By Sean Pitman
Ervin Taylor, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of California, Riverside. He is also a long-time supporter, executive publisher, and contributor to the “progressive” journal Adventist Today and is a fair representative of the face of “progressive” Adventism in general. As an ardent progressive Adventist, he has been a fairly active antagonist against some of the historic pillars of Adventism to include the efforts of this website to support and promote the stated goals and ideals of the Adventist church as an organization within our own schools – especially regarding the church’s position on origins.
It has never been a secret that Dr. Taylor is adamantly opposed to the Church’s position on a literal six-day creation week a few thousand years ago, promoting instead the mainstream evolutionary view of the origin of life over billions of years on this planet, or that he openly questions many of the other “fundamental” doctrinal positions of the Adventist Church. At one of his lectures a few years back he was asked what he would tell his own granddaughter if she were to ask him for evidence of God’s existence, to which he replied, “I don’t know.” Just yesterday he essentially repeated this very same agnostic perspective in one of his comments within this forum:
I have always been attracted to the position of Christian agnosticism. (Many, many years ago, at PUC I gave a talk with that title, as I recall, during a week of spiritual emphasis.) (Link)
What does it mean to be a “Christian agnostic”? or an “Adventist in good and regular standing” when one believes in very few of the “fundamental” goals and ideals of the organized church? And, perhaps more importantly, why would our own Adventists leadership invite a “Christian Agnostic” to come and regularly lecture our own young people, at schools like PUC and LSU, on the virtues of agnosticism? to promote Christian ethics without promoting the promise and sold hope of Christ? and the future reality of our world made new as it was originally intended to be (without the use of the evils of pain and death employed by natural selection or the ‘survival of the fittest’)?
Of course, when presented with specific questions regarding his various beliefs that directly undermine the fundamental positions of the church, Dr. Taylor, and others like him, argue that they believe in the “family model” of Adventism whereby one need not believe in or support the doctrinal positions of the church in order to be considered a good member or even an official representative of the church. Evidently, one does not even need to be all to sure as to the evidence supporting God’s very existence to be a good “Adventist”.
Yet, when pressed, Dr. Taylor says, perhaps for political reasons in certain settings, that he does actually believe in God and in Jesus as the Son of God, born into this world from a virgin woman and raised from the dead after three days to ascend to heaven to intercede for us with the Father. It seems strange to me, therefore, that Dr. Taylor and those like him seem so eager to accept the fantastic metaphysical claims of the Bible when it comes to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but reject much of the rest of what the Bible claims regarding historical realities which seem to disagree with their own understanding of mainstream science. How is the Bible remotely credible on the one hand while being so far off base on the other?
Dr. Taylor suggests that those who actually believe all of what the Bible claims about historical realities are living in Alice’s Wonderland.
If a belief in the what the Bible says about about the origin of life on this planet is like living in Alice’s Wonderland, then so is a belief in the far more fantastic metaphysical claims of the Bible regarding the origin of Jesus, born of God the Father to a virgin woman, raised from the dead after three days, and taken to Heaven to commence with the rest of the Plan of Salvation for those who claim to believe in such fairytale nonsense! – like Dr. Taylor!
Why do those like Dr. Taylor claim to live within one Wonderland, full of irrational baseless nonsense, but laugh at those who accept all of what the Wonderland Book has to say about the place?
I suggest that such individuals, as brilliant as they think they are, aren’t being consistent with themselves. They’re trying to fit within two “incommensurate worlds”. It simply doesn’t work… Mr. Hatter.
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come… But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
2 Peter 3:3-6; Isaiah 5:21; Proverbs 26:5; 1 Cor. 1:18
Re Wes’s Quote
“Oh, don’t think I don’t see your smitten look when that man is around — I can just feel the electricity, — and your toying way when we are alone!”
Hi Wes
Don’t be disconsolate my friend, whatever you divine of my motives. Actually I’m very easy to read because I say exactly what I mean. Perhaps your disappointment comes from not fully appreciating the full extent of my agnosticism. I’d venture it is as deep and comprehensive as your faith, but as Sean has pointed out I can hardly be objective in that regard can I?
By the way I far better appreciate your wit and humour than Hawkings. His is a bit dry for my liking. I also think he has a bit of a God complex when it comes to making a shrine out of the laws of physics. He may not see that though. Been through a couple of wives as well. Smitten? – perhaps a lot less than thou over your sacrosanct Krebs cycle my friend. 🙂 Sorry, couldn’t resist but I know you can take it in good spirit just as I can take my spoonful of Kimean medicine.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View Comment==========================
Question – when was the last time LSU students heard an LSU biology professor being so up front and honest about the problems observed in blind-faith evolutionism?
Surely our LSU guys can muster the honesty to keep up with atheist evolutionists like Patterson!!
Or … maybe that is asking too much.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentRe: Can Ken count?!
“Show me nothing. I see six letters of the alphabet, which is likely something.”
Actually seven but when one is dealing with nothing what is the difference between six and seven? Really its nothing. :}
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentUnless, of course, you’re talking about which day of the week is the Lord’s day. 😉
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentHi Eddie
Great question
It would be difficult to speak for all agnostics as their views likely vary. I think it is fair to say that all agnostics have not concluded if there is or is not a God. Why that is the case likely varies depending on the reasoning of the agnostic in question.
But I can certainly speak for myself. As you have read about my ‘spiritual’ journey, regarding my quid pro quo to Dr. Kime, you understand my background and the search for God. That search has been greatly aided by my involvement in Educate Truth over the last few years.
I think astrophysics holds many, but not all, of the answers to your questions. I think the truth about reality is far bigger than the universe that we can perceive. If Einstein is right about time being relative, what existed before the start of time in this universe?
If we are not capable of understanding infinity, or first cause, or infinite regression, are our very notions of ‘God’ or the nature of God naive and limited to present knowledge? I believe so and that our concept of God is constantly evolving – a moving target.
Creation ex nihilo? Show me nothing. I see six letters of the alphabet, which is likely something.
My 16 year old son -faster, brighter, and definitely a lot better looking than his old man- says that he thinks matter and energy have always existed. You know what? I don’t have much of an argument against that, if time as we know it did not exist before the Big Bang.
As to design, what I wonder, even if there are many metaverses, why ours has laws that allow matter to coalesce and ultimately form life. Why gravity? Is that the pull of God towards its Divine Heart? – if you will excuse my poetic license. I can hear my friend Wes chuckling 🙂 Random quantum fluctuation or Designer loaded dice? Don’t know my friend but I will keep pondering and looking at Science for clues.
Regarding religions, after many years of studies, contemplation and opening myself up, I think they are all social constructs. Regarding an individual’s connection to God, how can anyone judge, know, or feel what others actually experience? Who is to say that on a nice day when I watch my black lab swim in the river and bring me a stick, that I am not experiencing God at Its finest? That is why I think we all need to be tolerant and open minded about others’ spiritual experiences.
Eddie, I hope this answers your questions but I am willing to address them more fully if I have not done so.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentRe Eddie’s Quote
” ken: Actually seven but when one is dealing with nothing what is the difference between six and seven? Really its nothing. :}
Unless, of course, you’re talking about which day of the week is the Lord’s day. ;)”
Touche’ Eddie!
As they say: God moves in mysterious ways…perhaps even with the mistakes of agnostics?
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentKen –
Good luck getting LSU to be “agnostic enough” to allow Pitman the same level of input and participation at LSU as they have already given Taylor.
Their model is a bit more along the “committed to blind faith evolutionism” line of pursuit rather than “agnostic one way vs the other” as you seem to presuppose.
Curiously – after all these debates with Sean and years on this board – you still remain dedicated to the “Design seen in nature is not science” myth.
Fascinating!
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment@ken: Greetings, friend, a quick aside specifically anent my post to you with a PS mentioning Christ’s addressing Judas, in the very act of betrayal, as friend. Uncomfortable with the posts then appearing expressing discomfort from being addressed as “friend” by an agnostic, I wanted to show that Jesus Himself, whom we wish to emulate, felt no such discomfort, ever. It was not a comment directing you to go look in the mirror. In any case, if you sensed it as such, we all should run to our own mirrors, on the double. Hmmm… What’s that I see! Advanced ectropion (sagging and eversion of the eyelids) with blearedness and tearing, alas senile, but the beam in there is no help. (Biblical allusions, several, but I’ll spare you the texts.)
Anent the proposed LSU Chair of Intelligent Design, would it be endowed?
W.
Wesley Kime(Quote)
View CommentKen, thanks for the response. It’s pretty hard to explain how all the energy and matter in the universe managed to exist eternally in an infinitely minute volume of space until, one day, for some unfathomable reason, matter and energy spontaneously exploded with a complex set of natural laws that was exquisitely fine-tuned for creating a universe capable of supporting life.
