News Notes
June 13, 2007


Join two college students as they travel more than 7,000 miles in a quest to sort out the mix of data, opinions, and emotions surrounding the question of our origins.

Addressing topics such as Darwinian evolution, faith, the geological column, catastrophism, dinosaurs, the big bang, and the nature of mankind, In the Beginning, tackles questions that confront Christian young people today.

This exciting new series produced by Paul Kim especially for high-school and college students seeks to provide them with an alternative model for understanding our origins.

Be sure to watch The Hope Channel for this important and exciting new series starting in July!


Hope Channel:
Wednesday 5 p.m. PST/8 p.m. EST/Thu 00h00 GMT
Friday 8 p.m. PST/11 p.m. EST/Sabbath 03h00 GMT
Sabbath 1:30 p.m. PST/4:30 p.m. EST/20h30 GMT

Hope Channel International:
Monday 05h30 GMT/15h30 AEST
Thursday 22h30 GMT/Friday 08h30 AEST
Sabbath 11h00 GMT/21h00 AEST

I doubt very much that they will seriously investigate either

(a) the case for a long-aged earth and evolution, OR
(b) the case against any short-age evidence they turn up

http://news.adventist.org/data/2005/04/1115741499/index.html.en

"Just last year, following a series of faith and science discussions held over a period of three years, the Adventist Church reaffirmed its belief in the Biblical account of creation."

Yeah, that was what the administrators spun the result of the Faith and Science Conference into. That was NOT the conclusion of the participants.

/Bevin

http://www.hopetv.org/article.php?id=3

You can get Hope Channel in the USA via the internet

I had been corresponding with some folks at the Geoscience Research Institute about this. This is an exciting adventure for the church.

I am VERY cynical about this.

It has been very apparent over the years that the administrators have a strong desire to maintain the status-quo, and a history of punishing those who threaten it.

The F&S C "reaffirmation" was an instance of this. The actual evidence presented seriously threatened the status quo. Bill Johnson's summing up basically admitted that the situation was very unclear and the challenges to the traditional position were very strong - then the administrators claimed the conference "affirmed" the status quo.

I predict another "affirmation". Cynically I doubt that they will present the actual evidence for the long-age earth either in its breadth or its strength.

I hope I am wrong. I would like to see it come out with at least a "the situation is unclear, the traditional position is not supportable, the contrary evidence is strong" conclusion.

/Bevin

I get the distinct feeling, for some reason, that you would like to see the SDA church accept the evolutionary theory as fact and begin teaching that evolution, not special creation, accounts for everything as we see it in our world today. But of course that conflicts with the Word of God. I see nothing in the Bible that suggests that the time it took God to make the earth was actually almost endless aeons and that humans evolved in a struggle for survival from lower life-forms. Except for science's theories, no one would believe or teach that this is what the Bible says.

I realize that some SDA scientists, especially those specializing in the earth sciences, do believe that the earth is much older than the Bible seems to indicate. I respect that. I believe that science does show this. I don't know why there is a conflict between science and Scripture in this matter, but I choose to believe Scripture because I know it to be the inspired Word of God. I think that is the only choice open to SDAs who accept both the Bible and the writings of Ellen White as inspired by God.

The church would only change that view if the majority of SDAs accepted evolution as the only true explanation for the origin of life, and I seriously doubt that is ever going to happen. It would totally change our view of the Sabbath, for one thing, to say nothing of how it would radically change our view of Adam's original sin and of death that followed it. (Who, on this view, is Adam anyway?) It would have the effect also of causing SDAs to see less importance in the Sabbath, and after a while, it would even appear inexcusable to believe that God expects mere human beings to die rather than break the Sabbath and keep Sunday. After all, if life is a struggle for existence, and if God made it so, why would God require people to suffer death rather than keep a day that has lost its original significance if indeed there was no real creation but rather a process of millions of years in which our ancestors progressed by amoral means to become at last the intellectual and moral giants that we are today?

What! You cynical? You gotta be kidding. (Half joking here, Bevin.)

I was reading in William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience," which was published some 100 years ago. He compares and contrasts different religious experiences. Interesting enough is that he includes those that replace religion with science. That is much more common today than it was when his book was originally written.

Many today are cynical because they have replaced religion with science. Yet they place as much faith in the laws of science as Christian place in the inspiration of the Word of God. One major scientific assumption is that of continuity. Science assumes that laws which govern nature today have always been the same. Of course there is no way they can prove that since we can't travel back in time and perform experiments of make observations. Yet they place faith in the assumption of continuity as much as a Christian places faith in the Bible. The Bible, of course, contradicts the idea of continuity (2 Peter 3:4-7) which turns natural science upside down.

I do not expect the SDA church in my lifetime to



but I would like to see a change similar to that many other denominations have made - that they accept that their members may have widely disparate views on this particular issue.

For example: they should encourage the SDA who made long-age presentations at the S&F C to publish such information in the Adventist Review, and they should discourage Clifford Goldstein's anti-evolution diatribes.

/Bevin

.some are cynical about religion and some are cynical about science. :-)

Philosophically, there comes a point where the two fit into the same category.

I recognize the agreed upon restrictions on natural science. Because of those restrictions, a reasonable person would never place reasonable expectations on science in regard to origins. However reasonable expectations can be placed on science in areas of medical and health treatment and the various forms of technology.

Some liberal denominations are ordaining openly gay ministers and accepting some of evolutions teaching. Bible-based denominations are realizing the importance of Genesis to the inspiration of the Bible and the gospel. This is most apparent with the recent opening of the Creation Museum. Many denominations understand that the teachings of evolution are resulting in untold millions of people losing out on a saving relationship with Christ. They are embracing these people with plausible explanations of origins which is commendable and long overdue.

Of course there will be skeptics as there always have been in every age of the Earth's history. Skeptics of the truth are like little dogs nipping at the heels of a giant. They can be disturbing in the short term but do not have any long-term impact. The Bible is as solid today as when it was first written and its critics are just as determined to prove it to be less than it is.

What strikes me about this method is that it embraces the topic in a reality show type of format which should make the program fun and not just a boring lecture in a documentary style presentation (which I tend to enjoy but many do not). It is an example of the Adventist church reaching out to the secular mind while edifying the church. Certainly more of these types of programs need to be done and directed in Europe when many have chosen to have science replace religion.

That is not to take anything away from CLIFF! That is a great program that reaches out to the secular minded intellectual too. Adventist TV is a great blessing in the home. No doubt.

I don't think the Roman Catholics think of themselves as liberal.

On the other hand there are denominations which are both accepting of gays AND are short-age-creationist - I guess that proves that creationist is wrong?



It cuts both ways - tens of millions of people have been turned off Christianity and Christ BECAUSE it they perceive Christianity as anti-science (and anti-gay, as your first argument illustrates)



- John the Baptist was a little dog barking at the heels of Traditional Judaistic truth

- Martin Luther was a little dog barking at the heels of Dark Ages Catholic truth

- Ellen White was a little dog barking at the heels of Protestant American truth

Indeed skeptics are disturbing in the short term with little long term impact



and I cynically expect it to be as much to do with reality as The Surreal Life, The Simple Life, Survivor, and Big Brother

/Bevin

The Catholic church is a poor example because 1) they do not believe the Bible is the only rule for faith, and 2) they have a history of changing doctrines in accordance with the prevalent culture.

I am not aware of any denomination that teaches "sola scriptura" and also ordains openly gay ministers and teaches evolution. Certainly there would be some major conflicts in such an organization.

Father David Becker has written a piece on the Catholic church's position and in it he admits, 'The Church has been contending for decades with the phenomenon of "cafeteria Catholics,' those who look over the Church's 'menu' of doctrines and 'take what they like and leave the rest.'"

The Adventist church deals with this phenomenon as well albeit on a small scale. Adventists tend to differ on issues such as vegetarianism, use of jewelry, dancing and acceptable Sabbath day activities. I do not see that putting more doctrines on the "menu" would benefit the church. Growing in numbers is not profitable if those coming in are not coming into the truth.

Father David Becker makes a similar point:



John the Baptist, Martin Luther, Ellen White and even Noah were not little dogs but were themselves giants. They were giants because they had the truth. It is the truth that places one in the giant category in the analogy. Critics of the truth are the dogs nipping at the heels of the giant. Like hammers pounding away on an anvil, they are warn out but the anvil of truth remains. Creationists are in a similar position today. We are far outnumbered by evolutionists but we are defenders of the truth and it is that truth that makes us giants and the critics like little dogs nipping at our heels.

