I assume that BIOL 101 is LSU’s first course in evolutionary biology. Evidently, in BIOL 111 you get to manufacture evidence and fanaticize about the precise genetic mechanism in Darwinian evolution. At what course number do these students start imagining that they sit on God’s throne?  Eugene Shubert(Quote)

Ervin Taylor: The question posed about this course comes from someone who does not understanding the nature of modern science. It appears that Dr. Greer is teaching an excellent LSU science course. I would assume that he has in the introduction to the course took a few minutes to consider the historical and philosophical issues surrounding the study of biology and note that there are many individuals in American culture and in the Adventist faith community who take non-scientific perspectives on the issues to be discussed in his course. If LSU students want to learn about Adventist theological concepts, there are excellent courses in the LSU School of Religion. If students wish to learn about the history of American religions in general and Adventism in particular, there are excellent courses in the LSU School of Religion and Department of History. To reiterate, Dr. Greer is teaching science.

Dr. Greer is only teaching one opinion on science. He is not teaching the SDA perspective on science. Greer is not presenting the problems with the mainstream interpretation of the data, nor is he presenting the data that positively supports the intelligent design perspective or the evidence that strongly favors a recent origin of life and its deterioration over time. In short, Greer is presenting a very limited view of “science” which is extremely biased in favor of a particular philosophical view of origins.

Describing Greer’s view as “scientific” and the SDA view as “religious” is nothing short of wishful thinking. Greer’s view, as with mainstream science in general, is just as much philosophy or religion-based as is any sectarian religious organization or faith-based community of ardent believers.

There really isn’t any inherent intellectual superiority or empirical advantage for those with the mainstream perspective when it really comes right down to it. It is simply a matter of interpreting the very same data in very different ways because of one’s pre-established bias and personal philosophies. It is all a matter of religious-type faith – even Greer’s and Erv’s “scientific” beliefs. Don’t believe for a minute that there is no subjectivity involved when Erv Taylor and Lee Greer baldly declare that they have cold hard empirical evidence on their side. They’ve got just as much impressive faith supporting their beliefs as to what the data actually means as the rest of us – if not more so.

However, I do agree with Erv Taylor that if LSU is going to actively promote the modern synthesis view of origins as the most likely answer to the origin of life on this planet, that LSU should in fact be open and honest about this. It should clearly inform potential students, parents and the SDA Church constituency at large about what it is in fact teaching as the truth in its science classrooms. As it currently stands, the LSU PR department seems to be denying what is in fact currently being taught as truth, right now, in the science classrooms at LSU.

At the very least be transparent LSU… at the very least.

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com  Sean Pitman M.D.(Quote)

It certainly takes a lot less work. I just notice and now appreciate that my teachers at Southern had to write all their own lectures! I guess if you are a mainstream scientist, you can just use the standard lecture series from another scientist. One more thing my teachers were very dedicated about. And yes, they were scientists, too. Though, I have heard some people imply that if you do not agree with the assumptions of evolution then you are not a scientist by default. This shows a certain amount of bigotry and isolation that my teachers put up with. Given this, the teachers in Adventist education are truly devoted that do it wholeheartedly.  Shannon(Quote)

Ervin Taylor: The question posed about this course comes from someone who does not understanding the nature of modern science.

Mr. Taylor, You seem to be unaware of the obvious principle that conclusions depend upon presuppositions. I agree with the Nobel laureate Kary Mullis on the nature of modern science.

KARY MULLIS: “People that think any scientific fact is indisputable don’t understand about scientific facts.”

Peter Duesberg is a professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. He also understands the scientific principle that conclusions depend upon presuppositions.

PETER DUESBERG: “We don’t say Toyotas and Mercedes shouldn’t be sold here because we want to sell General Motors. But when it comes to science, we act in America like the Pope acts in Rome. There is only one truth and only one direction to march in.”  Eugene Shubert(Quote)

Bravus: I don’t know what it shows if not bigotry to not be able to view a highly trained and studied professional, many times at better schools than most of them, without cause and hearing as unequal due to a belief but nothing to do with ability or study and training. My teachers from Adventist education that did hold to creationism did have to face this regularly. They may be able to make the best space ship to the moon but if they don’t believe in evolution they can’t be called a “scientist” somehow.

And you think that it is okay to disagree with slur the professionalism of someone that you merely disagree with–I would hate to be in your family! My point is that there will never be a person that you will agree with all the time. Attacking someones credentials because you don’t agree with them shows your inability to prove your point otherwise or the weakness or your point in the first place. In essence, it is like saying–well my dad has a bigger truck than yours–when it really has nothing to do with the issues at hand. What is truth!?!

Something very similar to what has just happened with you and myself. You assume that because I went to Southern and obviously support creationism, I was trained no where else. This is simply not the case. I was trained at one other non-adventist undergraduate university (you automatically assume that all non-adventist teachers are evolutionists–but my teacher that designed the electrochemical cells for the space shuttle had a student ask him a question about origins and he said that he would answer after class for those who would stay–then, shared that he believed in creation) as well as one SDA Graduate training center with mixed SDA and non-SDA professors as well as a public post graduate training.

Interesting enough, I wasn’t even trying to comment on the abilities of Dr Greer as the amount of extra work for the teachers I had. I was saying how much I appreciated them for that and their dedication. Somehow though, Bravus, you took it that I was attacking doctor Greer. If you chose that, you are mistaken.  Shannon(Quote)

Bravus: It was never about you or the doctor Greer! I don’t know how many times I need to say it clearer. He had a copyright at the bottom of his lecture. I have no problem with it. It was very well done and he is lucky to have it. It is not a rip off and as long as he believes it, it was a good choice for him and his students in another setting as far as I’m concerned–I agree with Shane and Sean here. I was implying that it is much easier for a teacher to get good lecture material and illustrations and yes even pre-done lectures that are good if they agree with evolution. If not, they will likely spend more time creating them when someone might have already said it just as well.

On the second point about the “slur” I made, I never did say a slur anywhere about recycling slides. My point was quite the opposite–that it is a lot more work for people to have to make there own and it would be nice to have a break sometime and go with the flow. I have seen teachers use others slides and information–well sourced of course, I never thought of them as being lazy or less than excellent whether Christian or not for doing that. It was always about my teachers at Southern–I don’t know how it got to be about you and your teachers?

Finally, if you were merely asking about my training and not assuming you would not have used the derogatory form of address. If you want people to think that you are being civil and just asking interested questions you should ask them that way. The sentence Any? implies that I hand not been to a single one with significant negative overtone. And then you expect me to just take it as you asking a simple question as to my training and believe that you are not really being sarcastic about my experience levels. Come on lets be a little honest!?  Shannon(Quote)

Bravus: you made that generalization. My point is/was that Creationist, with accent on the Creationist, teachers have less lesson helps in general including the occasional lecture or slide from another. I think that you were implying the huge sweeping generalization to the activity as always and no preparation–no where did I even attempt to talk about what I though evolutionist teachers did–I just said that creationist teachers had less to work with including pre-done lectures.  Shannon(Quote)

I would assume that he has in the introduction to the course took a few minutes to consider the historical and philosophical issues surrounding the study of biology and note that there are many individuals in American culture and in the Adventist faith community who take non-scientific perspectives on the issues to be discussed in his course.

Legitimate science declares what its presuppositions are. Merely stating that irreligious assumptions are followed is really not in keeping with the foundation of modern science, as stated in David Hilbert’s philosophy of physics.  Eugene Shubert(Quote)

Ervin Taylor: It appears that Dr. Greer is teaching an excellent LSU science course.I would assume that he has in the introduction to the course took a few minutes to consider the historical and philosophical issues surrounding the study of biology and note that there are many individuals in American culture and in the Adventist faith community who take non-scientific perspectives on the issues to be discussed in his course.If LSU students want to learn about Adventist theological concepts, there are excellent courses in the LSU School of Religion.If students wish to learn about the history of American religions in general and Adventism in particular, there are excellent courses in the LSU School of Religion and Department of History.To reiterate, Dr. Greer is teaching science.

Ervin Taylor,

Am I to understand that you have no idea how Dr. Greer could separate the irreligious sentiments of materialism from the factual data of experimental science and observation?  Eugene Shubert(Quote)

What Dr. Greer has posted is pure mumbo jumbo. All conclusions drawn by evolutionists are mere speculations and fantasies, having not observed the event in process.

Neither is there preserved evidence of the process, either. So at the end it boils down to pure spouting of the same fanatical and heretical dogma of the jihadist evolutionists.

And by the way, I teach at a university and when we buy texts from publishers there is usually a whole bunch of supplementary material, like slides, test banks, etc.

Thus it is not unusual for multiple professors to have the same notes.  Jonathan Smith(Quote)

Amen to what Sister Dorothy said. This is an issue not of what one believes but the where & how it is being taught. The back & forth discourse must be making the devil happy keeping us from addressing the real issue. Does this kind of teaching belong in an SDA school or not? And if someone thinks it does then be honest about it so we can send our children/young adults to different schools! As parents we have the God given responsibility to raise up our children in Him.

If the devil can get rid or cover up creation there is absolutely no reason to observe the Sabbath as it is a sign from our Creator! Lots is at stake here.  Glenda(Quote)

And knowing the close ties between faculty and administrators at these institutions – what is the likelihood that the Bible and religion department of LSU is in fact following the lead of the evolutionists in the Biology department as WELL as the strong evolutionist convictions of their OWN recently retired religion department head – Fritz Guy?

In which case you now have to ask if parents of Bible or religion majors (or simply anyone interested in taking a couple of religion courses at LSU) really knows what they are getting?

i.e – those who “thought” that they were slipping past this exposure to “evolutionism-trumps-God” idea at LSU since they did not have a student LSU biology major – may want to “re-think” that risk. I believe it is a “given” that all of those students are taking religion classes at some level.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

Am I the only one who noticed the copyright at the bottom of Dr. Greer’s slides? These appear to be standard slides made for a textbook, which most textbook publishers now provide gratis to teachers. Many teachers use these slides, as they are a great complement to the text and make lectures much easier to prepare.

I guess copyrights are no longer to be respected in the internet age, even by Christians.

If I were teaching the class, I would certainly use the textbook slides, but I would also make verbal statements regarding points where students should be encouraged to disagree with textbook material.  Frank L.(Quote)

@Dorothy: Amen, Dorothy. You have summarised the whole issue very well.

I think Dr Greer et al are very arrogant and smug to be forcing this garbage down the throats of adventism in the face of all this controversy.

They have a nerve! It is time for our leaders to act!  Jonathan Smith(Quote)

I was reading what someone wrote about evolutionary brainwashing. The following extract shows why Professor Greer’s course is lying and brainwashing.

Lying in Biology

The first living organism, its DNA component and its cell membrane component
It is absurd that a 300,000 nucleotide chain (300 genes with an average length of 1,000 nucleotides) can randomly form, even if it did, the statistical probability that the first DNA had a permutation of nucleotides, such that 300 viable proteins could be created by this DNA genome, has a probability that is far less than: 10^-30,000 (this is a probability of 1 divided by a 1 with 30,000 zeros behind it).

(Note: the 10^-30,000 figure is based on the assumption that 1 in 100 random permutations of 1,000 nucleotides will form a protein vital to a living organism. This is a very generous figure for the evolutionists, because the real figure is probably far, far less than 1 in a billion.)
Even if it could create 300 proteins, there is an absurdly small probability that these 300 proteins would form a set of proteins that could support the life of a new organism. We will not give a probability for this because there isn’t enough known about sets of proteins.

Quickly do some math in your head. You remember from science class that there are 10^80 atoms in our universe. Then, you imagine there are 10^29,920 universes just like ours in a cluster (that is a one followed by 29,920 zeros). All of these universes combined would have 10^30,000 atoms.
Suppose some government wants to do a lottery and in order to win the lottery you have to pick the single, correct atom from among all of the atoms in the 10^29,920 universes. The probability of winning this lottery is 10^-30,000. You ask yourself: “who is so bad at math they would buy a ticket in that lottery?”

Then you remember what your math teacher taught you: “the lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math.” Then you realize there are a lot of people who would spend their life savings buying lottery tickets in that lottery.

How incredibly complex a eukaryotic cell is
There is a ridiculous probability of the first cell membrane forming by accident. A eukaryotic cell is so complex that even the exobiologists admit that one could not form by accident from a prebiotic pool. Thus, they claim that the first cell was a prokaryotic cell, and that there are conditions where a prokaryotic cell can survive without an organic host (since this is the first cell, there are no organic hosts to feed on). But even so, prokaryotic cells still could not have formed by accident. Also, the first DNA and first cell membrane could not have formed in the same prebiotic pool, and thus it was virtually impossible that they could ever get together.

New genomes and macroevolution
Learn about the improbability of irreducibly complex protein systems forming large numbers of complex inter-related proteins in the same random mutation event in macroevolution. There are mathematical absurdities caused by the issue of viable permutations of nucleotides from random mutations needed to create any new gene in any new genome. This is another case of absurd probabilities caused by permutations.

The “morphing of the embryo”
A new creature starts out as one type of cell, but when the “baby” is born it has many different kinds of cells. This means that some cells, when they divide, must divide into two different kinds of cells. The timing of these strange divisions has to be with pinpoint accuracy. The instructions for this pinpoint accuracy must be built into the DNA, thus making random mutations even less likely to be advantageous (i.e. requiring more precise chains of nucleotides). Think about the morphing “timing” issues and base-2 trees.

The first argument the evolutionists use is that “we exist,” thus our existence is proof of evolution. Liken this logic to the theory that all of Shakespeare’s plays were written by six monkeys locked in the basement of a building. Is it logical that because Shakespeare’s plays “exist,” that the monkey theory is true?

The “punctuated equilibrium” is really a super irreducibly complex protein system, and it is absurd to claim that it was not necessary for irreducibly complex protein systems to have mutated all at once, but at the same time to believe in punctuated equilibrium. The phylogenetic tree is really a cover-up for the gaps in transitional species. Learn about the massive assumptions evolutionists make with regards to carbon dating bones. We also hear the totally unproven assumptions and very shallow logic evolutionists make with respect to mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA. And so on.  Jonathan Smith(Quote)

I wonder what Professor Greer and company will say about this research (obtained from a blog somewhere):

Evolutionists Say : Birds Did Not Evolve from Dinosaurs

Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs: what creationists have been pointing out for years is now buttressed by new research.

The notion that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds has almost certainly become one of the most widely accepted “facts” of evolution. The question for many evolutionary researchers had transitioned from “if” to “how.”1 Even artists’ depictions of some dinosaurs (such as velociraptors) began to include feathers.2 Except for a few notable critics, such as University of North Carolina paleobiologist Alan Feduccia, evolutionists seem to have all but agreed on birds’ dinosaurian origins.

Now, a new paper in the Journal of Morphology presents the research of two Oregon State University scientists who don’t agree with the evolutionary dogma on bird origins.3 Doctoral student Devon Quick conducted the investigation into bird breathing and its connection with dinosaur-to-bird evolution as part of her dissertation.

Background
The research hinges—almost literally—on the femur (upper leg bone) of birds. Unlike other walking creatures, a bird’s femur does not move significantly, and birds instead articulate the lower portion of their leg to walk or run. Quick’s surprising discovery is that this “knee running” anatomy, with nearly fixed femur bones and musculature, is crucial in preventing a bird’s air-sac lung from collapsing whenever the bird takes a breath.

Quick explained, “This is fundamental to bird physiology. It’s really strange that no one realized this before. The position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their lung function, which in turn is what gives them enough lung capacity for flight.”

Dinosaurs lack this fixed femur, however, and that includes the theropod dinosaurs from which birds supposedly evolved. Oregon State zoologist John Ruben, a coauthor on the paper, commented, “Theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link.”

He continued, “It’s really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn’t understand a basic aspect of bird biology.” Ruben added that the appearance of birds before dinosaurs in the fossil record is a “serious problem” that is ignored by those who advocate dinosaur-to-bird evolution (see also The Early Bird Catches the Dinosaur).

What Does it Mean?
The conclusion is so revealing—especially considering that it comes straight from evolutionist researchers—that we borrow it directly from the Oregon State press release 4:

OSU research on avian biology and physiology was among the first in the nation to begin calling into question the dinosaur-bird link since the 1990s. Other findings have been made since then, at OSU and other institutions, which also raise doubts. But old theories die hard, Ruben said, especially when it comes to some of the most distinctive and romanticized animal species in world history.

“Frankly, there’s a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions,” Ruben said. In some museum displays, he said, the birds-descended-from-dinosaurs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that “some scientists disagree.”

Our work at OSU used to be pretty much the only asterisk they were talking about,” Ruben said. “But now there are more asterisks all the time. That’s part of the process of science.”

In the research, the scientists also noted other “specialized features” of bird anatomy which allow the substantial oxygen intake required for flight, as well as features present in both birds and mammals but not dinosaurs (the researchers believed these features evolved independently, as evolutionists do not consider birds and mammals closely related).

Conclusion

An Anatomist’s Thoughts
Dr. David Menton, an award-winning anatomist, had this to say about the new research:

So certain are most evolutionists that birds evolved from dinosaurs that birds are now widely regarded as being, in fact, Coelurosaurian dinosaurs. Still, the growing lines of evidence coming from “dinosaurs as birds” skeptics like Ruben and Feduccia are eroding this confidence. This new study by Quick and her mentor Ruben presents compelling evidence from an anatomical feature of birds that was previously ignored—the bird’s femur. Unlike all mammals and reptiles (including dinosaurs), bird femurs are tucked up into the body, and thus the visible part of a bird’s leg is from the knee on down. This curious arrangement was once alluded to in a humorous book title: Do Penguins Have Knees?

The importance of the bird femur to avian respiration has not been appreciated until now. Quick and Ruben point out that the avian style air-sac system of breathing requires support from the uniquely positioned femurs of birds to keep their abdominal air-sacs from collapsing during inspiration. They conclude that “the likely absence of bird-like pulmonary function in theropods is inconsistent with suggestions of cardiovascular anatomy more sophisticated than that of modern crocodilians.”

One hopes that this new evidence will now prompt evolutionists to reconsider their claimed evidence for “feathers” in dinosaurs. No other cutaneous appendages are as strikingly different in their development, structure, function, and mode of replacement as scales and feathers. It appears that both feathers and the avian mode of breathing are unique to birds. But will all of this have any impact on the current birds-are-dinosaurs dogma? I think not: experience has shown that evolutionary dogma, once established, dies hard.

What do the researchers conclude about bird evolution, then? “This discovery probably means that birds evolved on a parallel path alongside dinosaurs, starting that process before most dinosaur species even existed,” Ruben noted.

“That’s quite possible and is routinely found in evolution. It just seems pretty clear now that birds were evolving all along on their own and did not descend directly from the theropod dinosaurs, which lived many millions of years later,” said Quick.

The scientists believe the similarities between birds and dinosaurs show that they possibly shared a common ancestor that eventually gave rise to not only birds and dinosaurs, but also crocodilians. However, their research reported that the lung structure and physiology of dinosaurs was likely much more similar to crocodilians than to birds.

Creationists should keep in mind several important points regarding this research:

Once again, the evolutionary “facts” have been challenged. What scientists believe about the evidence frequently changes, even while their presupposed belief in evolution is held constant. Don’t be fooled by the “facts” that evolutionists themselves may doubt tomorrow!

We may well hear a sharp response from other evolutionists attacking this research or, at least, emphasizing that birds still evolved, even if only from an unknown ancestor. Alternatively, we may hear virtually nothing if evolutionists hope the story goes unnoticed.

Whenever evolutionists demonstrate that specialized features originated separately (i.e., the evolutionary branches are farther apart), it multiplies the number of miraculous mutations that would have had to occur to produce the specialized anatomy in organisms on both branches.

The “overlap” between bird anatomy and mammal anatomy, and between bird anatomy and reptile anatomy—along with the plentiful uniqueness of bird anatomy—all shouts “design.” Evolution can only explain such recurring anatomical elements with the fanciful justification of “convergent evolution” (i.e., concluding that two similar features evolved separately because the organisms are on different evolutionary branches). Creationists instead have the common-sense understanding that the Creator chose for each organism whatever designs best suited its purpose, and sometimes He reused the best designs.

Perhaps most importantly, this research identifies an incredible, previously unknown element of bird biology—a sophisticated design that enables bird flight and reflects on the ingenuity of the Creator.
Taking aim at the traditional evolutionary view, Ruben quipped, “A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset.” Sadly, that romanticized view seems to prevail among evolutionists, who have abundant faith—even without scientific justification—that all the biodiversity and incredible “design” we see in nature today is merely a product of natural processes acting on accidents. So, even adding one more “miracle” to evolution—as this new research does—is unlikely to shake their faith.

Footnotes
See, for example, the first paragraph of K. H. Platt, “New Feathered Dinosaur Found; Adds to Bird-Dino Theory,” National Geographic News, January 16, 2009.
For instance, the first image, by Michael Skrepnick, on J. R. Hutchinson, “The Dromaeosauridae,” University of California Museum of Paleontology, November 24, 1995 (image added later).
D. E. Quick and J. A. Ruben, “Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs,” Journal of Morphology, 2009.
“Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links,” EurekAlert, June 9, 2009.  Jonathan Smith(Quote)

Sean Pitman M.D.: However, I do agree with Erv Taylor that if LSU is going to actively promote the modern synthesis view of origins as the most likely answer to the origin of life on this planet, that LSU should in fact be open and honest about this

I disagree with Sean.If LSU cannot teach creation week, then the conference needs to take action and get rid of Wiseby and the 4 professors that have a problem figuring out what the Bible teaches. We either stand on the Adventist pillars of faith or we don’t. At this point I would like to quote Dr. Pipim. This quote primarily is about the SOP, but it is quite evident that those who do not stand on all 28 beliefs are simply in the wrong church.

Should all Adventists believe in the Spirit of Prophecy?
Yes, indeed! The Bible says we should accept the Spirit of Prophecy. In 1 Thessalonians 5:20, 21 we are told, “Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” First Corinthians 12 also says there are many gifts in the church, including the gift of prophecy. All these gifts will be present in the church until Jesus comes (Eph 4:7-13). If we accept the other gifts of the Spirit, we must accept the gift of prophecy as well. In fact, as we have noted, the Bible singles out this gift as one identifying characteristic of the end-time church (Rev 12:17; 19:10).

Whenever God gives a gift to His people, they must respectfully accept it.
Moreover, belief in the Spirit of Prophecy is one of the Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists, the body of doctrines identifying us as a church. Therefore, before one is baptized, it is important to be carefully instructed to subscribe to all 27 of the Fundamental Beliefs, including the teaching on the Spirit of Prophecy. If after baptism a member cannot conscientiously adhere to this or any other doctrine, the church should respect the right of that person to withdraw from membership.

At times, when members or church employees blatantly oppose our understanding of this biblical doctrine, the church may have to encourage them to honorably withdraw from its fellowship, or even insist that they do so. To be a Seventh-day Adventist and to remain one requires a belief in this biblical teaching and, at minimum, a respect for the church’s conviction that the genuine gift of prophecy was manifested in the life and work of Ellen G. White. When one of its members begins to undermine its teachings, the church should diligently try to win that member back to full agreement with the body of believers or, if this is not possible, take steps to help the person find another denomination whose beliefs are more like his own.

Seventh-day Adventists believe that the writings of Mrs. White, as a genuine manifestation of the Spirit of prophecy, are a precious gift from God, to be cherished and appreciated. These writings, like the Bible, are to help prepare us for heaven. Even now, as they lift our gaze toward things eternal, they give us a foretaste of what God has prepared for those who love Him. (by Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, PhD,

http://www.drpipim.org/spirit-of-prophecy-contemporaryissues-53/58-understanding-the-spirit-of-prophecy.html)  Steve Billiter(Quote)

Steve Billiter: I disagree with Sean.If LSU cannot teach creation week, then the conference needs to take action and get rid of Wiseby and the 4 professors that have a problem figuring out what the Bible teaches. We either stand on the Adventist pillars of faith or we don’t. At this point I would like to quote Dr. Pipim. This quote primarily is about the SOP, but it is quite evident that those who do not stand on all 28 beliefs are simply in the wrong church.

I think you misinterpret my comment(s). I’m just as upset as you are that a supposedly SDA University is promoting evolutionist doctrine. My point is that whatever you are doing, at least be honest about it. The PR department at LSU is trying to cover up the fact that LSU is in fact promoting Darwinism in its classrooms. At the very least, LSU PR people should be honest and not try to cover up what is really going on at LSU. Surely you would agree with an appeal for openness and honestly? – at a bare minimum?

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com  Sean Pitman M.D.(Quote)

@Frank L.:

Frank L. says:
December 16, 2009 Am I the only one who noticed the copyright at the bottom of Dr. Greer’s slides? These appear to be standard slides made for a textbook, which most textbook publishers now provide gratis to teachers. Many teachers use these slides, as they are a great complement to the text and make lectures much easier to prepare.

I guess copyrights are no longer to be respected in the internet age, even by Christians.

If I were teaching the class, I would certainly use the textbook slides, but I would also make verbal statements regarding points where students should be encouraged to disagree with textbook material.

Imagine a wild whacky world where LSU biologists actually engaged the class in “critical thinking” of the form you suggest above. This scenario that you present means that they are selecting the most rabidly all-for-evolutionism texts and courses (course 404B comes to mind) and then with every page and every paragraph of all-for-darwinism evolutionist pablum – they engage the class in discussion that is of the form “do you see the hoax, or hype, or propaganda, or fraud, or missing data here” – and then if students struggle at times to see the carefully crafted coverup — the professor shows them how to find it??

Do you REALLY imagine that is what is taking place at LSU?

If so – your creative imagination exceeds anyone I have met here so far.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

@BobRyan:
Bob,

The irony of it is that non-SDA evolutionists who do not necessarily claim to believe the Bible and who do not have the Spirit of Prophecy are more open minded and honest about the failings of their dogma.

How sad that the LSU mafia has locked themselves in a steel cage and intend to take the students with them down to the bottom of the ocean with no way out.

It reminds me of the accusation Jesus made of the Pharisees:

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.  Jonathan Smith(Quote)

Evidence for Evilution (new name) – The Fossil Record:

Supposed “missing links” between distinct kinds of animals which can be extrapolated as transitions between kinds. For example, Archaeopteryx is thought to be a transition between reptiles and birds. (crit) There are no unambiguous transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx was thought to be a transition between reptile and bird because of its teeth and the claws on its wings. The fact is some fossil birds had teeth, and some didn’t. Some reptiles have teeth, and some don’t. Some mammals have teeth, and some don’t. As far as claws on its wings, there are birds living today that have claws on their wings. Nevertheless, they are obviously birds, and no one disputes this. Besides, superficial similarities do not imply genetic relationship. “There is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record.” – Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well-known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record.

(Reference: Colin Patterson, personal communication. Luther Sunderland, “Darwin’s Enigma,” 1988, p. 89.)  Jonathan Smith(Quote)

@Kenneth Christman, M.D.:
Good, very good observations doc.

When you look at the evolutionist literature you see a lot of SPECULATION which is then trumpeted as fact later. Even though these speculations can be out of a set of a million possibilities and these speculations at times defying logic and evidence.

Thus it proves that evolution is nothing more than a mystical religion with its adherents akin to the suicide bombers of Islamic lore.

The sad part is that there are those who allegedly are Christians and who are hell-bent on proving and supporting evolution while disregarding the word of God which has never failed. That is why Ellen White calls theistic evolution the worst kind of infidelity.

I am sorry, but I am willing to say that in the absence of repentance, none of these SDA theistic evolutionists will enter the kingdom of heaven. They have no excuse to give God. Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God. Luke 4:4  Jonathan Smith(Quote)

@Kenneth Christman, M.D.:

The warnings of the word of God regarding the perils surrounding the Christian church belong to us today. As in the days of the apostles men tried by tradition and philosophy to destroy faith in the Scriptures, so today, by the pleasing sentiments of higher criticism, evolution, spiritualism, theosophy, and pantheism, the enemy of righteousness is seeking to lead souls into forbidden paths. To many the Bible is as a lamp without oil, because they have turned their minds into channels of speculative belief that bring misunderstanding and confusion. The work of higher criticism, in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation. It is robbing God’s word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives. By spiritualism, multitudes are taught to believe that desire is the highest law, that license is liberty, and that man is accountable only to himself. {AA 474.1}

Evolution and spiritualism are proper bedfellows and those who accept evolution can be rightly said to be listening to the serpent at the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

In the last days 3 unclean spirits are going out to deceive the whole world and excite opposition against the remnant.

Do not be surprised when creationists are especially targeted with great hate in a little while from now!!!  Jonathan Smith(Quote)

@Kenneth Christman, M.D.:

When evolution is compared to mystical religion, one must realize that some of these folk claim to be able to do time travel. Some of them even claim to have traveled back in time billions and billions of years–very close to the BIG BANG!! This kind of mysticism (experiential), is, of course, only done through spirit powers that are best avoided.

How facinating that in 3SG 90-91 Ellen White claims that God took her back and showed her the actual 7 literal day Creation week that took place about 6000 years ago – creating earth and all life on it… and yet we have spiritists claiming that they on the other hand were taken back billions of years ago and shown the “big bang”.

It is no wonder that Ellen White calls evolutionism an invention of Satan.

But – that would be just “one more aspect of Adventism” for evolutionists to back away from in their “sacrifice all” quest for evolutionism no matter what the cost.

Better to expose this whole thing to the light now – than to let it keep going in its old “silent running” mode under the surface.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

It is no wonder that Ellen White calls evolutionism an invention of Satan.

That’s a very serious accusation. Do you have a quote?

If the Seventh-day Adventist Church is promoting an invention of Satan, then the Church is a willing servant of Satan. How is it possible to deny the inspiration of Sister White? She is obviously a prophet.  Eugene Shubert(Quote)

Some will complain that the information in the quotes above is “getting out” and might want to blame me as though I am the “author”.

I am simply reporting the existence of those statements.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

No one said the Adventist church was promoting evolutionism. Just a very small minority of ‘educated’ nominal (in name only) Adventists.

I’m not sure that you have a clear understanding of how God regards the matter. Sister White wrote:

“If God abhors one sin above another, of which His people are guilty, it is doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is regarded of God as a grievous crime and equal to the very worst type of hostility against God.” 3T 281.

Isn’t it possible that God strongly disapproves of even one Seventh-day Adventist university teaching evolutionism and that the following excerpt from an article with the title, The Sin of Achan, published in The Signs of the Times April 21, 1881, might be genuine Spirit of prophecy?

“The history of Achan teaches the solemn lesson, that for one man’s sin, the displeasure of God will rest upon a people or a nation till the transgression is searched out and punished. Sin is corrupting in its nature. One man infected with its deadly leprosy may communicate the taint to thousands. Those who occupy responsible positions as guardians of the people are false to their trust, if they do not faithfully search out and reprove sin. Many dare not condemn iniquity, lest they shall thereby sacrifice position or popularity. And by some it is considered uncharitable to rebuke sin. The servant of God should never allow his own spirit to be mingled with the reproof which he is required to give; but he is under the most solemn obligation to present the word of God, without fear or favor. He must call sin by its right name. Those who by their carelessness or indifference permit God’s name to be dishonored by his professed people, are numbered with the transgressor, — registered in the record of Heaven as partakers in their evil deeds.”

“There is need of earnest work to set things in order in the church of God, and it is fully as essential to do this work as it is to preach or to pray.”

“Do we not encourage sin, by failing to meet it with plain and pointed reproof? We may have the clearest understanding of God’s word, we may make a high profession of godliness, yet if injustice or iniquity is concealed among us, we need not wonder that our souls are dry and fruitless as a withered branch.”

“The spirit of hatred against reproof is steadily increasing. It is considered uncharitable to deal plainly and faithfully with the erring. Sin is glossed over, and thus blindness has come upon souls until it is impossible for them to discriminate between right and wrong, between sin and holiness. Many have closed their ears to reproof, and hardened their hearts against every influence which would set their sins before them.”

“We repeat, God holds the church responsible for the sins of its individual members.”

“Those who have the true love of God in their hearts will not teach that sin should be handled with gloved hands. The words of God to Joshua contain a solemn lesson for every one who professes to be a follower of Christ, — ‘Neither will I be with you any more, except ye destroy the accursed thing from among you.’”

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/dupery  Eugene Shubert(Quote)

@Eugene Shubert:

“If God abhors one sin above another, of which His people are guilty, it is doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is regarded of God as a grievous crime and equal to the very worst type of hostility against God.” 3T 281.

That is hugely significant.

Possibly the masthead for this entire web site.

So while I step back from saying “The Adventist church is …” — I do not step away from affirming the pointed statement above as fully applicable to our call to action here.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

Since the church is not a theocracy but mostly a democracy. Since it’s leaders do not exercise kingly power. Since it’s political machinery moves much slower than individual members would want – does not mean that justice cannot still be dispensed and corruption dealt with. Since administrators and leaders are under a mandate also to deal with those who err in the most sensitive and delicate manner (the other side of the inspired coin) – we should be slow to judge those who have been entrusted with this responsibility (those of us here speaking from our armchairs have not been so entrusted). Yes, epicenters of error sprout and entrench themselves – often growing best in the fertile ground of Adventist Ghettos (BattleCreek?). Sometimes systemic cancer spreads, as in the Desmond Ford crisis – a much more serious challenge the church did face and deal with. Yes, this particular problem is peculiarly egregious and chronic. How do you know God has not allowed it to develop so that it may be more fully exposed? Does this controversy cause as much hysteria in the Third World of Adventism or on the frontlines of Frontier missions? What we should really be concerned about is that our institutions of higher learning in North America are no longer missionary training centers but training centers for worldly business endeavor. This has damaged our spiritual vitality far more than students in California being taught evolution by a few professors who don’t believe in the truth.  Victor Marshall(Quote)

Then say that there is an Achan in the camp that the church should deal with, lest the church partake in it’s sin. Don’t imply that, ‘the Adventist Church is promoting an invention of Satan and is a willing servant of Satan’. That is simply not true sir. A gross exaggeration at best, a lie at worst.
Be careful how you portray the apple of God’s eye.
Be careful how you receive this reproof.   

I believe you missed the point that says, “Those who by their carelessness or indifference permit God’s name to be dishonored by his professed people, are numbered with the transgressor, — registered in the record of Heaven as partakers in their evil deeds.”

Here it is again:

“If one neglects the duty Christ has enjoined, of trying to restore those who are in error and sin, he becomes a partaker in the sin. For evils that we might have checked, we are just as responsible as if we were guilty of the acts ourselves.” DA 441.

The Word of God says: “Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.” Lev. 19:17. NIV.

Can the vast majority of Seventh-day Adventists repent of their approval of evolutionism, pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualism and popery in the Church? Theoretically, yes, even though the Spirit of prophecy predicts that the Church will not be obeying God on the day of her visitation. See The Coming Judgment on the Seventh-day Adventist Hierarchy.  Eugene Shubert(Quote)

I truly believe in the Spirit of Prophecy but do not quote it often but would like to quote it in light of the last two issues above. E. G. White says that the church will look like it will fall but will go through to the end.

Also to source the Bible, there are 7 churches in Revelation for each of the 7 eras after the death of Christ. You can pretty much figure out each church represented till the last era and that is the Laodecia era church. Which mirrors the church of the final days from 1844 on. Also, this would be the luke-warm church. Pretty much, what we are dealing in the current discussion with now. Mixed with hot and cold fervor–can we get excited and stand up? The question you need to ask yourself is if the SDA church is the correct Laodecian church but if that is correct, reading my Bible, there will still not be another. Laodecia is the final church and the church of Christ to go through till the end. The Bible does not have another church to follow. If it was not the correct church, you just cannot go and pick another now–you have to pick one that fits starting in that time frame of 1844 proclaiming the 3 angles’ messages.  Shannon(Quote)

Some thoughts in response to Eugene’s post. Please see end of post* also for clarification.

In Matthew 18:15 to 18, there is a process mapped out for dealing with sin in the church. The reason Jesus gave us a process is to minimize false accusations that naturally flow out of gossip. I have witnessed first hand more than one ocassion where this process was not followed. The consequences are always tragic and always cripple the work that the falsely accused could have accomplished; as well as the work a church could have accomplished.

We should not repeat statements that we have not personally (1)checked for accuracy, (2)if true, lovingly approached the individual, (3) if the individual did not receive it, bring another with us. [At this point, the Lord has placed a necessary step. If one is way off, no one will come along. And this is where the process should stop if that happens.] Otherwise, continue with the process in Matthew 18 to bring the matter to the church, and only if necessary. We should always strive to keep the matter between the least amount of people. If the matter is within one congregation, it should remain there if possible.

Vague innuendos about the church at large simply serve to feed into the carnal and voracious appetite for gossip.

There are many conspiracy theories rampant in our churches. Every time I ask, the person repeating the story has not checked out the facts for himself/herself. If we as individuals decide to make a committment to not bear false witness, we will need to be more careful. Prayer should permeate our efforts to do the right thing. After sincere prayer, we should check out the facts. Next, we should check on what Biblical counsel is available for the particular circumstances (ex. Matt. 18). Third, we need to decide what our individual roles are and whether the matter should be repeated or not, and to whom it should be repeated. We should ask ourselves many questions. Is it necessary? Is it expedient? Is there a better way? What is God’s timing?

I suppose one might say this is inconvenient, or cramps their style! I think maybe that’s exactly what Jesus had in mind. When we pause before speaking; when we think things through and remember that Jesus wants us to follow a Biblical process; when we are still and know that He is God; then we are more likely to do things His way!

Following this process also reminds us that the great controversy is being fought over ‘me’ and not just the sins of the other. In the process, watch your feet, because beams falling out of your (my) eyes might very well break our feet! (contrived grammar intended)

At the very least; pause, prayer, and gentle steps will increase the usefulness of our churches. God’s people will be more encouraged.

Check out these well-known but not often considered verses:
James 3, especially verses 5 to 12.
Proverbs 21:23
Ps. 39:1

*NOTE:(I’m writing this in response to Eugene’s conspiratorial accusations toward the church. I am not referring to the discussion regarding the professors at LSU. Although I’m not totally positive that the process here is following Matt. 18 except that this is the point where it is being taken ‘to the church.’ The only problem I have is that the internet opens up the discussion to the largest amount of people possible, beyond our church.)  Christiane Marshall(Quote)

Eugene Shubert: I believe you missed the point that says, “Those who by their carelessness or indifference permit God’s name to be dishonored by his professed people, are numbered with the transgressor, — registered in the record of Heaven as partakers in their evil deeds.”

Eugene, you may have missed what Victor said*. It’s important for us to understand that our individual responsibilities are unique. The responsibilities of a pastor, an elder, a conference president, a deaconess, are all different. It may not be my place to approach an individual about a particular sin. In some cases, my only responsibility is to pray and perhaps approach the pastor with my concerns. Another time it may be clear to me that I must do something more. I have had others judge my motives in the past. Because I am a pastor’s wife, I was unable to defend myself because of confidentiality issues. It is very important that we do not stand in God’s way by hampering or discouraging those who have different responsibilities than we have. Rather than making sweeping accusations that serve no purpose but to discourage the faithful, we should be spending more time on our knees.

*”Since the church is not a theocracy but mostly a democracy. Since it’s leaders do not exercise kingly power. Since it’s political machinery moves much slower than individual members would want – does not mean that justice cannot still be dispensed and corruption dealt with. Since administrators and leaders are under a mandate also to deal with those who err in the most sensitive and delicate manner (the other side of the inspired coin) – we should be slow to judge those who have been entrusted with this responsibility (those of us here speaking from our armchairs have not been so entrusted).”  Christiane Marshall(Quote)

Eugene, you may have missed what Victor said*. It’s important for us to understand that our individual responsibilities are unique. The responsibilities of a pastor, an elder, a conference president, a deaconess, are all different.

Do you believe that there is even one Seventh-day Adventist church administrator, conference president, pastor, teacher or elder that is exempt from obeying the fifty-eighth chapter of Isaiah? See Sister White’s Testimony For Sleepy, Ease-Loving Sentinels.

“Living faith will prompt to energetic action. The spirit manifested by the leader will be, to a great extent, reflected by the people. If the leaders professing to believe the solemn, important truths that are to test the world at this time, manifest no ardent zeal to prepare a people to stand in the day of God, we must expect the church to be careless, indolent, and pleasure-loving.” 3BC 1137.  Eugene Shubert(Quote)

I believe there is a principle where we wait for those in leadership to rebuke known sins.See for example Paul’s counsel to Timothy and Titus.

Do you have a specific verse in mind? So how long are faithful believers not in leadership positions to wait before they can speak of God’s law and messages of salvation? And did the creator of this blog commit a great sin by jumping the gun and going public, not giving the hierarchy a chance to eventually get around to dealing with evolutionism being taught at LSU?

You are obviously wrong to think that believers must wait for those in leadership to rebuke known sins.

“The saving of human souls is an interest infinitely above any other line of work in our world. Whoever is brought under the influences of the truth, and through faith is made partaker of Christ’s love, is by that very fact appointed of God to save others. He has a mission in the world. He is to be a colaborer with Christ, making known the truth as it is in Jesus; and when men in any line of God’s work seek to bring the minds and talents of the Lord’s human agents under their control, they have assumed a jurisdiction over their fellowmen that they cannot maintain without injustice and iniquity.” TM 293.

“God is Commander and Ruler over all. We have a personal Saviour, and we are not to exchange His word for the word of any man. In the Scriptures the Lord has given instruction for every worker. The words of the Master Worker should be diligently studied; for they are spirit and life. Laborers who are striving to work in harmony with this instruction are under the leadership and guidance of the Holy Spirit, and need not always, before they make any advance move, first ask permission of someone else. No precise lines are to be laid down. Let the Holy Spirit direct the workers. As they keep looking unto Jesus, the Author and Finisher of their faith, the gifts of grace will increase by wise use.” TM 492.  Eugene Shubert(Quote)

Shannon: E. G. White says that the church will look like it will fall but will go through to the end.

I often hear this point made and I understand Sister White’s meaning but I wonder what it means to those who cite it.

There will be a remnant. That is all that this one statement is saying.

“The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out — the chaff separated from the precious wheat. This is a terrible ordeal, but nevertheless it must take place.” — 2SM 380.

“As the storm approaches, a large class who have professed faith in the third angel’s message, but have not been sanctified through obedience to the truth, abandon their position and join the ranks of the opposition.” — GC 608.  Eugene Shubert(Quote)

Shannon:Unfortunately, church will always be this way.

No. The Seventh-day Adventist church will not always be this way. A day is coming when all those who are offended by the Spirit of prophecy will apostatize.

“Just as long as God has a church, he will have those who will cry aloud and spare not, who will be his instruments to reprove selfishness and sins, and will not shun to declare the whole counsel of God, whether men will hear or forbear. I saw that individuals would rise up against the plain testimonies. It does not suit their natural feelings. They would choose to have smooth things spoken unto them, and have peace cried in their ears. I view the church in a more dangerous condition than they ever have been. Experimental religion is known but by a few. The shaking must soon take place to purify the church.” 2SG 284.

Shannon: I do agree that we need the discipline but God is working through people still at this time.

Yes, God is working through people but certainly not through the hierarchy.

“When the call is made for those who will be on the Lord’s side to make a decided move to vindicate the right, they will manifest their true position. Those who have been nearly all their lives controlled by a spirit as foreign to the Spirit of God as was Achan’s will be very passive when the time comes for decided action on the part of all. They will not claim to be on either side. The power of Satan has so long held them that they seem blinded and have no inclination to stand in defense of right. If they do not take a determined course on the wrong side, it is not because they have a clear sense of the right, but because they dare not.

“God will not be trifled with. It is in the time of conflict that the true colors should be fling to the breeze. It is then that the standard-bearers need to be firm and let their true position be known. It is then that the skill of every true soldier for the right is tested. Shirkers can never wear the laurels of victory. Those who are true and loyal will not conceal the fact, but will put heart and might into the work, and venture their all in the struggle, let the battle turn as it will. God is a sin-hating God. And those who encourage the sinner, saying, It is well with thee, God will curse.” 3T 272.

“Here we see that the church—the Lord’s sanctuary—was the first to feel the stroke of the wrath of God. The ancient men, those to whom God had given great light and who had stood as guardians of the spiritual interests of the people, had betrayed their trust. They had taken the position that we need not look for miracles and the marked manifestation of God’s power as in former days. Times have changed. These words strengthen their unbelief, and they say: The Lord will not do good, neither will He do evil. He is too merciful to visit His people in judgment. Thus ‘Peace and safety’ is the cry from men who will never again lift up their voice like a trumpet to show God’s people their transgressions and the house of Jacob their sins. These dumb dogs that would not bark are the ones who feel the just vengeance of an offended God. Men, maidens, and little children all perish together.” 5T 211.

“No superiority of rank, dignity, or worldly wisdom, no position in sacred office, will preserve men from sacrificing principle when left to their own deceitful hearts. Those who have been regarded as worthy and righteous prove to be ringleaders in apostasy and examples in indifference and in the abuse of God’s mercies. Their wicked course He will tolerate no longer, and in His wrath He deals with them without mercy.” 5T 212.  Eugene Shubert(Quote)

Jonathan Smith: Bird evolution flies out the windowHi folks,If you read the article at this link, you will see again the folly of evolution. In spite of all the “science” involved in finding, cataloguing, etc, the evolutionists at the end make a leap of faith to make and make some grand transitional theory. However, the real science usually shows otherwise.http://creation.com/bird-evolution-flies-out-the-window  (Quote)

Jonathan, Thanks for sharing this article! The closer they look, the more confused they become–because the clearer the handprints of Jesus become!  Christiane Marshall(Quote)

Eugene,
You might want to be very cautious in saying who the Lord is and is not working through.

JohnB, I think you need to take your complaint to the Ellen G. White Estate. If you believe there is something faulty with my cited passages from the Spirit of prophecy, you need to take it up with them.

The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall.

So what is your point? Are you trying to impute a special kind of merit to the present Laodicean Church by admitting that there will be a remnant?

Inspiration Asserts that Seventh-day Adventists Outrank the Jewish Church in Terms of Disobedience and Failure

“But very few of those who have received the light are doing the work entrusted to their hands. There are a few men of unswerving fidelity who do not study ease, convenience, or life itself, who push their way wherever they can find an opening to press the light of truth and vindicate the holy law of God. But the sins that control the world have come into the churches, and into the hearts of those who claim to be God’s peculiar people. Many who have received the light exert an influence to quiet the fears of worldlings and formal professors. There are lovers of the world even among those who profess to be waiting for the Lord. There is ambition for riches and honor. Christ describes this class when He declares that the day of God is to come as a snare upon all that dwell upon the earth. This world is their home. They make it their business to secure earthly treasures. They erect costly dwellings and furnish them with every good thing; they find pleasure in dress and the indulgence of appetite. The things of the world are their idols. These interpose between the soul and Christ, and the solemn and awful realities that are crowding upon us are but dimly seen and faintly realized. The same disobedience and failure which were seen in the Jewish church have characterized in a greater degree the people who have had this great light from heaven in the last messages of warning. Shall we, like them, squander our opportunities and privileges until God shall permit oppression and persecution to come upon us? Will the work which might be performed in peace and comparative prosperity be left undone until it must be performed in days of darkness, under the pressure of trial and persecution?” 5T 456-457.  Eugene Shubert(Quote)

JohnB: My Point is that God is still working through His appointed leaders on earth, whether you think He is or not.  

Exactly where are God’s appointed leaders that are taking an open and uncompromising stand against the evolutionism that is being taught at LSU? How many of them would you compare to the Apostle Paul, Elijah or John the Baptist? What are their names and what have they said?

“If the minister’s face is not flint, if he has not indomitable faith and courage, if his heart is not made strong by constant communion with God, he will begin to shape his testimony to please the unsanctified ears and hearts of those whom he is addressing. In endeavoring to avoid the criticism to which he is exposed, he separates from God, and loses the sense of the divine favor, and his testimony becomes tame and lifeless. He finds that his courage and faith are gone, and his labors are powerless. The world is full of flatterers and dissemblers who have yielded to the desire to please; but the faithful men, who do not study self-interest, but love their brethren too well to suffer sin upon them, are few indeed.” 2BC 1034.  Eugene Shubert(Quote)

Just to clarify, I wasn’t talking about Sister White’s writings, but about how you are using them to accuse the brethren. I referred to your accusations as vague innuendos.

I thought I was merely letting Sister White correct a plethora of serious misconceptions. It boils down to this: All Seventh-day Adventist Laodiceans believe in their own self-righteousness and trust in the righteousness of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Sister White has prophesied of a time when the power of this delusion will be broken.

Ellen White wrote, “the message to the Church of the Laodiceans is a startling denunciation” (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, p. 252).

Indeed it is.

“What greater deception can come upon human minds than a confidence that they are right when they are all wrong! The message of the True Witness finds the people of God in a sad deception, yet honest in that deception. They know not that their condition is deplorable in the sight of God. While those addressed are flattering themselves that they are in an exalted spiritual condition, the message of the True Witness breaks their security by the startling denunciation of their true condition of spiritual blindness, poverty, and wretchedness. The testimony, so cutting and severe, cannot be a mistake, for it is the True Witness who speaks, and His testimony must be correct.” —Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, pp. 252-253.  Eugene Shubert(Quote)

I have been shown that God here illustrates how He regards sin among those who profess to be His commandment-keeping people. Those whom He has specially honored with witnessing the remarkable exhibitions of His power, as did ancient Israel, and who will even then venture to disregard His express directions, will be subjects of His wrath. He would teach His people that disobedience and sin are exceedingly offensive to Him and are not to be lightly regarded. He shows us that when His people are found in sin they should at once take decided measures to put that sin from them, that His frown may not rest upon them all. But if the sins of the people are passed over by those in responsible positions, His frown will be upon them, and the people of God, as a body, will be held responsible for those sins. In His dealings with His people in the past the Lord shows the necessity of purifying the church from wrongs. One sinner may diffuse darkness that will exclude the light of God from the entire congregation. When the people realize that darkness is settling upon them, and they do not know the cause, they should seek God earnestly, in great humility and self-abasement, until the wrongs which grieve His Spirit are searched out and put away. {3T 265.1}

The prejudice which has arisen against us because we have reproved the wrongs that God has shown me existed, and the cry that has been raised of harshness and severity, are unjust. God bids us speak, and we will not be silent. If wrongs are apparent among His people, and if the servants of God pass on indifferent to them, they virtually sustain and justify the sinner, and are alike guilty and will just as surely receive the displeasure of God; for they will be made responsible for the sins of the guilty. In vision I have been pointed to many instances where the displeasure of God has been incurred by a neglect on the part of His servants to deal with the wrongs and sins existing among them. Those who have excused these wrongs have been thought by the people to be very amiable and lovely in disposition, simply because they shunned to discharge a plain Scriptural duty. The task was not agreeable to their feelings; therefore they avoided it. {3T 265.2}

The spirit of hatred which has existed with some because the wrongs among God’s people have been reproved has brought blindness and a fearful deception upon their own souls, making it impossible for them to discriminate between right and wrong. They have put out their own spiritual eyesight?. They may witness wrongs, but they do not feel as did Joshua and humble themselves because the danger of souls is felt by them. {3T 266.1}  BobRyan(Quote)

This is issue is really quite simple. It has nothing to do with science nor the Spirit of Prophecy. Rather, it has to do with God saying He created the world and all its living creatures in 6 literal days, vs. certain La Sierra professors reportedly teaching otherwise. I side with God. I have a nephew who was graduated from La Sierra a number of years ago who is now a full-fledged atheist-agnostic. Some of us have wondered when and how he lost his way.

The solution is simple, yet painful.
1. Do not encourage nor support young people in attending La Sierra. It is best for young people to learn Darwinian evolution from those who are labeled as atheists and evolutionists, rather than those labeled as Christians.
2. Withdraw all monetary support from La Sierra.
3. Continue to pray that these individuals will turn back to the true Creation Story in Genesis. I recently spoke with a non-Adventist who is a Creationist and was unaware that SDA’s have turned against Creationism. He said he appreciated books by Morris and Gish, but was not aware that these men were SDA’s! It is too bad that contemporary professors are now ignoring those men.
4. Avoid the use of the term “Intelligent Design”, which, fortunately, I have not seen in these discussions. This is the notion that Darwinian evolution is in error, and that some Intelligent Designer created the world. Please be aware that this is an old heresy, and the Albigenses, amongst others, actually espoused the idea that Satan created the world.
5. You have already attempted to work with LSU administration, and you should be commended for those efforts. However, it is obvious that current administration is taking a position in favor of what the professors are saying, rather than what God said. Continue those efforts, but be aware that a positive outcome is unlikely. It’s time to teach our own young people, conserve our resources, and encourage the young people to obtain their education elsewhere.  Kenneth Christman, M.D.(Quote)

Shannon: I agree that many leaders are responsible for the state of the church but there are many that are working, honest and holy men that up until recently have been unaware of the state of things. Even in this situation there is an appropriate way to do things and going publicly around dragging people and things through the mud is not reasonable for Christians to do. We do have a higher calling in church discipline to. Because of this, the leaders have to approach this in a certain way–especially if there are those that are obstructing it actively.

Shannon, This is the essence of what I’m trying to say. I’m done with this conversation as these men apparently think that I am saying something totally different. I have seen first hand how faithful workers can be rammed into the ground and made useless by false accusations. It is the spirit of the accusatory writing by those who are not prophets that urges others on to find the sin in the church and ‘purge’ it. Unfortunately, they do not follow a biblical process and too often end up throwing stones at the ones who are working using Christ’s methods. The accusations are usually so bizarre and groundless that it is easy for an outsider to see a mob mentallity. You are correct that there are many who are faithful. Unfortunately, some very talented individuals have left the work because the stone throwing crippled them. Sometimes they come limping back because they are dedicated. So this is my last post. If they want to make assumptions about me, so be it.  Christiane Marshall(Quote)

@Eugene Shubert:

.
Eugene Shubert says:
December 19, 2009 Bob, thanks for posting those excellent quotes. The testimony of Jesus certainly overwhelmingly supports what I’ve been saying.

Eugene – you have brought in some very good inspired texts that have a massively important application to the situation we are dealing with.

I do not claim to accuse ‘the denomination’ of this or of that. (I leave that up to a prophet such as Ellen White – and will not dare go there myself). But on a case-by-case cause-by-cause basis I am willing to stand up and say “that is wrong and we must do something about it”. And On that case-by-case basis I affirm the fact that we have been told where to stand and have been told that if we do take a stand – we will be condemned BOTH by those who actively promote the wrong being done AND by those who although unwilling to engage in the wrong deed themselves are more than willing to serve as a shield for the wrong-doers to prevent any kind of criticism of the sin in the camp that threatens to bring God’s frown on the entire camp.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

I would like to say the following:

1) I believe the leaders of LSU are in apostasy.

