Creation and Questions people sometimes ask

[BobRyan]

Do the SDA have different teachings regarding the creation?

We have the 7 day creation week you find in the Genesis 1-2:3 and in Ex 20:11.. the same one.

 

[BobRyan]

John 1:3

English Standard Version
All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

6 days of creation in Genesis ... our Lord the designer and creator of everything.

Day 3

“Then God said, ‘Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear’; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:9-10).

The Lords word is not a detailed science book.

The Bible tells us that God did things in real time, in real nature, historic fact... but it does not tell us "how to be God".

But science "Fact" such as when and where and how long - we can get from the Bible.

So for example Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 appeal to the very science facts about time , where and how long - that "belief" in evolution needs to have missing from the text.

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks for the info.
I don't believe the earth is young.
I believe it's pretty darn old!
About 4 billion year's worth.

Each person is free to "believe" as they choose... that is the way it is with free will.

I choose "science fact" like NaCL is still "salt" and 2+2 is still 4, and an amoeba will never turn into a rabbit no matter how much time and chance you give it.

Which means the Bible is just fine for me even in Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3

 

[Gary K]

Science is not always wrong you know.
You should not hate science.

If you want to believe the earth is only 6 thousand years old, you can.

Just don't say it's actual knowledge but that you prefer to believe the O.T. which was written 4,000 years ago
and was never meant to be a book of science.

So, when I have two choices before me, I should choose the option created by men who do not love God rather than option of believing the word of God? And I should think that is what a Christian who claims to follow and love God should do? Really? I should follow the ideas of men who refuse to believe in God as my best option? I disagree whole heartedly.

What does believing the word of God instead of the word of sinful men have to do with hating anyway? Who is far more likely to be correct? Our eternal righteous infinite God or a sinful mortal man? I'll answer my own question. Our eternal righteous infinite God is far more likely to be correct than any sinful man.

But, that's only my choice. You have the option of making any choice you want. I'll just stick to the choice that makes sense to me.

 

[eleos1954]

The Bible tells us that God did things in real time, in real nature, historic fact... but it does not tell us "how to be God".

But science "Fact" such as when and where and how long - we can get from the Bible.

So for example Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 appeal to the very science facts about time , where and how long - that "belief" in evolution needs to have missing from the text.

His Word teaches He created everything fully formed and in six literal days. (And there was evening and there was morning, one day.")

There is MUCH out there to seriously question science's means of time computations and dating methods ... however many staunch evolutionists don't seam to consider them ... and some people of faith try to meld the two.

 

[Gary K]

Why settle for making false accusations when you could actually make a case from fact instead? What is the point in that? It is not a compelling form of discussion.

Well, Bob, when non-scriptural arguments are all a person has to condemn SDA beliefs all they have left is ad hominem arguments. Fallacies are not compelling arguments because of their very nature, but it's all the argumentation that's left to them.

 

[Gary K]

About the science argument. Science will not even begin to investigate the supernatural as a means of creation. So, right there we see the bias of science. When "science" says it will not explore this area of life which is plainly observable is humanity then it is in fact ignoring a large part of humanity and has been doing so for a long time. And that makes "science" a trustworthy source? How so?

There are only two choices as to how the universe came into being. One is materialism, and the other is through supernatural intervention. So "science" is discarding one of the possible explanations right off the bat. How is that even close to being "scientific"?

 

[BobRyan]

About the science argument. Science will not even begin to investigate the supernatural as a means of creation. So, right there we see the bias of science.

True "of some" who choose that option -- but that is an odd situation given that forensic science does that very thing in terms of trying to figure out if something happened on its own - or if some bad/good actor caused it to happen.

Remember it was Christians who started almost every major branch of science we have today. And by that I do not mean "theistic evolutionists"

 

[DarylFawcett]

Aren't there also Christian scientists out there?

How do they view all these things about creation, the age of the earth, etc.?

 

[BobRyan]

Aren't there also Christian scientists out there?

How do they view all these things about creation, the age of the earth, etc.?

Geoscience Research Institute
Geoscience Research Institute - Wikipedia


https : //grisda.org/
Home


Topics

• Biology
• Ecology & Conservation
• Intelligent Design
• Geology
• Paleontology
• Cosmology
• Other Sciences
• Faith and Science
• Origins Journal: Archive

A Critique of Current Anti-ID Arguments and ID Responses
Teaching About Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism
Son of Panda