Wow! This does look promising. I hope and …

Comment on World Church moves to advance statements regarding creation by Sean Pitman.

Wow! This does look promising. I hope and pray that these important issues for the SDA Church today will indeed be substantively addressed by the GC – – especially when it comes to significantly clarifying the wording of SDA Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation.

Anything short of specifically addressing and updating the current ambiguous wording of FB#6, wording put in place by so called “progressive” men like Fritz Guy and Lawrence Geraty (who do not personally believe in or wish to uphold the literal nature of the creation week) will leave the SDA Church no better off.

After all, the GC has already put out a very clear statement in support of a literal 6-day creation (back in 2004) – a very clear statement that has been completely ignored by those at LSU and elsewhere who point to the weakness and claim ambiguity in the language of FB#6 as an excuse for their subversive actions against the Church’s historical position on this “Fundamental” Pillar of Faith…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

World Church moves to advance statements regarding creation
@Bravus:

No, I’m implying that recent creationism is sinking. The mountains of evidence against it are so immense, and young people are becoming better and better educated in actually looking at the evidence.

You mean that more and more young people are being brainwashed to believe that mole hills are really mountains in order to support a theory which is the basis of intellectual atheism…

Millions of Christians all around the world are able to reconcile evolutionary theory with their faith, and the Sabbath can be established on God’s words and a symbolic creation story just as well as on a literal creation story and (b) despite the claims made loudly and frequently here, the evidence is as the evidence is.

If you make everything about your “Christian” faith symbolic, what is there that distinguishes your faith in the existence and personal care of God from a belief in garden fairies, Santa Claus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Hmmmm? As far as I can tell, such social Christianity is no better than essential atheism when it comes to establishing a solid hope in anything.

It is as William Provine, late professor of biological sciences at Cornell University, explained in his very interesting speech for a 1998 Darwin Day keynote address. As part of this speech he noted:

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.

• No gods worth having exist;
• No life after death exists;
• No ultimate foundation for ethics exists;
• No ultimate meaning in life exists; and
• Human free will is nonexistent.

Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

Provine also wrote, “In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.”

Academe January 1987, pp.51-52

It seems to me that Provine was right. Darwinian-style evolution is just one more argument for the philosophical position of “Naturalism” – a position that suggests that everything within the physical world, everything that we can see, touch, hear, taste, or smell, is ultimately the result of non-deliberate mindless forces of nature. These forces do not have feelings or care about you or me or our feelings regarding what they are or are not doing to us or for us.

Now, if you want to by into the basis of such a philosophy, you are certainly welcome. It is just very difficult to hold such a philosophical view and make your “Christianity” appear to be “reasonable” at the same time…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


World Church moves to advance statements regarding creation
Congratulations to Elder Ted N.C. Wilson. Our prayers are with you. God is leading His Church…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
Come on now. The antigens were detected in very small amounts due to the “ultralow detection limits of the Simoa assays” that were used. Just because very small amounts of spike protein antigens end up in the plasma does not discount the “basic science” that the spike protein produced by the vaccines does in fact anchor itself, generally speaking, to the surfaces of the cells that produce it following vaccination.


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
Again, this paper doesn’t present an actual mechanism for harming the human immune system as already explained to you. Let me know what the authors say – if they ever respond.


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
I thought you’d appreciate it – given the irony of it. After all, this is just basic science here. The authors here are not claiming something novel that has no mechanistic basis. There are many other places where you can read up on the mechanism of how the spike proteins are presented on the surfaces of the muscles cells where they are produced (Link, Link, Link, Link).


Pastor Ivor Myers and Medical Panel Discuss COVID-19 and Vaccines
The mRNA vaccine are now fully approved by the FDA (no longer under EUA). The technology itself is not “experimental” in any meaningful sense of the world since it has been around now for over 30 years with extensive use in other applications. The current use to produce a small part of the COVID-19 virus, the spike protein, to teach the human immune system how to fight the live virus better when exposed, functions in the very same way as traditional vaccines – and is highly effective as well as having very rare serious side effects. Those who cite VAERS don’t generally understand the purpose of the VEARS data system that is maintained by the CDC and the FDA. The VEARS system is not meant to establish causation, but rather to detect unusual patterns of correlation. This is a key misunderstanding for many people. As far as the human immune system is concerned, the fact is that the human immune system, while certainly amazing, isn’t perfect in this world and tends to degrade over time as we age. That is why vaccines have turned out to be such a God-given gift to humanity, having saved millions upon millions of lives. Also, historically, vaccine mandates are nothing new. Vaccines have long been required to work in various jobs, particularly as medical providers, and to attend schools around the country.

All that being said, I do agree that the current general mandates for the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 will tend to be less effective compared to other methods… with the exception of those working in places like hospitals or nursing homes. Such medical providers working with the most vulnerable should be required to be vaccinated. For most other people, medical exceptions and even religious exemptions are still recognized and honored in this country.


Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
If the DNA of a person does not get altered by the mRNA vaccines, then, by definition, these vaccines are not “gene therapy”. This is what was noted by Bayer itself in their response to the comments of Oelrich:

The Bayer group tells 20 Minutes that this is “an obvious slip.” “At Bayer, [les vaccins à] mRNA does not come under gene therapy in the sense that is commonly attributed to this expression,” adds the company. (Link)