Professor&#032Kent: BobRyan: “The weight of evidence” in the area of …

Comment on Faith & Science Sabbath School examines LSU’s apology by BobRyan.

Professor&#032Kent: BobRyan: “The weight of evidence” in the area of birds coming from birds is pretty conclusive as it turns out.
That’s pretty profound. Are you an ornithologist, or birdwatcher, or poultry farmer, or aviculturist, or falconer by chance?

I live on planet earth and am free to state the obvious.

A few others seem to struggle with it.

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

Faith & Science Sabbath School examines LSU’s apology

Ken: Re Sean’s Quote
“What is more likely depends upon the ability of your proposed mechanism to explain the functional differences, not just the similarities, in question…”
Hi Sean
How do you explain the functional differences between all the species of animals we have today, versus the ‘kinds’ that came off the ark?
What is the ability of your proposed mechanism to explain this vast array of biodiversity over approximately 4000 years? Rapid mutation by intelligent design? How exactly does that work at a molecular level?


This is an interesting question. Evolutionism has to “account for everything” using just gas and dust as a start point.

Creationism has to account for “gaps” between fully complex genomes created by God “at the start”.

The same holds for the Ark. We have an entire range of genomes from simple to compplex on the ark and have to account for “the gaps” over 4500 years of time.

But evolutionism has to account “for everything” starting with gas and dust.

in Christ,


Faith & Science Sabbath School examines LSU’s apology

Professor&#032Kent: I’d like to express my frustration that participants here tend to project a strong dichotomy between BLIND FAITH versus THE PRIORITY OF EMPIRICAL DATA. It’s not real, and those who repeatedly make such statements damage their own credibility.
Those like myself, Eddie, Pauluc, OTNT Believer, KrisSmith, Frederick, Phil Brantley, and others are NOT insisting on blind, empirically-based allegience to belief in God’s word.

1. I note that you have taken this up over at Spectrum with an “Open Letter to Educate Truth” published at Spectrum instead of posting your thoughts here “at Educate Truth”.

2. Since I am named in the above — I will also point out that Spectrum has kindly asked that I not respond to questions put to me at Spectrum. (It is a new slant on their “Big Tent” idea I think.)

3. Both you and Brantley have tried to conflate hermeneutics (of which the H-G model is an example) with epistemology as if the two are the same thing — they are not.

You have even stated here that you “believe” that hermeneutics encompasses epistemology. Yet Davis states that hermeneutics by definition deals just with the rules for accurately rendering the text.

4. You debate and complain on almost EVERY observation in nature found to support the Bible teaching on creation “as if” this is helping in some way.

5. You have clearly stated that we should simply turn a blind eye to the overwhelming evidence in support of 3SG90-91 showing that evoutionism leads to atheism. (As even Darwin, Provine, Meyers and Dawkins can be seen to admit).

6. In the above example you are simply twisting the context to make your case – but are not addressing the substantive issues listed in this post.

If Spectrum were not so fearful of having this response posted on Spectrum at this point — I would post it there.

Out of respect for their wishes – I am not posting there.

in Christ,


Faith & Science Sabbath School examines LSU’s apology

Professor&#032Kent: 3. Both you and Brantley have tried to conflate hermeneutics (of which the H-G model is an example) with epistemology as if the two are the same thing — they are not. You have even stated here that you “believe” that hermeneutics encompasses epistemology.

Yet Davis states that hermeneutics by definition deals just with the rules for accurately rendering the text.

You’ve pointed this out before and it’s been discussed ad nauseum. You might be right

I find it interesting that “I may be right” in pointing out that Davidson’s own text states the obvious definition for hermeneutics as purely dealing with rules for rendering the text — then in classic nonsequitter style you add that if I am right in that regard then “Perhaps we are misinterpreting Dr. Davidson. Perhaps Dr. Davidson’s understanding is wrong.”

1. You never show how Davidson’s text stating that hermeneutics is just dealing with the issue of rendering the text – can be bent to mean “hermeneutics encompasses epistemology” — rather you ignore the text in regard to its statements on defintion like the plague.

That can hardly be bent as challenge on your part in understanding the words in the text regarding definitions. You simply choose to ignore them entirely.

2. You argue that by not dealing with epistemlogy – H-G “encompasses it” in your statement below –

Dr. Davidson makes crystal clear that a basic presupposition of the H-G method is “The Bible is the ultimate authority and is not amenable to the principle of criticism: biblical data is accepted at face value and not subjected to an external norm to determine truthfulness, adequacy, validity, intelligibility, etc. (Isa 66:2).”

However your quote above does NOT say “the H-G method by definition presupposes that the Bible is the ultimate authority”. Which is a not so subtle detail missing from you claim I think.

3. You claim you are not carping and complaining when observations in nature are found to be in harmony with the text of scripture on this thread — but the evidence in posts already on this discussion board indicate otherwise.

4. When I point to first hand witness accounts for the fact that evolutionism leads Christians to atheism your next non-sequitter is that once a Christian becomes an atheist due to belief evolutionism their witness should no longer be considered for discussing the evidence that belief in evolutionism leads Christians to atheism.

And when we note the 3SG 90-91 agreement with those first-hand testimonies predicting that very thing – you simply ignore it entirely.

The logical fallacies you use to spin the matter seem to be without limit in that regard.

But a point in your favor is that you are right to point out that your method is probably more effective at Spectrum than Educate Truth.

in Christ,


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case

Mack Ramsy:: : but the one thing we know for certain is that it was designed to change. There are so many back up and redundancies designed to make whatever changes that DNA faces to be profitable for the organism, or if their deleterious to ensure they don’t damage the subsequent generation (yes there are very complex methods for doing this) The immune system in fact does it intentionally.