2) Even though we cannot paint every leader with the same brush, it is necessary to stand up and be counted, even to the point of losing one’s job. A leader who disagrees with evolution but keeps silent for fear of losing their job is just as guilty as the evolutionists and their supporters.

3) The problem at LSU has continued for a long time – to the point where graduates have lost their faith in God. The evolutionists would do well to read Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

4) In the face of all the publicity and negative feedback, those who continue to teach and support evolution are thumbing their noses at the creationists (Bible believers) with impunity.

5) The leadership is perhaps fearful to act swiftly and decisively for fear of lawsuits.

6) The quotes from the Testimonies show, as in the case of Achan, that if we do not root out the sin the whole church will receive God’s frown. This especially applies to those who know about the problem and can do something about it but do nothing.

7) It is true however, that we do not know about the efforts of the leaders behind the scenes to resolve this.

8 ) The time for peaceful resolution has long passed.

9) Beyond the letter writing campaign, the petitions, the discussions and reports we have to act further.

10) Therefore, I propose that we get a measure, if possible, to be passed at the next GC session to the effect that the offenders, along with the leaders in the chain of command, be removed from office.

11) I support the idea that we divert funds – not from the church but from the conference and union. Adopt another conference in another union to support. The tithes must not be withheld from the church.

12) Cursed be the one who does not want the creationists to act.  Jonathan Smith(Quote)

Jonathan Smith: 10) Therefore, I propose that we get a measure, if possible, to be passed at the next GC session to the effect that the offenders, along with the leaders in the chain of command, be removed from office.

Jonathan, I’m a bit out of the loop as regards to where this is in the process and how the GC process itself works. Each person mentioned in the resolution would have had to first been approached personally within the context of Matthew 18 before brought before the GC. But it is something to prayerfully consider.

[I think I've been misunderstood here. My comments regarded a Christlike and Biblical process and not specifically the issue at hand.]  Christiane Marshall(Quote)

Bob Ryan, Your most recent post sums things up well and certainly clarifies what appeared to be a controversy in the past couple of days. See now, we actually agree! (The issue I tried to address was a sweeping generalization made on this forum that went way beyond the borders of LSU–that I consider to be part of a chronic bearing of false witness within our church.) Thanks for this post!  Christiane Marshall(Quote)

BobRyan:
I try to never take the position “the entire denomination is…” and then some bad remark. However I do affirm those kinds of statements when Ellen White makes them – and view them as a valid warning for our times as well.
My model is — let the prophet say things like “the entire denomination…” not me.

I have stated a reasonable claim. It’s an absolute certainty that my challenge remains unanswered. Name one person in the Adventist hierarchy that is taking an open and uncompromising stand against the evolutionism that is being taught at LSU.

Isn’t it a bit disingenuous to imagine that there is someone in the Adventist hierarchy of indomitable faith and courage that is taking a bold and unyielding stand for the truth and is sacrificing for God’s cause? Why haven’t we heard of him? If he works for the denomination and yet isn’t terrified by opposition, why doesn’t he appear on the Internet and speak recognizable truth? Please don’t suggest that he doesn’t understand computers and can’t afford Internet access.  Eugene Shubert(Quote)

Shannon: The president of the Michigan Conference said a statement beyond a doubt against what is going on.

He can’t possibly be counted a leader unless he denounces the sin that is approved of by administrators. The Bible prophets expressed God’s opinion, not their own.

Also, the Adventist Board of Laymen made a very strong statement.

There are plenty of laymen on this board that have made strong statements. They aren’t in the hierarchy.

Doug Bachelor said very strong statement as well as Clifford Goldstein.

Doug Bachelor doesn’t even work for the corporate Church. And Clifford Goldstein is just an employee of it.

David Aasherick also wrote his now famous letter against it.

I recall that David Aasherick is just an evangelist. Thus, he has no voting rights at all.  Eugene Shubert(Quote)

I just posted this but it disappeared. If two end up showing up, please delete one!

Just to make some things clear: Our church does not have a hierarchy. We have administrators who do just that: administrate. We have a very democratic church. The constituency makes the decisions. This takes time as it should. Leaders in our church are evident in that they lead. Doug Bachelor and others certainly fit in that category.

Eugene, you also made this innuendo: “Can the vast majority of Seventh-day Adventists repent of their approval of evolutionism, pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualism and popery in the Church?” I’ve seen a lot in my years as an Adventist. Our churches are hopefully evangelistic centers where non-believers and nominal Adventists will hopefully find their way. But I have never seen approval of the beliefs you mention in any place I have been in 27 years in the church. (Obviously, we are here on this forum because Evolution is being approved of in this place, but again, this is a specific area, not the ‘vast majority.’)

Yes, we are Laodicea (that includes you and includes me) and there is complacency, but not to the degree that these things would be approved of by the ‘vast majority’. If you have seen it, then don’t broadcast that it is prevalent in the church at large. Don’t hurt the faith of new and potential believers with the poison of your bitterness. Pray for those afflicted with sins that lead away from Christ. And please keep in mind that bitterness is one of those sins that lead away from our Redeemer.  Christiane Marshall(Quote)

Eugene Shubert: I thought my explanation was sufficiently clear. I believe that God imputes the open sins of Seventh-day Adventists to the entire church. Didn’t you notice the relevance of my Spirit of prophecy references? Where is your rebuttal?

Thank you so much for informing me of this universal principal! I now consider it my duty to inform all Adventists of their need to corporately repent of your evil surmisings and grotesque innuendos.  Christiane Marshall(Quote)

Jonathan Smith: Remember the church is one body. If the eye has an infection, must the toe say it is unconcerned or it does not care? Certainly not! Whenever part of the body is bad the entire body (remainder) is threatened and if possible the entire body must participate in commissioning and effecting the response.

Jonathan, I totally understand and agree with the principle! I responded this way because I’ve learned pretty quickly that there’s no way to have a reasonable conversation with Eugene.

He has a way of turning a conversation away from its original focus. Here’s my attempt to outline how the conversation ended up here! Eugene asked on the forum for names of any leaders in our church who were responding to this crisis. (This was in response to my point that he was making sweeping accusations, bearing false witness that the entire denomination was practicing popery, pantheism and other things I’ve never seen practiced in our churches.)

Shannon responded with some names of leaders and Eugene negated her contribution by stating they weren’t in the ‘hierarchy.’

I made note that we have a democratic church (and not a hierarchy). I also pointed out that leaders don’t necessarily have to be administrators. Shannon pointed out that Sister White did not have an official position, yet she was a leader. I might add that our early pioneer-leaders did not have official positions as they worked creating this denomination.

I also made note that we as a church can respond to this crisis through the constituency process. I think you may have been the one who originally suggested this in another post.

Others made note that sometimes the process is slow and that we should not judge others based on what we don’t see. Passing judgement openly without Biblical process on workers in the church (or anyone else) could affect the outcome of their working behind the scenes. It’s awfully distracting to be accused of things like popery, and to be told the types of things that Eugene is saying about specific individuals or people in specific positions. It is counterproductive.

He also quotes Sister White profusely. His use of Spirit of Prophecy is to justify whatever accusations he makes. He first becomes the judge then points the SOP messages toward the accused and pulls the trigger. The problem is he is judge and jury first. All he has to do is look up the sin he believes another is committing, find an SOP reference, and type it out! No investigation or dialog needed. Eugene has spoken! A clever way of bearing false witness. If a person objects, he can turn it around to say you are anti-Sprit of Prophecy!

My whole purpose for making some of my recent comments is that this forum should be for constructive brainstorming to meet this crisis, not the SDA stocks where we decide who all the sinners are in our entire denomination, name their ALLEGED sins and put them up for display for the entire web audience! If someone doesn’t respond to the types of things he’s posting that are not constructive, this forum will become a place where people can bear false witness–and we will be culpable for allowing it based on the very principle that he is citing! Thus my sarcastic statement.

I really want to know what you and others here think of what I’m trying to say. I think we should focus on the purpose this forum was set up for. Statements that make sweeping accusations toward others and links to websites where there’s more of the same–well do you think that’s what we’re here for?

I think that the conversation was going well and many great suggestions have been made. We should talk more about that and how to go about the process. We should probably also double our time in prayer. When an issue is important, the enemy places all types of distractions in our paths.  Christiane Marshall(Quote)

Jonathan Smith: None of us is saved because of our good works, and if we point to others and their bad works we are ignoring the possibility they are being brought under the conviction of the Spirit to repent and make it right with God.

Finally, in spite of all that, once the sin is open and confirmed, we must be bold to address it with a hope of restoring the offender.

Amen!  Christiane Marshall(Quote)

Eugene Shubert:
And what if the ultra-Darwinist Adventists refuse to be restored to your version of minimal Seventh-day Adventism?  

Then we expel them, like cutting out a cancer, root and branch. There comes a time when we eliminate sin with the utmost ruthlessness (like the killing of the Amalekites) when the cup of iniquity is full.

Let not the Darwinists believe that Scripture tolerates their continued, persistent, dogged contamination of the body. To do that is suicidal.

I think the evolutionists have been given more than enough warning and I believe they have seen enough physical evidence to doubt their position. Yet even without the evidence there is God’s word. There has been admonitions, warnings, pleas, debates, articles, etcetera, etcetera. We need not tolerate Darwinism anymore.

Right now the only issue is HOW do we get rid of Darwinism, first, and if not possible, then the Darwinists.  Jonathan Smith(Quote)

Jonathan Smith: Then we expel them, like cutting out a cancer, root and branch. There comes a time when we eliminate sin with the utmost ruthlessness (like the killing of the Amalekites) when the cup of iniquity is full.

Jonathan Smith: Right now the only issue is HOW do we get rid of Darwinism, first, and if not possible, then the Darwinists.

Bro. Smith,
The uninitiated (or mentally ill) might view your Christmas Eve metaphors as encouraging violence. Someone with a prophet complex might take it upon themselves to ‘hack Agag to pieces.’ Does your well-meaning rhetoric sound much different than that of Islamic Terrorists? It is these kind of extremist statements that cause the ‘radical progressives’ to feel justified in their course.
“The Lord calls for men to act promptly, with the courage of heroes, and the firmness and faith of martyrs, to tear down the idolatrous images that have usurped his place in the minds of men, and meet the armed force of wrong on battle fields. But in all this there is no excuse for any to indulge in harshness or severity to gratify their own wrong feelings.” {ST, January 6, 1881 par. 8}

Though I hesitated to post this reply(knowing from your previous posts that you are ordinarily balanced in your zeal). However, I felt compelled to make this comment for the reasons already stated.  Victor Marshall(Quote)

Re Biology 111—Genomes and their evolution.

“100 million years ago the rate of duplications and inversions ‘seems’ to have accelerated”.

Let’s assume there was life of any kind 100 million years ago….when according to Bio.111 “the dinosaurs became extinct”. If the dinosaurs were any where nearly as developed as their living legacy the ‘Rhino-saurus’, then the ‘Rhino’ didn’t evolve at all in 100 million years since the extinction of their cousins the dino-saurus…they look exactly as their extinct cousins re armoured clad skin and prehistoric head complete with horn in the middle of their face.

If “mammals” were alive["mammals diversified--Bio.111"] and breathing 100 millions years ago…then it must also be assumed that they were mammals in every sense of the word. By definition mammals are oxygen breathing with hair on their skin and give birth to their helpless young, who depend on their mammalian parent for their total protection. It doesn’t seem as if anything has changed in 100 million years, despite the claims of bio.111. The ‘evolved’ mammals 100 million years later still enjoy the same identical characteristics as their extinct mammalian ancestors from which they had presumably evolved.

["Chromosomal rearrangement are thought to contribute to the generation of new species---Bio.111"]
One cannot but wonder at this claim by Bio.111. In the first place “chromosomal rearrangement” has been in every aspect of nature wherever living organisims of any stripe is found. The double-helix/DNA, the computer within the chromosome is rearranged during the chromosomal life dance in mieosis and mitosis. Every living organism from the lowly fly to the majestic of any of the human species, has the same four bases of the double helix defining who or what they are meant to be during “chromosomal rearrangement”. If at all there was to be any evidence of the “generation of new species” due to “chromosomal rearrangement”…surely 100 million years later, across multi-millions of different species of plants and animals and insects, shouldn’t there be “generated” as many “new species” to reflect the huge magnitudes of “chromosomal rearrangement” occuring every second of every minute and over 100 million years!… And each of these new species would have been an improvement on their forbears due and only due to the “natural selection” re the best option chosen and taken during “chromosomal rearrangement”. This would make the chromosomes the engine of natural selection; not only a million years ago, but today as well. Meaning! That progressive changes in one species to another would be evidenced today in every area of living nature; ranging from the insects to plants and animals.

How could any with a sound mind believe this ‘urban legend’ over the evidence that God who parted the Red sea in the sight of humans and which is evidenced as historical fact re living breathing Judaism…how could any believe ‘folklore’ over the same God who also made the Red Sea return to flow where before there was a parting of the massive sea!

It may be that reason may well be lacking in those who would accept speculation, while embracing God; but again they may well be speculating even about whether God is who He says he is.

bevanton  bevanton(Quote)

Leading Scientists Worldwide say (see)

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

This was last publicly updated August 2008. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position.  Jonathan Smith(Quote)

Of the Improbability and Impossibility of Random Mutation and Natural Selection to produce intelligent life (or anything worthwhile)

Granville Sewell, “A Mathematician’s View of Evolution,” The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol 22 (4) (2000).

Mathematician Granville Sewell explains that Michael Behe’s arguments against neo-Darwinism from irreducible complexity are supported by mathematics and the quantitative sciences, especially when applied to the problem of the origin of new genetic information. Sewell notes that there are “a good many mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists who …are appalled that Darwin’s explanation for the development of life is so widely accepted in the life sciences.” Sewell compares the genetic code of life to a computer program–a comparison also made by computer gurus such as Bill Gates and evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins. He notes that experience teaches that software depends on many separate functionally-coordinated elements. For this reason “major improvements to a computer program often require the addition or modification of hundreds of interdependent lines, no one of which makes any sense, or results in any improvement, when added by itself.” Since individual changes to part of a genetic program typically confer no functional advantage (in isolation from many other necessary changes to other portions of the genetic code), Sewell argues, that improvements to a genetic program require the intelligent foresight of a programmer. Undirected mutation and selection will not suffice to produce the necessary information.  Jonathan Smith(Quote)

John Polkinghorne KBE FRS (born October 16, 1930, in Weston-super-Mare, England) is a British particle physicist and theologian. He has written extensively on matters concerning science and faith, and was awarded the Templeton Prize in 2002.

Physicist
He was educated initially in Street and then at The Perse School, Cambridge, read Mathematics at Trinity College, Cambridge graduated in 1952 and then earned his PhD degree in physics in 1955. In 1955 he …went to Caltech as a Harkness Fellow to work with Murray Gell-Mann. After 2 years as a Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh he returned to Cambridge in 1958, and in 1968 was elected Professor of Mathematical Physics.

For 25 years, Polkinghorne was a theoretical physicist working on theories of elementary particles and played a significant role in the discovery of the quark. From 1968 to 1979 he was Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University, and he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1974.

From him we get about the anthropic fine tuning of the universe:

He quotes with approval Freeman Dyson, who said “the more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming” and suggests there is a wide consensus amongst physicists that either there are a very large number of other universes in the Multiverse or that “there is just one universe which is the way it is in its anthropic fruitfulness because it is the expression of the purposive design of a Creator, who has endowed it with the finely tuned potentialty for life.  Jonathan Smith(Quote)

“For 25 years, Polkinghorne was a theoretical physicist working on theories of elementary particles and played a significant role in the discovery of the quark. From 1968 to 1979 he was Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University, and he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1974.

From him we get about the anthropic fine tuning of the universe:

He quotes with approval Freeman Dyson, who said “the more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming” and suggests there is a wide consensus amongst physicists that either there are a very large number of other universes in the Multiverse or that “there is just one universe which is the way it is in its anthropic fruitfulness because it is the expression of the purposive design of a Creator, who has endowed it with the finely tuned potentialty for life.”

In the above quote, Mr. Polkinghorne makes the case for a universe["finely tuned"]by ” a Creator” who “endowed it with the finely tuned potentialty for life”—’his’ “anthropic” contribution to the discussion.

Again; one must wonder why the Diety-”a Creator”, choose to “finely tune” a whole Universe to create, instead of creating, Himself, the end product!….afterall such “a Creator”, if he can “finely tune” a Whole unverse; must not he also; able as well to create in an instant that which the “Creator” “finely tuned” the whole “universe” to create!

If, as is suggested, “the universe knew we were coming”, can’t we then also assume that “a Creator” who “finely tuned” the universe to ‘welcome’ “us” knew about us even before the universe created us by the evolutionary process! If such “a Creator” knew the end product, even before a universe, created with potential to create knew what it was potentially made to create…should we also not conclude that “a Creator” together with the ability to create potentiality, must also have the ability to create instantly what he is also able to see in the future, as created!

bevanton  bevanton(Quote)

“Author: Jonathan Smith
Comment:
In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”1

Nature science writer Henry Gee wrote in 1999 that “no fossil is buried with its birth certificate.” When we call new fossil discoveries “missing links,” it is “as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.” Gee concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”2″

OK! Let’s agree with Mr. Gee….“no fossil is buried with its birth certificate.” But will Mr. Gee agree that if not a “birth certificate” but in the very least, if the fossil did exist we should see the trail of fossilized remains[highlighting the "refining" evolution process in subsequent generations] or in the abscence of fossilized remains… “death certificates”!
Any excuse is acceptable! except millions of years of evolution provide for the impossibility of any excuse,why such fossils have yet to be found.

bevanton  bevanton(Quote)

The so called atheist evolutionist “tree of life” claiming that “birds came from reptiles” has long been known to be pure fiction. Even atheist evolutionists like Colin Patterson admit to the evolutionist “practice” of telling “stories easy enough to make up but they are not science” when it comes to the special class of storytelling “about how one thing came from another”.

Patterson even goes right to the point about “birds coming from reptiles” in his expose of the imaginative storytelling that goes into the atheist evolutionist’s “Tree of life”.

In fact the stasis attribute of fixed genomes for eucharyote species that shows NO plasticity at all in the genomes whereby new and unique features may be added to a species (birds from reptiles for example) – is verifiable in the lab still to this very day.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)