NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx

On the eve of 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity.

:(

Those with high-school educations or less are much more likely to have no opinion than are those who have more formal education. Still, among those with high-school educations or less who have an opinion on Darwin's theory, more say they do not believe in evolution than say they believe in it. For all other groups, and in particular those who have at least a college degree, belief is significantly higher than nonbelief.

Darwin's theory has been at the forefront of religious debate since he published On the Origin of Species 150 years ago. Even to this day, highly religious individuals claim that the theory of evolution contradicts the story of creation as outlined in the book of Genesis in the Bible.



The more educated are more likely to believe in Evolution? Those that arent educated as highly are less likely to believe? Go figure.

But wait...

Previous Gallup research shows that the rate of church attendance is fairly constant across educational groups, suggesting that this relationship is not owing to an underlying educational difference but instead reflects a direct influence of religious beliefs on belief in evolution.

So its not just education, but that plays some role.

Thoughts? Weeping? Delusions? Evolution vs Creationism battle to the death in the Thunderdome?

I think what we're seeing is the end of the age of reason.

Sad. Very sad.

THUNDERDOME!!!


C'mon people. Some creationist stand up against us ebil libruhls.

I think what we're seeing is the end of the age of reason.

Or the beginning. I wish I knew how many people believed in evolution in the year 1900 through 1990. Then we'd be able to see if there's been any progress, if this is the start of a new age, or if we're beginning a decline.

Why is this a shock? I can't remember where I saw it but a poll showed that the average american reads 1/2 of a book a year.

Or the beginning.

Possibly. It does mention that younger people are more likey to believe in evolution.

Or the beginning. I wish I knew how many people believed in evolution in the year 1900 through 1990. Then we'd be able to see if there's been any progress, if this is the start of a new age, or if we're beginning a decline.

That's a good point. But I don't have optimism about the general knowledge or good sense of the bulk of humanity. I've seen people who are completely immune to logic, reason, and anything else - and they never give up. And they breed faster. And they're louder. And they vote.

Honestly, this is just depressing!

Haha, you were on the Gallup site finding a poll about the stimulus package and you saw this huh? Its depressing, but I don't think its as bad as everyone says it is. For instance, my dad might say he doesn't "believe in evolution" but what he really means is he doesn't believe in macro evolution. Micro evolution is pretty hard to argue with, but the evolution of one species into another is an easier case to make.

That's a good point. But I don't have optimism about the general knowledge or good sense of the bulk of humanity. I've seen people who are completely immune to logic, reason, and anything else - and they never give up. And they breed faster. And they're louder. And they vote.


I find these people exist in a much smaller quantity outside of NSG;)
Haha, you were on the Gallup site finding a poll about the stimulus package and you saw this huh?
Yes... *shifty eyes*

*wailing and gnashing of teeth*

It strikes me as kind of a small sample, I would have thought it evolution would be much higher. If you asked who gave the gettysburg address? You may similar results. Americans tend to be very rationalistic and slightly self focused, if the question does not affect them they probably give little or no thought to the matter. If you watch the Tonight show you see this play itself out when they ask the "common" man on the street a fairly straight forward question.

People say they don't believe in evolution, but if you poke them long enough, they do.

"do you believe in evolution?"
"no"
"what about dinosaurs?"
"sure"
"did they live with Adam and Eve?"
"no" *if they say yes run!
"what about the ancient cave people?"
"sure"
"were they Adam and Eve?"
"no, they were before that"
"oh"

People say they don't believe in evolution, but if you poke them long enough, they do.

"do you believe in evolution?"
"no"
"what about dinosaurs?"
"sure"
"did they live with Adam and Eve?"
"no" *if they say yes run!
"what about the ancient cave people?"
"sure"
"were they Adam and Eve?"
"no, they were before that"
"oh"

See, I dont think that shows a belief in evolution. They just believe in that "each day for god is a thousand years for us" kind of thing that Christians began arguing in an attempt to keep Genesis relevent.

It strikes me as kind of a small sample

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,018 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Feb. 6-7, 2009, as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.
I don't know what you know about statistics, but essentially that is saying their numbers are accurate within 3% points either way. 95% confidence is about as high as you can get if you're a serious statistician.

See, I dont think that shows a belief in evolution. They just believe in that "each day for god is a thousand years for us" kind of thing that Christians began arguing in an attempt to keep Genesis relevent.

Ah, but in order for other Biblical prophecy to make sense everything has to be an actual 24 hour day.....so then if a day is a thousand years then none of the Jesus prophecy counts because it's not dated properly so then Jesus was a fraud.

Ah, but in order for other Biblical prophecy to make sense everything has to be an actual 24 hour day.....so then if a day is a thousand years then none of the Jesus prophecy counts because it's not dated properly so then Jesus was a fraud.

No one is claiming that the Christians in the above are consistant. Im just saying that their answers to your probing doesnt necissarially mean they believe in evolution.

See, I dont think that shows a belief in evolution. They just believe in that "each day for god is a thousand years for us" kind of thing that Christians began arguing in an attempt to keep Genesis relevent.

...and what's wrong with that argument? I see no reason why science and a non-literal reading of Genesis are incompatible.

Ah, but in order for other Biblical prophecy to make sense everything has to be an actual 24 hour day.....so then if a day is a thousand years then none of the Jesus prophecy counts because it's not dated properly so then Jesus was a fraud.

No no no. Back when it was only God, in the beginning of Genesis, that's when each "day" was a thousand years. When humans came around time became what we know it as now.

No one is claiming that the Christians in the above are consistant. Im just saying that their answers to your probing doesnt necissarially mean they believe in evolution.

You have to poke them until they cry. Then you can use faulty logic to make them agree with you.

...and what's wrong with that argument? I see no reason why science and a non-literal reading of Genesis are incompatible.

The fact that the people who make that arguement usually reject evolution as well.

If they dont, great. But they usually do.

No no no. Back when it was only God, in the beginning of Genesis, that's when each "day" was a thousand years. When humans came around time became what we know it as now.

Ah, well, interesting.

You have to poke them until they cry.

Kinky.

...and what's wrong with that argument? I see no reason why science and a non-literal reading of Genesis are incompatible.

The non-literal reading must also include the order of creation being wrong. As far as scientists are concerned, the sun is significantly older than the earth or fruitbearing trees. The Bible disagrees.

However, if one reads Genesis as "stuff happened, then other stuff happened" there indeed is no problem.

The non-literal reading must also include the order of creation being wrong. As far as scientists are concerned, the sun is significantly older than the earth or fruitbearing trees. The Bible disagrees.

However, if one reads Genesis as "stuff happened, then other stuff happened" there indeed is no problem.
Wrong.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

The fact that the people who make that arguement usually reject evolution as well.

If they dont, great. But they usually do.

That has not been remotely my experience, especially given that I just summed up the official position of the Catholic church. Literally about a sixth of the human beings in the world hold approximately those beliefs.

Wrong.

It specifically says in your source that God created the sun after the earth....

It specifically says in your source that God created the sun after the earth....

It said the Earth was formless and dark, suggesting that it was, in a way, not there. After all, if something exists as a solid, it must have a form of some kind, right?

Edit: That or it could be interpreted as being still part of a nebula, and thus a gas.

Wrong.

He didn't create the sun, moon, stars until the 4th day.

*sings*

Day 4 day 4 sun and moon and stars galore!

Wrong.

Read on. The light is NOT the sun.

It always amuses me that people that defend the Bible tend to have not even bothered to read the first pages of it.

That has not been remotely my experience, especially given that I just summed up the official position of the Catholic church. Literally about a sixth of the human beings in the world hold approximately those beliefs.

Just because the Catholic Church holds a belief, doesnt mean every Catholic holds that beliefs.


Besides, we're talking about America, where Catholics are in smaller number and Evangelicals are a larger force.

He didn't create the sun, moon, stars until the 4th day.

*sings*

Day 4 day 4 sun and moon and stars galore!

Advancing the sun along in it's cycle.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
The first rotation of the Earth, and the first stages of the sun as a star. The moon didn't come till later, and the starlight would not reach Earth for quite some time.

It said the Earth was formless and dark, suggesting that it was, in a way, not there. After all, if something exists as a solid, it must have a form of some kind, right?


"Darkness over the surface of the deep."

How can there be a SURFACE to something that doesn't exist?

Doesn't matter. It's just a creation myth, no more or less credible than the idea that I, Trostia, created the universe by farting loudly. Which is true, I did.

Actually, all the bible claims is that earth was created before the sun started burning hydrogen. Still, scientists know that that's not the case.

For reference, the sun started burning hydrogen 4.57 billion years ago; the earth was formed 4.54 billion years ago.

Advancing the sun along in it's cycle.

The first rotation of the Earth, and the first stages of the sun as a star. The moon didn't come till later, and the starlight would not reach Earth for quite some time.

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

As I said - reading the first page of the good Book is such hard work.

I don't know what you know about statistics, but essentially that is saying their numbers are accurate within 3% points either way. 95% confidence is about as high as you can get if you're a serious statistician.

Right if it was 40% lets say it could be as low as 36 or as high as 44. So a fair amount of swing. It is probably as good as you are going to get.

Actually, all the bible claims is that earth was created before the sun started burning hydrogen..

And that there were plants including fruit bearing trees on earth before that happened ;)

Just because the Catholic Church holds a belief, doesnt mean every Catholic holds that beliefs.

Which would be why I qualified that statement twice.


Besides, we're talking about America, where Catholics are in smaller number and Evangelicals are a larger force.

And Evangelicals typically do not believe Genesis is non-literal. Try to keep up.

Goes to show what church brainwashing can do. Given the scare-tactics churches use about superstitious empty threats, it's no surprise that those who go more often to church are more likely to be infected with its parasitic dogma, and given that many religious leaders severely misrepresent evolutionary biology, it's no surprise that those trapped in religious thinking are going to fall for such crap.

Right if it was 40% lets say it could be as low as 36 or as high as 44. So a fair amount of swing. It is probably as good as you are going to get.

If you asked a random sampling of Americans over 18 years of age if the sun was going to rise tomorrow you'd get about 80% Yes, 5% No and 15% Not Sure/No Opinion with a margin of error of plus/minus 3.

Its a stats joke, but I'm not sure it would be proven wrong in a real life test.

Why do people talk about "believing" in evolution as though it were a matter of faith and not fact? You don't "believe" in scientific fact; you "believe" in things that can't be proven - like God and creationism.

Which would be why I qualified that statement twice.

So, its the opinion of the Catholic Church? Great. We're talking about average people here.

And Evangelicals typically do not believe Genesis is non-literal.

Really? Care to verify that? I figure if youre going to get bitchy, I can start playing too.

Also, I am really baffled as to why people appear to be trying to prove that if you interpret Genesis literally, it makes no scientific sense. I mean, duh. Has anyone actually disputed that in this thread, and I missed it, or are you guys just revving up in case a Creationist actually shows up?

Yeah what is happening here is "tow the party line". Ask those polled what is evolution? You will likely get "we came from monkeys". Polarizing effects of life in America.

Why do people talk about "believing" in evolution as though it were a matter of faith and not fact? You don't "believe" in scientific fact; you "believe" in things that can't be proven - like God and creationism.

I don't think the point of the survey was to show what scientific theory is, but to show what people think of it.

Also, I am really baffled as to why people appear to be trying to prove that if you interpret Genesis literally, it makes no scientific sense. I mean, duh. Has anyone actually disputed that in this thread, and I missed it, or are you guys just revving up in case a Creationist actually shows up?

Basicly it is reversal of tactics. All creationists ever do is yelling that evolution is false, nonsense etc - and then say "so obviously creationism is correct".

Ding. Nope. First of all there are quite a few other explanations out there for how we came to be that are neither the theory of evolution through natural selection or creationism a la Genesis. Secondly, it seems creationism as an explanation has some tiny flaws like .. well... not corresponding to reality.

But quite right. We should have waited.

See, I dont think that shows a belief in evolution. They just believe in that "each day for god is a thousand years for us" kind of thing that Christians began arguing in an attempt to keep Genesis relevent.

To be fair, I don't think most people can really answer the question. They generally don't have a very good (if any) understanding of what the theory of evolution is.

So, its the opinion of the Catholic Church? Great. We're talking about average people here.

Um, yes. I know. Most people who self-identify as Catholics agree with the Catholic church on most actual religious issues - you know, like whether or not portions of the Bible are to be interpreted literally. Which would mean that a number somewhere near 1/6 of the global population believes something near to "Genesis is non-literal, and doesn't refute evolutionary theory." This is really not complicated to understand.


Really? Care to verify that? I figure if youre going to get bitchy, I can start playing too.

Most adherents consider its key characteristics to be: a belief in the need for personal conversion (or being "born again"); some expression of the gospel in effort; a high regard for Biblical authority; and an emphasis on the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Oh, and thank you for the "bitchy" comment. That clearly contributed a lot to this discussion.

amusing thing to bring it up an anti evolution preacher came to my campus today. Hope he comes back tomorrow and hits up the anti gay rhetoric like last year. then we really get to heckle him.

I don't think the point of the survey was to show what scientific theory is, but to show what people think of it.

Very much so. So that is why the question is soooo important.

How many of those no opinions even knew what the guy was talking about?

How many of the No just said it in error?

How many said well I got a 50% 50% chance of getting this right, how about "no"

Those kind of questions. I think we need to probe a little deeper.

I don't think the point of the survey was to show what scientific theory is, but to show what people think of it.

I'm talking about the use of the word "believe." As in I have faith in something. Believing in science is relegating it to the level of religious superstition. Since science deals in facts, you don't need to believe in, since it just is. I don't believe in evolution, I accept it as scientifically proven fact.

Idk...Nobody asked me about it, lol...I wouldve given them a .several 0's 1% increase, lol...

