Comment on Walla Walla University: The Collegian Debates Evolution vs. Creation by BobRyan.
For context –
Mack Ramsey: This church makes plenty of mistakes, and continues to do so. Eventually the outdated and absurd notion of YEC, and non-evolution theories will be seen as one of them even by hard core conservatives.
And so – came the obvious response –
3SG 90-91 calls Theistic evolutionism the worst form of infidelity.
In Romans 1 God Himself states that those who “pretend” that they do not see Intelligent Design in nature are “without excuse”.
The Gospel begins in John 1 with the right view of God as creator.
So also the entire Bible begins with that “context” in a literal 7 day week that God Himself summarizes in the non-poetic form of legal code – saying “SIX DAYS you shall labor…but the seventh DAY is the Sabbath..for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them and rested the seventh DAY”
Those who like to “pretend” that they did not actually see “DAY” as in “Six days you shall labor but the seventh DAY is the Sabbath” — actually meaning “real day” when they read that text – are living in their own world of imagination and fluff.
Followed by this non sequitur
Ron: I don’t need to bend the Bible. Evolution is already in the Bible
And this one –
Ron: Bob, This quote is meaningless until you answer the question about the nylonase
Answered a dozen times so far — it is like saying that the Bible cannot be true until you explain digestion – is it of God or is it A-Theist.
The answer is that the plasmid architecture is of God – but like “digestion” it does not get you to the point of bacteria (prokaryotes) turning into amoeba (eukaryotes) or to amoeba turning into horses (with the proper mantra of “billions and billions” said over them).
And finally — this one
Honest question: To Ron and Bob and Bill. Simply a hypothetical question. Could you be wrong? Is there any possibility that your beliefs are well-intended but misguided?
That last one was the icing on the cake – because it simply sweeps all the details aside (which of course evolutionism needs to do to survive) and asks “yes but is it not possible that you are wrong anyway”). Kind of a “no matter the evidence in favor — could you still be wrong”?
Question – what false religion, junk-science paradigm could not survive under such such “sweeping all details aside” thinking??
What does that line of reasoning accomplish except a last ditch by faith alone appeal on behalf of evolutionism?
questioning: Your use of the English translation is just as meaningless as the faith you have held
BobRyan Also Commented
Thanks Holly – it is kind of you to say so.
Amen to that!
ron: How much post creation evoltion is allowed?
By “evolution” do you simply mean “change”??
The answer is easy – how much do you actually see happening without having to imagine it??
Recent Comments by BobRyan
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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