Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
New definition, old question: why aren't they represented in the polls? Because people have trouble understanding their own societies beyond simple stereotypes.
You have it back to front. That abiogenesis requires an initial 'evolution' of it's own is now widely acknowledged by scientists. The atoms do not make a distinction between their pre and post abiogenesis states, why should we? Or are you going to tell me that you have a definition of life? [caution: if you use the standard biological definition then you are agreeing that abiogenesis was an evolutionary event].
Agreed. But you know, that statement covers almost everyone out there, which is the problem. Even flat-earthers believe that they have their mother's eyes, or that all dogs come from the wolf.
You clearly don't appear to be able to fathom that there are plenty of people out there who don't accept the whole theory on scientific grounds, that is, regardless of their motivation [their opinion - I already told you I'm not arguing if they are right or wrong]. You seem to say that the creationists see a 'conspiracy' [not that you showed me where that word or similar is in their texts..] yet you yourself seem to automatically assume that the motivations behind these tough questions, especially the older evolutionary stuff, must be seen solely as a 'deeply held conviction'. You appear to insist that the theory cannot be broken at any point in the past, yet you offer no evidence. If it is merely the most probable view, [and we all know that elements of it are assumed to be true], then naturally there will be people with skeptical outlooks, even without religion, because assumptions and probabilities can be rationally questioned, no matter how good their basis. And tough questioning does not require evidence of it's own, because testing is scientific too, and if the most probable idea still remains, that does not mean that all the questions have been answered. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you also seem to say that there is no real observational inequality between that which has been observed and that which has been infered. Therefore, given that you mirror the polls black and white stereotyping, despite people posting to the contrary, I don't see that you are in a position to make declarations about what the larger question is for people who are unable to answer the poll in an accurate way. [no offence]
Agreed.
Yes. Why do you ask?
Meaning that 70% believe that the universe was created in six days?? bleh... :bonk: How many Republicans are there?
I agree with rocketman and CX. In having taken polls and being confronted with choices, none of which state exactly what I believe or feel and more than one of which state some part of it, sometimes I choose the one that best fits. Sometimes I choose both. Sometimes I choose neither. Either "both" or "neither" could lead to weird poll results.
But I think that most people understand that evolutionary theory says that all species evolved over a long period of time through changes in pre-existing species, rather than being created de novo. 
Intelligent Design, or YEC?
I think young earth is a subset of ID. All YEC believe that there is an intelligent designer, but not all who believe that there is an intelligent designer believe that the earth was created in six days a few thousand years ago.
