Comment on Panda’s Thumb: ‘SDAs are split over evolution’ by Oink.
Speaking of evidence for the validity of this thread, and viability of EduTruth, here he is, none other than Mr. A. “Spectral” Carpenter himself, on cue. EduTru’s readership apparently hasn’t dwindled to the point it isn’t worth real-time multi-screen monitoring, like the Western Defense bunkers used to monitor missiles, and scramble by reflex.
Over there at Speculum there’s been a lot of whimsy and chuckling going on for the past 20 years, and it’s not disrespectful or illegal or unrighteous, somehow. But the funniest is unwitting, another irony from the wittiest site on the scene. Like, When you turn around suddenly and catch the kid clutching the “Kick me” sign, and he quick-like folds his hands behind his back and rolls his eyes up heavenward and smiles like a saint, that’s funny. Whadaya talkin’ about, nobody here but us chickens — always gets a laugh.
And every time, bank on it, EduTruth publishes new evidence — hold on to your seats, folks — it’s an outrage, roar! roar!, for 24 hours; then it’s Old News, yawn yawn. If you want old stuff, this roar-yawn shtick is older than I am, and that’s old. I would like to think, admiring scholars as I do, you could do better. Alas for the old days when you did.
But seriously, do you really know — you’ve got a mathematical model? you’ve managed to buy privacy data? (talk about illegal classroom filming) — that EduT’s readership is dwindling? Oh, that’s scary.
Oink Also Commented
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?
(Apologies, apologies for plagiarizing you word for word, plus a little artful rewording, also in homage . Do keep it coming.)
“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
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: http://www.iessaythere.com/black-hole-humor.html
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.