[en] Evolution or Creationism

[Angryminer]

in cultures that don't "support" free exchange of information or can't afford it, creatisonsts are majority :wink:Please be more specific. After all, you just made a statement that links creationism to ignorance. Such strong statements should be supported with reason.

I would rather tackle this aspect the other way around. Creationism is rather unpopular among young liberals. And that is the majority of the population of the internet, or at least the majority of the people who voice their opinion.

Angryminer

[catt]

Does the majority of the world population believe in Creationism?
Or just the majority of people of a certain country?
What is the educational background of these people? What is the religious background of these people?

I have never liked the fact that creationists and evolutionists look down on each other. One accuse others of lacking logical thinking, the other says people have no faith. I think if we were ready to listen to each other, we could actually still learn something.
Usually it comes down to offending the "opponent".

[Elvain]

Please be more specific. After all, you just made a statement that links creationism to ignorance. Such strong statements should be supported with reason.
I just said what everyone knows. There possibly is no link between free exchange of information and what theory do people support more, but the number of people who don't believe in creationism is incomparably higher in so called "western societies" than in other societies where the exchange of information is not so high. I forgot to say that there is also great number of internet users who do not prefere english

Starting from religious education and education at all and ends with censure.

I don't look down on those who believe in creationism, they just believe in something I can't .. maybe because I'm overflooded by information I am not able to filter and say: evolution is the only truth or creationism is the only truth.
My opinoin is that there are things we can never prove and then it's matter of believe. But I can't believe that the world was created by something I donť believe in

[Doux]

Does the majority of the world population believe in Creationism? According to information I have from 1998, somewhat less than one fifth of the world population has no religion. The other four fifth include Christianity, Judaists (Jews), the Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and others. I think it doesn't change much over the years.
--
In my view, religion shouldn't be banned from the world, but should and will be influenced by spreading scientific discoveries until they become generally accepted, just as the law of gravity. But this will take time.

Since science, read: it's most important discoveries, is very young (last hundred years, starting f.i. in 1905: Einstein's Special Relativity), I give it a good chance. Many people in the world do not have the knowledge about what has been experimented, discovered and scientifically accepted untill today, still believe 'outdated' things, but most importantly have not had a chance to comprehend the beauty and coherence of scientific theories.
Already, evolution of species is slowly emerging in subbranches of religions, such as Christianity, and I think this will happen more often.
This implies, though, that for a long period of time, the 'general knowledge' of the world population will lag behind on the progress of science, but eventually, only a very small fraction of the people will think that the world was created 6000 years (or any other timeframe less than a few billions) ago or that it is plausible for a dead person to resurrect.

[catt]

But being religious does not necessarily mean that somebody does not believe in Evolution...

There was a study published in National Geographic a while ago, so I went and searched for it online. I was able to find the American version, sadly it only provides numbers for the USA (apparently about half of the population believes that Creationists could be right).

Anyone wanting to read more can go here:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html
(For the stats you won't have to read the whole text, only about the first quarter.)

[Doux]

But being religious does not necessarily mean that somebody does not believe in Evolution...Exactly, that is why Intelligent Design, or Theistic evolution exist as (sub)religions. [See Wikipedia [EN] : Types of Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Types_of_creationism) ]

I was able to find the American version, sadly it only provides numbers for the USA (apparently about half of the population believes that Creationists could be right).91% of the Americans believe in God, about one half thinks that the theory of evolution is not right, I read today in a newspaper.

---
Something else: a nice animation on the spreading of religions in EuroAsia.
Spreading of Religion through Time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Religion_spread_animation_slow.gif)

[Carbon]

@ Everybody: Do we have a physicist around? I'd be very much interested in discussing this physical stuff but I have to admit that my studies only scrape the surface of the things discussed above and so I don't have any in-depth knownledge...
It would be great to have a seperate thread though!


It would be fun to discuss chaos theory (Mathematics and Physics) sometime, are you familiar with it?

