Comment on Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation by Eddie.
Sean Pitman: Others, who do not have your experience and background, will often be strongly influenced by claims for the supposed weight of empirical evidence against the claims of the Bible… since most do not have a sufficient background to understand that the weight of evidence strongly supports the Biblical perspective.
Does that mean that any SDA scientist who obtains a PhD degree, develops a successful research program with dozens of publications in peer-reviewed journals, and remains a young life creationist who is committed to the mission of the SDA Church, yet disagrees with you that “the weight of evidence strongly supports the Biblical perspective,” simply lacks “a sufficient background to understand that the weight of evidence”?
To be rather candid, Sean, this is the attitude that scares the daylight out of SDA scientists and other scholars who honestly disagree with you. For some reason you and others seem to conclude that there is either something deficient in (1) their ability to interpret data or (2) their commitment to God. No matter what such scholars have to say, their views will be considered heretical and unworthy of an SDA employee. Maybe that is why so few are willing to dialog with you on this forum.
Eddie Also Commented
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Very interesting, that is an old reference. As I recall I once looked up those verses in the SDA Bible Commentary, which stated it was difficult to understand what event would have fulfilled the prophecies. The prophecy has troubled me for years, so I’m happy to see there is an extrabiblical reference to Nebuchadnessar fighting in Egypt, even if it doesn’t provide any details about conquering Egypt.
Sean Pitman: The Bible has proven so accurate about the life of Nebuchadnezzar (when the “higher critics” long claimed that he never existed, that he was just a myth), that I would accept the Biblical claim of Egypt’s defeat without extra-Biblical confirmation.
However, in this particular case, there is extra-Biblical evidence of Nebuchadnezzar attacking and conquering Egypt:
What are the extrabiblical sources for evidence of Nebuchadnezzar attacking and conquering Egypt? The only sources you quoted above were Biblical.
Sean Pitman: For example, the LDS claim that the American Indians are really descendants from the lost tribes of Israel is a testable potentially falsifiable claim. If this claim is tested and shown to be false, as it has been, it reduces the credibility of the story teller for anything else the story teller has to say.
The same would be true if falsifiable elements of the Biblical stories were shown to be false as well. Such demonstrations would lessen the credibility of the Biblical story tellers with regard to anything else they have to say…
The Bible makes multiple falsifiable prophecies about Nebuchadnezzar conquering Egypt, yet history never records it happening. Does this mean the Bible is effectively falsified? Here are the texts:
Ezekiel 29:19-20: “Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army. I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.”
Ezekiel 30:10-11: “Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also make the multitude of Egypt to cease by the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon. He and his people with him, the terrible of the nations, shall be brought to destroy the land: and they shall draw their swords against Egypt, and fill the land with the slain.”
Jeremiah 46:13: “The word that the LORD spake to Jeremiah the prophet, how Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon should come and smite the land of Egypt.”
Jeremiah 46:25-26: “The LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saith; Behold, I will punish the multitude of No, and Pharaoh, and Egypt, with their gods, and their kings; even Pharaoh, and all them that trust in him: And I will deliver them into the hand of those that seek their lives, and into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of his servants: and afterward it shall be inhabited, as in the days of old, saith the LORD.”
Recent Comments by Eddie
Dr. Paul Cameron and the God of the Gaps
I wonder what Jesus thinks of this website?
LSU Removes Dr. Lee Grismer as Chairman of the Biology Department
I may be wrong but I seriously doubt there was any sort of secret conspiracy in the change of leadership within the department. Academic departments often change their chair every few years on a rotating basis, with each professor in the department expected to serve sooner or later. Professors are usually much more interested in research and teaching than becoming administrators. That’s exactly why they’re professors and not administrators! It’s difficult, if not impossible, to be great at teaching, research and administration. Something has to give, and given the choice, most professors would prefer not to be burdened with attending extra meetings with other faculty members, students and parents, having to sign a plethora of documents, and other time-consuming administrative chores. Such professors reluctantly accept the position as their responsibility when their colleagues ask them to, and do not consider it a promotion, even though the pay increases slightly.
So what really happened at LSU? Maybe Lee Grismer wanted to be the chair of his department and was removed due to some extrinsic political maneuvering, or maybe he never aspired to be the chair but accepted it after being asked to by his colleagues and happily handed the reins to John Perumal after taking his turn for a couple of years. It’s obvious that most if not all of those commenting above have no idea what happened, and are merely speculating. I myself don’t know, so I’m not going to jump to any conclusions.
pauluc: If the issue is whether or not LSU administration acted appropriately in attempting to defend itself against a clearly disruputive individual who gives every indication of being on a religious jihad and considers his judgement and knowledge superior to that of anyone else then that is a different issue.
I am not a fan of Educate Truth’s confrontational approach to this issue, but I also sympathize with Louie Bishop’s treatment at LSU. I can understand how LSU would be upset at him for passing out flyers to alumni during Alumni Weekend, but as far as I’m concerned he should have had the freedom to ask questions in the classroom, to organize a creationism club, to hand out information supporting his views to fellow students, to defend himself in front of a discipline committee, and to obtain written information about the nature of LSU’s disciplanary actions. I’m very, very, very disturbed by how LSU handled the situation and would like to hear their side of the story.
Sean Pitman: The various concepts I’ve presented to you regarding the potential and limits of RM/NS only seem incompatible to you because you’ve spent very little if any time considering what actually happens to this mechanism at various levels of functional complexity. Once you actually start to investigate the concept of levels of functional complexity and the nature of sequence space at various levels of functional complexity, things will start to come into focus for you too… and you’ll be able to move beyond your more or less empirically blind faith to a more rational understanding of the claims of the Bible regarding origins.
Why is it that so many geneticists arrive at a different conclusion? Is it because they spend less time investigating levels of functional complexity and sequence spacing than you do? Or because their conclusions are based on faith, unlike yours?
Sean Pitman: At what point is a distinct species realized? For example, just how different does one have to be, genetically, to be classified as a different species? How many mutations, for a given stretch of DNA, does it take to consistently define a novel species with universal application?
Two species could potentially differ by a single mutation if the mutation happens to code for a reproductive isolating mechanism (consistent with the Biological Species Concept).