Comment on Silence of the Geoscience Research Institute by BobRyan.
The intellectually honest CTR-supported scientists, like the GRI staff now, soon realized that, at some point, they would have to face the overwhelming weight of the evidence that smoking really does cause lung cancer and other serious health problems. These individuals who valued their integrity sought to get the CTR to admit what the rest of the scientific community not beholden to the powerful tobacco industry had rapidly determined. But the CTR had some scientists who would sell their souls for a salary, medical benefits, and a pension and they kept the fiction going for many years until it was revealed what they were really doing.
Erv Taylor may be trying to give us the false hope that diehard atheist evolutionist ties the myths of evolutioism – will one day be forced “by the facts” to admit that rocks and gas do not ‘make babies’ hatching little single celled organisms all day long. What if our evolutionist friends were enticed by the facts – to admit that they are not able to turn single celled lifeforms into higher complex multicelled life forms?
How wonderful that the world should last long enough so that the volume of evolutionists who are “getting a clue” and figuring out that they have been duped and that the fraudulent-rich history of evolutionism is fraudulent “for a reason” – became the majority?
Well – of course that will happen at the 2nd coming “anyway” but Taylor seems to argue that it could happen on its own.
Wouldn’t that be great!
BobRyan Also Commented
Silence of the Geoscience Research Institute
Here is an interesting historic perspective –
Although the founders of modern science generally saw nature as an expression of Godâ€™s wisdom, modern science has tended to separate God from the study of nature. By excluding any consideration of divine activity and focusing exclusively on the relationship between matter and energy, science has become increasingly secular. It is now considered inappropriate to mention God in explaining events in the cosmos. This is a change in the philosophy of science since the days when Ellen White stated that science and the Bible should be in harmony. The present refusal of scientists to acknowledge God means that modern science is no longer friendly toward the biblical record of divine activity in nature.
The God of nature – has been “divorced from the work of His own hands” by atheist evolutionists whose primary doctrine is “there is no god”.
That is why distinctively atheist approaches to evolionism – are so bitterly opposed to I.D. science that is allowed to “follow the data where it leads” without the mandate of having to pander to atheist notions about their “being no god”.
Silence of the Geoscience Research Institute
When will SDA funded and operated institutions like GRI and LSU become known for this level of quality focus on intelligent Design seen in nature just as God said?
Why leave this work to non-SDAs who have no concept at all of the literal 7 day creation week?
How sad that we who should be first in this work – are dead last.
D.C.Hill: Thanks to everyone for their heartfelt comments. Thank you also for pointing me to the Geoscience Research Institute.
Here is a GRI link I really like –
Where you will find this statement –
Our world is full of evidence of thoughtful and intentional design, from the beauty we see in the brightly colored flowers and birds to the complexity of the cell and the very structure of the universe itself. Evidence of design is seen even in our capacity to appreciate the beauty, and our ability to examine the creation and thoughtfully contemplate its meaning. Inevitably, we are led to wonder how the design came about and what it means for our own existence.
The attribute of Design and the fact that it shows that God is “intelligent” cannot be ignored when observing nature.
Of course I also like this GRI link as well –
Recent Comments by BobRyan
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind