How many on here are truly undecided on this debate

[ttechsan]

I wonder if all this "debate" really matters at all. It appears to me that most on here are already firmly in one camp or the other. Regardless of info provided or debate points provided everyone's mind is already made up and couldn't truly be changed regardless.

I've never tried a poll so here goes. I hope I do this right the first time
If not could someone that knows how to do this do it for me as I think you get my general idea. Thx

1. Evolutionist
2.Creationist YEC
3.Creationist old earth
4.Theist Evolutionist
5. Truly Undecided

I will explain my reasoning for this later after I see the results which may or may not verify my thoughts on this. Thx

 

[Iti oj]

It does not matter at all because their is no real debate. Just because you can disagree does not mean their is meaningful disagreement on a topic.

 

[Iti oj]

Am I open to the potential of theistic evolution though I doubt it and see no reason for god to be needed. I do know YEC is certainly false./

 

[bobhikes]

no option for Neither being right. I am not undecided. I believe both are problematic.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm in the "camp" of reality, factual knowledge, and rational thought. I freely admit that there's likely nothing anyone can say to make me change my mind and turn to superstition, irrationality, and ignorance. I expect there are many people for the whom the situation is reversed. For example, those who misguidedly interpret ancient myths as factual reality, while rejecting well-established and thoroughly evidenced scientific theories, such as evolutionary biology.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1. Counterposing 'evolutionist' to 'theistic evolutionist' is slopping at best.
2. Having made up ones mind does not preclude changing in the face of new information.

 

[Iti oj]

1. Counterposing 'evolutionist' to 'theistic evolutionist' is slopping at best.
2. Having made up ones mind does not preclude changing in the face of new information.

This. Wisdom in this post.

 

[Man of Faith]

I have no doubt whatsoever, that the Biblical narrative of the creation account is true and literal.

 

[Ouroboros]

I wonder if all this "debate" really matters at all. It appears to me that most on here are already firmly in one camp or the other. Regardless of info provided or debate points provided everyone's mind is already made up and couldn't truly be changed regardless.

It matters. I doesn't matter to us, you or me, but to those who read and not participate. There are plenty of people out there making up their mind right now and reading these posts as guests. The discussion is not for your benefit, but for theirs. And they should know by now that I can be a real azzhat.

To answer your poll... it's complicated. As a Naturalistic Panentheist, Nature is God. So the answer is: evolutionist, naturalist, non-dualist theistic evolution, and maybe more. There's no clear line between the divine, nature, us, world, ...

 

[Parsimony]

I'd be interested to see how many deists believe in a young Earth.

 

[Iti oj]

evolution is winning!

 

[ttechsan]

True science is not decided by vote. If that were the make up of fact then at one time the earth was flat and we could go on with other examples. So consensus or majority doesn't make science fact that is why I have always found that particular argument so silly.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no ongoing debate, so I did not choose any option.

 

[Ouroboros]

True science is not decided by vote.

That's why I recommend you go to a college and take some classes and learn about the evidence for evolution. Then you'll know the true science that's not related to voting.

 

[Parsimony]

True science is not decided by vote. If that were the make up of fact then at one time the earth was flat and we could go on with other examples. So consensus or majority doesn't make science fact that is why I have always found that particular argument so silly.

Precisely.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

True science is not decided by vote. If that were the make up of fact then at one time the earth was flat and we could go on with other examples. So consensus or majority doesn't make science fact that is why I have always found that particular argument so silly.

Indeed, most scientific theories are built upon the work of many people, over an extended period of time, and repeatedly and continually checked and tested to ensure that the facts correlate with, and are explained by, the theory. A good example of this is evolutionary biology. It is a scientific theory comprised of literally millions of pieces of information compiled by scientists working in a myriad of fields, and is probably one of the most thoroughly supported scientific theories ever studied and tested.

 

[Alceste]

I don't come here to convince folks like ttechsan and manoffaith of the factuality of evolution. I come here to demonstrate that their version of events is false for the benefit of other readers who may not yet be familiar with the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Plus I enjoy reading and learning about sciencey stuff and those who defend evolution in these debates generate a lot of interesting reading. I wouldn't expect the creationists it's been posted for to read it, but I do.

 

[metis]

True science is not decided by vote. If that were the make up of fact then at one time the earth was flat and we could go on with other examples. So consensus or majority doesn't make science fact that is why I have always found that particular argument so silly.

In science, we rarely use the term "fact", typically preferring a word like "evidence". When we consider objectively-derived evidence, all related evidence seemingly points to an evolutionary process and literally nothing points to our universe being created by a creator-god. This is not "me" but what has thus far turned up with innumerable studies and observations.

Now, was there a deity that created our universe? There's really no way of telling one way or another, so there definitely is room for theistic causation.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I don't come here to convince folks like ttechsan and manoffaith of the factuality of evolution. I come here to demonstrate that their version of events is false for the benefit of other readers who may not yet be familiar with the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

Plus I enjoy reading and learning about sciencey stuff and those who defend evolution in these debates generate a lot of interesting reading. I wouldn't expect the creationists it's been posted for to read it, but I do.

I doubt many creationists realize that when they repeatedly present simplistic, transparent, dishonest, and sloppy arguments in the face of rationally-minded people responding with articulate, researched, and factually-backed arguments, that they are probably helping to turn far more anonymous readers into "evolutionists" than vice-versa.

I think always having a few posters around who clearly represent how unintellectual and willfully ignorant creationism is, is a great way for readers to see how it contrasts with science, intellectualism, and rationality.

 

[metis]

I doubt many creationists realize that when they repeatedly present simplistic, transparent, dishonest, and sloppy arguments in the face of rationally-minded people responding with articulate, researched, and factually-backed arguments, that they are probably helping to turn far more anonymous readers into "evolutionists" than vice-versa.

I think always having a few posters around who clearly represent how unintellectual and willfully ignorant creationism is, is a great way for readers to see how it contrasts with science, intellectualism, and rationality.

That actually happened to me as I grew up and was very active in one of those fundamentalist churches that taught against believing in "evilution". When it became painfully apparent to me that I was not being told the truth, I left that church for good and have never looked back.