Yeah, the last one was less than a week ago, but because of the varying amounts of beliefs and arguments being thrown around, I thought this was appropriate.

Please do not have a squirrls [sic] on islands argument here. That belongs in the other thread. This is just data and responses to such.

Evolution does not necessarily disprove or contradict my religious beliefs.

I dont really fall into any of the categories, but I voted "I am an atheist and I believe in evolution" because it is the closest.

Im not actually an atheist, but that's what most other people consider me.

I am a christian and so I don't beleive in evolution. I personaly think it's dumb and don't see any scientific proof of it. But if it was proven It would not nessacarily contradict my beleifs because there is always the theory that the creation story is allagorical.

Personaly I side with the majority of true Christians and take a more litteral approach to scriptue.

not that it can't be literal AND symbolic at the same time, in many cases the Bible is both.

I'm very religious, and I believe firmly in 7 day creation. I can explain fully why I believe it, but it's based on the Bible. (so non-religious people would never agree)

I've talked for hours with all types of people about this subject. In my mind, anyone can prove whatever they want to believe. There is not enough indesputable evidence for any side of it.

"I am an atheist and I believe in evolution."

This thread is going to hell.

Agnostic and evolution.

despite describing myself as an atheist here a few times, I concur

Atheist and I believe in evolution. There IS evidence to support it.

What's the difference between option 1 and option 2?

Also, where is "I am not religious but believe in some form of ID"?

Sorry,

#1 is redundant with all the ones that are religious but believe in evolution,

and I ran out of spaces and didn't feel like clicking the button to add them :p (Also, I figured that believing in ID made you implicitly religious or agnostic, so I thought a non-religious optionw as unnecessary)


Guess an admin could change it if need be

Thanks for the clarification. There are forms of intelligent design that don't necessitate any kind of religion, but I doubt we'll be needing that option for anyone here.

Apparently I'm the first to answer "devoutly religious and believe in evolution." I feel special.

I am agnostic and believe in evolution.

Although I'm actually ignostic, as I think someone on here once informed me. Still, that's picking :p

The only form of evolution that creationists believe exists is micro-evolution a.k.a. adaption. There is proof beyond a doubt that that form of evolution exists. Creationists contest all other forms of evolution because it contradicts with what is said in the Bible and evidence for those forms are questionable at best.

What do you mean 'believe in evolution'? You make it sound like 'I believe in flying saucers'. It's not to do with belief it's to do with looking at facts. Saying 'I don't believe in evolution' is the same as saying 'I dont believe in gravity' or 'I don't belive in atoms' which are stupid things to say unless you have scientific evidence to show why you're saying such things. And as SavageX pointed out, the only reason people won't 'believe in' evolution is because it contradicts their religious upbringing.

And the fire has been started.

There's a difference between science and evolution. Science means "to study". The evolution theory is mostly just speculation.

/me grabs his popcorn, sits back and enjoys

Back to the poll:

I voted I'm an atheist and believe in evolution, though the more correct wording would be to say that I think evolution simply has the most reasonable odds of being true.

I'm not deeply religious, more spiritual I would say, and I believe in evolution.

I believe in micro evolution, but not macro.

And I think I'd be considered devout... err... for sure.

I am moderately religious and believe in evolution

I think 6 days (7th day He rested, Nuemor King) is more of trying to put it in understandable terms. My parents took me to the petrified forest this summer, and I am convinced the world is millions of years old and that the world has changed a LOT.

I believe in evolution of the world more-so than evolution of fish-to-man.

Whether evolution is or is not real does not affect my religious beliefs, so I voted for the first one.

Um, not really. Evolution IS science. Why do you say evolution is mostly just speculation? How about you back that up? Evolution is a theory, yes. EVERYTHING in science is a theory. EVERYTHING. SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FACT IN SCIENCE.

Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? And why do people insist on discounting evolution without thoroughly reading about it? Conservative newspaper columns don't count.

Scientific research proves or disproves theories...

If Science was just theory, it would be a sub-branch of Theology...

Just wanted to point that out.

Evolution is a prediction (an increasingly supported prediction, I might add) based off of the research done on micro evolution (aka adaptation). Basically, it goes something like this, "If C amount of change happens over T amount of time, then X multiple of T time should result in X multiple of C change." Note the emphesis on 'should'. That's the prediction part. It's sort of like how they predict atomic half-life. They measure the degredation over a short period of time and then multiply that by the amount of time it would take to completely degrade and then devide that by 2 (or something like that...you get the idea). They have no idea rather their prediction that the half-life of some atom is 5,000yrs or whatever. They'll never live long enough to find out for sure. It's just a resonable extrapulated prediction based off of laboratory data. Same principle goes with Evolution (though like I said, there is more and more evidence unsurfacing everyday that lends support to the Theory).

No. Scientific research only disproves theories. Theory basically means "proven with all the current data". If more data is aquired it can either back up the theory or disprove it.

You need a "... and don't have an opinion on evolution, because it has nothing to do with my salvation" option.

From our perspective, if the Theory HOLDS after extensive research is COMPLETED, then it is an accepted FACT. 99.9% of all thories that have not become scientific law, have research pending. Meaning, there were still questions left unanswered. If enough proof through research becomes apparent to completely support the theory of evolution without any questions remaining, it could very well become the Law of Evolution...

My two cents

/me steals Captbevvil's two cents

HUZZAH! I'm RICH!!! muahahha

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

But what you seem to be ignoring is a scientific theory is different from the regular English meaning of theory. A scientific theory has withstood enough scrutiny to be regarded as a fact. Now a hypothesis, hasn't.

I'm unable to answer the question. I believe there is at least one creator, but don't belong to any religion, nor do I see any signs that a creator wishes me to do so. Evolution has absolutely no bearing on my beliefs.

Ah ha, and thus we come to the heart of the problem. Thank you for helping me make a point.

I'm moderately religious, and I accept evolution. At least, more than the literal interpretation of the Bible's creation story.

So the thing I don't understand is if God didn't create squirrels, how did they get on islands? And why is this even relevent to anything? Continental shift isn't related to evolution at all!

Oh, wait, wrong thread.

Evolution doesn't concern my religious beliefs one way or another. I don't really consider myself devout anymore, but I have no reason to give discredit to either one based on the other. And it has been my belief for a few years now.

IMO, you can't even read through the first book of the Bible and take it literally without raising serious questions. Reading it as a basic reference to how things came to be makes sense.

Where's the "I'm right." option?

Same here, I find the literal meaning ridiculous. The Biblie is filled with stories and such, yet people find this one to be held to literal interpretation.