@Phillip Brantley: Phillip Brantley July 2, 2011 at 12:10 pm “The …

Comment on My Goal for La Sierra University by Nic Samojluk.

@Phillip Brantley:

Phillip Brantley July 2, 2011 at 12:10 pm
“The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, The U.S. National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other reputable science organizations have declared that Intelligent Design is not science, with many of them stating that Intelligent Design is pseudo-science and junk science.”

*********
Even the most adamant defenders of evolution admit that the universe has the appearance of having been intelligently designed. The human genome could not have been produced by spontaneous generation. The evidence favoring intelligent design is overwhelming, but evolutionists prefer to deny this simply because admitting what is patently clear to anybody with common sense would lead to the existence of a Creator, which science prefers to ignore and deny.

Nic Samojluk Also Commented

My Goal for La Sierra University
@channel:

channel July 25, 2011 at 5:02 pm

“Thankfully people do not blow themselves up here to wage holy war but they do that cowardly act by making websites that launches attacks on scientists, professors, and anyone who does not agree with them.

I agree with you that LSU exists because of hard work of many SDA members and you guys on this ridiculous website have picked up your swords to destroy the university they worked hard for. If the accreditation of LSU is taken away, its diplomas won’t be worth the paper they are printed on. Just in case you were not aware of that.

And on your personal attack on Dr. Bradly I must say he is a very smart and brave man who had the courage to stand up to the lunatic wolves knowing that the fanatic morons will attempt any and every dirty trick they can to make him stop teaching BIOLOGY without censorship. That deserves much respect.

Cheating and lying is the work of people who run this website. Not those who try to teach Biology to students who are registered to learn BIOLOGY. Everyone knows you had it out for Bradly and you achieved your evil purpose through the lowest and dirtiest type of way.

I absolutely think that teaching of the SDA principles in LSU should happen. I am all for it. But to teach it in Biology class is not okay. To censor scientific proof is not okay. To threaten and launch personal attacks on Biology faculty is not okay.

What is happening on this website so unlike Christ and if you really do believe in Christ just know that one day you will have to answer for the damage that your ignorant actions and words have caused. Pretending to have been defending Christianity then will bear you even more punishment because using religion as an instrument to do harm to others is one of the biggest sins.

I also strongly suggest you update your dictionary because apparently the meaning of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ has been switched in your medieval vocabulary.

I pray to God that he gives you wisdom and to open your eyes.

*********
When a blogger resorts to hurling insults such as “lunatic wolves” and “fanatic morons” towards those who have a differing opinion about origins, it tells me that said Individual is on the loosing side.

Attacking the character and honesty of the opponent is a clear sign that the participant does not have valid arguments to bolster his views.

You claim to be Christian, but I see evidence that contradicts such an assertion. You accuse those in charge of Educate Truth of “Cheating and lying.”

Cheating and lying are based on motivation, which only God can determine. Are you perhaps a clairvoyant who can read the intentions of those who disagree with you? I believe that you owe an apology to both Sean and Shane.

You are greatly concerned about accreditation, and this is understandable. The church is concerned about the school’s accreditation as well, but if the securing of wordily approval requires compromising on the most fundamental teaching of the church—creation—then the price is too high to ignore.

As I look at nature I see adaptation to the changing environment, but I do not see evidence of evolution based on the theory of a common ancestor. No scientist has ever observed the transformation of bacteria into a higher form of life.

Archeologists have dug north and south, east and west, and the evidence supports the theory that animals have adapted to new environments but have not evolved into higher and totally different forms of life.

My ancestors have always been human and their common ancestor is God himself. We were made in the image of God instead of apes. I can predict with certainty that the descendants of chimpanzees will never evolve into humans and will never write poetry, build skyscrapers, or design spaceships which could carry them to the moon.

Those who designed Educate Truth may not be perfect, but they are on the right side of truth regarding origins and they are supported by the Adventist Church worldwide.

The church is growing outside of North America, while the same is stagnant in the U.S. This means that those believing in Creation instead of evolution are bound to prevail. You and Dr. Bradley seem to be on the loosing side, as far as I can see!


My Goal for La Sierra University

Professor Kent: Intelligent Design is not science because science cannot verify the cause of an event that happened thousands or millions of years ago. More pertinently, science cannot falsify a past cause that was supernatural.
The architechts themselves of Intelligent Design concede that the movement is more religion and philosophy than science.

The theory of evolution is not true science either. It cannot duplicate what happened millions of years ago and it cannot replicate the common ancestor process. There is no way to falsify Darwin’s claims to common ancestry; therefore, I choose to believe in Creation and common Intelligent Design.


My Goal for La Sierra University

Professor Kent: What is it in nature that tells you there is a controversy? That Satan even exists? Is there a rock, a fossil, a DNA sequence, or a bird song that proclaims this? Do you seriously believe that someone could come up with these notions independent of God informing us?

Scripture and Nature complement each other.


Recent Comments by Nic Samojluk

A “Christian Agnostic”?
@Sean Pitman:

Sean PitmanNovember 23, 2011 at 8:57 am

“How do you know? You said that you considered God’s existence to be “likely”. Isn’t the word “likely” a statistical/scientific term based on at least some ability to actually demonstrate the odds of a hypothesis being correct?

This is my problem here. How can you say that something is “likely” when, at the same time, you say that you have no empirical evidence for what you say is “likely to exist”? – no more evidence than you have for mythological fairytales?

You see, it is your use of the phrase, “likely to exist” that doesn’t make sense to me since it appears, at least to me, that you’re being inconsistent with yourself.

If you have no positive evidence for God’s existence, and if everything that you do know appears to you to have a mindless natural cause, how then can you say, one way or the other, that the “first cause” was “likely” an intelligent God-like being vs. some other mindless natural process? Upon what basis do you make this claim?”

*********
Sean,

Thanks for this impeccable logic. I appreciate the clearness with which you demonstrate the role evidence plays in providing support for our faith.

Faith without evidence places us at risk of becoming victims of charlatans and those who have been deceived by the Devil.

Sure, there is evidence for and against a belief in God and Creation, but the weight of evidence favors the biblical teaching that God is the one who created everything that exists.

We do owe our existence to him alone and he is entitled to our worship. The moment we credit Nature for our existence, we fall prey to the artful deceptions of the one determined to destroy our faith.


A “Christian Agnostic”?
@Sean Pitman:

Sean PitmanNovember 15, 2011 at 7:01 am

“@Nic Samojluk:

I think that Bob’s answer was superb, yet ten bloggers voted his comments down. Is the voting system rigged somehow?

The voting is not rigged. It is just that people tend to vote from the hip for or against a comment, before actually reading it, based only on who wrote it – not what was actually said in the particular comment at hand.

This also happens on Talk.Origins – and pretty much all discussion forums. I did an experiment once where I re-posted a comment from a well-known evolutionist under my own name (on Talk.Origins). There was no end to the ridicule against the comment based simply on the assumption that I had actually written it. When I pointed out that I had not actually written the comment, that it was written by one of their own, the attempts at back-peddling were quite hilarious

I’m sure the same thing would happen here as well. That is why the allowance of “voting” for comments is really only a curiosity feature “just for fun” and really has little meaning aside, perhaps, from keeping track of how many people from opposing camps are actually following a particular thread.”

*********
Thanks, Sean. You are so right! Perhaps I should pay less attention to the number of votes posted next to bloggers’ comments!


Back to Square One…
What happened to all the postings dated November 9, 10 and 11?


A “Christian Agnostic”?
@BobRyan:

BobRyan November 11 2011 at 6:11 pm

In this case we are talking about complex houses not just a cube – complete with embedded nano-tech capable of self-repair – self-healing, auto-paint-updating etc.

Something like this…


v=GVqJdAqTD4Q&feature=related

When your fellow atheists and agnostics view that in a moment of objectivity – they respond something like ABC News did when it reported on it…

And in this case – those houses would be found all over Mars. And the observing agnostic friend might be tempted to claim “well then complex houses of that sort must occur naturally in the rocks and sand of Mars — err… umm… somehow, because there are sooo many of them”.

For the rest of us – it would be a sign of Martians – very smart ones.

*********
I think that Bob’s answer was superb, yet ten bloggers voted his comments down. Is the voting system rigged somehow?


Back to Square One…
@Eddie:

Eddie,

I must be a prophet. As I predicted, my previous responses directed at you were deleted, probably before you had a chance to read them. It would be foolish for me to repost them.

Since you are already familiar with my own web site, you will find the same material I used to answer your comment there. Look for my most recent entries and let me know what you think. Use my own web page for answering instead of Educate Truth.