Ad hominum attack means that no other better arguments were …

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

Ad hominum attack means that no other better arguments were available at the time of writing. I win.

Roger Seheult Also Commented

Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’?
There are too many of them. Where do I start.
Mary Schweitzer’s T-rex.

That’s just off the top….
wait another one –
Walter Veith….
wait more….

Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’?
Excellent reply Sean. Especially this part: “In fact, the majority of modern mainstream scientists today think that this old biblical notion has indeed been very clearly falsified. Clearly then, it is a testable and potentially falsifiable hypothesis. It is therefore a valid scientific statement. The only question now is, has it in fact been clearly falsified?”

That about sums it up and again nullifies the argument that the T.E.’s (theistic evolutionists) want to have: Religion versus Science. It can’t be framed that way. It’s view-point versus view-point. Both are falsifiable.

Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’?
“What’s the point of having an organization if it really has nothing unique to offer compared to society at large?”

Sean’s point is well taken. Lets not forget what Inspiration has told us is the very role of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in these last days:

Satan’s Wrath Against the Three Angels’ Messages.—The third angel is represented as flying in the midst of heaven, symbolizing the work of those who proclaim the first, second, and third angel’s messages; all are linked together. The evidences of the abiding, everliving truth of these grand messages that mean so much to us, that have awakened such intense opposition from the religious world, are not extinct. Satan is constantly seeking to cast his hellish shadow about these messages, so that the remnant people of God shall not clearly discern their import—their time and place—but they live, and are to exert their power upon our religious experience while time shall last…. {3SM 405.2}
Selected Messages Book 3, p. 405.3
The Revelator says, “I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen” (Revelation 18:1, 2). This is the same message that was given by the second angel—Babylon is fallen, “because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication” (chap 14:8). What is that wine? Her false doctrines. She has given to the world a false sabbath instead of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and has repeated the lie Satan first told to Eve in Eden—the natural immortality of the soul. Many kindred errors she has spread far and wide, “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” {3SM 405.3}

“teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (evolution) nullifies the special place of the seventh-day because it nullifies the act of Jesus that gave it holiness: creation.

I realize that using this argument is of no effect to those that disagree because I doubt the sway that devine inspiration would have on those that already question the fundamental beliefs of this church. For those of whom the writings Ellen White hold authority, I simply repost for our edification and blessing.

Recent Comments by Roger Seheult

Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Ervin Taylor:

I literally have not logged on to this website in years. It looks like the same arguments are going back and forth which means that if you haven’t been able to solve them by now, you aren’t going to convence each other of your points. What is really amazing to me and anyone intersted in the topic, however, is the tone of the comments, which usually reveal the maturity of the writer especially if they include absolutes:

“vast majority of scientifically-informed Adventists will thank Dr.Kent ”

“this misnamed web site”

“Dr. Kent has done a masterful job”

These are usually tip-offs to a lot. Also, it makes me wonder that if Sean Pitman is so ill-informed, and he operates on such a mis-leading web site, why does the good Dr. Taylor waste his time coming to this website, reading the material and then commenting on it? In fact I can bet that Dr. Taylor has spent more time on this web site then I have in the last year – and that speaks volumes about what Dr. Taylor really thinks of this website – perhaps the good Dr. Kent as well.

The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account
Again, the question is begged: Why would they work so hard to change the university rather than just leave and go where universities already believe the way you do? Dare I say that there lies a larger conspiracy that transcends LSU and that may be going on at your local SDA instituation? Again, why the push over a generation to change a whole university and to denude it of its fundamentals?

Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
Most of the blogs that are critical of this site aren’t interested in what this site is really out to do. They simply want to demonize it ergo Alinsky’s rule of indetify, demonize, and marginalize. Hence their cherry picking from the comments for their own purposes.

Thanks for the recap though.

LSU propaganda
Lydian Belknap:

This is only my opinion and none of anyone on this site.

You said: “The thing that concerns me a great deal at this point is the idea that there is no scientific information to support “Intelligent Design.” At least that is the statement I’ve heard numerous times on this site”

If you want to learn more I think you would really be interested in this man and his videos if you have not already. I get no money for referring him to you. He got me interested in this topic and energized me to do so.

Watch his life story and his videos noted below:

Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
It is Academic that is being tautological

Sean using the argument that ID papers are not allowed in by the peer review process because of the conclusions that they draw and Academic is trying to prove him wrong by citing evidence upheld by the very peer review process.

Academic said:
“And I don’t believe that there’s a single paper that refutes the possibility. ”

You are right, academic, there is not one but three I could find in a brief search: