@Ron: Well, It seems to me that you are denying …

Comment on Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration by Sean Pitman.

@Ron:

Well, It seems to me that you are denying ALL evolution, and that this web site was set up to agitate for the firing of some very dedicated biology teachers at La Sierra.

How can you conclude that I deny all forms of evolution when I’ve specifically explained to you, many times now, that Darwinian-style evolution does indeed happen? quite commonly in fact?

There are many different forms of biological “change over time” that are real and can be directly observed. The only issue in play here is over the neo-Darwinian concept that supposes that intelligence is not required to explain uphill evolution beyond very low levels of functional complexity.

This is what the LSU professors have been and are teaching… contrary to the SDA position on origins.

I am not convinced that there is any evolution that uses only “mindless” mechanisms. At least not any mechanisms that weren’t created by God in the first place and aren’t being supervised by him.

The problem is that you cannot support this assertion with a testable hypothesis. You cannot demonstrate the difference between a mindless natural mechanism and one that is directed by God-like intelligence. In other words, your argument is the same as someone saying, “I believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one making evolution happen.” It simply isn’t a testable or potentially falsifiable statement. It is therefore meaningless to any rational discussion of origins.

I see clearly, all around me that evolution is in progress. I think maybe what we term evolution is just God’s ongoing activity as a creator. It is part of God’s nature to create. Why do you think we shouldn’t find evidence of that in nature?

You only see certain limited forms of evolution in progress. You’ve never seen evolution, via RM/NS, beyond very very low levels of functional complexity. There isn’t a single example of it in all of literature. That’s the problem here. Evidently, God is limiting himself to creating only very very simple biological changes over time. Why not see any creativity beyond these very very low levels of functional complexity if your notion about God’s ongoing creativity with the biology of our planet is in fact correct?

You simply have no evidence to support your position. Why then should the church expand its position to include that of someone with no rational basis behind theirs? – one which also undermines the fundamental view of God’s very nature and character as historically upheld by Seventh-day Adventists?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@Ken:

Aside from the fact that science cannot definitively prove any theory, yes, a form of historical science can be used to test and evaluate Biblical prophecies. You have to know a lot about history though. You can’t simply read Daniel and Revelation and hope to understand what you’re reading unless you have detailed knowledge of the historical events being discussed.

I recommend you start with the “70 weeks” prophecy starting with Daniel 9:24. This prophecy precisely predicts the First Coming of Jesus as well as his death to the day.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@-Shining:

I’ve been doing this a long time (almost 20 years now) and I can tell you that, as far as I know, no one has misunderstood my position as a young life creationist who also recognizes limited forms of Darwinian evolution…

This isn’t like accepting a little bit of Nazism. The Darwinian mechanism is given its name because Darwin really was the first to popularize it in published literature. Therefore, he deserves to have his name attached to the mechanism of RM/NS.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Dr. John Sanford Lectures on Inevitable Genomic Deterioration
@-Shining:

I’ve only been expaining why I say things the way I say them. I believe it is best to at least try to start off a discussion on as much common ground as is possible with those on the opposing side in a discussion… to openly admit those points, from the opposing side, that are actually valid.

As I see it, there is simply no advantage in arguing that Darwinian evolution is completely wrong – that I believe in no form of Darwinism. It’s just not true for one thing and admitting those things that the Darwinian mechanism can produce only adds to the credibility of the creationist position – in my opinion.

Sean Pitman
www.DeteectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.