A poll...

I

iridium

Temporal Navigator
At this time I just want to post this poll. The purpose and meaning can be explained later.

Please be honest.

<FORM METHOD=POST ACTION="http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/dopoll.php"><INPUT TYPE=HIDDEN NAME="pollname" VALUE="1151177266iridium">


Do you accept Evolution as an accurate and believable theory?
<input type="radio" name="option" value="1" />Yes.
<input type="radio" name="option" value="2" />No.
<input type="radio" name="option" value="3" />Don't know.
<input type="radio" name="option" value="4" />Don't care.
<INPUT TYPE=Submit NAME=Submit VALUE="Submit vote" class="buttons"></form>
 
Hi iridium,
At this time I just want to post this poll. The purpose and meaning can be explained later.

Please be honest.
Click to expand...
To be totally honest, I cannot select any of your choices as none of them really embrace my personal feelings on Evolution. What if we find that "the truth" turns out to be a balanced mixture of Evolution and Creationism? This is where I find my current thinking on this subject. So I can't really answer YES or NO to Evolution as it is now posed. I certainly DO care about this question, and I don't find myself in the "don't know" category either.

Such the quandary! :D
N/I RMT
 
hmmm. You both bring up creationism...and yet the poll is strictly focused on the Theory of Evolution.

RMT - if you believe that the Theory of Evolution needs more, then wouldn't that be a No? Or if you believe that something else adds to the Theory, then wouldn't it be a yes?

MildSkeptic - Exactly.

Not sure why you both brought Creationism into this...but I guess that is an answer in and of itself!
 
Hi iridium,
Not sure why you both brought Creationism into this
Click to expand...
I admit to be the one to bring Creationism into the subject. But only as the contrasting "extreme position" to a cultural enigma that has raged for a long time.

RMT - if you believe that the Theory of Evolution needs more, then wouldn't that be a No? Or if you believe that something else adds to the Theory, then wouldn't it be a yes?
Click to expand...
And what if I said "agreed" to BOTH of these? Would it then be Yes AND No? Or can it only be Yes OR No?

Let me make my quandary a bit clearer by providing discrete answers (yes, plural) to the "framing question" of your poll:

Do you accept Evolution as an accurate and believable theory?
Click to expand...

Do I think Evolution is accurate? Answer: NO
Do I think Evolution is believable? Answer: YES

Now do you guys see my quandary? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
N/I RMT
 
that was my thoughts as well rmt, i think the idea of evolution makes sense, its believable. but accurate is a rather strong word to use for something that we will never really be able to know exactly what happened.

(although i still answered yes, cus overall i would believe in evolution, over any religous theories)
 
Mankind on Earth, from his start here, was bioengineered.

This is all that is the set of Earth agreed to be engineered mammals.

Off this Earth, by others tellings, mankind has also existed, however the baselines for engineering are not known.
 
The problem area here, however are the residents of two major once continents, who may have come here, by other means.

There is also the inventories of one Atlas Rocket, a TRW grade of satellite and over one hundred men involved in a project, that allowed certain conscripts to come to Earth.

So one, in the true deductive sence of the word, either tilt towards creationism, or true evolution.

Ray and I are fighting, as he does not realize his house.

The second problem is, that we are in an around the corner timeline.

Specifically stated, as by the Torah, that the dates of 27 May 2006, a large felon, would hit the south Atlantic.

This leads one to ask the question, with all the crap that would have hit that other timeline, what is going to happen now?
 
To refine the problem with this poll a little further:

THE "theory" of evolution almost always was in terms of millions if not billions of years. However, within the last few years, science has had to back down from its definition because of one simple example that threw the whole theory in disarray and that was the discovery that a simple little bird in the Galapagos Islands ADAPTED to local conditions within the space of one year as opposed to thousands or more years. The lowly finch grew long beaks in response to El Nino that changed the local flora to such a degree that the short beaks they were known for would have allowed them to starve to death because they could not reach the food that was deep in the new flowers that grew because of excessive rainfall. It amazed everyone that evolution could take such a short period of time to adapt the birds. The set-in-stone beliefs changed--literally overnight.

