Poll: Most Republicans Reject Evolution

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
70,274
50,122
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#61
"only God could create a human eye"
Please stop reading things into my posts that aren't there. What I said was that the odds for something as complex as the eye (I didn't say human) coming about by spontaneous mutation are astronomical. They are. This is undeniable.

Some people do win the lottery despite astronomical odds against their winning it. Lightning does strike twice.

One day in the clinic we were testing a couple of different machines to test the INR, a lab test we use to tell how thin a patient's blood is when they are on blood thinners. On three different, consecutive patients on three different machines I got identical results. That's a total of 9 tests. I don't even know how to figure the odds against that happening because the variables are too many to count. Yet, there it was, 3 different, consecutive patients, 3 different machines, identical results. If it had been one machine giving me identical results on 3 patient I might have wondered if the machine had been broken, or if I had done something wrong. But it was on 3 different machines. The odds are astronomically against that happening. But it happened.

Saying that the odds are astronomically against the eye developing through spontaneous mutation doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened that way. It only means it is unlikely. The eye is a weakness in macro-evolutionary theory.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
22,930
21,669
1,743
#62
research that and it will tell you the age of the universe
(The current scientific consensus holds this to be about 13.7 billion years)

there is so much evidence supporting evolution, and not just of this world, but of the universe too. people who disagree either aren't the ones researching it, or are hard-core, religious fundamentalists


So you are saying that anyone that believes the opening line of the bible is a "hardcore, religious fundamentalists"?

Is that a little harsh.......maybe even close minded.....or unintelligent?

What about differing opinions among the scientific community, are all those who disagree "hardcore, religious fundamentalists"?

These are the statements that should be avoided on both sides.
 
Jul 21, 2006
1,400
0
666
Tyler, TX
#65
i'm saying we can't know FOR SURE about anything that can't be documented, thats pretty basic. and no we cant "know" that there is a God because he revealed himself through creation, we can only as humans believe this to be true. we aren't capable of knowing. you must have missed where i said i use the same arguement, but i cannot use that as a fact bc it is impossible for a human to know.
what would it take for me to be 100% sure that God exist? simple, God reveals himself to us in a physical form. i don't know why he won't do this, it would solve a lot of problems.(don't answer why he won't please, i know...) I'll believe in Santa Clause too if he shows up in person but until i see it i can't be sure(not trying to be offensive, just making an example).
I was referring to Him revealing Himself moreso through special revelation, i.e. the Bible. This is how we can know Him without being able to do it on our own, and why it is not impossible.
Fortunately for you, God has revealed Himself in physical form; however, even then He was rejected, even by the people who should have recognized Him most. There were a few accounts written down about His time on earth, maybe you've heard of them: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. If you haven't read them, I highly recommend them.
Apollo, The fossils I am referring to are admitted fakes. I amnot sure about the Glen rose ones? ARe they the same ones I am talking about? I do know I read an article showing where some supposed footprints were in actuality weathered prints from Dinosaurs. Pretty much conclusively showed they were not human footprints.
I think the Glen Rose fossils are the ones in the article you read. I haven't looked into it enough to know for sure.
Evolutionists will tell you all life started as single cell life forms. So you can't start with an eye. Now its possible the genetic code for an eye was in their DNA, but how did it get there? Once again, I do not know any answers, but I like asking questions?
The point about the eye is it doesn't evovle from a finger, a liver, or a brain. It would have been a strange mutation for something to suddenly have a ability to recieve information from their environment. Did it evolve somehow from another sensory organ? What sort of mechanism would cause it to spontaneously appear?
 
Sep 19, 2005
119
9
1,568
#66
Okay, here are my two cents:

The theory of evolution, in its purest form and as believed by mainstream scientists without much controversy, is a history of life. Basically, how did we get from the fossil record to our current day. Its starting point is life, whether it is a single-cell organism or a more complex one.

It does not deal directly with the origin of life simply because it can't. And i don't believe the origin of life is one that science can solve, but only offer ideas. If some choose to call that a theory as well then so be it, but I don't believe that any origin of life statement can be supported by enough physical, observable evidence, as required by science, to hold that title.

