Prof, A “bald” assertion is usually a statement that has …

Comment on Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’? by Ron Stone M.D..

Prof, A “bald” assertion is usually a statement that has very little to no evidence or basis to back it up.

Bold usually means an emphatic or forceful assertion, which may or may not have sufficient evidence. So, a “bold” assertion may be “bald” also. But, not all “bold” assertions are “bald.”

Does this help?

Ron Stone M.D. Also Commented

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

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen accusations of “bald” and “bold” assertions in the same context, and this is why I’m both bemused and confused by the diction.

As I stated, a statement may be “bold” and “bald” at the same time. So it may not be an error.

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

Ron Stone wrote:
SDA Fundamental Belief #6 states explicity:
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?  

I said “result” of God, not that the Devil “created” anything out of nothing, Prof. Has the Devil actually “created” anything out of nothing, as the Bible states that God did? Nice try at a straw-man argument! [edit]

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

Jesus, for instance, specifically denied credit for certain features of the world currently in existence. So, clearly, even Jesus does not take credit for creating everything that currently exists…Sean Pitman

Great example, Sean, and one in which Darwin himself didn’t have a clue! The idea that “everything” on earth, even the bad stuff, is a result of “God” is an argument that many use to deny the existence of God and His creative power.

Recent Comments by Ron Stone M.D.

My Goal for La Sierra University

The reason the LaSierra situation has gone uncorrected so long is that most of our administrators have exactly the sort of political instincts that Dan Jackson has. They are politicians and consensus builders; they want to keep the peace and make the trains run on time. But the circumstances call for men of principle, hard men who are willing to stand for the right “though the heavens fall,” i.e., regardless who is offended and loudly complains.

Dave, I agree with you. Jackson’s trying to play on “both teams” is not going to go well for him.

Unfortunately, politics is the “SOP” of many of our SDA officials, Jackson being just one. “Political instincts” are the rule, instead of actually doing what is “right” according to what we know in God’s Word.

Bradley, Beach and Kaatz retain attorney

Shane Hilde: Think big fish: LSU or the Seventh-day Adventist Church.Graham might not have followed procedure with these men, but I don’t know what the procedure is. I’ve read what the process is in the faculty handbook, but I don’t know if that applies to administrative positions which are at will employees. If it does apply to them, then it appears the process was not followed.

Trustees book says, in 6,9,F, that the Trustes may “discontinue” virtually anyone working at the university.

Does that mean to “fire” or to “force their resignation? Seems like it does.

My Goal for La Sierra University

GMF: If what has been reported about Jackson is correct it is very troubling. Also, one can only wonder why he was selected as the NAD President.I’ve seen a thing or two which made me wonder about Jackson but this report, if true, has to be the worst. May the Good Lord help us!

Jackson was selected to replace Don Schneider, who was also very “passive” in his approach to this problem.

Besides telling Wisbey to “love Jesus” Jackson did virtually nothing.

My Goal for La Sierra University
Sean, Great summary and analysis of the current situation. Another good review of this matter is in the Jan-March 2011 Elders Journal. It also goes into the 2004 evaluation and recommendations, as you have quoted.

Bradley, Beach and Kaatz retain attorney
How about a “class action” suit against anyone and everyone who has heard the tape or has heard OF the tape?