Comment on Jay Gallimore comments on evolution conflict by BobRyan.
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.
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.
Ricky Kim says:
September 7, 2010 This comment is in response to the resolution made up above that I find to be deeply disturbing:
“We define creation science in the context of the recent creation week of seven ordinary, literal, historical, consecutive, contiguous twenty-four hour days of divine creation and rest as described in Genesis.â€
I must ask, has it never occurred to the brilliant mind of Elder. Ted or to the other Adventist believers to consider the following notion: that the sun, moon, and stars were not created until the 4th day of the creation week. In which case, if this in fact is true, how can one logically argue for the position that the first 3 days were literal twenty-four hour periods, when in fact it could have been a thousand or perhaps a million years? Do we not use the celestial bodies to determine our concept of time and space? It seems that the verses describing the Creation are not to be taken literally but more figuratively, allow me to explain.
Clearly Ricky Kim chooses by-faith-alone acceptance of evolutionism’s doctrine on origins over the Bible.
Ricky Kim says:
September 10, 2010 I guess where we ultimately differ gentlemen is that we donâ€™t see eye to eye in matters pertaining to scripture because I donâ€™t necessarily see it to be inspired.
Ricky’s POV is clearly consistent in that he rejects the Bible and therefore sees no problem at all with bending it “as needed” to make it fit evolution – or simply tossing it out the window altogether to embrace evolution.
Now as much as Ricky may be thinking that this opposes the Adventist positoin regarding those who believe in evolutionism — it actually confirms it. We can easily agree with Ricky that once you toss the Bible out the window – belief in evolutionism (no matter how irrational and unscientific it is) is just about all that is left.
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