@Mark Houston: Good answer Mark. I was only being sarcastic …

Comment on Board requests progress reports from LSU administration by Victor Marshall.

@Mark Houston:

Good answer Mark.
I was only being sarcastic about Sean. I certainly consider him a far more respectable Creationist than myself. I would probably fall more into the Goldstein type category. I have no formal training in science, and I believe ‘Evolution is so contrary to everything I understand about the Bible – it must be wrong.’ I can also be fairly opinionated.

I’m still not quite sure what the RATE scientists have to do with ‘hokey’.
Do you think their research is invalid, unprofessional, or falsified? Please tell me how? Is it because they have an a priori conclusion that the earth is young, rather than old?

Victor Marshall Also Commented

Board requests progress reports from LSU administration
@Mark Houston:
You are right, a very outlandish claim.
Of course most scientists would view the claim that the earth and life were created virtually ex nihilo, or that our ancestors were not apes, or that the fossil record chronicles the Biblical flood – as totally unscientific and preposterous too.
The real question I still have is, ‘Does the RATE research in any way support their preopsterous claims?’
Does helium rapidly diffuse from zircons? Is there also a ton of helium in zircons?
Is there 14C in diamonds etc.?

Have they in any way demonstrated these claims? Have they insured that their research is safeguarded from tampering and dishonesty? Have they brought disinterested third parties into the process as observers or participants? Have they taken sufficient precautions to prevent contamination or erroneous readings? If so, what justification do we have for throwing out their outlandish conclusions other than the fact they defy presently accepted physics?


Board requests progress reports from LSU administration
Mark,

When Creationists first came into vogue, the constant refrain was, ‘They don’t have degrees’ Hence some Creationists (Like a friend of mine in Ohio) even got multiple degrees. Then the refrain was, ‘Well there are only a handful of these persons.’ Now we know there are 1,000’s.
Now you often hear, ‘Well even though they have a degree, they are still incompetent and don’t even know how to conduct good science.’
I’m really not sure how someone gets a PhD from these Universities and cannot even write a decent paper. (RATE team degrees)

PhD in Geology from University of Sydney Australia
or a
PhD in Physics from Louisiana State University
or a
PhD in Geophysics and Space Science from the University of California
or a
PhD Geology from Pennsylvania State University
or a
PhD Physics Iowa State University
or a
PhD in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University

Employment at etc.:
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Sandia National Laboratories

The final RATE study can be downloaded here for free – http://www.icr.org/rate/

The findings dealt with 3 major areas:

1. amount of helium in the zircons:

http://creation.com/helium-evidence-for-a-young-world-continues-to-confound-critics

2. detection of 14C in coal and in diamonds:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radiocarbon-in-diamonds

3. radiohalos and fission tracks.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/radiohalos-in-yosemite-granites

I’m not a scientist. When it gets really technical my brain shuts down.
Looks like Sean Pittman has quite a grasp on the issues:

http://educatetruth.com/science/?p=86

Of course, all of the RATE findings have been challenged by old earth scientists. That is to be expected. Frankly, I’m not smart enough to judge (I do understand the Bible pretty well – especially the plain parts like Exodus 20:11). Maybe you are smart enough to understand the technical stuff. Let me know what you think.


Board requests progress reports from LSU administration
@Bravus:
Farewell Bravus,
You’re right. I don’t understand.
You’re wrong. It was no game.
Victor


Recent Comments by Victor Marshall

Last Thursdayism
“The deepest students of science are constrained to recognize in nature the working of infinite power. But to man’s unaided reason, nature’s teaching cannot but be contradictory and disappointing. Only in the light of revelation can it be read aright, ‘Through faith we understand.’Heb.11:3” – Ed.134


Last Thursdayism
Farewell


Last Thursdayism
@Sean Pitman:

As if all of your previous statements were not enough – here you come with this outrageous statement:

But I do deny that the Bible is the final authority. I don’t think that it is the final authority.

I think it is plain enough now for all to see that the founding scientist of EducateTruth, who has vigorously been seeking to have LSU tow the orthodox Adventist line – is himself heterodox when it comes to the most foundational of Adventist beliefs!
Not only have you equated science with faith, you have supplanted Biblical authority with scientific authority. Isn’t this exactly in essence what theistic evolutionists do?! Is it possible that one who incessantly declares others to be ‘blind’ would himself be blind to his own hypocritical presuppositions?

Seventh-day Adventists are ‘people of the book.’ They claim the Protestant principle of ‘Sola Scriptura’ as the very foundation of their faith. You are not a Sola Scripturist. By your own standard, if you were employed by the Adventist church, you yourself should consider employment elsewhere.
This is indeed a most grave and serious ironic twist.

