OTNT_Believer I don’t know about you, but from what I …

Comment on PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood? by BobRyan.

OTNT_Believer

I don’t know about you, but from what I have read here, Ness’ friends, students, etc. have testified to Ness’ stand on these things. If he and PUC say he supports FB#6, isn;t that enough? Sure, you can claim he and others simply use the “poorly” worded statment of FB#6 to hide behind so they can give the appearance of believng in the literal 7 days while really being theistic evolutionists. How disingenuous of you!

Hint: that is exactly the position that has been taken here time after time by the LSU supporters of evolutionism.

Is it really “disingenuous” to read their posts and believe that they really believe in that line of reasoning?

They get that idea from LSU’s Fritz Guy who is promoting evolution and also claiming that he inserted enough vaguary into FB#6 (as the self-proclaimed architect of the editing of that wording) to allow for long ages evolutionism.

Context is everything.

Many here have admitted that Ness seems to be a nice guy, a good teacher, a committed Christian, and SDA believer, based on statements by those who know him. Let me save you the trouble of bringing this up–the Devil is all those things too, so Ness could well be some devious, devil-possessed theistic evolutionist trying his best to slip in the Devil’s lies right under our poor, defenseless students’ noses.

Nobody has suggested that Ness is not “nice”.

EducateTruth has not suggested that being mistaken on the subject of origins makes Ness “devil-possessed” to use your wording. You are taking this to extremes when the issues under debate are already sufficient for discussion.

I hapopen to know Ness well enough to say that as far as I can tell he believes in a 7-day literal Creation week less than 10,000 years ago and a worldwide flood that happened 4500 years ago or so.

In all this time – you are the first person to make that claim.
And that is surprising given that Ness claims that nobody knows his views not even the Church and that in his 5 posts here – he never once mentioned his affirmation of that point OTHER than claiming that he would respect others who held to it.

http://www.educatetruth.com/media/puc-professor-the-noachian-flood-was-just-a-local-flood/comment-page-1/#comment-21234
Bryan Ness says:
November 2, 2010

Sean,
I wish it were all as simple as you present. I do not have my package of beliefs neatly packaged . . . O that I could.

As for my beliefs on the Noachian flood:
1) What I personally believe is really none of your business or the business of church leaders,

As it stands now I have an open mind on the subject ( world wide flood of Genesis) and I would hope you and others could respect me for that. I would love to find more credible evidence to support the traditional view on the flood, unfortunately, at the moment, such evidence is difficult to find.

I do not advocate putting human reason above God’s Word, but neither am I willing to simply assume that all past Biblical interpretations are correct beyond all revision.

Surely such a way of looking at the Bible is valid, or are you saying that on certain beliefs our dogma is sealed and any suggestion of alternatives is heresy?

Your claim almost leads us to infer that you recently heard Ness actually claim explicitly that he believes that the 7 day creation week less than 10,000 years ago and the world wide flood are events that actually happened in nature –

http://www.educatetruth.com/media/puc-professor-the-noachian-flood-was-just-a-local-flood/comment-page-1/#comment-21230
Bryan Ness says:
November 2, 2010
So much for being able to have an honest discussion. I have been concerned already about Educate Truth’s approach to these things. Ask anyone who knows me and they will say I am a strong supporter of Adventism. This “lecture” was an attempt to bring out the issues facing the church, and I in no way have ever criticized anyone for believing as they choose to believe. I respect those who believe in a literal Genesis flood, but I also have to be honest about the scientific difficulties with such a belief.

I guess what Educate Truth wants it’s rigid doctrinal adherence rather than a frank discussion of what the real issues are.

In any case – the question remains – who is it that does not believe in a world wide flood and YET finds a solution for the fossil record and acceptance of a 7 day creation week less than 10,000 years ago?

Has Ness ever claimed to solve the issue with holding to both of those ideas or does he even hold to both of them? Apparently these are all subjects that Ness believes nobody in the Adventist church should want to know about when it comes to someone teaching science in our colleges.

Well it is a free will universe as they say. To each his own.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan Also Commented

PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?

Adventist kid: An interesting and pertinent art project at PUC:
https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=130821580328265

I consider it very possible that the art department at PUC actually believes in a real 7 day creation week less than 10,000 years ago.

in Christ,

Bob


PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?

Paul Giem: The problem I have with La Sierra (my information is mostly secondhand at PUC, and I didn’t even get to see the video, and so can’t comment there), is that the above is not the approach of the (controlling) majority of the biology faculty, from all the evidence I have seen. Rather, they have repeatedly sought to keep evidence that might support YLC out of the discussion, and at least in some cases their privately expressed beliefs matched their public (or at least classroom) pronouncements. That is, they teach long ages and unguided evolution, while attempting to disallow any other point of view.

Which again points to the real heart of the problem. This is not a case of teachers that are either Creationist or simply neutral, presenting facts both positive and negative regarding evolutionism.

This is a case of evangelists for evolutionism discounting any thought in favor of God’s view on this topic and favoring every speculative unproven conclusion in favor of Darwin’s self-admitted anti-Bible position (“as if” they have been doing a good thing).

in Christ,

Bob


PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?
As you watch and listen to that video clip – adding up all the reasons given not to believe the the 7 day creation week and literal world wide flood — you get such “nonscience” ideas as –

1. Did Noah know what the world was – Did Moses know what the World was to report a world wide flood.

1.B “So after our discussion here apparently it would not be too big a deal to make Noah’s flood local not world wide. In fact the only real objection I can think of for that is Ellen White. If you want to claim that Ellen White is accurate in evertyhing she says well then you have to deal with that point… the Bible can be interpreted in different ways.”

2. Bending the Bible defintion for World Wide Flood is the easiest problem to solve.

3. Some people in the SDA church like to insist on a literal 7 day creation week because they think “well that is just the way it was” –

4. Those who wrote out belief #6 were careful NOT to say it is a “literal 7 day week” because they did not want to box any SDAs into thinking that this is the only option and they knew many SDAs simply do not accept it.

5. If you want to change the World Wide Flood idea – another problem you have is Ellen White – so you need to decide whether she is really an authority.

Hint: NONE of that is “science” or “biology” or “news from the science department”. NORE is it a conversation in the form “let is look and see if the science claims being made for evolutionism really hold up”.

Thus the PUC “devil’s advocate” claim appears to be in the form of a supposed devil’s advocate trying to find ways to bend the bible and discount Ellen White, as well as a devil’s advocate making sweeping assertions about science claiming that it is beyond question — because in this talk Ness does not give 40 seconds of time to the idea that maybe his science claims on behalf of evolutionism “could be reinterpreted”. Rather it is only the Bible and our use of Ellen White that is suggested for “reinterpretation”. How “scientific” is that?

The objective unbiased reader using even a small degree of critical thinking when watching that video is going to get a very clear picture of what is going on. No wonder PUC wants to hide it.

in Christ,

Bob


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
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.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

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”.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
Gentlemen,

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.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
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.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
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