Evolution

[The13thMan]

[quote name='ZeitGeist']
Heh, you're missing the point. Evoultion is not a testable hypothesis because you cannot observe it, specifically macro-evolution.

[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]:animesigh I just got some wicked strong deja vu just now... odd.

I got your point, quite strong. And then i put forth a great example given by a biologist from Brown University. Then you dismissed it as me missing the point. That's not at all cool. You need to tell me why evolution is not testable and specifically why the example i quoted is not a test of evolution. You can't just claim that it's inherently untestable.

And actually you can observe evolution. Now, the example i gave was on a micro scale, but there are plenty of macro scaled examples. The galapogos finch is the classical example that Darwin himself observed. Another one that he observed was the Xanthopan morganii praedicta:

[QUOTE=PBS]Not all of Darwin's conjectures were so broad in scope or so earth-shaking; some were simple predictions. Take the case of this species of orchid, Angraecum sesquipedale, from Madagascar. When Darwin saw this orchid in 1862, he, like anyone who saw it, was astonished by the length of its spur, which can reach over a foot
in length. (See long, slim tube in photo.) "Astounding," he wrote. "What insect could suck it?" For some as-yet unknown insect must, he insisted, and it had to have a foot-long tongue to get at the plant's nectar, which pools at the very base of the spur. Entomologists of his day were skeptical, for no such creature had ever turned up. But more than 40 years after Darwin's death in 1882, scientists discovered a giant hawk moth in Madagascar, and it lapped the orchid's nectar with, yes, a foot-long tongue. The moth was named Xanthopan morganii praedicta in honor of his prediction. Once again, Darwin was right.[/QUOTE]


And here's another one, the finch.

[QUOTE=PBS]Suitably, one of the most striking examples of natural selection in action concerns the very Galapagos finches that Darwin made famous. Since 1973, biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant, working on the tiny island of Daphne Major in the Galapagos, have studied a species of finch called Geospiza fortis (upper right in illustration, which appeared in Darwin's 1839
book about his five-year journey aboard the Beagle). After a drought in 1977 devastated plants bearing small seeds, more
than 1,000 of the 1,200 G. fortis finches on the island died. The Grants discovered that larger G. fortis, which could break open larger seeds than smaller G. fortis could, survived better. The survivors mated in 1978, and, on
average, their offspring had beaks 4 percent larger than those of the previous generation.
Following another drought in 2003, G. fortis with smaller beaks survived better, in part because of stiff competition for bigger seeds after a larger finch species, G. magnirostris, settled the island. Between 2003 and 2005, the Grants found, G. fortis
beaks shrank by 5 percent.[/QUOTE]
I highly recommend you look through some of the stuff i gave in that link. Click around some, answer some of your own questions before coming back.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[QUOTE=ZeitGeist]My point is that you can interpret all the figures you want, and you can put an evolutionary slant on them, but you can't really test it. All this is, is data gathering.

The way you interpret what the data means is how you come up with this conclusion, but to test it, you would have to simulate the environment and note it's progression[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Experiments are basically observing things and collecting data. I'm not sure you understand that. You can label it as "data gathering" if you want, but it's more accurately and commonly called experimentation and the scientific process. Besides, most middle school and high school science classes even list out data gathering as a part of the scientific process, i think right after experimentation. Go figure!

It's not just putting an "evolutionary slant" on them. It's explaining what is observed through experimentation the only way possible, through evolution. Biology and evolutionary science does not make any sense without evolution. Plain and simple.

Why would you have to simulate the environment? What's wrong with just observing our current environment? I realize most major evolutionary changes on the macro scale take generations to observe, but who says we can't or haven't observed them? I already posted two examples where they have been observed, and even one that gives specific stats (the finches).

There's also tons and tons of fossil evidence to support evolution. The evidence is everywhere.

EDIT: Actually, those two examples that i gave are both of microevolution, my bad.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Allamorph]

[QUOTE=The13thMan][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Experiments are basically observing things and collecting data. I'm not sure you understand that. You can label it as "data gathering" if you want, but it's more accurately and commonly called experimentation and the scientific process.
[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
[FONT=Arial]Experimentation is the observation and collection of data of a [I]controlled[/I] situation.

