Originally posted by Peter101:
The title of this thread is disrespectful of those christians who accept evolution. I am sure that if I started a thread entitled "Creationism Corrupts the Gospel", it would be promptly deleted by the administrators.
Just started to go through more of this thread. I guess you lost, eh?
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!
The halos don't come with a label, saying that they are caused by Polonium. But if they did, how do you conclude that the halos were caused by "primordial" Polonium? Remember that it has to be primordial polonium in order for Gentry's conclusion to be correct.
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. Since then, other possibilities have emerged, which can be found in the other literature on the topic. Currently Mark Armitage is working in conjuntion with Dr. Andrew Snelling examining many more halos in material they themselves have collected and know precisely where it came from. Gentry's major flaw that I am aware of was that he got his original materials from a museum or collector and did not have background history on them. It should also be noted that Gentry was considered the world's leading expert on radiohalos getting numerous government grants and lab privileges until it became known that he was concluding from his own research that the halos might be evidence of sudden and even recent creation. At this point all lab privileges stopped, his funding was cut off, and he was suddenly a pariah. It's interesting what matters of faith can do in science.
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.
That was from Bob -- Bob, it is not a matter of how fast granite forms. It is a matter of how the polonium got into the mixture.
Also, your scenario which I quoted above is not in line with the biblical model that I can see, where we have a cool beginning (waters) which then heated up from the inside, presumably because of radioactivity.
Also, Bob, Peter is correct in saying that there are some dating methods which do not rely on knowledge or presumptions of initial mother/daughter ratios. He is also largely correct regarding the cross-checking using other radiometric dating methods. They key is not in the initial ratios, but with the two other presumptions of lack of migration of elements and, even more primarily, the presumption of consistency of radiodecay rates through time.
from Richard C:
Among Christians there are different interpretations of what the Gospel means. To me it means (very briefly) that the Kingdom of God is available to us sinners through the grace of God. The Fall does not have to be something that happened 6,000 years ago, or even a specific event. It means that without God's grace we are in a state of separation from God, however that may have come about. The Gospel, in the sense I believe in it, would be true even if Genesis said that humans came into existence exactly the way evolution says.
Please don't assume that every Christian shares your conception of the Gospel.
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? What makes you think we have any right at all to even begin to understand anything past what He has revealed to us? And even then, we have been told to ask for wisdom. Have you ever prayed, asking humbly for wisdom before you pick up your Bible to read it? That is something that is extremely important. You see, God CAN be trusted. Man cannot. You will find that confirmed in the last few sentences of the second chapter of the gospel of John. If Jesus would not entrust Himself as a person to men, why should you entrust the truth to them? God knows what He is doing, and He knows how to communicate clearly to us -- even through other men. In fact, you will find in 1 Peter 1:10-11 the following:
Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.
Thus, we have evidence from the Bible -- unless this you also choose to throw out or reinterpret -- that even those who wrote the early Scriptures did so under inspiration and that they were not always sure themselves of what was being meant. But they knew God, and that was enough. Thus, we can trust, as they did, that God is communicating clearly throughout His Word to us.
So, you see, it's not a matter of sharing anyone's conception of the Gospel, but of believing it or not believing it as it is written. When Jesus answered the Pharisees, and even Satan himself, we hear over and over again, "It is written...."
If Jesus considered it in that light, perhaps so should we.
i ratio). Making a "guess" so that the D