By Shane Hilde
According to the Adventist Review a “joint statement, prepared and signed by six LSU biology professors and a group of trustees, offers hope of a peaceful resolution to tensions….” Really?
Whatever hope there may be is slim to none, and LSU biology professors don’t appear to have changed their tune. The joint statement proposes they teach “Creation as a faith conviction, rather than as science.” This is what they’ve believed all along.
The joint statement goes on to say “Creation is not a scientific construct. It is a faith construct. The conviction of Divine Creation lies beyond the purview of the methods of empirical science, and cannot be subjected to them.” This is nothing new. This is one of many mental gymnastic acts performed by Seventh-day Adventists attempting to embrace contradictory world-views–evolution and creation. The evidence for creation is completely ignored, which only highlights the obvious evolutionary bias in which this statement was created. What exactly about Divine Creation do they believe is beyond the purview of the methods of empirical science? They merely offer the status quo as something new and viable.
Despite faith and science having little to do with each other, they suggest the two “can and should constructively interact.” Their approach is based on two core principles. The first principle immediately pits a Biblical concept of creation with the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of creation. The “Biblical concept of creation” and “the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of Genesis 1 and 2” will be incorporated in the classroom? What does that mean? Are they not Seventh-day Adventists themselves, and don’t Seventh-day Adventists believe their understanding of Genesis is Biblical?
There is nothing mentioned in the joint statement about what affirmation of the Adventist position means in the classroom. Will it be presented as the position or a position among others and of no particular consequence except that it is what Adventists believe? The answer is simple. The LSU biology department doesn’t believe in the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of Genesis 1-2. All they can offer is an affirmation, whatever that means, and a mention of what Adventists believe when origin discussions arise. This approach is something you could get at a secular university.
The second principle says they want to continue to teach and research in the “various disciplines of the modern sciences according to the most up-to-date and rigorous standards of the published science.” What does modern, mainstream science teach? Overwhelmingly evolutionary theory. Now the core contention is not that the theory of evolution is taught, but how it is taught in relationship to creationism. The principle concludes with their desire to include “the data which highlight the strengths and weaknesses of various models.” While this statement sounds hopeful, there are number of problems with it. First, they already said creation is not a scientific construct, thus there wouldn’t be any scientific evidence for creation, which means none would be offered. Second, they believe the data supports evolutionary theory.
There is nothing in this joint statement that suggests any changes to the status quo of the biology department. Clearly the dialogue from LSU isn’t any different than before. They have not changed and it appears they have no intention of changing.
Re Faith’s Comment
“Ken: You are right, we do know more now than when Genesis was written–as far as terminolgy and such. However, we know only what God has seen fit to tell us. Moses was shown Creation like we would see a movie and he wrote down what he saw and heard. In some ways, he knew more than we will ever know until we are in a position to view the same “movie”. He probably didn’t understand everything he saw, or put a label on it, but he was privileged to see God in action.”
Hi Faith
Thank you for your generous comments.
As a matter of faith I don’t think I would disagree with you. The problem of course is how to empirically verify what Moses supposedly saw.
Science and faith are different disciplines. What Drs. Pitman and Kime are trying to do is meld the two to show that biblical creation has a rational, empirical basis. I applaud their efforts and if they succeed I’ll be in the front pew!
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentRe Birth of a Planet- LkCa 15 b
Hello Faith and Bob
Check out the news today regarding the above. Wonderful stuff to observe the birth of a planet., albeit 450 light years away.
Bob, I don’t think this observable event was ‘imagined’.
Faith, do you think this would approximate what Moses saw in his vision when earth was formed?
Think about this. Somewhere else in the universe, if there are beings as scientifically as advanced as us, they may be witnessing the birth of earth. They would be witnessing biblical creation then wouldn’t they?
As I previously opined, science is telling us a great deal about origins of the universe and will continue to do so.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentKen:
I know for a fact that there were witnesses to the creation of the Earth about 6000 years ago. The Bible tells us that the morning stars sang together. That means the audience had a part in the play, so to speak. How could anyone help but want to sing praises to God when He creates something? It would elicit songs of the highest praise. One day, Ken, the faithful will witness new planets being Created by the Creator of all the Universe. How I wish all humanity would be there to witness the events. However, God allows us to choose and not everyone is making the right choice. So sad.
Faith(Quote)
View CommentI recently purchased a book from Creation Miniseries entitled “The Genesis Files” Lower down on the cover it said “Meet 22 Modern-Day Scientists Who Believe in a Six-Day Recent Creation.” That fascinated me because we hear so much about “great scientists” who believe and preach evolution–and the implication is that there are no “great, reputable creationist scientists” or “scientific evidence” available. That simply is not true!
AND, sad to say, I have been very disappointed by the fact that I have been unable to find anything of much importance from US! I don’t mean to be critical–maybe it’s just me–but I can’t help but wonder just what GRI’s function is. (Frankly, I haven’t even looked at their web site recently–which I did a lot to begin with–but never could find anything of any significance on it so just quit looking.)
At any rate, I was delighted to get this book and want to introduce these men, one by one, to you. (Of course, I can’t include the actual article for it is copyrighted but I’ll do my best to let you know about them. (If you want to know more you can always order the book.)By the way, this is just the first book featuring a series of Christian scientists who wholeheartedly believe in the Genesis account–most of whom were die-hard evolutionists before they really examined the evidence FOR Creation. I understand this is only the first of a series of books on this subject.
Belief in Creation is NOT just a “blind faith only” thing–regardless of what the teachers at LSU seem to believe! There appears to be plenty of evidence “out there” that those who believe in evolution–including professors (AND Management) at LSU–simply refuse to really look at. The “wisdom” of puny mortals just cannot even begin to compare with the wisdom of our God! But, as the saying goes–“There are none so blind as those who will not see!”
***********
Dr. James Allen, Geneticist M.Sc.Agric, (Stellenbosch). Ph.D. (Edinburgh), retired as senior lecturer in the Department of Genetics, Stellenbosch, South Africa, in 1992. He has researched the genetics of fruit flies, snails, chickens, dairy cattle, and fish, and taught students quantitative and population genetics, particularly in its application to the breeding of animals.
He accepted evolution as a young student in college, and believed it for about 40 years. And never questioned the idea. Then he started attending a different church (doesn’t say which one) was converted when he heard the gospel of Jesus for the first time.He then started to read his Bible “really meaningfully for the first time” but did not then give up his belief in evolution.
He became very angry with his wife one day when she asked him if there was any reason why God shouldn’t have created all forms of life on the basis of a universal genetic code ode? Finally he got up and stalked out of the house.
But he started thinking as he walked and said to himself “You know, maybe she has a point.” He said he truly felt God speaking to him and he thought, “Maybe God DID create all life on the basis of as universal genetic code–why should we expect God to do things any differently?” He suddenly became aware that “the Word of God” was more important than his concept of science.
Earlier if folks bought up the idea of things being created he would shrug it off because he felt it was ‘nonsense’ and not science!” But now he began to look more critically at some of things that “seemed so logical” earlier. In the last decade he has looked at the other side of the issues and found that the creation concepts were “perfectly reasonable and intellectually acceptable.”
He now is saddened by so many “scientists” insisting on interpreting scientific findings–which are “unproven and unprovable”–as “facts.” (There is much more information in this article and anyone wishing to know more would do well to get, and read this exceptional magazine and read these articles for themselves.
*************************
This is a man after my own heart! He was intelligent enough and honest enough to see his own mistake and change courses. Would that we were all so noble!
In closing, I wish someone would please explain to me how a person who might hear me exclaim in wonder at the “miracle” of evolution when I examined a simple mouse trap would consider me either a stupid old lady (or else demented!) then turn right around and solemnly tell me something as complex as my eyes “just evolved” with absolutely no “mind” behind them?
