@Justin Robinson: Sean: All this specious reasoning and equivocating… Where do …

Comment on EducateTruth.com promoted on 3ABN by Sean Pitman, M.D..

@Justin Robinson:

Sean:
All this specious reasoning and equivocating… Where do you people draw the line? The bible makes it clear about the workers of iniquity. You, Sean (and others), are telling us that we are erring because you feel in your heart that Jesus was love and that we do not know the hearts and motivations of men?? Yet there are voluminous amounts of scripture that testify to the opposite of what you are saying? This is very demonic. You completely undermine the bible and the teachings of God to support a doctrine that does the same and leads people straight to hell. All the while telling those that uphold the Law of God and the scriptures that they are wrong for doing so because we do not know the heart of men.

Where do you get such an idea? Numerous passages of scripture has been presented and you have not responded to any of them with scripture.

Such a defense for men and women who are ignoramuses, infidels and biblically lazy is repugnant. You uphold the spirit that scripture condemns. I often wonder how much of the bible you actually believe to be the Word of God.

You do realize that I’m one of the people who started this whole effort against the promotion of evolutionism at LSU? How then can you ask if I believe in the Bible or in the doctrines of the SDA Church?

The fact of the matter is that many of the people I disagree with on the topic of origins are not “ignoramuses, infidels or biblically lazy” – (but I’m beginning to wonder about you). They may be wrong in their interpretations and conclusions, in my opinion, but they are sincere and honest as far as I can tell. Many of them would give me the shirt off their back if I was in trouble.

I dare say that such a person, even though admittedly confused on this or that point of doctrine, is not obviously “evil” by any means.

Again, a lack of knowledge or confused ideas regarding a point of doctrine, however important that doctrine may be, does not automatically make a person evil. Both the Bible and Ellen White are full of examples and commentary in this regard… if you care to do just a bit of your own investigation in this direction. As far as I can tell, you consistently take passages out of context and twist them in a harsh manner to match your own world view.

You seem unable to separate evil results of actions from the actor – giving room for the person to be as guiltless as possible before God. You seem to see yourself as an expert in judging motive even though both the Bible and Mrs. White are extremely clear that God alone is the only truly accurate judge of motive – especially regarding differences in doctrinal understanding.

I advise you to reconsider your attitude in how you approach those who do not yet understand the importance of certain pillars of the SDA faith. All of the SDA doctrines are very important in my opinion, but they aren’t the basis of salvation. Again, the only thing that saves a person is their motive of love toward God and toward their fellow man as best as they can perceive how to express their love. Sometimes the expression of love doesn’t turn out well. However, this lack of proper expression does not negate the underlying motive of love – a motive that is still regarded with high value by God.

It is like a little child who loves his parents and so one day decides to make breakfast for them. He burns the toast and the eggs are a real mess. He gets milk all over the deck in the kitchen and the Cheerios are scattered all around. He spills orange juice on the carpet trying to get the food to his parents room to surprise them. The whole thing is a complete mess, but his parents both smile when they see his efforts to make them breakfast in bed and give him big hugs and kisses. It doesn’t matter that it takes them hours to clean up everything. The only thing that matters to them is that their boy tried to do something nice for them and loves them.

I know this because I was the boy and this is how my own parents responded to me. And, I know this is how God responds to us as well.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman, M.D. Also Commented

EducateTruth.com promoted on 3ABN
@Geanna Dane:

Um, I think the evolutionists are the ones who informed us about ice ages.

You’re mistaken. Evolutionists were not the first ones to propose ice age theories – theories which were around well before Darwin published Origins in 1859.

For example, Andrew Ure (1778-1857) was one of the top chemists of his day with an international reputation as a meticulous scientist, a prolific writer and an effective teacher. But he was also one of those brilliantly versatile men of science in the early 19th century. In 1829 he published A New System of Geology in which he proposed some new theoretical ideas for the reconstruction of earth history, one of which was one of the earliest conceptions of an ice age, which he speculated would have resulted from the Flood. One of the author’s he quoted was Jens Esmark (1763-1839)

Jens Esmark also argued a sequence of worldwide ice ages well before Darwin. In a paper published in 1824, Esmark proposed changes in climate as the cause of those glaciations. He attempted to show that they originated from changes in the Earth’s orbit. Adding to Esmark’s work, Bernhardi, in a 1932 paper, speculated about former polar ice caps reaching as far as the temperate zones around the globe.

http://creation.com/british-scriptural-geologists-in-the-first-half-of-the-nineteenth-century-part-4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jens_Esmark

They have given us more information about ice ages than creationists have and nothing, I repeat nothing, is going to change that. They have no problem with ice ages whatsoever.

They have no problem with ice ages, true. But, they do have a definite problem with the idea of very rapid, even catastrophically sudden, formation and regression. It wasn’t until just a few years ago that scientists began to realize that glacial melts can happen many times more rapidly than they tought possible just 10 years ago – to include the melting of Greenland’s ice-cap as well as the Antarctic ice. No one thought that such rapid melting could ever happen as rapidly as it is taking place today.

www.DetectingDesign.com/AncientIce.html

What is it with Adventists suddenly talking a lot about Las Vegas, card games, houses of cards, gambling and betting? I’m bewildered.

It is often a very good way to get important statistical concepts across to those people who don’t usually deal with numbers and the scientific usefulness of statistical odds analysis… like you ; )

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


EducateTruth.com promoted on 3ABN
@Geanna Dane:

So…ice ages are scientifically impossible and therefore could only result from a global supernatural flood. The arctic seas became hot which caused very high precipitation. Then an extreme cold spell came along that made an iceberg out of high elevations and high altitudes, decreased the ocean sea level and dried out the Mediterranean basin. I assume these explanations fit within the 1000 gsaar threshold (geologically supportable argumentative age reasoning) of explanatory complexity

Ice ages are not scientifically impossible. They are certainly consistent with a global catastrophe that involved massive volcanic activity. And, massive meteor impacts may indeed have provided the sudden release of the huge quantities of energy needed to produce the initial catastrophe on a global scale. Also, it is well-known that ice ages would indeed reduce ocean levels quite dramatically – easily below the level needed to maintain water in the Mediterranean basin (which is known to have been dry during the last major ice age).

I fail to see what it is about this scenario that you find so “complex” and unbelievable given the starting premise of a sudden massive release of energy on this planet?… What would you expect to happen? Orderly weather as usual? The whole surface of the planet was broken up by the massive impact that set the whole catastrophe in motion… the aftershocks of which we are still feeling to this day.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


EducateTruth.com promoted on 3ABN
@Geanna Dane:

So did the mammoths dies of cold or starvation? Maybe it wasn’t the intolerable cold, perhaps it was too much snowfall that spoiled access to the vegetation they depended on. Unless most or all of the fossils had identifiable food in their mouths or stomachs (I have heard that some did), how could one possibly know?

It really doesn’t matter if they died directly because of the cold or indirectly because of starvation (though I favor the former idea). Either way, the evidence suggests that they, along with millions of other types of animals, died out very suddenly in line with a sudden global cold snap. That’s the key point here. The cold snap would result in a rapid decrease in the ocean’s water level, resulting in an opportunity to dry out the Mediterranean basin…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman, M.D.

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.