@JohnB: Eugene Shubert: ” The real problem is that mainstream …

Comment on LSU forms faith in evolution by BobRyan.

@JohnB:

Eugene Shubert: ” The real problem is that mainstream creationists completely misunderstand the definition of science.”

Are you sure about that Eugene?
Or is this just another over-generalization?

Or worse — a rabbit trail going nowhere.

BobRyan Also Commented

LSU forms faith in evolution
My point about Grace Place was that it came to me as somewhat of a shock, that our AR staff would publish a glowing review of that church just as Peck was being asked to leave — in fact the very month.

It was then that I took a closer look and found that most of the editors (in general) did not have training in theology at all — and since the recent comment about AR and advertising for LSU came up – it was simply a reminder that AR is not staffed to be a theological vetting ground. They follow policy and report the news and they also have good contributing articles.

But beyond that – we should not get too excited about what might be advertised on the back cover – or what recently defrocked pastor may have just gotten a glowing review of AR.

It was not intended as a criticism of some recent action by AR – just an observation over time.

It is not unncommon to find a non-SDA site quoting some offbeat statement from AR and then claiming this is an official view of the Adventist denomination since it was published in an Adventist paper. There again – I sometimes have to remind them that AR does not have the theology-vetting function at the level that those sites have imagined. AR may be doing that on purpose in support of a degree of pluralism.

in Christ,

Bob


LSU forms faith in evolution
@Eugene Shubert:

BobRyan: On the contrary – Intelligent Design is a science that has not only been proven – it has been proven to the point of commercial viability. Consider the case of the “SCAN” function of your radio tuner in your car.

Eugene said:
That’s a bad example Bob. All car radio tuners are built to focus in on signal strength, not intelligence. You are right though, such a radio could be built that could filter out loud noise

Err ummm… that is the “how” they focus on intelligent design .. and you left out signal-to-noise discriminators and pattern matching even to the point of music style scanning. But who’s getting sidetracked on the “how”? My point is that the purpose is to dynamically “discover” the desired set of nearby “radio stations” (vs the undesired set of available screeching sources).

And because those EM waveforms emitted by radio stations are I.D products rather than “the random acts of nature” – The point remains (regardless of the various signal attributes being monitored). It is a science based exercise in discriminating between I.D EM wave forms and background noise for the purpose of presenting only I.D. signals (regardless if the end result is 100% pure or not). The point is that the science exists and has a degree of success to the point of commercial viability.

in Christ,

Bob


LSU forms faith in evolution
@Eugene Shubert:

BobRyan: On the contrary – Intelligent Design is a science that has not only been proven – it has been proven to the point of commercial viability. Consider the case of the “SCAN” function of your radio tuner in your car.

Eugene said:
That’s a bad example Bob. All car radio tuners are built to focus in on signal strength, not intelligence. You are right though, such a radio could be built that could filter out loud noise

Err ummm… that is the “how” they focus on intelligent design .. and you left out scanners that employ signal-to-noise discriminators and pattern matching even to the point of music style scanning. ( But who’s getting sidetracked on the “how”?) My point is that the purpose is to dynamically “discover” the desired set of nearby radio stations (vs the undesired set of available screeching sources).

And because those EM waveforms emitted by radio stations are I.D products rather than “the random acts of nature” – the point remains (regardless of the various signal attributes being monitored).

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