Obviously the references above to “designed” and “intention” could not be overlooked by the objective unbiased reader applying a bit of critical thinking to the topic. And so my response below merely states the obvious point of agreement on a part of that post.

No wonder the application of a bit of critical thinking just then – demands that we conclude from your remarks above – that you are an example of an evolutionist that is strongly in favor of Intelligent Design. I too favor I.D.

Mack Ramsy:
Obviously the references abov

I don’t believe in ID as it’s traditionally defined. I believe that God created a system designed to evolve.

Obviously the references abov
In your earlier statement you claimed that system was designed with “redundancy and backup” features. That is not something rocks, gas and water could ever do – hence the term “Intelligent Design”.

But perhaps you have access to more highly advanced rocks, gas and water?

Also you mention “intention” as if the immune system was deliberately designed with an end goal in view.

As it turns out – it is those “intention” and “Intelligent Design” aspects (so key to your response above) that are at the very heart of I.D. enabled science were we have the freedom to “follow the data where it leads” even if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does not fit atheist dogma about there “being no god”.

how odd then that you seem to later back pedal on your prior observation.

Thus you seem to be in somewhat of a self-conflicted position at the moment.

At least given the content of your statements about “intent” and “backup systems” and “redundancy” designed into the systems themselves (even to the point of “error correction” as we see in the case of nucleic polypeptide amino acid chains and their chiral orientation).

Of course all that just gets us back here

Mack&#032Ramsy: My language in this forum is not formal. Try not to get caught up in semantic issues.

Out of curiosity is that statement supposed to provide a solution to just how it is that something “not designed” is able to exhibit unique design characteristics such as “back up systems” – “redundancy” – error correcting mechanism and an “immune system with intention” regarding a specific outcome or goal?

No doubt the study of biology most definitely shows us that such things are present “in nature” based on “observations in nature” – and so you are right to state it as you did.

So if you are then going to double back and reject what you just affirmed – what do you have by way of “explanation” for such a self-conflicted course?

Reaching for a solution of the form – “Pay no attention to my actual words if they do not serve to deny I.D.” does not provide as satisfactory resolution to the problem as you may have at first supposed.

in Christ,


Strumming the Attached Strings
@David Read:

Erv Taylor is not “afraid” to post here – but he is “Afraid” to have well thought out views posted on AToday that do not flatter his agenda.

That was not news right?

in Christ,


Michigan Conference vs. LSU – Right Wing Politics or Truth in Advertising?
@John J.:

John&#032J&#046: The fact remains, any decision direction or policy made by a church, conference, union or GCEC can be reversed or changed by those they serve.

Agreed and the fact that the constituency are not voting to reverse it – is a sign that this is not merely the views of the Administration in Michigan.

As for hierarchy – there is no doctrinal authority in the administrators.

And as for administrative hierarchy – the GC leadership has no authority to dismiss rogue teachers which is one of the reasons that this particular meltdown at LSU seems to go on and on and on. It slows at times and it speeds up at other times – but the fire is not simply put out.

in Christ,


A “Christian Agnostic”?

ken:: Let’s continue shall we. You posit that Adam and Eve were producing telomerase as adults as a result of eating fruit from the tree of life. Would you agree that the production of adult telomerase was a direct result of the environment or did the gene(s) affecting production of the a enzyme as adults mutate in their progeny?

1. I never stated whether the fruit from the Tree of Life provided the telemerase enzyme or simply provided a trigger enzyme/protein that caused Adam and Eve to produce Telemerase. Either way the end result was the same.

2. The salient point is that we have a known mechanism that affects the aging of cells starting with new borns.

This is simply “observation in nature” given in response to your question about an observed mechanism in humans for the 900 year life span the Bible mentions.

It is hard to “do the study” without having them under observation.

1. But it is not hard to see the gradual decline in ages over time.

2. It is not hard to see the Bible declare that access to the Tree of Life was the determining factor.

3. It is not hard to see that even in humans today – the ability remains for us to produce telemerase – but we quickly lose that ability.

4. It is not hard to see what effect that has on the telomeres of infants.

The list of knowns for this mechanism are far more impressive than the “I imagine a mechanism whereby static genomes acquire new coding genes not already present and functioning in nature and that this happens for billions of years”.

Ken: Hi BobWe are making good progress!Thanks for your admitting thaf we do not have Adam and Eve or their progeny under observation to do the study.

My pleasure.

Let’s look at the empirical results of your observation. There is no physical evidence that the progeny or descendants lived to 900 years, right? Thus there is no physical evidence that the tree of life provided longevity through the increased production or activation of telermerase right?

There is evidence that a mechanism does exist whereby access to an enzyme would in fact affect the aging process of human cells.

That mechanism is observed in nature to be related to the enzyme Telemerase.

There is a ton of evidence that food contains enzymes and proteins and that the human body can produce enzymes in response to the presence of trigger proteins and enzymes.

It is irrefutably true that humans still today produce telemerase in the case of infants just before birth. Impossible to deny it – though you seem to want to go down that dead end road.

You asked about the “mechanism” that can be observed today that would account for long ages of life recorded in the Bible.

You now seem to be pulling the classic “bait and switch” asking for the video of the people living for long ages before the flood.

Nice try —

As I said before – your method is along the lines of grasping at straws in a true “any ol’ exuse will do” fashion.

in Christ,


SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
Rev 21 does not say the planet has no light – it says the City has no NEED of light from the Sun.

The inconvenient deatils point to the fact that the New Earth will have a Sun and Moon but the New Jerusalem will have eternal day due to the light of God’s presence.

This is not the hard part.

in Christ,