Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?

nathan

Here’s another way we can work at breaking God’s commandment “thou shalt not steal.” We can work at cross purposes with our employer. Imagine you work for Nike, but you think Adidas makes the best shoes. Now if you work for Nike and you think Adidas makes the nicest shoes is that ok? Of course it’s ok. But it’s not ok to use your time at Nike to forward the purposes of Adidas. Can you say amen to that? It’s not ok if I work for Google to be writing code during office hours for Yahoo. In fact, most companies will ask you to sign a non-compete form. That is saying that I will be honest, I will not steal what this company is investing in me by giving away their trade secrets to another person.

By the way this can happen in the church, if I’m a minister of the Seventh-day Adventist Church I should be preaching the message that God has given the Seventh-day Adventist people. When you give your tithes, you’re giving your tithes to support the work of the Seventh-day movement. So if I’m preaching and teaching and living in a way that is inconsistent with what it means to be a Seventh-day Adventist as a minister who is taking tithe then I am breaking the command “thou shalt not steal.”

And if I’m a teacher or a professor that is Seventh-day Adventist run I need to be upholding the values of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Which means no matter what department I work in whether I’m teaching social studies or science I need to be upholding the values of the Seventh-day Adventist movement. And if I’m not doing that I’m breaking the commandment thou shalt not steal. It would be inappropriate for a Seventh-day Adventist minister to be teaching Sunday sacredness or a Seventh-day Adventist teacher to be teaching evolution as fact. We must make sure we are not falling under the condemnation of God.

Nathan Renner
Senior pastor of the Sonora Seventh-day Adventist Church and an instructor of ARISE

[media id=1]

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

158 thoughts on “Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?

  1. Absolutely, Nathan!! And not just the eighth commandment. Those who teach the unscriptural, unchristian doctrine of theistic evolution, yet who falsely claim to be Seventh-day Adventists, are breaking the third commandment–by taking God’s name in vain–as well as the ninth commandment–by bearing false witness. And in case some have forgotten, James 2:10-12 is still in the Bible.

    May the crescendo of voices demanding accountability, integrity, reform, and transparency swell ever louder.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson




    0
    View Comment
  2. @Kevin Paulson: Absolutely agree. It is telling that LSU continues to protect their professors over their own students. If they really cared as much about the students as they tout then why are they being so protective of the professors at the expense of the hundreds of students that are passing through these classes?




    0
    View Comment
  3. Is not evolution a “lie?” Of course it is! That breaks the 9th commandment. The teachers of evolution are a teaching a doctrine that originates from the enemy; so that means they also break the first commandment:

    Exo 20:3 You shall have no other gods before me.

    By teaching evolution, a doctrine of devils, they are serving Satan over Jehovah, making Satan their God while professing to serve the true God.

    1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
    God bless, Steve Billiter




    0
    View Comment
  4. I pretty much agree with this thrust. It’s hard for me to appreciate how someone can harbor the kind of doubt that would lead them to believe in evolution while still remaining an Adventist.

    At the same time, we need to approach this whole issue with meekness of spirit. The Bible says that “a bruised reed He would not crush, nor would he snuff out the smoldering flax” to say that Jesus would not charge into the church and bulldoze the doubters away. He indicated that the wheat and the tares would exist in the church to the end of time. If that’s the case then we must be careful that we not expel those who are honest in heart, whom the Holy Spirit is still able to reach.




    0
    View Comment
  5. I wish individuals who work for and are paid by the SDA Church who choose to believe and teach evolutionary concepts contrary to SDA Church’s position would have enough personal integrity to resign.

    God’s last day message is a command to worship the Creator (see Rev 14:7). By the grace of God, let us be faithful to this command.




    0
    View Comment
  6. There is a difference between wheat and tares growing together and having tares in charge of the garden. As an Adventist minister I welcome people to worship with me in our congregation who hold non-SDA views, but I don’t knowingly allow them in positions of leadership. I believe that those who do not agree with the church that hires them should volutarily step down from their positions, but I do not believe it necessary that they be forced from the church. In the case that they are unwilling to step down (which seems to be the universal case) then it is appropriate to sadly force them to step down.




    0
    View Comment
  7. I suggest that you all read about one of the past attempts to make everyone line up and preach only the party line:

    http://www.jesusinstituteforum.org/HaloviakOnIBMTE.html

    A short sample:

    Instructors in our schools should never be bound about by being told that they are to teach only what has been taught hitherto. Away with these restrictions. There is a God to give the message His people shall speak. Let not any minister feel under bonds or be gauged by men’s measurement. The gospel must be fulfilled in accordance with the messages God sends. That which God gives His servants to speak today would not perhaps have been present truth twenty years ago, but it is God’s message for this time.–”Counsel to Ministers,” Oct 21, 1888.

    I wouldn’t take this quote too far (be sure you read the rest of the discussion), but it seems to me that the early Adventist people were pretty independent thinkers, some of them heretics by our standards. Remember that much of the creation question is not whether one accepts scripture, it’s a question of how to best interpret scripture. Must Gen 1-11 be taken as literal history?

    If you keep driving the point of seven, 24 hour, consequtive, contiguous days of creation, pretty soon you’ll be really sure that you are right because almost everyone who understands science will be gone or very quiet.




    0
    View Comment
  8. @Carl:
    Carl,

    If you are going to quote Ellen White then quoter her on this subject. You are happy to find some unrelated quote and have not mentioned what is relevant.

    Quite frankly, if you believe Ellen White received inspiration from God, you have no choice but to drop any affection for or fascination with evolution. And don’t sit on the fence either. There are many non-Christians and non SDA Christians who have long realised that there is no such thing as theistic evolution.

    You cannot massage the Bible to suit your thoughts – you discard yours and adopt the Bible’s clear, unambiguous position which is ably supported by Ellen White.

    Chapter IX. – Disguised Infidelity

    I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time. “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.” God gives us the productions of his work at the close of each literal day. Each day was accounted of him a generation, because every day he generated or produced some new portion of his work. On the seventh day of the first week God rested from his work, and then blessed the day of his rest, and set it apart for the use of man. The weekly cycle of seven literal days, six for labor, and the seventh for rest, which has been preserved and brought down through Bible history, originated in the great facts of the first seven days. {3SG 90.1}

    When God spake his law with an audible voice from Sinai, he introduced the Sabbath by saying, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” He then declares definitely what shall be done on the six days, and what shall not be done on the seventh. He then, in giving the reason for thus observing the week, points them back to his example on the first seven days of time. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” This reason appears beautiful and forcible when we understand the record of creation to mean literal days. The first six days of each week are given to man in which to labor, because God employed the same period of the first week in the work of creation. The seventh day God has reserved as a day of rest, in commemoration of his rest during the same period of time after he had performed the work of creation in six days. {3SG 90.2}

    But the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise. It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom. {3SG 91.1}

    Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old. These, to free themselves of difficulties thrown in their way by infidel geologists, adopt the view that the six days of creation were six vast, indefinite periods, and the day of God’s rest was another indefinite period; making senseless the fourth commandment of God’s holy law. Some eagerly receive this position, for it destroys the force of the fourth commandment, and they feel a freedom from its claims upon them. They have limited ideas of the size of men, animals and trees before the flood, and of the great changes which then took place in the earth. {3SG 91.2}




    0
    View Comment
  9. Pure and simple it is. There can be no mistake on what she believes. To use comments like: …”The gospel must be fulfilled in accordance with the messages God sends. That which God gives His servants to speak today would not perhaps have been present truth twenty years ago, but it is God’s message for this time.–”Counsel to Ministers,” Oct 21, 1888.” in light of what was just posted, and still choosing to use this instead is showing a huge lack of either one’s knowledge in her writings, or only using them to say what they believe, twisting her meaning, which is also breaking God’s commandments on not stealing. Also, God does not change. If things were 6 literal days at creation, they would not be changed to vast unnumbered days today. This is not a issue of understanding the Bible, it is a issue of excepting the Bible.




    0
    View Comment
  10. Good point. What is Babylon? It is a mixture of truth and error. How much error is needed in an assembly (‘church’) to qualify? Mrs White used ‘Babylonian language’ (“Through union with the world the church will become corrupt,–‘a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.'” –R/H feb 26 1895) and applied it to ‘the church’. On Oct 31 1899 she said “the first, second and third angels’ messages are to be repeated. The call is to be given to the church: ‘Babylon the great is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and cage of every unclean and hateful bird…” On Aug 1 1803 She said “And thou, Capernaum [Seventh-day Adventists, who have had great light,] which are exalted unto heaven [in point of privilege] shalt be brought down to hell” And how does Scripture tell us to relate to ‘Babylon’? See Rev 18:4. (It does not recommend petitioning it to change) In obedience to the Savior YAHUSHUA I have left the SDA structure, so I suppose you will consider my comments not ‘qualified’ I will not fail to share the truth of Scripture with you.




    0
    View Comment
  11. Dear Brothers and Sisters:

    It is sheer fantasy to find a parallel between the resistance of the Adventist pioneers to creedalism and the open-ended relativism of today’s theological liberals. It is equally fantastic to view Ellen White’s warnings against using “man’s measurements” of another’s teaching as comparable to the application of God’s trascendent Word to the teachings and practices of church members.

    The pioneers of this movement were not relativists. They believed wholeheartedly in the authority of Scripture as the objective measure of faith and practice. Their opposition to “creeds” was in fact opposition to human tradition and personal judgment–not the Word of God–as the measure of right and wrong. The same is true with Ellen White. No one can possibly read her writings and come away with the notion that she favored an open-ended, ambiguous approach to the teaching of doctrine. Even a cursory study of her writings is sufficient to dismiss such an illusion as breathtaking in its departure from reality.

    God bless!

    Pastor Kevin Paulson




    0
    View Comment
  12. Translation of the past few posts? “My EGW proof text is more betterer than your EGW proof text.”

    Interesting that of Sister White’s millions of words, we get quoted the fabled 3SG90-91 over and over and over again… almost as though that’s the only place she ever expressed such an opinion.

    Glad to be proved wrong… let’s see the evidence.




    0
    View Comment
  13. @Carl:

    Carl: it’s a question of how to best interpret scripture. Must Gen 1-11 be taken as literal history?

    We do not interpret Scripture to whatever fits our fancy. If we do that, how do we know what God is telling us? How can God tell us what we think He should say? Do we say, “I know better than God?”

    Obviously, Genesis, the creation story is literal. God means what He says. All I can do is praise Him because He has plainly given us all the facts we need to know about Creation, thereby dispelling the confusion of superstition and error.

    2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
    2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

    God said 7 days, period. That means 7 days. That does not mean anything else. This is where we get the week from, and this is where we get the Sabbath that God gave us.

    Ellen White would be horrified at the thought of LSU teaching evolution. The teaching of evolution is spiritualism.

    “The warnings of the word of God regarding the perils surrounding the Christian church belong to us today. As in the days of the apostles men tried by tradition and philosophy to destroy faith in the Scriptures, so today, by the pleasing sentiments of higher criticism, evolution, spiritualism, theosophy, and pantheism, the enemy of righteousness is seeking to lead souls into forbidden paths. To many the Bible is as a lamp without oil, because they have turned their minds into channels of speculative belief that bring misunderstanding and confusion. The work of higher criticism, in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation. It is robbing God’s word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives. By spiritualism, multitudes are taught to believe that desire is the highest law, that license is liberty, and that man is accountable only to himself.” {AA 474.1}




    0
    View Comment
  14. @Carl:

    Lets quote Ellen White properly upon this subject, so there is no confusion.

    “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.”

    {Ed 128.2}




    0
    View Comment
  15. @Bravus:

    Bravus says:
    December 8, 2009 Translation of the past few posts? “My EGW proof text is more betterer than your EGW proof text.”

    Interesting that of Sister White’s millions of words, we get quoted the fabled 3SG90-91 over and over and over again… almost as though that’s the only place she ever expressed such an opinion.

    Glad to be proved wrong… let’s see the evidence.

    1. In 3SG 90-91 Ellen White states “I WAS SHOWN” regarding the literal 7 day week of creation week.

    Your response to what God showed Ellen White “she was wrong”! This position is forced upon you by your by-faith-alone devotion to belief in evolutionism.

    A more telling response could hardly be imagined.

    2. Your fellow evolutionists are forced to either “keep silent” on that point or agree with you — that evolutionism is not consistent with what God is saying about HIS OWN work in creation.

    Again – an incredibly instructive data point for the truly unbiased objective reader.

    3. Now you want to know “how many more times” Ellen White affirmed the same direct point?

    You are truly grasping at straws on that one!!

    As I keep saying — an incredibly instructive data point for the unbiased objective reader.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  16. @Jonathan Smith:

    Jonathan Smith says:
    December 8, 2009 @Carl:
    Carl,

    If you are going to quote Ellen White then quoter her on this subject. You are happy to find some unrelated quote and have not mentioned what is relevant.

    Quite frankly, if you believe Ellen White received inspiration from God, you have no choice but to drop any affection for or fascination with evolution. And don’t sit on the fence either. There are many non-Christians and non SDA Christians who have long realised that there is no such thing as theistic evolution.

    You cannot massage the Bible to suit your thoughts – you discard yours and adopt the Bible’s clear, unambiguous position which is ably supported by Ellen White.

    Jonathan makes a good case. Few evolutionists have been so willing to come right out and admit the truth on this point the way Bravus has flatly denied and opposed the revelation God gave to Ellen White on this point.

    Jonathan then goes on to quote 3SG 90-91

    Ellen White — 3SG 90-91
    Chapter IX. – Disguised Infidelity

    I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great God in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time. “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.” God gives us the productions of his work at the close of each literal day. Each day was accounted of him a generation, because every day he generated or produced some new portion of his work. On the seventh day of the first week God rested from his work, and then blessed the day of his rest, and set it apart for the use of man. The weekly cycle of seven literal days, six for labor, and the seventh for rest, which has been preserved and brought down through Bible history, originated in the great facts of the first seven days. {3SG 90.1}

    When God spake his law with an audible voice from Sinai, he introduced the Sabbath by saying, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” He then declares definitely what shall be done on the six days, and what shall not be done on the seventh. He then, in giving the reason for thus observing the week, points them back to his example on the first seven days of time. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” This reason appears beautiful and forcible when we understand the record of creation to mean literal days. The first six days of each week are given to man in which to labor, because God employed the same period of the first week in the work of creation. The seventh day God has reserved as a day of rest, in commemoration of his rest during the same period of time after he had performed the work of creation in six days. {3SG 90.2}

    But the infidel supposition, that the events of the first week required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It makes indefinite and obscure that which God has made very plain. It is the worst kind of infidelity; for with many who profess to believe the record of creation, it is infidelity in disguise. It charges God with commanding men to observe the week of seven literal days in commemoration of seven indefinite periods, which is unlike his dealings with mortals, and is an impeachment of his wisdom. {3SG 91.1}

    Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old. These, to free themselves of difficulties thrown in their way by infidel geologists, adopt the view that the six days of creation were six vast, indefinite periods, and the day of God’s rest was another indefinite period; making senseless the fourth commandment of God’s holy law. Some eagerly receive this position, for it destroys the force of the fourth commandment, and they feel a freedom from its claims upon them. …{3SG 91.2}

    1. The reference to “infidels” and “infidel geologists” by Ellen White means — atheist and atheist geologist respectively.

    2. Disguised infidelity — refers to Christians who unwittingly embrace distinctively atheist doctrines on origins – not realizing what they are doing.

    3. Ellen White claims she was SHOWN that creation week – carried back in time to that point and shown the events.

    4. Ellen White argues that the atheist counter doctrine on origins “strikes directly” at the 4th commandment AND at the character of of God.

    5. Her claim is not only that the world was created in 6 literal days with a literal 7 day Sabbath to follow, but that this was the FIRST week on earth and that the earth is only 6000 years old.

    As Bravus observes in his own response to that – “well then Ellen White was wrong” is the only option for the truely devoted by-faith-alone believer in evolutionism’s doctrines on origins “instead”. Other evolutionists have at times agreed with Bravus on that point — when not keeping dead silent on the subject.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  17. @Carl:

    Carl says:
    December 8, 2009 I suggest that you all read about one of the past attempts to make everyone line up and preach only the party line:

    http://www.jesusinstituteforum.org/HaloviakOnIBMTE.html

    A short sample:

    “Instructors in our schools should never be bound about by being told that they are to teach only what has been taught hitherto. Away with these restrictions. There is a God to give the message His people shall speak.”

    How sad that you have unwittingly provided yet another example of where your own argument is flawed. In the above quote Ellen White argues that GOD is able to give messages and we should listen to them.

    This is the VERY thing she claims is happening in 3SG 90-91. It is in fact God’s message that you are MOST anxious to IGNORE in your by-faith-alone devotion to what atheist evolutionist Collin Patterson called “Stories easy enough to tell but they are not science”!!

    How is it you keep “imagining” that the reader is missing that glaringly obvious point??

    (Darkness for light and light for darkness “again”??)

    Carl said
    Remember that much of the creation question is not whether one accepts scripture, it’s a question of how to best interpret scripture. Must Gen 1-11 be taken as literal history?

    If you keep driving the point of seven, 24 hour, consequtive, contiguous days of creation, pretty soon you’ll be really sure that you are right because almost everyone who understands science will be gone or very quiet.

    Let us list the fallacies in that argument above.

    1. It is stated “AS IF” the foundational principle of Bible exegesis is somehow hamstrung by whatever atheist evolutionists think about the doctrine on origins. Sadly – the exact opposite is true. The objective methods of exegesis are distinctly INDEPENDANT of the outside agenda that you “wish” you could bring to the Bible. That is the whole POINT of Bible exegesis!!

    As usual – evolutionists are quick to make statements that unwittingly expose their lack of understanding on this basic concept of Bible reading.

    2. The “deny-all” by-faith-alone solution used by evolutionists shows up in such sweeping assertions that imply that “all scientist must be evolutionists”.

    All “inconvenient details” pointing to the blunders, gaffs and confirmed hoax-and-fraud history regarding the efforts to prop up evolutionism are simply “ignored” by the true devotee to evolutoinism as he/she continues to “imagine” that all scientists are in agreement with his “stories easy enough to tell – but they are not science”.

    It is very instructive that Osborn used that SAME sweeping “irrefutable evidence” kind of argument for his Nebraska man fiction – when arguing his case against Webster. Only to be embarrassed by the rapid exposure of the flaw in his wild imaginative pigs-tooth-assumptions presented to the world as his “irrefutable evidence”.

    How sad that the evolutionist tactic appears to be “unchanged” still to this very day!

    And yet at the same time – how instructive to the unbiased objective reader!

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  18. @Steve Billiter:

    Steve Billiter says:
    December 8, 2009 Is not evolution a “lie?” Of course it is! That breaks the 9th commandment. The teachers of evolution are a teaching a doctrine that originates from the enemy; so that means they also break the first commandment:

    Exo 20:3 You shall have no other gods before me.

    By teaching evolution, a doctrine of devils, they are serving Satan over Jehovah, making Satan their God while professing to serve the true God.

    1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
    God bless, Steve Billiter

    There needs to be a thread about the 1Timothy 4:1 concept of “doctrines of demons” and then solid inspired text references to Satan having a real focused and genuine interest in the subject of evolution.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  19. Oh yes, Satan has a genuine interest in evolution as it originated with him. Evolution undermines the value of a human soul (humans come from monkeys). Therefore it undermines the value of the gift of Jesus’ death on the cross.

    Satan biggest desire is to malign Jesus Christ, and to try to make of none effect what Jesus did on the cross for us.




    0
    View Comment
  20. @Carl:

    If you keep driving the point of seven, 24 hour, consequtive, contiguous days of creation, pretty soon you’ll be really sure that you are right because almost everyone who understands science will be gone or very quiet.

    1. As I already proved here — “by definition” evolutionism is not even science.

    http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/clarification-of-lsu-board-release-documents/comment-page-1/#comment-7062

    So how in the world do we risk “losing actual scientists” by pointing out that inconvenient detail above?

    2. Evolutionism
    A uniquely atheist doctrine on origins expressed in hijacked science terms and concepts, promoting “fiction as fact” with extreme religious fervor in an effort to defend the dogma that “there is no god” when it comes to the study of origins.

    Evolutionism has been consistently exposed over time as a framework of junk-science methods, frauds and hoaxes used to promote a cadre of logical fallacies, half truths and statements of blind faith designed to support a distinctively atheist paradigm for origins.

    If anything, those Christians who are evangelized into going down that atheist road need to be disabused rather than further duped into “going blindly on”.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  21. @BobRyan:

    It would be good if you made clear whether you intend “evolutionism” to mean abiogenesis, descent from common ancestry or adaptation over time. Even Sean has argued that there was very rapid and extensive adaptation during a warm period just after the Flood, so I have to imagine that you are not referring to that.

    If you apply your comments only to abiogenesis, I agree: I don’t know of any valid science supporting abiogenesis; it’s only speculation that looks more like wayward religion. Descent from common ancestry, however, stands on a considerable foundation of science even though it has been contaminated with errors such as “ontegeny recapitulates phylogeny” or the infamous artist drawing showing a line from apes to man.

    So, a bit of definition will be helpful.




    0
    View Comment
  22. @BobRyan:

    It would be good if you made clear whether you intend “evolutionism” to mean abiogenesis, descent from common ancestry , adaptation over time or some combination. Even Sean has argued that there was very rapid and extensive adaptation during a warm period just after the Flood, so I have to imagine that you are not referring to that.

    If you apply your comments only to abiogenesis, I agree: I don’t know of any valid science supporting abiogenesis; it’s only speculation that looks more like wayward religion. Descent from common ancestry, however, stands on a considerable foundation of science even though it has been contaminated with errors such as “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” or the infamous artist drawing showing a line from apes to man.

    So, a bit of definition will be helpful.




    0
    View Comment
  23. BobRyan: How sad that you have unwittingly provided yet another example of where your own argument is flawed. In the above quote Ellen White argues that GOD is able to give messages and we should listen to them.

    How sad that you imagine I am only trying to win an argument. This issue is not so simple as you make it. It would be good for you to temper your thinking with some advice from the GRI science staff. Here’s one comment from an October, 2001, BRISCO meeting from someone that you likely respect as reported by an attendee: “Dr. Ariel Roth, a former director of GRI, expressed his concern whether Adventist Flood geology can ‘survive the onslaught of science.'”




    0
    View Comment
  24. @Carl: Anyone who has read my writings will be surprised at any implications that I may be inferring that Adventist geology may not “survive the onslaught of science.” While the issue is complex, as I recall the quotation appeared many years ago in Adventist Today, and when I read it I marveled as to how the writer could have so cleverly misconstrued my comments. There is lots of scientific data that is very hard to explain unless you accept the biblical account of beginnings. My concern was to urge Adventist scientists to defend their Church, the Bible and God, and their help was very much needed, because the very powerful scientific community has a strong secular bias that arbitrarily excludes the Bible and God in its explanatory menu. Science has enclosed itself in a box that limits its outlook, and can no longer claim unbiased truth in the area of origins. The advantage of Adventism is that we are more open and willing to look at the Bible and God.

    There is lots of scientific data that seems to imply the necessity for God. See my latest book SCIENCE DISCOVERS GOD. The problem we as Advents are facing is that we are few in number, facing hundreds of thousands of scientists who hardly ever dare to mention God in their publications. We need the help of every Adventist scientist to strengthen faith in their Church, the Bible and God.




    0
    View Comment
  25. Carl:

    The veracity of your Dr. Ariel Roth quote can certainly be questioned – ‘word of mouth’ is rarely 100% accurate (if I read your above statement correctly “as reported by an attendee”). Regardless, even if you were to find such a statement in writing, I would highly suspect a misconstruction / twisting or neglect of the overall context of his statement.

    Look at this statement made by Dr. Doug Bachelor, arguably the most popular and sought-after pastor, evangelist and apologist in Adventism (and former atheist / evolutionist). On Bible Answers Live 11/29/2009

    “If anything is evolving, it is the science of evolution. Their theories change every few years…. I think the best evidence for the earth being flooded is all the research paleontologists have done. For years they argued, ‘the dinosaurs died out slowly over millions of years.’ But every time they found dinosaurs, they were covered in mud, sometimes piles of them all swept up together. They finally looked at each other and said, ‘look, we have to admit that some massive flood killed all the dinosaurs.’ And so their next theory was, ‘an astroid must have hit the earth and caused a tsunami that was global.’ *So they already agree that there was a universal flood of some sort.* They think that some astroid hit where the Gulf of Mexico is and wiped out everything except a few mammal-like creatures that were at these higher elevations. *But the fossil record if very clear that there was a catastrophic global flood.*”

    If you wish, you can listen at: http://www.amazingfacts.org/Radio/BibleAnswersLive/tabid/89/Default.aspx Start listening around 13:20:

    It is not Flood, but evolution-based geology that will, and already is, having a hard time ‘surviving the onslaughts of science.”




    0
    View Comment
  26. Carl says:
    December 8, 2009 I suggest that you all read about one of the past attempts to make everyone line up and preach only the party line:

    http://www.jesusinstituteforum.org/HaloviakOnIBMTE.html

    A short sample:

    Ellen White said:
    “Instructors in our schools should never be bound about by being told that they are to teach only what has been taught hitherto. Away with these restrictions. There is a God to give the message His people shall speak.”

    Bob said –
    How sad that you have unwittingly provided yet another example of where your own argument is flawed. In the above quote Ellen White argues that GOD is able to give messages and we should listen to them.

    This is the VERY thing she claims is happening in 3SG 90-91. It is in fact God’s message that you are MOST anxious to IGNORE in your by-faith-alone devotion to what atheist evolutionist Collin Patterson called “Stories easy enough to tell but they are not science”!!

    How is it you keep “imagining” that the reader is missing that glaringly obvious point??

    (Darkness for light and light for darkness “again”??)

    Carl said —
    How sad that you imagine I am only trying to win an argument. This issue is not so simple as you make it.

    My assumption in my response above was simply that you intended your own response in favor of evolution to hold up to close review – even when inconvenient details in that post of yours are being compared to the actual facts listed so far in the discussion.

    In the case above – you quote Ellen White as saying that God is to be trusted and believed when HE makes statements.

    I simply refer to the 3SG 90-91 text where the same author (Ellen White) details one of those said “statements made by God” that you have so far been so very anxious to avoid or contradict.

    Carl said –
    It would be good for you to temper your thinking with some advice from the GRI science staff. Here’s one comment from an October, 2001, BRISCO meeting from someone that you likely respect as reported by an attendee: “Dr. Ariel Roth, a former director of GRI, expressed his concern whether Adventist Flood geology can ’survive the onslaught of science.’”

    Again – the “inconvenient details” do not appear to support your thesis — not in the case of Dr Roth and not in the case of your use of Ellen White as her statements are applied to this very topic.

    It is unclear to me as to exactly how you suppose this is helping your position.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  27. Carl: It would be good for you to temper your thinking with some advice from the GRI science staff. Here’s one comment from an October, 2001, BRISCO meeting from someone that you likely respect as reported by an attendee: “Dr. Ariel Roth, a former director of GRI, expressed his concern whether Adventist Flood geology can ’survive the onslaught of science.’”

    It is quite clear that you don’t know Dr. Roth nor have you read any of his books or other papers. However, since you invoke him, I highly recommend that you actually try reading at least some of his work. It is very interesting stuff – along with being well researched and carefully and even handedly presented. Hopefully Ariel Roth’s personal comments for you in this thread will give you encouragment in this direction…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  28. @Ariel A. Roth: Thank you Dr. Roth. I am glad you are able to read and respond to these important matters.

    Having received your PhD in biology from a highly rated university (Michigan) no one can accuse you of inadequate credentials. And having studied further in the University of California system, you are well able to hold your own with some “scientists” who are likely to pour scorn on those associated with Bible colleges.

    I am also glad that your work is not restricted to creationist journals and so I respect your analysis above those who lurk under assumed monikers and pseudonyms and dare not stand up for what they believe.

    Your input is highly appreciated and perhaps those who are wont to quote you without verification will now reconsider the error of their ways.

    Perhaps you may be able to answer this question:

    What is the probability that the various systems in the human body (nervous, respiratory, digestive, skeletal, circulatory, Immune, Excretory, Urinary, Muscular, Endocrine and Reproductive) evolved in the manner of evolutionary lore and yet end up mutually dependent?

    That is, since the body cannot survive without any of these systems, how plausible is it that they can even evolve, rather than being in place at the very beginning of life?




    0
    View Comment
  29. @Ariel A. Roth:

    Dr. Roth,

    I apologize for using a statement that misrepresents your views. Perhaps I should have been suspicious about it because I have always known you to be one who supports the SDA position on creation as stated in the fundamental beliefs. (not sure what you think about recent attempts to add more details) I am interested to read your new book which I had not known about.

    What I have been trying to get across is that there are no simple or obvious solutions for the dilemma that LSU faces. My points are

    1. There is significant scientific evidence supporting the old age of the earth and its life,

    2. Evidence that does not fit the standard long-age model does not prove that a short-age model is better, and

    3. We do not have a comprehensive model that can fit the evidence into about 10,000 years.

    Throughout this Website, there are statements suggesting the issues at LSU can be resolved by teaching that the earth is obviously not more than 10,000 years old, and that evolutionary theory is nothing more than a false religion. I see the issues to be much more complicated and not so easily resolved, and I quoted the above statement thinking it indicated that you might agree.




    0
    View Comment
  30. @Carl: These issues must not be to complicated as Southwestern Adventist University and Southern Adventist University are teaching science that supports a recent creation.

    One reason why this scheme from the Board to develop a curriculum is ridiculous is because quite a few of our schools already have a curriculum. They’re already teaching science from a creationist world view. LSU should be looking to our school who are already doing what they’re being paid to do as an example.




    0
    View Comment
  31. Whereas we are no longer wanting to be different in our educational system since we have acquiesced to federal and state requirements for certification
    by their Boards of Education we no longer can follow the divinely appointed plan to educate our youth. Thus creeping compromise has set in. We are caught, so to speak, between “a rock and a hard spot.” Like the democratic political party’s economics, we have allowed ourselves to start down an ever increasingly steep slippery slope. No one in a position of authority or recognized by the church as having theological acumen, in years gone by, up to now, has ventured to challenge conference/union committees or school/hospital boards as they sought to find enough funding to populate their institutions with paying students or patients. We have, in the interests of ever increasing in size, chased the almighty dollar as opposed to following the direction of God through the inspired pen. Now we are faced with a dilemma. Do we follow the dictates of State/Federal Boards of Education or the council of our own prophet. Who has the moral stamina to join Pastor Renner and Mr. Hilde and be counted? I pray God that each SDA school and hospital board will take a stand “…tho the heavens fall” to maintain or re-evaluate their adherence to the core values of our beloved faith regardless of the “influential leadership” that may happen to sit on those boards and the desire to appease wealthy individuals who may threaten to withdraw their financial support. God has a thousand ways to resolve financial problems if we have the faith that David Gates and others like him have. Let us test Him so that our own faith may be increased. However, we need to get rid of the things in our own lives which separate us from God so that He will not hear our petitions both individually and collectively. When we accomplish that through much prayer and fasting then God will work for us. May God be with each administrator, board member, teacher, and doctor that they may be convicted enough to serve Him only. In the words of one of the old testament leaders may each of us have the courage to say with him, …”as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”




    0
    View Comment
  32. BobRyan: My assumption in my response above was simply that you intended your own response in favor of evolution to hold up to close review – even when inconvenient details in that post of yours are being compared to the actual facts listed so far in the discussion.

    Well, you assumed incorrectly. I am not trying to defend evolution, per se, and certainly not abiogenesis. Please change your assumptions.

    I am simply arguing that there is very strong evidence in favor of an old earth and old life. No one has been able to make that evidence go away. When I have heard GRI science people present, they have not argued that we can clearly fit the evidence into 10,000 years. I am trying to get you and others to stop acting as if you already have a simple solution for the LSU problem. How often must I repeat my statement?




    0
    View Comment
  33. @Carl: Carl,

    You have not gotten it, you have lingered too long at the forbidden tree. Please read this carefully and answer these questions. The assumption is that you believe that both God and Satan exist.

    1) Can God be trusted?
    2) Are you or any person smarter than God?
    3) Can Satan be trusted?
    4) Are you or any person on earth smarter than Satan?
    5) Can Satan deceive people? Hint! Revelation 12:9
    6) Did Satan deceive one-third of the angels?
    7) Did Satan deceive sinless Eve?
    8 ) Can Satan tamper with evidence and with nature? (Ask Job)
    9) What did Eve aspire for in Genesis 3:6? (name 3 things and focus on the third)
    10) In Romans 1:22 what is the description of those who profess the third?

    In light of these 10 thoughts, can you say that simply because you “see” or “heard” or “read” of convincing evidence for an old earth and for evolution, that it is possible for you and others of like bent to be deceived?

    a) How should we conduct ourselves (2 Corinthians 5:7 KJV)?
    b) What happens if we do not follow 2 Cor 5:7? (Read Heb 11:6, 3)

    In summary, the many Christians who have been seduced at the tree of knowledge of good and evil flattered themselves that they can find something that goes beyond the word of God. Either by pride, pursuit of self exaltation, hero worship of the outstanding or whatever else the motive, many who should be praising God for His wondrous works and His dealings with us are rejecting His pure and unambiguous statements. Thus the servant of the Lord was instructed to call it the worst kind of infidelity. It seems akin to witchcraft and idolatry of the kind the ante-deluvians participated in before the flood.

    It is my sincere advice that you and Bravus and company humble yourselves in the sight of God and confess to Him that you had gone too far and now you are prepared to follow His word implicitly, without straining it to support man’s rebellious theories. He will be sure to forgive!




    0
    View Comment
  34. Carl says:

    I am not trying to defend evolution, …I am simply arguing that there is very strong evidence in favor of an old earth and old life.

    I find this idea by those arguing the case for T.E where they make innexplicable statements like the one above of the form “old life is not evolution” from time to time! What kind of paradigm is that!!?

    It is as if they imagine we have any scientist at all claiming to have found 400 million year old human fossils or 400 million year old polar bears, or 400 million year old fox fossils etc.

    They are creating even more problems than either straight evolution or Bible creation. What is up with that??

    No one has been able to make that evidence go away. When I have heard GRI science people present, they have not argued that we can clearly fit the evidence into 10,000 years. I am trying to get you and others to stop acting as if you already have a simple solution for the LSU problem.

    Let us “imagine” for a moment that evolutionism is not be accepted or believed “until every question is fully answered with experimental data” — there would be no evolutionist science.

    Let us “imagine” that the word of God regarding creation is not to be accepted or believed “until every question is fully answered with compelling experimental data” — then as you point out — the Bible would never be believed.

    However it seems that only you are making such a case — thus both sides do still exist.

    But to be fair – one thing we do find a LOT from our T.E friends is the notion that while evolution can be believed no matter how many gaps, gaffs, frauds, hoaxes and experimental science points to the contrary — the Bible can NOT be believed until every question has compelling data as an answer. I will grant you that – you do have company on that argument — I just find the logic in such an argument to be illusive.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  35. @Shane Hilde:

    Shane Hilde says:
    December 8, 2009 @Carl: These issues must not be to complicated as Southwestern Adventist University and Southern Adventist University are teaching science that supports a recent creation.

    One reason why this scheme from the Board to develop a curriculum is ridiculous is because quite a few of our schools already have a curriculum. They’re already teaching science from a creationist world view. LSU should be looking to our school who are already doing what they’re being paid to do as an example.

    Good point

    But The “secret” in LSU’s delay tactic is that they get to “wait” until such a curriculum reaches two stages –

    1. Voted by all SDA colleges and universities – AND accepted as a standard.
    2. Subjected to scientific inspection by ALL our colleges and universities (i.e LSU evolutionists) and found to answer all questions, pass all tests.

    Clearly these are points at which neither Southwestern nor Southern were willing to be stopped “dead in the water”.

    So we do see a difference there.

    In Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  36. @Carl:

    What I have been trying to get across is that there are no simple or obvious solutions for the dilemma that LSU faces. My points are

    1. There is significant scientific evidence supporting the old age of the earth and its life,

    2. Evidence that does not fit the standard long-age model does not prove that a short-age model is better, and

    3. We do not have a comprehensive model that can fit the evidence into about 10,000 years.

    Throughout this Website, there are statements suggesting the issues at LSU can be resolved by teaching that the earth is obviously not more than 10,000 years old, and that evolutionary theory is nothing more than a false religion. I see the issues to be much more complicated and not so easily resolved, and I quoted the above statement thinking it indicated that you might agree.

    As I keep noting — You can easily find that “accusation about evolution being nothing but false religion” in form of the “disguised infidelity” label applied to Theistic evolutionists in 3SG 90-91. You do not address it.

    You find that the Bible is not “Darwinian” — moses was not a “darwinist” by any stretch of the imagination and that both Moses and Ellen White are claiming that God showed them that creation took place in the seven day week. That point you do not address at all.

    You argue that “questions still exist” from our knowledge of science regarding the assertion of a 7 day creation week and an earth that is only 6000 years old … and you seem to be saying that as long as the Bible and Ellen White can be questioned without every one of those questions having a compelling experimentally proven solution – then those inspired texts are not to be believed. That is a major flaw in your argument as it turns out.

    I also believe that in the back and forth you and Sean have been doing – your position is strengthened to some extent because it makes it appear that all you have to do – to challenge the inspired text is to come up with a question – a puzzle that apologists for creation have no experimental data to solve.

    It is misleading.

    Both Creation and evolution have open gaps where there is no experimental data today providing the answer. That is a given!

    As I already pointed out in my “evolutionism is not even science” post – both evolutionism and Creationism deal with assertions outside the design parameters for nature itself – thus qualifying as religion.

    http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/clarification-of-lsu-board-release-documents/comment-page-1/#comment-7062

    Another inconvenient detail you seem to be ignoring.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  37. @Carl:

    Carl says:
    December 8, 2009 @BobRyan:

    It would be good if you made clear whether you intend “evolutionism” to mean abiogenesis, descent from common ancestry , adaptation over time or some combination. Even Sean has argued that there was very rapid and extensive adaptation during a warm period just after the Flood, so I have to imagine that you are not referring to that.

    Indeed – variation within a distinct genome we all accept “as a given”.

    But for evolutionism to be validated – its foundational mechanism must “EXIST”. The salient point in evolution is NOT “change happens” — that is merely the propagandized “air cover” they seek for it, because obviously many forms of “change” do NOT result in higher order genomes arising out of more primitive ancestors — you will never get “birds evolving from reptiles” simply by watching finch beaks adapt to the environment.

    As for abiogenesis — not ONLY is that fiction bad science — it is also bad religion to imagine that you can edit the Bible’s “for in SIX days the LORD MADE…” to “God created the first single celled organisms in a day then everything else evolved over 400 million years of time”.

    Thus an “everything but abiogenesis” kind of evolutionism – is still just bad religion and is not proven in science at all.

    Descent from common ancestry, however, stands on a considerable foundation of science

    “Descent from common ancestory” is extremely simple observation regarding “variation within a distinct genome”. It does not suffice to prove the salient argument in a “birds-came-from-reptiles” mythology.

    You might as well argue “animals eat — so birds came from reptiles”.

    It is a given in a eukaryote system of reproduction that “descendants come from ancestors” — and that the homologous requirement for gene allele combination results in “variation within that resulting set of descendants”. But what the critical thinker will instantly observe is that the fact above does not require us to then imagine that “birds came from reptiles”. (hint: It is interesting that even evolutionists do not argue that the platypus came from birds).

    even though it has been contaminated with errors such as “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” or the infamous artist drawing showing a line from apes to man.

    The hoax you reference above was the brainchild of Ernst Haeckle. When Ernst was eventually put on trial by university court at Jena for is part in the fraud – he stated the following …

    Ernst Haeckle said –
    “I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed” (Bowden, Malcolm (1977), Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications), p. 128).

    In essence Haeckle turned “states witness” against his fellow deceptive evolutionists.

    The real question that the critical thinker would be asking is “why” are hoaxes and frauds so common — so apparently “necessary” for the promotion of evolutionism?

    The answer is apparent in Collin Patterson’s own statements on this subject – where he condemns the “stories easy enough to make up” that are going into evolutionism. (Apparently done in an effort to cover up the point that the salient argument for that particular religion – has no science supporting it!)

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  38. Where is the accountability?

    There should be accountability in regards to admn at LSU.Is the General Conference over the president at LSU? Then if the LSU president does not get rid of the false teachers, then the conference needs to fire him and the professors and get men (or women) in there that represent the churches doctrines.

    Can somebody please clue me in as to what the chain of command is here? Somewhere in the SDA church’s authority structure must be leaders who do not have the courage to take action. What are they scared of? The devil? Public opinion? Weak sentimentalism is certainly a counterfeit for “love” and a “head in the sand” attitude.

    What do the Sunday oriented colleges think of Adventists? How do we call them out of Babylon when LSU is still in it?

    Where is Elijah when we need him? Its time to explain to these false teachers and scared administrators that their services are no longer needed, but please don’t forget to attend Sabbath services, and to be sure to re-study the first chapters of Genesis in total submission to the Holy Spirit!




    0
    View Comment
  39. Re: Steve Billiter:Can somebody please clue me in as to what the chain of command is here? Somewhere in the SDA church’s authority structure must be leaders who do not have the courage to take action.

    There is a chain of command. The Union is ultimately responsible for its own university(/ies). If the Union is recalcitrant, the North American Division may take the Union to task, and ultimately the General Conference needs to hold the NAD on track. With this type of structure, there really is no reason that the denomination cannot hold on to its universities, unlike in Battle Creek days, unless, of course, they no longer care enough to fight.
    May God help us!




    0
    View Comment
  40. @Pastor Wendell Downs:
    Thanks pastor, my thoughts exactly, we will need more strength from the Lord to get through the trying times ahead.

    I suppose Ricardo Graham is waiting for revised curriculum from LSU? How will that really help if there are four professors who are evolutionists? That influence will still be there.




    0
    View Comment
  41. @Carl: I agree with you that the issue is very complex, and because human knowledge is so limited, I am not optimstic about so called “absolute proof.” I am impressed with the amount of data that just a few SDA scientists have been able to dig up that favors more the Biblical creation model than the secular evolutionary model. There is more about this in my books. I wish you well. Ariel.




    0
    View Comment
  42. @BobRyan:

    There needs to be a thread about the 1Timothy 4:1 concept of “doctrines of demons” and then solid inspired text references to Satan having a real focused and genuine interest in the subject of evolution.

    I can certainly provide anecdotal evidence. I have a friend who has received messages from spirit beings; who have specifically told him that the idea that a loving “God” created the world is false, and that it evolved over time from simple life forms created by aliens not from our planet.

    The devil has many lies out there, to suit whomever he is trying to deceive at the moment, but you can clearly see that he is not interested in us believing that a loving God created a perfect world a mere 6000 years ago.

    The corresponding evidence from inspiration would also be good to address…

    Warren




    0
    View Comment
  43. Regarding satan’s interest in teaching Evolution:

    The warnings of the word of God regarding the perils surrounding the Christian church belong to us today. As in the days of the apostles men tried by tradition and philosophy to destroy faith in the Scriptures, so today, by the pleasing sentiments of higher criticism, evolution, spiritualism, theosophy, and pantheism, the enemy of righteousness is seeking to lead souls into forbidden paths.

    (AA 474)

    Also, I thought the following quote was relevant to the subject. There was a discussion specifically on how evolution should be taught in our colleges, in which W.C. White and E.G. White were involved.

    W. C. White: Jesus said at one time, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works.” Now the law says that a man shall not practice medicine unless he has a diploma from a college, and unless he has passed the examination of the state board, and has a certificate. The law would not recognize the diplomas of our physicians unless they have studied some things that we do not think are really essential. For instance, in their preparation they have to study a number of things that we think they might get along without, but we can teach them. We do not have to teach these subjects in their way; we can teach them in our way. When it comes to the study of drugs, they (759) teach how to give them. We teach the dangers of using them, and how to get along without them. In some other schools they teach geology on the evolution basis. We can teach geology and show that evolution is false. {LLM 427.3}
    E. G. White: Well, you must plan these details yourselves. I have told you what I have received, but these details you will have to work out for yourselves. {LLM 427.4}
    J. A. Burden: It seems clear to me that any standing we can lawfully have without compromising, is not out of harmony with God’s plan. {LLM 427.5}
    E. G. White: No, it is not. All I can say is that I have had very distinct light, however, that there is danger of our limiting the power of the Holy One of Israel. He is the God of the Universe. Our influence is dependent upon our

    -428-

    carrying out the word of the living God. We weaken our powers by not placing our dependence upon God, and taking hold of His strength. This is our privilege. (MS-105-’09 very similar to MS-71-’09)

    (Loma Linda Messages 427-428)

    Warren




    0
    View Comment
  44. @Warren:

    I can certainly provide anecdotal evidence. I have a friend who has received messages from spirit beings; who have specifically told him that the idea that a loving “God” created the world is false, and that it evolved over time from simple life forms created by aliens not from our planet.

    The devil has many lies out there, to suit whomever he is trying to deceive at the moment, but you can clearly see that he is not interested in us believing that a loving God created a perfect world a mere 6000 years ago.

    Roger Morneau also witnessed a similar thing.

    Ellen White also talks about that connection

    Satan Seeks to Exalt Science Above the Bible
    Science, so-called, human reasoning and poetry, cannot be passed on as of equal authority with revelation; but it is Satan’s studied purpose to exalt the maxims, traditions, and inventions of men to an equal authority with the Word of God; and, having accomplished this, to exalt the words of man to the place of supremacy . — RH Nov. 20, 1894.

    Long Indefinite ages – Sophistry of Satan
    The sophistry in regard to the world being created in an indefinite period of time is one of Satan’s falsehoods. God speaks to the human family in language they can comprehend. He does not leave the matter so indefinite that human beings can handle it according to their theories. — Letter 31, 1898.

    Because God’s Works Cannot be Explained by Finite Minds, Many Doubt
    Today there are many who have taken their position on the side of unbelief, as if it were a virtue, the sign of a great mind, to doubt. Because the works of God cannot be explained by finite minds, Satan brings his sophistry to bear upon them, and entangles them in the meshes of unbelief. If these doubting ones would come in close connection with God, He would make His purposes clear to their understanding. — YI March 21, 1901.

    One more along those lines

    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.” 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 father, 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. {GC88 522.3}

    Thus many err from the faith, and are seduced by the devil. Men have endeavored to be wiser than their Creator; human philosophy has attempted to search out and explain mysteries which will never be revealed, through the eternal ages. If men would but search and understand what God has made known of himself and his purposes, they would obtain such a view of the glory, majesty, and power of Jehovah, that they would realize their own littleness, and would be content with that which has been revealed for themselves and their children. {GC88 522.4}

    It is a masterpiece of Satan’s deceptions to keep the minds of men searching and conjecturing in regard to that which God has not made known, and which he does not intend that we shall understand. It was thus that Lucifer lost his place in Heaven. He became dissatisfied because all the secrets of God’s purposes were not confided to him, and he entirely disregarded that which was revealed concerning his own work in the lofty position assigned him. By arousing the same discontent in the angels under his command, he caused their fall. Now he seeks to imbue the minds of men with the same spirit, and to lead them also to disregard the direct commands of God. {GC88 523.1}




    0
    View Comment
  45. Carl: What I have been trying to get across is that there are no simple or obvious solutions for the dilemma that LSU faces. My points are

    1. There is significant scientific evidence supporting the old age of the earth and its life,

    When you look closely at it, the evidence is not very significant. In fact, several of the evidences in this regard which you’ve listed in this forum are actually far more consistent with a rapid, even catastrophic, model of origins. They certainly are not inconsistent with such a model when considered in detail.

    2. Evidence that does not fit the standard long-age model does not prove that a short-age model is better, and

    You keep repeating this argument like a mantra even though it is quite clear that evidence presented which cannot be reasonably explained by a long age model (since only a rapid or recent formation is required) would in fact support a short-age model.

    You also keep using the word “proof” a lot. Science isn’t about proof. It is about the weight of evidence. Nothing can be absolutely proved in science. There is always an element of uncertainty because of this – even for the strongest scientific theories.

    3. We do not have a comprehensive model that can fit the evidence into about 10,000 years.

    Again, I’m not sure what you mean by “comprehensive”, but we do in fact have models that can indeed fit the significant weight of evidence into a <10,000 year time frame…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  46. Sean Pitman M.D.:
    3. We do not have a comprehensive model that can fit the evidence into about 10,000 years.
    Again, I’m not sure what you mean by “comprehensive”, but we do in fact have models that can indeed fit the significant weight of evidence into a <10,000 year time frame…

    Go to the GRI site, or anywhere else, and find a short-age model that we can discuss. Your statements that we had a flood, then a warm period, then a cold period, and then things settled down do not constitute a model. It’s strange that the Genesis account would describe the Flood but not the unusually warm period or the unusually cold period that followed. After the Flood, it says that Noah planted vineyards – sounds like things were pretty much back to normal.

    I’m mystified to know what is unclear about “comprehensive.” It would be something that can explain Mt. Everest with sea-floor deposits on its top, the mid-Atlantic sea floor with its pattern of magnetic reversals that correspond well with radiometric dates, the migrations of the Hawaiian and Yellowstone hot spots which correspond well with plate tectonics, multiple ice ages, the Hawaiian Ridge which is older on the north end and youngest on the south end, the Grand Canyon, the ice cores, the geologic column and its fossils, and much more within 10,000 years without requiring a violation of the laws of physics.

    The standard model fits these things together reasonable well. You need to do at least as well. Your quibbles with radiometric dating do not shorten the time periods to anything remotely realistic.




    0
    View Comment
  47. Carl: Go to the GRI site, or anywhere else, and find a short-age model that we can discuss. Your statements that we had a flood, then a warm period, then a cold period, and then things settled down do not constitute a model. It’s strange that the Genesis account would describe the Flood but not the unusually warm period or the unusually cold period that followed. After the Flood, it says that Noah planted vineyards – sounds like things were pretty much back to normal.

    It’s not strange at all. Even in a “cold period” globally speaking, there are still places where it is warm on the planet…

    I’m mystified to know what is unclear about “comprehensive.” It would be something that can explain Mt. Everest with sea-floor deposits on its top, the mid-Atlantic sea floor with its pattern of magnetic reversals that correspond well with radiometric dates, the migrations of the Hawaiian and Yellowstone hot spots which correspond well with plate tectonics, multiple ice ages, the Hawaiian Ridge which is older on the north end and youngest on the south end, the Grand Canyon, the ice cores, the geologic column and its fossils, and much more within 10,000 years without requiring a violation of the laws of physics.

    I myself have already given you explanations for all of these things. You’ve countered with nothing but personal incredulity as far as I can tell – no quotes, no references, no apologetic arguments at all besides bald assertions on your part that this or that just “seems obvious” to you. That’s hardly a conflicting “model” as far as I can tell…

    The standard model fits these things together reasonable well. You need to do at least as well. Your quibbles with radiometric dating do not shorten the time periods to anything remotely realistic.

    This is simply a matter of opinion and bald assertion. The standard model does not explain the significant weight of the available data very well at all – not even close. At the same time, all of these particular features which you have specifically mentioned fit very well into a catastrophic model of origins. They are not at all inconsistent with a catastrophic model. There are actually some features that are more difficult to explain from the catastrophist perspective, but you haven’t presented any of these problems. What you have presented fits very well, and some of it even directly supports the catastrophist model…

    We’ve gone over dozens of problems with your model as well as the positives for the catastrophic model – – and you’ve not presented anything in response besides your personal observation that these problems seem “trivial”. Well… that’s really not much of a basis for discussion. You haven’t even read those who you do attempt to reference – such as Ariel Roth whom you quote out of context without reading any of his books or papers. Roth, in particular, presents a very good and fairly complete model of origins from the catastrophist perspective in his books… if you care to actually read them…

    Your quibbles with radiometric dating do not shorten the time periods to anything remotely realistic.

    Did you not read anything I wrote? My “quibbles” are go far beyond radiometric dating problems (which are numerous in and of themselves). I’ve given you lists of dozens of problems for your long-age notions which, at the same time, strongly favor the catastrophic model of origins. Do I really need to list these out for you again and again? Why not at least try to respond, substantively, to at least some of these problems for your position? – beyond your usual response that these seem “trivial” to you? If they are so trivial, perhaps you could enlighten me as to why you have reached this conclusion? – with some actual detailed arguments? Specifically with reference to some of the following:

    Here are some examples of time constraints that dramatically counter mainstream thinking:

    Continental erosion rates: Time constraint: < 10 million years
    Mountain sedimentary layer erosion rates: < 10 million years
    Ocean sediment influx vs. subduction: < 5 million years
    Detrimental mutation rate for humans: Extinction in < 2 million years
    Radiocarbon in coal and oil: < 100,000 years
    Preserved proteins in fossils: < 100,000 years
    Paraconformities: < 10,000 years
    Erosion rates between layers: < 10,000 years per layer
    Pure thick coal beds: < 100 years
    Minimal bioturbation between layers < 5 years per layer
    Worldwide paleocurrent patterns: < 1 year

    So, while you are correct that such time constraints don't prove a literal 6-day creation week, they are far more consistent with catastrophic events and recent creation of life described in the biblical record than with the notions of mainstream scientists which are off by several orders of magnitude.

    Are you really so sure of yourself in your belief that the available evidence clearly falsifies the biblical account of history? How confident are you in your imaginations that the features you're talking about clearly require the time periods you suggest? Based on what "overwhelming" evidence? Some details please…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  48. Sean Pitman M.D.: I myself have already given you explanations for all of these things. You’ve countered with nothing but personal incredulity as far as I can tell – no quotes, no references, no apologetic arguments at all besides bald assertions on your part that this or that just “seems obvious” to you. That’s hardly a conflicting “model” as far as I can tell…

    Here are two statements from the GRI site that I quoted to you earlier, to which your responded, “Wrong.”

    “More of the scientific data is currently explained by a long-age than a short-age model.”

    “No comprehensive, short-age model is even available to rival the long-age model.”

    And then, you wondered what I meant by “comprehensive.” These are not my bald assertions based on personal incredulity. You think they’re wrong,
    and that’s supposed to mean that they really are wrong. I don’t think so. Please notice from your list of dramatic problems with mainstream science that you get more than half way down before anything is less than 100,000 years, which does nothing to make a 6,000 year model look promising.

    I haven’t found examples of your theories that have held up well in scientific discussions. Here are two reactions:

    “… These are extremely poor arguments for a global flood, but Sean Pitman is not picky, and he stands foursquare behind even bad arguments he cannot support with evidence or even argumentation.”

    Next, “… Sean believes that a good portion of mainstream science is grossly wrong, and that his simplistic ad hoc hypotheses are better science. Indeed, there are so many scientific results, and major branches of science that Pitman disagrees with, that if he were correct, Pitman would be the most inovative thinker of our times. Yet, we know he is not. …”




    0
    View Comment
  49. Sean Pitman M.D.: … all of these particular features which you have specifically mentioned fit very well into a catastrophic model of origins.

    What “catastrophic model of origins?” You have offered speculations that seem to violate the laws of physics. That does not make a model.




    0
    View Comment
  50. Evolutionisms abiogenesis violates the laws of chemistry and physics.
    Evolutionisms “big bang” from nothing violates the laws of physics
    Evolutionisms genome morphing of primitive eukaryote genomes to complex higher order genomes violates the laws of genetics, physics and chemistry.

    Thus NONE of that is observable in the lab!

    They are as collin patterson said of the stories told from the fossil record “about how one thing came from another” simply “stories easy enough to make up – but they are not science”.

    It is in fact nothing more than junk-science and bad religion.

    As was pointed out – God’s own “Formed man from the dust of the ground” is also “not within His own design parameters for nature” – that is to say — we do not expect to “observe dust turning into humans”.

    God states that He ALONE can create life.

    ATheist evolutionists do not believe that —

    Theistic evolutionists think that “reptiles turn into birds”.

    How sad.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  51. Carl: Here are two statements from the GRI site that I quoted to you earlier, to which your responded, “Wrong.”
    “More of the scientific data is currently explained by a long-age than a short-age model.”
    “No comprehensive, short-age model is even available to rival the long-age model.”

    You have already shown yourself to misquote or at least overstate the opinions of creation scientists – such as Ariel Roth. Who at GRI said this? As you know, this does not represent the view of all of the staff at GRI or even all of the most prominent creation scientists associated with the SDA Church.

    Clearly, the creationist position is a minority position. Repeatedly pointing this out or refering to those who baldly claim that the evidence in favor of a catastrophic model is minimal and that the evidence in favor of an ancient Earth model is overwhelming isn’t helpful. We already know that this is the opinion of the majority. My question to you is, do you know how to explain the evidence against the catastrophic model and for your long-age model? So far, I don’t see you presenting any actual data that clearly supports your long-age notions.

    You argue that just because I present evidence that seems to counter the long age model doesn’t mean that it fits into a short-age model. Well, the majority of it certainly fits far more easily into a short-age catastrophic model vs. the standard model – – by orders of magnitude. If it can be shown that the mainstream perspective is off by orders of magnitude, at the very least, upon what do you base your faith in the obvious truth of your long age model?

    Also, please specifically point out what “laws of physics” are violated by any of the arguments I’ve presented for a short-age or a catastrophic model. I’ve yet to see you present any argument in support of this particular assertion… what are these violated “laws of physics”? I’m very curious…

    And then, you wondered what I meant by “comprehensive.” These are not my bald assertions based on personal incredulity. You think they’re wrong,
    and that’s supposed to mean that they really are wrong. I don’t think so. Please notice from your list of dramatic problems with mainstream science that you get more than half way down before anything is less than 100,000 years, which does nothing to make a 6,000 year model look promising.

    The 100,000 year mark is the maximum allowable time frame – not the minimum. In other words, it dramatically counters the current mainstream paradigm by orders of magnitude. Yet, you argue that it doesn’t support a catastrophic model? – even taken together with those features that cannot be explained if they occured over a period of longer than a year or two? What are you looking for?

