@Geanna Dane: < If individual conferences start branding other conferences …

Comment on Michigan Conference takes substantial action in LSU conflict by BobRyan.

@Geanna Dane:

< If individual conferences start branding other conferences or their institutions as “apostate,” does that not equal schism? And shouldn’t Michigan have followed the council of Matthew 18, which in this case would have meant dialogue with the university and the Pacific Union Conference, then elevating it to the North American Division and the General Conference before acting in a preemptive manner"

Thank you for sharing that spectrum quote – certainly it is fun to “imagine” that nobody spoke to the LSU Board of Directors or the LSU President about the idea that “evolutionism as the right answer for the doctrine on origins” — would be totally a wrong-headed agenda for an Adventist educational system. How sweet it would be to ignore all of the history on this thing until now – and just “imagine” that this is the first that the LSU board or the LSU president had heard that someone thought their innovative “all for evolutionism” direction in both their religion and biology departments – “was a bad idea”.

But as wonderful as such fictions are as a diversion – we all still have to check in to “reality” and are once again faced with the gravity of the situation that has gone on for more than a decade and the wreckage of student lives – faith destroyed by disguised evolution-minded professors, as the ‘monuments’ left to the adminstrative policy of “do nothing and hope for the best” when a crisis comes up.

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

Michigan Conference takes substantial action in LSU conflict
@David Smith:

If the theory of evolution is true, then the bible is a book of fairy tales. How could anyone trust anything it says?

The bible states that God cannot lie.

no wonder then that 3SG 90-91 calls theistic evolutionism the worst form of infidelity.

in Christ,


Michigan Conference takes substantial action in LSU conflict
@former Seventh-day Adventist:

Bill Sorensen lists 6 positions that he feels are non-negotiable for SDA’s, namely:

1. Creation as revealed in Gen. 1.
2. The Seventh day Sabbath.
3. State of the dead.
4. Issues on the visible and literal second coming.
5. 1844 and the pre-advent judgment.
6. Validity of the ministry of EGW.

Indeed – those are among the Fundamental Beliefs of Sevent-day Adventists – they are among the ones specific to the point of the subject of creation vs evoluitonism.

I would hope that belief in God, and faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior would top the list.

Those are also included in the Fundamental Beliefs – but are not as directly challenged by evolutionism. Thus one would not start by saying “you do no believe in God” or “you have no faith in Jesus Christ as Lord, because you believe in the doctrines of evolutionism”.

If you are arguing that evolutionist must not believe in Christ as Lord – if they promote evolution – that is an interesting idea – but not one that has been the keystone of this discussion.

If that were the case, and the last two (#5-6) were optional, I could be a good Seventh-day Adventist.

That is true – if we make certain distinctives in the set of 28 Adventist Fundamental Beliefs “optional” then by definition since these beliefs are already Christian beliefs – many Christians of other denominations could be considered “Adventists”.

Ellen was a tireless worker and inspirational writer, but to believe that everything she wrote was “rays of light direct from the throne of God” is just too much for me to handle. I have studied her works extensively.

This is not a thread for debating the Gifts of the Spirit listed in 1Cor 12 or how the Gift of Prophecy works – or whether everything Ellen White wrote in her diary is “inspired by God”.

But there a cases such as 3SG 91 where it is very clear that we are not talking about some stray comment in a diary.

But the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise. It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom. {3SG 91.1}

in Christ,


Michigan Conference takes substantial action in LSU conflict
@Geanna Dane:

Rather than letting the church take care of its own business you people are placing yourselves above the church. You have shown extreme contempt and disrespect for church leadership. Rather than bash it and undermine it, you guys need to submit to the authority of the Church as God has established it- through its elected leadership. YOU ARE AS GUILTY AS ANYONE ELSE FOR UNDERMINING THE CHURCH’S AUTHORITY AND UNITY…AND YOU KNOW IT.

How consistent the tactic of using “projection” by those that happen to be promoting error.

Think about this for a minute – isn’t that statement above exactly the problem with the LSU biology and religion department adopting their own rogue all-for-evolutionism agenda no matter what the decision of the Adventist denomination?

I am also amazed at how often that tactic is used because it places the heart of the problem “in plain sight”.

in Christ,


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

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!


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