Comment on Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda by Bob Orrick.
What to do? Try this. Educate the youth at home or at church to trust the Bible by showing that true science either supports or is ambiguous concerning what Scripture teaches. Since the evolutionist always lets “science” trump Scripture (religion), one must show that evolutionary “science’ is in fact religion. Here’s one (of many) examples. DNA contains coded information. But there no known naturalistic process for generating (or originating) information. (There are naturalistic processes for copying, rearranging, splicing, etc. existing information.) Therefore, the evolutionist must believe, by faith, that such a mechanism or process exists. Now we all know that faith is a religious concept. The controversy is religion vs. religion, not “science” vs. religion. The only known method of generating information is by an intelligent being.
For those “creationists” who believe God “created” living things through evolutionary processes over vast ages of time, other facts are needed to refute or at least question the vast ages and there are plenty of facts for that job. For example: When one uranium atom decays to one lead atom 8 atoms of helium (actually alpha particles that capture electrons) are generated. Where is all the helium? There should be 2,000+ times more than we observe. Actually some is still trapped in rock crystals, but almost all of that helium should have leaked out of the crystals if the earth is billions of years old. Another impossible problem for the “old earthers” is found in the Grand Canyon. There are some contiguous layers that are supposed to be separated in their time of deposition by millions or even tens of millions of years. Yet there there is almost no surface erosion on the lower layer. The only reasonable explanation is that the upper layer was deposited immediately after the lower and no millions of years ever existed. It looks like evidence for Noah’s flood.
The “old earthers” try to suppress discussion of such topics because the audience tends to become confused concerning the “fact” of evolution. I wonder why?
Excellent on line, printed, and DVD resources are found at creation.com, ICR.org, and answersingenesis.com.
Marching to Zion.
Bob
Bob Orrick Also Commented
Former LSU student letter reveals professor’s agenda
Bob Ryan is correct. There are some good science professors at SDA schools, but they are often marginalized and sometimes fearful of of loosing their jobs and therefore loosing what little influence they might have on their students. The administration and governing board must be dealt with first. Even an endowed chair for a literal 6 day creation could, by an antagonistic administration, be assigned NON credit classes. This was done at Stanford University to a professor, a Nobel prize winner, who proclaimed politically incorrect ideas.
Marching to Zion,
Bob
Recent Comments by Bob Orrick
Former board member never talked with biology faculty
Shane’s comments of 10-12-11 and Susie’s comments of 10-13-11 are reasonable interpretations of recent events.
It is too bad that the board’s discussions and actions are “secret” until a “sanitized” version is released. Open meetings should be the norm except in rare situations. But closed meetings are necessary for firm control.
It is obvious that opposing board members have been removed. Guess who will be nominated to replace them?
The joint statement is a PROPOSAL and it keeps the discussion open, much I suspect, to the dislike of Wisbey and Graham.
I find it difficult to understand why very little has been said concerning the numerous overwhelming scientific problems with the theory of evolution and the data that fits with the Biblical record. The focus needs to be there. Belief in evolution is as faith based as the belief in creation.
Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?
Ron,
How can you argue with a definition given by God (one flesh)? One may find it difficult to understand, but who says we have perfect understanding?
Genesis chapters 1-3 are to be taken literally, using God’s definitions and symbolisms.
The serpent tempted Eve. Did a common snake tempt Eve? In Revelation 12:9 and 20:2 Satan is called “that old serpent” along with other names or titles. Again God is doing the naming and calling. To determine what is literal and what is figurative often requires a reasonable grasp of the whole Bible and even then there may be uncertainties. The point is, do the interpretations “fit”, do they make sense, is there some logic to it? But even with all this an element of faith may still be required, but it is definitely not blind faith and the main thrust and focus should be discernible.
Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?
Ron,
I believe you misread Genesis 2:5-9. Notice that man became a living soul in verse 7. Then in verse 8 God planted a “garden”. This was a special creation to be man’s “home”. And God put man “whom He HAD formed” into the garden. God did not form man in the garden. The garden was created after the general creation that is recorded in chapter 1. Apparently the garden was also created on day six after the general creation. Eve seems to be the very last of God’s creative work, except for the defining of the Sabbath as the seventh day.
Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?
Ron,
In Genesis 1:5 God called the light “Day” and the darkness “night”. But one “day” is the sum of the darkness and the light. Please note that the words “Day” and “day” in verse five are translated from the same Hebrew word.
Surely the terms evening and morning as well as their actual occurrence are items that are obvious to almost every one. Therefore since we determine the length of the day by the “going” and “coming” of the sun, evening and morning, how could could this be figurative? The definition of the literal day does not change throughout the scriptures. The definition of the word “day” without modifiers does have various meanings, but evening and morning make a tight restriction on the meaning of the word “day”.
If there is a figurative meaning perhaps the it would found in “one flesh”. But I do not believe that for the following reasons.
1. “one flesh” is obviously the sum of one man and one woman. They are defined by God as “one” unit.
2. This is confirmed by Jesus as recorded in Mark 10: 2-12. “from the beginning”, the perfect world, a man and his wife were to be considered “one flesh”, by God’s definition, not ours.
Dr. Geraty Affirms the Literal Creation Week?
A comment on “the stars also”.
1. Genesis 1:1 clearly states that God created the heaven (plural in Hebrew) and the earth. But it does not say when, except “in the beginning.”
2. Genesis 1:2 clearly states that there was a formless earth and the Spirit moved upon the face of the waters. Please notice that it does not specifically state WHEN the earth or the waters were created, presumably in the beginning.
3. Genesis 1:3 clearly states the first specific act of the six day creation, the creation of light. Also notice that that the light source is not identified.
4. Genesis 1:5 closes with “the evening and the morning were the first day.” Actually word “first” is poor translation. A better word would be “one” (check the Hebrew words for first and one). When the correct word “one” is used, we are given the definition for a “day”. “… the evening and the morning were one day”. The same word was used when man and woman were joined together as “one” flesh.
5. Genesis 1:16 says “… he made the stars also.” This statement is ambiguous. It could mean he made the stars on day four or the use of the word “also” could indicate that the statement is parenthetical. Although God created them, it did not happen on day four. The parenthetical interpretation would suggest that the stars were made at the time of verse one and before verse three. I favor the latter interpretation, but I could be wrong.
NOTE: Verse 14 says the lights were to be for establishing “… days …” among other things. Since there is no change in the definition of the day since verse five, it is reasonable to believe that all the days of creation are approximately the same duration as the days we have today, which are of course determined primarily by the “rising” or “setting” of the sun.
