Point – Sean argues for ID (or in other cases, …

Comment on The Credibility of Faith by BobRyan.

Point – Sean argues for ID (or in other cases, someone here argues the case for young life)

Sean said:
All one has to do to falsify the requirement for intelligent input is to actually show that a mindless mechanism is statistically likely to be able to do the job in a reasonable amount of time. Such a demonstration would falsify the hypothesis that ID is required. Don’t you see that?

To which we get Kent’s non-stop straw man complaint.

@Professor Kent:

I respectfully disagree.

The hypothesis is not that ID is required; it’s that it happened in 6 days 6000 years ago. And even if it could have happened, we can’t falsify the hypothesis that it did happen. Don’t you see that?

Predictably – every time evidence for either I.D or Young-life is brought up – Kent circles back to the straw man that we should IGNORE such evidence UNTIL it is showing us a 7 DAY event and also showing that it happened exactly 6000 years ago.

How does Kent ever hope to be taken seriously with that flawed logic?

Inquiring minds want to know.

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

The Credibility of Faith
And here is the second leg of Kent’s transparently flawed tactics. In this case Kent no longer cares about the “literal 6 days or I don’t count the evidence” canard.

In this case Kent jumps in directly in opposition to ANY argument for ANYTING like I.D or Young life — well… just on PRINCIPLE!

The argument presented to Kent in this case – is simply to use scientific reasoning in deduction and extrapolation of data to come to a sound conclusion.

Sean said:
Do you not consider inductive reasoning, extrapolation beyond a limited data set, to be part of scientific reasoning?

Thus we now have a GENERAL PRINCIPLE argument – that Kent’s “deny-all” tactic will now attack because … well “just because” it might be used in favor of I.D or Young Life!!?

Forecasting–extrapolating beyond the data–is fraught with problems. When you were a child, your parents probably gave you a lot of correct facts, so if they were like many parents (including mine) in relating “fun” stories, you probably assumed that their tales about Santa Claus were true. And today there are many people who are putting off their retirements because, leading up to the real estate, banking, and Wall Street collapses, they relied on exactly the reasoning you proposed. You call this scientific reasoning? I call it speculation. Risky speculation.

That meandering any-excuse-will-do response to the “first principles” when it comes to scientific deduction regarding data –> conclusion is astounding!

Kent refuses to get his hands dirty to do any actual work in discovery, thinking, logic in support of I.D or young life… and then devotes all of his energy to either holding up a 6day vs 8 day “Canard” when evidence for I.D or Young Life is mentioned – or to simply go after “all of science” when it comes to deductive reasoning from data — if that reasoning risks being in support of I.D or young life.

I do not post this with the idea of stopping Kent from going down that path – rather I post it because I think that Kent’s “I am a creationist but I oppose every effort to support that view with facts” mantra – is one that a number of Christians (yes even some SDAs) have unwittingly adopted for reasons yet to be explained.

in Christ,


The Credibility of Faith
@Professor Kent: @<a

TEST: The Miller-Urey experiment suggests that amino acids, but not living cells, can be created from a prebiotic soup. No one has ever seen living cells, much less complex organs and systems emerge from dirt. (One caveat duly noted: absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.)

QUESTION: Does this constitute falsification of the Bible?

To be “more precise” the Urey-Miller experiment shows that amino acids produced in even the most contrived of circumstances – do NOT exist in the monochiral form that is REQUIRED of all amino-acid polypeptide chains used in living cells today.

It proves that the natural racemization of amino acids is a physics and chemistry property observed in “real science” that totally blocks the alchemist’s abiogenesis storytelling before it ever gets off the ground!

href=”http://www.educatetruth.com/theological/the-credibility-of-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-18593″>Dustin Galloway:

Although Miller and Urey set out to prove abiogenesis or Chemical evolution their experiments show something far different. Like leaving out oxygen because it would “largely inhibited” Chemical evolution. Of course an oxygen free environment would also not have an ozone layer which would stop abiogenesis. So rather then proving abiogenesis this experiment and others like it show how impossible abiogenesis is.
If you would like to read more go here. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp

Question: Does this constitute falsification of evolution?

As you point out – the U-M experiment’s “conditions” are in fact contrived. But I think it is far more telling to point out that its results are even more devastating to the abiogenesis myth since it proves that even in the most contrived context – the resulting products are still not workable.

in Christ,


The Credibility of Faith
When we contrast the carping that we see at times by some who complain about every advance made in the research not designed to oppose the Bible doctrine on creation, we have some groups doing active research and study into this area – stepping forward with theory after theory.

For example:
Here is a short 5 minute clip on the hydroplate theory.

And here is a site that promotes that type of work rather than carping about its existence.

in Christ,


Recent Comments by BobRyan

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?

Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?

Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.

“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)

Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.

(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)

By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:

Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!


What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.

An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.

1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..

2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.

3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.

4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).

In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.

Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??

Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.

hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.

The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.

Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions

Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.

Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis

Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind