Poll: Do you believe in Creation or Evolution (or both)?

[Morat]

But as all can see, the world is devolving.

  Nope, it's not. Apparantly we can't all see. You're going to have to back it up.

To evolve is to develop, as by a process of differentiation, to a more highly organized condition. This is not happening.

  To evolve is to change. Not develop. Not become more highly organized. To change. Please don't make up your own definitions for scientific terms.

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by eldermike
God created life shaped as He wanted.
The bible says 6 days, so, unless there is some proof otherwise, it's 6 days.

There will never be proof otherwise.  There will never be proof of anything outside of mathematics and perhaps logic.  If by your statement you mean unless there is compelling evidence otherwise, then all I can tell you is that there's reams of it.  A great deal of it has been presented on this forum in the few months I've been here.  For a more complete source, you can always go here.

-brett

 

[seebs]

I personally believe that everyone who dies gets nice, clear, proof of God's methods, by getting to *watch* them. I expect that, once the shock wears off, most people are willing to grant that evolution is a lot more clever than they thought.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by eldermike
God created life shaped as He wanted.
The bible says 6 days, so, unless there is some proof otherwise, it's 6 days.

Can you read the original Hebrew? From what I understand, the Hebrew isn't as cut and dry as your statement makes it out.

 

[Chloe]

Originally posted by Morat
  Nope, it's not. Apparantly we can't all see. You're going to have to back it up.



  To evolve is to change. Not develop. Not become more highly organized. To change. Please don't make up your own definitions for scientific terms.

 

Well then perhaps you need to write and complain to those who publish dictionaries.  

 

[Rimstalker]

My $.02,

As a materialist and a naturalist, I do not believe in the interference of supernatural entities in the workings of the natural universe. I do not belive in the theory of evolution; I accept it as the best explaination for the diversity of life and the fact of its common ancestory. The most troubling thing about the suggestion that supernatural entities are medling in the world is that such notions are so worthless. What does positing some creator/designer of the gaps help us to understand? Even if a supernatural "designer" explains the evidence just as well as a naturalistic theory, why bother positing the designer if we don't really need to? And what wouldn't be expected from a supernatural designer?

 

[Rimstalker]

"Well then perhaps you need to write and complain to those who publish dictionaries. "

Dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive. Using the dictionary definition of evolution to argue the scientific theory of evolution is an excersize in equivocation. Words in their common usage have very different meanings in a technical or scientific setting.

Think of the common usage of the word "work" and see if is compares to the definition of work in physics, and you'll see the flaws in your argument. If you hold a 100 pound weight to your chest for an hour, holding it perfectly still, common usage would indicate that you did work. But in physics, you did no work, as the force you exerted on the weight was not applied over a distance.

 

[wildernesse]

I don't consult my dictionary when I study science to learn more about the workings of scientific theories and hypotheses. I consult science texts and those trained in the scientific field that I am interested in.

--tibac

 

[Laura]

I voted.

I believe in young earth creation.

 

[Hank]

I voted 'other'

I accept scientific facts. Evolution is proven. It explains how life adapts to new environments. Frankly I use it to demonstrate the superior intelligence of who ever made life in the first place. So I don't need to believe in something which is proven.

I also don't believe in God. There too I see visible proof of God through His creation and I am certain He exists.

I don't believe in anything. I accept facts only.

p.s. I am neither a Creationist nor evolutionist, I am just Hank

 

[ashibaka]

Originally posted by Chloe
But as all can see, the world is devolving.

What?!

A goofier statement the world has never known... both in its great big assumptions and its total irrelevance to evolution. (N.B. Just because there are more crimes and sin in the world doesn't mean the world is "devolving").

 

[Stormy]

God created the universe and on life within.

Time is irrelevant. God is not controlled by time, as we know it.

I do not believe that the concept of evolution, as taught by man, is anywhere near what God may have used to expand his creation of life.

Chance instead of planning is too much of the focus when man talks of evolution.

I have no clue where my vote should go on your poll

 

[Morat]

Well then perhaps you need to write and complain to those who publish dictionaries. 

  Why? They quite clearly label a definition as scientific, and the others as casual.

  It's hardly their fault you're using the wrong one. Further, any dictionary quite clearly labels evolve as "to change". Some definitions might imply directional change, but it's not required.

  Argument by dictionary is pretty lame, more so when you're taking a technical term (biological evolution) and trying to claim the layman's usuage defines it.

  It doesn't. Evolution, when discussing biology, has a very specific meaning.

 

[Sky]

Keep posting here.

bump

 

[Gerry]

Originally posted by Sky77
Why doesn't anyone ever vote on my polls?

43 people have so far. Not too bad I'd say.

 

[blader]

66.6% are evolutionists right now.

Spooky.

 

[RufusAtticus]

I wonder what the ratio of E/C lurkers to participants is?

 

[Sky]

Lurkers can't vote, you have to be registered to vote on this site's polls.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Sky77
Lurkers can't vote, you have to be registered to vote on this site's polls.

I meant registered members who simply read the E/C forum and not post. Sorry about that.

 

[Cantuar]

Well, evolution isn't an explanation for the origin of life - that'd be abiogenesis. It might be interesting to run a poll on abiogenesis and see if the results are similar to the ones here.

Is it just me, or is this site really slow since all that fancy stuff was added to people's IDs?