…and this is a 
This is a somewhat unconventional poll — the site lets you vote on issues, and they've set up one as creation vs. evolution. Vote for one or the other!
Creationism
The religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity.Evolution
A changes in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. First published by a scientist Charles Darwin.
This poll has been up since March, and it tracks votes with a chart — maybe we can put a big downward glitch in the line.
Comments
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 4, 2009 10:16 AM
OT FYI: RIP Grasshopper.
Posted by: Lorkas | June 4, 2009 10:19 AM
My hobby: going to poll sites in an early stage of pharyngulation and refreshing to watch the vote numbers climb.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 4, 2009 10:22 AM
Good to see that you can "vote repeatedly". And that, "Repeated voting, significantly determines the weight of your voice for your favorite." Well, I suppose, at least this is somewhat upfront about the fact that this isn't so much a poll as a shouting contest...
Posted by: Zeno | June 4, 2009 10:25 AM
It's a little weird that the language of the poll refers to "a deity" in describing creationism but then illustrates it very specifically with a conventional depiction of Jesus (festooned with fish and crosses). I guess it's a specially Christian creationism that the poll wants to contrast with evolution.
Posted by: Michelle | June 4, 2009 10:26 AM
Aside from the fact that they permit repeat voting, the other thing I find darkly amusing is the little note that appears when you hold your mouse cursor over each voting button.
When you hold it over the Creationism button, it says, "my VOTE for Creationism."
When you hold it over the Evolution button, it says, "my VOTE against Creationism," not FOR evolution.
Fascinating.
Posted by: Porky Pine | June 4, 2009 10:29 AM
Site must be getting hammered. Having a hard time connecting.
Posted by: Lilith | June 4, 2009 10:33 AM
I voted - slowest website to load I've seen in ages.
Rev. BigDumbChimp @ #1
Damn. Insert tasteless Kill Bill joke here.
Posted by: daveau
|
June 4, 2009 10:33 AM
And once again, as written, the 2 options are not mutually exclusive, especially as Evolution does not deal with the creation of the universe.
Rev- Don't forget Koko.
Posted by: June | June 4, 2009 10:36 AM
A classic problem for "Christian Creationists" is, of course, that an all-knowing God would have known that humanity would fail and would require a rescue mission from Jesus. This gets even weirder if you are told to believe Jesus was present at the creation. So much for "intelligent" design.
Posted by: AndyD | June 4, 2009 10:37 AM
Well, I just refreshed again and there's your downward spike!!!
Increased by more than 100 votes in less than 5 minutes.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 4, 2009 10:41 AM
RIP Koko Taylor
And the news about Grasshopper's death is fairly disturbing.
sorry. thread jack.
I tried voting for Evolution but it would only let me vote against Creationism.
Posted by: Nick | June 4, 2009 10:46 AM
404 Error! That was one helluva downward spike! And quick.
Posted by: ~ | June 4, 2009 10:58 AM
Currently, there are 666 votes for Evolution. Just sayin'.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 4, 2009 11:15 AM
Looks like they already ran out of capacity.
Or should we squawk that we were ExpelledTM?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Lynna | June 4, 2009 11:20 AM
Re Koko Taylor: She pitched the best Wang Dang Doodle. For fans of pitching a Wang Dang Doodle, see also Angela Strehli's version, from the album Soul Shake. Strehli and band could save Texas they're that good.
Re voting "Against Creationism" -- their server apparently can't handle the traffic, but I tried.
Posted by: AndyD | June 4, 2009 11:24 AM
You just have to keep refreshing until it plays the game.
Given the issues with scienceblogs comment feature in the last few weeks, I don't think we should say too much about other sites' technical difficulties.
Anyway, currently 1236 votes (98.2%) against Creationism - and climbing. In fact, the downward spike has been so abrupt you may need to look under your desk to see the end point.
Posted by: littlejohn | June 4, 2009 11:24 AM
It's hard to log onto and won't record my vote. Someone's stomping on this thing hard. The downward line looks like a recent chart of GM stock. I didn't realize Jesus created the world. Whoever is votebotting this thing is very close to killing it already. As a loyal Pharyngulite, I'll keep trying.
Posted by: mijnheer | June 4, 2009 11:33 AM
"To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."
-- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Obviously, for Darwin it wasn't either/or.
Posted by: scanner | June 4, 2009 11:34 AM
Why is it always the Judeo-Christian creation myth (the "vote" panel for Creationism has Jesus on it) Frankly the Miwok creation myth makes much more sense that that dumb "genesis" story. I like the idea of a duck and a coyote creating the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miwok_mythology
And it gets away from the evil concept that all the animals were made for humankind to abuse.
Posted by: Christopher | June 4, 2009 11:39 AM
PZ,
Did you ever see this shirt?
http://www.threadless.com/submission/45841/Loch_Ness_Imposter
Posted by: scanner | June 4, 2009 11:40 AM
Why is it always the Judeo-Christian creation myth (the "vote" panel for Creationism has Jesus on it) Frankley the Miwok creation myth makes much more sense that that dumb "genesis" story. I like the idea of a duck and a coyote creating the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miwok_mythology
And it gets away from that evil concept that all the animals were made for humankind to abuse.
Posted by: littlejohn | June 4, 2009 11:40 AM
I'm calling this one dead. Time: 11:39 a.m. EST.
PZ, the blood is on your hands. You will spend eternity in the hell of the stale beer volcano and hookers with STD's.
Posted by: Chris Davis
|
June 4, 2009 11:42 AM
Wow!
As in 'the patient's heartbeat underwent a big downward glitch when he died'.
Posted by: NixNoctua
|
June 4, 2009 11:51 AM
Well, this definitely isn't a scientific poll. The images themselves would bias the voter.
Posted by: Lorkas | June 4, 2009 11:52 AM
"As in 'the patient's heartbeat underwent a big downward glitch when he died'."
More like 'the patient's cancer cell count underwent a big downward glitch when he had the tumor removed'.
Posted by: nate | June 4, 2009 12:05 PM
Completely off-topic, but that strange biology professor iPod murder fantasy vid that got pulled when PZ linked to it is back online again:
http://vimeo.com/4987140
Seems the author was concerned about being sued by apple for use of the iPod than the bloody splattering of an educator.
Posted by: Alex Leibowitz | June 4, 2009 12:12 PM
*As stated* I'm not sure I see the contradiction. If they want the two to be mutually exclusive they ought to add something like, "Life evolved from non-life."
Posted by: Waldheri | June 4, 2009 12:20 PM
Hahaha, I can already hear my chemistry professor protest that "SCIENCE IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST!"
Posted by: broxster | June 4, 2009 12:21 PM
pz's killed the site!
Posted by: Donavon Cawley | June 4, 2009 12:24 PM
Here's the link to vote "against creationism."
http://tinyurl.com/ookm4e
Make sure evolution wins! Because whoever wins this poll wins forever.
Posted by: MattB | June 4, 2009 12:27 PM
I'm so sick of the polls on here.
The thrill is long gone.
Posted by: Arnold T Pants | June 4, 2009 12:28 PM
I'm having a hard time (no surprise) viewing their description of creationism, but their description of evolution seems to be pretty straight- no "lightning striking a mud puddle" or "ape giving birth to a human" canards.
Posted by: Beige | June 4, 2009 12:36 PM
"The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later."
:( aww, that's not fair.
Posted by: Chris Davis
|
June 4, 2009 12:47 PM
@25
It's always 'the glass is half-full' with you lot, isn't it. Tchoh!
Posted by: daveau
|
June 4, 2009 12:48 PM
Happens all the time.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 4, 2009 12:49 PM
I have to say that I hate that expression: it is either false or tautological depending on one's definition of life. If you define life simply as self-replication, then the first molecule that produced a copy of itself was “alive”, all the (non-self-replicating) molecules that contributed to its chemical assembly were dead, so life didn't evolve from non-life, it simply came to be, which is not evolution. In any other definition of “life”, the dividing line between “life” and “non-life” becomes completely arbitrary, evolution occurs on both sides of it, and “life evolved from non-life” becomes a vacuous tautology.
Posted by: Mostly Anonymous | June 4, 2009 12:55 PM
I voted for creationism out of spite. GOOD LUCK MAKING UP THAT ONE VOTE! HAHAHA!
Posted by: Helioprogenus | June 4, 2009 12:57 PM
Did anyone hear Obama's speach?
Sorry for the tangent, but it was terribly self-serving of religion. There was no mention of people who choose to shirk faith, and nothing as far as freedom to practice life through empirical reasoning, as opposed to taking guidance from a mythological tome that's been passed down, altered, through generations.