Basicly it is reversal of tactics. All creationists ever do is yelling that evolution is false, nonsense etc - and then say "so obviously creationism is correct".

Ding. Nope. First of all there are quite a few other explanations out there for how we came to be that are neither the theory of evolution through natural selection or creationism a la Genesis. Secondly, it seems creationism as an explanation has some tiny flaws like .. well... not corresponding to reality.

But quite right. We should have waited.

Hehe, I do understand - smacking down stupid creationist arguments is fun, but it does seem a wee bit silly to start smacking them down before anyone has made them. :p

The non-literal reading must also include the order of creation being wrong. As far as scientists are concerned, the sun is significantly older than the earth or fruitbearing trees. The Bible disagrees.

However, if one reads Genesis as "stuff happened, then other stuff happened" there indeed is no problem.

If you were going to read Genesis as literal truth, you'd actually have to believe that the Earth and its inhabitants were created twice - in different orders ) neither of which are completely consistent with scientific evidence.

I'm talking about the use of the word "believe." As in I have faith in something. Believing in science is relegating it to the level of religious superstition. Since science deals in facts, you don't need to believe in, since it just is. I don't believe in evolution, I accept it as scientifically proven fact.

Erm, to "believe" just means to "accept as true, genuine, or real."

I'm talking about the use of the word "believe." As in I have faith in something. Believing in science is relegating it to the level of religious superstition. Since science deals in facts, you don't need to believe in, since it just is. I don't believe in evolution, I accept it as scientifically proven fact.

Pedant: evolution is a theory. It is not a scientifically-proven fact. I know what you're saying, but it is less helpful to a pollster or the public to know that yawn evolution is science and far more interesting (and significant) to know that despite science being strongly behind evolution, there are still a very major part of this country that doesn't agree. Obviously they are wrong, you and I are in that 40%. But why they believe what they do is the questions we should be asking, not simply ridiculing them for being uninformed.

Very much so. So that is why the question is soooo important.

How many of those no opinions even knew what the guy was talking about?

How many of the No just said it in error?

How many said well I got a 50% 50% chance of getting this right, how about "no"

Those kind of questions. I think we need to probe a little deeper.

You should go into sociology. But stay away from statistics! Soc asks these questions about everything, but statisticians just don't have enough time and their subjects don't have enough interest to answer every little question about their surveys.

Um, yes. I know. Most people who self-identify as Catholics agree with the Catholic church on most actual religious issues - you know, like whether or not portions of the Bible are to be interpreted literally. Which would mean that a number somewhere near 1/6 of the global population believes something near to "Genesis is non-literal, and doesn't refute evolutionary theory." This is really not complicated to understand.

To be fair, I believe the position of the Catholic church is that human beings (and us alone) got some sort of "special creation" outside of the evolutionary process.


I'm talking about the use of the word "believe." As in I have faith in something. Believing in science is relegating it to the level of religious superstition. Since science deals in facts, you don't need to believe in, since it just is. I don't believe in evolution, I accept it as scientifically proven fact.

Science deals in facts that support or disprove a theory. A theory is never "scientifically proven fact." It can (and almost certainly will) be amended as new information dictates.

So it would appear that you are making a faith-based statement.

Pedant: evolution is a theory. It is not a scientifically-proven fact. I know what you're saying, but it is less helpful to a pollster or the public to know that yawn evolution is science and far more interesting (and significant) to know that despite science being strongly behind evolution, there are still a very major part of this country that doesn't agree. Obviously they are wrong, you and I are in that 40%. But why they believe what they do is the questions we should be asking, not simply ridiculing them for being uninformed.



-snip-

You, and a number of other people in the world, need to understand the difference between the everyday definition of theory and the scientific definition. The scientific definition is simple - scientific theory is synomymous with scientific fact. Or are you going say that gravity or relativity are only theories and therefore disputable?

Belief in something means accepting it as true without substantiating evidence.

You, and a number of other people in the world, need to understand the difference between the everyday definition of theory and the scientific definition.

Ah, the irony.

The scientific definition is simple - scientific theory is synomymous with scientific fact.

No, it isn't.

Or are you going say that gravity or relativity are only theories and therefore disputable?

I wouldn't say that they are "only" theories, as "theory" is as high as you get in science. But yes, they are disputable, as are any scientific theories. If new evidence contradicts the current theory, it is either amended or discarded. The former has happened and continues to happen with both gravity and relativity (as well as evolution).

In fact, the theory of relatively has not been tested much thus far. Up until recently, we simply haven't had most of the technology we needed to rigorously test it.

Belief in something means accepting it as true without substantiating evidence.

How many people understand the science well enough to evaluate the evidence? The answer is: very few. Most people accept what scientists say because scientists say it, not because they have personally evaluated the evidence.

To be fair, I believe the position of the Catholic church is that human beings (and us alone) got some sort of "special creation" outside of the evolutionary process.

My impression was that this referred more to the creation of the soul - that, in short, humans evolved like anything else, but at some point God said, "Poof! Now you have souls and can worship Me!" and that's when they became people. I'm not exactly up-to-date on my Catholic theology, though, so I may be misremembering. :p

How did they choose the statistical sample? Because even with all the stupid out there, I can't believe that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution...

Belief in something means accepting it as true without substantiating evidence.

Sounds kind of like an evolutionist.

Evolution is propoganda. It's supporters are liars. They are loud liars who have convinced a lot of uneducated people to parrot their beliefs, which have no grounding in scientific fact when studied by actual scientists (i.e., non-establishment individuals who are scientists in more than name and acclimation.)

Creationists on this board, since at least 2004, have made thousands of salient points to which evolutionists have had no intelligent response accept to character assassinate the poster and proclaim false data as truth in the hopes that it will stick.

Have fun with that.

My impression was that this referred more to the creation of the soul - that, in short, humans evolved like anything else, but at some point God said, "Poof! Now you have souls and can worship Me!" and that's when they became people. I'm not exactly up-to-date on my Catholic theology, though, so I may be misremembering. :p

Could be. I just remember something about "special creation".


Sounds kind of like an evolutionist.

Evolution is propoganda. It's supporters are liars. They are loud liars who have convinced a lot of uneducated people to parrot their beliefs, which have no grounding in scientific fact when studied by actual scientists (i.e., non-establishment individuals who are scientists in more than name and acclimation.)

Creationists on this board, since at least 2004, have made thousands of salient points to which evolutionists have had no intelligent response accept to character assassinate the poster and proclaim false data as truth in the hopes that it will stick.

Have fun with that.

So....uh.....this is a joke, right?

I can't believe that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution...
Believe it. There are vast swaths of America where people like you or me or most other NSG'ers hardly exist at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

I think alot of the problem stems from this:

The potentially confusing statement that "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature. This statement arises because "evolution" is used in two ways. First, the "fact of evolution" refers to the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, which are known to have occurred. Second, the "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur.

Admittedly, it does sound very Newspeak, lol...

Well I feel like one of those noobs who just skips through posts to put in his own two cents... but! Here's my two cents hahahahaha

I'm a conservative and I believe that religion is just what people turn to when they want an easy answer.. or someone else to blame.

Evolution makes sense.

Non-religious conservatives aren't that hard to come by, by the way.

Evolution is Bullcrap.

Evolution is Bullcrap.

Do tell.

So are one sentence posts that provide no information, no sources, and simple opinion. But hey, knock yourself out.

Sounds kind of like an evolutionist.

Evolution is propoganda. It's supporters are liars. They are loud liars who have convinced a lot of uneducated people to parrot their beliefs, which have no grounding in scientific fact when studied by actual scientists (i.e., non-establishment individuals who are scientists in more than name and acclimation.)

Creationists on this board, since at least 2004, have made thousands of salient points to which evolutionists have had no intelligent response accept to character assassinate the poster and proclaim false data as truth in the hopes that it will stick.

Have fun with that.

It's not often that someone flames half the board right after a mod posts...

Is everyone happy now? The creationists have come out of the woodwork, it would appear.

Evolution is the best explanation for how we became what we are. I don't believe that it is necessarily incompatible with belief in a deity, but I do think that the existence or not of said deity is irrelevant. Evolution works with or without it.

I happen to be agnostic. I am very undecided on the existence of a god, gods or goddess or other supernatural being. I happen to believe that evolution makes sense and this is because I believe that if it can happen on a small scale, it is likely to have happened on a large scale.

I don't really understand the science so much; I'm more of an English/Language type person. But I think what I grasp of the science makes more sense than, "Oh there's something the scientists can't explain yet, therefore God made us all." That just seems silly to me.

THUNDERDOME!!!


C'mon people. Some creationist stand up against us ebil libruhls.

I LOVE debate. Ninety percent of the time I make statements I don't even agree with just to stir the pot a bit and give the generally rather liberal population here something to spar with. Like I said, I typically agree with you all, but sometimes its fun just to go at it.

I am saddened to say though, that no matter how badly I want to debate this, I CAN NOT even protect the idea of creationism, as its just so ludicrous.

Evolution is Bullcrap.

Well there you go...That certainly explains it, lol....

http://strawdog.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/jesus.jpg

Is everyone happy now? The creationists have come out of the woodwork, it would appear.

Evolution is the best explanation for how we became what we are. I don't believe that it is necessarily incompatible with belief in a deity, but I do think that the existence or not of said deity is irrelevant. Evolution works with or without it.

I happen to be agnostic. I am very undecided on the existence of a god, gods or goddess or other supernatural being. I happen to believe that evolution makes sense and this is because I believe that if it can happen on a small scale, it is likely to have happened on a large scale.

I don't really understand the science so much; I'm more of an English/Language type person. But I think what I grasp of the science makes more sense than, "Oh there's something the scientists can't explain yet, therefore God made us all." That just seems silly to me.

Excellent post. I personally am a believer in intelligent design, as I'm extremely religious, but I still find the whole "six days and then he rested" theory rather stupid.

I wonder where Gallup took their samples from.

In my neck of America, most people, at least in my experience, either believe in Evolution, are open to it, or don't care. Most people here are also well-educated, middle-high income, and Roman Catholic. We don't have lawsuits over what theory should be taught in schools, either. (Though I'm sure that there has been one at some point).

So are one sentence posts that provide no information, no sources, and simple opinion. But hey, knock yourself out.
By someone with a post-count of 4, who cannot even count to 8:
1.The Zjednoczony Polski Stany of Crosby-Huffman-Barret
2.Ruler: His Majesty Sir Popadapolis
3.The Vice President of Texas
4.Sargent Major of the Texas Defence Forces
5.Member of the Texas Representative Council
6.Player of Baritone for the Crosby High School Band
7.Cadet Sergeant of the Cougar Platoon for the Army JROTC
8.Member of the Crosby High School Class of 2012
9.Current District 19-4A Jr. High History Champion

You would hope that even in Crosby, Texas, arithmetic classes would have gotten as far as the upper single digits, by ninth grade.

Creationists on this board, since at least 2004, have made thousands of salient points....

Evolution is Bullcrap.

I just had to put these two posts together, because it amused me.

That said, I volunteer right now to answer absolutely any point either of you care to throw at me, without any "character assassination" whatsoever. I'll be waiting. :)

I wonder where Gallup took their samples from.

In my neck of America, most people, at least in my experience, either believe in Evolution, are open to it, or don't care. Most people here are also well-educated, middle-high income, and Roman Catholic. We don't have lawsuits over what theory should be taught in schools, either. (Though I'm sure that there has been one at some point).

I think you just answered your own question: your own sample is skewed towards demographics more likely to believe in evolution.*

*I hate that phrase, but "view as true the proposition that Neo-Darwinian evolution is an accurate explanation of the history of life on earth" is awkward.

THUNDERDOME!!!


C'mon people. Some creationist stand up against us ebil libruhls.

Remember why evil will always triumph!

http://msp108.photobucket.com/albums/n8/jmgooser33/Dark_Helmet.jpg

It specifically says in your source that God created the sun after the earth....

I've read a commentary that claimed that it was more he revealed the Sun, it having been hidden by a dust cloud around the Earth, or something. I dunno, I read it years ago.

Also, interpreting Genesis as something other than strictly literal isn't a vain attempt to keep it relevant, more like trying to refine understanding based on current knowledge. Try again though.

Remember why evil will always triumph!

http://msp108.photobucket.com/albums/n8/jmgooser33/Dark_Helmet.jpg

Evil triumphs cause their mothership was blown apart and crashed on the Planet of the Apes?

Evil triumphs cause their mothership was blown apart and crashed on the Planet of the Apes?

Surely you have seen Spaceballs?

Surely you have seen Spaceballs?

Yeah, lol, thats what happens to Dark Helmet...He, Colonel Sanders, and President Skroob end up crash landing on the Planet of the Apes when Spaceball One/Mega Maid is destroyed...

Sounds kind of like an evolutionist.

Evolution is propoganda. It's supporters are liars. They are loud liars who have convinced a lot of uneducated people to parrot their beliefs, which have no grounding in scientific fact when studied by actual scientists (i.e., non-establishment individuals who are scientists in more than name and acclimation.)

Creationists on this board, since at least 2004, have made thousands of salient points to which evolutionists have had no intelligent response accept to character assassinate the poster and proclaim false data as truth in the hopes that it will stick.

Have fun with that.

Well, you're right about one thing.

How did they choose the statistical sample? Because even with all the stupid out there, I can't believe that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution...

There are many ways that statisticians can choose a random sample (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)), but if you had to ask me I would assume theirs was not just a simple random sample (Gallup being quite a reliable and intelligent polling agency), but most likely a stratified random sampling. I wouldn't swear to it, but that's certainly the kind I would use, just to accurately sample the religious and nonreligious communities, as well as different ethnicities.

Yeah, lol, thats what happens to Dark Helmet...He, Colonel Sanders, and President Skroob end up crash landing on the Planet of the Apes when Spaceball One/Mega Maid is destroyed...

Oh, goodness, you are right; it has been a while.

Okay, scratch evil and replace it with "liberal"; now take good and....

Besides, we're talking about America, where Catholics are in smaller number and Evangelicals are a larger force.

huh? http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations theres only about a 2% difference.

Remember why evil will always triumph!

http://msp108.photobucket.com/albums/n8/jmgooser33/Dark_Helmet.jpg

Because Good is Dumb!

Wait wut..

That suggests, assuming stupidly that all Republicans hate that shit, yo, that 1/3 of Democrats don't believe in it too. Odd. You have an odd country with an odd public, Americans.

See, I dont think that shows a belief in evolution. They just believe in that "each day for god is a thousand years for us" kind of thing that Christians began arguing in an attempt to keep Genesis relevent.

To make it fit observation, a "day" for God would have to be 766,666,666.6666666667 years long.

Wait wut..

That suggests, assuming stupidly that all Republicans hate that shit, yo, that 1/3 of Democrats don't believe in it too. Odd. You have an odd country with an odd public, Americans.

here you go http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism

huh? http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations theres only about a 2% difference.

I mean, its only a difference of over 6 Million People, honestly...

I mean, its only a difference of over 6 Million People, honestly...

which is a relatively small difference, like 8% more evangelicals or something, whats the point of bringing in raw numbers when we're talking about percentages?

which is a relatively small difference, like 8% more evangelicals or something, whats the point of bringing in raw numbers when we're talking about percentages?

6 million is a tiny number relative to 45 trillion. Geez.

I think you just answered your own question: your own sample is skewed towards demographics more likely to believe in evolution.*

*I hate that phrase, but "view as true the proposition that Neo-Darwinian evolution is an accurate explanation of the history of life on earth" is awkward.

Percisely. I was comparing my little section of the country to the 39% Gallup sample in order to show that American belief in Evolution varies by region.

Percisely. I was comparing my little section of the country to the 39% Gallup sample in order to show that American belief in Evolution varies by region.

I have little doubt the folks at Gallup accounted for this in their poll.

which is a relatively small difference, like 8% more evangelicals or something, whats the point of bringing in raw numbers when we're talking about percentages?

Because a difference of 2% is a significant advantage when we're talking of numbers in the hundreds of millions...

Because a difference of 2% is a significant advantage when we're talking of numbers in the hundreds of millions...

whatever you say, far be it for me to suggest that 2% is 2% no matter how many people there are.

whatever you say, far be it for me to suggest that 2% is 2% no matter how many people there are.

2% of 10 people is different from 2% of a million people is different from 2% of 6 billion people.

It is poor use of numbers to claim a percentage without raw numbers, and vice versa.

Percisely. I was comparing my little section of the country to the 39% Gallup sample in order to show that American belief in Evolution varies by region.

Ah, I see now. It's true that US society is rather cliquey in general, and you provided a good example of that.

Personally I was surprised that the percentage of Darwinians among us was that high.

I have little doubt the folks at Gallup accounted for this in their poll.

They probably did. What I'm wondering is to what extent.

2% of 10 people is different from 2% of a million people is different from 2% of 6 billion people.

It is poor use of numbers to claim a percentage without raw numbers, and vice versa.

uh... not sure what your point is other than to use common sense with numbers, its not like I was claiming that 2% of 10 = 2% of 100. That is sort of the advantage of percentages, you don't get bogged down in "wow, 6 million".

uh... not sure what your point is other than to use common sense with numbers, its not like I was claiming that 2% of 10 = 2% of 100. That is sort of the advantage of percentages, you don't get bogged down in "wow, 6 million".

My point was you should get "bogged down" in "6 million" because that number is just as relevant as your percent. Perhaps more so.

its the same, which was the topic. That is sort of the advantage of percentages, you don't get bogged down in "wow, 6 million".

The problem is you can also get bogged down in "its only 2%" when you dont take into account the scale involved...

If one person has 2% more employees than another...

It makes a difference if the two people in question are on a scale of Tens or Millions...

Ah, I see now. It's true that US society is rather cliquey in general, and you provided a good example of that.

Personally I was surprised that the percentage of Darwinians among us was that high.

Really? What's the situation like in your area?

The problem is you can also get bogged down in "its only 2%" when you dont take into account the scale involved...

If one person has 2% more employees than another...

It makes a difference if the two people in question are on a scale of Tens or Millions...

when you do a historical comparison o population you want to use a percentage because population is not constant.

when you do a historical comparison o population you want to use a percentage because population is not constant.

Not going to argue with that...Just saying you shouldnt dismiss the value of 2% without taking into account how many 2% actually is...

What I think of this thread is "what else is new?"

Really, this has been known for a while. Hopefully once the younger generation grows up we'll see these numbers change (more young people are Democrats at least, though that doesn't nessissarily equate to less fundimentalist or belief in evolution).

Why is this a shock? I can't remember where I saw it but a poll showed that the average american reads 1/2 of a book a year.

Actual the average is 4

"One in four adults read no books at all in the past year, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Tuesday...The typical person claimed to have read four books in the last year...Excluding those who hadn't read any, the usual number read was seven."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101045.html

I'm less bothered by this because the simple fact is that Evolution is a bit of a mind-bend to really get one's head around, even scientists took a long time to accept the full idea and parts are still being debated despite looking as though Darwin was entirely right all along...

NEW YORK: Darwin's theory of evolution has become the bedrock of modern biology. But for most of the theory's existence since 1859, even biologists have ignored or vigorously opposed it, in whole or in part.

It is a testament to Darwin's extraordinary insight that it took almost a century for biologists to understand the essential correctness of his views.

Biologists quickly accepted the idea of evolution, but for decades they rejected natural selection, the mechanism Darwin proposed for the evolutionary process. Until the mid-20th century they largely ignored sexual selection, a special aspect of natural selection that Darwin proposed to account for male ornaments like the peacock's tail.

Biologists are still arguing about group-level selection, the idea that natural selection can operate at the level of groups as well as on individuals. Darwin proposed group selection - or something like it; scholars differ as to what he meant - to account for castes in ant societies and morality in people.

Even Alfred Wallace...

Alfred Wallace, who independently thought of natural selection, later lost faith in the power of the idea and turned to spiritualism to explain the human mind.

Darwin's complete grasp was, in many ways, extraordinary...

Not only was Darwin correct on the central premises of his theory, but in several other still-open issues, his views also seem quite likely to prevail. His idea of how new species form was long eclipsed by Ernst Mayr's view that a reproductive barrier like a mountain forces a species to split. But a number of biologists are now returning to Darwin's idea that speciation occurs most often through competition in open spaces, Richards says.

I happened to catch this article yesterday, here's the link - http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/09/europe/darwin.4-426286.php

I suspect the 200th anniversary will help bring more people over but people should understand both the power of religion in shaping early minds, making it quite hard to fathom the concept as well as the simple difficulty of fully understanding it all.

So, as long as it's essentially accepted and supported by those setting school agendas etc., I understand that it will take time for it to be generally accepted by all.

I'm less bothered by this because the simple fact is that Evolution is a bit of a mind-bend to really get one's head around, even scientists took a long time to accept the full idea and parts are still being debated despite looking as though Darwin was entirely right all along...

Entirely right? No, not really. The framework's correct, but he's missing some stuff.

Entirely right? No, not really. The framework's correct, but he's missing some stuff.

Yah but he nailed everything that didn't require an understanding of genetics and mutation (and got some of that too). And those two we're not understood (at all?) at the time so he got it about as right as was possible given the time period.

Yah but he nailed everything that didn't require an understanding of genetics and mutation (and got some of that too). And those two we're not understood (at all?) at the time so he got it about as right as was possible given the time period.

Well, that is true. There is one tiny part of his theory that's actually false, but the exception comes up extremely rarely and we don't even really have a method of classifying it yet.*

*General opinion is not to consider the results to be an actual biological species.

Well, that is true. There is one tiny part of his theory that's actually false, but the exception comes up extremely rarely and we don't even really have a method of classifying it yet.

Well okay, point being that I don't look down on so much on those who do not believe - a word I have issues with actually, 'belief' in evolution jars for some reason,

I understand the barriers, I happily admit that I wouldn't put a lot of faith in my own understanding and I was raised without religion and am naturally interested in how things work.

It used to bug me, now I accept it will all take time.

I very, very rarely trust these polls. Once you find the documentation produced by the source itself (which can be very difficult to find), you usually find that these statistics are deeply flawed in some way or another, normally because the sample they use is crap.

Yeah I think this may be an example of Group Think. I think the people told the survey crew what they thought they wanted to hear.

For example if they just re-phrased the question to something like"Do you think animals can evolve." If you say you believe in evolution then you automatically against God, which I am not sure is correct. Evolution could be the process by which God creates a dog for example or a chimp or whatever. No where in the Bible does it say how he created the animals.

http://www.comres.co.uk/systems/file_download.aspx?pg=404&ver=1 Here is the documentation I can find.

EDIT: This is for the link posted about Britain that is, that was easier to find. Haven't bothered to find the one about the US.

This was one of the questions (for UK): Q4. Intelligent Design is the idea that evolution alone is not enough to
explain the complex structures of some living things, so the intervention
of a designer is needed at key stages. In your opinion is Intelligent Design:

I do not think this is an adequate definition intelligent design at all. Also, this question is clearly not asking if evolution is false altogether, only if it doesn't fully explain 'key stages'.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx

:(

The more educated are more likely to believe in Evolution? Those that arent educated as highly are less likely to believe? Go figure.

But wait...

So its not just education, but that plays some role.

Thoughts? Weeping? Delusions? Evolution vs Creationism battle to the death in the Thunderdome?
I think it's time to just start smacking people upside their thick heads.

http://wiygn.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/untitled.jpg

He didn't create the sun, moon, stars until the 4th day.

*sings*

Day 4 day 4 sun and moon and stars galore!
O.O

Excuse me...what?

How did they choose the statistical sample? Because even with all the stupid out there, I can't believe that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution...
Sometimes I suspect that when Americans say shit like that, they don't really mean it. You know, like when they say they never ever think about banging anyone but their spouse/SO because they love them with all their body and soul, but they SOOOO totally flirt with the cute guy/gal at the deli counter every single time they go to the store, and they're hardly even aware they're doing it.

I suspect a lot of Americans say they don't believe in evolution because in their social circles it's the thing to say, but inside their own heads, right next to the cute deli guy/gal there is the unquestioned assumption that organisms developed from other organisms over time, even if they don't really understand what that means.

O.O

Excuse me...what?

It's a song I learned when I was a kid.

Day 1 Day 1 God made light when there was none (repeat)
Day 2 Day 2 God made heaven and sky of blue (repeat)
Day 3 Day 3 God made flowers & grass & trees. (repeat)
Day 4 Day 4 God made sun,moon and stars galore. (repeat)
Day 5 Day 5 God made birds and fish alive (repeat)
6th Day 6th Day God made animals & man that day. (repeat)
Day 7 Day 7 God is resting in his heaven (repeat)

It's a song I learned when I was a kid.

Day 1 Day 1 God made light when there was none (repeat)
Day 2 Day 2 God made heaven and sky of blue (repeat)
Day 3 Day 3 God made flowers & grass & trees. (repeat)
Day 4 Day 4 God made sun,moon and stars galore. (repeat)
Day 5 Day 5 God made birds and fish alive (repeat)
6th Day 6th Day God made animals & man that day. (repeat)
Day 7 Day 7 God is resting in his heaven (repeat)
They couldn't figure out a rhyme for "six"?

That makes "Jesus loves me, this I know because the Bible tells me so" seem 2.5 points less silly.

They couldn't figure out a rhyme for "six"?

That makes "Jesus loves me, this I know because the Bible tells me so" seem 2.5 points less silly.

I know lots of songs like that........like probably hundreds.......I would say 80% of the Bible verses I've memorized were set to song.

I know the 10 commandments to song complete with finger-play.

Also, the apostles to the tune of twinkle twinkle little star.

It's kinda disturbing.

Also, my favorite verse of Jesus loves me is

"Jesus loves me when I'm good
when I do the things I should
Jesus loves me when I'm bad
but it makes him very sad"

I bet you didn't know there were verses........

Also

God told Noah there's going to be a floodie, floodie
God told Noah there's going to be a floodie, floodie,
Get those animals out of the muddie, muddie
Children of the Lord.

God told Noah to build him an arky, arky
God told Noah to build him an arky, arky
Build it out of gopher barky, barky
Children of the Lord.


The animals, they came in, they came in by twosies, twosies,
The animals, they came in, they came in by twosies, twosies,
Elephants and kangaroosies, roosies,
Children of the Lord.

It rained, it rained for forty nights and daysies, daysies,
It rained, it rained for forty nights and daysies, daysies,
Almost drove poor Noah crazy, crazy,
Children of the Lord.

The sun came out and dried up the landy, landy,
The sun came out and dried up the landy, landy,
Everything was fine and dandy, dandy,
Children of the Lord.

This is the end of, the end of our story, story,
This is the end of, the end of our story, strory,
Everything was hunky dory, dory,
Children of the Lord.

As a kid I thought God told Noah to build anarchy and I was so confused.

[/random]

As a kid I thought God told Noah to build anarchy and I was so confused.

[/random]

I believe it was the Sex Pistols who sang 'Anarchy in the OT'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlFsYmkeY

I know lots of songs like that........like probably hundreds.......I would say 80% of the Bible verses I've memorized were set to song.


Now available, from K-TEL! On two digitally remastered disks, the entire Bible set to the music of your favorite stars....

You get all this, and more:

The Book of Genesis, set to the music of, well, Genesis.

Song of Solomon, by Christina Aguilera!

Deuteronomy, by the Beastie Boys, with guest mix-master, DJ Adam's-Ultra-Orthodox-Uncle-Morty!

The Gospel According to Mark, by Mark Wahlberg, but not Marky Mark style, more spoken word style, because he's trying to gain credibility as a performer!

Letter to the Romans, by Nine Inch Nails!

and your childhood favorite, Book of Revelations, by the Travelling Wilburys!

Yes, it's pathetic.

To my mind the primary fault lies with the press. In other polls, especially polls by the Pew Forum, the questions were asked whether (1) most scientists accepted evolution and (2) whether there was significant evidence supporting the theory.

Incredibly something like 35% of the respondents thought that many scientists doubted evolution (in reality at last count some 99.8% accepted the theory) and that there was little or no evidence.

In other words they've bought into the nonsense pitched by creationists that evolution is a "theory in crisis" and little more than a hunch. The press, every time it runs a story about evolution, should be informing folks that these are misconceptions.

On the bright side, 49% of the younger generation accept evolution. As us old fogies die off, things will get better I suppose.

As a kid I thought God told Noah to build anarchy and I was so confused.

[/random]

I believe it was the Sex Pistols who sang 'Anarchy in the OT'.

Now available, from K-TEL! On two digitally remastered disks, the entire Bible set to the music of your favorite stars....

I laughed so hard, I scared my cat. :D :D :D

This is really fascinating news.

maybe i am optimistic but maybe the don't knows just had someone close by they didn't want to admit to believing in evolution while they were around ?

It's a song I learned when I was a kid.

Day 1 Day 1 God made light when there was none (repeat)
Day 2 Day 2 God made heaven and sky of blue (repeat)
Day 3 Day 3 God made flowers & grass & trees. (repeat)
Day 4 Day 4 God made sun,moon and stars galore. (repeat)
Day 5 Day 5 God made birds and fish alive (repeat)
6th Day 6th Day God made animals & man that day. (repeat)
Day 7 Day 7 God is resting in his heaven (repeat)

Ah the religious evolution question. I have a different theory. I'm a conservative WASP. Yet I don't rule out evolution, in fact I'm pretty sure thats how everything happened. And plus I think the bible supports this theory.



Genesis 2:7then the LORD God formed the man of(F) dust from the ground and(G) breathed into his(H) nostrils the breath of life, and(I) the man became a living creature

Adam being made from dust. Seems pretty Mythical, like Prometheus. But what if we look at it from a different viewpoint. Your God, how do you explain to a rather primitave civilization an incredibly advanced concept like evolution? you put it in terms they can understand. Making Adam from dust, making him out of nothing, building him up from a single celled organism maybe? i bring up my next piece.

"The Hebrew word for man (adam) is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name Adam"

Uh huh, creationism refers to Humanity as a whole maybe, not just one man one woman, however evolution does not rule out one man one woman beginning.

Now as we know or so you may believe or not believe, that the Bible was written by men and Inspired by God (again, whether you believe this or not is up to you, I choose to.) There is a debate going on in the Christian Community, between litteral and metaphorical translation. Do you follow the Bible word for word, or believe it mostly speeks in metaphors. My stance is that it you must take it word for word, but you also have to sit and understand the time and language of the era that the Bible was written. God mad Adam out of dust. Metaphor? no just a less advanced civilization trying to describe an advanced concept as best they could. It also has to deal with language. The infamous, Thou shalt not Kill command? In truth means thou shall not murder. The original hebrew for kill meant murder. Killing that isnt murder is not inherrantly wrong, this being along the lines of self defense or soldier vs soldier. (yes killing someone in warfare cannot logically be conciddered murder if self defence makes it not murder. If you don't kill a target, said target will either kill you, or someone on your own side. Some say its up for debate but eh)

maybe i am optimistic but maybe the don't knows just had someone close by they didn't want to admit to believing in evolution while they were around ?

Its possible...When Im at my parents house, the mere mention will bring severe Retardation to spill repeatedly....

And I just hate having to clean that up, :p

Its possible...When Im at my parents house, the mere mention will bring severe Retardation to spill repeatedly....

And I just hate having to clean that up, :p

normally it ends with the I didn't come from the monkey.

normally it ends with the I didn't come from the monkey.

technically you didnt, you came from chimpanzee's if i recall correctly

technically you didnt, you came from chimpanzee's if i recall correctly

Actually, no...Humans didnt come from Monkeys...at least not any monkey alive today anyway...

There are several species that are candidates for the ancestor of modern Hominids...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Before_Homo

Ah the religious evolution question. I have a different theory. I'm a conservative WASP. Yet I don't rule out evolution, in fact I'm pretty sure thats how everything happened. And plus I think the bible supports this theory.



Genesis 2:7then the LORD God formed the man of(F) dust from the ground and(G) breathed into his(H) nostrils the breath of life, and(I) the man became a living creature

Adam being made from dust. Seems pretty Mythical, like Prometheus. But what if we look at it from a different viewpoint. Your God, how do you explain to a rather primitave civilization an incredibly advanced concept like evolution? you put it in terms they can understand. Making Adam from dust, making him out of nothing, building him up from a single celled organism maybe? i bring up my next piece.

"The Hebrew word for man (adam) is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name Adam"

Uh huh, creationism refers to Humanity as a whole maybe, not just one man one woman, however evolution does not rule out one man one woman beginning.

Now as we know or so you may believe or not believe, that the Bible was written by men and Inspired by God (again, whether you believe this or not is up to you, I choose to.) There is a debate going on in the Christian Community, between litteral and metaphorical translation. Do you follow the Bible word for word, or believe it mostly speeks in metaphors. My stance is that it you must take it word for word, but you also have to sit and understand the time and language of the era that the Bible was written. God mad Adam out of dust. Metaphor? no just a less advanced civilization trying to describe an advanced concept as best they could. It also has to deal with language. The infamous, Thou shalt not Kill command? In truth means thou shall not murder. The original hebrew for kill meant murder. Killing that isnt murder is not inherrantly wrong, this being along the lines of self defense or soldier vs soldier. (yes killing someone in warfare cannot logically be conciddered murder if self defence makes it not murder. If you don't kill a target, said target will either kill you, or someone on your own side. Some say its up for debate but eh)

This is just what's so wrong with religion, you admit it's utterly open to interpretation, that no one knows, or can be said to know, what the exact meaning is...

...yet laws are made, people are judged as 'sinful' and children are indoctrinated as though there's any justification given none of you can even agree on what is meant by the bible.

Religion is nothing more than opinion, practically the exact opposite to evolution.

Evolution has been put in a position it does not deserve on it's explanatory merits. Asked "do you believe in Evolution" many people hear "do you believe it explains everything about human nature, life on earth, and what I should do?"

It's a theory of origins. It started as a theory of the origin of species, for fuck's sake! It is extremely useful, but not conclusive, in explaining the origin of characteristics of humans and other creatures.

And of course, it ran right into an alternative explanation of the origin of "man." One which was far more flattering to the individual recipient of that explanation. One that, by granting them an infinite life (eternal life at any level is infinite) essentially cheats at reason, overthows reason. We can't perceive what is infinite. We can't think straight, and with "ourselves" (which we vainly perceive as beyond our lives) on the line, we will of course cut our losses.

Because evolution does not explain everything which this alternative (faith-based, which is to say piss-weak) explanation brings in its package of faith, along with the "origin of man" ... of course doubters of both explanations say they "do not believe" in evolution.

It isn't a complete explanation of every related issue, any more than the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics comes bundled with the Standard Model of the Big Bang. If you're interested in one, you are probably interested in the other, but neither stands nor falls on the success of the other.

If the question had been "do you believe the Bible is literally true" the result would be a lot lower than 40%. Doubt has been cast on the theory of evolution, but that's piss-easy because science invites doubt. A fuck sight more doubt has been cast the other way, and faith placed elsewhere.

No doubt others have made all these points (tis grist to the NSG mill) but I'll make one more point: to say that doubters in evolution are "unscientific" is wrong. There are many ways to doubt, and some of them are good.

technically you didnt, you came from chimpanzee's if i recall correctly

I believe the conclusion was that humans and apes had a common ancestor - this is significantly different from humans descending from monkeys. Of course the creationists will still be offended.

Well, keep in mind that creationists consider dust a much higher life form than chimps, hence their anger. >_>

The problem with NSG is that is SUCKS YOU IN.

Anyway, the concepts that evolution exists and that God created the universe are not, in face, mutually exclusive. That God created the (flat) world (around which the sun revolves) in 6 days (the last was for resting, remember?) is sort of mutually exclusive with the theory of evolution.

It bugs me that people want to make it seem like you can either be a rational human being or you can have Faith. Science and religion are not necessarily at odds with each other.

I mean, I think it was Aquinas who basically said there had to have been some eternally existing force from which all else originated. Even if you take it all the way back to the Big Bang ( http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-goumoticon0bk.gif ), where did the Big Bang matter/energy come from? God is a possible answer.

technically you didnt, you came from chimpanzee's if i recall correctly

i said monkeys because while the preacher man today was talking about the evils of evolution one of the christian girls kept saying over and over again i didn't come from a monkey's vagina.

i said monkeys because while the preacher man today was talking about the evils of evolution one of the christian girls kept saying over and over again i didn't come from a monkey's vagina.

That's what he said!


No, wait, he said he didn't come IN a monkey's vagina.

As my 8th grade teacher used to say, "The power of a preposition." -_-

Never mind you are still just above Turkey in the league table of stupidity
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13059028

Or the beginning. I wish I knew how many people believed in evolution in the year 1900 through 1990. Then we'd be able to see if there's been any progress, if this is the start of a new age, or if we're beginning a decline.Given that the 1920s saw a handful of states outright banning the teaching of evolutionary theory in schools (The last of these bans falling in the fifties), and that the creationist front is now limited to (Usually unsuccessfully) demanding 'Equal Time', I'd say that you're most likely right.

The problem with NSG is that is SUCKS YOU IN.

Anyway, the concepts that evolution exists and that God created the universe are not, in face, mutually exclusive. That God created the (flat) world (around which the sun revolves) in 6 days (the last was for resting, remember?) is sort of mutually exclusive with the theory of evolution.

It bugs me that people want to make it seem like you can either be a rational human being or you can have Faith. Science and religion are not necessarily at odds with each other.

Not if you are willing to ignore large chunks of your holy book or are willing to convince yourself that significant parts of it mean something completely different than the words suggest, using words like "interpretation" - indeed. But one would need to do so much "interpreting" that just ignoring the book alltogether is far more efficient.

And of course the scientific method in fact is directly contradictory to most faiths. Science is focussed on proving things wrong. Religion is often (but indeed, not always) based on believing some things are true.The two concepts tend to clash.

"Believe" in evolution, huh?

As in, do you believe in gravity? Do you believe in electricity? Do you believe in photosynthesis?

It's not a believe, it's a scientific theory. There's nothing to "believe" in.
I do think that phrasing the poll question in this way influenced the replies you got. After all, it was phrased like a question on people's religion.

Also, I take the large percentage of people who didn't have an opinion to be a positive sign. I take that to mean that they don't know enough on the subject, and had the common sense to vote accordingly.

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

As I said - reading the first page of the good Book is such hard work.
Supports my belief that the guy/s who wrote Genesis was/were sat in a poppy field :P

Evolution vs Creationism battle to the death in the Thunderdome?

*cheers from the crowd*
Ladies and gentlemen, please a loud hand for the upholder of Creationism... Sarah Palin of Alaska!
*cheers and whistles*
On the other corner, here it comes, the defender of Evolution... Ooga-Takh of the Neanderthals!
*really loud cheers*


...I'd really like to see that.

My stance is that it you must take it word for word, but you also have to sit and understand the time and language of the era that the Bible was written. God mad Adam out of dust. Metaphor? no just a less advanced civilization trying to describe an advanced concept as best they could. It also has to deal with language.

You know, people were persecuted by religious nutjobs all over the world for saying that. Think of Giordano Bruno or Galileo Galilei.



The infamous, Thou shalt not Kill command? In truth means thou shall not murder. The original hebrew for kill meant murder. Killing that isnt murder is not inherrantly wrong, this being along the lines of self defense or soldier vs soldier. (yes killing someone in warfare cannot logically be conciddered murder if self defence makes it not murder. If you don't kill a target, said target will either kill you, or someone on your own side. Some say its up for debate but eh)

Ehm...
1.Actually, it is "thou shalt not kill" in the Alexandrine translation (which it is said to be directly inspired by God). Btw, if you know hebrew just as well as you know english, I doubt that you can truly point out the difference between "to kill" and "to murder" in the original source. (see the bolded parts in the quotations)

2.Since you're saying that you're a WASP (that is a christian), you shouldn't forget that Christ said something stronger than the original Decalogue about the use of violence - remember something about offering the other cheek, walking as lambs amidst the wolves etc?

So the very vast majority of Americans are people I would consider to be too stupid to even bother giving the time of day to if I knew them. This may sound odd but I am not at all surprised, its why I remain single for years at a time. I wish I could move somewhere where people were smarter, I really do...

Evolution is all a trick by Satan!

Evolution is all a trick by Satan!

Ah, his 2nd greatest trick, I've the top 10 on DVD.

Ah, his 2nd greatest trick, I've the top 10 on DVD.

Inventing the gay was in the top 5, right?

Inventing the gay was in the top 5, right?

Absolutely,

1. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people he didn't exist
2. Evolution
3. Rule 34
4. Inventing teh gay
5. New Kids on the Block

Absolutely,

1. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people he didn't exist
2. Evolution
3. Rule 34
4. Inventing teh gay
5. New Kids on the Block

wait . . .rule 34?

wait . . .rule 34?

It's satan's fault you spend last week masturbating to all your favourite childhood cartoon characters.

wait . . .rule 34?

Yeah, I thought that was God too.

It's satan's fault you spend last week masturbating to all your favourite childhood cartoon characters.

*Looks up rule 34*
"oh gah"
*Sways slightly*
*MASSIVE CORONARY*

*Looks up rule 34*
"oh gah"
*Sways slightly*
*MASSIVE CORONARY*

Tsk, tsk silly.

Obligatory XKCD image (why is there no poster calling him/herself xkcd yet ?)

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/rule_34.png

I think what we're seeing is the end of the age of reason.

Heh I don't belive we have yet entered any such age. When there are no more poor, when nobody goes hungry, when people of differing belifes are able to work, live and play together without the threat of violence, when there is no more war, then I'll say that we live in an age of reason.

Heh I don't belive we have yet entered any such age. When there are no more poor, when nobody goes hungry, when people of differing belifes are able to work, live and play together without the threat of violence, when there is no more war, then I'll say that we live in an age of reason.

Its more like the Age of Technology, the Age of Information, the Age of Philosophy, or the Age of More Reasonable than Most. Pick one :p.

Its more like the Age of Technology, the Age of Information, the Age of Philosophy, or the Age of More Reasonable than Most. Pick one :p.

The Stupid Ages.

1.Actually, it is "thou shalt not kill" in the Alexandrine translation (which it is said to be directly inspired by God). Btw, if you know hebrew just as well as you know english, I doubt that you can truly point out the difference between "to kill" and "to murder" in the original source. (see the bolded parts in the quotations)

He is actually right about this. In Hebrew the commandment is 'לא תרצח', meaning 'you shall not murder'. For it to be killing in general it would have to be 'לא תהרג'.

*Looks up rule 34*
"oh gah"
*Sways slightly*
*MASSIVE CORONARY*

*DaWaod logs off*

...


*3 months later*

Initiates thread - 'Hey, who here likes anime?'

He is actually right about this. In Hebrew the commandment is 'לא תרצח', meaning 'you shall not murder'. For it to be killing in general it would have to be 'לא תהרג'.

Does it matter ? The Bible has slightly more pages than the one with the 10 commandments, on which there are plenty of examples of when it is perfectly fine to kill or to commit murder. Arguing about how to translate a single word in such circumstances seems so... academic ;)

Does it matter ? The Bible has slightly more pages than the one with the 10 commandments, on which there are plenty of examples of when it is perfectly fine to kill or to commit murder. Arguing about how to translate a single word in such circumstances seems so... academic ;)

Obviously if God does it or tells you to do it it's not murder, because as the judge, jury and executioner God has the only say on such matters (so if God says there's no hypocrisy here, why, who are we to find that ridiculous?).

Also, God actually told his writers to include the ten commandments twice, though it seems to not have been enough considering how some people who take the book literally still seem to forget the whole false-witnessing thing, among other things.

He is actually right about this. In Hebrew the commandment is 'לא תרצח', meaning 'you shall not murder'. For it to be killing in general it would have to be 'לא תהרג'.

Your word on it (seeing your location) is quite more solid than his.

Out of curiosity, but do Israeli speak EXACTLY the same language of the Bible, or the current standard hebrew has been modified after it's been revived?

I'm sure some well-read member has mentioned that Darwin, himself, didn't doubt the incompatibility of God and evolution. In 1879, he wrote, "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist . . . In my most extreme fluctuations, I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.”

He died three years later, never having expressed any doubts. In fact, in one later letter, he wrote, “You have expressed my inward conviction,that the Universe is not the result of chance.”

Anyone that has read "The Origin of Species" would have no doubt about Darwin's leanings.

Your word on it (seeing your location) is quite more solid than his.

Out of curiosity, but do Israeli speak EXACTLY the same language of the Bible, or the current standard hebrew has been modified after it's been revived?

I find it difficult to believe modern Hebrew is exactly the same as it was when the Tanach was written (for instance, the difference between chet and a soft caf (or chaf) doesn't really exist phonetically anymore), but it's generally close enough. Still, I made sure that the word from the root of 'הרג' appeared somewhere in there before formulating my take on the matter.

normally it ends with the I didn't come from the monkey.
^^ wry statement about people who just don't get it...

Followed by:
technically you didnt, you came from chimpanzee's if i recall correctly
^^ person just not getting it.

And the rest of the thread sits and splits hairs about Hebrew translations, as if that has anything whatsoever to do with this widespread level of ignorance. There's an expression, something about how we need to choose if we're going to be "part of the problem or part of the solution."

I'm sure some well-read member has mentioned that Darwin, himself, didn't doubt the incompatibility of God and evolution. In 1879, he wrote, "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist . . . In my most extreme fluctuations, I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.”

He died three years later, never having expressed any doubts. In fact, in one later letter, he wrote, “You have expressed my inward conviction,that the Universe is not the result of chance.”

Anyone that has read "The Origin of Species" would have no doubt about Darwin's leanings.

Really?

Is that the full story?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion

No, no it's not, seriously, we're on the Internet and can check cold, definitive statements anytime we like.

Really?

Is that the full story?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion

No, no it's not, seriously, we're on the Internet and can check cold, definitive statements anytime we like.

Furthermore: does it matter ? It is not like the current theory of evolution is identical to the one Darwin thought up. It has.. shall we say... evolved quite a bit.

Furthermore: does it matter ? It is not like the current theory of evolution is identical to the one Darwin thought up. It has.. shall we say... evolved quite a bit.

Hell no, they both existed at the same time, dinosaur evolution and modern evolution co-existed, the dinosaur just, I dunno, God changed his mind, may be dinosaurs were gay so they never bred, God's punishment.

Really?

Is that the full story?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion

No, no it's not, seriously, we're on the Internet and can check cold, definitive statements anytime we like.
And we must be complete in what we determine... Fortunately, Darwin's letters are archived and the complete text of the ones I quoted is here.
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-12041.html
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-13230.html
Clearly, he lost faith for a while and then came back to at least leaving the possibility of a deity an open question.

Really?

Is that the full story?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_views_on_religion

No, no it's not, seriously, we're on the Internet and can check cold, definitive statements anytime we like.

Maybe I'm naive, but I'm still occasionally shocked by how willing some people are to lie about things like this, considering that (as you point out) it's really easy to fact-check them.

It's like the people who insist that Albert Einstein was a devout Christian, based on gross misrepresentations of a few quotes from him.

Lying: It's Ok If You're Doin' It Fer Gawd!

Maybe I'm naive, but I'm still occasionally shocked by how willing some people are to lie about things like this, considering that (as you point out) it's really easy to fact-check them.

It's like the people who insist that Albert Einstein was a devout Christian, based on gross misrepresentations of a few quotes from him.

Lying: It's Ok If You're Doin' It Fer Gawd!
Read the letters, if you have any doubt about the facts. The wiki is not the end-all in answers.

When I took my IQ test and all those silly tests in school they place me at the top 2% of the population. To which I uasually go "Naaaaah- no way 98% 0f the population is more stupid than I am." But if only 39% of the population doesn't even believe in evolution, maybe the tests aren't wrong. Maybe they are that stupid.

...may be dinosaurs were gay so they never bred, God's punishment.

God hates fagosaurs?

Maybe I'm naive, but I'm still occasionally shocked by how willing some people are to lie about things like this, considering that (as you point out) it's really easy to fact-check them.

Often it is not lying - but ignorance. The earlier subject of the sun being created after the earth and vegetation being an excellent example: it is on the first page of the Bible, it is the bloody section that Creationists claim to believe to be superior to evolution- and yet they do not even KNOW what is said there. They have no clue what they attack, and no clue what they believe themselves.

Which I guess makes it even scarier than simple lying would be.

However, the point of wiki not being the end of all things and the letters quite possibly confirming the statements about Darwins belief is quite valid.

Darwin stopped going to church, he would go for a walk while his wife attended.

I wonder, do these statistics signal a deterioration of education or simply an increase of interest in the opinions of the uneducated?

they signal how religion is still massivly important in the USA. They complain about fanatics in the middle east, but ive seen some in the southern states who would want to do the same back to them. An eye for an eye will make the world blind - Ghandi.

And we must be complete in what we determine... Fortunately, Darwin's letters are archived and the complete text of the ones I quoted is here.
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-12041.html
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-13230.html
Clearly, he lost faith for a while and then came back to at least leaving the possibility of a deity an open question.

Actually I read a bunch of his stuff and I found it to be more of an agnostic stance. He couldn't prove or disprove it.

It's a matter of interpretation. Bible thumpers like to take it as he was talking about God. You would be surprised how many believe in the so called Death Bed confession.

they signal how religion is still massivly important in the USA. They complain about fanatics in the middle east, but ive seen some in the southern states who would want to do the same back to them. An eye for an eye will make the world blind - Ghandi.

I still think his math needs work. The way I see it, we'd just need a couple eyepatches.

To be fair, I believe the position of the Catholic church is that human beings (and us alone) got some sort of "special creation" outside of the evolutionary process.

Belief in a theistic creation and evolution are far from incompatible. You can't really take the method of creation as depicted in Genesis to be true if you look at the facts, but seeing evolution as part of God's grand scheme doesn't contradict it. (This is not the same thing as ID, by the way, which I believe says God had to step in and either break or get around laws of nature to make humans. But if you believe Someone made the rules for the universe, it's not a stretch to say he had a good idea about the outcome.)

EDIT: A kind of strange story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm) from the Vatican concerning science. This is not official (I sort of doubt there is official documentation about ETs), but pretty close to the top.

Here's my conspiracy theory: On surveys, nobody actually doesn't know which to pick. The "don't know" people are actually the segment of the population who are intimidated by surveys, statisticians, or both.

Oh, and with that "eye for an eye" thing: We should stab out THEIR eye first. Then they'll stab out one of our eyes, and we'll stab out their other eye. Thus, we will have one eye left, so an eye for an eye does NOT make the world blind. It just messes up their depth perception.

THUNDERDOME!!!


C'mon people. Some creationist stand up against us ebil libruhls.
Having the common sense to believe in scientific progress does not make one a liberal (nor a conservative). It makes one intelligent.

Having the common sense to believe in scientific progress does not make one a liberal (nor a conservative). It makes one intelligent.

i never understood the debate anyways. creationism is for religion and evolution is for science. they are two different fields.

i never understood the debate anyways. creationism is for religion and evolution is for science. they are two different fields.
Yes, but creationists often claim to be scientific, which is where conflict arises. Evolutionists may sometimes claim to affect religion, although I can't think of ever seeing that.

Here's my conspiracy theory: On surveys, nobody actually doesn't know which to pick. The "don't know" people are actually the segment of the population who are intimidated by surveys, statisticians, or both.

Funny enough, there are actually a lot of ways to counter just that effect. Honestly, people really underestimate how much fucking math there is in polling, they don't just take a tally and go, "Alright, no divide by population and we're done!" My university has students use SPSS for, at least, the basic polling class, and that has a large number of methods just by itself, I'm sure all respected firms have exponentially more methods.

The Stupid Ages.

No, that was the 50's.

Why do people talk about "believing" in evolution as though it were a matter of faith and not fact? You don't "believe" in scientific fact; you "believe" in things that can't be proven - like God and creationism.

Prove evolution, please.

Prove evolution, please.
A more pertinent query would be to ask how we don't believe in scientific facts.

Surely we hold a belief that scientific fact x is the case, or that the scientific method is accurate.

Not if you are willing to ignore large chunks of your holy book or are willing to convince yourself that significant parts of it mean something completely different than the words suggest, using words like "interpretation" - indeed. But one would need to do so much "interpreting" that just ignoring the book alltogether is far more efficient.

And of course the scientific method in fact is directly contradictory to most faiths. Science is focussed on proving things wrong. Religion is often (but indeed, not always) based on believing some things are true.The two concepts tend to clash.

This is silliness, but I think Dem already explained why.

Prove evolution, please.

Micro or macro?

Micro or macro?

I know micro means small and macro means big, but I can't figure out how this applies to evolution...

I know micro means small and macro means big, but I can't figure out how this applies to evolution...

Eh? You have never heard of micro-evolution or macro-evolution?

Would I be asking the question if I'd heard of them before?

I dont understand why they call evoulution a theory. For instance the new case of Salmonella has become more drug resistant. This means it must have evolved

I dont understand why they call evoulution a theory. For instance the new case of Salmonella has become more drug resistant. This means it must have evolved

same reason newton's theory of gravity was called a theory.

Would I be asking the question if I'd heard of them before?

Maybe I answered your question with my question.

You want proof, look at micro.

Macro is a little hard unless of course you are an immortal.

I dont understand why they call evoulution a theory. For instance the new case of Salmonella has become more drug resistant. This means it must have evolved

Eh? I am not sure what you mean? Why a theory?

Building up tolerances is not evolution.

I have allergies. They were bad at one point so I started a shot regiment. Now they are not so bad. Did I evolve?

Maybe I answered your question with my question.

You want proof, look at micro.

Macro is a little hard unless of course you are an immortal.

Of course, there really is no such thing as "micro"' and "macro" evolution. There is just evolution-- a good analogy would be that "macro" evolution is to "micro" evolution as driving a thousand miles is to driving one mile.

Eh? I am not sure what you mean? Why a theory?

Building up tolerances is not evolution.

I have allergies. They were bad at one point so I started a shot regiment. Now they are not so bad. Did I evolve?

Well, in the case he's talking about, what happened is that some strains could resist the drug better than others. The ones that couldn't resist the drug well all died, and those that didn't die became more prevalent, to the point where the specific drug essentially became useless.

Maybe I answered your question with my question.

You want proof, look at micro.

Macro is a little hard unless of course you are an immortal.

From the dawn of time we came, moving silently down through the peer reviewed literature. Living many secret lives, applying for many public grants, struggling to reach the time of the evolutionary biology conference, when the few who received funding will battle to the last. No one has ever known we were among you... until now.

*cue Queen soundrack*

I just had to put these two posts together, because it amused me.

