Do you believe in evolution through natural selection?

[xmsr3]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Here is the poll

 

[redsquareblack]

Here is the poll

Don't you mean "crintelligent design proponentist"?

 

[Contrarian]

what's the difference between the last 2 options by the way?

 

[rockaction]

If a supreme being guided the evolution, it wouldn't be a natural process.

option#1 for the win

 

[oaklandguy]

what's the difference between the last 2 options by the way?

Intelligent Design = God made everything, but doesn't give a sh** about what's going on with it.

Creationism = God created our extremely organized universe/bodies/everything and is involved in everything going on with it while He's omnipotent and is everywhere the same time and completely unlimited.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

bad title. evolution through natural selection is a fact. whether this is the complete explanation for the origin of life is what you're asking. and i raise my eyebrows at those voting for the last two options.

 

[rockaction]

Intelligent Design = God made everything, but doesn't give a sh** about what's going on with it.

Creationism = God created our extremely organized universe/bodies/everything and is involved in everything going on with it while He's omnipotent and is everywhere the same time and completely unlimited.

No.

Theistic or deistic evolution = "God made everything, but dosn't give a sh** about what's going on with it"

Intelligent design = Creationism = God didit

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Intelligent Design = God made everything, but doesn't give a sh** about what's going on with it.

Creationism = God created our extremely organized universe/bodies/everything and is involved in everything going on with it while He's omnipotent and is everywhere the same time and completely unlimited.

yea. there's no difference there.

 

[oaklandguy]

bad title. evolution through natural selection is a fact. whether this is the complete explanation for the origin of life is what you're asking. and i raise my eyebrows at those voting for the last two options.

Evolution is like Alchemy.

Give it a couple hundred years and every scientist will change their minds (just to give give some new explanation for why there isn't a God.)

 

[thedoctor8706]

I believe in creation, but that natural selection and evolution is a fact. I believe things have indeed evolved since they were first created by God, but not that they evolved so much that I originally came from a random shuffling of proteins.

 

[xmsr3]

Hey don't shoot the messenger😀 I just made this poll because someone recommended it. I titled the options so we could get a better idea of what people believe. Some, such as myself accept that natural selection is true, others think god guided it, others call themselves Intelligent designers and some are religious fundementalists, ie God did it all as described in genesis.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Evolution is like Alchemy.

Give it a couple hundred years and every scientist will change their minds (just to give give some new explanation for why there isn't a God.)

lol. you are truly special.

edit: so god made mdr TB, MRSA, etc?

 

[medcourses09]

Last time I checked, I chose to have sex with the person I had sex with. Thus, I chose those traits (50 percent of them, blah, blah).

 

[rockaction]

Evolution is like Alchemy.

Give it a couple hundred years and every scientist will change their minds (just to give give some new explanation for why there isn't a God.)

riiiiiiight. so the independent confirmation of evolution via molecular genetics, embryology, anatomy, paleontology, and bioinformatics is all going to crumble? if you've got a better explanation, go ahead. but evolution has been on the table for quite a while and no one has dismantled it.

 

[xmsr3]

yea. there's no difference there.

The difference is that some people describe themselves as creationists, ie genesis is fact and some are not as fundementalist, ie I don't know what created us, but something intelligent did.

Of course, it is true that in modern US society there is not much of a difference but I still wanted to get people on this forum to self describe themselves, thus the 2 different options.

 

[Cwc127]

Believe?


There is no "believing". As with all empirical and scientific data, you either accept the evidence regarding evolution through natural selection, or you reject the evidence.

No "belief" is required.

 

[thedoctor8706]

riiiiiiight. so the independent confirmation of evolution via molecular genetics, embryology, anatomy, paleontology, and bioinformatics is all going to crumble? if you've got a better explanation, go ahead. but evolution has been on the table for quite a while and no one has dismantled it.

this could be said for all four options really. no one can prove or disprove any of them. we can just theorize based on what we know.

 

[oaklandguy]

lol. you are truly special.

edit: so god made mdr TB, MRSA, etc?

Thanks. Micro-evolution has it's evidence. Do I think God allows these diseases to occur? Yes. However, Micro-evolution is the same as one of those laws like the conservation of matter...

Do you think Science can explain where the energy for the Big-Bang came from?

Both are theories, both have severe flaws, and both happened so long ago it's extremely idiotic to think you can explain exactly what happened when no one was there to record a history of it. None of the theories answer all the questions, and each of the theories requires faith. The first thing you learn about evolution is that everything happened by CHANCE. Now you look at the odds involved in those Chances, and those odds are pretty low.

 

[EulerianCircuit]

riiiiiiight. so the independent confirmation of evolution via molecular genetics, embryology, anatomy, paleontology, and bioinformatics is all going to crumble? if you've got a better explanation, go ahead. but evolution has been on the table for quite a while and no one has dismantled it.

No one has dismantled it because evolution is untestable.

 

[SteinUmStein]

I believe in creation, but that natural selection and evolution is a fact. I believe things have indeed evolved since they were first created by God, but not that they evolved so much that I originally came from a random shuffling of proteins.

Nobody ever said that RNA and proteins shuffled randomly. Far from it, actually, as an introductory biochemistry class will teach you. 👍

 

[scotsdoc54]

If a supreme being guided the evolution, it wouldn't be a natural process.

option#1 for the win

I disagree. That's actually a logical fallacy (it's called the "Fallacy of the God of the Gaps Fallacy"). But, it does depend on your definition of "guided". The devil is in the details.

 

[oaklandguy]

riiiiiiight. so the independent confirmation of evolution via molecular genetics, embryology, anatomy, paleontology, and bioinformatics is all going to crumble? if you've got a better explanation, go ahead. but evolution has been on the table for quite a while and no one has dismantled it.

You do realize Alchemy lasted sooo much longer than our New Age Science has been around right?

You also must realize that until Albert Einstein, Physics and Math were completely different than they are now right?

If someone else comes around and finds a new discovery Science changes. The Bible doesn't change. I'm gonna stick with the consistent.

 

[12345a]

terrible title.....anyone who has taken a basic antro class would know not to word it like that


+1 for number 1

 

[Contrarian]

You do realize Alchemy lasted sooo much longer than our New Age Science right?

You also must realize that until Albert Einstein, Physics and Math were completely different than they are now right?

If someone else comes around and finds a new discovery Science changes. The Bible doesn't change. I'm gonna stick with the consistent.

Not passing judgment one way or another, but it is possible to be consistently wrong.

 

[thedoctor8706]

Nobody ever said that RNA and proteins shuffled randomly. Far from it, actually, as an introductory biochemistry class will teach you. 👍

You know what I meant...

 

[SteinUmStein]

Thanks. Micro-evolution has it's evidence. Do I think God allows these diseases to occur? Yes. However, Micro-evolution is the same as one of those laws like the conservation of matter...

Do you think Science can explain where the energy for the Big-Bang came from?

Both are theories, both have severe flaws, and both happened so long ago it's extremely idiotic to think you can explain exactly what happened when no one was there to record a history of it. None of the theories answer all the questions, and each of the theories requires faith. The first thing you learn about evolution is that everything happened by CHANCE. Now you look at the odds involved in those Chances, and those odds are pretty low.

Do you honestly find it more plausible than an omnipotent, eternal deity snapped his cosmic fingers and brought into existence the entire universe. If so, where did this deity come from? If he just spontaneously came into existence or "always was" (whatever that means), what the heck happened to entropy? Or are you trying to tell me that thermodynamics is a bust too? 🙄

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Thanks. Micro-evolution has it's evidence. Do I think God allows these diseases to occur? Yes. However, Micro-evolution is the same as one of those laws like the conservation of matter...

Do you think Science can explain where the energy for the Big-Bang came from?

Both are theories, both have severe flaws, and both happened so long ago it's extremely idiotic to think you can explain exactly what happened when no one was there to record a history of it. None of the theories answer all the questions, and each of the theories requires faith. The first thing you learn about evolution is that everything happened by CHANCE. Now you look at the odds involved in those Chances, and those odds are pretty low.

dude. you went full ******.


edit: why it always the ultrafundamentalists that keep referring to science as an entity? science is a METHOD. "science" doesn't explain or not explain anything.

 

[scotsdoc54]

No one has dismantled it because evolution is untestable.

Macro-evolution hasn't been shown to be testable (yet, if it ever will be able) or falsifiable (which may be a more important criterion). Micro-evolution certainly has a lot of scientific backing (but has it been shown to be falsifiable? This may question its status as science as well).

 

[12345a]

grab some popcorn.....sit back.....and refresh page......








this one should be good

 

[SteinUmStein]

You know what I meant...

No, I have no idea what you meant. The nonrandom interactions of RNA and protein have everything to do with the generation and subsequent evolution of life, and have everything to do with physiology and medicine. There is nothing random about it, for example the formation of a spherical pro-cell by a lipid bilayer is spontaneous and thermodynamically favored, and requires no outside energy input and is not random whatsoever at all.

So no, I don't understand your point that God must exist because life could not have "randomly" come about on its own. It's just not a valid point.

 

[thedoctor8706]

Do you honestly find it more plausible than an omnipotent, eternal deity snapped his cosmic fingers and brought into existence the entire universe. If so, where did this deity come from? If he just spontaneously came into existence or "always was" (whatever that means), what the heck happened to entropy? Or are you trying to tell me that thermodynamics is a bust too? 🙄

Maybe it's because it's outside of our realm of understanding... Do you honestly believe that out of nowhere the universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state? The point being there's no way to know. I mean what if your wrong? If I'm wrong I have nothing to lose... Wow, this thread is quickly devolving into a debate on religion. 🙂

 

[rockaction]

No one has dismantled it because evolution is untestable.

Evolution IS falsifiable, thus it is a scientific theory. If you found rabbits in the Cambrian strata, evolution as presented would be false.

 

[ziggyd0c]

grab some popcorn.....sit back.....and refresh page......








this one should be good

lol word. in for clusterf**k

and at "you went full ******"

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Maybe it's because it's outside of our realm of understanding... Do you honestly believe that out of nowhere the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state? The point being there's no way to know. I mean what if your wrong? If I'm wrong I have nothing to lose... Wow, this thread is quickly devolving into a debate on religion. 🙂

lots of things are outside one's realm of direct understanding. do you honestly believe there are galaxies millions of light years away? why? it's a distance you can't even imagine.

 

[rockaction]

I disagree. That's actually a logical fallacy (it's called the "Fallacy of the God of the Gaps Fallacy"). But, it does depend on your definition of "guided". The devil is in the details.

Some intelligent design proponents, like Behe, agree with most claims of common descent but just introduce God to explain things they see as extremely complex (like the immune system, blood clotting, the bacterial flagella...all of which are terrible examples and have been explained in evolutionary terms).

And in response to your other post, Macro-evolution IS falsifiable. Bunnies in the Cambrian...bunnies in the Cambrian...

 

[Grand]

Yes, but a supreme being guided their evolution

II Law of Thermodynamics

For every reaction to be spontaneous it must increase entropy of universe.

So nature favors maximum disorder. If so, how did human body came to be so

organized?

There is some power which supervised the evolution. Without this power,

evolution would have been impossible.



------------------------------------------------

Bible/Koran states that, human is created by dirt.

But it does not say anything the path between the dirt and human,

Religion give the initial and final points, but the evolution show the path between

these points.

If the religion does not state something. It is not wrong.

Religion does not state that the earth is oblate spheroid, , but earth is still

oblate spheroid.(Religion neither proves, nor disapproves it. But religion(I know

Koran, extremely supports studying science.) Science includes Biology/Chem))

Religion and evolution don`t contradict each other.

Only fans are messing it up!
------------------------------------

Creationism is just opinions, not facts.

They just they read religion and inferred certain beliefs, which are not even supported.

Science gives reasons for religion/ Creationism just state bias opinion, without reason.

 

[redsquareblack]

The first thing you learn about evolution is that everything happened by CHANCE. Now you look at the odds involved in those Chances, and those odds are pretty low.

Oh, dear. If you're going to argue against evolution via natural selection, I think it might be best if you understood it. First of all, "everything" most certainly did not happen by "chance". Far from it, in fact. There's no "chance" about natural selection.

And second, the chance of going from single-celled organism to human is pretty slim. But if you look at it as a long chain of far more probable, incremental steps, then the picture looks much different. I recommend you read Climbing Mount Improbable, by Dawkins.

 

[thedoctor8706]

No, I have no idea what you meant. The nonrandom interactions of RNA and protein have everything to do with the generation and subsequent evolution of life, and have everything to do with physiology and medicine. There is nothing random about it, for example the formation of a spherical pro-cell by a lipid bilayer is spontaneous and thermodynamically favored, and requires no outside energy input and is not random whatsoever at all.

So no, I don't understand your point that God must exist because life could not have "randomly" come about on its own. It's just not a valid point.

I definitely support and understand the intricate cellular processes involved with life. But at what point did these processes become organized? Did they always exist within organisms that are ageless? There is no way to prove that they did or didn't. So either a) they began randomly at some point in the timeline or b) somebody came up with the idea. By your post you are essentially supporting the latter idea

BTW: No offense to anyone's beliefs, I would like to think I'm open minded and am just voicing my opinions based on experiences throughout my short life. 🙂

 

[Bearrie]

Bunnies in the Cambrian...bunnies in the Cambrian...

 

[Birdsbeak]

dude. you went full ******

Tugg Speedman: Exactly, to be a *****.
Kirk Lazarus: An imbecile.
Tugg Speedman: Yeah!
Kirk Lazarus: Like the dumbest mother f_v_cker that ever lived.

