Evolution

pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
I read a statistic today that absolutely blew my mind. I fact checked it too. More than 40% of Americans do not believe in evolution and furthermore believe that the earth's age is measured in thousands of years rather than thousands of millions of years. I don't understand how, with the incredible amount of evidence that has been found for the theory of evolution, 40% can deny its verity. Do we have any deniers out there? If so could you please explain to me why almost half of Americans agree with you?
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

I read a statistic today that absolutely blew my mind. I fact checked it too. More than 40% of Americans do not believe in evolution and furthermore believe that the earth's age is measured in thousands of years rather than thousands of millions of years. I don't understand how, with the incredible amount of proof that has been found for the theory of evolution, 40% can deny its verity. Do we have any deniers out there? If so could you please explain to me why almost half of Americans agree with you?
Because contrary to belief...science is not infallable....an example. In the 70's we heard the problem was global cooling from science.....that leter changed into global warming......which now is called climate change........40 years of science has given us three different scenarios involving the same thing. Science is based off known factors...like how long it takes to create certain mineral deposits in today's known conditions. What science doesn't kn ow is the conditions when early mineral deposits were made...this could affect the time frame to create them......
Iam not an evolution non believer however......
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Your argument is great, don't get me wrong, but I see a hole in it. Global warming is a scientific consensus and far from being a scientific theory. Evolution is a scientific theory. We dated the earth by using a bounty of radioactive isotopes and their half lives and have done the same with igneous rock surrounding fossils. It is safe to assume the laws of physics have been constant. In fact there is no reason not to believe that. Radioactive decay is therefore constant. I don't see how any rational human being can just explain that away.
Science isn't infallible and is constantly changing.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

Your argument is great, don't get me wrong, but I see a hole in it. Global warming is a scientific consensus and far from being a scientific theory. Evolution is a scientific theory. We dated the earth by using a bounty of radioactive isotopes and their half lives and have done the same with igneous rock surrounding fossils. It is safe to assume the laws of physics have been constant. In fact there is no reason not to believe that. Radioactive decay is therefore constant. I don't see how any rational human being can just explain that away.

Science isn't infallible and is constantly changing.
You just explained why in your own post. Scientific THEORY. Evolution has not been scientifically prozen to the point of making it out of the theory arena. Further touching on your post....what were the environmental conditions and temperatures during tghe formations of the igenous rock around the fossils? Temperature and environment play a huge role in these formations.......with out being extreme but who is to say the temperature was not many times hotter than it is today.....this would have a great affect. On the speed of certain formation pending how intense the heat could get.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
The non-scientific belief is not based on rationality, it is based on a literal belief in the Bible. There is no arguing with people who have that faith, and most people in the USA are Christians, and many do believe in the literal interpretation of whatever English version of the Bible they are reading.
It is a faith belief, regardless of scientific facts.
Global warming and global cooling is a fact backed by science. People put spins on whether it is man-caused, or naturally occurring.
The age of the earth is measured in the billions of years based on scientific evidence and facts, as you stated. While the Biblical literalists will say that the earth is only a few thousand years old (based on faith and how the Bible is interpreted by them).
It is true that science evolves, as does religious beliefs. 500 years ago, way after the birth of Christ, there was no such Christian event termed "The Rapture". We all know now what this is referring to but the concept began as early as the first half of the 19th Century.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
You need to brush up on what exactly a theory is as it pertains to science. This is one of the things that pisses me off the most, no offense to you. The situation and misconception pisses me off, not the people who make it. There are several meanings for theory, but in the realm of science only one is used and only one will suffice. I'll use oxford:
Quote:
A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
The definition you are using, the incorrect one, is:
Quote:
A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.
A scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory are very different. Evolution has removed itself from the "realm of hypothesis" to a great extent. It is a confirmed hypothesis as the first definition suggests.
The other common misconception you hold is that there is something above or better than theory. This is not true. Even scientific laws are not above (so to speak) scientific theories. A law explains a phenomenon, but does not explain the reason for its occurrence. Think about Newton's laws. They outline how something will happen, but not why. We need the THEORY of gravitation to explain the why.
Did you know that heliocentricity is a theory? That is (for those who do not know) the theory that the earth revolves around the sun.
 
spanko

spanko

Active Member
I think you have your answer though, the population of people that want to andor do believe in creationism.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanko http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374606
I think you have your answer though, the population of people that want to andor do believe in creationism.
Yeah, I realize that. I was still amazed by the percentage and wanted to see what others thought. I still don't quite understand why people deny evolution and I probably never will simply because I am me and not someone else. You indicated a correlation between wanting to believe something and believing something. I want to believe in unicorns, but I cannot. I hate to relate God to unicorns because that will no doubt offend people, but I can't help but see it in that light.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
I believe the earth is old. Don't know how old and neither does anyone else. I believe evolution takes place. I don't believe humans evolved from the same puss pool as the rest of the life on this planet. That isn't based on religion. It's based on common sense. Why would humans evolve so radically different than all the other species if we all came from the same ooze?
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

You need to brush up on what exactly a theory is as it pertains to science. This is one of the things that pisses me off the most, no offense to you. The situation and misconception pisses me off, not the people who make it. There are several meanings for theory, but in the realm of science only one is used and only one will suffice. I'll use oxford:
 
 
The definition you are using, the incorrect one, is:
 
 
A scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory are very different. Evolution has removed itself from the "realm of hypothesis" to a great extent. It is a confirmed hypothesis as the first definition suggests.
 
