More Than Half of Americans Reject Evolution, Back Bible

[Nbadan]

http://www.oplatki.com/images/Rosary/IN%20God%20we%20trust.jpg

Gallup: More Than Half of Americans Reject Evolution, Back Bible


NEW YORK A Gallup report released today reveals that more than half of all Americans, rejecting evolution theory and scientific evidence, agree with the statement, "God created man exactly how Bible describes it."

Another 31% says that man did evolve, but "God guided." Only 12% back evolution and say "God had no part."

Gallup summarized it this way: "Surveys repeatedly show that a substantial portion of Americans do not believe that the theory of evolution best explains where life came from." They are "not so quick to agree with the preponderance of scientific evidence."

The report was written by the director of the The Gallup Poll, Frank Newport.

Breaking down the numbers, Gallup finds that Republican backing for what it calls "God created human beings in present form" stands at 57% with Democrats at 44%.

Editor and Publisher (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002154704)

Kinda puts that Simpson's poll about First Amendment rights into prespective.

However, further digging shows some people may merely be confused about the terminology that is being used...


Most Americans say they are familiar with creationism and evolution, but there is some confusion about the terms' meaning. In an August 2005 Gallup poll, 58% of the public said that creationism was definitely or probably true as an explanation for the origin and development of life, but 55% also said this about evolution. Since creationism and evolution are incompatible as explanations, some portion of the public is clearly confused about the meaning of the terms.

A 1999 Fox News poll of registered voters offered respondents the explicit option to say that both Darwin's theory of evolution and the biblical account of creation were true: 26% said both were. Similarly, Pew's July 2005 poll found that about nearly three-in-ten of those who oppose the teaching of creationism nonetheless personally accept creationist accounts of life's origins, and 14% of those who accept natural selection favor teaching creationism instead of evolution.

The term "intelligent design" is still unknown to much of the public. In the August 2005 Gallup survey, 52% said they were either "not too familiar" or "not at all familiar" with the phrase. By comparison, only 17% and 24% were not familiar with "evolution" and "creationism," respectively. Given the low level of public recognition of the term, "intelligent design" is rarely mentioned in polling on the origins of life.

People Press (http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=118)

[FromWayDowntown]

A large percentage of Americans are religious, and an overwhelming number of religious people identify as Christians, so that sort of finding is hardly a big surprise.

[Oh, Gee!!]

"God created man exactly how Bible describes it."

equals "Voted for Bush."

[jochhejaam]

'More than half of the American people are Ignorant Hicks who believe that God created man exactly how the Bible describes it and those people' "Voted for Bush."




Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
-Abraham Lincoln-

[Spurminator]

I can see how they would be confused seeing as many of them probably believe in both... I would have given the first answer as well but that doesn't mean I don't believe in the evolution of man.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

:lmao good luck with that! send us a postcard from the middle ages

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Isn't america like 86% christian?

And don't alot of these christians equate bush and the current regime with "smarter than science" ?

Go figure.

[boutons_]

more evolutionary bullshit and fairy tales from NYT. Not only does the NYT refuse to reject (human) evolution, the NYT now says (human) evolution is still occurring, even recently. They will burn in hell for their blasphemy

=================


March 7, 2006

Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story
By NICHOLAS WADE

Providing the strongest evidence yet that humans are still evolving, researchers have detected some 700 regions of the human genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection, a principal force of evolution, within the last 5,000 to 15,000 years.

( what bullshit. God didn't create the universe until 6,000 years ago!! )

The genes that show this evolutionary change include some responsible for the senses of taste and smell, digestion, bone structure, skin color and brain function.

Many of these instances of selection may reflect the pressures that came to bear as people abandoned their hunting and gathering way of life for settlement and agriculture, a transition well under way in Europe and East Asia some 5,000 years ago.

Under natural selection, beneficial genes become more common in a population as their owners have more progeny.

Three populations were studied, Africans, East Asians and Europeans. In each, a mostly different set of genes had been favored by natural selection. The selected genes, which affect skin color, hair texture and bone structure, may underlie the present-day differences in racial appearance.

The study of selected genes may help reconstruct many crucial events in the human past. It may also help physical anthropologists explain why people over the world have such a variety of distinctive appearances, even though their genes are on the whole similar, said Dr. Spencer Wells, director of the Genographic Project of the National Geographic Society.

The finding adds substantially to the evidence that human evolution did not grind to a halt in the distant past, as is tacitly assumed by many social scientists. Even evolutionary psychologists, who interpret human behavior in terms of what the brain evolved to do, hold that the work of natural selection in shaping the human mind was completed in the pre-agricultural past, more than 10,000 years ago.

"There is ample evidence that selection has been a major driving point in our evolution during the last 10,000 years, and there is no reason to suppose that it has stopped," said Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago who headed the study.

Dr. Pritchard and his colleagues, Benjamin Voight, Sridhar Kudaravalli and Xiaoquan Wen, report their findings in today's issue of PLOS-Biology.

Their data is based on DNA changes in three populations gathered by the HapMap project, which built on the decoding of the human genome in 2003. The data, though collected to help identify variant genes that contribute to disease, also give evidence of evolutionary change.

The fingerprints of natural selection in DNA are hard to recognize. Just a handful of recently selected genes have previously been identified, like those that confer resistance to malaria or the ability to digest lactose in adulthood, an adaptation common in Northern Europeans whose ancestors thrived on cattle milk.

But the authors of the HapMap study released last October found many other regions where selection seemed to have occurred, as did an analysis published in December by Robert K. Moysis of the University of California, Irvine.

Dr. Pritchard's scan of the human genome differs from the previous two because he has developed a statistical test to identify just genes that have started to spread through populations in recent millennia and have not yet become universal, as many advantageous genes eventually do.

The selected genes he has detected fall into a handful of functional categories, as might be expected if people were adapting to specific changes in their environment. Some are genes involved in digesting particular foods like the lactose-digesting gene common in Europeans. Some are genes that mediate taste and smell as well as detoxify plant poisons, perhaps signaling a shift in diet from wild foods to domesticated plants and animals.

Dr. Pritchard estimates that the average point at which the selected genes started to become more common under the pressure of natural selection is 10,800 years ago in the African population and 6,600 years ago in the Asian and European populations.

Dr. Richard G. Klein, a paleoanthropologist at Stanford, said that it was hard to correlate the specific gene changes in the three populations with events in the archaeological record, but that the timing and nature of the changes in the East Asians and Europeans seemed compatible with the shift to agriculture. Rice farming became widespread in China 6,000 to 7,000 years ago, and agriculture reached Europe from the Near East around the same time.

Skeletons similar in form to modern Chinese are hard to find before that period, Dr. Klein said, and there are few European skeletons older than 10,000 years that look like modern Europeans.

That suggests that a change in bone structure occurred in the two populations, perhaps in connection with the shift to agriculture. Dr. Pritchard's team found that several genes associated with embryonic development of the bones had been under selection in East Asians and Europeans, and these could be another sign of the forager-to-farmer transition, Dr. Klein said.

Dr. Wells, of the National Geographic Society, said Dr. Pritchard's results were fascinating and would help anthropologists explain the immense diversity of human populations even though their genes are generally similar. The relative handful of selected genes that Dr. Pritchard's study has pinpointed may hold the answer, he said, adding, "Each gene has a story of some pressure we adapted to."

Dr. Wells is gathering DNA from across the globe to map in finer detail the genetic variation brought to light by the HapMap project.

Dr. Pritchard's list of selected genes also includes five that affect skin color. The selected versions of the genes occur solely in Europeans and are presumably responsible for pale skin. Anthropologists have generally assumed that the first modern humans to arrive in Europe some 45,000 years ago had the dark skin of their African origins, but soon acquired the paler skin needed to admit sunlight for vitamin D synthesis.

The finding of five skin genes selected 6,600 years ago could imply that Europeans acquired their pale skin much more recently. Or, the selected genes may have been a reinforcement of a process established earlier, Dr. Pritchard said.

The five genes show no sign of selective pressure in East Asians.

Because Chinese and Japanese are also pale, Dr. Pritchard said, evolution must have accomplished the same goal in those populations by working through different genes or by changing the same genes — but many thousands of years before, so that the signal of selection is no longer visible to the new test.

Dr. Pritchard also detected selection at work in brain genes, including a group known as microcephaly genes because, when disrupted, they cause people to be born with unusually small brains.

( microcephaly seems to be prevalent in the Bible belt :lol Perhaps listening to money-grubbing Bible-thumping preachers, especially on TV, is an environmental pressure that causes genetic evolution towards smaller and stupider brains. )

Dr. Bruce Lahn, also of the University of Chicago, theorizes that successive changes in the microcephaly genes may have enabled the brain to enlarge in primate evolution, a process that may have continued in the recent human past.

Last September, Dr. Lahn reported that one microcephaly gene had recently changed in Europeans and another in Europeans and Asians. He predicted that other brain genes would be found to have changed in other populations.

Dr. Pritchard's test did not detect a signal of selection in Dr. Lahn's two genes, but that may just reflect limitations of the test, he and Dr. Lahn said. Dr. Pritchard found one microcephaly gene that had been selected for in Africans and another in Europeans and East Asians. Another brain gene, SNTG1, was under heavy selection in all three populations.

"It seems like a really interesting gene, given our results, but there doesn't seem to be that much known about exactly what it's doing to the brain," Dr. Pritchard said.

Dr. Wells said that it was not surprising the brain had continued to evolve along with other types of genes, but that nothing could be inferred about the nature of the selective pressure until the function of the selected genes was understood.

The four populations analyzed in the HapMap project are the Yoruba of Nigeria, Han Chinese from Beijing, Japanese from Tokyo and a French collection of Utah families of European descent. The populations are assumed to be typical of sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and Europe, but the representation, though presumably good enough for medical studies, may not be exact.

Dr. Pritchard's test for selection rests on the fact that an advantageous mutation is inherited along with its gene and a large block of DNA in which the gene sits. If the improved gene spreads quickly, the DNA region that includes it will become less diverse across a population because so many people now carry the same sequence of DNA units at that location.

Dr. Pritchard's test measures the difference in DNA diversity between those who carry a new gene and those who do not, and a significantly lesser diversity is taken as a sign of selection. The difference disappears when the improved gene has swept through the entire population, as eventually happens, so the test picks up only new gene variants on their way to becoming universal.

The selected genes turned out to be quite different from one racial group to another. Dr. Pritchard's test identified 206 regions of the genome that are under selection in the Yorubans, 185 regions in East Asians and 188 in Europeans. The few overlaps between races concern genes that could have been spread by migration or else be instances of independent evolution, Dr. Pritchard said.

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

[boutons_]

"an overwhelming number of religious people identify as Christians,"

Being Christian doesn't require being stupid and anti-science.

The US Christians who have added creationism/ID as a being central to Christianity are
an erroneous fringe group who are refusing to seek God via intellectual/scientific enquriy, probably because the preachers who are fomenting creationism/ID are ignorant, uneducated sons-of-bitches with a non-Christian agenda.

[Jelly]

oh Dan, quit getting your panties in a knot. So what? Besides, you know very well these polls deliberately distort the results by the way the questions are phrased. I was raised Catholic, consider myself a Christian, believe in God on most days (but do not attend church and have not read the entire bible...just passages.) But I also took a minor in Anthropology and love to read and hear anything new about evolution. So I am a pro-evolution Christian...and I'm not the only one. Get over it.

[MannyIsGod]

oh Dan, quit getting your panties in a knot. So what? Besides, you know very well these polls deliberately distort the results by the way the questions are phrased. I was raised Catholic, consider myself a Christian, believe in God on most days (but do not attend church and have not read the entire bible...just passages.) But I also took a minor in Anthropology and love to read and hear anything new about evolution. So I am a pro-evolution Christian...and I'm not the only one. Get over it.You're right, there are about 5 of you. Gallup missed them all, apparently.

[Darrin]

oh Dan, quit getting your panties in a knot. So what? Besides, you know very well these polls deliberately distort the results by the way the questions are phrased. I was raised Catholic, consider myself a Christian, believe in God on most days (but do not attend church and have not read the entire bible...just passages.) But I also took a minor in Anthropology and love to read and hear anything new about evolution. So I am a pro-evolution Christian...and I'm not the only one. Get over it.

Amen. That's where I stand, too. Just because the Bible tells us the cake was made by God, doesn't mean we know what God was cooking with.

[Jelly]

You're right, there are about 5 of you. Gallup missed them all, apparently.

Yeah right Manny. And there are only about 5 Catholics on birth control! the rest of us are using the rythm method or abstaining altogether!! Get real. There are PLENTY of Catholics who accept evolution. In fact, most Catholics I know believe in evolution, but we are on the "cafeteria plan" if you know what I mean. We believe in some of the bible but not all. Not all Christians take the bible entirely literally. Of course, this would not go down well with Joachim or his fundamentalist friends, but to act like there are not a bazillion of us out here is just stupid. Sorry.

[Spurminator]

Looks like there's 3 of them posting in this thread alone... Three out of five? Small world... :lol

[Guru of Nothing]

You're right, there are about 5 of you. Gallup missed them all, apparently.

sarcasm??

[exstatic]

sarcasm??
From Manny? Perish the thought... :lol

[Nbadan]

oh Dan, quit getting your panties in a knot. So what? Besides, you know very well these polls deliberately distort the results by the way the questions are phrased. I was raised Catholic, consider myself a Christian, believe in God on most days (but do not attend church and have not read the entire bible...just passages.) But I also took a minor in Anthropology and love to read and hear anything new about evolution. So I am a pro-evolution Christian...and I'm not the only one. Get over it.

You really got to work on your political takes. How do you respond to 'get over it'?

:lol

[Nbadan]

good luck with that! send us a postcard from the middle ages

Oh man, the Argentinians are laughing at us.

:oops

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah right Manny. And there are only about 5 Catholics on birth control! the rest of us are using the rythm method or abstaining altogether!! Get real. There are PLENTY of Catholics who accept evolution. In fact, most Catholics I know believe in evolution, but we are on the "cafeteria plan" if you know what I mean. We believe in some of the bible but not all. Not all Christians take the bible entirely literally. Of course, this would not go down well with Joachim or his fundamentalist friends, but to act like there are not a bazillion of us out here is just stupid. Sorry.Well, there are also plenty of Catholics who accept that the Virgin Mary is in their burnt grilled cheese sandwich or the tortilla they just ate so I gotta take it for what its worth.

:lol

I think Travis is one of the five, too, so 80% of all realistic catholics are on Spurstalk.

[Phenomanul]

Not this again....


sigh...


Man... I wish some of you all had actually taken advanced genetics courses instead of coming on like everything you read from a scientist is the undebatable and undeniable 'truth'...

Of course I don't actually know who has and who hasn't taken such a course... but frankly, I'm getting tired of all the 'poser' crap... and all the 'piggy-back' hate towards Christians such as myself.... you know who you are.

I am not a 'fundie', nor a Republican, nor 100% pro-Bush (where he can make no wrong whatsoever). I am a GOD fearing Christian. If you can't accept that, tough. I personally don't go knocking on your door to shove my Bible down your throat. Where is the tolerance token you all hold in such high regard when discussing subjects such as abortion or homosexuality??? Oh, I see... only you all are allowed to use it cause it doesn't apply to Christians. How convenient.

Though I respect people's right to formulate their own opinions, it really rattles my nerves to constantly read that I can't be a scientist and a 'Bible-believing' Christian. I don't expect you all to reconcile the concepts as a form of acceptance, but that stance is rather absurd... as if you all were the gauges by which my scientific credentials were validated.

Nicholas Wade's article is fundamentally flawed in that he assumes 'his' definition of a species is the reference for documenting genetic deviations that give rise to genetic speciation. His conclusion therefore, "Humans are still evolving" is only correct within the parameters of his definition. But that exclusive framework is not set in stone and is the subject of much debate. For example, no where in that article does he show how new genetic material is being created. Can such an experiment even be set up? Where would we find complete 'pools' of 6000 yr-old, and 3000 yr-old DNA genomes to use as reference. Sure... there are some samples... but not entire genomes, and certainly not enough of them to form a representative data 'point'. Most people don't realize that all human genes already exist in the 'global' population. They are simply 're-mixed' to create the different phenotypes of 'localized' populations we tend to classify as 'races'. That's all that's really going on. If not, go back and look at the 'amzing twins' example... The parents' stored genetic material gave rise to the phenotypic manifestation of their daughter, even if she 'looked' nothing like them...

Anyway, this discussion goes on... people will dissect my post. They will focus on a sentence and 'ignore' the concept. To tell you all the truth, I no longer have the patience to put up with such uncivilized debates. Some here present valid arguments and interesting perspectives (such as Extra Stout, FromWayDowntown, etc...) but others here are too inflammatory and insulting to take seriously (boutons, MaNuMaNiA, Oh Gee!, CBF, elpimpo4cc etc...). 'Cause in their eyes, no matter what I say... their hate toward my position is already set.

[gtownspur]

how could you spell my name so horribly wrong?

Well taken how you're name has a sort of ring like genital warts or anal cysts, no one gives a damn to remember it correctly....too gruesome.

[MannyIsGod]

Poor Christians. Someone should pass a law protecting them. Then we can move torwards protecting anglo men and perhaps we could actualy get the media to cover crime against white women.

:)

[Jelly]

Poor Christians. Someone should pass a law protecting them. Then we can move torwards protecting anglo men and perhaps we could actualy get the media to cover crime against white women.

