Can you be an Adventist and an Evolutionist?

[Jimlarmore]

That is just the point, there doesn't exist any scientific evidence that supports the creation account.

JM
(that I know of, and my studies are mostly in physics)

The scientific method and it's relevant evidence as we know it is pitifully inadequate to delineate the reality of what God is or what He can do. A just comparison would be like a dog trying to teach or describe differential and integral calculus,,,,,,ain't goin to happen. It's beyond his capabilities.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[thecountrydoc]

I'm very happy that you study physics. However what I didn't say was that my son took a double major in college, biology and physics, and chose to apply nuclear physics to micro-biology. A most "nich" field if I do say so. Yes he does understand physics.

Respectfully,
Doc

 

[Jimlarmore]

I have pointed out several of the things that indicate it was meant in other ways. The creation begins with a watery void. That is the chaos that so many myths begin with. The order of the creation is different in the two accounts of chapter 1 and 2 is different. Chapter 2 has God bringing animals to man searching for a suitable helpmate. Then He takes a rib from the man and shapes another person. the woman who is stated to have come from man.

It proceeds to say that the serpent was the most cunning creature who then proceeds to talk and think and communicate just like a human. It has two trees both of which are clearly symbolic the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

How many things do you need to see symbolism?

Ok, I can see that to a degree, however, you stop there and say the symbolism is all there is. IOW, the symbolic aspect of the creation account precludes the fact that it could have actually happened that way. I won't deny some symbolic value to this story but I refuse to accept that makes it just a myth or allegory only and that the real truth lies someplace else all together.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[JonMiller]

The scientific method and it's relevant evidence as we know it is pitifully inadequate to delineate the reality of what God is or what He can do. A just comparison would be like a dog trying to teach or describe differential and integral calculus,,,,,,ain't goin to happen. It's beyond his capabilities.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

I am OK with these statements, I am not OK with statements that aren't true about sciences support of the genesis story.

JM
(in specific Physics)

 

[JonMiller]

I'm very happy that you study physics. However what I didn't say was that my son took a double major in college, biology and physics, and chose to apply nuclear physics to micro-biology. A most "nich" field if I do say so. Yes he does understand physics.

Respectfully,
Doc

Cool, I am getting close to finishing my PhD in nuclear physics (need to work more on writing my thesis ). I still stand by my claim that there is no evidence in physics to support the genesis account (note that this doesn't mean that the account is wrong).

If you asked him to come and post, it would be cool. I have read a decent number of creationist books, and would be interested in knowing if I am wrong.

Jon Miller

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Ok, I can see that to a degree, however, you stop there and say the symbolism is all there is. IOW, the symbolic aspect of the creation account precludes the fact that it could have actually happened that way. I won't deny some symbolic value to this story but I refuse to accept that makes it just a myth or allegory only and that the real truth lies someplace else all together.

That is where interpretation comes in. The evidence is against creation as stated if literally taken from the story. Such as the evidence of cyanobacteria fossils without pollen present. Pollen is pretty much ubiquitous in our world but not in those fossil beds. I am sure you know the many evidences that go against the literal view. So if there are these problems and if we can clearly see symbolic application to much of the story the idea that it should also be literal is pretty unlikely. For instance in Luke 16 we have the story of the rich man and Lazarus. we can see the allegorical implications of the story and as such we don't feel the need to make the story literal. Now it is true that some people do take the story as literal. That is where there interpretation has taken them. It does not however mean that their interpretation is correct or the only way the story can be taken.

 

[Jimlarmore]

That is where interpretation comes in. The evidence is against creation as stated if literally taken from the story. Such as the evidence of cyanobacteria fossils without pollen present. Pollen is pretty much ubiquitous in our world but not in those fossil beds. I am sure you know the many evidences that go against the literal view. So if there are these problems and if we can clearly see symbolic application to much of the story the idea that it should also be literal is pretty unlikely. For instance in Luke 16 we have the story of the rich man and Lazarus. we can see the allegorical implications of the story and as such we don't feel the need to make the story literal. Now it is true that some people do take the story as literal. That is where there interpretation has taken them. It does not however mean that their interpretation is correct or the only way the story can be taken.

Cyanobacteria fossils without pollen in one fossil bed is no big deal RC. . Cyanobacteria fossils without pollen world wide would be. You see the macro-evolutionist find areas like this and the pre-cambrian which is essentially denuded of fossilized life of any kind and they say "see this disproves creation." The problem is we can find cyanobacteria fossils with pollen in it in some places and we can find the pre-cambrian strata with flowering pollen as well as fish scales in it in some places.

We constantly find things ( like members of the vertebrates in pre-vertabrate stratas ) that are not supposed to be there in the lower fossil record. This always calls into question the theory of macro-evolution. Polystrate fossils alone pretty much invalidate the slow accumulation of the stratas claimed by the majority of geologist. After reading several books on geology and then going out there and looking at what is actually there I started to doubt a lot of what they were saying. I've been a fossil hunting hound for well over 30 years and I have been on a few digs where we uncovered some amazing things like a polystrate.

What I have come to the conclusion of is this. The entire world has suffered from a major water catastrophe that stratafied/layered the entire crust of the world from the forces of liquifaction and cavitation.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Cyanobacteria fossils without pollen in one fossil bed is no big deal RC. . Cyanobacteria fossils without pollen world wide would be. You see the macro-evolutionist find areas like this and the pre-cambrian which is essentially denuded of fossilized life of any kind and they say "see this disproves creation." The problem is we can find cyanobacteria fossils with pollen in it in some places and we can find the pre-cambrian strata with flowering pollen as well as fish scales in it in some places.

When it is the oldest fossil bed we have ever found... yes it is a big deal.

 

[Jimlarmore]

When it is the oldest fossil bed we have ever found... yes it is a big deal.

Not when other ones of the same strata yield pollen. Besides the dating of these rocks is not a reliable modality anyway. There have to be way too many assumptions made in the methods they use in dating rock to make then reliable modalities.

Look at these articles:
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1/1evlch06a.htm

http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm

These articles were written by scientist that have abandoned the mainstream paradigm of science and went looking for things that bring up huge questions that are not answered by the current collective community.

Here's some more things to read from the same site:

http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch10a.htm

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

None of those links say they found pollen in the same strata as the oldest cyanobacteria beds.

I don't find it a credible argument to simply say science is wrong. Certainly science is always changing and growing and not always right but it is the current state of science now. It is what the best in the field are saying. Even if the dating is wrong by a billion years the fact that there are these beds without pollen is very significant.

 

[Jimlarmore]

None of those links say they found pollen in the same strata as the oldest cyanobacteria beds.

I don't find it a credible argument to simply say science is wrong. Certainly science is always changing and growing and not always right but it is the current state of science now. It is what the best in the field are saying. Even if the dating is wrong by a billion years the fact that there are these beds without pollen is very significant.

No it's not, we have several beds that are shallow that don't have pollen in them. Then we find some that are deep that have pollen. During the flood things were washed around so much that some areas are devoid of some forms of life all together while other areas are rich in the evidence of life.

I will scratch around and see if I can find those articles on pollen beds in my archives. The articles in those links I gave aren't saying that science is necessarily wrong what they bring up is issues that science refuses to consider because if they did and did a really thorough job of investigating it they would have to change their way of looking at things. Science has a hard nose of arrogance about it. Since the so called awakening and the age of reason science has not been a friend of anything metaphysical. Science does not need a God to explain the hard to understand things we have in nature. For the most part this is true but there is a distinct limit to how far science can go. Just like in the Bible where it says God tells the sea you can come this far and no further God has set certain limits to how far man will be able to go in his quest for knowledge.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

Here's one article on plant material in the precambrian strata which predates any cyanobacterial fossils on the time scale.
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_3/plantfossils.html
I'll look around more for articles on just the cyanobacterial fossils.

If you want to see how prevalent cyanobacterial fossils and plant pollen are together just do a google search on "cyanobacteria fossil and plant pollen". See what pops up to read

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Just like in the Bible where it says God tells the sea you can come this far and no further God has set certain limits to how far man will be able to go in his quest for knowledge.

Well that was poetry it was not really an accurate statement unless you assume all those floods and tidal waves etc were caused by God. The poetry merely says that God ordained rules what we would call the laws of physics.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Scanning the article I see they even recognize that their view is "controversial" and not accepted by many Creation Scientists.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] To resolve this lingering controversy over the presence or absence of pollen grains and spores within the Hakatai Shale, members of the Creation Research Society (CRS) collected and analyzed their own samples in an effort to confirm or refute Burdick’s earlier findings (Howe, 1986; Howe, Williams, Matzko, and Lammerts, 1986, 1988; Lammerts and Howe, 1987). Their results supported Burdick’s findings of modern spores and pollen within the Hakatai Shale. Of course this confirmation remains counter to the evolutionary model (Chaloner, 1967; Cloud, 1968), and is very controversial. The uniformitarian model does not predict or allow for the presence of modern pollen and spores within the Hakatai Shale as it is too old to contain these “advanced” types of plant fossils. The incorrect sequence contradicts the global uniformitarian column, which may explain why certain creationists remain skeptical of the conclusions of this latest confirmatory study. For whatever reason, some creationists have also rejected the possibility of modern or ancient pollen, spore, or any other plant material within the Hakatai Shale (Austin, 1994, pp. 63, 137; Austin and Wise, 1994, pp. 38–39).[/FONT]

 

[Jimlarmore]

Scanning the article I see they even recognize that their view is "controversial" and not accepted by many Creation Scientists.

You bet, there isn't a consensus among creationist scientists on a lot of things. Almost all of the articles in that website will show both sides of the issues. However, if you keep reading you will see the physical evidence is presented fairly well for this truth. Creation research society is a very scientific organization and they wont' let just anyone publish on their web-site. You gotta be a good scientist to place your mark there.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

You bet, there isn't a consensus among creationist scientists on a lot of things. Almost all of the articles in that website will show both sides of the issues. However, if you keep reading you will see the physical evidence is presented fairly well for this truth. Creation research society is a very scientific organization and they wont' let just anyone publish on their web-site. You gotta be a good scientist to place your mark there.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

well that is debatable as they don't give the other side of the other creationist that don't agree they merely said:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]For whatever reason, some creationists have also rejected the possibility of modern or ancient pollen, spore, or any other plant material within the Hakatai Shale [/FONT]

I didn't really see any good evidence on the site other then their claims.

 

[reddogs]

You bet, there isn't a consensus among creationist scientists on a lot of things. Almost all of the articles in that website will show both sides of the issues. However, if you keep reading you will see the physical evidence is presented fairly well for this truth. Creation research society is a very scientific organization and they wont' let just anyone publish on their web-site. You gotta be a good scientist to place your mark there.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

How big is the Creation research society, has it just started...

 

[Lebesgue]

I was mildly persecuted for it by my former SDA church when I was still SDA.

And mind you, as an Old Earth Creationist I am NOT an evolutionist. My belieifs on creation are pretty much in line with those of Christian astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross, which can be found on his Reasons to Believe website.(interestingly enough several of my friends at my Messianic synsgogue are OECs and fans of Dr. Ross' work).

I used to be a Sabbath School teacher when I was SDA and back in 2006 during the Beginnings and Belongings quarter(and I was already in trouble with my church for admitting I agreed with Des Ford on the IJ), I was to teach a lesson on creation. My integrity would not allow me to teach something I don't believe(the Young earth SDA view) so I taught the lesson from an OEC point of view. People got really angry with me, accused me of not believing the Bible and not believing in G-d.
They even yelled, "how would we know to keep the Sabbath". And my response was that G-d COMMANDED it isn't that ENOUGH?

And several of the elders went to the Pastor yelling and screaming at him that I should be confronted and disfellowshipped on the spot. (I was wanting to leave anyway they would've probably been doing me a favour if I had been disfellowshipped).

I also remember reading where Ellen White called Old Earth Creationists "among the worst of infidels".

So forget about being an evolutionist even. My experience has been that the SDA church doesn't even allow one to be an OEC, let alone an evolutionist.

G-d Bless.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

 

[NightEternal]

Hey Lebesgue, I know many Old-Earth Creationist Adventists who hold to a literal creation week and an old earth. Some are professors teaching in the our Universities. Some of them are down in your neck of the woods at La Sierra and Loma Linda.

There is no Biblical basis for a 6000 year age of the earth. That is a premise based entirely on Ellen.

 

[Lebesgue]

Hey Lebesgue, I know many Old-Earth Creationist Adventists who hold to a literal creation week and an old earth. Some are professors teaching in the our Universities. Some of them are down in your neck of the woods at La Sierra and Loma Linda.

There is no Biblical basis for a 6000 year age of the earth. That is a premise based entirely on Ellen.

One of my nephews is a graduate of LaSierra and he is an OEC.

My wife is an OEC and even said, last Friday night when we were having family devotions to open Shabbat, and my son was complaining about how the SDA High School he attends was shoving this 6000 year old thing down his throat, my dear wife replied with, "that is NOT in the Bible". Good for her.

You gotta understand though in the "ethnic" SDA churches in SoCal which were the ones I was involved in when I was an SDA, there is NOT the freedom of thought there are in the more "mainstream" churches.
Ellen is the FINAL word in my former SDA church.
Going to the Indonesian and Filipino SDA Churches in SoCal is like getting caught in a pre-QOD "time warp".
Step in one and suddenly it's 1940!

Shalom,

Lebesgue