How evolutionism destroys SDA theology

[BobRyan]

As for "heaps of examples" of evolutionisms wild claim of amoeba-to-man alchemy.

Here is what one well known atheist evolutionist - (Senior paleontologist British museum of natural history) said about that.

On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:

Quote:

April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland

“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.

Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

Now let us enumerate those points to help those who are not inclined to read Patterson's comments carefully.

1. I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book.

2.If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

3. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

4. Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils.

5. You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

6. [The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record.

7. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question.

8. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection.

9. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

Now this is the confession of a leading atheist evolutionist on the subject of transitional fossil examples.

HE argues that it would "mislead the reader" simply to "ARRANGE fossils" as Simpson did with Othaniel Marsh's "arranged" horse series.

But "Caveat Emptor" -- not EVERY evolutionist is going to be so forthright and upfront with that glaringly inconvenient detail.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Why go off into these embarrassingly inconvenient details for the case of evolutionism on a thread like this one? Because on page 1 I show the damage done to SDA Bible doctrine for the sake of beliefs in the doctrines of evolutionism.

And now we see that the huge sacrifice being made downsizing or deleting those doctrines - is all in service to a failed argument to start with!!

So for the theistic evolutionist that is merely "Lots-o-pain" sacrificing clear bible doctrine and "no-gain" my friends.

What is worse - the level of damage evolutionist fiction does to Christian doctrine is sooo extensive that it reduces Christianity to "flying spagehetti monster" style myths.

Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and Meyers all publically admitted to that problem and promptly dumped Christianity. So has all but 5% of Europe!

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

1. Abiogenesis is very hard and extremely rare: as far as we know it has happened exactly once in 4.5 billion years.

[BobRyan]

Try these fruitflies (drosophila): http://genome.cshlp.org/content/10/11/1655.full (and humans)

Interesting

" Drosophila teisseiri and Drosophila yakuba contain a gene called jingwei (Long and Langley 1993; Wang et al. 2000), which originated only 2.5 million years ago"

How did they get 2.5 million year old DNA?

How does this change apply in the amoeba-to-man chain?

Let's say for example that the pace of amoeba-to-man evolutionism is such that ever 2.5 million years a fly gains a gene to alter one protein. What is the "expected timeline" then for human evolution from an amoeba?

Evolutionists estimate 1.8 billion years to get us from single celled life to multicelled life forms. And now we have 2.5 million years to adjust a single protein in a fruit fly. So even going with the evolutionist "findings" here - how long is it supposed to take for amoeba-to-man?

in Christ,

Bob

[Twilight]

What would count as evidence, for you.

How are antibiotic-resistant bacteria not evidence, for example?

I'm not trying to be provocative or confrontational, I'm genuinely interested. Can you propose a test (other than going to the zoo one morning and finding a human in the monkey cage ) that would count as evidence for you?

How about a bacteria that has changed its form into a completely different bacteria and has grown new apendages?

Bacteria adapting to an environmental condition whilst remaining a bacteria is not macro evolution, it is micro evolution.

Does said bacteria have an increase or change in the DNA, does any "new" information not already present appear?

I would love to see some real evidence of Bacteria changing into different forms of Bacteria, with additional DNA sequences (meaning added information), in the DNA.

----------------

Or:

How about a fossil showing an intermediary between fish and reptiles?

That would be nice.

Mark :-)

[Lutz13]

Why go off into these embarrassingly inconvenient details for the case of evolutionism on a thread like this one? Because on page 1 I show the damage done to SDA Bible doctrine for the sake of beliefs in the doctrines of evolutionism.

"Science, so-called, and religion will be placed in opposition to each other because finite men do not comprehend the power and greatness of God. These words of Holy Writ were presented to me, 'Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them' [Acts 20:30] This will surely be seen among the people of God." - Evangelism 593 (1890)

Bob, does that sound a bit fulfilled today?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

OK, Bob, you're not satisfied with antibiotic resistance (though the question was actually for Mark/Twilight). But I'll ask you the question as well. What is the experiment that would satisfy you? If there is none, or if what you request is not something evolution predicts, then you are out of the realm of science entirely. There must be an experiment.

Indeed I can think of a few.

1. Abiogenesis shown to actually work in nature!

2. Genomes in nature seen to acquire new working chromosome leading up the chain from amoeba-to-man.

3. New coding Genes added to existing chromosomes "in nature" that would lead up the chain from amoeba to man.

Those 3 key experiments would be the FIRST evidence we ever would have seen that the story of evolutionism was ever even POSSIBLe.

