Do majority of Republicans think Theory of Evolution is a fact ?

[jc456]

Some Republicans may think that evolution is not a fact but all Democrats think that gender is determined by individual will and not genitals. All Democrats also think that prosperity is created by increased taxation. How silly is that?

And corporatist liars on both sides of the aisle say that lower corporate tax rates menas greater economic growth, when the facts show the opposite to be true:

Corporate tax rates and economic growth since 1947

Yea right Moon Bat. Taking money away from the American people and giving it to stupid bureaucrats, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups creates all kinds of prosperity, doesn't it?

However, that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread so if you want to discuss the stupidity of taxation then start another thread.

Why the juvenile behavior and lashing out? I didn't cnduct that economic study, or the many others in agreement with it. What kind of irrational fool counters these facts by whing like a little baby at a stranger on the internet? Embarrassing.

well basically, because it was off topic.

 

[RealDave]

Your link is packed full of LIES I'm surprised you have the guts to show your face on the forum after posting a link to that. Here I'll rate your post...

But Republicans loves liars as proven by the electon of Trump.

I found the article accurate.

The party of the far right elects a business cheat, fraud, liar, women groper, married three times flaming bigot.

The racists, bigots & white Supremacists live in the Republican tent. Now we can include child molesters.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

....still waiting for the Troglocrats to evolve

 

[RealDave]

I wonder about that question, especially does Donald Trump think evolution is a fact ?

A few days ago I've read that article and I thought it has exaggerated opinions about Republicans but sometimes I agree with that. You can look that article here:

Republicans

Most Republicans do believe the theory if evolution is valid.

Typical anti-science Trumpette.

 

[OKTexas]

You can attach a hundred names to the different stages of development in a pregnancy, if left alone, in the end you will have a child. You may as well call them, child day 1 through child 275 or what ever, it's all semantics, if left undisturbed by man or nature, you will get a living, breathing infant.


.

You mean most of the time if the woman takes care of herself and her baby in the womb, a child will be born. To a lesser extent, the resulting child will have no birth defects.

The stages are important cuz you are trying to stop abortions using false semantics.

There are no semantics, abortion ends a life, nothing else to say.


.

War, poverty, death penalty, sickness, old age and other things also ends a life.

Abortions are justified on the basis of individual freedom and human rights. The woman decides, not you.

Rationalize it any way you want, it is what it is, taking a life.


.

Abortion most certainly is taking a life. You just figured this out?

Abortion is about a woman's right to improve her life. It is also about improving society's life. We don't need unwanted children to be a burden on society. A child needs to be born into a good family that can take care of it.

Abortion is unfortunate, but necessary. The woman's responsibility is to make the decision as quickly as possible before the fetus becomes an actual living child.

By far most abortions occur in the first trimester when it is not a child, rather the woman's tissue.

A child is never just the womans tissue, it has it's own unique DNA from day one. You can be cool with killing it, but don't pretend it's not a child just to make yourself feel better about it. Accept the reality of what you're proposing.


.

 

[RealDave]

Some Republicans may think that evolution is not a fact but all Democrats think that gender is determined by individual will and not genitals. All Democrats also think that prosperity is created by increased taxation. How silly is that?

And corporatist liars on both sides of the aisle say that lower corporate tax rates menas greater economic growth, when the facts show the opposite to be true:

Corporate tax rates and economic growth since 1947

Yea right Moon Bat. Taking money away from the American people and giving it to stupid bureaucrats, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups creates all kinds of prosperity, doesn't it?

However, that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread so if you want to discuss the stupidity of taxation then start another thread.

I get it. Red States have no taxes. Red States tend to gobble more federal revenue than they pay in.
So how the **** do you propose we pay for the federal government. The roads, the infrastructure, our military.

You ******* morons with your no taxation ideas.

Man the **** up snowflake & support your country or pack up your stupid, ignorant uneducated ass & take it somewhere else.

 

[Flash]

You mean most of the time if the woman takes care of herself and her baby in the womb, a child will be born. To a lesser extent, the resulting child will have no birth defects.

The stages are important cuz you are trying to stop abortions using false semantics.

There are no semantics, abortion ends a life, nothing else to say.


.

War, poverty, death penalty, sickness, old age and other things also ends a life.

Abortions are justified on the basis of individual freedom and human rights. The woman decides, not you.

Rationalize it any way you want, it is what it is, taking a life.


.

Abortion most certainly is taking a life. You just figured this out?

Abortion is about a woman's right to improve her life. It is also about improving society's life. We don't need unwanted children to be a burden on society. A child needs to be born into a good family that can take care of it.

Abortion is unfortunate, but necessary. The woman's responsibility is to make the decision as quickly as possible before the fetus becomes an actual living child.

By far most abortions occur in the first trimester when it is not a child, rather the woman's tissue.

A child is never just the womans tissue, it has it's own unique DNA from day one. You can be cool with killing it, but don't pretend it's not a child just to make yourself feel better about it. Accept the reality of what you're proposing.


.

It is kinda of like the Nazis dehumanizing the Jews as a justification for killing them, isn't it? It is not really killing a human child if you deny that they are humans, correct? Convoluted Liberal reasoning. It is despicable. Shame on them!

 

[usmbguest5318]

Of course the Theory of Evolution is a fact; it's existential. It exists and anyone can read it and everything and all manners of things supporting/about it, and one can read it in all its vast detail or read a brief summary of it (though doing the latter hardly positions one to refute it). It doesn't matter whether one accepts it as an accurate depiction of how life evolved/evolves.

• Theory of the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life
  
• The Mathematics of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: 1859 and 150 Years Later
  
• Mathematical Theory of Evolution
  
• Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection and Its Moral Purpose
  
• Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution (this is a summary)
  
• A brief guide to Darwin’s theory of natural selection (evolution)
  
• Brief Introduction to Evolutionary Theory
• A Theory of Evolution Above the Species Level
  
• Role of microorganisms in the evolution of animals and plants: the hologenome theory of evolution
  
• Beyond DNA: integrating inclusive inheritance into an extended theory of evolution
  
• Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences
  
• Hermann Joseph Muller's Study of X-rays as a Mutagen

To be sure, the Theory of Evolution as Darwin presented it has itself been refined since Darwin's day; thus merely reading On the Origin of Species isn't going to do the trick, as it were, for making one fully informed on the matter.

How Darwin envisioned evolution

The Integral Model of Evolution (the most recent refinement of the idea)

I wonder about that question, especially does Donald Trump think evolution is a fact ?

As for what Republicans think about the Theory of Evolution, well, I have no way to say credibly what they think. For all I know, they perceive it to be every bit as linear a thing as Darwin did. Hell, I don't know even whether most of them who'd refute it's validity have even read so much as the documents cited above, to say nothing of many or most of the myriad others that support (scientifically and with sound reasoning, not merely judgmentally) the Theory, so as to position themselves to be in legitimate mental state of comprehensive understanding about it to in turn refute it. Moreover, I don't know whether Republicans on the whole are fully aware of how the Scientific Method works.

As for what Trump thinks about the Theory of Evolution, well, I'll just say that as goes math and science (natural or social), the guy doesn't strike me as being anything even close to a prolific reader of rigorously developed content pertaining to those disciplines. But for his being POTUS, nobody would care what he thinks or might have to say about the Theory of Evolution. That he is POTUS doesn't make what he has to say any more meritorious; however, his being so can make his statements ominous, depending on what he says.

Evolution is a theory...not a good one but nonetheless...a theory. It's not a fact because the theory has many holes and a lot of missing fossils.

I wondered how long it'd take for someone to make that insipid remark. Now I know how long.

• "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words
  
• The Scientific Method: Hypothesis to Theory
  
• What Is a Scientific Theory?
• Overview of the Research Process

Ive been studying stratigraphy for 25 years. I have no proof that evolution is law.

OT:
Well, by all means, point me to your peer reviewed and published papers on the matter. I'm interested in seeing what your study of the topic has revealed and contributed to the body of knowledge on the matter. Surely you've not dedicated 25 years of your life to studying something and had nothing of merit and original to contribute to the field?

That aside, stratigraphy, the study of layered rocks and their temporal implications, doesn't purport to be or provide proof of the Theory of Evolution (ToE). With regard to the ToE, It's merely used as part of the means for dating things. Typically and in the context of the ToE, it's used to corroborate/supplement the dating of fossils and climatic/geologic events. Asserting/confirming that "such and such" a creature, event or plant occurred before or after a given point in time, or at a given point in time, in and of itself says noting one way or another about the veracity of the ToE. It's no surprise, then, that your study of stratigraphy has not led to proof of the validity of the Theory of Evolution.

The ToE obtains its soundness by dint of sound and rigorous research having confirmed the verity of myriad testable propositions (predictions/assertions) logically following from the ToE's core and implied assertions. That is how science validates assertions such as those made in the ToE.

Frankly, I don't even know why you mentioned stratigraphy, let alone whatever constitutes your "study" of it, in response to my post.

1. My post directly addresses the question in the title, not whether the ToE accurately describes how life came to be and how living creatures and plants have changed over time as a result of a host of natural influences.
2. How the hell anyone thinks the study of rocks, as contrasted with the study of lifeforms (current and former) found among them, would ever prove anything having to do with the evolution of lifeforms is beyond me. I can only hope you didn't undertake your stratigraphic studies with the expectation that it'd yield proof (or refutation, for that matter) of the ToE.
3. While I have nothing specific to say about your 25-year-long "study" of stratigraphy, I will say that nobody who's capable of and has been rigorously and credibly pursuing serious scientific study of any sort and for any period of time would remark of the ToE that "it's a theory not a fact." Anyone making such a remark tacitly testifies that they do not know what a scientific theory, as contrasted with the layman's meaning of the word "theory," is.
   
   Insofar as you made that statement and ostensibly have been "studying" stratigraphy for 25 years, it's clear you've got a lot more studying to do, one thing being developing a much better understanding of the scientific method and how scientific theories come about. In doing that, I suggest you commence with the four documents I linked in post 120. Absent that, I suggest you design, publish and obtain from the science community acceptance of a wholly new framework for scientific research and theory development and acceptance/confirmation.
4. In science, laws and theories are not the same things. So, of course, you have no proof that the ToE is law. It's not a law of science; it's a science theory. That distinction too would be lost on or conflated by any serious scientist or student of science.
   
   

 

[OKTexas]

There are no semantics, abortion ends a life, nothing else to say.


.

War, poverty, death penalty, sickness, old age and other things also ends a life.

Abortions are justified on the basis of individual freedom and human rights. The woman decides, not you.

Rationalize it any way you want, it is what it is, taking a life.


.

So? Some of us are able to tell the difference between a zygote and a 20 year old man. Are you?

The only difference is time, just like the difference between a 20 year old man and a 40 year old man. Without some kind of intervention one will become the other.


.

lol, then our Constitution needs to be amended, doesn't it?

Why, our Constitution doesn't change the reality of biology. Judges can say it's permissible to kill an unborn child, just don't try to rationalize that it's something else. Just be honest about it.


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

War, poverty, death penalty, sickness, old age and other things also ends a life.

Abortions are justified on the basis of individual freedom and human rights. The woman decides, not you.

Rationalize it any way you want, it is what it is, taking a life.


.

So? Some of us are able to tell the difference between a zygote and a 20 year old man. Are you?

The only difference is time, just like the difference between a 20 year old man and a 40 year old man. Without some kind of intervention one will become the other.


.

lol, then our Constitution needs to be amended, doesn't it?

Why, our Constitution doesn't change the reality of biology. Judges can say it's permissible to kill an unborn child, just don't try to rationalize that it's something else. Just be honest about it.


.

You can name the fetus anything you want. I don't give a ****. My emotional investment in fetuses is exactly ZERO.
The law of our Constitution does not give the fetus rights of personhood. If you understood the Constitution, you would understand that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are no semantics, abortion ends a life, nothing else to say.


.

War, poverty, death penalty, sickness, old age and other things also ends a life.

Abortions are justified on the basis of individual freedom and human rights. The woman decides, not you.

Rationalize it any way you want, it is what it is, taking a life.


.

Abortion most certainly is taking a life. You just figured this out?

Abortion is about a woman's right to improve her life. It is also about improving society's life. We don't need unwanted children to be a burden on society. A child needs to be born into a good family that can take care of it.

Abortion is unfortunate, but necessary. The woman's responsibility is to make the decision as quickly as possible before the fetus becomes an actual living child.

By far most abortions occur in the first trimester when it is not a child, rather the woman's tissue.

A child is never just the womans tissue, it has it's own unique DNA from day one. You can be cool with killing it, but don't pretend it's not a child just to make yourself feel better about it. Accept the reality of what you're proposing.


.

It is kinda of like the Nazis dehumanizing the Jews as a justification for killing them, isn't it? It is not really killing a human child if you deny that they are humans, correct? Convoluted Liberal reasoning. It is despicable. Shame on them!

The Nazis outlawed abortion for their 'own' people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Chimpanzees and humans have DNA similarity at about 95%.

Mice and humans have 85%, your point?

It's good evidence for evolution. DNA gets altered by mutation - only a 5% alteration was needed to get chimps and humans to go their separate ways genetically,

and Evolution had thousands and thousands of years to do that.

