La Sierra in the News

bob_2 · 09-26-09 1:05 pm

Elaine, your source. I have been open and giving sources, you should do the same.

elaine · 09-26-09 2:12 pm

In my last post, I clearly said that it was a quote from National Geographic Oct. magazine. Most of yours have been from very apologetic souces. National Geographic is NOT an apologist magazine. Apologist rhetoric has nothing but biased, not scientific evidence.

bob_2 · 09-26-09 4:43 pm

Scientific evidence rules out God therefore it is biased. This is what the whole issue is about, Elaine. Here is a whole 'nother take on the platypus: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:The Duckbill Platypus The explorer who first saw a hide of the duckbill platypus thought that it was composed of the hides of several different animals sewn together as a joke. Later, when a preserved specimen was brought to him for dissection, he finally declared it outrageous, but genuine! The more you study the duckbill platypus, the more problems you find for evolutionists. Here is a list of some of its features: 1 × It is a furbearing mammal. × It lays eggs, yet suckles its young. × It has a ducklike bill, which has built within it a heat sensitive worm finding radar. × Its tail is flat like a beaver's, yet furry. × It has webbed feet in front, clawed feet in the rear. × The reproductive systems are uniquely different from the rest of the animal world, but mostly mammalian in nature. × The only other known monotreme, or egg-laying mammal is echidna or spiny anteater. Except for the fact that it lays eggs, it is about as different as you can get from the platypus. Can you imagine what a pre-platypus might have looked like? Nothing in the fossil record gives us a clue about the origin of this animal, which is an outrage to evolutionists. This animal does very well in its natural environment in spite of its unusual features. To look at it, it would appear that this animal was pieced together from a variety of completely different animals. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.rae.org/revev5.html" target=_top>http://www.rae.org/revev5.html</a>

bob_2 · 09-26-09 5:04 pm

Here is another perspective, again apologetics because transcendant help rules it out of peer review journals. Is that a bias Elaine, or part of a definition, that evolutionists and creationists must live with, happily: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas. There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach. The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes." However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions. Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code. It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists. At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model. The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist. A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.thebibleistheotherside.org/currentarticlep34.htm" target=_top>http://www.thebibleistheotherside.org/currentartic lep34.htm</a>

bob_2 · 09-26-09 5:21 pm

Notice this telling quote by British physicist, H.S. Lipson: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it. 8 <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin (V. 31, n.d. 1980). and why the LSU controversy is so important: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:For example, two leading evolutionary biologists have described modern neo-Darwinism as "part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training". 1 A prominent British biologist, a Fellow of the Royal Society, in the Introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, said that "belief in the theory of evolution" was "exactly parallel to belief in special creation,"with evolution merely "a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature". 2 G.H. Harper calls it a "metaphysical belief". 3 <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-religion-not-science/" target=_top>http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-religion-not- science/</a> Elaine, chimpanzees are said to have 95% DNA common to us, but that does not prove we evolved from them, nor would common DNA in a platypus prove that it evolved froma reptile, maybe just a unique animal, not evolved, other than adapted to an environment.

bob_2 · 09-26-09 5:26 pm

BTW, National Geographic is not an unbiased source, but at the bidding of science and evolution. If you are going to talk science and religion you must go to a source that treats both equally or you do not have a level playing field. After all, we are after the truth, not someone's surmisings like evolutionists and creationsists both are prone to do.

bob_2 · 09-26-09 5:44 pm

Again similar DNA is not necessarily what it is cracked up to be, likewise the chimp and platypus, it does not prove it's ancestry: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%!) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are “read” by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. A proper comparison has not been made. Chimp DNA has not been fully sequenced. Where did the “97% similarity” come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to re-form double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA [2]. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity (homology) [3]. Consequently, this somewhat arbitrary figure is not used by those working in molecular homology (other parameters, derived from the shape of the “melting” curve, are used). Why has the 97% figure been popularized then? One can only guess that it served the purpose of evolutionary indoctrination of the scientifically illiterate. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.html" target=_top>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c018.htm l</a>

don · 09-26-09 6:47 pm

I have seen the class materials with my own eyes. Frankly, I think every Seventh-day Adventist deserves to see them. Our people need to know what is happening. I agree. Where is a copy of the class materials? This pastor gives his take. I remain unconvinced. I wrote this before reading Dr. Pitman's letter to Paulsen. (see Bob's post <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=7&post=6947#POST6947" target="_blank">#2129</a>) Dr Pitman quotes a part of the syllabus and offers to send the whole syllabus to those who ask. As I have mentioned earlier, the evidence for the Special Theory of Evolution (micro-evolution) is the same evidence used to show the General Theory of Evolution (macroevolution). Also, I will repeat, Adventist scientists need to be clear thinkers and willing to stand on the creation story of Genesis 1 and 2 and show how the scientific evidence for "microevolution" or the "Special theory of Evolution" can be utilized by Creationists. (Message edited by Don on September 26, 2009)

bob_2 · 09-27-09 10:59 am

President Wisbey may have stepped into things a little far with this letter: "... evolutionary process - a subject that is foundational to the modern biological and behavioral sciences. ..." Foundational, I think might be a little too firm a word in this situation. Maybe we should ask some SDA biologists and behavior scientists if they agree with Wisbey on that. At least I would like to see them tie the evolutionary process to their professional day to day operation/function.

don · 09-27-09 12:18 pm

"... evolutionary process - a subject that is foundational to the modern biological and behavioral sciences. ..." If we emphasize the phrase, "modern biological and behavioral sciences" then we have no choice but to admit to the accuracy of this statement. The phrase indicates a community made up of all the "biological and behavioral" scientists. For the vast majority of those in this community, the evolutionary process is understood to be foundational. If Adventist universities want to interact in the field and find accreditation in its associations then it will have to walk a fine and thoughtful line. If by "evolutionary process" the writer means "monkey to man" process or "swampy blob to man" process then I don't agree that that "evolutionary process" should be foundational to an SDA biologist's thinking. However, if by "evolutionary process" the writer simply means the process of change which is constantly taking place in nature, then I agree that such a process is essential to understanding nature. I believe that God created a world capable of and involved in change. Without understanding this change, the subject of biology doesn't pull together; the process of change is essential to understanding biology. Further Reading Dr. Wisbey's letter can be read in full at: <a href="http://www.atoday.com/content/president-lsu-responds-atheistic-evolution-allegations" target="_blank">http://www.atoday.com/content/president-lsu-responds-atheistic-evolution-allegations</a> (Message edited by Don on September 27, 2009)

don · 09-27-09 1:43 pm

The accusation: these individuals are indeed teaching macroevolutionary origins while ridiculing Biblical creation The administrators of La Sierra and of the Church need to investigate this accusation. This is the central issue being raised, as I see it. .

elaine · 09-27-09 10:24 pm

National Geographic is not an unbiased source, but at the bidding of science and evolution. If you are going to talk science and religion you must go to a source that treats both equally or you do not have a level playing field." It is you who are trying to talk science and religion. I prefer, and have left religion out of science. It has no more reason to be mixed with science than with interior decorating or most academic subjects. Religion is a separate department, as it should be, and science is also a separate department. Trying to integrate them, as is done in Bible colleges, has proved to be not only extremely difficult, but an impossible responsibility dumped on the science teachers. Religion should be taught only by the religion teachers. Trying to mix the two has already proved to be most difficult, as well as unsuccessful. Berating the teachers of science and asking them to teach in an area in which they are not trained, is similar to asking an accounting teacher to teach science.

bob_2 · 09-27-09 11:20 pm

If the Biology teachers have not been taught about man's sacred origin but are only students of godless teaching, knowing nothing of man's origin except from teachers that only want man's observation, evolution, dust and death, let them select other teaching venues that match their backgrounds. Why pollute the SDA campuses???

john8verse32 · 09-28-09 12:50 pm

Why pollute the SDA campuses??? maybe SDA schools should not be teaching biology at all... because it leads to a few rational conclusions different from creation maybe SDA schools should not be teaching astronomy, because it leads to the false belief that the earth goes around the sun, when we know from joshuas innerrant story that its the other way around. maybe SDA schools should not be teaching math, because then students would be led to the false impression that 144,000 virgins guys cannot stand in a perfect square, without cutting some guys up into parts, since the sq root of it is not the even number that EGW mistakenly thought with her third grade education. maybe SDA schools should not be teaching hygiene, because we should be doing it the old fashioned way...like the Bible says...out in the desert, and covering it up so the Lord will not step in it. maybe SDA schools should not be teaching health, because we have this false notion today that leprosy and mold should be cured by modern medicine, which runs counter to Gods explanation that you should take two birds, strangle them, dip them in hyssop, and like a good witch doctor, sprinkle their blood on the affected areas.... maybe we should stop teaching oceanography, because we've been looking for the waters that covered Mt Everest in the wrong place...everybody who reads the Bible should already know that its still there, up above the dome... and maybe we should ease off on teaching language, because a student might find out that the word "heaven" is merely the ancient Norse way of saying "haven", or seaport...after we cross the stormy seas of life with Christ as our captain, salming those stormy seas, helping us to reach the golden "strand", the german world for beach...in the sunset years of our lives... we wouldn't want kids to think that it's all just a nice story.

bob_2 · 09-28-09 12:58 pm

I can never figure out why, you, John, or Elaine wish to stick around a forum like ATomorrow.net and mock God or those that believe in Him. I guess everybody has a way of spending time, like a hobby!! <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/uhoh.gif" border=0>

bob_2 · 09-28-09 1:12 pm

Oh, by the way, I was visiting my daughter in Chicago, and used her computer to try and get an answer from Pastor Ryan Bell, since her computer did not have a block on it like mine at home for Spectrum, with a different ISP number, and they blocked her's too, after my question with no answer. Really openness, eh, John and Elaine. Or maybe the story is inconsistent from Pastor Bell and Spectrum and Bell prefer it not get out. Nam, a professor of Religion at LLU, Geraty, current President emetritus at La Sierra, Chartier a Business professor at La Sierra, David Larson, religion professor at LLU and ethics professor to boot, Chris Oberg, the first woman Senior Pastor of La Sierra Church, Ryan Bell, Senior Pastor a Hollywood SDA Church all supportin Gay Marriage. BTW, David Larson and Nam's boss told me they by the rules of LLU should not be involved in politics, yet no evidence of reprimand, infact at the time of the video on Adventists against Prop 8, Chris Oberg, was not the Senior Pastor of La Sierra University Church but was selected just recently with this in her background. MUST BE SOMETHING IN THE WATER IN THE LLU/LA SIERRA AREA THAT CONFOUNDS PEOPLE'S LOGIC. HUH???

elaine · 09-28-09 5:07 pm

\blue If the Biology teachers have not been taught about man's sacred origin but are only students of godless teaching, knowing nothing of man's origin except from teachers that only want man's observation, evolution, dust and death, let them select other teaching venues that match their backgrounds. Why pollute the SDA campuses???} Lest you forget, neither you nor I choose those who teach at LSU or any of the SDA schools. Unless you are qualified as a teacher of these subjects, how are you able to do anything about their teaching? It is the administrators and board who have that power to select. Have you offered your services? Are they interested? Are your children attending that school? Are you an interested or disinterested SDA member in that conference?}}

bob_2 · 09-28-09 7:14 pm

That is false reasoning Elaine, if you are an SDA which you aren't, you are right, you have only a possible secular interest. My name is still on the books so my interest could be one for the denomination. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/blush.gif" border=0>