By the same token, a recent genome scientist came to the conclusion that only a "designer" could have created such a complex system that he unraveled by purely scientific means. This has been the case with many famous scientists down through the years--not the least being Isaac Newton, Einstein, etc. The theory of evolution is exactly that--a theory. The theory of creationism is also just that--a theory. It takes faith to believe in either. I could show you quote after quote of modern day scientists that will say basically the same thing--as proficient as they are in figuring things out and providing mathematical formulae to prove it, in the final analysis they simply cannot make things "fly". They cannot "create" the systems they speak of. Even Stephen Hawkings said that with all that he knows about how the universe works, he cannot figure out "why".

This is why several of us here have endeavored to "cross the line" into metaphysics. We know that there is a certain amount of bias towards "creationism", but bias has always been part and parcel of scientific inquiry. As was so aptly stated by someone recently, the truth is always rejected out of hand at first, then attacked, and finally accepted as though it was the only truth. (I'm paraphrasing). All we ever ask is to have an open mind.
 
Whoa...this poll has really gotten skewed results since I last looked at the results!

This is why several of us here have endeavored to "cross the line" into metaphysics. We know that there is a certain amount of bias towards "creationism", but bias has always been part and parcel of scientific inquiry.
Click to expand...
Right on, Zerub! And I must say I REALLY get annoyed whenever I see the "extreme Creationists" OR the "extreme Evolutionists" get on their soap box and start preaching the "evils" of the opposite view/belief. It goes right back to something you have been saying (and I agreeing with) for a long time: We are living in the Time where extremism (of EITHER variety) is on its way out.

Furthermore, people always tend to immediately associate Creationism with a "religious" viewpoint, when it need not have that judgement pinned on it. You do NOT necessarily have to believe in a God to consider if "all this" could be the result of someone's (or something's) INTENTION! It is the people who are so vehement (for whatever reason) in wishing to DENY that there is a God who immediately associate Creationism with religion. There is another view and I have just pointed at it...

In other threads we have explored (and I believe shown to a reasonable degree) that it is a human being's INTENTION that leads to that human embarking on actions which lead to some creation. And in this we also discussed that consciousness, being a PROCESS rather than a THING, is non-physical (aphysical). So if we understand that ANY type of creation that we elicit comes from this aphysical thing called our INTENTION, why isn't it possible to consider what INTENTION may have lead to the overall Creation of our universe without having to immediately pin someone's idea of God on it?

Look, I believe in God, and one reason I do is because I have a bit of an understanding that God is not a THING, but a PROCESS... and a process is aphysical. This is also made quite clear by the "I AM" quote that OvrLrdLegion is discussing in another thread. We, as physical beings, always want to "fill in the blank" after the "I AM" with some sort of noun. But what if there is no blank?!? What if this statement is complete all by itself? And if it is complete all by itself, it seems to me that whoever was stating "I AM" was really stating a scientific fact relating to creation. If we really have to "fill in the blank" it would seem to be the only appropriate way to do it would be "I AM a PROCESS , not a person, place, or thing."

So Creationism need not be about anyone's idea about what God is. But rather it can be discussed as a process that flows from INTENTION. We do not HAVE to describe what sort of "physical" being that INTENTION flowed from... because there may not be one that we understand. Yet we CAN discuss the PROCESS of Creation as it flows from INTENTION, and perhaps come to understand a little bit more about how the aphysical aspects of our universe impact the physical... and in doing so perhaps come to a greater understanding of our consciousness as a process, and how it "fits in" in this universe.

N/I RMT
 
Rainman,

You're correct about the skew in the results.

Poll questions are an art and science. Just how the poll questions are posed can make a huge difference in the results - especially if the question is compound as this poll question is. "Is it believable" and "is it accurate" should be parsed into two questions.

I agree with you - though I voted "yes". I believe that the theory of evolution is basically correct and believable. But, like any scientific theory, it is an approximation based on whatever (incomplete) evidence is available. Thus it offers the ability to make predictions but it isn't entirely accurate.

At some level it involves quantum physics. That level absolutely allows for Creationism because of the Uncertanty Principle. We might know the general mind of God but we really can't know precisely what went on "behind the scenes" to make it happen. The best that we can say is that God created a universe that is basically logical on the macroscopic level - it follows certain knowable rules. But in the final analysis, at the most microscopic level, there appears to be no possible way to predict exact outcomes for events. Black Holes Have No Hair and God Has His (Her) Secrets. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Back
Top