BobRyan said Ness appears to believe he is teaching …

Comment on PUC responds by BobRyan.

BobRyan said

Ness appears to believe he is teaching the truth about nature and science.

At no point does Ness say that he suggests that the students should not believe him.”

– Since his position is along the lines of “Science shows evolutionism to be true so what should we do about that” – and the response from students in the video is along the lines of “yes but that contradicts the Bible and destroys the Gospel”, to which Ness’ response seems to be directing students to find ways that the Bible and Ellen White might be made to fit what he is “proclaiming” (not really proving anything scientifically just making claims) to be true from science.

So at what point are religion department students invited to find “science answer” other than the one Ness gave them?

This is the point where insightful attention to detail and critical thinking looking for an answer would have been helpful from someone – anyone at PUC.

==============

“Now let us suppose that we try that same stunt on the biology department only this time with a religion department professor. Suppose a religion department prof goes to the Biology department in a seminar on “Calvinism” and informs the students via some sweeping claims “turns out hypercalvinism is true based on the Bible”. Suppose that professor then explains that this means that all experiements in the Lab are “predestined by God” with for failure or success and that this is the most extreme form of “Intelligent Design” imaginable. Then when students being to bring up some failed science experiments that appear not to have been “God’s fault” the professors tells them that they will need to find a way to redo those results so that they match hypercalvinism – or they are stuck denying God.”

Ken responds –

Dear Bob

Thanks for your comments.

My question with your hypothetical is what is the religious prof even doing in the biology class? Dr, Ness wasn’t lecturing in the religious studies class, as a biologist he was teaching biology to students studying biology.

Ken – there have been a few nonsequitturs posted from our PUC friends that might have lead you to suppose that is the case.

If you read the opening blog entry carefully here you will find this

PUC responds
The discussion was for Ministry Colloquium, a lecture and discussion series for theology majors. During the fall quarter, guest speakers led discussions on various issues confronting theologians today.

Thus this is in fact a biology professor speaking to theology students on and telling them that science indicates that evolutionism is the right answer and that the flood was no global. As I stated above he leads the discussion more down the road of trying to find a Bible bending solution

Ken said –
With respect aren’t you mixing apples and oranges here? And on a macro scale is that not precisely the problem of mixing science and faith which are different disciplines?

Your agnostic friend

As noted I think you were mislead down that path by some of the PUC posts making it appear that they were looking for good evolutionist science in their science courses and not SDA doctrine. However this specific class is in fact a class of theology students.

But having said that – I have no problem with science professors speaking to theology students and Bible professors speaking to Biology students.

But I do NOT recommend that the Bibl professors “bring their problems with Calvinism” to the biology students or that the science professors present science puzzles to theology students as if theologys students are now equipied with enough of a science background to go “solve the problem”.

In this case that is not even the suggested solution by Ness. Rather he chooses to lead a discussion along the lines of how the Bible might be bent to serve the evolution and local-flood sweeping assertions at the start of the class.

Your non-agnostic friend – Bob 😉

BobRyan Also Commented

PUC responds

ReplyGeorge says:
November 8, 2010 Bob, your claims to be “in Christ” are pathetically hypocritical. My science proffesors at PUC are all nice people. I have met a lot of nice Seventh-Day Avdentist people here at PUC. But after reading what you and some others write I would be scared to meet you kind of people. I considered beecoming SDA but not after reading all of the hate here. I didn’t realize SDAS were so haterful. I’m very disaappointed. I’m thinking maybe there isn’t a god after all. if you worship a god who loves you have a really weird concept of love. George(Quote)

As is apparently the “custom” in some circles – the harsh accusations above are accompanied by no supporting evidence at all.

However that form of accusation apparently resonates with a few.

ReplyScott Brizendine says:
November 9, 2010 @George:
George,

Please do not think the individuals at this site represent the essence of the SDA individuals. In all religions there are people who claim to be acting in a way that reflects their religion. But this is not always true.

Take for example the incidents of Catholic Priests that molested young children. Even these individuals who were the appointed representatives of the Catholic Church acted outside of the upholding of their religions belief’s and moral conduct.

