Comment on Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull by Holly Pham.
Faith: Who says?The SOP plainly says–as has oft been quoted on this site in many places.This is just an example of how God sent EGW messages to clarify and fortify Bible truth.These were 24 hour days–evening and morning.In the face of the SOP statements, you would have to willfully and actively refuse to believe–which I have noticed happening in several cases on this site.
The idea that the Genesis “days” were not really the same days as we see has been rehashed several times on this website. One person said, there was no “sun” so no “day.”
Now we have the idea that the first six days were 24 hours, but the seventh was not. Are there any more rationales to try to explain away the Truth?
Holly Pham Also Commented
Eddie: What is the evidence for this statement? It is a very strong allegation–and slanderous if it happens to be untrue.
Well, why was Greer fired? Does anyone know? What was the underlying reason?
“Such a find, say of a 2 x 2 x 2 meter highly symmetrical polished granite cube on the surface of Mars, would hit the front pages of every news paper in the world as clear evidence of intelligent design at work.”
Actually, life on Mars has already made the front page news.Remember the intelligently made canals, and the carved face on Mars?Both of those were confused with signs of intelligent life and turned out to be only amorphous rocks.
If the difference is so clear, then why the confusion.You have not yet defined the specific characteristics that distinguish intelligent design from natural. You are basically saying it is an “aunt Minnie”, i.e.”I know it when I see it”. And I agree, that most of the time, it probably is obvious, but some times it isn’t, so we need a definition.
One of the major reasons these scientist discover these possible signs of life or intelligent design is that they WANT to think that Mars, Venus, Saturn, Jupiter, etc. have or had some type of life, either in the past or presently.
Look at all the work going into the search for “ice” “water vapor” “canals” etc. on Mars or anywhere else. The scientist already WANT to “see” something, even though it may not be there. The search for some type of “life” on other planets, worlds and galaxies goes on and on.
SETI was a typical example of this type of constant,chronic, endless searching. However, try as they might, they were honest enough (so far) to say, “Nope, nothing out there. YET!”
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen, President Gallimore is indeed being attacked viciously for his Bible-based stand on Truth, as have many others who have and are doing the same.
Recent Comments by Holly Pham
Why do accrediting bodies have the right to force religious universities to teach what they demand they teach? Is it not a violation of religious freedom to demand that evolution exist as the only exclusive worldview? Why have we given scientists the role of Papel See?
La Sierra is under no demand to teach “evolution as fact” as many other colleges and universities, SDA and non-SDA teach “about evolution” but do not teach it as factual. La Sierra WANTS to teach evolution as fact, and will do anything it can to keep on keeping on teaching it!
David Read: @Sean Pitman: There is certainly documentation somewhere of what the remainder of the bond funds was spent on. I imagine that the University was required by the bond trustee to document the capital projects the money was used on (because the funds could not be used for salaries or ordinary current operation expenses). So this is probably a public document that can be obtained through the freedom of information act.Also, I imagine that this information has been made available to the Board of Trustees and/or constituents, so if you have any contacts in those bodies, ask for the information.Keep digging, because you or Shane will find this information somewhere.
Dave, I agree with you completely. We need to have this investigated by somebody or some SDA group, preferably the GC. But, I do not think anyone there will step up to do it. So, we do need Shane, Sean, or someone.
Charles, I agree with you. But, this type of reasoning is very common among liberals. This past Sabbath on LLBN, John Jones and Ivan Blazen tried to convince Carolyn Thompson that sin is “relative” meaning that something may be a sin to one person, but not to another.
She questioned them, and offered examples, and they stuck to this idea.
That is why I remain open to scientific investigation of the concept of Intelligent Design. In fact, as many of you know, I have advocated for and agreed to support a Chair in Intelligent Design at any Adventist university. Strangely, not a single person has taken me up on the idea. Why?
Your agnostic friend
Ken, No “Chair of Intellegent Design” needs to be started, since our whole philosophy is of Intellegent Creationism. Nobody has taken you up on it because it is not needed. We need to have our SDA institutions supporting all of our beliefs, not just one “Chair”.
By faith you believe in creation and by faith you believe in evolution!!What do you want to place your faith in God or Man?
You are completely correct. Who are we to believe? God? Man’s “wisdom?” Liberals and progressives believe in human wisdom over what God has said.
We see that at La Sierra, very prominently, and they are PROUD of it!