Comment on Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism by BobRyan.
See, this is where the 6th fundamental belief goes wrong. It doesnâ€™t stick with the Bible, but imposes on the Bible an interpretation that comes from Mrs. White.We need to do away with ALL the â€œfundamental beliefsâ€, and go back to the Bible. The minute the Adventist church abandoned the Bible as the only rule of faith, we ran afoul of the curse in Revelation against adding to Godâ€™s word. (Quote)
Since you provide not one iota of evidence that Fundamental Belief #6 (or #-anything) does not hold up to a sola scriptura review of it, your recommendation cannot be taken seriously – by the serious Bible student.
To challenge our doctrines – means you have to know enough about the Bible to show that the doctrines are in error. This is a huge problem for evolutionists.
In the mean time – we DO know the Bible well enough to establish a solid “Sola Scriptura” basis for them. And so far – they stand!
But evolutionism by contrast – not only flunks the test of scripture – it directly contradicts and otherwise undermines over half a dozen SDA Fundamental beliefs!
BobRyan Also Commented
Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
In the article above – Geraty promotes the idea that all the T.E’s at LSU should be regarded as Creationists so they can better promote their goals unhindered.
Dr. Geraty has told me personally [Sean Pitman], twice now in public forum, that all LSU professors are â€œcreationistsâ€ and believe in God.
I believe his strategy worked for a number of decades.
Once again, bear in mind that macroevolution (= speciation by conventional definitions; creationists often resort to other definitions) cannot be expected to happen naturally during a human lifetime, unless there is a dramatic polyploid or parthenogenetic event (or something similar) that results in immediate reproductive isolation and speciation. Note that I use the word â€œnaturally.â€
Hint: Punctuated Equillibrium.
Every birth of every individual in every species is “a million years” away (or 10 million if you prefer) from “something” in it’s ancestoral tree according to evolutionists. The problem is not “time” when it comes to the evolutionary “story”. The story does not “lack time” it lacks “evidence”.
With P.E you are supposed to get a hopeful monster saltation (or nearly that) rather than a mature eye or eyelid that slowly forms over 10,000 years.
If on the other hand, you want to argue that we see 1000’s of species with their eyes in various stages of “forming over a 10,000 year window” go ahead and go out on that limb.
Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
Geraty said “Second of all, I personally presume that Genesis 1 refers to an ordinary week, but since it does not say that explicitly”.
I have seen him make the claim that he believes in the literal 7 day week of Genesis 1-2:3 several times. He is being consistent in making that claim here.
Geraty then says
It is also slander to say that I â€œhired professors to teach at LSU that I specifically knew would undermine the Churchâ€™s â€˜fundamentalâ€™ understanding on a literal creation week.â€ There is no evidence for that and it is contrary to all I did to make sure we had professors who were supportive of the SDA Church and creationism
Ok so either Geraty did not “know” that Erv Taylor was an evolutionist or did not know that Erv Taylor was lecturing at LSU.
Either Geraty did not “know” that Bradley was a diehard evolutionist or did not know that Bradly was a biology professor at LSU.
Either Geraty did not “know” that Grismer and McCloskey were evolutionists or did not know that they were hired to teach biology at LSU while he was president at LSU.
Given Geraty’s following statement
personally presume that Genesis 1 refers to an ordinary week, but since it does not say that explicitly, I am glad to give those interpreters who wish to interpret it differently the freedom to do so. In other words, I support the evangelistic outreach of the church that is inclusive, rather than exclusive. If a believer affirms the doctrine of creation, Iâ€™m all for including him or her
It is more “likely” that “he did know” about these evolutionists – but he had ways of imagining to himself a “big tent” concept (not at all out of harmony with the Spectrum Magazine he promotes) that could easily ‘big tent’ these people right into the LSU fold.
It is also “likely” that he had one or two discussions with his own “Fritz Guy” assuring him that the evolutionist option was perfectly compatible with the Bible and the Fritz-Guy-intent of the 27 Fundamental Beliefs.
Therefore his supposed “shock” that when others look at the way this story pans out they see a Geraty that is not at all opposed to hiring and retaining professors and guest lecturers that are “in the tank” for evolutionism – is somewhat mystifying.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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