Comment on Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment? by Sean Pitman.
Carl: Here are two statements from the GRI site that I quoted to you earlier, to which your responded, “Wrong.â€
“More of the scientific data is currently explained by a long-age than a short-age model.â€
“No comprehensive, short-age model is even available to rival the long-age model.â€
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.â€
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. …â€
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
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman 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
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.
