Do you believe in the "theory" of evolution?
I believe that creationism and evolution are both truths.
It's the best theory we have so far and all the evidence thus far proves it.
No - that religion conflicts with mine. It's also a house of cards that Intelligent Design is knocking down.
How is it a religion when it's based on observable facts?
Christianity is a religion and it's based on observable facts.
The miracles are nothing but hearsay. So what facts is it based upon?
Why is theory in quotation marks?
The difference between the laymans definition of theory and sciences.
Of course, evolution is evident and there is proof for it. Whether you want to deny it or not, it is and has been happening anyways.
No, I don't believe in it. But it is a sound theory.
Why do you believe in? What would it take for you to believe in it?
A little ironic considering your username hahah sorry that made me chuckle
I don't believe in it. I didn't say I disagreed with it, lol.
The wording of the question was "believe"
I think it's a great theory. And so far it's the only one out there that explains things in a plausible way for me.
I get what your saying common, I agree.
You don't have to believe in gravity either but like gravity it does care if you believe or not.
No. I also don't believe in creation. I believe that it doesn't matter how we got here, just that we are here and that we are alive. I'm not going to speculate what may or not be true as to what origins of humanity are. I could honestly care less.
I'm alive. That's good enough for me. Of course I'm curious, but until they prove a specific argument definitively I won't bother trying to support either side.
Evolution is proved definitively.
I agree Matt. I can't stand Jesus freaks who don't understand what "theory" means in scientific lingo and use that as proof as it being wrong.
I hope you're not referring to me as a "Jesus freak." I'm an atheist, haha. As for the evolution... I believe parts of it, but not all of it. I believe creatures change over time - but not into other species. I'm a firm believer in survival of the
Oh no not you Mr.L I mean the Bible Belt Jesus freak I have to deal with. The ones who believe the earth is only 5,000 years old and dinosaurs are just the devil trying to trick you. You haven't ever struck me as that kind of person.
Haha, I would sure hope not. I just avoid the topic, really. As I stated - I don't think we'll ever really know exactly how humans got here since none of us were there for the process or bang or whatever the hell people believe.
We don't have to be there to understand evolution.
If you find a body with a bullethole, it is safe to assume the person was shot. Same goes for evolution. Looking at the evidence we can clearly see what happened.
Ad, while I agree that there is a disappointing contingent that don't know what 'theory' actually means; it would be ignorant to preclude that those individuals make up the whole of those that don't think that evolution is an adequate explanation.
Further, your poll question is insufficient to be properly or honestly answered. Your poll is similar to asking: "Is a stove used for cooking?" Obviously, a stove is used but there is a lot of cooking done without one.
Evolution is a generic term for a huge area of science.
As for the word 'theory', there needs to be understanding that not all theory is created equal. The theory of evolution or creative design or whatever all had major research bias incorporated into it.
Ru- let me explain further those who stand behind a false factious story book that has no evidence while at the same time brushing away scientific evidence as nonsense are the ones I have issue with.
Thus, the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution cannot be compared directly. Just as understanding the 'founder's intent' in the Constitution can't be compared to interpreting a recipe for cake. One has a lot more tied to it than the other.
Ad, I understand. I am not a 'Jesus Freak' however I do consider multiple possibilities regarding our origins and ends. The ease in which you write off a whole book as fictitious is interesting.
You seem more intelligent than someone who would write off wholesale an entire possibility just because you don't like ignorant adherents or because you don't like what it says. Just saying...
So me evidence of the bible being proven. Scientific peer reviewed studies.
Ad, what part of the bible? The part where David was actually a king? (Done). The part that discusses Rome's occupation of Israel? (Done) The part that discusses the giving of the Levitical Law? (Done). Do you mean the supernatural issues?
I must emphasize, I'm not discussing this to defend "The Bible", rather I'm trying to illustrate that impotent rage for the sake of having it makes the fool. True intellect is the ability to disagree without resorting to cliche sound bites.
Ru I would like to believe you understood what was implied by the question. So again show me.
Ad, I agree with you that there is no way to validate empirically supernatural events historically. I'm good with that. However, my point was that you referred to a whole text as fictitious. That isn't true. I was trying to make your argument valid.
That being said. I'll head in over to your new question where this conversation is heading anyway. ????
I believe it is the best explanation we have.
If not then what do you believe?
I believe God created the earth and all the creatures therein. however, I also don't know if I believe that the earth is 5-10k years old either. I'm just not sure there is enough biblical support for it.