Comment on Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’ by krissmith777.
I would like to hear a statement of faith in the second coming from one Adventist evolutionist.So far it seems that they are cultural Christians who are actually agnostic or atheistic. I get what Pitman is saying, and itâ€™s not â€œPitmanâ€™s Way or the Highway.â€ Itâ€™s what God has revealed through the Bible that Pitman supports. Do you believe that God can create something out of nothing and will do so in the future? Do you believe that God did create with the power of His Word?If not, I respect your right to believe as you do, but do not see significant value to your theological positions. (Quote)
First of all, I reject the term “Evolutionist” since it’s nothing more than a title that Creationists invented.
Second, you want to here a statement of faith, then:
1. I believe in the trinity, the father son and holy spirit, that they are three persons, but one God.
2. I believe in the virgin birth, and that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected.
3. That we are saved through Grace alone through faith, not by works.
4. That God created us, whether through natural forces that were created by him in the beginning or even if he were to have created us in our current form.
Your statement that Adventists “Evolutionists” are really agnostics or atheits is nothing more than a statement of dogmatism. An agnostic is someone who doesn’t have a position on whether or not God exists. An Atheist is someone who doesn’t believe any God exists whatsoever! A Christian who accepts evolution is still a Theist. Not accepting your position is not a disqualifier from being a Theist. This is similar to statements made in Ancient Rome about Christians being Atheists since they did not believe in the Roman gods. Now, obviously both the Romans and Christians were both Theists since they believed that Gods existed…but they had differing ideas. Neither group would qualify as being an Atheist ot an agnostic.
About it being what God put in the Bible: What makes you so sure that your interpretation is what is correct. The fact is that literal six day creationism is a relatively new movement. 2,000 years ago, opinions of both Jews and Christians about what a “Creation Day” actually was differed greatly from one another. One of my favorite examples is from Philo of Alexandria who said “When, therefore, Moses says, “God completed his works on the sixth day,” we must understand that he is speaking not of a number of days, but that he takes six as a perfect number. Since it is the first number which is equal in its parts, in the half, and the third and sixth parts, and since it is produced by the multiplication of two unequal factors, two and three.”(Treatise 1:2) — Another good example is Cyprian who descriped the creation week as containing 1,000 years per day: “The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years” (Treatises 11:11) Then there is Augustine of Hipo who thought that the “creation days” were not days at all, or even years, but rather that they were one event; a single moment. — Now, the point I’m trying to make is this: If the early Christians and Jews had greatly differing view points about what “creation days” were, and since many did see them as not being literal days, then this proves that reading Genesis as non-literal is not a new thing; It was done for millenia. Now, what makes your interpretation of Genesis superior to theirs? And if you have no reason other than “the position of the church,” or “Ellen White,” then frankly you have no reason other than pre-conceived bias. This is not about what the Bible actually says, but interpretation of it.
You asked Do you believe that God can create something out of nothing and will do so in the future? Do you believe that God did create with the power of His Word? — Yes I do. In fact, I don’t even think God needs his word to creat. I think he is more powerful than that.
But as for the question about believing that God created from nothing, though I do not disbelieve that he can so such a thing, it really gives me an urge to ask a Creationist a question that has been bothering me; That is: “Creationists often ridicule ‘evolutionists’ for believing everything came from nothing. I must ask: God created from nothing, right? If God created from nothing, then science should detect the ‘from nothingness,’ and nothing more; It cannot detect God. How is “everything comming from nothing’ inconsistent with ‘God creating from nothing’? After all, this would still be fiat creation.”
krissmith777 Also Commented
Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
Iâ€™m disappointed, but not surprised, that Dr. Pitman chose to ignore this problem. According to Pitman, plate tectonics moved very rapidly during the flood and then slowed down, which creates the dilemma Kris has spoken to. The massive ocean basin and its seamounts could not have existed prior to the flood, but how could they possibly have formed in such little time during the flood itselfâ€“or during the following year?
In my judgement, it was the strongest point I made in that comment.
Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@ Professor Kent
How bizarre that I argue for the superiority of the Bible, and Bob, rather than joining me, says that Richard Dawkinsâ€“of all people, being one of the most antagonistic toward the Bibleâ€“is on my side! WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE THAT CLAIM TO DEFEND SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM?
The way some of out fellow christians associate others with positions they just do not like with “hard” atheists like Richard Dawkins is nothing more than an ad hominem. — In a different thread on a different website, one person I was talking to kept bringing up Richard Dawkins. It was “Richard Dawkins says..” “Richard Dawkins claims…” It was all a tactic to simply dismiss what I was saying simply because he thought Dawkins would agree with me…even slightly. But there are major problems with such tactics: 1) Richard Dawkins speaks for Richard Dawkins, not for me. 2) I don’t even care what Richard Dawkins says, and our fellow Christians who worry about what he says should have better things to worry about. There seems to be a mentality here that because Dawkins takes a certain position, that we should take the opposite extreme, but that doesn’t even follow.
Let the hard atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens say what they want…It makes no difference to me.
Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
You said before that overall rate of erosion and and sedimentation world wide along with the replacement of the materials is constant… I know that. But you keep assuming that the rate of today is the same as 200 million years ago, and quite frankly, you have no basis for such an assumption…and really, there is reason to believe otherwise as well.
Geologists point out that the landmasses of today are much more mountainous and more rugged than in the past….and the mountanous topography is a excelerator to the rates of erosion…Now, if this is true, then that would mean that today the overall rate of erosion (and the addition of sediments to the ocean basins) would right now be at an all time high…As such, the current rate of sedimentary deposition cannot be used as a reliable clock to date the ocean floor. (Davis Young, Christianity & The Age Of The Earth, pages 128-131)
Reputable Creation Scientists give vastly different estimates of the sea floor accumulation. You give the estimate of 15 million years. — Henry Morris gives the estimate of 75 million years (Scientific Creationism, pages 155, 156) — Stewart E. Nevins gives the estimate of 30 million years (Link: http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-ocean-says-no/ ) — Russel Humphries’ estimate is 12 million years (Link: http://creation.com/evidence-for-a-young-world ) — With all these vastly differing estimates on the parts of creation scientists, it makes me wonder about the basis of their data…especially since it’s the same argument. It’s not as if we have numerous dating methods being used and all disagreeing…Rather, it’s that we seem to have the same method being used and still disagreeing.
–But I think I’ve found the mentality behind your argument. Stewart Nevins, on his page about the sedimentation of the sea floor, says:
In only 30 million years assuming constant rate of erosion all the ocean sediments could have accumulated. This age does not square with the over 1 billion year age assumed by evolutionary uniformitarian geologists. (Bold, his)
So, his argument is that since today’s rate would have deposited more, that therefore the principal of uniformity is wrong.. I dare say anyone who claims that geologists think “rates” have always been the same for EVERYTHING doesn’t understand the principle…At least, not in it’s current form. The principle he is refering to is known as “Substantive Uniformitarianism,” and modern geology rejects that. — Geologists now use a different principle called “Methodological Uniformitarianism”; that is processes around today have happened in the past…whether it be a storm, a mudslide, a volcanic eruption, etcetera..They may happen at different rates, but the same phenomena that happen today leave a finger print, and we can identify a geologic formation from the past with a similar finger print. (For more reading on this: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1979/JASA9-79Young.html )
Recent Comments by krissmith777
Scientists ‘potentially skeptical’ of evolution need not apply
I do not know all the details, but I do think that the University is handling this situation quite badly. In the actual news article itself drom the Hufington post, some scientists are quoted as saying that they may as well have a “Creation Museum” with him around… Logical Fallacy: “Slippery Slope.”
At the very least, global migration under ideal conditions, even of sloths, seems plausible (and I think unavoidable given the doubling time for sloth populations under ideal circumstances) â€“ certainly not â€œimpossibleâ€ as youâ€™re trying to suggest.
Well, for the record, I said “it would have been difficult, if not impossible.” Perhaps it was possible.
After all, even sloths can move up to a mile in less than four hours when they want toâ€¦
They can move faster under some conditions. But it is my understanding that even though they could, they tend not to. They tend to pick up the pace only when necessary; like when they are fleeing from a predator, they can move up to 15 feet a minute, and even then they burn a lot of energy while doing it. On the grund, their maximum speed, however, is 5 feet a minute. (Link: http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/rainforests/sloth.html )
— Perhaps a journey of such a route could have been possible under certain conditions. Who knows?
But, what I am more concerned about is not the journey, but rather a trail that they would have left behind from Eastern Turkey to North America. I’m more interested in what they would have left behind on their migration to indicate that they were there. For a while, they should have at least had a population in those regions… Perhaps they still would have decendants in Russian forests, or skeletal remains from those who did not make it.
Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
Thus, we cannot expect each successive generation to continue a straight-line march across the globe for thousands or even hundreds of years. In their normal daily movements, they might move 5 miles in a yearâ€¦but not in a straight line. We have been reassured that even a â€œsmall slow tree slothâ€ can migrate at a 12-mile-per-year pace across the globe. I donâ€™t think so!
It would require movement in areas of the world that they are not adapted to. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the sloth to move from Eastern Turkey, across the Bering Straight land bridge, then from Alaska and then to South Americaâ€¦But, for a moment, lets suppose for a moment that they succeededâ€¦
The sloths tend to live between 10 and 20 years, and in that time they tend to have a single newborn per year. If we go with the conservative number that would mean that at minimum, they probably reproduce 10 newborns within 10 years, but it is also true that the newborns tend to have a high mortality rate within the very first year of their lives. â€“ There is no statistic at the actual death rate in the first year before they have a chance to reproduce, but since there obviously was a net gain in the population (since the flood), that allows the minimum survival rate to be 40%. This would mean that if they birthed 10 newborn sloths, then a maximum of 6 die. If 2 males and two females survived, and if they in turn also had 2 males and 2 females that survived, there would constantly be a doubled population of sloths: The first generation (from the ark) which would be 2 sloths would therefore lead to 4 which in turn leads to 8, and then to 16, and so on and so forth.
[The mistake I made in a former comment was allowing the survival rate being 20% which, now that I think of it, would have only produced only two surviving sloths constantly. It had to have been more.]
Add into the equation that it is over 3,000 miles from Eastern Turkey to the Bering Strait which leads to North America. â€“ Using Seanâ€™s estimate that they may have traveled 12 miles in a [year], that would indicate that they made it to the outskirts of North America in 250 years. With this in mind, one is left to wonder about a population of sloths in modern Russia which should have been considerableâ€¦or at least noticeable, though it is possible there may have been times when their birth rates and survival rates would have dropped a bit, though that doesnâ€™t clear the problem, and there should be evidence of such a migration from Eastern Turkey. â€“ Also, when one factors in the time sloths spend sleeping in a day (15 to 18 hours a day), the idea that they could have traveled 12 miles a year is a stretch. And that goes without mentioning that they almost never get out of the trees. That begs the question of how far they were willing to walk over treeless territory until they would find more trees.
Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
In my experience, those who hate the Bible hate any kind of Christian, not just people of blind faith.
But I don’t think anyone here is really insisting on blind faith, I think they just don’t want to use a certain sort of “test tube” for God. –There is evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired, which is why I hold it in high esteem. Even in the areas that would seem to have some “weakness” of archeological evidence, there is still some real strength that warrents belief. The profecy of the “cutting-off” of the messiah in Daniel 9:24-27 actually gives a time-frame that Jesus really seems to match, and as such I see true divine inspiration in the book of Daniel (which is actually my favorite book of the Bible). Even if Daniel were written in 164 BC, as a lot of skeptics believe, no uninspires writter would ever know such a detail. So, despite my differences of opinion of interpretation, there is no doubt in my mind that God did in fact inspire the Bible. This itself, in my judgement, is good, imperical evidence for not just the Bible, but also God himself.
But, as said before, the problem others here have is reducing God to a “test tube.” As a Christian myself, I am not crazy about that. — You ended your post with a good quote from Galileo Galilei, and so I shall end this comment with another from him:
The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
@krissmith777: Great liberal minds always think the same, they can judge the outcome. Outcome based decisions ignore principled decisions. Christ on the cross could not see through the grave, a great example of a principled decision!Thank you Michigan for standing on principle. (Quote)
I am not a liberal.