TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- creationism vs evolution
Pages (10): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »

I have to agree with that. I have issues with polls that say "according to our poll of x people, y% of those people think this, z& think that..." while the number x is never higher than a couple of thousand. To me that doesnt include nearly enough people for accurate representation of a country with population of over 300 million. Especially since the poll will significantly differ according to where and when its taken.

Then again regarding the question about the age of the earth i think its hard to word it so that it would confuse a large percentage of people as to what the question is. Seriously, how can you ask if someone thinks if earth is older or younger than 10.000 years in a way that will confuse a supposedly grown and one would hope educated adult thats being poled.


Then again the probability that the only people actually answering polls over the phone are bored old people who have nothing else to do, and college students that are too high on weed to get their ass up from bed and to the classroom.

If the randomization procedure is sufficiently robust, the results should be fairly accurate with a sample of much less than a few hundred thousand, although as you mention there is the problem of mostly older people answering the phone -- and their being more willing to answer polls.

If I still had access to the GSS I would check the poll against those results. Anyone have access to it?

trust me the statistic isnt very off. Considering evolution isn't taught properly in most highschools and people don't touch on it really in most college courses i can see it being overlooked. Where are you going to learn about it if you're not taught at a young age. Also most people can't be bothered to read up on it. Especially with shows like survivor and american idol to please their attention span, there is no room for national geographic.

edit: also think about this.

Why would anyone want to go out of their way to find discrepencies in their religious teachings which have been passed on for several generations.

The motivation, or lack there of, supports that statistic.

i agree, the poll might have been biased but i don't think that the accuracy is that far off. you'd be surprised to know how many people truly believe the earth is 10,000 years old. some people are willing to believe even the most ridiculous things like mr.x is the messiah and we should worship him.. i was watching this today on Nat Geo..

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/0....leader.arrest/

i was watching how the people had complete devotion to him despite the fact that none of his prophecies came true and he slept with all the women and was charged on 4 accounts of sexual abuse, including a minor.

GOD would tell him to have rituals with 7 virgins.. and to have sex with the mens wives.. funny thing is this guy was able to become this sect leader and brainwash everyone to get his own desires met.. and his prior life showed his mother died when he really young, and later as a kid he was kidnapped and molested.. no shit he turned out to be a perverted psycho.

it was shocking to see how gullible people are- if you TRY showing them a different perspective, they refuse even just listening or trying to understand your point of view.

so really, all the people that are born into a religious family, i don't blame them for sticking to their beliefs.. they haven't seen anything else and reading/learning about new perspectives takes getting out of their comfort zone, which some people aren't willing to do..

quote:

Originally posted by yukii i agree, the poll might have been biased but i don't think that the accuracy is that far off. you'd be surprised to know how many people truly believe the earth is 10,000 years old. some people are willing to believe even the most ridiculous things like mr.x is the messiah and we should worship him.. i was watching this today on Nat Geo.. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/0....leader.arrest/ i was watching how the people had complete devotion to him despite the fact that none of his prophecies came true and he slept with all the women and was charged on 4 accounts of sexual abuse, including a minor. GOD would tell him to have rituals with 7 virgins.. and to have sex with the mens wives.. funny thing is this guy was able to become this sect leader and brainwash everyone to get his own desires met.. and his prior life showed his mother died when he really young, and later as a kid he was kidnapped and molested.. no shit he turned out to be a perverted psycho. it was shocking to see how gullible people are- if you TRY showing them a different perspective, they refuse even just listening or trying to understand your point of view. so really, all the people that are born into a religious family, i don't blame them for sticking to their beliefs.. they haven't seen anything else and reading/learning about new perspectives takes getting out of their comfort zone, which some people aren't willing to do..

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

yep. i saw that guy too.

Haha lol. Check this out. This is fun. He gives reasoning for evolution then makes false claims that there isn't enough evidence.


I like how he almost says different species of dogs then he halts. Don't want to confuse creationists with semantics do we now.

Different species of dogs, lol, dogs and wolfs aren't even genetically dissimilar at all, let alone dogs and dogs.

quote:

Originally posted by iTranscendence Different species of dogs, lol, dogs and wolfs aren't even genetically dissimilar at all, let alone dogs and dogs.

of course there is obviously some genetic differences and amplified genes through selective breeding. The point is that there are huge phenotype differences in their traits (compare a chiwawa to a sheppard) which translates into macro evolution in the long term.

think about this...

