La Sierra “outraged” over Educate Truth article

La_Sierra_University_logoOn November 20, 2009, Educate Truth posted an article “La Sierra’s misleading PR campaign.” The same day Dr. Wisbey sent Educate Truth a memo, expressing he was “outraged” Educate Truth had “attack[ed]” one of La Sierra’s students. The following is Educate Truth’s response to Dr. Wisbey’s letter:

Dr. Wisbey:

We assume the students attending LSU are innocent. Our concern is with the LSU leadership who would think to take advantage of innocent students, like Ms. B, to promote LSU with a PR video that is very misleading at best. As you know, Ms. B’s words do not accurately reflect the beliefs, public statements or actions of many of your science professors.

Let’s be honest about what many LSU science professors stand for and teach, compared to what your PR video suggests. Isn’t it true this video portrays all science professors at LSU as being in full support of the SDA position on origins and a literal creation week? Isn’t it true this video gives the impression LSU science professors do not believe or actively promote the theory of evolution in their classrooms? Is it actually true your professors only teach evolution as a false theory that LSU students simply need to understand? Aren’t these the impressions your PR video give to potential students and their parents?

If this PR video is truly reflective of LSU, how does it line up with the public statements of many of your science professors? From what your professors have said, it is obvious many of your professors do not support the SDA position of origins. These professors actively promote the “truth” and “validity” of the modern synthesis view of the theory of evolution. These professors call literal six-day creationists the “lunatic fringe.” They do not teach evolution as a false theory or discuss the evidence for creation in their classes. Yet still, you insist on promoting LSU with misleading and essentially deceptive PR advertisements? Why?

Are you not even a little disturbed by this? Who should really be upset here? There is deliberate misrepresentation of what is taking place in the LSU classrooms. Teachings that run contrary to our most cherished understanding of the Biblical record are being covered up, so they can continue being taught. Is this not what’s “outrageous”? Or is it really more outrageous to question why this sort of activity is going on at an SDA university?

In short, we cannot remove the information about what LSU is doing. We think it’s a shame LSU is using innocent and/or naive students in misleading and deliberately deceptive PR advertisements. Until LSU becomes transparent about what it actively supports and promotes in its classrooms, we must continue to shed light on the issues. Furthermore, we suggest you remove this deceptive video from your website. If you do so, we will also obligingly remove our article and comments in regards to the video. And if there is anything false or exaggerated in what we have written, please let us know and we will correct it immediately.

Sincerely,

Educate Truth Staff

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

153 thoughts on “La Sierra “outraged” over Educate Truth article

  1. I agree with these comments and the sentiments expressed.

    Dr. Wisbey, as president of LSU, should feel his responsibility to carry out the clearly stated wishes of his employer, the SDA Church in this case. It isn’t that these wishes haven’t been made clear enough. After all, they have been very clearly stated and published on the website of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists:

    We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins. We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.

    http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat55.html

    After reading and understanding this request of the SDA Church, how is it that Dr. Wisbey, along with the LSU board, seem to ignore such a request from their employer? How is it that they can actively maintain, in the light of this request, professors in an SDA-owned school, who actively subvert the stated SDA position on origins? – calling it the “lunatic fringe”? – in their classrooms and other public forums?!

    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/09/01/evolution?utm_source=MailingList&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Big+News

    Also, how is it possible that Dr. Wisbey can not only maintain, but cover up, what his professors are actually doing? – by putting out PR that suggests that all of the teachers and professors at LSU are in active support of the stated SDA fundamentals? – to include its position on origins? Is this not a double slap in the face for the SDA Church organization? Not to mention its individual constituents, parents, and students? Is this not an effort, on the part of the management of LSU to take advantage of the naivete and trust of their employer, parents, and students?

    At the very least, I mean at the very least, LSU should be open and honest about what its hired professors believe and actively promote in all of its classrooms. We all deserve to know the unvarnished truth…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




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

    Sean Pitman M.D.: After reading and understanding this request of the SDA Church, how is it that Dr. Wisbey, along with the LSU board, seem to ignore such a request from their employer?

    It is my understanding that the response from the Board is only the first of many that will be taken to ensure that LSU upholds the churches position. I’ve had some discussions with certain individuals that have been extremely encouraging as to the direction the Board is headed.

    There is more to come! In other words, I think there is a deep contrast between what the Board wants from LSU and what quite a few faculty want.




    0
    View Comment
  3. Shane Hilde: It is my understanding that the response from the Board is only the first of many that will be taken to ensure that LSU upholds the churches position. I’ve had some discussions with certain individuals that have been extremely encouraging as to the direction the Board is headed.

    There is more to come! In other words, I think there is a deep contrast between what the Board wants from LSU and what quite a few faculty want.

    That is encouraging news, but forgive my skepticism. I really do hope that it turns out like you have heard though.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  4. President Wisbey speaks for the students of La Sierra in expressing outrage at the attacks on Ramona’s testimony. The universal feeling on campus is that the educate truth article should be removed… not the video as the video supports the reality of LSU.




    0
    View Comment
  5. @Adam: Strange how Wisbey or anyone else from LSU does not speak directly to the contradictions between what the professors said and select quotations video.

    Labeling the article as an attack is a red herring to the real issue: La Sierra attempting to cast their professors in a light opposite to what they themselves say they believe and teach.

    Adam, can you please address the following:

    Let’s be honest about what many LSU science professors stand for and teach, compared to what your PR video suggests. Isn’t it true this video portrays all science professors at LSU as being in full support of the SDA position on origins and a literal creation week? Isn’t it true this video gives the impression LSU science professors do not believe or actively promote the theory of evolution in their classrooms? Is it actually true your professors only teach evolution as a false theory that LSU students simply need to understand? Aren’t these the impressions your PR video give to potential students and their parents?




    0
    View Comment
  6. Adam: President Wisbey speaks for the students of La Sierra in expressing outrage at the attacks on Ramona’s testimony. The universal feeling on campus is that the educate truth article should be removed… not the video as the video supports the reality of LSU.  (Quote)

    A statement that says something is so, does not make it so. It is the evidence that supports the statement that shows that it is true..

    Brian




    0
    View Comment
  7. If you show videos and attach copies of documents, you are “attacking” the person cited or referenced. If you don’t, you are making unsubstantiated claims.

    It’s unfortunate that a student got caught in the crossfire. But then again, it is somewhat irresponsible for a student to publicly claim that “all is well,” when she must know she is making claims contrary to what so many others are saying about the very same topic at the very same school. As an adult, she is responsible for her actions, and for ensuring she is representing the truth. It may be that subject to her own experience at LSU, she believed she was giving an accurate testimony. But that doesn’t alter the fact that she is personally responsible if her words are misleading about what is taught or not taught at LSU.

    We all make mistakes, but the mature person does not do cover ups; instead they confess the error and move on.




    0
    View Comment
  8. The young lady can only testify to her own experience, she cannot speak for everything that’s taught in every class across a whole university – it’s bizarre to think she could. Most professors who have been in a university for decades can’t attest to what is taught in classes other than their own and perhaps others in their department, so how can a student be expected to do so? She told the truth about her experience.

    As it happens, pretty much every other La Sierra student who has posted here, with the notable exception of Carlos Cerna, has said very similar things to what she said. We’ve had a few posts from disgruntled parents, but perhaps someone can remind me of all the dozens of posts from La Sierra students saying that they have been taught evolution as fact? I can’t recall (m)any…




    0
    View Comment
  9. @ Brian
    “A statement that says something is so, does not make it so. It is the evidence that supports the statement that shows that it is true..”

    Right… and Ramona and my evidence is first hand experience.




    0
    View Comment
  10. @ Shane Hilde

    “Strange how Wisbey or anyone else from LSU does not speak directly to the contradictions between what the professors said and select quotations video.”

    This approach wouldn’t do them much good as you would only argue that they are lying to protect themselves. I think the word of a student has a great deal more value in this conversation as a student doesn’t have anything to gain from lying about the situation.

    “Let’s be honest about what many LSU science professors stand for and teach, compared to what your PR video suggests. Isn’t it true this video portrays all science professors at LSU as being in full support of the SDA position on origins and a literal creation week? Isn’t it true this video gives the impression LSU science professors do not believe or actively promote the theory of evolution in their classrooms? Is it actually true your professors only teach evolution as a false theory that LSU students simply need to understand? Aren’t these the impressions your PR video give to potential students and their parents?”

    My experience at La Sierra has been that the impression given by the video is correct. More importantly this was Ramona’s experience and her experience is just as valid as a form of data regarding this issue as any other student’s. Furthermore I think that we have heard plenty from the side that Louis and Carlos had to offer and it is refreshing to hear a different point of view. Perhaps this site would benefit from taping random student as LSU and finding out the real student perspective.




    0
    View Comment
  11. Adam: @ Brian
    “A statement that says something is so, does not make it so. It is the evidence that supports the statement that shows that it is true..”Right… and Ramona and my evidence is first hand experience.  

    but there is the newspaper articles, the lecture notes, the interviews, plus numerous other student testimonies all extensively documented that say otherwise.




    0
    View Comment
  12. Bravus: The young lady can only testify to her own experience, she cannot speak for everything that’s taught in every class across a whole university – it’s bizarre to think she could.  

    So she fell into a common scientific trap: that of making a definitive statement on the basis of a too small of a data set.




    0
    View Comment
  13. Nup… she testified to her own experience: others extrapolated that too broadly and attacked for not reflecting their own perception of the totality of the university. If anyone made that mistake, it wasn’t Ramona.




    0
    View Comment
  14. @Bravus: Oddly, though she has experience with one professor who is very much a believer in the theory of evolution–Lee Greer. Her specific statements about professors only presenting it to be informative is highly suspect when considering the theory is the only viable theory presented in the classroom. Greer does not present the evidence for creationism.

    At anyrate, I don’t fault Ramona for anything. She didn’t make the video or the questions. LSU made the video. I’ve been interviewed a number of times and what I said does not always come out the way I intended. I have absolutely no reason to believe she is purposefully being misleading.

    I find fault with how LSU has used her testimony to present a false impression of their professors. And I’m not talking about their belief in God or whether He was the creator or not, but whether or not they believe and teach the theory of evolution with no treatment of the evidence for creationism.

    When creationism is being left out entirely and only the theory of evolution is being presented, there is a problem.




    0
    View Comment
  15. @ Brian

    Hmmm almost four years of one on one interaction is too small a data set? Sorry… I don’t think so. How about jumping to conclusions using two student testimonials (one of whom had only been around one quarter of one class!!!) without ever bothering to talk to the rest of the student body.




    0
    View Comment
  16. @Adam: I would love it if more students would come make comments about this issue. Louie and Carlos have at least produced evidence of their claims. All I have is my personal experience. I didn’t save anything from my class that I took. However, I have yet to see a student produce evidence that creationism is being taught in the biology classrooms. If it’s not, then the professors are indeed giving preferential treatment to the theory of evolution, which only makes sense because they personally believe it to be the more valid theory.

    You don’t deny the professors in question believe in the theory of evolution, do you? They claim they do, and the present the theory as the only valid theory.

    When it comes down to it, the video expresses some opinions about the professors that do not match the opinions of the professors themselves. Can you speak to this?




    0
    View Comment
  17. The evidence is what the evidence is. Simply look at the syllabus:
    http://www.detectingdesign.com/

    In McCloskey’s Biology 112 presentation (third lecture, slide 10) it says:

    “There is nothing “theoretical” about the evidence supporting evolution. The research about evolution is ongoing and continues to support and refine Darwin’s original ideas. No data have been found to refute the idea. It is the single unifying explanation of the living world, and nothing makes much, if any, sense outside of this unifying theory.”

    I love the “no data” part. It is completely false – but that is for another time. I guess this student forgot about that part of the syllabus or interpreted it differently from how I do. It sounds to me from the syllabus that if you want to believe science you have no choice but to believe evolution. That’s not the flavor of the PR video. She says that professors were simply teaching evolution because you need to know about it if you want to go to graduate school later on – you need to know what other people are talking about. She also went on to say that her professors went on and on about how the cell was perfectly made by God. There is a stark contrast between these professed realities. Can anyone please explain this difference to me? Really.




