I have already compiled these from elsewhere.
UK:
Majority of Britons say creationism should be taught in schools
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...ce-classes.html
Poll reveals public doubts over Charles Darwin's theory of evolution
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...-evolution.html
Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, survey finds
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb...vey-creationism
http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/Half_of_Br...0&RefPageID=110
Britons Unconvinced on Evolution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm
Half of us think creationism should be taught alongside evolution
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/f...icle6889918.ece
Only the BBC news one works. But thanks for the try, I am honestly surprised of what I read there.
America:
Gallup Poll: Two Thirds of Americans Believe God Created Them
http://www.icr.org/article/gallup-poll-two...ieve-god-creat/
Substantial Numbers of Americans Continue to Doubt Evolution as Explanation for Origin of Humans
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/...n/evol-poll.htm
High Level Government Support for Creationism
http://www.rae.org/highlevel.html
On Darwin's 200th Birthday, Americans Still Divided About Evolution
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1107/polling-e...ion-creationism
Americans still hold faith in divine creation
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/j...8-111826-4947r/
100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism
http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/readclips.cfm
Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll
Whopping 69 percent of Americans want alternate theories in classroom
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49153
Majority reject evolution
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/...ain965223.shtml
Enjoy.
Done, 4 of those aren't working either, btw.
Now, although I reiterate I'm surprised because it's higher than I was expecting, I don't find it significative, world's bigger than US and UK, and in those places there are a LOOOOOT of people, so the percentage of "weird ones" is higher, but at least you presented something that I could read, thanks.
Adaptation and micro have been observed. They can also be experimented and tested. That's science.
So evolution is real, right? You only don't like it when the terms is applied to more complex organisms, this will make history, a creationist admiting evolution is real, I can't hold my happiness.
Macro on the other hand hasn't, and this is the fairytale i.e that fish evolved into land walking creatures and man from apes or ape-men. Neither of those have been observed therefore they fall outside of science.
Irrelevant, as always, we're all creatures, and we all have common feautures, like eating, reproducing, growing and so on, if "micro" exists, there's a high possibility that "macro" does too, it takes more time, but it's the same principle at a different scale.
You are welcome though to believe in them as a religious worldview or faith (people can believe in what they choose), but its not science.
You really love to say "not observable = not science", well, scientific method is NOT ONLY observation, it also counts on falsability, and you cannot falsify evolution, therefore it can be science still.
But if you can produce an experiment to falsify it, I'll be enthrilled to read it. All that you do is replace one belief (according to you, not me) that's evolution, with another one, creation. Pretty much a dead end.
Any classical civilization. There is no evidence that they developed into those states, but that man at the beginning of his creation (or appearance if you prefer) was at that level.
It can take me a while, and I don't wanna paste a lot of text here, but I am a linguistic, and one of the things I had to study is how languages influence each other, how English appeared from Germanic, and how it was influenced by French, how the slavic languages got their alphabets and so on, and I can explain who talked Proto-indoeuropean, how they moved through Europe and how they settled and moved through countries, so if you want to believe in Adam and Even, and a talking snake, it's fine by me, but classics civilizations come from ancient ones, and those ones come from nomad tribes, who spread from Africa and bla bla bla.
You can say the first man and woman appeared as you like, but do no take that into the classic civilizations 'cause it's not true. Not only writing and recorded history are testominy, languages teach a lot about the history of their speakers.
if man evolved why did he never write he was evolving or of his primate ancestry?
You know evolution says it takes millions of years in complex organism cases, so do not play silly on us. You know they couldn't write about their evolution, because they didn't know it. For science, we are evolving nowadays (people is losing the wisdom teeth, for example) but we are not writing about it because we cannot see it. We can only guess how we will get to look like, and look at the past to compare ourselves to them, but ancient people didn't have the ways for that.
There was no ''ancient theory of evolution'', man has always believed he was designed or created.
Yes, and Egyptians believed the Sun was a God, and the Indians believe cows are sacred beings, Christians believe there's a Heaven to go after dying, and Budists believe in reincarnation until reaching the Kharma. You know what that is? You know what is the prime objective of religion? Filling up gaps caused by fear to death and to the unknown. Creationism is something that appear because of the lack of a science to give an answer.
I said creation cannot be observed. However the fact man has never observed himself to evolve, nor anything else and the fact ancient history tells us no civilization evolved, certianly lends support to creationism over evolution.
Creation cant be observed, or tested, or falsified, or worked with tools, or anything. It's just reading a book and saying: This is true!
Evolution is MORE than direct observation, Cass, it's phossils and DNA and Languages. You people dismiss phossils because "it ain't a complete chain", but science is trying to complete that chain, it never stops looking for an answer and a process. Religious beliefs like yours, stuck in the pages of a book, and never want to move ahead, or look outside the picture. And that, my friend, it's sad.
As to your comment on Neanderthals etc, they were just humans with different shaped heads. Carleton S. Coon the prominent anthropologist (an evolutionist) wrote of how he discovered living races across Asia (and Europe) with Neanderthal skulls.
There was also a medieval burial tomb whith a neanderthal corpse in it, which proves these were just people.
I thing you should read a bit more of biology before saying such things... Really, it sounds nice put like this, but do you know what a different size of the head means for the brain? and how this affects cognition? And saying "only different shape in the head" is oversimplification, there are more differences in the squeletons, and in the way of moving and using tools, all pointing to evolution.
Anyway, this "neanderthals" living among most advanced people, reminds me a lot of the genes we share with apes nowadays, and we asked you in the other other, but I'll ask here again:
Why were we created to look like if we have evolved? Genes shared with apes, vestigies of people having skelletons ressembling the older ones...
It ain't such an intelligent designer, given that he could've created us unique and different to everything...