Comment on MBA employee discourages students from attending LSU by BobRyan.
Geanna Dane says:
February 28, 2010 Patterson was a hard core evolutionary biologist
Indeed – not only have the quotes of Patterson here – emphasized the fact that he is a hardcore atheist evolutionist – but these respeated quotes of Patterson frequently CONTRAST the frank points of honesty that he is able to state for HIS OWN belief system (as a diehard devotee to evolutionism) as compared to the less-than-factual wild claims of so-call theistic evolutionist evangelists operating from inside the Adventist church.
(A not-so-subtle detail that is often glossed over by evolutionists here)
whose remarks made to stimulate discussion continue to be laughably taken out of context by creationsts.
But not at this web site.
And not at any web site you have actually quoted — since you provide no evidence at all that your accusation has merit other than a kind of “trust me I know who to accuse” implied position.
A form of argument that is not as compelling to the critical objective reader as you might have at first imagined.
He himself responded to the issue making clear his objection to the misquotes.
Actually Patterson stated explicitly that the “quotes were aCCURATE” – his ownly complaint was that Creationists were able to use them in a way that did not always flatter evolutionism. Then Patterson points out that be-that-as-it-may he needed to point to bad practices inside the evolutionist camp EVEN if doing so was adding fuel to the fire for those who constantly debunk evolutionists.
If creationism can stand on its own (it can) then you hadd better leave Patterson out of it.
I certainly understand why Theistic evolutionists would wish not to be continually reminded that atheist evolutoinists like Patterson are more apt to be frank and honest about the problems for evolutionist “stories easy enough to make up” – than the TE’s operating inside the Adventist church.
That point is glarginly obvious to even the most casuar reader.
What is not so obvious is your conclusion that Creationsist should stop pointing out that embarrassing contrast.
At that point your logic becomes “illusive”.
Feel free to explain if you wish.
To continue pushiing his quotes and supposed disbelieve in evolution reveals a complete lack of scholarship and a poor grasp on reality, not to mention blatant dishonesty.
Actually – since the not-so-subtle detail that Patterson is constantly given as an example of an atheist EVOLUTIONIST (not creationist) exposing the flaws in HIS OWN belief system – where the point of the quotes are always to show the honesty of even atheists as compared to our own insider TE’s promoting evolutionism from inside the Adventist church – the rather negative summary conclusions in your remark actually apply to those who “pretend not to notice” that Patterson is always upheld here as an example of an atheist EVOLUTIONIST speaking to the defects in HIS OWN belief system.
Hint: Never is Patterson offerred up here as an example of a former evolutionist NOR even as an atheist evolutionist turned THEISTIC evolutionist.
A not-so-subtle detail again – that is more apparent to the objective, critical reader than you have apparently supposed.
in Christ,
Bob
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
MBA employee discourages students from attending LSU
Marvella – those are good points – but the references don’t exactly match – so I am simply including the snippets with references associated here.
I have been shown that God here (the case of Achan) illustrates how He regards sin among those who profess to be His commandment-keeping people. Those whom He has specially honored with witnessing the remarkable exhibitions of His power, as did ancient Israel, and who will even then venture to disregard His express directions, will be subjects of His wrath. He would teach His people that disobedience and sin are exceedingly offensive to Him and are not to be lightly regarded. He shows us that when His people are found in sin they should at once take decided measures to put that sin from them, that His frown may not rest upon them all. But if the sins of the people are passed over by those in responsible positions, His frown will be upon them, and the people of God, as a body, will be held responsible for those sins. In His dealings with His people in the past the Lord shows the necessity of purifying the church from wrongs. One sinner may diffuse darkness that will exclude the light of God from the entire congregation. When the people realize that darkness is settling upon them, and they do not know the cause, they should seek God earnestly, in great humility and self-abasement, until the wrongs which grieve His Spirit are searched out and put away. {3T 265.1}
…
And what of the oft repeated complaints seen here that criticism of evolutionism (Theistic Evolutionism called “the worst kind of infidelity” by Ellen White) – is too harsh, too pointed, too critical and nothing like “we are aLL the same… go to sleeep”
The prejudice which has arisen against us because we have reproved the wrongs that God has shown me existed, and the cry that has been raised of harshness and severity, are unjust. God bids us speak, and we will not be silent. If wrongs are
266
apparent among His people, and if the servants of God pass on indifferent to them, they virtually sustain and justify the sinner, and are alike guilty and will just as surely receive the displeasure of God; for they will be made responsible for the sins of the guilty. In vision I have been pointed to many instances where the displeasure of God has been incurred by a neglect on the part of His servants to deal with the wrongs and sins existing among them. Those who have excused these wrongs have been thought by the people to be very amiable and lovely in disposition, simply because they shunned to discharge a plain Scriptural duty. The task was not agreeable to their feelings; therefore they avoided it. {3T 265.2}
Do we see Church administrators seeking approval by speaking smooth things in a time of crisis – when decided action is called for but is not being taken?
