Comment on Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation by BobRyan.
That was an interesting summary of views by Kent and fairly a-typical of his I-just-want-to-be-sure-evoultionism-gets-a-fair-shake posts in the past.
Bravus was another such poster here in the past – declaring that he only wanted to be sure that evolutionism is getting a fair shake.
Turns out there was more to that story as well.
BobRyan Also Commented
Given Kent’s affirmations above one might have expected Kent to be known for posting in favor of science arguments in favor of young life and Intelligent design.
One would expect that he would not be in the only-post-in-favor-of-science-opposed-to-creationism group of posters that have come here in the past.
One would expect that upon finding some science argument where there is not yet an answer he would simply reply “Well I don’t yet have an answer for that one”.
So how odd the actual history of the posts compared to that list of affirmations.
I think Ellen White was inspired and was a tremendous asset to the Church. However, I believe God allowed her to insert personal opinion in much of her writings, and to err.
Is that your view of the gift of prophecy mentioned in 1Cor 12? Is that how Moses, Peter, John and Paul wrote in your thinking?
Which parts were just their own mistaken ideas and which parts are the actual Word of God in your view?
Professor Kent: Admit it: metal is denser than water, and therefore it sinks. Can you not grasp simple physics?
God’s existence–His power, His might, and His spoken word–goes far beyond your insistence that we can put God to the test of human reason and understanding.
I am always entertained by the brief attempts of evolutionists to make it appear that they are upholding the character of God in what they do.
But in the end — it is little more than bait-and-switch misdirection on their part.
The fact that the world gives evidence from “observations in nature” that it is not a product of happenstance random action – but is as Romans 1 declares – designed to the point of observations in nature proclaiming that fact — does not mean that we must have “God in a test tube”.
WE get the same thing with the Commandments of God – the Sabbath and the link OT ceremonies. The attempt to argue that keeping Sabbath means you must become a Jew etc.
So also this latest argument that IF God really does things like “Create all life on planet earth” then it must “look like He did not do it… must look like chance and random cause and effect” or else “show that you can put God in a test tube”.
These are false choices.
They are setup by evolutionists to defend their rationale for “denying the obvious”. The obvious that in Romans 1 is declared to be blatantly apparent even to pagans.
The I.D. feature seen in creation “observations in nature” even by those who have no Bible at all.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind