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.