Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution

[conjur]

Originally posted by: MidasKnight

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: kage69
The stupidity of closeminded people never ceases to amaze me. My poor, poor country.

And then piasabird followed up your post.

Perfect timing.


Oy vey.

Are you sure that 'close-minded' label doesn't more accurately describe your post, moreso than pisabird's? :roll:

I have no idea how humans came to be - whether we grew out of a puddle of gunk, evolved from other animals (that mysterious sprung up), were placed here by being(s) of higher intelligence, shite-out by a passing Space Walrus, etc - but I'm certainly going to keep my mind open about any and all potential possibilities. You, however, seem to have already decided which ones you can ignore. Must be nice to have all the answers..

:thumbsup:

<ahem>

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: kage69
The stupidity of closeminded people never ceases to amaze me. My poor, poor country.

And then piasabird followed up your post.

Perfect timing.


Oy vey.

Are you sure that 'close-minded' label doesn't more accurately describe your post, moreso than pisabird's? :roll:

I have no idea how humans came to be - whether we grew out of a puddle of gunk, evolved from other animals (that mysterious sprung up), were placed here by being(s) of higher intelligence, shite-out by a passing Space Walrus, etc - but I'm certainly going to keep my mind open about any and all potential possibilities. You, however, seem to have already decided which ones you can ignore. Must be nice to have all the answers..

But you're mixing two concepts:

The origin of life

Evolution


Those are two disparate concepts. Evolution is proven. Evolution is a fact. It's the process of how evolution works that is the theory.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: TremblingFool

Ok, I'll bite. What is creationism all about? Why do you give it consideration? You can't just say because millions of people do. How does creationism answer any "why" or "how" question? Extra points if you can answer that without circular logic.

Come on now: www.google.com

I can't do it *all* for ya!


But here's just an example of some modern Creationism ideas:

According to progressive creationism, God created the universe, life, and humanity, but he did it over a period of time billions of years long. As various species evolved from earlier species, God intervened periodically to give the process a helping hand. Without God's assistance, evolution would never have progressed as rapidly as it did on our planet

Theistic evolutionism is more liberal, for it maintains that God only created the universe and simple life, not any complex form of life, including humanity. The idea is that after God created a very simple life form on our planet about three billion years ago, he departed the scene and allowed evolution by means of natural selection to take over. Thus, all forms of life on our planet today, including humans, are descended (by purely natural means) from that earliest life form. A still more liberal outlook, which might be called "deistic evolutionism," maintains that God only created the universe (about fifteen billion years ago) and nothing else. Everything other than the universe itself, including the earth and its first life form, arose by purely natural means.


Now, I'm not necessarily condoning or subscribing to any of these, but just wanted to point out that Creationism is not simply "God made us. End of story." You claimed that Creationism makes no attempts to address some of it's criticisms or contrary scientific evidence, and I'm just posting this to show you that that's not exactly true.

Cheers.

Neither of these creationalism types denies evolution. So if these two types were the predominant form of creationalism then there would be no need to compete between evolution and creatinoalism. No, these forms of creationalism are not the norm. Most Creationalist believe it is incompatible with evolution.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: conjur

ahem

ahem what, conjur? Spit it out. I've alreay posted that I completely recognize the distriction between evolution and the origin of life and how I believe them to be related to one another. I've also shown how I understand the theory of evolution and how I agree with its finding and data.

Now tell me what any of this has to do with my original post? That's why I assume these people are giving me the thumb up - not because of my opinions on creation - but because they agree that you can be unbearably hypocritical and downright smug at times.

 

[chess9]

"[P]rogressive creationism" is an oxymoron.

That may be the most inartful expression I've heard all day.
But, it has serious competition!

-Robert

 

[alexruiz]

Guys, science work base on FACTs. It can explains how thing work or why they are. It can even reproduce them IF the EXACT conditions are given (scientific method, laws of science generation) Religion work on belif, and they are trying to beat science using science reasons: It is not fully proven yet, so it is false...... Well, for those of you who learned how the scientific method works ( a generic model used here) you have phenomenom, observation, hypothesis, experimentation, theory, comprobation and law. Hypothesis is an explanation of something after you have observed the phenomenom. You are making a guess basically based on knowledge you have. Theory is a partially proven hypothesis. Law is stament that describes the phenomenom, fully proven and applies to all the cases that match the frame of reference (someone said that all in science is theory. Sorry, that is wrong. Universal gravitation law is an example. Try to find a case where it doesn't apply... How about you jump from a building to disprove it?)

