Comment on If the Creation Account Isn’t True… by BobRyan.
ron: One problem with this article is that every Adventist that I know agrees that the creation story is not true.
You must travel in very small circles.
Almost all the SDAs I know (and apparently almost all of those voting at the 2010 GC session to condemn evolutionism) – fully accept the Genesis account just like our FB #1 says “as a trustworthy record of God’s actions in history”.
BobRyan Also Commented
ron: I think the Theologians need to adress this issue. Is micro-evolution the result of God’s ongoing creative activity, or is it the result of “a-theistic ” processes?
Micro evolution — “The changing of a finche’s beak over time”.
This does not get you amoeba’s turning into horses over time. It does not get you finche’s turning into anything but “more finches” over time – regardless of the measurement of their beaks.
So while such micro level changes are “observed” — as “finches turn into more finches but with differences in shape of beak” — those micro level changes are not questioned inside or outside the church.
What is questioned is blind faith evolutionism about reptiles turning into birds… about amoebas turning into horses.
Just stating the obvious at this point.
GMF: Some of the rebellion appears to be in high places which makes it even more difficult to root out. When a pastor of a large SDA church is permitted, with impunity, to be the editor of a publication which is often at odds with the SDA church something is definitely out of kilter.
Cleaning house will take our current GC President more than one term to bring things into order unless God sees fit to perform a miracle.
If the GC president had the full support of all department heads at the GC and of all the Union and Conference senior administration going all the way down to the level of that rogue pastor – then you are right – that this would be a matter for the GC president to solve.
Sadly – I don’t think he has the luxury of such a situation.
If the Creation Account Isn’t True…
The T.E. and his “Imaginary Bible”
On another board –
Bravus said –
I think Nathan Brown makes an interesting point over at AToday.
Amid the origin wars and pseudo-religious political debates, we must remember the simply fact of our existence, however we came about, is a foundational miracle and source of wonder. The Bible does not tell us how the world was created — in a scientific, literal sense — and we need to be careful in seeking, contriving and relying on certainties beyond what the Bible actually says. Rather the Bible tells us a story of the creation itself, how wonder-filled that creation was and is, and even more importantly why our world was created.
The Bible is filled with celebrations of the natural world
erv taylor said:
I hope that the positive spirit of Mr. Brown’s comments about looking at and appreciating God’s creation will not be disminished by the comments of others who require God to have preformed his creation in a certain time frame
Clearly our theistic evolutionist friends like to pretend that the Bible did NOT say “FOR in SIX DAYS the Lord created the heavens and the earth the seas and all that are in them” — but rather that the Bible actually said “celebrate the fact that God created this world and all life in it – in some unspecified wonderful way beyond your thinking – which could have included evolution”.
Thus they tend to “imagine the Bible” that they “need”. One that does not actually specify the “time frame”.
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Mack Ramsy:: : but the one thing we know for certain is that it was designed to change. There are so many back up and redundancies designed to make whatever changes that DNA faces to be profitable for the organism, or if their deleterious to ensure they don’t damage the subsequent generation (yes there are very complex methods for doing this) The immune system in fact does it intentionally.
Obviously the references above to “designed” and “intention” could not be overlooked by the objective unbiased reader applying a bit of critical thinking to the topic. And so my response below merely states the obvious point of agreement on a part of that post.
No wonder the application of a bit of critical thinking just then – demands that we conclude from your remarks above – that you are an example of an evolutionist that is strongly in favor of Intelligent Design. I too favor I.D.
Obviously the references abov
I don’t believe in ID as it’s traditionally defined. I believe that God created a system designed to evolve.
Obviously the references abov
In your earlier statement you claimed that system was designed with “redundancy and backup” features. That is not something rocks, gas and water could ever do – hence the term “Intelligent Design”.
But perhaps you have access to more highly advanced rocks, gas and water?
Also you mention “intention” as if the immune system was deliberately designed with an end goal in view.
As it turns out – it is those “intention” and “Intelligent Design” aspects (so key to your response above) that are at the very heart of I.D. enabled science were we have the freedom to “follow the data where it leads” even if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does not fit atheist dogma about there “being no god”.
how odd then that you seem to later back pedal on your prior observation.
Thus you seem to be in somewhat of a self-conflicted position at the moment.
At least given the content of your statements about “intent” and “backup systems” and “redundancy” designed into the systems themselves (even to the point of “error correction” as we see in the case of nucleic polypeptide amino acid chains and their chiral orientation).
Of course all that just gets us back here
Mack Ramsy: My language in this forum is not formal. Try not to get caught up in semantic issues.
Out of curiosity is that statement supposed to provide a solution to just how it is that something “not designed” is able to exhibit unique design characteristics such as “back up systems” – “redundancy” – error correcting mechanism and an “immune system with intention” regarding a specific outcome or goal?
No doubt the study of biology most definitely shows us that such things are present “in nature” based on “observations in nature” – and so you are right to state it as you did.
So if you are then going to double back and reject what you just affirmed – what do you have by way of “explanation” for such a self-conflicted course?
Reaching for a solution of the form – “Pay no attention to my actual words if they do not serve to deny I.D.” does not provide as satisfactory resolution to the problem as you may have at first supposed.
Erv Taylor is not “afraid” to post here – but he is “Afraid” to have well thought out views posted on AToday that do not flatter his agenda.
That was not news right?
John J.: The fact remains, any decision direction or policy made by a church, conference, union or GCEC can be reversed or changed by those they serve.
Agreed and the fact that the constituency are not voting to reverse it – is a sign that this is not merely the views of the Administration in Michigan.
As for hierarchy – there is no doctrinal authority in the administrators.
And as for administrative hierarchy – the GC leadership has no authority to dismiss rogue teachers which is one of the reasons that this particular meltdown at LSU seems to go on and on and on. It slows at times and it speeds up at other times – but the fire is not simply put out.
ken:: Let’s continue shall we. You posit that Adam and Eve were producing telomerase as adults as a result of eating fruit from the tree of life. Would you agree that the production of adult telomerase was a direct result of the environment or did the gene(s) affecting production of the a enzyme as adults mutate in their progeny?
1. I never stated whether the fruit from the Tree of Life provided the telemerase enzyme or simply provided a trigger enzyme/protein that caused Adam and Eve to produce Telemerase. Either way the end result was the same.
2. The salient point is that we have a known mechanism that affects the aging of cells starting with new borns.
This is simply “observation in nature” given in response to your question about an observed mechanism in humans for the 900 year life span the Bible mentions.
It is hard to “do the study” without having them under observation.
1. But it is not hard to see the gradual decline in ages over time.
2. It is not hard to see the Bible declare that access to the Tree of Life was the determining factor.
3. It is not hard to see that even in humans today – the ability remains for us to produce telemerase – but we quickly lose that ability.
4. It is not hard to see what effect that has on the telomeres of infants.
The list of knowns for this mechanism are far more impressive than the “I imagine a mechanism whereby static genomes acquire new coding genes not already present and functioning in nature and that this happens for billions of years”.
Ken: Hi BobWe are making good progress!Thanks for your admitting thaf we do not have Adam and Eve or their progeny under observation to do the study.
Let’s look at the empirical results of your observation. There is no physical evidence that the progeny or descendants lived to 900 years, right? Thus there is no physical evidence that the tree of life provided longevity through the increased production or activation of telermerase right?
There is evidence that a mechanism does exist whereby access to an enzyme would in fact affect the aging process of human cells.
That mechanism is observed in nature to be related to the enzyme Telemerase.
There is a ton of evidence that food contains enzymes and proteins and that the human body can produce enzymes in response to the presence of trigger proteins and enzymes.
It is irrefutably true that humans still today produce telemerase in the case of infants just before birth. Impossible to deny it – though you seem to want to go down that dead end road.
You asked about the “mechanism” that can be observed today that would account for long ages of life recorded in the Bible.
You now seem to be pulling the classic “bait and switch” asking for the video of the people living for long ages before the flood.
Nice try —
As I said before – your method is along the lines of grasping at straws in a true “any ol’ exuse will do” fashion.
SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
Rev 21 does not say the planet has no light – it says the City has no NEED of light from the Sun.
The inconvenient deatils point to the fact that the New Earth will have a Sun and Moon but the New Jerusalem will have eternal day due to the light of God’s presence.
This is not the hard part.