Evolution Poll

[InfiniteNow]

Since the topic starter did not elaborate on the subjects I decided to vote, Im not sure what your description of these subjects are and so how can I assume I know what details you are expecting me to vote on.

Had I parameterized the terms, I would have biased the results and eliminated potential openness of the vote. I intentionally avoided definition. The vote depends entirely on the voters semantic understanding of the terms. I don't really expect anything, except, perhaps, only honesty and forthcoming attitudes in the vote.

 

 

Cheers. :hihi:

[IMAMONKEY!]

I believe in a higher being (A God if you will) and also believe this higher being influenced our creation. However I don't think the Bible should be taken literally.

 

Many stories in the Bible are figurative and after all that science has discovered in regards towards our creation it is illogical by now to take any of it literally. Furthermore, how can evolution not exist when the facts are staring us straight in the face? We've seen chromosomes, We've seen DNA, We've seen the cell's inner workings. We know that evolution is possible and there are examples of it everywhere! And No I am not going to list any. You know what I'm talking about (and quite frankly im too lazy to list any examples).

 

With all that tangible evidence staring you right in the face I can not imagine for the life of me why anyone would believe evolution is not possible.

 

Slightly ignorant? Or just not willing to open their mind to it because they were raised to believe Evolution was not possible? I honestly do not know. I was raised by parents who told me to believe in whatever I thought was most logical and made sense to me. I have changed my beliefs frequently and continue to do so. However if there is one thing I believe in that will NOT change, it is this. Our Creation and Evolution.

 

Adaptation is just one more brilliant way to survive. Unless God wants us dead I think he's going to give us every chance to survive. Hence Evolution.

 

My Regards and apologies if I offended anyone with this rant :shrug:,

 

IMAMONKEY!

[Larv]

I alway thought "believing in" is a matter of faith, not a matter of reason. I certainly don't "believe in" evolution any more than I "believe in" stars, dirt, and water. It is the faithful, I think, who invoke the "believing in" principle, which takes biology out of a scientific context and puts it into a religious one. Can I believe that one hypothesis is better than another without having to "beieving in" either of them?

 

—Larv

[theblackalchemist]

Well i am in middle of evolution, can i post a reply after say 10000 years?;)

 

just jokin

well if evolution was true then can it be differentiated into natural evolution and man made evolution ? that is for example cyborgs are what I classify as man made evolution or evolution caused due to the activities of man kind and natural evolutions are just.......................natural caused due to mother nature

Thinking hard-ly

:lol:

TBA

[Larv]

Yes, I am one of the creationists...Basically, I believe that GOD created the world, but that does not mean their was not forms of evolution.

Just curious. Do you believe that God had a choice in creating the world? Or was He just experimenting with the cosmological constant and something went terribly wrong?

 

—Larv

[Vibrio]

Evolution seems like common sense to me. You do not have to believe in either God's creation or evolution. I believe in both. You may ask me how that can be. Well here it is: I believe that there was a big bang and all that but I believe it was somehow done by God. I go along with Darwin: that evolution happens because of natural selection. I am a very religious person and I believe that evolution and natural selection are workings of God. If he created nature, he created evolution.

I also believe that God is some physical form of energy (such as dark energy or something similar).

 

 

Whoever disagrees, that's totally cool! I respect any beliefs on the evolution topic:)

[Lancaster]

Like larv said, what is there to believe in? On one hand, you have scientific fact, and on the other. . . what? Creationism is not science, it is a religious opinion.

[BibleBeliever]

Like larv said, what is there to believe in? On one hand, you have scientific fact, and on the other. . . what? Creationism is not science, it is a religious opinion.

 

:warped: There are a lot of scientists who will disagree with you on that one.

[Lancaster]

Here's a statistic for you. A 1992 Gallup poll found that 5% of scientists polled were creationists. In sciences relative to evolutionary/creationist theories, less than .1% were creationists. I try to find a link for you.

 

Maybe you could find a link for me, and back up what you are saying?

[Lancaster]

Here you go:

Scientist's views on creationism

 

I apologize, it was .15% of relevant scientists are creationists, and the poll was taken in 1991. The "there are lots of scientists who believe in creationism therefore it's true" argument is a completely baseless one. For further information, check out the rest of talk.origins and Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion.

 

Do you find it strange that so few scientists are creationists? How does that make you feel about the idea?

 

 

Evolution seems like common sense to me. You do not have to believe in either God's creation or evolution. I believe in both. You may ask me how that can be. Well here it is: I believe that there was a big bang and all that but I believe it was somehow done by God. I go along with Darwin: that evolution happens because of natural selection. I am a very religious person and I believe that evolution and natural selection are workings of God. If he created nature, he created evolution.

I also believe that God is some physical form of energy (such as dark energy or something similar).

 

 

Whoever disagrees, that's totally cool! I respect any beliefs on the evolution topic:)

 

 

I can relate to your views, I believed the same thing before I became an Atheist. It's good to be open minded about the idea when you dwell in a community of close-mindedness. Digital high five!

[BibleBeliever]

Here you go:

Scientist's views on creationism

 

I apologize, it was .15% of relevant scientists are creationists, and the poll was taken in 1991. The "there are lots of scientists who believe in creationism therefore it's true" argument is a completely baseless one. For further information, check out the rest of talk.origins and Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion.

 

Do you find it strange that so few scientists are creationists? How does that make you feel about the idea?

 

 

 

No, because scientists need funding and the majority of money comes from evolution biased organisations and so to admit to being a creationist would jeopodise their research grants. But I am not saying that there are millions of scientists who are afraid to admit that they are creationists.

 

May be there are less than one percent, majority doesn't make something right or wrong. if no scientist believed in creation it wouldn't stop is from being true. There is a very comprehensive website; Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics where there are numerous creationist scientists who publish peer reviewed papers and teach in universities across the world.

 

To say that creationism is not scientific just shows that you have not looked at the articles that they have published. It's ok to disagree with something, and to try to show how it is in error, but to just dismiss a counter view point just because it goes against what you believe, is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Oh and that website has a critique of Dr Dawkin's latest book too, my question is, if creationism, Christianity (because that's the religion Dr Dawkins seems to rail against most) and God is irrelevant, why does he spend so much time dismissing it (asside from the fact that he makes loads of money and fame from it)?

[Lancaster]

No, because scientists need funding and the majority of money comes from evolution biased organisations and so to admit to being a creationist would jeopodise their research grants. But I am not saying that there are millions of scientists who are afraid to admit that they are creationists.

 

May be there are less than one percent, majority doesn't make something right or wrong. if no scientist believed in creation it wouldn't stop is from being true. There is a very comprehensive website; Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics where there are numerous creationist scientists who publish peer reviewed papers and teach in universities across the world.

 

To say that creationism is not scientific just shows that you have not looked at the articles that they have published. It's ok to disagree with something, and to try to show how it is in error, but to just dismiss a counter view point just because it goes against what you believe, is the pot calling the kettle black.

 

Oh and that website has a critique of Dr Dawkin's latest book too, my question is, if creationism, Christianity (because that's the religion Dr Dawkins seems to rail against most) and God is irrelevant, why does he spend so much time dismissing it (asside from the fact that he makes loads of money and fame from it)?

 

 

I am dismissing your point because it is incorrect. Why does Dawkins spend so much time attempting to disprove the existence of God and the validity of Creationism?

 

1. It is incorrect

2. Half of Americans believe in Evolution

3. Over 90% of Americans believe in God

 

If hundreds of millions of people believed in something that was incorrect and holding them back mentally, wouldn't you want to free them from it? Dawkins' goal is certainly a noble one, and one that deserves all the time the scientific community can devote to it.

 

Sure there may be scientists that believe in creationism, but at one time, scientists believed that the sun orbited the Earth. Think: science is progressive, looking for new and better answers to questions all the time. Religion is regressive sticking to backwards beliefs that have no ground in this day and age.

 

In the world of the ancient Greeks, there was no answer for the question, "why does the sun rise and set each day?" (until progressive thinkers like Ptolemy came along). So they created a God to answer the question, Heileos. The problem was the same for early Hebrews and those who wrote the Bible. "How was the Earth created?" They made a God for that. My point is, we don't need a God for that anymore. Although science doesn't have all the answers, we don't need a God to fill in the gaps.

 

Because isn't that all that God is doing? Filling in the gaps in scientific theory? Just because evolution doesn't have an answer to every question doesn't mean God wins by default. And even if evolution is wrong, what makes you think that the idea that an almighty ruler who sits in a city of clouds created the earth is correct?

[BibleBeliever]

Sorry for the double post but I just looked up and found this from the answersingenesis website...

 

A bombshell ‘Open Letter to the Scientific Community’ by 33 leading scientists has been published on the internet (cosmologystatement.org) and in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004). An article widely publicized on the internet at the time stated ‘Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to Eric Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.’

 

The open letter includes statements such as:

 

‘The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.’

 

‘But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. … Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements.’ [This refers to the horizon problem, and supports what we say in Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang.]

 

‘In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory [emphasis in original].’

 

‘What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.’

 

 

 

if you go to the cosmologystatement.org website you'll see a lot of names at the bottom (not just the original 33). I know they are not saying that they are creationists but they are prepared to agree that all is not as it seems in the evolutionist camp.

[Larv]

BibleBeliever, I have simple answer for you. Occam's razor shaved off that old beard many years ago, and there's no use trying to grow it back in front of a bunch of scientists. What would be more productive for you, and maybe even be more graceful in the eyes of your Lord, would be to actually LEARN about HOW your Lord conducts His work.

 

—Larv

[Lancaster]

 

if you go to the cosmologystatement.org website you'll see a lot of names at the bottom (not just the original 33). I know they are not saying that they are creationists but they are prepared to agree that all is not as it seems in the evolutionist camp.

 

 

Like I said before (read the post you did not respond to), just because some creationists claim to be scientists does not prove creationism correct, or even make a case for it. Let's see some scientific evidence, or at least some evidence at all instead of the opinions of creationists.

 

A trip to wikipedia will provide you with links to evidence of Dark matter, energy, and universal expansion.

[BibleBeliever]

wow you're quick at writing this, I can't keep up...

 

Sure there may be scientists that believe in creationism, but at one time, scientists believed that the sun orbited the Earth. Think: science is progressive, looking for new and better answers to questions all the time. Religion is regressive sticking to backwards beliefs that have no ground in this day and age.

 

That in a nutshell is a very interesting point. Scientists are constantly changing their minds about what is 'fact' the bible however stays the same over the 4 thousand years it's been with us (well the forst bit at least). And you are saying the scientists have it right today? they will stick with evolution until someone comes up with a new idea and then it will be 'yes a few years ago primitive minds believed in evolution, but now we know that...'

 

To compare the God of the bible with the Greeks who didn't understand is valueless when trying to show that the bible and the science in it (like in Genesis chapters 1 - 11) is wrong. If it's wrong then someone would have proved it by now, there have been a lot of arm waving and shouting but nothing has managed to stick.

 

However I think we're going to go round in circles, by the time I've posted this you'll have answered my last post. I will bow out of this unless there is a specific point you want me to adress. And if you are really open minded then you will look at some of the articles on the answersingenesis website, there are so many that I'm sure you'll find one that talks about something you can relate to, whichever area of science is your interest.

[BibleBeliever]

BibleBeliever, I have simple answer for you. Occam's razor shaved off that old beard many years ago, and there's no use trying to grow it back in front of a bunch of scientists. What would be more productive for you, and maybe even be more graceful in the eyes of your Lord, would be to actually LEARN about HOW your Lord conducts His work.

 

—Larv

 

 

I know, it's funny how two people can see the same thing and come to completely different views. I'm right? You're right? it all comes down to what is important.

 

What is important to me is my faith, call it a crutch by all means, I know why I believe what I believe and for more than 5 years I've studied both the bible and science so I can more fully understand what is going on in the world and how I can guide my family through.

 

We disagree, that's fine I'm not imposing my beliefs on you, I am proposing other views, that you don't believe they are scientific is not my problem.

 

Like I said to Lancaster, if there is a specific point, I'll comment more, otherwise, I have other stuff to do.