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.
My belief in The Creator is not shaken if I choose not to believe in a literal 7 day creation week....
Avonia: This presents a challenge, as Laodicean suggests, because many Christians consider a literal interpretation of Genesis intrinsic to their belief in God.
Did this shift for you when you left Adventism? Or was it a space you already held?
Which is why there is a middle position which is called Theistic Evolution.
Alistair mcgrath said words to the effect: '100 years from now we may believe in something completely different, but at the moment evolution makes the most sense.'One of the important things to remember in the discussion is that evolution is very much a reality.
Creationists often pretend evolution is only a theory but when pressed they will admit to micro evolution.
such as radiometric dating which is based upon a lot of high level math.
Will the Adventist church ever have a scientific Creation theory?
What makes you think Muhammad wasn't a prophet of God? And what does acknowledging that he was a prophet have to do with being a Christian?Theistic evolution to me is like saying; 'I am a Christian but Mohammad was prophet from God.' (You see how there is a paradox?)
Theistic evolution to me is like saying; 'I am a Christian but Mohammad was prophet from God.' (You see how there is a paradox?)
Some Christians can only accept evolution, if they become atheist.
So does creation. both sides have evidence.
Yes most mutations are de-evolution but not all, that is why we have drug resistant bacteria. That is why we have the famous Finches of the Galapagos islands where the changes result in specialized beaks which correspond to the various particular food sources. Natural selection encourages a mutation that is beneficial to be more successful for the organism and thus reproduce with it's particular change.The word 'micro evolution' confuses a lot of people, like the word 'global warming'
Micro evolution is just as good as a virus in a computer.
Lets look at Beetle X and Beetle Y. Beetle X can fly. Beetle Y mutated so he can no longer fly.
Beetle X has the genetic information to fly. Beetle Y has lost it and wont be able to re-obtain it or evolve to get wings.
You see how it is more like de-evolution than 'micro evolution'?
If a salt water fish 'learns' , 'knows' etc. how to swim in fresh water is that micro evolution or adaptation?
Most of that is math and not really assumptions at all. Math tends to not work on assumptions very well.Based on a hell lot of assumptions. X doesnt = Y.
You should rephrase that, will the Adventist church ever believe the evolution theory?
No it won't.
No I see a false analogy. There is no paradox because in both Christianity and theistic evolution there is a God who is the cause of creation.
well of course because there are people like you who say you can't be a Christian and believe in theistic evolution. You don't even have a good reason but are certain you are right. People get tired of hearing that and once they know more about science they see the evidence. You I don't think have learned enough of the evidence yet so you don't see the reality. I was like that also. I remember reading the YEC books and stuff by Ken Ham. But it does not really work but it takes a while to see that when you have been raised that creation is the fact and that creation was of a completely formed world. For me it came when I was taking an Astronomy class at a community college. It was taught by this very bright Nigerian who for whatever reason was teaching Astronomy, his area of expertise and training was micro-fossils. Once you realize the vast amount of information in fossil beds from micro-fossils you have to re-evaluate things. In that area you see bacteria and pollen and they can be identified. It turns out that the oldest fossils are beds of cyanobacteria (blue green algae) Which we find without any pollen which today is pretty much present everywhere. Of course since then I have learned of far more problems that simply don't fit with the literal creation story, which by the way I see little evidence the story was meant to be taken literally anyway but that is another issue.
This is where many people change tactics. the evidence of creation is that we have complex life and life forms and earth cycles. None of those things goes against theistic evolution at all.
Yes most mutations are de-evolution but not all, that is why we have drug resistant bacteria.
Learning to live in a different hypertonic or hypotonic environment is not really even close to accurate.
Most of that is math and not really assumptions at all. Math tends to not work on assumptions very well.
we've all been 18 once... and most of us at various times throughout our lives probably have felt as you do i.e. we know more than others... as my mother use to often tell me, "there is enough you don't know to make two more worlds...."sigh. You are right I havent been to university and need to do more research on the creation/evolution debate.
I am 18yrs old and at times think I know better than learned people like your self. We will have this discussion again when I do become more learned (I start my bachelor science in 3 weeks at avondale college)
Your stance on this demonstrates an awareness that many of us didn't have at 18. Well done. You are teachable! It's one of the greatest compliments.sigh. You are right I havent been to university and need to do more research on the creation/evolution debate.
I am 18yrs old and at times think I know better than learned people like your self. We will have this discussion again when I do become more learned (I start my bachelor science in 3 weeks at avondale college)
Your stance on this demonstrates an awareness that many of us didn't have at 18. Well done. You are teachable! It's one of the greatest compliments.
We are all with you in terms of just starting the path of learning. Age helps a bit. Teachability makes a much greater difference than age.
sigh. You are right I havent been to university and need to do more research on the creation/evolution debate.
I am 18yrs old and at times think I know better than learned people like your self. We will have this discussion again when I do become more learned (I start my bachelor science in 3 weeks at avondale college)
Hey sis -- I'm actually comparatively new here, and so don't know if the book itself has been discussed. We have discussed broader issues around freewill and sovereignty since I've been here, though. They flow into other topics so often come up indirectly.
As Dr. Wiseby notes in this letter, there were accusations made against the science faculty of La Sierra during the late spring of 2009. Interest groups of all types sprang up to press the issue, Spectrum and AToday magazines both hosted some discussions about it, and the controversy paused with a statement by President Paulsen. The issue even made it into a couple of higher ed magazines over summer because it highlights our denominational approach to intellectual inquiry and academic freedom -- and that's an issue that nonAdventist scholars are sensitive to. I will put it out there that the church does not have a robust official policy in favor of academic freedom. It does instead have an institutional conservation policy that confuses the status quo and/or majority view with our clearest picture of reality. Some of my former professors understand why many of their students are choosing not to submit to that. I do see some hope in the fact that the La Sierra administration supported its professors much more than my alma mater does or than the international church administration does.
This is my puppy in the ring in part because I have been training as a scholar for the last 12 years and in part because so much of Adventist eschatology centers on the question of respect for freedoms. From my perspective, people who fear the loss of freedoms should be extra cautious about withdrawing them from others. But that is not what we're discussing here, or what you'd prefer to discuss -- I know, so I won't go on. I do feel it's an important part of our context, though. Whatever we teach, and whatever ideas our specialists generate in the course of their work, they will get disseminated or dismissed in the Adventist higher ed system, in Adventist publishing houses and papers. The broader question of how we seek and share knowledge in our church affects the utility of our knowledge search.
This reminds me of something I read on a website about cults - here's a blurb:Do you let such a one (or ones) have access to the minds of your children, in the name of freedom, or banish them from your world in hopes of keeping your children safe from their insinuations of doubts?
Do you think our denomination is now ready to contribute to this subject in a non-defensive way? I haven't gotten that sense from the institution, though individual scientists continue to do their individual work. If we can't be anything but defensive en masse, though, I think we'd be better served taking a few more decades to cool off.
I might first ask them about their definitions of each and ask them why they thought they were in conflict. And I'd hope to engage them in conversation about that.
At the level I function at, where I live and meet people at, descriptions and theories of evolution try to describe processes and changes. The aim is plausibility and coherence given the evidence and given what is now a teeming field of complementary disciplines in science, technology, and social technology.
Creationist theories and stories try to describe origins, natures, and relationships. The aim is to point to non-material realities and identify where/how they intersect or have intersected with material realities: where we started, where we are, where we might go. There is tremendous variation within both kinds of classes of idea.
Evolution as a process theory is also distinct from materialism, a philosophy that assumes matter is all that's Real. I don't hold materialist premises; I don't hold dualist premises either as many creationists do. My premises are holist. I also distinguish process theories from speculations about meaning, cause, or trajectory.
At present, if and when I have cause to engage the debate, I don't engage it at content level. I went through a couple of phases where the content was more important to me but I'm not there at present. This doesn't mean I'm not invested in the implications of our debating; I am. I care a great deal about the people involved and how they relate to each other.
And I'm sorry this post was so long (edit: I split it apart again). Hopefully, though, it gives you a bit more info about me.
yeah.... interesting indeed.... I have taught my kids to question everything, even what I tell them.... makes for some interesting discussions....This reminds me of something I read on a website about cults - here's a blurb:
"Those who control the information control the person. In a mind control cult any information from outside the cult is considered evil, especially if it is opposing the cult. Members are told not to read it or believe it. Only information supplied by the cult is true. One cult labels any information against it as "persecution" or "spiritual pornography", another cult calls it "apostate literature" and will expel you from the group if you are caught with it. Cults train their members to instantly destroy any critical information given to them, and to not even entertain the thought that the information could be true. " (from howcultswork.com)
I believe Bible believing Christians should believe in creation ergo all Adventists etc. I am starting science this year. And have dont a bit of research with creation vs evolution debate.
Some things we cant answer and some things evolutionists cant answer.
Yes. For an example. the age of the Earth at max has to be about 100,000 yrs old. Carbon -14 has been found in all three geological eras. 100,000 years is way to young for all the process of evolution to occur.
'
There are some great creation books addressing this...(Warning some if not most creation books are seriously pseudo-science) One Book with helped me understand better was Thousands not Billions. Its a great book.
I am not saying your son thought it out, but I was going to be an atheist as well. These are the three scientific reasons why I did not become an atheist:
Abiogenesis Life has never been created from non life (without supernatural help) If you want to believe in evolution fair enough, but so many Scientists are theistic evolutionsts. AS they understand the impossibility of life being created from non-life. No matter the temperature, the time, the elements present.
Information. Information is not randomly created. Java script wasnt created by a monkey with a type writer but intelligent people. So is the script of life - DNA. DNA is unimaginably complex. DNA did not evolve but was created. Created by a being.
Lastly the law of entropy. For something to go to disorder there must of been a time in the universe when everything was perfect. That it had a beginning and after that beginning disorder began. Something had to start the big bang...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?