It obviously take a mind to build and maintain a beautiful garden or landscape–so why is it unreasonable to believe it took a mind to create the majestic redwoods, the magnificent oceans, lakes, and mountains as well as the flowers, the birds, and the animals–and people that fill our world???
If that’s what a”degree” in evolution is all about (and it appears to me that is the case) then I’m very thankful I never obtained one! When in this wide, wide world did “common sense” die off?
And I also wish someone would explain to me why we, as a church, have put up with this heresy and nonsense for decades. (And, as far as I can tell–are still“beating around the bush” in dealing with it.) Have so many “fences” been built around our conferences and institutions that the GC is incapable of doing anything positive about it? If so, we had better find some way to get rid of those ‘fences”–if it isn’t already too late!.
(While we don’t want “dictators” neither do we want “figureheads” with absolutely no power to DO something in cases like this. There must be a “happy medium” somewhere.(Is it too late to find it?)
Lydian(Quote)
View CommentKen,
“As I previously opined, science is telling us a great deal about origins of the universe and will continue to do so.”
**********
Are you quite sure that what “science is telling us about ‘origins of the earth'”are truly factual?
From what I’ve been reading in this book I have about creation scientists I find they totally disagree with what the evolutionists are saying. And these are not young, inexperienced scientists. They are, for the most part, seasoned scientists who for years believed evolution with all their hearts. I have a hard time dismissing their conclusions. Buy the book, read it and let me know what you think.
Lydian(Quote)
View CommentRe Lydian`s Quote
“Maybe God DID create all life on the basis of as universal genetic code–why should we expect God to do things any differently?” He suddenly became aware that “the Word of God” was more important than his concept of science.`
Dear Lydian
It is difficult for persons of non faith (agnostics) to explain their positions to persons of great faith such as your dear self. But I shall try because you are worth it.
First I think it is important for all to listen with open minds and hearts to others. I think that is when we can truly start to understand where others are coming from. I have learned so much from Pastor Ron Henderson and all of you at Educate Truth. I have gained a great appreciation of the SDA faith and come to understand the wide diversity of belief therein.
I think I can summarize the problem as follows: in order for humans to look at reality objectively they should do so without a faith or non faith bias. Thus is one is to examine evolution or biblical creation objectively one should not do so not with an atheist or a creationist mindset but rather as a rationalist.
Now some would argue, I think Dr. Pitman does so, that no one can be totally unbiased, even an agnostic. I think he is right because after all we are human, hence fallible and suffer from the limitations of our own self inflicted perceptions. So if that is the case what rational tools can we avail ourselves of outside the realm of our solipsistic perspectives. I think that answer is science. And believe me, the philosopher,romantic,lover of literature, lover of mankind, lover of friends and family – all within me – would rather it not be the case. Believe me life would be far easier if I was an atheist or a person of faith but I digress.
Here is a test: did all of the 22 scientists become convicted of faith before they started to see science supporting creation vs. evolution.(sorry I can`t get the question mark on my keyboard to work this morning) If so what does this mean. It means they are subordinating their previous human logic to that of perceived divine logic. And I certainly concede as a matter of faith and philosophy that divine logic should be superior to human logic. But whose divine logic: Greek polytheistic, Hebrew biblical, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic, SDA, SDA – YEC, SDA – YLC, SDA OEC, progressive…. The list if almost infinitum.
That is why Drs. Taylor Kime, Pitman and myself joke – with a serious undertone- that perhaps all our different perspectives belong as fare at the Mad Hatter`s Tea party. I find that when I can laugh at the absurdity of my own position I gain a better appreciation of everyone else`s.
Back to science. What impresses me about science is its unrelenting drive and quest for empirical truth. Does it make mistakes. Plenty, all the time, then tests them and moves on to a better understanding of reality. Thats progress. Might scientists someday find a golden thread of design weaving its way sinuosly through previously perceived mindless evolution. Sure they might and I encourage the search. I`d love to understand the grand design, or lack thereof, to it all.
Ask your self dear Lydian- why is your understanding of the Word of God, superior to that of others like Dr Taylor or the Dalai Lama etc. And how do we know that Dr Taylor and the Dalai Lama`s is superior to yours. Perhaps it is all a matter of individual faith which is fine if humbly acknowledged.
I hope I haven`t offended you by seeing things from the relative perspective of an agnostic.
I remain
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentRe Faith’s Quote
“I know for a fact that there were witnesses to the creation of the Earth about 6000 years ago.”
Hi Faith
Sorry you lost me there, are we talking human witnesses or singing stars? What tune? If You Wish Upon A Star? 🙂
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentIt is becoming quite clear, at least to me, that no one–with the possible exception of Wes–can equal the humor of Ken on this thread. “Singing stars!” Why can’t I think of these things?
Ervin Taylor(Quote)
View CommentSo much Bible to mock for our agnostic friends – so little time.
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThe message from the LSU biologists is something along the lines “please send some peer-reviewed scholar to LSU to convert us – we too want to be Seventh-day Adventist Christians some day”.
As noble as that sentiment is on their part. I think they miss the point. The chair they are occupying is the chair of just such an expert scholar for the church. Since they freely admit that this is not them — then need to get out and let someone in that chair who is willing to do the job — and not just “willing to be converted”.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentKen,
Thank you for your kind reply.
I have spent most of today writing out my reply but for some stupid reason I did not “save it” as I went along.
I got up to get a book that I wanted to get a quote from and when I returned the whole thing had disappeared! I don’t recall hitting any “buttons” on my computer when I left it but I must have. (Maybe I wasn’t supposed to send that particular answer but it is now after 12:00 o’clock at night and not a good time to start over.)
This next week is a very, very busy one–company from out of town the last of the week and over the weekend and some painting I need to get done before they come,a couple of appointments I can’t miss–as well as the regular things that always need doing around a house–but I will get back to you as soon as I can.
Just wanted you to know I’m not ignoring what you said and that I do appreciate your gentlemanly answer.
Lydian(Quote)
View CommentActually, we are talking angels and the inhabitants of the previously created worlds. Sorry, I guess that was a bit theologically deep for you who have not this background…no sarcasm intended.
Faith(Quote)
View CommentHi Faith
Thanks, that makes more sense.
Yes indeed that did expose my lack of biblical knowledge and I shoold not have jumped to a conclusion. Sorry about the Jiminy Cricket tune reference, I couldn’t resist. 🙂
Respectfully, unless you were there, I submit you likely believe it rather than know it for a fact. Is that fair?
Your ‘mischevious’ agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentRe Lydian’s Quote
“Just wanted you to know I’m not ignoring what you said and that I do appreciate your gentlemanly answer.”
Dear Lydian
No worries good friend, enjoy your company.
Cheers
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentI am surprised by the confusion over faith and science. Faith only applies to what you don’t know. If you know it, then you don’t need faith.
Science only deals with what is or can be known. Basically, if you can’t measure it, then it isn’t science. By definition they are mutually exclusive.
God’s creation in Genesis 1 will never be an issue of science because none of us were there to see it. It will forever be a “faith statement”. As such, discussion of such does not belong in a science class. It belongs in a theology class.
It would be wonderful if the scientific evidence supported the Genesis account, but it just doesn’t. It would be wonderful if we has a good explanation as to why, but we don’t. So, this is an area where we need to be tolerant and non-dogmatic. The church can say it believes creation was 6 days about 6000 years ago if it wants to, but as of the moment there is no scientific evidence to support the claim so it is made by faith.
Yes the churches position is different than the Bible’s position, or we wouldn’t need to “clarify” it with a creed.
It also appears to me that the method of Biblical interpretation the church is using in this case is itself non-biblical. If you look at how Bible writers interpreted the Bible when they quoted it, you see many ways, type, allegory, prophetic etc. but to my knowledge no Bible writer ever quotes the Bible as proof for a scientific fact. There is no Biblical president for using the Bible in this way.
Ron(Quote)
View CommentOh BTW, here is a good reference for how the Bible writers use the Bible.
http://www.theopedia.com/New_Testament_use_of_the_Old_Testament
Ron(Quote)
View CommentRe: Faith’s statement: And while we may not be saved by giving up Darwinism, we are lost by not doing so.
I am assuming that by Darwinism you mean evolution, and that by evolution, you are referring to the ability of the genetic code to change over time and for organisms to develop more diversity over time.
The problem is that I see organisms evolving all the time, (I have given many references in previous posts) and I don’t see that to be inherently contradictory with the Bible. It appears to me that it is only closed minds that find the two contradictory.
Ron(Quote)
View Comment“Hope? Slim to None”
God has those who are faithful to Him and His word. “We have this HOPE that burns within our hearts… Hope in the coming of the Lord.”
Jesus is coming soon and the three angels messages must be proclaimed. Will we be a part of that? It is our choice to participate or not but the message will go out “in a loud voice”…
1. Worship God Who MADE Heaven and earth.
2. The great evil false system of worship WILL FAIL.
3. Anyone following the false system of worship will suffer God’s wrath WITHOUT MERCY.
We are in the final opportunity to seal our relationship with God. NOW is the time.
Charles(Quote)
View CommentRon,
“God’s creation in Genesis 1 will never be an issue of science because none of us were there to see it. It will forever be a “faith statement”. As such, discussion of such does not belong in a science class. It belongs in a theology class.”
Neither were any of us there to see the evolution story!
And if you look on the internet you will find at least three very vibrant ministries who will give you plenty of scientific evidence for creation!
Lydian(Quote)
View CommentKen,
I have not forgotten the fact that I need to send you a reply.
So far I have tried three times to get a reply off but it isn’t as simple as the one I just sent Ron.
I have a new computer and am having a lot of problems with it. Anything longer than a few words just get’s wiped out somewhere along the line even though I try to “save it” on a regular basis.
My oldest daughter, Kathy, is the one who usually comes to my rescue–is in N.Carolina and won’t be back for several more weeks. Meanwhile, I’ll keep tying and hopefully will get something for you somehow.
(I’m surprised I was able to get this far this time!)
Lydian
Lydian(Quote)
View CommentDear Lydian
As always it is good to hear from you.
Yes, computers can be a nuisance at times!
I wish I was geographically closer to you, I’d pop in and we’d have a tea together.
Be well.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentInteresting.
Now lets observe what the atheist scientists “admit” to being a problem in “their science”.
See the post below and the one before it — “at least”.
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/a-christian-agnostic/#comment-35357
Surely our disguised infidelity evolutionists within the SDA camp (3SG90-91) can manage to step up!
If they were willing to stick with “observable” science rather than blind-faith evolutionism – they would not have to wrench-bend-hijack science so often on behalf of evolutionism.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentOh, please, Ron, you know very well what I am referring to. However, I will make it crystal clear to you by coming at it from this angle: If anyone denies the Lord as Creator and accepts the evolutionary lie that things just came about all by themselves (although no one has been able to explain where the original
spark of life came from in the evolutionary model)then they cannot be saved and go to heaven to live with the God they have catagorically denied throughout their lifetime. Is that plain enough for you?
BTW what you seem to believe is evolution is just adaptation. No one denies adaptation–I believe it is one of the mechanisms God gave the creatures and plantlife to survive on an earth gone mad by the presence of sin.
Faith(Quote)
View CommentAnd here is another one 2Peter 1:20-21
And another one Acts 17:11
And another one 2Tim3:16
Its all good!
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentSlim to no chance that biology is being handled “as science” by evolutionists.
And here is the fundamentalist evolutionist principle behind driving that result —
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentAh, yes, 3SG90-91! Thanks, Bob, for reminding us about that important message. How about a few thumbs up for Bob?
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentShould I have quoted it or is the mere reference to that document enough to anger blind-faith SDA evolutionists?
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentSpeaking of 3SG 90-91
A few years ago a poster calling himself “Bravus” came here from the clubadventist area and posted that he was SDA and yet felt free to declare Ellen White wrong when she reported what God told her in 3SG90-91, that the SDA church is wrong in its view of creation, that the doctrinal statements could be bent to serve the usages of evolutionism and that he was not saying this as an evolutionist but as an SDA.
Over the years he finally did admit that he is speaking as an evolutionist.
Recently Bravus posted this statement below – stating that he is no longer SDA – and listing the doctrinal areas where his views are in conflict with SDA doctrine.
http://www.clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/491719/Re_Why_I_am_a_former_SDA.html#Post491719
At last after years of claiming one thing while demonstrating another – he finally allows his outward profession of religious affiliation to match his outward arguments against the Bible on creation and against the SDA church on a number of doctrinal points.
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentHi, Ken,
I’ve been trying and trying to get my article on prophecy to you on this contrary computer but am still having a real problem trying to write anything of any length for some reason. But as soon as I can I will get the one on prophecy to you. Meanwhile I’ll try to get this shorter one in. (Even this one has taken me a very long time and I’ve had to rewrite parts of it more than once.)
The following is from my post of 10-23-11
“In closing, I wish someone would please explain to me how a person who might hear me exclaim in wonder at the “miracle” of evolution when I examined a simple mouse trap would consider me either a stupid old lady (or else demented!) then turn right around and solemnly tell me something as complex as my eyes “just evolved” with absolutely no “mind” behind them?
“It obviously take a mind to build and maintain a beautiful garden or landscape–so why is it unreasonable to believe it took a Mind to create the majestic redwoods, the magnificent oceans, lakes, and mountains as well as the flowers, the birds, and the animals–and people that fill our world????
If that’s what a”degree” in evolution (science?) is all about (and it appears to me that is the case) then I’m very thankful I never obtained one! When in this wide, wide world did “common sense” die off?
_____________
Sorry, Ken, but this ancient old mind of mine just can’t see the logic in such a position. Now, honestly, can you?
Lydian(Quote)
View CommentBravus also claimed that only God could “discipline” church members, and that we, simple humans, should keep our mouths shut when we see problems arising in our SDA Church. (Dr. Stone called this the “Bravus Rule”) We now see Bravus was simply a fraud, not only as a creationist, but as an SDA.
Holly Pham(Quote)
View CommentDarwin admitted that the true understanding of Evolutionism is not compatible with Christianity.
Bravus has recently admitted that his embrace of evolutionism along with some other “progressive notions” is not compatible with the published doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist church — as you saw in his statement in that link.
Obviously both of those guys are correct in their conclusions about compatible vs nothing-of-the-sort.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentRe Lydian’s Quote
“It obviously take a mind to build and maintain a beautiful garden or landscape–so why is it unreasonable to believe it took a Mind to create the majestic redwoods, the magnificent oceans, lakes, and mountains as well as the flowers, the birds, and the animals–and people that fill our world????
If that’s what a”degree” in evolution (science?) is all about (and it appears to me that is the case) then I’m very thankful I never obtained one! When in this wide, wide world did “common sense” die off?
_____________
Sorry, Ken, but this ancient old mind of mine just can’t see the logic in such a position. Now, honestly, can you?”
Hello Lydian
As always, great to hear from you. How is the family?
I think you have lots of common sense. What happens though when your common sense differs from others? How do we decide who’s common sense makes the most sense? I think that is where science plays a role to to find the common denominator of common sense.
Let’s take the creation of mountains as an example. At first blush, without the benefit of science, common sense would suggest that one would not find fossils of sea shells on the tops of mountains! After all, our ability to observe mountains shows they are clearly not covered by the sea. Thus before the study of geology it might have been very common sensical for prophets to conclude such mountains were created instantaneously and not from the grinding of tectonic plates or the eruption of lava from the earth’s mantle. Even creationists seem to concede that point now i. e. Dr Pitman acknowledges that the Himalayas were formed by the collision of tectonic plates, he just differs from most geologists as to the speed with which this happened.
What I’m saying is that our collective common sense becomes modified and enriched by science as time goes by. What we once prescribed to the hand of God can now be seen as the work of nature.
For example, we know that all life forms change over time, creationists admit to micro evolution. Common sense, right? The question becomes how far back that change went and how much change was there. It is hard for just our common sense to know that because of what we can observe in our current life spans. Thus we look to science for clues and evolutionary science offers many evidential clues as to the origins of life.
I hope that helps.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentBob, If only the many other SDA
“intellectuals” would be as honest as Bravus now is and leave the SDA Church, so we can place those who actually believe and follow God’s Truth in the leadership positions the others now occupy.
Any volunteers?!
Holly Pham(Quote)
View CommentThey would be at peace with themselves because they would not have to live with self-conflicted claims pretending “not to notice”.
In any case – Bravus does both sides a favor. A – he agrees with Creationists that evolutionism is not even remotely SDA doctrine. And B – he shows other self-conflicted SDAs that if you really want to speak out in favor of evolutionism in a pure “The Bible and Ellen White must surely be wrong on this doctrine” fashion — the best way to do it is to make those claims as a non-SDA.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentOnly if one assumed “The Bible is wrong”.
But the bible said that the tops of the mountains were covered by the oceans in Genesis 7.
So then – not having the “benefit of science” the readers will have known for 1000’s of years that the signs of ancient marine life should be found all over the place – even on tops of mountains.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentLast Tuesday I Started walking down our driveway to get the mail–giving no thought to our three dogs–two of which are very well behaved. My Granddaughter’s dog is a sweetheart but still in that irresponsible puppy stage–although as big as our two adult dogs. So far we haven’t been able to have completely broken her of jumping up on people.
I came out the garage door and she was on the front porch. I didn’t see her and didn’t give her a second though. She saw me, however, and came bounding out to greet me–by jumping on my back which landed me face down on the driveway–with a broken right wrist. No one else was home at the time (they say I will never be left alone again–which bothers me but the “powers that be” have spoken so I guess I’ll just have to grin and bear it.) I managed to get up and get in the house without further damage.
My daughter came home very shortly there after and took me to the doctor so I am all bandaged up and doing as well as can be expected all things considered–except that this being my right wrist I’m not much good at writing or typing so I won’t be doing much on my computer. (But Kathy is back and I’ll get my computer straightened and that will be a real blessing!) Meanwhile I’ll read but probably won’t write–but that won’t be any great loss to anybody!
Lydian(Quote)
View CommentDear Lydian
I was very sorry to hear of your plight.
I can’t speak for others but I always enjoy your posts.
Hope you will be feeling better soon.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentSorry to hear about your fall. Get well soon and know that you are missed.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentSorry Bob, Nice try, but no credit. According to your interpretation of the Bible, there would not have been any “ancient” marine life to have been deposited on the mountain tops during the flood since the world would only have been a couple of thousand years old at best. Certainly there would not have been the stratified layers we see.
Ron(Quote)
View CommentHi Ron
Also I read Genesis 1 KJV and could not find where it said ‘oceans’ covered mountaintops.
Perhaps our friend Bob has his own version of the Bible? 🙂
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentAn odd claim for someone to make who claims to know what the Bible says about the world wide flood.
So I point out the “obvious” in that regard.
Ron – nice try but no credit in your response since we have the “instant layering” (stratification) example demonstrated “for us” at Mt St. Helens has long since debunked the myth you are still clinging to above.
This is a case of real “observations in nature” where the event is known and the results are observed “in nature”.
The 2nd area where your argument fails is your use of circular arguments. You assume the age of the marine fossils is what evolutionists claim – then argue that anyone reading the Bible would not expect to find marine fossils or limestone at the tops of mountains after a world wide flood covered the tops of mountains with the ocean! And why should these Bible readers in all ages NOT have seen that evidence of marine life at the tops of mountains is exactly what we should expect from such a world wide flood??
Your circular-logic response to the hard question for evolutionism on that point is of the form “err.. umm.. just because”
How in the world do you expect such failed arguments to be successful when you post them to a group accustomed to using critical thinking?
Why use such tactics?
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Commenthmm… so “you just don’t see it” ?? right?
What is the “other solution” for water covering the tops of all the mountains and all life on “the earth” dying in the flood —
If it is not an ocean that covers the whole earth – rising to 40 meters above the tops of the highest mountains – then please tell us – “what is it” that the Bible said?
1. How is it that the “birds of the sky are blotted out from the earth” without the oceans “covering the earth”??
How can it be that just after claiming that God created every living thing on earth – we then find that God chooses to wipe out every living thing that He has made – without this being a world wide ocean?
4 “For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made.”
Where did you get that “yes but not an ocean” statement from the Bible?
2. How is it that the tops of the highest mountains on earth are covered by over 20 feet of water and yet “this is not an ocean”?? What part of Genesis 7 gave you such a notion in your “I can’t see it” response to oceans covering the highest mountains?
3. More importantly – how in the world were you going to make the case that for all these thousands of years – those reading the Bible would join you in closing their eyes to the statements in Genesis 7 regarding all mountains on earth being covered by water??
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentSorry about the confusion above – but it is what it is – in this “No editing” context.
For clarification in the above post – The 40 meters is out – the “over 20 feet” is in.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentRe Oceans of interpretation in the literal text
Oh how it pleases my contexual heart when a literalist can imply the non existent word in the text.
Now perhaps literalists can be more tolerant and understanding of those that interpret 6 days as being a longer time than 24 hours each. After all they see 2300 days as being years right? Hope I’m not bending and wrenching hermeneutics for the objective non biased readers. 🙂
Stated congenially in the relative context of genuine tolerant debate 🙂
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentHi Ron
I wonder if scientists are finding any fossils yet in the new strata on Mt St Helens? Probably not ancient marine life!
In any case it will be interesting to see at what point in time buried trees become coal there. In our lifetimes?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentRe Oceans
Ocean
1. The continuous body of salt water that covers 72 percent of the Earth’s surface. The average salinity of ocean water is approximately three percent. The deepest known area of the ocean, at 11,034 m (36,192 ft) is the Mariana Trench, located in the western Pacific Ocean.
2. Any of the principal divisions of this body of water, including the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, and Arctic Oceans.
Hmmm… I wonder what the salinity was of those waters that rained for 40 days and 40 nights or came from the fountains of the deep? Which would rise first to the tops of the mountains: land based flood waters or lower altitude ocean water? Would the top 20 feet at least be fresh water?
If the literal reading of the Bible does not provide these answers it seems to me creationists must turn to science to do so, right?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentQuestion
“If it is not an ocean that covers the whole earth – rising to 40 meters above the tops of the highest mountains – then please tell us – “what is it” that the Bible said?”
Answer
Water
Ken(Quote)
View CommentRe: Fresh water floating on salt water
Did that 40 day and night rain float on top of the lower ocean salt water? Which would have been the first to the tops of the mountain tops during the Noachian deluge? And of course to remain objective and unbiased I must ask if the latent salt water would have mixed with the higher fresh water before it got to the tops of the mountains? 🙂
Please see link below for science of fresh water floating on top of salt water.
http://geography.about.com/library/misc/ucghyben.htm
Enjoy
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentFor my friends Wes and Sean
“As iron sharpens iron, so does one man sharpen another,”‘
Thanks for keeping me sharp.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentIf you will recall – your initial statement was that the people reading the Bible for the past 3500 years would have been surprised to find evidence of marine life on the tops of mountains.
