| Author | Message | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 190 Registered: 8-2006  |
If this has been discussed here before please 'link' me. I had a stunning conversation with an SDA gentleman this weekend. He said that he and his SDA professor friends are promoting "long chronology." (IAW evolution) He had several graphs, reports, pictures and data to back his stance. I guess what surprised me most was the fact that Jan Paulson <sp?> arranged a meeting to have the scientists and theologions settle their differences. An all to brief statement can be found here http://www.atoday.com/151.0.html One statement that really got my attention was: "However, two polls of faculty in Adventist colleges and universities in North America have indicated that less than 50 percent of the science teachers believe the traditional view of origins." I don't know about you guys but around here, you get booted right out of church for this type of language. If the church even considers embracing this, aren't they admitting that Ellen taught falsehood? And what about the Sabbath in the garden? The comment that was made to me Sunday (by the SDA) was, "You see, Genesis must be a myth, and myths are not bad." Was this a secret meeting? Do all Adventist know that this type of activity is taking place inside their ranks? Is this like the Cottrill meeting regarding the IJ that never happened??? Here is another stunning comment from the SDA Meeting: "There was an unscheduled presentation on ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica. Ice cores reveal the record of annual deposits of snow. Several lines of evidence indicate that the individual layers do, in fact, reflect annual events. Contained in these layers are many types of organic products such as pollen and spores and inorganic particulates such as lead and volcanic ash. Correlations between these annual layers and various historical events and processes can be documented. For example, the ice cores give a precise date for the eruption of Mt. Mazama, which created Crater Lake at about 7686 B.P. The ice cores also map the beginning of copper smelting about 500 years ago and the beginning of the use of lead in gasoline and the subsequent elimination of leaded gasoline. The total length of time recorded in the Greenland ice cores is about 110,000 years. In Antarctica, cores have been drilled to 12,000 feet deep, and standard calculations give a maximum age of 420,000 years." | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 303 Registered: 5-2007 |
Ummmm, Timmy. Last year when I was still an Adventist, I got dismissed as a Sabbath School teacher and was nearly disfellowshipped from the Adventist Church I had been attending, for vocalizing my long/old earth creationist views during the Beginnings and Belonging Quarterly. Various responses were accusations that I didn't believe in God and the Bible. How would we know to keep the Sabbath if it weren't 6 literal days of creation. I might as well have been singing Marilyn Manson songs as to bring up long/old earth creationism. EGW wrote that those who do not believe in a LITERAL 6 days of creation and those who believe the earth is more than 6,000 yrs. old are the "WORST KIND OF INFIDELS". But there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support a long/old earth creationst model. The short/young earth view does not have much, if any, scientific evindence to support it but people have the right to believe that if that's what there conscience tells them. | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 192 Registered: 8-2006 |
Thanks Reb, I understand the points 'young vs. old' outside of the SDA church, but what blows my mind is that the SDA conference president is holding meetings to debate the issues on the INSIDE! Like you said Ellen spoke strongly against it, so by entertaining the thought... what are they saying??? | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 508 Registered: 11-2004 |
I've heard that position among SDAs is becoming more common lately. It does bring a definite problem to the Sabbath issue for them. If Genesis is a myth who is to say that the Sabbath in Genesis isn't a myth. And if Genesis is a myth then how do you know that Exodus isn't a myth. If one part of the Bible is a myth then it challenges the authority of the whole Bible. Personally, I'm coming to the position that the core elements of the earth and the heavens are old (Genesis 1:1), but the week of creation in Genesis is literal and happened about 6000+ years ago. | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 304 Registered: 5-2007 |
But the week in Genesis doesn't necessarily have to be literal. I take the position that the creation was 6 of God's days which are NOT our days and could be billions of years. Read the "Science of God" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He beautifully explains how each creation day could be billions of years and does Math and physics to prove it. Science and the Genesis creation account are beatifully reconciled in this work and this is what I believe. Genesis is NOT a myth, Creation was in 6 days but they were not 6 of "our" literal days but 6 of God's "days". But of course this does pose a problem for those Adventists who want to claim the Sabbath was present in Genesis. I also take the position that the day after creation was NOT a Sabbath, it in fact wouldn't have ended if Adam and Eve had not sinned. Adam and Eve, in fact, "worked" in the Garden of Eden, albiet that it was pleasant "work" since it was a perfect pre-fall world. SO where is the Sabbath there? | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 107 Registered: 5-2007  |
