Poll: Who believes in God?

Your beliefs

  • I believe in God

    Votes: 135 13.4%

  • I do not believe in God

    Votes: 445 44.1%

  • I used to believe but have lost my faith

    Votes: 42 4.2%

  • I used to disbelieve but have found my faith

    Votes: 7 0.7%

  • I believe there is "something" but not sure what

    Votes: 200 19.8%

  • I'm Agnostic

    Votes: 167 16.6%

  • I believe in multiple deities

    Votes: 13 1.3%
  • Total voters
    1,009
Acidhell2 said:
There's only one logical position which is agnostic. We simply don't know. You are also only looking at two Christian and muslim religions.
Click to expand...

I agree, we don't know, that is the fact. What I'm saying is exactly that, if you believe in creationism, you are believing in a made-up story. That is what creationism is.
 
tripitaka said:
Sorry, but that's rubbish. The reason science is not interested in the creation mechanism, is because there is not a single shred of evidence to support it.

Whereas the theory of evolution is consistently backed up by the evidence.
Click to expand...

There is no difference in the data between intelligent design and evolution. The data is the same. Therefore the evidence is the same.

Ben M said:
I agree, we don't know, that is the fact. What I'm saying is exactly that, if you believe in creationism, you are believing in a made-up story. That is what creationism is.
Click to expand...
That isn't what your saying. One point you're saying we simply don't know then your saying it's a made up story. It can't be both.
 
Acidhell2 said:
It says that there is no evidence for evolution between species, which there isn't.
Both give the same results, but science is only interested in evolution, due to it being the simplest.
Click to expand...

Define 'evolution between species'?

The theory of evolution does not state that humans magically evolved from monkeys by chance. It operates on a much lower level than that, and there is certainly no element of chance.
It is constantly backed up by evidence we see both in living creatures, and in the fossil record, especially when you factor in our modern understanding of genetics.
 
Acidhell2 said:
A lot of theories are based on older stuff. So that doesn't prove anything.
Click to expand...

Well, it does, because Creationism isn't science either and the religious right have done their damndest to get Creationism taught and Evolution not for many years. ID being just another attempt.

Acidhell2 said:
It's not much different from more complicated science theories. they are untestable, but are still theories.
Click to expand...

It is very different because it is useless. The answer "God did it" actually answers nothing, can be used for nothing and furthers understanding by nothing. It is a dead end a "No point in studying it, it is so tricky, only God could have done it." pretty much the anthithesis of science.

Acidhell2 said:
Any theory which is not the simplest isn't testable. unless it comes up with a way to show a result that wouldn't happen in the accepted theory.
Click to expand...

Which is generally the way it is done. "Your simple theory falls over when looking at it like this, my theory doesn't. My theory is now the simplist theory that covers all the bases." ID doesn't cover any shortfalls in Evolution, in fact it's entire premise is "Evolution seems a bit patchy, therefore God must have done it."
 
tripitaka said:
Define 'evolution between species'?

The theory of evolution does not state that humans magically evolved from monkeys by chance. It operates on a much lower level than that, and there is certainly no element of chance.
It is constantly backed up by evidence we see both in living creatures, and in the fossil record, especially when you factor in our modern understanding of genetics.
Click to expand...

there is little to no evidence of one species turning into another species. There is load of evidence for micro evolution.
 
RDM said:
This isn't correct. Science is not interested in ID because the concept isn't testable. Irreducable complexity is not something that you can test scientifically. It isn't really a case of "simplest mechanism" in this case.
Click to expand...

You certainly can test irreducible complexity scientifically.
Take the wing as an example. Many creationists would tell you that a wing is irreducibly complex. However, look at a flying fish, or numerous gliding animals in forests. Consider that even if the earliest feathered creatures did not use them for flight, they still provided the secondary function of warmth.

In any case, why would the fact science cannot YET explain something, mean that the religious explanation wins by default?
 
Acidhell2 said:
there is little to no evidence of one species turning into another species. There is load of evidence for micro evolution.
Click to expand...

Well apart from the evolution of the ear in aquatic mammels, a species of butterfly and quite a few transitionry fossils. Also why make a difference? Did God not make the microbes or was he only interested in macrobiological life?
 
RDM said:
Well apart from the evolution of the ear in aquatic mammels, a species of butterfly and quite a few transitionry fossils. Also why make a difference? Did God not make the microbes or was he only interested in macrobiological life?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying god did and I don't believe in him. I'm just showing you can't use science to explain everything and it can not be used to disprove things liek this.
 
Acidhell2 said:
go on then show me what the difference in the data would be?
Click to expand...

It isn't the data that matters in this case it is the mechanism. For ID to work you need to ignore some fundementals of science and change some others. ID just isn't science.

Acidhell2 said:
I've already said I don't agree with intelligent design. but that doesn't mean you can right it of using science.
Click to expand...

Why would you write it off using science? It isn't science, it has nothing to do with science and science has nothing to do with it.
 
I believe in something, I dont think its the God that the Abrahamic faiths would have us believe in. I also think that those people who are taking the bible word for word and using that against Christians as they so often do are missing the point.

I do think its a sad reflection on how we are that people are willing to insult others for what they believe in.
 
Acidhell2 said:
Exactly, which is what nearly everyone misses. You can not use science to disprove God/s it just isn't possible.
Click to expand...

I never said you could, I just think that ID is a poor example to use to prove it because of how poorly put together it is. My standpoint has always been agnostic (I cannot rule out any divine power) with a more athiestic stance towards the Abrahamic religions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom