Do you accept evolution as fact?

[fakeyellowlight]

Simple poll. I'm not asking about your religious views. I just want to know if you accept evolution as fact. Polls have shown that in the US, more than 40% of adults reject evolution as fact. Yes, folks, it's true.

Do you believe that life has evolved over millions (more likely billions) of years from simple molecules to complex organisms? Are we cousins of apes, ants, and apples?

Or was it the hand of an intelligent designer, a deity that carved us from scratch into our current forms?

One final question not included in the poll. If you reject evolution, have you honestly done your homework about the subject? Or have you simply accepted beliefs that have been molded into your brain by other authorities?

Thank you for voting, I really do appreciate it.

[flks511]

I don't accept it as a fact, but it's not like I've ruled out the possibility.

[heyjoshua]

I believe in Creation

[xapplexpiex]

Another religious debate on Ap.net? Yawn.

[zachff]

Yes. I firmly believe we devolved from a race of super transformational beings.

http://simonfurman.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/transformers-beast-wars-the-ascending-20070816051408746.jpg

[E. Clectic]

Yes, we basically are the sum of a retarded fish frog that had butt sex with a squirrel.

[Neo Cassady]

Evolution is the reason there is no perfect flu vaccine.

[eriatarka24]

Yes, we basically are the sum of a retarded fish frog that had butt sex with a squirrel.
:-d

[jwicklun]

my god. 6 people voted no?

[only the clouds]

People cannot wrap their minds around the timescale over which evolution has taken place, so it's difficult to accept intuitively. That being said, intelligent design makes no sense.

[Tristan Needler]

It is a fact. The question is whether you're intelligent enough to be able to accept it.

[Theseventhson]

Yes, I have a brain.

[InvisibleImage]

Another religious debate on Ap.net? Yawn.
religious? lol.

[muttley]

Pretty sure I accept it.

[Say Nothing]

You should have made the two options simply "yes" and "no" in my opinion. If someone doesn't believe in it, they don't necessarily have to think that it is a bogus theory. I personally believe in evolution, although if I was to be affiliated with a particular religious group, I wouldn't look down upon evolution. Rather, I would accept it as a plausible theory.

[Say Nothing]

It is a fact. The question is whether you're intelligent enough to be able to accept it.
This made me laugh quite a bit. Thank you lol.

[xapplexpiex]

religious? lol.
Yes. People who do not accept it as a fact are usually believers of creationism.

[atticus18244fss]

If you believe a magic man in the sky created everything, you're a fucking idiot.

[dave vegan]

As of my vote, 18.33% of people participating in this survey are either liars or morons.

Edit: If you have ever been vaccinated, for anything, you have actively used science based on the evolution of viruses. Vaccines need to be updated constantly as viruses evolve at a very fast rate. That's why you have to get a different flu vaccine each year, the flu virus evolves and you have to get a new shot. And if you've never been vaccinated you have already died of smallpox.

[jared091]

No I don't accept it as fact, I think it's the most plausible theory of where we come from but I'm not gonna say that it's absolutely the correct answer. I think it's ridiculous that people whether they're Creationist, Evolutionist, Atheist, or a member of any religious group can have 100% certainty that there right instead of being open minded to all theories. I mean I get people not liking organized religion but people who are so against a creator or "god" are about 75% of the time just as stubborn and ignorant as devout catholics and the like. Just my take on it though.

[domotime2]

i dont like the wording of the choices.

[OhNoVandetos]

Yes. I firmly believe we devolved from a race of super transformational beings.

http://simonfurman.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/transformers-beast-wars-the-ascending-20070816051408746.jpg

wow awsome reply


i didnt voted because i dont know, i think its probably right, but im not 100%

[zachff]

wow awsome reply


i didnt voted because i dont know, i think its probably right, but im not 100%

Any time I can work in a Beast Wars reference, I consider it a win.

[secretsociety92]

99.9% likely to be true.

[ayerock]

http://files.myopera.com/scsaba/albums/665232/Smiley%20evolution.jpg

[Alex DiVincenzo]

Yes, it s scientifically proven.

