Evolution Corrupts the Gospel

[BobRyan]

Helen
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. Since then, other possibilities have emerged, which can be found in the other literature on the topic.

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.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Helen

That was from Bob -- Bob, it is not a matter of how fast granite forms.

Robert Gentry
On the other hand, this extraordinary large abundance of 210Po halos agrees with what I discovered in the coalified wood specimens.8 Moreover, in examining thousands of secondary Po halos in coalified wood, I have yet to find a clear example of either a 214Po or 218Po halo. To summarize, the reason for this disparity is that the 139-day half life of 210Po enabled a sufficient number of these atoms to survive long enough in the gel-like wood to be collected at the PbSe sites, where they decayed and formed 210Po halos. In contrast, the far more rapidly decaying atoms of 214Po and 218Po - with respective half-lives of 164 microseconds and 3 minutes - largely decayed away before they were collected at these same sites.

Even Richard C's web link does seem to make the point that the length of time of the half-life cycle is making the case for the age of the rock.


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But the question for this thread is - does Evolutionism corrupt the Gospel.

As has been pointed out - step one is to find an evolutionist that actually believes the Gospel literally.

Do we have one here? Can we get agreement on a real - literal - supernatural Gospel?

Clearly the Creationists here are not going to sign on to a watered down - non-literal - Gospel that does not fit with the NT.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[RichardC]

Originally posted by Helen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I don’t mind if anyone believes in the literal inerrancy of the Bible in the privacy of their home or church.

Why does that remind me of the way Christianity itself is treated in some countries? That is seriously one of the most incredible statements I have read here. I am betting the author of it is also one who will holler about free speech when he is told to keep his ideas and opinions confined so that they cannot corrupt others!</font>[/QUOTE]As the author of that statement, I merely meant what I said: that I don’t mind if people believe in the literal inerrancy of the Bible in the privacy of their homes. But I do mind if they tell me that I have to believe it too, without any attempt at supporting arguments. I would also strongly oppose any attempt to suppress the public expression of such beliefs. There’s no need to go looking for enemies, Helen. With friends like Duane Gish, Jonathan Wells, Kent Hovind and Jack Chick, special creationism doesn’t need enemies…

Richard, you are blithely declaring that you can use your finite wisdom, understanding, etc. to judge Scripture. Scripture has already validated itself historically. Matthew considered it reliable enough to use it to try to convince his own people that Jesus was their long-awaited Messiah. You are choosing not to take it at face value due to your own inability to understand it -- but isn't that what we would expect if something was given to us by God?

But you have said that God knows how to communicate clearly, Helen. So why have there been endless disputes concerning the meaning of the Scriptures?

You base your reasoning (apparently) on the assumptions that the Bible is a communication from God (in the sense that a letter is a communication from a friend) and that it is inerrant and historically factual in all parts where it doesn’t explicitly indicate otherwise. Since I don’t buy any of these assumptions, there is no point in asking me to accept reasoning that is based on these assumptions. I believe that the Bible had its origins in its authors’ and editors’ experience of God and the sacred, and that it merits its special status as Scripture in the Christian community, but I don’t believe that God writes books, directly or through inspiration.

And I am content in my faith, as are many other Christians who don’t share your view of the Bible.

I am saddened to see many Christians devoting so much time and energy in efforts to bring modern science into agreement with their view of the Bible, when their understanding of the Bible is debatable and indeed rejected by millions of Christians, many of whom believe that they are better off without such beliefs.

Some of your reasoning, Helen, is based on argument from authority: God said thus-and-such, directly or indirectly, and who are we humans to dispute with God’s wisdom? But how can we know what God has said – or indeed if God has said anything at all? That question needs to be addressed.

I admit that my finite human understanding is fallible and that I could be wrong about my views on the Bible and Christianity. Can you admit the same? Then we could go on from there. We could discuss, for example, the historicity and factual accuracy of the Bible (I find plenty of errors) or whether it has made predictions or other factual claims that could only have come from God (I don't find any). We could also discuss alternative ways of understanding the Bible.

The hostile discussions/arguments about the scientific evidence are entertaining and educational but a waste of time as far as a resolution of the dispute or a meeting of the minds is concerned. Indeed, hostility is a waste of time – one of the great insights of Christianity and other religions.