When salt and fresh water mix you get brackish water. The bible says that water came up from the “fountains of the deep” and that water came “down” from heaven. Clearly when it mixes with ocean waters and covers the entire surface of the earth – as the bible states, some form of brackish water results.
1. You seem to argue that brackish water should have been thought of as being devoid of marine life by all the readers of the Bible for the past 3500 years.
It is not at all clear that your assumption in that regard is justified.
2. The second feature that all will have been well aware of is that a fish kill – even a very small one – results in dead fish floating on the surface of the water (brackish water or not).
Given a world covered by water and large numbers of fish having been killed under various conditions – there is no question that Bible readers over the past 3500 years would have thought that evidence of ancient marine life at the tops of mountains would have been thought of as evidence of a world wide flood.
This observation appears to be irrefutable.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentIndeed.
And “obviously” the Mt St. Helens case is not one where someone claimed that “Mt St. Helens was covered by water as far as 25 feet above its summit”.
Yet that event “still” demonstrates the element of instant stratification (in terms of geologic time) – much to the dismay of some who could have wished for other observations in nature on that subject.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentActually you are doing a bit of bend-and-wrench.
In the case of Daniel 8 and the 2300 years (matching Daniel 9 and the 490 year prophecy that also uses day-for-year) – almost every Bible reader on the planet accepts that this is apocalyptic — prophetic writing where the 70 weeks (490 days) are in fact day-for-year format pointing to the first coming of Christ.
Secondly – almost every Bible reader on the planet accepts that the Ten Commandments given in Exodus 20 is a case of “legal code” not prophecy. They accept the obvious fact that “For in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them and rested the Seventh DAY” is a reference to literal terminology “in legal code” not prophecy – such that Israel observed a real 7 day week just as that legal code required.
Here again are obvious points agreed to by both sides that stand far beyond the reach of a “I just don’t see it” solution that could be imagined.
Darwin himself admits that there is simply no way to bend the Bible to meet the needs of evolutionism.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentIf the question is meant to argue that the volcano above was covered by water in recent times and whether it shows marine life at the top of the mountain by that non-event then the answer below will suffice.
However if that comment above by Ken was meant to ask whether mountains on the North American continent show signs of marine life at the top — that is another matter entirely.
The North American Continent in the area of western Canada shows limestone coverage even at the tops of mountains.
Hint: The Canadian Rockies are comprised largely of limestone.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment“This observation appears to be irrefutable.”
That’s great as all scientific theories are falsefiable but our objective unbiased friend has found a way around that.
Our friend seems to understand what almost every bible reader on the planet understands on certain points. How does our friend do this: divination, polling, research?
Rebound Hint: Geologists, not me, say that coral reefs ( hence deposifs of limestone) were lifted from the ancient seabeds by the action of colliding tectonic plates. Haven’t seen a scientific theory about dead fish in brackish water forming such deposits but I’m sure willing to do so if our friend can point me in the right direction. 🙂
Honest inquiry is never a problem, absolute positions that thwart human progress are. Best to ask questions when confronted with absolutism, especially in matters of faith that our unique to each individual. Once one understands that no one individual, especially oneself!, cannot know the absolute truth, humility can be gained. Also we can all learn from each other, even the most entrenched. For from them we can understand the psychology that exalts the ego over objective inquiry. My best days are when I see the folly of my past held positions and learn something new. Its why I remain an agnostic and open to the possibilty of God.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Your agnostic
Ken(Quote)
View CommentLet’s compare our friend’s brackish fish model to the creationist catastophic flood model below as to how marine life sediments got to the tops of mountains shall we?
Hmmmm…. I wonder if our friend’s irrefutable observation is quite so or prehaps a just so story? Would ancient bible readers have really understood the lifting of tectonic plates and the raising of ancient sea beds, hence fossils?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Catastrophic-Plate-Tectonics-A-Global-Flood-Model.pdf
Ken(Quote)
View Comment“Yet that event “still” demonstrates the element of instant stratification (in terms of geologic time) – much to the dismay of some who could have wished for other observations in nature on that subject.”
Some who could have wished? Who precisely are these folks to whom our friend imputes their thoughts?
Ken(Quote)
View CommentYou claimed that Bible readers – who knew about fish floating in “fish kills” and knew about the Bible statement that water covered the tallest mountains during the flood – would be “surprised” to find evidence of marine fossils on the tops of mountains.
Yet you provide no reason, no evidence for the bible readers to have agreed with you on that point. Rather it appears from the text itself – they would have expected the very thing you deny for them.
No explanation is given from you other than the idea that they would never have known about estuaries or brackish water or fish kills in real life during that span of 3500 years.
And then Ken notes this –
I am more than happy to agree that a wide number of geologic shifts could take place in a world wide event such as the flood. However we were talking about the Bible readers over the past 3500 years being very much affirmed when they find limestone at the tops of mountains. Your claim is that they would have been shocked and confused to think that evidence for marine life would be found at the tops of mountains.
It remains a bit of a mystery as to how you might ever establish that point objectively. Surely you have to agree, your claim is somewhat nonintuitive.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentKen’s original quote
“Your claim is that they would have been shocked and confused to think that evidence for marine life would be found at the tops of mountains.”
That’s right my friend. Because nothing in the Bible or in science demonstrates that your brackish water fish kill model ever formed marine fossils at the tops of mountains. In fact you now seem to be conceding that such limestone was formed by the uplifting of tectonic plates not dead fish of the flood.
ken(Quote)
View CommentSorry about that hit the submit button before I edited. Looks like my friend and I are suffering from the same problem…hmmm proof of mutual inferior design. 🙂
Here we go again:
Ken’s Original Quote
“Let’s take the creation of mountains as an example. At first blush, without the benefit of science, common sense would suggest that one would not find fossils of sea shells on the tops of mountains! ”
Please note I was talking about fossils of ‘sea shells’ (emphasis added). I didn’t say marine life or dead fish, those are your words my friend.
My friend’s quote:
“Your claim is that they would have been shocked and confused to think that evidence for marine life would be found at the tops of mountains.”
That’s right my friend. Because nothing in the Bible or in science demonstrates that your brackish water fish kill model ever formed fossils of sea shells at the tops of mountains. In fact you now seem to be conceding that such limestone was formed by the uplifting of tectonic plates not dead fish of the flood.
So why would a bible reader without the benefit of the science of tectonic plate movement, ever think that floating dead fish would ever leave ‘sea shell’ fossils?
Oh, by the way, you are just a wee bit ‘shocked and confused’ about who postulated what the bible readers would think. That was you my friend. My reference in my original quote was to the
third person pronoun ‘one’. Important not to morph your idea of what you would have liked me to say into what I actually said 🙂
Your turn.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentReally??
So you are saying that you have done an experiment where the top of a mountain was covered by more than 20 feet of water from the ocean – and then dead fish were floated over it – and… no evidence of marine life resulted on that moutain when the water recedes??
Truly amazing! Fascinating by every measure I would say.
I guess I have underestimated your tests going into your assertions. I for one — would love to read about it.
However – even so. I don’t think we can assume that the Bible readers for lo these 3500 years could have known about your experiment running so contrary to what observations in nature would tell us to the contrary.
We must all agree that the Bible readers for the past 3500 years would only have their own real life “observations in nature” telling them that marine life DOES exist in brackish water and that fish kills results in fish “floating on the surface of the water” such that IF the “surface of the water” turns out to be “above the tops of the mountains” well then… dead marine life would have been “right over the tops of the mountains”.
Thus when they read in Gen 7 that water covered the tops of even the highest mountains by over 20 feet – there would have been NO surprise for them – at finding evidence of dead marine life at the tops of mountains.
Yet you confidently made this assertion.
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentWhat eats dead fish in the oceans?
hint: Shell fish.
If the dead fish floating 20 feet above the tops of the mountains – eventually fall to the ocean flood – (the top of the mountain) then what is there to eat them?
Shell fish. Just as they are at the tops of undersea mountains to this very day.
That much is not surprising.
In your statement you mention the “creation of mountains”
It is entirely possible you did not mean to reference the “creation account” in the “creation of mountains”.
But given that you post this as opposing the creationist world view – it was not a “given” that your statement was not meant for creationists.
Your further statement in response to the Bible readers of the past 3500 years – seems to argue that this group was being considered.
My argument is only that Bible readers for the past 3500 fully expect to find evidence of marine life at the tops of mountains. Limestone or otherwise.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment“If the dead fish floating 20 feet above the tops of the mountains – eventually fall to the ocean flood – (the top of the mountain) then what is there to eat them?”
Oh please forgive my mirth my friend, I just started to laugh so hard I almost fell off my chair. 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 I just had this image of crabs clinging to the tops of mountains after the flood, chomping on brackish dead fish. Then surviving the receding waters and erosion to become embedded into the mountain top as ‘sea shell’ fossils.
Look, I appreciate you are talking about marine life not just sea shells, but my original quote was about fossils of sea shells, OK? 🙂
Want to shake cyber hands and call this one a tie? 🙂
I’ll let you have the last word in any event, so the matter can become fossilized in the seabed, or mountain, of this thread as the case may be.
Cheers 🙂
Your crabby agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentKen –
Whether it is “fossils of sea shells” as you first mentioned or it is any other form of “ancient marine life” found at the tops of mountains (as I first mentioned) – I have not found any evidence at all that people reading the Genesis 7 Bible account for these 3500 would have been surprised at all to find any of that – at the tops of mountains.
When you mentioned the coral reefs raised up to the tops of mountains – I also agreed that a number of geologic events are evident at the flood. My point has not been to argue against that specific kind of geologic event at the flood.
I have only been pointing out that bible readers would have expected to find evidence for ancient marine life at the tops of mountains given the text of the Genesis flood.
In Rev 19 at the 2nd coming you have a description that can be called the “feast of the birds” where dead remains of all mankind cover one end of earth to the other. (This is also mentioned in the OT.)
Similarly – the ocean was littered not only with the dead remains of all mankind – but of all living land animals. That would have results in a “feast” for those animals in the sea that feed on dead flesh. — no doubt. Probably more than a “little” population explosion for that one group of marine life — for a short time. Would there be lakes formed at the tops of mountains or would they all just dry off immediately? I guess we would need to have been there.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment11-30-11
Ken says: November 28, 2011 at 4:38 pm
“Let’s take the creation of mountains as an example. At first blush, without the benefit of science, common sense would suggest that one would not find fossils of sea shells on the tops of mountains! ”
______________
I quote,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
“Whose common sense?– What happens though when your common sense differs from others? How do we decide who’s common sense makes the most sense?”
_____________________________
My brand of common sense tells me Noah’s flood is responsible for fossils of sea shells on top of mountains.
______________________
My left hand tells me it wasn’t created to type so better close.
All the best—————–
Lydian
Lydian(Quote)
View CommentKen’s post on November 27, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Hmmm… I wonder what the salinity was of those waters that rained for 40 days and 40 nights or came from the fountains of the deep? Which would rise first to the tops of the mountains: land based flood waters or lower altitude ocean water? Would the top 20 feet at least be fresh water?
If the literal reading of the Bible does not provide these answers it seems to me creationists must turn to science to do so, right?
___________________
Sorry, but I don’t agree, Ken.
God never once says He has answered every question that any and every one could ask. There are many questions that will never be answered this side of eternity for they are not a “salvation” issue. However, He does give us ample evidence in His Holy Word to accept what He says. Does it require faith? Of course it does–but I would like to point out that so does the belief in evolution! It depends on who you trust–the infinite God who makes no mistakes or finite human beings who make plenty of them. I chose God!
Be very sure you make the right choice, Ken, for it really IS an ETERNAL life or death decision not only for you but also for your precious family and friends!
Lydian(Quote)
View CommentDear Lydian
Thank you for your graceful kind wishes.
They made common sense in anyone’s books.
Your grateful agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentIt will be very entertaining to see how the supporters of the EducateTruth(sic) anti-LSU campaign will react to the announcement in the recent issue of the Pacific Union Conference Recorder that the enrollment at La Sierra University (LSU) for the second straight year has continued to increase at a historic rate. It appears that the misguided attacks of the EducateTruth (sic) group on LSU actually helps this Adventist institution of higher education attract more and more students.
Ervin Taylor(Quote)
View CommentThe revisionist history efforts of organizations such as Atoday argue that instead of confronting the error of evolutionism – Educate Truth is really only concerned with “enrollment stats at LSU”.
The GC has been working to correct the problem at LSU – I pray that it works.
Educate Truth has never argued against enrollment – the argument has always been “against evolutionism”.
Why is the concept of accuracy so foreign to some of our evolutionist contributor?
Oh no wait – maybe Erv meant to say that everyone at LSU is enrolled in biology and lining up to be spoon-fed evolutionist pablum day after day. Ok – well then in that case – I agree that that would be a bad thing.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentNo misguiding at all Dr. Taylor. As you very well know, many of the students at La Sierra are non-adventist, and they are heavily recruited. They would probably have no problem with “evolution as fact.”
What are the latest stats on non-SDA students at La Sierra? Does anyone know?
The last figures published sources were several years ago–over 30% non-SDA. Does President Wisbey want this number to grow? To over 50%? Over 75%? Becoming more secular will help La Sierra attract more non-SDA students, especially with the heavy recruiting done.
Regarding growth–most SDA colleges are growing in enrollment. Does that have anything to do with whether they are teaching biblical truth? I doubt it. The issue is not “growth” “who’s larger?” or any such nonsense.
Holly Pham(Quote)
View CommentSo the first question is – why does Erv think Educate Truth should view increased enrollment at LSU “as a bad thing”?
The Educate Truth argument is against blind-faith evolutionism – not against “enrollment at LSU”. Especially an LSU that admits to its problems and is “turning a corner” in response to corrective action from the GD.
So what is Erv thinking? What view of LSU is he claiming Educate Truth should oppose?
1. Erv may have meant to claim that everyone at LSU is enrolled in biology and lining up to be spoon-fed evolutionist pablum day after day. Ok – well then in that case – I would agree that that would be a bad thing.
2. Or maybe Erv meant to claim that all the professors and administrators and students who remain at LSU are voting with their dollars and with “their feet” – that evolutionism is A-OK with them and that if they were against evolutionism they would not continue to be at LSU. IF that were actually true – then I would agree with Erv that Educate Truth would be against it.
3. Or maybe Erv is trying to claim that LSU represents the liberal view that evolutionism “is no big deal” and that the real important thing is “liberalism at LSU no matter the promotion of evolutionism”. Maybe Erv is arguing that any professor or student that chooses to remain at LSU is really saying that they do not agree with the denomination that the debate over evolutionism has any importance at all – no matter the voted positions of the SDA denomination to the contrary. Possibly Erv is arguing that for this reason – Educate Truth should oppose increased enrollment at LSU.
Erv may have any number of ideas about LSU enrollment numbers showing opposition to creation as accepted by the SDA church. Interesting that he would choose to bring up the question “out loud”.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentGC (General Conference) got morphed in that post as GD (Global Denomination?) – sorry about that mix up.
