Jay Gallimore comments on evolution conflict

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.

in Christ,

Bob

---

Jay Gallimore comments on evolution conflict

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.

in Christ,

Bob

---

Jay Gallimore comments on evolution conflict
Here are my efforts to edit my post to Ricky Kim –

BobRyan said –

2. “From a science POV the “evening and morning” sequence does not require sun – it requires a rotating planet with a period that is the same as the one we have today – and a “light source” (does not have to be the sun) – that is on ONE SIDE instead of on ALL sides.”

@Ricky Kim: said –

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.

BobRyan said –

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. “Our own FIRST fundamental belief argues that the bible IS a reliable accurate account/record of history – and as it turns out – the record “starts” with DAY-ONE of Creation week. Thus the irreconcilable differences confronting the would-be “seventh-day darwinian” start from the very first Fundamental Belief.”

@Ricky Kim: said –

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.

BobRyan said —

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.

@Ricky Kim: said –

Also with that said, the Christian scriptures were written about 2000 yrs before Christ and about 200 years after Christ, that’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.

BobRyan replied —

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.

@Ricky Kim: said –

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

BobRyan said —

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.

in Christ,

Bob

---

Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case

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.

BobRyan:
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.

Mack Ramsy:
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.

BobRyan:
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
http://www.thebranch.org/videos/Creation_Calls.mov

Mack&#032Ramsy: 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.

in Christ,

Bob

---

Strumming the Attached Strings
@David Read:

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?

in Christ,

Bob

---

Michigan Conference vs. LSU – Right Wing Politics or Truth in Advertising?
@John J.:

John&#032J&#046: 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.

in Christ,

Bob

---

A “Christian Agnostic”?

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.

BobRyan:
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.

My pleasure.

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.

in Christ,

Bob

---

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.

in Christ,

Bob

---