How evolutionism destroys SDA theology

[Guest]

It's down the drain alright. #^%$!)**&^&

[doug yowell]

It's down the drain alright. #^%$!)**&^&

Hang on,Richard,I've got to get my dictionary out again.

[Guest]

You may want to let that one slide. I was talking about evolutionists.

[jasd]

>>Perhaps it is that you’ve an incomplete understanding of the definition of science, yes?<<

It is more than possible that I have less than a scientific understanding of all sciences, but I, as well anyone other than the ‘faith indeed’ ideologue, can comprehend the dictionary definition of “science”.

>>For example - the claim that evolutionists are engaged in actual science - is debunked by atheist evolutionists themselves...<<

A rather less than insightful position to take, perfunctory, maybe. Let me use John McCain as analogous to the one and seldom “atheist evolutionists” in that, though often referenced as conservative, he is the least likely ‘conservative’ that conservatives, in general, would forward as representing their position and opinions...

There is always exception to the rule.

>>...who lament the fact that "stories about how one thing came from another" that are "based on the fossil record" are simply "stories easy enough to make up - but they ARE NOT science because there is no way of putting them to the test".<<

So, are you saying that scientists are not scientists – until their hypotheses can be tested?

>>Now here you have a frank statement from evolutionists themselves about their own "NOT SCIENCE" practices.<<

I give you, again, John McCain.

>>Are we to be sooo blind ourselves to their work that we cannot even see the point when they themselves are lamenting the problem?<< [ed.jasd]

Aren’t we getting ahead of ourselves when we are altogether inclusive re individuals and/or various schools of science are – pertinent to the question where life forms may or may not evolve – is the subject?

>>Surely we can do better than that.<<

At least they investigate! Shouldn’t we, all of us, prefer more than two-dimensional processes...

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

might not broadcast and crystallized viruses have, at least, “influenced” basic life forms, however inconsequential that contribution may have been?

>>That is a fantastically unscientific statement.<<

I should agree or disagree with one who will not accept a dictionary definition of ‘science’? or simply just dismiss... such as the above?

>>It is like saying "might not a distant planet in a distant solar system - "influence" something in our solar system no matter how inconsequential that influence might be??"<<

Quantum mechanics; or do you not subscribe to ‘the whole creation groaning’ because of the events which occurred on this earth? That said,

I think that context placed my hypothetical viruses in proximity to processes occurring upon earth – being in stasis during transit in a conceptual panspermial broadcast.

>>Listing extremely inconsequential influence is not the realm of science -- as it turns out.<< [ed.jasd]

As you’ve elected to comment upon my quote -- is there a reason why you could not have done so with exactness? Anyway, as you’ll recall,

the position I proffered was contingent upon an unequivocally asserted “No”. No more than the smallest counterpoint was required – as response.

Better a thesis be part of a dissertation.

[BobRyan]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

might not broadcast and crystallized viruses have, at least, “influenced” basic life forms, however inconsequential that contribution may have been?

>>That is a fantastically unscientific statement.<<

I should agree or disagree with one who will not accept a dictionary definition of ‘science’? or simply just dismiss... such as the above?

[BobRyan]

>>Perhaps it is that you’ve an incomplete understanding of the definition of science, yes?<<

It is more than possible that I have less than a scientific understanding of all sciences, but I, as well anyone other than the ‘faith indeed’ ideologue, can comprehend the dictionary definition of “science”.

>>For example - the claim that evolutionists are engaged in actual science - is debunked by atheist evolutionists themselves...<<

A rather less than insightful position to take, perfunctory, maybe. Let me use John McCain as analogous to the one and seldom “atheist evolutionists” in that, though often referenced as conservative, he is the least likely ‘conservative’...

[Guest]

[karl]

Let me use atheist evolutionist and paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History for much of the 20th century - Colin Patterson has he himself laments the "NOT SCIENCE" of his fellow believers in evolutionism by saying that stories about how one thing came from another "are stories easy enough to make up - but they are NOT SCIENCE because there is no way of putting them to the test".

If you spend enough time listening to or reading evolutionists, it warps your understanding of what science is. Evolution is religion masquerading as science. And poor religion at that.

Evolutionary belief is the only "discipline" which claims to be science but requires no evidence to back up its claims. Postulates are accepted as if they were tested theories. Conjecture is offered as proof. "It had to have happened randomly because we know it happened and we are absolutely certain ID can't be correct." That statement (made with much more sophism, of course) is two assumptions.

When you chase evolutionary tales far enough you inevitably come to circular reasoning.

[BobRyan]

Indeed Patterson claimed that evolutionism "conveys anti-knowledge".

Here is a strong statement by Goldstein at the recent GYC

http://www.detectingdesign.com/videoclips.html#Goldstein

There he argues the case for choosing either evolutionism or Adventism.

I wish more of our leaders understood the concept.

in Christ,

Bob

[Dr. Rich]

Hey thanks Bob for giving this to us here. Goldstein is mostly right. But wouldn't it really be great IF science AND the bible totally agreed with each other?

Some time ago, I presented a theory (I was not there and therefore everything about creation and evolution is just that--a theory) to Goldstein that did just that. Of course it would do away with some of the writings of EGW and Paul, but it did (totally) agree with the Septuagint and Science. Made sense (common) too! So, what did he do with it? Nothing--he wouldn't even give me the time of day. I asked him to be a guest on my internet call in radio talk show on this issue and he refused. I guess he does not like the hot seat very much.

[Guest]

Could it be that he didn't want to do a show with people that denegrate Paul, and Ellen White, and say they were inspired by Satan?

And BTW the Bible and TRUE science are in complete agreement. Evolution is not science, it is a religion.

[Dr. Rich]

Richard my friend, now where in the world did you get an idea like that? Have I ever denigrated Paul or poor aunt Ellen? Look, I never said they were inspired by Satan either--God did that for me--I just read the verses as a messenger. You are free to chose and so am I. I chose the words of Jesus as my foundation.

Look, you are giving Mr. Goldstein more credit then most to know what goes on in our weekly one hour program called 'THE BIBLE ON TRIAL' show. Shoot, I seriously doubt that anyone here really knows what goes on in this show! Why don't you come on and sit in the hot seat? Everyone here is welcome to do the same.

So tell me--what is your understanding or meaning of "TRUE science"?

[Guest]

Can I do the show over the phone from here at home?

I never said they were inspired by Satan either--God did that for me--

[BobRyan]

Hey thanks Bob for giving this to us here. Goldstein is mostly right. But wouldn't it really be great IF science AND the bible totally agreed with each other?

[John317]

Some time ago, I presented a theory (I was not there and therefore everything about creation and evolution is just that--a theory) to Goldstein that did just that. Of course it would do away with some of the writings of EGW and Paul, but it did (totally) agree with the Septuagint...

Your theory would also do away with Mark, Luke, Acts, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, and Jude, wouldn't it?

As far as the Septuagint is concerned, not all of it gives the correct reading. Quite often the Masoretic text is correct and the Septuagint mistaken. This is proved by the Dead Sea Scrolls. In many parts, the LXX is a paraphrase of the OT-- far from a literal translation. So it is an unproven assumption that through the LXX you are getting the most accurate view of what happened in the beginning.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

...neither is it likely that virus go around with "leg genes" or "arm genes" or "eye genes" to insert into protozoans and provide the much needed "genome morphing" so often imagined by evolutionists.

Quote:jasd

As I’ve previously noted: “We don’t know” – however likely or not – a hypothesis may be.

>>Another "not science" perspective?<<

Too narrow and too many “ “ marks obfuscating meaning... Genes? No, however, do the “ “ marks allow a less precise response? Of course. Therefor, the “not science” is

fuzzy.

Again... Third time’s the charm, yes?

