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.
Jul 21, 2006
1,400
0
666
Tyler, TX
Not true. Try these:

For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night. (Psalm 90:1)

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (II Peter 3:8)

I also believe in a non-literal creation. I think that by default we should read the Bible literally, unless there is a darn good reason not to do so. So regarding the current issue, we have two choices. One is to take Genesis 1 as literal, and to believe that the world is only 10,000 years old and God has set everything else up to look like it is older, including burried dinosaur bones, so that Creation intentionally misleads us. The other is to say that maybe our literal reading of Genesis is incorrect, and that the Creation of the universe is not something that can br written in a few verses, but that Creation actually leads to the truth, to God. In light of the above verses and many others regarding God's creation, I choose to believe the latter.

However, I don't think it is that big of a deal. I certainly don't fault anyone for taking God literally at his word. My wife believes in a six-day creation. It is not a problem. But I also find it rather unhelpful to try to tell another Christian that he is a deist because he believes differently than you on a non-core issue that the Bible is not 100% clear about anyhow.
I have heard the verse you quoted above many times as an explaination for how the days in Genesis 1 could have been longer periods of time; however, the verses in Psalms and 2nd Peter are similies: "like a day"; "a day is like." These are expressing God's existence out-of-time, so that periods of time do not matter to Him. In Genesis 1, I believe He is communicating literal periods of time, the same periods we refer to as "days." Note that there are evenings and mornings, light and darkness. To me, these descriptions seem like He is conveying litteral days. I do understand that legitimate differences exist on this subject.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted Pokes28's statement; I just thought his belief sounded more like the clockmaker, non-interferring God of deism. I apologize if I was mistaken. It wasn't just because he didn't believe the same thing.

As for the age of the fossils we have found, I think you should do some research into how they date those fossils. There are explainations for how they could be found where they are and not be as old as some claim.
 

okstateguy987

Teamo Supremo
May 7, 2007
12,885
2
668
As for the age of the fossils we have found, I think you should do some research into how they date those fossils. There are explainations for how they could be found where they are and not be as old as some claim.
explain tectonic plates then, and how fossils can be found in siberia and antarctica of plants and animals that have no business being there less than 10,000 years ago.

the appalachians, english mountains, and mountains of scandinavia were all the same mountain chain at one point, and it was far more than 10,000 years ago. the himalayas were created by the indian continent slamming into the asian continent, and they are still rising, because the plate is still moving. by using logic, we can determine that for those mountains to be created would have taken millions of years. the evidence from geology and the formation of the planets and stars is all around us. scientists know almost with fact how our solar system was created. they also know that it took billions of years. we use the scientific method and experimentation and logic to determine the things that we don't readily know. God is a God of logic, he does things that make sense, whether or not humans recognize it at once is no matter. the creation of the universe the way that scientists have theorized makes sense. therefore, it is a very plausible explanation for how things happened. it is also very believable...
 

Pokes28

Moderator
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 26, 2003
13,627
1,434
1,743
49
Carl Junction, MO
facebook.com
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted Pokes28's statement; I just thought his belief sounded more like the clockmaker, non-interferring God of deism. I apologize if I was mistaken. It wasn't just because he didn't believe the same thing.
I take no offense. Other people's opinions or interpretations have little to no impact on my faith.

Generally speaking:

1. I don't believe that God created the world in some way to fool us. So I don't believe in the concept that God put the dinosaur bones there to somehow mess with our heads.
2. I do believe in science though there is a tremendous amount of junk science out there.
3. Though we don't know of their existence, I believe that there very well could be other intelligent life out there. Since according to the faith of creationism, I would expect them to have some form of the Bible. I would love to see those writings.
4. I believe in the flaws of man. This means that no matter how holy or blessed a person is/was/will be (other than Jesus), they are capable of making mistakes. I believe that it is possible that some pieces of the Bible have either been destroyed, interpreted incorrectly, or discarded by those that put the Bible together. This is one of the things that my grandparents and I used to enjoy discussing. They believed everything to the letter and believed that there was no chance that the King James version of the Bible was anything but the complete, accurate, and only word of God. But what about the differences in interpretations? What about the deuterocanonical books that the Catholics have in their Bible? How can those of Christian faith of such differences and everybody be correct? What if some parts of the Bible were to be discovered today (similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls). Would the Christian world allow their inclusion? How would we know that it was valid? And if that is true, then how do we know definitively that the Book of Mormon isn't valid (though I've read it and I honestly can't believe it to be a missing part of the Bible).
5. I believe that within all the higher being religions on this planet there are some very solid truths. Be a good person and have faith.