Evolution is based on observation and the assumption of continuity. It is restricted by not being allowed to take into consideration the existence of the super natural.



Following this logic when a minister points out that prostitutes have led many to hell and damnation, one would point out that it cuts both ways because many prostitutes perceive the church to be anti-adultery.

When science is defined as not allowing for the possibility of a supernatural power, the church is anti-science because the church is all about a supernatural power. Those clinging to atheistic science feel turned off by the church because they are turned off by Biblical truth. This is no different than many in the gay-rights movement that wants to reinterpret the Bible to justify their behavior. Their problem isn't with the church, it is with the Bible.

Your position is perfectly understandable given the your assumption that the simplistic literal interpretation of Genesis correct, and that the long-age idea is wrong.

But this is an assumption, and is contradictory to the evidence.

The evidence shows a long-age earth, and hence you are arguing that God deliberately created a huge lie to deceive us.

I don't buy that argument.

/Bevin

I take a position on what the Bible teaches. The Bible clearly teaches that sin came before death. Some creationists do add up the geologies to try and figure out the age of the Earth. I think that is using the geologies for something they were not intended for. I don't do that. I don't take a position on the age of the Earth. It could be old and it could be young. Be that as it may, the issue the Bible is clear on is that sin came before death.

Now the person that has made science his or her religion has accepted by faith that certain laws of science are correct. That person would indeed feel that God created a lie if the Earth is actually a young planet. But just because that person has accepted certain laws of science as being correct does not make God a liar. It makes the person mistaken for accepting scientific ideals that are not correct.

If God created the first apple tree with ripe apples ready to eat on it would that make God a liar? A man of science would clearly declare the tree had to start out as a seed and by coring it to examine its rings would come to other faulty conclusions. So would God be the liar or the scientist be mistaken?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Science tells us the egg came first. The Bible says the chicken came first. The scientist will conclude that if there is a chicken there must have been an egg. If there wasn't, does that make God a liar? Did God create a lie when He created a chicken without creating the egg first?

All we have to base our science on is what we can see today. In the grand theme of things, our science is very limited. Then, by ruling out any supernatural power, science limits itself even more.

I have two options. I can believe the Bible is the Word of God, or I can believe it is not. Because I believe the Bible is the Word of God, I view the evidence of nature differently then those that do not believe in any super natural power at all.

Natural science depends on the idea of continuity which the Bible clearly rejects (2 Peter 3:4-7).

• We don't know the details of the original creation.
• We don't know if there was another creation when Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden.
• We don't know if the was another creation after or during the flood.
• We don't know the details of the flood and its impact on the planet.
• We don't know the make-up of the atmosphere prior to the flood.
• We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before the Fall.
• We don't know how elements behaved in the timeless environment prior to the Fall.
• We don't know the details of the ice ages.
• We don't know what caused platechtonics to start.
• We don't know why there are different races(colors) of humans.

A lot of things in the creationist realm of thinking that are unknown.

The natural scientist depends on the idea of continuity so that they can come to conclusions about the evidence we see around us. They claim to know what the evidence is saying but that claim is based on the anti-Biblical grounds of continuity.

Where? It clearly teaches that HUMAN death is a consequence of sin. It says nothing about the death of animals. It is interesting that Adam and Eve clearly knew about death BEFORE they ate the fruit.



You clearly do not understand my position. I don't accept ANY scientific laws "by faith".

My sole criteria is the measurable ability of the model to produce accurate predictions, and when the model stops doing that I look for another model.

So you neither understand the Bible, nor my position - and yet you are certain you are correct - that scares me.

/Bevin

You list a huge list of "we don't know" items, but you miss the important point...

the world we see around us today is directly predictable as a consequence of the physical laws that we know applied over billions of years to a planet

() the behaviour of the moon
() the proportions of the elements
() the composition of the atmosphere
() the type and shape of the rocks
() the fossils in the rocks
() the meteor craters
() the magnetic fields in the rocks
() the coal deposits
() the ice cores
() the material on the bottom of the oceans
() the carnivores
() the genetic material in the life forms
() the domestication of plants and animals
() the archaeological evidence of human civilisations

Every time we invent a new test - DNA sequencing being among the latest - that test simply confirms the over-all picture of a planet that has evolved

If this planet has not evolved WHY DO ALL THE OBSERVATIONS MATCH A MODEL THAT IT DID?

