Comment on La Sierra University won’t neglect creation teaching, president, chairman vow by BobRyan.
Eddie: Sean, you have essentially written enough about this to publish a book, which you ought to do, exhorting SDAs to abandon Sola Scriptura
The either-or fallacy suggested above is contrary to Paul’s teaching in Romans 1 where we are told that observations in nature even among atheists and pagans — is sufficient to argue the case for God.
Romans 10 anyone?
BobRyan Also Commented
Ron Stone M.D.: One of the strategies of liberals in our SDA Church is to “put off” and stall. Several of the proponents of liberalism have actually stated a specific strategy that they believe might work, which is to wait until the “conservatives” die off or retire!
Ryan Bell expressed this on a podcast in Nov. 209 and Hyveth Williams said essentially the same thing on LLBN’s “Intersections” show today (3-31-11)when speaking about women’s ordination.
The problem with this strategy is that the SDA Church is gatherering most of its new members in more conservative areas of the world, i.e. outside the NAD.
I would argue that their strategy ” is sound” for effectively undermining the doctrines of the Adventist Church.
Compare the inroads inside our teaching institutions of belief in evolutionism today – to what it was 40 years ago. There is no question that a certain someone has “stolen a march” while we all slept.
Now it is so firmly intrenched that even an extreme case like LSU is not benefitted by access to the same “solution” that was available for those at Walla Walla a number of years ago.
And I firmly believe that if the full extent of this were to hit the light of day we would find promotion of evolution among our teachers and thought leaders in almost every school we have in North America.
(With a few exceptions of course).
Now lets compare this to Battle Creek’s pantheistic “living temple”. The church could easily cut off and isolate that problem because you did not have a fire storm of pantheism raging outside of Battle Creek at the level of national Institutes of science and education, law, public education and politics.
The error of belief in evolutionism may soon rival to some degree the error of immortality of the soul – for public acceptance and belief in it.
Professor Kent: Satan appealed to Eve’s rational thought, which was influenced by her emotion. And she chose to trust her own reason and emotion rather than God’s simple word. You are condoning her decision-making process.
You are arguing Gen 3:1-4 against Romans 1:18-23.
You argue that we must pursue blind-faith to the extent of ignoring the point of Romans 1 — if we are to avoid the error of Eve in Genesis 3.
Your either-or logical fallacy is not as compelling as you may have at first imagined.
Sean Pitman: Yet, the LSU board actually references the book The Prism and the Rainbow by Joel W. Martin, Ph.D. where he says:
1. Religion is not science and should never masquerade as such
2. Science is restricted to observing and testing phenomena in the natural world around us and should never be used to argue for or against a particular faith or set of religious beliefs.
By definition, then, these two areas of human endeavor, science and religion, address different issues, each using distinctive methods of inquiry, and there should be no ‘debate.’
And yet there is debate precisely because people intuitively know that if religion has absolutely no basis in empirical reality then it isn’t really worth very much – not much more than believing in Santa Claus or fairytales in general. Again, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the works of nature do in fact say something about the author of nature
1. First we contrast the quote about observations in nature never being used to reveal some fact about a religious POV – to Romans 1 – where God insists that observations in nature – leave mankind “without excuse” when it comes to the invisible attributes of God.
2. Second – (and this is key) – IF the Bible had said nothing about origins or God’s actions “in nature” then whatever an atheist chose to observe “in nature” would have no implication at all on the text.
For example if the we had a “tiny Bible” text so downsized that it had ONLY said “Love your neighbor as your self and love God with all of your heart”… nothing observed “in nature” could have been used by atheists as a “science argument” against the text.
The same goes for a “tiny Bible” that only said “God loves you” or that “God did stuff in some way that you will never be able to observe” — then again no atheist observation in nature would have argued for or against the text.
The only way for there to be a problem is for the Bible to actually make claims about things IN NATURE – regarding their origin, the time frame in which they came to be, the fact that they appear in fully formed complex mature state within a real 7 day week.
All the “inconvenient details” that our T.E friends like to ignore.
As it turns out – the “tiny bible” fictional case is not the reality that we must deal with today – much to the dismay of some T.E’s among us.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
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.
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?
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.