Hard one to vote on. I don't believe any of those and the first two aren't an answer (ie. how does a fridge work? magic. - that's not good enough to be an answer for me). Evolution is a fact - we've actually used natural selection to breed better hunting dogs etc for years. It was exploited during the slave trade too so we know natural selection works for humans too (at a terrible human cost, of course). Evolution doesn't say where life came from, only how life progressed.

An extra terrestrial source of life? Well we've been hit countless times by countless objects from space, it's not unreasonable. Or do you mean ONLY sentient beings visiting earth and causing life? Either way, we have definitely evolved.

I think the only way we'll ever get closer to answering a question like this is finding out just how abundant "life" is in the universe, or at least our local region of the galaxy. If it's abundant, then either it formed here or it was extra terrestrial. And if we reach that point i won't care which it was

Evolution is obviously the answer, but it's not necessarily the full answer. I could easily see our planet as having been seeded from some place else, but I just don't know and I'm not sure that we can ever really find out.

The third response is valid in both number 2 and 4 as well, so it's a weird mixup in that the third actually is the "safe" response, since that's immediately provable.

I like the idea of this survey, but the description mixes two different topics. The theory of natural selection and evolution have nothing to do with the origins of life on earth (the prevalent scientific theory belongs to abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). I believe this may be what gwiz touched on, in that numbers 2 and 4 also refer to evolution.

Perhaps we could ask a survey that asks about the origin of life on earth? Selections could include:
1) Creationism
2) Deism (Clockwork Universe Theory)
3) Abiogenesis
4) Panspermia Hypothesis

The Gallup poll to which you refer did not focus on the origins of life, rather how life has changed (or not changed) in our recent biological history. I doubt you meant that aliens have changed life since it first began, which is why I believe two different ideas are mixed here.

>> ^zombieater:

I like the idea of this survey, but the description mixes two different topics. The theory of natural selection and evolution have nothing to do with the origins of life on earth (the prevalent scientific theory belongs to abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). I believe this may be what gwiz touched on, in that numbers 2 and 4 also refer to evolution.
Perhaps we could ask a survey that asks about the origin of life on earth? Selections could include:
1) Creationism
2) Deism (Clockwork Universe Theory)
3) Abiogenesis
4) Panspermia Hypothesis
The Gallup poll to which you refer did not focus on the origins of life, rather how life has changed (or not changed) in our recent biological history. I doubt you meant that aliens have changed life since it first began, which is why I believe two different ideas are mixed here.


Your right, I did mix it up a bit. I tried to even it out a bit in a quick edit maybe 10 minutes afterwards when I fully re-read it (and the realization that it was slanted hit me; I also tried to make the religious stances sound more equalized--hard to do without evidence...). But, really I had it up for too long so I just left it be; or at the least I thought it was too long. I figured everyone would gather what there was to choose from and what I meant whether I made some mistakes or not. Even in my description of Evolution I made sure to make people realize that Darwin's old natural selection isn't the "exact" primer for everything in biology although a strong one. We've found much to our surprise that stranger things are going on in the lands of "Evolution" and natural selection, survival of the fittest, and other old adages taught in school as the MOST of the only things driving Evolution for the most part may be a little off--not completely--just that the window to our knowledge IS NOT closed and our horizons are broader than once thought thanks to modern scientists re-tooling their devices and machines to once again have a more thorough and "re-tooling" our look at Evolution for a harder "inside look" as well. It's more like an onion now with layers that peel off; each time you peel off one there's another ready to be peeled off... (I'll make sure I didn't get that confused in the poll, somewhere...)

As for choices two and four... I was also concerned that they both had Evolution (especially choice four as I listed it DIRECTLY, even though technically an Alien intelligence is bound to believe, perhaps, in fourteen different reasons for their existence and ours as well...so I may have "jumped the shark" so to say on that one altogether) as a primary tool in them as well as it really didn't differentiate them that much from straight up Evolution (and it did in fact make Evolution seem like the clear choice in many respects, unless you are a STOUT believer of the other two--no case was made for them). Your selection of choices certainly would have worked as well (though to be honest I think many would need to go to Wikipedia before they picked it ), but I did want to try to remain close to the Gallup Poll (as you discussed later) and you're correct in that I should have stayed away from the Evolution subject on those and focused on what their key beliefs, politics (if any), key ideas, and as I said earlier perhaps to even make a case for them--as much could be made. (That goes for @gwiz665s comment too as well, as you said; his comment noted the same discrepancy...) These are things to make sure I do on my next poll; but, I think everyone can make it through this one OK for now.