[dvdrbn]

It is a fact. The question is whether you're intelligent enough to be able to accept it.

This sums up my answer. How can you even vote no?

[inthemidst]

You can't make this poll and it expect it not to turn into a religious debate.

[whiterussian]

http://files.myopera.com/scsaba/albums/665232/Smiley%20evolution.jpg

fucking Head and Shoulders



this may sound silly to some, but poll should include middle-ground.
I for one believe in evolution as much as I can believe in anything at all.

[sidewacker]

Yes, it s scientifically proven.

I am a scientist. I believe in evolution. But science can never prove anything, just put out the best evidence to support our hypotheses.

[stonecoldfox]

Yes, it s scientifically proven.

I'm calling shenangans on this answer because, well, that is the exact opposite of the truth.

[batmannj]

It is a fact. The question is whether you're intelligent enough to be able to accept it.

Yes, I have a brain.
lol



As a practicing Christian/Catholic, it is undeniable that evolution "exists" and it happens slowly overtime to all creatures. As far as whether or not people were created by God, or if we came from a tree dwelling monkey, it doesn't really matter.

[JordanBuell]

lol



As a practicing Christian/Catholic, it is undeniable that evolution "exists" and it happens slowly overtime to all creatures. As far as whether or not people were created by God, or if we came from a tree dwelling monkey, it doesn't really matter.

doesnt it kind of matter for you?

[SunnyInPhilly]

It is a fact. The question is whether you're intelligent enough to be able to accept it.

No, it's not. A theory, by definition, is not fact.

[Theseventhson]

No, it's not. A theory, by definition, is not fact.

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.

Source http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[Echo Park]

I'm not affiliated with a particular religious group but I look down on people who believe in Evolution...I look further down on those that mind that I do.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_L3DaI-xjb2Y/Sa-lnb_QUNI/AAAAAAAAAU0/qlO8Ceg-H7Y/s1600-h/evolution-cartoon-photos-0.jpg

[re7ard1337]

I am a scientist. I believe in evolution. But science can never prove anything, just put out the best evidence to support our hypotheses.

I am a scientist too!

[Tristan Needler]

No, it's not. A theory, by definition, is not fact.
Point proven. A in science a theory doesn't mean it's uncertain whether it's true or not.

[notoaststereo]

99.9% likely to be true.

Pretty much.

Of course there's always more to work out than what we know about evolution, but that's science. Evidence to support an intricate and logical hypothesis definitely sells me way more than hearsay and folklore of a time when people didn't have the understanding of science and technology that we do today.

[secretsociety92]

Pretty much.

Of course there's always more to work out than what we know about evolution, but that's science. Evidence to support an intricate and logical hypothesis definitely sells me way more than hearsay and folklore of a time when people didn't have the understanding of science and technology that we do today.
I have nothing to add to this as I agree with it all.

[introduction]

I'm a Christian, but there's no way to deny evolution. I don't understand why people can't accept the fact that the Bible can't be right every time, or even that the theory of evolution doesn't work alongside creationism. Who says that one has to directly exclude the other?

[lesterCorp.]

Er hate to be the one to point this out. But I'm pretty sure we're here due to over-population in the planets and Xenu...

[Indoor Living]

I completely do. Denial of evolution is pure ignorance.

[rikfrommf]

Evolution is the reason there is no perfect flu vaccine.

That is ignorance at it's best. I hate that this is so frequently discussed by people who have no idea what they are talking about (and they are on BOTH sides of the debate).

Random mutation is not evolution. Evolution happens in populations not individuals. Plus what you are attempting to describe is "micro-evolution" not Macro.

I voted yes, because I am a biologist. I also believe in Creation. It can happen.

[alifetmeaway]

Considering Darwin himself said that writing the Origin of Species was the biggest mistake he's ever made, I can't take it as 100% fact. There's too many factors going into why we are here than to say we used to be monkeys. Could some form of evolution exist in society? Plants? Fruits? Vegetables? Possibly. But I think changes in their characteristics is more due to what we've done to them.