Science: ”The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena”

That stated, ...like Moses and EGW were “science”? I believe that re them, at least one of their ideas was more revelatory than ‘science’, yes? Anyway, at least evolutionists investigate what is in front of their noses; whereas, ‘faith indeed’ ideologues refuse to countenance even the very fact that the linguistics of Genesis 1 & 2 beg a vigorous critique – rather than a cursory or parochial appeal to orthodoxy.

Dialectics aside, Writ adjures its reader that Creation/nature be studied for what may be revealed.

>>If it were remotely true that "we don't know however likely a given hypothesis may be" -- then "grants to study whether the easter bunny will appear in your lawn every other Tuesday" would be as 'common' as the grants for researching subatomic particles.<<

Non sequitur.

That aside, can you not think of any of the hypotheses currently being researched with grant monie$ – that may require a more advanced civilization than ours (perhaps, a Type 1 or 2, or... orders of magnitude) – before they may be properly tested? Would that render the hypothesis a non-science? ...don’t think so.

>>As it turns out - one field is "likely" to have results and the other is not even remotely "likely".<<

And, per science, how “likely” is it that stones might talk – as you or I? Besides, we were speaking of particular matters, as opposed to “easter bunnies” and such. Pshaw. Tchah.

Are not many outstanding quantum theories re atomic particles still untested and unproved? Per your view, that would be – “not science”, yes? and, do not grant monies, as such, suggest – some degree of the ‘untested’?

>>Though given your statement above - you appear to differ.<<

Oh, yes, I differ upon many points vis-à-vis the ‘faith indeed’ ideologue. So,

was there or was there not a feathered, flying reptile in Moses’ opus? If not, several things come to mind: one, the ‘source’ for that assertion forwards a transitional link sought-for by the evolutionist; and two, that – taken together with the aforementioned source’s idea re “amalgamation”, speaks to a certain

Yin Yang – a complementary synergism. .

Anyway, did not this exchange begin with a point-of-fact re the corings of the Mediterranean Seabed vis-à-vis the linguistic pattern utilized in the Creation Epic? Kinda went sideways from there, yes?

[jasd]

>>If the argument is that my understanding of origins is religion -- I agree.<<

...whereas, my own beliefs re origins are Holy Writ oriented, as opposed to any .org’s constructed dogmas. I tend to eschew the hubris tandem orthodoxy – much too often encountered and much too narrow.

The ideologue is often narrowly chauvinistic re his or her “religion” versus that of another, yes? Moreover, the “religion” of many is too much concerned with ‘againstness’: against the RCCs, against the JWs, the ‘Mormons’, the Sunday observers, etc – and continues – to include the imbiber, the meat consumer, one who dances, one who owns a sword, the this and the that, and oh yes, the ‘evolutionist’. Aesthetically precious.

>>If the argument you make above - is that in my belief "reptiles came from birds" -- then we differ.<<

I made no such argument. I believe, instead, I noted that belief in .Orgism seems to carry with it a belief in a flying, feathered reptile. If, indeed, that a speaking reptile was also a feathered flyer, well then, voilà, there you have it! the transitional link evolutionists have been looking for – with the cachet that it spoke! How serendipitous for all! As I’ve already noted: --

Yin Yang synergism between two unlikely proponents, actors all.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors,

As I foretold you, were all spirits and

Are melted into air, into thin air: --Prospero

>>Another "inconvenient truth" that appreas to wreck your story telling - is that both birds and reptiles came about on day 5 by special creation in a single "evening and morning" - thus no transitional link is possible because even by the most exaggerated evolutionist story telling - there is no possibl "link" "bird from reptile" or "reptile from bird" story that takes "one evening and morning".<<

Were both birds and reptiles actually created on the fifth day? and, would a flying, feathered reptile have been created on the 5th day or the 6th? The question is relevant in that –

there is an implicit interstice between the events of the 5th day of creation and the 6th... We don’t know how long a period may have passed between the events of the evenings-mornings of those two days.

You seem to be accepting a .Org’s belief of a flying, feathered reptile which tempted Eve – without recourse to the sort of ‘testable’ evidence you require of others. Let me suggest that that is not so much “religion”, but more a ‘faith indeed’ dogma.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

However, how about, instead, an entire ocean with its contents – from another planet?

>>Well that story would sure be a whopper of a surprise to Francis Crick.<<

I should hope so; however, would that be impossible? If so, why?

Google ‘pictures crater chains’ and tell me if they represent to you – ‘Wars in heaven’ or planetary near-flybys which elicited electrical arcs...

In for a penny, in for a pound, eh?

>>Why use his idea...<<

His idea? I think he merely – sorta signed-on to the concept of panspermia.

>>...and then insert such a whopping story that even he would not approve of - ?<<

We don’t know that – do we?

“Whopping”? Indeed? like a ‘beaten’ metallic layer of water suspended for two thousand years above a firmament, wherein was found a sun and a moon – which, post-deluge, lost their places in the firmament and subsequently found orbits elsewhere in the cosmogony.?

Religion, in its many guises, affects the many.

[jasd]

...again with the 'readability' - two levels deep.

Wha's dat?

[Guest]

What's the problem jasd? You never use the quote feature anyway. You always just put those little thingies on there. Like this:

>>>...again with the 'readability' - two levels deep.

Wha's dat?<<<

[jasd]

...trying again with different format.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

...might not broadcast and crystallized viruses have, at least, “influenced” basic life forms, however inconsequential that contribution may have been?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

That is a fantastically unscientific statement.

Quote:jasd

I should agree or disagree with one who will not accept a dictionary definition of ‘science’? or simply just dismiss... such as the above?

>>Hint: Your "crystalized virus" statment is not a dictionary term for "science".<<

Hint 2.0: You’ve inferred incorrectly. I made a general statement – reflected by the several times I’ve found it necessary to post the dictionary definition of ‘science’. It is amiss to apply it in the particular vis-à-vis my quote...

Science: ”The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena”

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

It is like saying "might not a distant planet in a distant solar system - "influence" something in our solar system no matter how inconsequential that influence might be??"

Quote:jasd

Quantum mechanics; or do you not subscribe to ‘the whole creation groaning’ because of the events which occurred on this earth? That said, ...

>>Quantum mechanics says absolutely nothing about measuring the inconsequential effects of a distant planet in another solar system against our solar system -- as it turns out.<<

I don’t recall posting on “measurements” per se, but of – influences, measurements aside. Have you run across any reports on the various investigations into the awareness of plants; Cleve Backster’s, for example? Or, do you dismiss entirely

concepts of entanglement?

>>And so -- it appears that point remains.<<

One might hope so.

[jasd]

>>What's the problem jasd?<<

I don't know. The other day I didn't use quote frames in triplicate and yet could not post.

Tonight I broke triplicate quotes frames and

it accepted my post. I guess that that is what is meant by "two levels deep".

Go figure...

[Guest]

As long as you do them separately, you can do as many as you want. But when you do a quote within a quote within a quote, that's three levels.

[jasd]

>>Perhaps it is that you’ve an incomplete understanding of the definition of science, yes?<<

It is more than possible that I have less than a scientific understanding of all sciences, but I, as well anyone other than the ‘faith indeed’ ideologue, can comprehend the dictionary definition of “science”.

>>For example - the claim that evolutionists are engaged in actual science - is debunked by atheist evolutionists themselves...<<

Quote:

Quote:jasd

A rather less than insightful position to take – perfunctory, maybe. Let me use John McCain as analogous to the one and seldom “atheist evolutionists” in that, though often referenced as conservative, he is the least likely ‘conservative’...

>>Let me use atheist evolutionist and paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History for much of the 20th century - Colin Patterson has he himself laments the "NOT SCIENCE" of his fellow believers in evolutionism by saying that stories about how one thing came from another "are stories easy enough to make up - but they are NOT SCIENCE because there is no way of putting them to the test".<<

Kinda incoherent of Colin, eh? an evolutionist who describes his métier as – “NOT SCIENCE”? (absurdum logicum) Sheesh, mebbe, the Peter Principle might apply – re Colin, yes?

I watched a ‘Constitutional Professor’ give a state of the Union speech last week – who informed his audience and viewers that the Supreme Court recently legitimized contribution$ injected into our electoral process – from foreign entities!!! I’ll bet Alito was thinking –

“Peter Principle!” – whilst mouthing, “Not true!”

Life seems to follow a tendency to self-organize. Neurons, which eventually form the spinal cord of an embryo, do so by a process we might describe as hit and miss; that is, a neuron meets another and – should that meeting prove unfortuitous, the neuron dies – the process repeating as often as it takes until a neuron meets a neuron fulfilling its ‘tendency’, if you will. And so on it goes with the embryo developing its spinal cord.

>>A bit more relavent to the point at hand then musing about John McCain stories wouldn't you agree?<<

Ya’think? Actually, I posited an “analogous” John McCain – though, with a coupla tweaks it may be perceived as ‘Parabolic’, yes?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

...who lament the fact that "stories about how one thing came from another" that are "based on the fossil record" are simply "stories easy enough to make up - but they ARE NOT science because there is no way of putting them to the test".

Quote:jasd

So, are you saying that scientists are not scientists – until their hypotheses can be tested?

>>I am saying that even atheist evolutionsts "know when to blush" on this point.<<

Blushing’s good; however, to blush for the simple sake of blushing is vanity. A student of either Creation or Writ does well to follow the dots... one of which is the fact that

viruses carry packets of information and can either ‘influence’ its host or overtly cause mutations; another dot being that organelle mitochondria seem to have begun as – bacteria invading and taking up residence in the human cell’s cytoplasm – establishing an agreeably endosymbiotic relationship with the human cell at a very early point... etc.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

Now here you have a frank statement from evolutionists themselves about their own "NOT SCIENCE" practices.

Quote:jasd

I give you, again, John McCain.

>>If you think I am going to complain about the fact that I have an well known scientist admitting to the problem under discussion while all you have is "more John McCain stories" you are sadly mistaken.<<

Additionally, I give you the Peter Principle.

>>I will take that trade all day long my friend.<<

Again, I remind, “I am a creationist” – an ultimately, Gd-created creationist. That, however, does not preclude Gd creating in ways – the which – we have no cognizance. There is always

a Third Way, a synergism – or Truth.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

Are we to be sooo blind ourselves to their work that we cannot even see the point when they themselves are lamenting the problem?

Quote:jasd

Aren’t we getting ahead of ourselves when we are altogether inclusive re individuals and/or various schools of science are – pertinent to the question where life forms evolving – is the subject?

>>The point is that those engaged in promoting evolutionism can see their blunders - and as it turns out - so can the rest of us.<<

I’ve already, in an above post, noted the predilection some have to the parochial.

>>Even more interesting -- they admit to some very "by-faith-alone" positions in their blunder-after-blunder model of evangelism for evolutionism.<<

Like they have a lock on “by-faith-alone”? (and, I’ve already noted the synergy of Yin Yang...)

That may be, however, evolutionists have an entire ‘library’ of resources to draw upon; whereas, we have only Moses. I’m not being all whiny about the paucity of information the Xtian has versus one that has an entire earth’s catalog from which to formulate his or her theories/philosophies. That’s how the facts stand

from the viewpoint of the non-Xtian.

[BobRyan]

Bob comments on jasd's "no matter how inconsequential" idea

Quote:

Quote:Bob Ryan

It is like saying "might not a distant planet in a distant solar system - "influence" something in our solar system no matter how inconsequential that influence might be??"

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Quantum mechanics; or do you not subscribe to ‘the whole creation groaning’ because of the events which occurred on this earth? That said, ...

>>Quantum mechanics says absolutely nothing about measuring the inconsequential effects of a distant planet in another solar system against our solar system -- as it turns out.<<