Creationist SDA do not disregard true science, as there is alot that is truth. However, science is only true when it does not go against the Bible. God is the creator and he does not let things happen by chance. He is a God of freedom in that we can believe what we want, but our beliefe doesn't change the truth, no much evidence we pile up for or against the Bible. The Bible can stand by itself. It is God's word to mankind. When we get to heaven, all the questions that evolution has posed that creationsts can't explain and all the quesitons that creationists have posed that evolution can't answere will be explained. Then we will see what an incredible creator we really do have.

When the basis of something is faulty then the entire structure is affected. For instance, if one assumes that 2 plus 2 equals five then no matter what amount of knowledge one has of doctorate level math, the end result or answere will be incorrect. Knowing all the right processes while having the basis wrong, makes the entire answere incorrect.

The same thing with science. We have to choose whether human logic and understanding, no matter how incredible, is going to be flawed if it's foundation is flawed.

The only foundation that can be trusted beyond a shadow of a doubt is God. His word is true and he is the creator.

I assume that the SS classes ended up being like this topic. It is okay with the moderators to present arguments which discredit evolution, but not okay to present arguments which defend it or which discredit creationism.

No wonder I don't want to sit in a SS class ever again.

/Bevin

In my SS class both creation and evolution were discussed but we took the Bible as the basis and the conclusion would not have been enjoyed by an evolutionist. The problem is that evolutionists see their basis as credible. Creationist don't see it as credible not because Science can't be impressive on the side of evolution but because it disagrees at it's basis with the Bible. Either the Bible is the basis for truth or it isn't. If it isn't then any topic can be discussed from any angle and many conclusions can be reached. But if the Bible is the basis, although there might be slight variations in the conclusions the basis for those conclusions will always be the same. This is not a head in the sand approach. This is a trust in an almighty God who knows us better than we know ourselves because He created us.

Actually it is trust in a particular interpretation of the long and complex history of the Bible.

The failure of Christianity in general and the SDA church to teach this history has led to the current weird situation where the assumptions of the uninformed and the knowledge of the scholars is widely disparate.

/Bevin

It isn't an interpretation to take God at his word. It's trus in a God who had a direct hand in history and in how the Bible was put together as well as the inspiration of the Bible. (Despite that I can still think you are a decent person, can't I? :) )

There are many examples of how Jesus believed in the OT including the flood.

He said in Matthew 24:37-38 “But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. “For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark.”

No matter what some scientists says about a world-wide flood having never occured, I would prefer to trust my life to the God who knows the end from the beginning. A God who created me and you. A God who says that we are not an accident but that we have a purpose. A God whose word we can trust no matter what man has to say about it. A God who can recreate in us a new heart. A God who is coming back to take us home to live with him eternally.

I trust God to put together a plan of salvation that includes a Bible, a spiritual community, and a scientific community -
a plan of salvation that does not require a Bible that is scientifically accurate.

It is either that, or believe in a God who has created a world that is a huge lie.

I see you as creating an incomplete set of choices - you include the possibility that either the Bible is completely right, or badly flawed. There are other choices.

/Bevin

God never lies and if he says he created the world then it is a matter of believing God or not believing God. In my opinion there is no third option. Science is only science when it agrees with the one who created science in the first place. God gave us free choice to disbelieve him and that is everyone's right but it doesn't change the facts.

(I still don't dislike you, I just believe that the basis for truth is God and His word and if anything doesn't agree with that, then it isn't truth. You have a right to believe anything you wish because God didn't create robots, but in my opinion God's truth never changes regardless of any human opinion or research or understanding. )

That is, as you state, an opinion - and it is the opinion that leads directly to your final outcome. But what if that opinion is wrong?

God never lies - but sometimes we mishear or misunderstand what He is saying.

God never lies - but He speaks to us through many media.

We have contradictory evidence...

A literal reading of an English translation of an copy of what someone wrote down that someone reported to Luke that Jesus said

contradicts

what tens of thousands of researchers and I see when we go and look at the rocks and the fossils - after all, it is really hard to hide the White Cliffs of Dover, the Grand Canyon, Hawaii, Ayer's Rock, etc

Faced with a choice between

(a) God being deceptive in the Bible
(b) God being deceptive in the Earth
(c) It being incorrect to treat the Bible, with its complex origin, as scientifically inerrant when read literally
(d) The vast array of scientific evidence being incorrectly understood even in its largest aspects

I choose (c) - I choose the alternative that means God is truthful and did not create the world as a huge deception.

/Bible