How evolutionism destroys SDA theology

[Guest]

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}

Let's hear it for Mrs. White! I've never had the problem of having to wonder where she stands on an issue.

[Guest]

delusion |diˈloō zh ən|

noun

an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument

...the elixir of those who would hide from their own mind...

'we won you lose'..a childish phrase more appropriate to children's games.

No, childish is someone who can do little more than cut and paste out of a dictionary, and call it a post.

[jasd]

>>”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. ...”<<

Isn’t it a bit ironic for the author of the above to have also made dogmatic (outrageous?) statements re ‘geological science’ that fall within the definitive parameters of “sophistry ... which have not one semblance of truth”?

Might one suggest that the pull-quote referenced – self-indicts its author? If not, then it can only be characterized as

‘con mucho chutzpah’, yes? Si, oy ya-ya!

[Guest]

Give an example of something the author said that had no semblance of truth.

[Guest]

Have you read the whole thread?

[jasd]

>>Give an example of something the author said that had no semblance of truth.<<

Other than for the reason that the 'quote' I responded to seemed so egregious - I am not, otherwise, constrained to energetically or bald-facedly contend with the author's writings. I trust that

the person sincerely seeking truths can do his or her own research. And, per your immediately above imperative,

you really do not wish to word the matter so open-endedly...

[Twilight]

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.

Let us use the word "kind" then Bravus.

Please show us where one "kind" of organism, has developed into another, some evidence of this would be appreciated.

No one is arguing that there is variation within a "kind".

What we are saying is that there is no evidence of one "kind" turning into another.

No evidence in the fossil record.

No evidence in current science.

No evidence.

Unless you know of some we are not aware of?

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: 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}

Let's hear it for Mrs. White! I've never had the problem of having to wonder where she stands on an issue.

The Lord often speaks to us with a loving directness that only pride and sin can resist...

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I have yet to see one "credibile" piece of evidence or proof for Evolution.

Not "one".

Now that could be my inherent blindness' date=' but then I am a converted ex-evolutionist...

Or it could be there is no evidence.

It is tiring to hear "masses of evidence", "blind to science" type statements, but no "evidence" to back it up.

Mark :-) [/quote']

It is tiring to NOT hear anyone answer or prove the premise of the thread. Everyone is bent on disproving evolution...the proof of destruction is never given. So....evolution does not destroy SDA theology. It is impossible, it can not destroy what it is not attacking or even remotely concerned about.

credible

adjective

believable, plausible, tenable, able to hold water, conceivable, likely, probable, possible, feasible, reasonable, with a ring of truth, persuasive.

Notice what the word meaning is....says nothing about 'set in stone'. Evolution meets the definition of credible, now whether or not you choose to believe the evidence it presents is your choice. Its all about choices.

I must say, that I thought Bob had answered it quite well.

That the silence has been on the other page, so to speak...

Mark

[Twilight]

>>Give an example of something the author said that had no semblance of truth.<<

Other than for the reason that the 'quote' I responded to seemed so egregious - I am not, otherwise, constrained to energetically or bald-facedly contend with the author's writings. I trust that

the person sincerely seeking truths can do his or her own research. And, per your immediately above imperative,

you really do not wish to word the matter so open-endedly...

Indeed.

And many of us have.

I have no doubt she was inspired, no doubt at all...

So thank you for the insinuation without any evidence to support it, that she spoke something that had no semblence of truth, but anyone can say such a thing without a burden of proof.

I could say the same to you, and lack a burden of proof, would that be right?

I think not, I think it would probably get me banned from posting and quite right too...

Do you think maybe you should consider operating under the principle of supplying proof for a claim, especially when that claim is on the character of someone (howbeit living or dead)?

Mark :-)

[BobRyan]

Tsk, tsk, surely you can achieve better than that....still no answer or proof of the thread proposition...

[Bravus]

There are literally millions of examples in the fossil record of one 'kind' changing into another, Mark, but you do not accept that evidence.

