Why are you so afraid of this scientific concept that …

Comment on LSU’s PR Campaign: ‘Evolution is Not Promoted at LSU’ by BobRyan.

Why are you so afraid of this scientific concept that you would dedicate so much time and effort into slandering and demonizing those who teach it. It is clear that your faith is so week that you believe the teaching of a legitimate scientific theory could be the downfall of the SDA church.

Here is a suggestion “pick a lane”.

First you appear to argue that it is “demonizing and slandering” to admit that these LSU professors are actually teaching evolutionism as the right answer for a doctrine on origins of the complex genomes that we see in nature today — and then you appear to turn around and play the other side of the lane as well by making a statement claiming in effect that “teaching evolutionism is a good thing”.

Well if it is a “good thing” to teach the real ‘birds come from reptiles’ evolutionism storytelling as if it were science fact — then you must suppose we have accused them of “teaching a good thing” and then how in the world does that constitue slander.

On the other hand – the Adventist Denomination continues to teach (in all of its Universities (except LSU)) that the 7 day creation week less than 10,000 years ago is the real “event that happened in nature”. And of course the Church has just re-affirmed that conviction in the GC session this year. ( Look for even more affirmation of that fact in the soon to be revised FB #6 coming to an Adventist Book Store near you.)

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

LSU’s PR Campaign: ‘Evolution is Not Promoted at LSU’

I love Dr. Grismer, Bradley, and McCloskey. They are such intelligent, funny and caring professors. They made my time at La Sierra worth the dinero. I wish I could have gotten to know Greer too. He seems like a cool guy. It’s so funny to read all these negative comments about them from people who’s opinion comes from “he said she said” third party statements. Seriously people, they are awesome professors and good hearted men

“awesome”?? “Good hearted”??

Not many posts on this thread dealinng with the “awesome-ness” or the pros-cons of the “goodheartedness” of the various professors at LSU. Just the simple issue of whether or not Prof Bradley is telling the truth when he states clearly to the media what he is teaching in class. Just the simple issue of having the critical thinking skills to look at the course work and see that “yes” Bradley is accurate in what he claims they are teaching.

Just the critical thinking skills to listen to Erv Taylor when he comes here and promotes non-stop-evolutionism just as he does when guest speaking at LSU.

In other words – facts along on this simple issue speak for themselves.

However were this a web site on the pro’s and con’s of the awesomeness of this professor or that professor at LSU — maybe we would indeed have differnt text in the posts just as you suggest.

in Christ,


LSU’s PR Campaign: ‘Evolution is Not Promoted at LSU’
The Southern Union has just published an issue of Southern Tidings – that documents their stated affirmation of Creation and opposition to evolutionist doctrines on origins. Union President Gordon Retzer has a lead “Vantage Point” article speaking not only to the pro-Creation position of the Southern Union but also speaking to the history of pro-creation voted statements at SAU affirming the Bible creation account and the Spirit of Prophecy.

SAU is one of several Adventist Universities that have been key leaders in the battle to oppose the junk-science and bad-religion that is called evolutionism.

LSU’s efforts to mask its agenda and deny the significance of its own professors boldly proclaiming their affirmation of evolutionism – is a striking contrast.

in Christ,


LSU’s PR Campaign: ‘Evolution is Not Promoted at LSU’
And so on a web page dedicated to comparing the claims by the LSU marketing dept to the actual published positions of LSU biology and staff – we have the less than insightful “let’s talk about pinocchio” path of misdirection simply because a cartoon image of pinocchio appears on the page.

Ok fine. Let those who think the real value here is discussing pinocchio – continue their quest.

And also – let those who want to actually compare the evidence in the opening article here – pursue that point as well.

This choice is an easy one.

in Christ,


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

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!


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