Richard

 

[JamesJ]

So why have there been endless disputes concerning the meaning of the Scriptures?

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits

1 Peter 5:8 ...because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: 9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith

who are we humans to dispute with God’s wisdom?

James 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. 4 But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing. 5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind.

Isaiah 55:6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: 7Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

John 20:26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Isaiah 47:13Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee.

Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Matthew 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven

 

[RichardC]

So why have there been endless disputes concerning the meaning of the Scriptures?

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits

Or, because the Bible was written by humans, and was not written or supervised by God.

Whenever I ask how we can know that Biblical inerrancy or literalism is true, so that Genesis would have to be interpreted as factual history, I invariably get arguments from authority or circular reasoning (the Bible says so).

The Bible says that God slaughtered the Egyptian first-born for the crime of being born to Egyptian parents. I'm supposed to worship a God who did that?

That's only one of hundreds of morally repugnant passages, contradictions and absurdities in the Bible. For many more, see the following websites:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ine_none1.htm
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/

and such books as Dennis McKinsey's Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy.

The Biblical inerrantists are afraid that, if the Bible is not infallibly true and correct, then they will have to give up Christianity and all that is right and holy. These fears are simply unfounded. Many of us have found joy and peace in Christ without the baggage of inerrancy; in fact Christianity makes a lot more sense this way. And you get to keep modern science into the bargain.

Matthew 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven

This beautiful saying remains just as true without the assumption of special creation.

Richard

 

[JamesJ]

circular reasoning

Not circular reasoning... The Bible is the highest authority to appeal to. Therefore when it is said that using, "because it is written in the bible" is circular reasoning, that is a fallacy. Since there is no higher authority to appeal to, the reason "because the bible says so" is absolutely legitimate and is, in fact, the only way we can approach the authority of scripture. It's the same as saying "God said that what He said is so, so it is so".

morally repugnant passages, contradictions and absurdities in the Bible

How sad that you believe this...

 

[The Galatian]

But James, every religion's sacred scripture makes the same claim. And if you cling to inerrancy, you bring the Bible into the same class as all the rest.

It is entirely circular reasoning, because you have to assume what you set out to prove.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Hey James, a fundamentalistic Muslim will say exactly the same thing about his Koran. Do you have any logical response to him that he can't mirror right back to you? If not, your response remains a classic example of circular reasoning!

 

[RichardC]

Originally posted by JamesJ:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />morally repugnant passages, contradictions and absurdities in the Bible

How sad that you believe this... </font>[/QUOTE]They're in the Bible, JamesJ. Do read it sometime.

Here's one of my personal favorites:

2 Kings 2:23-24: "And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

For many more examples see the websites I mentioned above and the links on those pages.

 

[JamesJ]

I do read it... All the time...

I'm sure glad you

'd when you said that, cowboy...

 

[Paul of Eugene]

OK folks lets regroup here. The accusation of immorality towards God is a horse of a different shade here. One can suppose that for God, who views our lives as eternal and the earthly life we have as but the briefest of instances in the best of cases, it isn't the same thing to move a mortal from one plane of existance to another, certainly not when compared to the stain on our own souls when we kill a fellow human being.

I confine my remarks strictly to insisting James has used a circular argument for inerrancy, a known logical fallacy.

 

[JamesJ]

I confine my remarks strictly to insisting James has used a circular argument for inerrancy, a known logical fallacy.

Whatever... If you believe the Bible to be God's written revelation of Himself to His people then it is on the same level of authority as God Himself speaking directly to you. He never changes, He doesn't lie, therefore His written Word stands as having the same authority.

If you believe that the Bible only contains some of the words of God, that it was written by men, uninspired, and perhaps for their own reasons, then you will look elsewhere for proof that the what is written in Bible is true.

What I, and many others, believe is not a logical fallacy, it is the only correct way to approach scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

RichardC
morally repugnant passages, ...

They're in the Bible, JamesJ. Do read it sometime. Here's one of my personal favorites:

2 Kings 2:23-24: "And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

EXCELLENT case Richard! Here we See that when compromising Christianity with the doctrines of evolutionism NOT ONLY is the trustworthy "account" that God gives in Gen 1-3 - "trashed" but so ALSO is much of the rest of scripture. (As Richard points out above).

