Why take time to expose false doctrines such as evolutionism?

[olger]

Paulson, Goldstein, D. Batchelor and the BRI are all coming out on this -- at that web site.

So also has Ron Wisbey -- president of La Sierra Univ (LSU) come out trying to first cover-up and then defend the evolutionist practices of his school.

But it is ALL comin' to light now!

Did you mean Randall, Ron's boy?

Just sayin,

G

[BobRyan]

Yes - good catch. Randall Wisbey not Ron!

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Interesting that we have a Cardinal Roberto Ballimero lashing out at Jan Paulson on the subject of evolution.

Ah Jan, with that up-coming presidential election approaching, you are between a rock and a hard place. With educated North Americans members of the church leaving in droves, you have no where else to turn but to the third world rice christians where baptisms are booming and creationism is king! No one blames you for pandering to the far righteous wing (nuts) of the church, that’s where the votes are!

Might as well consign the educated Adventists to the sin bin. They ask too many pesky questions. I don’t think Roger Tise goes far enough in calling for heretical academics to be disciplined and dismissed. They should be burned at the stake. That’s what we threatened Galileo with, and boy oh boy did he sit up and pay attention! That’s what I’m talking about.

oh what partners the junk-science of evolutionism has made.

in Christ,

Bob

[olger]

Gotta be a TIC spoof...

or perhaps not..

rejoice always Brethren,

G

[BobRyan]

obviously it is not the real historic Cardinal Ballimero (long since dead) -- but appears to be someone promoting a Catholic view of life.

(Of course they are also promoting evolutionism -- so fact and truth are going to be somewhat at a distance for them).

[BobRyan]

Here is a good reason to pay attention to a gross doctrinal error like evolutionism.

Quote:

“If God abhors one sin above another, of which His people are guilty, it is doing nothing in case of an emergency. Indifference and neutrality in a religious crisis is regarded of God as a grievous crime, and equal to the very worst type of hostility against God” (3T 281).

[olger]

Errors like evolution need to be exposed and they are, thank God.

G

[BobRyan]

How "old" the principles in the false doctrine of evolutionism??

Quote:

Chapter X. - Tower of Babel.

Some of the descendants of Noah soon began to apostatize. A portion followed the example of Noah, and obeyed God's commandments; others were unbelieving and rebellious, and even these did not believe alike in regard to the flood. Some disbelieved in the existence of God, and in their own minds accounted for the flood from natural causes. Others believed that God existed, and that he destroyed the antediluvian race by a flood; and their feelings, like Cain, rose in rebellion against God, because he destroyed the people from the earth and cursed the earth the third time by a flood. {3SG 96.1}

http://egwdatabase.whiteestate.org/nxt/g...hapter05150.htm

Explaining the work done specifically by the Hand of God -- to "natural causes" is the heart and soul of that form of rebellion against God.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Errors like evolution need to be exposed and they are, thank God.

G

Amen and amen!

This particular topic and this section of the board is marked by a harmony and unity and affirmation appreciation of the inspired text (and a distinct lack of ad hominem sniping etc) that you might not find on every subject or every area of the board when it comes to this subject.

What a blessing!

in Christ,

Bob

[Guest]

Evolution stinketh exceedingly.

[skyblue888]

They did not want to retain God in their knowledge, so they came up with the theory of evolution. If there is no Creator God then they can go on with their own personal agendas without having to worry about judgment day.

sky

[Bravus]

(enjoy the self-congratulation group-think party, boys)

[BobRyan]

Nobody gets banned here Bravus -- even evolutionsts are allowed to comment. Funny how that works on creationist-friendly areas of the board -- open to all points of view -- and we do not feel the need to engage in ad hominem sniping about "lying for Darwin" or "reading comprehension" etc on this section of the board -- as I am sure you have noticed.

However speaking of everyone getting along so well here -- here is an evolutionist comment you might enjoy as much as I do.

Quote:

Patterson - again quoting Gillespie accusing that those "'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'" Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact: 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

I see "more evolutionists" comments being seen in this area of the board than some might have supposed because as it turns out -- they have their way of making the case for truth even when they are trying desperately to prop up the false doctrine and junk-science of evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

[Guest]

Evilution Bad

[Bravus]

Still lying, Bob. You were not banned for being a creationist, because the Origins forum is almost entirely creationists.

[Bravus]

...and you're *still* harping on Patterson, *long* after it has been shown that he disagrees with you about everything.

Anyway, I won't bother you further. As I said above, enjoy high-fiving each other.

[Guest]

[BobRyan]

...and you're *still* harping on Patterson, *long* after it has been shown that he disagrees with you about everything.

Anyway, I won't bother you further. As I said above, enjoy high-fiving each other.

I like your habbit of claiming to have been successful after each failed attempt.

You "claim" above is given in response to an actual quote of Patterson by me -- and an "argument out of the void" from you that quotes "absolutely nothing".

Evaluating that kind of "no-evidence" claim vs an actual quote is left as an exercise for the reader.

[BobRyan]

Still lying, Bob. You were not banned for being a creationist, because the Origins forum is almost entirely creationists.

Oh no wait!! Just when we said there is no ad hominem being posted on this section of the board!!!

rats.

our record has been broken.

Oh well.

Now I will grant you that on most non-SDA boards - an ad hominem remark such as you just made above - is considered a TOS violation. But I am confident that here you can get by with it.

As I said - this section of the board is pretty open to comments even those "shudder---" ad hominem ones from the origins guys.

[Bravus]

1. You do not understand what 'ad hominem' actually means, and your incorrect over-use of it is making you look uninformed.

2. Were you banned from Origins for being a creationist? No. So therefore, to publicly state something you know to be untrue, is to lie. You lied. You were called on it. You continually repeat that lie. I have not called you a 'liar', but I have sai 'you are lying'. Because it's true.

Does God need you to lie in order to honour His name? No, he does not.

[Bravus]

Oh, and I have already presented the information from Patterson in which he clearly said that his comments were being misused and abused by creationists to say things he did not mean. Unlike you, I do not cut and paste the same thing over and over and over. I assume that when a point has been made, the audience is intelligent enough to remember it.

[BobRyan]

1. You do not understand what 'ad hominem' actually means,

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

...and you're *still* harping on Patterson, *long* after it has been shown that he disagrees with you about everything.

Anyway, I won't bother you further. As I said above, enjoy high-fiving each other.

I like your habbit of claiming to have been successful after each failed attempt.

You "claim" above is given in response to an actual quote of Patterson by me -- and an "argument out of the void" from you that quotes "absolutely nothing".

Evaluating that kind of "no-evidence" claim vs an actual quote is left as an exercise for the reader.

[Guest]

Did Bob get banned from origins?

[Bravus]

That's not a perfect way of putting it - I was mirroring what he had said.

Origins started out as a private, 'by invitation' forum, with the express purpose of trying the very difficult task of discussing Origins in a civil manner. it operated that way for a couple of years, but then for a variety of reasons Stan decided to open it up to everyone.

Since that experiment has not worked, and the forum had become just another Origins flame war, the decision was made to move it back to its original intention. In order to read or post in the Origins forum, one must now be invited. Anyone can be invited, no matter their position, ideas, history or anything else. They must simply have shown the ability to discuss Origins issues in a civil manner, and particularly without impugning the faith or Christianity of any who disagree with them.

If Bob can meet those conditions, he can be invited to participate, as can anyone else here.