In order for an observation to be called an experiment, and thus hold any weight at all, [I]all possible confounding variables must be eliminated.[/I] Anything short of this is mere observation and subject to high levels of bias.


There will be a test over this tomorrow.[/FONT]

[The13thMan]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Experimentation is the observation and collection of data of a [I]controlled[/I] situation.

In order for an observation to be called an experiment, and thus hold any weight at all, [I]all possible confounding variables must be eliminated.[/I] Anything short of this is mere observation and subject to high levels of bias.


There will be a test over this tomorrow.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]
Certainly you're right. I hadn't mentioned it before when perhaps i should have. You can't get a conclusion from an experiment if there are still things left unaccounted for.

Sometimes it's the confounding variables that makes experimentation so fun. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries in the past have been due to strange anomolies during experiments. Of course, most of the time when scientists carry out experiments they know how it's going to end up or have a good idea. The scientists who tested to see the deal with the chromosomes i quoted previously had a good idea of what they would find. They expected to find telomere DNA in the center of the chromosome, and they did.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

[eleanor]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]
In order for an observation to be called an experiment, and thus hold any weight at all, [I]all possible confounding variables must be eliminated.[/I] Anything short of this is mere observation and subject to high levels of bias.
[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Lol, experiments on evolution.

"Maybe to reduce bias we should do a simple random sample of all lions for the next five hundred years instead of taking lions from just Nigeria."

"What will be our treatment?"

"Nuclear waste inserted into their bloodstreams, DUH."[/font]

[Allamorph]

[FONT="Arial"]Yeah, this thread needs more humor. :animesmil So I come bearing gifts for both sides.

[INDENT][URL="http://www.marriedtothesea.com/092006/no-dinosaurs-sorry.gif"][U]Wham.[/U][/URL][/INDENT]
[INDENT][RIGHT][URL="http://www.marriedtothesea.com/092306/charles-darwin-and-the-magic-hat.gif"][U]Bam.[/U][/URL][/RIGHT][/INDENT]
[CENTER]Thank you, ma'am.[/CENTER][/FONT]

[eleanor]

[font="trebuchet ms"] I freaking love Married to the Sea.[/font]

[spy46]

you know, there is a way that we can see evolution happen.

look at the past.

some years ago, a science team found some .... remains of .... the evolutionary step above Neanderthal but i cant remember the name of it, but its below our current status.

they were dated some time close to when the Neanderthal died off, but b4 they did.

this meant that they were around at the same time, for a little while ..... hundreds? thousands of years?

from what i remember on it, they said that the ..... other kind was smarter than the Neanderthal, used more tools and what not, but the Neanderthal was much stronger than the other one.

over all the scientist said that the reason the Neanderthal died off was because of a few reasons.

first, they were unable to prepare like the other kind was, they hunted as they needed but never saved any thing In case a hunt went bad and many would have died from starvation or other related causes.

because of there lack of tools, they also had problems trying to hunt and used the more direct means to kill the pray.

but the other kind, because of there understanding of more complex things, were able to survive because of there ability to prepare.

they would save food, use better tools, use traps and so on.

you get the idea.

i just wish i could remember the name of the other sub human that they were talking about, but i do remember that they found the remains in Africa.

oh and if you look at the DNA of our ancestors, and look at ours, then you should be able to see some changes, depending on how old it is.

if you can read DNA that old.

[Vicky]

[SIZE=1]I was going to make a big long point again to do with science and what we learnt for an A-Level class, but then I decided there isn't much point. See, I've noticed, in the [i]evolution[/i] of this thread, there are half the people who have no idea what they're talking about and the other half who [i]do[/i] know what they're talking about and seem to be backing it up with pure evidence and basis - the only thing that keeps them in disagreement is opinions.

Then you've got everyone else who's making good fun of the situation ^_^

(Besides, the Simpsons has given enough evidence to the theory of evolution of these past years anyway, so I don't know what you're all arguing about =p ).[/SIZE]

[Red]

[quote name='ZeitGeist']What about them? Can you track them for millions of years?
[/QUOTE]

Evolution as a whole might take longer than it took kuja to run one of his posts through a spell checker but scientists can still observe mutations that happen from generation to generation. S aureus is a fantastic example as over the years it's managed to become resistant to a wide variety of drugs via genetic mutation, among other things (that was the easiest to type/pronounce :p).