The intent was alright, I suppose to pacify Muslims and try to have a dialogue, but it would have been better to indicate the Egyptians who don't see faith as a way of life, and instead, accept the universe on solid empirical grounds.
Here's a link..if you can stomach all the religious overtones http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090604/ap_on_re_us/obama_text
Posted by: Arnold T Pants | June 4, 2009 1:06 PM
@35:
Fair enough. It would have been better if I had said "chimp."
Posted by: daveau
|
June 4, 2009 1:12 PM
Arnold- No disrespect for your overall point intended.
Posted by: Walter Silveira | June 4, 2009 1:20 PM
that graph is hilarious. I've seen slides less steep.
anyone else feel like posting an argument for creationism that just reads "I BLINDLY FOLLOW RELIGIOUS DOGMA. OBEY OR BE DESTROYED"?
Posted by: Cypress Green | June 4, 2009 1:56 PM
I'm kinda new around here. I just voted and kept "refreshing" just to watch the numbers bounce up every two seconds! Is it true you pharyngulites messed with published idiot Roy Comfort's latest book review on Amazon? That's what I heard, so I went there, laughed at the first few pages of his book, and also gave him one star.
How about that great review on the bible? Loved that one, too. I recently reviewed The Little Boys' Bible Storybook for Fathers and Sons (and Mothers and Sons. One of my ex's sisters gave a copy to my 8yr old. GOD (!) is it crappy. Not only do I hate the bible, the kids' book is not even accurate! I actually dragged out a real bible (no atheist I know is w/o one! LOL) and compared a couple of stories for him. Pure garbage.
Posted by: Felix | June 4, 2009 2:18 PM
#42 Cypress Green,
I remember seeing calls for reviewing Expelled!, but I think the many RC reviews came from all over the place (rdnet, Atheist Central). Ray is giving away some of his books for free (sorry you missed it) and some libraries have them, so they really can't blame people. One person admitted to giving it 1 star without reading it, since he wagered it would be exactly the same content Ray puts on his blog. Now that more people have read it, they have confirmed that this is indeed the fact. I've also seen calls by Christians to uprate it without reading it, so it's not like they're the honest side in this.
Personally, I always Pharyngulate one vote only, and never on media I haven't seen. Yeah, I'm just an honest asshole like that. ;)
Posted by: Cypress Green | June 4, 2009 2:25 PM
I'm kinda new around here. I just voted and kept "refresh" just to watch the numbers bounce up every two seconds! Is it true you pharyngulites messed with published idiot Roy Comfort's latest book review on Amazon? That's what I heard, so I went there, laughed at the first few pages of his book, and also gave him one star.
How about that great review on the bible? Loved that one, too. I recently reviewed The Little Boys' Bible Storybook for Fathers and Sons (and Mothers and Sons. One of my ex's sisters gave a copy to my 8yr old. GOD (!) is it crappy. Not only do I hate the bible, the kids' book is not even accurate! I actually dragged out a real bible (no atheist I know is w/o one! LOL) and compared a couple of stories for him. Pure garbage.
Posted by: Callif | June 4, 2009 2:43 PM
A crushing victory for the proponents of "Against Creationism."
Posted by: Callif | June 4, 2009 2:46 PM
@36
I find that people who claim such things can hardly ever define "life"
Posted by: Callif | June 4, 2009 2:49 PM
@36
I find that people who claim such things can hardly ever define "life"
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | June 4, 2009 3:04 PM
The graph kind of reminds me of my 401k.
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 4, 2009 3:05 PM
Not to be a grammar nazi (oh, alright, yes, to be a grammar nazi), isn't everything created in its original form, by definition? Maybe they mean "... in its present form..."
Posted by: a different phil | June 4, 2009 3:19 PM
It looks like the site uses your IP address to decide if you've already voted or not. I voted, then checked from a different machine behind the same firewall (thus it appears to the Internet as the same IP address) and the site said I had already voted.
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 4, 2009 3:22 PM
What frustrates me is the creationist thinking they have an argument against evolution with this "micro" vs "macro" evolution crap. The thing is they are correct, there is no such thing as "macro" evolution, only "micro" evolution. Every generation is just a very small difference from the previous. Why they think that invalidates evolution is incomprehensible to me. It's like saying that A man cannot walk across the country because he can only move 1 step at a time. "Macro" evolution is an illusion resulting from infrequent sampling of a long series of "micro" evolutionary steps.
[woohoo, looks like anonymous posting has been turned off]
Posted by: Pieter B | June 4, 2009 4:40 PM
Thanks, SteveM, that's as concise an expression of the concept as I've ever seen. Most pithily put; I am so stealing that.Posted by: Emmet, OM | June 4, 2009 4:47 PM
See this comment.
Posted by: Michael J | June 4, 2009 5:25 PM
The poll seems to give mixed messages. It is supposed to be about creationism v evolution but the picture and the arguments seem to be around theism v atheism. I don't know if theists who know that evolution is a fact would have difficulty voting
Posted by: IST | June 4, 2009 6:54 PM
Steve M> not a fan of grammarians, because they catch all of my damn mistakes... That, however, is a necessary correction for clarity. Your naziism is excused...
Posted by: Endangered Species | June 4, 2009 8:05 PM
Here is an interesting site for all to behold. Hope you enjoy the truth in it. It's my favorite site!
https://jarabina.com/
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 4, 2009 8:23 PM
Hope you enjoy the truth in it. It's my favorite site!
your favorite site, one filled with "truth", is a commercial site selling jingoistic slogans for bumper stickers?
sadly, I'm sure you have a large number of americans who would agree with you on it being a "great site of truth!"
Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 4, 2009 8:40 PM
Hey everybody, we're PZ Myers' slaves! Hehehehehehe. Also, from a lot of the above comments, it sounds like there's a line graph? Where?Posted by: uriel1972 | June 4, 2009 9:31 PM
'Fartgorilla' hmmmm If I cared one whit about their opinion I would be offended, but I don't so I'm not.
Posted by: uriel1972 | June 4, 2009 9:48 PM
just visited conservapedia to check out what they had to say about our overlord. I didn't get that far. Ugh I feel physically ill now.
Posted by: Anti-fudgepacker | June 4, 2009 10:33 PM
I know what you mean. I was physically ill for a month after I mistakingly visited Media Matters. The worst leftists terrorist site I know of.
Posted by: William | June 4, 2009 11:21 PM
I find it hilarious how the mouth-breathers are having a fit in the quick opinion section.
Posted by: EFG9001 | June 4, 2009 11:21 PM
We need to do more than vote. There are some pretty ignorant people in the comments section (at the time of this posting, Robufo2000 is the worst offender.) Maybe this is a chance to educate them?
Posted by: eddie | June 4, 2009 11:39 PM
Thanks for the tip, anti-american douche.
http://www.mediamatters.org was new to me. Looks like they're doing a great job defending freedom from homophobic arseholes.
Posted by: ATFP | June 4, 2009 11:44 PM
media matters is a George Soros funded anti-American leftist hate site. nothing less.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 4, 2009 11:47 PM
Wow. That totally convinces me.
Posted by: uriel1972 | June 5, 2009 1:50 AM
hmmmm a troll how delightful. Tell me atfp what do you hope to achieve on a site owned by a confessed 'godless liberal' and his slavering, mindless slaves.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 5, 2009 2:24 AM
See this comment.
Alan actually confused the issue a bit (he does that a lot, btw).
He should have clearly specified that is the paleontologists who find a credible use for the distinction between macroevolutionary (not macroevolution) and microevolutionary processes. For example, Gould/Edlridge Punc Eq is a macroevolutionary concept, since it is talking about long term patterns in entire lineages, while a founder effect would be a microevolutionary concept, as it applies to specific sets of populations at a specific time.
It has never been the case that biologists, or paleontologists, have used the terms macroevolution or microevoltuion in the sense that creationists have defined the terms (which essentially amounts to a kind of baraminology).
We've had this discussion before, I think, but just to throw my own opinion out there again, I agree that the paleos have made it a useful distinction for themselves. Past that, anyone who studies actual evolution within populations (any biologist) probably would not find the distinctions terribly useful.
...and this is all likely terribly OT for this particular thread.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 5, 2009 2:57 AM
or Allen, even.
gees.
Posted by: Levi in NY | June 5, 2009 2:57 AM
ROFL! I think PZ may be indirectly responsible for this spike as well:
http://electionsmeter.com/polls/barack-obama&user=2
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 5, 2009 3:10 AM
I dunno, I understood from Allen MacNeill's #117 that he wanted to put one set of genetic changes in one box, and call those "microevolutionary", and put another set of genetic changes in another box and call those "macroevolutionary". I'm not sure where epigenetic factors fit in.
Anyway, it looks like he's specifically emphasizing genomics for his arguments rather than palaeontology.
Am I wrong? Is he wrong?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 5, 2009 3:24 AM
Am I wrong? Is he wrong?
Both Allen AND I could be wrong about it at this point, the philosophers of science tend to reinvent terminology periodically, but unless there has been a recent change I'm completely unaware of, I have to think Allen is using some definitions that the vast majority of evolutionary biologists don't. Probably comes from the evo psych guys reinventing terminology, yet again.
I've had arguments with him before, where he confuses concepts that arose in standard ethology, and then sociobiology, with the stuff coming out of the evo psych camps these days.
If u like, I could probably dig up some of those old threads on Pandas Thumb, but they were actually a bit of a different debate topic than the macro/micro stuff. I just really disagree with a lot of how many of the new evo psych practitioners have tried to redefine the field of evolutionary biology.
As both an undergrad and a grad, I was lucky enough to study under several prominent evolutionary biologists, and not a single one of them ever made the macro/micro distinction. It was always the paleos that made the distinction, and it took them about 20 years to finally convince me it had some actual merit (that was my problem, not theirs, btw).
If you're looking for a comparison, I'd say my views of the macro/micro thing are probably closest to Larry Moran's at this point; though IIRC even he tends to think it has broader application than I do.
Posted by: ZK
|
June 5, 2009 5:56 AM
Shouldn't that be:
Creationism vs Big Bang Theory
Or
Noah's Ark vs Evolution
?
ZK
Posted by: JohnE | June 5, 2009 7:15 AM
PZ, thank you for posting of the voting poll. The link has caused sudden and tremendous traffic to the site. ElectionsMeter (the polls site) is still in development, yet not discovered by people; therefore I beg your and your readers pardon for temporary slow site response. We are working now on to sustain the heavy traffic. FYI the site is part of non-governmental and non-commercial project aiming to independently track global public opinion, mostly in politic topics.
The particular poll you posted has reached 10000 individual IPs accesses and 9000 votes within less then 24 hours. Amazing result. More then 99% voters were clearly against creationism. Due to rationality of the result it would be perfect to invite also the other party. Please consider the site itself just provides the voting tool not opinions, votes or any other content.
Would you be interested to have poll results on your site online, feel free to grab following HTML widget. This one http://tinyurl.com/q74agt or http://tinyurl.com/o5ecy4 or any other.
Posted by: John Morales | June 5, 2009 9:02 AM
JohnE, ack!
Not interested. Such crud is one reason why pages load slowly and use excessive resources.I know where the poll is, thanks, and I can click on the link anytime I actually want it.
Unnecessary and annoying, in other words.
Posted by: Lord Zero | June 5, 2009 9:34 AM
Fun being part of the anti-capitalist bigoted hate
site Pharyngula.
And watch out for trusty conservapedia. They could
demonize even more PZ.
Yeah, like we care about any of that...
Still PZ is anticapitalist just because in general terms
we support "socialist" Obama ? or just because PZ is
not the CEO of a international trade company ?
Well, still fun to crash a pointeless poll.
Cheers.
Posted by: Just me | June 5, 2009 9:48 AM
Skewing the results of a poll.... it doesn't take much to humor an atheist!! LOL!!!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 5, 2009 9:55 AM
astoundingly brilliant observation
Posted by: JarrodB | June 5, 2009 10:06 AM
There are so many comments on the creationist site stating that "the hateful anti-christian site pharyngula has crashed the poll." I wonder why they get so angry? Are we not allowed to participate and enter our opinions in the internet poll? Why do they have an option for us then?
I guess they just can't handle the fact that not everybody thinks god came along and I-Dream-Of-Jeannie'd up the earth.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 5, 2009 10:12 AM
I'm only interested in real polls, i.e. ones that confirm my own prejudice.
Posted by: BK | June 5, 2009 1:25 PM
I was just thinking the same thing. Even when I was a theist, I never equated the story in genesis with the exact beginning of the earth and evolution and I would have voted for evolution. I have many other friends who believe in God who would vote for evolution. Does that mean their opinions wouldn't count either?Posted by: RG | June 5, 2009 3:39 PM
Can anyone explain this comment to me, from that site:
"It is quite clear that humans were created. This is obvious for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Moon is a mathematical message, built by our creaters for humanity to decipher, when it reached the required level of spiritual and physical evolution. To understand this message though, you need to use base ten mathematics. This explains why the God race gave us ten fingers."
