"Origins"...what a joke!

[Robert]

It boggles my mind that professing Christians reject the clear teachings of both the Old & New Testaments that matter came into existence when "God spoke"!

How can those who question the creation story believe that this same God will resurrect the just? Maybe their version of Paul should read like this:

"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, over billions of years we shall evolve and become incorruptible, then we shall be changed."

But it doesn't! Paul says, "Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." [1 Corinthians 15:51,52]

[Bravus]

I don't even have the energy to go around this mulberry bush one more time... Let me just note that respect for others' beliefs is a value that we try to encourage here and leave it at that.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

I don't even have the energy to go around this mulberry bush one more time... Let me just note that respect for others' beliefs is a value that we try to encourage here and leave it at that.

---

I would give evolution the respect due it if the Bible even remotely taught it, but God's word doesn't.

Perhaps I would be more inclined to listen to these so-called scientists if they could explain to me how an apple seed knows how to produce an apple tree. After all they have no problem telling me my origins, so surely they can explain a simple apple seed?

[Nicodema]

Those "so-called scientists" and the products of their thinking are the ones who are going to save your behind should you wind up in the hospital with cancer or heaven forbid, get into a terrible car accident and rip your bones to shreds. Seems you don't have any problem letting their "so-called" explanations of things prevail when it comes to medicine. Where do you think they developed those theories -- from being satisfied with "oh, God spoke and everything just magickally appeared!" Even granting that "at the word of the Lord were the heavens made," the Lord Himself must have had processes whereby this was accomplished. Let's face it, objectively speaking, we KNOW nothing. "A day with the Lord is like a thousand years." Metaphor? Of course. For all we know, it could be ten thousand. Or ten million.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

Those "so-called scientists" and the products of their thinking are the ones who are going to save your behind....

---

Science has no cure for death! "Science" couldn't save Jackie Onassis (a very wealthly lady).

Quote:

---

Even granting that "at the word of the Lord were the heavens made," the Lord Himself must have had processes whereby this was accomplished.

---

The bottom line is where we place our faith:

1] In Science, who to a large degree deny the existence of God...

or

2] In the Biblical account of creation.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools....

It takes much more faith that our world, through random action, developed itself to where we are today. Like Jack Sequeira says, "If I place a bunch of stones in a burlap sack and shake it for millions of years...a Cadillac isn't going to come out."

• Proverbs 19:3 "The foolishness of man subverts his way, And his heart rages against the Lord."

  Is 44:24 "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone...causing wise men to draw back, And turning their knowledge into foolishness."

  1 Cor 1:25 "The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

  1 Cor 3:19 "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, 'He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness'; 20 and again, 'The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless.' 21 [:"Red"]So then let no one boast in men.

[Dr. Shane]

The idea that technology couldn't advance without embracing evolution is flawed.

Here are a some famous past creationists:

• Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method

• Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) Physics, Astronomy
• Johann Kepler (1571–1630) Scientific astronomy
• Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
• John Wilkins (1614–1672)
• Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
• Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
• Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
• Robert Boyle (1627–1691) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
• John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
• Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
• Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
• Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
• Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
• Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany

• Isaac Newton (1642–1727) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity
• Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
• John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
• William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
• Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
• John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
• John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
• William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
• John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
• Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
• Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
• Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
• Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
• William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)

• James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
• John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
• John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
• Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
• William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
• Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
• Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist

• John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
• Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
• Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
• Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
• John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
• Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
• Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
• Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
• Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
• David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
• William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
• William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
• Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
• Michael Faraday (1791–1867) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator

• Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
• John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
• Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
• William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
• Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
• Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
• Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
• Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
• Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
• James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
• Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
• Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist
• James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
• James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
• Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
• James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
• Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
• Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
• George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
• John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
• Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology

• Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) Genetics
• Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
• Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
• William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
• William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
• Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
• Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
• Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
• James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
• P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
• John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
• John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
• Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
• Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
• A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist
• John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve

• George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
• L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
• Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
• Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
• Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
• Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
• William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist
• William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
• Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
• Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
• Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
• Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
• Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer

[Dr. Shane]

Louis Pasteur said his greatest discovery is when he discovered he was a great sinner and Christ was a great Savior.

There are many literal creationists with PhDs in the Adventist church and it is sad that we don't have some of them here. The seventh-day Sabbath is based on the literal seven-day creation week. If God didn't create the world in seven literal days, there is no reason to honor Saturday above any other day.

[Robert]

I agree with you Shane, but all that the other side will do is come with out with their lists....And so it goes on and on and on!

The bottom line is that those who buy into evolution are slowly eroding away their faith. They'll deny it, but that will be the end result.

Somewhere along that path of egocentricity, they will have to humble themselves before God. If not, well I know of a guy who said, "I will make myself like the Most High." He thought he was all that, but he was dead wrong!

[Nicodema]

My point, Shane, was that all these fellows you listed, and other scientists, develop and discover what they do because they probe the natural laws and processes existing in the universe. They don't "fudge factor" their equations by sticking in a blank gap that says "then a miracle happens" -- if they did, they'd never be able to uncover the wonders they do and make use of them.

I disagree with Robert's contention that it's a matter of whether you put your "faith" in science or the Bible. To me, a matter of faith is precisely that: FAITH. Faith is for those things I can't see, can't touch, can't prove. Science doesn't require "faith" because it deals with what we can see, observe, test, and verify. Science deals in facts. It also deals in theories, but those theories aren't mere flights of fancy. They are based upon demonstrable and verifiable facts. If I choose to believe in divine creation fiat ex nihilo, that is a choice of faith. I cannot look to science to prove, verify or establish it. Scripture is very clear on this point by stating explicitly that "the things which [exist] were NOT made of things which do appear."

[Nicodema]

Robert, accepting the scientific explanation of evolution has nothing to do with "thinking you're all that". And judging people who accept it as having motives and attitudes they don't possess will never (a) substantiate or establish your own position on the matter; nor ( stop them from thinking the way that they think. It will only make you look silly.

[NormF]

Shane wrote:</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

If God didn't create the world in seven literal days, there is no reason to honor Saturday above any other day.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

If God is God, and if he said to worship on the seventh day, and if He hasn't recinded that since, then that's all that matters here - keep the seventh day as Sabbath. If you worship Him, worship Him the way He said to do it. Why He said to do so, or whether one understands what He did and how He did it, is immaterial. Just do as He says.

As I see it, discussions about origins, particularly those in C/A's Origins forum, deal more with trying to understand the material what's and how's of this subject rather than with theological why's and wherefore's (causal links), though obviously there are theological implications. And I expect that, on this site, being what it is, the latter will take up a very significant portion of it.

One must make errent links in logic to end up thinking that scientific inquiry "destroys" God. While I grant that there are those who do that, it does not mean that all scientists and all who appreciate scientific inquiry believe likewise, anymore than that all religious persons believe as you do. (If they did of course, you wouldn't be here pushing your point of view; it wouldn't be necessary.) Belief systems and the body of knowledge gained by scientific inquiry are two separate things. And different people think in different ways. Note carefully however the distinction between belief systems and methods of inquiry (and the resultant bodies of knowledge) that I'm making here.

I realize that concept doesn't work for everybody. There are all kinds of people in the world, and minds work in almost as many ways as there are people. That's OK. I note that Scripture says the Lord remembers the dust we are made of. If He can accept all those different ways of thinking about Him and relating to Him, I can surely accept it when people see Him and what He's done and is doing differently than I do.

I wish that concept was helpful for you and Robert, but it's all right with me if you choose to see it differently. I still believe that you are worshipping Him according to your understanding and likewise that I too am doing my best. I do not expect you to change on my say-so today, and I respect your right to say what you feel and believe. It is not a problem to me if you continue as you are doing here. You are you, and you have every right to do so.

Nothing earthshaking today, just a thought I wanted to share.

Holiday blessings on you and yours.

Regards,

Norm

[Clio]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

I agree with you Shane, but all that the other side will do is come with out with their lists....And so it goes on and on and on!

The bottom line is that those who buy into evolution are slowly eroding away their faith. They'll deny it, but that will be the end result.

Somewhere along that path of egocentricity, they will have to humble themselves before God. If not, well I know of a guy who said, "I will make myself like the Most High." He thought he was all that, but he was dead wrong!

---

It's not your job to determine who is and is not "eroding away their faith". You can't see their heart, only the Father, the Spirit, and Jesus can.

You are stepping out in judgement directly against the Father's and Jesus' direct injunction against doing so. And in doing so, are challenging someone else's walk as less "perfect and appropriate" than yours.

And then you dare to compare them to Lucifer.

For shame.

Clio

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

If you worship Him, worship Him the way He said to do it. Why He said to do so, or whether one understands what He did and how He did it, is immaterial. Just do as He says.

---

That sounds an awful lot like my mother. I am glad that God told us why we should obey Him. I choose to believe God's reason. When God says to keep the seventh day holy because He created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, I choose to believe God did exactly that. I have gotten into an aweful lot of trouble when I have started questioning if what God says is really what He means.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Clio said:

And then you dare to compare them to Lucifer. For shame.

---

Lucifer questioned God....He thought himself more intelligent than God....Look at the result! If you question creation, then why not the resurrection of the just? If that, why not Christ's resurrection....If that, why not Christ Himself?

-BC- AA

-TI- The Acts of the Apostles

-CN- 45

-CT- Written From Rome

-PR- 01

-PG- 474

• The warnings of the word of God regarding the perils surrounding the Christian church belong to us today. As in the days of the apostles men tried by tradition and philosophy to destroy faith in the Scriptures, so today, by the pleasing sentiments of higher criticism, evolution, spiritualism, theosophy, and pantheism, the enemy of righteousness [satan] is seeking to lead souls into forbidden paths. To many the Bible is as a lamp without oil, because they have turned their minds into channels of speculative belief that bring misunderstanding and confusion. The work of higher criticism, in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

I have gotten into an awful lot of trouble when I have started questioning if what God says is really what He means.

---

It's fine to ask questions...we need to, but we must formulate our answers using the Scripture! That's the key....

Questioning a 7-day creation is okay, what is wrong is getting those answers outside the pages of the Bible.

All and all, evolution is a tool of the devil! It appeals to men's intelligence...to his intellect and pride. That's what took Lucifer over the edge.

Our faith is the most important possession we have….The Bible has many warnings about giving it up. Here are a few:

Heb 3:12 Take care, brethren, lest there should be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart, in falling away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called “Today,” lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end

Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.

[Dr. Shane]

Embracing evolution is especially heresy for an Adventist since God called forth this movement to preach the Three Angels' Message which includes a call to worship God as Creator.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "Embracing evolution is especially heresy for an Adventist since God called forth this movement to preach the Three Angels' Message which includes a call to worship God as Creator."

What would you say to the following statement: "I an an evolutionary scientist who happepns to beleive that God created the earth."?

NOTE: The above is not a statement that I make.

Folks, Evolution is a very complex subject. Often creationists who attack evoluion do not understand it complexity. The so-called theory of evolution has many parts to it. One can accept certain of its parts, and reject other parts.

The reality is that the statement that I quoted above is as I took it from a published work.

One can be an evolutionist and still believe that God created the Earth. Yes, it is true that mose evolutionists probably (?) do not believe that God created the Earth. But, as stated by the author of the above quotation, some do.

There are Evolutionists who keep the Sabbath. It is wrong to say that we have no basis to keep the Sabbath, if we are evolutionists.

It is wrong to say that you cannot believe that God created the earth if you are an evolutionist. I personally know people who do believe that God created the earth, are evolutionists, and attend a Seventh-day Adventist chruch every Sabbath.

[cricket]

Quote:

---

Yes, it is true that mose evolutionists probably (?) do not believe that God created the Earth.

---

Most of the people I know who believe in evolution do, indeed, believe God created the Earth. It is not an issue to them of whether or not God created the earth, but rather the issue of how He created the earth.

Let us not forget that eighty percent of Americans believe that God created the earth. (Adams, William Lee. “Other Schools of Thought.” Newsweek. 28 Nov. 2005: 57.)

Would anyone dare argue that those eighty percent also believe in the literal account of origin as presented in Genesis? And, if so, why on earth (or, why in the U.S.) does this eighty percent not voice its opinion louder so that Creationism only is taught in the schools?

[Clio]

Regardless of what Lucifer did or did not do, it's not our job to make judgement calls on the state of other's walk with the Father and what they believe.

If we call ourselves Christians, believers, followers of Jesus, then we are obedient to Him.

And HE told us not to make those judgement calls lest we be found wanting when it is our turn.

We are to sow the seeds of the Good News of the Gospel. And leave the state of their heart to the Spirit and the Father. With Jesus interceding for Mercy.

Thankfully, all Three are up to the task.

Clio

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

It is not an issue to them of whether or not God created the earth, but rather the issue of how He created the earth.

---

Exactly. When God spoke to the Israelites from the mountain He told them to keep the seventh day Sabbath because of the literal creation week. Now if God didn't actually create the world during that literal week, His reasoning for keeping the senveth day holy isn't valid. It also calls into question His honesty. Can we trust God if He lies to us about why we should keep the Sabbath holy?

[there buster]

Quote:

---

Let me just note that respect for others' beliefs is a value that we try to encourage here and leave it at that.

---

Is that a statement of faith or science?

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Clio said:

If we call ourselves Christians, believers, followers of Jesus, then we are obedient to Him. And HE told us not to make those judgement calls lest we be found wanting when it is our turn.

---

Where did I mention "obedience"? I didn't...so you're going off a tangent. We are saved by faith, not works. Note the word "faith"!

Attack the fundamental truths of the Bible and pretty soon there's nothing to have faith in. That's my point!

Evolution is one of those tools used to turn believers from God's Word to men's so-called wisdom! Hence the warning!!!!

Rob

[Bravus]

It's neither faith nor science, Ed D (and btw, good to see you back), it's the mores of a particular community - which incidentally I was describing rather than enforcing.

(No longer specifically to Ed): One of the reasons I said I don't have the energy to go around this any longer is the false dichotomy Rob is once again using, suggesting that the only two available alternatives are literal seven day creationism with a short age of the earth on one hand and atheistic evolutionism on the other. There's a plethora of possible positions and understandings, and over-simplifying leads to creating controversies that have no content.

And incidentally, there are plenty of scientists who believe in God, and in various roles for God in creation/mechanisms by which God created. Shane's list is a good place to start.

(And by the way, scientists have an excellent, detailed understanding of how an apple seed 'knows' how to grow into an apple tree: the fact that you don't know that or acknowledge it reflects on your knowledge, not theirs.)

[Clio]

Robert,

The obedience part comes in not judging another person's walk with Abba, the state of their heart, and whether or not they have "lost" or are "losing" or allowing their faith to "erode".

That's not your place to judge, and it's certainly not your place to compare anyone to Lucifer and the choices he made.

As long as YOU set yourself up as an arbiter of what others believe and what that does to the state of their heart and faith, YOU have been disobedient to Jesus when He said, "Judge not, lest you be judged.".

By issuing the warning you are judging them, because you think they need the warning.

Just as it's not my place to judge you. You will note I've made no comparisons, no quantitative statement about your faith or your walk. Simply pointed out you've been disobedient to the One you are calling others to be obedient to.

Quite a dichotomy you've got going there.

[Dr. Shane]

One can certainly believe in millions-of-years and believe in God. However the millions-of-years belief nulifies some major portions of Scripture - including the Ten Commandments.

Paul obviously believed the creation story to be true.

"by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned... Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression" Romans 5:12, 14 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." "The first man Adam was made a living soul" "For Adam was first formed, then Eve." 1 Cor. 15:22, 45; 1 Tim. 2:13

If the millions-of-years theory is true than death had to exist long before Adam and Paul's inspiration comes into question.