Should SDAs have a scientific theory of creation?

[Laodicean]

Similarly, my belief in the Creator does not hinge on my belief in a literal 7-day creation week.

BFA

BFA, I offer you the 7-day week as Exhibit A for a literal 7-day creation week. The 24-hour day is governed by the rotation of the earth (evenings and mornings). The month is a unit of time connected to the motion of the moon. The year is determined by the journey of the earth around the sun. But the week has no physical basis. It is an arbitrary swatch of time cut out of the fabric of eternity, and the only account of its origin is found in Genesis, six evenings and mornings, followed by one more evening and morning set aside for remembering the first six evenings and mornings and for remembering WHO created them.

The week is still observed all over the world, and for no earthly, physical reason. Some have come along and given names to the days, as in first day is now called Sunday, second day, Monday, and so on, but before the naming of the days, the week existed. And still exists...as silent testimony to the literal creation story. You can't spiritualize away the creation account while the literal week remains with us. At least I can't.

This is my proffer. I'm open to hearing yours.

 

[Laodicean]

Solja247, don't let RC's superior attitude (bless his/her heart) intimidate you. You were right when you said "Resistant bacteria is resistant because the body does not recognise it anymore (as it has lost genetic information) So it still has de-evolved."

Just because resistance to antibiotics can be demonstrated in a petri dish does not mean that therefore, what you said was wrong. Don't back down too quickly. No need to be rude, of course, and your humility stands you in good stead, but when your ideas are knocked down like that, instead of giving up, check it out. Is it really true that you are incorrect? Of course not. Drug resistant bacteria are resistant in the body as well as the petri dish. Here's a quote from Wiki:

"The widespread use of antibiotics both inside and outside of medicine is playing a significant role in the emergence of resistant bacteria. They are often used in animals but also in other industries which at least in the case of agricultural use lead to the spread of resistant strains to human populations. In some countries antibiotics are sold over the counter without a prescription which compounds the problem. In human medicine the major problem of the emergence of resistant bacteria is due to misuse and overuse of antibiotics by doctors as well as patients..."

Hold your ground until you are given good reason to give it up.

 

[solja247]

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...."

Continue to live and learn... and enjoy it...

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.

Sadly, I didn't develop this awareness util I was well into my 30s (and I am only now begining to explore it fully). Souljah is light years ahead of me.

Thank you guys for all your kind words.

Ah yes I remember those days...not to well anymore but I remember when I thought I had the answers, it was also in the High school time frame. College will quickly knock that out of you as it did for many of the rest of us. Yet even after college I was in the YEC camp. That time in the Astronomy class was a few years later when I was thinking of getting a Biology minor for use as a potential teaching career.

Today some of the best thinkers in Intelligent Design are also believers in evolution. One good book I think is "Signature in the cell", which I have not read but have heard the author speak on. These guys in general no longer try to discredit the idea of evolution but when you get down to the cellular level changes, natural selection no longer applies. So we know the changes occur the question still remains as to why the changes occur especially now on the molecular level. I am not trying to say God is causing the changes but the changes seem to be somehow programmed. Like everything else with such amazing advances in science it becomes ever more specialized. And we have to acknowledge the abilities and research these numerous specialties.

Have you ever heard of an evolution believing SDA minister?
I clearly couldnt accept evolution if I wanted to anyways.
I wish creation scientists would use science to prove what they believe, at times it appears they use pseudo-science.

If one is to believe in evolution so many philiosphical questions are then asked.

What makes me more important than a monkey?
Why didnt Jesus die for the homo erectus, instead of the homo sapians?
Why couldnt God of created man instantly?
Why did God take so long? What was the benefits of billions or even millions of years?
Why did God wait so long, to reveal His plan for this Earth?
What was God doing while He was waiting for evolution?
How did sin enter the world?
How humans are the only intelligent creature which can critically think about something?
If God used evolution, why was their millions of years of extinction, Is not His eye on the sparrow?

These questions are just a few which have to be answered before I would be able to accept evolution and God.

P.S. I will look at your blog later.

 

[solja247]

Interesting ideas, Solja247. And allow me to play with some of your ideas here. I'd hazard a guess that it is only this earth that suffers under the law of entropy. The rest of the universe remains perfect.

No the law of entropy is through the whole universe.

Or take DNA. I bet that is a language, not some haphazrd chance arrangement of nucleotides. Can this be demonstrated?

It has much chance as a type writer exploding and creating the oxford dictionary.

And I bet that, likewise, the entire material universe has a language in the form of ....superstrings? (maybe). Can that be demonstrated?

I dont know, Astronomy is incredible, but I dont know much about how the universe works.

Read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. Just for an understanding of raw science minus philosophy. It is fascinating, makes you think, and if you are willing to think outside of the box, some of that information can be viewed in new ways.

I will. Thanks.

I hope when you start your science courses, that you will keep an open mind, question everything that comes your way, and turn a piece of datum around and around and view it from every angle. Are there other ways to understand this piece of information? Question all premises. No matter how logical and reasoned the body of work is, if it is built on an incorrect premise, the conclusion will be wrong.

wow that sounds like a lot of work lol. I will try.

And, eventually, you will need to ask: Is there only one way that the data can be understood? Surprise, surprise...actually, yes. In the world of science, yes. Gravity is one such example. Think of Sudoku. There is only one correct position for each number. Place an item in an incorrect box and the entire puzzle goes off course. If two or more items can feasibly go into one square, then you have to withhold judgment until you are sure that no other item can go into that box but one. Unfortunately, evolutionists have rushed to put an item into a box, even when there are still other possibilities open for what goes into that box. And the entire puzzle falls aparts. That is sloppy science. And we should not buy it.

This is true. Evolutionists are quick to say that evolution is A fact, yet we still have a lot to learn.

Hey, one day maybe you will be a scientist who wins a Nobel prize for a real scientific discovery. I'm rooting for you.

Thanks. That would be awesome, but I doubt it.

Oh, and one more thing, carbon 14 has a half life of only about 5,730 years. And it is used for dating only organic matter. You can't tell the age of the earth using carbon 14. Okay?

You can relatively know how old the Earth is with carbon dating...I think?

 

[Avonia]

The week is still observed all over the world, and for no earthly, physical reason.

If we look around the globe over time, we see:

Incas: 8-day week

Mayans: 13-day week & 20-day week (Aztecs as well)

Native Americans - no week, but a count based on moons & seasons

Ancient Egyptians - 10-day week

Aboriginal Australians - sacred dreamtime (learned about this when I was there). Non-linear.

Chinese - 10-day week

Some people used calendars that had 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10-day weeks - consecutively.

Years back, I remember reading about the Hermetic calendar. It's super cool, because it requires no fudge factors - a solilunar calendar. It also has weeks with varying days.

These are just a few of a bunch.

 

[Avonia]

Have you ever heard of an evolution believing SDA minister?

Quite a few. Some are closer to you than you might think.

 

[Avonia]

You can relatively know how old the Earth is with carbon dating...I think?

Solja, there's some good info here: Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Laodicean]

Nice going, Solja, you held your ground about entropy and the universe. But now you need to demonstrate that you have good reason to hold your ground. If, at the moment, you can't provide evidence, it would be better to withhold judgment instead of sealing yourelf into a position that might be difficult to get out of. When you say, emphatically, No the law of entropy is through the whole universe, how do you know this? Especially as later you say, but I dont know much about how the universe works.

That is why I prefaced my comments with "let's play with some ideas." For me, as a believer in a Creator God, I would be inclined to think that entropy might not be in operation in the rest of the universe, because then that would be saying that the law of sin and death (the 2nd law of thermodynamics) is in operation elsewhere in the universe. But then, who knows? We have not been given information on this aspect, and there is no way to prove death and dying outside of our solar system. Yes, I know cosmologists interpret what they see out there in the universe as stars dying, but I'd rather not play that game right now. One thing at a time.

Also, please don't doubt yourself when it comes to achieving great heights in the world of science (or whatever profession you choose). You'd be surprised where you can go and how high you can go when you remove self limitations from your mind and use your God-given ability to reason, in partnership with God.

I hope you don't mind me dumping all this unsolicited advice on you, but this is how I talked to my son when he was 18. I encouraged him to read everything, not just creationist viewpoints, and told him to think for himself. Unfortunately, at that time in his life, creationists had answers that were either nonexistent or unsatisfactory, and he was swayed and became an atheist. The price of freewill can mean loss as well as gain.

Re age of the earth, you said, You can relatively know how old the Earth is with carbon dating...I think? Avonia gave you a good link. Try to read it critically, though, instead of swallowing everything without question. And if you have a question that challenges the status quo, follow it up with research on your own. The best place to begin is to question and research the starting premises.

Shucks, I got carried away again. Okay, okay, I'll step down from my soapbox now.

 

[Laodicean]

If we look around the globe over time, we see:

Incas: 8-day week

Mayans: 13-day week & 20-day week (Aztecs as well)

Native Americans - no week, but a count based on moons & seasons

Ancient Egyptians - 10-day week

Aboriginal Australians - sacred dreamtime (learned about this when I was there). Non-linear.

Chinese - 10-day week

Some people used calendars that had 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10-day weeks - consecutively.

Years back, I remember reading about the Hermetic calendar. It's super cool, because it requires no fudge factors - a solilunar calendar. It also has weeks with varying days.

These are just a few of a bunch.

Interesting rsesearch, Avonia. I sure would like to get a hold of your sources. Mine, for instance, show the Incas with a 10-day week, not an 8-day week.

However, the point I was trying to make was that the seven-day week is used by the majority of the world today and is the international standard. See ISO 8601. Of course, various cultures over time have experimented with different cycles, but most of these have not persisted and certainly never went global.

Also, there has been research done that demonstrates the existence of a seven-day biological clock in living things. I can't post a link yet because of my newbieness, but here's a quote from an article that might interest you:

The relatively new science of chronobiology has uncovered some totally unexpected facts about living things, as Susan Perry and Jim Dawson report in their book The Secrets Our Body Clock Reveal. "Weekly rhythms -- known in chronobiology as "circaseptan rhythms" -- are one of the most puzzling and fascinating findings of chronobiology. Circaseptan literally means "about seven;" see chart. Daily and seasonal cycles appear to be connected to the moon. But what is there in nature that would have caused weekly rhythms to evolve?

"At first glance, it might seem that weekly rhythms developed in response to the seven-day week imposed by human culture thousands of years ago. However, this theory doesn't hold once you realize that plants, insects, and animals other than humans also have weekly cycles. . . . Biology, therefore, not culture, is probably at the source of our seven-day week."

Now, I can't vouch for this particular source, but this is an interesting new field of research. Might be worth looking into.​

 

[Laodicean]

Solja247 asked the following thought-provoking questions. I'll play.

What makes me more important than a monkey?

I don't know necessarily about order of importance, since God cares for even the little sparrow that falls to the ground. But I think that there is definitely a difference between a human and a monkey, where one is held more accountable than the other based on its degree of intelligence.

Why didnt Jesus die for the homo erectus, instead of the homo sapians?

I don't understand this question. Can you elaborate?

Why couldnt God of created man instantly?

my take on this is that if the God we trust is as powerful as the Bible says that He is, then certainly, such an all-powerful God is well able to create man instantly. Why would we limit Him to the slip-shod method of trial and error, willy-nilly random chance that involves suffering and death?

Why did God take so long? What was the benefits of billions or even millions of years?

good question! I don't see a benefit, either. Unless we want to say that God is not as powerful as we thought. That would be one admission if we decide to take the position that God cannot do something instantly....you know, like heal the sick instantly.

Why did God wait so long, to reveal His plan for this Earth?

another good question, if we are to take the position that God did not introduce Hiimself to humans until they evolved to our present state, then I don't have an answer to this.

What was God doing while He was waiting for evolution?

who knows!

How did sin enter the world?

my worldview says that sin entered when we used our freewill to turn away from God. The evolutionary worldview, I don't think, believes in sin. Do they?

How humans are the only intelligent creature which can critically think about something?

indeed. I would think that apes and other life forms that have a supposedly even older history than humans should have evolved even more intelligence than humans have. But, then, there is a just-so story by evolutionists to account for that. Depend on it.

If God used evolution, why was their millions of years of extinction, Is not His eye on the sparrow?

exactly. Reconciling the two worldviews is not easy, if even possible, imo.

Maybe I'll think up some questions for you next, but the real world calls. Later ....

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Solja247, don't let RC's superior attitude (bless his/her heart) intimidate you. You were right when you said "Resistant bacteria is resistant because the body does not recognise it anymore (as it has lost genetic information) So it still has de-evolved."

Just because resistance to antibiotics can be demonstrated in a petri dish does not mean that therefore, what you said was wrong. Don't back down too quickly. No need to be rude, of course, and your humility stands you in good stead, but when your ideas are knocked down like that, instead of giving up, check it out. Is it really true that you are incorrect? Of course not. Drug resistant bacteria are resistant in the body as well as the petri dish. Here's a quote from Wiki:

Sorry to be so superior but in the realm of science fact it is right or wrong and this is simply wrong. Resistant bacteria is resistant to the drug. Drugs do not lose genetic information (they are by and large chemical agents without any genetic component). It has nothing at all to do with a bacteria losing genetic information and then not being recognized by the body. The drug in the body cannot affect the death of the specific bacteria if the bacteria has become resistant to that drug. The overuse of drugs allows for more bacteria to become exposed to a drug and evolve resistance and then spread.

This will be one of Solja247's major lessons that he needs to learn, who do you listen to. You will not be able to check every supposed fact that comes your way. So you have to develop a sense of who is credible and who is not, critical thinking techniques are important to this as well as a good knowledge of (in American's cases) the English language.

 

[AzA]

Shabbat Shalom, AzA! Isn't it nice that God gave us this day to become centered again in Him; to remember that He is our Creator and our Recreator? And along with that privilege also comes time to converse with you

Bless you, sis! I hope this is a restful and restorative time for you.

On the level of a family unit, however, that can be a more difficult stance to maintain when you feel that someone else's freedom is threatening to undermine the faith that you have been trying to instill into your children. 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? I imagine that is somewhat the way our church organization feels about allowing free reign to new ideas that are not accepted by the majority?

I completely empathize with the drive to protect by insulating. My observation, however, is that it doesn't work; nor is it natural to use insulation as an absolute approach to difference. Our skin is porous even though it also acts as a barrier. And there are a number of other ways for things outside us to get inside us. Ideas and cultural memes always bleed through... Once, before literacy, travel, and mass communication inc. the interactive web, it might have been reasonable to hope for ideological seals around our communities. Now, I do not think it is reasonable.

And I don't know, anyway, if our denomination is equipped to contribute to the subject if our scientists are going down the path of toeing the line of mainstream science. It will only cause conflict between the theologians and the scientists because mainstream science is not in harmony with SDA beliefs. What I don't get is why we have allowed others to tell us how the data should be interpreted, as if the only way the data can be understood is one way and no other way.

It sounds like you've framed these scientists' work as a kind of weak capitulation. Why?

While I do find some denominational workers to be afraid of mockery and authority, I see much more of that among our ministers than among our academics, and perhaps for good reason! This observation just comes from where I've been looking lately, so I hope it's not taken as a stereotype. I am a little invested in the integrity of our ministerial class.

I do agree with you that blind acceptance is not a virtue in any discipline. But I didn't find that many of my professors had the skills to handle the kinds of discussions that ensue when students don't blindly accept the word of the textbook or the word of the teacher. Some did. I still keep in touch with some of them because even if I've backgrounded the content they taught me, I've retained the soft skills they taught me, and those soft skills have helped me grow.

Am I correct to understand that, for you, the bottom line is that there is no problem with creation and macroevolution being in the same lifeboat? That their partnership cannot be blamed for having made the mother ship sink? That the problem lies elsewhere, and so, surely, now, the lifeboat won't capsize?

What's the mother ship in this analogy? And what's the lifeboat?

There's no question that creation remains whatever our ideas are about it. And change occurs whatever our ideas are about it.

 

[Avonia]

Interesting rsesearch, Avonia. I sure would like to get a hold of your sources. Mine, for instance, show the Incas with a 10-day week, not an 8-day week.

We don't know as much about this calendar because not as much was written down. I've seen an 8-day week referenced, a 9-day week, a 10-day week, and the suggestion that in some regions there was no week at all. It's thought that they used both a lunar calendar and a solar calendar.

I came across some of the calendar stuff when reading about 2012. So I probably know just enough to be dangerous.

I just went to the WolfWiki and saw this paragraph:

"The Lunar Calendar - It is widely debated, but most scholars agree that this form of a calendar was the most widely used, especially in the city of Cuzco. It consisted of 41 eight day weeks which comprised 328 total days. As listed below, the rituals of the people depended on the different months of the lunar calendar, and officials within the city used this to maintain a yearly schedule of those events." The Inca Calendar - WolfWikis


I was simply adding to you post by showing how varied the number of days in a week were around the world.

 

[AzA]

So I probably know just enough to be dangerous.

Alexander Pope might not have appreciated that allusion.

 

[solja247]

Quite a few. Some are closer to you than you might think.

Like who?

I don't understand this question. Can you elaborate?

The homo erectus is thought to be an ancestor of the homo sapians.

I don't think, believes in sin. Do they?

Since many evolutionists are Christians. They do believe in sin (to my knowledge)

 

[solja247]

No the law of entropy is through the whole universe, how do you know this? Especially as later you say, but I dont know much about how the universe works.

I am ignorant to much of how the universe works (too much maths for me) but the second law of thermo dynamics is universal. For example. If I was to make a hot cup of hot chocolate. While the water is boiling (due to the kettle) the kettle is in an open system. Able to keep adding energy. Keep adding order. However when the kettle is turned off. The kettle is now in a closed system. The water which is hot, starts to drmatically cool, as it no longer has energy or a way to keep renewing the energy. The water in the kettle will suffer a heat death. Since the universe is a closed system, theoritcally speaking the universe will end one day. aka heat death.

