolved from a wolf but it did not gain DNA when it changed from a wolf to a dog it lost DNA therefor it de-evolved. There are so many holes in the evolution theory it really has no stronger stance than creationalism. I believe in creationalism because it is my faith but I admit it can not be proven scientifically as most will also admit. Evolutionist try to say science backs up its belief when science has not proven that anything evolves into something else, we only know of things that de-evolved. Slight adaptions may happen but to say something jumped to a different species is really far fetched and their isn't any more evidence to support that than their is that some superior conscious being created us, weather it be God or some other conscious life form.
I personally believe in God but that is my own belief for personal reasons that are not set in science.

You don't know how DNA works.

[Great Nepal]

your thread title is incredibly misleading, according to the results of the poll, 47% of Americans accept evolution, not 15%

No, they dont.
15% agree with theory of evolution.
32% agree with theistic evolution.
53% agree with mumbo jumbo.

[NeuDeutschland]

This is a few months old, but someone showed this to me today, and I was shocked.

Only 15% of Americans fully believe in evolution. 46% reject it outright. And the latter number has risen by 6% from the year before.

(Image)
Source: Gallup

These are the sort of things that make me embarrassed to be American. This is 2013, not 1500. You would think that by now, most people would be able to accept basic science. I feel like if the religious right isn't stopped soon, we could be almost a theocracy in 20 or 30 years. Hopefully, something can change drastically. However, it's an understatement to say that I'm more than a little worried about the future of my country.


edited for grammar

What scares me is the extreme left who have no science to back their claims but want to destroy religion and leave people without a moral compass as people have shown they can not be trusted to guide themselves from a moral stand point. The study of string theory maybe be science but it hasn't been proven so to say that String Theory is science is wrong, it is Theory not fact. The let want us to except their theory as fact when it has no more bases in truth than the belief in God. At least the belief in God offers something . Do you ever seen groups of left wing scientist out helping the poor or contributing to anything but their own wants?

[Northern Dominus]

This whole thread annoys the fuck out of me.

• The basic opinion numbers haven't changed since 1982. Thirty years, no change. How in the Hell is this news?
  
  
• 32% say they believe in evolution, but that they also believes God has a hand in the process. Well, duh! Over 80% of Americans believe in God; so what do you expect religious people who believe in evolution to say? "Yes, I believe in a God who watches over us and has an effect on our lives, but no, I think He's always out to lunch when it comes to evolution?!?" Seriously?!?
  
  A religious person who believes in evolution is going to believe that God occasionally slips his hand into the process, for His own inscrutable reasons. This doesn't mean that such a person is going to insist that "intelligent design" or "theistic evolution" should be taught in schools or recognized by science as any kind of established theory; no, this simply means that you're looking at a person of faith who is squaring the circle. Those 32% are religious people who believe in evolution, but also continue to retain their faith. Big deal.

So what this thread boils down to is whining by atheists that there are still a huge majority of people out there who believe in God. Well, too fucking bad. Deal with it and move on, and stop looking like such a bunch of whiny little misanthropes.

A third of the American populace believe in evolution and God, and that's that. Anybody who says that you can't believe in both is full of shit — no, ifs, ands, or buts.

---

ADDENDUM: And don't reply by saying that there's no proof that God has a hand in evolution: That's irrelevant. People of faith who believe in evolution don't believe in a "different kind" of evolution than atheists; they're not advancing an "alternative theory" of evolution that requires the presence of God in order to work. Mostly, they're not thinking about how to link the two beliefs together at all; at most — if they've thought about it — they probably believe that God is like a hacker who left himself a back door in the DNA, by which he could create the duck-billed platypus out of sheer amusement after smoking a jay. IOW, they are simply reconciling two different beliefs that may, at first blush, appear irreconcilable. Interestingly enough, people do this all the time in all sorts of areas (eg., politics, where American liberals support the 1st Amendment while disparaging the 2nd, or where American conservatives refuse to believe that government spending creates jobs — except when it's spending by the Pentagon); it's just what human beings do.

