Why do Americans reject Evolution so much?

[boba]

If strawman arguments do not carry much weight with you, why do you continue to use them?

This really annoys me. If you have a problem with his arguments then state them. You continually pick out small portions of other peoples posts and play with semantics.

[habsheaven]

This really annoys me. If you have a problem with his arguments then state them. You continually pick out small portions of other peoples posts and play with semantics.

You know what annoys me. You continually commenting on MY posts and then running to hide when I call you on it. I didn't pick out a "small portion" of Duane's post. I commented on the whole thing. He basically ended it by accusing me of using a strawman argument and that is all his rebuttal was.

If you have something to add to the discussion, add it.

[pghin08]

Tone it back a little, guys. This is a decent thread, so let's keep it on topic.

[Star_Cards]

I think the main reason why a lot of Americans reject the theory of evolution is because it goes against what they are taught when it comes to religion. Evolution theory has questions and isn't provable 100% but anyone that claims these theories aren't possible but believes a creator is much more plausible is biased to their religious beliefs and teachings for the most part. I'll listen to the holes in evolution and the scientific theories of how the earth was created, but a creator snapping his fingers and making it so is much more preposterous of an idea than evolution from my point of view.

[habsheaven]

I like to look at all theories (evolution included) like this. Picture a 1,000 piece puzzle with 300 random pieces missing. Are you going to know every detail? Can you still tell what the picture is? Now envision what that puzzle looks like for Creationism. Can you see anything? Can you see the slightest clues of what the picture looks like? Or can you only imagine it based on the description that the guy next to you is whispering in your ear?

[boba]

You know what annoys me. You continually commenting on MY posts and then running to hide when I call you on it. I didn't pick out a "small portion" of Duane's post. I commented on the whole thing. He basically ended it by accusing me of using a strawman argument and that is all his rebuttal was.

If you have something to add to the discussion, add it.

What do you think of his rebuttals though? Do you agree with them?
I've been adding to this thread since it started, I don't respond to you sometimes because you call me a troll, but you haven't called me out on anything in this thread.

All I'm saying is that he explained why he thought your arguments were strawman, you have yet to do so. If you think his arguments are strawman I would love to know why.

[boba]

I like to look at all theories (evolution included) like this. Picture a 1,000 piece puzzle with 300 random pieces missing. Are you going to know every detail? Can you still tell what the picture is? Now envision what that puzzle looks like for Creationism. Can you see anything? Can you see the slightest clues of what the picture looks like? Or can you only imagine it based on the description that the guy next to you is whispering in your ear?

With evolution your missing more then 300 pieces, according to Alex who started this thread, there is no absolute truths in evolution. Everything in evolution is a theory, evolutionists use certain stances when it benefits them, then change to something else when talking about a different matter.

With creationism, can you not see 100% of the picture? You know who created the earth and everything else. You can see things in the Bible that would explain things that we find in the world around us ( the flood explains fossil layers etc. )

[duane1969]

If strawman arguments do not carry much weight with you, why do you continue to use them?

Where did I?

[habsheaven]

For Boba:

Their habitat has changed dramatically over the past how many years? Evolution takes millions of years. Thinking that you are going to see crocodiles evolve in the span of even 10,000 years is offbase. You are confusing adaptation with evolution.

I assume that over the last few million years or so the Earth in general has changed dramatically. Or so that is what scientist tell us. Are they wrong?

Scientist say that adaptations to the changing environment are evidence of evolution, yet these same scientist say that adaptations to their environment have allowed the crocs and gators to remain unchanged for 200 million years. So are adaptations evidence of evolution or preventors of evolution?


There are thousands of animals that show clear signs of evolution. The fact that alligators, crocks and sharks show few visible signs of evolution means they haven’t needed to evolve.

People constantly make this claim that humans evolved from apes to discount evolution. That is false, humans and apes evolved differently from a common ancestor over millions of years.

So we didn't evolve from apes? What was this "common ancestor" then?

Homo sapiens is classified as a hominid (great ape) while modern monkeys and gorillas are classified as lesser apes. If you look at a "family tree" you see that scientist say that a split occurred at Homininae, humans evolved from one side of the split, gorillas from the other. That is a pretty clear indication to me that science says that humans and gorillas share a quite common ancestor and that one side of the family became highly evolved while the other evolved none at all.

The "evolution of man" involves leaps and bounds with no common link between them. Evolution jumps from Australopithecus to Home Erectus to Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis to Homo Sapiens Sapiens with no common link inbetween. We find no evidence of a being that was Australopithecus evolving into Home Erectus with clear signs of evolving. There is just these big leaps in change from one to the next with nothing to fill the gaps inbetween but speculation and theories.


No, we did not evolve from the apes of today which was your implication. You clearly know the theory on it as displayed above. Just because it has “holes” does not make your “snap your fingers God Almighty” theory as credible. And there are many examples of that “other side” evolving quite well. The intelligence of Bonobos is closer to that of their human cousins than it is to the rest of the animal kingdom.

Finally, religion is based on absolutely NOTHING. Evolution (not adaptation) is based on volumes of scientific data. To claim they are both equally unreliable is outrageous.

Evolution is a theory. Thus, it is unproven. To claim that one unproven aspect is believable while another is not is a self-fulfilling fallacy.

To say that Fords are better than Chevy's because I believe Fords are better and there is no proof that Chevy's are better is not proof that Fords are better. Strawman arguments don't carry much weight with me.

And lighting farts is not levitating...

Again, equating evolution to Creationism is the fallacy. One is based on common sense and speculation, the other is based on imagination.

Responses in red.

[duane1969]

I like to look at all theories (evolution included) like this. Picture a 1,000 piece puzzle with 300 random pieces missing. Are you going to know every detail? Can you still tell what the picture is? Now envision what that puzzle looks like for Creationism. Can you see anything? Can you see the slightest clues of what the picture looks like? Or can you only imagine it based on the description that the guy next to you is whispering in your ear?

The problem is that your 1000 piece puzzle of evolution only has about 10 or 15 peices.

To believe in evolution you have to accept that dramatic changes occurred almost instantly, not over an extended period of time. We are to just accept this jump from Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis to Homo Sapiens Sapiens with absolutely no connection between them. There is no proof that the two are linked.

We went from this...


to this...


with nothing inbetween them.

We went from large wide-set eyes, a forward jutting brow, a small cranium, a broad nose with a large opening, a forward jutting upper lip and a wide, thick lower jaw to smaller narrower eyes, a less prominent brow, a large cranium, a small nose, a recessed upper lip and smaller lower jaw...and all of this happened at once? It must have because NO evidence exist of any "evolution" from one to the other. Not a single figment of evidence exist that shows Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis gradually evolving into Homo Sapiens Sapiens. None.

If evolution is true then there should be evidence showing a gradual change from one version of humans to another. Instead we have these sudden jumps. The strongest argument that evolution has to prove itself is the strongest argument against it being believable. We are to believe that gradual changes occurred, yet science can provide no evidence of these gradual changes.