@Carl: Bob, The most fundamental spiritual value that I have learned …

Comment on Deal with LSU by BobRyan.

@Carl:

Bob,

The most fundamental spiritual value that I have learned in the Adventist church is to seek the truth no matter what.

Carl – my hope and prayer is that your statement above is the “common ground” that all can agree upon.

In fact it is that principle that is key to bringing many souls to the Adventist church in the first place.

That is why I think it is important to stand for unpopular acceptance of the Word of God – in spite of the popular views in favor of the atheist scenario for origins that Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and Meyers promote.

God is both Creator and Savior. As Creator – HE is the one who “in SIX days made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that are in them”.

Surely you have to admit that His view of origins is not popular at all.

Given that God is the makER — SCIENCE by definition (at least REAL science) is limited to studying that which God has made (Unless of course the atheists are right – and God did not actually make anything — so then in that case science is simply studying “what happens all on its own”).

“As it turns out” – no scientist has ever shown that “life suddenly appears all on its own” and no scientist has ever shown “birds coming from reptiles” though many atheist evolutionists certainly “imagine that birds came from reptiles”.

As it turns out – the genomes of eukaryote systems such as reptiles and birds – do not have the plasticity for the genome morphing stories being told by evolutionsts who engage in fictions about “birds coming from reptiles”.

You are part of a tragedy when you think you can do that by driving out everyone who thinks otherwise than you do.

In your view – was “Moses part of the tragedy” in dealing with Achan?

In your view – was “Peter part of the tragedy” in dealing with Annanias and Saphira.

In your view – was “Paul part of the tragedy” when he makes his 1Tim 5:20 statement about open rebuke for those in rebellion against God?

In other words — where do you “draw the line” in that tragedy concept you identify?

(we keep getting “dead silence” on this point from evolutionists)

Adventism has always been non-creedal. The preamble to our statement of fundamental beliefs opens the option for revisions. When you look into the process by which our fundamental beliefs have been established, you will find reasons why they should never be taken as finished.

As it turns out – I have read in great detail George Knight’s “history” of our fundamental beliefs. But even more interesting – I have also looked in detail at the part that Fritz Guy claims to have played in that process.

Still a few points are readily apparent.

#1. The SDA church had to form some kind of denominational statement – that identied the teachings of this denomination – just to keep every fruit nut and flake that wanted to travel about causing trouble – from claiming to also be “an Adventist evangelist”.

The term “Adventist” had to actually “mean something” or we never would have made it past first base.

Thus the notion of immovable “pillars of the faith” began to emerge. A concept that did negate the idea of having “more pillars” established over time.

#2. When you speak of the Graybill preamble (or what some have called the “camel’s nose under the tent”) – you seem to suppose that it is designed to say “any of our beliefs may be negated pending some future vote”. But that is not exactly what it says. And besides that – the pro-evolutionist minority in the church is far from having the critical mass needed to make a change via “a vote”.

#3. When you read 3SG 90-91 do you see the text there as drawing a “line in the sand”? — do you share that text with students when they begin to question Creation or when they begin to question evolutionism?

We have a choice between being more open to a variety of views or becoming another version of the Flat Earth Society.

Yes the “flat earth” is a favorite canard of atheists when they debate Christians. That is particularly the case when they are atheist evolutionists debating Creationists. However to date – no Christians are arguing for a flat earth.

What Christians are arguing for is – GOOD science rather than what Colin Patterson called “NOT SCIENCE”. Patterson was one of the department heads at the British Museum of Natural history for much of the 20th century and even as an atheist evolutionist he observed that evolutionists telling “stories about how one thing came from another” based on the fossil record – were engaged in “stories easy enough to make up – but they are NOT SCIENCE”.

How odd then – that some of our own fellow SDAs should be taking up the “NOT SCIENCE” banner and promoting it in our own schools.

Don’t you think?

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan Also Commented

Deal with LSU

@JohnB:

I am puzzled by something: I hear several people mention tithe being used to support schools:
“4. Less focus on the goal of making LSU “the best public university education that SDA tuition, tithe and offering dollars can buy” ”

Tithe dollars pay for salaries in university religion department and the student deans.

Tithe distribution
a. Elementary Schools-Allocations of up to 30 percent of the total salaries and expenses of elementary principals and teachers in recognition of their role as spiritual leaders.

b. Academies-The equivalent of the total support of academy Bible teachers, residence hall deans and principals.

c. Colleges/Universities -An amount equal to the total cost of college and university Bible departments, residence hall deans, the presidents and deans of students.

And since our friend Fritz Guy was leading the charge for evolutionism and Gay rights in the religion department — the point is that tithe dollars are in fact being “bent” to promote “a public University” goal instead of an Adventist one.

in Christ,

Bob


Deal with LSU

@Shane Hilde:

4. Extreme cases of derision have occurred toward students who believe in creation on campus. For example, at the conclusion of a Breakout session at LSU (Feb. 2009) a group of about four students (creationists) asked the professor, who had just finished a talk negating a recent, six-day creation, on what basis then do we observe the Sabbath. This angered another biology professor in the front row. Things escalated into yelling. Yes, the professor was yelling at these students. He soon lost control and said, “Your kind of thinking drives planes into buildings!”

Other words such as stupid and ignorant were directed toward them. Chris Olmo, one of the four, said, “I felt betrayed because I couldn’t even ask a question. If I ask a question they call me ignorant. We do believe in science we just don’t believe in evolution. How are you supposed to learn in that kind of environment.” This was an extreme, but there have been other incidents which could be labelled minor in comparison. Seventh-day Adventist students should feel free to express their beliefs without this kind of treatment.

If the student had BEEN in a public university instead of in a “disguised” public university “setting” they would have KNOWN what to expect.

By providing that public university “experience” detailed in the quote above – only doing it behind SDA institution “doors”, we are sure to SHOCK unsuspecting students as in the above example.

Some may think that is a “good thing” — I do not!

Pampering the 3SG 90-91 “disguised infidels” in positions of leadership and authority might “seem like a good idea” to a few diehard evolutionist evangelists, but it is not the good thing they seem to imagine.

Evolutionism provides a less-than-helpful multi-pronged attack on SDA beliefs that few other errors can equal.
http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/take-our-survey/comment-page-3/#comment-9194

in Christ,

Bob


Deal with LSU
@Krisztina:

@Sean Pitman, M.D.: Sean you are an MD you know very well that even the most basic college level sciences can not find sufficient support to establish a Biology curriculum to produce world class doctors.

A nice “spin” but the fact is that NO “world class doctor” relies on anything related to “birds come from reptiles” to do surgery or to diagnose diseases.

Polluting science with atheist evolutionist fictions about origins is “not a way to improve science” nor is it the path to more “world class doctors”.

The argument here has never been against biology, support for biology, or biology in connection with the medical profession.

(Though we can all see how evolutionists might prefer that spin).

Sean said
“But, you complain that it isn’t right to single out LSU. I agree. Any paid representative who is taking money from the SDA Church while going about actively undermining a stated fundamental position of the Church should not be kept in the employ of the Church…”

Krisztina said:
Sean it seems like everything is so black and white to you. Why do you insist on it being so simple, you of all the people posting here I would think would have the background to know just how complicated these issues are. What do you think will happen if these professors are eradicated from LSU?

Hmm I can think of a few things that would “happen”.

1. Less “storytelling” about “birds coming from reptiles” instead of simply studying biology and what we “Really see” in the lab.

2. Less bashing students who accept the Bible doctrine on origins.

3. Less “modeling disguised infidelity” inside an SDA church. Less examples of apostasy being “modeled” from the front of the class room.

4. Less focus on the goal of making LSU “the best public university education that SDA tuition, tithe and offering dollars can buy

5. Less cases where parents AND students who complain (about “birds came from reptile” story telling being shoved down students throats) being brushed aside and complaints ignored.

What message does your shape up or ship out give to young SDA’s?

It provides a message about “limits” about “boundaries” about “a hedge of protection” about “there being a DIFFERENCE between PUBLIC university values and SDA institutional values” about “SDA fundamental beliefs NOT being in gross error” about the need for integrity when it comes to the bible doctrine on origins vs the overtly atheist evolutionist doctrine on origins being evangelized today in public universities.

How would you like it if it was your job on the line and some people were oversimplifying a situation you were involved with. “The patient died, didn’t he, so there that proves he is a bad doctor.

If that doctor were injecting the patient with “birds came from reptiles” koolaid instead of giving them an actual antibiotic.

As it turns out – there were “one or two doctors” practicing in Nazi germany – exploring the idea of evolutionism on human test subjects.

In fact there is even that idea going on with some of the Chimera work being done merging humans and animals at various levels.

So “yes” evolutionism even corrupts the medical profession if left unchecked.

It’s always easier and simpler when it’s someone else’s job, reputation, beliefs we are attaching. If you were these professors and people were talking about you the way you are talking about them, how would you like for them to treat you. You must at least have dinner with these professor

Dinner is not the solution for what we know to be the “worst form of infidelity” in 3SG 90-91.

How many professors do you know that would change their “belief” in evolutionism “over dinner”??

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

If it is your claim that these professors have not yet admitted to teaching evolutionism “as the right answer” for origins – then may I suggest a few links and a bit more time with the source documents highlighted at this website?

Sean please, at least consider it. I know you guys are all fired up about this and you have been thinking about it a lot. Eternity is at stake. You have a reputation to uphold. I know, I get it. But please consider they way you would like to be treated if you were in the wrong.

The “birds came from reptiles” storytelling has been going on inside LSU and other Adventist institutions for more than 10 years. The problem here is NOT that pro-evolutionist evangelists have not had “enough time to reconsider” their efforts to destroy faith in the Bible and destroy the Adventist denomination in general.

If someone is soooo far down a wrong course that all the efforts so far over more than 10 years have not motivated them to even stop for pause for reflection – then we are at a decision point – yes even a crisis point where decisive action is the ONLY answer.

Paul addressed just such a situation in 1Cor 5 that ended up with a good resolution in 2Cor 2 because of the swift, clear and decisive action taken in 1Cor 5.

Please be more cautious, tread lightly so that if you ever get into a fix and have to eat your words they are not so bitter.

If we can put a stop to SDA students being yelled at by SDA professors just because the students choose to embrace critical thinking and to accept the trustworthy nature of the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
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.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

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”.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
Gentlemen,

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.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
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.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
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