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentI seriously doubt enrollment growth at LSU has anything to do with the creation-evolution controversy. Because of the current economic quagmire, graduating high school students can’t find jobs, so they may as well go to college. However, public colleges and universities have slashed enrollment in order to cut costs. Consequently (and ironically) private colleges and universities–including SDA institutions–are benefiting from booming enrollment.
Eddie(Quote)
View CommentMr. Taylor seems to be having trouble separating what’s right from what’s popular. What difference would it make if the enrollment at LSU doubled? Evolution would still be 100% wrong regardless of what happens in the classrooms of the universities. Numbers don’t prove anything.
But I guess that anyone who is so easily duped into believing evolution can also draw such a faulty conclusion. Neither case is based on fact.
Faith(Quote)
View Comment12-3-11
Dear Ken,
Who, or what, tells the tiny humming bird (and many other birds and animals) it is time to head south to warmer climates in the fall? After all, the feeder is still full of their favorite nectar that they have been enjoying all summer, the weather is still reasonably warm and they know the resident three dogs and three cats are no real threat.
Yet one day they are cluttering around the feeder and next day they are gone–never to be seen again until the next warm days of spring and summer.
Who or what tells the bears it is time to starting to eat a lot more and get enough fat on their bodies to see them through hibernation during the winter months? Where does this seemingly “born in them” knowledge come from? Yes, they may learn some of it from their parents, but where did the original bear get it from? Somehow mindless evolution doesn’t make sense to my admittedly ancient brain–or to my equally ancient common sense.
And I have a real problem with the person who will, in one breath say I need my head examined if I try to convince them a simple mouse trap found in a field of beautiful golden grain just “evolved?” and then expect me to believe my very complex eyes, my brain, and all the rest of my body systems were the products of mindless evolution.
Frankly, Ken, that takes a huge leap of “faith” this very old mind simply cannot make. Maybe younger ones can but my admittedly very old brand of “common sense” simply refuses to accept what, to me anyway, is an unreasonable conclusion, (I realize I have said some of these things before but, so far, no one has bothered to show me where I’m wrong,)
My Bible says:
“I will praise You; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Marvelous are your works. And that my soul knows very well.” Psalm 139:14. NKJV
Others may not agree and that is their privilege–but my mind and my brand of common sense agree with it 100%.
(No offence meant for anybody. This is just how I see and understand things and I know for sure that wisdom isn’t going to die with me!)
Lydian(Quote)
View CommentExpecting to be entertained by our reaction to this latest proof that popularity is its own reward and award, rather like the belief in Bible times that riches proved God’s approval, Erv [sic] Taylor hurried over here a few days ago with the news that LSU’s enrollment had actually risen. Huzzah for LSU, but the real winner is ..(the envelope, please)… the Indian Casino down the Interstate from LSU, with award-winning entertainment along with the stacked deck.
Wesley Kime(Quote)
View CommentHello Lydian
Thanks for your comments.
Yes migration is a fascinating topic isn’t it.
I thought you would find the referenced link below useful which discusses a gene related to migratory behavior in birds. Thus if there is an identified gene for this trait (migration) not only can it be inherited but it can evolve due to the pressure of natural selection.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/02/11/rspb.2010.2567.full
Hope that helps.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentFrom your link – after some critical thinking –
It starts with …
It ends with
Ken’s conclusion ?
From the article the genes managing migration can “modify” slightly and change migration patterns – but the study did not show migration genes “coming into existence”.
In the evolutionist model anything that “exists” has come “come into existence via evolution” because well…err..umm… “there is no god”.
That is the “by faith alone” part of their argument.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentBoth groups agree to the idea that genes are part of the explanation for expression in phenotype and that genes for a specific function can vary.
Where the salient point of difference is how the entire set of genes and epigenome factors that control a specific behavior or phenotype trait “come into being” in the first place.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentHi Bob
Re Bob’s Quote
“From the article the genes managing migration can “modify” slightly and change migration patterns – but the study did not show migration genes “coming into existence”.”
Thanks for your comments my friend.
Yes the article is very honest about its conclusions isn’t it? It states that much further work must be done. It doesn’t say it has all the answers does it? It doesn’t make blind leaps of faith does it?
What it does show is that the gene does evolve which is what I stated, and no more.
On the other hand you do not seem to have the same level of circumspection when it comes to making self evident biblical based conclusions about reality (obvious presence of telermerase in 900 year olds.). Yet you produce no science for such a proposition. Why the double standard?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentIs trying to field a competetive basketball team another way La Sierra is trying to recruit secular students? I mention this because their mens basketball team just got walloped again today (Sunday) after being beaten handily by the previous teams it has faced so far this year.
Does La Sierra have sports scholarships?
Holly Pham(Quote)
View Comment1. I agree that the article tends to be a bit more balanced – not claiming to have all the answers – but it does express “hope” (faith) to some extent – hoping that information in the genes will one day help with the storytelling of evolutionism itself. Just a small amount of lip-service in favor of evolutionism in the article – but as you point out – not much by way of that.
In fact it provides no evidence at all that evolutionism is being observed in nature – outside of changes INSIDE the genome of the birds mentioned and not crossing to some other phyla etc.
2. I am more than happy to admit that my 7-days of creation week and 6000 year old life on earth idea comes from a by-faith acceptance of the Bible. I have always said that. My point is that YEC and YLC and Intelligent Design are based on observations in nature – not that 7 days of creation week are observed in nature.
I also affirm with Patterson that the by-faith-alone imagination among evolutionists “as if they were declaring revealed truth” is in somewhat of a parity with the Christian model.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThanks for your coomments Bob.
You seem to be saying that evolution is religion. Is that right?
ken(Quote)
View CommentBob’s Quote
“In fact it provides no evidence at all that evolutionism is being observed in nature”
Quotes from the Bird Migration article
“Here, we show that migratory restlessness is consistently associated with allele length at a 3′-UTR locus of the adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide 1 (ADCYAP1) gene in two independent populations. Moreover, the same alleles are correlated with an estimated higher proportion of migratory individuals across 14 blackcap populations.”
“Comparative studies suggest that migratory activity and/or residency have rapidly and independently evolved in different bird lineages as a response to environmental changes, and recently to global warming [21,26,73].
21 1. Pulido F.2007 The genetics and evolution of avian migration. Bioscience 57, 165–174. doi:10.1641/B570211 (doi:10.1641/B570211)
CrossRefWeb of Science
26. # ↵1. Pulido F., 2. Berthold P.2010 Current selection for lower migratory activity will drive the evolution of residency in a migratory bird population. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 7341–7346. doi:10.1073/pnas.0910361107 (doi:10.1073/pnas.0910361107)
Abstract/FREE Full Text
73. # ↵1. Piersma T.,2. Perez-Tris J.,3. Mouritsen H.,4. Bauchinger U.,5. Bairlein F.2005 Is there a ‘migratory syndrome’ common to all migrant birds? Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1046, 282–293. doi:10.1196/annals.1343.026 (doi:10.1196/annals.1343.026)
CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science”
Hi Bob
Please note, my original note to Lydian talked about the migratory gene evolving period. That’s what the article says.
I appreciate that you are trying to use the article to defeat macro evolution but that was not the intent of my note to Lydian, nor did I suggest it.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentHi Bob
I meant to add that if you have science that shows that migratory genes in birds do not evolve I’d be happy to review it. But until you do so I don’t think you can claim to the contrary on a scientific basis, notwithstanding your biblical worldview.
Do you agree?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View CommentThe burden of proof is on the one claiming “birds did not used to have that set of genes and epigenome factors for migration”.
At least if we are talking about “Science”.
In “science” the guy that wants to claim “look here is what birds have” — only has to deal with science and “observations in nature”.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentIn his 11 seconds of fame – and ceiling focused silence – Dawkins reminds us of “evolution that cannot be seen”. That is the evolutionism that is “by faith alone” and is what evolutionists need to get the Amoeba to eventually produce a horse (given a few 100 million years of course).
It is that aspect of evolution (change) that exhibits the religious attributes so glaring that even an atheist evolutionist like Collin Patterson laments the situation before his fellow atheist evolutionists at the American Museum of Natural History.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentDear Ken,
Thank you so much for taking the time to send me the article on bird migration. I only wish I had the “scientific mind” to fully understanding their reasoning–but, unfortunately, I don’t.
I grew up in a time when evolution was a non-issue– at least in my church and our educational system–so never gave it a second thought until this LSU situation was called to my attention a year or so ago. Frankly, I’m thankful that was the case because it gave me the chance to develop an unshakeable, strong faith in my Bible and my God. (Not that I am such a great Bible student because I’m not. It has only been the past few years while my grand children were growing up that I “woke up” and really started to try to understand prophecy and the great significance it had in truly “knowing” God and His plans and purposes for me and for our truly “little” world. )
No, Ken, we are NOT the biggest and most advanced planet in the universe even tho we seem to think we are. But we ARE the one planet that rebelled against our Creator and bringing us back “Home” is the most important item on God’s agenda. He could have just wiped us out and started all over again, you know, but instead He loved us so much He was willing to go to any length to bring us “Home” again. Such love is simply beyond my comprehension!
But there were two sentences in the article I did understand (at least somewhat!) and here they are:
“The lack of knowledge of the molecular basis of migration is currently not only limiting our insight into the proximate control of migration, but also into its evolution.”
And:
“Despite extensive research over decades, the molecular, physiological and endocrinological mechanisms underlying the regulation of migratory movements remain largely unknown.”
From my point of view, the answer is “In the beginning, GOD….”. I accept the fact that this does take faith’ Ken, but doesn’t belief in evolution also take faith? It seems to me that some things I have heard as “proven facts” are some times later proven untrue by archaeology.
Who knows–some day maybe God will see fit to reveal the remains of Noah’s Ark–altho I am in no way saying that this will happen. There are many things that will always need to be believed by faith alone–based entirely on what God has seen fit to reveal to us and I have no problem with that.
Ken, prophecy is the ‘solid rock” on which I build my unshakable faith in the Bible. I’ll talk more about that in my next contribution.
Lydian(Quote)
View CommentWould someone please explain to me where the seven-day week came from? The only reason for it that I know of is Genesis 1. That these were literal, 24 hour days is shown by God saying “the evening and the morning were the 1st day, the evening and the morning were the 2nd day–and so on.
As I recall there have been a few attempts to change the number of days in the weekly cycle but all have failed.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Lydian(Quote)
View CommentHello Lydian
I always enjoy your posts so much. I’m old enough to remember when people had pen pals in school. One would write long hand letters to people overseas that one had never seen before. One would learn about different cultures, philosophies and faiths and appreciate them. You’re my cyber pen pal and it is a pleasure to write to you.
One thing I’ve learned in my worldly travels and enquiries is to really appreciate and enjoy diverse views and opinions. I have met many people of strong faith and I respect them for it. The other night I was discussing God with a close Christian friend who said I can feel His presence right now . I looked at her enraptured face and I knew she meant it with all her heart. Marvellous to witness. Like you she deeply cares for my salvation and I am most grateful for your love and concern. I think your Christian grace is a wonder to behold and I will never disparage that.
Your comments of what the article said about the limits of known knowledge on the mechanisms and evolution of migration are quite apt. The scientists are focused on one gene involved in migration that does evolve. Honest scientists not taking leaps of faith. The key thing I was trying to point out to you was that there is a genetic component to avian migration and at least one gene has evolved. Respectfully I think the article establishes that point.
I don’t think of faith in the context of science. Faith to me is contextual of theism or atheism. Thus I have no ‘faith’ in evolution but I do think it it is the most tenable scientific explantion for the origin of species. Might I change my mind in the future. Of course! If a better scientific theory supplants evolution out it goes. But this will have nothing to do with faith or lack of faith in God and everything to do with sound, non biased science.
You see our friend Bob keeps trying to corral evolution in the atheistic pen. Can’t be done as the theory runs in a diverse arena of faith and non faith alike. Logically there can be a God and evolution, just not a circumscribed or limited God as a narrow interpretation might require. And this from a guy who is not a theistic evolutionist by the way!
Lydian, always a pleasure my dear. How ismthe arm coming?
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentPseudoscience vs. Science
Dead readers
There has been a lot of discussion of faith and science as of late. I thought the following link would be useful regarding what constitutes proper scientific method on a non biased basis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
Enjoy
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentMeant to say ‘dear’ instead of ‘dead’ readers! 🙂
Another freudian slip ……. does that wily agnostic subconciously believe in a Hereafter? ……..hmmmmm.
Ken(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
The problem, of course, is that mainstream evolutionary theories regarding the creative power of the Darwinian mechanism (RM/NS) meet the criteria of pseudoscience according to the Wiki article you reference. In fact, no such mindless mechanism has never been directly observed to work beyond very low levels of functional complexity and the notion that any such mechanism could work at such levels given enough time has no support from actual relevant statistical analysis or from anything else beyond wishful thinking, bluster, smoke and mirrors. That’s the very definition of pseudoscience is it not? – something that is not open to at least the potential of testing and falsification? Tell me, how is the assumed creative power of RM/NS testable in a potentially falsifiable manner?
Beyond this, your strong belief that scientific methodologies are immune from personal and/or collective bias is one of your big blind spots in understanding the true nature of science. As already explained, Thomas Kuhn has presented some important insights in this regard noting that pure non-biased objectivity is impossible even in the best of scientific investigations…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentDear Ken,
I haven’t felt much like laughing these days but your Dead People really set me off–and I still laugh whenever I read it. Have shared it with family and we all laugh. I know you didn’t do it on purpose but it was a great “lifter upper” for me. I’m adding it to the “posts I save.”
Lydian
Lydian(Quote)
View CommentI’ve done some research on this topic, and nobody really knows why. Oh, I forgot–the Bible tells us why. I guess we believers DO know!
Holly Pham(Quote)
View CommentHere’s an excerpt from the Wikipedia account (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-day_week):
“The seven-day week is approximately a quarter of a lunation, so it has been proposed that this is the implicit, astronomical origin of the seven-day week. However, there are a number of problems with this proposal. The seven-day week is actually only 23.7% of a lunation, which means that a continuous cycle of seven-day weeks rapidly loses synchronisation with the lunation. This problem is compounded by the fact that a lunation is only the mean time for the lunar phase cycle, with each individual lunar phase varying in length. Also, the duodecimal (base-12) and sexagesimal (base-60) numeral systems have historically been the primary systems used to divide other chronological and calendar units. Therefore, it is not immediately apparent why the seven-day week was selected by ancient cultures, rather than a week that included a number of days that was a factor of these numeral systems, such as a six-day or a twelve-day week, or a week that divided the lunation more accurately using a factor of these number systems, such as a five-day or ten-day week.[original research?] Finally, there are no historical Jewish or Babylonian records that confirm that these cultures explicitly defined the seven-day week as a quarter of a lunation.”
Eddie(Quote)
View Comment@Eddie:
Isn’t that obvious? Wouldn’t a “seven-day week” be defined by the demarcation of seven actual days? – i.e., based on the rotation of the Earth around its own axis?… or, as the Bible describes it, “evenings and mornings”?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentMost do not want to admit that God started it. He said He did. Is He lying?
Holly Pham(Quote)
View Comment