So, our bible thumping friends, don't get excited. Evolution is partially proven, has an explanation and can even be reproduced in some conditions (mutations). Creationism is not even a hypothesis There are no fact other than a bok that claims to be "sacred" (same as many others) You want to teach that God created the world, go ahead, just make sure you have enough samples. Was it Ra? Maybe Itzamna, as depicted in the Mayan Popol Vuh? How about Zeus? How about the original version of the bible genesis, the Gilgamesh epic? Was the man made of clay, corn or dust?


Alex

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: conjur

ahem

ahem what, conjur? Spit it out. I've alreay posted that I completely recognize the distriction between evolution and the origin of life and how I believe them to be related to one another. I've also shown how I understand the theory of evolution and how I agree with its finding and data.

Now tell me what any of this has to do with my original post? That's why I assume these people are giving me the thumb up - not because of my opinions on creation - but because they agree that you can be unbearably hypocritical and downright smug at times.

It has nothing to do with your original post. It was a reply to MidasKnight.

 

[kage69]

the Mayan Popol Vuh

I had to study that in Cultural Anthro. yikes, talk about torture!

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: kage69

the Mayan Popol Vuh

I had to study that in Cultural Anthro. yikes, talk about torture!

Torture in the text, or reading the text a torture?

http://forums.anandtech.com/i/...ce-icon-small-wink.gif</a>" border="0">

 

[kage69]

Torture in the text, or reading the text a torture?

Torture reading it.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: kage69

Torture in the text, or reading the text a torture?

Torture reading it.

Reading it in Spanish was hard.... I just can't imagine reading it in English.... You got my respects, or a free trip to Xibalba, your choice

http://forums.anandtech.com/i/...e-icon-small-happy.gif</a>" border="0">

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: conjur

ahem

ahem what, conjur? Spit it out. I've alreay posted that I completely recognize the distriction between evolution and the origin of life and how I believe them to be related to one another. I've also shown how I understand the theory of evolution and how I agree with its finding and data.

Now tell me what any of this has to do with my original post? That's why I assume these people are giving me the thumb up - not because of my opinions on creation - but because they agree that you can be unbearably hypocritical and downright smug at times.

It has nothing to do with your original post. It was a reply to MidasKnight.

psst... MidasKnight's post was simply a "thumbs up and wink" to my OP.

*wink* <-- since emotes seem to be broke again

 

[conjur]

Right...and apparently he hadn't read my rebuttal.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
True. But not all religious people use a literal interpretation in regards to the Bible. Personally, I see it as a group of stories that help us understand how we are expected to live together and grow, mixed in with some hand-me-down stories from God that got seriously muddled through the primitive language of the day, use of prophets, countless re-tellings, political agendas, and numerous interpretations. It may have once been intended to be "The Word of God," but I can't seriously believe that to be the case, in it's current form.

I'd give you a thumbup, but the emots are broken.

http://forums.anandtech.com/i/ratingicons/thumbsup.gif</a>" border="0">

Originally posted by: piasabird
Evolution seem to be obvious phoney boloney to me. When I took general statistics I leaned that just because evidence appears to point to something, it does not make it true.

Perhaps you have a better idea?

I learned that a lie detector test is wrong more than it is right.

Generally, they're wrong about one third of the time. But, probably wrong or right for different reasons that most people would think.

The Catholic church probably taght the same things about the earth being flat.

Difference being that we can actually have something to say we have a reason to say so.

 

[dannybin1742]

try an tell me evolution is not happening when we are starting to see small numbers of people in south africa that are immune to HIV because they have a partial gene deletion for CCR5 receptors in their CD4+ T-cells, thereby maiking it imposible for infection. Gene deletions can arise simply by crossover during fusion of the sperm and egg's nucleus.


and for those of you who simply have not read enough about evolution- retroviruses are a perfect example of evolution in real time. take AIDs for example, its genome is 10^6 base pairs, it can change any base in its genome based on the error rate of reverse transcriptase (1/200 i beleive) and then its selected against by the body's immune system, thus giving rize to strains that are drug resistant.

^
Perfect example of evolution

how about bacteria's ability to become resistant to antibiotics? anyone care to argue that one?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Evolution seem to be obvious phoney boloney to me. When I took general statistics I leaned that just because evidence appears to point to something, it does not make it true. I learned that a lie detector test is wrong more than it is right. I also learned that there are often factors that are overlooked. I think evolution has become the new religion of our age, and many are taught to beleive anything else is ignorance. The Catholic church probably taght the same things about the earth being flat.

