David Read: Either genes determine behaviors in humans, in which case …

Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by Eddie.

David Read: Either genes determine behaviors in humans, in which case there is no free will, or genes do not determine behaviors in humans, in which case sociobiology is a crock of nonsense.

I seriously doubt any psychologists or behaviorists believe in such an all-or-none dichotomy (reminiscent of the false evidence-vs-faith dichotomy that nobody will admit they believe in). Most behaviors are influenced by both heredity and the environment. Your genes, not your free will, program your body to begin producing testosterone at a certain age and to continue producing testosterone throughout adulthood (unless it’s turned off by other factors). Do you seriously think that testosterone has NO EFFECT on your behavior? Of course it does, but you still can FREELY CHOOSE to ignore or respond to stimuli. You’re not biologically determined to respond to any stimuli.

Eddie Also Commented

A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Theistic evolution certainly destroys faith in the Bible for some. I am not a theistic evolutionist. Professor Kent is not a theistic evolutionist. We are NOT defending theistic evolution. But whether you like it or not, there are millions of others who accept theistic evolution AND maintain their faith in the Bible. So why offend them by insisting over and over and over again that it is the “worst form of infidelity”? It doesn’t seem like a Christ-like thing to do.

For some reason you have repeatedly avoided my question in two different threads about whether you accept Ellen White’s statement that the rocks (not just life) of the Earth are only about 6,000 years old. Is it not inconsistent to (1) accept Ellen White’s statement that theistic evolution is the “worst form of infidelity” and (2) reject her unambiguous statement in the same passage that the “earth itself” is only about 6,000 years old? You are eager to criticize Professor Kent for not believing statement #1 but you have yet to affirm your belief in statement #2.


A big reason why so many people are leaving the church

BobRyan: Kent – your argument that if enough people sign up for it then it must make sense – is the classic “ad populum” logical fallacy.

Professor Kent never endorsed that position.


A big reason why so many people are leaving the church

BobRyan: Quoting Ellen White, with emphases added: “Infidel GEOLOGISTS claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from THE EARTH ITSELF, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years.”

BobRyan: Yes – because when Ellen White refers to “World” and to “other Worlds” she is always talking about a planet with life on it.
But when she talks about “planets” the context determines whether or not she means a planet with life on it or a planet that does not have life on it.

Bob, she specifically referred to “geologists”–not biologists. And then she specifically referred to “evidences from the earth itself”–not “evidences for life on earth.” It seems clear to me from the context of her language that Ellen White was a young earth creationist (YEC), not a young life creationist (YLC).

I’m trying to understand how you, Sean and others here at Educate Truth accept Ellen White’s literal interpretation of Genesis 1 but disagree with her on the age of the planet’s rocks. Seems a bit inconsistent.


Recent Comments by Eddie

Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation

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?


Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit

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:

http://www.ohio.edu/people/ridgely/OconnorClaessensairsacs.pdf


Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Bob Helm: Bob, if you send me an e-mail at sdabioprof2@gmail.com 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.


Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit

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.

True.

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.

I agree.


Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit

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.