Erv – the SCRIBD document is a little easier to …

Comment on LSU Faculty Senate supports biology department by BobRyan.

Erv – the SCRIBD document is a little easier to read than you seem to imagine.

The reader can easily see the SAME model of reporting the document AS WELL AS – giving a perspective on the document (used at the top of this thread) that we already see so often in public news outlets all the time.

Surely you knew we would see that — right?

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan Also Commented

LSU Faculty Senate supports biology department
@Ron:

Ron says:
January 31, 2010 @Robert Bamford:

I don’t think you have proved your point that they are teaching it in opposition to creation. I haven’t seen anything so far that would support that assertion.

And I don’t think calling science “junk science” is helpful to the discussion. What is needed is real science that would support an alternate interpretation, however “creation science” seems to be getting weaker while evidence for evolution increases everyday.

To the contrary – with a little critical thinking you could easily have discovered by now – that even atheist evolutionists themselvs are decrying the “not science” methods of evolutionist diehard evangelists who tell stories “About how one thing came from another… stories easy enough to make up but they are NOT science”.

Surely you “noticed” by now.

And as for “junk-science and confirmed fraud” we have a number of illustrative examples both recent and those that are time tested.

How about the recent 30 year long fraud regarding Neanderthals in Europe – surely you by-faith-alone devotion to evolutionism may allow you to admit to a confirmed fraud when you see it.

in Christ,

Bob


LSU Faculty Senate supports biology department
@Ron:

Ron says:
January 31, 2010 @BobRyan:

Actualy Bob, According to Mrs. White, the reason we developed schools is so that our science department could inform our theology department. One of her stated goals, was to counteract the influence of poorly educated “evangelists” who were teaching fanatacism.

I see. So the church diluted its focus on evangelism so that darwinist evolutionism could downgrade faith in God’s Word “sufficiently” and thus fulfill our mission as a church? Funny thing about that claim of yours — no quote, no reference to anything at all.

But as it turns out – I happen to have one for you –

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. “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.” God gives us the productions of his work at the close of each literal day. Each day was accounted of him a generation, because every day he generated or produced some new portion of his work. On the seventh day of the first week God rested from his work, and then blessed the day of his rest, and set it apart for the use of man. 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}

When God spake his law with an audible voice from Sinai, he introduced the Sabbath by saying, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” He then declares definitely what shall be done on the six days, and what shall not be done on the seventh. He then, in giving the reason for thus observing the week, points them back to his example on the first seven days of time. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” This reason appears beautiful and forcible when we understand the record of creation to mean literal days. The first six days of each week are given to man in which to labor, because God employed the same period of the first week in the work of creation. The seventh day God has reserved as a day of rest, in commemoration of his rest during the same period of time after he had performed the work of creation in six days. {3SG 90.2}

But the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise. It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom. {3SG 91.1}

Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old…. {3SG 91.2}

So is the quote above – an example of the “fanatacism” that you claim Ellen White was trying to get rid of in your rather wild claim above?

To put it directly to your point — I find your logic somewhat illusive in that you appeal to Ellen White – who has already given that bold statement above about “disguised infidelity”.

in Christ,

Bob


LSU Faculty Senate supports biology department
@John Testerman:

But then what happens to those traditionalist young people who believe that their faith requires them to hold to certain beliefs about natural history and the age of the earth? They will go right on believing that because that is what they think they must do to be Christians. Some of them will even write letters complaining about professors teaching evolution. Later, if reading or additional education have shaken that belief and they are tempted to give up their faith, they will hopefully remember their fine Christian professors at La Sierra who showed them a path whereby they could be intellectually honest scientists and Adventist Christians as well.

This is the classic “surrender first” solution that France tried in WWII.

It did not work then — it is not going to work for SDAs.

And oh by the way – it was already tried in Europe with respect to evolutionism. The Christian churches of Europe totally caved in to evolutionism – – and now they are being treated to having their church facilities turned into pool halls, beer halls and book stores and bowling alleys.

They are demonstrating to the rest of the world what a “post Christian age” actually looks like.

Turns out Darwin was right about one thing – there is no happy marriage possible for the thinking person – between evolutionism and the Bible.

At least not in the long run.

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