That said, I volunteer right now to answer absolutely any point either of you care to throw at me, without any "character assassination" whatsoever. I'll be waiting. :)

Ok - I'll bite. At least twice now I have brought up the mathematical impossibility of incremental evolution - only to be told that math is irrelevant, or that the sources who originally proposed the objections are biased.

So please explain to me, if you feel so inclined:

1) why it's ok to assume a steady progression of more complex features starting from a simpler organism, when

a) the fossil record suggests a singular starting point representing large biodiversity, with biodiversity tapering off as species die out from events of mass extinctions and (more recently) manmade extinctions

b) the earth hasn't existed long enough to support an incremental evolution of the features seen on animals/humans - even assuming that a major redesign of complex organs happened every 15,000 years, the odds against that redesign working correctly would indicate that for evolution to achieve what has been achieved in the human body, the earth would have had to be around an impossibly long time.

2) Please also explain why the 200+ unique chemicals in cells, some of which can only be assembled by already living matter, could have randomly coalesced into a living creature in an environment which was certainly hostile to life (being prior to plants, there would have been nothing but desert, wind blasted rock, and salt water)

2b) Since someone will surely say "conditions haven't always been the same on earth, at one time it must have been more hospitable to life or there must have been an event which helped the process along" please also explain how this does not constitute an article of faith - since it is clearly an attempt to explain away a huge flaw in the argument for evolutionary biology by using a mythological prop.

Ok - I'll bite. At least twice now I have brought up the mathematical impossibility of incremental evolution - only to be told that math is irrelevant, or that the sources who originally proposed the objections are biased.

So please explain to me, if you feel so inclined:

1) why it's ok to assume a steady progression of more complex features starting from a simpler organism, when

a) the fossil record suggests a singular starting point representing large biodiversity, with biodiversity tapering off as species die out from events of mass extinctions and (more recently) manmade extinctions

b) the earth hasn't existed long enough to support an incremental evolution of the features seen on animals/humans - even assuming that a major redesign of complex organs happened every 15,000 years, the odds against that redesign working correctly would indicate that for evolution to achieve what has been achieved in the human body, the earth would have had to be around an impossibly long time.

2) Please also explain why the 200+ unique chemicals in cells, some of which can only be assembled by already living matter, could have randomly coalesced into a living creature in an environment which was certainly hostile to life (being prior to plants, there would have been nothing but desert, wind blasted rock, and salt water)

2b) Since someone will surely say "conditions haven't always been the same on earth, at one time it must have been more hospitable to life or there must have been an event which helped the process along" please also explain how this does not constitute an article of faith - since it is clearly an attempt to explain away a huge flaw in the argument for evolutionary biology by using a mythological prop.

First off, I am not real knowledgeable about science or math, nor have I got around to reading all 14 pages.

About #1, where is the math that the earth would have had to have been around far longer than it has to have the life on it it has now coming from?

The last I heard any real talk about the speed of evolution was that scientist were thinking that it happened faster then they originally thought, and that disasters actually could cause an explosion of evolution. More like a bush rather than a tree. Though that was back around 2003.

#2 I was under the impression evolution was about what happen after life popped up. Not how life popped up. There are a lot of theories from the primordial ooze to germ covered asteroid to deities. And honestly I never cared enough to read into most.

I don't understand why we even need to be asking if people "believe" in science

1) why it's ok to assume a steady progression of more complex features starting from a simpler organism, when

Not necessarily steady, major environmental changes creates a greater likelihood for change - mutations occur all the time, whether one provides an advantage given environment is up to chance.

We can see mutations in genes, we can see where they become relevant, it's not an assumption to say there's a progression, whether steady or not.

a) the fossil record suggests a singular starting point representing large biodiversity, with biodiversity tapering off as species die out from events of mass extinctions and (more recently) manmade extinctions

It shows increasing complexity, the number of species is irrelevant, we can trace everything down to very simple life forms from which that complexity grew.

b) the earth hasn't existed long enough to support an incremental evolution of the features seen on animals/humans - even assuming that a major redesign of complex organs happened every 15,000 years, the odds against that redesign working correctly would indicate that for evolution to achieve what has been achieved in the human body, the earth would have had to be around an impossibly long time.

This is just pure tripe and shows a complete misunderstanding of evolution.

2) Please also explain why the 200+ unique chemicals in cells, some of which can only be assembled by already living matter, could have randomly coalesced into a living creature in an environment which was certainly hostile to life (being prior to plants, there would have been nothing but desert, wind blasted rock, and salt water)

Evolution does not explain how life started, other than that, life adapts to the environment, there are microbes living in volcanos, how harsh do you need to get?

2b) Since someone will surely say "conditions haven't always been the same on earth, at one time it must have been more hospitable to life or there must have been an event which helped the process along" please also explain how this does not constitute an article of faith - since it is clearly an attempt to explain away a huge flaw in the argument for evolutionary biology by using a mythological prop.

Again, life probably started in extraordinarily harsh conditions, which only supported an extremely simple form, in fact the very harshness of those conditions might have caused life* - as the earth cooled and became more able to support complexity of life, that complexity grew.

All in all, you're simply showing that you do not understand how evolution works. Mutations occur in DNA, we can prove that, DNA dictates the form of the living being, we can prove that.

Read here for an FAQ: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

*the only thing required for life is that something replicates, there is a 'theory', and this truly can be called a theory as it's untested, that life formed from silicon, that RNA was formed due to replication improvement in silicon.

Here's a simple outline (http://ashutoshchemist.blogspot.com/2008/04/its-clay-time-origins-of-silicon-based.html), you can google 'silicon rna life' for better, more in-depth looks.

Ok - I'll bite. At least twice now I have brought up the mathematical impossibility of incremental evolution - only to be told that math is irrelevant, or that the sources who originally proposed the objections are biased.

So please explain to me, if you feel so inclined:

1) why it's ok to assume a steady progression of more complex features starting from a simpler organism, when

Evolutionary theory involves no such assumption. Evolution has no direction or "goal," and has never involved steady progressions, but rather fits and spurts given changing conditions.

a) the fossil record suggests a singular starting point representing large biodiversity, with biodiversity tapering off as species die out from events of mass extinctions and (more recently) manmade extinctions

The fossil record does not suggest this. I mean, I'm sorry, but it doesn't. If you'd like to present the evidence that you feel indicates this, I'll happily address it, but I don't really know how to answer your assertion as it stands besides "that's just not accurate."

b) the earth hasn't existed long enough to support an incremental evolution of the features seen on animals/humans - even assuming that a major redesign of complex organs happened every 15,000 years, the odds against that redesign working correctly would indicate that for evolution to achieve what has been achieved in the human body, the earth would have had to be around an impossibly long time.

Yes, it has. The earth has existed for something like six billion years now. Six billion years is a very long time. There's nothing impossible about that. Further, "major redesigns of complex organs" is not how evolution works. We have essentially the same organs as animals in general, and animals in general have been around and had essentially those same organs for an exceedingly long time.

You also seem to misunderstand that evolution does not involve some instant, global change to a species. For every adaptation that turned out to be advantageous, there are hundreds of thousands which didn't. That's really rather the point of natural selection.

Actually, let me pause to explain the basics of natural selection, because I shouldn't take for granted that it's been explained to you before.

So, say there is a population of creatures - let's call them "squorts." (Scientific name Squortus squortus. ;) ) They are brown fuzzy things, and live in an area where there are lots of green, leafy trees. Also in this area are predators which like eating squorts. The predators, however, cannot climb trees.

So, in this population of squorts, it stands to reason that some of them are slightly better at climbing trees than others. These more nimble squorts tend to escape the predators more often than the slower squorts do, and so the nimble squorts have a better chance of surviving to reproductive age. The nimble squorts pass on the genes that support tree-climbing, so with each generation, as more nimble squorts survive to breed and more slow squorts get eaten, the squort population goes from having a few nimble squorts to having more and more, until nimble squorts dominate the population.

With me so far?

Now, let's say the sea level rises, and water cuts through the middle of this area, creating two isolated populations of squorts which cannot reach each other to interbreed. On one side (hereafter "side A") of the area, there are the same predators. On the other (hereafter "side B"), there is a new predator which is good at climbing trees, but has a poor sense of smell.

So, the squorts on side A are doing fine, but the squorts on side B are having problems. Predators keep climbing up their trees and eating them. It turns out, however, that the squorts who are sort of a greenish shade of brown can flatten themselves against branches and the predators will fail to notice them - so those squorts are more likely to survive to adulthood and reproduce, and have children who tend to be greenish, while the squorts who don't blend in so well are more likely to be eaten. The greenish squorts produce greenish offspring, and again, as generations pass, more and more greenish squorts survive to breed, and fewer and fewer non-greenish squorts are left.

So, now, we have two separate areas - on one side, there are greenish squorts, and on the other, the squorts are still mostly plain old brown. They are both, however, good at climbing trees. You've just seen one population of mostly non-tree-climbing brown squorts become two distinct populations, one of brown tree-climbing quorts, and one of greenish tree-climbing squorts, because the two populations experienced different external pressures.

Now, of course, in the meantime, the population on side B had some squorts that were kinda reddish, which made them easier for predators to see. Those squorts tended to get eaten. That's the reason why it seems like we ended up "working correctly" - because the members of the species we came from in the distant past who didn't "work correctly" were the ones who didn't survive or reproduce successfully.

Let me do one more thing to these squorts, to demonstrate one last point. Now, all the squorts have tails ranging from about 6 inches long to about 8 inches long. These tails don't really do anything, and their length makes no particular difference. One day, there is a volcanic eruption on side A. The lava flow kills all but four male squorts and 15 female squorts. As it happens, three of the four male squorts have 8-inch-long tails. Now, necessarily, most of the next generation are getting the genes for longer tails. These mostly long-tailed squorts breed with each other, producing more mostly long-tailed squorts. After several generations, the squorts on side A have tails ranging in length from about 7 inches to about 9 inches. Now, these longer tails don't offer any particular advantage, but they don't do any particular harm, either.

So now we have one population of nimble, brown, long-tailed squorts, and one population of nimble, greenish, short-tailed squorts. Neither of them are exactly like our starting population of not-particularly-nimble, brown, short-tailed squorts. In fact, perhaps we'd better give them new names - let's say Squortus longtailus and Squortus greenus.

This is evolution by means of natural selection. Does it make sense?


2) Please also explain why the 200+ unique chemicals in cells, some of which can only be assembled by already living matter, could have randomly coalesced into a living creature in an environment which was certainly hostile to life (being prior to plants, there would have been nothing but desert, wind blasted rock, and salt water)

This has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the process of change in species over time. It doesn't begin until life already exists, by definition. It is a completely separate area of science.

That said, the first proto-organism was almost certainly a great deal simpler than anything we think of as "life" today, and we've seen firsthand that a great many environments that we assumed were hostile to life support life nonetheless - the boiling-hot volcanic vents deep in the oceans, for example.

The fundamental point, though, is that it only has to happen once. The odds of my rolling a 50-sided die once and it coming up 22 are only 1 in 50, but the odds of my rolling a 50-sided die infinite times and it coming up 22 at least once are as close to 100% as they can be. Now, the odds of life beginning were unquestionably worse than 1/50 - but it had billions of years of random molecules bumping together, and they only had to get it right once. Those are actually pretty good odds.

Now, could God or something similar have been the force which told those molecules to bump into each other? Sure. Why not? That, however, has no bearing on evolutionary theory.

2b) Since someone will surely say "conditions haven't always been the same on earth, at one time it must have been more hospitable to life or there must have been an event which helped the process along" please also explain how this does not constitute an article of faith - since it is clearly an attempt to explain away a huge flaw in the argument for evolutionary biology by using a mythological prop.

Well, I'm not saying that. There's no doubt conditions haven't always been the same on earth, but the scientific community is pretty sure that they weren't terribly nice when the Earth was still comparatively young. The simple fact is that we do not know how abiogenesis occurred. We honestly don't know that alien beings didn't deposit life on our planet, and anyone who tells you that we do know such a thing is indeed speaking from faith, not science. There are several hypotheses as to how life could have begun, and they're pretty interesting reading. I suggest looking into them.

All that aside, though, that is in no way a "huge flaw" in the argument for evolution, any more than it is a "huge flaw" in the argument for gravity. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Think of it like a bowling ball rolling down the lane - the ball doesn't know or care whether I threw it or you threw it or the hand of God threw it or a greenish squort threw it - the laws of physics will apply to it just as much no matter what started the ball rolling. Evolution is how the ball rolls, not how it gets into the lane in the first place.

Whew, that was a long post. I hope it helped a bit. :)

So the very vast majority of Americans are people I would consider to be too stupid to even bother giving the time of day to if I knew them. This may sound odd but I am not at all surprised, its why I remain single for years at a time. I wish I could move somewhere where people were smarter, I really do...

Good luck finding it.

Stupid is pretty much everywhere.

And we must be complete in what we determine... Fortunately, Darwin's letters are archived and the complete text of the ones I quoted is here.
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-12041.html
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-13230.html
Clearly, he lost faith for a while and then came back to at least leaving the possibility of a deity an open question.

Again, let's look at this...

Darwin decided to leave a posthumous memoir for his family, and on Sunday 28 May 1876 he began Recollections of the Development of my mind and character

So, towards the end of his life, he was brought up in a very Christian environment, even aiming to become a clergyman on entering universtiy, but views change.

In his autobiography, in a chapter specifically devoted to the question of his religious belief, and this is his words...

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported, — that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible, do miracles become, — that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,

— that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events, — that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitness; — by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.(p.86)

"Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but at last was complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct." (p.87)

So, he's disbelieving Christianity already

"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine." (p. 87)

Indeed, eloquently put.

"At the present day (ca. 1872) the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons. But it cannot be doubted that Hindoos, Mahomadans and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favor of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddists of no God...This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God: but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists." (p.91)

In short, the fact that there is no consistency in the description of Gods, and even those people who do not believe, it's hard to argue for the existence at all.

"Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps as inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake."

Indeed, the patterns established in childhood can be hard to shake off even in adulthood, that works for a number of illogical acts by humans.

I don't understand why we even need to be asking if people "believe" in science

because it turns out that significant numbers of them do not in fact believe the things science says they ought

I don't understand why we even need to be asking if people "believe" in science

I suspect researching people's understanding of science would produce even more depressing results.

Tennessee was the last state in the US (1990s) who finally allowed evolution in state schools; however, it still ranks, and did rank, in the middle of the pack.

Don't we all have better things to argue about then what our children may or may not pay attention to for less then a hour every weekday? Clearly, nothing rides on the debate except the egos and self-importance of some very conflicted, humorous, but ultimately depressing individuals.

Not necessarily steady, major environmental changes creates a greater likelihood for change - mutations occur all the time, whether one provides an advantage given environment is up to chance.

This goes back to the question - why were environmental conditions different enough to be hospitable to a process which has the odds stacked against it?


We can see mutations in genes, we can see where they become relevant, it's not an assumption to say there's a progression, whether steady or not.

In the time since medical science has been able to study it, there have been no mutations naturally occuring which could fundamentally change an organ or a complex system. In observable history, 15000 years, there has been no changes to the human body that anyone deemed worthy of recording. That sets the threshold for significant mutation at least at the rate of less than 1 every 15,000 years. More on that later.



It shows increasing complexity, the number of species is irrelevant, we can trace everything down to very simple life forms from which that complexity grew.


Simple and complex creatures exist side by side today. Just because there were more species of simple creatures supporting an ecosystem with more species of complex organisms back then, does not make an increase in complexity, only an increase in the likelihood that more samples would be preserved for posterity. Also, simple organisms are much more likely to be preserved for the fossil record than complex ones which tends to skew your data. It's just the way fossilization works.



This is just pure tripe and shows a complete misunderstanding of evolution.


Ad hominem attack one. I've demonstrated that I have a very good understanding of the way evolution is supposed to work, according to other people in your field. Or are you going to change the rules everytime someone brings up something uncomfortable? Thought so.

Evolution takes time. Since we have never observed a beneficial and substantial mutation in the 15000 years we have been able to watch, and since mutations are random and not directed, it increases the odds of any progress occuring to a time frame which is simply impossible to fit the earths lifespan in unless you assign to the earth an arbitrarily high age. We'll address this below.



Evolution does not explain how life started, other than that, life adapts to the environment, there are microbes living in volcanos, how harsh do you need to get?


The fact that they can survive in a volcano is compelling evidence for something, but not evolution. Evolution would direct the organism to not settle in a harsh environ like a volcano before modifying it to survive. The first million (trillion?) microbes to be transported to the volcano would have died, having not adapted, so it seems more likely that someone created them and left them there.


Again, life probably started in extraordinarily harsh conditions, which only supported an extremely simple form, in fact the very harshness of those conditions might have caused life* - as the earth cooled and became more able to support complexity of life, that complexity grew.


Again, not really a compelling argument because you're saying that conditions changed to cause life and then that they randomly changed again to promote life. The odds against this sequence of events alone, even barring the complexity of the matter, are staggering. Also you are saying that harsh conditions would have made abiogenesis more likely to succeed (200+ chemicals required for life in a pool besieged by high winds - use your imagination.)


All in all, you're simply showing that you do not understand how evolution works. Mutations occur in DNA, we can prove that, DNA dictates the form of the living being, we can prove that.


Ad hominem attack two - you can't explain this aspect of your belief, so you say that I do not understand it. I do actually understand how mutations are supposed to work, but it's mathematically impossible for that process to have wrought what we see around us even in the inflated time span that geologists have assigned the earth.

Evolutionary theory involves no such assumption. Evolution has no direction or "goal," and has never involved steady progressions, but rather fits and spurts given changing conditions.


Assuming steady progressions is giving evolution the benefit of the doubt. Because if we assume it has happened quickly in the past, the question is - why doesn't it happen quickly to complex organisms now?
If we assume a steady progression it gives evolution more time for adaptation through random mutation - but there still isn't enough time in the history of earth to account for all the "incremental revisions" we see in moden fauna.



Yes, it has. The earth has existed for something like six billion years now. Six billion years is a very long time. There's nothing impossible about that. Further, "major redesigns of complex organs" is not how evolution works. We have essentially the same organs as animals in general, and animals in general have been around and had essentially those same organs for an exceedingly long time.

Ah, my favorite. I remember when evolutionists argued that the earth was 1 million years old, 100 million years old, 500 million years old, 1 billion years old, and now apparently six billion years old.

Here's a hint: Just because mathematicians show that your theory can't work in the time allotted, doesn't mean you can arbitrarily make the earth older.

To point #2 - logical fallacy. Evolution assumes abiogenesis, which states among other things that all life evolved from single celled organisms, which do not have organs. How were these organs developed through random mutation? Why? Just saying "animals have had organs for an exceedingly long time" is nothing more than a sidestep of the issue at hand, which is "how did evolution through random mutation develop a complex organ in the time allotted."


You also seem to misunderstand that evolution does not involve some instant, global change to a species. For every adaptation that turned out to be advantageous, there are hundreds of thousands which didn't. That's really rather the point of natural selection.

Actually, let me pause to explain the basics of natural selection, because I shouldn't take for granted that it's been explained to you before.


Actually I was arguing the opposite, that for evolution to work, it should take a LOT of time, time which really isn't there. I have a very good understanding of natural selection, so I'll save everyone reading about the Squorts and move on.


This has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the process of change in species over time. It doesn't begin until life already exists, by definition. It is a completely separate area of science.


There is no reason for evolution to exist without abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis, the only alternative explanation is a supernatural creator. A creator would not use a method of creation which depends on random chance for success.

There is also no reason for abiogenesis to exist apart from evolution. Abiogenesis is a thought experiment concocted to try to bolster the argument for evolution after the fact. That abiogenesis has never been proven or replicated is a major setback for evolutionary biologists, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is why so many posters on NSG try to deflect attention from it.


That said, the first proto-organism was almost certainly a great deal simpler than anything we think of as "life" today, and we've seen firsthand that a great many environments that we assumed were hostile to life support life nonetheless - the boiling-hot volcanic vents deep in the oceans, for example.


Again, speaks more to a creator wishing to populate a barren spot on the earth than an organism choosing to reside in a place which other organisms cannot survive.


The fundamental point, though, is that it only has to happen once. The odds of my rolling a 50-sided die once and it coming up 22 are only 1 in 50, but the odds of my rolling a 50-sided die infinite times and it coming up 22 at least once are as close to 100% as they can be. Now, the odds of life beginning were unquestionably worse than 1/50 - but it had billions of years of random molecules bumping together, and they only had to get it right once. Those are actually pretty good odds.


Billions of years of random chance
vs
An organism that is incapable of surving in the wild without all the complex organs being designed at once, when evolutionary theory specifically argues that all enhancements to the original one-celled organism were developed incrementally.

The odds against are staggering, and I believe I have consistently demonstrated why it takes more than once - in fact it would take thousands of times rolling the dice at impossibly long odds to manufacture the thousands of discrete systems in a mammal through random chance, and even then the organism would die in between the rolling of the dice because the systems are interdependent.

Assuming that six billion years of random chance was true, there should be mutations happening all the time and dead failed organisms lying everywhere right now. In fact, we should not even be having this conversation, since most likely our ancestors would just be lumps of incomplete organic matter on a barren, plantless plain.


Well, I'm not saying that. There's no doubt conditions haven't always been the same on earth, but the scientific community is pretty sure that they weren't terribly nice when the Earth was still comparatively young. The simple fact is that we do not know how abiogenesis occurred.

Why and how have conditions changed from a state where they could have supported an impossible sequence of events to a state where they can no longer support that impossible sequence? Article of faith that such a set of conditions ever existed.

If life was deposited here by aliens, who created the space aliens? Or are we to assume that they evolved on a planet more favorable to random mutation AND developed to the point where the could commence interstellar travel? The assumptions boggle the mind.

True to your word, Poliwanacraca, you did not engage in any ad hominem against me, so I will give you a gold star for putting some thought into your responses, but I can't agree with the assumptions you make.

Also, simple organisms are much more likely to be preserved for the fossil record than complex ones which tends to skew your data. It's just the way fossilization works.


Really? Are you arguing that from the point of view that there might be more of them so we are likely to find them or that it is somehow easier for an amoeba to be fossilied than a buffalo?

Yes, but creationists often claim to be scientific, which is where conflict arises. Evolutionists may sometimes claim to affect religion, although I can't think of ever seeing that.

The closest we have to that are those people who believe that we have no soul and that we are a simply a product of brain chemicals. The basic flaw in this viewpoint is the assumption that only those things which can be observed exist. This is obviously not true, as things like the patriarchy or pi can not be observed by any of our senses, yet they definitely exist.

Tennessee was the last state in the US (1990s) who finally allowed evolution in state schools; however, it still ranks, and did rank, in the middle of the pack.

Don't we all have better things to argue about then what our children may or may not pay attention to for less then a hour every weekday? Clearly, nothing rides on the debate except the egos and self-importance of some very conflicted, humorous, but ultimately depressing individuals.

So, understanding of the world around us and knowledge of the way we came to be as we are is really not that important at all...

Really? Are you arguing that from the point of view that there might be more of them so we are likely to find them or that it is somehow easier for an amoeba to be fossilied that a buffalo?

I'm glad you asked. Both of your statements are true.

1) There are more of them
2) Fossilization requires that a creature be fully buried in mud alive or shortly after death, otherwise natural processes will do their thing. Which is more likely to be buried intact in mud? A simple organism which spends most of it's life near mud, or a large animal which spends most of it's life on dry ground?

...In the time since medical science has been able to study it, there have been no mutations naturally occuring which could fundamentally change an organ or a complex system. In observable history, 15000 years, there has been no changes to the human body that anyone deemed worthy of recording. That sets the threshold for significant mutation at least at the rate of less than 1 every 15,000 years. More on that later....

You should do some research so that you don,t say things that can be easily proven wrong.

http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/scitech/release.cfm?ArticleID=1376

By looking at the rate of decay of association of genetic variants over a three-million base pair region, Tishkoff and collaborators were able to estimate when these genetic mutations occurred in human history. The mutation for lactose tolerance began to show up in Northern Europeans at about the same time they began to raise milk cattle, around 9,000 years ago. A distinct mutation for lactose tolerance became common in East Africa beginning around 7,000 years ago. These dates correlate with archeological evidence for the origins of cattle domestication in these regions.

Maybe I answered your question with my question.

You want proof, look at micro.

Macro is a little hard unless of course you are an immortal.

Do big things evolve differently than little things?

There is no reason for evolution to exist without abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis, the only alternative explanation is a supernatural creator. A creator would not use a method of creation which depends on random chance for success.


Thats a HUUUUUGE assumption you're making there. Unless you're on speaking terms with the creator in question.

as things like the patriarchy...can not be observed by any of our senses
Huh?

Have you SEEN the Superbowl commercials?

Evolutionary theory involves no such assumption. Evolution has no direction or "goal," and has never involved steady progressions, but rather fits and spurts given changing conditions.
*snip*
Whew, that was a long post. I hope it helped a bit. :)
Epic tl;dr, but from epic hawtness. Really, just an excuse to fluffle you.:fluffle:

Ah, my favorite. I remember when evolutionists argued that the earth was 1 million years old, 100 million years old, 500 million years old, 1 billion years old, and now apparently six billion years old.


I shall leave the other points to those with slightly more time and patience to address them, but I shall handle this one. 6 billion is wrong. Current radiometric dating would place the age of the earth at 4.55 billion years old (approximately, we're dealing with complex dating systems and large numbers, so expect a margin of error there). In Darwin's time, based mathematically on a cooling ball (ie how long a molten ball the size of the earth would take to cool down) it was believed to be 400 million. And yes, this did cause a problem for evolution and one which Darwin mentioned himself. However, this did not take into account the missing heat source that is abundant in the earth but they were not aware of - radeoactivity. Estimates of age do inevitably change as better measurement techniques and more information about the nature of our world and universe become know, however for the past few decades the estimation has comfortably been in the billions.

Eh? I am not sure what you mean? Why a theory?

Building up tolerances is not evolution.

I have allergies. They were bad at one point so I started a shot regiment. Now they are not so bad. Did I evolve?

Humans and salmonella have slightly different life spans and reproduction rates. If a single bacterium becomes drug resistant then it wouldn't really be evolution. If the species becomes drug resistant after hundreds or thousands of generations, that is. Guess which happened.

In all seriousness, though, how can you NOT believe in Intelligent Design?

I mean, for serious, I totally can accept that the world has evolved -- how boring would it be if nothing ever changed, if it were always stagnant? More importantly, a stagnant world would be effectively unsustainable. Adaptability is key to survival.

That said, people who don't believe in a Creator have OBVIOUSLY never played with boobs or man-parts.

I'm sorry, but breasts don't just evolve to be simultaneously fun, sexy, and nourishing. They are the ultimate toy! The odds of random chance coming up with boobies is absolutely ridiculous!

And man-part. Heh. Man, if there is anything to challenge boobies for sheer fun, it's got to be a penis. The way it changes size, hehe, it's like it's playing with you, too! I mean, that a dude pees out of it is kind of gross, and maybe that could counter the obvious otherwise Intelligent Design of a man's nether-region. But aside from that? Yeah, I'm sorry, my faith is clearly lacking, because I have PROOF of God when I look at the world, everywhere, which everyone knows defeats the point of having faith.