It's the THEORY of evolution. You'd think that after years of expert scientists dissecting this theory and the exponential gains in science, they'd be able to prove it. Unfortunately, they can't. And never will. I personally don't believe evolution is fact because simply put, it isn't fact, and it will never be proven.

Sadly, our school systems teach it as "fact", and that's why 80% of you take it as such. If you grew up and were force fed that we came from a space rocket volcano, and were taught it in school, you'd believe the same thing.

[rikfrommf]

No, it's not. A theory, by definition, is not fact.
There are no "facts" in Science. A theory is as close as you can GET to a fact. It has to do with the nature of science. Facts must be certain 100% of the time. There is no testable way to determine facts. Want to try? Pick up your computer and drop it every time. What is "every time" well that is why we don't use the word fact to describe gravity. It is a theory.

[rikfrommf]

Considering Darwin himself said that writing the Origin of Species was the biggest mistake he's ever made, I can't take it as 100% fact. There's too many factors going into why we are here than to say we used to be monkeys. Could some form of evolution exist in society? Plants? Fruits? Vegetables? Possibly. But I think changes in their characteristics is more due to what we've done to them.

It's the THEORY of evolution. You'd think that after years of expert scientists dissecting this theory and the exponential gains in science, they'd be able to prove it. Unfortunately, they can't. And never will. I personally don't believe evolution is fact because simply put, it isn't fact, and it will never be proven.

Sadly, our school systems teach it as "fact", and that's why 80% of you take it as such. If you grew up and were force fed that we came from a space rocket volcano, and were taught it in school, you'd believe the same thing.
Read my post.

[Neo Cassady]

Considering Darwin himself said that writing the Origin of Species was the biggest mistake he's ever made, I can't take it as 100% fact. There's too many factors going into why we are here than to say we used to be monkeys. Could some form of evolution exist in society? Plants? Fruits? Vegetables? Possibly. But I think changes in their characteristics is more due to what we've done to them.

It's the THEORY of evolution. You'd think that after years of expert scientists dissecting this theory and the exponential gains in science, they'd be able to prove it. Unfortunately, they can't. And never will. I personally don't believe evolution is fact because simply put, it isn't fact, and it will never be proven.

Sadly, our school systems teach it as "fact", and that's why 80% of you take it as such. If you grew up and were force fed that we came from a space rocket volcano, and were taught it in school, you'd believe the same thing.

Nothing in the Theory of Evolution says this.

[fran.182]

Obviousy, yes. How can someone not accept it? I mean, there are evidences that evolution is a fact... I blame ignorance and religious fanaticism.

[alifetmeaway]

There are no "facts" in Science. A theory is as close as you can GET to a fact. It has to do with the nature of science. Facts must be certain 100% of the time. There is no testable way to determine facts. Want to try? Pick up your computer and drop it every time. What is "every time" well that is why we don't use the word fact to describe gravity. It is a theory.


There is most definitely "facts" in Science. They are called laws, or more specifically, "Scientific Law".

For example, as you mentioned, Gravity. Gravity is a LAW. That is why it is called the LAW of Gravity (or law of universal gravitation). There are 3 LAWS of Motion. This is opposed to Einstein's THEORY of relativity. A LAW differs from a scientific THEORY in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena. It is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. Gravity is a constant. There is an explanation for gravity. Gravity never changes.

However, the claims of evolution simply don't have enough basis for it to EVER be considered Scientific Law.

Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:

• Scales had to have mutated into hair.
• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing.
• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.

Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.

I'll leave you with this quote from a man with way more credentials than any of us.
"Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian theory are either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of evolution. What does this imply about their scientific standards?" — Jonathan Wells (Recipient of two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. Has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California. Has taught biology at California State University in Hayward.)


I'll look forward to your reply.

[batmannj]

doesnt it kind of matter for you?

Whether or not God created people by scooping dirt off the ground and making them himself or if he created the world and let science takes it course doesn't really change how my faith is. I'm sure if you ask someone the dogma they'll disagree with me, but I can have faith and trust in the science of this world.

[jwicklun]

Has anyone provided any evidence that supports creationism? Besides a bible?

[SunnyInPhilly]

There are no "facts" in Science. A theory is as close as you can GET to a fact. It has to do with the nature of science. Facts must be certain 100% of the time. There is no testable way to determine facts. Want to try? Pick up your computer and drop it every time. What is "every time" well that is why we don't use the word fact to describe gravity. It is a theory.

I'd respond, but I'm pretty sure alifetmeaway thoroughly disected your ignorance.

[saorock]

I actually took a class in Biology at East Mississippi Community College and my teacher did not believe in evolution as well as most of the class. Fucking ridiculous.

[drevans18]

If you believe a magic man in the sky created everything, you're a fucking idiot.

I laughed at this. I mean, I'm definitely not disagreeing with you at all. I don't think I'd say this because it does seem a little ignorant. But if we were to draw a line in the sand, I'd be on your side. Let's face it, if that magician were up there, we'd all be dead.

[drevans18]

Pretty much.

Of course there's always more to work out than what we know about evolution, but that's science. Evidence to support an intricate and logical hypothesis definitely sells me way more than hearsay and folklore of a time when people didn't have the understanding of science and technology that we do today.

Yes. Yes. Oh did I mention yes?

[Machu505]

I'm glad you put "Do you accept evolution?" and not "Do you believe in evolution?".

[rikfrommf]

There is most definitely "facts" in Science. They are called laws, or more specifically, "Scientific Law".

For example, as you mentioned, Gravity. Gravity is a LAW. That is why it is called the LAW of Gravity (or law of universal gravitation). There are 3 LAWS of Motion. This is opposed to Einstein's THEORY of relativity. A LAW differs from a scientific THEORY in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena. It is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. Gravity is a constant. There is an explanation for gravity. Gravity never changes.

However, the claims of evolution simply don't have enough basis for it to EVER be considered Scientific Law.

Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:

• Scales had to have mutated into hair.
• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing.
• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.

Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.

I'll leave you with this quote from a man with way more credentials than any of us.
"Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian theory are either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of evolution. What does this imply about their scientific standards?" — Jonathan Wells (Recipient of two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. Has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California. Has taught biology at California State University in Hayward.)


I'll look forward to your reply.
I don't have time to respond to all of this, but you are talking about physics, and those "laws" are not facts. They are the observations upon which further assumptions are made and can change (you point out laws of motion, go look up special relativity and you'll see that they don't really hold true under certain circumstances). We can never with 100% certainty know anything in science, and that was the point I was trying to make. You cannot test test gravity 100% of the time. Furthermore, gravity is not a constant. I am not sure where you learned that. Gravity is dependent upon the distance from mass. as well as the mass of the larger object. There is a gravitational CONSTANT, but that doesn't mean gravity is constant (F=G([m1*m2]/D^2) ) with no mass, there is no gravity, with changing mass there is a change in gravity, gravity being the force exerted on a mass by another mass.

Laws =/= facts. But they are closer to fact than theories, I'll concede that. I mentioned theories because that is the claim that many against evolution use. I've never heard it called a 'law' in either the lay public or scientific literature.

Also, one cell doesn't evolve. Evolution takes place in populations, one cell and a million years of its progeny do evolve over time.

As a complete aside, one of the prof my alma mater just hired did some research on reptiles, and there are a few species that maintain their eggs after fertilization, and the hormones involved in mammory formation/secreton (Prolactin, OT) are positively correlated so it is likely that the retention was due to an endocrine change.

[ClydeMcAllister]

Considering Darwin himself said that writing the Origin of Species was the biggest mistake he's ever made, I can't take it as 100% fact. There's too many factors going into why we are here than to say we used to be monkeys. Could some form of evolution exist in society? Plants? Fruits? Vegetables? Possibly. But I think changes in their characteristics is more due to what we've done to them.

It's the THEORY of evolution. You'd think that after years of expert scientists dissecting this theory and the exponential gains in science, they'd be able to prove it. Unfortunately, they can't. And never will. I personally don't believe evolution is fact because simply put, it isn't fact, and it will never be proven.

Sadly, our school systems teach it as "fact", and that's why 80% of you take it as such. If you grew up and were force fed that we came from a space rocket volcano, and were taught it in school, you'd believe the same thing.

Do you believe in the atomic theory? Theory of molecular bonds? The theory of plate tectonics? Cell theory? Germ theory? thermodynamics? The three states of matter? Do you believe the Earth is round and that it revolves around the Sun? These are all technically theories.

Things in science are labeled theory instead of fact because we're still learning. There are new discoveries always being made, so the theories can change. just cause it's called "The theory of evolution" does not mean they're just guessing and making shit up. Science doesn't work that way. There are billions of years of evidence for evolution, and even more is discovered everday.

[Machu505]

Since I'd rather not jump in a debate right in the middle of it all, even though one side is correct and has evidence to back their claims up while the other side just thinks God did it, I'll just correct one thing that alifetmeaway typed. The story that Darwin renounced evolution is really, really dubious. Especially since it's bullshit (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html).

EDIT: Apparently, he said more than just that. For one, there's a difference between monkeys and apes. Learn it. Secondly, theories aren't just a tier on the hierarchy of validity. It simply denotes that something can't be observed regularly. Like plate tectonics, for example.

[frenchatticus]

I'll be one of the ones who don't vote because the options are too specific.

What I don't understand is, how is it impossible to be a creationist while still believing in evolution?

As a Christian, I'll keep an open mind to science and say hey, maybe evolution was part of creation.

[Yellowcard2006]

lol@ bogus theory

[InvisibleImage]

If you believe a magic man in the sky created everything, you're a fucking idiot.
this made me lol hard.

[atticus18244fss]

this made me lol hard.
I'm glad :-)

[bite2brkskn12]

If you believe a magic man in the sky created everything, you're a fucking idiot.

this post my friend makes you look like a fucking idiot. Neither theories are 100% proven and I admit that evolution has a lot more "evidence" on it's side but it's still just a theory and this post makes you seem very closed minded. I my self don't believe in evolution but I will listen to the facts if given and by no means would I call someone a fucking idiot because they don't believe the same as me. Plus how much time have you even put into studying evolution and all thats included in the theory to say it's right? Just because you learned it in science class doesn't make it true.

[atticus18244fss]

this post my friend makes you look like a fucking idiot. Neither theories are 100% proven and I admit that evolution has a lot more "evidence" on it's side but it's still just a theory and this post makes you seem very closed minded. I my self don't believe in evolution but I will listen to the facts if given and by no means would I call someone a fucking idiot because they don't believe the same as me. Plus how much time have you even put into studying evolution and all thats included in the theory to say it's right? Just because you learned it in science class doesn't make it true.

Didn't want to do this but here we go. :wave:

Your number one flaw is, learn to read. I never stated anything I believe in. Personally, I don't believe in anything. I don't know how we got here. But the fact that you believe that there is a magic man in the sky that created everything is just mind-blowing to me. It's the equivalent of saying that the Easter Bunny, Santa and the Tooth Fairy are all real. The fact is that you religious people base your whole lives on the belief system that you are trying to keep a magic man happy. How does that make sense? People literally base their lives and actions on a magic man. Religion is the root of all evil as well. Without it, there would be none of these bullshit wars in the Middle-East. People use the fact that they are religious and believe in other magical stuff in order to kill other people. Does that make sense? And then you religious people go and make fun of Scientologists. You guys are on the same level. You both believe in crazy shit. The problem with society is that they brainwash their kids (like you) to believe in this theory from the beginning. The kids have no chance, they are too impressional. I could teach my kids that there is a unicorn that created everything and if I kept on repeating it, they would grow up with the same mindset (see West Baptist Church, same concept). It just makes me shake my head at the fact that people spend their whole lives believing in a magic man and not doing certain things because "they won't get to heaven". Do you honestly believe there is a place in the clouds where you go when you die if you are good? I find the theories of alien life and ghosts more plausible than that. I don't know how I think this kind of stuff and others do not but it just makes me laugh. I'm not ignorant against your beliefs. Just lay it out and think about it. But in the end, who knows. Maybe there is a magic man in the sky that just chills and parties in the clouds banging hot chicks. But I know I don't believe it.

[frenchatticus]

theistic evolution? i'm not endorsing the theory, cause i think it's really screwed, but that is what it's called when people attempt to reconcile creation and evolution

Thanks, now I can actually research it a bit more.

[bite2brkskn12]

Didn't want to do this but here we go. :wave:

Your number one flaw is, learn to read. I never stated anything I believe in. Personally, I don't believe in anything. I don't know how we got here. But the fact that you believe that there is a magic man in the sky that created everything is just mind-blowing to me. It's the equivalent of saying that the Easter Bunny, Santa and the Tooth Fairy are all real. The fact is that you religious people base your whole lives on the belief system that you are trying to keep a magic man happy. How does that make sense? People literally base their lives and actions on a magic man. Religion is the root of all evil as well. Without it, there would be none of these bullshit wars in the Middle-East. People use the fact that they are religious and believe in other magical stuff in order to kill other people. Does that make sense? And then you religious people go and make fun of Scientologists. You guys are on the same level. You both believe in crazy shit. The problem with society is that they brainwash their kids (like you) to believe in this theory from the beginning. The kids have no chance, they are too impressional. I could teach my kids that there is a unicorn that created everything and if I kept on repeating it, they would grow up with the same mindset (see West Baptist Church, same concept). It just makes me shake my head at the fact that people spend their whole lives believing in a magic man and not doing certain things because "they won't get to heaven". Do you honestly believe there is a place in the clouds where you go when you die if you are good? I find the theories of alien life and ghosts more plausible than that. I don't know how I think this kind of stuff and others do not but it just makes me laugh. I'm not ignorant against your beliefs. Just lay it out and think about it. But in the end, who knows. Maybe there is a magic man in the sky that just chills and parties in the clouds banging hot chicks. But I know I don't believe it.

I love people like you who know nothing of religion and try to act like they do. Yes your right, The reason were in wars in the middle east IS because of religion. However, we are over there because of terrorist blowing themselves up and killing innocent people because they believe they will go to heaven if they do and that is a whole different topic. Religion gives people peace and it helps people think there is a reason for living and to not give up. For me, I go through live trying to be the best person I can be and if I go to heaven then great. But if i die and just rot in the ground then really what is the loss.(see Pascals Wager). I lived a great life and hopefully had a positive influence on someone. There is nothing negative about that. There is nothing wrong about having values. I don't do things to make a magic man in the sky happy. I do things to make my self happy. the man in the sky doesn't pay my bills or supply me with food. Whether he is there or not doesn't really affect how i live. If i found out 100% that there was no God then i would still live my life the same. By the way, when you say " you people" you sound like a dumb ass. Never judge a single person by the Characteristics of a group.

[atticus18244fss]

Never judge a single person by the Characteristics of a group.

Most of you are the same

[bite2brkskn12]

Most of you are the same

you couldn't be farther off and there you go again. ALL people are the same(not just religious) and it doesn't matter what they believe. If you studied religion you would know that. All different religions include different expectations and have different value systems. take a college history class before making dumb-ass comments.

[atticus18244fss]

you couldn't be farther off and there you go again. ALL people are the same(not just religious) and it doesn't matter what they believe. If you studied religion you would know that. All different religions include different expectations and have different value systems. take a college history class before making dumb-ass comments.

Cool story bro.

[SLoT]

Fact.

[Salamandrax]

i believe in both.
go read inherit the wind :)

[fuxkholly]

If you believe a magic man in the sky created everything, you're a fucking idiot.

The Invention of Lying!

