Here is a question I might ask my Sabbath School class to get the discussion going:

Of all the scientific proofs you studied this week, which one helps you see most clearly that the Bible is completely true?

How can a scientific proof show that the Bible is completely true IF a scientific proof cannot show that the Bible has scientifically incorrect statements in it?

People who do not allow science to show that the Bible is wrong, should not claim that it shows the Bible is right.

/Bevin

I believe that was james423's point. Its stated rather succinctly and cleverly I might add.

Now notice the quote from Thursday, given in the other lesson 6 thread



If you ask the vast majority of geology and biology scientists to do their thing - to do science on these deposits - they come back and tell you that the deposits clearly show hundreds of millions of years on life on Earth - directly contradicting a literal interpretation of Genesis

"Of all the scientific proofs you studied this week, which one helps you see most clearly that the Bible is completely true?"

If the lesson had actually covered the science - rather than cherry-picking and skimming it - the audience would have seen most clearly that the early chapters of the Bible read literally are not compatible modern science, and hence science does not offer any support for the complete correctness of the Bible.

If you want the Bible to be completely true, you have to reject vast portions of modern science.

/Bevin

Yet, that is what evolutionists do. They cherry-pick evidence that supports their beliefs.



Certainly they are compatible. However, they may not be seen as compatible with the official atheism of the NSF and other such organizations.



If you want evolution to be true, you have to reject a vast amount of evidence.

"If faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" how can I put any confidence in man's attempts to explain how God created and set things in order? Yet look how much "controversy" has done to cause people to study and to stand up for their beliefs. So good can come from what seems detrimental to ones faith.

annie

David's reaction is typical of most SDA.

Did anyone reading this participate in a SS class where the actual evidence and alternatives were discussed - or was it assumed that David's view is the correct one?

/Bevin

The situation is that there are people who take the Bible over science and "evidence". Man can always be faulty in his "evidence" or "knowledge" but God is never faulty. So even if evidence is studied by thousands of people and that evidence seems to "conclusively prove" that evolution is correct and creation is out of the realm of possibility, it's because their premise is that Science can be trusted over the Bible.

But there are many of us who trust the Bible over Science. I have seen many programs and heard many lectures by Creationist Scientists where creation seems to be proved in certain aspects (and no creationists don't have the answers to everything but neither do evolutionists) But faith in God doesn't require man's proof. It is nice when God gives man a glimpse into the intricacies of his creation but proof isn't needed for humans to simply trust that what God says is correct.

The moderators have already ruled that the SS discussion forums are not the right place for discussing the actual science v bible topic.

I am more interested in finding out whether SDA SS classes are having such discussions, or is it assumed that the science is wrong.

/Bevin

It is true what the SDA Commentary says that learned men who go against the Bible are usually proved wrong at some point in the future. Of course, there are some things in the Bible that have to be accepted on faith - just like there are those scientific theories that definitely have to be accepted on faith.

Something else I find interesting about evolutionary science - those who believe in this theory don't want any other idea about origins even discussed in public schools. Creationists can have this view, too, but I find it interesting that the people who shouldn't have anything to lose if their theories were investigated (namely scientists who are supposed to be neutral observers) are the ones who scream the loudest if anything about creationism is taught. Perhaps they are still burned from all those who were burned for not believing creationism.