In real life - looking at a murder scene for example - you can show 2 or 3 POSSIBLE scenarios for how the murder may have taken place.

So far evolutionism has not shown even ONE!

in Christ,

Bob

That is sort of the same thing I was asking for, but much more reasoned.

I too, would like to see one of the above.

Do you have any of these for us Bravus?

Do you have any of the above evidences which are fundamental to proving evolution?

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

1. Abiogenesis is very hard and extremely rare: as far as we know it has happened exactly once in 4.5 billion years. The probability of observing it happen again is vanishingly small... particularly given that the atmosphere of the earth is utterly changed. Evolution does not predict this, and in fact very strongly predicts that it *won't* be observed, so the fact that it is, in fact, not observed, can't be used as a refutation of evolution.

2 and 3 are essentially the same demand: new genetic material introduced into the genome - and on the DNA, not in plasmids. Got it, and will seek an example that has been observed in nature, other than in bacteria. There are plenty. It makes no sense to ask for 'amoeba to man' because that is billions of experiments, not one. The best you'll get is a new coding gene.

I do not mean to be personal but the following statement produced a vast amount of amusement:

as far as we know it has happened exactly once in 4.5 billion years.

1. As far as we know?

How do we "know"?

2. It has happened exactly once?

Again, how do you know it was only once (if of course at all)?

3. 4.5 billion years?

How do you know it was this length of time?

What if abiogenesis had happened "elsewhere", this 4.5 billion year figure seems a bit presumptous?

To quote Ken Ham:

How do you know? Where you there when it happened?

----------------------------

I will not even dwell on this Evolutionary Mantra:

particularly given that the atmosphere of the earth is utterly changed.

As geology ruins this argument in about a nanosecond...

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Try these fruitflies (drosophila): http://genome.cshlp.org/content/10/11/1655.full (and humans)

Interesting

" Drosophila teisseiri and Drosophila yakuba contain a gene called jingwei (Long and Langley 1993; Wang et al. 2000), which originated only 2.5 million years ago"

How did they get 2.5 million year old DNA?

How does this change apply in the amoeba-to-man chain?

Let's say for example that the pace of amoeba-to-man evolutionism is such that ever 2.5 million years a fly gains a gene to alter one protein. What is the "expected timeline" then for human evolution from an amoeba?

Evolutionists estimate 1.8 billion years to get us from single celled life to multicelled life forms. And now we have 2.5 million years to adjust a single protein in a fruit fly. So even going with the evolutionist "findings" here - how long is it supposed to take for amoeba-to-man?

in Christ,

Bob

Time machine Bob...

Only way.

To be there exactly 2.5 million years ago to observe this.

They must have a time machine.

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Why go off into these embarrassingly inconvenient details for the case of evolutionism on a thread like this one? Because on page 1 I show the damage done to SDA Bible doctrine for the sake of beliefs in the doctrines of evolutionism.

"Science, so-called, and religion will be placed in opposition to each other because finite men do not comprehend the power and greatness of God. These words of Holy Writ were presented to me, 'Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them' [Acts 20:30] This will surely be seen among the people of God." - Evangelism 593 (1890)

Bob, does that sound a bit fulfilled today?

Good point -

Even more shockingly horrific is 1T 79 -- I dare not even post it!!

in Christ,

Bob

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Lutz13

"Science' date=' so-called, and religion will be placed in opposition to each other because finite men do not comprehend the power and greatness of God. These words of Holy Writ were presented to me, 'Of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them' [Acts 20:30'] This will surely be seen among the people of God." - Evangelism 593 (1890)

Bob, does that sound a bit fulfilled today?

Good point -

Even more shockingly horrific is 1T 79 -- I dare not even post it!!

in Christ,

Bob

Please post it Bob.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

What would count as evidence, for you.

How are antibiotic-resistant bacteria not evidence, for example?

I'm not trying to be provocative or confrontational, I'm genuinely interested. Can you propose a test (other than going to the zoo one morning and finding a human in the monkey cage ) that would count as evidence for you?

The issue is amoeba-to-man evolutionism where the genome is speculated to contain "sooo much plasticity" that new coding genes -- and yes even entirely new chromosomes are added to the Amoeba genome over time to eventually produce a man. (using the magic word "billions" enough times of course).

