I had heard about the sad news about Dr Bradley …

Comment on LSU statement regarding resignations and Bradley’s email by Gayle Hori.

I had heard about the sad news about Dr Bradley and I accidently linked to this site. Mark, Shane, and Shelly I am worried about your souls. You seem to have lost your compassion. Please be careful you do not fall under the influence of the current political climate of hatred and condemnation in the name of God. This mix of religion and politics is exactly what EGW warned against. God is blasphemed when we use his name to to justify disdain for our fellow man.

Recent Comments by Gayle Hori

My Goal for La Sierra University
Faith and Sean,

You missed my point. I wasn’t talking about popularity. I do think being liked because people felt valued is a valid point. Once I heard a saying along the lines, “You should look at where God is working, go there. ”

And, actually I did encourage a child to attend La Sierra. The reason? I knew he would be encouraged to think and mature in his decision making process. The Dr Bradleys are why I thought it was the best Adventist College for him. At my son’s academy I met teachers from both La Sierra and PUC. There was a difference in how they approached teaching. Granted, it was a small sample and somewhat based on the subject taught. The PUC teachers tended to present material to be mastered. The La Sierra alumni teachers tended to encourage analysis. Knowing my child, I knew he would learn more (and be more likely to have faith) if he was encouraged to ask questions and discuss possible answers. I was and am very happy with his decision.

I have sat in Sabbath School discussions with young adults who were taught not to analyze what they were saying. It was scary. I wanted more for my child. I don’t think I am alone.


My Goal for La Sierra University
I have looked at the various sites and have come to some conclusions.

I read comment after comment from students of Dr Bradley’s. Very few students even mention what he taught, instead they say he was kind and gave them encouragement when they needed it. They felt cared for. I wish I was so devious in spreading my influence.

This site is evidently dedicated to opposing people like Dr Bradley. There is a tremendous amount of anger and judgement here. Go read the comments about Dr Bradley with an open mind and ask yourselves who seems more Christian. People give him credibility because they know him by his love.

This strange story of the tapes is full of ironies. The strangest irony of all is that this site has made Dr Bradley into a martyr and forced people to take sides. Just think how different it would be if you left the judging to God.


Private: [Updated] Walter Veith visits La Sierra
Faith, Whoa! What happened to nature being the other book that teaches us about God? Many see the simplicity of DNA and its amazing power to let life adapt to changing conditions as evidence of a more powerful God. Permanent and temporary (epigenetics) changes to the DNA have allowed life to survive in hostile environments. It would be much easier to create a static genome than a dynamic one.

My reason for bringing up the questions is that I really I am trying to understand the viewpoint of this site. It just seems to me, if you want to base belief on science, embrace mutation and natural selection and praise God that he created a dynamic mechanism that sustains life.

Back to my question on the cat: As a child I was taught that there was only one right way to understand God and creation and the effects of the flood. Somewhere along the way as I began to think for myself and I learned about cats. I went to church school and knew nothing about evolution. I just learned that some animals are carnivores and some are herbivores. Carnivores have eyes in the front of their heads, claws and sharp teeth for ripping flesh. Herbivores have eyes on the sides so they can watch for predators, hooves and blunt teeth for chewing. Bible class taught me that all of the animals in Eden were herbivores so I naturally asked the question, “How did the animals change?” I never got a good answer — until I got older and learned about traits and DNA.

So I ask the question again. How do you explain claws, sharp teeth, eye position, digestive tracts, etc, etc. I guess I posed this question because I see it as a defining question in my understanding of creation as I moved from childhood into adulthood. In the above response to my question, I understood you to say that the cat genome has not changed and a current cat would have herbivore traits under the right conditions. Am I understanding that correctly?

Now an adult question, what is the creationist viewpoint on polyploidy in plants and animals? Can this be a method of increasing the genome?



Private: [Updated] Walter Veith visits La Sierra
OK – so you consider the evolution from herbivore to predator cats to be microevolution?

Private: [Updated] Walter Veith visits La Sierra
This site seems to clearly support a recent creation, so I am hoping someone can explain your stand on evolution. I am not trying to be oppositional, I just want a better understanding of your thought process.

The article above sites the parrots who become meat eaters when the food supply is low. I assume this is similar to large cats who went from eating grass to eating other animals after the flood.

If the parrots earlier diet did not become available again, wouldn’t natural selection favor the parrots who had traits that made them better hunters? Over say a 500 years wouldn’t you see visible differences between the root eating parrots and the sheep eating parrots. If the populations were separated by geographic features that prevented interbreeding, wouldn’t they lose the ability to produce viable offspring at some point? Once they can no longer mate, and if they have a different food source the divergence would increase until they look different and you have what looks like an unrelated species.

A small number of DNA changes can make a huge difference in morphology. I think corn is a good example. It took a while for breeders to even recognize that teosinte is the ancestor of corn because they look so different. A handful of DNA changes takes you from something that looks like a clump of grass to a stalk with large ears. Teosinte and corn can even be crossbred. The time for the evolution and selection was quite short.

Now to my question: Why don’t creationists embrace rapid evolution that results in different species? If you are assuming a recent creation, isn’t this the logical conclusion? It would remove many of the problems surrounding young earth ideologies. Isn’t God amazing that he designs a system that can evolve so dramatically?

Someone, please explain how you go from plant eaters to predator cats without macroevolution?