Comment on Board requests progress reports from LSU administration by BobRyan.
3SG 90-91
I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time. … The weekly cycle of seven literal days, six for labor, and the seventh for rest, which has been preserved and brought down through Bible history, originated in the great facts of the first seven days.
{3SG 90.1}
http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/gateway.dll/egw-comp/section00000.htm/book05137.htm/chapter05149.htm
When referring to the item above – we can sometimes get the response below —
@Bravus:
Bravus says:
October 10, 2009 Jonathan: Guess we’ll have to wait and see.Bob Pickle: I have responded to BobRyan’s spamming of 3SG90-91 before, by simply and unabashedly saying “Ellen White was wrong on that pointâ€. Traditional Adventist belief does not hold that EGW was inerrant: she made mistakes and it is my belief that this is one of them.
This is a clear indication of a “choke point” in the seventh-eon-darwintist’s argument and it also outs the truth about Bravus’ insistence that either he is neutral or a kind of creationist when it comes to the creation vs evolution debate.
@Bravus:
Bravus says:
March 7, 2010 I think you may have come in to the discussion later, David, so might not have read some of my earlier statements on why I’m here. I’m absolutely, 100% not here to proselytise for evolution, Darwinian or otherwise. I am not at all trying to get creationists to become Darwinists. I do not have a firm position on origins myself, and in other venues I argue just as strenuously against evolutionists.I am a scientist and science educator, and my purpose here is to seek truth, honesty and integrity. I challenge sloppy thing and ridicule, and arguments based on straw men or personal incredulity. I respect people who are willing to base their perspectives on science *and* on Scripture, and who are modest enough to accept that there is still intellectual work to be done.
Bravus’ claims to supposed neutrality does not survive the observation regarding his adamant claims that the literal 6 day creation week reported by Moses and Ellen White as a direct result of communication from God are dead wrong.
We contrast with the observation that a truly neutral position would be limited to “I DON’t KNOW if Ellen White (in 3SG 90-91) and Moses (in Ex 20:8-11) were in fact right or wrong – I am still looking into the matter”.
There is no way a neutral argument is of the form “She was dead wrong” and “I don’t care if she claims God showed her this or not”. Though I am sure that to a dedicated Theistic Evolutionist that probably appears “neutralâ€.
@Bravus:
General response to the dozen or so posts in this thread while I’ve been sleeping.
If there were only two possible positions on origins, then affirming that one of them is wrong would be affirming that the other is right. That’s not the case, though, there are literally dozens of nuances of possible position, but I can think of at least 6 mainstream possibilities:
1. Recent creationism (with variants depending on which god/s did it)
2. Ancient creationism (ditto)
3. Theistic evolutionism (ditto)
4. Deism
5. Atheistic evolutionism
6. Panspermia of one kind or anotherThe fact that I affirm that I believe Ellen White was wrong to use the ‘I was shown’ formulation to give Divine imprimatur to Bishop Ussher’s fatally flawed chronology effectively rules me out of the recent creationist camp, but does *not* then place me firmly in either of the evolutionist camps or any other firm position on origins.
6000 years never appears anywhere in the Bible as the age of the earth or life. Recent Turkish archaeological finds of a quite sophisticated small city 11,500 years old are just the newest of the thousands of pieces of evidence that contradict 6000 years as the age of… much of anything.
It is remarkable that we never see Bravus argue for a literal 6 day creation week of all developed genomes on planet earth – with the “variation in his claim” that it was instant creation in 6 days – that all happened 10 million years ago instead of 6,000 years ago”.
So tossing that idea in – as if it is something he has promoted seriously or as his preferred view to the 3SG 90-91 statements is fiction – it is simply a Red Herring.
Bravus said –
1. The creationists here and everywhere else where they speak go outside the Bible, and then require adherence to those extraBiblical tenets as an article of faith.
2. The plain evidence of the world around us clearly shows that life on earth is much more than 6000 years old. To start disbelieving in the world is to move into delusion.The problems are very difficult – and perhaps more so for someone who works in science and has to actually process the scientific evidence rather than be able to ignore it. The open-minded, open-hearted search needs to go on, and finding a synthesis is, IMO, a saner response than sweeping away all inconvenient evidence.
Ok – so since you are dead sure that it cannot be 6,000 years of life on earth — lets take a number like 200 or 300 million years of life on planet earth as a token example of an “alternative”. Is Bravus going to argue here for fully developed human remains that are 300 million years old? – Because that is what the “literal 6 day creation week, 300 million years ago” gets him.
Certainly it is not supported by any evolutionists in Queensland. Nor anyone he has ever quoted here or anywhere else that I can find.
Thus the unmasking of Bravus’ claim to supposed “neutrality” remains in place.
in Christ,
Bob
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
Board requests progress reports from LSU administration
@Bravus:
1. Recent creationism (with variants depending on which god/s did it)
2. Ancient creationism (ditto)
3. Theistic evolutionism (ditto)
4. Deism
5. Atheistic evolutionism
6. Panspermia of one kind or another…So of the positions I don’t have, recent creationism that specifically uses the 6000 year age is the one that seems most problematic to me. Recent creationism that allows for something in the 20,000 year range is much less so.
Almost leads you to believe that Bravus is behind that 20,000 year idea.
Oh but WAIT!
OK, so I guess my position is that I find it difficult or impossible,, looking at both the scientific and the Biblical evidence, to absolutely accept recent creationism, ancient creationism, theistic evolutionism or deism.
Leaving us with TWO of the 6 that Bravus has not ruled out.
So in the ever twisting story behind Bravus’ oft repeated SIX — I guess we are down to two kinds of evolutionism.
(Unless Bravus wants to spin one of them as having a real 7 day week of Creation where all genomes appear)
@Bravus:
Could Moses understand the concept of a billion? It’s important to understand what ‘highly educated’ meant at that moment in history, rather than to read Bronze Age texts with literalistic Information Age minds.
Thus the recent creation 20,000 years ago idea is clearly being ruled out as yet another red herring?
in Christ,
Bob
Board requests progress reports from LSU administration
@Bravus:
God has the power to do absolutely anything. That’s not the question. But (1) he is not capricious – he doesn’t do things, especially major things like this, for no reason and (2) the claim made here repeatedly is that he told us everything he did in the Bible… and there is no mention there of any event like this, or even a hint.
Where did you come up with THAT straw man???
The only claim that is repeatedly made here is that of the LITTLE God told us about creation week – the details He did give slam the door shut on the atheist-centric doctrine on origins found in evolutionism. The SEVEN DAY fact is one of the few things we ARE given for dead sure.
It is not the Creationists – but rather the Evolutionists that then want to make the wild claim that IF we are to believe God on the 7day fact that He keeps insisting on – THEN God has to first “TELL US ALL” about how He created a world in 7 days then 1600 years later – destroyed it in single year with a flood.
BTW – you never did answer the question of why you think Moses would be confronted with a “Billion year” problem — when you claim to believe that life on earth has only been here for 20,000 years.
in Christ,
Bob
Board requests progress reports from LSU administration
In the “News update†section I notice that the accreditation board told LSU if they messed with the way teachers taught in their classrooms they could lose their accreditation. I tried to find the information itself but somehow lost the connection. When I tried to find it again there was nothing listed under the “News Updatesâ€. I would appreciate someone showing me how I can see the article itself or at least tell all of us what is going on. Thanks
Well it is a PRIVATE school not a public school so the whole point is NOT to have things going on the classroom that go on in public universities.
Still – it would be nice to know the source of that tweet. Is it true life or is it memorex?
in Christ,
Bob
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
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.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:
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”.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
Gentlemen,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.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
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.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
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
