Comment on Creeds and Fundamental Beliefs by BobRyan.
Ron: No, my claim is that Darwin, Dawkins et.al. are making a false dichotomy and that Mrs. White was responding to the false dichotomy. Creation and evolution are not intrinsically exclusive and that this is an area where truth is progressive. We do not understand the issue the same way that even Mrs. White did. Her statement does not apply to evolution as I see it, because what I believe is not what she was describing.
I can believe without cognitive dissonance that God created life in 7 days, 6000 years ago
Well certainly Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and Meyers would all agree with you that your idea of calling the act of God – creating all forms of life in 7 days 6000 years ago — is certainly not what they mean at all when they talk about evolution.
So your claim that their definition of Evolution and yours’ are different – you win hands down there. Your view is not what any of us would call evolution.
And when I look, lo and behold every single living creature (well, almost) uses DNA for it’s genetic material, and it appears to me that DNA is made to evolve. Every single creature, with the possible exception of mitochondria, has a mechanism in place that creates change and diversity within its DNA.
DNA has the ability to “shuffle” existing information already in the static genome of the species it defines – but it has no observed ability at all to acquire new genetic information and advance to the next phyla.
Therefore – no amoeba to horse transition.
Of course you don’t need such a transition because you say that horses are created by God on day 6 and amoeba on day 3.
So …err.. umm.. I guess that is not what any of us would call evolution.
We see even humans evolveing within just the last 3000 years.
Indeed – 3000 years and “humans are still humans”.
But in your model we have amoeba on day 3 and horse on day 6 – all within a real 7 day week.
BobRyan Also Commented
Creeds and Fundamental Beliefs
I find it interesting that opposition to I.D. is such a distinctly atheist argument given what God says about Intelligent Design “clearly seen” by all mankind – even non-Bible cultures.
How amazing then that SDA evolutionists would become so befuddled as to adopt that distinctly atheist POV in their pursuit of belief in evolutionism.
It appears that those SDA evolutionists fall deeper into confusion than many of their non-SDA evolutionist brethren when once they turn to darkness and confusion and rejection of the facts that they had as SDAs to start with.
Creeds and Fundamental Beliefs
I stand corrected – Ken apparently does accept the fact that both evolutionists and creationists are admitting to I.D. science.
Their affirmation of it can clearly be seen over at Discovery Institute’s web page.
Creeds and Fundamental Beliefs
Ken suggests that only a Bible believing Christian would admit to Intelligent Design.
But in Romans 1 – God tells us that all mankind can see it clearly.
And how can we doubt such a thing when even some of our diehard evolutionsts will say things like the statement below…
Mack Ramsy: How the DNA not only survives but thrives in this environment is an awesome thing, but the one thing we know for certain is that it was designed to change.
There are so many back up and redundancies designed to make whatever changes that DNA faces to be profitable for the organism, or if their deleterious to ensure they don’t damage the subsequent generation (yes there are very complex methods for doing this) The immune system in fact does it intentionally.
If this attribute of design, as observed in nature, is so blatantly obvious that even our evolutionist friends cannot help themselves when speaking about it – who are Bible believing Creationists to deny Intelligent Design?
Recent Comments by BobRyan
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind