• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Can you be an Adventist and an Evolutionist?

thecountrydoc

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2006
2,745
58
85
San Marcos, CA
✟70,664.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Lebsque, this one time I must agree with both you and Night.

When the topic of "young earth creation" v. "old earth creation" is discussed there is much misconception on both sides of the arguement. Let me explain. When Ellen white is quoted today, those quoting her writings seldom understand why she said what she did concerning those who held to an old earth view of creation. In her day the the term "old earth" was generaly considered by Christians in general to be a creation that that may have taken millions of years. Therefore that definition of creation goes completely against the biblical teaching of a seven day creation. On the other hand today the typical Christian, including many SDA, don't understand what is clearly written in Genesis 1:1&2. From Gen 1:1 we read;
In the begining God created the heaven and the earth.
From this text there is no doubt that God did create the earth but there is no reference made to a time other than "In the begining." With this text we also encounter the "mystery of Godliness" for the first in the Bible. No one can explain exactly when the "begining" was any more than they can explain how old God is.



Next we read in Genesis 1:2;
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
From this passage it becomes clear that something was already in space waiting for God to start creation. It was after His Spirit moved that the account of what was created in the following six days begins with verse three.



There is another aspect of creation that is often overlooked. Creation week is reversed in Revelation 20. In Revelation 20 God is returning this earth to the state it was in before creation. This is most important when we examin the chain of events from creation until Christ death on the cross. Upon the death of Christ the events of this earths history were reversed. The condition of this earth, as noted in Gen. 1:1 before creation, is re-established in Rev. 20 in readiness for the creation of a New Heaven and a New Earth. The New Heaven and the New Earth will be complete with everything that was was created in the original Garden of Eden and is described in Revelation chapter 21.


It is this degeneration of the first creation, including the end of sin and those that choose not partake of eternal life during their lives on this earth, that prepares the way for a new creation.


With the foregoing in mind let me ask you this. Was Ellen White right to say what she did about "old earth" creationist in view of the popular beliefs of her day? Do you now see how the "New Earth" will be recreated in the exact way that this earth was created? Do you now understand how there may be evidence of a much older earth than 6000 years yet creation was done in just six days as told in Genesis?

The designer of the universe is a creature of logic, not a creature of random thought. He did not build stairways going nowhere. There was, is and will be, a complete and total design to everything He has done, is doing, and will do, including creation, the plan of salvation, and recreation.


Thanks for listening.


Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc
 
Upvote 0

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Next we read in Genesis 1:2; Quote:
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
From this passage it becomes clear that something was already in space waiting for God to start creation. It was after His Spirit moved that the account of what was created in the following six days begins with verse three.

What should become clear to the modern mind is that this account of the darkness upon the face of the deep should tell anyone that the account is not meant as a literal historical event. There is no sun there is darkness yet there is water? What does water without sun and heat look like. It is solid as solid as any rock appears. Yet the first part of Genesis holds to the idea of water as chaos familiar to the myths of creation around the middle East.

You should probably check out this book:

Thank God for Evolution!: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World (Hardcover)
by Michael Dowd (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Thank-God-Evo...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206739217&sr=1-1

I will do a blog on a recent interview I heard of him. I will have to get this book.
 
Upvote 0

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Next we read in Genesis 1:2; Quote:
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
From this passage it becomes clear that something was already in space waiting for God to start creation. It was after His Spirit moved that the account of what was created in the following six days begins with verse three.

What should become clear to the modern mind is that this account of the darkness upon the face of the deep should tell anyone that the account is not meant as a literal historical event. There is no sun there is darkness yet there is water? What does water without sun and heat look like. It is solid as solid as any rock appears. Yet the first part of Genesis holds to the idea of water as chaos familiar to the myths of creation around the middle East.

You should probably check out this book:

Thank God for Evolution!: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World (Hardcover)
by Michael Dowd (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Thank-God-Evo...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206739217&sr=1-1

I will do a blog on a recent interview I heard of him. I will have to get this book.
 
Upvote 0

Jimlarmore

Senior Veteran
Oct 25, 2006
2,572
51
75
✟25,490.00
Faith
SDA
Anyone heard of a recently released movie coming out called "Expelled"? In this movie the brain police, who are the guardians of modern neo darwinism , are exposed. This movie makes a good case for intelligent design versus random undirected accidental forces being responsible for life. It also points out the extreme prejudices that the mainstream paradigm holds for anyone who opposes or questions their precious theories.

This movie should be showing in a week or two at the theaters and out on dvd by the end of the summer.

God Bless
Jim Larmore
 
Upvote 0

capnator

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2006
894
57
48
Queensland the Sunshine state :)
✟23,820.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Old earth? If you could have been there to measure the age of the rocks 10mins after they were created how old would current dating methods tell you they were?

If God Created the stars "visible" from earth in an instant of time it would still have the appearence of billions of years upon creation.

For those of you who cannot accept Genesis, do you believe the bible is inspired?

If you only believe some of it is inspired how do you decide which bits are? You get to make your own religion - yay :)

And if you want to get all scientific on creation, why don't you look to science for answers on things like... Is there a God? Did God come to this world? Born of a virgin? What is sin and why does God have to save me from it? A worldwide flood? Salvation through faith? Demons being cast out? The dead being raised? The sun standing still? The blind, lame, deaf, mute, sick healed? Being filled with the holy spirit? Prophecy?

In fact why would you even read the bible in the first place?

Scientists are always right.... In the present anyways ;)
 
Upvote 0

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Kind of the standard response. The assumption is that the Bible is and always was meant as literal history even though we know it uses many different literary styles. Most people can identify the styles when they study them but that will never satisfy those who begin with the it is literal position.

It is those people who are making the unwarranted assumptions and declaring the others of making the unwarranted assumptions. It often seems to come down to those who are willing to think and reason vs. those who will not think and disregard reason (not anyone reading this of course). Instead choosing to believe things that their own book does not say, such as God created: " If God Created the stars "visible" from earth in an instant of time." It is even more reasonable that God created things to follow specific laws of nature such as the speed of light, but even if it is not more reasonable you still must admit it is a legitimate possibility and as such destroys the assumption made in the "If God" statement.

If you could measure the rocks 10 minutes after creation what age would they test to using our scientific method. Who knows we can' t do that. We don't know that trees had growth rings or not, if they did why would they, was God trying to fool us. Did Adam have a belly button. the problem is that what so many think they know they don't know they have simply made assumptions. And when their assumptions don't work such as who did Cain marry and start his city with they simply choose a new assumption. He married and unmentioned sister because it is assumed back then they were so pure that it ok to marry your sister, no moral or genetic problem with that.

the key to literalism of the Bible has always been the acceptance of assumptions not present in the Bible. As such the very need for all those assumptions should enlighten people to think that maybe they are not meant as literal stories in the first place. Or maybe that the stories were written by the most incompetent writers imaginable. Which again should tell us something.
 
Upvote 0

capnator

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2006
894
57
48
Queensland the Sunshine state :)
✟23,820.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is those people who are making the unwarranted assumptions and declaring the others of making the unwarranted assumptions. It often seems to come down to those who are willing to think and reason vs. those who will not think and disregard reason (not anyone reading this of course). Instead choosing to believe things that their own book does not say, such as God created: " If God Created the stars "visible" from earth in an instant of time." It is even more reasonable that God created things to follow specific laws of nature such as the speed of light, but even if it is not more reasonable you still must admit it is a legitimate possibility and as such destroys the assumption made in the "If God" statement.

If you could measure the rocks 10 minutes after creation what age would they test to using our scientific method. Who knows we can' t do that. We don't know that trees had growth rings or not, if they did why would they, was God trying to fool us. Did Adam have a belly button. the problem is that what so many think they know they don't know they have simply made assumptions. And when their assumptions don't work such as who did Cain marry and start his city with they simply choose a new assumption. He married and unmentioned sister because it is assumed back then they were so pure that it ok to marry your sister, no moral or genetic problem with that.

Of Course God has made things to follow specific laws. God created stars, these stars were a Great distance from the earth. God knows the speed of light and the length of time it takes for that light to reach the earth, so God also created the light between the earth and those stars, else they were not visible at creation.

God created rocks in an instant, we know this because it was done on the third day. Current dating methods "assume" that the rocks formed slowly, are therefore very old and that young earth creation could not be possible. However if you take the bible at it's word that the evening and the morning was indeed a day like it says, Rocks would still read as being very "old" just as they would have at the point of creation. Our Aging methods don't work if systems were created instantaneously, because we have no way of knowing our starting reference point.

I don't think it's really fair to say that if you are a YEC there is an absence of thinking and reason.
 
Upvote 0

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't think it's really fair to say that if you are a YEC there is an absence of thinking and reason.

Nice to know that, of course I never said that. I said assumptions are the problem and assumptions can override thinking and reasoning. When you say that God instantly made the light here you are making assumptions at the same time you claim to be accepting the literal story which sees earth as a void covered in water out in space. With consecutive days for creation of different things. Your assumption is then that it must be literally true rather then a method of instruction used for an ancient people who did not even no what space was, did not know that stars were distant suns and most likely did not know what a glacier was or what a frozen lake was. So the story is written for a specific set of people at a specific time in a simply way that make the story memorable and God centered. A story that has no problem with the idea of a talking serpent as the villain. It has all the earmarks of a mythical story. So you can deny that and claim it is literally true but you can't deny that thinking reasonable people acknowledge the characteristics of a myth and interpret accordingly and to do that does not discount the inspiration behind stories in the Bible. Because even a myth such as the story of the rich man and Lazarus told by Jesus can relay important truths.
 
Upvote 0

djconklin

Moderate SDA
Sep 8, 2003
4,019
26
75
Visit site
✟26,806.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
At the time that the name “Seventh-day Adventist” was adopted in 1863, an original core Adventist belief about the “Shut Door” had been dropped.


It had been dropped as a teaching (it was NEVER a doctrine) long before that. It lasted something like 7 months or so back the 1844/5. Search the web for "shut door" and "Jerry Moon"---he has done research into this.
 
Upvote 0

thecountrydoc

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2006
2,745
58
85
San Marcos, CA
✟70,664.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
RC, in a previous post you responded:
"What should become clear to the modern mind is that this account of the darkness upon the face of the deep should tell anyone that the account is not meant as a literal historical event. There is no sun there is darkness yet there is water? What does water without sun and heat look like. It is solid as solid as any rock appears. Yet the first part of Genesis holds to the idea of water as chaos familiar to the myths of creation around the middle East."
Points to consider: A; The "face of the deep" does not indicate a liquid or a solid. B; At this point the the sun, as we know it, may not have been created but God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Please note that this light appears to have no source. It is reasonable to believe that God Himself was the source. It is also reasonable to believe that God, with His creative powers, could melt the ice, if indeed the deep, the waters, were in a frozen state. C. There also had to be sufficent heat/energy to support life until the sun as we know it was created.

I'll be happy to explain the term chaos as it applies to the word water later. Got to run for now. Think about it.


Respectfully,
Doc
 
Upvote 0

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Interesting, so your view doc is that the light was present before the creation of light on the first day. Hmm sounds like you don't take the story literally either.

Points to consider: A; The "face of the deep" does not indicate a liquid or a solid.
right it has a unique meaning here different from any other useage. Again sounds like you are not being too literal here are you:


8415 tehowm (teh-home');

or tehom (teh-home'); (usually feminine) from 1949; an abyss (as a surging mass of water), especially the deep (the main sea or the subterranean water-supply):

KJV-- deep (place), depth.



4325 mayim (mah'-yim);

dual of a primitive noun (but used in a singular sense); water; figuratively, juice; by euphemism, urine, sperm:

KJV-- + [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth], wasting, water (-ing, [-course, -flood, -spring]).


Two liquid water related terms in one text yet you have a point to consider that neither mean liquid or solid.

Then you go to the idea that God is light and because that light is energy inefficient like an incandescent light bulb the ice was melted. You see the troubles with all your assumptions? All to make an story become literal.
 
Upvote 0

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Who said there was no sun? What was that that was said about (highly paraphrased) letting one's assumptions cloud one's reason?
Well then you simply create a different problem if there is a sun before day two an when an atmosphere was created then there would be nothing to stop the water vapor from escape from the planet.

But of course It is not I who say there is no sun it is the story that does not place the sun's creation until day 4. And after all isn't that what saying the story is literal is all about.

Gen 1:14-19
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.
16 God made two great lights-- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,
18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening, and there was morning-- the fourth day.
(NIV)
Of course if you assume that God made the two great lights previously as in whatever time God made the Heavens and the Earth mentioned in verse 1 and made does not really mean made on the day rather made before that day then that could be applied to any of the other verses such as
Gen 1:25
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. (NIV)
 
Upvote 0

djconklin

Moderate SDA
Sep 8, 2003
4,019
26
75
Visit site
✟26,806.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Well then you simply create a different problem if there is a sun before day two an when an atmosphere was created then there would be nothing to stop the water vapor from escape from the planet.

Who said that there was no atmosphere?

Quote:
Gen 1:14-19
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so.
16 God made two great lights-- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,
18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening, and there was morning-- the fourth day.
(NIV)

Of course if you assume that God made the two great lights previously as in whatever time God made the Heavens and the Earth mentioned in verse 1 and made does not really mean made on the day rather made before that day then that could be applied to any of the other verses such as ...

Please re-phrase.
 
Upvote 0

capnator

Senior Member
Jan 20, 2006
894
57
48
Queensland the Sunshine state :)
✟23,820.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nice to know that, of course I never said that. I said assumptions are the problem and assumptions can override thinking and reasoning. When you say that God instantly made the light here you are making assumptions at the same time you claim to be accepting the literal story which sees earth as a void covered in water out in space. With consecutive days for creation of different things. Your assumption is then that it must be literally true rather then a method of instruction used for an ancient people who did not even no what space was, did not know that stars were distant suns and most likely did not know what a glacier was or what a frozen lake was. So the story is written for a specific set of people at a specific time in a simply way that make the story memorable and God centered. A story that has no problem with the idea of a talking serpent as the villain. It has all the earmarks of a mythical story. So you can deny that and claim it is literally true but you can't deny that thinking reasonable people acknowledge the characteristics of a myth and interpret accordingly and to do that does not discount the inspiration behind stories in the Bible. Because even a myth such as the story of the rich man and Lazarus told by Jesus can relay important truths.

How is that any different from assuming that God didn't create. You assume that current secular model of the origin of the world is correct or partly correct, and that because to your mind the idea literal creation story is hard to grasp it cannot be so.

Just because the story appears farfetchted doesn't mean we can assume that it did not happen that way. The story of God coming to this earth to live a life a life as a man filled up with miracles, dying and rising from the dead for our salvation has the earmarks or a mythical story. Plenty of "reasonable" and "thinking" people view it as such. You accept this (I'll assume ;) ) which to me is equally as far fetched as a literal creation week. The bible is filled with stories that defy "science" and "reason".

Sure the people back then didn't have the scientific knowledge we have today. The bible however, though written by man was done under the inspiration of God, who has a whole lot more knowledge of the universe and how it works than we do... were these things written for people only in ancient days? I think not.
 
Upvote 0

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How is that any different from assuming that God didn't create. You assume that current secular model of the origin of the world is correct or partly correct, and that because to your mind the idea literal creation story is hard to grasp it cannot be so.

Just because the story appears farfetchted doesn't mean we can assume that it did not happen that way. The story of God coming to this earth to live a life a life as a man filled up with miracles, dying and rising from the dead for our salvation has the earmarks or a mythical story. Plenty of "reasonable" and "thinking" people view it as such. You accept this (I'll assume ;) ) which to me is equally as far fetched as a literal creation week. The bible is filled with stories that defy "science" and "reason".

Sure the people back then didn't have the scientific knowledge we have today. The bible however, though written by man was done under the inspiration of God, who has a whole lot more knowledge of the universe and how it works than we do... were these things written for people only in ancient days? I think not.

Were there no historical witness accounts you would have a point about Jesus. As it is far more historically verified it is far more reasonable to accept it as historically accurate.

My point has been pretty consistent that what you call literal creation you are not even holding as literal you and others like you are adding assumptions to and then saying it is literal. Inspiration by God does not mean that everything inspired was meant historically or literally. That is merely another incorrect assumption that is used.
 
Upvote 0

Jimlarmore

Senior Veteran
Oct 25, 2006
2,572
51
75
✟25,490.00
Faith
SDA
Were there no historical witness accounts you would have a point about Jesus. As it is far more historically verified it is far more reasonable to accept it as historically accurate.

My point has been pretty consistent that what you call literal creation you are not even holding as literal you and others like you are adding assumptions to and then saying it is literal. Inspiration by God does not mean that everything inspired was meant historically or literally. That is merely another incorrect assumption that is used.

RC, your philosophies are about confusion concerning the creation story. The reason you can't accept a literal story is because you accept some of the atheistic philosophies of how life started. You will never be able to successfully merge the mainstream paradigm and philosophies with the Bible and it's truths.

With that said, science does not require that a cause be explained for something to be real or verified. Science is about observation and repeatable experimentation to describe natural things. God is not what science would consider as being "natural" . The facts are inescapable. Life does indeed exist on this planet. It could not have gotten here by fortuitous means. Evidence of intelligent design in life is very obvious. Considering that it took something supernatural to create life then the Genesis event of creation fits very well.

God Bless
Jim Larmore
 
Upvote 0

Lebesgue

Senior Member
Feb 25, 2008
717
28
✟23,529.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Lebsque, this one time I must agree with both you and Night.

