Comment on An appeal to our leadership by BobRyan.
â€œHint â€“ the â€œeasy explanationâ€ is that the â€œAmerican continent moved westwardâ€. That detail alone can account for higher impact lines of stress in the west and lower smoother mountain ranges on the trailing side of the continent. Pile driving into the pacific plates is a sufficiently massive process to account for high moutain ranges in the west.
Not rocket science there â€“ and certainly nothing that rules out anything we find in scripture.â€ (Bob Ryan)
That was just a simple observation from the basic Force=mass*accel physics to note the force vector inline with the line of motion being applied along a stress line perpendicular to that line of motion. So just stating the obvious so far.
More convenient adhocery lacking any evidence other than imagination.
Ok maybe I should not have implied that this would be obvious “to everyone”.
But I continue to believe that the objective unbiased reader will find that inconvenient detail to be instructive on the point.
BobRyan Also Commented
(raises head above battlements for a fraction of a second to point out that a majority of the recent creationists who have posted on this site disagree with you on this point)
1. In Gen 1:1-1:2 there is the possibility of a gap since the story starts with water and the Holy Spirit after stating that God is the Creator of all. That water “could” be water on top of a geothermally active planet or it could simply be a hydrogen-oxygen cloud with no rocks at all in the mix.
(Hint: God can do his own nucleosynthesis thank you 😉 )
Either way – it does not solve the problem of old-life evolutionism being taught at LSU.
2. Where everyone is in agrement is on the events that happen inside the 6 “evening and mornings” and the fact that “evening and morning” is a day just like the Bible says. Thus the “very details” most objectionable to the story of evolutionism are the very details we all agree upon.
There is no form of evolutionism that can allow for all life on earth, the atmosphere, dry land and the Sun and Moon to all come into being in a literal 7 day week.
3. IF The only thing going on at LSU was a debate over “the water” of Genesis 1:2 – we would not even have this web site.
Iâ€™ve reached the conclusion that the Adventist faith has lost its mission of preaching the gospel and loving people into the church. it has become tragically focused on theology, doctrine, rules, and self-governance..
If we go back and look at “real history” we discover that neither Adventists nor Millerites “invented Christianity” and Adventism certainly did not “invent” the doctrine of the Sabbath or the idea that Christians believe in a literal creation week less than 10,000 years ago!
Neither of those groups “invented the Gospel”. The Christian Church already existed before both. The Millerite 1844 movement introduced (restored) the lost doctrine of a pre-millennial 2nd coming and it also introduced a Biblically correct method for evaluating the 2300 day timeline of Daniel 8.
Adventism later came into being and it restored a number of other doctrines regarding 1Cor 12 spiritual gifts – especially the gift of prophecy, the state of the dead, a better understanding of Revelation, the need to keep the 490 year timeline of Dan 9 in one piece instead of slicing and dicing it up and scattering the pieces all over history, AND the church even introduced a number of advanced concepts in the areas of health and education.
WE were not the first loving, Gospel oriented Christians to come along. We were not the first to discover that standing up for what the Bible says in opposition to humanism and man-made-tradition is “unpopular”. We were not the first to discover the truth of Christ’s words in Matt 10 “I came not to bring peace but a sword”. Matt 10:34.
Very often when someone comes along making a railing accusation against the Adventist church, they then “are offended” if inconvenient details are exposed showing that their accusation was without a factual foundation. And perhaps that is the only recourse left once the facts are on the table if one is determined not to embrace a full and balanced view that accounts for all of the details.
Bravus’ has given us the “that is just your interpretation of the Bible and Ellen White” solution, followed by the “well then Ellen White was wrong in 3SG 90-91” solution — and now recently has treated us to the “take my toys and go home” solution.
I don’t think that Bravus is the only evolutionist here to try that three step program.
And as I said before – holding to the position that the Bible is accurate and trustworthy, as compared to doctrines based on tradition and/or humanism, has never been the popular view.
How in the world did we ever get to the point where we are producing people who imagine themselves to be Adventists yet seemingly have no clue what Adventism is? If we donâ€™t get back to focusing on â€œtheology, doctrine, rules and self-governanceâ€, weâ€™re going to become completely incoherent as a movement. Sadly, as demonstrated by LaSierra and the need for this website, this is already happening to a significant and substantial extent.
I call it “the dumbing down of Adventism”. Our own members have assumed that they need not know their Bibles for themselves – they can pick and choose what they prefer to believe and no need to “do the math” no need to work out an exegetically sound Biblical position — just embrace “believism” of good sounding phrases and ideas. Cultural Adventism may be “fun” but it is not salvation.
In 2Thess 2 the wicked perish “because they do not have a LOVE of the Truth”. In John 14 Christ said “I am the way the TRUTH and the life”.
Many are claiming to know Christ and love Christ – while at the same time showing that they do not have much of an appetite for hungering and thirsting after more truth.
And sadly – as the congregations have become more and more dependent on their pastors to “teach them” – the pulpits are less and less inclined to cover doctrine. (In fact I notice that more and more pulpits are less and less ABLE to cover doctrine).
I guess what I am saying is that evolutionism took root and began to grow “inside the church” while the church slept!
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