I enjoy this line of conversations as long as people don't get too bent out of shape. The thing is that none of us know anything for sure. We all could be in the Matrix for all we truly know. It is when people don't allow for the questioning of parts of faith that things get tense.

David Harrell - Pokes
dwh
 
Jul 21, 2006
1,400
0
666
Tyler, TX
explain tectonic plates then, and how fossils can be found in siberia and antarctica of plants and animals that have no business being there less than 10,000 years ago.

the appalachians, english mountains, and mountains of scandinavia were all the same mountain chain at one point, and it was far more than 10,000 years ago. the himalayas were created by the indian continent slamming into the asian continent, and they are still rising, because the plate is still moving. by using logic, we can determine that for those mountains to be created would have taken millions of years. the evidence from geology and the formation of the planets and stars is all around us. scientists know almost with fact how our solar system was created. they also know that it took billions of years. we use the scientific method and experimentation and logic to determine the things that we don't readily know. God is a God of logic, he does things that make sense, whether or not humans recognize it at once is no matter. the creation of the universe the way that scientists have theorized makes sense. therefore, it is a very plausible explanation for how things happened. it is also very believable...
I'm curious how we know for certain what was going on 10000 years ago in Siberia or Antarctica. How do we know it took millions of years for the Himalayas to form? I have not heard that scientists were sure they know how our solar system was created. Unfortunately, none of these things can be tested by the scientific method. One cannot recreate the solar system several times in a controlled environment. This is where the lines between different kinds of science begin to be blurred. Historical science, that which is based on studying what happened in the past, has little way of testing for sure their hypotheses. The best one can do is look at the evidence we have and draw conclusions from it. The best or most popular of these conclusions get passed along, and soon many people start believing they are the actual explainations for what happened. I'm not saying they are not; I'm saying there is no way of scientifically testing them (short of inventing the flux capacitor).

Most historically geology is based on a principle that assumes that natural forces working today have always been at work, and have always worked the same way at the same rate. While this is stretched sometimes, it is one of the assumptions that must be made in order to have some sort of a basis for everyone to work off of. This replaced the philosophy that some things (geologic formations, in this case) are formed by catosrophic phenomenon, which is extremely difficult for science to study.

I do believe plate tectonics is at work today. How fast it worked in the past, when it started, how it started, I have no idea. I'm not sure anyone alive today does. I have seen some conclusions, drawn from evidence available to everyone, that a global flood could have caused the fossil record and geologic formations we see today.

I take no offense. Other people's opinions or interpretations have little to no impact on my faith.

Generally speaking:

1. I don't believe that God created the world in some way to fool us. So I don't believe in the concept that God put the dinosaur bones there to somehow mess with our heads.
2. I do believe in science though there is a tremendous amount of junk science out there.
3. Though we don't know of their existence, I believe that there very well could be other intelligent life out there. Since according to the faith of creationism, I would expect them to have some form of the Bible. I would love to see those writings.
4. I believe in the flaws of man. This means that no matter how holy or blessed a person is/was/will be (other than Jesus), they are capable of making mistakes. I believe that it is possible that some pieces of the Bible have either been destroyed, interpreted incorrectly, or discarded by those that put the Bible together. This is one of the things that my grandparents and I used to enjoy discussing. They believed everything to the letter and believed that there was no chance that the King James version of the Bible was anything but the complete, accurate, and only word of God. But what about the differences in interpretations? What about the deuterocanonical books that the Catholics have in their Bible? How can those of Christian faith of such differences and everybody be correct? What if some parts of the Bible were to be discovered today (similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls). Would the Christian world allow their inclusion? How would we know that it was valid? And if that is true, then how do we know definitively that the Book of Mormon isn't valid (though I've read it and I honestly can't believe it to be a missing part of the Bible).
5. I believe that within all the higher being religions on this planet there are some very solid truths. Be a good person and have faith.