Short-age creationism requires God to have created a lie, or let the devil create one.

Inventing weird and whacky theories that explains how a short-age Earth could look this way is one thing, explaining why God created a lie is much more difficult.

This is the issue I cynically doubt very much this reality TV will delve into. I fear it is just another propaganda tool of the entrenched administrators. If it gets seriously into these areas, will they fund and broadcast it? No way.

/Bevin

I couldn't say such a thing and sleep at night. That sounds like the same kind of rationalizing as the gay theologians have. Gay theologians teach that it is sin for a straight person to have gay sex because for a straight person gay sex is not normal. However it is not sin for a gay person to have gay sex because for a gay person it is normal.



Not important to the discussion. I am speaking in generalities.



We can make accurate predictions with current conditions. What we don't know is if these current conditions have always existed. According to the Bible they have not. The world was dramatically different prior to the flood, which Peter says many will deny ever occurred in the last days. Atheistic evolutionists fulfill Peter's prophecy. They believe all things have always acted the same and do not believe in the world-wide flood.



I understand the Bible well. Another person's personal opinion isn't important to the discussion. What is more important is the arena of ideas that being taught and believed by many on both sides.



Again, this discussion shouldn't be a personal one where individuals are attacked. What I believe personally really isn't relevant to the discussion. I am certain about what the Bible teaches and what the Bible teaches is relevant, but my degree of certainty about that is not relevant.

The Bible teaches that man's sin impacted all of creation. We don't get the details on that. The Bible also teaches that in heaven there will be no more death. It gives an example of a lion laying down with a lamb and eating straw. That is clearly teaching that there will be no death of animals. So death in the Biblical context is not limited to humans. To try and limit it to humans and contend that animals were dying before the Fall put one into the radical theological area of the gay theologians.

I simple say this. If a person doesn't believe in the Biblical account of creation they should just come out and state they don't believe the Bible is inspired. Simple as that. We either believe the Bible was inspired and believe its account of creation or we believe that it is not inspired. It is not just about Genesis. The creation and flood stories were taught by the prophets, Jesus and the apostles. If Genesis is wrong so is the rest of the Bible.

That said, the Biblical account of creation is poetic, not scientific. It is vague. We are not even sure what happened on each day. Light was created on the first day. What kind of light? Where did it come from? No details are given. The second day He made the firmament. No details on what exactly that consisted of. Some kind of separation of waters is mentioned but certainly no details given. On the third day He separated the land from the sea and created vegetation with seeds. Future reproduction is eluded to there but no real details of how things happened. The stars and moon were created on the fourth day. So again, where was the light coming from on the first day? On the fifth day He created marine life including sea monsters, and birds (I think that includes chickens of distant relatives). On the sixth day He made mammals and man. But again, no real details. The only things clear about the story is that it was six literal days and sin brought death. The poetry doesn't take away from that and the prophets, apostles and Jesus taught that.

I am not afraid to step back and look at the possibility that the Bible is wrong and the Biblical faith is wrong. We must take the Bible on faith as much as natural scientists must take the idea of consistency on faith. Faith is believing what we cannot see or cannot prove. Natural scientists cannot prove consistency. We don't know if half-lives were the same 5,000 years ago as they are now. We don't know if the speed of light was the same. We don't know if Earth axis was the same. We were not there. We may think we have a pretty good idea but we were not able to observe and measure it. We do not know how long it took to form the coal beds because we don't even know what the condition of the Earth's atmosphere was at the time it was formed.

As Seventh-day Adventists we are to offer the call to worship the Creator. The seventh-day Sabbath is a memorial to creation. While we may not be sure about the age of the Earth, we are sure it was created in six literal days and that sin brought with it death.

One has to have a twisted mind to see the Genesis account of creation as God creating a lie. I would bite my tongue before accusing the Almighty of creating a lie. God's creation reveals the lie of scientific consistency. It leaves the atheistic evolutionist beating his fist on the table and crying foul.

Let's look at how Peter dismantles the idea of consistency.

"Know this first of all, that in the last days scoffers will come (to) scoff, living according to their own desires and saying, 'Where is the promise of his coming? From the time when our ancestors fell asleep, everything has remained as it was from the beginning of creation.' They deliberately ignore the fact that the heavens existed of old and earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God; through these the world that then existed was destroyed, deluged with water."

Notice that these scoffers first do not believe Christ will return. Thus we label them unbelievers. Secondly they believe everything has remained the same since the beginning (consistency). Thirdly they deliberately ignore the supernatural. especially the creation story and the story of the flood. That is a description of the modern-day evolution crowd! Peter saw into the future and he saw what evolutionists would be teaching. There it is. Now we can believe the Bible or choose to believe what the evidence appears to be saying. That is the choice each of us must make for ourselves. But lets not insult God and His Word by trying to ride the fence.

I agree. That is why I prefer the explanation that the Book of Genesis should not be taken as literal history.

/Bevin

Now that sounds like my drill sergeant trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth. Dishonesty in the extreme with the purpose of entrapping its victim. Here is how it plays out.

Drill sergeant X says to drill sergeant Y that a certain private was looking at his hind quarters with sexual desire. Drill sergeant Y then asks the private if that is true. When the private denies it drill sergeant Y then tells drill sergeant X that the private is calling him liar. Drill sergeant X then asks the private if he is calling him a liar. When the private answers no, drill sergeant Y then proclaims that it must then be true that the private was looking at his hind quarters with sexual desire, calls him gay and makes him do push-ups. It is the old, dishonest, gotcha technique.



Creationists that believe in a short-age Earth do not call God a liar. THEIR CRITICS DO! Shame, shame, shame on those critics to try and place that blasphemous behavior onto the God-fearing creationists that believe in the Word of God. If someone wants to use the words "liar" and "God" in the same sentence, they ought not try to lay the guilt of doing such on the doorstep of another.

God creating the world the way He wanted to does not make Him a liar. If he wanted to make elements that appeared to have decayed or an apple tree with ripe apples ready to eat - that was His prerogative and we ought not insinuate in any way makes Him a liar.

Every experiment we can do, every test we make, every applicable scientific advance, every applicable archaeological discovery, for the last 150 years has confirmed that there have been carnivores on Earth for more than 10,000 years - usually confirm for more than 100,000 to 1,000,000 years.

The short-age creationists can not explain why this is so. They have no explanation for the apparent long-age of life on Earth other than "God made it that way".

They are saying that God has made the Earth look like life has been on it for millions of years.

They are saying, without realizing it, that God is a liar.

It is better to say that our understanding of Genesis might be wrong.

/Bevin

Bevin, what is faith? Do we have faith in God's word only when our human reasoning tells us that it is reasonable and agrees with us?

True faith is believing God and doing what He says even when it does not agree with human reasoning. For instance, did it make good sense to Eve that she could not eat of a single particular tree in the garden? Did it make good sense to Abraham to take his only son up to the mount to kill him? And does it make good sense to keep the Sabbath every week only on Saturday? I mean, does the seventh-dayness of the Sabbath recommend itself to human reasoning? (If so, please explain why or how.)

Therefore, I would conclude that if we only choose to believe God and obey Him when He agrees with our human judgment, we don't really trust God; we are showing we trust human judgment, and then once God agrees with us, we also "trust" Him. But that is not the Bible's view of trust or faith.

If you had witnessed the creation of Adam, less than a few minutes after he was made, wouldn't you have maintained that science shows Adam had been alive for years? Was God lying? According to the record, Adam didn't have to learn language or abstract thinking, and he was created as an adult, not as an infant.

And of course I am assuming you believe in Adam, but in this I clearly may be mistaken. I realize you may also want to say that the record of Adam's first day is mythical and symbolic and therefore does not mean exactly what it says, so that we can't really know anything about the first man.

What, by the way, do you believe about death and sin? The Bible says plainly that death and sin came into the world through one man's sin (that is, Adam's). Yet you must believe that death was part of life from the very beginning and was in fact part of God's plan. Am I right? If so, how do you harmonize that view with the Bible's and how then do you understand the need of salvation from sin?