Just because Alchemy was incorrect does not mean evolution is incorrect. That is a big leap.

 

[redsquareblack]

Yes, but a supreme being guided their evolution

II Law of Thermodynamics

For every reaction to be spontaneous it must increase entropy of universe.

So nature favors maximum disorder. If so, how did human body came to be so

organized?

There is some power which supervised the evolution. Without this power,

evolution would have been impossible.

Proof that a little bit of knowledge in the wrong hands is a truly dangerous thing.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not require a "supervisor". Unguided evolution is entirely consistent with the Second Law.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

I definitely support and understand the intricate cellular processes involved with life. But at what point did these processes become organized? Did they always exist within organisms that are ageless? There is no way to prove that they did or didn't. So either a) they began randomly at some point in the timeline or b) somebody came up with the idea. By your post you are essentially supporting the latter idea

BTW: No offense to anyone's beliefs, I would like to think I'm open minded and am just voicing my opinions based on experiences throughout my short life. 🙂

agreed. you're not coming off offensive at all. i think it's important to not take current scientific consensus as dogma, as that in and of itself would be a type of religion. an open critical mind is very important

 

[Lokhtar]

I am not an idiot. It's a matter of facts. It's like asking whether gravity exists.

II Law of Thermodynamics

For every reaction to be spontaneous it must increase entropy of universe.

So nature favors maximum disorder. If so, how did human body came to be so

That's just an ignorance of thermodynamics. Ever seen the Sun? The earth is not a closed system.

 

[redsquareblack]

I definitely support and understand the intricate cellular processes involved with life. But at what point did these processes become organized? Did they always exist within organisms that are ageless? There is no way to prove that they did or didn't. So either a) they began randomly at some point in the timeline or b) somebody came up with the idea. By your post you are essentially supporting the latter idea

BTW: No offense to anyone's beliefs, I would like to think I'm open minded and am just voicing my opinions based on experiences throughout my short life. 🙂

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI[/YOUTUBE]

 

[SteinUmStein]

Yes, but a supreme being guided their evolution

II Law of Thermodynamics

For every reaction to be spontaneous it must increase entropy of universe.

So nature favors maximum disorder. If so, how did human body came to be so

organized?

There is some power which supervised the evolution. Without this power,

evolution would have been impossible.

Warning to creationists:

Don`t you dare to show that stupid picture with human and dinosaur leg in the same place.!

I'd love to answer the question, "How did the human body come to be organized, if there is no God," as we just covered this is Biochem. Entropic costs are paid for by the breakdown of complex macromolecules into much less complex/organized molecules, such as CO2 and H20. The entropic gain from these reactions more than pays for the buildup of complex structures, such as complex macromolecules and ultimately tissues and entire organisms.

http://ldolphin.org/mystery/chapt7.html

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionabiogenesis/a/entropy.htm

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Yes, but a supreme being guided their evolution

II Law of Thermodynamics

For every reaction to be spontaneous it must increase entropy of universe.

So nature favors maximum disorder. If so, how did human body came to be so

organized?

There is some power which supervised the evolution. Without this power,

evolution would have been impossible.

Warning to creationists:

Don`t you dare to show that stupid picture with human and dinosaur leg in the same place.!

if you're going to go with this argument, why does the human body stay in place? clearly god must keep us intact or we would all immediately and spontaneously combust.

 

[medcourses09]

There are NFL games to watch and you people are bitching about evolution? No wonder why pre-meds on SDN are so stressed.

 

[redsquareblack]

if you're going to go with this argument, why does the human body stay in place? clearly god must keep us intact or we would all immediately and spontaneously combust.

Apparently, spontaneous combustion only happens to those God hates.

 

[scotsdoc54]

Some intelligent design proponents, like Behe, agree with most claims of common descent but just introduce God to explain things they see as extremely complex (like the immune system, blood clotting, the bacterial flagella...all of which are terrible examples and have been explained in evolutionary terms).

And in response to your other post, Macro-evolution IS falsifiable. Bunnies in the Cambrian...bunnies in the Cambrian...

True, but I'm not Behe. I'm not making those claims. The fallacious claim is the idea that if something can be explained through scientific understanding, then that logically concludes that there is no divine "guidance". That argument is untenable.

Can macro-evolution be falsifiable if its untestable? A lot of people would argue "no". Bunnies in the Cambrian could be explained through the addition of ad hoc hypotheses. Evolutionary theory (on the macro scale) has made great use of ad hoc hypotheses to explain away past discrepancies. All science, to some extent, does this. But much of the hard science out there is also testable.

 

[Contrarian]

Apparently, spontaneous combustion only happens to those God hates.

Well I'm screwed.