Comment on GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation by Roger Seheult.
“Thanks for telling me you meant literal years. Iâ€™m not sure who the jokeâ€™s on, but this did make me laugh. If you like, you can add to my mathematical example that I have been working on topology for years, it is my hobby, Iâ€™ve talked about and read about it and am writing a book about it. Also, I tell you that I know more about topology than you know about Nantes. Should you believe I have disproved the PoincarÃ© conjecture?”
No,  but I’d probably pretend and at least consider that you knew what you were talking about.
Roger Seheult Also Commented
Roger, please stop deranging the peer review process. How dare you. (Quote)
You’re kidding right! I’m find it difficult to imagine someone who has published as much as you have to make a statement like that without jest.
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Great, again, show me where Sean Pitman claimed to be an expert. He claims to have at least “some understanding of protein structure.” That is very different from an expert.
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
“I fear you have lost the thread of the conversation. The question is not whether it is possible to have expertise in a field in which you have not studied or published. Of course it is. The question concerns the conditions under which a non-expert bystander can determine the expertise of someone who claims to be one. ”
Please show me where Sean Pitman claimed to be an “expert” in proteins.
Sean has been working in this topic for literally years. It’s his Hobby. He’s talked about and read about it and is even writing a book about it. To put it another way, he knows more about this topic then I know about Nantes.
Then you quote that Dryden says:
“Sean Pitman is completely and utterly wrong in everything he says in his comments and displays a great ignorance of proteins and their structure and function.”
The statment has a very small probablility of being correct which actually puts the writer in more question than the subject. It reminds me of the famous proverb: That which proves too much proves nothing.”
Because of it’s over-the-top nature it borders on ad-hominum which means that Sean was probably winning the argument in the thread at the time. LOL
If you’re trying to find people that disagree with Sean I’m sure you’ll have an easy time finding them. But truth has never been a popularity contest (like the peer review process can be). Just ask Noah…..someday.
Recent Comments by Roger Seheult
I literally have not logged on to this website in years. It looks like the same arguments are going back and forth which means that if you haven’t been able to solve them by now, you aren’t going to convence each other of your points. What is really amazing to me and anyone intersted in the topic, however, is the tone of the comments, which usually reveal the maturity of the writer especially if they include absolutes:
“vast majority of scientifically-informed Adventists will thank Dr.Kent ”
“this misnamed web site”
“Dr. Kent has done a masterful job”
These are usually tip-offs to a lot. Also, it makes me wonder that if Sean Pitman is so ill-informed, and he operates on such a mis-leading web site, why does the good Dr. Taylor waste his time coming to this website, reading the material and then commenting on it? In fact I can bet that Dr. Taylor has spent more time on this web site then I have in the last year – and that speaks volumes about what Dr. Taylor really thinks of this website – perhaps the good Dr. Kent as well.
The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account
Again, the question is begged: Why would they work so hard to change the university rather than just leave and go where universities already believe the way you do? Dare I say that there lies a larger conspiracy that transcends LSU and that may be going on at your local SDA instituation? Again, why the push over a generation to change a whole university and to denude it of its fundamentals?
Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
Most of the blogs that are critical of this site aren’t interested in what this site is really out to do. They simply want to demonize it ergo Alinsky’s rule of indetify, demonize, and marginalize. Hence their cherry picking from the comments for their own purposes.
Thanks for the recap though.
This is only my opinion and none of anyone on this site.
You said: “The thing that concerns me a great deal at this point is the idea that there is no scientific information to support â€œIntelligent Design.â€ At least that is the statement Iâ€™ve heard numerous times on this site”
If you want to learn more I think you would really be interested in this man and his videos if you have not already. I get no money for referring him to you. He got me interested in this topic and energized me to do so.
Watch his life story and his videos noted below:
Angry Scientists: Publishing on Intelligent Design
It is Academic that is being tautological
Sean using the argument that ID papers are not allowed in by the peer review process because of the conclusions that they draw and Academic is trying to prove him wrong by citing evidence upheld by the very peer review process.
“And I donâ€™t believe that thereâ€™s a single paper that refutes the possibility. ”
You are right, academic, there is not one but three I could find in a brief search: