[davesimondotcom]

OK, another thread got me thinking. I'd like to find out what people think about how life began and how it got to where it is today.

[willed]

I'd like to think that in this forum there will be no creationist responses. I'm actually agnostic right now, but put down the God + Big Bang option, as I have no explanation otherwise for what started the universe and why.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by willed:
I'd like to think that in this forum there will be no creationist responses. I'm actually agnostic right now, but put down the God + Big Bang option, as I have no explanation otherwise for what started the universe and why.

why? can't stand opposing opinions?

anyways, the poll doesn't include my choice:

5. God created all that there is, but he didn't just create it and then abandon it. He gets involved to whatever degree he deems necessary.

Its, IMHO, odd to think God is powerful enough to created the big bang, but not powerful enough to breathe life into living creatures. I personally don't know the mechanism of how life began, but I know the author.

[Mastrap]

6. God is internal, meaning god is ominipresent in creation. Creation = god, god = creation

Creation created itself out of itself.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
why? can't stand opposing opinions?

anyways, the poll doesn't include my choice:

5. God created all that there is, but he didn't just create it and then abandon it. He gets involved to whatever degree he deems necessary.

Its, IMHO, odd to think God is powerful enough to created the big bang, but not powerful enough to breathe life into living creatures. I personally don't know the mechanism of how life began, but I know the author.

I am sure that I could have put in a myriad of other choices.

I really don't know, which is why it's interesting to see intelligent discussion of the topic, rather than the name calling that will certainly result.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
6. God is internal, meaning god is ominipresent in creation. Creation = god, god = creation

Creation created itself out of itself.

Now my head is spinning. Is it the discussion or is it the Rockstar that I just drank?

[Too Much Coffee Woman]

i don't like saying "God" doesn't exist but hen i watch Jeff Corwin, i don't dispute his claims

i absolutely hate it when people say the devil put fossils and etc on earth to trick us

[willed]

Originally posted by Too Much Coffee Woman:

i absolutely hate it when people say the devil put fossils and etc on earth to trick us

Some people really are a waste of resources on this planet

[zigzag]

I believe it was the Scopes Monkey Trial, not the Stokes Monkey Trial. I think the Stokes Monkey Trial was where they put a monkey named Stokes up on an embezzlement charge, but he got off on a technicality. The Scopes Monkey Trial was the one concerning the teaching of evolution and is the one you probably meant to refer to.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I believe it was the Scopes Monkey Trial, not the Stokes Monkey Trial. I think the Stokes Monkey Trial was where they put a monkey named Stokes up on an embezzlement charge, but he got off on a technicality. The Scopes Monkey Trial was the one concerning the teaching of evolution and is the one you probably meant to refer to.

And you are correct.

Mods: Care to edit the title for me? Thanks.

[Nonsuch]

You conflate the Big Bang theory with the theory of evolution. One is not dependent on the other. I consider evolution a proven fact. I think we're a lot further away from the same level of certainty about the origins of the universe.

[suhail]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
why? can't stand opposing opinions?

anyways, the poll doesn't include my choice:

5. God created all that there is, but he didn't just create it and then abandon it. He gets involved to whatever degree he deems necessary.

Its, IMHO, odd to think God is powerful enough to created the big bang, but not powerful enough to breathe life into living creatures. I personally don't know the mechanism of how life began, but I know the author.

I second that

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
You conflate the Big Bang theory with the theory of evolution. One is not dependent on the other. I consider evolution a proven fact. I think we're a lot further away from the same level of certainty about the origins of the universe.

I understand that as well. I was trying to create a poll with less possible choices than the number of members of MacNN.

[Myrkridia]

Originally posted by Too Much Coffee Woman:
i absolutely hate it when people say the devil put fossils and etc on earth to trick us

I agree with you there. I had a sunday school teacher who used that one when I was lil.
I believe that evolution exists up to a point ie: a special breed of white moth died out during the industrial revolution, while a mutated form of the same moth flourished because it's pigment was darker than it's pals making it easier to blend in with the now ash covered trees.