Just for the record, I am a "Young Earth" creationist and I believe there is overwhelming evidence from both the Bible and science to support such a position. For example, there are excellent science papers showing how the "ice core" samples can be miss-interpreted. And, the "RATE" project has presented some very persuasive independent evidence indication a young earth. To say there is no evidence for such a position is simply not true. Just because SDA teachings hold cultic views on basic doctrines, it does not follow that all their positions are wrong. My best advise is to take a literal rendering of the Bible with regards to creation and leave the current views of science out of the discussion. I believe they can have a somewhat correct position on creation but fowl it up with their own brand of speculation. The reason I am making these cautionary remarks is that if we debate SDA doctrines using equally false or unprovable statements from science, or wherever, then we are vulnerable to counter-attack. So, let's not put more into scriptures than is actually there. I have no problem with anyone holding a "long age" view of the earth. I just think it unwise to use this concept to refute SDA teachings on the subject of creation. Phil | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 305 Registered: 5-2007 |
Ok Phil. I see your point. I am still going to be a long/old earth creationist, but I want to make it clear I have no problem with people who are young earthers, it's what your conscience convicts you of. This is an issue that is not salvific, so we can agree to disagree. | ||
| U2bsda Registered user Username: U2bsda Post Number: 509 Registered: 11-2004 |
I was talking to an SDA recently who didn't refer to Genesis as Genesis, but the "myth of Genesis". I don't have a problem with the general SDA theology regarding creation although I don't fully agree with it, but these new ideas of "myths" present a problem for the Sabbath issue and EGW. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 788 Registered: 7-2004  |
It sounds like my views more closely match U2's. Mostly I try to not go outside what the Bible actually tells us, and I think it is possible to believe the earth itself was around formless and void for a very long time (like many other planets) before the creation week began. It's possible, but not provable either way. The main problem I've had with a creation day being a God-length day instead of an earth-length day is that I think it contradicts the Bible (Romans 8:18-22) to say there was death before sin was in the world, as the standard old-earth fossil explanations would say. Besides, if it plainly says in Genesis "There was evening and there was morning, one day" - 1) wouldn't that make the most sense to be an earth day if we're talking about what is happening literally on earth? and 2) it didn't just say "day" but more fully describes the day by saying it was the length of an evening and morning. As Reb said, it's not salvific. Just stating my opinion. | ||
| Jay_g Registered user Username: Jay_g Post Number: 6 Registered: 7-2007 |
A year of two ago I read "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality" by the Daili Lama. The central theme of that book was that a "dialogue between scientists and those interested in spirituality is important because science is not neutral; it can be used for good or ill, and we must approach scientific inquiry with compassion and empathy. Similarly, a spirituality that ignores science can quickly become a rigid fundamentalism." When I was in 4th grade (SDA) my teacher went to a conference about dinosaurs, and came back with coloring pictures and stuff like that. I remember parents of other kids being very upset about them even admitting that dinosaurs has existed at all. The theme of the conference (apparently) was that the Church needed to admit that the bones of a t-rex wasn't just the bones of a bunch of cows and alligators that some one pieced together. It was something that existed, they said before the flood and they were destroyed by the flood. I accepted this explanation until I was in college. I had Adventist science teachers (in College) who obviously didn't believe that dinosaurs were around at the same time as man. They told about the Review And Harold printing that they found human and dinosaur bones together, and printed it on the front page, but later retracted it with a hidden footnote in the back. They said that this was something each person would have to deal with,and offered an explanation that I didn't believe they believed which was "maybe God created the earth aged?". The next year I was told that two of the science teachers at the college left the church and college. (I was told they were agnostic, but they may have just joined FAF,that would have probably been reported the same way) For me after college I really started getting into science, books like "a Brief History of Time" by Stephan Hawking. I felt really unprepared for the information about things like background radiation created by the big bang. We were told in a very sarcastic tone "someone heard some static on a radio and said 'it must be the big bang' how stupid." Then when you read the whole story about it being theorized years before testing equipment, and the testing equipment supported the theory, you have to deal with that. Then I found out from Stephen Hawking that even the Roman Catholic Church now teaches that the Big Bang was the moment God Created the universe. I always felt they were really "traditional" usually wrong but traditional, yet they have had to deal with science. My personal explanation has been refuted by everyone I've tried to explain it too. Which is that Maybe when Moses asked God how we came to be, God had a choice. Spend 500,000 pages telling every detail about the arduous process of creating everything over millions of years, creating a book that no one would ever understand, and people would get so hung up by the details that they never even noticed the Good News which started on page 500,001. Or simply say "I said it and it was" (in 6 days). Then he was free to get on with the rest of the story, the one about salvation. Now there are those who say that this image of God is condescending, but I was listening to Mark Martin's FAF Weekend sermon this morning and he said "we are less than worms compared to God" If I had to explain my job to a worm I think I would OVER Simplify it. I do think this conversation is a dangerous one, but what happens if we don't have it? Is it better to have these conversations amongst ourselves or with atheist scientists? Or completely ignore the world around us? Keep in mind this was written by someone who considered himself to be an agnostic fairly recently, and is still struggling with who God is. Jay (Message edited by Jay_G on July 09, 2007) | ||
| Marysroses Registered user Username: Marysroses Post Number: 76 Registered: 4-2007 |
Hi Jay, I've had my own excursions into agnosticism in the past and I'm a fan of the writings of Hawking AND the Dalai Lama ! I very much agree with you. The Genesis account tells us who we ARE, not exactly how we came to be. Its our family story, God Created us. It wasn't the purpose to dwell on details that would distract. Thats my personal view. I respect other views on Genesis, as I don't find it crucial to salvation to have exactly the 'right' answer. MarysRoses | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6265 Registered: 12-2003  |
Yes, the Adventist "intelligencia" (such as the Adventst Today staff and many science teachers, etc.) have been promoting internal discussions re: an old earth for nearly ten years at least. I know that John McClarty, editor of Adventist Today and a pastor of a church in Washington state, is a vociferous proponent of an old earth. Some of them not only believe in an old earth but in evolution as God's appointed plan. These same people (I know for sure John McClarty is in this camp) simultaneously argue for Sabbath as a "Park in Time", as he calls it. He declares the Sabbath to be Time given by God when all distracting activiites cease and we have a day in the park, so to speak. It's a very interesting juxtaposition of liberality and cultrual conservatism. Some of the "old earth-ers" are very liberal re: lifestyle, etc. and probably are not Christians at all, believing in some concept of God but likely not the literal divinity and saving role of Jesus. Others, like McClarty, are heated about a long earth but find rationales to remain rigidly vegetarian and Sabbatarian. Mind you, their arguments are not salvation arguments. They're more "relational" and "cultural" and "health" arguments. I don't believe the church will change any of its official beliefs. It wouldn't surprise me, however, if they don't begin tolerating old earth views because so many of their science faculty embrace this view. The fact that these people don't need their beliefs to make sense as a dovetailed whole suggests to me that Adventism really IS more of a cultural and underlying spiritual bond than it is doctrinal. The liberals, the conservatives, the evangelicals—internally they differ and "fight" and mutter about each other, but bottom line—they're "family". They'll stick together. These differences don't really matter, bottom line. What matters is being Adventist. Those who are bothered by these things are the ones who are struggling and are ripe to discover the gospel and leave. Colleen | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 193 Registered: 8-2006 |
10yrs?... I think I know more about the Adventist smorgasboard now than I did when I was in. I still do not see how they can possibly consider the scientific view and hold on to Ellen. As Reb pointed out, "(The) WORST KIND OF INFIDELS" believe outside of Ellens view. The only thing that makes sense is what Colleeen said, "All that really matters is being Adventist." I know some die hard SDAs, veggies, no jewelry, no make up... who are 100% creationist (6000 yr) I wonder what they would think if this info about their belief system was introduced to them. I know they have no idea of these types of "dialogs" on the inside. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1028 Registered: 9-2006  |
When God reached down and delivered me from deep alcoholism and drugs I knew it was an act of God. I didn’t go down the isle of some church or hold up my hand for baptism, I didn’t all of a sudden realize I was a sinner and repent, how could I? I was drunk at the time. Oh, I knew I was a sinner all right, I just didn’t know what to do about it so I just sinned some more. God just awakened my soul out of the stupor of alcohol and to him; it is as simple and as complicated as that. This alcoholic stupor had lasted from the time I was about 16 years old until I was about thirty and although I functioned, went into service, finished honorably, got married, started a family and so forth. When God woke me to him it was as if a whole chunk of my life was missing and I wanted to study everything and do everything, I started with the Bible cover to cover and then on to the sciences, ever since that time I have explored my world, physics, electronics, Paleontology, geology, oceanography, the stars and planets, I didn’t keep a steady job, I would go work in my field of endeavor at the time, I wanted to know how cars were stuck together so I became a mechanic, things of that nature. I dug for and collected bones, uncovered and an ancient beach 125 miles from our present ocean, any fool can look and recognize a beach, the small sea shells and stuff so I looked and had to come to the conclusion that this earth is OLD. I dug up shark teeth and vertebrae and knew that the mountain I dug it out of was at one time an ocean. I dug up a three toed horses hoof and knew that it had been a while since they were around. I dug up beetles that we dated around 50,000 years old. Through out all this study I was continually aware of the miracle working God that reached down and changed me, unexplainably, just as many things that he did not explain in his word, my favorite line in the Bible is “I am, that I am” tell them that the “I am” has sent you. To me it is foolish to count the days of the “I am’s” creation, there is not enough information in Genesis to come to any conclusion. Just as it was foolish to number the day’s of the Lords return and to try to bring him down to their world in 1844, he is knowable to an extent but only to some small extent. We can’t even explain how we are born again, how is it that a man gets up one morning, pours his beer down the sink and announces to his family “get ready we are going to church” with no indication or plan or thought of such a thing the day or any day before? There was no church service with the song “Just as I am” being sung and the invitation being given, how does one explain this? Even my wife’s unbelieving grand father marveled over this until he died, he knew there was a God, he just didn’t want anything to do with him, did you know there are people like that? It is sad but true. All I know is that he is my creator and thank God, my redeemer, I don’t give a hoot how old the earth is, 6000 or six million or the big bang theory or how physics came to be, I just use it, if I want to send a radio signal I use mathematics to cut and build an antenna for the length of the desired frequency. I wanted to know how things worked and when I found out my interest would wane and I would move on to something else and the same thing would happen, but the thing that has staid with me these years is his presence although unexplainable and wonderful and I never tire of him, thank God, he is new and wonderful in my life every day. If I had it to do over again I would probably look into these things again, I cannot change who I am nor could I delete the need to know how things work. I had a burning need to know these things and that’s all there is to it. I still to this day am a perpetual student, I enjoy going out to my shop and making things and learning new things and using my various tools and instruments, but as I have grown old I have grown a little weary and my mind is on heaven more and more and on how I can serve God more and more. These are the things that will stick with you, my rest and peace in Christ has grown bigger in my mind than the physics of this world. Go ahead young people and explore your world, but keep God, the great “I am” at the fore front of all you do. IMHO. I remember being a young soldier as if it were yesterday, the day my first son was born and I marvel at how it has gone so quickly, the reason I say that is the days are fleeting and what we are going to get done for God we best get to it. River | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1029 Registered: 9-2006 |
You all are the book readinest folks I have ever had the opportunity to become acquainted with. Here, have a book! no! Take three or four!  River | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1149 Registered: 4-2000  |
Colleen, Excellent observation about our "scholarly" SDA friends, "...these people don't need their beliefs to make sense..." At best, their religion is merely cultural; at worst, their religion is a combination of being cultural and mushroom (theologically being kept in the dark and fed). The latter view highlights their frequent faith and science seminars that are carefully monitored by their Biblical Research Institute (BRI). Dennis Fischer | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 311 Registered: 5-2007 |
That is an excellent observation. Another observation, I've made that is very close to home is that my wife has admitted she agrees with me that there are errors in SDA theology. She does not agree with the eschatology, including the Sunday Laws and does not accept EGW as a prophet but she says she just "ignores" the things she doesn't agree with and wonders why I can't do the same but I have stood my ground about where I'm at, I am much happier and growing much more spiritually since leaving SDAism for the Seventh Day Baptist Church and I'm not giving it up and she's accepting. I am thinking, for her, it's the "culture" she was born and raised in it(3rd generation) all of her side of the family and almost all of her friends are Adventist so I think it's definetly "cultural" for her. I never really fully assimilated into Adventist "culture" And when I discovered the errors and could not tolerate them, I HAD to leave. | ||
| Honestwitness Registered user Username: Honestwitness Post Number: 261 Registered: 7-2005  |
Have you heard of Dr. Robert Gentry and his research into polonium halos in granite? He's definitely an Adventist, but I've seen both of his videos and I find them to be very convincing. I know there's controversy about his work, and you can find refutations on the Internet. If I am allowed to make a choice on what I prefer to believe, it would have to be his theory that the earth was instantaneously created already aged. You might want to check out the blurbs on his two videos here: http://www.halos.com/videos.htm I'm no longer Adventist, but I can still appreciate whatever Adventists teach that agrees with the Bible. Honestwitness | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 110 Registered: 5-2007 |
Honestwitness, Yes, he was part of the "RATE" project and there were a whole lot of scientists besides him. Phil | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 227 Registered: 1-2006  |
Hi Honestwitness I am not challenging you on this, but how would Robert Gentry explain God's need to create something fake, like an earth that looks older than it is? Who would God be trying to trick, and why? | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 323 Registered: 5-2007 |
Bob, isn't that a theme in Adventism? When EGW wrote "God's hand covered the mistake on Millers 1843 chart?" Error is truth is a common theme in Adventism, isn't it? They seems to think God "tricks" people at times, don't they? | ||
| Jonvil Registered user Username: Jonvil Post Number: 67 Registered: 4-2007 |
Honestwitness wrote: "Have you heard of Dr. Robert Gentry and his research into polonium halos in granite? He's definitely an Adventist, but I've seen both of his videos and I find them to be very convincing. I know there's controversy about his work, and you can find refutations on the Internet. If I am allowed to make a choice on what I prefer to believe, it would have to be his theory that the earth was instantaneously created already aged." Honestwitness I read Robert Gentry’s book ‘Creations Tiny Mysteries’ about radiohalos back in 1992. It was painstaking and well documented research. I don’t think anyone could actually fault his work, it was the conclusion they hated. I love and am fascinated by science but am aware that much research is agenda driven but I doubt that Gentry, in an effort to ‘prove’ a young earth, set out to look for radiohalos in bedrock granite. My take on Genesis and creation (27 verses/627 words) is that it is about WHO created not HOW. If I were to take finite man’s science and use it to question the six day creation as given by God then I would also need to question manna from heaven, pillars of fire and smoke, the parting of the Red Sea, the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus – all scientifically insupportable. However, within the realm of the work of Divinity anything is possible, including age. | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 327 Registered: 5-2007 |
The important thing is WHO did the creation(God). The HOW is something we can all agree to disagree on, The HOW is not salvific like the WHO is. | ||
| Benevento Registered user Username: Benevento Post Number: 151 Registered: 4-2005 |
My husband used to comment that Adam and Eve were created as adults, so a scientist examining them might give them an age that wasn't true. Same with vegetation--the tree in the garden just might test older than it was! just a thought. Peggy | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 20 Registered: 7-2007 |