 

[bendog]

I wonder about that question, especially does Donald Trump think evolution is a fact ?

A few days ago I've read that article and I thought it has exaggerated opinions about Republicans but sometimes I agree with that. You can look that article here:

Republicans

The last 24 mos or so are making me wonder if our experiment in self-government is failing.

 

[Anathema]

Ffs, you stupid old fart, science never 'proves' theories, they are just the best knowledge we have until better knowledge comes along. Ffs.

Until you can prove it beyond a doubt, I will have doubts. Just that simple.

 

[OKTexas]

There are no semantics, abortion ends a life, nothing else to say.


.

War, poverty, death penalty, sickness, old age and other things also ends a life.

Abortions are justified on the basis of individual freedom and human rights. The woman decides, not you.

Rationalize it any way you want, it is what it is, taking a life.


.

Abortion most certainly is taking a life. You just figured this out?

Abortion is about a woman's right to improve her life. It is also about improving society's life. We don't need unwanted children to be a burden on society. A child needs to be born into a good family that can take care of it.

Abortion is unfortunate, but necessary. The woman's responsibility is to make the decision as quickly as possible before the fetus becomes an actual living child.

By far most abortions occur in the first trimester when it is not a child, rather the woman's tissue.

A child is never just the womans tissue, it has it's own unique DNA from day one. You can be cool with killing it, but don't pretend it's not a child just to make yourself feel better about it. Accept the reality of what you're proposing.


.

It is kinda of like the Nazis dehumanizing the Jews as a justification for killing them, isn't it? It is not really killing a human child if you deny that they are humans, correct? Convoluted Liberal reasoning. It is despicable. Shame on them!

They can believe what they want, I just expect them to be honest about it, and not pretend it's not what it is.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Rationalize it any way you want, it is what it is, taking a life.


.

So? Some of us are able to tell the difference between a zygote and a 20 year old man. Are you?

The only difference is time, just like the difference between a 20 year old man and a 40 year old man. Without some kind of intervention one will become the other.


.

lol, then our Constitution needs to be amended, doesn't it?

Why, our Constitution doesn't change the reality of biology. Judges can say it's permissible to kill an unborn child, just don't try to rationalize that it's something else. Just be honest about it.


.

You can name the fetus anything you want. I don't give a ****. My emotional investment in fetuses is exactly ZERO.
The law of our Constitution does not give the fetus rights of personhood. If you understood the Constitution, you would understand that.

Why do you keep trying to inject law into a conversation about biology? One has nothing to do with the other.


.

 

[BluesLegend]

Your link is packed full of LIES I'm surprised you have the guts to show your face on the forum after posting a link to that. Here I'll rate your post...

But Republicans loves liars as proven by the electon of Trump.

I found the article accurate.

The party of the far right elects a business cheat, fraud, liar, women groper, married three times flaming bigot.

The racists, bigots & white Supremacists live in the Republican tent. Now we can include child molesters.

Here have some of these

 

[MarkDuffy]

I wonder about that question, especially does Donald Trump think evolution is a fact ?

A few days ago I've read that article and I thought it has exaggerated opinions about Republicans but sometimes I agree with that. You can look that article here:

Republicans

The last 24 mos or so are making me wonder if our experiment in self-government is failing.

This too will pass

 

[MarkDuffy]

War, poverty, death penalty, sickness, old age and other things also ends a life.

Abortions are justified on the basis of individual freedom and human rights. The woman decides, not you.

Rationalize it any way you want, it is what it is, taking a life.


.

So? Some of us are able to tell the difference between a zygote and a 20 year old man. Are you?

The only difference is time, just like the difference between a 20 year old man and a 40 year old man. Without some kind of intervention one will become the other.


.

lol, then our Constitution needs to be amended, doesn't it?

Why, our Constitution doesn't change the reality of biology. Judges can say it's permissible to kill an unborn child, just don't try to rationalize that it's something else. Just be honest about it.


.

I am honest. You are not

 

[OKTexas]

Rationalize it any way you want, it is what it is, taking a life.


.

So? Some of us are able to tell the difference between a zygote and a 20 year old man. Are you?

The only difference is time, just like the difference between a 20 year old man and a 40 year old man. Without some kind of intervention one will become the other.


.

lol, then our Constitution needs to be amended, doesn't it?

Why, our Constitution doesn't change the reality of biology. Judges can say it's permissible to kill an unborn child, just don't try to rationalize that it's something else. Just be honest about it.


.

I am honest. You are not

Really, where did I get it wrong?


.