A question for Adventists on Climate Change

[pacifica3000]

This question is regarding the statement on climate change found

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat8.html

and the following affirmation

"We affirm the historic Seventh-day Adventist understanding of Genesis 1 that life on earth was created in six literal days and is of recent origin." found at http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat54.html

I cannot see how Adventist's who subsribe to the current concensus that the climate is changing can also then believe that the earth is of recent origin. This is because the same science that is used in climate change models is also used to date the earth. If you believe the science behind the global warming theory, you must by default accept the earth is not of recent origin. Im not sure how an adventist who believes in global warming can also say the earth is of recent origin. If you believe the earth is of recent origin you cannot then accept the data behind the current global warming theory. I posed this question to one of my best friends who is also an adventist and he could not answer me. He asked me to let me know how other advestists online respond.

[Woody]

Perhaps this belongs on the Origins Forum ??

[Bravus]

Couple of points, pacifica:

1. You'll find that there is a massive range of positions here (and this forum reflects the broader SDA church) on both of the relevant issues in your question, climate change and creationism. We have had long discussions on this site about both, and it would make sense for you to read up on some of those discussions to get a sense of the range of positions. But one upshot is that there is definitely no one definitive 'SDA answer' to the question you pose.

2. I'm not so sure I agree with the premise of your question. Certainly the ice core data are part of the argument made around climate change, but greenhouse gases are well understood science and we can easily measure the current changes to greenhouse gas concentrations. The implications for climate are pretty clear, so it is *possible* to subscribe to the science of climate change and suggest reducing our production of greenhouse gases, even from a recent creationist perspective, IMO.

[pacifica3000]

(my enter button does not work so please excuse the poor spacing) 1. Thanks for the response. I understand that many adventists may not share the exact same beliefs as the church when it comes to matters such as climate change, or indeed other issues. 2. The computer models used to predict the effects of man made greenhouse gasses are dependent on the same earth age data as other climate models. It's through establishing a pattern in consistancy with this data that current greenhouse gass issues are calculated. It's all part of the same science.

[Bravus]

Yeah, all fair enough. I guess the other possible response is 'these people are recent creationists - you think logic problems in scientific data bother them?'

[Outta Here]

I'm of the particular persuasion that I am uncertain whether or not the earth was created a mere 6,000 years ago, or whether it's been around for eons upon eons. I am equally uncertain as to the predictions on global climate. In my opinion, it's a moot issue. I am responsible for my actions in the here and now; this means accepting responsibility for good stewardship of the earth and her resources.

[olger]

The only concensus that I am aware of is between Algore and the Nasa fellow.

Many stalwarts, like the founder of the Weather Channel believe that global warming is junk science in plaid pants.

[Joe_in_RP]

I don't think many Adventists in North America have thought very much about climate change. If they saw results in there area perhaps the would. I know some people who just came back from Australia and they believe something is happening.

In this statement of the church they are really saying we should do our part as good stewards.

1) stabilize carbon emissions.

I am not sure thats good science.

Trees and plants thrive on carbon dioxide.

2) establishing plans for further reductions in carbon dioxide emissions...

If they mean the carbon tax system I am against that.

3) forcefully public debate

I am not sure what that means but if it means more discussion I am all for that.

Now about those computer models, I definitely do not think they are ready for any accurate prediction. Its extremely complex. The computers cannot even forecast the weather two weeks in advance let alone climate change in 20 years. I do not trust any assumptions from computer models, and I am a programmer.

I am all for collect more data. This is serious and I would support a large scale data collection system.

I am absolutely convinced by science that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

[BobRyan]

This question is regarding the statement on climate change found

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat8.html

and the following affirmation

"We affirm the historic Seventh-day Adventist understanding of Genesis 1 that life on earth was created in six literal days and is of recent origin." found at http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat54.html

I cannot see how Adventist's who subsribe to the current concensus that the climate is changing can also then believe that the earth is of recent origin. This is because the same science that is used in climate change models is also used to date the earth. If you believe the science behind the global warming theory, you must by default accept the earth is not of recent origin. Im not sure how an adventist who believes in global warming can also say the earth is of recent origin. If you believe the earth is of recent origin you cannot then accept the data behind the current global warming theory. I posed this question to one of my best friends who is also an adventist and he could not answer me. He asked me to let me know how other advestists online respond.

As stated on the former thread - I have no basis at all for supposing that the Seventh-day Adventist church is in a position to be an expert on climate change or even the causes of climate change.

A "Church" has no business publishing statements like that.

But the "church" IS in a position to argue the case against "pollution" and good stewardship of the earth.

It is one thing to argue that we should not dump garbage into the oceans or burn down all of our O2 producing forrests. IT IS quite another thing to say that your the polar icecaps are melting because you drive a 6 cyl car instead of a 4 cylinder.

As for the "science" that tells us the climate is getting colder or warmer -- you will have to do some clarifying on what you mean by "climate change" telling us the earth is 4 billion years old. Because all the "science" is doing is showing cycles - the timeline for those cycles is somewhat of a guess -- still. Core samples can show cycles -- change over time -- but they have to make some assumptions about "how much time" to tell a good story.

in Christ,

Bob

[Woody]

The statement is not an official statement. It was not voted upon nor approved by the church. It was simply one committee that gave this report. The International Faith & Science Conferences 2002-2004 report of the Organizing Committee.

I would not put a lot of stock in this. And I am not saying that I agree or disagree. I am just saying it is not official. Yes ... the committee could be considered leadership. But not representitive of the church as a whole.

[phkrause]

So this is not an official statement Redwood? I'm guessing that your spiritual leader in your household would know for sure! I do like what Bob had to say in his post!

pk

[Woody]

I just checked the web site and there it states that it came from a committe but no indication of it being voted by the General Conference in Session. Thus ... being official.

[pacifica3000]

Thanks everyone for your replies. I really appreciate the time you have taken to make your responses. I can see now that not all of the official SDA church statements have been subscribed to by everyone.

[Woody]

Cool. Yeah. We ain't robots.