    I haven’t found examples of your theories that have held up well in scientific discussions. Here are two reactions:
    “… These are extremely poor arguments for a global flood, but Sean Pitman is not picky, and he stands foursquare behind even bad arguments he cannot support with evidence or even argumentation.”
    Next, “… Sean believes that a good portion of mainstream science is grossly wrong, and that his simplistic ad hoc hypotheses are better science. Indeed, there are so many scientific results, and major branches of science that Pitman disagrees with, that if he were correct, Pitman would be the most inovative thinker of our times. Yet, we know he is not. …”

    It is very easy to simply dismiss an argument out of hand as usually happens when I’m debating in mainstream forums. Nothing could convince most of these guys outside of a shift in popular opinion. These guys have no opinion of their own. They only go with what is currently popular, regardless of the evidence presented. If an idea isn’t popular, they simply won’t consider it.

    You seem to be of this same mindset. You don’t seem to have your own ideas. You are simply impressed by the fact that most modern scientists agree with you. Yet, when you are asked to present those arguments that are most convincing to you, what do you have? An ice man that is carbon dated beyond 10,000 years? Your notions that volcanic islands have to take a long time to form based on uniformitarian assumptions? Radiometric dating that is calibrated according to old-Earth assumptions?

    If that is the best you have, I’m sorry, but I’m underwhelmed. Beyond this, if you really believe this stuff you’re promoting, why take a paycheck from an SDA organization? – an organization that has specifically asked all paid representatives to actively support the stated SDA position on a literal creation week?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  52. Carl: What “catastrophic model of origins?” You have offered speculations that seem to violate the laws of physics. That does not make a model.

    Here is the most recent finding that most certainly does dramatically violate the laws of physics – – against the old-Earth model:

    The Alps came about by the collision of the African and European continents which began some 55 million years ago. The famed mountain range most likely gained its greatest height millions of years ago as a result of this tectonic activity.

    In their measurements over the past decades, however, scientists have discovered that the Alpine summits grow up to a millimeter annually when compared with the low land. But researchers from the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences determined that the mountains eroded simultaneously at almost the same speed as they grew.

    The researchers determined the speed of the surface erosion by using a “locator” – the rare isotope Beryllium-10 which through cosmic radiation develops on the surface. When a surface erodes very quickly, however, there are fewer Beryllium-10 isotopes present, as in the case of the sand of the Swiss Alps’ rivers.

    http://www.germany.info/Vertretung/usa/en/__PR/GIC/2009/11/12__Alps__PM.html

    This article argues that the surfaces of the Swiss Alps, thought to have been uplifted some 55 million years ago, are eroding at a millimeter per year. You might not think that all too astounding. But, consider this erosion rate over the course of just one million years. That’s one million millimeters of erosion – or 1,000 vertical meters of erosion per million years. Yet, a significant thickness of sedimentary layers remain atop the Swiss Alps? How is that possible? Is this not a violation of physics? The current erosion rate is enough to wash off these layers many times over, yet they are still there?

    Of course, your usual comeback is that just because this may be a problem for the old-Earth ideas of mainstream scientists doesn’t mean it supports a 10,000 year history any better. Well, at the very least you have to admit that mainstream science, to include radiometric dating methods, aren’t nearly as reliable as you make them out to be given such high erosion rates.

    Can you at least admit this much? If so, this would be a signficant start.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  53. The erosion argument is a common furphy. But the very same article you cited said the mountains rise at a millimetre a year through tectonic processes. And what rises is a layer of rock that includes sedimentary rock. The mountains don’t erode away because they keep being pushed upward by plate tectonic activity.

    That’s fairly typical of many of the short-age arguments: they ignore some fairly simple and basic fact to come to a conclusion that’s plausible only to someone who is already primed to agree.




    0
    View Comment
  54. Bravus: The erosion argument is a common furphy. But the very same article you cited said the mountains rise at a millimetre a year through tectonic processes. And what rises is a layer of rock that includes sedimentary rock. The mountains don’t erode away because they keep being pushed upward by plate tectonic activity.

    That’s fairly typical of many of the short-age arguments: they ignore some fairly simple and basic fact to come to a conclusion that’s plausible only to someone who is already primed to agree.

    Talk about a “common furphy”…

    Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. Evidently you don’t realize that I am talking about erosion of the sedimentary layers on top of mountain ranges like the Alps or the Himalayas. Sedimentary layers are not replaced or protected from being washed away by continued uplift of the granitic rock underneath. They are being washed off of the underlying granitic rock like you might wash off a dirty plate. Why then is there still dirt on the plate? – after such a long time of washing the plate? Understand?

    You see, I’m not talking about the erosion of the mountains themselves – despite this very common confusion regarding this particular erosion problem for some reason.

    I don’t know how many times someone has presented this very same counter argument that you’ve presented without thinking about the actual problem. So, at least you’re in good company…

    You see, the relatively thin layer of sedimentary rock should have been washed off of these mountain ranges many times over by now – if their uplift really did occur tens of millions of years ago. The original thickness of the uplifted sedimentary layer of rock was no more than 6000 or so meters before the uplift. So, the question is, why is it still there, atop these mountain ranges, without having been washed off many times over by now?

    Another example of this problem is Mt. Everest, the tallest mountain in the world (at least as far as elevation is concerned). Yet, Mt. Everest is still covered by sedimentary rock (Ordovician). The erosion rate on Mt. Everest is just as high as it is on the Alps. Yet, the Ordovician limestone has been exposed to such erosional pressures for over 20 million years? Half of the sedimentary layers slid off of Mt. Everest 20 million years ago in mainstream thinking, exposing the Ordovician to erosion. So, the obvious question is, why are any of the sedimentary layers, not to mention the Ordovician, still there atop Mt. Everest? – without having been washed off several times over down to the underlying granitic rock? How is this phenomenon explained?

    I hope I’ve made this question overwhelmingly clear for you this time…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  55. What is being pushed up? The mountains are not a huge layer of igneous or metamorphic rocks with a layer of sedimentary rock sitting on the top to be eroded. They are huge sheets with layers of a variety of rock types, being pushed up and bent and crinkled and broken. The rock at the top is not uniformly sedimentary by any means, but is a variety of types… and same for the rock all the way down through the mountains. All the kids of rock erode, so there is always some sedimentary rock at the peak.

    The issue still stands: the erosion argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of rocks, mountains, tectonic uplift and erosion.




    0
    View Comment
  56. @Bravus:

    Bravus: What is being pushed up? The mountains are not a huge layer of igneous or metamorphic rocks with a layer of sedimentary rock sitting on the top to be eroded.

    Yes, they are. While the sedimentary rock has often been warped by the uplift, it still sits atop the underlying granitic or metamorphic rock as it originally did – as the first surface to be eroded. There is no significant protection to this layer of sedimentary rock by the folding or any other type of shielding rock or feature to protect and preserve it from erosion to any significant degree.

    They are huge sheets with layers of a variety of rock types, being pushed up and bent and crinkled and broken. The rock at the top is not uniformly sedimentary by any means, but is a variety of types… and same for the rock all the way down through the mountains. All the kids of rock erode, so there is always some sedimentary rock at the peak.

    This simply isn’t true. The sedimentary rock atop the Alps or Mt. Everest is not thickened to any significant degree by folding nor are these entire mountain chains composed of layered sedimentary rock. Also, it is not true that the sedimentary rock is protected from erosion by other types of rock atop these mountains…

    The issue still stands: the erosion argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of rocks, mountains, tectonic uplift and erosion.

    You’re simply mistaken.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  57. Southwestern Adventist University receives frequent praise at this site to the neglect of other institutions. Sean Pitman, for example, has kindly informed us that Southwestern has an undergraduate Geology program.

    The reality, however, is stated plainly in their bulletin: “Southwestern Adventist University, in conjunction with Loma Linda University, offers a geology program with major emphasis in sedimentology, stratigraphy and paleontology. The freshman and sophomore years are taken on the campus of Southwestern Adventist University, while the junior and senior years are taken on the campus of Loma Linda University.” Thus it’s a bit of a stretch to claim or imply that one can earn an undergraduate degree in Geology from Southwestern.

    Loma Linda University is the only SDA institution that provides any degrees in Geology. It offers B.S. and M.S. degrees in Geology, and a Ph.D. in Earth Science. Moreover, the program is strongly committed to the SDA Fundamental Beliefs. Just trying to set the record straight.




    0
    View Comment
  58. From the Sabbath School Quarterly

    Read Numbers 25:6–18. How do we understand what was going on here? What lessons can we take away from this story?

    [This is the story of the whoredoms Israel had with the Midianite women at Peor where they even bowed down to worship false gods.] Continuing the extract:

    Though the text doesn’t come out and explicitly say it, one could read into the text that the Israelite man, Zimri, was having a sexual relationship with the woman when Phinehas came into the tent and thrust his javelin through them both. However harsh all this might seem, think about the circumstances. The whole camp is weeping and pleading with the Lord because of what was happening, and this man—so audacious and open in his sin—brings this Midianite woman into the camp before all of them and then takes her into the tent and has sexual relations with her. All the while a plague is ravaging the camp! What made it even worse was that Zimri came from a house of princes; that is, he was part of royal stock and thus should have known better. He must have been so deceived, so consumed with lust, that the sight of the camp weeping before the tabernacle didn’t slow him down at all.

    All through the Bible, we see examples of how sin clouds the reasoning powers and leads people to do some of the most unthinking and irrational things. Think of Cain, of David with Bathsheba, of Judas betraying Jesus. No wonder the Bible, time and again, warns us against sin. It’s not that God can’t forgive our sin; it’s that the sin can so warp us that we can get to the point that we don’t even see it as sin any longer.

    What is the relevance? There are some today who are “princes” in Israel: like college professors, pastors, conference and union officials )eg presidents).

    Yet these people are so deceived that they engage in daring exploits in the very face of the congregation and believe that they should be accepted. People like Whisby, Greer, Bradley, Carl and Bravus openly flaunt their whoredoms with evolution and expect that they should be accepted and remain in princely positions. They want to be teachers in Israel and claim to be teaching the things of God but instead they are joined to Baalpeor.

    I am willing to come out and say, unlike many will indeed, that these college trained SDAs especially, who should be teaching the things of God to the people, have left God and joined with Baalpeor.

    And like Zimri they have no shame, being boldfaced in their rebellion and expect the congregation to be thrilled by their daring. Yet there is one omnipotent One, who neither slumbers nor sleeps, who takes faithful records, with unerring precision, who will call them one day to account.

    Their recompence, like Zimri, will be their destruction and how sad it will be, when they could have been saved.




    0
    View Comment
  59. The Age of Mountains – the accuracy of modern science

    The Himalayan mountains are said by most modern scientists to have started their uplift or orogeny some 50 million years ago. However, recently in 2008 Yang Wang et. al. of Florida State University found thick layers of ancient lake sediment filled with plant, fish and animal fossils typical of far lower elevations and warmer, wetter climates. Paleo-magnetic studies determined the sample’s age to be only 2 or 3 million years old, not tens of millions of years old according to Wang.

    Major tectonic changes on the Tibetan Plateau may have caused it to attain its towering present-day elevations — rendering it inhospitable to the plants and animals that once thrived there — as recently as 2-3 million years ago, not millions of years earlier than that, as geologists have generally believed. The new evidence calls into question the validity of methods commonly used by scientists to reconstruct the past elevations of the region…

    “So far, my research colleagues and I have only worked in two basins in Tibet, representing a very small fraction of the Plateau, but it is very exciting that our work to-date has yielded surprising results that are inconsistent with the popular view of Tibetan uplift,” she said.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080611144021.htm

    So Carl and Bravus, how reliable do those age estimates look now? – if they can be off by 20 fold using different mainstream methods of age estimation, where is the clear overwhelming reliability of these methods?

    Also, regarding Bravus’ notion that uplifted mountains, like Mt. Everest are all mixed up with sedimentary layers throughout, instead of just on top, consider the following picture of Mt. Everest showing the Tibetan sedimentary layers on top, without being “mixed up” within Mt. Everest as Bravus imagines…

    http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~davewa/research/himal/everest1.jpg

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  60. Frank L.: Sean Pitman, for example, has kindly informed us that Southwestern has an undergraduate Geology program.

    The reality, however, is stated plainly in their bulletin: “Southwestern Adventist University, in conjunction with Loma Linda University, offers a geology program with major emphasis in sedimentology, stratigraphy and paleontology. The freshman and sophomore years are taken on the campus of Southwestern Adventist University, while the junior and senior years are taken on the campus of Loma Linda University.” Thus it’s a bit of a stretch to claim or imply that one can earn an undergraduate degree in Geology from Southwestern.

    The point is that there is in fact a geology program at SAU and that Arthur Chadwick plays a prominent role in this program. Just because SAU works in concert with LLU is irrelevant. One can still get a geology degree from the SDA school system… that’s the point.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  61. …and that brings us back around to Carl’s point: 2 million is not 50 million, but it’s not 6000 either. It just plain doesn’t help your position. (Unless you believe that any scientific finding that is challenged by new data means that we must throw up our hands and abandon science entirely.)




    0
    View Comment
  62. Bravus: …and that brings us back around to Carl’s point: 2 million is not 50 million, but it’s not 6000 either. It just plain doesn’t help your position. (Unless you believe that any scientific finding that is challenged by new data means that we must throw up our hands and abandon science entirely.)

    What it should tell you is that the mainstream “science” of estimating the age of stuff isn’t very reliable if it can be off by 20 fold for such a prominent area of mainstream science – i.e., the age of mountains. And, this isn’t the only such incident.

    To further illustrate this problem, consider that the Coastal Range of the Atacama desert in northern Chile (which is 20 time drier than Death Valley) is thought to have been without any rain or significant moisture of any kind for around 25 million years. However, investigators recently discovered fairly extensive deposits of very well preserved animal droppings associated with grasses as well as human-produced artifacts like arrowheads and such. Radiocarbon dating of these finding indicate very active life in at least semiarid conditions within the past 11,000 years – a far cry from 25 million years.

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html#Cosmogenic

    This sort of stuff doesn’t cause you the briefest pause when it comes to your bold declarations in favor of mainstream thinking? Taken together with the erosion rate problem (which is a huge problem despite your mistaken notions regarding the nature of mountain range structure and formation) such evidences are quite significant – especially when there are so many of them that are in dramatic disagreement with mainstream thinking.

    This inconsistency in the ability of the mainstream model to make accurate predictions of key features of the geologic and fossil records also needs to be compared with the numerous features that put a maximum upper limit on the age of this column that is orders of magnitude closer to the catastrophic model I’m proposing.

    Continental erosion rates: Time constraint: < 10 million years
    Mountain sedimentary layer erosion rates: < 10 million years
    Ocean sediment influx vs. subduction: < 5 million years
    Detrimental mutation rate for humans: Extinction in < 2 million years
    Radiocarbon in coal and oil: < 100,000 years
    Preserved proteins in fossils: < 100,000 years
    Paraconformities: < 10,000 years
    Erosion rates between layers: < 10,000 years per layer
    Pure thick coal beds: < 100 years
    Minimal bioturbation between layers < 5 years per layer
    Worldwide paleocurrent patterns: < 1 year

    When you have very clear time constraints like this for uniformitarian thinking, together with dramatically inconsistent mainstream dating methods, you have the weight of evidence that is screaming sudden catastrophe!

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  63. One other point: the estimate of 2-3 million years for the major uplift of the Tibetan plateau that was reported by Wang et al seems pretty solid, but the 40-50 million year period given in the online article Sean cited does not appear anywhere in Wang’s paper, and having a bit of a look around I can’t find much evidence of it in mainstream geological thinking, certainly as some sort of consensus age value to which most people agreed.

    Doing science well does mean that results and interpretations will change as new data become available – it’s a feature, not a bug. But, like the claims in the KBS tuff discussion, on closer examination the dramatic changes turn out not to be so dramatic after all… and still are no help at all in getting to a sub-10,000 year old world. Even Sean’s own list above (which contains some extremely dodgy science like the human detrimental mutation stuff) contains 8 evidences for a world older than that and only 3 for one younger.

    Carl is correct in making the point that picking nits on ‘mainstream’ dating does not establish a credible alternative framework.




    0
    View Comment
  64. As a point of clarification, ‘catastrophic model of origins’ essentially boils down to ‘the Flood did it’. Anything geological that is inconvenient for a short-age model is simply ascribed to the Flood… which apparently now involved not just water, and not just the breaking up of the fountains of the deep, but whole tectonic plates zooming around the surface of the earth…




    0
    View Comment
  65. Bravus,

    You seem to have some sort of mental block when it comes to understanding the concept of a maximum time constraint. The evidences I’ve listed for you are maximum, not minimum, time constraints. They aren’t evidences for old ages, but for an upper limit on age – – see the difference?

    In other words, these maximum limitations strongly argue against mainstream thinking using their own uniformitarian assumptions which simply do not agree with certain laws of physics. Given a catastrophic scenario, these features could easily be explained within a 10kyr time frame… and some features, as noted above, can only be explained within such a short time frame.

    Also, you seem to be spouting off quite a bit about stuff you evidently haven’t read much of anything about. If you do much reading at all on this topic, it is quite clear that mainstream thinking had dated the Himalayan mountain orogeny at around 50 million years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas#Origins_and_growth

    Therefore, a reduction in this age by over 20 fold is quite a dramatic error range for the dating methods used and seriously calls into question their reliability and general usefulness.

    One more thing, if you actually know of some sort of solution to the detrimental mutation rate problem for slowly reproducing creatures, I’d be most interested. Please do present some actual data next time instead of just making stuff up off the top of your head as you seem prone to do so far…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  66. It’s unhelpful (and rude) to assume that one’s interlocutors are stupid.

    I understand the concept of upper limits. My point was that an upper limit of 10 million year allows a 6000 year age, but does not require it. If that’s the standard, why not just accept a 4.5 billion year age, since that also allows a 6000 year age in the sense that it is within that limit?

    The topic under discussion is developing a scientific set of evidences that positively establishes and supports a sub-10,000 year age for the earth, not simply one that allows it.

    The Wikipedia article you linked suggests that the Indian plate first collided with Asia about 50 million years ago, and that the process of building the Himalayas is on-going. That is *not* the same thing at all as the Himalayas being completely there 50 million years ago, and *is* consistent with the idea of the relevant pass basin in the Wang article being raised to its present altitude over the past couple of million years. That work (one paper which is appropriately modest anout its claims and limits) may have brought some of the dates forward, but 20-fold is a huge exaggeration. Making claims that border on dishonesty does not strengthen your case.

    The detrimental mutation rate notion comes out of a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and seems to be most often used by eugenicists… It has been repeatedly debunked…

    So, instead of proclaiming how dumb you think I am, how about getting started on that list of positive scientific evidences for a young earth.




    0
    View Comment
  67. Um, and while we’re on the topic of upper limits, do I understand your table correctly to be saying that worldwide paleocurrent patterns are evidence for an upper limit of 1 year on the age of the earth? That’s consistent with what you said above…




    0
    View Comment
  68. On re-reading, I see you said I have a ‘mental block’ and am ‘making stuff up off the top of my head’… which is slightly different to saying I’m dumb or stupid. The point I was making was that I *did*, in fact, understand your table when you first posted it… but please ignore the mistaken lines in my post above about being viewed as stupid.

    Trying to be as fair and as communicative as I can, and focus on the content.




    0
    View Comment
  69. Bravus: It seems that you refuse to read the information presented clearly. The worldwide paleocurrent patterns are obviously implied at taking 1 year to be placed not millions or thousands like stated for the layers. I think you are being a little obtuse here and making any conversation difficult bordering on impossible.

    The genetic mutation rate at a detrimental level was not explained clearly by you. Saying that there is a misunderstanding of evolution and it has been debunked. Well, evolution has nothing to do with the science at hand other than the fact that if the rates of detrimental mutations outstrip the good at species with cease to exist over time or at least will not be able to evolve. You say that it has been debunked though–then you should be able to site the sources at least or quickly explain it clearly how that has happened. I would be very interested in knowing. This is something I find important to know but not just off of something you say in passing. I have not found any substantiated proof. Just a bunch of evolutionist like you saying the same thing but no proof.




    0
    View Comment
  70. @Bravus:

    Bravus says:
    December 12, 2009 As a point of clarification, ‘catastrophic model of origins’ essentially boils down to ‘the Flood did it’. Anything geological that is inconvenient for a short-age model is simply ascribed to the Flood… which apparently now involved not just water, and not just the breaking up of the fountains of the deep, but whole tectonic plates zooming around the surface of the earth…

    That is the classic “I am an evolutionist so I cannot see” defense. How “instructive”.

    The evolutionist “cannot see” how a world wide flood would result in massive changes on the surface of the earth.

    The evolutionist “cannot see” how a breaking up of the earth’s crust would in any way facilitate more rapid movement of the tectonic plates.

    The evolutionist “cannot see” how the evidence of ocean life and water covering the entire surface of the earth – that still remains to this day – could be evidence of a “world wid flood”.

    What is perhaps more amazing than their less than objective position at that point – is how in the world they expect their “I cannot see” argument to be so compelling to the objective unbiased reader.

    That is the biggest surprise of all.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  71. @Frank L.:

    Frank L. says:
    December 11, 2009 Southwestern Adventist University receives frequent praise at this site to the neglect of other institutions. Sean Pitman, for example, has kindly informed us that Southwestern has an undergraduate Geology program.

    The reality, however, is stated plainly in their bulletin: “Southwestern Adventist University, in conjunction with Loma Linda University, offers a geology program with major emphasis in sedimentology, stratigraphy and paleontology. The freshman and sophomore years are taken on the campus of Southwestern Adventist University, while the junior and senior years are taken on the campus of Loma Linda University.” Thus it’s a bit of a stretch to claim or imply that one can earn an undergraduate degree in Geology from Southwestern.

    Loma Linda University is the only SDA institution that provides any degrees in Geology. It offers B.S. and M.S. degrees in Geology, and a Ph.D. in Earth Science. Moreover, the program is strongly committed to the SDA Fundamental Beliefs. Just trying to set the record straight.

    If your argument is that Pitman has deliberately tried to down play the contribution that Loma Linda has made – then a reference to that argument would be helpful in sustaining your point.

    If the point is that Loma Linda is preaching evolutionism as “the correct answer” from science explaining all life around us and the geologic evidence found in the earth today — then your last sentence seems to have strayed a bit from the point.

    The only way that your argument about South Western seems to make sense is if we had the case of LLU teaching evolutionism within their geology department and that this evolution-is-the-answer aspect of their program is the final two years in all degree programs within geology as offerred by the SDA church. If that is your claim – please say it, because as worded above – you argument seems to have fallen short of the mark.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  72. I’ll have a go at the ‘detrimental mutations’ argument. It is basically an argument that works well if someone’s presupposition is recent creationism: that humans were created perfect about 6000 years ago and have been subject to the effects of sin since, and that therefore the human genome is degenerating. It takes the notion that more mutations are harmful than beneficial (the vast majority of mutations have no practical effect either way) and suggests that this imbalance means that defects accumulate over time.

    It’s well worth reading Sean Pitman’s page on the issues around mutations – I don’t agree with the guy, but he’s definitely done his reading and thought things through. It’s here: http://www.detectingdesign.com/dnamutationrates.html

    The misunderstanding is very simple: this model ignores natural selection. It looks only at half the equation – mutations – without recognising that within a population the individuals with fewer detrimental mutations and/or more beneficial ones will increase their probability of survival and breeding, so that detrimental mutations will tend to be bred out of a population and beneficial ones will spread through it.




    0
    View Comment
  73. Shannon, Sean had made a large fuss about that table being a table of upper limits to the age of the earth. I was simply following the logic through, slightly playfully. Maybe I shoulda used a smiley. 😉




    0
    View Comment
  74. Bravus: I’ll have a go at the ‘detrimental mutations’ argument. It is basically an argument that works well if someone’s presupposition is recent creationism: that humans were created perfect about 6000 years ago and have been subject to the effects of sin since, and that therefore the human genome is degenerating. It takes the notion that more mutations are harmful than beneficial (the vast majority of mutations have no practical effect either way) and suggests that this imbalance means that defects accumulate over time.

    There are about 200 mutations per person per generation. Of these it is currently thought that well over 5 will be functionally detectable by natural selection. Of these five, the odds are very strong that all of them will be functionally detrimental to one degree or another (with a ratio of 1000:1 in this direction). That is, I’m afraid, a far higher rate of detrimental mutations than natural selection can keep up with over time. Nature has a limit to what can be eliminated per generation and this limitation has to do with the reproductive rate of the creature in question.

    It’s well worth reading Sean Pitman’s page on the issues around mutations – I don’t agree with the guy, but he’s definitely done his reading and thought things through. It’s here: http://www.detectingdesign.com/dnamutationrates.html

    The misunderstanding is very simple: this model ignores natural selection.

    It is your understanding of this problem that is far too simplistic and ill-informed. The problem isn’t nearly as simple as you imagine since natural selection is very much taken into account. What you don’t seem to recognize is that natural selection, being a mindless force of nature, is limited to how much bad karma it can deal with per generation – and that this limitation is based on the reproductive rate…

    It looks only at half the equation – mutations – without recognising that within a population the individuals with fewer detrimental mutations and/or more beneficial ones will increase their probability of survival and breeding, so that detrimental mutations will tend to be bred out of a population and beneficial ones will spread through it.

    The big question is, how does natural selection eliminate the detrimental mutations at least as fast as they build up? If you had read my entire article on this question, you’d see that the detrimental mutations build up far faster than slowly reproducing creatures, like humans, can get rid of them through the powers of natural selection. We simply don’t reproduce fast enough for natural selection to keep up – – not by a long shot. That’s the problem.

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/dnamutationrates.html#Detrimental

    Given more modern understandings of the functional genome size, the likely detrimental mutation rate is well over 5 per person per generation (with about 200 or so additional mutations being functionally neutral). In order to keep up with such a detrimental mutation rate, natural selection would only be able to be successful if the average woman gave birth to over 150 offspring. There is also some resent suggestion that the true rate of slightly detrimental mutations is more like 30 per person per generation. In order to deal with this kind of band karma, the average woman would have to give birth to trillions of offspring.

    Your off-handed statement of blind faith that natural selection must be able to solve this problem indicates your lack of exposure or experience with the statistical nature of this particular problem. You are, again, shooting from the hip without having any idea what you’re talking about… i.e., no data or references to back up your bold assertions.

    Now, let me remind you again that I’m only suggesting that you are simply ill-informed. You need to actual go and read up on some of this stuff before you comment like you know what you’re talking about. On these issues at least, you clearly do not.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  75. Bravus: My issue with your argument against detrimental mutation issue is that it takes only 1 point mutation to ruin a whole gene but it may take many steps to get from one functional gene to another functional gene. In other words, all mutations to that gene are detrimental to get it to a point of benefit on the other side. Since natural selection is blind, it would not be able to select for steps between and thus the gene would flounder between and hence “junk” DNA. We used to think that humans had a lot of this. Now estimates are that we have very little from findings of the human genome project. This would not make any sense for a high life form, evolved over eons of time–it would require much “junk” DNA in theory as has been exposed by evolutionists in the past. Now since Natural Selection is blind and cannot select for specific neutral, non-functional genes, the end result is that the detrimental mutation rate has a much high impact than one would expect as natural selection cannot select out beneficial traits at a high rate–it can only kill off the bad ones or allow the neutral ones to survive.

    Evolutionists would have you think that the genetics of evolution is this slow gradually changing prototypical structure that natural selection just comes along and chooses the best of the best. However, genetics turns out to be chasms of empty space that natural selection cannot be applied and structures are lost. Entropy would be the most appropriate law in most of these cases and though there are small exceptions to this rule, the gap is hard to recover from as it cannot be done through a selective process but only through blind luck and statistics and they aren’t good–I’ve run the numbers!




    0
    View Comment
  76. @Shannon:

    As I understand it, there are severl tricky things about mutation rates. First, most are neutral and there is debate about how many are beneficial as opposed to detrimental. Second, those with a beneficial impact persist long enough to influence the organisms proliferation while those that are not beneficial will disappear quickly, thus having less impact.

    When it comes to entropy, it’s not clear to me that one can make a proper application of the laws of thermodynamics when considering DNA. I see it as a law of physics taken out of context.




    0
    View Comment
  77. The fundamental misunderstanding of entropy that occurs is that people take the organism as the system – but clearly even in growing from embryo to adult there is an increase in order and complexity (decrease in entropy). A very simplistic application of the 2nd Law would prohibit growing up!

    The system is much larger, and there is input of solar energy into plants for food… which is eaten, metabolised, used as energy and emitted as heat, which travels off into space. If all of that is taken into account, there is a *net* increase in entropy for the life of the organism, and the 2nd Law is not contravened.

    Applying the same approach to all of the ancestors of the creature yields the same result: net increase in entropy (decrease in order) for the universe, but local decrease in entropy (increase in order) for the organism.




    0
    View Comment
  78. Sean Pitman M.D.: This sort of stuff doesn’t cause you the briefest pause when it comes to your bold declarations in favor of mainstream thinking?

    It gives some pause, but, when the total evidence is evaluated, it still comes out that a short-age model has huge problems. There is a good book, “Noah’s Flood” by William Ryan and Walter Pittman (really, Ryan and Pittman), that gives evidence about the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea. The most significant thing is that the Mediterranean Sea floor contains a layer of evaporative salts. How did that get there? Could that happen if you close off Gibralter and let it dry out? Maybe so. How long would that take?

