Ken: But it does raIse another issue that I have …

Comment on The Origin of the Sabbath and the 7-Day Week by Ron.

Ken: But it does raIse another issue that I have been curious about for a long time. With procreation, but no predation or death, how was God planning for a perfect planet not to overpopulate by beast and man alike? Where would we be today in a perfect world if all of Adam and Eve’s progeny were alive? Presumably there is a rational biblical explanation for this?

Ken, This idea is not commonly held among Adventists so I think most on this site would object, however, I note in Genesis 3, that death is not strictly speaking, the result of sin, but of not having access to the tree of life. God strongly implies that even as sinners, if Adam and Eve continued to eat of the tree of life, that they would continue to live.

While it is not explicitly stated, it is possible that there was only no death in the garden where humans and the animals (e.g. the snake in the tree) had access to the tree of life. Presumably animals too far from the tree of life to eat of it died the same way Adam and Eve died when they no longer had access to it. That assumes that the animal physiology in Eden was as close to that of Adam and Eve as it is to humans today.

Assuming the story is not allegorical, then it also implies to me, that there was something physical in the fruit that extended life, and that conceivably we could find out what that substance was and make it in the lab.

Recent Comments by Ron

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

Sean Pitman: No one is demanding that they “get out of the church”. . . . . anti-Adventist views on such a fundamental level.

You don’t see how characterizing a dedicated believer’s understanding of truth as “fundamentally anti-Adventist” would drive them out of the church?

I guess that explains why you don’t see that what you are doing here is fundamentally wrong.


Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

Professor Kent: Nothing saddens me more than the droves who leave the Church when they learn that many of their cherished beliefs regarding this evidence don’t hold up so well to scrutiny.

I agree. I am sure that Sean and Bob don’t mean to undermine faith in God, but every time they say that it is impossible to believe in God and in science at the same time, I feel like they are telling me that any rational person must give up their belief in God, because belief in God and rationality can’t exist in the same space. Who would want to belong to that kind of a church?


Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

Sean Pitman: and have little if anything to do with the main point of their prophetic claims

And by analogy, this appears to be a weak point in the creation argument. Who is to decide what the main point is?

It seems entirely possible that in trying to make Gen. 1 too literal, that we are missing the whole point of the story.


Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Regarding falsifying the existence of God through the miraculous:

While it is true that one can’t falsify the existance of God and the Biblical miracles at a philosophical level, it seems to me that it is possible to falsify it at a practical level. For instance prayer for healing. How many families who pray for a miracle for a loved one in the Intensive Care Unit receive a miracle?

While the answer to that question doesn’t answer the question of the existence of God at a philosophical level, it does answer the question at a practical level. After 36 years of medical practice I can say definitively that at a practical level when it comes to miracles in the ICU, God does not exist. Even if a miracle happens latter today, it wouldn’t be enough to establish an expectation for the future. So at a practicle level it seems it is possible level to falsify the existence od God, or at least prove His nonintervention which seems to me to be pretty much the same thing at a functional level.


Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Sean Pitman:
Sean, what is your definition of “Neo-darwinism” as opposed to “Darwinism” as opposed to “evolution”?