Carl: Go to the GRI site, or anywhere else, and …

Comment on Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment? by Sean Pitman M.D..

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
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman M.D. Also Commented

Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?

David Kendall, BMus, MA says:

Hi Shane,

I am not sure you can make a strong connection between the statement in the excerpt and common ancestry. DNA research does point to varying degrees of relatedness among species. This does not have to conflict with a recent six day creation, though some may make the argument that it must.

What it argues for, and what Grismer clearly believes, is the idea that all life is related through process of common descent by innumerable tiny modifications from a common ancestor life form – a process that required hundreds of millions of years of time.

This notion strikes directly at the concept of the relatedness of all life because of its source in a common Designer of all the basic “kinds” of life on this planet, produced during a literal 6-day creation week in recent history.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?

Ron Nielsn: @Sean Pitman M.D.: Sean, I am not a geologist, and I haven’t read much about this, but your argument doesn’t make logical sense. Where does the sediment that is “washed off” go, except down slope, and as long as the uplift is equal or greater than the erosion rate, there is always going to be sediment at the top  

Your argument assumes that all rock is sedimentary rock – it isn’t. Only a thin layer of sedimentary rock covers the underlying granitic or metamorphic rock. So, the obvious question is, how has the very thin layer of sedimentary rock avoided being completely washed off of the underlying non-sedimentary rock if it has in fact been exposed, as an erosional surface, for tens of millions of years?

You do see how the argument for continued mountain uplift does not solve this problem? – right?

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?

BobRyan: Thus evolutionists who quickly admit that molecule-to-human-mind evolutionism (storytelling) requires “a massive DECREASE in entropy” as the net result over billions of years (at the local isolated system level of course )– are leaving themselves with no place to go.

Not true. A local decrease in thermodynamic entropy is possible using the Sun’s energy to produce the local effect (at the expense of an increase in the Earth-Sun thermodynamic entropy of course).

Recall that in the case of the dropping ball, and the iron rusting and the water evaporating — the definion for “universe” that was needed to observe those examples demonstrating entropy was simply “an isolated and localized system and it’s immediate surroundings” EVEN if that system is standing out in broad daylight (or in complete darkness). No need to “reach for the sun” before you can see the increase in entropy as iron oxidizes. Speaking of “oxidation demonstrating entropy” – our biology courses admit to that oxidation process as well.  

You forget that the reverse of all these processes you use as examples of increases in local entropy can be reversed as well, by using energy derived from the Sun. The ball can be driven uphill, as can the water in the rivers that run downhill. Therefore, local reductions in entropy can be achieved by using the increase in entropy of the Earth-Sun system…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman M.D.

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.