Professor Kent: I am concerned that Satan similarly uses the hard-line …

Comment on La Sierra University Granted Window to Show its Faithfulness to Church’s Creation Belief by BobRyan.

Professor Kent: I am concerned that Satan similarly uses the hard-line creationists, who disrespectfully ridicule, mock, and taunt others having different views, especially evolutionists. We see a lot of this here.

As you noted on another thread – you believe it is unchristian and apparently “evil” for anyone to agree with the 3SG 90-91 statement that T.E is in fact the worst form of infidelity.

Given that many SDAs are more inclined to agree that Ellen White was inspired in writing that statement – you surely see that there is going to be a “gap” between your view of this as “no big deal” and SDAs who accept Ellen White’s ministry seeing it as a “big deal indeed”.

And thus when we point out that Darwin was correct to point out that reason dictates you cannot accept belief in evolutionism and faith in the accuracy and trustworthy nature of the Bible, and so also does the inspired ministry of Ellen White affirm that same glaringly obvious observation – we are really just stating the obvious.

It is a principle that applies in general and is not a personal assault on any one person as though we had said “Well Fritz in YOUR case T.E. is the worst form of infidelity” as opposed to any other T.E in Adventism.

Just reading the text of 3SG 90-91 and accepting it as true and inspired, as well as admitting to the obvious logical conlusion of Darwin himself in this matter – is not an act of personal vindictiveness against Bradley or Fritz or John Smith.

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan Also Commented

La Sierra University Granted Window to Show its Faithfulness to Church’s Creation Belief

Shane Hilde: I think it would be more intersting if the conversation steered away from 3SG 90-91.

That quote serves two main purposes.

1. It is the primary response to the “let’s big tent TE inside Adventism” theme that some have been promoting. (And as a few have pointed out here – not ALL SDAs are aware of what that text even says).

2. It shows full agreement with Darwin, Dawkins and others on the obvious point that the Bible cannot be married to evolution. David Bee has made it very clear on this board that the “solution” for marrying evolution to the Bible is to declare the Bible to be nothing more than myth. He is making the same 3SG 90-94 case only in the negative.

What it does not do is evaluate the junk-science nature of the claims for evolution. So the science gaffs, blunders and hoaxes put forward on behalf of evolution will come up.

in Christ,

Bob


La Sierra University Granted Window to Show its Faithfulness to Church’s Creation Belief
BobRyan said: Zimmerman’s campaign points to the deep confusion among various Christian denominations when it comes to whether or not they should actually believe the Bible if it contradicts classic atheist evolutionism.

Professor Kent:
Yes, it’s clear that millions of Christians accept theistic evolution

That is true – TE’s do exist. That must why Ellen White addressed the issue.

Just stating the obvious.

in Christ,

Bob


La Sierra University Granted Window to Show its Faithfulness to Church’s Creation Belief
BobRyan: The text is so clear that it would be shocking if even one SDA would then suggest that TE be taught at any of our schools after having read that statement.

Professor Kent:
You seem to forget your own words: if someone believes in TE or suggests that TE should be taught at our schools, they are not an SDA. They cannot be.

How could we ever forget your “TE’s exist” solution along with your “SDA TE’s exist” solution to the problem cited as if that argues for big-tenting-TE because “TE’s exist”.

I think most SDAs will find Ellen White’s statement on that point a little more convincing than our ‘yes but TEs exist’ – non-answer for the problem.

But to each his own.

in Christ,

Bob


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
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.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

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”.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

george:
Gentlemen,

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.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
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.


Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
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