@Paul Giem: Paul Giem says: August 21, 2010 Sean, I, like you, …

Comment on La Sierra and Battle Creek College by BobRyan.

@Paul Giem:

Paul Giem says:
August 21, 2010 Sean,

I, like you, disagree with what appeared to be Professor Kent’s picture (but apparently is not), where we have evidence for the general reliability of the Bible, but no extrabiblical, and particularly no scientific, evidence for the reliability of Genesis 1=11. A couple of points might be helpful.

As I’m sure you’re aware, we don’t have extrabiblical evidence for a six-day creation, or for the length of time between creation and the Flood. We do have some evidence regarding how long ago the Flood was, and it can be reasonably dated to no more than 3,500 years ago by Mesopotamian records. (There are arguments for putting it around 2300 to 2500 BC, but they are long, involved, and not well-developed yet. And they are not necessary for the historicity of Genesis 1-11 to be accepted. So, although it is an area of interest for me, I do not put this to the fore in a discussion.)

It is true that the either-or fallacy does not work here. We have evidence for our faith from reason and deduction, and we have by-faith-alone positions that we take as a result of that evidence. For example – nature proves the reliability of the Word of God – showing that God spoke “and it was” – but it does not “show us the New Birth”. We must take God’s Word on that. Still we do find evidence in the form of the fruit of the Holy Spirit in one that has been born again. So while we are not able to place the “new creation” – the “new nature” under a microscope nor can we test out the future resurrection of the dead – we are still able to study and observe nature and see the all-knowing hand of God at work.

Kent’s constant canard of “yes but no 7 day literal creation week videotaped in nature” ignores the science evidence for young life, for young-earth, science evindence against abiogenesis and science evidence against “birst come from reptiles mythology. In fact whenever subjects of that kind come up – Kent is more often found carping about them than engaged in constructive effort to improve on those examples or finding even more accurate examples. Case in point – Dr Spencer’s work at Southern has yet to be published yet Kent is on record as sticking his neck out “for failure” in his “hope against hope” by-faith-alone position that Spencer will not come up with evidence for young life based on DNA remnants (with half-lives that would have vanished in 10,000 years) in supposedly 14 million year old strata.

That aspect to Kent’s work is more transparent than I think he would prefer and betrays his lack of supposed objectivity.

Evidence in favor of young life or young earth is in “support” for the 7 day creation week model as opposed to the long-ages model central to the junk-science religion of evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan Also Commented

La Sierra and Battle Creek College

Chuck Scriven said:

On a smaller scale, current events include the beast-like behavior of Terry Jones, the Christian pastor, in Florida, who is planning to memorialize September 11 with a bonfire of copies of the Koran.

None of this was imagined in “The Great Controversy.”

Ellen White’s best insights will continue to shed light, continue to guide us (if we allow it) toward a path of Christian faithfulness. But her restrictive reading of apocalyptic prophecy entails that “The Great Controversy” is no longer suitable as a simple hand-out, any more than anti-Catholic billboards are a suitable way for us to communicate with our neighbors.

The book repays a thoughtful reading, as I indicated above. But it has to be studied, especially now, in a more nuanced fashion than before. To read this book the old way, to single-out one offender—without fresh assessment of the biblical text, without new attention to the ever-changing context—has become morally offensive. Given the knowledge we have now, and judging from the story I heard in Sabbath School, careless uses of this book have become…a kind of hate speech.

By direct contrast to that imaginative story above – we have the example of Noah who for 120 years (or more) warns about the coming – literal – world wide flood and the need for building the ark “rather than walking for 2 weeks to a better location if a local flood was the “real message”).

In the end – as Gen 7 states “ALL LIFE ON DRY LAND” with the breath of life in it – dies in a world wide flood the goes above the highest mountains on earth. (According to the text).

Now certainly the spin-doctors of Noah’s day “could” have said “you know 100 years ago that message was ok Noah – but now we think of it as hate speech because it makes us feel – less than”.

I think we can all see that point.

in Christ,

Bob


La Sierra and Battle Creek College
Ron – that comment gets me back to this post –
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/la-sierra-and-battle-creek-college/comment-page-2/#comment-19280


La Sierra and Battle Creek College
Ron Said:

It is not difficult to learn “about” evolution and see its faults and weaknesses. But, this is what the LSU faculty and Wisbey do NOT want taught. They have already decided “evolution as fact”…

True – but how did they get into that befuddled state to start with? What is the core issue?

in Christ,

Bob


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
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.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

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”.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
Gentlemen,

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.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
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.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
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