Comment on Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism by Ron Nielsen.
Sean, it seems to me that if you admit ANY functional change in the DNA the creation/evolution debate is lost in favor of evolution. All the rest, however you define species is just a matter of time and quantity. That is why I think it is so dangerous to state that evolution is incompatible with belief in God and creation, because no one, not even you are willing to deny that that the mechanisms for evolution are in place. Except out of wanton ignorance, it is not possible to deny evolution in this day of DNA mapping. If you insist on making evolution and belief in God mutually exclusive you will have to declare every single educated person in the church to be athiests and drive them out of the church. Your stance just isn’t reasonable.
Ron Nielsen Also Commented
Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
Without the literal six day creation it would be quite odd to believe in a literal sabbath, (or a seven day week for that matter) wouldn’t it?
No, there is no reason at all to grant that supposition. God is free to put into the 10 commandments whatever he wants without regard to however long it took him to create the earth. In fact, He is still creating the earth so how is that related to the seventh day Sabbath? The Sabbath was made for man. God knows that 7 days meets man’s need, and that is reason enough, and there are lots of good reasons to celebrate Christ as the creator that don’t demand a literal 7 day creation.
Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
Got some examples? Professor Kent was asked for an example of macroevolution (speciation) taking place right now. If your claim is true, surely you have a number of good examples. Let’s see them.
I heard recently that Tibetins genetically separated from the Huan chinese about 3000 years ago when they evolved a different regulatory gene that allowed them to not thicken their blood so much to high altitude. That allows them to maintain reproductivity at high altitudes where others cannot. There is functional and reproductive isolation that has occured in humans within the last 3000 years. I suppose one could argue that Tibetins represent a new, high altitude species of humans. Certainly they have evolved.
Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
God will not vindicate any device whereby man shall in the slightest degree rule or oppress his fellow man. As soon as a man begins to make an iron rule for other men, he dishonors God and imperils his own soul and the souls of his brethren
Bill, thank you for that wonderful post. I hope this helps people reading this web site understand better the heart of Adventism and how evil the whole “fundamental belief” thing is.
Recent Comments by Ron Nielsen
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”?
