Promise me, that if Evolution doesn't work out, you will come back to considering "Creation"?

[Frank Robert]

To show respect?

AIG, DI and IRC and other creationists orgs would get a lot more respect if they would keep their religious beliefs out of the nations politics.

 

[AV1611VET]

AIG, DI and IRC and other creationists orgs would get a lot more respect if they would keep their religious beliefs out of the nations politics.

LOL -- just post the Ten Commandments in the wrong place and watch the nation's politics rear its ugly head.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Aside from the OP, seven different people have posted in this thread, and we, so far, have only three votes.

And I think I know why.

Just because you have a poll does not mean that you are required to vote.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just because you have a poll does not mean that you are required to vote.

That's correct.

But there are reasons, and I think I know the number one one.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's correct.

But there are reasons, and I think I know the number one one.

I doubt it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Evolution is a scientific theory which can be replaced with a theory with a scientific theory that better fits the evidence and makes better predictions. Creationism can also be replaced with a different belief. There is a theory that as the west declines into a new dark age that there will be a second religiousness that correlates with the decline.

I figured it would be the same religiousness that's been trying to take down Western Civilization for two millennia.

 

[dlamberth]

LOL -- just post the Ten Commandments in the wrong place and watch the nation's politics rear its ugly head.

As it should.

 

[MIDutch]

Whatever the agenda is, if evolution fails, creation is there to take its place.

Creationists have been predicting evolutions failure for over 150 years.

The only thing failing is creationism.

Which is one of the reasons evangelical churches are losing young people.

 

[MIDutch]

Are you afraid CREATION will win the votes?

It's a silly poll.

Unlike creationists, people who accept the fact of evolution, and the theory which best explains that fact, aren't "afraid" that creationism will win because if the Theory of Evolution is ever shown to be in error, it will merely mean that a better scientific explanation has been formulated to explain the VAST amount evidence that exists (and it still won't be creationism).

Further, unlike creationists, our entire philosophical/theological/religious/spiritual/worldview identity is NOT predicated on the Theory of Evolution being valid anymore than it is predicated on the Theory of Relativity being valid.

It would be extremely SAD if it were.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists have been predicting evolutions failure for over 150 years.

And it has now [hypothetically] come to pass for the purposes of this thread.

As the OP says:

Have you considered what you will do, once the life of what you have turned to in Evolution, has proven finite, beatable?

So if you want to participate in this thread with respect to what was written, you have to take the stance that evolution is a thing of the past.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a silly poll.

No it isn't.

It exposes a mindset that people aren't willing to give up.

Not even hypothetically.

In my opinion they would have to vote CREATION, and that's a word that is anathema to evolutionists.

 

[dlamberth]

In my opinion they would have to vote CREATION, and that's a word that is anathema to evolutionists.

I use that word all of the time.
In a different way than your usage though.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's a silly poll.

Silly, yes. But more so it is grammatically and logically incoherent.

"
If what you theorize fails, what do you turn to next...?
"
While I *think* I know what he's asking, the first half is a grammatical mess.

It probably is asking "What if your favored theory of life and species origin fails, .." though he may only be asking the question to "evolutionists".

The second part of the question assumes that if my favored life-origin theory fails that I'll need to "turn to" something else. It just isn't that important to me that I'll need to ~~fill the void~~ left in my "soul" caused by the failure of evolution. The biologists will have a lot of work to do to fill the gap, but I'll be to busy doing physics to get wound up about it.

The list of "choices" doesn't even fit in a single category (or even two). This list only reinforces my suspicion that yet again the OP doesn't have a clue what evolutionary theory and science is really about and keeps conflating it with religion.

 

[MIDutch]

LOL -- just post the Ten Commandments in the wrong place and watch the nation's politics rear its ugly head.

Just post passages from the Bhagavad Gita in government spaces and watch the nation's evangelicals lose their heads.

 

[MIDutch]

No it isn't.

It exposes a mindset that people aren't willing to give up.

This is, of course, false.

I already told you that people who understand science can and do "give up" what they think about scientific theories.

Scientists, and literate lay persons, "gave up" Thompson's "plum pudding" model of the atom for the Rutherford model. And then "gave up" the Rutherford model for the Bohr model. There was no theological or religious or philosophical crisis. There was no catastrophic change in worldview. There was no apocalyptic upheaval of mindset.

Unlike creationists who believe their entire life and existence would be all for naught if someone demonstrates that Noah's big wooden barge can't float, those people who understand science are UNAFRAID of change. Indeed, in science, change equals progress and advancement in human understanding of the Cosmos.

In my opinion they would have to vote CREATION, and that's a word that is anathema to evolutionists.

Again, completely and utterly false. We would choose ... for a better scientific theory that better explains the evidence.

 

[Shemjaza]

Hi there,

So just a thought for what our priorities, are, here. You have decided one way or the other, to give Evolution a try... you have decided that the weight of evidence favours species that change over time, one can only assume in a way that is deistic, if it is to prove better than the selection pressures that shape it. But I put it to you, that you do not know everything.

What if it turns out that you have less life in Evolution, than you have thought? Have you considered what you will do, once the life of what you have turned to in Evolution, has proven finite, beatable? I want to be clear, I am not going to rubbish you, for having attempted to believe "Evolution" - the motive behind this, is just to remind you, that there is an alternative?

The point is, Creation will still be here - at the end. There will always be a way to incorporate Evolutional ideas, into a paradigm that glorifies the Creator; even without the Creator, the idea that certain things are irreducibly complex, has a high competitive value and there are other ideas like it. It is possible that you could come to understand yourself and your place in the cosmos, with concepts that lend themselves to intelligent design, that there is a freedom to voice praise for all that we come to be, that we be thankful to those that share it with us.

I am not trying to prove God, I am trying to say, the elements of Creation that we all enjoy, can be enjoyed with no strings attached - Evolution promises the same, but gets mired in clamouring for the top position, as if beating all takers is the best form of promise. Don't get sucked in by that. But don't rush to Creation, either - if what I said was true, there would be no reason, to switch operandi, until it had been understood. Creation is something you can understand.

So when it turns out that you are surrounded by Evolutionists, who are all ready to burn you, for stepping outside the realm of what they call "known", just remember, we - the Creationists - will be here, to see what you can do, with what was given (with what was given, when what was created was given (as Creation)). Don't be afraid. That is what our Lord Master and Friend, said to us, that we lay hold of the prize.

I will confess, that there are aspects of Evolution that I find useful, myself. I am - knowing my welcome in Jesus - willing to take on concepts that do not immediately fit in the Creationist mould, not that I betray my faith, but that I expand it, to understand that what we want most from that which we believe in, is a way to be close with each other, in the praise we have, for all that we are capable of.

It's not a hard choice, to hold out hope - I do it, you ought to do it, we all ought to at least spare a memory, of struggling with that choice.

I accept evolution because the evidence indicated that it's true, not because my life is any better for believing it.

Accepting evolution does not in any way mean we have to act in a selfish or vicious way.

The facts of biology don't define for me the morality I decide on or how I care for others.

The reason I don't accept Creationism is also just the evidence, nothing to do with how I feel about it.

 

[Gottservant]

Just because evolution may be shown to be incorrect, does not mean that creation will automatically be shown to be right.

I didn't say that.

I'm saying would you start to "hope"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just post passages from the Bhagavad Gita in government spaces and watch the nation's evangelicals lose their heads.

As they should.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is, of course, false.

Lack of votes say otherwise.

 

[Oneiric1975]

LOL -- just post the Ten Commandments in the wrong place and watch the nation's politics rear its ugly head.

Why do you find the Separation clause to be "ugly"? You do realize it protects YOUR religion, right? Without it someone might install a "state religion" that makes YOUR faith illegal right?

That's the greatness of the Separation Clause and yet religious people seem to find it ugly! Strange.