Comment on Board requests progress reports from LSU administration by Bravus.
I’d be interested to hear where you’ve seen certainty that I am right in anything I have written, Sean. On the contrary, I have *continuously* said, and meant, that I have no firm position on origins. As it happens, I believe (and have said) that as long as the official position of the church is as it is, that ought to be taught in schools owned and run by the church. My comments here are concerned with changing the church’s position (and, Bob, I’d be fascinated to see anyone here on any side who has claimed the 28 don’t exist).
(When I said to Bob Ryan that ‘EGW was dead wrong’ in 3SG90-91, that was a rhetorical device intended to shortcircuit his repeated spamming of that reference as though it was the end of all discussion (t didn’t work). A more nuanced response might have said that I could not see how EGW’s comments on those pages could be made to accord with the evidence we see around us in the physical world. I went for the short, sharp, shock for effect, and have paid for it since.)
I’ve said it at every stage: prescriptions for humility point first and most at myself. So I’m not sure where you guys are hearing this certainty that you’re describing hearing from me.
Table of Contents
Bravus Also Commented
Board requests progress reports from LSU administration
Wow, you really do continue to struggle with my ‘I don’t know’, don’t you? I claim nothing of the sort.
Board requests progress reports from LSU administration
(popping back in because I can’t resist ;-))
We’ve discussed this ‘speeded-up decay’ argument here on this site before. A speeded-up decay rate (by the required amount) would lead to massive amounts of heat and radiation, sufficient to kill all life on earth. Of course, it’s then possible to say ‘well, God shielded living things from the effects’. But that’s just piling ad hockery on ad hockery. God intentionally speeded up the rate of decay, but intentionally shielded the whole world from the effects of that speeded-up decay, except the atoms inside zircons… or radioisotopes generally. Why? What’s the purpose? To deceive us?
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.
If they can establish a nuclear mechanism for changed decay rates, then they ought to publish it – they’d be well on the way to the Nobel Prize. As it is, they have no mechanism, they simply claim ‘God did it’, but with zero Biblical evidence.
Board requests progress reports from LSU administration
Thanks for your prayers, but I do what I do for my own reasons, and care not a whit for the reactions of ‘legalists’. I share what I enjoy because I enjoy it and think others might too. You’re in the same old game of condemning without understanding, which was dull (and occasionally amusing) back in the 80s but which I was completely over by the 90s and haven’t even really thought about in 20 years.
And now, that restful hiatus.Have fun, all, in fighting among yourselves again…
Recent Comments by Bravus
Ted Wilson: “We will not flinch. We will not be deterred.”
Interesting that he says he is very proud of the GRI when they clearly said during the discussion that there is ‘no model’ of scientifically credible recent creationism that can be taught in our universities.
“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
My guess on the two-thirds thing is that what is actually being said is ‘more than two-thirds’. 99% is more than two-thirds… that specific number was chosen, not as the actual vote-count, but as a break-point: some motions need a simple majority, some need a two-thirds majority… and the vote well and truly delivered that, and more.
Just my interpretation.
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Excellent, excellent post above. J. Knight.
“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
(that should be ‘place in the church’)
“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
Bobbie Vedvick, the quote you asked about was a parody, penned by me.
Faith (and many others in this thread), the comments about those who will be driven out of SDAism by this push tend to assume that they are in disagreement with what has always been SDA belief. This is not the case: the very strong literalist recent creationist position is a relatively recent view. Note that what has happened at this GC is a vote for a *change* to Fundamental Belief 6. SDA beliefs are being *changed*, and those who won’t go along for the ride told they have no ce in the church.