To be on topic and not join any debate, I believe in Evolution by Natural Selection because there is more physical evidence than Creationism, and I'm more Emprical than Rational (I need to see evidence than believe which is more logical, although I combine both). I simply scanned through the posts previously so if anything I talked about was mentioned then I apologize.

PS, A physics and philosophy thread would be cool.

[catt]

<offtopic>
You are very welcome to start any thread you like. It is best to start a thread with something people can actually talk about, i.e. an introduction into the chaos theory and controversies. I have thought about starting one, but really I don't know too much about it and I fear that my statements about physical problems would be somewhat naive. That is why I did not write anything up yet (that is also why I asked if we have any physicist around who is into that).

So... if you want to talk about something just go for it! :go:
</offtopic>

[People's Republic of China]

@one of Elvain's posts

I can't agree with that. The modern progressive education system is less open and free information than the old. In the US, some people get attacked by school authorities for bringing up God or creationism. We're not allowed to express our views and our evidence and our scientists, barred from expressing their opinions.


Generally, I find that the Christian/Jewish Bible/Torah followers are usually les likely to enter forums, partly because the prevailing view is that the internet is little better than a conduit for pornography and unethical business practises (At least that is the impression I get). I'm very tired right now, but I might write more later.

Take care.

PRC
--
Also, most 'Christians' don't bother to read the Bible or take it seriously. So the implications of the first Chapters of Genesis are usually lost on the majority of Christians. I read a little Hebrew, and I believe that when God say he made the earth in seven days, I believe. And most science books I've read back that view.

Adding the lifespans/births of the Patriarchs and other early Biblical characters, one can calculate the age of the earth with 1,000 yrs. (It's somewhere between 5000 and 7500 yrs of age; I believe that)

Not everyone believes that, as this forum shows, but that at least shows you were Creationists stand.

[Elvain]

I can agree with that. The modern progressive education system is less open and free information than the old. In the US, some people get attacked by school authorities for bringing up God or creationism.that's a shame of US education system. In our shools here (or at least the schools I was attending) we got "all" the theories including the creationsist one shown as equals as the teachers are not allowed to show their religious opinions in other than religious debates - they are not allowed to influence one's religious opinion (originaly it was ordered against the religion, but now it rather protects it)


Generally, I find that the Christian/Jewish Bible/Torah followers are usually les likely to enter forums, partly because the prevailing view is that the internet is little better than a conduit for pornography and unethical business practises (At least that is the impression I get). I'm very tired right now, but I might write more later. One muslim philosopher said (in order to defend philosophy against orthodox muslim theologists) something like this: If you attack philosophy as something that might drive out one's mind from god to infidelity, and thus saying that philosophy is bad it is the same like saying water is bad because some have drowned and died. All people need water (think criticaly/have access to information) so it is not good to say that it is bad because some misused it.

but that doesn't change the fact that many people in order to keep themselves free of temptation do not accept internet as something good. How can something where the most visited places are porn websites be good? As much as how can something that have killed millions of people throughout history - religions (no matter if theist or atheist) can be good. One brings moral values to follow, the other information. It is not internet what is bad but anonymity and part of human nature.

Also, most 'Christians' don't bother to read the Bible or take it seriously. So the implications of the first Chapters of Genesis are usually lost on the majority of Christians.from my experience with Christians I can't but agree. They mostly don't care about the Torah(Old Testament), which for most of them means just "foreword" for the Gospel.

Adding the lifespans/births of the Patriarchs and other early Biblical characters, one can calculate the age of the earth with 1,000 yrs.It is writen in Bible. So believe it or not. I personaly have my own theory (backed very poorly of course as it goes from speculations about ancient astromy and calendars wher I'm not an expert)
- I think the so high age of the patriarchs might be caused by diferent calendar of Old Jews were a year was shorter so people lived more "years" than then thuogh their lives weren't considerably longer. And those who wrote the Old Testament "changed them" to show the decline.

I know that Genesis is said to be Moses' book, but we all have to assume that books of the Torah/Bible were written just by men, mostly the prophets, who have some goals - that also makes diference between particular Tora's books. Certain parts are written just as chronicles. Theory I support is that the books of Moses are something like collection of Old hebrew myths EVERY tribe had in that time.

Our society have been accepting these myths as origin of it's mythology for almost 2000 years because Christianism accepted it instead of f.i. Zoroastrian or ancient mesopotamian mythologies. It was accepted as truth while the mythologies of other tribes were considered as "just mythologies"

this theory is based on text-criticism and comparation of myths by religionists and experts on the Bible (Including my jewish teacher of judaism)

[Dschi-Rex]

I believe in evolution :angel:

[Elvain]

I believe in evolution :angel:
very fair to say it like this.

Now I must confess that my vote for evolution is wrong. I shuold have voted "I don't think we can ever find out how the world was created. We can argue but we can never come to truth" at least in this particular case

[Angryminer]

Evolution isn't about the creation of the world. Evolution is about unsupervised dog breeding, if you want to say it like that.

Angryminer

[Elvain]

I know but many people apply it on "how the world was created"..

but you are right, of course

[Richard]

Evolution isn't about the creation of the world. Evolution is about unsupervised dog breeding, if you want to say it like that.

Angryminer
Crude way to put evolution.. Evolution is about how living things adapt to their eviroment and changes in it, not how 1 red dog and 1 green have yellow puppies... So no, you aren't right if that's what you think evolution is.

Also, why do people keep mixing the origen of the universe with evolution?
They are two different processes.
Evolution didn't start until the first living organisms appeared on earth, which were simple, single cell things like bacterias,ect.
Before that, there were just elements and all the other crap that are the building blocks of life in an unhospitable enviroment that prevented any form of live.

[Angryminer]

No, evolution isn't about how things adapt.
Adapting is an active process. Evolution is not. It is a passive process.
Evolution is when you have a kennel of dogs and shoot all black puppies. Do that for a couple of thousand years and there won't be any more black puppies to shoot at all because non are born anymore. They didn't adapt. Those who aren't were merely cropped.
That is a very common misconception and one of the prime reasons why many people don't understand evolution.
(You propably didn't mean your sentence that way, but still I wanted to state this.)

And about 'unhospitable', we have reason to believethat at the time we believe first reproductive organisms to have come to existance our oceans were far from unhospitable. The seas contained amino acids and other substances that make up almost everything that lives. Interestingly all kinds of reproductive organisms, wether they consume oxygen, iron, carbon dioxide or nitrogen, all consist of those substances we believe to have been in the oceans at that time.
So instead of asking 'Why did life come into existance?' the question rather is 'How unlikely would it have been that over millions of years not even once those substances mix together to form a reproductive entity?'

Angryminer

[Doux]

Replace "adapt" by "become adapted over generations" and there is your passive process.
I agree with Angryminer - evolution is exactly about how '1 red dog and 1 green have yellow puppies'. Not only did Darwin start his book with such cases, but they [human selections] are also a very strong argument for the evolution of species by natural selection.

[Richard]

What I'm saying is that the way you put it is not the correct way. There are two "kinds" of evolution, one being small scale evolution, where offsprings are born with mutuations, changes in the gene frequency from one generation to the next, and then there is large scale evolution, which is when different species descent from a common ancestor over many generation.

Almost allways these genetic changes or mutuations occur because of natural selection.
Now what is natural selection? In a few words, the survival of the featest.
Favorable traits in the enviroment the organism lives in that are heritable become more common after many generations while traits that aren't, begin to dissapear. Thus, "mutuation" or genetical changes begin to take place, after a few generations (small scale evolution).
If there is need for more changes then the process continues until an organism that is prefectly adapted(as in, an animal that lives in the north pole will have strong,thick fur,ect.. and be well "adapted" to live in such cold conditions.) to the eviroment it lives in, "appears" and so a new specie. (large scale evolution.)