And evolution *does not predict* that that level of change can possibly occur within a human life span. It explicitly predicts that it cannot. Therefore the lack of direct observation of such changes cannot be a test used to falsify evolution.

If that is unsatisfying to you, I'm sorry, but that's how science works.

[BobRyan]

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.

[BobRyan]

Now getting back to the actual subject of the thread -- which is "how evolutionism destroys the SDA 28 Fundamental beliefs".

The point in the OP post and then proven in exhaustive detail in my response to Bravus -- is that evolutionism is flatly contradictory to some key beliefs in the set of 28 and we showed in our dialoge just how those beliefs are changed, contradicted or at the very least watered down.

The recent diversion to "evidence for evolutionism" is a valid topic and probably should be posted as it's own subject here - however it changes nothing in terms of this subject thread.

Let us say for the sake of argument that tomorrow a lab said -- hey look we found dirt that turns into an amoeba AND that can then turn into a human in about 50,000 generations all taking place in about a month. (Surely an extreme example but the idea is to take "as given" THE MOST EXTREME success story imaginable in favor of evolutionism.)

Truly it would be hard for anyone to argue that the evolutionist had not proven his case for the "fact of evolution" no longer being a by-faith-alone belief system - but a true observable repeatable science easily verified. They would finally have proven their flat-earth idea was valid.

The OP does not change one iota in that case - because the destruction that such a proven argument would do to the 28 FB is STILL as STATED.

Thus proving the point on this thread - that trying to imagine ways in which evolutionism might be anything other than a by-faith-alone argument does not actually change the proposal in the Opening Post (OP).

in Christ,

Bob

[Twilight]

So again "looking into the evidence" seems to indicate that claimed "found it, got it, done that, been there" is... overstated.

in Christ,

Bob

Agreed.

I have yet to see one shred of evidence presented...

[Bravus]

You can lead a creationist to evidence, but you can't make him think

[Guest]

You can beat on an evolutionists head, but it won't make a chink.

[Bravus]

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Richard Holbrook

Give an example of something the author said that had no semblance of truth.

Quote:jasd

Other than for the reason that the 'quote' I responded to seemed so egregious - I am not, otherwise, constrained to energetically or bald-facedly contend with the author's writings. I trust that

the person sincerely seeking truths can do his or her own research. And, per your immediately above imperative,

you really do not wish to word the matter so open-endedly...

>>Indeed.

And many of us have.<<

That is as it should be; though, admittedly, a different ‘truth’ from that which another has apprehended through the guidance of the same HS emerges, yes?

>>I have no doubt she was inspired, no doubt at all...<<

As we all, as we all...

>>So thank you for the insinuation...<<

Indeed, though not intended as anything other than a reminder for those who are already aware of that which I spoke.

>>...without any evidence to support it, that she spoke something that had no semblence of truth, but anyone can say such a thing without a burden of proof.<<

Okay. Since both you and Richard Holbrook leave that which is implied ‘open’, as it were – how about the matter of her will? Would you care to discuss the hypocrisy of it? (then again, it may be that hypocrisy is “inspired”, yes? Oy ya-ya, I’ll buy a vowel.) Anyway, per the oft-repeated and specific charges re “geological” changes that were leveled against others not of her own persuasion:

“The action of the water upon the lime adds fury to the intense heat, and causes earthquakes, volcanoes, and fiery issues.” (PP)

Or, per Spiritual Gifts: Important Facts of Faith, in Connection with the History of Holy Men of Old “These buried forests then became coal and oil, which God occasionally ignited to produce earthquakes and volcanoes...”

The immediately preceding is pretty much an encompassing or overarching statement, yes?

Okay, so the apologist proffers that she was not implying that all “earthquakes and volcanoes” are ‘water-induced’. Oh? Or that the statement in Spiritual Gifts turns upon “occasionally”. Oh? Really?

>>I could say the same to you, and lack a burden of proof, would that be right?<<

One difference may be that – I am not the seventh son of a seventh son – and, I submit that the “proof” you seek is quite readily found in her writings. I suppose it’s like Holy Writ – it goes to the ‘reading’.

I attempted to let the matter drop to spare any discomfort that might result; however, you seem to have preferred the principle pushback.

>>I think not, I think it would probably get me banned from posting and quite right too...<<

Let’s not overplay the dramatic here, Twilight

the issue is the difference between the utilization of the second person singular pronoun and the third person singular..., and no, I do not believe you’d be banned for an artful use of the indirect.

>>Do you think maybe you should consider operating under the principle of supplying proof for a claim, especially when that claim is on the character of someone (howbeit living or dead)?<<

Would it please you should I make a larger issue of the matter? I have much more re “semblances”...

I consider myself properly chastised; are we now okay?

[Bravus]

Now we've got that issue out of the way (I hope), and our jokes as well.

Twilight, do you think it's honest to go on repeating "I have not seen one shred of evidence" when several large chunks of evidence have been shown to you? You have rejected them, and will no doubt continue to reject any further chunks offered.

Would it be honest to say "I did all this work and the boss did not pay me one shred" when the boss had offered your pay half a dozen times and each time you had rejected it because it was a cheque not cash, or because the denominations of the notes did not suit you?

Are you willing to at least amend your statement to "I have not seen one shred of evidence that was convincing to me"? That's very similar, but makes clearer what's going on.

[BobRyan]

You can lead a creationist to evidence, but you can't make him think

Now Bravus do you think that statement above is really honest after you have been shown in detail just how true the OP claims are even to the point of your agreeing with many of those changes and also your being shown how "evidence of new coding genes" that actually make some kind of headway on that amoeba-to-man storyline is yet to be found --

This is particularly the case when the reader notes that you were the one to bring up that link to Dawkins on this board and yet he himself admits to the problem with trying to "insert" evolution into an "Adam and Eve text" even when the one telling the Adam and Eve story is a self-proclaimed Darwinist preacher.

in Christ,

Bob

[Bravus]

Dude, leave Dawkins and Adam and Eve alone. One person's opinion is one person's opinion: I disagree with Dawkins on many things, as I've said here repeatedly. What am I meant to do, acknowledge that Dawkins said it? Of course. Acknowledge that, because Dawkins said it, it's true? Never. Acknowledge that, because Dawkins said it, it represents the views of all evolutionists everywhere? Never.

Please consider that the end of the matter on that point, which was utterly irrelevant in the first place.

The 'You can lead...' thing was intended as a joke, as signalled by the huge winking smiley appended to it. Richard got that, and replied in kind, which I accepted in the spirit it was given.

The point remains: you request evidence, I bring evidence, you reject evidence. I just don't see the point of doing the work any more. There are dozens of people who it's my job to educate, and neither you nor Twilight are included in that number. Educate yourself, or don't... up to you.

[BobRyan]

Dude, leave Dawkins and Adam and Eve alone.

[Bravus]

Read the drosophila article *again* - third time is the charm. New genes, coding for new proteins, leading to new species. Exactly what you asked for.

The paper I linked is actually an editorial, providing groundwork for this scientific paper in the journal: http://genome.cshlp.org/content/10/11/17...pe2=tf_ipsecsha

(being called away, back in a while to continue...)

[Twilight]

Now we've got that issue out of the way (I hope), and our jokes as well.

Twilight, do you think it's honest to go on repeating "I have not seen one shred of evidence" when several large chunks of evidence have been shown to you? You have rejected them, and will no doubt continue to reject any further chunks offered.

Would it be honest to say "I did all this work and the boss did not pay me one shred" when the boss had offered your pay half a dozen times and each time you had rejected it because it was a cheque not cash, or because the denominations of the notes did not suit you?

Are you willing to at least amend your statement to "I have not seen one shred of evidence that was convincing to me"? That's very similar, but makes clearer what's going on.

I know you have presented things that you percieve to be evidence, but I do not accept them as evidences, as they do not prove the point.

Where is the evidence that one "kind" has ever turned into another?