Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#1,304
#1,304
Obsessed said:
How were you able to draw this conclusion ?

Did your parents tell you?

I'm not disagreeing with you on your opinion, just merely pointing out the obvious.
Click to expand...

I feel no need for my kids to be taught by an idiot whose theories are completely wrong and whose life has been a complete fraud. The theories aren't based in anything so I'm not even sure what class they would fit in. Maybe creative writing?

I understand where you're trying to go but this is the wrong one to pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,305
#1,305
utvolpj said:
no I wouldn't and no parent who wants their child to be educated would either. His claims are not backed by any facts and are enforced by his own bad math. He's not a scientist and I'm not even sure he's much more than a HS grad.

bad (nonexistent) science + bad math + Bible = potentially valid theories? Not for any rational person
Click to expand...

As I stated before..its easy to take shots at him. If you watch the video though and it shows the cover of a book, say Heath Biology, 2001..and it shows pictures of a human fetus with "gill slits" right next to fish embryo and a frog embryo..then shows where the whole thing was proved to be fraud in 1876 at the German university where the professor Haeckle? First presented it...hw can that be disputed?
Then he goes on to show the exact Biology book I had in 1991? With a series of "prehistoric" horses...and the first one has 13 ribs...then 11...then 12...which is A:impossible and B: not evolution...but is used to force feed kids an absolute lie in every public school in America. How do you dispute that? Is that not the exact page and book he represents it to be? Of course it is. Is that not an absolute lie? Of course it is. Are these the textbooks being used today? Yes they are. (As recently as 2001 anyway)
So trash the man all you want. Dispute what he shows to be in the textbooks or the accuracy of his claims therein.
 
#1,306
#1,306
Yeezus... Marcus do you have a man crush on Hovind or something?

The fact that he's in jail for fraud is entirely relevant to his ideas and teachings in that it's a pure character flaw. He's a liar and a cheat.

I'm not going to give his video a single view. My time is better off finding someone credible that attempts to debunk evolutionary theory. Well, it would be if that were possible but 97% of the scientific community agrees that evolutionary theory is fact.

I'm just curious, but why hasn't anyone mention that hack Ken Ham who runs the Creationism Museum in that backwards state if Kentucky?




Yes, he's a kook, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,307
#1,307
Septic said:
So when an fundamentalist makes the claim that Harry Potter is inaccurate and full of made up stories, does the burden of proof lie with the Fundamentalist?
Click to expand...

Yes because according to you the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. You cannot cherry pick it. Either the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof or they don't.
 
#1,308
#1,308
Obsessed said:
It's very relevant.

Exists? Or existed?

Personally I think he existed at some point in time. Why not? A slow evolution form of us as humans. We came from monkeys right? What if Bigfoot is the half way point? If one is going to believe evolution in its fullest then why is it hard to fathom a Bigfoot?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that there are Bigfoot like species that have existed prior to man. I disagree that they are still roaming the earth and yet we don't know about.
 
#1,310
#1,310
BigOrangeTrain said:
Have you seen any credible evidence for the existence of the so called "common ancestor" we are supposed to share with apes?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of examples of this. The issue is that creationist expect us to uncover every single animal to have existed and provide an infinite number of missing links.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,311
#1,311
Vol8188 said:
Your link argues that animals do not involve into new species, yet the donkey is a perfect example of how they do. It clearly shares a common ancestor with the horse, yet the two can only produce sterile offspring.
Click to expand...

You want me to believe you read that? :eek:lol: I know better. That link says wayyy more than that.
 
#1,312
#1,312
Vol8188 said:
There are plenty of examples of this. The issue is that creationist expect us to uncover every single animal to have existed and provide an infinite number of missing links.
Click to expand...

Take an Anthropology class and you will learn that the common ancestor thing is an unproven theory. There are so many missing links that it's laughable. All there is are opinions of the common ancestor. No human was alive to see this common ancestor. So basically what we have is science has faith that this common ancestor exists.

No the creationists want evidence that this theory actually answers the questions it says it does. As of right now, it doesn't. As I have said there are plenty of scientists who disagree with evolution. That shows ambiguity. That also shows doubt amongst scientists. Also just because scientists says a theory is true doesn't make it so. As another poster said, scientists once thought the earth was flat. So that means it once was right?
 
#1,313
#1,313
BigOrangeTrain said:
You want me to believe you read that? :eek:lol: I know better. That link says wayyy more than that.
Click to expand...

Why do I waste my time arguing with you? Do you expect me to give you a full report on each of your links you post? And even if I didn't waste my time retarding this garbage, which I did sadly, why do you believe I'm obligated to read any link you post?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,314
#1,314
BigOrangeTrain said:
Take an Anthropology class and you will learn that the common ancestor thing is an unproven theory. There are so many missing links that it's laughable. All there is are opinions of the common ancestor. No human was alive to see this common ancestor. So basically what we have is science has faith that this common ancestor exists.

No the creationists want evidence that this theory actually answers the questions it says it does. As of right now, it doesn't. As I have said there are plenty of scientists who disagree with evolution. That shows ambiguity. That also shows doubt amongst scientists. Also just because scientists says a theory is true doesn't make it so. As another poster said, scientists once thought the earth was flat. So that means it once was right?
Click to expand...

1. Yes, it is a theory. And like all scientific theory it is based on large amounts of research and evidence.

2. Of course there are missing links. They are trying to link every single living species on earth back to the first living creature, ever. Obviously they haven't found them all yet, because they've not found every creature to ever live! And yet they've found a large number of them. Which is why I said "you expect them to find an infinite number of missing links". So thanks for proving my point there.

3. If you are claiming many scientist disagree with evolution, then show me the numbers. What percent of scientist disagree with this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,315
#1,315
Vol8188 said:
Why do I waste my time arguing with you? Do you expect me to give you a full report on each of your links you post? And even if I didn't waste my time retarding this garbage, which I did sadly, why do you believe I'm obligated to read any link you post?
Click to expand...

Then just don't respond to the link at all then. If all you are going to do is cherry pick information then just ignore the links. However if you are going to attempt at least a half witted retort about said link, then try to understand it fully.

Oh I knew you would consider it garbage. Most closed minded people would. You can freely ignore me if you wish. Please do not feel obligated to read anything I post. That certainly is not my wish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,316
#1,316
Septic said:
So when an fundamentalist makes the claim that Harry Potter is inaccurate and full of made up stories, does the burden of proof lie with the Fundamentalist?
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur. It doesn't follow. The author isn't making truth claims. Really bad comeback.
 
#1,317
#1,317
Obsessed said:
Thank you.

This was my point. But ole boy either didn't grasp it or was ignoring it. I'll bet on the later
Click to expand...

So your point is that we should believe in Bigfoot, unicorns, Santa, the Easter bunny, and God because it's impossible to dis
 
#1,318
#1,318
Obsessed said:
Thank you.

This was my point. But ole boy either didn't grasp it or was ignoring it. I'll bet on the later
Click to expand...

So your point is that we should believe in Bigfoot, unicorns, Santa, the Easter bunny, and God because it's impossible to disprove them?
 
#1,319
#1,319
Vol8188 said:
So your point is that we should believe in Bigfoot, unicorns, Santa, the Easter bunny, and God because it's impossible to disprove them?
Click to expand...

No. That was not my point. If you would have read the rest on the conversation you would realized the point I was making.
 
#1,320
#1,320
BigOrangeTrain said:
Then just don't respond to the link at all then. If all you are going to do is cherry pick information then just ignore the links. However if you are going to attempt at least a half witted retort about said link, then try to understand it fully.

Oh I knew you would consider it garbage. Most closed minded people would. You can freely ignore me if you wish. Please do not feel obligated to read anything I post. That certainly is not my wish.
Click to expand...

I didn't just simply call it garbage, I even gave you an example how they were wrong. An example that you refused to acknowledge. Instead you wanted to have a debate about how much of your link I had actually read. Probably because you had nothing useful to add.
 
#1,321
#1,321
Obsessed said:
No. That was not my point. If you would have read the rest on the conversation you would realized the point I was making.
Click to expand...

I read your posts from last night. You seem to be stating that your point is that we can't prove Bigfoot never existed. The same can be said for unicorns and god.

Therefore until proof is shown, we should believe in none of them.
 
#1,323
#1,323
marcusluvsvols said:
I invite everyone here to please watch "lies in the textbooks" by Dr. Hovind of Creation Science Evangelism. He is a devout Christian who happened to be a biology professor. He has lectured and debated at UT. He had a standing offer for decades of half a million dollars to anyone who could prove scientifically that evolution ever occurred beyond variation in species and certain micro examples (such as a bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics over time.) This guys toenail clippings know more about science than any of these "internet experts" we have claiming some imagined intellectual high ground in these forums.
Click to expand...

Hovind. I'd recommend that any believer stay away. Yes, he does state some things that are verifiable. The problem is that this isn't always the case. His financial indiscretions example his less than honest approach. His presentations are laced with rhetoric and bad jokes and he comes off to me as a jerk.
The bottom line is he has no credibility.
 
#1,324
#1,324
BigOrangeTrain said:
Yes because according to you the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. You cannot cherry pick it. Either the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof or they don't.
Click to expand...

Wasn't attempt to. I simply took your post word for word and replaced atheist with fundamentalist and the bible with harry potter.

Really more of a tongue in cheek attempt to see if you'
d catch on.

You didn't.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the claims. I believe it was Hitchens who said extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. In 80+ pages of this debate, you guys have fallen back to the position of "yeah well, you can't prove he didn't exist".

Simply Astonishing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top