Comment on PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood? by Very Curious.
You have indicated several times in this and other conversations that one need not rely on “blind faith” but that you believe that there is a preponderance of evidence in support of the official Seventh-day Adventist beliefs in a literal 6-day creation week, an Earth populated by life for only a few thousand years, and a complete global flood. I have studied some biology, geology, history and anthropology, but am by no means an expert in any of these fields. I am also extensively familiar with Adventist theology in these areas, but again, not an expert.
As far as I was aware, enough scientific evidence exists to poke significant holes in evolutionary theory, and even some that seems to suggest an intelligent creator. But I’m not aware of any preponderance of evidence specifically in favor of the beliefs I mentioned above. If it is out there, I would like to know what it is or where to find it. Could you please explain this weight of evidence, or refer us to where it can be found? I think the scientific claims for the other side are pretty easy to find.
If this conversation is not well-suited for an adequate reply, I’ll keep an eye on this website for you to suggest another format.
Table of Contents
Very Curious Also Commented
PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?
I notice that you have posted several responses today without addressing my request (and I believe Professor Kent’s) for an explanation of your claims of significant scientific evidence in favor of the literal creation week, the short history of life, and the global flood. I’m a bit disappointed–I understand that if you have a wealth of information it may be a bit of a task trying to organize it all, but I would hope that you could at least address this legitimate question to assure us that you’re working on a suitable response.
The reason I’m being a bit relentless with this request (and I really don’t mean to be rude) is that since you insist on holding Adventist science teachers to the standard of presenting the above-mentioned beliefs as tenable on scientific–not only theological–grounds, I would assume that you have ensured that this standard is possible. Based on your earlier statements, I think we can agree that it would seem a little silly to expect science teachers to teach anything other than sound science.
Again, I understand if this comment column is not an ideal place for you to post all the scientific evidence at your disposal. In fact after my earlier post, I noticed that you had an evidence page above, and thought that I may have asked my question too hastily. Unfortunately I only found evidence against people and institutions you consider to be in error for not teaching the beliefs in their science courses.
I suggest that another evidence page on this site might be in order, one that presents the scientific evidence that you say supports these beliefs. It would strengthen the case for your claims. Further, it would reduce the idea that this site only stands AGAINST something, rather than standing FOR something–namely, educating truth.
I hope to see a response soon, whether you agree with this idea or not–or at least an indication whether you are making an attempt to address this legitimate concern.