Scripture clearly connects God's authority to creation.

Rev. 4:11 "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."

Isaiah 29:16: "Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?"

Isaiah 64:6-8 "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities. But now, O Lord, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand."

Exodus 20:8-11 "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

Psalms 104:24, 33 "O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches... I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being."

John 1:1-4 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

Hebrews 1:1,2 "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds"

Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

This is not a reply...

Creationist often fall into the trap of useing the Bible as a science book which of course it isn't. The Bible is about GOD and relationships. A science book is of course not about God but about understanding the world around us. (simplistic terms, yes I know) I once attended a seminar by SDA scientist and one of the presenters said that when the evidence dissagreed with the
Bible version of creation, he choose the Bible and said I can't explain why the difference. He was honest, saying "I don't know".
He emphasized that he had made the choice in what to believe. But he did not have all the answers. Most debaters of the issue refuse to do that and therein lies the problem.

I understand where bevin is comming from and Bravus. The phrase 'I've already answered the question and refuse to do so again' is a cop-out. When I go back over the supposed answer, I see the reason for not wanting to state it again....most often because it is incomplete!

Robert V. Gentry, for one. Have you read the 3rd edition (May 1992) of his book, Creation's Tiny Mystery? If you have, could you point out to me where Mr. Gentry is wrong? What, in your opinion, is the greatest mistake he's made that invalidates what he claims to have shown?



Both sides start out with presuppositions that cannot be proven or demonstrated scientifically. The creationist begins with the assumption that God exists. On the other hand, the evolutionist presumes that all things emerged in evolution, something that also cannot be proved. He asks people to believe that life came from non-life, again something that has never been adequately explained or demonstrated, despite many attempts having been made.

So, they are looking at the same evidence but from different perspectives, and therefore it stands to reason they would interpret the facts differently and draw different conclusions. Creationists, for one thing, believe in a world wide flood and also assume that God made the earth and Adam and Eve, etc. Evolutions do not. Without any kind of proof, most of them believe in the Big Bang, even though they cannot give you any proof that such a thing happened or could have happened.

For instance, what made the Big Bang occur and what is the origin of all the matter in the universe? How did it happen, contrary to all of our experiene, that this biggest explosion resulted in extremely complex and organized systems and in all the life forms? Isn't there about as much chance of that just happening by "chance" as there is that a monkey sitting down at a typewriter-- no matter for how long-- could end up typing Shakespeare's plays or a dictionary? The mathamatical odds are about the same, aren't they? In fact, didn't Sir Julian Huxley say he believed that something like that was inevitable if given enough time?



I don't think that is so hard to explain "plausibly." One such explanation (which you've labled a "hand-wave" but which is nevertheless as plausible an explanation as evolutionists have for it) is that the chalk cliffs of Dover are deep layers of ocean-bottom sediments collected in pre-Flood times on the sea floor. Here is what Harold Coffin wrote: "There is little reason to think that the pre-Flood seas did not have microscopic plants and animals such as the diatoms and foraminifera, and that their remains collected on the sea floor. Were these pre-Flood oozes buried by the Flood and then uplifted to the present exposed positions? This is a possibility. But before any conclusion is drawn regarding any specific deposit, the stratigraphic position, the associated fauna and flora, and other factors need to be studied."

What precisely do you find implausible about that explanation?



It looks like that to evolutionists because they ignore all the evidence that does not fit into their paradigm. For instance, they ignore many things that their theory cannot explain, and which the creationist theory explains much better. For instance, how does your theory explain the evolution of the following:

1) the male and female reproductive organs in mammals? Where, for instance, is the evidence that humans reproduced by any other means than the present copulatory organs?

2) the neck of the giraffe?

3) the honey bee in relation to flowers?

4) the human eye?

4) an eagle's eye

5) the electric organs of fishes?

6) the luminous organs in insects?

7) the bat?

8) the mitotic apparatus in the cell?

9) the breasts on man and on other male mammals?

10) the fig-wasp?

11) the first living cell, and how it evolved into a giraffe, a man, etc.?



That is not as big an issue as this one: Can life develop from non-living material? If not, evolution gets off with a shaky start, doesn't it? Louis Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation is impossible, yet that is the only hope of the evolutionist unless he says God created life and used evolutionary processes. One might as well posit the theory of a rock becoming an animal as to say that over time primordial ooze became a man.



Can you give a plausible explanation from the viewpoint of the evolutionist for the questions I posed? Or give me references where I can find them?

You have taken a portion of her statement out of context. If you look at the whole statement, you will see that she was responding to your accusation that she set out with a particular agenda. She has responded that she did not have such an agenda.



Very well. Here is the email, complete:

"Dear Dr. Kennedy,

Thank-you so much for your response. I shared your thoughts with others who are interested, on the Adventist Forum online. I would like to share with you a response which I received. I don't know if the person who posted this knows you personally, or is speaking for you, but I would very much hope that you might find time to respond. Thanks! Here is the post:

"Ms. Kennedy has retired after a career facing the emotional weight of knowing that the science she understood and her religious beliefs were not easily reconciled.

Personally, I do not wish reawaken that conflict in her. There are things in my past I would rather leave behind, this may well be one of hers.

She did not propose a solution for them, within the short-age flood model, nor did she have an scientific reason for why they would be a problem for the long-age model.

I think it is reasonable to assume she saw the Cliffs, realised how big a conflict she was facing, found a couple of hooks to hang her preconceptions on, and gave up on the issue.

She would have become famous if she could have shown that the White Cliff's must have formed quickly. They presented a huge opportunity - and apparently she walked away with a hand wave.

Like I say, she faced a huge conflict between two things that both appealed to her - science and and overly literal interpretation of Genesis."

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

As you can see, that is quite a post! I look forward to your response, if you find it convenient.

David Koot"



Taking yet another look at what you posted, quoted above, it is clear that I did not misrepresent your remarks, and that you said things about Dr. Kennedy, (even referring to her as 'Ms. Kennedy,') which you had no knowledge or authority to say, and you made such statements under color of personal knowledge. In fact, you did not have such personal knowledge, and your statements were wrong, and demeaning. Worse, you seem to not have profited from this episode, and continue to attempt to justify yourself.

Those are not the disciplines I was referring to. I was referring to the legal arena, to public relations and mass communication.



But of course! I presented a challenge, with credible evidence observed by a professional scientist, to a pet theory! And then, horror of horrors, I did not stand by and allow her reputation to be trashed, and say nothing! Wrath on my head!

You sent her my reply without the note it was replying to.

I am shocked and dismayed that you did this. How could she possibly have understood my words in context when you have torn them out of the discussion like this.

I am disgusted with you.

/Bevin

Come on now,,, let's not get carried away. Dr. Kennedy has as much access to this forum as any of us. I am assuming Bevin sent her an apology via email. The problem is that his behavior toward other members here continues to be the same.



I was taught correct english is to address someone with a Ph.D as Dr. or use their first name (I guess usernames on the web are ok) but never to address them as Mr. or Ms. as that would be showing disrespect. In college, most of my professors asked us to call them by their first name.

The "note it was replying to" was her note, which she had just sent. As a point of interest, however, here is her note which you so inappropriately responded to:

"I have examined three areas in Southern England and find it hard to believe they require slow deposition. I have been struck by the purity of the chalks which requires rapid deposition of the coccoliths and the diatoms which migrate through the chalk and form nodules as the weight of the overburden increases. In addition there are upright stumps and their associated "stromatolites" preserved in the chalks and this again would require rapid deposition. I do not have any references for you as I am retired and no longer have the materials I collected regarding the sites.

Yours in Christ,
Elaine G. Kennedy, Ph.D.
Geology
website: http://origins.swau.edu
email: ElaineGKennedy@gmail.com"

And I note, once again, your authoritative statement about the circumstances of her retirement:

"Ms. Kennedy has retired after a career facing the emotional weight of knowing that the science she understood and her religious beliefs were not easily reconciled."

You had absolutely no knowledge if that were the case, nor any authority to make such a statment. Your statement was false and misleading.

Regardless of the content of the note, your reply was unacceptable. You should be disgusted with yourself. In contrast to Bravus, who as an honorable man has taken responsibility for how he handled the matter, you continue to attempt to justify yourself and to blame others. Shame on you.

As anyone can verify for themselves, by looking here...
http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/80665/page/0/fpart/4

(a) You actually butchered my reply by removing the quotations in it

(b) There were several replies published between your posting of her email, and my reply that you butchered.

Furthermore it is apparent in the mail that you sent, you did not tell her which forum or give her a URL to see the discussion for herself.

I remain disgusted at your behavior.

/Bevin

Nah. I just took another look. The only 'quotations' in your reply were from my statements, not Dr. Kennedy's. The issue was what you said about Dr. Kennedy.



Once again, all the replies were in reference to my posts, not Dr. Kennedy's. At issue was what you said about her, not my statements.

By the way, I notice that you have not commented on the fact that in my email to Dr. Kennedy, I did not put a 'spin' on what you said about her. My email to her was neutral. Her response to your offensive statements about her was authentic, and not 'coached.'



I consider the source. And, once again, you are not taking responsiblity for what you did, you apparently refuse to acknowledge the wrongness of what you did, but you are trying to shift blame, and you are continuing to try to justify yourself. You should be disgusted with yourself.