Evolution is actually a very broad theory with many specialized branches that attempt to explain the mechanisms at work. Darwin's theory is a good example of one of these specialized branches. But many are realizing that Darwin's theory of slow, gradual and unguided mutations does not hold for all geological era and changes shown in the data where rapid changes are seen worldwide. So even though Darwin's theory may be in doubt or up for debate, the overall theory of evolution is still the prevailing thought in science.

That is not to say that it does not have holes in it. It does (hybrid sterilization I believe is a big one), but currently it is the best fit to the evidence since science, by its very nature can't say, "Well that just how God did it."

Just for full disclosure, I count myself in the Fundamental Christian camp as I tend to believe the Bible literally more so than most, but not as literal as some.

I said it was my two cent, so if you feel any change is required, pick it up at the door. :D
 
Aug 7, 2006
1,326
2
668
#67
Why must people believe that God somehow works OUTSIDE of the natural world, when they must believe that God created nature (which in itself is incredibly miraculous, without magic wands and presto-change-o parlor tricks.)

I believe in evolution. I believe that evolution is an amazing part of the amazing universe that God called into being.
I love how people argued this for 5 pages without addressing the only relevant question on the subject.

Nicely put Verb.

I know ZERO people who are strict biblical literalists. If you are, please speak up.

I always wonder why creationists choose this part of the bible to be literal about?

Why not flip a few books till you get to the parts about how many goats to kill and when to eat fish?

I mean, presumably, we have all learned to reconcile that stars create light and that the earth spins on its axis which creates days. Yet, the Bible says that god created light and several days passed before he created the Sun. Why be a literalist about the 6th day, but not the first 4?

Or heck, why not spend that energy fretting about the inconsistencies in the reporting of the gospels?

I just don't get this selective literalism.

Could someone please explain it to me.
 
Jul 21, 2006
1,400
0
666
Tyler, TX
#69
I love how people argued this for 5 pages without addressing the only relevant question on the subject.
What is the only relevant question?

I know ZERO people who are strict biblical literalists. If you are, please speak up.
I'm not sure what you mean by strict biblical literalist. Could you explain further?
I always wonder why creationists choose this part of the bible to be literal about?

Why not flip a few books till you get to the parts about how many goats to kill and when to eat fish?

I mean, presumably, we have all learned to reconcile that stars create light and that the earth spins on its axis which creates days. Yet, the Bible says that god created light and several days passed before he created the Sun. Why be a literalist about the 6th day, but not the first 4?

Or heck, why not spend that energy fretting about the inconsistencies in the reporting of the gospels?

I just don't get this selective literalism.

Could someone please explain it to me.
I think God literally gave the Israelites laws concering sacrifices and diets; I do not believe they apply today.

I'm not sure about your argument about the days of creation. Are you saying you don't see how there was light with no sun? Or days with no sun? I'm not exactly sure how this works, but I don't have any reason to disbelieve it. For day and night, all that is required is light and darkness. In fact, it states in the first chapter of Genesis that God called the light "day" and the darkness He called "night." So right from the first day we have the distinction set out.

I'm not sure what inconsistencies you are referring to in the Gospels. Can you cite some examples?
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,558
31,994
1,743
oklahoma city
#70
The point about the eye is it doesn't evovle from a finger, a liver, or a brain. It would have been a strange mutation for something to suddenly have a ability to recieve information from their environment. Did it evolve somehow from another sensory organ? What sort of mechanism would cause it to spontaneously appear?
Fungi Thrive on Dangerous Radiation

By Charles Q. Choi
Special to LiveScience
posted: 29 May 2007
09:30 am ET

Fungi could eat dangerous radiation to survive, an unexpected finding that could one day help feed astronauts in space.

Or at least astronauts willing to eat a crawling fungus.

The research began with the discovery of black fungus growing on the walls of Chernobyl's damaged, highly radioactive nuclear reactor and collected by robots. The fungus was rich with melanin, the same pigment that gives human skin its color, protecting the skin from solar and ultraviolet radiation. Melanin is found in many, if not most, fungal species.

"The fungal kingdom comprises more species than any other plant or animal kingdom," said researcher Arturo Casadevall, an immunologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

Nuclear and other high-energy reactions give off ionizing radiation – dangerous rays and particles that can damage genes and thus cause mutations and eventually cancer. The researchers speculated that "just as the pigment chlorophyll converts sunlight into chemical energy that allows green plants to live and grow," so might melanin help fungi make use of ionizing radiation, said nuclear medicine specialist Ekaterina Dadachova at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

The scientists experimented on three species of fungi. They consistently found that ionizing radiation significantly boosted the growth of fungi that contained melanin.

