Comment on What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist? by Sean Pitman.
I am beginning to think you are all hat and no cattle.
Oooh Ouch! 😉
So now you seem to be wanting to test some overarching hypothesis in some scientific Toure de force. Lets start with something a little more modest and tractable. It is now 2013 and we discussed on this site in 2010 a need to subject your ideas on preloading of genetics and 1000 fsaar limits to experimental testing. You have not done so in any way so proposals to test more expansive hypotheses completely lacks credibility and are just so narratives.
As I’ve already explained to you, numerous times, my hypotheses seem to me to be testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. For example, all you have to do to falsify my hypothesis regarding the creative limits of RM/NS is to show this mechanism actually producing any qualitatively novel functional system that requires a minimum of more than 1000 specifically arranged amino acid residues – or how it would likely be done in a reasonable amount of time. Simple as that – to include any type of information system that is based on the meaningful functionality of character sequences (as in any kind of language system) or any kind of system that is based on specific functionality of specifically arranged parts in three dimensional space (to include automobiles, airplanes, spaceships, computers, cell phones, etc).
The problem, of course, is that there are no such examples detailed in literature – nor are there even theoretical calculations as to how such a feat might even be possible in any kind of population this side of trillions of years of time. You’ve tried a few times before to come up with something to falsify this hypothesis. By doing so, you have already admitted, despite yourself, that this hypothesis is in fact potentially falsifiable and therefore a valid scientific proposal.
So, you see, my hypothesis is in fact tested on a daily basis without falsification thus far. Every day it gains more and more predictive power. You yourself have admitted that you don’t really understand how the proposed Darwinian mechanism does what you believe it did. Your a Darwinist, not because you understand the mechanism, but because you see evidence that things have changed over time – regardless of any real understanding of the mechanism.
You also seem to confuse science with the concept of absolute demonstration. That’s not part of science. Science isn’t about absolute proof, but about producing useful predictive value. No scientific hypothesis can be absolutely proven to be true. Yet, it can still be a valid scientific hypothesis as long as it is open to testing and at least the potential for falsification.
Similarly coming from a soldiers mouth the words “saved through their obedience of the Royal Law of Love” have a very hollow ring and for me at least conjure up images of a holy warrior dressed in fatigues with an M16 in one hand and a scalpel in the other triaging justice and mercy by the sword of God; healing to our friends and a bullet to the head of the infidel.
I am assuming that an armed forces scholarship and rank of Major are not available to a conscientious objector. But maybe that image is restricted to people like me and Leo Tolstoy who takes Matthew 5 far too literally. Or maybe it is just melancholy that the Swiss are going the way of any country where everyone has a weapon and peace and safety is assured by the knowledge that the good will always shoot first.
I know you are anti-military and anti-police and therefore like to make fun of and deride my military service as a medical officer in the United States Army (an experience for which I am grateful and proud). Now, you tell me, without a military, without a police force that carries the threat of civil punishment, how long would civil society survive in your country? Living according to the Royal Law does not mean that civil law and order should not be defended, with the threat of lethal force, against those who would think to destroy innocent life and the peace of civil society for their own personal gain. Nothing could be more Biblical (Romans 13:4).
In this line, you confuse the maintenance of civil law with the maintenance of religious or philosophical beliefs. As I’ve already explained to you before, I’m a very strong believer in the separation of church and state. Religious beliefs are personal – a part of a personal relationship with God. Therefore, these should never be dictated with the use of civil power (in line with your reference to Matthew 5). All should be completely free to join or leave any religious organization without the threat of any kind of civil penalty.
So please, do try and keep these concepts separate in the future. Do not accuse me of trying to enforce religious views on anyone with civil force just because I believe in the need for upholding civil society and civil government at large against those who would desire to tear it down if the threat of lethal force were ever removed. Also, do not confuse the natural right for religious freedom with the desire of some to get paid by the church while attacking the church’s goals and ideals from within. These are not the same. There is no natural right for anyone to expect to get paid by any organization while going around attacking the primary goals and ideals of the organization. Freedom works both ways. Organizations are also free to hire and maintain only those individuals who would most effectively represent the organization’s goals and ideals.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
I guess someone who accepts neo-Darwinism must have some problems with the reality of Biblical prophecy…
What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
You didn’t answer my question as to what you would do if you happened to have been in a place like Sandy Hook Elementary School when a shooter entered the building. Or, what you would do if someone threatened the lives of your own family. Also, don’t tell me that Australia has no police force or that the police there don’t carry guns…
What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist?
The Bible and Ellen White are very clear that Satan and his angels were forced to leave heaven just as Adam and Eve were forced to leave Eden after they fell to Satan’s charms. They are also very clear that the wicked will one day be excluded, by force, from the New Jerusalem and will, eventually, be completely destroyed from existence. I don’t think that’s how it worked with you and your family…
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.
