Like or Dislike: 1  0

I am not against studying ABOUT evolution in our schools. Our young people are bound to be met with it someday, somewhere–but that study MUST be done in the light of “thus saith the Lord” which ALWAYS should be center-front regardless of what we are studying. When we once start “reasoning” outside of the Bible we are on very dangerous ground. Mankind, led by the arch-deceiver, can always find a reason to doubt, to question, to turn his back on a “thus saith the Lord.” It happened to Eve in the Garden and it has been happening to Eve’s descendants ever since. But it always ends in destruction in one form or another. Always! If any theory does not agree with Scripture it is always wrong and the work of the arch deceiver. Always!!!

Please, let’s stop our bickering and unite on the one sure foundation of “thus saith the Lord.” It is the only “sure thing” in this world and to venture off of that foundation will only end in suffering the second and final death. It is simply to big a risk to take.

I firmly believe that we are living in the very “toenails” of the image of Daniel 2 and that King Jesus will soon burst through the starry skies to gather His faithful people and take them Home. This is not the time to be led astray by the many winds of false doctrine that are going to grow more and more powerful as time goes on. We must return to being the “people of the Book,” as Adventists were once called, if we want to be among the faithful ones who, with rapture, will exclaim “This is our God–we have waited for Him and He will save us. This is the Lord–we will be glad and rejoice in His salvation!”

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Like or Dislike: 0  1

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/bfrog2.htm

So you see It’s easy to turn Bob’s statement the other direction: “The fraud and junk-science used to prop-up CREATIONISM decade after decade is well documented as it turns out.”

Like or Dislike: 5  3

Should we conclude that Biblical archeology and the “truth” it supports is nothing but fraud because of people like Ron Wyatt, who we all recognize as a fraud? Creationism has every bit as much if not more storytelling as evolutionism. We all know about the active imaginations and untruths perpetuated by Kent Hovind, Carl Baugh, Tom Willis, Duane Gish, Walter Veith, and others. All easily Googled (for example “creationist frauds”).. Creationists have gone so far as to carve “man tracks” alongside dinosaur tracks to “prove” that humans existed alongside dionsaurs!

Of course claims of fraud serve propaganda purposes vrey well.. Give it up Bob! Show some intellectual honesty.

Like or Dislike: 5  1

Ron Stone M.D. says:
April 14, 2010
Did these morons also start believing in worshiping on Sunday because of the “overwhelming evidence” the “world” showed them?

“Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.” Colossians 4:5-6

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:” 1 Peter 3:15

“And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.” 2 Timothy 2:24-26

One of the pioneers of the Advent movement, William Miller was a sunday-keeper thus, “moron” does not justifiably represent a patriarch of our faith or the many intelligent and true Christians who mistakenly believe like that father in Israel contrary to Scripture.
God bless,

Rich

Like or Dislike: 2  1

@Lorelei:

@Bob:

You are right – I made a typo – I meant to type “LSU” rather than “LLU.” I apologize for the confusion.

Wikipedia defines creationism this way: “Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural agency.” Therefore, if I believe that God used evolution as a means to create life, I am by this definition a creationist. However, if you define a creationist as one who believes in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account, then you’re right – I’m not a creationist. It all depends on your definition of the word.

Very often we have debates between creationists and evolutionists. Richard Dawkins is familiar with the concept and so also AIG, and ICR and various other Bible-believing creationist organizations.

For the sake of clarity – we need to address the issue that we actually see debated using the same meaning for terms that everyone else is actually using.

Turns out – Moses was not a darwinist – not an evolutionist.

Similarly, in interpreting the Bible, it comes down to your hermeneutic. If you try to interpret everything in the Bible literally, you will run into trouble very quickly.

Turns out Adventists solved that problem many decades ago – we are historicist – we take the bible as it reads and we accept cases where obvious symbols are used such as the great dragon of Rev 12 – but we do not “insert symbols” into the text just because evolutionism “needs it”.

Also we apply something called “exegesis” to determine the cases.

Perhaps you have heard of it.

In my opinion, the key to interpretation is to seek to understand the intent of the author. I believe that the intent of the creation story is to convey that we were purposed and designed by one all-powerful God, who saw what He had made and declared it good.

That is called the “least principle” where you try to draw out the lowest most general principle and ignore all the details that do not fit your bias.

We can do the same thing with the life of Christ – reducing it all down to “God is trying to tell us that He loved us – so don’t worry about the virgin birth, or sinless life, or vicarious substiutionary death, or resurrection – the only principle you need is – God loves you. All other details are fiction”.

But such methods are nothing at all close to actual exegesis in studying the text and letting the Bible speak “instead” of bias.

Whether He created the world in 6 days or over billions of years doesn’t change the beauty of that message

Sure it does. As every atheist knows – having a story that simply “plays itself” over 6 billion years is very different from “God spoke and suddenly it was”.

