Adventist Church affirms Biblical Creation in Atlanta...

[olger]

Good for the brethren for standing for this truth, in the midst of modern doubt.

og out

[Dr. Shane]

Don't you know, it is the anvil that wears the hammers out?

[abelisle]

I set up a separate thread in the GC forum for this.

Equally galvanizing was the fourth of six statements to be issued by the Executive Committee. Titled "Creation: The Bible's Worldview," the statement reaffirmed Adventists' belief in "the biblical view of origins in contrast to an evolutionary explanation," according to the draft text.

The statement said Adventists "believe that the biblical events recorded in Genesis [chapters] 1-11, including the special creation of human beings, are historical and recent, that the seven days of creation were literal[,] 24-hour days forming a literal week, and that the Flood was global in nature."

Alex

[SivartM]

That's great, but I wonder if this is just going to end up making people even more afraid of science.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The statement said Adventists "believe that the biblical events recorded in Genesis [chapters] 1-11, including the special creation of human beings, are historical and recent, that the seven days of creation were literal[,] 24-hour days forming a literal week, and that the Flood was global in nature."

Pretty cool

[phkrause]

Quote:

The statement said Adventists "believe that the biblical events recorded in Genesis [chapters] 1-11, including the special creation of human beings, are historical and recent, that the seven days of creation were literal[,] 24-hour days forming a literal week, and that the Flood was global in nature."

Pretty cool

I say Ah-men to that.

[olger]

And Hal-le-lu-YAH !!

[there buster]

Quote:

I wonder if this is just going to end up making people even more afraid of science.

Afraid of science? Are you serious? This is an extension of the leftist canard that when a person opposes something of the leftist agenda, it must be out of fear, anger, or ignorance, e.g., "homophobia."

[olger]

ABSOLUTELY, TB. It's time we call (liberalism) like it is.

Kudos for convictions.

Fanfare for faith.

Gladness for gumption.

Reinforcement for Resolve.

[SivartM]

Of course I agree with the statement made by the Executive Committee and am glad they made it, but the fact is that most creationists are afraid of evolution, and by ignoring that (except to talk about how stupid it is) we're not doing the next generation of Adventists a favor.

That's all I meant.

[olger]

Not fraid at all. Discordant.

Write it down,

og

[phkrause]

Quote:

I wonder if this is just going to end up making people even more afraid of science.

Afraid of science? Are you serious? This is an extension of the leftist canard that when a person opposes something of the leftist agenda, it must be out of fear, anger, or ignorance, e.g., "homophobia."

And I've heard that the other way also, its just incredible to me that any time some says fear, etc. its blamed on liberals. Well I consider myself a liberal, and I have no fear of any of this garbage. As a matter of fact I hear the so called conservative's talking fear, anger, etc.

[doug yowell]

the fact is that most creationists are afraid of evolution, and by ignoring that (except to talk about how stupid it is) we're not doing the next generation of Adventists a favor.

.

Evolution as a theory has been taught by creationists for years. Yet, given the history of the evolutionary teaching structure, don't you think a little fear would be in order? Can you name an evolutionary teaching institution that allows creationism to be taught as a viable theory? Smithsonian? State University? NASA? High school? Ever seen Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"? Do you think if the evolutionists teaching at our SDA institutions were given the academic freedom they want that creationism would be treated with respect and openness? Ever read any of Irv Taylor comments? A little well placed fear has never hurt anyone.

[SivartM]

In my opinion the only reason evolutionists and creationists can't get along is because neither side has any idea what the other is talking about.

[phkrause]

In my opinion the only reason evolutionists and creationists can't get along is because neither side has any idea what the other is talking about.

Not really Sivart, its that each side doesn't care what the other thinks or believe's. And also the evolutionist's come up with "if we allow creation to be taught than we are allowing religion to be taught!"

[olger]

In my opinion the only reason evolutionists and creationists can't get along is because neither side has any idea what the other is talking about.

I accept your opinion while recognizing the error of it.

You appear to be implying (at a fundamental level) that God would tolerate sin more if He understood it. It is precisely because God understands sin that He condemns it.

better days,

og

[SivartM]

I'm really not sure how you're getting that. My point was that most creationists don't understand evolution even though they condemn it. And evolution is not a sin.

[Bravus]

Certainly my efforts over the years here to help the local creationists better understand evolutionary theory have led to many condemnations, mischaracterizations and direct assertions that I don't belong here, in the church or in heaven.

[pindoc]

Ever seen Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"? Do you think if the evolutionists teaching at our SDA institutions were given the academic freedom they want that creationism would be treated with respect and openness? Ever read any of Irv Taylor comments? A little well placed fear has never hurt anyone.

Don't know Irv Taylor. I do highly recommend that each and every SDA see Been Stein's movie. Thanks for bringing that up, Doug.

[doug yowell]

In my opinion the only reason evolutionists and creationists can't get along is because neither side has any idea what the other is talking about.

That's not a very cognitive opinion, SM. Creationists teach the evolutionary theory as a theory. Evolutionists won't allow creationism to be mentioned as a viable theory.Somebody knows something about where the other party is coming from.

[Mark Aurelius]

That's great, but I wonder if this is just going to end up making people even more afraid of science.

I think there is more chance that it will make the followers of scientism even more afraid of religion. They don't know why this just doesn't go away and think it relates to belief in a Flat Earth and superstition, and the narrow fundamentalism of Inherit the Wind. The fact is that Bible-believers are among the least superstitious; the Flat Earth rebuke is largely an invention of the anti-christian movement of the 19th century, and Inherit the Wind is thinly disguised, deceptive anti-christian propaganda.

Not that creationists should be smug. Neither side has an adequate scientific theory of origins. We are still learning about the nature of life at a great rate of knots, and not everything being learned fits neatly into creation.

But the impetus for evolution has always been to write God out of our history, whatever contradictory discoveries are made.

[doug yowell]

[

But the impetus for evolution has always been to write God out of our history, whatever contradictory discoveries are made.

Truely. I think that the apostle Paul mentions something like that in Rom.1:20-23.At it's very core,How does everything spring from nothing?

[Neil D]

At it's very core,How does everything spring from nothing?

,,,,[looking this way and that]

....Well, you get two atoms with an attraction between them......

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

At it's very core,How does everything spring from nothing?

,,,,[looking this way and that]

....Well, you get two atoms with an attraction between them......

Atoms or Adams?

[SivartM]

But the impetus for evolution has always been to write God out of our history, whatever contradictory discoveries are made.

As a scientific theory, I doubt that evolution itself has any feelings for or against God at all. Maybe you mean "atheists".