Many SDAs do not accept the Big Bang and some consider SDAs who do accept the Big Bang as heretics. But the scientific evidence for the Big Bang is increasingly difficult to deny. And as Einstein realized, the implications of a universe with a beginning favor theists more than atheists (and, for that matter, agnostics).
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentRe: A Chair in Intelligent Design at LSU
Dear Drs. Pitman, Kime, Taylor et. al.
Preamble
A short while ago I was rightfully challenged and called out of my agnostic closet by Dr. Kime. Dr. Kime gave a very personal and moving account as to his origin of faith in Genesis.
In a most gentlemanly and Christian fashion, he alluded to the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. No offence taken, but the meaning could have been not more clear to this agnostic.
So I looked in the mirror and had a little chat with the severest judge I know. That resulted in a personal response of my own. That is not enough, because words without deeds are gilded, empty vessels.
Here is what I propose. That we lobby for and fund an interdisciplinary chair in Intelligent Design at LSU. That Dr. Pitman be the first one to occupy the position. I agree to be the first one to donate money to the position. As well I agree to act as a volunteer on a Steering Committee to help define, establish and fund the position. Drs. Pitman, Kime and Taylor would sit and have a major role in such a Committee.
Why do I do this?:
1. I respect the efforts of Drs. Pitman and Kime’s attempts to try marry faith and science.
2. Intelligent Design, while not yet a science, is worthwhile to examine empirically. (yes I know of its origins, the court case, the stance of the public school system and the claim as it just being a back door attempt of creationists). But I think it can have a broader appeal and should not be simply dismissed out of hand.
3. It may well be a way to bridge a gap between the progressive and conservative elements of Adventism. ie. Biology students are still taught that evolution is the mainspring of biology in biology class but are required to take the interdisciplinary ID class that argues and presents evidence contrary to it.
4. I acknowledge a moral debt of honour to Dr. Kime, which I can assure you I take as seriously as your faith in God.
I would like to hear from Drs. Pitman, Kime and Taylor on the viability of this suggestion, as well as any you, to see if this suggestion has any merit.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
Both “modular” and “linear molecular” evolution are in the same boat with regard to the exponential reduction in the ratio of potentially beneficial vs. non-beneficial sequences in sequence space with each step up the ladder of functional complexity. There is simply no significant advantage of one vs. the other when it comes to the job of finding novel functional systems within sequence space.
The dramatic expansion of minimum likely gap distances at higher and higher levels of functional complexity in sequence space translates into an exponential increase in the average amount of time required to achieve success – regardless of the mindless search mechanism chosen to randomly explore sequence space.
The studies that have been published have been on the nature of sequence space at different levels of functional complexity and how higher levels of functional complexity dramatically reduce the ratio of viable vs. non-viable sequences within sequence spaces that contain higher and higher level functional systems.
If you are really interested in this topic, I present the arguments and the published evidence on my website at: http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Calculation
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentGood luck convincing the brethren at LSU to accept Sean.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentI just read Bob Ryan’s posts to a handful of friends. The concensus: he’s not serious, he’s just a brilliant comedian. I’m not so sure, but what the guy writes is certainly hilarious in its patronizing spirit, intolerance and certitude.
Richard Young(Quote)
View CommentThis thread is totally nauseating and the website a total embarrassment to the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
My suggestion to Ervin Taylor, Richard Young, Ron, and even Ken (a very likeable chap): just ignore this stuff, especially anything that Bully Bob writes. Let the defenders of “truth” argue among themselves. Save your time, energy and sanity for more productive things.
Henry(Quote)
View CommentSo, Dr. Taylor, please explain to us where ET “true believers” are wrong. Perhaps you could start a new website called “Taylor’s Truth” which would allow you to tell us in detail?
Holly Pham(Quote)
View Comment@Richard Young:
Which is very unlike your own style of course. 😉
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentWhile it is true that blind-faith evolutionism is equivalent to belief in reincarnation – it is not true that acceptance of creationism is in the same category as reincarnation.
As already pointed out “The mechanism” claimed for creationism – is an intelligent designer, a creator (As shocking as that idea is to some Christians posting here).
That “mechanism” is already “observed” to produce results that rocks, gas and dust alone could never accomplish with every book written, every rocket built, every poem, every computer program etc. It is beyond question – even by blind-faith evolutionists.
God himself declares that the intelligent designer is observed even by non-Christian non-Bible aware pagans –
the “invisible attributes of God are CLEARLY SEEN in the THINGS that have been made”. – and he says that this is the case with “barbarians” in Romans 1 – meaning those with no access to the Christian Bible at all.
By contrast even atheist evolutionist leadership admits to the blind-faith nature of belief in evolutionism.
http://www.educatetruth.com/letters/silence-of-the-geoscience-research-institute/comment-page-1/#comment-32308
The impression given by those posting in favor of evolutionist arguments is that our evolutionist friends seem to have totally given up on the idea of critical thinking “as a good thing”.
Here again – an ounce of critical thinking would have been helpful to that author just then.
The wild blind faith claim that amino acids ‘naturally form’ into new and useful proteins all by themselves if you say “beeeellions and beeeeellions” often enough is a claim ‘in observable science’.
The claim that God “can do something” (as odd as this will seem to some Christian readers on this board) – is not the wild claim they have imagined. We observe everyday that intelligent beings “can do something”.
The claim that resurrection from the dead and a divine-human offspring are examples of claims about miracles and not natural events that occur every day is also “observably true”.
Thus there ARE aspects that are “observably true” if one is inclined to at least an ounce of critical thinking.
Actually – critical thinking would tell us that science agrees with the Bible on the point that these things are not naturally occurring and would require an all-powerful being such as God to accomplish them.
IF (by contrast) science were showing us that these things “happen by themselves” – are “naturally occurring in nature” then we would have a problem for Bible claims about miracles being necessary for such things.
That is – if we were to use critical thinking to evaluate the claims. Something I like to recommend to people as often as possible.
Ellen White reminds us in 3SG 90-91 that God showed her that the world and all life on it – actually was made in a normal 7 day week and that Theistic Evol is the worst form of infidelity because in her words it is “infidelity in disguise”.
Is this message to Ellen White from God – something we should admit to if we are people that actually read or value what she wrote?
Some readers of this board think that such a thing is a bad idea.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentHappy holidays to all, regardless of whether you’re a “true” Seventh-day Adventist or among those being urged to leave the church.
Henry(Quote)
View Comment@Ervin Taylor:
Isn’t this kind of like the pot calling the kettle black? Don’t tell me that you haven’t expressed your own opinions on the topics in play in this forum in the most ardent and decided terms yourself. Obviously, all who have a strong opinion on a given topic think that they’re in the right. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have an opinion they’d be willing to publicly share and defend.
Now, its fine to have a clear cut opinion and claim that you’re most likely correct in your views. Just don’t be too surprised when other people do the same thing. 😉
What I also find rather ironic about your statement is that you seem to be agreeing with Mr. Young. You seem to appreciate the value of non-testable, non-falsifiable, empirically-blind faith in the existence of Jesus and miracles performed through him. What is especially strange about this position of yours is that you seem to accept, evidently based on some kind of supreme faith that cannot be wrong regardless of the evidence, the claims of the New Testament authors regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but laugh at the ignorance, irrationality, and close mindedness of those who accept the claims of the Old Testament regarding the origin of life on this planet… claims to which Jesus himself subscribed and to have personally witnessed before his incarnation.
How does this work? Is such a faith-only position not an effort the avoid even the potential of error? of being wrong? How do you make sense of these seemingly contradictory positions to which you subscribe? I’m very curious to read your response to this sincere question of mine…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectignDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@ken:
How do you know? You said that you considered God’s existence to be “likely”. Isn’t the word “likely” a statistical/scientific term based on at least some ability to actually demonstrate the odds of a hypothesis being correct?
This is my problem here. How can you say that something is “likely” when, at the same time, you say that you have no empirical evidence for what you say is “likely to exist”? – no more evidence than you have for mythological fairytales?
You see, it is your use of the phrase, “likely to exist” that doesn’t make sense to me since it appears, at least to me, that you’re being inconsistent with yourself. If you have no positive evidence for God’s existence, and if everything that you do know appears to you to have a mindless natural cause, how then can you say, one way or the other, that the “first cause” was “likely” an intelligent God-like being vs. some other mindless natural process? Upon what basis do you make this claim?
You may say that the potential for God remains, even if you don’t know one way or the other. However, this does not defeat Dawkins’ point that the potential for the existence of garden fairies remains as well – especially in infinite regress and multiverse (multiple universe) arguments. How then can you say that the potential of God’s existence is greater than that of garden fairies? Upon what evidence is this assertion of likelihood based?
Again, you can’t absolutely rule out garden fairies either. That’s the point.
More open than they do for garden fairies and such? How do you know? How do you know that the God that you say likely exists did not make garden fairies? How do you know that this possibility is not at all likely? Yet, you are not agnostic with regard to garden fairies? but you are agnostic with regard to God’s existence?
I’m sorry, but I still don’t understand…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@Richard Young:
Let’s say that the engine in your car “dies”. It is fatally damaged and your car simply won’t run anymore – for the past 3 days now! Is it outside of the realm of science to effectively demonstrate that your car cannot be “resurrected” via any known mindless mechanism? How about with the effort of a very skilled mechanic? That changes the scientific likelihood of car “resurrection” quite substantially – doesn’t it?
Therefore, what scientific law of nature is broken when someone suggests that the human machine may be able to be fixed by its original designer? with the use of very intelligent creative power?
If one can effectively demonstrate the need for the existence of God or a God-like being at work within this universe of ours, then why the need for blind-faith arguments for the creative power of God? If there is actual empirical evidence of this power at work within our universe and within all living things which can be accessed and appreciated by intelligent candid minds?
Do you expect a reasonable/rational response to your question? If so, why then would you claim any meaning for blind-faith or otherwise “irrational” arguments for the existence of God and his creative power? Why are the stories of the miracles supposedly performed by Jesus any more trustworthy than any other fantastic just-so story or fairytale or “cunningly devised fable”? How do you pick and choose what to believe and not to believe beyond your own wishful thinking? Where is the solid rational reason for any kind of real hope in the empirical truth of these stories? – if you have no empirical evidence of any kind for their truth or the credibility of the story tellers?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@Henry:
It is a mistake to suggest that God wishes us to believe without any rational basis or empirical evidence for belief, or that it is really Satan who wants us to trust the evidence that any rational candid mind would be able to see and understand as pointing in a particular direction. This concept of yours paints God as most arbitrary, unfair in his dealings with intelligent beings, and even evil. Remember that it was God, was it not, who gave us our minds and our ability to reason rationally from cause to effect. And now you’re telling me that God expects us to turn off our brains? – the brains He gave us to use? – and that Satan wants us to turn them on? You live in an upside down world my friend…
Satan doesn’t want us to use our God-given reasoning abilities. Rather, Satan wants us to act contrary to what our reason tells us based on what our selfish desires are telling us. Sin is isn’t based on honest mistakes or sincere deception, but upon doing what we consciously know is wrong or contrary to what we are fully aware is in fact true. That is why sin is a form of insanity. It cannot be rationally explained nor can any excuse be made for it due to ignorance because there is no sin/insanity where there is honest and sincere ignorance of the truth…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@Henry:
And to those who still expect to get paid and remain employed by the Adventist Church while going around attacking the most basic goals and ideals of the church while on the church’s dime. Enjoy your holidays! and try not to look too hard in the mirror…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentSo… hm.. food is “observed to contain” proteins, sugars, enzymes, fats, minerals and vitamins.
And the Genesis 3 story holds that being denied access to a very specific food from the Tree of Life – excludes access to some necessary element.
And then… science “observes” the enzyme in question and how it functions.
These observations in nature however would not be sufficient to deter one who is truly determined to doubt in any-ol-excuse-will-do fashion.
Surely we can all agree on that point.
Telemerase is seen today to act in the “same way” … so err umm.. that is “no change” in the way the enzyme telemerase “acts”.
The salient issue in the events described is “access to telemerase”. Not how the enzyme works – but how to continue to get access to it.
Again – you seem to be arguing an “any-ol-excuse-will-do” solution by imagining in some way that the enzyme workes differently today than it ever did.
No one is claiming different properties for the enzyme. The question is access not a change in the chemical makeup or properties of the enzyme.
Your response indicates less objectivity than you seem to want to claim. You need to refine it just a bit.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentSo, am I interpreting you right? Are you meaning to imply that polarization and ultimately the breakup or splitting of the church is necessary, desirable, and an implicit goal?
That saddens me. I have spent my whole life trying to build up this church. It pains me to see “Educate Truth” trying to tear it down.
I honestly cannot see Jesus taking the stance that you, Bob, Sean et.al. are taking. I keep thinking of Peter and the sheet, and John 5:39 “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me.” I cannot think of any time when Jesus or any of the prophets were unkind, cynical or coercive toward those who were diligently searching for the truth. Jesus always gave a rational explanation when people had questions, and he always gave them space and time to figure it out.
If you take Gen. 1 literally, NOBODY can explain how to reconcile it with science. Far from persecuting our teachers who are struggling and trying to polarize the church, we should be like Jesus. Kind, tolerant, healing, and holy enough to live with the dichotomy until people figure it out. Our schools . . . no, our churches also, should be safe places where everyone, even pastors and teachers can express their doubts freely, and where we can all, at least temporarily, hold what may turn out to be false beliefs long enough to explore them and find out what is true.
Mrs. White told us that in the last days, the most bitter critics and persecutors would be former church members. I had always thought it would be those who had apostatized that would accuse the orthodox believers. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to find it the other way around, it is the Orthodox who are the persecutors. I guess that is the way it was in Jesus time too.
Ron(Quote)
View CommentRon said…..
“If you take Gen. 1 literally, NOBODY can explain how to reconcile it with science.”
Really, Ron? And can you explain by science how Jesus rose from the dead? or how He heals the blind man? Or, how He can be God and man at one and the same time?
I know I can’t. None the less, I know they are all true by faith. I don’t look to science to “prove” the spiritual concepts of the bible.
Small wonder you justify doubt, skepticism and unbelief. Apparently you think science can eventually concur and prove all biblical statements and concepts.
As for freedom to question the bible, yes, anyone can. But not anyone who is employed by the church who supposedly confesses faith in the bible and has pledged loyalty to the bible and to the church as long as the church continues to defend the bible.
You create a false dilemma by claiming the church can not discipline unbelief or actions that are clearly contrary to the church’s understanding of the bible.
It would seem that you, like others, have a distorted view of religious liberty. There is no “religious liberty” in the context you would use it in the church.
Religious liberty means you can leave the church and attack its doctrines without the church appealing to the civil law to punish you for doing so. This is the only “religious freedom” you can expect by way of seperation of church and state.
It does not mean you have freedom and liberty to remain a church member and attack the church doctrine without being disciplined and even dis-fellowshipped if the church deems it necessary.
And it certainly does not mean you can remain employed by the church and draw a pay check while you continue to attack the church and its stated doctrine.
It would seem you have a warped view of what religious liberty is all about.
Hopefully, Ron, the church is not going to appeal to civil authorities if you attack church doctrine and then burn you at the stake. Not yet anyway.
No, Ron. You are free to leave the church, attack it, and try to persuade people the church is not teaching the truth. But you are not free to stay in the church and do it. It is not Christian nor honorable for you to do so.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentRe Bob’s Quote
“Obviously one of the effects of eating the fruit from the tree of life must have allowed for production or availability of that enzyme beyond birth.”
Hi Bob
Did any of the 900 year old folks eat from the tree of life after Adam and Eve got chucked out of the Garden of Eden? I thought God placed Cherubins and a flaming sword to keep folks away from the tree of life. ( Gen 3:24 KJV)
If so, how did they produce or activate the enzyme beyond birth to allow for such an increase in life span?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View Comment@Bill Sorensen:
Bill SorensenOctober 30, 2011 at 7:57 pm
“Ron said…..
“If you take Gen. 1 literally, NOBODY can explain how to reconcile it with science.”
Really, Ron? And can you explain by science how Jesus rose from the dead? or how He heals the blind man? Or, how He can be God and man at one and the same time?
I know I can’t. None the less, I know they are all true by faith. I don’t look to science to “prove” the spiritual concepts of the bible.
Small wonder you justify doubt, skepticism and unbelief. Apparently you think science can eventually concur and prove all biblical statements and concepts.”
*********
Does Sean and Shane really believe that eventually science will be able to explain “and prove all biblical statements and concepts” including Jesus resurrection and his ability to turn instantly water into wine? If they do, I would like to know this!
There are things in the Bible—like Noah’s Flood—for which there is plenty of scientific evidence. If anyone has any doubts about this they need to listen to D. Ariel Roth.
Last Sabbath he made a presentation of such evidence and I was impressed. Does this mean that Roth can provide scientific evidence for all the supernatural evidence recorded in Scripture? Of course not! God provides sufficient evidence for belief to take root and grow.
Nic Samojluk(Quote)
View CommentBobRyan(Quote)
View Comment1. Anyone who actually takes the writings of Ellen White seriously on the subject of blind-faith evolutionism vs the Bible – owes it to themselves to read 3SG 90-91 “carefully”.
2. You seem to argue that I am unkind simply because I point to evidence for the mechanism of creation and for long ages of life pre-flood while pointing to the utter lack of an “observed mechanism” for evolutionist claims about adding coding genes to static eukaryote genomes.
I find your logic hard to follow at that point.
3. You claim “Our schools . . . no, our churches also, should be safe places where everyone, even pastors and teachers can express their doubts freely” — as if Ellen White argued that “doubt is a virtue”. The truth is Ellen White wrote quite a lot about hose who view “doubt as a virtue”.
Your post exposes the very aspect of your argument least supported by Ellen White and the Bible – as if that is helping your case.
Why do that?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentBob,
Telemerase is not the only factor in aging or the “negligible senescence” that certain animals are able to achieve – not by a long shot. The reasons/mechanisms for aging, and why some animals do not seem to age over time, are still very poorly understood. In short, I wouldn’t put too much weight in the arguments you’ve presented thus far if I were you.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentRe Bob’s Quote
Hi Bob
We certainly agree on the point that critical thinking is needed.
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?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s Quote
“Bob,
Telemerase is not the only factor in aging or the “negligible senescence” that certain animals are able to achieve – not by a long shot. The reasons/mechanisms for aging, and why some animals do not seem to age over time, are still very poorly understood. In short, I wouldn’t put too much weight in the arguments you’ve presented thus far if I were you.
Sean Pitman”
Hi Sean and Bob
Thanks for the comments Sean. Frankly I don’t know the answer and it may well be multifactorial, as Sean pointed out. My point to Bob is I don’t see how it is the ‘obvious, observed’ mechanism in nature that allowed people to live 900 years.
My main point is, even if Bob’s point is conjecture: magic fruit = adult production or activation of telomerase, I wouldn’t call it a hoax or a fraud, unless I could prove otherwise.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentKen –
Again critical thinking is needed. You merely “assume” that the enzyme was not produced beyond the point of birth for the children of Adam and Eve – even though it is clear that as adults – Adam and Eve were producing it.
You “assume” that the children were instantly translated to our same point of biological decline at birth. A very unlikely assumption on your part.
It is more likely that the effects wore off gradually – given that the Bible record shows the longevity effect wearing off gradually over time.
So the Bible “claim” is that once access to the nutrients in the fruit of the tree of life was removed – not only did mankind not “live forever” but that mankind gradually declined until death at around 900 years of age.
The Bible also states that this decline accelerated after the flood over a 500 year period time – down to 120 years of life.
So when you leap to your conclusion that the children must not have been able to produce the enzyme at the point of birth – rather than at ever decreasing ages – you do so without much warrant.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentHi Wanda
That was brilliant!
Here is some more.
All obsERVed that the aWESsome dog in the KENnel was clearly discomBOBulated.
BowWOWI
yOUR Agnostic friEND
Ken, bARKing up the Origins Tree 🙂
Ken(Quote)
View CommentRe Evolution of Enzymes in Krebs Cycle
Hi Wes and Sean
Please see referenced article below.
http://www.molevol.de/publications/99.pdf
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentRe Kreb’s Cycle – Irreducibly Complex?
Hi Wes and Sean
I did some more reading as to whether the Kreb’s cycle, circle.(KB) is an irreducibly complex, metabolic mechanism, ergo proof of design.
Apparently there is a simpler anabolic metabolic pathway called the gloxylate cycle found in plants, bacteria, fungi and microorganisms (GC) It uses three of the five enzymes in KB and shares many of the intermediate steps.
GC seems to be absent in animals, but is found in the early stages of nematodes(worms).
Could GC have been a precursor to KB? Is the fact that it is found in worms a clue as to how it might have evolved to KC in animals?
I’ve cited the Wikipedia link below for your reference.
I may be way out to lunch on this, not having your medical and scientific expertise, but I thought it was worth looking at.
I look forward to your comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyoxylate_cycle
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentYou can’t spell “observing” without the word “Ervin” in it.
Wanda(Quote)
View CommentRe Wes’s Quote
“But somehow for every carbon-dated fossil that shouted at me, the Krebs Circle shouted louder.”
Hi Wes
Your reference stirred a ghost of a memory of studying ATP in first year biology.
Could the Krebs cycle have evolved and if so how?
I went online and found the following article. Looks like there are a number of questions outstanding but at least scientists are trying to tackle the issue.
I couldn’t find anything more current but am interested in learning more if you could guide me.
http://www.metabolismo.biz/web/wp-content/uploads/Krebs-cycle.pdf
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentHi Bob
Good stuff, you directed me to the ‘precise’ question I asked: “Never seen anyone live that long, have you?”
Here is the question you said I asked: “You asked about the mechanism that can be observed today that would account for long ages of life recorded in the Bible”
Precisely speaking, these are different questions. The first question makes no reference to a mechanism but talks about ‘seeing’ people. Big difference.
However, I think I understand how you became confused. The paragraph before the first question, which does not pose a question, talks about a ‘mechanism related to ‘macro evolution’ , not a mechanism related to long ages of life recorded in the Bible. Or perhaps you are saying macro evolution and long ages of life recorded in the Bible are the same thing. 🙂
Objectively,
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
I agree with my cousin Wes Kime that the CAC is highly complex and integrated indeed and that is was most likely designed essentially as is given all of the other systems that depend upon its function in many diverse life forms. However, I do not know if he holds my understanding of functional complexity or if he would point out that the CAC, being a cascading enzymatic system, is far less functionally complex than a system with a similar number of parts where all the parts are required to be in a specific 3D arrangement with each other – as is the case for flagellar motility systems or something like ATPsynthase. Such systems are far more functionally complex for their size and are therefore far less able to evolve from anything else with novel functionality via any known mindless mechanism.
This is why I use, as examples of clear design, systems which require the specific 3D arrangement of over 1000aa (to include multiprotein systems).
Your father is in good company, especially when it comes to some of the most famous modern physicists and mathematicians currently alive – to include quite a few Nobel Laureates. It seems like more physicists believe in some kind of God than do biologists – which is one reason I suggest that physicists must be smarter, on average, than biologists.
What is ironic, however, is that the most simple living thing is far more functionally complex (i.e., requires a far greater degree of fine tuning to function) than are the finely tuned fundamental constants of the universe which allow complex life to exist – a degree of fine tuning that has convinced so many physicists that there must be a God. If the universe is so clearly designed, because of its extreme fine tuning, living things should be much more clearly recognized as requiring design.
Part of the problem, of course, is that biologists are far better at telling just-so stories than they are at math. It is much much easier to come up with imagined just-so stories about how things may have morphed over time than it is to actually do the relevant math or to understanding the statistical odds involved with crossing the growing non-beneficial gaps between functional systems at higher and higher levels of functional complexity.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentHi Wes
Although I enjoyed your artful reply you did not address the similarities between the KC and GC.
It is wonderful and honest that the referenced scientists think the KC could not have been better designed. But isn’t how it got to the point the question? If KB was created at first instance as the perfect design why the need for the GC? And why the similarities between enzymes and pathways?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View Comment@Sean Pitman:
Sean I am really confused now. You are on one hand arguing against a blind faith that would accept Christian faith as based on the revelation of Jesus. You seem to intimate that Christianity must instead be based on evidence and not blind faith but you now seem to be suggesting that the scientific literature in the life sciences is “nothing but blind faith and false extrapolations from very limited examples of evolution in action”.
You further seem to have descended into a gnosticism that indicates that there is no need for Christians to do original research and publish and participate in science because all the evidence you need is already in the literature if you can only understand it right.
Simple basic questions.
1] Do you believe in science as hypothesis testing and is this a route to understanding?
2] Can Christians legitimately participate in this activity and publish their findings?
3] Are biologists doing science in good faith or they all bewitched by the devil and deluded?
4] How does a simple biologist know which are the just-so stories and which are true?
5] How do you decide which are the evidences that can legitimately be used to build faith and which are not?
6] Is there such a thing as Mortons demon and how will I recognize it.
Pauluc(Quote)
View CommentHi Sean
Even if life and the universe can be deconstucted to show naturalistic cause and effect events to explain everything therein, it does not necessarily mean there is no Grand Designer thereout.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
That’s right. However, such a situation would mean that the Designer of such a universe couldn’t be empirically detected by those living within it. Such a Designer would be in the same category of garden fairies, Santa Claus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. While there is no solid empirical evidence for the existence of these entities, neither is there evidence that definitively falsifies their existence. A God in such a category would be effectively worthless and a hope in such a God would be no more rational than hope placed in the existence of little green men living in the middle of the moon.
Fortunately for us, the God of our universe has left us abundant empirical evidence of his existence and even his character which can only rationally be explained by someone with access to intelligence and creative power than cannot readily be distinguished from a God or a God-like being.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentFrom the start – have pointed to a known proven mechanism that is known to create a result – that does not just “happen” on its own.
The mechanism is known and observed to function just as claimed.
But of course – complaints to be expected – no matter how obvious the point.
Indeed – that “Life of the cell” presentation is pretty hard to ignore in a “yes but I choose blind-faith atheism anyway” fashion.
Notice that in the point made above – I specifically talk about the acquisition of new coding genes – NOT simply “recombining existing” information already present in the genome – as if that will ever be a “mechanism” that can get you from amoeba to horse.
Ahh – the bait and switch. Your task was to point to “the mechanism” by which evolutionism is supposed to work.
My challenge to you is that no new genetic information is added to the genome over time and so you come up with “recombining existing information” already present in the genome as if that will suffice as the mechanism to get blind-faith evolutionism off the ground for its amoeba-to-horse alice-in-wonderland adventure.
I simply point out that recombining old already existing information in the same genome – is never going to get you to going on your amoeba-to-horse adventure.
You will be stuck with an amoeba recombining its already existing genetic information. You merely shuffle the same deck of cards – and staple one to the other in some cases. But you do not add bricks, steel, mortar and paint to your set of building materials.
The point remains. No mechanism yet identified for blind-faith evolutionism.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentWhat “science” favors “good storytelling” over “observations and statistical probability”?
Answer – “junk science religion”.
And this is why Collin Patterson was complaining. He was a confirmed atheist evolutionist until the day he died. Yet he too observed this junk-science religion element among his peers and was repulsed by it.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment@Pauluc:
Drysen is no better than other biologists in his just-so story telling devoid of any real science that produces useful predictive value based on actual statistical analysis beyond very low levels of functional complexity. Drysen evidently doesn’t yet grasp the published concept of levels of functional complexity and how different levels affect the distribution of potentially viable protein-based sequences in sequence space. He simply doesn’t seem to have a clue that his extrapolations from low levels to high levels are mathematically unsupported and untenable.
My point isn’t to simply be negative, but to show people the bald unsupported claims of many mainstream scientists which simply aren’t scientific. They are nothing more than fanciful just-so story telling. That’s it.
Also, I really don’t need to publish the basic concepts in play here regarding levels of functional complexity or how protein sequence space is affected. These ideas have already been published and are available in mainstream literature.
This isn’t simply a “God of the Gaps” argument. It is the very same argument used by various forms of science which hypothesize the need to invoke intelligent design all the time – as in anthropology, forensics, and SETI. Simply asserting that “evolution happens” without a viable mechanism beyond very low levels of functional complexity is not science. It is nothing but blind faith and false extrapolations from very limited examples of evolution in action. Life scientists should simply admit this fact instead of pretending that they actually have a viable evolutionary mechanism to explain complex systems. They don’t. That’s a fact for anyone who cares to do just a little bit of personal research.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentHi Sean
I really enjoyed your fine reply.
I understand and appreciate the argument that biological similarites could point to common descent or common design.
I also agree that the job of evolutionary biologists is to fill the gaps between organisms to illustrate common descent.
I think I understand what you are saying about the functional complexity of the Citric acid cycle not being significantly different than its component parts. Would it be fair to say that you and Dr. Kime may differ on this point or am I reading more into your comments than I should?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
My father is a Deist and thinks there is a design to the universe, ergo a Designer. The jury is still out for me in that regard but I am keeping an open mind.
Ken(Quote)
View Comment@ken:
It is an error to assume, without further demonstration, that similarity of structure and even of function is definitive evidence of origin via the Darwinian mechanism of random mutations/natural selection from some common ancestral state.
While such similarities do in fact suggest a common origin of some kind, that common origin may be a common intelligent designer. There is also the proven possibility that the more simple system actually devolved from the more complex system over time (as is the case for TTSS toxin injection system in bacteria, which devolves from the much more complex flagellar motility system in bacteria over relatively short periods of time).
So, how does one rule out the necessity of intelligent design to explain two different systems that look similar in structure and perhaps in basic function? How does one scientifically determine, to a useful level of predictive value, that a particular mindless mechanism could or could not reasonably have done the job? Well, one has to consider the functional differences themselves. The similarities are very easy to explain via mindless mechanisms of various kinds. However, the functional differences are not so easily explained beyond very low levels of functional complexity. It’s all about the differences. The functional differences are key here – key to the detection of the requirement for intelligent design to explain a given phenomenon.
That’s the problem with the just-so stories of evolutionary progress you’ll often find in literature. They are just that – just-so stories without any demonstration in the lab or any real statistical analysis with regard to the ability of mindless mechanisms to produce the required functional differences between the systems in question.
When it comes to enzymatic cascades, to include the citric acid cycle, the complexities involved are not generally significantly more complex than the most complex single component part. The reason for this is that the overall system does not require a specific 3D structure in order for it to work. An enzymatic cascade works in a sequence whereby each individual part works independently from the other parts in the enzymatic cascade.
That is why such cascades are not nearly as functionally complex as a system with an equal number of parts where the function of the system requires that the parts work in harmony with each other, at the same time, in a specific three-dimensional arrangement with each other – as is the case for the flagellar motility system. The flagellar motility system is far far more complex that an enzymatic cascading system with an equal number of protein/amino acid parts or building blocks.
Such systems of functional complexity, when they require more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid parts, do not evolve from anything else, regardless of structural similarities with other systems of function. The functional differences require structural differences that are just to statistically large to cross, at such levels of complexity, in what anyone would consider to be a reasonable amount of time via any known mindless mechanism.
It is for this reason that the hypothesis that only an intelligent agent could have produced such a high level functional system in a reasonable amount of time gains superior scientific credibility.
Many different sciences that are based on the ability to detect the need to invoke intelligent design to explain various phenomena in nature (such as anthropology, forensic science, anthropic science in physics, and even SETI science) are all based on this basic logical argument for design. There is no fundamental difference…
So, there you have it, the scientific “ID-only argument” in a nutshell.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? v.15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? v.16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. v.17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you,
v.18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Melvin(Quote)
View Comment“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.” Matthew 7:15, NASB.
Nathan(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
I wasn’t trying to mock honest agnosticism. I personally think that it is possible to be, at least for a while, a sincere agnostic who is earnestly seeking for the truth about God. What I don’t understand, however, is how one can try to meld agnosticism with Christianity and call one’s self a member, much less a representative, of the Adventist Church. That is beyond my comprehension.
At least you, being the agnostic you are, do not think to call yourself a member of the Adventist Church nor do you expect a paycheck from the Church for promoting your views. That I can deal with…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentSome might label me a conspiracy theorist. (Well, that phrase or label has come to have an automatic negative meaning associated with it. In reality, there are very real conspiracies, rooted in the intent to destroy our very souls.)
My conspiracy is based on historical evidence, however. I believe that many of those who are claiming to be SDA, “holding on” to their membership in the church, while actively promoting ideas which are directly in contradiction to the Bible and to our fundamental beliefs, do not actually believe themselves to be SDA.
[edit]
Kevin(Quote)
View CommentThat post was confusing. Hubb is not pastor Cook. The comment was to pastor Cook and the question was directed to Dr. Hubert Sturges. Sorry.
Bill
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentApparently some “Christian agnostics” embrace the term with a bit more “enthusiasm”. For them it involves denying the first 11 chapters of the Bible, rejecting God as creator if by that He means that He did exactly what He said He did in Genesis 1-2. They reject the “For in Six days the Lord Created” central point of the 4th commandment and ridicule those who choose to believe the Bible record is a trustworthy account of history.
So — err.. umm.. there is always “that” Christian agnostic.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment@ken: Another category of belief/non-belief/nosh-belief/disbelief/dysbelief/unbelief/quasi-belief/near-belief/nano-belief/parabelief/fractal-belief? We needed that like LSU needs another Chair.
Wesley Kime(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s Quote
“You missed the part about agnosticism for the naturalist being a form of effective-atheism.”
Hi Sean
That is a fair point. Still there is a difference between atheism (no God), and agnosticism (may be a God that has not been detected yet). Perhaps you have created a new category on the spectrum of belief/non belief: athnosticism 🙂
Distinctions are important when it comes to labeling beliefs. What if I posited that ‘progressive’ Adventism was effective ‘conservative’ Adventism -notwithstanding their views on origins – because of the joint belief in Christ as the Redeemer of sinful Man? I suspect you would differ with me on my statement. Doesn’t the same logic apply to the distinction between atheism and agnosticism?
Your ‘athnostic’ friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View Comment@ken:
After all thy gentle sweet agnostic mincing
And my bombastic vocabularic fencing,
Let us sooth ourselves again to pentameter iambic
Again as friends together lie the lion and the lambic.
Wesley Kime(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s Quote
Hi Sean
Does your desire for immortality affect your interpretation of scientific data? In other words if you can’t find meaning in your personal existence without God, do you strive to find whatever evidence you can to prove God and discount everything that militates against God?
Frankly I don’t have any problem with that as long as the bias of creation science is admitted. Atheists should do likewise. Agnostics as a matter of definition do not hold either bias. However just because we don’t know does not mean we won’t continue to make objective inquiries.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentThank you for your kind remarks.