Posted by: John Morales | June 5, 2009 7:10 PM
RG, I think it's subversive parody. cf. Poe's law.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 5, 2009 7:22 PM
Skewing the results of a poll.... it doesn't take much to humor an atheist!! LOL!!!
project much?
Posted by: Nomad | June 6, 2009 1:52 AM
What kind of messed up site is this? It openly acknowledges that you can vote more than once, but you have to register to do so, unregistered people only get one vote per 24 hours.
Actually in a way I think it's a clever idea. The site owner makes a place where people can make polls and then direct their side to it, to try to get their preferred answer picked, thinking that that means something. You get a storm of true believers (in the cause, I'm not referring specifically to religion here) or non believers trying to counter it.. and the ads get massive views by people frantically clicking again and again. The site owner doesn't have to provide any actual content, it just runs itself.
It's also a rather cynical ploy, and now I feel dirty for having taken part in it. And I'm downright insulted that the page declares that it allows us to "actively participate in democracy". I do recognize the difference from an Internet shouting contest, measuring who's willing to click the button the most times or build an exploit to do it for them, and the democratic process. Still, I get a chuckle that creationism got a whole 58 votes and the theists are foaming at the mouth about the 10,000+ votes for evolution.
And speaking of votes being cast multiple times.. time to go click that Son of Hovind link...
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 6, 2009 6:08 AM
The thing is they are correct, there is no such thing as "macro" evolution, only "micro" evolution. Every generation is just a very small difference from the previous. - SteveM
How about (in ascending order of apparent macro-ness):
* Gene duplication
* Chromosomal rearrangements
* Plant speciation by allo/autopolyploidy
* Endosymbiosis
Posted by: JohnE | June 6, 2009 4:29 PM
To Nomad, please have my personal assurance (from the voting site moderator) that the result of the poll was not adjusted in any way but reflects will of voters. Result of the poll can be documented by log of accesses and it is very likely that the poll was not exploited by any bot. In case of any such accident we have got a tool to identify suspicious poll activity (poll abuse) and to eventually eliminate artificial votes from results. In this case no accident happened.
On the other side we have to admit that result of this particular poll does not reflect real public opinion. Sudden attack of thousands users from Pharyngula simply overstated current result. We can do nothing about it except of just to claim that some 12 thousand people support Evolution against Creationism but at the same time we have to attach that we have no idea how the other billions of people would decide in this question. So wait for them to come to vote.
Idea of multiple voting does not have to be ridiculous. It keeps voters active, keeps voters engaged, keeps them be informed, allows voters to weight opinion, to show anger, to show power of support and it makes voters to not underestimate poll but to provide reliable content rather then just simple click. Moreover, users can come anytime, change later their opinion, can react on poll development etc. All votes get finally registered and are processed upon clear rules. Cheating is not allowed. It is probably different approach from many other sites but I hope there are advantages .. {it is part of Evolution}
Democracy? Yes, the site gives voters much more rights then standard voting ballot. Paper ballot voting system is the old system. I trust more in future, in advanced technology, internet is the place for extension of human democratic rights.
I am sorry for ads, it is just to balance site overhead cost, I do it for free.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 6, 2009 8:27 PM
We can do nothing about it except of just to claim that some 12 thousand people support Evolution against Creationism but at the same time we have to attach that we have no idea how the other billions of people would decide in this question. So wait for them to come to vote.
actually, there IS something you can do about it.
either:
-NEVER ever claim an internet poll has any real significance whatsoever wrt to the topic being polled.
or
-Make all your polls private until your data is collected, and YOU have to select a random sample of a given population to poll on.
IOW, don't fucking even try to pretend that a public internet poll in any way represents any kind of actual data to form any kind of conclusion with.
Democracy?
I rather think we JUST demonstrated it's not.
you might want to read John Stuart Mill sometime.
Posted by: halucigenia | June 20, 2009 5:00 AM
Voting robot check alert
Check your macros if you still have them running.
I managed 1380 votes :) in the past 2 weeks but noticed an error this morning and found that I had to do the "type the word shown in the image" thing to vote this morning :(
Anyone know a way around this?