Poll: How did human life come about?

[CanOWorms]

I need an option for "Human beings have de-evolved over millions of years from advanced forms of life that crashed on this planet from the planet Xzysk."

 

[Braznor]

I voted for No.2, but would have been happier if there was an option to believe in an extraterrestial origin of life.

 

[TheChort]

Originally posted by: Leros
All three options say that God exists. This is a poorly worded and biased poll.

of course it's up to interpretation, but the way i see it, the 3rd choice leaves god out of the equation, whether he exists or not

 

[Leros]

Originally posted by: TheChort

Originally posted by: Leros
All three options say that God exists. This is a poorly worded and biased poll.

of course it's up to interpretation, but the way i see it, the 3rd choice leaves god out of the equation, whether he exists or not

"Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."

They should have said, "but no god had a part in this process."

god and God are two different words.

 

[SlitheryDee]

I lean towards #3, but technically #2 is equally plausible and would leave the same evidence.

If I choose #3 it would be like saying "This is what happened...cuz I said so and not because there is any real evidence that discredits #2"

Same goes for choosing #2.

Edit: #1 is definitely out BTW.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Leros

Originally posted by: TheChort

Originally posted by: Leros
All three options say that God exists. This is a poorly worded and biased poll.

of course it's up to interpretation, but the way i see it, the 3rd choice leaves god out of the equation, whether he exists or not

"Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."

They should have said, "but no god had a part in this process."

god and God are two different words.

Picky, picky, picky.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
I'm going w/ choice 2. What came first, DNA or the proteins?

RNA and small peptides.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Gallup apparently doesn't believe in agnostics.

As an agnostic, I'd choose 4. "I have no way of knowing whether 2 or 3 is correct, but either is possible."

 

[Toastedlightly]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
I'm going w/ choice 2. What came first, DNA or the proteins?

RNA and small peptides.

But did DNA code for the proteins or the proteins code for the DNA?

 

[Toastedlightly]

Actually, we are just phone cleaners, lawyers and the like from a far away planet.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
I'm going w/ choice 2. What came first, DNA or the proteins?

RNA and small peptides.

But did DNA code for the proteins or the proteins code for the DNA?

Well seeing as nucleic acids are proteins, i would say the proteins coded the DNA first.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
I'm going w/ choice 2. What came first, DNA or the proteins?

RNA and small peptides.

But did DNA code for the proteins or the proteins code for the DNA?

Proteins never coded for anything imnsho.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
I'm going w/ choice 2. What came first, DNA or the proteins?

RNA and small peptides.

But did DNA code for the proteins or the proteins code for the DNA?

Well seeing as nucleic acids are proteins, i would say the proteins coded the DNA first.

No, they aren't.

 

[irishScott]

God created the base for Humans to evolve from (ie: The lightning bolt into the primordial soup). That base evolved into humans without his aid.

 

[Mo0o]

Toastedlightly, if you're trying to argue for a chicken and egg paradox for DNA/Proteins, you should look up the Arch and Scaffold theory. Scientists believe the first selfreplicating nuleic acids were small bits of autocatalytic RNA. Then DNA/proteins came from that and eventually the self replicating RNA fell out.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Toastedlightly
I'm going w/ choice 2. What came first, DNA or the proteins?

RNA and small peptides.

But did DNA code for the proteins or the proteins code for the DNA?

Well seeing as nucleic acids are proteins, i would say the proteins coded the DNA first.

No, they aren't.

Damnit! I knew i should have used wikipedia to double check that.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
It really doesn't matter to me if someone chooses choice 2 or choice 3, but anyone choosing choice 1 must be intentionally ignorant.

Troll much? Good job in insulting 84% of the world's populaton. :disgust:

 

[DAGTA]

Where is Tom Cruise to come into this thread, tell everyone they are wrong, and then offer to sell the truth to anyone that wants to buy it?

 

[Zolty]

You really need a 4th option for atheists.

 

[Toastedlightly]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Toastedlightly, if you're trying to argue for a chicken and egg paradox for DNA/Proteins, you should look up the Arch and Scaffold theory. Scientists believe the first selfreplicating nuleic acids were small bits of autocatalytic RNA. Then DNA/proteins came from that and eventually the self replicating RNA fell out.

Thats the part of my AP Chem/Biochem class I didn't participate in Im just being argumentative (slow day today)!

 

[Leros]

Originally posted by: Zolty
You really need a 4th option for atheists.

I think option 3 needs to be replaced with the atheist option. Unless I'm wrong, do people think the universe was created naturally (big bang, etc) and that god exists?

 

[Soybomb]

I voted 3rd but don't feel like it fits me as an atheist.

 

[DAGTA]

Those of you complaining about the poll options: did you READ the original post?

 

[Mo0o]

Here's an entertaining scifi short story about Asimov, semi related to creationism etc. Quick read:

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~mlindsey/asimov/question.htm

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Zolty
You really need a 4th option for atheists.

Option 3 is fine, unless you're being picky over semantics.