Has anyone in this forum changed evo/creo sides?

It's pretty rare. If you see someone switch because of an internet debate forum, it will always be from creo to evo. If you're wondering why, just stick around and compare the quality of posts between the two sides. If someone converts from evo to creo, it will be because they "got saved" through some experience having nothing to do with evolution-creation debate. Their new religious mindset can get them to ignore the evidence.I switched from creo to evo because I got slaughtered in debate on the CompuServe forums back in 1995. I convinced my wife, and then I joined a church/village/community that all lives together on one piece of land, and almost all of us have switched to the evo side.The internet is a terrific source of information. Sure, a lot of it is false, but those who are looking can almost always find both sides of an argument on the internet and decide for themselves. The anti-evolution side is slowly losing ground, according to statistics, and the reason, according only to my opinion, is the internet and the way it provides information. It's a lot harder for the creo side to...uh......um.....uh....distort (yeah, that's a good word) with the internet around.

It's kind of a bummer to have to post as a moderator, when I already really wanted to comment on the same subject as a member. Well, I'm just going to do it. While I certainly understand why you would wish this was true, I'm pretty shocked you would suggest this is true. Years of theological battles, before I ever faced an evolution-creation battle, convinced me that it's a rare Bible-believer who will change his mind on anything, no matter how directly the Bible contradicts it. Looking at the evolution-creation debate has only confirmed that opinion, not changed it.Special Creationists, from what I've seen, are the least likely people I've ever met to change their mind on anything theological, especially their beliefs on creation.By creo's, are you maybe referring to anyone who believes God created all things? In that case, you should let us know who you mean. Theistic evolutionists (for lack of a better term) are not normally referred to as creo's, though they are definitely a more open-minded brand of creationist.I only think I've put my finger on your view, which is that evolution happened, but that it was engineered all the way by God or demons. If that's who you mean by creo's, then you've really got to define that, because those with your view (assuming I even have your view right) are pretty rare (you're the only person I know of, although I am sure there are others).Anyway, having met you and gotten a small feel for you, I've been deciphering some of your other posts, and I think I at least understand why you say what you say. Here, though, I'm clueless. I can't figure out why you would suggest that "Creo's, because they respect the Bible...take from that book an epistemology that says basically that it is good to change your mind." Using your terminology, I've conducted hundreds of experiments on that hypothesis, and its plausibility, IMHO, is exactly equal with the likelihood that Santa Claus is real.Finally, the two most likely reasons I can see for more creationists switching than evolutionists are one, that the evidence is on the side of evolution, and two, that creationists are more open-minded, as you have suggested. As someone who believes in descent with modification (you did say that, right?) I can't see how you could choose the second of those reasons over the first.

Ach, du! Wenn du mit mir sprichst, kannst du mir ueber die Rechtschreibung Deutscher Woerter fragen, weil ich auch ein Bisschen Deutsch kann! Und Rechtschreibung auf Deutsch ist nicht so schwer als Rechtschreibung auf Englisch! It's Erlebnis. I'll be glad to help. I followed your statistical model. I was going to major in statistics and took a couple classes before I decided that I really didn't want to study, so I quit. I was a really lazy teenager; pitiful.Thanks.

I don't think there's an official definition. When I use theistic evolutionist, I pretty much mean everyone who believes in God and believes in evolution, no matter how unguided or guided they see evolution to be.

Hi, Stephen. I totally missed this reply. I guess we could discuss this when I see you again, but it seems like there's so much else to discuss at those times, so I'll go ahead and write this here. Writing on a message board is slower, anyway, gives me time to think. I don't really see how answered prayer has anything to do with creation at all. I believe that our God is the Creator, but it seems to me that he could answer prayer even if he wasn't the Creator. I believe, and I would guess you believe, that other spirits answer prayers beside the Creator, so answered prayers, even dramatically answered prayers, don't seem to have much to do with the subject of evolution to me. Well, in one sense I'm a creationist. I believe everything was created, and I even think I know who created it! However, I'm generally referred to as an evolutionist on this forum, because I believe evolution happened, and anti-evolutionists seem to have hijacked the term creationist for themselves. There's good, solid evidence for evolution; evidence that you believe, because you believe evolution happened, you just believe it was all artificial, not natural (I think).On the other hand, the only evidence I have for creation is the say-so of a Spirit. Mind you, I believe that Spirit, and I live my life by that Spirit, and I am in awe continually at the results. Nonetheless, I've got his say-so, nothing else, or at least that's what I think.I answered my wife with, "If he's fooling me, I'm fooled. There ain't a thing I can do about it. I'm at his mercy. If he said he created the earth, and he's lying, well, then, I'm tricked."Do you think there's other evidence? Evidence for God, or evidence for some other form of creation than evolution? I don't believe evidence for God implies in any way that evolution didn't happen just as mainstream science says it happened.Help me follow what you're thinking here.

I trust you carefully ignore all exit polls on election days, and that you ignore statistics compiled by Gallup and Barna (sort of a Christian Gallup). After all, those are based on "a few randomly collected pieces of information."When someone asks about people changing sides, others report when they see. When consistently it is seen that people change sides from creo to evo and few change from evo to creo, you can extrapolate from the gathered information. The more people that answer, the more reliable the data.I think I've seen enough to report with a very fair degree of confidence that more people switch from creo to evo than vice versa.It turns out statistics back me up. This page shows statistics for 1991 and 1997. Antievolutionists dropped from 47% to 44% during that time.I'm trying hard to find more recent polls, because I do not believe that there was a greater switch from creo to evo prior to the availability of the internet. The issue just wasn't important enough to the average person to research.As far as chiroptera's statement that people switch from creo to evo based on the evidence and from evo to creo only based on religious beliefs, that seems very, very likely to be true. Polls show that the more educated a person is, the less likely they are to reject evolution, no matter what their religious belief.I'd go hunt down the page with those statistics, but I can't right now, because I told my wife 15 minutes and I'd be ready to go .

Definite post of the month material. I really enjoyed that post.Um, and I don't believe the books of the Bible are as simple as "human-written." I think they're "God-breathed." Nonetheless, they say, "The skies declare the glory of God, and the dome of the sky declares his handiwork." Loud and clear, billions of years.However, on behalf of the literalists, what I really love about them (tongue planted firmly in cheek) is how consistent they are. It is heart-warming to see them giving away all their possessions, calling nothing their own, sharing as each person has need, having one heart and one mind so that it seems as though they are just one person, living together because of how good and pleasant it is, and encouraging one another every day, just as their book literally commands them to do.

I couldn't tell from my post or yours whether I made it clear that the only reason I mentioned my belief in "God-breathed" writings was to point out that I'm not biased against the Bible. I wasn't trying to argue a point.

I don't think this is as simple a statement as it might seem. While it is true, I suspect a pretty large portion of the population (half? purely guessing) have never even thought about this, and it's no small percentage who wouldn't even know what you mean when you suggest it unless you explained.I'm basing this purely on my experience teaching 4th and 5th grade math for a couple years and talking to parents.I guess I'm saying this, because Jazzlover said, "Explain yourself I dont get you." You didn't explain yourself, because it seems obvious to you. You just asserted it again.

Yeah, he's a creationist, and I'm a creationist, too, by his definition. That's the problem with the whole terminology. About 78% (39 out of every 49) of Americans who believe in evolution are creationists.By "creationist" most of us mean "anti-evolution-ist." Stephen is not anti-evolution. He just believes evolution is guided by supernatural beings. He agrees that there is no evidence against common ancestry.This doesn't really change your point in message 75, which I think is accurate. I just don't think that Stephen really qualifies as a person who switched from evolution to creation. He disputes natural selection, but not evolution.

I don't know. I don't think the idea that numbers are abstract can be explained in a paragraph. That explanation is not an easy one.Maybe your brief comments will be enough for Jazzlover. Why don't we wait and see?