I believe scientific evidences support varying views, but that when science is accurate it supports the creation and flood accounts of the Biblical record. That is, it is not about dismissing evidence on account of it being labeled or termed scientific. It is about belief in the Bible and acceptance of the evidence in science for creation and the flood.
The days of creation are six, with evening and morning to each. I don't know if Ellen G White agrees with that, but this is what I stand on in the Biblical account of the day of creation.
Me too, just not your Ellen G White tainted version of it.
I wasn't even talking to you. I am just answering your interruption. If you have something against me feel free. For now you know where I stand. Do you think I should not express myself because you might want to say you have heard the exact thing before from myself or someone else?
It's not a rationalization and it has nothing to do with science. It is simply relating what the scriptures say if you would just read them.
That is true, but now you are talking about the existence of evidence when I was talking about whether or not a particular evidence of science or observation of mankind would support creation, Intelligent Design, and the Biblical model... or rather instead the theory of evolution.
Anything that can be observed can be observed. That is a place to start learning anything, including that which is found in the Bible (whether this be learning by reading or learning by comparing what you find with what other people say).
No, it is not irrelevant. The point is that all evidence does not necessarily lead to the same conclusion. The idea is that a conclusion can be arrived at when we see how the available evidence agrees.
I don't know for sure if they both hold to YEC views, but I have no issue with them in this belief if they do. There is a lot of value in Young Earth Creationism.
I have said nothing about the flood. I started with, and have consistently been referring to what is described in Genesis 1.