You proposal is that we swallow that massive fiction by noticing that bacterial genome as it is today allows for adaptations against some chemicals, some proteins that would normally kill it.

What some readers do not know is that your example above still does NOT proposed a "new chromosome" nor even a "single new coding gene" on the host DNA in that story.

So in essence your example above is - "why do you not accept an example of NO CHANGE in host genome as in the case of bacterial resistence to a drug as proof of VAST changes to genome over time??"

So in that case I have to ask you in return -- why in the world would we even want to leap off into such a wildly disconnected argument as "proof" of anything at all - except proof of the resilience of the existing UNCHANGED genome of that bacteria!

Notice that when Dawkins is confronted with this same evolution-101 problem of showing ACTUAL change in genome -- his reponse is simply 11 seconds of of flummoxed silence.

The flabbergasting part of that is how often no-proof is so often accepted by evolutionists as hopeful-imaginative indeed thought-experiement proof of one of their key doctrines.

in Christ,

Bob

I was going to say the same thing Bob, only I was going to word it thusly: Did the Bacteria turn in to something other than Bacteria?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

The issue is amoeba-to-man evolutionism where the genome is speculated to contain "sooo much plasticity" that new coding genes -- and yes even entirely new chromosomes are added to the Amoeba genome over time to eventually produce a man. (using the magic word "billions" enough times of course).

You proposal is that we swallow that massive fiction by noticing that bacterial genome as it is today allows for adaptations against some chemicals, some proteins that would normally kill it.

What some readers do not know is that your example above still does NOT proposed a "new chromosome" nor even a "single new coding gene" on the host DNA in that story.

So in essence your example above is - "why do you not accept an example of NO CHANGE in host genome as in the case of bacterial resistence to a drug as proof of VAST changes to genome over time??"

So in that case I have to ask you in return -- why in the world would we even want to leap off into such a wildly disconnected argument as "proof" of anything at all - except proof of the resilience of the existing UNCHANGED genome of that bacteria!

Notice that when Dawkins is confronted with this same evolution-101 problem of showing ACTUAL change in genome -- his reponse is simply 11 seconds of of flummoxed silence.

The flabbergasting part of that is how often no-proof is so often accepted by evolutionists as hopeful-imaginative indeed thought-experiement proof of one of their key doctrines.

in Christ,

Bob

[/quote']

I was going to say the same thing Bob, only I was going to word it thusly: Did the Bacteria turn in to something other than Bacteria?

I have asked the same thing, so that is three of us now.

Mark

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

Good point -

Even more shockingly horrific is 5T 79 -- I dare not even post it!!

in Christ,

Bob

Please post it Bob.

Ok - the best I can do is this

Testimonies Vol 5 pg 78.1 thru 80.1

Click on that link and read 78.1 through 80.1. It is quite shocking.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

The bacteria in the former posts was able to develop a resistance to a drug but did not change into a new species of bacteria nor did it even acquire a new gene on it's DNA. Plasmid RNA is free floating RNA bits in the nucleus of the cell and is kind of like another animal living with the host organism.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Please post it Bob. [/quote']

Ok - the best I can do is this

Testimonies Vol 5 pg 78.1 thru 80.1

Click on that link and read 78.1 through 80.1. It is quite shocking.

in Christ,

Bob

I couldn't find it on that link Bob?

[Twilight]

I am filled with pain and anguish as I see parents conforming to the world and allowing their children to meet the worldly standard at such a time as this. I am filled with horror as the condition of families professing present truth is opened before me. The profligacy of youth and even children is almost incredible. Parents do not know that secret vice is destroying and defacing the image of God in their children. The sins which characterized the Sodomites exist among them. The parents are responsible; for they have not educated their children to love and obey God. They have not restrained them nor diligently taught them the way of the Lord. They have allowed them to go out and to come in when they chose, and to associate with worldlings. These worldly influences which counteract parental teaching and authority are to be found largely in so-called good society. By their dress, looks, amusements, they surround themselves with an atmosphere which is opposed to Christ. {5T 78.1}

Our only safety is to stand as God's peculiar people. We must not yield one inch to the customs and fashions of this degenerate age, but stand in moral independence, making no compromise with its corrupt and idolatrous practices. {5T 78.2}

It will require courage and independence to rise above the religious standard of the Christian world. They do not follow the Saviour's example of self-denial; they make no sacrifice; they are constantly seeking to evade the cross which Christ declares to be the token of discipleship. {5T 78.3}

