Vera:

Throughout the ages, wise men have looked at reality and sought to conform their life to it through righteousness, faith & discipline.

Modern man seeks to make reality conform to his vile passions through the efforts of science & technology.



Regards,


oG

I guess that's one way to look at it.

Shane quote.."What is the scientific explanation for Jesus walking through a wall?" You could walk through a wall if you stood in front of it and waited long enough for it to fall down. The Lord was not indebted to time thus was able to pass through...however..............I seem to recall that EGW has something to say about his entering the room unseen with the others rather than "through the wall"... Unfortunately I am too lazy to look for it. Maybe it's in that famous book "Sr. White Says".. (Out of Print)..<g>....

Glad to see you here Glad. :)

Science is a homeless God. The God of a 6-day creation dwells in heaven.

It is something of an irony when people keep the sabbath in one hand and faith in evolution in the other. They are destined for a crossroad. May they choose the right direction when that time comes.




og

Not all of them are destined for a crossroad. Some have actually managed to integrate the two.

They are not coalescing ideas.

They are fundamentally opposed to each other, and a child can see that.

Vera,
What is surprising is that the old ideas still abound about science. Historically, religion has always had these thoughts and ideas about science do to its inability to provide a common meeting ground. Instead of religion just standing up and saying 'I believe....but I can't prove... I accept on faith' there is the need to vilify science when it disagrees with belief.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how people can hold both ideas at the same time. I'm not saying that I can or that you should. But people can and do, and I think we (as a church) do our members (especially our young people) a disservice by insisting that you can have one but not the other.

And CoAspen...yes.

"Radioactive data are clear" that what?

How much Argon was in the rock that God created when He made the earth? Zero? Was there only Potassium "in the beginning" and if you guess so -- then where is the evidence that such a thing was true.

What was the SPR rate for C14 when God created the Garden of Eden and how much did that water that was "above the expanse" impact the SPR? Hint - the greater the barrier the less the C14 SPR.

How has the general trend toward magnetic field decay impacted the SPR for C14 according to that "clear data"? hint - the stronger the field the less the SPR for C14.

And how in the world can you have life evolving on earth before God created life on earth in Gen 1 in his "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE"???

With all animals created such that they were eating plant food -- and not each other (as we see in Gen 1) how do then propose Darwin's "starvation and predation does creation" ideas?

in Christ,

Bob

Let's stick to one topic: leave aside your last two sentences because they are completely different arguments.

On the radioactive data: the ages of the rocks are a separate issue from Russell Humphrey's bizarre theory about C14. You still haven't dealt with the fact that his theory predicts a 7 million-fold increase in atmospheric C14 since the 1960s, and that has not been observed.

And on potassium-argon dating, two problems:

1. You are citing an old creationist shibboleth: 'no argon at the start'. No theory calls for no argon at the start. Each call for the rocks to have a particular well-known composition. Creation science people who understand the dating methods end up proposing odd mechanisms with speeded-up radioactive decay, because they know the very simplistic approaches aren't plausible.

2. It's not only potassium-argon: there are four or five different long-period dating methods that agree with one another. Dismissing one (on spurious grounds) doesn't help much.