@Sean Pitman: Sean, I appreciate your reply to my …

Comment on Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution? by Randolph Belsky.

@Sean Pitman:

Sean, I appreciate your reply to my post and I did not mean to offend anyone and I apologize for that if I have done so. I agree that there is a great deal of true evidence found in current scientific discoveries within various living things sufficient to cause a rational and reasonable person to believe that what we see in the natural world was designed and therefore required a designer, no differently than those things that are man made. I also agree that there is enough other evidence within the Bible to make a person a believer in it without the need for anything else, but when you have both the Bible and the scientific evidence working together it definitely makes one wonder why so many want to argue against it, but that is the way it is. Regarding the issue of “everlasting life” for carbon-based creatures, God’s answer to that is contained in the “tree of life”, and though I am not a scientist now, I am truly looking forward to an eternity of learning about how God makes it all work.

Randolph Belsky Also Commented

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
I have really appreciated the scientific elements of this information and the following conversations. But some of those that are trying to explain the potential immortality of “carbon based” life and the observable issues of death and decay on this planet as something that a loving God would not introduce, are attempting to explain the spiritual dimension by using the scientific method. I am neither a scientist nor a scholar or theologian, I am just your run of the mill SDA converted from the world. But one thing I know from my own experience is the God of the Bible is real and His Word can be trusted. My personal belief on these issues is that God has set forth both natural laws and spiritual laws that cannot be separated. When the spiritual laws are broken by natural beings who have a free will the effects are both immediate and observable in the natural world where they reside. When God, through the true gospel, can demonstrate to the universe through those who have been reconciled to his perfect spiritual law that His law can be kept through the power He provides, then both they and the natural world will be again restored to its original perfect state, and this experiment with sin can come to its end.

Avondale College Arguing in Favor of Darwinian Evolution?
I have a general post that I would like you all to respond to if you would please. I have not read all of your posts but enough to see that science and the use of purely or at least primarily scientific methods and guidelines for arriving at any conclusions on these topics is the main issue, and there are a number of different competing views for the origins of life and the planets and the timing of their respective beginnings, etc.

As a way for me to see from you all how you view scientific evidence in relation to a God that created the natural laws, please each of you if you would tell me if you believe that God actually parted the Red Sea, and not some low lying salt marsh but actually opened up the Sea in the Gulf of Aqaba to allow Moses to lead them across, and if you believe it how God did that, explaining it from a natural law perspective.

Then if you would please tell me if you believe that when God made life on this planet he first separated the water on the earth from the water above the earth and placed the atmosphere in between, which is what Genesis says and explains the amount of water that fell in the days of Noah; and if you believe that how did he do that within natural law.

I would then suggest that if you don’t believe either of those stories is true then you don’t really believe God, and if you do believe those stories are true but cannot explain them strictly within natural law, then why are you trying to explain all of these variables of creation using the same method.

I look forward to reading all of your replies, unless of course you don’t believe the questions are worthy of your response.