AND the Gospel writers THEMSELVES are seen to APPEAL TO THE DETAILS of the Gen 1-3 account (as I have shown already) with the result that THEY TOO suffer the fate that evolutionism's doctrines subject God's Word to in Gen 1-3.

It is a system of Bible corruption that has no end.

In Christ,

Bob

[ April 30, 2003, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

[Helen]

You have a good point there, Bob. What starts as an 'isolated' criticism/rejection of something in Genesis ends up working its way through the Bible, creating doubt and dependence on man's intelligence instead of God's Word at every turn.

 

[BobRyan]

The religion of evolutionism is only "comfortable" as the judge of God's Word - not as a follower of it.

The argument is made that real faith in God's word - accepting it as reliable is not pleasing to the humanist mind.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

The religion of evolutionism is only "comfortable" as the judge of God's Word - not as a follower of it.

Orthodox Christians sometimes make the same criticism of creationists. In fact, most people on both sides are following God's word. Whether you accept the way God created things, or follow creationism, has no bearing on your salvation or your trust in His Word.

The argument is made that real faith in God's word - accepting it as reliable is not pleasing to the humanist mind.

Faith in your particular interpretation of it is not pleasing to most Christians. But your interpretation is not God's Word.

 

[BobRyan]

The common mythology of evolutionism among some Christians is that they can compromise the Bible to MATCH atheist anti-God doctrines of evilutionism.

This thread has "demonstrated" that those who take that approach fail to "SHOW" their work. They fail to "SHOW" the compromising "WORKING" on the points LISTED - showing that the Bible retains integrity with the corruption of evolutionisms doctrines "mixed in".

In FACT they "demonstrate" just the opposite by SHOWING that not ONLY do they need to "trash" the Word of God in Gen 1-3 but as Richard points out - it cascades into a entire seriest of "Bible trashing exercises" and its starting mandate is "What will APPEAL to the humanist non-Christian mind". IF a living, active miracle working God who is all-knowing all-powerful creator of "Heaven and Earth and all that is in them" who "IN Six days created the Heavens and the Earth" Exodus 20:8-11 by HIS OWN account - is not pleasing to humanist non-Christian sources then they gladly trash the Word of God.

Amazing!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

The common mythology of evolutionism among some Christians is that they can compromise the Bible to MATCH atheist anti-God doctrines of evilutionism.

Ah, the Cartoon Theory of Theistic Evolution. The real one isn't like that, Bob. In fact, orthodox Christians would say that you were trying to compromise Scripture.

This thread has "demonstrated" that those who take that approach fail to "SHOW" their work. They fail to "SHOW" the compromising "WORKING" on the points LISTED - showing that the Bible retains integrity with the corruption of evolutionisms doctrines "mixed in".

You still don't get it. The Bible has nothing to say about evolution, for or against. It refutes creationism, because it says life began by natural means. But, as you learned earlier, evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life.

In FACT they "demonstrate" just the opposite by SHOWING that not ONLY do they need to "trash" the Word of God in Gen 1-3 but as Richard points out - it cascades into a entire seriest of "Bible trashing exercises" and its starting mandate is "What will APPEAL to the humanist non-Christian mind".

Is that what you think Christians do? No wonder you're so upset. Relax. I don't know any of us at all who think that way. We're just taking God's Word as it is. If you'd take a look at it, without your own desires, you'd see that He is right.

IF a living, active miracle working God who is all-knowing all-powerful creator of "Heaven and Earth and all that is in them" who "IN Six days created the Heavens and the Earth" Exodus 20:8-11 by HIS OWN account - is not pleasing to humanist non-Christian sources then they gladly trash the Word of God.

Actually, God is completely free to use figurative language in His Bible, and He often does. That is one of the times. Because there are logical contradictions in a literal interpretation of Genesis, few Christians accept such an interpretation.

 

[Helen]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The common mythology of evolutionism among some Christians is that they can compromise the Bible to MATCH atheist anti-God doctrines of evilutionism.

Ah, the Cartoon Theory of Theistic Evolution. The real one isn't like that, Bob. In fact, orthodox Christians would say that you were trying to compromise Scripture. </font>[/QUOTE]He is not talking about THEISTIC evolution, Galatian, but about atheistic evolution -- which is not misrepresented by him in the above. However I would add a couple of points: first that if you consider yourself representative of your point of view in terms of theistic creation, then Bob is also right about the efforts made to compromise the Bible to force-fit it with your beliefs. Secondly, it should be mentioned again that your definition of 'orthodox' Christians would be, first of all, Roman Catholics, and secondly, those who believe as you do.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This thread has "demonstrated" that those who take that approach fail to "SHOW" their work. They fail to "SHOW" the compromising "WORKING" on the points LISTED - showing that the Bible retains integrity with the corruption of evolutionisms doctrines "mixed in".

You still don't get it. The Bible has nothing to say about evolution, for or against. It refutes creationism, because it says life began by natural means. But, as you learned earlier, evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life.</font>[/QUOTE]"As you learned earlier" means from you, right, Pat? And just because you claimed someting does not to any degree mean anyone 'learned' it. In fact, it sounds terribly arrogant of you to phrase it that way. Maybe you are not aware of that, but that is how it is seen.

However, back to the subject itself. The Bible has a great deal to say about creation. It's in the first chapter of Genesis. Six normal rotational days; creation ex nihilo, and if the entire animal kingdom can be considered to emerge within two rotational days by 'natural means' then sure, it was my natural means. Most of us consider that one of the miracles of Creation, however.

Does evolutionary theory make claims regarding the origin of life? It depends on which evolutionist you ask. One like yourself will grant God the moment of starting things and then relegates Him to passivity during the eons of supposed evolution. But that is a truly compromise position that denies the core points of both evolution and creation. The basic point of evolution is that all is the result of natural means, not just variation/speciation, etc. The basic point of biblical creation is that God did it just the way He said He did in Genesis. Theistic evolutionists deny natural beginnings which regular evolution requires and also deny God's Word about the supernatural beginnings and the ability of God to communicate clearly, which trusting God requires.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In FACT they "demonstrate" just the opposite by SHOWING that not ONLY do they need to "trash" the Word of God in Gen 1-3 but as Richard points out - it cascades into a entire seriest of "Bible trashing exercises" and its starting mandate is "What will APPEAL to the humanist non-Christian mind".

Is that what you think Christians do?</font>[/QUOTE]Don't twist his words. He's talking about evolutionists. Christians who trust God do not try to reinterpret His Word. They figure He knows how to communicate.

No wonder you're so upset. Relax. I don't know any of us at all who think that way. We're just taking God's Word as it is. If you'd take a look at it, without your own desires, you'd see that He is right.

Back atcha, Galatian. You are NOT taking God's Word as it is, for you deny some pretty big things in it. You deny a six day creation, you deny creation by kind, you deny man being a special creation apart from the animals (start to finish), you deny the extent of Noah's Flood, you deny Job and Jonah's experience -- you deny anything you are not comfortable with according to your preconceptions, which are evolutionary. I would urge you to read simply what the Bible has to say, without figuring you know what it means before you read it!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />IF a living, active miracle working God who is all-knowing all-powerful creator of "Heaven and Earth and all that is in them" who "IN Six days created the Heavens and the Earth" Exodus 20:8-11 by HIS OWN account - is not pleasing to humanist non-Christian sources then they gladly trash the Word of God.

Actually, God is completely free to use figurative language in His Bible, and He often does. That is one of the times. Because there are logical contradictions in a literal interpretation of Genesis, few Christians accept such an interpretation. </font>[/QUOTE]All non-narrative Hebrew writing is distinctly different grammatically from narrative. Genesis is written in narrative style. It is not allegorical or mythological. So no, this is NOT 'one of those times.' Nor are there any contradictions in a straightforward reading of Genesis, as most born-again Christians know.

 

[BobRyan]

Galation
You still don't get it. The Bible has nothing to say about evolution, for or against. It refutes creationism, because it says life began by natural means. But, as you learned earlier, evolutionary theory makes no claims about the origin of life.

The Bible has EVERYTHING to say about God CREATING MORE THAN a single celled organism from which ALL life "sprang".

The Bible declares DIRECT divine fiat creation in SIX days "FOR in SIX DAYS God created the Heavens and the Earth and the SEA and ALL THAT IS IN THEM".

Turning a blind eye to scripture our compromising evolutionist bretheren hope to find a Gospel that will not be corrupted by the doctrines of evolutionism.

And yet they fail to find that solution even on this thread that so directly asks them to "try".

In Christ,

Bob