I enjoy this line of conversations as long as people don't get too bent out of shape. The thing is that none of us know anything for sure. We all could be in the Matrix for all we truly know. It is when people don't allow for the questioning of parts of faith that things get tense.

David Harrell - Pokes
dwh
4. The way I would answer your concerns would be, God is sovreign and has protected His word through the ages. Just as He inspired the writers of His holy word, so He influenced the collection of these writings into one. This colletion, in its original languages, is the word of God given to man. The translations we have are attempts to bring this word closer to men; I believe that God sovreignly saw this through as well. The differences in honest translations are minor and are mainly a result of stylistic differences; I haven't seen any translation that tried to be accurate fail to convey the message of other honest translations. Differences in interpretation do occur, and not everyone is right; everyone cannot be right. There are basics upon which Christianity is founded, and these should be agreed upon; if not, the religion becomes a meaningless muddle of contradictory ideas or worse, totally heretical. Lesser issues can be honestly disagreed upon, but without these core beliefs, nothing else much matters. I do not see much practical difference in whether the bread and wine/juice from Holy Communion/Eucharist/Lord's Supper literally turns into the body and blood of Christ or not. This is not to say there is no right answer; I just do not know that we should shun those of honestly differing interpretations.
As to other books:
I don't think the duterocannonical books have every been officially given authoratative status by the Roman Catholic Church; therefore, they must be considered separate from the Bible. I'm not sure what your criteria would be for including extra, newly discovered books in the Bible. The original canonization process was pretty rigorous, and from a non-spiritual perspective, I'm not sure what it would take to be accepted as authentic. A spiritual perspective would say God has already guided what He wants into His word, and gives several warnings within it against adding to it. I haven't studied the Book of Mormon (I would like to sometime), but from what I've heard, it has somewhat questionable credibility.
5. I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. What do you consider "higher being religions"? I would say it is impossible to "be a good person" without supernatural intervention. And "have faith" in what? If I have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, will that help me? I think because of God's stamp on the universe it is impossible to totally deny or ignore His truths; this doesn't mean some don't try, and follow false paths.
 

Pokes28

Moderator
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Oct 26, 2003
13,627
1,434
1,743
49
Carl Junction, MO
facebook.com
4. The way I would answer your concerns would be, God is sovreign and has protected His word through the ages. Just as He inspired the writers of His holy word, so He influenced the collection of these writings into one. This colletion, in its original languages, is the word of God given to man. The translations we have are attempts to bring this word closer to men; I believe that God sovreignly saw this through as well. The differences in honest translations are minor and are mainly a result of stylistic differences; I haven't seen any translation that tried to be accurate fail to convey the message of other honest translations. Differences in interpretation do occur, and not everyone is right; everyone cannot be right. There are basics upon which Christianity is founded, and these should be agreed upon; if not, the religion becomes a meaningless muddle of contradictory ideas or worse, totally heretical. Lesser issues can be honestly disagreed upon, but without these core beliefs, nothing else much matters. I do not see much practical difference in whether the bread and wine/juice from Holy Communion/Eucharist/Lord's Supper literally turns into the body and blood of Christ or not. This is not to say there is no right answer; I just do not know that we should shun those of honestly differing interpretations.
And neither do I. But the point is that you are basically saying that these "subtle" variations really don't impact the basic underlying message. And I'm OK with that. However, to say that for those that are quite literal in their beliefs based on the Bible, if the words are different and thus the meaning can be a little different, then different translations do in fact have the power to have two different people of the same faith that believe things differently. You have fringe groups like the snake handlers. You have hundreds if not thousands of different variations of protestants and offshoots of Catholicism. They all have their faith rooted in the same book. Heck even Judaism is based on half of the Christian Bible. You have things that some religions have as fundamentals that others hardly even consider (Southern Baptists rarely teach much from the old testament - Catholics have a Purgatory - Assembly of God has speaking in tongues). All based on the same collection of books and stories. To me, and I have a very logic based, scientific structured mind, that is a lot of variation based off of something that was guided all along by God. Perhaps the message is the key even though it came in different languages, etc and all the variation thereafter have been allowed by God.

As to other books:
I don't think the duterocannonical books have every been officially given authoratative status by the Roman Catholic Church; therefore, they must be considered separate from the Bible. I'm not sure what your criteria would be for including extra, newly discovered books in the Bible. The original canonization process was pretty rigorous, and from a non-spiritual perspective, I'm not sure what it would take to be accepted as authentic. A spiritual perspective would say God has already guided what He wants into His word, and gives several warnings within it against adding to it. I haven't studied the Book of Mormon (I would like to sometime), but from what I've heard, it has somewhat questionable credibility.
On the Book of Mormon: You really should. It only took me a few hours to read it when I was in a hotel room in Salt Lake City. I'm not kidding when I say that the South Park episode discussing Mormons was pretty darn spot on about the source of the Book of Mormon. It is interesting if nothing else. The thought that God is one of many and that man can achieve God status is pretty heretical in nature. But if you go in with the idea that you are reading a fantasy novel it isn't a bad read.

On the duterocannonical books, I'll confess to ignorance. I just know that if something is given out as part of the Bible, I would be confused if somebody said "this is here but it really isn't part of the Bible." There are other cases of this including the Catechism and Psalms.

5. I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. What do you consider "higher being religions"? I would say it is impossible to "be a good person" without supernatural intervention. And "have faith" in what? If I have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, will that help me? I think because of God's stamp on the universe it is impossible to totally deny or ignore His truths; this doesn't mean some don't try, and follow false paths.
By Higher Being Religions, I mean those based on there being a being that is capable of all things.

I don't know if you've seen Dogma, but there is a scene where Serendipity makes the statement that religions have all messed up the message. That what is important is that you have faith. The ability to understand and trust your soul in a higher being. Just to be clear, that movie wasn't the basis of my beliefs but that did a darn good job of expressing how I believe. I believe that God is compassionate. I believe that it is possible that many different religions that think they are worshiping different Gods are in fact one and the same. Personally, I wouldn't have too much problem with the giant Flying Spaghetti Monster other than the statement that Adam was made in God's image. So unless that verse actually meant something different than that Adam was made to look a lot like God (which it very well could), then I don't believe it.

I hold no grudge against those that view things differently than me. I think of myself as intelligent, but I know that I'm vastly ignorant. There are so many things going on in this world that I don't know. Even things that I think I know are probably wrong or at least inexact. So it is always in my nature to question even the most fundamental of things. That drives my wife crazy sometimes as I'll act like a little kid wanting to get to the root answer to "why." You mention false paths and while I don't disagree with you, I do find it curious (as I said, I question everything), why God would personally touch every aspect of the creation of the Bible yet then allow for it to be altered even slightly, or be added to even if it is as you said not authoritatively.

David Harrell - Pokes
dwh
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
35
OKC
apollo, since you won't believe anything 100% that can't be proven by the scientific method, which seems to be your main arguement against geological and historical science; will you please walk "He inspired the writers of His holy word, so He influenced the collection of these writings into one." through the scientific method please? thank you.

"The best or most popular of these conclusions get passed along, and soon many people start believing they are the actual explainations for what happened." is this in anyway different then what you do? oh wait i guess the difference is that these conclusions are based on evidence.

i don't revel in being a smartass when debating someone's religous beliefs but when you discredit science with cute quips like saying 'well we can't know anything bc we don't have a flux capacitor' then i have to turn around and use the same logic against you. (i know its a joke, i'm not that sensitive, but i think you believe this as well). there are other ways to prove something besides the scientific method, ask a detective.
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
35
OKC
"Most historically geology is based on a principle that assumes that natural forces working today have always been at work, and have always worked the same way at the same rate. " -apollo

did you just make that up?

" I have seen some conclusions, drawn from evidence available to everyone, that a global flood could have caused the fossil record and geologic formations we see today." - apollo

how can you believe something that is only based off evidence and expert analysis?