Creation or Evolution: The Statistics!!!

Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by Awaiting_the_fifth, Sep 2, 2005.

?

Creation or evolution?

  1. Creation

    20 vote(s)
    43.5%
  2. Evolution

    26 vote(s)
    56.5%
  1. lunamoth

    lunamoth Episcopalian

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,915
    Likes Received:
    0
    Still not sure it's the same poll, but I can't remember where I saw it. I do seem to recall that the mainstream Christian denominations (including Roman Catholic), which generally do not see a conflict between faith and the ToE, are declining while the more conservative/evangelical/charismatic churches (and the non-denoms) are increasing. So, Christianity may be growing but the face of Christianity is changing.

    In my view it is not the scientist's objective to prove or disprove God, although there are certainly some who make an agenda of saying there's no need for a Diety to explain the universe and others who try to fit their observations into literal biblical interpretations. But I'm with you totally on seeing God's signature in all His creation, whether written with stars, electrons or DNA. For me the benefit of being a scientist is getting to admire certain bits of His handiwork up close.

    (Not feeling trounced upon at all :) )

    lunamoth
     
  2. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    20,841
    Likes Received:
    1,467
    What people answer in polls vs. what they actually do are notoriously to different things.

    We've had poll after poll about what people consume regarding junk food v. fruits and vegetables...however the research at the street (garbage cans) and in landfills bears out they have a tendency to sway from the truth.

    I think there is a difference also between being spiritual and being religious. Your polls indicate people have an increased religious/spirtual bent. But those attending church, temple, mosque...services of any kind on a regular basis is in decline, as is the membership roles in organized religion.

    Anecdotaly I do see, or appear to see an increase in the mega churches, somehow analagous in my mind similar to the loss of the family farm and growth of the corporate farms....

    namaste,
     
  3. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    The kind of Christianity which is growing in the United States is the kind which refuses to acknowledge any scientific results at all, if it conflicts with the world-view of the original authors of the scriptures thousands of years ago. I regard the spread of this anti-scientific form of religion as a grave disaster.
     
  4. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    43
  5. lunamoth

    lunamoth Episcopalian

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,915
    Likes Received:
    0
    I fear you could be right about that Bobx, but I still do not appreciate you painting American Christians as stupid.

    peace,
    lunamoth
     
  6. truthseeker

    truthseeker New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    539
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree. Alot of people just don't give this thing much thought, so when posed the question, if one must take sides most Christians will side with the bible. Creation and Evolution doesn't have a simple answer, only 2+2 does. Even I, who believe that Creation and Evolution go hand in hand, would give an indepth explanation of Creation to a bible study class instead of giving an indepth explanation of Evolution and how it relates to Creation.
     
  7. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    20,841
    Likes Received:
    1,467
    Rise above it....how many times must you forgive?

    Well if christians, 7x70 eh?

    Forgivness is such a cool concept, without it you continue to bring up the past, allow your blood to boil, allow someone else to control your thoughts...

    Wayne Dyer says when you squeeze an orange you get orange juice.

    Well what is inside of someone that spurs them to spit out something has no more to do with you than what is in an orange...let it go.

    I'm only reminding because I need to be reminded...

    dang mirror....gotta get the log out!

    namaste,
     
  8. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    I would like to see the statistical facts you base the presumption on.

    v/r

    Q
     
  9. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Going to church does not make one religious or spiritual. What one thinks and how their life is conducted day to day is a better barometer for such matters.

    v/r

    Q
     
  10. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching both. The reason is that they are both theories based on circumstantial evidence (nothing concrete), not absolute fact. The only way to accept either/or theory is mostly based on faith. None of us were there to observe actual events as they took place, so our "knowledge" comes from third party heresay. In US courts for example, heresay is not admissible as evidence to convict.

    The most open minded of people will not dismiss one and embrace the other. They will look at both, and ask lots of questions, make comparrisons, reflect on what is known.

    v/r

    Q
     
  11. lunamoth

    lunamoth Episcopalian

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,915
    Likes Received:
    0
    I got this from another forum (Cross and Flame) but the link to the NYT article is now archived and not free. Anyway, it seems pertinent to the discussion at hand, although this is a large cut and paste.

    lunamoth

    Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey
    By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
    NY Times

     
  12. wil

    wil UNeyeR1

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    20,841
    Likes Received:
    1,467
    I absolutely agree...I am simply expressing that what one answers on these kinds of polls has been shown to be inaccurate and was trying to find a measure that was. So we should use conduct as the measure...the crime reports, number of people in jail, the accounting and stock scandals as our barometer? ie outcome based decision making? Maybe we should calculate by what books are being purchased...

    In any case, the spiritual could use some better marketing agencies. Just like the death penalty in the US, fire and brimstone threats and cloudy promises don't seem to be working.

    namaste,
     
  13. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    Kindest Regards, wil, and welcome to CR!

    Could it possibly be that "healthy" food scraps decompose (what gardeners call compost) whereas wrappers from processed foods tend to hang around for many years? Can't speak for anybody else, but my compost goes in my yard where it feeds my other plants and wild critters. Only my "relatively" non-degradable wrappers get sent to the landfill.
     
  14. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    Kindest Regards, BobX, it's been a long time!

    Thank you for the brief on goldfish, I have wondered from time to time as a child when last I kept them.

    So, if I am to understand correctly, color alone is sufficient to denote a new species? So then, how does this apply to humans? I mean, humans are "just" another animal, right? Therefore, any variation in skin color denotes a different species? What about nose size, shoe size, or intellectual capability?

    I mean, if not breeding with the parent stock is the qualifier, then because Koi can still breed with Carp, would that not undermine the idea that goldfish are a separate species from carp? I have always been told at every pet shop I asked and every book on the subject I read as a kid, that goldfish grow to the size of their "bowl." Given enough room, the typical goldfish grows to become Koi. Which are merely colorful carp. Yet still carp. Not a new species. A new variety perhaps, a new sub-species, a new "breed" even, but not a new "species." So far, I have to agree with Bandit about "micro vs macro."

    Ah yes, had a lengthy discussion about this as well with a rather learned person on the subject, and finally settled on what she called "ring species" and the great similarity between "species" of seagulls that interbreed and domestic dog "breeds." The delineation is arbitrary and tradition. Because all domestic dogs stem from about four distinct lines of wolf, wolves can still interbreed with chihuahuas through "intermediary" breeds. This according to a study found on Vaj's list. And while some other canine species are capable of interbreeding with domestic dogs; coyotes, foxes, dingos and hyenas were eliminated by genetic study as hereditary ancestors to modern domestic dogs. All lines studied led back to the wolf.

    I am sorry, but I have a great deal of conflict regarding speciation with regards to my scholarship. I like the way it was presented by another, "lumpers and splitters." The struggle is in consistent classification. And one must admit, if one is anything close to truthful on the subject, that the classification is arbitrary. There are far too many examples of "sub-species" being held out as evidence of speciation, when in fact there is no example I am familiar with that demonstrably shows true speciation, Vaj's list notwithstanding. Indeed, when a "creationist" asks for an example of demonstrable speciation, of "becoming something new" (I already made the mistake of saying "crossing the boundary"), the evolutionist reply is a red faced remark about red-herrings. "Lizards don't become wombats!" No, and I am not trying to say they do. But, in their own way, evolutionists do say that very thing, until they are called on it and take uncalled for offense. We are to believe fish crawled onto land and became amphibians and lizards and birds when evolutionists say it. But when a creationist asks for proof of this (show me a fish that became an amphibian), it is called a red-herring argument. And creationists are then called "illogical?"

    Personally, I take a neutral stance. I do not think a "young earth" position is substantiated. Likewise, I think there is a lot of dogma coming from science as fact that is not fully substantiated by the evidence either. Just a lot of arbitrary classification and hopeful (faithful?) reliance on scientific doctrine. Demonstration of adaptation and "sub" -speciation, sure! No evidence I have seen as of yet of true speciation, of one creature actually becoming another. Again, as Bandit said, micro yes, macro no.

    Indeed, how does this classification apply to humans? Or must humans, in order to maintain political correctness, be held to yet a different standard than that applied to the rest of nature? Does the color of one's skin in scientific truth imply a different species?

    What's good for the goose, is good for the gander...;)
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2005
  15. Tao_Equus

    Tao_Equus Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,826
    Likes Received:
    0
    I once read an intersting book by Dr Carl Sagan called Broca's Brain. Broca, if memory serves me right, was a pioneering french neuroscientist who dissected many thousands of human brains in the late 18th century. I believe Broca's own brain was subsequently pickled and is held by the pasteur institute.
    Anyway my point is this...In studying the development of the feotal brain it seems that we can watch evolution at work. As the young brain develops it seems to build itself layer upon layer in an almost onion-like way. The developing structure seems to mirror our evolutionary brain development.

    I personaly have a great affection for Gaia Theory (the idea that life itself is the organism and that all species are constituent parts) as this offers a simple and logical mechanism to explain many of Darwins unanswered questions.

    Creationism on the other hand seems to me a ridiculous notion. It is a throwback to a time when we simply had no other explanations.
     
  16. bob x

    bob x New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it is the degree of barrier to interbreedability. As you point out, this is a fuzzy, not sharp, line; wolves can't directly interbreed with chihuahuas, but can interbreed with breeds of dogs than can interbreed with chihuahuas. In the case of the corn plant likewise, many strains still interbreed freely with the original teosinte grass.
    In many of the observed speciation events, however, there is no interbreedability possible.
     
  17. lunamoth

    lunamoth Episcopalian

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,915
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. I think what many fail to appreciate is the vast amounts of time involved in speciation. It was only in considering the extreme geological age of the earth that Darwin could propose natural selection as a mechanism for speciation. Not only must there be isolation of a poplulation, but also long enough periods of time plus environmental pressures to select for altered genes affecting breeding capacity and behaviors.

    lunamoth
     
  18. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    Kindest Regards!

    So then, are we in agreement that such examples as English moths (pepper moths?) becoming dark instead of pale, or finches in the Galapagos islands growing stouter beaks are *not* direct evidence of speciation, that is, these are not new "species" in and of themselves? It would, afterall, be the equivalent of distinguishing humans by the color of their skin or the size of their nose.

    I can allow the possibility of time. However, when new "species" are trumpeted on a very frequent basis, the fine print usually denotes what I have just pointed out, typically a cosmetic difference that does not specifically denote a species, but rather a sub-species.

    If you have a clear cut example of observable speciation, I would love to see it.
     
  19. juantoo3

    juantoo3 ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,502
    Likes Received:
    147
    I watched a rather interesting program last night detailing the Coelacanth. Seems these fish have changed very little in 250 to 300 million years. The program showed a live fish in action and how the lobe fins operate. I did notice a number of things though, like:

    This fish lives in deep water. While it has been suggested that it or its direct relatives may be (are! from the more "devout") the predecessor to tetrapods, the coelacanth cannot live in shallow water for more than a few hours. So much for crawling out onto land...

    The coelacanth has a hollow spine, unlike other fish and certainly other tetrapodal creatures with spines. A hollow spine would not be practical in a land based environment.

    While it was originally proposed that the lobed fins may be used by the fish much like limbs on the seabed, the film of the real fish showed no such use.

    There were other peculiarities about the anatomy of the coelacanth, which escape me for the moment. What I do find intriguing is the living fossil element to the whole story, much like sharks, crocodiles and turtles.

    Much of what is known about coelacanths comes from a handful of specimens taken from the Commorros Islands off of the East coast of Africa. The program noted that a new and separate colony of coelacanths has been found in Indonesia in the late 1990's.
     
  20. Vajradhara

    Vajradhara One of Many

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    43
    my dear Juan,

    have you so soon forgotten my list of observed speciation?

    i'll post it for your review tomorrow :)

    metta,

    ~v
     

Share This Page