Comment on ANN reports on affirmation of creation and FB #6 enhancement by Eddie.
I totally agree wish Sean’s mantra that those who work for the church should not undermine the church’s doctrines, but I don’t see how petty criticism of church leaders is ever going to improve SDA education. It pains me how eager some of you are to smear the reputation of church leaders who you barely know anything about. I happened to have been a student of Richard Osborn and I have also worked for him as a teacher, and I have the utmost respect for him and his wife as devout Christians and SDAs. Surely Satan rejoices each time a fellow brother or sister in Christ is criticized here on the WORLD WIDE WEB, where EVERYBODY can see how petty SDA Christians can be. Go ahead, make my day, now its my turn…
Eddie Also Commented
ANN reports on affirmation of creation and FB #6 enhancement
The buck ultimately stops with the individual. Nobody ever gave up God because of a parent, sibling, friend, pastor, teacher–not even a professor at LSU. People make their own choices and can’t blame anybody else. Of course we’re influenced–often strongly–by our acquaintances, but ultimately we’re free to make our own choices.
SDA colleges and universities should strive to hire the most Christ-like professors possible, but as I have stated before there are very few applicants for vacancies in SDA institutions. Not all applicants are enthusiastically supportive of SDA beliefs and sometimes none of the applicants is supportive. Administrators can’t be blamed for that. Is it Gordon Bietz’s fault that SAU’s Biology Department can’t find suitable applicants for its vacancies?
As a church we justifiably prize our educational institutions, but there is a dearth of dedicated SDA educators. If you think SDA educational institutions should be shut down because some students are losing their faith, what about those students who find their faith in SDA institutions? How does shutting down SDA institutions facilitate the great commission? If you really want to do something constructive about the crisis in SDA education, identify, encourage and support bright, aspiring youth to become educators.
ANN reports on affirmation of creation and FB #6 enhancement
Bill, we have been informed repeatedly by Geanna that she is SDA, keeps the Sabbath and believes in a literal 6-day creation week in the relatively recent past–so why do you still refuse to believe her? I happen to agree fully with Richard Osborn’s concerns–even though I, too, interpret the Genesis account as conservatively as any of you. I wish you guys could be less eager to condemn others.
Recent Comments by Eddie
SDA Bio Prof: The Bible makes multiple falsifiable prophecies about Nebuchadnezzar conquering Egypt, yet history never records it happening. Does this mean the Bible is effectively falsified?
Sean Pitman: Egyptians had a strong tendency not to record their losses… only their victories.
Sean, does that mean YOU personally believe Babylon conquered Egypt, just as predicted by two prophets? In the absence of any empirical evidence? If the Egyptians didn’t record their losses, why wouldn’t the Babylonians have recorded such a stunning victory?
Holly Pham: One of the things that has always concerned me is that, according to what I’ve read, birds and reptiles have completely different forms of respiratory systems (flow-through vs. bellows) How is this explained by evolutionists?
Evidence from the vertebrae of non-avian theropod dinosaurs suggests that they, too, possessed unidirectional flow-through ventilation of the lungs. So, according to evolutionary theory, it evolved first in “primitive” non-avian theropods rather than in birds, and comprises one of many shared derived characters supposedly linking birds with more “advanced” theropods. However, I don’t think there is any evidence or even a hypothesis for a step-by-step process of HOW it evolved. Here is a reference:
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Bob Helm: Bob, if you send me an e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org I will send you a pdf file of a 1991 article published by Chatterjee in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 332:277-342, titled “Cranial anatomy and relationships of a new Triassic bird from Texas.”
Curiously his description is based only on cranial anatomy. I don’t think he ever published an analysis of its postcranial anatomy.
David Read: Eddie, ecological zonation will yield the same basic order that you’re pointing to: invertebrates appear before vertebrates; fish appear before amphibians; amphibians appear before reptiles; reptiles appear before mammals; reptiles appear before birds, etc.
It could, and it’s the best creationist explanation, but it doesn’t explain why flowering plants were absent from lowland forests. Or why so many land plants appeared before mangroves, which today occur strictly in the intertidal zone. Or why no pre-flood humans have been found. Or, if Sean is correct that the flood ended at the K-T boundary, why many modern groups of birds and mammals (including marine mammals) which first appear during the Tertiary were not buried by the flood.
David Read: The fact that something appears before something else in the fossil record is not proof than anything evolved into anything else.
David Read: You seem to be complaining that God has not made the fossil evidence compulsory, i.e., so clear that no reasonable person can possibly doubt it. And if God hasn’t made the evidence skeptic-proof, then the skeptic is God’s fault, God is responsible for the skeptic.
I’m not complaining. I’m merely pointing out that the evidence can be interpreted in different ways by honest people. And I’m relieved to see that even you don’t think the evidence is crystal clear.
David Read: Only people of faith can be saved, that is, only people who are willing to trust God and put away doubts can be saved.
David Read: Those tracks are so obviously bird tracks that the fact that some scientists want to assign them to “birdlike theropods” is itself a very useful teaching tool as to how the model creates the data.
David Read: That the model actually creates the data is one of the hardest concepts to get across, not only to lay people but even to the scientists themselves.
How does the model affect the data? Data don’t change and they shouldn’t change. It’s the interpretation, not the data, that is affected by the model.