When the topic of "young earth creation" v. "old earth creation" is discussed there is much misconception on both sides of the arguement. Let me explain. When Ellen white is quoted today, those quoting her writings seldom understand why she said what she did concerning those who held to an old earth view of creation. In her day the the term "old earth" was generaly considered by Christians in general to be a creation that that may have taken millions of years. Therefore that definition of creation goes completely against the biblical teaching of a seven day creation. On the other hand today the typical Christian, including many SDA, don't understand what is clearly written in Genesis 1:1&2. From Gen 1:1 we read;From this text there is no doubt that God did create the earth but there is no reference made to a time other than "In the begining." With this text we also encounter the "mystery of Godliness" for the first in the Bible. No one can explain exactly when the "begining" was any more than they can explain how old God is.


Next we read in Genesis 1:2;From this passage it becomes clear that something was already in space waiting for God to start creation. It was after His Spirit moved that the account of what was created in the following six days begins with verse three.


There is another aspect of creation that is often overlooked. Creation week is reversed in Revelation 20. In Revelation 20 God is returning this earth to the state it was in before creation. This is most important when we examin the chain of events from creation until Christ death on the cross. Upon the death of Christ the events of this earths history were reversed. The condition of this earth, as noted in Gen. 1:1 before creation, is re-established in Rev. 20 in readiness for the creation of a New Heaven and a New Earth. The New Heaven and the New Earth will be complete with everything that was was created in the original Garden of Eden and is described in Revelation chapter 21.


It is this degeneration of the first creation, including the end of sin and those that choose not partake of eternal life during their lives on this earth, that prepares the way for a new creation.


With the foregoing in mind let me ask you this. Was Ellen White right to say what she did about "old earth" creationist in view of the popular beliefs of her day? Do you now see how the "New Earth" will be recreated in the exact way that this earth was created? Do you now understand how there may be evidence of a much older earth than 6000 years yet creation was done in just six days as told in Genesis?

The designer of the universe is a creature of logic, not a creature of random thought. He did not build stairways going nowhere. There was, is and will be, a complete and total design to everything He has done, is doing, and will do, including creation, the plan of salvation, and recreation.


Thanks for listening.


Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

I wanted to give myself some time to really think about this before I responded.

I think my beleif on creation is different from what you stated above. I believe that everything was created by G-d in 6 days but they were not 6 of our 24 hour days, but rather 6 of G-d's days which could be vast ages.
The Bible does state, "A day is like a thousand years to Him". And in the original Hebrew "yowm" could mean long age.

My views on the creation are similar to those of Dr. Hugh Ross. (You've heard of Dr. Ross, correct? He has a wonderful website called Reasons to Believe).

But I think we are in agreement on the earth being more than 6,000 years old. I think our differnce is in the how long each creation day was?

G-d Bless you.

Respectfully, your brother in Messiah Y'shua,

Lebesgue
 
Upvote 0

RC_NewProtestants

Senior Veteran
May 2, 2006
2,766
63
Washington State
Visit site
✟25,750.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
RC, your philosophies are about confusion concerning the creation story. The reason you can't accept a literal story is because you accept some of the atheistic philosophies of how life started. You will never be able to successfully merge the mainstream paradigm and philosophies with the Bible and it's truths.

With that said, science does not require that a cause be explained for something to be real or verified. Science is about observation and repeatable experimentation to describe natural things. God is not what science would consider as being "natural" . The facts are inescapable. Life does indeed exist on this planet. It could not have gotten here by fortuitous means. Evidence of intelligent design in life is very obvious. Considering that it took something supernatural to create life then the Genesis event of creation fits very well.

God Bless
Jim Larmore
so basically Jim you don't even know what theistic evolution means. And yet it is I that am confused. Strange
 
Upvote 0

Jimlarmore

Senior Veteran
Oct 25, 2006
2,572
51
75
✟25,490.00
Faith
SDA
so basically Jim you don't even know what theistic evolution means. And yet it is I that am confused. Strange

I'm very aware of what theistic evolution is. Heres a couple of web sites to explain it for those who don't.

http://www.theisticevolution.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

The bottom line is you can't marry the mainstream paradigm of science with the truths in the Bible. One of them has to be compromised. In your case you choose to compromise and question the literal account of the creation event . You choose to believe it's not literal but portrays God creating thru evolution. Not going to work.

God Bless
Jim Larmore
 
Upvote 0