BobRyan said : Which brings up the question as to …

Comment on The ‘Found’ World of Genesis 1: Is Theistic Evolution a Meaningful Option for Seventh-day Adventists? by BobRyan.

BobRyan said : Which brings up the question as to why Kent thinks that Adventists do not read 3SG 90-94 with more insight than an atheist.

Probably because most SDAs have never read 3SG 90-94

Agreed. Hence the misguided TE initiative suggested by some SDAs who pretend to be “more in the dark” than even Dawkins on that point.

BTW – the open article poses the question as to whether the TE option is a valid one for SDAs. How “instructive” then that the one promoting that idea (Walton) is not an SDA.

food for thought.

in Christ,


BobRyan Also Commented

The ‘Found’ World of Genesis 1: Is Theistic Evolution a Meaningful Option for Seventh-day Adventists?
BobRyan said

“However what this shows is that our church Admin has a much larger problem lurking BEHIND the LSU fiasco and that a kids-glove soft-shoe less-than solution for LSU will be interpreted as “an opportunity” by those rising factions who promote similar agendas at almost all of our other schools.”

Ken replied –

Dear Ron and Bob
Bob, I think you are right.
If this is happening in the open, without apology and with silence from the Church officials, what does this say about the leadership in your church to enforce FB#6.

As Ron points out – the phrase “SDA church officials” covers much more territory than the small click in the Pacific Union or the local SECC (South Eastern Calif Conf) that hosts LSU. The GC 2010 session points out that church leaders across the world in the SDA church take the creation statement of scripture very seriously and are not inclined to toss the Bible out the window in favor of blind faith in birds-come-from-reptiles evolutionism.

Do not confuse the local SECC issues with the administrative POV of the entire SDA church.

in Christ,


The ‘Found’ World of Genesis 1: Is Theistic Evolution a Meaningful Option for Seventh-day Adventists?
While it is true that atheist evolutionists and Bible believing Christians are agreed on the fact that the bible cannot be married to evolutionism… the atheists are obviously not stating that in the same language as 3SG 90-94 nor do they fully embrace all the Christian views presented in 3SG 90-94.

Which brings up the question as to why Kent thinks that Adventists do not read 3SG 90-94 with more insight than an atheist.

And also makes us wonder how it is that the TE POV (that Kent is so now apparently once again so happy with ) could be more clueless than the atheist perspective on the obvious point that the Bible cannot be married to belief in evolutionism.

Apparently Kent would like to argue that the clueless TE POV is “a strength” in that it is more befuddled than atheist evolutionists when it comes to admitting to the obvious contradiction between the Bible and belief in evolutionism.

I suggest that we give the atheist evolutionists “credit where credit is due” — Kent “not the creationist” apparently feels it is better to mock both their valid observations and the position of 3SG 90-94.

How “instructive” for the unbiased objective reader.

Oh well – I guess we all knew that that short cameo appearance by Kent “the Creationist” was not going to last forever.


in Christ,


The ‘Found’ World of Genesis 1: Is Theistic Evolution a Meaningful Option for Seventh-day Adventists?
It would be silly to suppose that our SDA biology courses, that at times must veer from pure science into the various belief systems for evolutionism, would never discuss the TE as contrasted to the more consistent atheist form of evolutionism.

I simply point out that when that subject comes up they should give the TE discussion the benefit of the reveiw of 3SG 90-91.

In other words — I am suggesting that SDA institutions would take the obvous step so that students can be fully informed.

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