It is left as an exercise for the reader to determine if he/she can see that happening.
…
The plain, straight testimony must live in the church, or the curse of God will rest upon His people as surely as it did upon ancient Israel because of their sins. God holds His people, as a body, responsible for the sins existing in individuals among them. If the leaders of the church neglect to diligently search out the sins which bring the displeasure of God upon the body, they become responsible for these sins.
But to deal with minds is the nicest work in which men ever engaged. All are not fitted to correct the erring. They have not wisdom to deal justly, while loving mercy. They are not inclined to see the necessity of mingling love and tender
270
compassion with faithful reproofs. Some are ever needlessly severe, and do not feel the necessity of the injunction of the apostle: “And of some have compassion, making a difference: and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire.” {3T 269.2}
…
And then we have this section that calls for the saints of God to rise up and take firm action – let the results be what they may.
Those who engage in the solemn work of bearing the third angel’s message must move out decidedly, and in the Spirit and power of God fearlessly preach the truth and let it cut. They should elevate the standard of truth and urge the people to come up to it. It has too frequently been lowered to meet the people in their condition of darkness and sin. It is the pointed testimony that will bring them up to decide. A peaceful testimony will not do this. Our truth is as much more solemn than that of nominal professors, as the heavens are higher than the earth. (1T248-9)
And that is why their will be a howling clammor for the “peaceful testimony” whenever a crisis calls for the “pointed testimony”.
As Peter said “Do not be surprised when fiery trials come upon you”. It is predicted. It is the path set out for you.
in Christ,
Bob
MBA employee discourages students from attending LSU
Shane Hilde says:
February 28, 2010 Bob, Geanna, etc: I’m going to interrupt the conversation here and ask that both of you exchange email addresses to continue this conversation in private. Colin Patterson’s quotations have absolutely nothing to do with the agenda of this website, and while some deviation does occur and is at times necessary, this discussion has no bearing on the topic of this thread at all. Please do not continue to argue on your current topic here anymore. Thank you.
Shane,
If you would like to move my response to Bravus on this subject to some other area – that is fine with me – just leave a link to it here so we know where to go.
My point is that our own Theistic Evolutionists opperating inside the SDA church are seen to be doing something “more” than just carrying forward the argument for evolutionism inside our schools. When we compare them to to certain atheist evolutionists – we discover that they are evangelizing for evolutionism at a level that even some atheists will not stoop to doing.
It adds evidence for the 3SG 90-91 claim that TE is an even worse form of infidelity than what we see among atheists. (Esp – TE promoted from inside the SDA church)
in Christ,
Bob
MBA employee discourages students from attending LSU
Geanna Dane said:
Bob, you assert again and again that Patterson “gets it†but you are the one does not get it. Here is what Patterson thought of your misuse of his comments:
…
Patterson has long been dead and will never object to Bob Ryan’s misuse of quotes. This inconvenient fact CONTRASTS with Bob’s disingenous retort that Patterson does not object to his statements (duh!).
I was simply pointing out the obvious.
1. you have still not found any quote of mine that is a misuse of anything.
2. Patterson never objected to my quote of him — though you start with that extreme accusation for some innexplicable reason.
The point remains.
Colin Patterson died in 1998. Bob, if you were quoting him more than 12 years ago, what makes you think he would care to respond to you of all people?
Again – your logic in supporting your own claim that was posted here in the form “Here is what Patterson thought of your misuse of his comments — remains entirely illusive to the objective unbiased reader.
I am not the one who claimed that Patterson ever said anyting about my quote of him.
Please refer to your own post above – where it is you that makes that wild claim as part of your accusation.
Thus it is up to you to find some logic to support your rather extreme accusation. If you are asking me to find some way to support your accusation – I confess I cannot.
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