If the issues are not yet clear enough I will here quote one of the denominations most preeminently orthodox theologians. You will find that his clear and definitive statements are diametrically opposed to your own:

“A fundamental principle set forth by Scripture concerning itself is that the Bible alone is the final norm of truth, the primary and absolute source of authority, the ultimate court of appeal, in all areas of doctrine and practice… The principle of sola Scriptura implies two corollaries: the primacy and the sufficiency of Scripture….”

“Paul likewise rejects human “knowledge” (KJV “science”; Greek gnōsis) as the final authority (1 Tim 6:20). Both OT and NT writers point out that since the Fall in Eden, nature has become depraved (Gen 3:17-18; Rom 8:20-21) and no longer perfectly reflects truth. Nature, rightly understood, is in harmony with God’s written revelation in Scripture (see Ps 19:1-6 [revelation of God in nature] and vv. 7-11 [revelation of the Lord in Scripture]); but as a limited and broken source of knowledge about God and reality, it must be held subservient to, and interpreted by, the final authority of Scripture (Rom 1:20-23; 2:14-16; 3:1-2).”

“2. The Sufficiency of Scripture. The principle of sola Scriptura implies the further corollary of the sufficiency of Scripture. The Bible stands alone as the unerring guide to truth; it is sufficient to make one wise unto salvation (2 Tim 3:15). It is the standard by which all doctrine and experience must be tested (2 Tim 3:16-17; Ps 119:105; Prov 30:5, 6; Isa 8:20; John 17:17; Acts 17:11; 2 Thess 3:14; Heb 4:12). Scripture thus provides the framework, the divine perspective, the foundational principles, for every branch of knowledge and experience. All additional knowledge and experience, or revelation, must build upon and remain faithful to, the all-sufficient foundation of Scripture. The sufficiency of Scripture is not just in the sense of material sufficiency, i.e., that Scripture contains all the truths necessary for salvation. Adventists also believe in the formal sufficiency of Scripture, i.e., that the Bible alone is sufficient in clarity so that no external source is required to rightly interpret it.”

“Adventists maintain the rallying cry of the Reformation–sola Scriptura, the Bible and the Bible only as the final norm for truth. All other sources of knowledge and experience must be tested by this unerring standard. The appropriate human response must be one of total surrender to the ultimate authority of the word of God (Isa 66:2).” – Richard M. Davidson, ‘Interpreting Scripture According to the Scriptures:Toward an understanding of Seventh-day Adventist Hermeneutics.’ BRI

Not only do you seem diametrically opposed to foundational Adventist theology. You also appear (for all intents and purposes) to be fundamentally opposed to the purposes and goals of EducateTruth itself.

“4. More important than all of these is that the Bible find its place as the ultimate authority on all it touches upon within the classroom…… The bottom line of this controversy is not about creation vs. evolution, but authority. Does the Bible inform our science or does science inform the Bible? This question lies at the heart of this controversy.” – Shane Hilde

In light of this further unfortunate irony – perhaps you should seek employment on another web site.

I encourage you to reexamine the basis for you faith and prayerfully surrender it to the Word of God – not scientific reason.

“When we come to the Bible, reason must acknowledge an authority superior to itself, and heart and intellect must bow before the great I AM.” (SC 110).


Last Thursdayism
@Bill Sorensen:

More “sure” than what? More sure than Peter’s testimony. Peter’s testimony is helpful and helps us believe that Jesus is the Messiah. But even Peter’s testimony is not adequate to affirm Jesus and who He is. We must necessarily turn to “Moses and the prophets” and validate Jesus as the Messiah based on their testimony.

Simply put, Moses is the final authority in all matters of doctrine and faith. If it is not in harmony with Moses, it is false. And this includes Jesus and His ministry.

Very good Bill.
I like to look at it this way as well. Moses said that, “at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” We have the two witnesses of the Old and New Testaments – each one establishes the testimony of the other – both are further established by a third witness – the Holy Spirit. These three witnesses are sufficient to establish truth.

The bible affirming itself as the final authority is the same as God affirming His own authority.

Another interesting parallel passage in the Bible is, “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself.” In this passage we have the concept that God is a sufficient witness for Himself. Of course, in a sense, He is also actually three witnesses isn’t He!


Last Thursdayism
@Bill Sorensen:

The bible presents its own evidence. It is self affirming.

If you deny the bible is the final authority on its on self affirmations, then you are simply not a bible Christian.

The bible does not try to “prove” everything. Something are simply stated as a fact. Especially things that are not “proveable” by science and/or human experience.

Science and human experience may be helpful, but they are not the final word and it is a mistake to try to affirm every jot and tittle of scriptual teaching by such “proof”.

Well stated Bro. Sorenson.