I am involved in a discussion with a guy at my work about this because he believes that the Big Bang proves God's existence but he hasn't studied the Bible enough to understand what it says about death. He thinks when God said Adam would die if he ate the fruit, God only meant spiritual death. He believes animals and people always died physically. But yet Genesis 2: 17; 3: 19, 22-24 shows that both Genesis and Paul are obviously talking about physical death-- the fact that we stop breathing and cease to live. (Compare Rev. 21: 4; 22: 1-5; 1 Cor. 15.)

This is a dishonest cop-out. Creationists are not saying, without realizing it, that God is a liar. Exactly the opposite. Creationists are saying that we can take God at His Word.

What the critics are saying is that if the Christian God created the Earth as the Bible claims, then the Christian God is a liar.

I believe the Bible. That is not to say I could never change my mind. But as of today, I believe the Bible. The Bible is very clear about the matter.

Yes, I agree. In the literal Genesis God could have created Adam with a belly-button, even though he was not born.

But that is NOT the issue. The issue is the fossils, the metamorphic rocks, the ice cores, the distribution of animals across the land mass, DNA, the biology of carnivores ALL show evidence of EVOLUTION and DEATH for hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

This "Adam looked aged" argument doesn't apply - Adam would not have had an appendectomy scar, Eve would not have had a C-section scar. The Earth has such scars.

/Bevin

I also believe the Bible is God's Holy Book. I just disagree with you on what it means. I believe it means something consistent with God's Earth. You believe it means something which is inconsistent with God's Earth.

I believe what God wrote in the Earth and in His Book is consistent.

You believe what God wrote in the Earth and in His Book is inconsistent.

You believe God is a liar.

/Bevin

I have faith that the bible is accurate and have no problem believing in it. I have no problem believing that satan can distort the evidence to say anything that he would like it to say. I believe if God wanted us to find the evidence's that we would like to find than there would be no reason for anybody to have Faith. Didn't the priests ask Jesus to perform a miracle and than they would believe in him? And didn't the people say to themselves that jesus could heal and do this and that but that he couldn't save himself and that if would just come down from the cross, that they would believe that he was the Messiah? You probably think this lame both its my 2 cents worth.

pkrause

Not lame - a serious issue.

How far will God let Satan distort this world to trick us into loosing our salvation?

Do we really want to worship a God gives us senses and intellect, then lets us have all our senses interfered with, and then blame us for believing our senses?

Will He let Satan introduce deceptive material into the Bible? Perhaps the whole Sabbath thing is a Satan-introduced deception! Will God protect the Bible but not the geologic record?

Consider people living in the time of David or Job. They had no Bible to guide them. Did God then let Satan have free rein over all their senses without the compensating Bible?

No, I don't believe a worthy of worship God would allow that level of deception.

We aren't talking about little things here. We are talking about continents, about hundreds of feet deep of ice, about the DNA inside all life, and the White Cliffs and the Grand Canyon and the Gobi desert.

There is no evidence in the Bible that God lets Satan have that much free rein over the material of the planet.

/Bevin

I do not believe God is a liar but again I AM NOT THE ISSUE.

Proactive, personal attacks on other members is highly unacceptable and speaks more about the one making the attacks than the one being attacked.

Now, in high school debate, they taught us that when our opponent gets personal and starts attacking us, it is because we have already won the debate and they have no substance left to argue with. Such is the case here.

The Bible is clear about orgins. (It may be wrong but that is another issue) Creationists believe we can trust God's Word. Their critics do not. If we have to bastardize His Word by twisting and spinning it to say something that is consistent with what non-believing, atheistic scientists believe then it ceases to be God's Word and becomes the word of the non-believing, atheistic scientists.

An evolutionist claiming to believe in the Bible is the epitome of someone trying to have it both ways. I have sympathy for the gays that claim the Bible justifies their lifestyle because I understand that homosexuality is a disorder that one doesn't choose for themselves. For goodness sake, believing in evolution is something an individual chooses. If they are going to take the word of non-believing, atheistic scientists over the Word of God they should at least have the intellectual honesty and courage to come out and admit they believe the Bible is not a reliable rule of faith.

I think that God will let satan go as far as what he can get away with. Including impersonating the return of Jesus. I think that that is in the Bible or is it something that EGW mentions. I have no problem with the earth being old. From what I get out of reading Genesis is that the world was without form and void. So the possibility that the age of the earth is older than we think is something I can live with. But as far as the evolution of man I can't except that. There is nothing there that says that God took something that was already there and improved on it and Man was formed. I Believe that somethings in the Bible have to be excepted by faith and faith alone.

pkrause

Shane, let us review how you have characterised my position















and now you say

I do not believe God is a liar but again I AM NOT THE ISSUE.