If we are able to selectively breed dogs and create a vast difference in breeds through selectivity in such a short time, how is it so unbelievable to postulate that over 300 million years the environment could shape and isolate traits to create gradual phenotypic differences which after that much time would culminate into our different phyla and millions of characterized species.

don't think thats too much of a crap shoot.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit of course there is obviously some genetic differences and amplified genes through selective breeding. The point is that there are huge phenotype differences in their traits (compare a chiwawa to a sheppard) which translates into macro evolution in the long term. think about this... If we are able to selectively breed dogs and create a vast difference in breeds through selectivity in such a short time, how is it so unbelievable to postulate that over 300 million years the environment could shape and isolate traits to create gradual phenotypic differences which after that much time would culminate into our different phyla and millions of characterized species. don't think thats too much of a crap shoot.

It's a possibility but it would take that long of a time for the enviromental evolution to have an effect on their genetic level.

quote:

Originally posted by iTranscendence Different species of dogs, lol, dogs and wolfs aren't even genetically dissimilar at all, let alone dogs and dogs.

This guy's a little more intelligent than that guy... give it a view if you want.

quote:

Originally posted by iTranscendence It's a possibility but it would take that long of a time for the enviromental evolution to have an effect on their genetic level.

which goes to prove the point that little genetic change is required to see huge visual change in the organism.

so dogs having a common ancestor with bears and seals and racoons doesn't seem so far fetched.

Science has been around say 500 years? Why are people trying to explain the world using religious texts written thousands of years ago? Looks really idiotic on their part.

Who in TA believes in God raise your hand.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit which goes to prove the point that little genetic change is required to see huge visual change in the organism. so dogs having a common ancestor with bears and seals and racoons doesn't seem so far fetched.

All the difference in humanity is 1/10th of 1%.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam This guy's a little more intelligent than that guy... give it a view if you want.

fair enough, he's using the argument of semantics now. Sure its a different species. but what is a different specie? A donkey is considered a different specie then a horse. A leopard is considered a different specie then a chetah. This is because there is genetic variety AND they chose not to mate with eachother. To think that over time organisms do not change is perposterous. Notice how that guy went through all these positive scientific facts and neglected specific explanations for things that are known. For instance gene expression. Enough mutations can cause new gene expressions which over time would lead to what we call speciation.

How can we really observe siginificant "natural selection" if we have only really been observing it for hundreds of years? All we have are fossil records and DNA records which create a history book and timeline. This is the hard evidence. Also gene expression micro evolution and selective breeding is the physical process. This can also be observed.

Notice how at the end as well he mentions how darwins ideas lead to racism and haeckels ideas were disproven and again he mentions that evolution does not occur.

He neglected to mention atavism and vestigials as well, one of the strongest arguments for evolution.

quote:

Originally posted by iTranscendence All the difference in humanity is 1/10th of 1%.

you have to also consider that genes aren't as isolated for humans since our breeding isn't very selective, our population isn't limited (its actually increasing exponentially) and all though random mutations occur, they do not cause segregation in our species. ALSO we've only been around for 200,000 years since our last divergence.

All this will cause for a lack of amplification in genes. Humans born with tails will not continue to breed with other humans born with tails. Tall people don't necessarily marry tall people. Whites don't always marry whites and certain phenotypes do not dominate other phenotypes in our societies, generally speaking.

So its difficult to see a course of evolution occur with humans, but it is obviously possible and it may occur in the far future.

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid Who in TA believes in God raise your hand.

i would consider myself agnostic

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit i would consider myself agnostic

quote:

Originally posted by iTranscendence

Do you think there is an evolutionary biologist conspiracy?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Do you think there is an evolutionary biologist conspiracy?

that would suck lol

-________________________- not much we could do about it..

we need moar conversation in this thread gaiz.

quote:

Originally posted by wotyzoid Who in TA believes in God raise your hand.

You can't ask this question. Just because you believe in evolution doesn't mean you don't believe in the possibility of a higher being.

A lot of us are agnostic you know
Agnostic also works well with Roman Catholics and is accepted so works for me

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.