C'est la vie.

PS- My shift keys are broken and it's DRIVING me nuts. If it seems like I'm randomly not capitalizing letters that should be, that's why! Good thing I'm proof-reading right now or I would have had 10 or so just in this post alone!

I find that panspermia is a plausible idea, but I don't know the evidence for or against it, but even if you accept that as true, then it only shifts the question to, "where did it come from then?" which brings us back to, probably, abiogenesis.

So you have to differentiate between "origin of life" and "origin of life on Earth" as well.

I did actually decide to change some of the language in the different sections so that they are more separated and have less to do with Evolution with each other (the Alien one is odd of course as it has the possibility of having itself be true and others as well), BUT we are really talking about the ORIGIN of the human race. By which means did we come and continue from, basically.

Anyway, right now I'll have to get @lucky760 as nothing in the modify entry section is working so I can't add in the changes I made (plus I noticed a "boo-boo" I made as I basically said natural selection was "survival of the fittest", go look it'll be there till I can fix it . Hopefully the changes I make separate the four out enough so they can stand on their own, but I do believe Evolution will still triumph as it has FAR too much evidence and backed up peer reviews going for it to really make a difference otherwise.

Option 4 is my next option...

edit-There the language has been changed to better suite the individual pieces rather than making them beholden to Evolution.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I voted for evolution, but also believe that panspermia is possible - at least on a microbe level.

I believe that every millisecond the entirety of the universe springs into existence as is. Evolution is implausible in this reality.

With the votes being 1/1/28/1, you've touched on something that is clearly, as you put it, divisive. </sarcasm>

It may be divisive among the troglodytes that make up a good hunk of society, but I would hope, for most who are not ignorant of what evolution is, that this is not even a question. What @zombieater brings up about abiogenesis is something I agree with. @gwiz665 makes a good point too. It's just hard to answer a question like this when the question is not very specific.

On another note, I also don't believe extraterrestrial evolution is that far fetched; with The Voyager 1 reaching the boundaries of our solar system, I think it's certainly possible that even we are colonizing a few cells if by some chance they make their way to a habitable planet. That situation, however, requires that Darwinian evolution exists.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

With the votes being 1/1/28/1, you've touched on something that is clearly, as you put it, divisive. </sarcasm>
It may be divisive among the troglodytes that make up a good hunk of society, but I would hope, for most who are not ignorant of what evolution is, that this is not even a question. What @zombieater brings up about abiogenesis is something I agree with. @gwiz665 makes a good point too. It's just hard to answer a question like this when the question is not very specific.
On another note, I also don't believe extraterrestrial evolution is that far fetched; with The Voyager 1 reaching the boundaries of our solar system, I think it's certainly possible that even we are colonizing a few cells if by some chance they make their way to a habitable planet. That situation, however, requires that Darwinian evolution exists.


Wow, the result... I figured we'd have a few more for Creationism and especially Theistic Evolution, BUT all I can say is that I'm guessing education (YES, this is a big player!) played a large part into the outcome of this poll. The only two things that could be making such a large play on this poll is, one: education--this is pretty straight forward, but basically everyone that voted had a considerable higher source of education (or perhaps even better grades, thus more attention and better retention of the knowledge they learned). Two: cultural (or better said sometimes as: community education), this could be due to the literal source of where this poll is located such as in this case, "The Internet", meaning it attracts a certain type of person and ONLY persons that have access to the Internet (which already means that those people most likely have access to things you only commonly see in a First World society--especially if it seems to be a common place discussion...); second, the culture and community around the person voting. In this case we could say that the culture and community are both the Internet. The last choice is of course your personal one; we all have it in the end, but this poll was taken on the Internet and shown to have a stark difference between a "real world" poll and a tongue-and-cheek version.

Of course the original was the U.S. only and also was across all types of people. It would be interesting to go back to those polls and have them mark out the reasoning for why they made the choices they did. Was it religion? Was it religion, but evolution is on their minds they just don't think science has proved it yet...? Was it science? Was it what they were taught (belief)? Did they guess or just pick what they thought was right? Lets see a poll on that as well.
----------------
For example if you go to this page here: wiki-answers: Do you believe in Creationism or Evolution and why?

It REALLY is a Creationism page! Sure they "try" to be nice to evolution, but apparently whoever understands evolution there knows about it in a 1970's Junior High textbook read-through half-assed way, looking back after 47 years they wrote a very brief summary of what they "thought it was (after writing some stuff down from Wikipedia too flesh it out)" and then left it for the masses.

They even put up links, plenty of creationist, creationism, or young-earth scientist links, BUT when they got to evolution they put up:...not even the Wikipedia entry. THEN they call it an answer on a page were people go looking for answers and this is a page that gets HIGH HITS from Google! They can barely even explain what the word evolution is, they know know enough to not get "clowned" by every single person.

BUT, here's the thing I bet the majority of the people that voted yes for evolution on this poll COULD in fact tear into this person and make a mockery out of that page. The page tries to be friendly to what I would call: "Atheist Suckers". They come on soft and nice, telling you how religion got you down, but guess what there is so much evidence that is just plain strange--it makes no sense.

As I said though, there is absolutely no page to back up their claims; just some names of idiotic scientists that most likely were Dentists and decided it was their job to tell you that carbon dating is fake, and so on and so forth.
----------------
To me it is as clear as day, but maybe I'll FORCE someone to make a poll besides me on this subject. Why did you vote for evolution, creationism, intelligent design, or the aliens (don't forget comedy for the alien choice ), or maybe just quickly post below as it would much quicker get the job done and allow for every response in the book, including multi-responses. Maybe even tell what choices you were originally if you changed over time and HOW those choices changed (was it due to faith or education)!?

For me I always believed in evolution but it was like this:
1-5: Cartoon Land and happy thoughts, who the hell knows what I was thinking...
6-16: Theistic Evolution

Reason: Education and I believed there was a God so to me it was only logical that he had a part to play in how ALL of the Universe panned out, not just DNA.

17-PRESENT: Evolution

Reason-Education. I stopped believing, but evolution was still solid evidence in my mind. I had always been a scientifically minded person. As time went on, into my college years, by the the time I was 25 there was absolutely NO DOUBT to me that evolution was as real as a bullet getting shot from a gun or watching planes overhead. I had enough schooling that it made evolution seem like a near afterthought, I truly couldn't understand people's dilemmas sometimes and I had to remind myself that they lacked A LOT of education that I spent time getting. BTW, I got the bare minimum plus an extra class, there is by far a lot more to learn about evolution than what I ended up getting.
---
I have to add that I had A LOT of Physics, and other science classes (mostly Physics), this also added into my knowledge of evolution. You wouldn't think so, but I also had human anatomy and other classes that unlocked how all the world was working around me and to me everything was starting to fit together like a nicely woven rug. That is what made evolution fit in so well (I really can't explain the "feeling" beyond that as it truly is one of experience).

Please stop. You know this argument and the whole "mousetrap" thing has been laid to rest already, right? Why do you keep bringing it up? It only demonstrates that you don't understand the concepts you're talking about. If your end goal is to convert people, that's fine with me, but you're losing credibility by citing bunk science.>> ^shinyblurry:

[embed]

>> ^messenger:

Please stop. You know this argument and the whole "mousetrap" thing has been laid to rest already, right? Why do you keep bringing it up? It only demonstrates that you don't understand the concepts you're talking about. If your end goal is to convert people, that's fine with me, but you're losing credibility by citing bunk science.>> ^shinyblurry:
[embed]



Shiny won't stop, you know. His "god" has commanded him to "spread his word" and convert as many people as possible. Even though this same god created these people tabula rasa, and instilled in them "free will" to make whatever choice they want, "He" still wants them to be followers. And all of this, while supposedly having the omnipotent power to change anyone's paradigms, at any time. Psychotic.

What I laugh at the most is that science shows us how reality works, empirically, through observation and testing. It shows us, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the truth about our universe and how it works. Sure we may not have all the answers yet, but I'll take the unknown over a blanket answer of "because" any day of the week. By disregarding science (and subsequently evolution), shiny and his ilk are attempting to subvert people from seeing and understanding the truth. Which is exactly what "Satan" wants.

Oh, the irony.

*controversy

One of my favourite insights into the concepts of truth and Satan, one of the first that got me seriously thinking about the authenticity of the Bible, I heard from a rabbi on the radio. He said something like, "It may be that God wants us to discover his nature through investigating nature, and Satan created the Torah to throw us off track, or maybe God himself created the Torah as a test to see if we were smart enough to tell the difference. From a religious standpoint, it is a valid position to question the origin of scripture.">> ^probie:
Shiny won't stop, you know. His "god" has commanded him to "spread his word" and convert as many people as possible. Even though this same god created these people tabula rasa, and instilled in them "free will" to make whatever choice they want, "He" still wants them to be followers. And all of this, while supposedly having the omnipotent power to do change anyone's paradigms, at any time. Psychotic.
What I laugh at the most is that science shows us how reality works, empirically, through observation and testing. It shows us, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the truth about our universe and how it works. Sure we may not have all the answers yet, but I'll take the unknown over a blanket answer of "because" any day of the week. By disregarding science (and subsequently evolution), shiny and his ilk are attempting to subvert people from seeing and understanding the truth. Which is exactly what "Satan" wants.
Oh, the irony.

Commenting on another video without watching it again? Tsk tsk. This isn't a video on intelligent design. It's a video that shows evolution to be the bunk science. Please note, that if it were true, I would believe it. And, in a topic about creationism versus other theories, why shouldn't I present evidence for creation?

>> ^messenger:
Please stop. You know this argument and the whole "mousetrap" thing has been laid to rest already, right? Why do you keep bringing it up? It only demonstrates that you don't understand the concepts you're talking about. If your end goal is to convert people, that's fine with me, but you're losing credibility by citing bunk science.>> ^shinyblurry:
[embed]

>> ^probie:

>> ^messenger:
Please stop. You know this argument and the whole "mousetrap" thing has been laid to rest already, right? Why do you keep bringing it up? It only demonstrates that you don't understand the concepts you're talking about. If your end goal is to convert people, that's fine with me, but you're losing credibility by citing bunk science.>> ^shinyblurry:
[embed]


Shiny won't stop, you know. His "god" has commanded him to "spread his word" and convert as many people as possible. Even though this same god created these people tabula rasa, and instilled in them "free will" to make whatever choice they want, "He" still wants them to be followers. And all of this, while supposedly having the omnipotent power to do change anyone's paradigms, at any time. Psychotic.
What I laugh at the most is that science shows us how reality works, empirically, through observation and testing. It shows us, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the truth about our universe and how it works. Sure we may not have all the answers yet, but I'll take the unknown over a blanket answer of "because" any day of the week. By disregarding science (and subsequently evolution), shiny and his ilk are attempting to subvert people from seeing and understanding the truth. Which is exactly what "Satan" wants.
Oh, the irony.

Satan doesn't care what you believe, as long as it isn't that Jesus Christ is the Lord.

>> ^messenger:
One of my favourite insights into the concepts of truth and Satan, one of the first that got me seriously thinking about the authenticity of the Bible, I heard from a rabbi on the radio. He said something like, "It may be that God wants us to discover his nature through investigating nature, and Satan created the Torah to throw us off track, or maybe God himself created the Torah as a test to see if we were smart enough to tell the difference. From a religious standpoint, it is a valid position to question the origin of scripture.">> ^probie:
S
hiny won't stop, you know. His "god" has commanded him to "spread his word" and convert as many people as possible. Even though this same god created these people tabula rasa, and instilled in them "free will" to make whatever choice they want, "He" still wants them to be followers. And all of this, while supposedly having the omnipotent power to do change anyone's paradigms, at any time. Psychotic.
What I laugh at the most is that science shows us how reality works, empirically, through observation and testing. It shows us, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the truth about our universe and how it works. Sure we may not have all the answers yet, but I'll take the unknown over a blanket answer of "because" any day of the week. By disregarding science (and subsequently evolution), shiny and his ilk are attempting to subvert people from seeing and understanding the truth. Which is exactly what "Satan" wants.
Oh, the irony.

I can't vote on what I don't know.
I don't believe in a God Theory, and basic evolution, from single cell to humans as we know them, can sometimes seem quite a jump.

The idea that earth was somehow seeded is interesting, whether from asteroid or from terrestrial colonization, this concept has too many variables to predict.

I believe we may never know and I'm okay with that. I'm going to have to be since they'll never figure it out in my lifetime.

If I "have to" choose, I'd say we are a colony. I'm not going into a 12-page write-up here but this concept seems to make the most sense to me. Of course I have no proof so, I'm not going to strap on a sandwich board and stand on the street corners any time soon

At some point, back at the beginning of time, the term evolution is the only term that can describe origin but I'm sure it looks completely different that what we can picture. What ancient man refers to as gods, could have held it's origins in transplanting, colonization, teraforming and so on, but where did "they" come from? They evolved from something else.

So the term, "Evolution," still stands for me - it just might look different in reality.

>> ^shinyblurry:




You have to ask yourself, if he's willing to lie about his education, what else is he willing to lie about?

I got about 10-15 minutes in and couldn't listen anymore. I like hearing a well-(in)formed counter-argument but this guy isn't even on a high school level of scientific understanding.

I have no idea about the mans education level. You're right, it is pretty haphazard and unscientific..I got it confused with a different video by the same person which was much better. Maybe these would be more your speed:





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgpflnRYsk&feature=related

>> ^xxovercastxx

Nevermind..turns out I didn't watch it either.

>> ^messenger:
Please stop. You know this argument and the whole "mousetrap" thing has been laid to rest already, right? Why do you keep bringing it up? It only demonstrates that you don't understand the concepts you're talking about. If your end goal is to convert people, that's fine with me, but you're losing credibility by citing bunk science.>> ^shinyblurry:
[embed]

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting Evolution.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^shinyblurry:


You have to ask yourself, if he's willing to lie about his education, what else is he willing to lie about?
I got about 10-15 minutes in and couldn't listen anymore. I like hearing a well-(in)formed counter-argument but this guy isn't even on a high school level of scientific understanding.


Not only that, but even in the first few MINUTES he already doesn't understand the very NATURE the way the brain interprets data and information. He's spending time talking about this important ability in humans yet leaves out ALL of psychology and neuroscience and what they have to say on the subject. Guess what they have to say? So he goes on and on talking about this WORTHLESS notion of design and doesn't understand that his brain is forcing him to BELIEVE this IS TRUE! All you have to ask him to disarm him is , "Why? Why does it look designed? Why?", then watch him splutter till his brain explodes, you know why, because due to psychology you BELIEVE it does, WITH BIAS--and it goes deeper too (much how you see optical illusions, why do those appear to be optical illusions? I don't know, why does that image appear to be designed?)--he will NEVER be able to answer that question, cause quite frankly he doesn't have the education obviously needed to do so.

His entire speech was over in the first few minutes, let alone ten to fifteen. Doctor my ass, "I" could lecture him into oblivion (as I'm sure a great many other people here could too).

This is why I've watched about three of shiny's video embeds (this being a semi-fourth as I only watched enough to know it was an epic failure). They all come from Christian based scientists that have credentials from said "Universities" or "Colleges" (next to public school, these are actually a step down in your learning experience) and are woefully unexperienced, have literal no knowledge IN THE FIELD they supposedly are talking about; or even worse they do terrible even IN the topics IN their field. This stuff works wonderfully for the religious media, religious politicians, the religious faithful, BUT you never see CERN, ITER, MIT, NASA, The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA's JPL), and the various host of scientific federation teams and organizations working on ALL sorts of projects. They are never together because the other side only presents LARGE quantities BUNK "science" and BUNK or JUNK "scientific" videos. They are rightfully scorned by the media and the true scientific establishment.

You have to understand that the nature of what this man was saying in his video, like what @xxovercastxx said in his post, it's complete garbage. You can't even listen to the first minutes of it because he's already missing the boat. NO ONE except for fellow Christians will come out in support of this man's argument. There will be no "HOLY SHIT, HOW COULD WE NOT HAVE SEEN THIS" moment, because the man is an idiot. While shiny will think it's just bias and bigotry at work on the part of media and "THE WORLD'S SCIENTIFIC MINDS" (that's a lot of people shiny), they'll continue to build us useful things like planes, computers, fusion reactors (2018 for the first one), rockets, satellites, medicines, gene manipulation (already here)--->cures to genetic diseases (around the corner), cars, buildings, bridges, machines, new limbs (2030-40; stem-cell research could go FAR faster depending on how much we help), never dying (this one is tricky; some say 20!, I'd say more around 30-40 years out, BUT who gets it and what happens when we do get it--it could get scary), dams, should I go on i could list ALL night and never stop--scientists have done SO MUCH for us and still do. They are literally are best chance for a better future. People like the man in video are dangerous. They cause distrust and give mis-information about the greatest men and women that live on this Earth (other than those that are TRULY selfless souls, looking out for others always). People like that create a "rot" a disease in society; it's the "depression you feel in the air here in America. I point MY FINGER at them as the cause. They WILL NOT let progress nor happiness win, they are only concerned with what they "think", and what they "think" is not right.

What will these Christian scientists make, invent, or create for humanity, to help? Dams, cars, trains, light-bulbs--no...more videos to show scientists they're wrong... What did you get taught in school?

there was no option for me to vote on /sad face
panspermia comes closest but considering i am a man of faith this reflects only a part of how i view things,not the whole.
i could check theistic evolution but that too would be an incomplete and inaccurate choice for me.
i am not a theist.

viewing the universe as creation,then panspermia and abiogenesis fit quite well into my view.
evolution is the poetry of creation and far more beautiful and awe-inspiring than any creation myth.
the problem many theists and fundamentalists have with that view is that it removes them from the "special" list and puts them exactly where they should be:a part of the natural cycle of things.

no anthropomorphized big daddy in the sky judging your every thought,action and word.
just life.
pushing,striving,fighting and marching forward.
on this planet we attained self-awareness first.
are their other species on other distant planets that may have done the same?
the odds are in their favor.
why?
because thats what life does.

theists may retort:
but the bible (and other religious texts) state that we were made in the image of GOD.
we are...
but so is the weed in your back yard and the ant crawling up its stem and the soil in which that weed derives its nutrients.

theists may stomp their feet:
but that means we are not special!what about gods plan!?!
you are here yes?
you have self awareness and consciousness yes?
you are part of the natural cycle and are aware of that cycle yes?
then you are not only part of the plan but aware of it.
that makes you special.

the human race may live on for a millenia in one form or another,
we may travel to the stars and spread far and wide,traversing the galaxy and spreading life wherever we may go.(gods plan)
or we may end in a violent (or not so violent) way just another failed experiment.
but life?
life will go on.
and another species will attain self awareness and ask the question:
why am i here?
what is my purpose?

and the cycle continues.......

trollin for jebus ain't easy

Did you watch either of these two? I watched 10 minutes of the first and 7.5 minutes of the second before realizing that neither speaker understood their subject matter. Your troll is showing again. >> ^shinyblurry:


I have no idea about the mans education level. You're right, it is pretty haphazard and unscientific..I got it confused with a different video by the same person which was much better. Maybe these would be more your speed:

Use your own words, or at least point us to which part you're referring to. Do you expect us to give a response to a ten minute talk? Right off the bat, this guy does appeal to authority. Strike one. Stopped watching.>> ^shinyblurry:

<"Religion vs. Science" Myth video>