Comment on Creeds and Fundamental Beliefs by BobRyan.
pauluc: Almost as disturbing is the apparent inability to acknowledge that both Patterson and Dawkins have documented the circumstances surrounding his favourite quotes (extracted as they seem to be from the AiG RQB) and the 11 second pause. The dubious nature of his use of this evidence has been pointed out to BobRyan before as has the questionable practice of citing for support someone who you think a liar.
For those accustomed to using critical thinking when reading wild baseless claims such as the above – we note that you actually gave no detail, no evidence, no argument at all to show any of your wild accusations to be even remotely true.
The little dance done in that post above – carefully avoids the need to step up to the level of objectivity demonstrated in my practice of letting Dawkins, Darwin, Patterson, Provine, Meyers, Reese, Susskind make my points for me.
The TE’s favorite rock to hide their failed arguments under is the “I just can’t see it” rock.
And that rock is effectively removed when we point out just how well these well-known evolutionist sources ARE admitting and even dealing with the very issues that our TE friends want to claim “they just can’t see”.
In each case – how instructive for the unbiased objective reader.
in each case – the point made is that EVEN our atheist evolutionist friends are at times more objective and above aboard on these topics than some of the TEs within the church.
The TE’s reponse?? “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”. ??!! How was that solution on their part ever supposed to be taken seriously??
Impossible point to miss (no matter the level of ad hominem, sneering comments to which the evolutionist posters may choose to resort.)
This just could not be any more obvious. How did the evolutionist TEs posting here, suppose this would work out in their favor?
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
Creeds and Fundamental Beliefs
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.
Creeds and Fundamental Beliefs
Roy Binghy: BobRyan: Let none seek to tear away the foundations of our faith,–the foundations that were laid at the beginning of our work, by prayerful study of the Word and by revelation. Upon these foundations we have been building for the last fifty years. Men may suppose that they have found a new way, and that they can lay a stronger foundation than that which has been laid. But this is a great deception. Other foundation can no man lay than that which has been laid.
Come on, Sis. White. Is that really what the apostle Paul was referring to with that text?
Hint – Paul wrote BOTH 1Cor 3 and Gal 1:6-11 so… “yes” that really is what he was talking about.
What else did you expect?
Creeds and Fundamental Beliefs
Daniel 8 does not address the length of time that the little horn rules. The little horn of Daniel 8 arises after the division of Greece.
But the little horn of Daniel 7 arises after the division of Rome into 10 divisions. In Daniel 7 the little horn persecutes the saints for 1260 years.
The little horn of Daniel 7 cannot include Pagan Rome.
But you pulled references from the little horn of Daniel 8 to make your complaint and in so doing you lost the specificity of the Daniel 7 timeline. There is no way to see Daniel 7 in every point read from Daniel 8 without deleting the added detail that we find in Daniel 8.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
Mack Ramsy:: : but the one thing we know for certain is that it was designed to change. There are so many back up and redundancies designed to make whatever changes that DNA faces to be profitable for the organism, or if their deleterious to ensure they don’t damage the subsequent generation (yes there are very complex methods for doing this) The immune system in fact does it intentionally.
Obviously the references above to “designed” and “intention” could not be overlooked by the objective unbiased reader applying a bit of critical thinking to the topic. And so my response below merely states the obvious point of agreement on a part of that post.
No wonder the application of a bit of critical thinking just then – demands that we conclude from your remarks above – that you are an example of an evolutionist that is strongly in favor of Intelligent Design. I too favor I.D.
Obviously the references abov
I don’t believe in ID as it’s traditionally defined. I believe that God created a system designed to evolve.
Obviously the references abov
In your earlier statement you claimed that system was designed with “redundancy and backup” features. That is not something rocks, gas and water could ever do – hence the term “Intelligent Design”.
But perhaps you have access to more highly advanced rocks, gas and water?
Also you mention “intention” as if the immune system was deliberately designed with an end goal in view.
As it turns out – it is those “intention” and “Intelligent Design” aspects (so key to your response above) that are at the very heart of I.D. enabled science were we have the freedom to “follow the data where it leads” even if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does not fit atheist dogma about there “being no god”.
how odd then that you seem to later back pedal on your prior observation.
Thus you seem to be in somewhat of a self-conflicted position at the moment.
At least given the content of your statements about “intent” and “backup systems” and “redundancy” designed into the systems themselves (even to the point of “error correction” as we see in the case of nucleic polypeptide amino acid chains and their chiral orientation).
Of course all that just gets us back here
Mack Ramsy: My language in this forum is not formal. Try not to get caught up in semantic issues.
Out of curiosity is that statement supposed to provide a solution to just how it is that something “not designed” is able to exhibit unique design characteristics such as “back up systems” – “redundancy” – error correcting mechanism and an “immune system with intention” regarding a specific outcome or goal?
No doubt the study of biology most definitely shows us that such things are present “in nature” based on “observations in nature” – and so you are right to state it as you did.
So if you are then going to double back and reject what you just affirmed – what do you have by way of “explanation” for such a self-conflicted course?
Reaching for a solution of the form – “Pay no attention to my actual words if they do not serve to deny I.D.” does not provide as satisfactory resolution to the problem as you may have at first supposed.
Strumming the Attached Strings
Erv Taylor is not “afraid” to post here – but he is “Afraid” to have well thought out views posted on AToday that do not flatter his agenda.
That was not news right?
Michigan Conference vs. LSU – Right Wing Politics or Truth in Advertising?
John J.: The fact remains, any decision direction or policy made by a church, conference, union or GCEC can be reversed or changed by those they serve.
Agreed and the fact that the constituency are not voting to reverse it – is a sign that this is not merely the views of the Administration in Michigan.
As for hierarchy – there is no doctrinal authority in the administrators.
And as for administrative hierarchy – the GC leadership has no authority to dismiss rogue teachers which is one of the reasons that this particular meltdown at LSU seems to go on and on and on. It slows at times and it speeds up at other times – but the fire is not simply put out.
ken:: Let’s continue shall we. You posit that Adam and Eve were producing telomerase as adults as a result of eating fruit from the tree of life. Would you agree that the production of adult telomerase was a direct result of the environment or did the gene(s) affecting production of the a enzyme as adults mutate in their progeny?
1. I never stated whether the fruit from the Tree of Life provided the telemerase enzyme or simply provided a trigger enzyme/protein that caused Adam and Eve to produce Telemerase. Either way the end result was the same.
2. The salient point is that we have a known mechanism that affects the aging of cells starting with new borns.
This is simply “observation in nature” given in response to your question about an observed mechanism in humans for the 900 year life span the Bible mentions.
It is hard to “do the study” without having them under observation.
1. But it is not hard to see the gradual decline in ages over time.
2. It is not hard to see the Bible declare that access to the Tree of Life was the determining factor.
3. It is not hard to see that even in humans today – the ability remains for us to produce telemerase – but we quickly lose that ability.
4. It is not hard to see what effect that has on the telomeres of infants.
The list of knowns for this mechanism are far more impressive than the “I imagine a mechanism whereby static genomes acquire new coding genes not already present and functioning in nature and that this happens for billions of years”.
Ken: Hi BobWe are making good progress!Thanks for your admitting thaf we do not have Adam and Eve or their progeny under observation to do the study.
Let’s look at the empirical results of your observation. There is no physical evidence that the progeny or descendants lived to 900 years, right? Thus there is no physical evidence that the tree of life provided longevity through the increased production or activation of telermerase right?
There is evidence that a mechanism does exist whereby access to an enzyme would in fact affect the aging process of human cells.
That mechanism is observed in nature to be related to the enzyme Telemerase.
There is a ton of evidence that food contains enzymes and proteins and that the human body can produce enzymes in response to the presence of trigger proteins and enzymes.
It is irrefutably true that humans still today produce telemerase in the case of infants just before birth. Impossible to deny it – though you seem to want to go down that dead end road.
You asked about the “mechanism” that can be observed today that would account for long ages of life recorded in the Bible.
You now seem to be pulling the classic “bait and switch” asking for the video of the people living for long ages before the flood.
Nice try —
As I said before – your method is along the lines of grasping at straws in a true “any ol’ exuse will do” fashion.
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
Rev 21 does not say the planet has no light – it says the City has no NEED of light from the Sun.
The inconvenient deatils point to the fact that the New Earth will have a Sun and Moon but the New Jerusalem will have eternal day due to the light of God’s presence.
This is not the hard part.