- Sep 18, 2006
- 5,389
- 524
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
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.
I don't know that there is anything odd about it, I don't know how creation occurred but I do know that the evidence around us does not go along with a six literal days of creation.tell me what you know about this subject.In other words the ice cores
tell me what do you know about this subject ?and the fossil record don't show an age that is as young as an literal Genesis account e.g
. it's genealogies would give us. Ussher's famous 6000 years. I can also tell that the story is laid out in the same way as the other creation myths throughout the world. Chaos brought by God into order. That is what water is nearly universally symbolic for. Of course there would be no liquid water on a planet without a sun and without an atmosphere. If the water was to be present it would be in the form of ice. Of course a primitive people would have no concept of a world covered in ice, it is doubtful they would have even known what a Glacier was. Remember the Genesis story was written after the Exodus from Egypt and it was written for a people who knew very little.
Even today we don't have a clue as to what the Genesis account that we claim is literal is saying. the first day light is created and it separates day from night, yet it is not until the 4th day that the sun and the moon (greater and lesser lights) are created. Yet it is the sun that defines a day on earth. So the days of the prior 4 are defined by something we have know idea about. You can see the method is a good step by step account that concludes with everything we see today but it does not account for things that modern scientifically knowledgeable people see. Even the lesson study on Genesis recently said we would have to wait to ask God what He meant by the creation of the stars on day 4.that is actually a really good answer. I will have to remember it. did you not remember Genesis 2 where the bible says these are the records of the thing of "this earth" the sun and moon are no problem. , the stars might hold a little more problme.Because the light that we see today from stars Billions of light years away certainly indicates that they were created before the earth. So many Christians accept that the earth was created Billions of years ago and remained void till creation week, but that does not really help them because the stars according to a literal reading are created on day 4.
by your own consession light existied before the sun and moon and the light could have been God himself.Even plants which are nearly totally dependent upon the sun are in the literal story created before the sun.
Genesis 2 says that it is the record of when God created the earth.Then there is the question of why do we take a story as only literal history when it nowhere makes such claims for the story itself. In fact there is no record of attribution even for who wrote the book of Genesis (and textual criticism by most scholars indicate it was made by several stories put together and then further redaction).
that is a huge assumptionThe assumption that it was all historical can be accepted by a primitive people with limited knowledge but is that always the way the story is to be understood?
The point of the story is that God created not so much how God created.
Reform would have to affect the structure as well.I would like to see this, too, but I guess I'm a little doubtful about whether it can happen within our current organizational structure.
If you targeted the SDA centers of Power you might make a difference. Schools hospitals, conferences offices, AcademiesI mean no disrespect Icedragon, but starting a new church like that will do no good in my opinion.
I disagree. It might not get as large, but not disappear.I know that you have your own concept of what "evangelical" should mean, but the evangelical community is such a mix of conservatives, neo-conservatives and post-conservatives, that I think an Evangelical Adventist Church would just disapear into obscurity.
i am not sure. there are thing i like? congergationalism has it upsides and it's down sides. The doctrines are up for revision. right now I would drop EGW as a prophet, drop the IJ, drop the sunday law, drop 2300 day ending in 1844.Just out of interest, what would be your structure of this new church? A copy of the current Adventist organisation and doctrines, just without the bits you don't like? A congregationalist approach? I personally think that we don't have the best structure for a global 21st century church. Still thinking what the alternative would be though.
how exactly are you progressive if you think we had a great prophetic beginning?Here's where I stand - I like to think of myself as progressive. Though having said that, I still believe in the SDA church. I think that we have a great prophetic beginning, but we've lost our way
.how is that going to happen?I guess I would like to see reform from within.
by Brian S. Bull (Editor, Author), Fritz Guy (Editor, Author), Ervin Taylor (Editor, Author), Ron Burgard (Illustrator), Dalton B. Baldwin (Author), Ivan T. Blazen (Author), Richard Bottomley (Author), Douglas R. Clark (Author), Warren Johns (Author), Lawrence T. Geraty (Author)
Book Description
In his The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, the distinguished American historian, Ronald Numbers documented in detail the essential role that a devout Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) believer, George McCready Price (1870-1963), played in creating the initial set of modern fundamentalist arguments to support a so-called ¿Flood Geology¿ as a means of explaining the geological column, a position that the scientific community totally rejects. In recent official pronouncements, the SDA Church continues to endorse an essentially literalistic interpretation of the Genesis creation narratives and a geologically recent (<10,000 years) creation and worldwide flood. What may not be known outside of the Adventist subculture is that there has been for many decades major criticisms and exceptions voiced by a number of moderate and progressive SDA theologians and scientists to many aspects of the traditional Adventist understandings promulgated by fundamentalist and conservative elements within the SDA faith tradition. Understanding Genesis: Contemporary Adventist Perspectives is a volume of papers written by SDA theologians and scientists, most of which hold faculty appointments at Adventist colleges and universities in North America. The various chapters provide a spectrum of views on a variety of topics, including non-fundamentalist interpretations of the Genesis creation and flood narratives, a consideration of theistic evolution or progressive creationism, the validity of the evidence dating the geological column and human prehistory, and other related topics.
The current dialogue on Creationism between the fundamentalist and nonfundamentalist elements of the church provides not so much a problem as an opportunity. The discussion focused on the issues surrounding this topic may provide a framework and model of how such a church with so many fundamentalist roots might foster--or at least not hinder--constructive pluralism?. Can we as SDA Christians engage in the process of adjusting to a more diverse theological environment, while avoiding unproductive, negative organizational tensions? In the earliest years of the formation of the church, its leaders and scholars wrestled with many diverse opinions until their doctrinal positions were refined and clarified. Can we show the same spirit today?
In the context of this topic, I would like to suggest that one of these constructive refinements now might be to acknowledge as a new normative view of Creationism that the God of the biblical narratives is the Creator of the universe and all that is good in it-and leave the details of what, when, and how it was done to the individual conscience and convictions.
Another constructive refinement would be to implement a suggestion of the current president of the General Conference, Jan Paulsen. His proposal was included in a recent essay entitled "The Theological Landscape," presented at a conference of church leaders in May 2002 on the "Theological Unity in a Growing World Church." In his view, "the church works best when unity and diversity coexist in a nonhostile tension, learning to defer creatively to each other, but loving that which they share more than they love themselves." Recognizing that "some theological polarity" exists in the church of the "right or the left, reactionary or liberal," he asked how the church might deal with this reality. His essentially pragmatic answer was to "learn to live with it."
Some in the church may feel it is vital that they retain the traditional understandings of the Creation narratives in Genesis; their understandings and spiritual integrity should be honored by those who disagree. Others may wish to approach the Creation narratives in Genesis from a nonfundamentalist theological perspective; and their views should be likewise honored. I am suggesting that as a twenty-first-century faith community, we have the opportunity to create a positive environment for all members-including those employed by the organized church-to affirm either fundamentalist or nonfundamentalist perspectives on this and other conflicted theological understandings.
In conclusion, a question that now seems to be squarely before the community of SDA biblical scholars and scientists is, How best can they assist their faith community to reconcile conflicting theological perspectives, including diverse views on Creationism, in a constructive manner that will celebrate the church's historic commitment to "present truth"? All of us can play a constructive and healing role in assisting our faith tradition to create a place where, in the words of Paulsen, "unity and diversity coexist in nonhostile tension," where "people can communicate, understand each other, [and] respect each other's space." I would suggest that the current Creationism dialogues have the potential to serve both as a case study and a model of how other conflicted theological issues in the church can be resolved in a constructive manner and how historically important doctrines, such as the Sabbath, can be revalued in light of new information and insights about how God has, and is, creating the universe and conscious beings within it.
what is ice core and Ice core theroy? some one may ask.if I recall right ice cores samples have been dated to over 130,000 years. Most who hold to 6 literal days also hold to the Genesis genealogies which gives an age of earth of 6000 years.
Now certainly there are places that argue that the cores are only accurate to say 6 thousand years. It is kind of a standard way literal 6 day creationists try to acknowledge the science yet at the same time deny the science
An article which shows some of the other ice core dating techniques and is still written in an easy to read style is found at the following.Ice Core Dating
By sampling at very fine intervals down the ice core, and provided that each annual layer of snow is thick enough, several samples from each year may be measured for the different chemical properties. It has already been seen that the delta value is related to air temperature when the snow was deposited. Because it is warmer in summer and cooler in winter, and provided the snow layers are not too disturbed by wind, the delta value can show annual cycles. Thus, these values can be used to date the ice core. Hydrogen peroxide is created in the atmosphere by a chemical reaction that requires ultraviolet light. There is a lot less ultraviolet light in the winter than in the summer in Antarctica. Thus, measurements of hydrogen peroxide dissolved in the ice also provide a good annual cycle indicator.
In order to date the ice cores accurately, the annual layers need to be thick enough to obtain about ten measurement samples from each year. The thickness of the annual layers depends on how much snow falls each year. Thus, to obtain an ice core from which accurate, detailed dating can be derived, we need to find an Antarctic site where the snow accumulation is relatively high. This would usually mean we need to find a low elevation site, but it must also be a site where there is no melt. If the snow was to melt at any time during the year, some measurements such as those involving trapped gases would be spoiled. In addition, the annual layers would be destroyed by the melt water which would, effectively, wash the evidence away.
Such locations (high snow accumulation, yet low summer temperatures) are not easy to find. One such location, however, is near the summit of Law Dome, approximately 120 kilometres from Casey Station, where an ice core has been drilled 1,200 metres through the ice sheet to the underlying bedrock. Accurate dating for this core has been obtained back to 8,000 years ago using annual cycles obtained by analysis of delta value and hydrogen peroxide. A section of the graph of delta value and hydrogen peroxide is shown in Figure 4, along with the year. The ice core depth for this section is 139 to 128 metres, corresponding to the dates 1807 to 1826 AD.
http://www.chem.hope.edu/~polik/warming/IceCore/IceCore2.html
OLDEST ICE CORE FROM THE TROPICS RECOVERED, NEW ICE AGE EVIDENCE
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- An analysis of ice cores drilled from a glacier atop a Bolivian volcano is painting a vivid picture of climate conditions in the tropics over the past 25,000 years. The ice at the bottom of the cores was formed during the last glacial maximum -- the coldest part of the last ice age -- making it the oldest core recovered from the tropics.
In a paper in the journal Science, the research team describes a climate in the tropics that was different from what many researchers have thought. The findings are the latest result from a 20-year effort to build a global climate record that reaches from the North to the South Pole.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/sajama.htm
what ?what?Well the anecdote about the plane has nothing to do with Ice core dating it is only based upon the assumption of snow deposits over time which of course is very variable.
There are a couple of ways to do Ice Core dating. One method is through the sampling of Hydrogen peroxide which has accurately dated to 8,000 years ago.
An article which shows some of the other ice core dating techniques and is still written in an easy to read style is found at the following.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
For those afraid to read the talkorigins site because it is against Short age Creationism, here is a site which deals with understanding the ancient climate through ice cores:
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php
Then there are other specific articles like this one about south American Ice Cores:
it look like i did know what I was talking about. and my illustration was valid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
Dating cores
19 cm long section of GISP 2 ice core from 1855 m showing annual layer structure illuminated from below by a fiber optic source. Section contains 11 annual layers with summer layers (arrowed) sandwiched between darker winter layers.
Shallow cores, or the upper parts of cores in high-accumulation areas, can be dated exactly by counting individual layers, each representing a year. These layers may be visible, related to the nature of the ice; or they may be chemical, related to differential transport in different seasons; or they may be isotopic, reflecting the annual temperature signal (for example, snow from colder periods has less of the heavier isotopes of H and O). Deeper into the core the layers thin out due to ice flow and eventually individual years cannot be distinguished. It may be possible to identify events such as nuclear bomb atmospheric testing's radioisotope layers in the upper levels, and ash layers corresponding to known volcanic eruptions. Volcanic eruptions may be detected by visible ash layers, acidic chemistry, or electrical resistance change. Some composition changes are detected by high-resolution scans of electrical resistance. Lower down the ages are reconstructed by modeling accumulation rate variations and ice flow.
RC they are saying the same thing,Well the anecdote about the plane has nothing to do with Ice core dating it is only based upon the assumption of snow deposits over time which of course is very variable.
There are a couple of ways to do Ice Core dating. One method is through the sampling of Hydrogen peroxide which has accurately dated to 8,000 years ago.
An article which shows some of the other ice core dating techniques and is still written in an easy to read style is found at the following.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
For those afraid to read the talkorigins site because it is against Short age Creationism, here is a site which deals with understanding the ancient climate through ice cores:
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php
Then there are other specific articles like this one about south American Ice Cores:
One known example where this assumption was used is very misleading. Ice cores showed the age of a military plane buried in the artic as thousands of years old. Similarly, dendrochronology measures the tree rings in trees and assumes they represent years. Climate chronology uses evidence of a climatic change, such as an ice age, as a benchmark for dating.
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/relative-dating-faq.htm
did you not see this this is a core of ice 19 cm look at how many years they say it is old. 11 years oldit look like i did know what I was talking about. and my illustration was valid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
Dating cores
19 cm long section of GISP 2 ice core from 1855 m showing annual layer structure illuminated from below by a fiber optic source. Section contains 11 annual layers with summer layers (arrowed) sandwiched between darker winter layers.
Shallow cores, or the upper parts of cores in high-accumulation areas, can be dated exactly by counting individual layers, each representing a year. These layers may be visible, related to the nature of the ice; or they may be chemical, related to differential transport in different seasons; or they may be isotopic, reflecting the annual temperature signal (for example, snow from colder periods has less of the heavier isotopes of H and O). Deeper into the core the layers thin out due to ice flow and eventually individual years cannot be distinguished. It may be possible to identify events such as nuclear bomb atmospheric testing's radioisotope layers in the upper levels, and ash layers corresponding to known volcanic eruptions. Volcanic eruptions may be detected by visible ash layers, acidic chemistry, or electrical resistance change. Some composition changes are detected by high-resolution scans of electrical resistance. Lower down the ages are reconstructed by modeling accumulation rate variations and ice flow.
[FONT=book antiqua, times new roman, times] Anyone genuinely familiar with ice core dating knows that, like the growth rings of a tree, the quantity used in counting is the number of discernible annual layers – not the thickness. Wieland at first seems to be somewhat aware of that as he continues:
In fact, ice cores in Greenland are used for dating, based on the belief that layers containing varying isotope ratios were laid down, somewhat like the rings of a tree, over many tens of thousands of years.
The seekers of the buried aircraft never extracted intact ice core samples and subjected them to the tests used in scientific dating, and ice cores from moving glaciers aren`t used for studying anything but glacial movement. Yet, a bit further on, Wieland seems to be comparing the length of genuine ice core samples from the GRIP or GISP 2 projects[1] with the ice thickness burying the aircraft:
Evolutionists and other long–agers often say that "the present is the key to the past". In that case, the 3000 metres of ice core brought up in Greenland in 1990 would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation.
Suddenly the thickness of 268 feet of glacial ice near the east coast that was melted through by non-scientists to recover the "Glacier Girl" P-38 fighter is being used to date "3000 metres of ice core" extracted deep in the interior of the Greenland ice sheet.[2] Has he already forgotten his "rings of a tree" analogy just a few paragraphs earlier? Has he opted for no more flim-flam about annual layers? -- let's just measure the thickness in two widely-separated locations, compare them, and be done with it. Is Wieland funny, or what? Exaggeration for comic effect, I suppose, or perhaps the sleigh-of-hand of the parlour magician is at work. The GISP 2 core samples were dated using 42 scientifically validated parameters, and Wieland wants to overrule the dating with a scientifically ridiculous comparison of thicknesses. What a knee-slapper this guy is, huh?
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kuechmann_cretin_comedy.htm
[/FONT]
I never said it did. RC it seems to me that you are trying to hard to keep your premise. Thou doset protest to much.The thickness of a core does not correlate to its age. The plane story is based upon the assumption that thickness of ice is indicative of age but that is not how ice cores work.
From the last article I linked to above:
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?