    Next point: radiometric dating. Would you agree that it is valid to establish a sequence even though it’s not valid for absolute dating? If so, you will be hard pressed to fit the sequence into a short history, especially since the sequence of layers containes a sequence of fossils. (Remember that ecological zonation didn’t work.)

    Next: impact craters. Quite a few of those around, some old and some very old. Did those happen before or after the Flood? How long between impacts?

    Next: volcanic eruptions. Quite a few of those, also. Some left wide-spread ash layers. How did all of them occur since the Flood?

    Next: Yellowstone hot spot. There’s a string of cinder cones from Southern Idaho reaching over to Yellowstone. The dating along the line agrees pretty well with the rate of North American Plate motion for a long time.

    Next: Hawaiian hot spot. The Hawaiian Ridge is older on the north end and younger on the south end. The dates agree well with the movement of the Pacific Plate

    Next: ice cores. How come we seem to have 800,000 annual layers? Oh, of course, maybe we get several layers per year, say 10. That’s 80,000 years. Are some of the ice layers older than the Flood? Maybe the ice formed where the Flood wasn’t. Woops, the Flood was universal.

    Next: Grand Canyon. Did it form quickly? The rock must have been soft. If so, how did we end up with nearly vertical rock walls close to 1,000 feet high?

    Next: North American mountains. Why are they quite flattened in the East and very rugged in West?

    Last: smooth river rocks. How did all of the rocks get bounced around until they were smooth and then end up in the river beds and other places?




    0
    View Comment
  79. @Bravus:

    Bravus says:
    December 14, 2009 The fundamental misunderstanding of entropy that occurs is that people take the organism as the system – but clearly even in growing from embryo to adult there is an increase in order and complexity (decrease in entropy). A very simplistic application of the 2nd Law would prohibit growing up!

    Wrong!

    Well known thought-leaders in science who are themselves Atheist evolutionists (such as Isaac Asimov) freely admit that “molecule to human mind” evolutionism so necessary in the massive storytelling exercises of evolutionists “requires a MASSIVE DECREASE in entropy”.

    Nothing “over simplistic” about that glaringly inconvenient detail as it turns out. Hint: Start with the gas and dust cloud said to form the basis for our solar system and “work your way to human mind”.

    But even more “inconvenient” for your “story” is that with EVERY chemical reaction – and at EVERY step in the human zygote-to-adult sequence the law of entropy IS PRESERVED! THAT is because the genius that went into designing the biochemical architecture of DNA and Eukaryote paradigm for cell division is “a given” for the starting conditions. Obviously.

    Your misdirection here is more apparent than you might have at first imagined.

    The system is much larger, and there is input of solar energy into plants for food… which is eaten, metabolised, used as energy and emitted as heat, which travels off into space. If all of that is taken into account, there is a *net* increase in entropy for the life of the organism, and the 2nd Law is not contravened.

    Again your attempt to mislead glosses over the inconvenient detail that that NO (I repeat N – O ) evaluation of chemical reactions “on the sun” is necessary in the equations for chemical interaction on earth “to discover an increase in entropy”.

    Applying the same approach to all of the ancestors of the creature yields the same result: net increase in entropy (decrease in order) for the universe, but local decrease in entropy (increase in order) for the organism.

    Wrong again.

    Given a rotating mass of gas and dust — there is no way to “apply entropy” such that it magically turns into plants and humans (saying the magic mantra “billions and billions” enough times of course) — and entropy is still increased.

    It is amazing the way evolutionists must leap off the cliff of exchanging both the Bible and actual proven science in for the junk-science storytelling of evolutionism and then imagine to themselves that “nobody will notice”.

    What is interesting is that part of the storytelling that Bravus leaps into — is one that even atheist evolutionists have a hard time swallowing.

    How sad.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  80. @Carl:

    Carl says:
    December 14, 2009 @Shannon:

    When it comes to entropy, it’s not clear to me that one can make a proper application of the laws of thermodynamics when considering DNA. I see it as a law of physics taken out of context.

    The law of entropy IS applicable to all chemical reactions as it turns out. No need to imagine that it should not be applied in places where it would reflect negatively on the doctrines of evolutionism.

    The law of entropy makes it clear DNA will never “come about” from a swirling mas of gas and dust. Impossible to ignore that bit of actual “science”.

    The law f entropy makes it clear that EVERY chemical reaction on earth exhibits this trait when the energy input (regardless of the source) is evaluated. That is obviously the case because there is no such thing as a 101% efficient energy transfer. (think of it as friction)

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  81. @Sean Pitman M.D.:

    What it should tell you is that the mainstream “science” of estimating the age of stuff isn’t very reliable if it can be off by 20 fold for such a prominent area of mainstream science – i.e., the age of mountains. And, this isn’t the only such incident.

    To further illustrate this problem, consider that the Coastal Range of the Atacama desert in northern Chile (which is 20 time drier than Death Valley) is thought to have been without any rain or significant moisture of any kind for around 25 million years. However, investigators recently discovered fairly extensive deposits of very well preserved animal droppings associated with grasses as well as human-produced artifacts like arrowheads and such. Radiocarbon dating of these finding indicate very active life in at least semiarid conditions within the past 11,000 years – a far cry from 25 million years.

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html#Cosmogenic

    This sort of stuff doesn’t cause you the briefest pause when it comes to your bold declarations in favor of mainstream thinking?

    1. Those are simply “inconvenient details” to be “ignored” through a series of wand-waiving and transparently dismissive “stories” by the faithful devotee to evolutionism. Recall that the evolutionist accepts evolutionism as some kind of “revealed truth” (to use an atheist evolutionist’s description of the problem, such as we find in the case of Collin Patterson).

    2. Those are also aspects of the problem that will only be studied by the non-evolutionist. Most evols are not even aware of the problem until someone points it out in a Creation-vs-evol discussion. They are not trained in critical thinking because they are committed to a slash-and-burn policy in favor of evolutionism “at all costs”.

    But more to the point — ONCE the SDA theistic evolutionist says that 3SG 90-91 DOES NOT give him/her pause for reflection — then HOW in the world do you expect the list you have given above to “have EVEN MORE weight than God Himself ” with someone claiming to be a Christian!!??

    I can assure you — that having already dismissed the most weighty source of evidence behind the trustworthy nature of God’s inspired texts — the lesser evidences given in that list stand no chance at all.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  82. @Frank L.:

    Frank L. says:
    December 11, 2009 Let’s fight on, people. Let’s show the world how schizophrenic our church really is.

    1. Opposition to evolutionism – is frequently viewed by evolutionists as “a bad thing”. That is a given.

    2. The evolutionists arguing on this site have consistently argued that they have some kind of “parity” if not “outright majority” withint Adventism — such that those who make arguments in favor of the trustworthy nature of inspired texts “are a fringe group” or are at least “evenly split” in some way. All this is being done to give the evolutionist movement with the SDA church the “appearance” of acceptance by the denomination that is at least equal to those who admit to seeing evolutionism as a transparent appeal to junk-science and bad-religion.

    It is hard to miss those two aspects in this dicussion so far.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  83. @Shannon:

    Shannon says:
    December 13, 2009 Bravus: My issue with your argument against detrimental mutation issue is that it takes only 1 point mutation to ruin a whole gene but it may take many steps to get from one functional gene to another functional gene. In other words, all mutations to that gene are detrimental to get it to a point of benefit on the other side. Since natural selection is blind, it would not be able to select for steps between and thus the gene would flounder between and hence “junk” DNA. We used to think that humans had a lot of this. Now estimates are that we have very little from findings of the human genome project. This would not make any sense for a high life form, evolved over eons of time–it would require much “junk” DNA in theory as has been exposed by evolutionists in the past.

    The “answer” to that is that believers in evolutionism accept it as “revealed truth” and therefore are quick to embrace the very unscientific assumption of “saltations”. Call then “hopeful monsters”, call them “punctuated equillibrium” — call them “directed evolutionism” – it does not matter for the devotee to the doctrines on origins found in evolutionism instead of relying on God as a trustworthy source on the doctrine of origins AND instead of just sticking with actual – proven science!

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  84. Carl and Bravus are trying desperately hard to find justification for holding on to the religion of evolution. It is rather sad and disappointing that these men (at least Bravus) attended SDA schools and pretend that they are believers in God.

    What they must come to face with is that no matter the alleged evidence in favour of evolution, it contradicts the word of God and thus they have arrived at a crossroads. Here they do not run side by side by veer sharply in different directions. The two cannot be followed unless the person evolves into a many bodied organism.

    It is also sad that Bravus believes in natural selection (NS). NS is simply a hand waving sleight of hand trick like the hocus pocus of a three card man to distract the audience from the empty and unrealistic promises of their faith.

    When you read about the great unity and agreement, which exists among the scientists regarding evolution, don’t believe a word of it. Each one is busily experimenting with new speculative possibilities as to how the changes took place and then abandoning them, as they appear more and more ridiculous. The one basic tenet they do agree on is that there was no divine fiat creation as described in the Bible.

    Ask these questions about natural selection: What is the evidence that it can actually reproduce all the changes involved in the transition from amoeba [monad] to man? Is there scientific proof that it can even make one small change? When it comes right down to answering those questions, the spokesmen for evolution do some of the fanciest footwork in semantics you ever saw and make some of the most amazing admissions. Even though Simpson supports natural selection as a factor, he recognizes the scarcity of evidence in these words:

    “It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation.” Major Features, pp. 118, 119.

    But listen to Huxley’s circular reasoning on it. He says:

    “On the basis of our present knowledge natural selection is bound to produce genetic adaptations: and genetic adaptations are thus presumptive evidence for the efficiency of natural selection.” Evolution in Action, p. 48.

    Did you follow that gem of logic? His proof for natural selection is adaptation or change in the organism, but the change is produced by natural selection! In other words: A–>B; therefore B–>A. His “proof” proves nothing. Were the changes produced by natural selection, or did he invent natural selection to explain the changes? It is just as likely that the changes produced the natural selection theory. The ludicrous thing is that even the changes from species to species have never been verified. As it has been shown already, there is not one shred of fossil evidence or living evidence that any species has changed into another. (Museums are filled with manmade lies.) So Huxley’s proofs for natural selection are changes, which never happened, and the changes, which never happened, are offered as proof for natural selection. Surely this is the most vacuous logic to be found in a science textbook.

    Myth, speculation, hoax, magic, rubbish, garbage ar good words to use in exchange for macro evolution.




    0
    View Comment
  85. Jonathan Smith: Carl and Bravus are trying desperately hard to find justification for holding on to the religion of evolution.

    Can’t speak for Bravus, but I don’t like evolution much at all. It’s always interesting to hear from people who know what I’m thinking.

    There are two things going on here. One is the big question about science and what it says about how to understand Genesis. The second closely related question is how science should be taught at LSU.

    The purpose of this Website, as stated above in one form by Kevin Paulson, is to demand action to reform the science curriculum at LSU. In response, the Board has formed a group to address that question. That’s not good enough for the sponsors of this site, so the argument continues. My point in the debate is that the Board does not have an alternative. We do not have a scientific short history to be taught, so give LSU some room.

    Sean appears to be the primary spokesman for the scientific case, and he has created an extensive Website giving many objections to the dominant scientific explanations of earth history. He has raised challenges against widely accepted explanations, but that’s about it. If he has really solved the problem, don’t you think someone would notice? GRI has been working on these issues for 50 years, and what they say is that the issues are “complex.” It doesn’t sound like a ground swell of support for the “Sean Pitman earth history model.”




    0
    View Comment
  86. If we knew that there were a smooth flow of information to mutate or get from function A to B to C to D and so on then Natural Selection would work. That is why scientists of the old school were so frustrated in their attempts to replace God with logic and science. Then along came Darwin and thought of Natural Selection–it was the driving force powerful enough to possibly overcome Newton’s law of Entropy because there was some Knowledge in the natural world other than God to drive development and evolutionism exploded into mainstream belief.

    The problem is scientists are not honest about how functions go from A to B to C to D and so on. Initially it was thought to be a smooth phenotypic progression but we know genetically that is not the case. It is not a smooth and flowing process of simple changes that Natural selection has to choose from. Genetically, it is chasms and cliffs of blind man’s bluff. Gene’s have to completely loose their function in order to obtain a new function for Natural Selection to prefer or select for. As a result, Natural Selection is in effect taken out of the equation–is this not so? Come on, let’s be honest. And without Natural Selection in the equation, evolution has lost it’s driving force. Entropy becomes the key and will take over–these are in essence no more than chemicals that have lost their functional significance and will break down over time.

    No one has addressed the issues of why humans would not have a lot of “junk” DNA by now either? Why is it so functional? I mean outside of a Creationist explanation.




    0
    View Comment
  87. Carl: As I understand it, there are severl tricky things about mutation rates. First, most are neutral and there is debate about how many are beneficial as opposed to detrimental. Second, those with a beneficial impact persist long enough to influence the organisms proliferation while those that are not beneficial will disappear quickly, thus having less impact.

    You’re mistaken Carl. There is no significant debate over either the mutation rate per individual per generation nor over the likely ratio of neutral vs. detrimental vs. beneficial. It is quite clear that the detrimental rate far outpaces the beneficial mutation rate when it comes to functional non-neutral mutations – by a factor of at least 1000:1. The references can be found here:

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/dnamutationrates.html

    So, odds are very good that a given person in a given generation will have at least 5 detrimental mutations and no beneficial mutations are very good. The question is, what are the odds that anyone in a given generation will have no detrimental mutations at all? Well, those odds are less than 150:1. In other words, if natural selection culled out all individuals with a negative functional difference relative to the parent generation, before of these had offspring of their own, the death rate would have to be 300:1 in order for 2 individuals to survive without a negative functional change vs. their parents. That’s a huge death rate! Humans simply don’t reproduce fast enough to handle this sort of death rate. Not even close.

    Your notion that natural selection is able to solve this problem is based on ignorance of the available facts. You simply don’t grasp the implication of the statistics involved.

    It just amazes me how you can present arguments in such a factual manner when you have no references to back yourself up on even the factual elements of your argument – factual elements which are so far off base when it comes to known reality.

    When it comes to entropy, it’s not clear to me that one can make a proper application of the laws of thermodynamics when considering DNA. I see it as a law of physics taken out of context.

    The problem isn’t with thermodynamic entropy, but with informational entropy. They are related, but distinct concepts. For further information on this topic see:

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  88. Carl: It gives some pause, but, when the total evidence is evaluated, it still comes out that a short-age model has huge problems. There is a good book, “Noah’s Flood” by William Ryan and Walter Pittman (really, Ryan and Pittman), that gives evidence about the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea. The most significant thing is that the Mediterranean Sea floor contains a layer of evaporative salts. How did that get there? Could that happen if you close off Gibralter and let it dry out? Maybe so. How long would that take?

    Why is this a problem? The Mediterranean did in fact empty and dry out after the Flood – only to be suddenly filled in again once the first ice age ended and the sea levels increased and burst through, filling the basin in less than 2 years time.

    Next point: radiometric dating. Would you agree that it is valid to establish a sequence even though it’s not valid for absolute dating? If so, you will be hard pressed to fit the sequence into a short history, especially since the sequence of layers containes a sequence of fossils. (Remember that ecological zonation didn’t work.)

    If you have no solid basis or calibration for absolute dating, the very same problem holds for relative dating. The long sequences of mainstream thinking simply do not fit many other aspects of sequential time estimation – to include the general lack of expected erosion, the lack of expected bioturbation, etc…

    Next: impact craters. Quite a few of those around, some old and some very old. Did those happen before or after the Flood? How long between impacts?

    They happened imediately before, during and after the Flood. Your argument that these craters are “very old” is, again, based on radiometric dating assumptions which have been calibrated to match.

    Next: volcanic eruptions. Quite a few of those, also. Some left wide-spread ash layers. How did all of them occur since the Flood?

    Why is this a problem? We have a lot of active volcanoes right now. It only stands to reason that give the energy release that cause the Flood that there would have been a whole lot more during and right after that event.

    Next: Yellowstone hot spot. There’s a string of cinder cones from Southern Idaho reaching over to Yellowstone. The dating along the line agrees pretty well with the rate of North American Plate motion for a long time.

    Again, your dates are based on radiometric assumptions. As I’ve showing you, these assumptions disagree with other methods of estimating maximum allowable time.

    Next: Hawaiian hot spot. The Hawaiian Ridge is older on the north end and younger on the south end. The dates agree well with the movement of the Pacific Plate

    Same argument…

    Next: ice cores. How come we seem to have 800,000 annual layers? Oh, of course, maybe we get several layers per year, say 10. That’s 80,000 years. Are some of the ice layers older than the Flood? Maybe the ice formed where the Flood wasn’t. Woops, the Flood was universal.

    I have a whole essay on ice-core dating at:

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.html

    In short, there are a host of problems, which include the fact that many layers can be and often are formed per year, that the layers deep within the ice are not counted visually, but chemically, that these chemicals move within the ice and form pseudo-layers, and that the ice should have melted away completely during the Hipsothermal period… etc…

    Next: Grand Canyon. Did it form quickly? The rock must have been soft. If so, how did we end up with nearly vertical rock walls close to 1,000 feet high?

    The sedimentary layers within the Grand Canyon formed quickly for the reasons I’ve already mentioned. The Canyon itself was also carved quickly due to sudden catastrophic natural dam failures. Further discussion of this at:

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Younger

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#An%20Alternative%20Explanation

    Next: North American mountains. Why are they quite flattened in the East and very rugged in West?

    They weren’t ever as high in the East as they are in the West and the erosive forces are greater in the East (greater weather variation and rainfall) compared to the West…

    Last: smooth river rocks. How did all of the rocks get bounced around until they were smooth and then end up in the river beds and other places?

    River rocks are formed, rounded, and polished very rapidly – in observable time. I’m not sure what you’re driving at here?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  89. Sean Pitman: Sounds like what you are saying is that natural selection is the driving force to extinction in this situation–correct? Since it is culling out the negative/deleterious. I guess we can say that NS is working in this case but in a way we don’t want. You’d just have to reproduce at a much higher rate in order to offset the current negatives to have enough positives to not kill off the species.




    0
    View Comment
  90. Bravus: The fundamental misunderstanding of entropy that occurs is that people take the organism as the system – but clearly even in growing from embryo to adult there is an increase in order and complexity (decrease in entropy). A very simplistic application of the 2nd Law would prohibit growing up!

    Not true because there are no closed systems. There is plenty of energy provided to feed the system all the energy it needs or can use to do “useful work”.

    You see, the problem, which many do not understand, isn’t with the 2ndLOTD, but with a related but distinct concept of informational entropy.

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html

    The system is much larger, and there is input of solar energy into plants for food… which is eaten, metabolised, used as energy and emitted as heat, which travels off into space. If all of that is taken into account, there is a *net* increase in entropy for the life of the organism, and the 2nd Law is not contravened.

    Applying the same approach to all of the ancestors of the creature yields the same result: net increase in entropy (decrease in order) for the universe, but local decrease in entropy (increase in order) for the organism.

    Yes. This is actually correct as stated. The problem, of course, is that the 2ndLOTD is a red herring. It isn’t the problem. There is plenty of available energy. The problem is getting the informational complexity necessary to use this available energy to do useful work. That’s the problem. It is a problem of informational, not thermodynamic, entropy.

    The meaningful informational entropy of a system does not increase over time — it decreases without the input of outside higher level information.

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  91. BobRyan:

    Bravus:
    Applying the same approach to all of the ancestors of the creature yields the same result: net increase in entropy (decrease in order) for the universe, but local decrease in entropy (increase in order) for the organism.

    Wrong again.

    Actually, Bravus is correct here. Give credit where credit is due…

    Given a rotating mass of gas and dust — there is no way to “apply entropy” such that it magically turns into plants and humans (saying the magic mantra “billions and billions” enough times of course) — and entropy is still increased.

    But, you see, Bravus wasn’t talking about a closed system or abiogenesis. Bravus was specifically talking about an open system and the Earth once it already had life on it.

    Again, the real problem here isn’t with thermodynamic entropy, but with meaningful informational entropy – a related but different concept:

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  92. Shannon: Sean Pitman: Sounds like what you are saying is that natural selection is the driving force to extinction in this situation–correct? Since it is culling out the negative/deleterious. I guess we can say that NS is working in this case but in a way we don’t want. You’d just have to reproduce at a much higher rate in order to offset the current negatives to have enough positives to not kill off the species.

    Sort of, but it’s more like random mutations are the driving force to extinction, combined with a low reproductive rate for humans. Natural selection really doesn’t make the problem worse. It just doesn’t help or solve the problem, no matter how strong a selective power you give it – even to the point of an absolute death rate before reproduction for anyone with a functionally negative mutational balance…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  93. Carl: Sean appears to be the primary spokesman for the scientific case, and he has created an extensive Website giving many objections to the dominant scientific explanations of earth history. He has raised challenges against widely accepted explanations, but that’s about it. If he has really solved the problem, don’t you think someone would notice? GRI has been working on these issues for 50 years, and what they say is that the issues are “complex.” It doesn’t sound like a ground swell of support for the “Sean Pitman earth history model.”

    I never said that the solutions were easy or that there were no complexities or problems for the YLC model. There are. However, the weight of evidence strongly favors catastrophic model of origins.

    Of course, your big comeback is that my views aren’t very convincing to the majority. Of course not! However, such arguments from authority don’t mean that I’m wrong nor are they substantive or helpful in explaining why I’m wrong. They have no explanatory value.

    Now, if you want to be helpful, try presenting some actual data to back up your just-so arguments…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  94. @Sean Pitman M.D.:

    But, you see, Bravus wasn’t talking about a closed system or abiogenesis. Bravus was specifically talking about an open system and the Earth once it already had life on it.

    Again, the real problem here isn’t with thermodynamic entropy, but with meaningful informational entropy – a related but different concept:

    I think you have missed a key piece of the problem.

    At every stage entropy is increased even WITHOUT considering the open system molecular reactions on the sun. (as it turns out).

    A simple illustration. I can spin a coil around a magnet and generate electricity that powers my computer that generates a design or a report.

    At EVERY stage as the electricity goes through the wires and then through the various circuits — entropy is INCREASED regardless of the information content in the computer itself. You never need to “go out to the sun” to account for the room temperature while spinning the coil. You can simply take the electric charge as input to the transformer-brick on the computer power supply as “the start” and completely ignore where that charge comes from – becuase you cannot preserve the energy in the charge at every step. Some will always be lost through friction etc.

    The fact that the machine itself also happens to be “designed” to process information does not change the increase in entropy when it comes to usuable energy.

    Thus at every stage from zygote to human adult – the use of energy by the cells is ALWAYS preserving the increased-entropy law for Gibb’s energy even without trying to measure Gibb’s values on the sun. That is because energy transfer never hits 100% and certainly never 101%. So it does not matter WHERE along the chain “you look” — the energy transfer transaction at the point where you are watching — still obeys the law.

    When the evolutionist appleals “to the sun” to try and account for his story telling about entropy – he/she is clearly wandering off into wonderland.

    ====================

    By contrast “information entropy” has to do with the fact that the information going into writing the software the computer is running – must always exceed the organizational level of the software itself. Thus the human mind has to be more advanced – more organized, more creative — than the software it creates.

    Evolutionist’s genome-morphing “pulled up by their bootstrap” stories, violate this principle all the time.

    That rule is also preserved here without looking at an “open system” that either appeals to the Sun or that appeals to the Creator of all intelligence.

    The increase in informational entropy and thermodynamic entropy is an observable verifiable law without having to go into the open system of outer space to discover that it is true.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  95. BobRyan: I think you have missed a key piece of the problem.

    At every stage entropy is increased even WITHOUT considering the open system molecular reactions on the sun. (as it turns out).

    A simple illustration. I can spin a coil around a magnet and generate electricity that powers my computer that generates a design or a report.

    At EVERY stage as the electricity goes through the wires and then through the various circuits — entropy is INCREASED regardless of the information content in the computer itself. You never need to “go out to the sun” to account for the room temperature while spinning the coil. You can simply take the electric charge as imput to the transformer-brick on the batter as “the start” and completely ignore where that charge comes from – becuase you cannot preserve the energy in the charge at every step. Some will always be lost through friction etc.

    This isn’t true when it comes to thermodynamic entropy. The potential to do useful work can be maintained on Earth at the same level because Earth is not a closed system. It’s thermodynamic entropy need not increase at all as long as it is getting more energy from the Sun.

    Just because your computer generates heat, doesn’t mean that the Earth’s thermodynamic entropy is therefore increasing – it isn’t. Of course, the thermodynamic entropy of the universe is increasing since it is a closed system.

    The fact that the machine itself also happens to be “designed” to process information does not change the increase in entropy when it comes to usuable energy.

    The usable energy doesn’t run out since the usable energy comes from the Sun. The electricity that feeds your computer comes from the Sun. It doesn’t run out until the Sun runs out. What does run out is the informational capacity or physical structure needed to convert the available energy from the Sun to do useful work. That is where the concept of meaningful/functional informational entropy comes into play…

    Thus at every stage from zygote to human adult – the use of energy by the cells is ALWAYS preserving the increased-entropy law for Gibb’s energy even without trying to measure Gibb’s values on the sun. That is because energy transfer never hits 100% and certainly never 101%. So it does not matter WHERE along the chain “you look” — the energy transfer transaction at the point where you are watching — still obeys the law.

    You can’t avoid looking at where the energy of a particular subsystem ultimately came from. For a living organism on this planet, this energy came from the Sun. The cell is not a closed system. The energy it uses comes from outside of itself. It doesn’t matter if the energy transfer is not 100% because there is so much more of it available that 100% efficiency is not required for continued useful work which could go on indefinitely as long as the Sun shines – – and as long as the system itself doesn’t gain informational entropy.

    When the evolutionist appleals “to the sun” to try and account for his story telling about entropy – he/she is clearly wandering off into wonderland.

    I disagree. A lot of people confuse informational with thermodynamic entropy. The evolutionist comeback that evolution clearly does not violate the law of thermodynamic entropy is correct. However, their problem is that they don’t consider informational/functional entropy…

    By contrast “information entropy” has to do with the fact that the information going into writing the software the computer is running – must always exceed the organizational level of the software itself. Thus the human mind has to be more advanced – more organized, more creative — than the software it creates.

    Evolutionist’s genome-morphing “pulled up by their bootstrap” stories, violate this principle all the time.

    That rule is also preserved here without looking at an “open system” that either appeals to the Sun or that appeals to the Creator of all intelligence.

    If higher level meaningful/functional information were being fed into a particular system, then that system would not be considered a “closed” system with regard to this sort of information – – just as the Earth is not considered to be a closed system with regard to thermodynamic entropy.

    The increase in informational entropy and thermodynamic entropy is an observable verifiable law without having to go into the open system of outer space to discover that it is true.

    Again, I disagree. The ultimate source of both thermodynamic energy and information is very important to the concepts at hand…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  96. Bob said
    Thus at every stage from zygote to human adult – the use of energy by the cells is ALWAYS preserving the increased-entropy law for Gibb’s energy even without trying to measure Gibb’s values on the sun. That is because energy transfer never hits 100% and certainly never 101%. So it does not matter WHERE along the chain “you look” — the energy transfer transaction at the point where you are watching — still obeys the law.

    Sean said
    You can’t avoid looking at where the energy of a particular subsystem ultimately came from. For a living organism on this planet, this energy came from the Sun.

    Well I certainly agree that the law regarding entropy “is also” preserved on the Sun. My point is — that is not how science first came to observe the law of increased entropy being preserved here on earth. The reason is that every energy transfer we see here on earth — still obeys that law even without the need to “add something in” the equation regarding events on the sun.

    Which is where the evolutionist argument fails. They would like to try and get the Sun to “make up the difference” but that is not how the measurements for entropy work at all.

    For example – We do not argue that the reaction HCL + NAOH –> H20 + NACl — will only exhibit an increase in entropy IF you take into acount the entropy at the Sun.

    Sean
    The cell is not a closed system. The energy it uses comes from outside of itself. It doesn’t matter if the energy transfer is not 100% because there is so much more of it available that 100% efficiency is not required for continued useful work which could go on indefinitely as long as the Sun shines

    And again – I think this shows where you are missing a key piece of the problem for evolutionists.

    1. The fact is – it will not “go on indefinitely” — because at every energy exchange/transition (every chemical reaction) step energy is being lost. Thus the fact is that the cell is “wearing down” over time. Unless work is directed to keep it going in a kind of “immortal cell” fashion – it wears out due to the continual action of entropy.

    2. The fact that entropy is increased at every step in my computer example (even electricity going through wires and being decreased in the form of friction/heat through the wire) – does not mean the computer does not work. It simply means that it requires more engergy to go into the sytem than the system can actually use – because there is no such thing as a 100% effecient transfer of energy.

    It also means that “given enough time” the computer will wear out.

    the same principle applies to the cell – it is going towards equillibrium over time.

    In the evolutionist model the dust and gas — ‘turn into a cell’ of their own accord instead of simply being “driven toward equilibrium” as entropy would dictate. In their model single celled organism “turn into multi-celled life forms” of their own accord – given enough time. And so on.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.