What can I say to arouse our people? I tell you not a few ministers who stand before the people to explain the Scriptures are defiled. Their hearts are corrupt, their hands unclean. Yet many are crying, "Peace, peace;" and the workers of iniquity are not alarmed. The Lord's hand is not shortened

79

that He cannot save, nor His ear heavy that He cannot hear; but it is our sins that have separated us from God. The church is corrupt because of her members who defile their bodies and pollute their souls. {5T 78.4}

If all of those who come together for meetings of edification and prayer could be regarded as true worshipers, then might we hope, though much would still remain to be done for us. But it is in vain to deceive ourselves. Things are far from being what the appearance would indicate. From a distant view much may appear beautiful which, upon close examination, will be found full of deformities. The prevailing spirit of our time is that of infidelity and apostasy--a spirit of pretended illumination because of a knowledge of the truth, but in reality of the blindest presumption. There is a spirit of opposition to the plain word of God and to the testimony of His Spirit. There is a spirit of idolatrous exaltation of mere human reason above the revealed wisdom of God. {5T 79.1}

There are men among us in responsible positions who hold that the opinions of a few conceited philosophers, so called, are more to be trusted than the truth of the Bible, or the testimonies of the Holy Spirit. Such a faith as that of Paul, Peter, or John is considered old-fashioned and insufferable at the present day. It is pronounced absurd, mystical, and unworthy of an intelligent mind. {5T 79.2}

God has shown me that these men are Hazaels to prove a scourge to our people. They are wise above what is written. This unbelief of the very truths of God's word because human judgment cannot comprehend the mysteries of His work is found in every district, in all ranks of society. It is taught in most of our schools and comes into the lessons of the nurseries. Thousands who profess to be Christians give heed to lying spirits. Everywhere the spirit of darkness in the garb of religion will confront you. {5T 79.3}

If all that appears to be divine life were such in reality; if

80

all who profess to present the truth to the world were preaching for the truth and not against it, and if they were men of God guided by His Spirit,--then might we see something cheering amid the prevailing moral darkness. But the spirit of antichrist is prevailing to such an extent as never before. Well may we exclaim: "Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men." I know that many think far too favorably of the present time. These ease-loving souls will be engulfed in the general ruin. Yet we do not despair. We have been inclined to think that where there are no faithful ministers there can be no true Christians, but this is not the case. God has promised that where the shepherds are not true He will take charge of the flock Himself. God has never made the flock wholly dependent upon human instrumentalities. But the days of purification of the church are hastening on apace. God will have a people pure and true. In the mighty sifting soon to take place we shall be better able to measure the strength of Israel. The signs reveal that the time is near when the Lord will manifest that His fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge His floor. {5T 79.4}

The days are fast approaching when there will be great perplexity and confusion. Satan, clothed in angel robes, will deceive, if possible, the very elect. There will be gods many and lords many. Every wind of doctrine will be blowing. Those who have rendered supreme homage to "science falsely so called" will not be the leaders then. Those who have trusted to intellect, genius, or talent will not then stand at the head of rank and file. They did not keep pace with the light. Those who have proved themselves unfaithful will not then be entrusted with the flock. In the last solemn work few great men will be engaged. They are self-sufficient, independent of God, and He cannot use them. The Lord has faithful servants, who in the shaking, testing time will be disclosed

81

to view. There are precious ones now hidden who have not bowed the knee to Baal. They have not had the light which has been shining in a concentrated blaze upon you. But it may be under a rough and uninviting exterior the pure brightness of a genuine Christian character will be revealed. In the day time we look toward heaven but do not see the stars. They are there, fixed in the firmament, but the eye cannot distinguish them. In the night we behold their genuine luster. {5T 80.1}

[Twilight]

You thought that was strong?

Consider this inspired counsel:

We need to guard continually against the sophistry in regard to geology and other branches of science falsely so-called, which have not one semblance of truth. The theories of great men need to be carefully sifted of the slightest trace of infidel suggestions. One tiny seed sown by teachers in our schools, if received by the students, will raise a harvest of unbelief. The Lord has given all the brilliancy of intellect that man possesses, and it should be devoted to his service. {RH, March 1, 1898 par. 9}

--------------------------

Human knowledge of both material and spiritual things is partial and imperfect; therefore many are unable to harmonize their views of science with Scripture statements. Many accept mere theories and speculations as scientific facts, and they think that God's word is to be tested by the teachings of "science falsely so called." 1 Timothy 6:20. The Creator and His works are beyond their comprehension; and because they cannot explain these by natural laws, Bible history is regarded as unreliable. Those who doubt the reliability of the records of the Old and New Testaments too often go a step further and doubt the existence of God and attribute infinite power to nature. Having let go their anchor, they are left to beat about upon the rocks of infidelity. {Mar 135.1}

Many know so little about their Bibles that they are unsettled in the faith. They remove the old landmarks, and fallacies and winds of doctrine blow them hither and thither. Science, falsely so-called, is wearing away the foundation of Christian principle; and those who once were in the faith drift away from the Bible landmarks, and divorce themselves from God, while still claiming to be his children. But are they?--No; no. The relation they sustain to God is truly represented in Matt. 7:22, 23: "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." {RH, December 29, 1896 par. 10}

--------------------------

The garden of Eden was not only Adam's dwelling, but his school-room. As in that school, so in the school of the earth, two trees are planted--the tree of life, which bears the fruit of true education, and the tree of knowledge, yielding the fruit of "science falsely so-called." All that have connection with Christ have access to the tree of life, a source of knowledge of which the world is ignorant. After sin entered this world, the heavenly husbandman transplanted the tree of life to the paradise above, but its branches hang over the wall to the lower world. Through the redemption purchased by the blood of the Son of God, man may now partake of its life-giving fruit. The tree of knowledge has its roots in the earth. It is of the earth, earthly. All who have tasted of the heavenly fruit, the bread of life, are to be co-workers with God, pointing others from the tree of knowledge to the tree of life, that they also may partake of its fruit. {GMM, October 15, 1913 par. 1}

--------------------------

Infidel sentiments are interwoven in the matter placed in schoolbooks, and the oracles of God are placed in a questionable or even an objectionable light. Thus the minds of the youth become familiar with Satan's suggestions, and the doubts once entertained become to those who entertain them, assured facts, and scientific research is made misleading on account of the way its discoveries are interpreted and perverted. Men take it upon themselves to rein up the word of God before a finite tribunal,

329

and sentence is pronounced upon the inspiration of God according to finite measurement, and the truth of God is made to appear as a thing uncertain before the records of science. These false educators exalt nature above nature's God, and above the Author of all true science. At the very time when teachers should have been firm and unwavering in their testimony, at the very time when it should have been made manifest that their souls were riveted to the eternal Rock, when they should have been able to inspire faith in those who were doubting, they made admission of their own uncertainty as to whether the word of God or the discoveries of science, falsely so called, were true. Those who were truly conscientious have been made to waver in their faith because of the hesitation of those who were professed expositors of the Bible when they dealt with the living oracles. Satan has taken advantage of the uncertainty of the mind, and through unseen agencies, he has crowded in his sophistries, and has caused men to become befogged in the mists of skepticism. {FE 328.2}

--------------------------

The truth as it is in Jesus is regarded as an old-fashioned doctrine. Maxims and theories from the world have been worked into the church, and vain philosophy and science, falsely so called, are in the eyes of men of more value than the Word of God. {SW, March 1, 1909 par. 4}

[Lutz13]

Wow!

[BobRyan]

Indeed.... wow!

[Twilight]

That was only an "excerpt"...

[Twilight]

We are in the world, but we are not to be of the world. Jesus entreats that those for whom he died, may not lose their eternal reward by lavishing their affections on the things of this perishing earth, and so cheat themselves out of unending happiness. An enlightened judgment compels us to acknowledge that heavenly things are superior to the things of earth, and yet the depraved heart of man leads him to give precedence to the things of the world. The opinions of great men, the theories of science, falsely so-called, are blended with the truths of Holy Writ. {CE 79.1}

But the heart that is surrendered to God, loves the truth of God's word; for through the truth the soul is regenerated. The carnal mind finds no pleasure in contemplating the word of God, but he who is renewed in the spirit of his mind, sees new charms in the living oracles; for divine beauty and celestial light seem to shine in every passage. That which was to the carnal mind a desolate wilderness, to the spiritual mind becomes a land of living streams.

80

That which to the unrenewed heart appeared a barren waste, to the converted soul becomes the garden of God, covered with fragrant buds and blooming flowers. {CE 79.2}

The Bible has been placed in the background, while the sayings of great men, so-called, have been taken in its stead. May the Lord forgive us the slight we have put upon his word. Though inestimable treasures are in the Bible, and it is like a mine full of precious ore, it is not valued, it is not searched, and its riches are not discovered. Mercy and truth and love are valuable beyond our power to calculate; we cannot have too great a supply of these treasures, and it is in the word of God we find out how we may become possessors of these heavenly riches, and yet why is it that the word of God is uninteresting to many professed Christians? Is it because the word of God is not spirit and is not life? Has Jesus put upon us an uninteresting task, when he commands us to "search the Scriptures"? [JOHN 5:39.] Jesus says, "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." [JOHN 6:63.] But spiritual things are spiritually discerned, and the reason of your lack of interest is that you lack the Spirit of God. When the heart is brought into harmony with the word, a new life will spring up within you, a new light will shine upon every line of the word, and it will become the voice of God to your soul. In this way you will take celestial observations, and know whither you are going, and be able to make the most of your privileges today. {CE 80.1}

[Twilight]

When the mind is engrossed with the conceptions and theories of men to the exclusion of the wisdom of God, it is stamped with idolatry. Science, falsely so-called, has been exalted above God, nature above its Maker, and how can God look upon such wisdom? {CE 83.3}

[Twilight]

In the time of the apostles, teachers of this character sought to insinuate themselves among the teachers of truth. They tried to mingle the chaff with the wheat, and their theories were called "strange doctrine;" but the Lord would have us distinguish truth from error. The apostle exhorts us to "come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ." Peter, John, Jude, and Paul had to contend with men who sought to unsettle the unstable, and who made the word of truth of none effect. Those who were filled with vain philosophy and impressed with science falsely so called, were prejudiced against the truth. {ST, June 4, 1894 par. 3}

Human inventions please the carnal mind, and pacify the conscience as it clings to sin. It was not palatable to men to see and practice the faith that works by love and sanctifies the soul. Sin was not forsaken and despised, and in order to excuse it a means had to be devised by which the edge of the sword of truth might be blunted; so men brought in human reasonings and assertions. If men had permitted the word of God to do its work upon the heart and intellect, they would have distinguished and separated the spurious from the true. If they had received the Scriptures in their simplicity, they would not have given themselves up to worldly pursuits, to fulfilling their temporal hopes. But they made of none effect the word of God through their traditions, and wrested the Scripture from its true meaning. The Lord says that the word of truth is able to make men wise unto salvation. It is a safeguard and shield, and protects men from the delusions of the enemy. "Let no man deceive you with vain words; for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be ye not therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord; walk as children of light; for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth." {ST, June 4, 1894 par. 4}

Some sit in judgment on the Scriptures, declaring that this or that passage is not inspired, because it does not strike their minds favorably. They cannot harmonize it with their ideas of philosophy and science, "falsely so called" (1 Tim. 6:20). Others for different reasons question portions of the Word of God. Thus many walk blindly where the enemy prepares the way. Now, it is not the province of any man to pronounce sentence upon the Scriptures, to judge or condemn any portion of God's Word. When one presumes to do this, Satan will create an atmosphere for him to breathe which will dwarf spiritual growth. When a man feels so very wise that he dares to dissect God's Word, his wisdom is, with God, counted foolishness. When he knows more, he will feel that he has everything to learn. And his very first lesson is to become teachable. "Learn of me," says the Great Teacher; "for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls" (Matt. 11:29). {1SM 42.3}

You who have been educating yourselves and others

43

in a spirit of criticism and accusing, remember that you are imitating the example of Satan. When it suits your purpose, you treat the Testimonies as if you believed them, quoting from them to strengthen any statement you wish to have prevail. But how is it when light is given to correct your errors? Do you then accept the light? When the Testimonies speak contrary to your ideas, you treat them very lightly. {1SM 42.4}

[Bravus]

I've been sleeping, hence the silence, and clearly you've all got on famously without me anyway.

Did anyone actually *read* the article I linked? After taking one early point in the explanation leading up to the actual topic of the article and trying to score cheap points with it?

The article showed new species of fruitflies with different coding sequences in their DNA, that have occurred spontaneously in the lab within living memory. *Precisely* the specific piece of evidence that Bob asked.

If you say 'a fruitfly is still a fruitfly, not a different species', you simply betray ignorance of what the word 'species' actually means.

You have asked, in detail, for a specific piece of evidence, I have provided it, and instead of acknowledging that (or else making a serious effort to critique it) you've gone off into a multipage orgy of ridicule, self-congratulation and gratuitous EGW quotes.

Let's look at the evidence.