Of course, you can criticize such thinking if you want — that's your prerogative — but psychologists tell us that everybody does this sort of thing, sooner or later. Even atheists.

I can only speak to my observations, but again the problem lies not in the extremism on either side, but in the middle.

See, I follow the best rule of evidence, which points to evolution as being the primary force regarding biodiversity and life, including mankind. I personally don't see that much room for a direct divine intervention of any significant influence, but I don't nessecarily look down on somebody who does think that evolution took a "bump" here and there courtesy of that aforementioned being. For all I know, homo sapiens got to a certain point and that divine being decided to give them a soul at the last minute, a case of a particular species getting their first. As for somebody who flatly denies the process and fundamentals of evolution in any sense being responsible for any bit of life or biodiversity...well for the most part I'm content to laugh at them hysterically in the privacy of my head before going to look at the sharks at work and wonder how evolution has honed and crafted such a magnificent animal over eons and eons.

However, that last group is the problem...no not the sharks, the denialists. See the second anything contrary to a literalist interperetation of the creation story from their favorite holy text is propositioned, one would think there was a holy war afoot given their reaction. It may not be the case at all, but the fact that it exists is an affront to a very vocal and disproportionately represented minority that make it their business to belittle everyone that doesn't agree with them.
This of course provokes a reaction from the extremists on the opposite side, and then soon enough you have an unholy echo chamber of feedback and rancor that gets nowhere.

[Conscentia]

That being my point...

There is zero evidence forces did or not, and a lack of evidence that is not really possible to prove anyway does not equal as proof against

No, but Occam's Razor.

Don't forget null hypothesis.

[Mavorpen]

Which means that for all intents and purposes, you're wrong.

Elaborate on the reasoning please. I have seen statemebts along these lines often on this forum but do not really understand it.

It means that anything concerning scientific research, your claims will not be included, because we must work under the assumption that your claim is false, since you do not have any evidence to substantiate your claim.

[Farnhamia]

And there is no zero evidence that there hasn't been a God or any other deity involved. We can't know until after death.

Well there's no way to prove that I am not in fact a large crustacean with extremely flexible claws and a good sense of co-ordination.

Sure there is. *boils a large pot of water and waits to see how fast you run*

[Esternial]

Do you ever seen groups of left wing scientist out helping the poor or contributing to anything but their own wants?

Like the ones conducting research into new medicine and stuff.

Yeah, selfish bastards we are!

Now, go study up before making more claims like that.

[Parhe]

That being my point...

There is zero evidence forces did or not, and a lack of evidence that is not really possible to prove anyway does not equal as proof against

No, there is zero evidence that supernatural forces did anything. "Supernatural" outweighs "natural" in the extraordinariness category, therefore the burden, old chap, is yours.

The burden to proven the idea of a higher being should not be involved or studied with science and that science can neither disprove or prove a higher being? Should not be too hard I would think.

[Akaquak]

Evolution has even less evidence. Yes creationalism is based on faith which in my view contributes more to society when the actual teachings are followed through the moral demands it imposes of its followers. It falls apart with corrupt organized religion. However that is another topic. There really is no proof of evolution, there is more proof of events in the bible than evolution. Nothing has ever evolved but de-evolved, in other words it loses dna not gains DNA. Dogs are a good example. They say dogs evolved from a wolf but it did not gain DNA when it changed from a wolf to a dog it lost DNA therefor it de-evolved. There are so many holes in the evolution theory it really has no stronger stance than creationalism. I believe in creationalism because it is my faith but I admit it can not be proven scientifically as most will also admit. Evolutionist try to say science backs up its belief when science has not proven that anything evolves into something else, we only know of things that de-evolved. Slight adaptions may happen but to say something jumped to a different species is really far fetched and their isn't any more evidence to support that than their is that some superior conscious being created us, weather it be God or some other conscious life form.
I personally believe in God but that is my own belief for personal reasons that are not set in science.

Your premise is false.

I love how the only way evolutionists and atheists can deny logical arguments for Christianity is telling them they are wrong.

Yet they provide no argument or reason that they are wrong.

Wow.