There is a distinct difference between natural selection and evolution. Things become extinct for many reasons. That doesnt mean they have evolved.

I think your actual problem is that you don't know what evolution or natural selection means. Your fixation on extinction vs evolution is rather odd. As others have pointed out, facts and theories are completely different concepts in science.

Evolution, the change in allele frequencies over time, is an observed fact from bacterial development of antibiotic resistance to the emergence of new plant and animal species that we've observed.

Natural selection is a theory that explains the fact of evolution, much like gravity is theory that explains the fact that objects fall towards other massive objects. There have been alternate theories that have attempted to explain the fact of evolution, such as Lamarck's theory of acquired characteristics, which have been disproven.

Creationism is not a theory, but rather a myth. Creationism offers no testable predictions and cannot be falsified. If the world appears old, the Creationists can say that it's because God made it appear old. There's no way to disprove it, as any evidence fits Creationism.

Why is the evolution debate important? Look at what history shows us when dogma trumps scientific fact: google for Lysenkoism, which is how the dogmatic Soviet interpretation of Lamarck's failed theory lead to the starvation and death of millions of Russians in the 20th century.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: daveshel
I'm not so sure this proves anything about ignorance, since the theory of evolution is still a theory. Moreover, it seems to me the most telling statistic would be the percentage that believes that God created the human race through the forces of evolution.

One of the greatest examples of ignorance is the misunderstanding many people have of the word, theory. The scientific definition:

the'o-ry, n.; pl. the'o-ries a forumulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree.

It takes only one contrary example to disprove a theory. Religious speculation such as creationism is so completely disproven by observed phenomena that could not qualify as a valid theory.

Originally posted by: piasabird
Evolution is statistically improbable.

That proves nothing. Many single evolutionary changes are statistically improbable, but not impossible. It depends on the cause of the change. If such a change were probable, evolution would occur very rapidly. The AIDS virus mutates and adapts very rapidly which is why it's so virulent and dangerous.

Considering what has been observed in genetic mutation, evolution is the most likely explanation for human beings. It is far less probable that we suddenly appeared in an otherwise evolving biological environment fully formed as we are, today or that we were placed here by extraterrestrial beings.

 

[dannybin1742]

cquark and harvey... nice posts, i have yet to see somone retort my post on observable evolution

its funny cause when i argue with lutherans i know, their proof for their arguements is always,

"because god directed it, or because the bible says so", or the most popular one "you just have to have faith"

this mentality if anyone has done some research is a by product of evangelicals in teh 60s and 70 who became scared that science was eventually going to explain everything (which i think it will), so they came up with these intersting arguments, and ways to approach defending religion, i can't explain it all that well, i was just taking to a friend in my lab who has a degree in biochem, philosophy and a minor in religion (even though he is aetheist). quite and intersting history of science vs religion, he told me to go read about the scopes monkey trials... anyways that kind of OT

i'm still waiting........bacteria....antibiotic resistance... anyone?

 

[jm0ris0n]

Bah. Get over it. The two theories are not in conflict. I voted for Kerry and am a christian. Geez I must be an idiot because I'm a Christian. Please, get over yourselves.

God gave us brains and natural curiosity for a reason. It is never to be checked at the door !

 

[0marTheZealot]

Creationism makes no predictions. End of story.

 

[Riprorin]

Famous Atheist Now Believes in GodOne of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence
The Associated Press

NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 ? A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."
Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.

Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.

There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland's University of St. Andrews.

The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.

The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.

This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his "God and Philosophy," scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Press.

Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well "that's too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.

Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew's reversal, "apart from curiosity, I don't think it's like a big deal."

Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.

A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.

Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all.

Another landmark was his 1984 "The Presumption of Atheism," playing off the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God exists.

Link

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

Hmmmmm..........

 

[Riprorin]

Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe.

I guess it isn't just those wacky "Fundies" who believe in creationism.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Martin
There's a great quote by HeroOfPellinor that goes something like "Hey moron, evolution isn't science, that's why they call it a THEORY"

it was in someone's sig. Hilarious.

Yeah, funny. But at the very least, you can dig down and find things to theorize about. Press a religous person for substance and all you'll get ultimately is "I just BELIEVE!", and\or that sullen hatred they can have for those who question.

 

[Harvey]

That CBS poll is conclusive proof that the gene pool needs a heavy dose of Chlorine.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Imagine, people who actually have enough education to *Understand* evolution see how it works and why, whereas ignorant clucks with nothin' but daddy's swaggerins' for the Lord can't wrap their brains around it.

Surprise, surprise.

Jason