Comment on Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull by BobRyan.
Ervin Taylor: It would seem that Dr. Pitman would like us to focus on a few percent of the scientific data and ignore the other 98-99%. I trust that he does not do that in his pathology practice.
Sadly for our evolutionist friends — there is “NO” 99% science in favor of single celled animals turning into horses “given enough time”.
Sadly for our evolutionist friends – there is NO 99% “science” in favor of prokaryote bacteria turning into eukaryotes “given enough time”.
Sadly for our evolutionist friends – we observe the “creationist mechanism” of a “designer that can design things” every day – while the “everything comes from nothing” model of atheists does not seem to have ever been demonstrated outside of pure storytelling.
BobRyan Also Commented
Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
This article well titled “revisiting God” – this edit, revisionism, downsizing is exactly the point of Guy and Bull’s agenda.
Like the classic tired worn-out methods of the atheist antagonist they strive to wrench and construe any handy detail in the Bible account so that it becomes unreliable and demonstrably false. Thus they build a platform of supposed Bible “falsehoods” as a basis for undermining trust in the details of the text.
How odd then that we find both OT and NT writers appealing to the “very details” that Guy and Bull (along with our atheist antagonist friends) would argue are the “most to be distrusted”.
For example in the Ex 20:8-11 summary of the Genesis account – the details of the 7 day timeline and the details of all life on earth created in that time line are placed central to the legal code itself. The imperative given there is based on the reliability of the details it sites for proof and motivation.
Paul says that it was Adam that was made first.
Christ said that it is God that performs the first marriage of one man and one woman.
Paul says that it is by one man that sin entered (not a band of rogue predator hominids killing for food in the wild and wiping out competitors).
Peter says the entire world was destroyed by Water at the flood.
Even Guy’s effort to foist the flat earth teaching into the thinking of Moses is not working as he had hoped.
At every turn it is Guy+Bull against the Word of God.
Which side is winning at LSU?
One thing is consistent – no SDA biology sciences department has left the fold without first having the religion department lead and clear the way for them.
We need more accountability in our religion departments.
Ron: I guess, unlike most people, I afirm the choice Eve made. I prefer knowledge and wisdom over ignorance and innocence. I
believe God was right to warn Eve about the dangers of independence, kind of like a parent warning a teenager about the risk in driving a car, but I believe the consequences of the choice still fell within the bounds of a loving God’s plan, and at the end, when it is all said and done, it will have been worth it.
That speaks volumes my friend.
Free will by definition has to be able to incur risk – or you simply are stalled at “glorified robot level”.
Are you upset that they were given the free will to make a choice that had risk – or are you thinking that the command “eat from these trees – and not from that tree” was too complex at that early stage?
Are you thinking that they did not have the skills – not to eat from the wrong tree?
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.