Professor&#032Kent: Righteousness by faith…now I suppose we’ll hear next this …

Comment on The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist by BobRyan.

Professor&#032Kent: Righteousness by faith…now I suppose we’ll hear next this is as useless as righteousness from the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Righteousness by faith is a great Bible doctrine – when you get it from the Bible.

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist

Ken: As far as I can tell, none of these scientists propose the evidence supports a recent 6 day creation.(

There is a huge difference between “observations in nature demand a seven day creation week” and “evidence supports evolution”.

The fact is that “observations in nature do not contradict the creation account” when it comes to observing the fact that “birds come birds – not reptiles” or when observing the fact that group level genomes are static in terms of coding genes or when you consider the law of entropy (given Isaac Asimov’s summation of the need for a massive decrease in entropy for evolutionism’s storytelling to hold water).

And that eeffectively shuts down all hope of macro-evolution.

The less-than insightful claim that unless we have a video of a 7 day creation week to observe “in nature”, then we have no support from observations in nature for the creation account – is not the well-thought-out solution that one or two of the GRI guys may have at first imagined.

in Christ,


The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist

David&#032Read: But what I like about your post is that, based upon honest Darwinian expectations, the concept of a “transitional form” makes no sense. If the fossil record really spanned 600 million years, and evolution was happening slowly and steadily the entire time, EVERYTHING should be transitional, and hence the term “transitional” should be essentially meaningless. In other words, the fossil record should consist of nothing but forms gradually changing and evolving; there should not be any stasis of form long-lasting enough for us to say, “okay, this one is ‘permanent’ or ‘complete’ and this one is ‘transitional’.”

There is another problem which is that the generation of evoloving life forms should be like waves of the sea reaching a certain boundary (lets call it the 50 million year boundary). As it first reaches that boundary one generation crosses over with the desired mutation characteristics – but then it is followed by the next generation mutating as reaches that boundary.

Whether each crossing that 50 million year milestone takes the form of a saltation or is simply one last mutation segment in a long string of mutations to finally end up as a new genome with new coding genes all in place and functioning – does not matter. Pick whichever story your evolutionism likes to imagine. The point is that the new novel “B” that follows “A” should be continually “mutating into existence” as each generation of “A” matures to the 50 million year milestone.

It simply does not happen.

So then comes the stories about why we should not expect to see evolution in real life even though evolution is supposed to be the mechanism all of real life is using.

in Christ,


The ANN Highlights LSU’s Dr. Lee Grismer – An Evolutionary Biologist
Editing the above post:

BobRyan said:

Ken – what you have described above is Jim’s hard and fast stand on the glaringly obvious point – that

1. you cannot marry the Bible to the story telling for evolutionism.

2. Gibson points out the fact that trying to find a way to delete out the literal 7 day week and eisegete (bend and wrench) millions of years into the text – does not work.

Gibson is 100% correct in that regard.

3. There is no way to “Bend the Bible” to fit evolutionist storytelling about life being created (evolving) over 100′s of millions of years of time.

The choice is atheism or christianity as Gibson points out – there is no middle ground.

ken said: (From Jim Gibson’s Quote) “Faith has to be the key because “there is not enough evidence to resolve the tension between science and the Bible; one has to believe the Bible without the support of science.”

Hi Bob
Are you sure Jim Gibson is saying science supports 6 day recent creation?

1. I have not seen anyone on this board post that science is dictating a 6 day creation week or an 8 day creation week or a 4 day creaetion week or a 4 month creaetion week.

if someone has posted that — please provide the link.

2. I have not seen anyone on this board post that science is dictating that when birds first appeared on planet earth – it was with the words “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens”

My guess is that we agree on these points.

3. Obviously – science (observations in nature 6000 years after the fact) can only go so far in pointing to the actual events that resulted in the appearance of all life on planet earth during creation week.

That is a far cry from the wild claims that belief in evolutionism can be married to the Bible or that the Bible can be bent to serve the demands of the origins doctrine in evolutionism’s stories.

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,