Comment on Jay Gallimore comments on evolution conflict by BobRyan.
Ricky Kim says:
September 7, 2010 Dear Bob,
Although I do not agree with you in your conclusions regarding my latter comment, I nevertheless respect your views and am grateful for the opinion you have been willing to share. I will go ahead and list the comments I disagree with alongside my reasoning, and would be most grateful if you would take the time to clarify them for me.
1. â€œWe spend quite a bit of time sending satellites up where there is no normal rise and set of the sun as they travel through our solar system. This does not stop us from knowing what 24 hours â€œisâ€.â€
This does not stop us from knowing what 24 hours â€œisâ€ because we make our satellites travel relevant to our natural environment where a 24 hour period exist and operates.
Actually we are not measuring time with the sun at all. We use either an atomic clock (caesium 133). We based time on physics that is independent of the rotation of our planet. The onboard clock does not ask earth for the time.
2. â€œFrom a science POV the â€œevening and morningâ€ sequence does not require sun â€“ it requires a rotating planet with a period that is the same as the one we have today â€“ and a â€œlight sourceâ€ (does not have to be the sun) â€“ that is on ONE SIDE instead of on ALL sides.â€
What exactly was this light source? I have a hard time acknowledging that this is to be translated literal versus figuratively as a creation of an environment for the sun, moon, and stars to inhabit as i have stated before.
Again your argument presumes that the only source of light in all of the universe is fusion reactions of hydrogen to Helium in our sun. As it turns out – there are many ways to create light – and hydrogen–> Helium fusion is just one of them.
I am not sure why you think this would have been a problem for God or why your not knowing which method He used – makes it reasonable to doubt the text. In the text God is the creator of sun, moon, life on earth, the formatting of the earth environment etc. Nothing in the text leads the reader to the conclusion that God is not creating. Thus the argument that the LIGHT on the first day could not possibly be a creative act of God is not a conclusion based on exegeting the text.
3. â€œOur own FIRST fundamental belief argues that the bible IS a reliable accurate account/record of history â€“ and as it turns out â€“ the record â€œstartsâ€ with DAY-ONE of Creation week. Thus the irreconcilable differences confronting the would-be â€œseventh-day darwinianâ€ start from the very first Fundamental Belief.â€
The issue with established doctrine is that it is not open to new truths that may be unveiled throughout the course of time. This is one of the reasons why there was a faction within the early church on the question of whether adopting the functionality of a doctrine would prove to be prudent or not.
Our first published set of Fundamental Beliefs was in 1872. The list given there has been “regrouped” and more doctrines added – but the practice goes back well into the 1800’s.
The key benefit of the early “Sabbath Conferences” and publishing of our “pillar” doctrines was urgently needed because at our early stage of development there were chaotic meetings where “hardly two agreed” and because they had ministers going out “claiming” to be Adventist that had false doctrine. They needed to draw a line. James White and Uriah Smith were at one point handing out ministerial “licenses” based on first approving the doctrine of the applicant.
Also with that said, the Christian scriptures were written about 2000 yrs before Christ and about 200 years after Christ, thatâ€™s it. Whereas modern science did not occur to about the time of Gallieo, Newton, and Einstein. How can there be any science in the Bible, there cannot be, the two historical periods are separated by to much.
The logic in your argument is illusive.
1. Children are born in nine months in the Bible – science or not.
2. The earth rotates resulting in a 24 hour day in the Bible – science or not.
3. The author of the bible is God – (2Peter 1:20-21, 2Tim 3:16) — the greatest scientist of all time.
One of the tests of an inspired prophet is that doctrine has to be correct. But why should doctrine be correct if the Bible is only the product of flawed human thinking? Surely a “good person” can have flawed doctrine. Well it turns out that the REASON that is a valid test of a prophet is that the source is NOT the man – it is God.
Also, I will argue that the Bible is not an accurate picture of history. For a number of reasons but I will name 2 to keep in short:
1) There are no extra-biblical evidence that the Exodus ever occured, or at least in the massive of a scale. For if there were, there would have been at least some evidence of it in Egypt or at least in its surrounding countries.
2) From the human genome project it is quite evident that the human race has its origins in Africa. Where they began to spread out to various parts of the world. As we know, an Ice Age did occur which set itself upon the Northern part of our world. Now, as the Ice melted-various floods would have occurred-in the Northern parts of the earth. Interestingly enough, all records of flood stories come from these Northern parts of the world. That is to say, that a global flood is quite questionable. Ricky Kim
1. You are correct to observe that the path you are going down requires denial of our very first Fundamental Belief. There is no way around it if the goal is evolution.
2. Your are taking assumptions (in some cases very large assumptions) and trying to position them as proven fact.
3. I have already explained the Exodus record – so I will deal with the 2nd point above.
There are no historic records nor videos nor DNA fragments showing how people migrated at the time of Noah other than the Bible.
There is no evidence at all that mankind has unearthed the entire human population that was alive at the time of Noah or even 400 years after Noah. When they migrated to Africa is unknown. There are no records written before that time and the remaining guesswork is based on assumptions applied to more assumptions.
Soft tissue finds, protein molecule finds and DNA fragment finds in strata much older than is possible given the half-life of those materials is already telling us that something is wrong with our date/age system for the past.
Assumptions piled on top of assumptions do not form a compelling argument against the inspired text.
BobRyan Also Commented
BobRyan said –
September 7, 2010 Re Bobâ€™s Quote
â€œAs for the recent comment above about the fabric of space-time not having a 24 hour concept until earthâ€™s sun is created â€“ the hint I would give is a four letter word â€“ NASA. We spend quite a bit of time sending satellites up where there is no normal rise and set of the sun as they travel through our solar system. This does not stop us from knowing what 24 hours â€œisâ€.â€
With respect, I donâ€™t think you can ignore Einsteinâ€™s work on General Relativity when it comes to time. I think it is a very legitimate question as to whether the notion of 24 hours could exist before the applicable gravitational forces came into being.
1. No one here has suggested that gravity was not created until day 4 of creation week. In fact we have been insisting that other solar systems did exist – other Galaxies and planets, even other civilizations on those planets before our own creation week.
2. As we send satellites out of our solar system we do not find that their “clocks change” because they are away from the sun. Rather the clock differences are due to their relative speed over time as compared to earth as a frame of reference.
Ricky Kim says:
September 10, 2010 â€œWe can easily agree with Ricky that once you toss the Bible out the window â€“ belief in evolutionism (no matter how irrational and unscientific it is) is just about all that is left.â€
I donâ€™t know how you can dismiss evolution as being irrational and unscientific-I mean religion teaches that a talking snake existed, alongside a burning bush, and men rising from the dead.
To say the Jesus rose from the dead, or preformed the various miracles that is told has happened based on scripture suggest that the natural order of things, of how the earth operates and still continues to operate till this very day has been suspended and has leaned on your favor. Tell me, what is more likely? that the natural order of things has indeed been suspended, or everything that is â€œmiraculousâ€ is not very miraculous at all?
But this again, will fall into conflict do to how we see the Bible. Ricky Kim(Quote)
Ricky – there are two options here.
1. The Bible is correct. God created all of nature and the same God that created all of nature has the ability to “talk” to “walk” and to “create events” at any point in time even after creating all life on earth. So both the natural events and the supernatural events are all ultimately from God. No need to “imagine” that the empty vacuum of non-space and non-time simple invents a universe.
2. The Bible is wrong. There is no God and all that we see in nature came about “of its own accord”.
In that view gas and dust will eventually turn into a human mind all on itse own just due to the properties inherent in dust and gas alone.
Pick your religion.
Professor Kent says:
September 9, 2010 And a second happens to be based on something like 9192631770cycles for cesium 133
Bob, Iâ€™m sure you must recognize this, and Iâ€™m only trying to be helpful here, but something like 9192631770 cycles for cesium 133 is based on a second, and not the other way around.
As usual Prof Kent misses the point. If the argument is that the fabric of space time ITSELF does not allow for TIME (and evening and morning in a 24 hour period of earth’s rotation) unless you have the sun therefore God could not have informed Moses of such a thing existing at a time before He created our sun, THEN the simple atomic clock example fully debunks the lack of logic in that rationale.
The point remains.
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