The other common misconception you hold is that there is something above or better than theory. This is not true. Even scientific laws are not above (so to speak) scientific theories. A law explains a phenomenon, but does not explain the reason for its occurrence. Think about Newton's laws. They outline how something will happen, but not why. We need the THEORY of gravitation to explain the why.
 
Did you know that heliocentricity is a theory? That is (for those who do not know) the theory that the earth revolves around the sun.
 
 
Look at the young kid getting uppitty because of the challenge.
Are you arguing planet dating (the age of the earth) or evolution (the sythesis of darwins ideas on natural selection combined with models thoughts on genetic mutations)? If it is planet dating this is based off the assumption (as it is unprovable) the source of the solar was ev enly distributed during creation......as we can see in life this is not the case then how can we be sure it is in this instance. On an evolutionary standpoints there are many facets of micro and macro evolution that are not yet proven..thus leaving gaps in the "theory".
Religious views are based on faith. End of story. Science can not compete with faith. As faith is an inner belief in something unproveable....
Darth (changing diapers and taking names ) Tang
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374617
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374601
You need to brush up on what exactly a theory is as it pertains to science. This is one of the things that pisses me off the most, no offense to you. The situation and misconception pisses me off, not the people who make it. There are several meanings for theory, but in the realm of science only one is used and only one will suffice. I'll use oxford:
The definition you are using, the incorrect one, is:
A scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory are very different. Evolution has removed itself from the "realm of hypothesis" to a great extent. It is a confirmed hypothesis as the first definition suggests.
The other common misconception you hold is that there is something above or better than theory. This is not true. Even scientific laws are not above (so to speak) scientific theories. A law explains a phenomenon, but does not explain the reason for its occurrence. Think about Newton's laws. They outline how something will happen, but not why. We need the THEORY of gravitation to explain the why.
Did you know that heliocentricity is a theory? That is (for those who do not know) the theory that the earth revolves around the sun.
Look at the young kid getting uppitty because of the challenge.
Are you arguing planet dating (the age of the earth) or evolution (the sythesis of darwins ideas on natural selection combined with models thoughts on genetic mutations)? If it is planet dating this is based off the assumption (as it is unprovable) the source of the solar was ev enly distributed during creation......as we can see in life this is not the case then how can we be sure it is in this instance. On an evolutionary standpoints there are many facets of micro and macro evolution that are not yet proven..thus leaving gaps in the "theory".
Religious views are based on faith. End of story. Science can not compete with faith. As faith is an inner belief in something unproveable....
Darth (changing diapers and taking names ) Tang
What challenge? You do realize that I am not the spokesperson for evolution. I could completely fail to spew facts and get everything wrong and that would not damper the validity of evolution.
I am arguing both of those points. My first post:
Quote:
More than 40% of Americans do not believe in evolution and furthermore believe that the earth's age is measured in thousands of years rather than thousands of millions of years.
Of course there are gaps in the theory, but comparatively few.
I flat out do not understand this statement: If it is planet dating this is based off the assumption (as it is unprovable) the source of the solar was ev enly distributed during creation......as we can see in life this is not the case then how can we be sure it is in this instance
Let's use potassium-argon dating. I can't remember the half life, but it is large. When molten rock solidifies, potassium 40 (a radioactive isotope) can be found. This is a way of zeroing in. We know that this unstable isotope wouldn't find its way into rocks otherwise and we know that it decays into argon 40 (which is stable). We can take the RATIO of argon to potassium to find an approximate date of the rock. The fun thing is that there are other rocks in this world and other isotopes which decay (about 150) so when all of these things correlate, coincidence can be ruled out.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

What challenge? You do realize that I am not the spokesperson for evolution. I could completely fail to spew facts and get everything wrong and that would not damper the validity of evolution.
 
I am arguing both of those points. My first post:
 
Of course there are gaps in the theory, but comparatively few.
 
 
I flat out do not understand this statement: If it is planet dating this is based off the assumption (as it is unprovable) the source of the solar was ev enly distributed during creation......as we can see in life this is not the case then how can we be sure it is in this instance
 
Let's use potassium-argon dating. I can't remember the half life, but it is large. When molten rock solidifies, potassium 40 (a radioactive isotope) can be found. This is a way of zeroing in. We know that this unstable isotope wouldn't find its way into rocks otherwise and we know that it decays into argon 40 (which is stable). We can take the RATIO of argon to potassium to find an approximate date of the rock. The fun thing is that there are other rocks in this world and other isotopes which decay (about 150) so when all of these things correlate, coincidence can be ruled out.
You are not arguing both points. You are arguing on the side of science.
The statement you don't understand is this. You and evry scientist is operating under the assumption the solar system was created uniformally.meaning the breakdown and creation of isotopes have been stable and flat for all of time. Meaning creation itself is uniform...when in fact it is not....we see this in the gestation period of babies. Some take 9 months and weigh 6 lbs...others take 8 months and weight 9 lbs. There is no true uniformaty in creation currently...so how can we assume there was uniformity in the creation of this planet?
Oh...and the most common form of planet dating is pb/pb isocron age......which is done in conjunction with the earth and meteorites.
And if you agree their are gaps in the theory..it isin fact a theory in the fawhion that I used the word theory. As it has not been completely proven yet.
Darth (you are spinning) Tang
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374635
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374622
What challenge? You do realize that I am not the spokesperson for evolution. I could completely fail to spew facts and get everything wrong and that would not damper the validity of evolution.
I am arguing both of those points. My first post:
Of course there are gaps in the theory, but comparatively few.
I flat out do not understand this statement: If it is planet dating this is based off the assumption (as it is unprovable) the source of the solar was ev enly distributed during creation......as we can see in life this is not the case then how can we be sure it is in this instance
Let's use potassium-argon dating. I can't remember the half life, but it is large. When molten rock solidifies, potassium 40 (a radioactive isotope) can be found. This is a way of zeroing in. We know that this unstable isotope wouldn't find its way into rocks otherwise and we know that it decays into argon 40 (which is stable). We can take the RATIO of argon to potassium to find an approximate date of the rock. The fun thing is that there are other rocks in this world and other isotopes which decay (about 150) so when all of these things correlate, coincidence can be ruled out.
You are not arguing both points. You are arguing on the side of science.
The statement you don't understand is this. You and evry scientist is operating under the assumption the solar system was created uniformally.meaning the breakdown and creation of isotopes have been stable and flat for all of time. Meaning creation itself is uniform...when in fact it is not....we see this in the gestation period of babies. Some take 9 months and weigh 6 lbs...others take 8 months and weight 9 lbs. There is no true uniformaty in creation currently...so how can we assume there was uniformity in the creation of this planet?
Oh...and the most common form of planet dating is pb/pb isocron age......which is done in conjunction with the earth and meteorites.
And if you agree their are gaps in the theory..it isin fact a theory in the fawhion that I used the word theory. As it has not been completely proven yet.
Darth (you are spinning) Tang
I am arguing on the side of science but I am arguing both about evolution and about the age of the universe. Both go hand in hand and were the subject of the study that caused me to start this thread. I am not fighting for creationism. I would never fight for creationism. It is not rational. To be rational, we must accept the fact that everything we thing could be wrong and atheists do that. They may not believe that they are wrong, but they accept the possibility.
And no, the way you used the word theory is not correct. I am not going to waste my time explaining why it is wrong again when you didn't listen the first time. Evolution is not a hypothesis. Do you realize that outside of the realm of mathematics NOTHING can be fully proven?
Are you familiar with Bertrand Russel?
He said (and I paraphrase) 'Maybe we were all created five minutes ago with ready-made thoughts, the holes in our socks, and our hair in need of cutting.'
Only by something like this is Evolution not provable.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Be carefull..the teenager in you is coming out.
You stated ev oltution has holes and is not fully proven.....thus meaning it is not proven...thus meaning it is a theory in the sense of the word I used.
Darth (I pee farther) Tang
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374653
Be carefull..the teenager in you is coming out.
You stated ev oltution has holes and is not fully proven.....thus meaning it is not proven...thus meaning it is a theory in the sense of the word I used.
Darth (I pee farther) Tang
NOTHING (outside of mathematics) is proven. A theory and a hypothesis are far from being the same. Your definition is not correct. The holes to which I was referring was the fact that we will never be able to obtain a full historic record of all of the life forms that once existed and currently exist. Not everything turns into a nice perfect fossil (or a fossil at all for that matter). Now does that affect the verity of the theory and if so, to what extent?
Please refrain from personal attacks as to not ruin this debate.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/384994/evolution#post_3374614
Why would humans evolve so radically different than all the other species if we all came from the same ooze?
Radically different from what? Every species on earth is radically different from the other. We are speaking about intelligence, I know. But who measures intelligence? Humans do, in all our grand arrogance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top