"At first glance, it might seem that weekly rhythms developed in response to the seven-day week imposed by human culture thousands of years ago. However, this theory doesn't hold once you realize that plants, insects, and animals other than humans also have weekly cycles. . . . Biology, therefore, not culture, is probably at the source of our seven-day week."

This is incredible! wow. That just blows my socks off.
(Note: This is why the Bible uses 7 day quarantine and so does medical science!) Remeber swine flu?

I hope you don't mind me dumping all this unsolicited advice on you, but this is how I talked to my son when he was 18. I encouraged him to read everything, not just creationist viewpoints, and told him to think for himself.

I dont mind. I enjoy learning .

Get your son to watch. David Quinn vs Richard Dawkins

Alistar McGrath -- Atheist turned Christian



Two videos which really show how much evidence there is for God.

I hope your son finds the Truth.

 

[Laodicean]

Sorry to be so superior but in the realm of science fact it is right or wrong and this is simply wrong. Resistant bacteria is resistant to the drug. Drugs do not lose genetic information (they are by and large chemical agents without any genetic component). It has nothing at all to do with a bacteria losing genetic information and then not being recognized by the body. The drug in the body cannot affect the death of the specific bacteria if the bacteria has become resistant to that drug. The overuse of drugs allows for more bacteria to become exposed to a drug and evolve resistance and then spread.

This will be one of Solja247's major lessons that he needs to learn, who do you listen to. You will not be able to check every supposed fact that comes your way. So you have to develop a sense of who is credible and who is not, critical thinking techniques are important to this as well as a good knowledge of (in American's cases) the English language.

RC, I don't think I can post links yet, but here is a quote from one source, for whatever it's worth:

"The overwhelming majority of antibiotics are made from living organisms such as bacteria. About 90% of antibiotics are isolated from bacteria fungi, and molds. Others are produced synthetically, either in whole or in part."

I do agree with you that since we cannot check every fact, that it matters to whom we listen. But the final responsibility always lies with us and no one else. I'm sure you would agree that we should never check our minds at anyone else's mental door, even if we deem them trustworthy. Right?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

"The overwhelming majority of antibiotics are made from living organisms such as bacteria. About 90% of antibiotics are isolated from bacteria fungi, and molds. Others are produced synthetically, either in whole or in part."

What does that possibly have to do with anything I have said. When you receive penicillin you are not injected with fungal spores. Drugs are not bacteria or fungi. Most everything used did come from some type of organism as they search for the components involved but that does not mean that the molecular components still carry the genetic information of the source. The drugs are made of the effective chemical molecules.

For example here is the structure of ampicillian:

 

[Laodicean]

It sounds like you've framed these scientists' work as a kind of weak capitulation. Why?


What's the mother ship in this analogy? And what's the lifeboat?

There's no question that creation remains whatever our ideas are about it. And change occurs whatever our ideas are about it.

Now that you mention it, I see that I have indeed framed the work of some scientists in our organization as a kind of weak capitulation. My apologies if this seems disrespectful, but really, I have seen elsewhere enough instances of capitulation in the face of mockery and insult to make me suspect that it was the ridicule that was a factor in some scientists' acceptance of certain evolutionary theories that, imo, are totally unsupported.

In the case of SDA scientists, if they embrace macroevolutionary theory, I am tempted to think that, surely, it must be because they don't want to be ridiculed, else why would they accept theories that tend to undermine their SDA (seventh-day Sabbath/second advent) worldview? I can understand acceptance of evolutionary views that are valid (and there are those). But to embrace that aspect of evolution (i.e., macroevolution), as fact when there is flimsy or no support for it ... well, surely, there must be some other reason.

The analogy of the lifeboat casts the SDA science arena as the mother ship which sinks because of the crack in the hull caused by the dissonance between creation theory and evolutionary theory. The life boat is the last-ditch attempt to keep the dueling worldviews afloat.

 

[Laodicean]

Get your son to watch. David Quinn vs Richard Dawkins

Alistar McGrath -- Atheist turned Christian



Two videos which really show how much evidence there is for God.

I hope your son finds the Truth.

Thank you, Solja. I hope he comes to know Jesus who is indeed the Truth.

My son recently attended a debate between Christopher Hitchens (atheist) and Dinesh D'Souza (Christian), and said that he thought that the Christian handled the debate better than the atheist. But that was the extent of it. Don't know where that will lead. I think AzA has a better solution than just the debating of these issues. But we still need to be prepared with answers.

I will look up the debate you recommend. Dawkins is so rabid that even many evolutionists keep their distance from him.

Okay, I just found the debate on line, that you suggested, and have bookmarked it for later review before passing it on to my son. Thanks.