Proactive, personal attacks on other members is highly unacceptable and speaks more about the one making the attacks than the one being attacked.

/Bevin

It is EGW in The Great Controversy, it is not in the Bible.

It has similarities to, but is not the same as, allowing Satan to distort all the geological and archaeological evidence in the world, nor have you addressed the issue of pre-Bible-books-written times.



Can you accept a billion years of life and death on Earth? The issue is NOT the age of the original rocks, the issue is the multiple correlating evidences of many more than a few thousand years of life and death - fossils, metamorphic rocks, oil, ice cores, DNA, ...

/Bevin

Notice how I word things in the third person and not the second person. That is because I am not getting personal but discussing an issue in general. Just look at the examples quoted: "a reasonable person" "Many today" "Those clinging" "One has to".

Now I admit sometimes I get close to going second person with comments like "This is a dishonest cop-out." That is getting pretty close to the line and perhaps crossing it. I may have been able to better express myself. However the point is, I was commenting on the position expressed in the words and not the other person. I didn't say, "you are dishonest". The expression used was dishonest but as far as anyone here knows, the other poster, in this case bevin, may have just been repeating something he heard from another without giving it enough thought. I have been guilty of repeating dishonest things without giving it enough thought, but that doesn't make me a dishonest person as my intent was not to deceive others with false information.

We should always give each other the benefit of the doubt and not make personal attacks. We are trying to have a healthy exchange of ideas here and not shut down discussion. When a person tells another that believing in short-age creation makes God a liar... that is pretty much trying to shut down a discussion using cyber-bully tactics.

It seems that some here have had bad experiences in the face-to-face church experience and want to come into cyber space and lash out. I realize many ex-Adventists have an ax to grind but I don't think being a cyber bully is an appropriate way the channel those resentments.

As opposed to the tactics you were using??? Attacking my spirituality and deliberately dragging in the gay issue? Categorizing the issue as skeptics = little dogs nipping at the heals of a giant truth?

Let us start again.

I seriously doubt the Hope Channel program will address the two major issues

(a) Why is there no solid geological evidence for a global flood?

(b) Why is there such extensive and solid evidence for long-age evolution?

It would be very helpful to the SDA denomination and other Christian's if shows such as this one grapple with the real and very serious issues here.

It will be very harmful if they continue the current practise of attacking the Christian walk of people who don't resolve the conflict with a "my literal understanding of Genesis and my belief in the inerrancy of inspired material tells me all this evolution stuff is nonsense".

The Faith and Science Conference was a good step, the wrap up by the administrators was a disaster.

I wonder which way this reality show will go...

/Bevin

Personally attacked again. I realize when someone is losing an argument they get personal and start attacking those they disagree with but this is getting a little old. Let's try to have a healthy exchange of ideas here.

The tactics I am using a speaking in the third person. I am not using the second person. At no time do I address those that disagree with me directly. Yes please, go ahead an use me as an example. Use my tactics. Avoid ever using the word "you" when disagreeing with another member in the forum. Excellent idea!



Millions of souls are lost because of evolution. That concerns the church. The church has to take on the issue. Those that embrace evolution must viewed as opposition as were those that tried to distract the Nehemiah's workers while they were rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. Either we get up on the wall and help build or shut up and go about our own business.

The church has a mission to call men and women to worship the Creator. This is the first of the Three Angels' Messages. This is the reason we keep the seventh day Sabbath. The church is like a freight train charging in the world with this last day message. Taking on the lies of evolution is a large part of this mission.

Of course there are some difficult problems with short-age creation. Every honest creationist will admit that. However there are also some very major problems with evolution. As a wise organization, the church should first deal with creation's strengths and evolution's weaknesses. They certainly shouldn't be taking advice from their opponents trying to call them down from the wall.



This statement really needs to be qualified. There is the issue of credibility and motive that needs to be considered. A wise old teacher once told me, always consider your source.

Sounds like someone trying to call the workers off the wall. No thanks, I have a wall to build.