Also, there are a few question that always get me when I think about evolution. If humans came from apes, why don't we see any monkey-men? Why aren't monkeys changing into humans in this day en age? As I understood evolution the new and improved version (humans) would replace their predecessors(monkeys). So why are the furry simians still around?

[Myrkridia]

[suhail]

Originally posted by Myrkridia:
I agree with you there. I had a sunday school teacher who used that one when I was lil.
I believe that evolution exists up to a point ie: a special breed of white moth died out during the industrial revolution, while a mutated form of the same moth flourished because it's pigment was darker than it's pals making it easier to blend in with the now ash covered trees.

Also, there are a few question that always get me when I think about evolution. If humans came from apes, why don't we see any monkey-men? Why aren't monkeys changing into humans in this day en age? As I understood evolution the new and improved version (humans) would replace their predecessors(monkeys). So why are the furry simians still around?

There is no skeletal transition from one creature to another ever been found, they are all illustrations and figments of the imagination. Mutation is breaking the DNA strand which always causes harm with no improvements.

Evolutionists do not have any proof Zilch !! All is imagination.

[wdlove]

It all began with God, he continues to work with his creation to this day. Without him there would be no life.

[boardsurfer]

Hmm, I thought for sure that my vote would be in the minority given the typical result of religious threads around here. Maybe it is still early in the voting.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Too Much Coffee Woman:

i absolutely hate it when people say the devil put fossils and etc on earth to trick us

Jeez, you've gopt it all wrong! God himself put those bones there to test our faith!

Fact! Unlike that vague theory that states the earth might be some indeterminate number of years older than 5428.

There are even "creation geologists" who "explain" how thousands of feet of limestone could have been deposited, hardened, and raised from the seabed to the mountain ranges in 5428 years. Just suspend your disbelief from the Sears tower, and you're there!

CV

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Myrkridia:
Also, there are a few question that always get me when I think about evolution. If humans came from apes, why don't we see any monkey-men? Why aren't monkeys changing into humans in this day en age? As I understood evolution the new and improved version (humans) would replace their predecessors(monkeys). So why are the furry simians still around?

1) Humans did not "come from" apes. Apes and humans share a common primate ancestor.

(Just so you know, the words "monkey" and "ape" are not interchangeable. We are much closer genetically to apes than to monkeys.)

2) Evolution does not mean every species gets better until some state of ideal perfection is achieved; it simply means that organisms change over time in response to a variety of internal and external forces.

3) There are still monkeys and apes for the same reason there are still humans: each has the genetic toolkit to survive in its particular ecologic niche. You seem to think monkeys and apes should somehow be striving to be like us, when in fact they're far better suited to the environment they inhabit than you are.

[Kitschy]

From a book by Charles Colson:

"Take the example of the bat. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a small, mouselike creature whose forelimbs developed into wings by gradual steps. But picture the steps: As the forelimbs grow longer and the skin begins to grow between them, the animal can no longer run without stumbling over them; and yet the forelimbs are not long enough to function as wings. And so, during most of its hypothetical transition stages, the poor creature would have limbs too long for running and too short for flying. It would flop along helplessly and soon become extinct.

"There is no conceivable pathway for bat wings to be formed in gradual stages. And this conclusion is confirmed by the fossil record, where we find no transitional fossils leading up to bats. The first time bats appear in the fossil record, they are already fully formed and virtually identical to modern bats."

Intrestingly, Darwin understood this idea when he said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Obviously technology and science were a lot simpler in his day and we know a lot more now.

If anything, evolution's underpinnings are becoming weaker and weaker and the idea that the universe started at once is become stronger and stronger. To an extent, even naturalists grant that, hence the Big Bang theory.

Creationism is just as much a viable theory as evolution.

