@Professor Kent: God is Creator of all things. What can …

Comment on Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’? by BobRyan.

@Professor Kent:

God is Creator of all things.

What can I say? I’ll let the reader decide whether you are undermining a fundamental SDA doctrine, and whether you yourself would be a liar and a thief if employed by the SDA church.

What’s with our MDs calling for the firing of others for undermining FB #6 when they themselves do the very same thing?

Hmmm – I guess this is the part where Kent “discovers” that Adventists are not Calvinists which is why none of us takes Belief #6 to mean that God made Satan — when in fact God made Lucifer AND “free will”.

The principle of free will provides a level of indirection that disconnects God from the actions of the creature – UNLIKE the “simple scientist and his robot” model that the Calvinist likes to imagine.

This particular conversation between Cavlinists and Arminians is as old as the hills. What is facinating is the idea that those trying to make room for evolutionism (even in the extremely self-conflicted case of those who claim they are creationist while doing so) – should feel the “need” to “reach” for this Calvinist argument in their extreme out-on-a-limb denials of the obvious.

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’?

No kidding, Bob. What are you really saying? Hint: You trying to convince us of something the authors themselves concluded. Dr. Hazen sent me his article a long time ago. I read it. I get it. Now how do you get “fairly specified amino acids” and “sequence space” and “impossible” and, magically, “trillions upon trillions of years” from your firehose dissection of the equation? That I don’t get.

Read Emile Borel much?

The basic math that you claimed was so difficult was not the mountain you painted. The number of base-pairs required to code for even the most common proteins provides a very high “n” value in that C^n componant. Taking entire codon or complete gene sequences merely compounds both n and C as compared to an arbitrary “number of base pairs” scenario. And this has to be done for the entire genome of the first eukaryotye and for every saltation of next-higher genomes one might want to imagine.

You completely ignore the obvious factors driving up the C^n value – as if “somehow” you imagined the size of the problem to be at some reasonable level and your private assumptions are then supposed to be taken by the reader as “a given”.

At this point Emile Borel’s observation about what is “statistically impossible” becomes instructive.

My only point was – that I am merely stating the obvious.

And your point seems to be repeatedly that you do not understand it.

I guess if that is where the gap is — then it is what it is. Railing against my pointing this out – does not change the facts of the subject.

in Christ,


Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’?

Kent said:

I don’t believe there is a single reader here, myself included, well enough informed about the basis of his calculations, much less the calculations themselves, to judge their veracity. On what basis would YOU accept his claims if you are unable to evaluate the evidence for yourself?

Sean has told all of us repeatedly that BLIND FAITH is equivalent to belief in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If ANYONE believes Sean’s claims, they have accepted them solely, and I mean SOLELY, on BLIND FAITH. Are all of you so gullible?

I beg to differ on a few grounds.

1. The follwoing point in Sean’s argument is incredibly easy to grasp.

The wild CLAIM:
As a controlled manipulation in nature, this study provides unequivocal support for frequency-dependent survival—an evolutionary process capable of maintaining extreme polymorphism.

Sean adds “The inconvenient DETAIL”:
Tell me where in this article the authors point to anything qualitatively new evolving within the gene pool of options? The only thing changing here are relative frequencies of phenotypic expression of the underlying unchanging pool of options; the actual gene pool of functional options does not change or evolve here.

hmm “the actual gene pool of functional options does not change or evolve here.” would be a problem for the evolutionst that is “apparent to all”.

2. As for I(Ex)= – log2 [M(Ex) / C^n]
(C = number of possible characters per position)
(n = number of positions (characters))

It is very easy to see that C^n increases as n increases. hint: It is also easy to see that it is a denominator. It is also apparent that the -log 2 function is a larger negative for smaller values of C^n and/or larger values of M(EX).

3. Obviously – any given F(EX) subsegment of the whole logically becomes a smaller part of the whole as the domain increases.

That is the easy part.

Kent said
Exactly what the authors stated: “In every system, the fraction of configurations, F(Ex), capable of achieving a specified degree of function will generally decrease with increasing I(Ex).” I don’t put any weight in your extrapolation. Why don’t you correspond with Hazen and see if he agrees

Again – not sure why you think that part is the challenge since it is apparent on the surface that with a large result set any given fraction of it is clearly a small fraction of the total as the total increases. If someone hands 10 people a dollar they each of 10% of the total. If they had a billion people a dollar – each person is still getting a dollar – but it is a much smaller fraction of the total. Not sure why you choose to debate that part of the argument.

In my view the challenge for that argument comes in here –

In the example provided is one for firemen and “a message” to the fire department we know that there is a “solution” for a sequence EX and number of letters n with 26 variations each (C) such that the message is clearly understood by the firemen. So the salient point is that when F(EX) is sufficient small – it becomes highly unlikely that the firemen are getting detailed instructions on a 3 alarm fire “by random events” happening over the communication device.

Given the F(EX) problem – it is much more likely that random noise (a givevn F(EX)) coming over the computer screen or squawk box will not be taken by the firemen as “information”.

By contrast – take a paper block of 6 sides with one of the sides saying “FIRE at 2315 Tunnel Blvd” and let the wind blow it into the fire department open bay — what are the “odds” that the information side might appear on top? With few variables and guaranteed success for a significant fraction of the total set of outcomes – information is much more likely as a random event.

of course in that case – the odds that there really is a fire and that the paper block information actually results in usuable function is still at the impossible level. (I suppose we could help that outcome as well such that there are only two addresses in town with 2315 being one of them — and at least one of the addresses is always experiencing a tragic fire)

Oh the lengths one must go to – so that evolution appears “likely”.

in Christ,


Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’?
Alchemists asked for evidence that lead does not turn into gold, and that the mythology of spontaneous generation was in fact false.

One might want to “show them” that it does not happen when you test it in the lab – but they could always respond “yes but if you tried that experiement for a billion years maybe then one of those tests would prove we are right” and then with great confidence assert – as our evolutionist friends today assert regarding “birds come from reptiles” story telling – that they have “seen no science” that they would take as evidence that their hoefull story telling is not “true” in some as yet to be discovered “future” experiement.

Thus they approach their support for evolutionist dreams from the by faith alone standpoint of “religion”.

And who are we to try to “change their religion”.

in Christ,


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

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!


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