Both sides of the issue

[Vance]

Getting your information about evolution and the age of the earth from Creationist sources is like a non-Christian getting his information about Christianity from atheist sources.

After a year on this forum (albeit with a sabbatical), I have found that there is one consistent fact. With very rare exceptions, those who support YEC’ism have gotten almost all of their information about evolution from Creationist sites, lectures, books and videos. In short, they have only heard one side of the story. Yes, this is a generalization, but it is one that I believe is accurate.

On the other hand, almost all those who support evolution on these forums have not only studied evolution and the age of the earth from scientific sources, but have ALSO read what the Creationist sources have to say. Having read both sides of the issue, and thus being in a position to make a truly informed decision, they believe that God created through evolution.

Now, if you are a YEC, this may not apply to you. But if you truly have gotten most of your information about evolution and the age of the earth from Creationist sources, you are not giving yourself an honest opportunity to make an objective, informed decision.

 

[ahab]

Both sides of the issue.



Surely the origins issues are somewhat different from evolution. The problem for me with YEC is that radio isotope dating doesn’t support it. However without going into the possibilities of ‘c’ decay etc. as far as origins are concerned where exactly are left-handed amino acids supposed to have come from? As to evolution I believe there is some evolution but the fossil record doesn’t support the origin of the species, and I came to this objective, informed decision from geological study well before I had ever considered or heard of YEC or before I believed in Jesus.

 

[Vance]

I am very glad you reached some conclusion about these issues before being exposed to Creationist material. I should probably have phrased my point a little bit better. Some start with a Creationist viewpoint because they are taught this by their parents or their Church. Most just take this as "gospel" truth and never look further. Some do want to know more about the issue (usually for the purpose of being able to challenge evolution and an old earth), and they go to Creationist sources for this information. If you did not do this, but actually researched the issues from non-Creationist sources as well, then you are one of the rarities.

But how about now? Do you now get most of your understanding about evolution from Creationist sites? Did the question about the amino acids come from some other source? Have you checked non-Creationist sources to see what the answer may be?

What exactly doesn't the fossil record support? And what do you mean by "origins" in this context?

As for the amino acid question:

1. The amino acids which are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments [Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001]. Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness [Zepik et al. 2002]. An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life [Pizzarello and Weber 2004].
2. Amino acids from space found in meteorites, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system [Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999]. The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals [Service 1999]. Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.

 

[ahab]

Hi Vance,



I think whatever source I get anything from I try and test it. When I believe the Holy Spirit has ‘spoken’ to me I test it against scripture.



I just gave you two examples of why I don’t ‘buy’ into evolution or the origin of the species 100%

The mechanisms that might have been responsible might not have been responsible.



As to the fossil record I would have thought that was obvious.

 

[Bushido216]

Test it against what you believe Scripture to be saying. Perhaps the Holy Ghost has told you to re-evaluate Scripture?

 

[PotLuck]

whoa


If that's the result of accepting scientific conclusion then I want no part it.

 

[Vance]

It is odd, though, that Holy Spirit-filled and led Christians all around the world interpret the Scriptures non-literally and fully accept an old earth and evolution and are fully at peace with this viewpoint. I pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance every time I read the Scriptures (which is only for about half an hour each day, I will admit), and I DO feel the Spirit's very powerful presence during my time in the Word. I used to be troubled in my own spirit every time I read Genesis 1 and 2 in a literal fashion. It was not until I began to read it non-literally and was able to accept the powerful messages there without be tied to literalism that the Spirit gave me a true and deep sense of peace about it all. Now it is some of the most spiritually moving Scripture for me the the entire Bible.

 

[PotLuck]

Arguing points of view using the Holy Spirit can be a very dangerous path to follow. It can become who's Holy Spirit is right or wrong. I think it wise to voice a word of extreme caution when following that tack.

 

[Vance]

I am just passing on my own anecdotal experience. Another Christian may have an entirely different experience. My point is that it is not "Spirit-led" Christians who read the text literally and "wordly" Christians, out of tune with the Spirit, who read it non-literally (an opinion which has been voiced on this forum before). As one who IS Spirit-led, I can with full confidence say that the Spirit has given me complete peace over my non-literal reading.

 

[PotLuck]

The Spirit will not tell you anything that scripture can not support.
I am not arguing any point, I'm not going to take any stance on your post or opinion.
I will not go there.

 

[herev]

Arguing points of view using the Holy Spirit can be a very dangerous path to follow. It can become who's Holy Spirit is right or wrong. I think it wise to voice a word of extreme caution when following that tack.

May I butt in for a moment--I agree with this, but usually, it is the creationists telling us that if we would just open ourselves up to the spirit, we'd understand...
good for the goose, good for the gander, ?

 

[herev]

The Spirit will not tell you anything that scripture can not support.

and yet, this is the crux of the issue--scripture does support Theistic Evolution, OR Creationism--depending on interpretation, so we're back at square one...

 

[Vance]

"The Spirit will not tell you anything that scripture can not support."

Exactly. Thank you.

Ipso facto . . .