I’m certainly not saying that this forum and these brief exchange of comments is on the same level of that, but what I am trying to say is that a few individuals do not represent the whole being of a religion.

To which I replied that a hollow “accusation first” approach that provides no supporting evidence is not as objective as some may have at first imagined.

BobRyan said:
A+ on accusation – F- on providing any quote or example to support such harsh critical statements.Surely our PUC friends can either not issue harsh statements or at the very least “quote something” that is supposed to support those harsh accusations.

To which we get this reply

I hope this quote helps bring some clarity to my point. Also if you want more than one one incident to make something credible,

I would ask that the one video of Dr. Ness be used as a final stance.

First of all I am glad to have my comment above about the fact that some here are excelling at harsh remarks but failing to provide supportive evidence “stand” as the only evidence that could be mustered in favor of the harsh words above.

Secondly – your request that the Video of Dr Ness be used as the final stance has not been granted – because we value the added comments/posts that he has made here on this subject as helping us to understand his position as well as the video and the 2009 worship talk that is provided above.

in Christ,

Bob


PUC responds
Susie said –

This double speak is being noticed in larger circles than the Educate Truth bloggers. In fact, the “Reports of the National Center for Science Education—Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools” took note of LSU’s support of its biology teachers. From the May-June, 2010 issue, quote:

First of all – cudoos to Susie on that one. The question asked above is what kind of reputation, what kind of witness does PUC have? What are they telling people about Seventh-day Adventists?

Is their witness something that Adventism needs to “counter” with a pro-creationist witness to the contrary of the PUC witness to non-SDAs? It leads us to a search to find out what non-SDA friends of PUC are saying.

Now for the bad news. Here is the “witness” that PUC has gave to evolutionist purist Wes Elsberry in 2006.

In 2006, Wes Elsberry and I were invited to come to PUC and debate evolution for part of a student-organized speaker series. We were initially hesitant, since we are generally skeptical of debating creationists. However, after some discussion with the organizers, we grudgingly signed up, since it seemed like there was some chance for a reasonable discussion rather than just a Gish-gallop debate. Wes and I drove up to PUC – but, aware of the YECiness of Adventists, we went in as armed to the teeth as academics can be, with huge powerpoint files solely devoted to putting evidence for the age of the earth and common ancestry as bluntly and non-deniably as possible. When I spoke, I popped the slides up one-by-one and used the basic refrain, “Here are the hard facts. If this evidence has been hidden from you before now by your teachers and professors, you should ask yourself why.” It was pretty much a go-in-with-blazing-guns strategy.

However, as the discussion ensued, the students, and some of the professors, had some news for me. “You’ve got us all wrong,” they said. “We’re not all old-fashioned young-earth creationists and anti-evolutionists here, that’s an old stereotype about Adventists.” (Note: this is not a direct quote, rather it is just the gist of what I remember hearing.) Subsequent discussion indicated that many of the students & profs were reasonably well-informed about evolution and not really skeptical of it. After some interesting chats, Wes and I drove home, shaking our heads and commenting that if Seventh Day Adventists were becoming OK with evolution, we should keep our eyes open for flying pigs and freezing hells.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/11/seventh-day-adv.html#more

ouch!!

I said at one time that PUC is not at the same crisis point as LSU – I would still “like” to believe that is true – but even if it is true that they are not at the fullblown LSU-crisis stage – it appears they are much further down the “road to LSU” than we may have hoped.

in Christ,

Bob


PUC responds
If the impression that PUC left with the two evolutionists that were invited there to debate in favor of belief in evolutionism is any clue for the objective unbiased reader – then clearly they must conclude that someone was asleep at the switch at PUC in 2006.

While the watchmen slept the enemy stole a march.

in Christ,

Bob


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.

BobRyan:
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.

BobRyan:
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
http://www.thebranch.org/videos/Creation_Calls.mov

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,

Bob


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,

Bob


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,

Bob


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.

BobRyan:
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,

Bob


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,

Bob