Comment on Board requests progress reports from LSU administration by Bravus.
General response to the dozen or so posts in this thread while I’ve been sleeping.
If there were only two possible positions on origins, then affirming that one of them is wrong would be affirming that the other is right. That’s not the case, though, there are literally dozens of nuances of possible position, but I can think of at least 6 mainstream possibilities:
1. Recent creationism (with variants depending on which god/s did it)
2. Ancient creationism (ditto)
3. Theistic evolutionism (ditto)
4. Deism
5. Atheistic evolutionism
6. Panspermia of one kind or another
The fact that I affirm that I believe Ellen White was wrong to use the ‘I was shown’ formulation to give Divine imprimatur to Bishop Ussher’s fatally flawed chronology effectively rules me out of the recent creationist camp, but does *not* then place me firmly in either of the evolutionist camps or any other firm position on origins.
6000 years never appears anywhere in the Bible as the age of the earth or life. Recent Turkish archaeological finds of a quite sophisticated small city 11,500 years old are just the newest of the thousands of pieces of evidence that contradict 6000 years as the age of… much of anything.
This is the problem with Victor’s otherwise laudable suggestion to go first to the Bible. Actually, two problems:
1. The creationists here and everywhere else where they speak go outside the Bible, and then require adherence to those extraBiblical tenets as an article of faith.
2. The plain evidence of the world around us clearly shows that life on earth is much more than 6000 years old. To start disbelieving in the world is to move into delusion.
The problems are very difficult – and perhaps more so for someone who works in science and has to actually process the scientific evidence rather than be able to ignore it. The open-minded, open-hearted search needs to go on, and finding a synthesis is, IMO, a saner response than sweeping away all inconvenient evidence.
Table of Contents
Bravus Also Commented
Board requests progress reports from LSU administration
Wow, you really do continue to struggle with my ‘I don’t know’, don’t you? I claim nothing of the sort.
Board requests progress reports from LSU administration
(popping back in because I can’t resist ;-))
We’ve discussed this ‘speeded-up decay’ argument here on this site before. A speeded-up decay rate (by the required amount) would lead to massive amounts of heat and radiation, sufficient to kill all life on earth. Of course, it’s then possible to say ‘well, God shielded living things from the effects’. But that’s just piling ad hockery on ad hockery. God intentionally speeded up the rate of decay, but intentionally shielded the whole world from the effects of that speeded-up decay, except the atoms inside zircons… or radioisotopes generally. Why? What’s the purpose? To deceive us?
God has the power to do absolutely anything. That’s not the question. But (1) he is not capricious – he doesn’t do things, especially major things like this, for no reason and (2) the claim made here repeatedly is that he told us everything he did in the Bible… and there is no mention there of any event like this, or even a hint.
If they can establish a nuclear mechanism for changed decay rates, then they ought to publish it – they’d be well on the way to the Nobel Prize. As it is, they have no mechanism, they simply claim ‘God did it’, but with zero Biblical evidence.
Board requests progress reports from LSU administration
Thanks for your prayers, but I do what I do for my own reasons, and care not a whit for the reactions of ‘legalists’. I share what I enjoy because I enjoy it and think others might too. You’re in the same old game of condemning without understanding, which was dull (and occasionally amusing) back in the 80s but which I was completely over by the 90s and haven’t even really thought about in 20 years.
And now, that restful hiatus.Have fun, all, in fighting among yourselves again…
Recent Comments by Bravus
Ted Wilson: “We will not flinch. We will not be deterred.”
Interesting that he says he is very proud of the GRI when they clearly said during the discussion that there is ‘no model’ of scientifically credible recent creationism that can be taught in our universities.
“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
My guess on the two-thirds thing is that what is actually being said is ‘more than two-thirds’. 99% is more than two-thirds… that specific number was chosen, not as the actual vote-count, but as a break-point: some motions need a simple majority, some need a two-thirds majority… and the vote well and truly delivered that, and more.
Just my interpretation.
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Excellent, excellent post above. J. Knight.
“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
(that should be ‘place in the church’)
“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
Bobbie Vedvick, the quote you asked about was a parody, penned by me.
Faith (and many others in this thread), the comments about those who will be driven out of SDAism by this push tend to assume that they are in disagreement with what has always been SDA belief. This is not the case: the very strong literalist recent creationist position is a relatively recent view. Note that what has happened at this GC is a vote for a *change* to Fundamental Belief 6. SDA beliefs are being *changed*, and those who won’t go along for the ride told they have no ce in the church.