What I'm trying to say is that the myriad ways S aureus (which I chose to make a point about as it's so bloomin' common) has changed demonstrates both natural selection & mutation at least; both of which are aspects of evolution.

[sakurasuka]

[SIZE="1"][FONT="Arial"]

The13thMan, I'm sorry, but wouldn't your beloved Darwin himself categorize those examples as proof of micro-evolution? I doubt that anyone will debate that the possibility of adaptation within species isn't an impossibility.

I still stand by my argument that there is simply no irrefutable proof of either creation of evolution.

[/FONT][/SIZE]

[Solo Tremaine]

[COLOR=#503f86]Is it not just possible that God created stuff... and [I]then[/I] it evolved?[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#503f86]Either way, I don't really mind. The other posts in here are far too well-constructed for me to attempt trying to form an opinion of my own.[/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[quote name='sakurasuka'][SIZE="1"][FONT="Arial"]I still stand by my argument that there is simply no irrefutable proof of either creation of evolution.[/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Right, but that doesn't mean drawing viable conclusions from a massive amount of collected data is impossible and inherently erroneous. I won't play semantics, but nothing in science can be "proven" just supported or not supported.

We haven't observed the phenomena of macroevolution, but if the vast majority of our information is pointing us towards it, why should we outright dismiss the entire thing?

I also think those who are unwilling to "believe in" evolution don't take into account the fact that [i]macroevolution is only microevolution over a very long span of time.[/i] If you support microevolution, the foot is already in the door for the rest of it.[/font]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Retribution][font=Arial']We haven't observed the phenomena of macroevolution, but if the vast majority of our information is pointing us towards it, why should we outright dismiss the entire thing?[/FONT][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Actually, that isn't quite right. The vast majority ? no, [I]all[/I] the information points where you want to see it pointing simply because there are so many variables unaccounted for or unexplainable. Stepping in either direction requires a leap of faith.

[QUOTE][I][FONT=Arial]I also think those who are unwilling to "believe in" evolution don't take into account the fact that [i]macroevolution is only microevolution over a very long span of time.[/i] If you support microevolution, the foot is already in the door for the rest of it.[/font][/I][/QUOTE]
I'm gonna call "eeeeegnhhh" on that one, too. See, microevolution as I understand it deals with the survival of the most fit genetic information already present. Macroevolution deals with survival of the [I]addition[/I] of new genetic information, or information that wasn't already present.

That's a major bone for me, actually. Intraspecies evolution is obviously a reality. [I]Inter[/I]species evolution is theoretical, and augmented by surmising billions of years. (And here again, the age of the Earth is a touchy subject.)[/FONT]

[Justin]

I won't even take the time to read the bickering this thread has no doubt conjured. I stopped reading when I read this:

[quote name='DeathKnight'][color=crimson]I believe in the self-assuredness of the people who will post in this thread in the coming weeks.

That is the only real certainty in life.[/color][/QUOTE]


Those are words spoken from the keyboard of a man who knows how to use his God-given intelligence.

I'll give a brief "theory" based on half-hearted study on the subject; one with absolutely no facts or proof to back it up--simply because I don't feel like it. It wouldn't change anyone's mind, and that's not what I'm out to do anyway:

The layman's idea on the Theory of Evolution doesn't hold water. In fact, the entire Theory of Evolution doesn't hold much water when left standing by itself. However, add some intelligent design into the equation, and you have a viable explanation for the phenomenon of existence.

The fact is, when calling into question such weighty concepts as existence, you need to know more than the mechanics of 'how'. If answering 'how?' satisfies you, then I think you've missed the point altogether.

I can't imagine the point of life is to know [i]how[/i] we got here. I think the point of life is to find out [i]why we are here[/i]. And that is a question that is answered once in general consensus, and 6 billion+ times on an individual basis. It seems a tad selfish to me to base your faith/belief system/whatever-gets-you-happy on only finding out how you came to be.

Try fulfilling some kind of purpose. Try leaving this world a better place than you found it. I think, regardless of our respective belief systems, we can all agree that that is a honorable and achievable life goal.

-Justin


***EDIT:

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial] (And here again, the age of the Earth is a touchy subject.)[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Again, there are far more theories that have to be true in order for the Theory of Evolution to be true. I'm a partial believer in the "Young Earth" concept. Not all of it, mind you. Some of it is ridiculous. But I certainly don't believe the planet is several billion years old.

Most people don't realize how many things tie together when trying to reason how existence came about.

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Kam']Again, there are far more theories that have to be true in order for the Theory of Evolution to be true.[/quote]
[FONT=Arial]I am well aware of that. They weren't relevant at the time, though; I was merely acknowledging the existence of the young/old issue.[/FONT]

[spy46]

personally i like history, mostly because i can look back and see how we used to live and look at how we do now, and because i can only look back so far, it makes me wonder.

also it has been said *not in this thread* that if you do not know the mistakes of the past, then you are doomed to repeat them again.

as for my personal existence, like many of you, i might never do some thing really great.
but my child, grand child, great grand child and so on might.

so my personal life goal, is to give my children, and any grand children i live to see, a better life than what i had.

now then, I'm going to ask a question here, some may thing its raciest but i in no way mean it that way.

so we can kind of guess why black people have black/brown/tanned skin, but why do Asians have more slanted eyes compared to every one else?:animestun

i ask this because some one said some thing about sub species, now again I'm not saying any thing in a raciest manner or meaning it that way.

now i add this to you all to think about, according to some scientist, we are all related thou VERY distantly, meaning we all came from the same kind of animal/cell or what have you.

it is also believed that the land mass of earth was once one piece called Pangaea, so that would have also meant that humans were around or what we came from was around during that time.

and because of changes in our environment ranging from extrema heat, to extrema cold effected us all to change in one way or another for that kind of life, food would have also played a part in that.

you might just call that adapting, but i think that is a part of evolution, we changed because we had to, in order to survive.

[ZeitGeist]

[quote name='Red']Evolution as a whole might take longer than it took kuja to run one of his posts through a spell checker but scientists can still observe mutations that happen from generation to generation. S aureus is a fantastic example as over the years it's managed to become resistant to a wide variety of drugs via genetic mutation, among other things (that was the easiest to type/pronounce :p).

What I'm trying to say is that the myriad ways S aureus (which I chose to make a point about as it's so bloomin' common) has changed demonstrates both natural selection & mutation at least; both of which are aspects of evolution.[/QUOTE]

[size=1][font=century gothic] [color=crimson] I got what you meant by that, and I don't dispute the theory of micro-evolution or adaptation. I just believe that such adaptations are allowed by a God who has allowed his creation to grow into an ever-changing environment, rather than keep them static and stuck the way they are.

I also believe that, when you think about it, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Some of us enjoy discovering how God has made us and what we're made up of. I know the Bible does not mention the DNA double helix and I reckon we were meant to find stuff like that ourselves, to become more aware of what we are and how we fit in to the plan, as it were.

True science has, for the most part, disagreed with religious notions, but that doesn't mean it's findings can't be seen as God's handywork, for those of us who choose to see it that way.[/font][/size][/color]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]I'm gonna call "eeeeegnhhh" on that one, too. See, microevolution as I understand it deals with the survival of the most fit genetic information already present. Macroevolution deals with survival of the [I]addition[/I] of new genetic information, or information that wasn't already present.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]I fear your "eeeegnhhh" might be a groan in vain...

It's generally agreed upon within the scientific community that macroevolution is microevolution with greater scale and time. To be honest, the distinction between micro and macro is arbitrary... it's my understanding that most scientists view the two happen in the same way for the same reasons.

By and large it's a distinction created to quarantine full belief in evolution. If there did exist a divide between micro and macro, that would mean creationists would be able to admit to the observable and obvious, but not forfeit their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, there really isn't much of a divide. Some google-fu with "microevolution macroevolution" will yield pretty much uniform result.[/font]

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]People think they hold more weight because they have the scientific method to back their claims. Like I said, their claims and findings are generally more rigorous and intensive and comprehensive than untested conjecture and arbitrary philosophy.[/QUOTE]That's actually just a matter of opinion. I would say religious claims and findings are just as rigorous, but harder to prove. [QUOTE]Science by its nature is critical and so to accept its findings without further review, for the majority of the population, is the only viable option. Honestly no one has time to read over all the experimental data and draw their own conclusions.

This is missing the point. My point is that you aren't scientifically omniscient and thus there are gaps in your intensive knowledge. This means that you [i]must[/i] on some level trust science. Perhaps you don't know astrophysics. Perhaps you don't know chemistry.[/QUOTE]This is missing my point. I was demonstrating that before I bow down and preach to the choir, I make it a point to know and understand what the hell I'm supporting. I don't blindly believe stuff like most [strike]scientologists[/strike] believers of science do.

And the previous paragraph was my point: if you don't know what the hell you're talking about or believing, how does that make you any different from most religious people? The truth of the matter is, IT DOESN'T. You just believe your belief is more firm because it is "more rigorous" or whatever. EVERYBODY believes their belief is better than the next person. Don't think your belief in science is better than someone's belief in religion. It's the same thing, even if what you believe in is different.

And that's the point I can't emphasize enough: I'm not bashing science, I am bashing people's [B]belief[/B] in science. They believe it blindly, for whatever reason. I know you don't have time to read everything - neither do I - but if you're going to believe it or preach it, LEARN it. Why can't a person be skeptical of science like they are of religion until they do sit down and learn it? Believe it, fine, but don't think it's flawless until you understand it.
Yeah yeah, your belief is better and more well-founded because your [strike]religion[/strike] science does this and this better than others (or in truth, you just think it does), but ultimately if it said you were made out of a jigawatt capacitor, you'd believe it just like a religious person would believe the world was made in seven days. You'd need just as much evidence and rigor as a religious person to believe that "fact" too. Why do you think they have the term "double think?" And the infamous "liver and its five lobes." ([B]I use "you" generally, not referring directly to you, but to people in general[/B])
People are blind, and science has really poor vision.[QUOTE]I mean certainly, I'm speaking of acceptance that both acknowledges science's fallibility but also its strengths in explaining the universe. I'm not trying to argue that science is never wrong, only that its view of the universe is relatively intensive.[/font][/QUOTE] [url]http://www.crystalair.com/content.php?id=32200802007[/url][quote name='Attimus][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Oh man, that is insane! Blindly following religion is worse than following science? Do you even know what science is? Science is all about carrying out experiments on your own to prove or disprove another's own theory. The entire process is called peer review and every scientist takes part in it constantly. Science is sort of like a process to get to the truth of things. Religion on the other hand is about faith. You can't test the existence of God. You can't even compare the two, they're in such different leagues. It's like comparing apples to oranges[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]See, I want to believe you, and maybe give you some credit, but I can't for the same reason I can't believe Tom Cruise about Scientology: you just shoot all your credibility down the tube in a matter of minutes. The following paragraphs are just... wrong. [QUOTE][COLOR=DarkOrange][FONT=Century Gothic]Oh wow... you obviously don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Let me break it down for you. It's all about entropy and the principle that states that in an isolated system not at equilibrium entropy will increase. Entropy is kind of like saying how complex a system is. If an isolated system (like the universe) is not at equilibrium then the "complexity" of the system will continue to increase (or possibly remain the same, but never ever decrease). The classical example is this: consider a box full of some sort of gas, think of each individual atom bouncing off the walls and off each other in a seemingly random order. Now a small hole in the box opens up into another box of equal volume. Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics states that the gas will move from one side of the box and into the other (not all of it, about half) until equilibrium is reached. Because of entropy we know that there will never be a case where all the random movements of the gas will cause the elements to bounce around and back into the first box.

You say "things advancing over time" is contradictory to entropy when in fact it isn't in any way. "Things advancing" does not mean they are in any way effecting entropy, if anything they become more complex which supports entropy.

...This too is wrong. When evolution talks about mutations that change the evolutionary line of a species it's talking about small mutations that makes an animal better fit for its environment. It's not talking about physical deformations and retardations.

Ever heard of Darwin's natural selection?[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]This begs me to ask you your own question: Do YOU know what science is? Entropy is NOT complexity! It is randomness! You may think it's semantics, but if complexity didn't mean thinks like computers, AI, and other things that call for energy, you might have a point.
And holy hell, that's NOT at all what the second law says about the gas and boxes. It says it will be in ALL possible situations, but closer to 70% of the time will be within equilibrium, 29% of the time it will be close to equilibrium, and the other percent is shared (not equally) by different gradients and extremes (including being only in one box, or even in a corner). Those percentages may be off, but the point is it fluctuates into all possible states, but the amount of time spent is different. Hence, that's what the second law says: randomness.

And advancement DOES defy entropy. Living organisms actually contradict entropy: their existence reduces entropy. The only saving grace is that more advanced (less entropic) beings have a tendency to generate more heat, waste, and entropy, so their net output is more entropy.

Please don't preach science to others if you don't know what it is yourself. I'm not even going to bother with your evolution one... Good lord...

Like I told Retribution, it's not exactly science I'm concerned about, it's people's blind faith in it (or I guess wrong understanding of it too).

[Morpheus]

[quote name='AzureWolf']Don't think your belief in science is better than someone's belief in religion. It's the same thing, even if what you believe in is different.
[/QUOTE]
No, it's not. Because scientific beliefs are tested, while religious beliefs, by their very nature, are untestable. Religious beliefs require a leap of faith to believe, while science is basically saying "This is our best guess, and we've tested it as much as we can at this point in time."

[quote name='AzureWolf'] I don't blindly believe stuff like most [strike]scientologists[/strike] believers of science do.[/QUOTE]

Quoted for sheer absurdity. That's like calling all muslims terrorists or all christians Westboro Baptists.

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='Morpheus']No, it's not. Because scientific beliefs are tested, while religious beliefs, by their very nature, are untestable. Religious beliefs require a leap of faith to believe, while science is basically saying "This is our best guess, and we've tested it as much as we can at this point in time."[/QUOTE]In the future, please read the thread before responding to it. The utopian science you speak of does not exist in this world, so you are taking a leap of faith. Aside from that primer, I'm not going to waste my breath repeating the same thing I've said twice before in this thread.[QUOTE]Quoted for sheer absurdity. That's like calling all muslims terrorists or all christians Westboro Baptists.[/QUOTE]Quoted for terrible interpretation. "Most" is not the same as "all." Please notice that there is a difference.

[eleanor]

[quote name='Solo Tremaine'][COLOR=#503f86]Is it not just possible that God created stuff... and [I]then[/I] it evolved?[/COLOR]
[/QUOTE]

[font="trebuchet ms"] Now that's just crazy talk.[/font]

[timotheus]

Interesting thread, surprised how little flaming is going on here. Good show!

Anyway, I have a question for the Intelligent Design supporters. Have any of you been raised in a religious school, where the science taught was considered 'Christian Science'? By that I mean, when you got to the part in Biology where the origins of the universe is covered, were you taught Intelligent Design or the Theory of Evolution?

Firstly, I'm not calling anyone out here. I just ask because I was taught in a private Christian school for my whole K-12 education. When I began taking classes in college (CSUS class of '05!!), I found my earlier education had been up to the task in preparing me for college level studies, with the exception of Biology. It took a LOT of work for me to catch up with the students around me.

I'm just curious if the Intelligent Design supporters came from that same upbringing, or if after studying Biology in a non religious school, they compared it to their beliefs and stayed with ID.

[ZeitGeist]

[quote name='timotheus']
I'm just curious if the Intelligent Design supporters came from that same upbringing, or if after studying Biology in a non religious school, they compared it to their beliefs and stayed with ID.[/quote]

I came from a mainstream school independent of any church or religious teaching. In the end, I took what I knew from science, and applied it to faith. (ie. the big bang is consistent with things simply appearing in Genesis 1, evolution adaptation as a survival method built into creation by an intelligent creator etc...) I found nothing in science that shook my belief, only the occasional argument against creationism that strengthened it.

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]Speaking as a firm Creationist, and mainly just because I can....
[quote name='AzureWolf']The utopian science you speak of does not exist in this world, so you are taking a leap of faith.[/quote]
[CENTER][URL=http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg][COLOR="Blue"]Orly?[/COLOR][/URL][/CENTER]
(^_^)[/FONT]