bob_2 · 09-28-09 10:09 pm

Even with the EGW quote at the end of this letter, I don't think I could have said it better: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Open Letter to Board of Trustees by Christina R. Harris, Ph.D. Christina Harris is a Ph.D. research chemist. She obtained her BS from Oklahoma State University, Ph.D. at the Univeristy of Colorado Boulder campus and did post-doctoral work at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in NY, NY. She was baptized at Advent Hope in NY, NY after the Net98 series and is a graduate of the ARISE program (2003) directed by David Asscherick and Nathan Renner. She may be contacted at: <a href="mailto:crharris7@gmail.com">crharris7@gmail.com</a> June 8, 2009 Dear Pastors Paulsen, Schneider, Graham, and Officers of the Board of Trustees (Arnold Trujillo, Ted Benson, Kelly Bock, Tony Anobile) Undoubtedly, you are aware that the evolution-creation debate is a growing point of concern in our Adventist educational system among various church leaders, pastors, and lay-members. This open letter addresses my concerns about theistic macro-evolution being taught at La Sierra University as the preferred worldview. I am a converted Seventh-day Adventist Christian, a Ph.D. scientist, and Creationist according to the Genesis account-a literal creation week consisting of seven literal, contiguous, consecutive 24-hour days. To further clarify my own position, the point of controversy is not about whether science students should be informed concerning mainstream scientific beliefs. Evolution (as a concept) should be taught. Indeed, evolution on a micro-scale with minor adaptations and variations within a species, is testable, observable and documented in the scientific literature. The point in this controversy is that a Seventh-day Adventist higher educational institution should, at minimum, be supportive of the 28-Fundamental Beliefs. However, a quote taken from a presentation (Biology 112) of one of the science classes currently taught at LSU states: “There is nothing ‘theoretical’ about the evidence supporting evolution. The research about evolution is ongoing and continues to support and refine Darwin’s original ideas. No data have been found to refute the idea. It is the single unifying explanation of the living world, and nothing makes much, if any, sense outside of this unifying theory.” Really? There are multiple publications to the contrary that have been written by reputable scientists and philosophers. On several occasions, a local Christian university has solicited for an organic chemistry professor. Part of the application process requires the applicant to commit to uphold the beliefs of that organization, which include the following: “We believe in the personal return of the Lord Jesus Christ, the bodily resurrection and final judgment of the just and the unjust, the everlasting blessedness of the saved and the everlasting, conscious punishment of the lost.” While I could consent to many of their doctrinal beliefs, I could not in good conscience uphold their belief about an eternally burning hell. Therefore, I did not apply for the organic chemistry professorship position. While it is conceivable to believe in God and hold to the idea of Darwinian-style evolution occurring over the course of billions of years, for a Seventh-day Adventist in a Seventh-day Adventist setting, these beliefs are untenable and irreconcilable. Consequently, those professors finding themselves unable to accept and promote these fundamental beliefs should naturally seek employment elsewhere–perhaps at a public or other non-SDA college or university-there are many options. Having taught chemistry at the university level, I am acutely aware that young adults of college-age are greatly impressed by what their professors think, say and believe. Those parents who want a truly Seventh-day Adventist education for their young people should be able obtain what their hard-earned dollars have paid for; otherwise, a public institution of higher learning would be more suitable and less expensive. As Seventh-day Adventists, with a clear statement of our belief in creation posted for the world to see, why do we not strive to be the head in this important debate? God has designed that His ambassadors be the head and not the tail; why should we clearly take on a position that will place us at the tail? I challenge the leadership of LSU and the leaders and laity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to hold to and support the Bible truths that our name represents. I close with the following quote taken from the pen of inspiration: “Since the book of nature and the book of revelation bear the impress of the same master mind, they cannot but speak in harmony….Inferences erroneously drawn from facts observed in nature have, however, led to supposed conflict between science and revelation; and in the effort to restore harmony, interpretations of Scripture have been adopted that undermine and destroy the force of the word of God. Geology has been thought to contradict the literal interpretation of the Mosaic record of the creation. Millions of years, it is claimed, were required for the evolution of the earth from chaos; and in order to accommodate the Bible to this supposed revelation of science, the days of creation are assumed to have been vast, indefinite periods, covering thousands or even millions of years….Such a conclusion is wholly uncalled for. Education, pp. 128-130. Sincerely, Christina R. Harris, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist Kalamazoo, Michigan <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> (Message edited by Bob_2 on September 28, 2009)

elaine · 09-29-09 1:08 pm

Chemistry is NOT a biological science. Molecular cellular biolgy may be. Just because someone has a PhD and is in a science department does not necessarily give her qualifications to objectively address La Sierra's faculty. Has she visited the site and talked to the teachers? Or does she only know what the ARISE movement has said? She is certainly liberally quoting EGW, so someone has indoctrinated her to the "Profit."

bob_2 · 09-29-09 6:59 pm

If we are to have openness for Elaine and John, then whe should have opennes for all, IMO. Let the chips fall where they will, Pastor Ryan Bell, and Alexander Carpenter. Don't try and steer this outcome. EH???

elaine · 09-29-09 7:30 pm

Bob, if you are allowed to post here, it is because it is with the permission of the moderator. Other sites have different moderators and you can rankle and fuss, but it doesn't change the fact that for you, evidently, they feel you have crossed some line (who knows what?).

don · 09-29-09 7:56 pm

Chemistry is NOT a biological science. Molecular cellular biolgy may be. Just because someone has a PhD and is in a science department does not necessarily give her qualifications to objectively address La Sierra's faculty. Science expertise has become so specialized that very few people are "qualified" to objectively address matters. But, the issues are not scientific per se. The issue is one of sensitivity to the organization one works for. If Bradley et al are advocating theistic evolution and, if they are intentionally undermining the church's position on a literal six day creation, then they should seek employment where their views are not in conflict with their employer. Even if they could be proven to be right, the church moves forward as a corporate body. These issues strike at the central nervous system of the church and should be entered into with special sensitivity. .

bob_2 · 09-29-09 8:27 pm

Elaine, that's ok, but Alex as the leader, look out. Especially if that quote of his about homosexuality is correct. You will be going down some interesting rabbit holes, not all productive. I was just pointing out the selective openness, when they claim they can handle challenges. If Ryan Bell claims that Jan Paulsen's sermon from Geneva of a rather general nature, he can accept because he can piece his liberal agenda into it. Try it. See if that is what Paulsen meant. If he can call homosexual marriage religious liberty and infer that Jan Paulsen means that by his rhetorical speech. Test it. But if Alex is homosexual as his quote implies, Spectrum will eventually get dressed down also,just as LSU will, unless Alex chooses to live celebate.

don · 09-29-09 8:55 pm

Spectrum will eventually get dressed down also Is Spectrum under the administrative supervision of the Adventist Church?

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#26 09-26-09 1:05 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#27 09-26-09 2:12 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#28 09-26-09 4:43 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#29 09-26-09 5:04 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#30 09-26-09 5:21 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#31 09-26-09 5:26 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#32 09-26-09 5:44 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#33 09-26-09 6:47 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#34 09-27-09 10:59 am

Re: La Sierra in the News

#35 09-27-09 12:18 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#36 09-27-09 1:43 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#37 09-27-09 10:24 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#38 09-27-09 11:20 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#39 09-28-09 12:50 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#40 09-28-09 12:58 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#41 09-28-09 1:12 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#42 09-28-09 5:07 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#43 09-28-09 7:14 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#44 09-28-09 10:09 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#45 09-29-09 1:08 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#46 09-29-09 6:59 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#47 09-29-09 7:30 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#48 09-29-09 7:56 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#49 09-29-09 8:27 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

#50 09-29-09 8:55 pm

Re: La Sierra in the News

Board footer