User Tag List

View Poll Results: Creationism vs Evolution

Voters
21. You may not vote on this poll
  • Creationism

    1 4.76%
  • Evolution

    20 95.24%
First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 70

  1. #41
    climb on Showbread's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Enneagram
    3w2 so/sp
    Posts
    2,332

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty6226 View Post
    I am afraid that if I put a both option out there then too many people would pick it as an easy out... Thoughts?
    I don't think it's an easy out, it's my opinion, plain and simple. It's an opinion I've thought about a great deal, and the one that makes sense to me. I still think most would choose evolution, which is just fine.
    Friends, waffles, work

    "The problem is, when you depend on a substitute for love, you can never get enough" - Louis Cozolino

    3w2 6w7 1w2
    *Gryffindor*


  2. #42
    Senior Member Frosty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    2w5 sx
    Posts
    5,779

    Default

    Ok I would add another option but I am not sure how to edit it

  3. #43
    Chumped. Obsidius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty6226 View Post
    My friend and I were talking about religion the other day and she brought up that she doesn't believe in evolution. I asked her why she didn't since there was so much evidence to support it and she told me that she wasn't alone in her beliefs and that in fact creationism is the more popular opinion, and that in order to be a christian you had to reject evolution. I argued that you could believe in both, God created evolution, and that things are not so black and white. Anyways, I'd like to create a poll and see if in fact she was right, or if I am right in what the majority of the population truly believes. For the purpose of the survey, im going to limit it to the two answers below, but feel free to respond and explain in the comments.

    Oh and sorry if this would be better suited in the religion section
    So if you had to choose, creationism or evolution?
    Your friend is a moron. Not just for denying evolution, that's just misinformed, but the fact that she thought creationism was the more popular opinion and is therefore supported in its veracity, or that creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive? Anyway, point her to the numerous experiments proving speciation in smaller insects, variations in selectively breeding foxes, the fact that bacteria becomes resistant to anti-biotics and therefore evolves, the recent speciation of salamanders in California, and the fossil record. Evolution has been proven, and I swear to god if I hear one more person say "it's called the THEORY of evolution", gravity and relativity are also labeled theories. Unfortunately, there are tons of ignorant creationists out there that will affirm her beliefs further.
    Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion man.

  4. #44
    Lost in the Multiverse Bknight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Ni
    Posts
    203

    Default

    So... this is an "or" question. Interesting.

  5. #45
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Obsidius View Post
    Evolution has been proven, and I swear to god if I hear one more person say "it's called the THEORY of evolution", gravity and relativity are also labeled theories. Unfortunately, there are tons of ignorant creationists out there that will affirm her beliefs further.
    Actually, evolution has not been proven. Scientific explanations for natural phenomena are never really proven, they gain acceptance over time by not being disproven. They account for all available evidence, whereas discounted rival theories do not. Eventually some new evidence comes along that a theory cannot account for, and the theory is then modified, or sometimes entirely discarded. In this way, quantum mechanics builds on classical mechanics, explaining phenomena that the older theory cannot.

    Arguing for any theory on the basis of popularity, however, is completely unscientific. Actually, it would be dumb to decide what spiritual "theory" to accept based on popularity, but the yardstick there is quite different.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes Hard, Obsidius liked this post

  6. #46
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Scientific explanations like evolution are not to be believed. They are to be accepted on the basis of evidence, until disproven by more convincing evidence. Scientific inquiry is not a popularity contest. We don't identify causes for natural phenomena by majority vote.
    Correct!

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    But then the willfully ignorant would simply claim that God just made us think we had gone back in time and found the proof we sought, sort of like the end of Carl Sagan's novel Contact, or those people who claim the moon landings were faked.
    OTOH, some skepticism can work the same way. "A skeptic is someone who denies the existence of anything he cannot explain away."
    Or, since Christianity was mentioned, in one of the parables, one of the people in the parable is in Hell and begs for permission to go back and warn his brothers how bad Hell is, before they die, only to be told, that if they will not listen to the prophets, they would not believe, even if someone were to rise from the dead.

    In other words, there can exist denial or willful blindness in all kinds of directions.

    Part of the problem with evolution, to my mind, is with the popularizations of it: e.g. "The Ascent of Man" implying that each change in a species necessarily is an "improvement," which *necessarily* supplants, earlier forms, but that isn't always how things go.

    but then, the mainstream press manages to screw up virtually everything it tries to explain.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.
    Likes LonestarCowgirl liked this post

  7. #47
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke O View Post
    I could take them to the future, so the future people can laugh at them.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.
    Likes Luke O liked this post

  8. #48
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    OTOH, some skepticism can work the same way. "A skeptic is someone who denies the existence of anything he cannot explain away."
    Or, since Christianity was mentioned, in one of the parables, one of the people in the parable is in Hell and begs for permission to go back and warn his brothers how bad Hell is, before they die, only to be told, that if they will not listen to the prophets, they would not believe, even if someone were to rise from the dead.
    That is poor reasoning. Most people are more likely to act on a strong recommendation from someone they know and respect personally than a blanket injunction from a public figure. They don't acknowledge the seriousness of a situation until it hits close to home. (Consider Senator Rob Portman who changed his mind about gay marriage after learning his son was gay.)

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    Part of the problem with evolution, to my mind, is with the popularizations of it: e.g. "The Ascent of Man" implying that each change in a species necessarily is an "improvement," which *necessarily* supplants, earlier forms, but that isn't always how things go.

    but then, the mainstream press manages to screw up virtually everything it tries to explain.
    Generally true. Almost by definition, though, lasting changes in a species must be an improvement in terms of species survival or at least neutral. Otherwise over time, they would die out.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...
    Likes Hard liked this post

  9. #49
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Actually, evolution has not been proven. Scientific explanations for natural phenomena are never really proven, they gain acceptance over time by not being disproven. They account for all available evidence, whereas discounted rival theories do not. Eventually some new evidence comes along that a theory cannot account for, and the theory is then modified, or sometimes entirely discarded. In this way, quantum mechanics builds on classical mechanics, explaining phenomena that the older theory cannot.
    I'd agree with you in general, perhaps, but IIRC, relativity was not developed to account for any outstanding anomalies; and thermodynamics, while it accords quite well with the atomic / molecular theory of matter, was not developed with it in mind.


    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    for any theory on the basis of popularity, however, is completely unscientific. Actually, it would be dumb to decide what spiritual "theory" to accept based on popularity, but the yardstick there is quite different.
    At the risk of being accused of hijack, commenting on this point alone, this is why arguments for (say) anthropogenic global warming on the basis of surveys, or validation by peer-reviewed articles instead of data, is dangerous in terms of the misunderstandings about science which might be created (or evolve) in the minds of non-scientist laypersons.
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  10. #50
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grey_beard View Post
    At the risk of being accused of hijack, commenting on this point alone, this is why arguments for (say) anthropogenic global warming on the basis of surveys, or validation by peer-reviewed articles instead of data, is dangerous in terms of the misunderstandings about science which might be created (or evolve) in the minds of non-scientist laypersons.
    Your point here is unclear. Are you saying there is no merit in seeing observations corroborated by multiple groups over time, as documented by separate accounts published in the peer-reviewed literature? Or are you discounting the role of meta-surveys, that gather already-existing data to support/refute some broader conclusion? There is utility and validity in both. Indeed the first is one of the hallmarks of scientific method: the need for reproducibility of results.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution vs. Intelligent Design/Creationism
    By Anentropic IxTx in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 161
    Last Post: 11-10-2013, 11:56 PM
  2. MBTI vs the MBTI Step II test
    By Totenkindly in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-31-2008, 09:25 PM
  3. Dawkins and Evolution, a discussion (moved to new thread)
    By hereandnow in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 11:41 AM
  4. Does SJ vs SP account for gender bias?
    By Tayshaun in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-17-2007, 08:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO