I would much rather send my student to a public …

Comment on Clifford Goldstein: ‘A Safe Place’ by BobRyan.

I would much rather send my student to a public university that had evolutionist devotees as professors evangelizing for belief in evolutionism than to an SDA university with compromised SDA professors doing the same thing.

The SDA profs in that case would not only be trying to argue them out of accepting the doctrines of the SDA church – they would be models and examples of just how to do it as a respected SDA thought leader.

Cliff said

What I’ve said is that it’s hard to see how anyone who believes in evolution would want to be in this church. Nothing Adventist makes sense with the neo-Darwinian synthesis as backdrop. To paraphrase a fundamentalist atheist, evolution is an acid that erodes everything it touches. That would include the three angels’ messages of Revelation 14

When a student is bombarded with the sacrifice-all-for-evolution message at our school what is the “incentive” to remain SDA?

Here are a few motivators for staying in the church.

1. Come join us and our fellow evolutionists in our mission to compromise this entire denomination. Be a leader in telling your friends and family that the Bible cannot be trusted.

2. Follow our example of wanting to stay with SDA culture and friends no matter your differences with SDA doctrine.

3. “Vote for us” and “show loyalty” to your professors and your school by staying with us and increasing our numbers. After all don’t you see the “unneducated bad guys” out there who reject belief in evolution. We need you.

Contrast that with the motivation those students were supposed to have prior to
being confronted by SDA evolutionist professors.

1. Be better equipped to serve God in promoting the 3 Angels messages.

2. Advance your education in a way that is consistent with those who also want to be on fire with belief that the Bible is trustworthy, that Christ is coming soon, that the world needs to be evangelized and reconciled to a real loving God and a trustworthy text of scripture.

3. Learn to understand, defend and promote the message God has given the Seventh-day Adventist church as you complete whatever degree you are pursuing.

But when they learn that God is the evolutionist-god who “creates” by the method of tooth-and-claw, disease, death, starvation, extinction, survival of the fittest… and no well reasoned message at all regarding the fall man they are left with nothing.

There is no way to argue that any sane person would value such a creator’s “paradise of death”. The very foundations are removed.

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

Clifford Goldstein: ‘A Safe Place’

Ken: If Adventists can’t practice Christian tolerance and love amongst themselves then what hope do have to attact new members, especially youth to their pews?

The verdict is already in on that pont. The SDA denomination is one of the fastest growing denominations in America while many others are stalled or declining according to a recent survey.

The fact that anyone who upholds some unpopular stand on truth will be falsely accused as being mean spirited and unchristian is a well documented fact of Bible history and world history.

Hence the high level of complaining on this site a by a few members who don’t like the 3SG 90-94 statement.

But that should not be confused with accusations of actual “substance”. The SDA denomination is not growing via compromise but rather via its distinctive teaching. Why go to a small denomination cookie-cut from the same mold as a larger one if you already enjoy the larger one?

One of our key distinctives is the 7th day Sabbath of creation week as found in Gen 1-2:3. To imagine that we must flake away from that position in order to be accepted and grow, is to miss the point of the survey results.

in Christ,


Clifford Goldstein: ‘A Safe Place’
@Professor Kent:

Indeed – this appears to be a banner day for Kent “the creationist”.


in Christ,


Clifford Goldstein: ‘A Safe Place’


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