Comment on Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda by BobRyan.
One of the questions I would like a theologian to address is, If God did in fact create the world about 10,000 years ago, why did he create it to look like it is millions of years old? Is that not dishonest of God? What possible motivation could he have for lying to us?
Was it “dishonest of God” not to create Adam “as a zygote” slippy sliding around Eden so that he would “look 1 day old”??
Was it “dishonest of God” not to make all plants on the earth “appear” as seeds in the ground on day 4 (meaning all animals starve on days 5 and 6).
Or might a mature “functioning planet” have had more “value to God” than “what would an evolutionist say about this?”.
Which gets us to the REASON that we even have radioactive elements in the earth’s crust (provides the reduced friction to enable tectonic plate movement which allows for the green house gases that keeps our planet from being a frozen orb at the surface). And speaking of “green house gases” – God also needed a “starting amount” to be sure that things were not frozen solid on the ground.
And yet we are told by evolutionists that these features of planet earth only exist to lie to evolutionists about how old the earth is today.
BobRyan Also Commented
I teach professional communications at a public university. Many of my colleagues are agnostics, if not outright atheists. Their â€˜godâ€™ is science, and they are quite vocal about it. Well, that is to be expected at an institution of the world. I know in Whom I believe. What is distressing is to see the worldâ€™s teachings have such a stronghold in our own universities. We have chipped away at our beliefs: creation, the 2300 days, prophecy, the divinity of Jesus. And who will God hold accountable? The watchmen on the walls have fallen asleep, and their slumber has been going on for many, many years. I read our publications and I am struck by the post-Modern views and philosophies voiced by our church and school leaders.
Indeed it is a time for the elders at the gates of the temple to sigh and moan over the abominations being dragged into the church as Ezek 9 points out. However the good news is that the church at the GC session in Atlanta has finally taken a stand as if to meet this issue head on. And our new GC president has stated his mission/goal to address the evolution problem as one of his high priority objectives – this year.
Now is the time for all of the saints to stand together – to lift up our leaders in prayer and to voice our support for them to our conference leadership.
November 30, 2010 I wonder whether the dying thief on the cross was told by Jesus that he needed to believe in a 6-day creation week in the past 4,000 years and in a worldwide flood that covered every speck of land before he could be saved?
Given that the dying theif was a Jew being crucified by the Romans and given that the Jews had not yet come up with the notion of atheism – it is not likely that the dying theif was not aware of the beliefs of his own culture. As Jesus said to the woman at the well “Salvation is of the Jews”.
They were in rebellion against the Creator – but that does not mean that they went to the great lengths of the evolutionists here.
Darwinism — the heart and sole of atheism.
– Provine interview.
– PC Meyers joins Provine on this POV
– Dawkins joins Meyers and Provine
Each person in that video thinks of evolutionism as “science” providing a “positive feedback mechanism” that leads to religion taking the “appropriate place as a side dish rather than the main course”.
Watch the 10 minute clip for at least 7 minutes – the point will be clear.
How “facinating” that the same “Evolutionism destroys Christianity” argument that these now atheist scientists promote – is the view that you also find in 3SG 90-91.
Hmmm a point of “Common ground” between diehard evolutionists and Bible believing Creationists “in real life” not simply hoped for or merely imagined.
For example, Dr. Spencer at SAU or Dr. Chadwick at SWAU could be given an endowed chair that pays for their salary and, instead of teaching three courses, they would teach only one course and have ample time for conducting and publishing creation research with students.
I see – you mean they would be allowed to conduct actual research in favor of creation science — like they are doing right now with DNA findings in artifacts supposedly millions of years old and Geologic research in favor of the world wide flood?
What a great idea! (BTW I am in favor of creating even more grant opportunities for their research)
Oh no wait! – Possibly our evolutionist friends here imagine that nothing happens in creation research within the Adventist denomination unless it is being done by someone here at EducateTruth.
As I recall – prior to the vote in Atlanta – a few evolutionists came here “imagining” that only a “small fringe element” in the Adventist Church actually accepted the Bible doctrine on origins.
Reality – what a great idea.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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