I like to think of that phenomena as a barometer that the post “struck a nerve”.
Though as Sean pointed out it could simply reflect a non compos mentis principle in some readers where name-brand alone determines vote.
But notice that when I happen to post an obvious effective short pithy post like the one above – it tends to get the stronger “ouch” response?
Seems like there is more than just name-brand-reaction there.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment@ken: You’ve got agnosticism marching teasingly, relentlessly, inevitably, but somehow asymptotically into atheism. Good parable (I like parables). If your agnosticism seems so tantalizingly close to and congruent with atheism but never, never is actually going to be congruent, or can be and don’t hold your breath, then progressive Adventism seems to an adroit agnostic so close to, essentially identical to fundamentalist Adventism, but it just simply isn’t, so you can stop trying to nudge or shove us together. Posit-schmosit. Like you say, “distinctions are important.” Now do you see the problem at LSU? Sigh, you … don’t.
Wesley Kime(Quote)
View CommentSeveral solutions being tried out here…
1. “Some” will ask a question hoping it cannot be answered – then when it is answered will reply “Well I don’t know that much about science – if I knew more I would know how to refute what you just said”. As long as they keep the issues complex enough when doing that – some people will go for that solution.
2. Other times a person will respond to an answer to a question that they hoped “had no answer” by saying “well if I could just see so-and-so and you in a debate well then we would have the real story – not just one side of it”. Maybe the two of you should get opposing chairs some place so we could all watch.
3. A third – and popular answer to a complex issue is of the form “sorry I just don’t see it — to each his own”.
4. A fourth method for avoiding the need to face a disconfirming fact, is to simply refuse to engage in a serious discussion when options for a solution in your favor seems remote.
5. A fifth form of response to creationism is to be sure that the points exchanged are sooo deep in the weeds that many of the readers will be tempted to simply pass – and the general impression that is left is “it is 6 of 1 and half dozen of the other on that point – so each person simply settles that point by preference”.
For those reasons and more – I prefer to give examples of the “other guys” agreeing with creationists on some key point.
That form of communication – leaves the issues in the realm of “the obvious” and the just-say-nay crowd very little room for cover.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment@ken:
So, are you agnostic with respect to the origin of highly symmetrical polished granite cubes? – like the one I originally described for you in this thread? Or, do you think you have an idea as to its likely origin? Are you completely agnostic, having absolutely no hint of an idea, with respect to the existence of garden fairies? or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
You see, there are a lot of things that could exist, but for which one may not have come across any positive evidence. For such things we are not just agnostic with regard to their likely existence…
That is why when someone claims that they see no rational empirical evidence to support the existence of a God or a God-like being, they are, in effect, atheistic at the present time. Now, they may say that they may be wrong, that there is a possibility of error, as with any scientific position… just that they need some actual evidence to change their minds.
As far as I can tell, this is your current position. You are, in effect, in the same boat as Dawkins and Provine. You just don’t like to admit it. You all claim that there is no known rational empirical evidence for the existence of any kind of God or God-like being. Yet, I suspect that all of you would change your minds if you recognized the weight of positive evidence for the existence of God. Where then is the effective difference between your perspective and that of well-known atheists like Dawkins and Provine? – beyond semantics (i.e., a rose by another name)?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentRe Pauluc’s Quote
“I make no apology for the essentialky mystical nature of my religuous experience. Mystical I understand but as scientist I must can only accept the supernatural by faith.”
Hello Pauluc
Stated with humility, honesty and conviction. What fair minded person could find fault with that?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View Comment@pauluc:
So, one can be living a hopeless life and yet find meaning in the hopeless state in which one finds one’s self? – because “at least we know”? – that things are hopeless?
Come now. If there is no ultimate difference produced by anything I do, what real difference does it make what I do? If everyone and everything will ultimately end up as nothing, with no eternal memory of anything that anyone did or said on this planet, or elsewhere, what is there besides the here and the now? What’s wrong with, “If it feels good, and you can get away with it, why not do it?”
I’m sure you see my point…
Without God, that is…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentDear Wes
Your rhyme is fine Dr. Kime
Perhaps a conduit for the Divine
And I may be prone to doctrinal blunder
But folly should no split frienship asunder.
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentOnce again you are misrepresenting their views. It amazes me how often you insist that they have “empirically-blind faith.” Some have explained repeatedly why their belief in SDA doctrines is not blind. I get it; why don’t you? Is this some sort of high-stakes rhetorical game that you’re playing?
Eddie(Quote)
View Comment@Eddie:
Phil Brantley has argued that his faith, by necessity, is independent of empirical evidence – as has Prof. Kent. They are fine if the evidence is there, but they are also fine if it isn’t. The same is true for Erv Taylor’s belief in God. He evidently believes in God, and in Jesus as the son of God, even though he wouldn’t be able to, according to his own testimony, give his own granddaughter any reasonable empirical evidence for the existence of God or a God-like being. Pauluc has also seemed to argue for faith in the existence of God and the resurrected Christ as the Son of God, without any need for any basis in empirical evidence.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentAccording to Martin Reese and Leonard Susskind – the “designer” is unavoidable so much so that “inventing a multiverse” fiction is the only way to escape that observation.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
You’ve yet to answer my key question which I’ve asked quite a number of times now:
Are you agnostic with respect to garden fairies, the origin of highly symmetrical granite cubes, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Dawkins and Provine also readily concede that there may be a God, but that his existence is no more evident or apparently likely than the existence of garden fairies and other fairytale figures which may also exist somewhere in this or some other universe, but for which there seems to be no convincing positive evidence at the present time. You seem to me to have made this very same argument in this forum…
Again, I’d be most interested if in your response my question regarding your potential agnosticism with regard to garden fairies and the like…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentEvolutionists have built a house of “just so cards”. Martin Reese and Leonard Susskind show how it all comes crashing down around them when observations in nature make it increasingly more difficult to tell the story of mindless undirected progress from “no space time” to an entire universe and a living planet like Earth.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment@ken:
I hope you don’t mind if I ask you – Why not?
I’m honestly confused here. You are very confident that garden fairies, Santa Claus, leprechauns and the like do not exist (you’re definitively not agnostic with regard to their existence or origin), but you are unsure if a God of some kind exists? Even though you see no more positive evidence for the existence of any kind of God or God-like being than you do for other fairytale characters? some of which many people have claimed to see?
What’s the difference, for you, between the concept of a God-like being and these fairytale characters?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@ken:
Bias is like inertia… it is a force that tends to cause one to continue to go in the same direction as one was previously going. In other words, one’s notions of reality or the nature of the empirical world in which one lives produce a bias that resists adopting contrary points of view. In some sense, such biases can be good, as they create a degree of skepticism or pause regarding new ideas. However, biases can be so strong that they will prevent one from ever accepting the possibility of error. It is at this point that personal bias can become a real problem.
As far as my own biases, I’m sure, as already noted, that my biases affect me. That’s true of everyone – including you. I know you like to trumpet the concept of your own purely objective perspective. However, what you are claiming for yourself is impossible for humans. You’re only fooling yourself in thinking that your position is more objective, rational or “scientific”. You do actually have a very clear bias against the concept of the likely existence of any kind of God that is any more rationally detectable than garden fairies or the Flying Spaghetti Monster… or any other fairytale invention. Does this concept of empirical reality not form a bias for you based on your own past experience and mental capabilities?
Consider, for example, the arguments of Thomas Kuhn regarding the inherent subjectivity in science and other forms of “rational” thought and understanding:
That being said, having an admitted bias does not mean that said bias cannot be rationally overcome if one is at least open to the possibility of being wrong… open to potentially falsifying evidence.
This is one of the dangers of “Christian-evolutionists”, like Pauluc and Erv Taylor (and even creationists like Professor Kent, David Reed, and others), who hold to the value of empirically-blind faith in the empirical truth of certain fantastic claims of the Bible… a faith, or bias if you will, that cannot be falsified or challenged by evidence of any kind – not even in theory. They pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible, based on “faith” devoid of the need for support from empirical evidence, while, at the same time, shaking their heads in pity at the blindness and ignorance of those who believe many of the other claims of the Bible which are no more contrary to the claims of modern science than our their own beliefs regarding the existence and nature of God, the nature of Jesus, or the hope of eternal life through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus from the grave.
At least be consistent in Wonderland. When in Wonderland, what sense does it make to pick and choose what is and isn’t most likely true about what the place says about itself?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentSean, what is the basis of your belief in the SDA view of the state of the dead? Many people who have had near-death experiences have accurately described objects they couldn’t have seen in the operating room. Many find the empirical evidence for a living soul departing the body at death very, very compelling. Should they trust the evidence they can see–or what the Bible teaches?
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentThe “Christian agnostic” mind simply trades light in exchange for darkness – “as if” this is supposed to impress us. — “As if” they did something brilliant.
What part of that little dance on their part is supposed to be compelling?
I don’t see the attraction or need for it.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI agree, it’s hard for me to see why any Adventist would give him a platform to convey his disbelief.
Craigo(Quote)
View CommentI read with interest the article about Ervin Taylor, PhD, the “Christian agnostic.” He is reported to believe, “perhaps for political reasons in certain settings, that he does actually believe in God and in Jesus as the Son of God, born into this world from a virgin woman and raised from the dead after three days to ascend to heaven to intercede for us with the Father.” (This statement by Sean Pitman might not exactly reflect Dr. Taylor’s belief, but I quote it as it probably comes close.)
This statement describes the “crossless Christ.” It is a common belief among Christians who like also to say, “Jesus is enough.”
Jesus came to “seek and to save the lost.” The “lost?” The concept of being lost comes straight from Genesis. To believe that you are lost requires that you accept the Genesis story in total, or there is no basis for being “lost.”
Yet, Dr. Taylor, I will grant is an honest man. He is simply expressing the all too common belief of many Christians that Jesus Christ has no requirements. He is simply giving a philosophical basis for the lukewarm lifestyle of far too many even of Adventists. Jesus Himself said, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.”
If we all from highest to lowest let this guide our lifestyle, many problems in the church would be solved. If we do not do this, let’s face it, we are not even Christians.
Hubert F. Sturges(Quote)
View CommentBill, As you have stated, I am sure that the Devil could project and attitude of love and good fellowship for awhile if it met his ends, however, I have a hard time imagining Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, ever making the hard, dogmatic, cynical, and derogatory comments that are coming from the most “conservative fundamentalists” on this site.
Ron(Quote)
View CommentBob, You think to “wear out the saints of the Most High” I have given you many, many references and examples over the last couple of years but you have stopped up your ears and refuse to hear. “He who has an ear, let him hear”.
If there is anyone reading this web site who still has an open heart and mind and really wants to explore the issues, I am willing to provide references. Maybe in a private discussion. I guess I have lost all faith that any of the principle supporters of “Educate Truth” really have any interest in truth beyond dogma.
Ron(Quote)
View CommentYou compare the unkown unseen much-imagined “mechanism” for evolutionism – against the 900 year life span in Genesis for pre-flood man arguing that just as there is no observed mechanism for blind-faith evolutionism (i.e. adding new novel coding genes to a eukaryote species) — so also there is no known mechanism for extending the life of cells.
I then point to the known mechanism for extending cell life and the fact that it is already observed at very early stages of life.
You then simply cast about you for any ol’ excuse to side step the point.
Why do that when it only exposes a certain lack of objectivity in your claim?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThe continual post of the form “Yes I have provided that answer someplace. Sometime in the past – I did very well on that question” is not the compelling form of response that you seem to imagine it to be.
In the mean time – we wait…
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentAt least in that video I posted – Dawkins made an effort to read the tea leaves on the ceiling – for his answer.
I suppose he could have resorted to nothing more than “Well I did very well with that question some time in the past — I just know I did”. But he did not resort to that. Credit where credit is due.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentIt is hard to “do the study” without having them under observation.
But it is not hard to see the gradual decline in ages over time.
It is not hard to see the Bible declare that access to the Tree of Life was the determining factor.
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.
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”.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentRon said…..
“I have a hard time imagining Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, ever making the hard, dogmatic, cynical, and derogatory comments that are coming from the most “conservative fundamentalists” on this site.”
Well, you may be right, Ron. On the other hand, the same could be said for all the prophets including Jesus Himself.
To be totally objective may well be impossible. How I would “judge” you, or Ken or anyone else will be based on my own understanding of the biblical issues being discussed.
And I am well aware that you and others will do the same. I glean from your comments, that the church has no moral imperative to discipline employees who abandon fundamental church teachings.
I know that more than a few of us would completely disagree with this evaluation. And I am also aware that there is a growing movement in the SDA church that would agree with you completely.
Polarization is inevitable and even necessary for a final unity of the church.
Pluralism can not and will not survive in historical bible Adventism.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentHi Sean
You have transported me from an atheist to a closet creationist in the width of a thread my friend. 🙂
I wonder what you will create me as next?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentRe Intelligent Design
Hi Sean
Notwithstanding the body blows of our good Dr. Kime regarding my apparent worship of Saint Hawkings 🙂 , this is what I have been contemplating lately.
What if Intelligent Design is on a much higher order than what we can presently proof with empirical science but may be possible in the future? If one looks at the exponential advance of science what will we understand about our universe and beyond in 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years? After all think how far mankind has come in understanding physical reality since Newton’s time.
I don’t that is mere irony that caused Hawkings and his author to label their recent tome ‘ The Grand Design’ I think Hawkings truly thinks there is one. If ever we find it might we not be glimpsing the mind of the Grand Designer? Are particular iterations of faith really temporal resting spots along the way down the long road of rational enquiry? I think so based on what I have observed and thought about in my lifetime. Then again it is possible that revealed biblical creation by ancient Hebrew minds is the full meal deal as creationists posit. But is it probable?
That is why I am not just blowing bubbles when I talk about the establishment of a multi disciplinary chair of Intelligent Design. Hawkings says that philosophy is dead. I couldn’t disagree with him
more notwithstanding my suppossed adoration 🙂 Even if God is ultimately unknowable science can explain what God is not. Is there a design to life, this universe, the collective metaverse, or is it all a random crapshoot we will never understand? Don’t know, but It seems plausible to me, as I duck the flying spaghetti and look into the causal soup, that there is an ultimate answer that would make sense of it all. And logically, even though humans cannot yet empirically prove it, it may be beyond the currently known laws of physics.
Darn, I just saw that elusive fairy in garden puck her head and give me a subjective wink as she was eating a plate of spaghetti. 🙂
All right off to do battle in the empirical world and make some meatball
$.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentDon’t tell Ken I said this, Sean, but I do think our really good friend is beginning to come around at least a little bit–and that’s wonderful news!
Lydian(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
Yes, Hawking has apparently evolved, or devolved if you prefer, from the position of agnosticism to atheism since he wrote A Brief History of Time.
As far as your question as to if a “design” can be “mindless”, the answer to that question is yes – depending upon what you mean by the term “design”. As far as we can tell, anyway, what appears to be “mindless nature” does in fact have certain creative powers (discussed further below).
This is exactly the reason why many scientists and philosophers have come to the conclusion that the “first cause”, whatever it may be, had to itself have been eternal. Of course there are those, like Hawking for instance, who argue that something can indeed come from nothing… but that belief certainly isn’t scientific in that it is not testable in a falsifiable manner and has no useful predictive power.
Now you’re sounding like a creationist 😉
Me too! The only difference between you and I is that you are impressed with the unlikely appearance of original matter/energy out of nothing without a pre-existent eternal intelligence, while I am also impressed by the origin of the informational complexity needed to get otherwise random non-directed energy/matter to produce useful stuff. Consider that the origin of useful information is just as problematic for the atheistic mindset as is the origin of basic energy/matter itself (By the way, atoms and basic atomic particles are informationally rich, as are the fined-tuned fundamental constants of the universe).
Science itself is a faith construct. You cannot make any conclusions as to the likely nature of empirical reality without taking a leap of faith, to one degree or another, beyond that which can be absolutely known.
This was Wesley Kime’s point in arguing that faith and science are forced to walk hand-in-hand. This is also the point of well-known philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn. You simply cannot avoid taking on a “faith construct” of some kind – no one can. The only choice any of us really has is which faith construct to take on…
Not in totality of course since we are finite and God, by definition, is infinite. However, we can known what God has given us to know about himself. In other words, we are capable of comprehending certain limited aspects of God.
Faith and science are already married since one cannot exist without the other. It is just that some fail to recognize when they are in fact taking leaps of faith.
Beyond this, you seem to be making the same point that the founders of modern chaos theory made. In short, randomness cannot be proven. What appears to be a random sequence from one perspective may actually be determined by a simple formula from another perspective. The same thing is true about what appears to be the result of a mindless mechanism. Ultimately, from a different perspective, the same phenomenon may have been known or produced by some deliberate purpose.
The problem, of course, is that our perspective is limited. We can only deal with the limited information that we currently understand. So, the best we can say is that certain phenomenon appear to be the result of apparently mindless mechanisms while other phenomena (like highly symmetrical polished granite cubes, or your automobile) much more clearly require the input of deliberate intelligence.
You are definitely stretching the boundaries of agnosticism to argue for God’s “likely” existence. This is why I have been saying for some time now that you are not a true agnostic. You are a closet creationist to at least some degree. You present some of the very same arguments used by intelligent design advocates and even creationists in favor of the very likely existence of a God or God-like intelligence behind it all.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentRe Lydian’s Quote
Here lies exceptional Christian grace for the worst apostate. This grace surpassess all doctrinal argurments in its appeal to the heart.