:)

You have to admit Christians take more than their share of insults on this board. Why are Christians such fair game? Shall we do a thread on Islam or is everyone too pc to admit that those Muslims are scaring you shitless right now? Anyone care to take a few swipes at them? I'm pretty sure they don't teach evolution in their schools...along with many other subjects.
(And in some Islamic countries the girls are lucky to be taught anything at all.)
And how about those Budhists? (sp?) I actually admire the Dalai Lama myself, but I'll bet if I do some research, I can find some serious bullshit and hypocrisy in their religion. But I won't bother, because there are not enough Budhists in this forum to insult, so I won't get much of a return on my investment of time. The Hindus (and I work with a lot of them) would also make an excellent target if you want to mock someone's beliefs. I work with a lot of Hindus, so I know. It is a culture and religion that could use some serious ridiculing. But I won't do it, because they are nice people and they don't deserve it. Just as most Christians don't deserve all the stones some of you throw at them.

Yes, Christian do get kicked around way too much around here. But at least none of you are being threatened with a beheading because of it. (Anyone see all the protests signs in London saying "behead all those who insult Islam"?

[Jelly]

and perhaps we could actualy get the media to cover crime against white women.

:)

:lol
actually, we should just have a seperate news channel covering missing and/or killed attractive white, affluent women from "good" families. Dan Abrams could anchor, that's all he covers most of the time anyway.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Oh man, the Argentinians are laughing at us.

:oops
no Nbadan, while I appreciate your attempt at creating controversy, I do; its not the "Argentinians" who are laughing at "you", its "ME" laughing at the mofo's taking the bible literally!

[101A]

My wife is a Christian, believes in intelligent design AND she is one of the authors on this:

http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/279/22/23193

When you're ready to debate her, let me know (hell, if you can understand any of that, let ME know what it is she does).

[Peter]

My wife is a Christian, believes in intelligent design AND she is one of the authors on this:

http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/279/22/23193

When you're ready to debate her, let me know (hell, if you can understand any of that, let ME know what it is she does).


Is that written in the original Greek?

[101A]

Is that written in the original Greek?

Exactly.

[boutons_]

When a "Christian" approach to science and intellectual enquiry in general starts off with:

"the Bible is literally and inerrantly true",

... is not open to discussion or interpretation,

... is the end-point of knowledge that all intellectual enquriy must strive an bend itself to arrive at,

.... then such ignorant, close-minded "Christians" deserve all the ridicule and abuse they receive, esp and above all when they ininsuate their fringe cult views into public schools and other public venues.

"the Bible is literally and inerrantly true" is to be categorized with other erroneous bullshit such as the-earth-is-flat and universe-rotates-around-earth.

[101A]

"the Bible is literally and inerrantly true",



VERY few Christians believe this in the way you like to think they believe it, although there are some.

[Spurminator]

When a "Christian" approach to science and intellectual enquiry in general starts off with:

"the Bible is literally and inerrantly true",

... is not open to discussion or interpretation,

... is the end-point of knowledge that all intellectual enquriy must strive an bend itself to arrive at,

.... then such ignorant, close-minded "Christians" deserve all the ridicule and abuse they receive, esp and above all when they ininsuate their fringe cult views into public schools and other public venues.

"the Bible is literally and inerrantly true" is to be categorized with other erroneous bullshit such as the-earth-is-flat and universe-rotates-around-earth.


Only if those Christians believe a literal interpretation of the Bible leaves no room for science. But that opinion is held by some Christians and non-Christians alike, which is why we continue to have these circular arguments.

[Peter]

Only if they believe a literal interpretation of the Bible leaves no room for science. But that opinion is held by some Christians and non-Christians alike, which is why we continue to have these circular arguments.

Indeed.

[spurster]

We Christians still believe that the sun and the rest of universe revolve around the earth. After all, Galileo was a scientist, too, and probably a left-wing radical liberal socialist communist pinko besides.

[Phenomanul]

When a "Christian" approach to science and intellectual enquiry in general starts off with:

"the Bible is literally and inerrantly true",

... is not open to discussion or interpretation,

... is the end-point of knowledge that all intellectual enquriy must strive an bend itself to arrive at,

.... then such ignorant, close-minded "Christians" deserve all the ridicule and abuse they receive, esp and above all when they ininsuate their fringe cult views into public schools and other public venues.

"the Bible is literally and inerrantly true" is to be categorized with other erroneous bullshit such as the-earth-is-flat and universe-rotates-around-earth.

You are the one assuming our every thought.... get over yourself, your hate is unwarranted, unsolicited, and unjustified... Are Christians really the ones giving you physical and emotional distress?? Or do you bring it upon yourself???


If I believe GOD 'created the heavens' and the earth... the timeframe I'm given is only a template... GOD did not have to reveal the exact framework from which he built the universe. If he had, the book of Genesis would be a 50 Volume Encyclopedia.... and that was not the purpose or intent of the book.

One thing is for sure, he wants us studying his creation (which is why he gave Adam the task of naming every creature)... cause every new finding reveals the intricacy of His handiwork. Again, you all diminish and even dismiss the importance of high-order complexity in nature but don't even realize that such unfathomable complexity in all areas of SCIENCE are GOD's fingerprints.

[101A]

If matter can be neither created or destroyed, how is there matter?

[Phenomanul]

Poor Christians. Someone should pass a law protecting them. Then we can move torwards protecting anglo men and perhaps we could actualy get the media to cover crime against white women.

:)

Manny, you do realize not all Christians in the so-called 'Bible-belt' are of anglo descent???

[FromWayDowntown]

One thing is for sure, he wants us studying his creation (which is why he gave Adam the task of naming every creature)... cause every new finding reveals the intricacy of His handiwork. Again, you all diminish and even dismiss the importance of high-order complexity in nature but don't even realize that such unfathomable complexity in all areas of SCIENCE are GOD's fingerprints.

Well, I also don't know that it follows inexorably that the existence of high-order complexity in nature is necessarily evidence that God exists. It's certainly a justification for that article of faith, but ultimately, your conclusion is, in my estimation, just that: an article of faith. You choose to see God's fingerprints in high-order complexity because you believe that there is a Divine Creator and that such systems are unlikely to occur randomly in nature. That belief is valid, but it's not scientific. That's not to say that your position will ultimately prove to be untrue, just that it has not been (and likely cannot be) conclusively proven to be true.

[boutons_]

I like the way you conflate your "(Bible-literal) Christians" with all Christians.
Just part of your deeply dishonest approach.

[Phenomanul]

Well, I also don't know that it follows inexorably that the existence of high-order complexity in nature is necessarily evidence that God exists. It's certainly a justification for that article of faith, but ultimately, your conclusion is, in my estimation, just that: an article of faith. You choose to see God's fingerprints in high-order complexity because you believe that there is a Divine Creator and that such systems are unlikely to occur randomly in nature. That belief is valid, but it's not scientific. That's not to say that your position will ultimately prove to be untrue, just that it has not been (and likely cannot be) conclusively proven to be true.

You're right... It's mathematical.

[Phenomanul]

I like the way you conflate your "(Bible-literal) Christians" with all Christians.
Just part of your deeply dishonest approach.


Again your assumption...

[FromWayDowntown]

You're right... It's mathematical.

Yeah, your subtlety is losing me there.

[101A]

Yeah, your subtlety is losing me there.


OOH OOH let me try....

I THINK he is implying that the chances of this (evolution to the point of Ipods) is so remote and mathematically improbable that it is tantamount to being impossible.

[Darrin]

You have to admit Christians take more than their share of insults on this board. Why are Christians such fair game?

Because a form of Christianity has connected itself to one political party, and that opens them up to criticism from the masses. Because when I flick through the stations on my television, I don't run into too many Buhdist or Islamic stations. However - EWTN, CBN, the 700 Club - all of these things are on my television. Because the news is filled with stories of people whining one way or another about the seperation of a Christian Church, and Federal institutions in this country.

Because a bastardized, hustling version of Christianity has risen up in this country, and tells us of the coming war with Russia and Iran, and is endlessly selling products to make fortunes off of God's name. This is what we deal with in this country, what most of us are facing everyday. What most of us know about because it is in our backgrounds.


Shall we do a thread on Islam or is everyone too pc to admit that those Muslims are scaring you shitless right now?

Go right ahead. Let's see the intelligent comments we get about a religion and a society that most of us do not know very little about, and practically none have personally experienced.


-----

I would rather we spend more resources on fixing legitimate problems in this world, having lively debate in this small little corner of the world, then to cry about how persecuted the Christians are in this country, when they are essentially the ruling class of all the religions. Tell me the last time the White House decorated for Rahmadan.

[Phenomanul]

Yeah, your subtlety is losing me there.


I'm not trying to lose you.... I'm simply stating that it's not evidenced by 'experimental' data... but rather by a mathematical analysis of entropy and order.

On a previous thread I calculated the odds of building a simple 200 part system. The magnitude required for it to build itself by random unguided processes was on the order of 10^-319. The recognized and 'accepted' age of the universe in scientific communities is roughly 13.7 billion years old... even if you totaled up all those seconds (10^18), you wouldn't have enough time for such a system to develop.

The theory of evolution, which is conveniently ignores the origin of life, cannot propose a process to create even the smallest of organic molecules.... The odds are greatly against it.

[101A]

... cannot propose a process to create even the smallest of organic molecules....



BANG!
:lol

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I'm not trying to lose you.... I'm simply stating that it's not evidenced by 'experimental' data... but rather by a mathematical analysis of entropy and order.

On a previous thread I calculated the odds of building a simple 200 part system. The magnitude required for it to build itself by random unguided processes was on the order of 10^-319. The recognized and 'accepted' age of the universe in scientific communities is roughly 13.7 billion years old... even if you totaled up all those seconds (10^18), you wouldn't have enough time for such a system to develop.

The theory of evolution, which is conveniently ignores the origin of life, cannot propose a process to create even the smallest of organic molecules.... The odds are greatly against it.
really? seriously now, is this true? I didn't know. How did scientists arrive at taht conclusion without having had a glimpse of what the universe is made of? So you base your entire belief in intelligent design on the theory that the universe is that old?

[MannyIsGod]

Hector, Statistical Analysis like that will give a mean. It doesn't mean it can't happen sooner. Maybe in this universe it happend faster out of pure luck. Maybe in the next itll take 5 times as long.

Its really not that big a hurdle to move over.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Only if those Christians believe a literal interpretation of the Bible leaves no room for science. But that opinion is held by some Christians and non-Christians alike, which is why we continue to have these circular arguments.

non-christians believe in the literal interpretation of the bible?

[Phenomanul]

Hector, Statistical Analysis like that will give a mean. It doesn't mean it can't happen sooner. Maybe in this universe it happend faster out of pure luck. Maybe in the next itll take 5 times as long.

Its really not that big a hurdle to move over.


You're right on the concept, but the numbers are so huge that you'd have to make a shift spanning several orders of magnitude to have the sort of impact you are referring to.

Besides, I'm not really debating the probablity of the universe's existence, or the timeframe of its existence more so than pointing to the fact that the simplest biological molecules which (we would agree) developed after the inception of the physical universe would have to overcome immense odds to even come into existence.

The example I gave was for an organic molecule with 200 atoms... really small when compared to say a strand of DNA with millions and millions of atoms... The likelyhood that the 200 atom molecule arises out of random unguided processes is: 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000001 (wait are there about 300 zeroes there???) yes the odds are there... but anyone with a mathematics degree would tell you that numbers smaller than 10^-50 are generally considered zero for all intents and purposes. Playing by those odds you would have to have 'faith' to believe that life arose from an unguided random process.

Some place their faith on those odds, however tangible, I choose to place my faith in GOD. I'm not saying you have to accept my own faith in a supreme creator in order to reconcile those odds with the aforementioned theory. I'm just saying high order complexity should not be dismissed from any arguments that try to imply that the origin of life was a chance process. Since the Theory of Evolution does not attempt to address this issue and conveniently jumps ahead to 'explain' some of the processes that we do observe today... people automatically assume the inception of life 'just happened'. No, it was willed into existence.

Oh I almost forgot.... the example was only a 200 part system.... the odds for building the smallest self-replicating DNA strand would be 1 in 10^10,467. Even supercomputers can't deal with that number without crashing.

[Phenomanul]

really? seriously now, is this true? I didn't know. How did scientists arrive at taht conclusion without having had a glimpse of what the universe is made of? So you base your entire belief in intelligent design on the theory that the universe is that old?

:tu
From your favorite sources with no religious affiliation.

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

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/age_universe_030103.html

[Spurminator]

non-christians believe in the literal interpretation of the bible?

No, what I said was they believe that "a literal interpretation of the Bible leaves no room for science."

In other words, if I believe that God created the earth 7,000 years ago, I must also reject the Theory of Evolution. Or, if I believe in evolution, I cannot believe that God created the earth as described in the Bible.

[Winnipeg_Spur]

Personally, I'm just glad the term "intelligent design" isn't taking off in the public, because I really hate that term. It's just such a transparent attempt to talk about creationism without calling it creationism, and trying to remove religion from intelligent design results in a huge logical mess.

[Oh, Gee!!]

No, what I said was they believe that "a literal interpretation of the Bible leaves no room for science."

In other words, if I believe that God created the earth 7,000 years ago, I must also reject the Theory of Evolution. Or, if I believe in evolution, I cannot believe that God created the earth as described in the Bible.

Cuz it's true.

[smeagol]

I think Travis is one of the five, too, so 80% of all realistic catholics are on Spurstalk.
100%, you forgot about me.

[Spurminator]

Cuz it's true.

Nope.

[FromWayDowntown]

You're right... It's mathematical.

I've read your points, and they're very persuasive.

But the original point I was making had more to do with the nexus between the existence of organic matter and the existence of God. I don't see where you get a logical nexus to determine that the mathematical impossibility of a natural process is evidence of the existence of God. It may evidence some form of intelligent design, but again, the possiblity of intelligent design (I've been told here repeatedly) isn't necessarily contiguous with a belief in a Divine creation.

In that sense, your argument relies, it seems to me, on an article of faith that would be shared widely by Christians (and therefore, many Americans). But the reliance on that article of faith does not make the conclusion that you posit inexorably true.

[FromWayDowntown]

On a side note, I don't understand why critics of evolution are so quick to disparage that notion on the basis that "it's just a theory." In science, the status of an idea as a theory is a rather lofty perch. It attains that status only after being subjected to extensive testing and criticism. That the scientific community is willing to refer to evolution as a theory strikes me as an admission that while it can't be proven conclusively, it also cannot be refuted -- at least not easily.

In common parlance, "theory" means something very different -- something much less concrete -- than it means in scientific parlance. The notion that a scientific theory is somehow of questionable value strikes me as a disregard for the means of science.

Not worth a long discussion here, but just my thought.

[Phenomanul]

I've read your points, and they're very persuasive.

But the original point I was making had more to do with the nexus between the existence of organic matter and the existence of God. I don't see where you get a logical nexus to determine that the mathematical impossibility of a natural process is evidence of the existence of God. It may evidence some form of intelligent design, but again, the possiblity of intelligent design (I've been told here repeatedly) isn't necessarily contiguous with a belief in a Divine creation.

In that sense, your argument relies, it seems to me, on an article of faith that would be shared widely by Christians (and therefore, many Americans). But the reliance on that article of faith does not make the conclusion that you posit inexorably true.


I did state that the nexus was faith.... and that I didn't expect others to share my belief.

I then went on to show why peoples' belief in certain 'scientific' theories (the origin of life is not subjectable to experimentation without a time machine) also requires faith, albeit of a different variety.

[Phenomanul]

On a side note, I don't understand why critics of evolution are so quick to disparage that notion on the basis that "it's just a theory." In science, the status of an idea as a theory is a rather lofty perch. It attains that status only after being subjected to extensive testing and criticism. That the scientific community is willing to refer to evolution as a theory strikes me as an admission that while it can't be proven conclusively, it also cannot be refuted -- at least not easily.

In common parlance, "theory" means something very different -- something much less concrete -- than it means in scientific parlance. The notion that a scientific theory is somehow of questionable value strikes me as a disregard for the means of science.

Not worth a long discussion here, but just my thought.

Semantics on the definition of the term.

I've never argued with 'the theory of evolution' as a descriptive process of what we observe today.... I will, however, wholeheartedly argue against the claim that 'evolution' it is an unguided, process.

What most call 'evolution,' I call 'adaptation'... and this biological selection process was instated by GOD Himself for the preservation of His Creation.

[MannyIsGod]

Hector, and that is a great stance to take becuase nobody can tear it down. I have no beef with that idea because it has about as much backing as anything else.

I'm not sure thats what the people answering the poll thought, though.

Not that it matters, I'd say Americans are idiots as a whole regardless of religous affiliation.

[FromWayDowntown]

Semantics on the definition of the term.

I've never argued with 'the theory of evolution' as a descriptive process of what we observe today.... I will, however, wholeheartedly argue against the claim that 'evolution' it is an unguided, process.

What most call 'evolution,' I call 'adaptation'... and this biological selection process was instated by GOD Himself for the preservation of His Creation.

I'm not sure this is semantics. Science has studied what you call adaptation and has developed tested hypotheses about that process. Those hypotheses have survived the criticisms to which they've been subjected, in scientific terms, and are therefore accorded the scientific value of theory, which is just short of law -- a title reserved only for matters that can be conclusively established.

I just find it odd that some find it so easy to discredit that theory (again, a word of specific meaning and descriptive of a tested hypothesis in scientific parlance) on the basis that it's "just a theory."

If you choose to believe that the process (or any other processes) exist because of God's will, so be it. But the discounting of the scientific theory as "mere theory," strikes me as odd.

[Hook Dem]

" Not that it matters, I'd say Americans are idiots as a whole regardless of religous affiliation."..........................Interesting!

[FromWayDowntown]

" Not that it matters, I'd say Americans are idiots as a whole regardless of religous affiliation."..........................Interesting!

If by "idiots," Manny means uninformed and unwilling to seek knowledge (from whatever source), then I think there's some validity to that point.

Obviously, there are a great many people who pay attention and acquire knowledge to inform their opinions. But, there are also a great many adults who would struggle to tell you who the President and Vice President are, in which countries the United States is currently engaged in armed combat, and other minor details like that. Idiot might not be the best way to describe such people, but there is little doubt that there are a fairly good number of uninformed and underinformed people in this country -- and, generally, they like it that way.

[Guru of Nothing]

Again, you all diminish and even dismiss the importance of high-order complexity in nature but don't even realize that such unfathomable complexity in all areas of SCIENCE are GOD's fingerprints.

I tend to dismiss the idea of Christianity, not God.

[Phenomanul]

I tend to dismiss the idea of Christianity, not God.

And that is your perogative... as long as you don't resort to childish insults.

[scott]

Question for those holding onto some form of a "Intelligent Design" belief... if we were to find life elsewhere in the solar system (big discovery regarding a moon of Saturn this week, btw), how does that fit in with the ID belief? How do these simple single or multi-celluar organisms fit into God's plan? Are they saved?

[Darrin]

I tend to dismiss the idea of Christianity, not God.

A fan of the man, not his fanclubs, eh?

[Phenomanul]

I'm not sure this is semantics. Science has studied what you call adaptation and has developed tested hypotheses about that process. Those hypotheses have survived the criticisms to which they've been subjected, in scientific terms, and are therefore accorded the scientific value of theory, which is just short of law -- a title reserved only for matters that can be conclusively established.

I just find it odd that some find it so easy to discredit that theory (again, a word of specific meaning and descriptive of a tested hypothesis in scientific parlance) on the basis that it's "just a theory."

If you choose to believe that the process (or any other processes) exist because of God's will, so be it. But the discounting of the scientific theory as "mere theory," strikes me as odd.


Let's put it this way... The Darwinian Theory presented in 'Origin of the Species' is what gave rise to the theory of evolution. And all of that was developed........ way...... way... way.... before the discovery of DNA and modern genetics.

Those scientific elements that gave rise to the theory, have since been subjected to new findings in said genetic fields... as they should. Modern genetics have complemented the theory in many ways, but the field has also exposed some conceptual flaws. The Theory of Evolution thus has kept a title which was 'awarded' rather prematurely.

With regards the the semantics of evolution.... 'Adaptation' does not equate to 'speciation,' which is the principal process evolution attmpts to describe. Adaptation is observable and subjectable to the scrutiny of experimentation. The same cannot be said for 'speciation'... it is confounded by the concept of evolution itself.... specifically it's timeframe... it's unguided premise... which when tested is no longer unguided.

There are three main problems hinted above. 1) The timeframe required for evolution to be observed and verified is too grand to conduct practical experiments. Evolutionary experiments are therefore flawed because they incorporate human interference in what is supposed to be an 'unguided' process. Yet article upon article in support of evolution is published without people realizing that this bias factor is at play.

Another problem is that the vast genetic wealth stored in our genes can in fact manifest countless of phenotypic variations. Not one of those constitutes the rise of a new species. And yet many times when this phenomenon is observed it is confused for speciation... which to some is evidence enough to confirm evolution. Again, the observations are correct, the conclusions are not. Canines for example have so many recessive genes and have over a span of a few centuries (a short time in the context of the evolutionary timescale) exploded and given rise to many 'breeds'.... this of course has had man's hand at play.

The other problem is introduced by the taxidermic system itself. What exactly constitutes a species?? The ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring?? So if a new finch species arises and the species is still interfertile with other finch species.... has a new species really been created??

Anyway, the 'Theory' has been given more weight than it should because of social implications and because science was somehow vindicated by its arrival. The modifier however does not mean that evolution should be free of reproof.

[Phenomanul]

Question for those holding onto some form of a "Intelligent Design" belief... if we were to find life elsewhere in the solar system (big discovery regarding a moon of Saturn this week, btw), how does that fit in with the ID belief? How do these simple single or multi-celluar organisms fit into God's plan? Are they saved?

We are the only creation on earth with body, soul, and spirit. Thus only we can be saved or condemned. All other biological organisms only have body and soul. Whether or not life exists outside of earth is irrelevant... as they are still within the realm of GOD's creation.

But you're really not looking for an answer are you???

[scott]

But you're really not looking for an answer are you???

If I wasn't look for an answer, I wouldn't have asked a question. Please check your assumptions at the door.

[Phenomanul]

If I wasn't look for an answer, I wouldn't have asked a question. Please check your assumptions at the door.


Spare me the scorn, I answered your question. I nevertheless had a feeling that the answer given would not satisfy what you were looking for...

[Oh, Gee!!]

Spare me the scorn, I answered your question. I nevertheless had a feeling that the answer given would not satisfy what you were looking for...


You have a serious persecution complex. Nobody here is going to feed you to the lions, so relax.

[Phenomanul]

You have a serious persecution complex. Nobody here is going to feed you to the lions, so relax.


:rolleyes :rolleyes

[Mr. Peabody]

We are the only creation on earth with body, soul, and spirit. Thus only we can be saved or condemned. All other biological organisms only have body and soul. Whether or not life exists outside of earth is irrelevant... as they are still within the realm of GOD's creation.

But you're really not looking for an answer are you???

I always thought that it was an interesting issue. If there are other beings in the universe, are they capable of "being saved?" They couldn't know Christ, since they are on other planets, so what does that mean for them? Also, why did everything in the Bible occur here on Earth? God created billions of planets, so was this his favorite? It must have been if he sent his only son to this planet.

Obviously, I intended these as rhetorical questions (I don't know that a response that is not highly speculative is possible).

[101A]

If I wasn't look for an answer, I wouldn't have asked a question. Please check your assumptions at the door.

You thought you were clever. Thought you "had" him, didn't you?

Very impressive, Heg....

[Oh, Gee!!]

I always thought that it was an interesting issue. If there are other beings in the universe, are they capable of "being saved?" They couldn't know Christ, since they are on other planets, so what does that mean for them? Also, why did everything in the Bible occur here on Earth? God created billions of planets, so was this his favorite? It must have been if he sent his only son to this planet.

Obviously, I intended these as rhetorical questions (I don't know that a response that is not highly speculative is possible).


Why must you scorn me?

[Mr. Peabody]

We are the only creation on earth with body, soul, and spirit. Thus only we can be saved or condemned. All other biological organisms only have body and soul.

Well, I guess that's what my question goes to -- does this statement necessarily hold true for all life in the universe? Granted, we don't know if there is other life in the universe, but supposing some does exist, is it possible for them to have spirits as well? I think by arguing that the only beings in the entire universe with the possibility of salvation are humans, then Christianity becomes too geocentric. Why would God create the universe only to focus his "love" on one planet?

[Mr. Peabody]

Why must you scorn me?

I'm sorry, I thought I was being clever. I thought I "had" you.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I'm sorry, I thought I was being clever. I thought I "had" you.


You had me at "Log On."

[Mr. Peabody]

You had me at "Log On."

Oh Gee!!, you sonovabitch. I wish I knew how to quit you.

[Oh, Gee!!]

<<<sign languages in an elevator

"You complete me."

[SA210]

it's getting a little sensual in here.

[Phenomanul]

Well, I guess that's what my question goes to -- does this statement necessarily hold true for all life in the universe? Granted, we don't know if there is other life in the universe, but supposing some does exist, is it possible for them to have spirits as well? I think by arguing that the only beings in the entire universe with the possibility of salvation are humans, then Christianity becomes too geocentric. Why would God create the universe only to focus his "love" on one planet?

I have an answer for these questions as well, but like you said it gets very speculative.

I've always thought that the vastness of the universe serves to demonstrate the immense authority and power of the Creator.... not to mention his creativity.

That he would care enough about each and every one of us, to know our every thought, desire, dream, idiosyncrasy and even the number of hair strands on our head.... when we are literally nothing, both in size and relevance, in the vast context of the space time continuum.... serves to demonstrate GOD's immense love for us.

I believe that concept alone is awe-inspiring and amazing. The concept that Christianity is 'geocentric' therefore is null in light of the fact that GOD's love is 'people-centric'... According to the Bible we, humans, were the jewel of GOD's creation and that just goes to show how special we are in the universe... no matter how large or infinite the universe may be.

If ever, the existence of 'aliens' were verified... it really changes nothing.... but that would require another explanation and I have to 'go'... lest I bust my bladder.

[Sec24Row7]

Every time I think about the evolution of an eye, or the symbyotic relationships of organisms like Zooanthelae and Coral... I think... there has to be some outside touch in all of this... How could trial and error in code have created that relationship or that tool...

Then you sit back and really think about it... and you see that it is really possible...

There is no proof either way... But I tend to lead towards the random approach.

Because I'm human I am programmed to find an answer.

Because I'm intelligent, I can admit I don't have one.

There is a big difference.

Some humans are willing to stop at the 20,000 year old earth etc as their answer. It's a good explanation. It answers lots of questions that the layman would think to ask. It's a multi millenium old explanation. You can see why they are having a hard time giving up on it. It's not their fault that it is wrong, and NO MATTER HOW HARD WE TRY we CANNOT DISPROVE IT.

Why? Because they have faith. They believe in something and someone that is looking over them sight unseen. They believe in his word. They will always find some loophole (no matter how unfounded in science it is) and yell it at the top of their lungs to be published in a Christian publication.

They HAVE to do this. You prove the bible wrong about ONE thing and it makes the faithful question others.

Why do you think it took 500 years to admit Galileo was right?

[Spurminator]

Why would God create the universe only to focus his "love" on one planet?

Perhaps for the same reasons He would create an Earth that is millions of years old only to focus on the thousands of years of human history.

[DarkReign]

Well, seeing as there are numerous planets in every solar system, and billions of solar systems in every galaxy, and billions upon BILLIONS of galaxies in the known universe...

If we are truly alone, I think the Big Eye in the Sky has seriously abandoned us.

[Phenomanul]

Well, seeing as there are numerous planets in every solar system, and billions of solar systems in every galaxy, and billions upon BILLIONS of galaxies in the known universe...

If we are truly alone, I think the Big Eye in the Sky has seriously abandoned us.


It's a matter of perspective....

[Sec24Row7]

what perspedtive allows you to think that it would be odd if we were the only life out there on Trillions upon Trillions of planets?

[Phenomanul]

He said....


Well, seeing as there are numerous planets in every solar system, and billions of solar systems in every galaxy, and billions upon BILLIONS of galaxies in the known universe...

If we are truly alone, I think the Big Eye in the Sky has seriously abandoned us.



what perspedtive allows you to think that it would be odd if we were the only life out there on Trillions upon Trillions of planets?

I was addressing his conclusion... that 'the Big Eye in the Sky has seriously abandoned us.'

I don't feel abandoned by GOD...

The perspective part enters because it is GOD who feels we have abandoned
Him... not the other way around.

"If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land."
2 Chronicles 7:14

[Guru of Nothing]

And that is your perogative... as long as you don't resort to childish insults.

Thank God I am polite.

[jochhejaam]

I don't feel abandoned by GOD...

The perspective part enters because it is GOD who feels we have abandoned
Him... not the other way around.

"If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land."
2 Chronicles 7:14
Word of the Day, thanks.

[Sec24Row7]

You cant argue with someone over evolution who when you present evidence, they quote scripture.

Just doesn't work.

You might as well be speaking a different language.

In all practicality, you are.

[Phenomanul]

You cant argue with someone over evolution who when you present evidence, they quote scripture.

Just doesn't work.

You might as well be speaking a different language.

In all practicality, you are.


Well, in all fairness when I speak in terms of math and probability... no one wants to hear the numbers...

And if I speak in terms of science... people call it pseudo-science simply because I use it to reflect GOD's truth...

Science is not the exclusive language of anti-theistic beliefs.