Comment on Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation by Sean Pitman.
While Sean insists that the claims of scripture can be falsified, and uses science and statistics whenever possible to refute the counter-claims of others, what does he do with the science regarding parthenogenesis in humans? It has never been documented in a single mammal species, much less humans! The science is clear: Jesus was no more likely to be born of a virgin than the North American indian ancestors included Jewish DNA.
As I’ve already explained, the Virgin Birth of Jesus, in particular, like His Resurrection, is not testable in a falsifiable manner. That does not therefore mean that it has been disproved by science. Virgin births are actually possible by design – by modern science. Ever hear of in vitro fertilization? Such modern technology is in fact capable of producing a virgin births by intelligent design. That’s what God did – a bit of in vitro fertilization. Such a potentiality is not falsifiable by science. In fact, it is suggested by science that such an event could only be possible by very high levels of intelligent design.
This is not true for the claim that American Indians are descendants from the lost tribes of Israel. Such a claim is directly testable and falsifiable. It cannot be explain by intelligent design in any meaningful sense of the word. Why would God change the DNA of the American Indians to make it look like they came from Asia instead of from the Jews? Surely you see the difference?
I really can’t believe you’re trying to compare the falsifiable claims of the Book of Mormon with the miracles described in the Bible. Are you really trying to tell me that the current genetics of the American Indians was supernaturally altered so as to cover up the fact that they really came from the lost tribes of Israel? Such claims, for the Bible, would in fact remove any rational basis for belief in the Bible as historically credible. Such a demonstration would clearly undermine the credibility of the storyteller(s).
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Bill Sorensen:
The Bible makes claims about the future. It does not cause the future. It therefore is not “self-validating”. It’s just a book after all. It can be read, but it cannot itself act to perform any tasks. Therefore, it’s claims, if they are to be rationally understood to be “true” must obviously be supported by external evidence based on the historical sciences. In other words, its own claims regarding history are validated by external sources – based on independent evidence that comes from outside of itself. How is this concept not self-evident?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Professor Kent:
Let’s get a few things straight. I have not attacked the claims of scripture regarding the “the recent origin of all life on this planet, created within just six literal days, and the worldwide nature of the Noachian Flood.” All I did was point out that the physical evidence supporting flood geology has serious problems.
That is an attack on Scripture. When you attempt to undermine the empirical claims of Scripture as being contrary to the weight of empirical evidence, you are in fact undermining the rational basis for Scriptural credibility.
Don’t you recognize that in claiming that the weight of scientific evidence clearly favors the neo-Darwinian perspective, a perspective which is diametrically opposed to the Biblical perspective, you do in fact undermine the credibility of the Biblical account? Your faith-only approach, regardless of the evidence, simply doesn’t do it for many people. For many many people such arguments as you are presenting do in fact undermine the rational basis for their faith despite your own ability to be able to have faith despite the weight evidence. Many people see this as irrational – and for good reason.
Faith, without a need for a basis in the weight of evidence, is irrational by definition. It is blind-faith in that it cannot be rationally distinguished from a form of wishful thinking.
And you were the one, not me, who has asserted that the flood did not create all of the layers of the geological column.
Of course. I fail to see why this might be a problem?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Eddie:
By implication Nebuchadnezzar won the battle with Egypt – just as Ezekiel prophesied. Otherwise, it is unlikely that the Babylonians would have recorded the event…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
