Comment on Jay Gallimore comments on evolution conflict by BobRyan.
Ricky Kim says:
September 10, 2010 “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.”
I don’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 “miraculous” 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.
BobRyan Also Commented
Agreed – 3SG 90-96 makes the whole point abundantly clear.
On numerous occassions this has been pointed out to our evolutionist friends and at times they have been bold enough to give the response that most closely fits their POV — “Well then Ellen White was wrong”.
Professor Kent says:
September 9, 2010 And a second happens to be based on something like 9192631770cycles for cesium 133
Bob, I’m sure you must recognize this, and I’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.
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.”
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 don’t see eye to eye in matters pertaining to scripture because I don’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
Mack Ramsy:: : but the one thing we know for certain is that it was designed to change. There are so many back up and redundancies designed to make whatever changes that DNA faces to be profitable for the organism, or if their deleterious to ensure they don’t damage the subsequent generation (yes there are very complex methods for doing this) The immune system in fact does it intentionally.
Obviously the references above to “designed” and “intention” could not be overlooked by the objective unbiased reader applying a bit of critical thinking to the topic. And so my response below merely states the obvious point of agreement on a part of that post.
No wonder the application of a bit of critical thinking just then – demands that we conclude from your remarks above – that you are an example of an evolutionist that is strongly in favor of Intelligent Design. I too favor I.D.
Obviously the references abov
I don’t believe in ID as it’s traditionally defined. I believe that God created a system designed to evolve.
Obviously the references abov
In your earlier statement you claimed that system was designed with “redundancy and backup” features. That is not something rocks, gas and water could ever do – hence the term “Intelligent Design”.
But perhaps you have access to more highly advanced rocks, gas and water?
Also you mention “intention” as if the immune system was deliberately designed with an end goal in view.
As it turns out – it is those “intention” and “Intelligent Design” aspects (so key to your response above) that are at the very heart of I.D. enabled science were we have the freedom to “follow the data where it leads” even if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does not fit atheist dogma about there “being no god”.
how odd then that you seem to later back pedal on your prior observation.
Thus you seem to be in somewhat of a self-conflicted position at the moment.
At least given the content of your statements about “intent” and “backup systems” and “redundancy” designed into the systems themselves (even to the point of “error correction” as we see in the case of nucleic polypeptide amino acid chains and their chiral orientation).
Of course all that just gets us back here
Mack Ramsy: My language in this forum is not formal. Try not to get caught up in semantic issues.
Out of curiosity is that statement supposed to provide a solution to just how it is that something “not designed” is able to exhibit unique design characteristics such as “back up systems” – “redundancy” – error correcting mechanism and an “immune system with intention” regarding a specific outcome or goal?
No doubt the study of biology most definitely shows us that such things are present “in nature” based on “observations in nature” – and so you are right to state it as you did.
So if you are then going to double back and reject what you just affirmed – what do you have by way of “explanation” for such a self-conflicted course?
Reaching for a solution of the form – “Pay no attention to my actual words if they do not serve to deny I.D.” does not provide as satisfactory resolution to the problem as you may have at first supposed.
Erv Taylor is not “afraid” to post here – but he is “Afraid” to have well thought out views posted on AToday that do not flatter his agenda.
That was not news right?
John J.: The fact remains, any decision direction or policy made by a church, conference, union or GCEC can be reversed or changed by those they serve.
Agreed and the fact that the constituency are not voting to reverse it – is a sign that this is not merely the views of the Administration in Michigan.
As for hierarchy – there is no doctrinal authority in the administrators.
And as for administrative hierarchy – the GC leadership has no authority to dismiss rogue teachers which is one of the reasons that this particular meltdown at LSU seems to go on and on and on. It slows at times and it speeds up at other times – but the fire is not simply put out.
ken:: Let’s continue shall we. You posit that Adam and Eve were producing telomerase as adults as a result of eating fruit from the tree of life. Would you agree that the production of adult telomerase was a direct result of the environment or did the gene(s) affecting production of the a enzyme as adults mutate in their progeny?
1. I never stated whether the fruit from the Tree of Life provided the telemerase enzyme or simply provided a trigger enzyme/protein that caused Adam and Eve to produce Telemerase. Either way the end result was the same.
2. The salient point is that we have a known mechanism that affects the aging of cells starting with new borns.
This is simply “observation in nature” given in response to your question about an observed mechanism in humans for the 900 year life span the Bible mentions.
It is hard to “do the study” without having them under observation.
1. But it is not hard to see the gradual decline in ages over time.
2. It is not hard to see the Bible declare that access to the Tree of Life was the determining factor.
3. It is not hard to see that even in humans today – the ability remains for us to produce telemerase – but we quickly lose that ability.
4. It is not hard to see what effect that has on the telomeres of infants.
The list of knowns for this mechanism are far more impressive than the “I imagine a mechanism whereby static genomes acquire new coding genes not already present and functioning in nature and that this happens for billions of years”.
Ken: Hi BobWe are making good progress!Thanks for your admitting thaf we do not have Adam and Eve or their progeny under observation to do the study.
Let’s look at the empirical results of your observation. There is no physical evidence that the progeny or descendants lived to 900 years, right? Thus there is no physical evidence that the tree of life provided longevity through the increased production or activation of telermerase right?
There is evidence that a mechanism does exist whereby access to an enzyme would in fact affect the aging process of human cells.
That mechanism is observed in nature to be related to the enzyme Telemerase.
There is a ton of evidence that food contains enzymes and proteins and that the human body can produce enzymes in response to the presence of trigger proteins and enzymes.
It is irrefutably true that humans still today produce telemerase in the case of infants just before birth. Impossible to deny it – though you seem to want to go down that dead end road.
You asked about the “mechanism” that can be observed today that would account for long ages of life recorded in the Bible.
You now seem to be pulling the classic “bait and switch” asking for the video of the people living for long ages before the flood.
Nice try —
As I said before – your method is along the lines of grasping at straws in a true “any ol’ exuse will do” fashion.
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
Rev 21 does not say the planet has no light – it says the City has no NEED of light from the Sun.
The inconvenient deatils point to the fact that the New Earth will have a Sun and Moon but the New Jerusalem will have eternal day due to the light of God’s presence.
This is not the hard part.