I heard once that people who go by the old covenant are looking at the Bible through the "wrong end of the telescope." I wonder if scientists are doing the same thing with creation? I've heard about scientists observing layers of strata that supposedly were laid down over millions of years were confused by trees that had apparantly grown up through all those layers! The flood was a VIOLENT event not a peaceful filling of the earth with water. It says in Genesis 7:11 that "...all the fountains of the great deep were BROKEN UP..." I'm amazed when I see where a road has been cut through a hill and the layers of rock are all at an angle as if the whole hill were tilted sideways. Take Mount St. Helens in the Cascade range of mountains in the north-western U.S. The whole top of that mountain exploded and a lot of things happened in a very short time that scientists had normally assumed took hundreds or thousands or millions of years. Read what Steven A. Austin Ph.D. wrote concerning that. Go into Google and type in "Institute for Creation Research" or "Answers in Genesis." I'd like to mention the Sabbath since it's mentioned in Genesis. But actually it's not - Genesis 2:2,3 says that God rested, blessed and sanctified the SEVENTH day, not the 14th, 28th and so on. There was only ONE original seventh day. It wasn't given as a SABBATH to anyone to KEEP, until it was given to Israel when God gave them the manna. (See Exodus 16:23-29). In the 10 Commandments, Exodus 20:11 God gave the fact that He created the earth in six days and rested the seventh, as the reason why the Israelites were to keep Sabbath. The 10 Commandments are repeated again in Deuteronomy 5 and verse 15 gives the reason why the Israelites were to keep the Sabbath. Here it says: "And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day." I think the Lord is simply saying in effect by these reasons... "Hey, I'm GOD! Obey Me!" (Anyway, someone mentioned the Sabbath and in case they were trying to support the "old earth" theroy to destroy it; I'm trying to show that the Sabbath was a shadow and that we don't have to embrace the "old earth" theroy in order to get rid of it.) To sum up... the Sabbath was a sign of that old covenant (Exodus 31:13). The old covenant was between God and Israel... "So He declared to you His covenant...the Ten Commandments..." Deuteronomy 4:13; and "The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us..." Deut. 5:3. What happened to that old covenant? It's obsolete (Hebrews 8:13) and the law changed (Hebrews 7:12) and annulled (Hebrews 7:18). Also the word "day" in the Bible stands for a year in Bible prophecy. When it says "evening and morning" it means a literal DAY. Dianne | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 111 Registered: 5-2007 |
Dianne, Thanks for mentioning Dr. Steve Austin. I have one of his videos on Mt. St. Helens and believe he documents, based on his St. Helens investigations, how the Grand Canyon was formed, among others things. The same type of strata that is assumed by some to take hundreds of millions of years to form, clearly took only days and weeks to be laid down subsequent to the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Since I live nearby, I have been up there to see things for myself. It is an awesome place to visit. Since stratas found in the earth are dated by certain index fossils found in them and fossils are dated by the strata they are found in, the Mt. St. Helens data simply brings another challenge to this classic bit of circular reasoning. Mt St Helens is a place all Christians should visit, regardless of their opinion of the age of the earth. P.S. If you do go there be sure to go through the Ape Cave. Phil | ||
| Jim02 Registered user Username: Jim02 Post Number: 137 Registered: 5-2007 |
This entire subject evolves around establishing the facts "Empiracle evidence" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism Comparing it with Scripture as a frame of reference on the basis of "A Priori" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_%28philosophy%29 And then using the tools of reason "Epistemology" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology From my own studies on this subject. If I establish that Scripture is literal, and I do. Then I conclude that the earth is in fact young and was created as recorded in the Bible. I do not deny the observable evidence. I disagree with the conclusions. There are plenty of sound arguments that point out the many holes in evolution theorys as well as time lines. Most extrapolations are based upon physic constants as we know them today. The problem is we cannot prove the constants nor the verifiable factors for such experiments or observations on this scale or time line. True science can only establish the results of a theory/experiment/conclusion when the start and end of the test is observable and verfiable and all the constants are known. I have no problem with trusting the scriptures on this. The dilema to do otherwise is evident. It destroys the foundation of scripture. Example of constants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiohalo Also a good resource: http://www.icr.org/article/3140/ | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 3972 Registered: 3-2004  |
I am so thankful creation in 7 literal days is not a salvation issue. Thank you God. Some one said that Adam and Eve were created as adults. Trees were created grown enough to provide shade. It is fascinating to study all the different theories. I think Reb said it best. It is not important to know how/when the earth was created. What is important is to know WHO created it and to have a relationship with Him. I will study and read all these theories, but in my heart I am so happy I have a relationship with the Creator. Diana |
