Evolution Corrupts the Gospel

You've confused abiogenesis (which God tells us was the way He did it) with evolution.

"YOM" is not necessarily translated to "day" and is often used for various periods of time. And as early Christians pointed out, there can be no days, or mornings or evenings without a Sun to have them. Some try to force a 24 hour day in to this text, but they are trying to replace God's word with their own ideas.

If you want your doctrine accepted by other Christians, you'll need to do more than insist you are right.

Perhaps those early Christians had it right. Not everything new is good.

 

You write of (1) depending on man's intelligence and (2) depending on God's Word, as if they were alternatives. But you can't determine what God's Word is without using your finite, fallible human intelligence. You are using your fallible human intelligence to understand the Bible and determine what it means for us, just as I am. You're taking the outcome of your (inherently fallible) thinking and declaring it to be God's Word.

 

No, the mandate is to interpret the Bible in the way that makes the most sense. Just as you strive to understand the Bible in the way that makes the most sense to you.

 

Richard, C.S. Lewis had an interesting comment about all that -- I'm not sure which essay it was in, but I can skim through the ones I have here (it's in one of them) if you really need me to.

His comment was that there should be things in the Bible with which we are uncomfortable or which don't make sense to us. If there weren't, then the Bible would be no different from any other book in the world. So when we are reading the Bible, and we come across that which we do not understand or which does not make sense to us or leaves us uncomfortable, then that is precisely what we should be paying most attention to, for that is where we are furthest from understanding something God has to say to us.

I have found, instead, that a great number of people approach certain sayings or events in the Bible rejecting or reinterpreting them precisely because they do not understand them or feel uncomfortable with them.

Either God's Word is God's Word, or it isn't. If it is God's Word to us, then we had better quit trying to cram it into our finite understandings and instead pray for wisdom and insight from Him. His ways truly are not our ways, and if we want to understand more about His ways, then we had also better stop trying to shoehorn them into our ways!

 

I also recall something about this in C.S. Lewis, but don't remember the context. Anyway, my point is that if the Bible is God's Word, then it's important to understand what it means. And there's no getting around the fact that we have to use our finite intelligence to understand it. We can certainly pray for wisdom -- but then we have to use whatever wisdom we have got to understand the Bible. We don't have a direct hotline from God to tell us how to understand the Bible. Even if we believe that God has spoken to us directly, that is our fallible human brain telling us so.

Richard

 

BobRyan writes:

"It should be noted that when Gentry responds to this he points out the ratios for Po210 to Po218 in the "primordial case" are not at the 67,000 to one ratio "expected" and "observed" with well established coalfied wood examples of the Uranium to lead sequence. In fact you have MORE Po218 than Po210 in the primordial case. And these are shown to be in monolithic contiguous structures without breaks/cracks etc."

Gentry blunders when he claims that the expected ratio of Po-210 to Po-218 halos is 67,000 to 1.
The reason is that both poloniums are from the uranium-238 decay chain, and that chain produces only one Po-210 and one Po-218 atom for each uranium-238 that decays into its daughter elements. If all the uranium atoms in a clump of uranium decay away to their ultimate end products, the expectation is that the number of halos due to Po-218 and Po-210 would be equal and not in ratio of 1 to 67,000 as Gentry claims.

[ May 06, 2003, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: Peter101 ]

 

Helen writes: "The halos of the various radioactive elements have distinctive characteristics. You find rings at set radii from the central inclusion; and the pattern of rings is what tells us what element was originally there. Gentry considered the polonium halos he studied to be primordial because there was no precursor or parent element rings to be seen. Gentry's point was that, without evidence of a precursor, and since that type of polonium requires a precursor element, these halos must have been created or formed in situ."

The immediate precursor of Po-218 is Rn-222, which is a gas with a half-life of 3.8 days. Rn-222 might well decay in an airspace and not leave any damage in a rock crystal. If that happens, the daughter product, Po-218, could well stick to a rock surface, as it almost certainly would, not being a gas, and then create its own halo damage by subsequent decay. The absence of halos from the decay of the Rn-222 parent is far from convincing about whether or not the Po-218 was primordial or not. Plus there is also the problem of whether or not the halos alleged to be from Po-218 have been properly identified.

 

BobRyan writes:"Imagine the Earth as a huge clump of gasses - how long does it take for them to consolidate - and for the crust to cool enough to create pressure and density so that Granite can form?

Polonium will let you have all of 5 minutes. Take as much of it as you like."
.............................................
Not true, Bob. Polonium halos have been created ever since the crust solidfied and are even being created today, while we write this. It must be so, because we know that Po-218 can easily be measured almost everywhere, in the air and in the rocks. So there is not as much uniqueness about Gentry's Polonium halos as he would have you believe. New Po-218 is constantly being produced from the U-238 decay chain, so there is no shortage of supply of this nuclide, even though it does have a short half life.

 

Nice rhetoric. "Evilutionism". It's fairly common knowledge that the last resort of the desperate is to attack the person and not the argument.

Again you use compromised Christian brethern to verbally assualt those with a different view then you. If we don't agree with Bob then we are evil and going to hell. You think it's an impossible marriage, but the majority of Christians do not. You sir are in the minority of the faithful.
In my eyes YEC hurts the Gospel. Other's disagree with me and that's their right, however this (IMO) stubborn blind acceptance of what is overwhelmingly not a literal account is going to hamper (again, IMO) your ability to convert people.
You are making the issue of evolution more important than the issue of salvation.

 

THE POSITION OF MAJOR CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS ON CREATION AND INERRANCY

Also on the same site I found this qoute:

 

Actually "evilutionism" is not a "system" or a "person". It's a made up concept by those who are afraid to actually debate the issues, instead they have to "demonize" the words used.

So your 'compelling' way is to ridicule those who think differently then you?

Atheist is not the same as evolutionist, you don't know what you are talking about.

And it apparently doesn't bother the majority of Christians who do not have a problem with a non-literal Genesis. It seems to be that the people with the problem are the ones who demand a literal Genesis. After those people have seen the light they will join their Christian brethern and realize that to accept evolution is not to be an atheist. Despite what I bet you will now claim.

 

BTW Bob, have you read the forum header?

 

Also Bob, it seems as though your challenge was met in pages 6 and 7. I don't see the need for you to continue your mischaracterization of either evolution or other people's beliefs (which you seem to care very little about).

No offense, but from the very start of this thread you have come off as hostile. You've mischaracterized evolution, theistic evolution, and you have attempted to bully other posters through the use of demonizing rhetoric.

Think about it: Even if you make a good point, the people who you want to 'convert' are not going to be in the frame of mind to do so. What are you expecting to happen after you use this type of rhetoric?

 

I agree with you here, Meatros; it is the attitude more than the facts which attract people. Romans 2 reminds us that it is the kindness of God rather than anything else which draws people to repentance. One can disagree strongly and still be courteous and respectful about it.

I dislike the term 'evilution' as well. 'Evolution' simply means 'change.' In that sense of course evolution happens. My own live has evolved. In its more common use, 'evolution' generally implies change for the better when it is used non-scientifically. Saying to a daughter, "You've evolved from a tempermental teenager into a lovely young woman" would be an example.

Scientifically it still means change, and usually with a positive connotation. The change can be simple variation, which is what we see constantly, even in nuclear families, or it can be referring to the argued-about changes from a one-celled organism to a fern or elephant or mosquito. It is this last use of evolution which is so widely argued, and one which I and many creationists (of various stripes) feel has no evidence to support it outside of imagination and interpretation.

But none of them is evil. One is simply wrong

However, all that being said, 'evolutionism' is a correct term in the same way 'creationism' is. Both refer to the belief system which exists with or without facts -- the attitude, if you will, which says, "My mind is made up; don't bother me with the facts."

Hopefully, this post will bring the thread back on track?