Applying evidence and not faith to the Panda wikileak, vida …

Comment on Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’ by Oink.

Applying evidence and not faith to the Panda wikileak, vida supra, we turn to basic forensic, hermeneutical, and higher-historical critical protocols of identity authentication, mainly contextual, stylistic, and vocabulary clues, whereby it has been determined, for example, that C.S. Lewis and Clive Hamilton were the same, that Daniel did not write Daniel but did write Ann Landers (or Ann Landers wrote Daniel, or according to some scholars Sean Pitman did), and that St. Paul did not write Hebrews but did write Pogo, and that OJ did not kill anybody, it emerges incontestably that LSU and PUC biology professors, Spectrum and AdvToda bloggers, and the Panda visiting professors are all the same guy. Next time go easier with the “Neanderthals.”

P.S.: C.S. Lewis wrote as “Clive Hamilton” (when posting on EduTruth?) to avoid harming his reputation as a don at Oxford University. What better precedent for … why is everybody looking at us, professor?

Oink Also Commented

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Professor Kent:

Our dear professor Kent, A question to you, sir, if we may.

But first, what is not in question: that a 6-day creation is true and SDA institutions should still teach it, but there is not a shred of scientific evidence for it. It is to be defended on faith alone. On that you could not make your position clearer.

So should creation be taught only in our Departments of Religion, Philosophy, and Ethics, and not in our Biology Departments?

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Professor Kent:
But you didn’t answer my question! Answer my question! Is this your catch-question of the day, dude?

(Apologies, apologies for plagiarizing you word for word, plus a little artful rewording, also in homage . Do keep it coming.)

Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’
@Professor Kent:

“would YOU walk away too…like Dr. Pitman?” (to flesh out your question.) Your catch-question of the day?

Recent Comments by Oink

Dr. Walter Veith and the anti-vaccine arguments of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche
Informative and stimulating, but proceeding into more confusion. A veteran of Moderna vaccinations, I trust, hope, they are effective, at least until otherwise. The whole business, being part of End Times, is in the hands of God, not humans expert and as degreed as they may be.

Brilliant and Beautiful, but Wrong
Brilliant, beautiful, and so right! Speaking of your presentation at LLU recently. Great to see you and your family (especially my namesake, Wes. God bless! WK

Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
@Bob Helm: Dr. Sanford is very familiar to most of us. He was invited to speak at LLU several years ago and I and a great many were privileged to hear him.

Evolution from Space?
Hats off yet again to Sean for pursuing this topic as a scientist should, no nonsense, and in it’s proper setting — as a revival of one of the ancient ideas recently upgraded as a desperate alternative to the increasingly compelling intelligent design data. I had occasion to review panspermia a few years ago and as is my wont I found it more amusing than scientific. If you would like what was intended to be a satirical response to panspermia and other related curiosities you could check out:
Meantime, Sean’s article is of far more cogent worth.

The Sabbath and the Covenants (Old vs. New)
As he has done on this site many times, Sean in his line-by-line-item response to C. White (not EG or EB) has, to my mind, clearly enunciated the issue and resolution.

When all the hermeneutics, quoting, and arguing and inordinately judgmental riposte are over, it comes down, as I understand it, to two things: 1) Whether the 7th day Sabbath (whether enunciated in the famous 10 commandments or otherwise) is still valid, and 2) Does the grace obtained by the vicarious sacrifice by the shedding of Christ’s blood or other divine process too deep for us to understand in this life, cover every sin automatically and without ado, altogether passively on our part, or is it only on condition that we first totally and deeply accept it? Other details always hassled forever are distractions.

I accept that I must accept it, wholly, actively, even with agony, with my whole being.