[suhail]

Evolutionisits are such losers, they keep on changing their story.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by suhail:
Evolutionisits are such losers, they keep on changing their story.

I don't think they are losers. I think they have a theory which explains the data in a way they prefer to perceive the universe. They desperately NEED macro evolution theory to be fact, and think by simply believing it hard enough, it will be. There' s nothing wrong with that.
My problem is that some aren't content with that, they must also characterize people who embrace religion as fools or idiots, yet their style of argument proves the opposite.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
My problem is that some aren't content with that, they must also characterize people who embrace religion as fools or idiots, yet their style of argument proves the opposite.

Well I do have to admit that I'm sorta glad there are so many creationists around. Whenever I feel down or depressed, just to know that they're out there gives me a little lift for some reason.

[LeftWingLock]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
1) Humans did not "come from" apes. Apes and humans share a common primate ancestor.

(Just so you know, the words "monkey" and "ape" are not interchangeable. We are much closer genetically to apes than to monkeys.)

2) Evolution does not mean every species gets better until some state of ideal perfection is achieved; it simply means that organisms change over time in response to a variety of internal and external forces.

3) There are still monkeys and apes for the same reason there are still humans: each has the genetic toolkit to survive in its particular ecologic niche. You seem to think monkeys and apes should somehow be striving to be like us, when in fact they're far better suited to the environment they inhabit than you are.

I couldn't have said it better myself Nonsuch. I teach Genetics and Evolution in my 7th grade science class and those are some of the points I make.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Well I do have to admit that I'm sorta glad there are so many creationists around. Whenever I feel down or depressed, just to know that they're out there gives me a little lift for some reason.

Be careful with labels you don't understand.
I'm not a "creationist", as it refers to a narrow group that discounts evolution.
As I've said before, I believe evolution and creation (not creationism) are not mutually exclusive.

[7Macfreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
*snip*

and think by simply believing it hard enough, it will be.

*snip*

isnt that what its all about tho? what YOU "believe" in.

i could keep a rock, and believe in it for 5 years, and make my belief so strong that if the rock were taken away from me, it would kill me.
everything is pretty much subjective, therefore it is best to look at these conversations as entertainment only. lashing out at someone because of it is so stupid. anything extreme done in the name or religion or science is totally ridiculous.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
Creationism is just as much a viable theory as evolution.

Scientifically, no it isn't. Creationism requires that a Creator exist and this postulation can neither be proven or disproven. Science requires that all evidence associated with a theory be observable.

This doesn't mean you can't believe in God if you subscribe to Darwinian evolution. It just means that, since God is an unobservable phenomenon, He can't be used as a caveat of any scientific theory.

(the poll is interesting and all but did we really need another thread on this?)

[boots]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Be careful with labels you don't understand.
I'm not a "creationist", as it refers to a narrow group that discounts evolution.
As I've said before, I believe evolution and creation (not creationism) are not mutually exclusive.

Using Lerk's post as a jumping point....

Creation "science" is not synonymous with creationist.

Creation science is one of the biggest abuses of science I've ever witnessed. To believe in creation, one need not be a allied with the creation scientists

There seems to be four camps in the creation vs evolution debate:

1) creation and evolution are mutually exclusive.

2) creation an evolution can coexist but share nothing...i.e. they are orthogonal but can co-exist with no mixing. Think: two people in the same room, but not talking.

3) Science (i.e. evolution) and Religion (i.e. creationism) can inform one another, but seek very different goals. Think: two people in the same room talking a little.

4) science and religion can be integrated. Science informs us of some of the way the world works, and religion can inform us how to apply what science gives us. This is a very intimate dialog and most people fit into this group.

Option one is an extremist group on both ends. Remember that both Darwin himself and Einstein BOTH struggled with this issue for the better part of their lives. People from both sides try to use Einstein as one of them but his theology was much to complex for such a simple label.

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
Creationism requires that a Creator exist and this postulation can neither be proven or disproven. Science requires that all evidence associated with a theory be observable.

Well, doesn't that disqualify evolution as well? I mean, no one has every observed something mutate/evolve from one species to another. In fact, there is not one piece of evidence on the planet that shows that.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
Well, doesn't that disqualify evolution as well? I mean, no one has every observed something mutate/evolve from one species to another. In fact, there is not one piece of evidence on the planet that shows that.

Well one example is Sickle Cell Anemia.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
Well, doesn't that disqualify evolution as well? I mean, no one has every observed something mutate/evolve from one species to another. In fact, there is not one piece of evidence on the planet that shows that.

Actually there are mountains of evidence associated with evolutionary theory. Try fossil records, DNA evidence, and specific to human evolution, the numerous skeletons and bone fragments found in the last century. I could go on about that (and maybe BlackGriffen will jump in on this thread too.)

Notice, I didn't say you must actually observe the question the theory is trying to answer. That would make it fact. I merely said creationism's main point is that a creator exists. This is impossible to prove or disprove moving it to the realm of faith rather than science.

Granted, a certain amount of faith must be used in science, but it is only the faith in our own deduction and observation which have been well tested over thousands of years. Scientifically, God is an entirely speculative issue, making creationism follow suit.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
Well, doesn't that disqualify evolution as well? I mean, no one has every observed something mutate/evolve from one species to another. In fact, there is not one piece of evidence on the planet that shows that.

Sorry, but I think you're wrong there.


http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/1994...-mutation.html

Sexual isolation in one easy step



A simple genetic change in flies' pheromones may be all that's needed to spin off a new species

The powerful chemical attractants that help animals find a mate or pick a mate of the same species from a crowd of similar organisms can change very easily, causing the sudden appearance of new, distinct species through reproductive isolation, University of Chicago researchers have found.

To the untrained eye, all fruit flies look alike. Indeed, sometimes the flies themselves may be fooled, so they rely on chemical identification. Jerry Coyne, Ph.D., professor of ecology and evolution, and his co-workers analyzed and even swapped the mate-attracting fragrances among four closely related species of Drosophila and showed that these pheromones are crucial for male suitors to recognize females of the same species. They also found that the genetic basis of pheromone differences is very simple and easily changed, refuting a central tenet of evolutionary theory--that new species only arise through the accumulation of many genetic changes, each of small effect. The finding is reported in today's issue of the journal Science.

Biologists have long puzzled over how a species originates and keeps separate from similar organisms nearby. "Why is there no intermediate form of bird between a robin and a cardinal?" Coyne asks. "It's a problem Darwin failed to solve. Despite entitling his book `The Origin of the Species,' he failed to give any real insight into this problem and did not really know what a species was."

Some barriers to the melding of species arise only after fertilization, if the hybrids are inviable or sterile. But sexual isolation through mate discrimination may be what gives many animal species their unique identities, and accounts for the brilliant plumage and bizarre mating rituals seen in some vertebrates.

Female insects often attract mates with Contact pheromones--waxy substances that rub off their abdomens and stimulate chemoreceptors on the forelegs or mouth parts of eligible males to induce courtship.

Coyne's team analyzed the signature pheromones and breeding behavior of four species of Drosophila. In two species, males and females wear a unisex fragrance of tricosene, and males of either species will court females of the other. They will not, however, court females of the remaining two species, which wear a foreign, feminine dust of heptacosadiene. Males of these latter two species wear tricosene and will try to woo any breed of female.

Even males of the two more finicky species can be fooled, however, by perfume trickery. They will court hybrid females--which carry about half the normal amount of each fragrance--with roughly half the ardor with which they pursue their own species. Moreover, females of species that these males would normally shun can be perfumed by crowding them together with properly scented females of the males' species. If the perfume is right, the picky males find even dead females fetching, ruling out any overriding seductive behavior on the part of the female.

Genetic crosses and back-crosses to the parental generation using specially bred flies showed that the ratio of tricosene to heptacosadiene in hybrid flies was determined almost entirely by which species chromosome 3 was inherited from. The involvement of only one of Drosophila's four chromosomes suggests a simple genetic basis for the pheromone signature and may mean that the trait resides at a single genetic locus.

The finding that sexual isolation may be brought about by changes in at most a few genes argues against the evolution of new species in this manner by long-term runaway processes, as dictated by evolutionary dogma, Coyne said.

Other authors on the Science paper are research assistant Anne Crittenden, who performed the genetic crosses, and Katherine Mah, a student in the College who analyzed the pheromones for her senior Honors project. Mah is now a graduate student at the University of Michigan.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
From a book by Charles Colson:

"Take the example of the bat. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a small, mouselike creature whose forelimbs developed into wings by gradual steps. But picture the steps: As the forelimbs grow longer and the skin begins to grow between them, the animal can no longer run without stumbling over them; and yet the forelimbs are not long enough to function as wings. And so, during most of its hypothetical transition stages, the poor creature would have limbs too long for running and too short for flying. It would flop along helplessly and soon become extinct.

"There is no conceivable pathway for bat wings to be formed in gradual stages. And this conclusion is confirmed by the fossil record, where we find no transitional fossils leading up to bats. The first time bats appear in the fossil record, they are already fully formed and virtually identical to modern bats."

The fossil record is admittedly poor with regard to bats, which is hardly surprising given that small animals would be typically eaten or scavenged and thus would not survive to be fossilized. Still, Colson's reasoning is absurd. Even discounting the absurd idea that a sparse bat fossil record invalidates every other observation made about every other species, such a "transitional" bat (a misnomer used by creationists, as all forms are "transitional") would still be adept at climbing (as bats today are), and a leading theory as to how bats developed flight posits that modern bats descend from a tree-dwelling gliding mammal.

Like many creationists, you assume that an admitted gap in our understanding of a specific species' evolution utterly invalidates the entire premise. It does not.

Originally posted by Kitschy:
If anything, evolution's underpinnings are becoming weaker and weaker and the idea that the universe started at once is become stronger and stronger. To an extent, even naturalists grant that, hence the Big Bang theory.

This is both absurd and badly argued, as evolution and the Big Bang, as I already mentioned, have nothing to do with one another. The Big Bang theory is the province of physicists and mathmeticians, not "naturalists" (whatever they are exactly).

Originally posted by Kitschy:
Creationism is just as much a viable theory as evolution.

Creationism (defined in the strict sense of "God created the earth and its inhabitants just as they exist today") is not a theory; it is a folk tale that happens to be believed by many people as literal truth. It was not developed as a response to, and possible explanation of, observed physical evidence.

[Nicko]

Believing in creationism is akin to believing in Santa clause or the easter bunny

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
I mean, no one has every observed something mutate/evolve from one species to another. In fact, there is not one piece of evidence on the planet that shows that.

You've already been roasted for this, but I thought I'd throw another log on the fire.

[boots]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
From a book by Charles Colson:

"Take the example of the bat. Evolutionists propose that the bat evolved from a small, mouselike creature whose forelimbs developed into wings by gradual steps. But picture the steps: As the forelimbs grow longer and the skin begins to grow between them, the animal can no longer run without stumbling over them; and yet the forelimbs are not long enough to function as wings. And so, during most of its hypothetical transition stages, the poor creature would have limbs too long for running and too short for flying. It would flop along helplessly and soon become extinct.

"There is no conceivable pathway for bat wings to be formed in gradual stages. And this conclusion is confirmed by the fossil record, where we find no transitional fossils leading up to bats. The first time bats appear in the fossil record, they are already fully formed and virtually identical to modern bats."

absence of proof is not proof of absence.


It is interesting to see the varied definitions of "creationism" being assumed.

Nonsuch says:
Creationism (defined in the strict sense of "God created the earth and its inhabitants just as they exist today") is not a theory; it is a folk tale that happens to be believed by many people as literal truth. It was not developed as a response to, and possible explanation of, observed physical evidence.

This is the argument of "creation science." Not all who believe in a form of creation can be lumped into the same narrow catagory. This is why I try to use the term creation science or creation scientist...these people invariably argue that there is scientific evidence for creation...which is absurd given our current understandings.


edit: used wrong quote first time....

[thunderous_funker]

Are we talking about the origin of species? Or the origin of Life?

They are completely different things.

[willed]

Originally posted by suhail:
There is no skeletal transition from one creature to another ever been found, they are all illustrations and figments of the imagination. Mutation is breaking the DNA strand which always causes harm with no improvements.

Evolutionists do not have any proof Zilch !! All is imagination.

I presume you are 'joking', right?

chem.lapeer.org/Bio1Docs/ Images/Evolution.jpg - skeletal transition?? (yeah, haven't worked out the whole image posting thing). Personally I think when they find loads of differnt types of man which slowly change from a ape-like structure to the one we have today, I would call this evidence of 'skeletal transition'.

Actually, people who believecreationism aren't even worthy of rational argument. Like the bishop who, when faced with Galileo's telescope, refused to even look down it - he just insisted Galileo was wrong.

[wallinbl]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Believing in creationism is akin to believing in Santa clause or the easter bunny

Saint Nick was a real person. Even provided gifts via chimney.

[wallinbl]

Here's a thought on the Biblical creation story 7 days, Adam & Eve, etc:

If you were God, and you had created the entire world and its workings (biochemistry, physics, etc), how would you explain to Abraham your method of creating the world? Think Abraham would have understood the details?

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by boots:
This is the argument of "creation science." Not all who believe in a form of creation can be lumped into the same narrow catagory. This is why I try to use the term creation science or creation scientist...these people invariably argue that there is scientific evidence for creation...which is absurd given our current understandings.

Well, as we've learned from previous posts (in this thread or the other, can't remember), roughly half the population of the United States holds beliefs identical to the definition of "creationism" that I paraphrased. To say therefore that the beliefs of "creation scientists" represent a tiny minority of (Judeo-)Christian people is disingenuous, at least in regard to the US.

[Kitschy]

There are just too many things that go against evolution as it is that I just can't believe it. (time requirements, chance, irreducible complexity...) In any case, the God in whom I believe is One that doesn't need to plod through "millions of years" of mistakes to arrive at the creature he wanted fellowship with. He created man, woman and animals. And he created them all to reproduce after their own kind.

Response to Nicko:
Indeed, there are mutations that occur in organisms. Unfortunately, most of them are mutations that would not be advantageous to the organism, like you mentioned, sickle cell anemia. And, from what I understand, NO mutation has ever brought about a new structure. Just a variation on the old structure (i.e. longer beak, shorter legs...)

Two things about the "species" sites a few of you mentioned. Many (if not all) of the examples of changes in species you provided are either 1) extremely subtle or 2) catalyzed by an intelligent being (a scientist).

[boots]

Originally posted by wallinbl:
Here's a thought on the Biblical creation story 7 days, Adam & Eve, etc:

If you were God, and you had created the entire world and its workings (biochemistry, physics, etc), how would you explain to Abraham your method of creating the world? Think Abraham would have understood the details?

More like how would Abraham cogitate on his own origins...

[tangent]The book of Genesis (especially the first two chapters) was put together for a very specific purpose. Not to explain the minutia of origins, but to set the monotheistic tone in a culture of polytheism.

Canaanite mythology held that earth and its inhabitants were secondary to the divine family (- an accident, really). Everything happened for them (the divine family). Genesis sets "this" (meaning creation) apart as specifically intended.

Read the first chapter of Genesis carefully. There are two creation stories. In (the well known) one, G-d makes the animals, then man, then woman. In the second one, the one that most people gloss over, man and woman were created simultaneously.

The Bible wasn't written in a vacuum. The story was constructed as a response to what was going on around the authors/editor culturally.

The story of Cain and Able is in answer to the mythology that violence came from the divine. Genesis suggests it originates here, with us.

All the literalist who interpret the first creation story as the end-all of information....and who talk about the mark of Cain, for that matter, really make the more middle of the road people sound like idiots.
[/tangent]

Again, I will stress that Einstien stuggled with this on a very deap and personal level. He flip flopped a lot on issues of religion and spirituality. If some one as gifted and intelligent as he was had such a difficult struggle, it can't be a simple "yes - no" proposition.

[Kitschy]

Originally posted by willed:
I presume you are 'joking', right?

chem.lapeer.org/Bio1Docs/ Images/Evolution.jpg

I couldn't get this to work. I'd love to see it though.

[boots]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Well, as we've learned from previous posts (in this thread or the other, can't remember), roughly half the population of the United States holds beliefs identical to the definition of "creationism" that I paraphrased. To say therefore that the beliefs of "creation scientists" represent a tiny minority of (Judeo-)Christian people is disingenuous, at least in regard to the US.

I haven't seen the stats to which you refer.

The stats I've seen are not nearly that when you start giving people definitions. In these cases, the numbers I've seen indicate that most people in the US believe in both a creation event/creator AND evolution.

And on the spectrum of belief, this is still a very small niche.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
Two things about the "species" sites a few of you mentioned. Many (if not all) of the examples of changes in species you provided are either 1) extremely subtle or 2) catalyzed by an intelligent being (a scientist).

The fact that the characteristics are subtle is irrelevant. They illustrate the principle that species change over time. It doesn't matter if it's as subtle as a flower changing color or as stark as a mouse evolving into a bat; the principle at work is identical in both instances. Do you understand that distinction?

As for your second point, from the ol' FAQ again:

Someone writes:
I have a friend who says since we have never seen a species actually split into two different species during recorded history that he has trouble believing in the theory of evolution. Is this bogus and have humans seen animals bred into different species? (The various highly bred english dogs come to mind but I suppose this would be easier to find in vegetation. Corn, wheat strains? Donkeys and mules? )

This is bogus. We've seen it happen naturally without our tampering with the process. From the FAQ:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

Originally posted by Kitschy:
There are just too many things that go against evolution as it is that I just can't believe it. (time requirements, chance, irreducible complexity...)

All of these arguments have been answered (start here), if you're really interested in learning about it.

Originally posted by Kitschy:
In any case, the God in whom I believe is One that doesn't need to plod through "millions of years" of mistakes to arrive at the creature he wanted fellowship with.

Ah. Never mind.

[boots]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
[snip]

In any case, the God in whom I believe is One that doesn't need to plod through "millions of years" of mistakes to arrive at the creature he wanted fellowship with.

[snip]

"Mistake" is a subjective term...it would be a mistake to create someone as we exist now in an environment that would kill us...like say - an extremely hot and sulfurous atmosphere like venus.

Reread Job...especially the part about "Where were you when I...."

Don't put G-d in a box. S/he did what s/he did (if you believe in a god) when s/he did it. It is not our place to revise history to put ourselves in the center of everything. All we can do is learn from what we observe.

I don't doubt that s/he COULD have made everything as we see it today...but it doesn't appear that s/he did.

[wallinbl]

Originally posted by Kitschy:
In any case, the God in whom I believe is One that doesn't need to plod through "millions of years" of mistakes to arrive at the creature he wanted fellowship with. He created man, woman and animals. And he created them all to reproduce after their own kind.

Who is to say that evolution is not the process by which God made man?

[zigzag]

boots, how come we only get to hear from you when an evolution thread pops up? Do you have some sort of evolution-thread detector on your Mac?

And what does your sig represent? Nothing illegal I hope . . .