Now does it has to do with a red dog and a green one having yellow puppies? In a way, but that's only a very small part of the entire procces. Also, your example of shooting black kennels and then only having white ones is not a good example of evolution, as it is breeding, a man made process, not a natural process. What is really happening is that you are slowly destroying the gene that gives the black color to the kennels.
Man as intervine in evolution many times, its true. That's the reason why we have domesticable animals/pets today. But, the natural process took place aswell. The animals slowly became more adapted to man and the captive enviroment, by a combination of both, genetic changes over generations environmentally induced events.

Anyways, I'm tired. I know I won't change your, or anybodie's else view, nor you will mine. In the end is just think w/e you feel is right.

[Doux]

What I'm saying is that the way you put it is not the correct way. There are two "kinds" of evolution, one being small scale evolution, where offsprings are born with mutuations, changes in the gene frequency from one generation to the next, and then there is large scale evolution, which is when different species descent from a common ancestor over many generation.You could indeed define the evolution of an individual (but this then only happens before birth by random genetic drift) and the evolution of populations. But the latter makes more sense, in my opinion.

Almost always these genetic changes or mutuations occur because of natural selection.
Now what is natural selection? In a few words, the survival of the fittest.
Favorable traits in the enviroment the organism lives in that are heritable become more common after many generations while traits that aren't, begin to dissapear. Thus, "mutuation" or genetical changes begin to take place, after a few generations (small scale evolution).
If there is need for more changes then the process continues until an organism that is prefectly adapted(as in, an animal that lives in the north pole will have strong,thick fur,ect.. and be well "adapted" to live in such cold conditions.) to the eviroment it lives in, "appears" and so a new specie. (large scale evolution.)I can't agree with your formulation "if there is need for more changes" - I refer to Angryminer, evolution is a passive process, here.
Now your distinction of the two evolutions is also becoming more vague - where does this small scale evolution, of genetical changes over a few generations, end, and the large scale evolution start? Evolution does not necessarily lead to a new species - think of simple natural selection of moths, the lighter ones being more visible on dark trees to predators than the dark ones.

Now does it has to do with a red dog and a green one having yellow puppies? In a way, but that's only a very small part of the entire procces. Also, your example of shooting black kennels and then only having white ones is not a good example of evolution, as it is breeding, a man made process, not a natural process. What is really happening is that you are slowly destroying the gene that gives the black color to the kennels.
Man as intervine in evolution many times, its true. That's the reason why we have domesticable animals/pets today. But, the natural process took place aswell. The animals slowly became more adapted to man and the captive enviroment, by a combination of both, genetic changes over generations environmentally induced events.Evolution, whether by natural or human selection, is still consider the same. The slow removal of certain genes by humans is exactly the same method of selection as nature's is. Whether you "shoot the dogs" or let the fittest dogs (fittest to the changing environment and living conditions) survive by natural selection, the only difference I can find is the selector..

Anyways, I'm tired.I hope you had a good night's sleep, then! :go:

I know I won't change your, or anybodie's else view, nor you will mine. In the end is just think w/e you feel is right.I think it's not about changing views, but exchanging views, so that you yourself may select the one you find most supported in this universe. Altough, certainly, I hope that certain views will disappear, views which are in my view really intenable.

[Richard]

Meh, you keep changing the meaning of what I'm saying. What I just explained is all a passive process, if you can't see it then there is no point of discussing anymore.
Now whether the trigger of this procces was passive or not is the correct question. Else how do we have the species we have today? There have been several catasthropies that triggered mass extinction and at the same time, evolution. Will you concider evolution triggered by this abrupt changes passive? In my view no,after some time(speaking in evolutionary time, 100s,1000s of years) maybe,but right after the trigger the animals either "adapted" or went belly up. So no, evolution can't be considered a "passive" process because most of the time it is triggered by an abrupt change in the eviroment the animal recides.