If you don't think there was Intelligent Design, go play with some boobs are penises (penii?). You will come (hehehe) away either believing that SOMETHING besides evolution is responsible for those bits (I was going to write little, but didn't want to offend anyone) of joy, or realizing that there are things more fun than silly arguments and pretentious looking down upon people who have less understanding or education of science than you do.

Humans and salmonella have slightly different life spans and reproduction rates. If a single bacterium becomes drug resistant then it wouldn't really be evolution. If the species becomes drug resistant after hundreds or thousands of generations, that is. Guess which happened.

You are so sexy when you talk science.

Not that you aren't, ya know, always sexy. But sometimes you make it more obvious :fluffle:

You are so sexy when you talk science.

Not that you aren't, ya know, always sexy. But sometimes you make it more obvious :fluffle:

:fluffle:

You're so sexy when you talk boob-science. ;)

:fluffle:

You're so sexy when you talk boob-science. ;)

It's more boob-faith, or were you referencing the time we established 1) mah brainz are in mah boobies and 2) teh world revolves around me due to said brainz/boobies ULTIMATE COMBO ?

Cuz, ya know, I do try :fluffle:

This goes back to the question - why were environmental conditions different enough to be hospitable to a process which has the odds stacked against it?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at by this. Again, not only is there a large number of rolling dice going on on this planet for abiogenesis, you must consider that throughout the universe there is a very, very, very large number of rolling dice, so it stands to reason that there will be a certain number of successful ones (or maybe just a single one, it doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion so long as it is a positive integer of some sort).
In the time since medical science has been able to study it, there have been no mutations naturally occuring which could fundamentally change an organ or a complex system. In observable history, 15000 years, there has been no changes to the human body that anyone deemed worthy of recording. That sets the threshold for significant mutation at least at the rate of less than 1 every 15,000 years. More on that later.

Hrm....you seem to be under the impression that organisms go from, say, simple vascular structures to complex ones in a sudden, gigantic evolutionary leap. This may or may not happen, but more likely it is a slow and constant process. You can see something of this actually; the lactose tolerance mentioned earlier is an easy one. I do think humans are probably a bad choice, though. Our selective pressures are quite different from "natural ones" (granted, all selective pressures are natural, but humans have distinctly human ones because of the advent of technology i.e. domestication of livestock and horticulture, etc.). A better animal to study would be insects and the like.

Also, the fossil record reveals MANY cases of transitional animals. Simple changes such as just the elongation or flattening of limbs and larger rotation capacity of hip joints and the like can have drastic consequences on the survivability of creatures. On the other hand, we can see many failed mutations, in humans and non-humans alike. What do you call the large number of genetic disorders? Those are failed mutations.
Simple and complex creatures exist side by side today. Just because there were more species of simple creatures supporting an ecosystem with more species of complex organisms back then, does not make an increase in complexity, only an increase in the likelihood that more samples would be preserved for posterity. Also, simple organisms are much more likely to be preserved for the fossil record than complex ones which tends to skew your data. It's just the way fossilization works.
Not quite. Yes, smaller organisms are more likely to be fossilized but are they more likely to be found? There seems to be an optimal size for a creature being added to the fossil record; fist sized or so. It isn't complexity of the creature, though, that affects its chance at fossilization, it is its size and preferred environment. A highly complex creature the size of a mouse who wanders around river banks is much more likely to be fossilized than, say, a gigantic single celled organism that floats around on air currents (not saying either of these exist, just trying to make a point).
Ad hominem attack one. I've demonstrated that I have a very good understanding of the way evolution is supposed to work, according to other people in your field. Or are you going to change the rules everytime someone brings up something uncomfortable? Thought so.
Calling into question your understanding of the topic of debate is not an ad hominem. I, and it seems others in this thread, do not believe you've shown a clear understanding of evolutionary processes; this is not an ad hominem, it is a concern.
Evolution takes time. Since we have never observed a beneficial and substantial mutation in the 15000 years we have been able to watch, and since mutations are random and not directed, it increases the odds of any progress occuring to a time frame which is simply impossible to fit the earths lifespan in unless you assign to the earth an arbitrarily high age. We'll address this below.
This is simply incorrect and your argument hinges upon evolution being mathematically infeasible. Do you have a source for this other than you saying so? I'd be interested in reading it and seeing how they arrive at their conclusions. We have observed both beneficial and substantial mutations in the last hundred years since we've been able to really take not of such things. As was mentioned, humans can digest milk now (well, many can). Bacteria go through substantial survival changes often. The overuse of antibiotics is a great example of a selective pressure triggering evolutionary change.
The fact that they can survive in a volcano is compelling evidence for something, but not evolution. Evolution would direct the organism to not settle in a harsh environ like a volcano before modifying it to survive. The first million (trillion?) microbes to be transported to the volcano would have died, having not adapted, so it seems more likely that someone created them and left them there.
No, evolution would direct a creature that had a mutation that allowed increased tolerance of heat and noxious gases to be able to get closer to the volcano than its peers, allowing for its peers to be more likely eaten by predators who do not have a similar tolerance. Eventually those peers disappear from being consumed by predators but now the predators with higher tolerances inch towards the volcano to eat the microbes and so have a better survival rate because of increased food sources, eventually giving them selective supremacy until the microbes retreat ever closer to the volcano, etc. etc.
Again, not really a compelling argument because you're saying that conditions changed to cause life and then that they randomly changed again to promote life. The odds against this sequence of events alone, even barring the complexity of the matter, are staggering. Also you are saying that harsh conditions would have made abiogenesis more likely to succeed (200+ chemicals required for life in a pool besieged by high winds - use your imagination.)
Actually, saying conditions arose to create life and then changed to promote, rather than create, isn't infeasible. Life has an environmental impact. The changes in temperate, CO2 and O2 levels throughout the history of life on this planet are a prime example.
Ad hominem attack two - you can't explain this aspect of your belief, so you say that I do not understand it. I do actually understand how mutations are supposed to work, but it's mathematically impossible for that process to have wrought what we see around us even in the inflated time span that geologists have assigned the earth.

Assuming steady progressions is giving evolution the benefit of the doubt. Because if we assume it has happened quickly in the past, the question is - why doesn't it happen quickly to complex organisms now?
If we assume a steady progression it gives evolution more time for adaptation through random mutation - but there still isn't enough time in the history of earth to account for all the "incremental revisions" we see in moden fauna.
We can assume it happens quickly when there is increased selective pressure for it or many niches to fulfill, neither of which are the cases for anything but bacteria and viruses, which DO evolve constantly and rapidly.

This also has a lot to do with the reproductive cycle. It will be hard to directly observe evolution in large animals because it happens over a much much larger period of time. This might be why animals, land and sea, actually exhibit a large number of similar organs. Kidneys, hearts, brains, etc. These things have not changed very much since they arose because there has been no pressure for them to do so, in fact, there has been pressure for them to stay, functionally, as they are.
Ah, my favorite. I remember when evolutionists argued that the earth was 1 million years old, 100 million years old, 500 million years old, 1 billion years old, and now apparently six billion years old.
Hrm...I am possibly mistaken. Maybe YOU are able to observe evolution directly since you're apparently old enough to remember when the earth was argued to be one million years old. =p
Here's a hint: Just because mathematicians show that your theory can't work in the time allotted, doesn't mean you can arbitrarily make the earth older.
Nothing arbitrary about it, just the convergence of multiple scientific fields which, really, is just a damned BEAUTIFUL thing.
To point #2 - logical fallacy. Evolution assumes abiogenesis, which states among other things that all life evolved from single celled organisms, which do not have organs. How were these organs developed through random mutation? Why? Just saying "animals have had organs for an exceedingly long time" is nothing more than a sidestep of the issue at hand, which is "how did evolution through random mutation develop a complex organ in the time allotted."
No. You are attributing assumptions to theories that do not merit them. You keep saying evolution assumes abiogenesis. Evolution, as a theory (or set of theories), works just fine with an intelligent creator or with random chance. Complex life in the form of creatures with organs isn't quite understood, yet, but one good theory is that it's just a convergence of multiple lifeforms working together. Man o' Wars are a good example of how this can occur; these creatures are called Siphonophores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphonophore).

There is no reason for evolution to exist without abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis, the only alternative explanation is a supernatural creator. A creator would not use a method of creation which depends on random chance for success.
What is your reasoning behind this? A creator is compatible with evolution. In fact, it makes sense if we look at early agricultural methods. Grab a bag of seeds, toss 'em around, and hope something grows. So a creator grabs a bag of simple life, tosses it around and hopes something grows....which he then eats. Thus I have shown that we are all just smart potatoes awaiting to be harvested by our creator-god! :(
There is also no reason for abiogenesis to exist apart from evolution. Abiogenesis is a thought experiment concocted to try to bolster the argument for evolution after the fact. That abiogenesis has never been proven or replicated is a major setback for evolutionary biologists, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is why so many posters on NSG try to deflect attention from it.
We are deflecting from it because it isn't relevant to evolution.
Billions of years of random chance
vs
An organism that is incapable of surving in the wild without all the complex organs being designed at once, when evolutionary theory specifically argues that all enhancements to the original one-celled organism were developed incrementally.
As I mentioned earlier, multiple primitive organs could have developed independently and concurrently before coming together as a Siphonophora, after which we have a foundation for more complex life functioning as a single organism.
The odds against are staggering, and I believe I have consistently demonstrated why it takes more than once - in fact it would take thousands of times rolling the dice at impossibly long odds to manufacture the thousands of discrete systems in a mammal through random chance, and even then the organism would die in between the rolling of the dice because the systems are interdependent.

Assuming that six billion years of random chance was true, there should be mutations happening all the time and dead failed organisms lying everywhere right now. In fact, we should not even be having this conversation, since most likely our ancestors would just be lumps of incomplete organic matter on a barren, plantless plain.
You are assuming Earth is the only location of dice rolls. Expanding the rolls out to a very large number of planets, for life to have cropped up on at least one the odds increase quite a bit.
Why and how have conditions changed from a state where they could have supported an impossible sequence of events to a state where they can no longer support that impossible sequence? Article of faith that such a set of conditions ever existed..

This isn't an article of faith as it has no relation to evolution itself. Evolution is a process that EXISTING life engages in. The study of how life came to exist is a different field.

Actually I read a bunch of his stuff and I found it to be more of an agnostic stance. He couldn't prove or disprove it.

It's a matter of interpretation. Bible thumpers like to take it as he was talking about God. You would be surprised how many believe in the so called Death Bed confession.
The one thing I remember very clearly from the second letter I linked in was that he thought his beliefs were his own business. And I'm content to leave it at that.

For the record, let's be sure we separate politics from faith. There are certainly reasons to object to faith by force and the Constitution wisely guards against that. But on the other hand, let's not condemn folks because of their faith, either. This is more of a general observation that a directed comment and this is a handy place to type it... So don't read more into it than there is.

Evolution vs Creationism battle to the death in the Thunderdome?
Evolution vs Creationism thread #3454599.......MEH!!

Either one believes or one does not believe. All the rest is window dressing.

The closest we have to that are those people who believe that we have no soul and that we are a simply a product of brain chemicals. The basic flaw in this viewpoint is the assumption that only those things which can be observed exist. This is obviously not true, as things like the patriarchy or pi can not be observed by any of our senses, yet they definitely exist.

one key way we observe things is by their effects...

Evolution vs Creationism thread #3454599.......MEH!!

Either one believes or one does not believe. All the rest is window dressing.

Beliefs can change. There is only one word for a person that has beliefs that do not change when they are contradicted by fact. But it is such a horrible, nasty word that if I wrote it here an elite force would be in my house through a hole in my ceiling, place me in a body bag, hand a receipt to my wife and I would never see my family again.

I just lost some more faith in humanity. :(

one key way we observe things is by their effects...

Right. As Bottle pointed out, even though we can't actually poke our fingers into the patriarchy, we can still see evidence for its existence through such things as Superbowl commercials.

Right. As Bottle pointed out, even though we can't actually poke our fingers into the patriarchy, we can still see evidence for its existence through such things as Superbowl commercials.

I bet you could if you tried hard enough http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-goumoticon0bk.gif

I bet you could if you tried hard enough http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-goumoticon0bk.gif

When I try hard enough, I can get my whole fist in.

When I try hard enough, I can get my whole fist in.

Oh.


Oh my!

Romans 1:21-24

mainly verse 23. Evolution is too general, but to say that we came from apes is absurd and abosolutely ridiculous. Read it. this is over a thousand year book and we are clearly living what it says. Its funny because dinosaurs are in the bible as well.

God is freaking awesome :)

Romans 1:21-24

mainly verse 23. Evolution is too general, but to say that we came from apes is absurd and abosolutely ridiculous. Read it. this is over a thousand year book and we are clearly living what it says. Its funny because dinosaurs are in the bible as well.

God is freaking awesome :)

Where in the Bible does it mention dinosaurs?:confused:

Romans 1:21-24

mainly verse 23. Evolution is too general, but to say that we came from apes is absurd and abosolutely ridiculous. Read it. this is over a thousand year book and we are clearly living what it says. Its funny because dinosaurs are in the bible as well.

God is freaking awesome :)

I think you're confusing the bible with Land of the Lost. It's an easy mistake to make, no doubt.

Where in the Bible does it mention dinosaurs?:confused:

Job 40:15-24

I think you're confusing the bible with Land of the Lost. It's an easy mistake to make, no doubt.

Or just Lost. Polar Bears in the tropics, what?! GOD OBVIOUSLY IS THE PRIME CREATOR!

Romans 1:21-24

mainly verse 23. Evolution is too general, but to say that we came from apes is absurd and abosolutely ridiculous. Read it. this is over a thousand year book and we are clearly living what it says. Its funny because dinosaurs are in the bible as well.

God is freaking awesome :)

wait, what?

Job 40:15-24

They've got one of those at the DC Zoo. They call it an "elephant."