@Ken: Let’s start with the idea of omniscent design where …

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

@Ken:

Let’s start with the idea of omniscent design where the variable of free will has already been factored into the inevitable outcome. Second premise: God is perfect which means Man’s rebellion resulting in disease and death is all part of God’s perfect plan. Otherwise why create creatures of free will whose actions you know will result in disease and death?

If God chose not to create beings with free will simply because he knew that they would eventually rebel against him and his perfect will for them, that would negate the whole concept of free will. Of course, no one would know that God had rigged the system – except for God of course.

If God knew that he had rigged the system for success, without the possibility of failure, he would know that he had removed true freedom of will from us. This would, of course, remove the possibility of true love because true love is based on the real option for rejection.

Respectfully, wouldn’t a more charitable God be one not omniscent? Not knowing that Adam would not disobey by eating the apple of divine knowledge? Not knowing that Man would bring disease and death upon itself? The problem with this concept of God is it suggests an imperfect being not in control of matters right?

Yes. A God who is learning as he goes along is not really a God at all. He just a more advanced form of human, subject to time and place just as we are. He is also not the creator of everything if he is subject to our time frame.

Beyond this, a God that exists outside of our time, who created time itself for us, would know our futures perfectly. However, foreknowledge isn’t the same thing as causation. I have knowledge of historical events, but that doesn’t mean that I caused all historical events of which I am aware. In the same way God has knowledge of future events, but is not necessarily the cause of all future events.

In short, God knows what freedom of will is going to do beforehand, but that doesn’t mean that he caused its actions. If he were to block what he knew would be the natural result of freewill, that would eliminate freewill… and the ability to truly love.

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.