It is like saying “whether I actually dug that ditch with my bare hands – or the creek eroded it over thousands of years – does not matter – it all still says that I am very industrious”.

Actually – it matters a great deal. It “matters” whether it was 6 billion years or 6 days. It matters whether it was an actual virgin birth for Christ or not. It matters whether He lived a sinless life or not. It matters whether He died for our sins – in our place or not. It matters whether or not He was resurrected.

The idea that it does not matter whether the Bible is true – is an argument “necessary” if one is going to insert bias into the text and try to bend it to th usages of evolutionism. We call that “eisegesis”. But if you don’t start out with that “need” then the bending and wrenching of the text is not necessary.

– that He exists, that He created us, that He delights in us. But if you insist on a literal interpretation, Genesis 2:4 states “These are the generations

Because each day God “generated” or “created” some new aspect of this living planet.

Literal days are seen in “evening and morning were the first day” – a formula that is never used in all of scripture for anything but a day.

Literal days are also seen in Ex 20:8-11 that links directly to Gen 1-2:3 “SIX days you shall labor…for in SIX DAYS the Lord made”.

Impossible to get out of that iron clad linkage as it turns out.

Thus the existence of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

If you are willing to take 5 minutes to read something yourself, go to: http://www.theisticevolution.org/lit_genre.html and read the very interesting and enlightening article there.

I am curious – have you ever rigorously researched the evidence for evolution?

Turns out – I have. And I have concluded that Darwin was right – so also is Richard Dawkins when they state that there is no possibility of marrying the “birds came from reptiles” 5 billion year story of evolutionism to “SIX days you shall labor…for in SIX days the Lord made”.

It is clear as day.

No rocket science necessary to see that point. We all see it.

You casually refer to it as “blunder, junk science and myth” – but can you prove it to be so?

It is well documented. Even atheist evolutionists themselve lament the 50 year long fraud (actually more like 100 year long) that we call “Simpsons horse series” that was in fact Othaniel Marshes “contrived sequence” – a seuqence that atheist evolutionists themselves admit “never happened in nature”.

A sequence touted for decades by evolutionists as “the best evidence for evolution”.

Then of course there is Osborns tooth fairy.

And there is the 30 year fraud that Ernst Haekle passed off on the public. And more recently the 30 year Neanderthal fraud was just exposed.

The fraud and junk-science used to prop-up evolutionism decade after decade is well documented as it turns out.

Evolution is provable by science

As it turns out – nothing of the sort has been proven. In fact we have atheist evolutionists themselves lamenting the case about those who invent stories from the fossil record “about how one thing came from another…stories easy enough to make up but they are not science”. (Colin Patterson – British Museum of Natural Hist).

By completely discounting established scientific fact as rubbish, you betray that your head is entirely buried in sand.

On the contrary – by employing even a modest amount of critical thinking and noticing the fraud history and junk-science methods of evolutionists – instead of merely sweeping the data under the rug – we end up with much evidence in support of the conclusion that junk-science is the core methodology behind the dogma in the false religion we know as evolutionism.

It is ridiculous to assert that by teaching students evolution that they will thereby lose their faith in God

Again your method is a bit too transparent as you seek to sweep the existing documented evidence to the contrary under the rug. Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, P.Z Meyers et al – admit publically that evolutionism did the very thing TO THEM that you claim it does not do.

Furthermore – we have had testimony after testimony on this very web site about cases where it happened at LSU in the same way.

And now we have documented case studies of both Europe and the US showing that high acceptance of evolutionism by the population is directly linked to loss of religious beliefs.

– unless you force them to make a choice between believing in scientific fact and believing in God.

Not necessary. All we have to do is help them develop the critical thinking skills NOT to sweep the examples of documented fraud so central to evolutionism under the rug so that they can tell the difference between science and junk science.

Much easier than you might have at first imagined – as it turns out.

If the professors you and others have labeled (and in many cases, libeled) are indeed evolutionists and are also Christians (as all of them are), then it’s obvious that belief in evolution and faith in God are not wholly incompatible.

Wrong – again.

If we were to argue that BECAUSE someone holds a self conflicted position – the position must not in fact BE self-conflicted “no matter what the details to the contrary” we do so at the expense of logic and even a modest degree of critical thinking.

Surely you are not suggesting that we abandon all reason and leap off such a cliff.

I am completely baffled as to how the texts you cited establish that creationism vs. evolution is a salvation issue.

Did you read Ex 20:8-11 because if you had you might have noticed the handy way it ties into 1Cor 7:19 and James 2 and then Rev 12:17.

James says that we are to live and act as those who are judged by the Law of Liberty in that case.

The fourth commandment does not mention salvation,

Did you notice the “inconvenient detail” that the gospel of John begins with Christ’s role as “Creator”? John 1.

Did you notice the detail where worship to God – in Rev 14:6-7 is directly connected to the language of the 4th commandment? It is one of the few places in the NT where the 4th commandment is actually being quoted.

and neither does the passage in Spiritual Gifts.

Is it your argument that “the worst kind of infidelity” is a form of “salvation”??

If so – I would be facinated to hear how that idea works out. Some details if you happen to have them.

in Christ,

Bob

Like or Dislike: 2  3

Sean, the problem with your position is that you are mistaken when you write “A professor in an SDA university must be able to go beyond to show the students why the stated SDA position on origins is more scientifically consistent with the available facts than is the modern theory of evolution.” This may be your position and that of many individuals here who have a poor understanding- not to mention an extreme fear- of what evolution is and how it works, but as honest Christians like those at Geoscience Research Institute are willing to admit, the available facts pose very difficult probelms for the SDA position.

Forget the facts. It all comes down to faith no matter how you cut it.

Like or Dislike: 5  3

I fear that if our schools do not teach evolution at all, more and more young people will leave the church as they become disillusioned when faced with the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution.

No one is suggesting that our schools not teach about the theory of evolution. Our schools should teach the very best that the theory of evolution has to offer. However, if this is the very best that a professor in one of our universities has to offer, it isn’t enough. A professor in an SDA university must be able to go beyond to show the students why the stated SDA position on origins is more scientifically consistent with the available facts than is the modern theory of evolution.

You may think this an impossible task, but that’s where you’re mistaken. It isn’t impossible. It is very possible. There happens to be a great weight of evidence favoring intelligent design theory as well as the young-life position and a catastrophic formation of the geologic column and fossil records – consistent with the SDA interpretation of the Genesis account and the intent of the author(s) of Genesis.

For more information on such evidence see: DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com

Like or Dislike: 3  3

You are right – I made a typo – I meant to type “LSU” rather than “LLU.” I apologize for the confusion.

Wikipedia defines creationism this way: “Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural agency.” Therefore, if I believe that God used evolution as a means to create life, I am by this definition a creationist. However, if you define a creationist as one who believes in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account, then you’re right – I’m not a creationist. It all depends on your definition of the word.

Similarly, in interpreting the Bible, it comes down to your hermeneutic. If you try to interpret everything in the Bible literally, you will run into trouble very quickly. In my opinion, the key to interpretation is to seek to understand the intent of the author. I believe that the intent of the creation story is to convey that we were purposed and designed by one all-powerful God, who saw what He had made and declared it good. Whether He created the world in 6 days or over billions of years doesn’t change the beauty of that message – that He exists, that He created us, that He delights in us. But if you insist on a literal interpretation, Genesis 2:4 states “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,” – why did the author use the word “generations” if he was speaking of literal days?

If you are willing to take 5 minutes to read something yourself, go to: http://www.theisticevolution.org/lit_genre.html and read the very interesting and enlightening article there.

I am curious – have you ever rigorously researched the evidence for evolution? You casually refer to it as “blunder, junk science and myth” – but can you prove it to be so? Evolution is provable by science; creation is not. By completely discounting established scientific fact as rubbish, you betray that your head is entirely buried in sand.

It is ridiculous to assert that by teaching students evolution that they will thereby lose their faith in God – unless you force them to make a choice between believing in scientific fact and believing in God. If the professors you and others have labeled (and in many cases, libeled) are indeed evolutionists and are also Christians (as all of them are), then it’s obvious that belief in evolution and faith in God are not wholly incompatible.

I am completely baffled as to how the texts you cited establish that creationism vs. evolution is a salvation issue. The fourth commandment does not mention salvation, and neither does the passage in Spiritual Gifts. Can you provide any Biblical evidence that my salvation is somehow threatened by my belief in a God-designed and God-driven evolution? My interpretation of the Bible leads me to believe that I am saved by Christ – not by what I believe about how long it might have taken God to create the earth.

@Denver

The difference between you and I is that I am comfortable allowing you to believe what you wish to believe about creation/evolution without implying that you are by the very act of expressing your opinion somehow being inconsiderate to those who disagree with you. I am simply trying to suggest that we not “hold captive” our students by withholding information from them (even if it competes with the traditional stance of our church) – but that we instead give them the very best information available within a supportive Christian environment, and allow them the freedom to make up their own minds about what to believe. I believe that this is what LSU has done, and I appreciate that they respect the intellect and faith of their students enough to entrust them with this information. I fear that if our schools do not teach evolution at all, more and more young people will leave the church as they become disillusioned when faced with the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution.

@Ron

The tone of nearly every one of your comments is spiteful. The majority of the comments on this site are derisive and mean-spirited towards the professors and administrators of LSU. I don’t see any evidence of constructive criticism being offered in a spirit of humility and love – I see a bunch of pharisees plumped up with self-righteousness crying “Crucify him! Crucify him!” If that’s not hate, I don’t know what is.

Like or Dislike: 3  6