Lydian my dear, you have nothing to fear, for your God is very near.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentDear Sean
There is nothing to forgive as you have been a gentleman and were not personally attacking me. I took no offense whatsoever my friend.
In fact I think our dialogue was good because I caused me to really think deeply about what I believe.
The problem with any ontological classification is that it usually covers a range of belief. For example look at the YEC/YLC camps within Adventism. Which is pure Adventism and is there room for both camps under the classification? I think that principle likely applies to agnosticism as well.
Anyways enough about me I want to turn back to Hawkings for a bit if that is all right. I’m not so sure he has changed from an agnostic to an atheist notwithstanding his position on our universe. He may have only moved up a few turtles looking for the Grand Design of metaverses vs the creation of our universe. What if there is indeed a set of principles or basic laws that govern everthing? Where did they originally come from if not from some infinite creative God/force? Something had to make not only the first roll of the dice but the dice (laws of metaverses) themselves right?
Although I think it is likely such a force exists, because the alternative of ultimate metaverse creation ex nihilo seems absurd, it still begs the question as to the nature of that force. Do I have faith in it? No because I don’t know whether it exists and atheists could be right. Does it have human like intelligence of something far beyond what we can comprehend? Don’t know that thus can’t make a leap of faith in that regard. Saying that something is likely does not mean I have faith in, it just means that it is more probable than not. This is conjecture, not faith, otherwise I’d be a deist.
Take care
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View Comment@ken:
I didn’t say that you were effectively an atheist. What I said was that your arguments for agnosticism were effectively atheistic. There’s a difference. Your arguments for God’s likely existence are obviously the opposite of atheistic – certainly not agnostic either.
After all, someone who claims to believe that the existence of God is “likely”, because of ultimate origin arguments, doesn’t match most people’s concept of an “agnostic”.
So, please do forgive me if I am still way off base regarding your true position…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@ken:
If you see no evidence one way or the other, why do you say that the existence of an intelligent God behind it all is any more or less likely than some mindless mechanism?
This isn’t about proof you understand. This is about demonstrable evidence that forms the basis of determining what is or isn’t more or less “likely”. Science is able to demonstrate predictive value or the likelihood that a hypothesis is more or less true. However, ultimate proof regarding the actual nature of the empirical world in which we find ourselves is impossible in science. There is no such thing as absolute proof in science.
So, anyway, your use of the word “likely” doesn’t make sense to me given your “agnostic” position – even philosophically. Without at least some evidence of some kind beyond wishful thinking, how is the existence of an ultimate intelligence any more or less “likely” than the existence of an ultimate non-intelligence? This is question posted by Dawkins and Hawking and is their reason for their atheism – as well as the fact that they see the evidence as supporting a non-intelligent creative power as being ultimately responsible for us and our universe. In contrast, you claim to see no evidence one way or the other, yet you still use the term “likely”? It seems to me that Dawkins and Hawking are being more consistent in their views…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentWell, Michelle, this post is puzzling. I must observe that your quote was one of the most mean-spirited postings I have seen on this site as of late. Yet you were allowed to post it. Interesting, isn’t it?
Personally, speaking as an Educate Truth-er, I generally agree with Bob’s postings, admire his courage in taking on the opposition, and find that he generally backs up his beliefs with solid proof. That may irritate you, but it is certainly appropriate to this site.
As to the thumbs up and down–if you read above you will notice that such things are generally meaningless. Believe me, Bob and his beliefs are supported on this site, just as Sean’s and Shane’s are.
Faith(Quote)
View CommentDear Wes
My comments from Oct 24/11
Dear all
All attacks on agnosticism are most welcome. We, or maybe only I, are the smallest remnant at Educate Truth, but an enthusiastic participant all the same.
Frankly I’d be worried if agnosticism ever got put up upon an unassaible pedastel. Its own ability to doubt Itself will likely prevent it from reaching the status of Faith.
By all means mock it, ridicule it and treat it with contempt. I likely won’t take my drink of cyber hemlock for a while though.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
You see Even though I am not a prophet I knew it would be coming. That’s OK though, I’be an infinite amount of cheeks to turn my friend. And as much as the temptation is there I’m not going to descend into personal attack. I am human though so you’ll see a bit of humor and the humble display of dialectical tools from time to time. After all you didn’t want it to be just acKrebs cycle cakewalk diff you? As my old aging Dad always tells me: one learns far more from those that disagree than those that agree. Boy am I learning a lot here!
? •|• ?
~~
ken(Quote)
View CommentSean’s Quote from Oct 24/11
” I personally think that it is possible to be, at least for a while, a sincere agnostic who is earnestly seeking for the truth about God. ”
Ken’s Quote from nov 24/11
“How does an atheist explain first cause, infinity or infinite regress on a rational basis?”
Hi Sean
I’m still waitng for your resonse to my query of Nov 24/11.
Your suncere agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
I do not question Dr. Taylor’s honesty or sincerity or his standing before God. I do, however, question his logic, reasoning abilities, and his definition of Adventism. His view of Adventism, in particular, seems to me to be inconsistent with itself. His efforts, if successful, will take useful meaning from the name “Seventh-day Adventist” as something unique from what already exists elsewhere.
In other words, I see Dr. Taylor’s efforts as tending to destroy all uniqueness from the Adventist movement by turning it into something that already exists within various non-denominational organizations that promote good Christian ethics, but are short on the doctrinal truths that the Adventist Church brings to the table in support of the Gospel’s Good News… i.e., that there really is very good evidence for the existence of a personal God who does indeed love us and has died to save us and who will recreate both us and this world that we live in back to the way it was originally intended to be as our Eden home.
The current “order of things” will pass away. There will be no more predation among sentient creatures that can experience pain and suffering. There will be no more “survival of the fittest” or “natural selection” as such death-dependent mechanisms are completely at odds with God’s character, as described in the Bible, and his original intent for our world.
This is why I oppose the efforts of those like Dr. Taylor and why I think that the organized SDA Church should not provide a platform within Adventist churches or schools for those who hold similar views to directly undermine the primary, supposedly “fundamental”, goals and ideals of the church as an organization. I think that when the church does invite such to teach our congregations or our youth that the church is, in a very real sense, shooting itself in the foot (or some much more vital organ).
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentA suggestion for the group – “Progressive” “Adventism” is neither one.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentTo add a little texture to this thread: An Academic or Freelance Agnostic is a different question-slinger than a Christian Agnostic, very.
A simple agnostic firing questions at no target, just into the air for the hell of it, like a gunslinger roaring into town Saturday nights; or just to get your attention (“get you to think,” as he puts it, or to dance, in Westerns), or wince at the noise, and bagging no answers and at the end of the day empty-handed, is not unrespectable. His fusillade can be awesome, and, as long as a stray shot doesn’t take out an innocent bystander who failed to duck, entertaining, like fireworks. Some of our best friends are such straight-from-the-hip high caliber agnostics. Somehow they emerge from their cloud of gunsmoke smiling and unscathed. What a relief, on all sides. (I could have likened the Colt-waver to Don Quixote but he’s already taken.)
But a Christian knows his God and knows that he knows. But that knowledge of God, and soon God Himself, and then the slinger himself, become the Agnostic Christian’s target, and those self-inflicted wounds are not uncommonly fatal (not to God, not to worry). The holey Agnostic Christian is not just an oxymoron but terminated. Agnostic Christian, R.I.P.—oh that he would! His ghost seems hellbent on even higher decibel cannonades, and his targets his fellow Christians…with the happy Agnostic gunslinger still standing.
Wall, padnah, ah’m as ee-droit ah slinger as anaboodee in these he-are pahts, and ah find ma ammo (allegories and parables) all over’n the range ‘cept Genesis 1. Loading up another silver bullet, I take aim again:
A Christian Miner is different from a Christian Sapper. A Christian should never, yea he must never, in this life or the next, for eternity, never cease digging deeper into his mine, his God-given mine, harvesting ever more precious gems the deeper he digs. He digs deeper into the mine, not around or at that mine to undermine it, discovering only dung, and caving the whole mine in upon itself, and himself.
Wesley Kime(Quote)
View CommentIn other words, if “progressives” are successful in their goals, within a couple generations there will be no more Adventist Church – progressive or otherwise. There will simply be more non-denominational organizations that emphasize popular ethics and mainstream science…Sean Pitmanhttp://www.DetectingDesign.com
I believe the actual goal of the progressive SDA’s is to have such a church as you describe, Sean. Read not only Dr. Taylor, but others such as Ryan Bell, Alexander Carpenter, and Jared Wright, etc. That is the exact type of SDA Church they want and strive for. And, they are being PAID (at least the last three) for working toward it! How dumb can our Church leader be?
Holly Pham(Quote)
View Comment