Comment on La Sierra Univeristy Fires Dr. Lee Greer; Signs anti-Creation Bond by BobRyan.
David Read: I expect that in the near future we will be hearing from Ricardo Graham that he and the other members of the Board of Trustees were never informed about this critical restrictive covenant language. And I expect that, shortly thereafter, we will be hearing that the Board of Trustees are searching for a new president and new legal counsel
Admittedly – LSU seems to have been sold down the river by its own administration when they “bought into” that non-SDA commitment. WASC is a cakewalk by comparison.
BobRyan Also Commented
La Sierra Univeristy Fires Dr. Lee Greer; Signs anti-Creation Bond
First we see this warm fuzzy group-hug style post so typical of liberals being tolerant to a fault with those they disagree with —
You’re dealing with people here who are motivated by hatred and intolerance. I don’t know how else to state it.
And then we get the oft repeated response to it.
I don’t hate evolutionists. Many of my very good friends are evolutionist, some are agnostic, and a few are atheists. Yet, we get along great. The difference, you see, is that they don’t expect to get a paycheck from the SDA Church for promoting their neo-Darwinian views…
The idea is that any opposition to evolutionism “is hateful” by definition unless it is cast in a “evolutionism is probably right but I believe creationism anyway” sort of fashion.
Kent keeps reminding us of that canard every now and then.
Ron: I remember getting a lot of opposition on this web site earlier when I asserted that our belief in creation was a faith statement, not a scientific statement with most arguing that creationism was science, referring to “creation science” and “blind faith evolutionism”. I am now finding it ironic that the same people are worried that LSU will run afoul of the bond for teaching faith and religion in the science classroom. So which is it? Faith or science? It seems to me that you take which ever side of the argument that is most convenient for bashing LSU.
I would like to remind the reader of a few points for the sake of context.
1. The agnostic/atheist evolutionists in charge of the National Academy of Sciences and “the state” of California – are not the ones that were arguing with Ron and claiming that Creation science is in fact pure science.
2. People on this board observe that as those nothing-but-evolution secular entities look at LSU’s deal with the state – the government is going to use prevailing state views of creation as their ruler.
3. Your comment above mixes the state’s view of creation with educate Truth’s view of it and argues that the Educate truth people must defend both positions as if both are their own.
That does not make sense.
Faith: “Accordingly, financing the science building with revenue bonds is no more remarkable or problematic than financing the gymnasium and mathematics building with revenue bonds.”
True, if you have no intention of teaching Scripture-based Creation in your science classrooms
For the sake of perspective – recall that Brantly argues the extreme position that neither creation science (nor even Intelligent Design?) should be allowed in our science class rooms.
Thus in his “evolution only world” our science department could not help but be in line with the demands of a very secular state agenda for a science building.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Mack Ramsy:: : but the one thing we know for certain is that it was designed to change. There are so many back up and redundancies designed to make whatever changes that DNA faces to be profitable for the organism, or if their deleterious to ensure they don’t damage the subsequent generation (yes there are very complex methods for doing this) The immune system in fact does it intentionally.
Obviously the references above to “designed” and “intention” could not be overlooked by the objective unbiased reader applying a bit of critical thinking to the topic. And so my response below merely states the obvious point of agreement on a part of that post.
No wonder the application of a bit of critical thinking just then – demands that we conclude from your remarks above – that you are an example of an evolutionist that is strongly in favor of Intelligent Design. I too favor I.D.
Obviously the references abov
I don’t believe in ID as it’s traditionally defined. I believe that God created a system designed to evolve.
Obviously the references abov
In your earlier statement you claimed that system was designed with “redundancy and backup” features. That is not something rocks, gas and water could ever do – hence the term “Intelligent Design”.
But perhaps you have access to more highly advanced rocks, gas and water?
Also you mention “intention” as if the immune system was deliberately designed with an end goal in view.
As it turns out – it is those “intention” and “Intelligent Design” aspects (so key to your response above) that are at the very heart of I.D. enabled science were we have the freedom to “follow the data where it leads” even if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does not fit atheist dogma about there “being no god”.
how odd then that you seem to later back pedal on your prior observation.
Thus you seem to be in somewhat of a self-conflicted position at the moment.
At least given the content of your statements about “intent” and “backup systems” and “redundancy” designed into the systems themselves (even to the point of “error correction” as we see in the case of nucleic polypeptide amino acid chains and their chiral orientation).
Of course all that just gets us back here
Mack Ramsy: My language in this forum is not formal. Try not to get caught up in semantic issues.
Out of curiosity is that statement supposed to provide a solution to just how it is that something “not designed” is able to exhibit unique design characteristics such as “back up systems” – “redundancy” – error correcting mechanism and an “immune system with intention” regarding a specific outcome or goal?
No doubt the study of biology most definitely shows us that such things are present “in nature” based on “observations in nature” – and so you are right to state it as you did.
So if you are then going to double back and reject what you just affirmed – what do you have by way of “explanation” for such a self-conflicted course?
Reaching for a solution of the form – “Pay no attention to my actual words if they do not serve to deny I.D.” does not provide as satisfactory resolution to the problem as you may have at first supposed.
Erv Taylor is not “afraid” to post here – but he is “Afraid” to have well thought out views posted on AToday that do not flatter his agenda.
That was not news right?
John J.: The fact remains, any decision direction or policy made by a church, conference, union or GCEC can be reversed or changed by those they serve.
Agreed and the fact that the constituency are not voting to reverse it – is a sign that this is not merely the views of the Administration in Michigan.
As for hierarchy – there is no doctrinal authority in the administrators.
And as for administrative hierarchy – the GC leadership has no authority to dismiss rogue teachers which is one of the reasons that this particular meltdown at LSU seems to go on and on and on. It slows at times and it speeds up at other times – but the fire is not simply put out.
ken:: Let’s continue shall we. You posit that Adam and Eve were producing telomerase as adults as a result of eating fruit from the tree of life. Would you agree that the production of adult telomerase was a direct result of the environment or did the gene(s) affecting production of the a enzyme as adults mutate in their progeny?
1. I never stated whether the fruit from the Tree of Life provided the telemerase enzyme or simply provided a trigger enzyme/protein that caused Adam and Eve to produce Telemerase. Either way the end result was the same.
2. The salient point is that we have a known mechanism that affects the aging of cells starting with new borns.
This is simply “observation in nature” given in response to your question about an observed mechanism in humans for the 900 year life span the Bible mentions.
It is hard to “do the study” without having them under observation.
1. But it is not hard to see the gradual decline in ages over time.
2. It is not hard to see the Bible declare that access to the Tree of Life was the determining factor.
3. It is not hard to see that even in humans today – the ability remains for us to produce telemerase – but we quickly lose that ability.
4. It is not hard to see what effect that has on the telomeres of infants.
The list of knowns for this mechanism are far more impressive than the “I imagine a mechanism whereby static genomes acquire new coding genes not already present and functioning in nature and that this happens for billions of years”.
Ken: Hi BobWe are making good progress!Thanks for your admitting thaf we do not have Adam and Eve or their progeny under observation to do the study.
Let’s look at the empirical results of your observation. There is no physical evidence that the progeny or descendants lived to 900 years, right? Thus there is no physical evidence that the tree of life provided longevity through the increased production or activation of telermerase right?
There is evidence that a mechanism does exist whereby access to an enzyme would in fact affect the aging process of human cells.
That mechanism is observed in nature to be related to the enzyme Telemerase.
There is a ton of evidence that food contains enzymes and proteins and that the human body can produce enzymes in response to the presence of trigger proteins and enzymes.
It is irrefutably true that humans still today produce telemerase in the case of infants just before birth. Impossible to deny it – though you seem to want to go down that dead end road.
You asked about the “mechanism” that can be observed today that would account for long ages of life recorded in the Bible.
You now seem to be pulling the classic “bait and switch” asking for the video of the people living for long ages before the flood.
Nice try —
As I said before – your method is along the lines of grasping at straws in a true “any ol’ exuse will do” fashion.
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
Rev 21 does not say the planet has no light – it says the City has no NEED of light from the Sun.
The inconvenient deatils point to the fact that the New Earth will have a Sun and Moon but the New Jerusalem will have eternal day due to the light of God’s presence.
This is not the hard part.