[Theseventhson]

you couldn't be farther off and there you go again. ALL people are the same(not just religious) and it doesn't matter what they believe. If you studied religion you would know that. All different religions include different expectations and have different value systems. take a college history class before making dumb-ass comments.

The more you post, the dumber you sound. Just stop.

[bite2brkskn12]

The more you post, the dumber you sound. Just stop.

how am i dumb? by saying that all people are equal and you shouldn't judge people based on their beliefs?

[Toothache]

if you dont believe in evolution then you are a hopless ignoramus

[OasisLove]

You should have made the two options simply "yes" and "no" in my opinion. If someone doesn't believe in it, they don't necessarily have to think that it is a bogus theory. I personally believe in evolution, although if I was to be affiliated with a particular religious group, I wouldn't look down upon evolution. Rather, I would accept it as a plausible theory.

thaaaaaaankk youuuuu

[Ghostpsalm]

I can't count how many times I've seen this debate on ap.net

[Ghostpsalm]

Results in complete ignorance on both sides. Let's all give up, build a campfire, and make smores

[jackSHIT]

i don't think it's undeniable. people are allowed to believe what they think, even if the evidence is completely overwhelming. i'm not against the idea of creation, but i don't believe everything science says, but doesn't it seem more likely that the human race has evolved over millions of years, rather than a supernatural being just placing us here?

[jwicklun]

There is nothing wrong with believing in God, but if you believe that earth and the universe is only thousands of years old, you are an idiot.

[Deadbolt23]

Neither. It's not undeniable.

I think it's true though.

[Say Nothing]

thaaaaaaankk youuuuu
You are quite welcome =)

[jjm1]

I am a scientist. I believe in evolution. But science can never prove anything, just put out the best evidence to support our hypotheses.

This, which is why i don't think either option is correct. I think many people mix up science and mathematics and theories, proofs, and facts. I like science more but find the quest for mathematicians to prove something interesting. A somewhat meaningless theorem like Fermat's Last Theorem took centuries and the smartest minds to finally prove as a fact. I believe in evolution but it is not a proven fact.

[de1337ed]

Do i believe that evolution occurs? Absolutely.
Do I believe that we have evolved from Archaebacteria? Absolutely not.
Do I accept evolution as fact? No.

[SuNDaYSTaR]

I can't believe that many people don't think evolution is plausible.

[Scrawns]

lol @ the tards in here saying that some people aren't intelligent enough to accept it as fact. all human beings are of the same intelligence, so to say someone is not intelligent is to say the same about yourself. the word you baddies are looking for is "smart".

[thechetearly]

i don't like how there is no middle ground for this question.

[Theseventhson]

lol @ the tards in here saying that some people aren't intelligent enough to accept it as fact. all human beings are of the same intelligence, so to say someone is not intelligent is to say the same about yourself. the word you baddies are looking for is "smart".

Umm...
1 a : having or indicating a high or satisfactory degree of intelligence and mental capacity b : revealing or reflecting good judgment or sound thought

[Scrawns]

Umm...

that definition is both retarded and false. no legitimate dictionary would use the word being defined in the definition.

From Websters:
The ability to learn or understand or to deal (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/intelligence#) with new or trying situations : reason (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/reason); also : the skilled use of reason (2) : The ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/intelligence#) or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests).

From Wikipedia:
Intelligence derives from the Latin verb intellegere; per that rationale, “understanding” (intelligence) is different from being “smart” (capable of adapting to the environment).

accepting evolution would be adapting to the environment, not achieving a higher level of thought than the modern human being is capable of.

intelligence ≠ believing in evolution
being smart = accepting that evolution is an idea that demonstrates proper elements of scientific theory.

[Theseventhson]

that definition is both retarded and false. no legitimate dictionary would use the word being defined in the definition.

From Websters:
The ability to learn or understand or to deal (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/intelligence#) with new or trying situations : reason (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/reason); also : the skilled use of reason (2) : The ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment (http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/intelligence#) or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests).

From Wikipedia:
Intelligence derives from the Latin verb intellegere; per that rationale, “understanding” (intelligence) is different from being “smart” (capable of adapting to the environment).

accepting evolution would be adapting to the environment, not achieving a higher level of thought than the modern human being is capable of.

intelligence ≠ believing in evolution
being smart = accepting that evolution is an idea that demonstrates proper elements of scientific theory.

So, you're saying that no one is more intelligent than anyone else? That we don't have things like, say, an Intelligence quotient to measure how intelligent one is? Also, you countered my Merriam-Webster definition with another Merriam-Webster definition, and I lol'd. It's whatever, though, arguing semantics is pointless.

[Scrawns]

So, you're saying that no one is more intelligent than anyone else? That we don't have things like, say, an Intelligence quotient to measure how intelligent one is? Also, you countered my Merriam-Webster definition with another Merriam-Webster definition, and I lol'd. It's whatever, though, arguing semantics is pointless.

like i said, no real dictionary uses the word being defined in the definition, and no you didn't use websters because a simple search of the word on the site shows nothing of what you posted. and an intelligence quotient is used to measure the intelligence level of a single person in relation to all of humankind. if you look at the distribution of scores from IQ tests, they fit in the normal bell curve, which means that all humans are equally intelligent within a standard deviation of 15. if the curve looked different then your argument would hold weight. plus, an intelligence quotient is a general term used to measure how well a given person uses their abilities like reason, etc, against other human beings.

[Theseventhson]

like i said, no real dictionary uses the word being defined in the definition, and no you didn't use websters because a simple search of the word on the site shows nothing of what you posted.
Yes, actually I did use Websters (http://mw4.m-w.com/dictionary/intelligent)
and an intelligence quotient is used to measure the intelligence level of a single person in relation to all of humankind. if you look at the distribution of scores from IQ tests, they fit in the normal bell curve, which means that all humans are equally intelligent within a standard deviation of 15. if the curve looked different then your argument would hold weight. plus, an intelligence quotient is a general term used to measure how well a given person uses their abilities like reason, etc, against other human beings.
Again, it's fucking semantics, you know what the fuck they meant.

[OhNoVandetos]

FACT pokemon rule!

[Bazy0]

I can't accept it as fact on the basis that the evidence isn't 100% conclusive. More like 99% so there is always potential that it's wrong. I voted yes but there should be an option like 99% sure.

[Kozzy333]

FACT pokemon rule!

Pokemon is a very inaccurate portrayal of evolution.

Evolution > Creationism

[Pawan1993]

Yes, we basically are the sum of a retarded fish frog that had butt sex with a squirrel.
Best post in this thread. Period.

[Debut_Fin]

Has anyone provided any evidence that supports creationism? Besides a bible?

mother-fucking THANK YOU

[suppyguppy]

Yes, we basically are the sum of a retarded fish frog that had butt sex with a squirrel.

Hahaha

[dannyclv147]

Oh, how I love the ramblings of a good cult. Especially Christianity.

[dannyclv147]

lol @ the tards in here saying that some people aren't intelligent enough to accept it as fact. all human beings are of the same intelligence, so to say someone is not intelligent is to say the same about yourself. the word you baddies are looking for is "smart".

Inteligent
–adjective
1. having good understanding or a high mental capacity; quick to comprehend, as persons or animals:an intelligent student.

Dictionaries are very useful tools.

[Scrawns]

Inteligent
–adjective
1. having good understanding or a high mental capacity; quick to comprehend, as persons or animals:an intelligent student.

Dictionaries are very useful tools.

1. Look at the other posts after that.
2. Get sundered.
3. ????
4. Profit!

EDIT: Oh by the way, you misspelled Intelligent. LOL.

[OhNoVandetos]

Pokemon is a very inaccurate portrayal of evolution.

Evolution > Creationism

yeah i always found digimon to be more historically accurate but it just lacked the heart of pokemon

Animie > Reality

[cityscapes101]

Yeah, I mean, the evidence is there, no matter what you believe. It's a bit ignorant to ignore it.