Comment on La Sierra University won’t neglect creation teaching, president, chairman vow by BobRyan.
Richard Myers: Everyone who is reporting seem content with this new requirement and acceptance by the school. Why is everyone content when it is obvious that at least one of the instructors and others do not believe the Biblical account and will continue to present evolution as truth. At least I have not seen anything in the â€œletterâ€ or reports that would indicate a change in this abominable teaching. It is not good enough to just present creation and leave the lie being taught to our young people. If one wants to see the result of such a teaching, look at some of the leaders, professors, and the past president of La Sierra. The age of the earth and other contradictions to the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy are absolutely believed by many involved with this school. Take a close look at the student survey and there we also see the results of such teaching. Many La Sierra students are quite happy with the existing teaching that was in opposition to creation.
This is a good point.
Right in the tiny spot or two where the LSU board is willing to admit to some problem – the “sacrifice all for LSU” constituents were in prior days swearing allegiance to the wonderful work being done in those very areas claiming that evolutoin is the best and brightest idea to come along and “inform us” about the real truth regarding the origin of all complex genomes seen on earth today.
BobRyan Also Commented
La Sierra University won’t neglect creation teaching, president, chairman vow
Eddie – I agree that nature after the fall has a very ugly side to it as Paul points out in Romans 8. Nature itself is subjected to corruption, death and decay.
The law of tooth and claw reveals a kind of carnage destruction of life that is most shocking to the observer.
But at the same time – it should be noted that atheists prior to Darwin’s successful efforts to popularize evolutionism, sufferred the slings and arrows and abuse by people who believe in God precisely because there was no other way to explain “Life” if all you have to start with is “rocks”.
It was clear to everyone – even atheists that nobody was demonstrating how to produce an intelligent mind “from rocks” nor even a single flower.
Romans 1:19-20 does not say that the atheist – the pagan, the “barbarian” as Paul identifies them in Romans 1 – will “see the 7th day Sabbath” in nature or that they will see the rule “love everybody”.
It says that they will see God’s “eternal power and Godhead” in the “Things that have been made”.
But this first invovles admitting to “design” to “intelligent design” and the “making” of the “things that have been made”.
This is very basic observation that God says even atheists and pagans are “without excuse” when they try to ignore the glaring evidence before their eyes.
Professor Kent: Satan appealed to Eveâ€™s rational thought, which was influenced by her emotion. And she chose to trust her own reason and emotion rather than Godâ€™s simple word. You are condoning her decision-making process.
You are arguing Gen 3:1-4 against Romans 1:18-23.
You argue that we must pursue blind-faith to the extent of ignoring the point of Romans 1 — if we are to avoid the error of Eve in Genesis 3.
Your either-or logical fallacy is not as compelling as you may have at first imagined.
Eddie: Sean, you have essentially written enough about this to publish a book, which you ought to do, exhorting SDAs to abandon Sola Scriptura
The either-or fallacy suggested above is contrary to Paul’s teaching in Romans 1 where we are told that observations in nature even among atheists and pagans — is sufficient to argue the case for God.
Romans 10 anyone?
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