Faith: The predators came when sin entered and the animals, …

Comment on Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week? by Ron.

Faith: The predators came when sin entered and the animals, as well as man, became sinful in nature.

To say that predators came as a consequence of sin does not say anything about HOW they came. Did they evolve from what God previously created, or did God create them in response to sin?

Ron Also Commented

Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?

Holly Pham: Ron, How is your apple tree example related to organisms having sex? I still don’t see how sex results in evolution.

Actually, my tree example was in response to your question about evolution in the case of asexual reproduction. The point being that even in something as complex as a tree, it is possible for there to be evolution even without sex.

As for sexual reproduction, there are mechanisms in the cell that facilitate change in the DNA, thereby causing evolution. If the word evolution didn’t have so much emotional baggage behind it, I think it would be appropriate to say that God created the process of evolution. I think God specifically designed earthly organisms with the capacity to evolve. Perhaps he knew that man’s sin would result in changes in the planet and that organisms would have to change to be successful. I think evolution is a sign of a loving God who likes variety, and anticipates the needs of his creatures. Why else would he create sex? If he didn’t want man to evolve, he could have made us like the angels.

Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?

BobRyan: on day 1 with “let there be light” – resulted in something like a single side of earth having light – so there is a day side and a night side with the earth in a rotation that is pretty much the same as it is today.

Ok, here is another problem with literal interpretation. Haven’t we always said that a day started in the evening and then the morning? But here Bob says that when God said “let there be light” there was instantly a light side and a dark side. So the statement that the “evening and the morning were the first day” is only half true. On the opposite side of the earth, the light came first, then the evening.

So, if I may be so bold, Bob here is asserting an interpretation that destroys the Sabbath, because on half the earth, the Sabbath actually started with the day. I ( facetiously) believe that Bob is wrong. He is teaching heresy, and ought to loose his job as a teacher and be thrown out of the church. Can’t you see how destructive that attitude is?

Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?

Bob Orrick: How can you argue with a definition given by God (one flesh)? One may find it difficult to understand, but who says we have perfect understanding?

Genesis chapters 1-3 are to be taken literally, using God’s definitions and symbolisms.

Thank you. You are here again making my point by agreeing that there are “symbolisms”. A symbol by definition is not to be taken literally. A symbol stands for something else.

I agree, our understanding most likely isn’t perfect. E.g. the above discussion about day 4. So, because our understanding is not perfect, and we do not have universal agreement on how to understand Genesis, we need to allow for a range of understandings in our Fundamental belief statement. If we don’t then we will have exactly what is happening here. There will be a group of people who will get very dogmatic and try to get teachers and anyone else who doesn’t agree with their narrow interpretation, run out of the church.

I guess that would be OK if we could be certain our belief were true, but . . . what if we are wrong?

Besides, there is no harm in letting truth come to the fore naturally. Do you remember the vision Mrs. White had of the gems of truth trampled in the pig sty? They came out of it even more glorious. Truth is truth. We don’t have to be afraid and drive everybody out who doesn’t happen to agree with us.

Recent Comments by Ron

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”?