"In general we think of radiation as something bad or harmful. Here we have a situation where these fungi appear to benefit, which is unexpected," Casadevall told LiveScience.​



Who would have thought a life form could modify to live off of something we have considered to be toxic to life?

Regarding the eye, a hypothesis would be that a small organism developed a cell that could sense light vs dark. Not a stretch since many organisms without eyes sense light and feed from it. This adaptation aided the organism against larger predators by helping it avoid light changes. This survival advantage evolved and improved into an eye.

The complexities of our body actually lead me away from thinking it was a direct design by an omniscient being. There are many organ systems that would work better with simpler approaches. An example would be the recurrent laryngeal nerve of the nervous system. It is a motor nerve that is a branch of a cranial (head) nerve. It supplies the voicebox but travels from the head into the chest and back up to get there. A good friend of mine lost his voice for a while when this nerve was damaged during a major chest trauma. I don't know why this nerve travels this route but it is not really logical. On the other hand, a more direct route (as would be chosen by logical design) would not give a survival advantage as once you have major deep chest trauma loss of voice is not a big concern. So evolution would not really change the course of this nerve but an electrical engineer would if able.
 
Jul 21, 2006
1,400
0
666
Tyler, TX
#71
apollo, you don't need to sass me into reading the bible. and 4 dudes writing something 2000 years ago still doesn't prove anything. Did God write the gospels? no, mml&j did. they said it was divine intervention but does that mean i have to believe them?
Why exactly do you believe you would respond any differently than the vast majority of people in the early first century? Would you have believed someone that said they were God in physical form? If they actually performed the feats that Christ did? What would God appearing to you in physical form have to do to convince you he was God?
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
35
OKC
#72
I was referring to Him revealing Himself moreso through special revelation, i.e. the Bible. This is how we can know Him without being able to do it on our own, and why it is not impossible.
Fortunately for you, God has revealed Himself in physical form; however, even then He was rejected, even by the people who should have recognized Him most. There were a few accounts written down about His time on earth, maybe you've heard of them: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. If you haven't read them, I highly recommend them.

I think the Glen Rose fossils are the ones in the article you read. I haven't looked into it enough to know for sure.

The point about the eye is it doesn't evovle from a finger, a liver, or a brain. It would have been a strange mutation for something to suddenly have a ability to recieve information from their environment. Did it evolve somehow from another sensory organ? What sort of mechanism would cause it to spontaneously appear?

apollo when i say "know" for sure, i'm talking about something tangible, not something i "know" to be true in my heart. The line of facts and beliefs is very blurred on this issue for you; personally you can "know" whatever you want, but God revealing himself through the Bible is not real proof of anything. MML&J are fine authors, but not scientist, nor did they attempt to be. And you don't need to sass me into reading the bible, ive read it and i like it but it isn't scientific tangible proof of any diety's existance. Like rx said earlier, sure some things in the bible are historically accurate, Jesus was real. But i can't believe something just bc MML&J and others wrote it down in a book, i need proof. If Buddha had a creation story would you believe it just because he said it was the truth? you could still groove on his message though if they were strong morally.
 

Pokes28

Moderator
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 26, 2003
13,618
1,432
1,743
49
Carl Junction, MO
facebook.com
#73
I can't remember what the term was that a good friend of mine used to describe my beliefs. He was in school at the time and several of us would have discussions about how to interpret versus and such. It was always interesting to see how different ones of us took everything differently.

Here are my beliefs in a nutshell:

I think it grossly arrogant for us to think that a "God day" is the same as our day. If God created everything, then why are we to believe that a day in the life of God is the same as a day of our lives. So the thought of creation in 7 days is amazing, I believe that each day could consist of billions of year. I believe that God did create everything and it evolved from there according to his plan.

David Harrell - Pokes
dwh
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
35
OKC
#74
Why exactly do you believe you would respond any differently than the vast majority of people in the early first century? Would you have believed someone that said they were God in physical form? If they actually performed the feats that Christ did? What would God appearing to you in physical form have to do to convince you he was God?
I'm not dead set in my beliefs, if i saw miracles that couldn't be explained by natural sci then sure i would listen, but that doesn't really seem very likely does it? i mean we can "what if" all day long, but i'd like some proof. Childbirth is a miracle to some but that is their interpretation, i want more than that. why doesn't God just put the whole debate to rest and prove himself beyond a reasonable doubt? beyond interpretation? Because then that would erase the "faith" aspect right? well i think God gave me a brain and free will to question my world too and don't feel it is a sin to question his existence and crave scientific logic.
 
Jul 21, 2006
1,400
0
666
Tyler, TX
#75
Regarding the eye, a hypothesis would be that a small organism developed a cell that could sense light vs dark. Not a stretch since many organisms without eyes sense light and feed from it. This adaptation aided the organism against larger predators by helping it avoid light changes. This survival advantage evolved and improved into an eye.
I would think there is a great deal of difference between an organism that gets its energy from photosynthesis and that which can discern its surroundings through an optical sensory organ. I'm guessing photosynthesis is what you meant by feeding from light. And I don't know which organisms you are referring to that can sense light but don't have eyes.

The complexities of our body actually lead me away from thinking it was a direct design by an omniscient being. There are many organ systems that would work better with simpler approaches. An example would be the recurrent laryngeal nerve of the nervous system. It is a motor nerve that is a branch of a cranial (head) nerve. It supplies the voicebox but travels from the head into the chest and back up to get there. A good friend of mine lost his voice for a while when this nerve was damaged during a major chest trauma. I don't know why this nerve travels this route but it is not really logical. On the other hand, a more direct route (as would be chosen by logical design) would not give a survival advantage as once you have major deep chest trauma loss of voice is not a big concern. So evolution would not really change the course of this nerve but an electrical engineer would if able.
Essentially you are saying that you don't know why it was done this way. The design may have reasons that are unknown to us, but that alone should not be reason to reject a designer.
 
Jul 21, 2006
1,400
0
666
Tyler, TX
#76
apollo when i say "know" for sure, i'm talking about something tangible, not something i "know" to be true in my heart. The line of facts and beliefs is very blurred on this issue for you; personally you can "know" whatever you want, but God revealing himself through the Bible is not real proof of anything. MML&J are fine authors, but not scientist, nor did they attempt to be. And you don't need to sass me into reading the bible, ive read it and i like it but it isn't scientific tangible proof of any diety's existance. Like rx said earlier, sure some things in the bible are historically accurate, Jesus was real. But i can't believe something just bc MML&J and others wrote it down in a book, i need proof. If Buddha had a creation story would you believe it just because he said it was the truth? you could still groove on his message though if they were strong morally.
I'm talking tangibly as well. I'm not sure why God revealing Himself in the Bible isn't proof of anything, nor am I sure why the Gospel writers needed to be scientists. Unfortunately for this debate, an a priori rejection of the supernatural basically makes it impossible for you to accept any line of reasoning that uses it.
I'm not trying to sass you into reading the Bible; I think if you would geniuinely sit down and with an open heart and mind, the message would be clear to you. (I have beleifs about why nobody can actually do this, but I'm trying not to get too far off topic)
I'm not dead set in my beliefs, if i saw miracles that couldn't be explained by natural sci then sure i would listen, but that doesn't really seem very likely does it? i mean we can "what if" all day long, but i'd like some proof. Childbirth is a miracle to some but that is their interpretation, i want more than that. why doesn't God just put the whole debate to rest and prove himself beyond a reasonable doubt? beyond interpretation? Because then that would erase the "faith" aspect right? well i think God gave me a brain and free will to question my world too and don't feel it is a sin to question his existence and crave scientific logic.
What miracles would convince you of the supernatural? It is to His glory that only some will understand; at the point when no one can question His existence or authority any longer, it is not glorifying to beleive in Him. You have a brain and free will, but you will be held accountable on the Last Day.

Sorry if that got a little preachy there, but it is what I truely believe.

Here are my beliefs in a nutshell:

I think it grossly arrogant for us to think that a "God day" is the same as our day. If God created everything, then why are we to believe that a day in the life of God is the same as a day of our lives. So the thought of creation in 7 days is amazing, I believe that each day could consist of billions of year. I believe that God did create everything and it evolved from there according to his plan.
I'm not sure why it is "grossly arrogant" to believe that the account God gave us of His actions would not be stated plainly for us. It does not appear that He is waxing poetic as in the Psalms or Prophets; it appears that He is giving an account of the creation of the world. Aside from this, God is not bound by space-time; He is always everywhere. Therefore, the only concept of a day that He has is the one He gave us in Genesis chapter 1, verse 5. Your view sounds a little more like deism than Biblical creationism to me.
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,558
31,994
1,743
oklahoma city
#77
I would think there is a great deal of difference between an organism that gets its energy from photosynthesis and that which can discern its surroundings through an optical sensory organ. I'm guessing photosynthesis is what you meant by feeding from light. And I don't know which organisms you are referring to that can sense light but don't have eyes.



Essentially you are saying that you don't know why it was done this way. The design may have reasons that are unknown to us, but that alone should not be reason to reject a designer.
What is the great difference? Flowers turn toward light. The mechanism is there. It is only the processing of that input that is different.


I said "The complexities of our body actually lead me away from thinking it was a direct design by an omniscient being." Not a rejection, an opinion. Of course I'm not omniscient so I cannot rule out some bizarre rational for that plan. Give me a reason for it and I'll change that opinion. Otherwise, you are just asking me to accept your faith against logic.
 

okstateguy987

Teamo Supremo
May 7, 2007
12,885
2
668
#78
I think the problem is that people are limiting God to only what we know as humans. God did not speak when he made the heavens, man invented speaking as a way of communication. God does not live in time, and God does not live, he Exists. Therefore, he has no need for time, and no need to create things in any sense of time. People are limiting his creation abilities to the way we know how to create.

The first book of the Bible is not original either. The creation story is not original, and neither is the flood story. Both are based off stories that had already been circulating in the region for quite some time. The stories are merely man's attempt to understand the world around him, and create an understanding of God. They are not meant to be a narrative of how God did what he did, merely why. Information from that time was constricted to what man new about the world around him, which wasn't much. God has no constrictions, he is unlimited, and free to create as he wishes.

None of the stories in Genesis are said to be divine revelation by their author, and even if they were, you think God would try to go about explaining the mechanism of evolution to them?

I think most of people's quarls over religion, which is what this whole argument is, can be simply explained by a lack of understanding of the nature of God.

I also believe that one day, all of humanity will agree on the nature of God, and that day will be the beginning of paradise.
 
Jul 21, 2006
1,400
0
666
Tyler, TX
#79
What is the great difference? Flowers turn toward light. The mechanism is there. It is only the processing of that input that is different.
Are you suggesting that flowers move due to some sort of muscles reaction from a nervous system that has been stimulated by electromagnetic rays? Or are you saying that it is similar in just a group of cells moving?

I said "The complexities of our body actually lead me away from thinking it was a direct design by an omniscient being." Not a rejection, an opinion. Of course I'm not omniscient so I cannot rule out some bizarre rational for that plan. Give me a reason for it and I'll change that opinion. Otherwise, you are just asking me to accept your faith against logic.
I don't see why it has to be "bizarre" rational. What I am asking you is to consider your opinion based on limited information and reasoning against the thought that a creator who is infinitely more intelligent and rational than you has a reason that you do not see. Just because an electrical engineer would have placed it somewhere else more "logical" doesn't mean it would have been the best place for it.
 

okstateguy987

Teamo Supremo
May 7, 2007
12,885
2
668
#80
Are you suggesting that flowers move due to some sort of muscles reaction from a nervous system that has been stimulated by electromagnetic rays? Or are you saying that it is similar in just a group of cells moving?



I don't see why it has to be "bizarre" rational. What I am asking you is to consider your opinion based on limited information and reasoning against the thought that a creator who is infinitely more intelligent and rational than you has a reason that you do not see. Just because an electrical engineer would have placed it somewhere else more "logical" doesn't mean it would have been the best place for it.
if you just observe nature, you can see all the different stages of development for an eye. from the light-sensitive patch of skin on a worms head, to an insect's eyes, to fish eyes, to a rat's eyes, to a dog's eyes, to our eyes. it isn't hard to believe that it could happen. most other developments can be observed this way as well, if people would just pay attention, almost every stage in the tree of evolution is still alive today.