Where do you stand on the Creation/Evolution controversy?
Posted by: NewLifeChristianThis is a commonly debated issue within the scientific community. Opinion: According to the Bible (and science), Biblical Creationism is the way to go.
Vote
58 Total Votes
I'm adding more answers.
You've already made this poll.
Pfft http://www.debate.org/polls/what-is-your-position-on-the-creation-evolution-controversy
@Varrack I have deleted the other two polls. I'm making a more accurate one.
How the crap does science show that creationism is true?
NewLifeChristian, are you running out of poll ideas to the point where you recycle old polls?
@triangle.128k - I am simply making a more accurate poll.
@triangle.128k The other polls are to be deleted.
You surprisingly didn't properly refute almost all of my points in our debate.
I am for biblical creation
I believe that everything was created by God and he also influence the evolutionary process. What would that fall under?
@Oreo222 Theistic Evolution
@NewLifeChristian - "According to the Bible (and science), Biblical Creationism is the way to go" ...Yeah I'll need to see some scientific sources to back that up.
If you disagree that those are reliable scientific sources, then you're clearly judging them because you don't agree with what they say!
@Mister_Man I found some "scientific" sources, you should check out Answers in Genesis, Conservapedia, Institution of Creation Research and some others.
Ah perfect, so in other words, "random people come up with hypothesis as to why the Bible is right, with no evidence to support their claims." LOL
That's the argument he made against me in our debate regarding his sources...
Sometimes people just can't see past their own bias/idea. Sometimes they just can't see outside of their own box :( it's unfortunate.
@NewLifeChristian Why would I trust a book that is ABOUT this whole subject? And I will need scientific evidence to back it up.
"The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible."
So triangle.128k, where is this debate NewLifeChristian used Conservapedia? Love to read it.
There really is no controversy. The "controversy" is only real in a narrow Christian subset.
TBR, the debate: http://www.debate.org/debates/Evolution-vs-Young-Earth-Creationism/1/
@SamStevens - Thanks, reading it now. Love on of the comments, the usual "scientific journals won't print Christian pseudo-science - UNFAIR!" The day any Christian scientist proves something they would get a nobel prize.
There are so many of these polls that it makes me want to vomit mucus until my stomach prolapses.
Also, you should not have agnostic as its own thing. Agnosticism is a label that can be assigned to either theism or atheism. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a higher power, and theism is the belief in a higher power. Gnostic means that you think you know for sure, agnostic means that you don't. So, there are agnostic theists (who believe in a higher power but admit that there is not enough proof for either side), gnostic theists (who believe in a higher power and believe that the evidence supports theism), agnostic atheists (who do not believe that there is a higher power but also don't believe that there isn't one, a.K.A. They don't have an opinon other than that there isn't enough evidence to decide one way or the other), and gnostic atheists (who believe that there is no higher power and that the evidence supports this idea).
Theism/atheism and Agnosticism aren't mutually inclusive.
@CreationGuy - Why didn't you vote?
@CreationGuy - Just asking. Not trying to force you to vote.
@NewLifeChristian - We talking the same debate? Its still in debate, not in voting.
Begging the Question Fallacy
I come from a Christian family, but I have to be honest with myself and I do think there is substantial proof for evolution. However, I also think there is an underlying intelligence and purpose to life, so be it theistic evolution, deistic evolution, intelligent design, etc., I think the evidence points that way.
Actually, evidence would not point to intelligent design, that is merely a fantasy to which the "moderately religious" cling.
Those who advocate atheistic evolution almost always have an anti-religious bias and their alleged rationale is in truth reactionary. For me personally, I just don't believe in the level of coincidence that would be necessary for random, unintelligible evolution.
"The probability of a certain set of circumstances coming together in a meaningful (or tragic) way is so low that it simply cannot be considered mere coincidence." - V.C. King
"Scientists rightly resist invoking the supernatural in scientific explanations for fear of committing a god-of-the-gaps fallacy (the fallacy of using God as a stop-gap for ignorance). Yet without some restriction on the use of chance, scientists are in danger of committing a logically equivalent fallacy-one we may call the “chance-of-the-gaps fallacy.” Chance, like God, can become a stop-gap for ignorance.” - William A. Dembski
Really? THAT many choices?! Wow geeeee I really wonder what the OP's stance on this is....
Anyone who is gnostic in their beliefs, be they gnostic theists or gnostic atheists, are blinded by faith. Regardless of how probable you think the truth of a religion or the lack thereof might be, you can't logically deny that there is some possibility, even if it's hardly there at all, that you are wrong. Agnostic theists and atheists alike are much more reasonable than their gnostic counterparts.
Well, when you make regularly new polls, then please add evolution without a prefix next time
I personally believe that everything and everyone was created last Thursday.
Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and 