    0
    View Comment
  18. I don’t get the “thumbs down” on my last post? Really – there’s nothing controversial about it. Would the person who clicked it please tell me what was so wrong (unfactual, incorrect) about what I stated. It was simply a statement of the facts – not much opinion at all. I think we have “thumbs down inflation”




    0
    View Comment
  19. It wasn’t me who rated the post – I haven’t been rating any – but you did select one slide from a whole course and use it to make claims about the whole course…




    0
    View Comment
  20. It seems to me that Roger was just asking a question in his post: Basically, there seems to be two different messages (one from the slide, and the other from the video). The slide says that the only way to make sense of this world is through the unifying theory of evolutionism, while the video says that you have to understand evolutionism to understand the people you will come in contact with every day in the sciences, but still, creationism is fact. They are saying two completely different things. Roger just wanted to know why?

    And Bravus, you are right that Roger used just one slide from that syllabus, but that one slide offers quite a commentary, and even perhaps an indictment against its author. If there were such a thing as a ‘smoking gun’ in this discussion, that would pretty much be it.

    The actions of the leadership at LSU make me wonder if we have an instance of the counter-reformation at work. It is certainly speculative, but the words of the teachers, and leadership there give me pause to wonder at their true beliefs. The watchword of Protestantism used to be ‘Sola Scriptura,’ meaning ‘The Bible only,’ and certainly it seems LSU has abandoned that credo in favor of a more humanistic approach which raises the ideas of mankind above the inspired Word of God.

    Ultimately, the discussion comes down to two ways of looking at things: Do we accept the Bible as the final authority on sacred history and origins (knowing we may not be able to explain everything right now), or do we accept the ideas of mankind (knowing they are often flawed and erroneous) as the standard for what is Truth? Evolutionists would have us believe that science is the final arbiter between right and wrong, and that it has the last say in this discussion. True Bible-believing Christians beg to differ, and don’t accept that credo.

    Members of this organization of Christianity have the right to expect that leadership in Adventist schools (whether LSU, or any other) will at least ‘try’ to convey a message in harmony with the belief system of its parent organization. This is seemingly lacking at LSU, and thus the controversy (and thus also my conjecture that we may have an instance of the counter-reformation at work).

    This would be a simple matter to clear up if LSU chose to, but given Dr. Wisby’s philosophy regarding the “integration” that needs to occur between the church and current humanistic philosophy, it seems unlikely to happen any time soon.

    [To see a copy of the speech given by Dr. Wisby in November 2008 that describes this “integration”, please check out the link below:

    http://www.lasierra.edu/fileadmin/documents/pruser/Speeches/Nurturing_the_Adventist_Mind.pdf ]




    0
    View Comment
  21. JohnB: This would be a simple matter to clear up if LSU chose to, but given Dr. Wisby’s philosophy regarding the “integration” that needs to occur between the church and current humanistic philosophy, it seems unlikely to happen any time soon.

    [To see a copy of the speech given by Dr. Wisby in November 2008 that describes this “integration”, please check out the link below:

    http://www.lasierra.edu/fileadmin/documents/pruser/Speeches/Nurturing_the_Adventist_Mind.pdf ]

    Indeed. In this current context, what is most telling about Wisbey’s speech, in my opinion at least, is the following portion:

    One example of how the church needs this integration is in the vexing issue of the relation of Adventist thinking to the natural sciences as pertains to the history of life on planet Earth. On the one hand, for more than a hundred years Adventists have believed that “the book of nature and the written word shed light upon each other. They make us acquainted with God by teaching us something of the laws through which He works.”

    On the other hand, we recognize that “creationists do not have an adequate explanation” for “radiometric dates of many millions of years . . . . The most difficult question is probably the apparent sequence of radiometric dates, giving older dates for lower layers in the geologic column and younger dates for upper layers.”

    What Adventist colleges and universities can do is to provide a supportive environment and conceptual assistance not only to their students but also to the whole church in addressing this issue effectively by reexamining our understanding of both the “book of nature” and the “written word.” In the process, Adventist colleges and universities can be examples of thinking faithfully.

    In this passage, it seems quite clear that Wisbey himself is sympathetic to ideas of theistic evolutionism. He doesn’t seem to be able to get his mind around the mainstream conclusions on radiometric dating. He therefore suggests that the SDA Church needs to “reexamine” its position on origins in light of this seemingly incontrovertible information. Essentially, Wisbey is arguing that the Church needs to reexamine how it interprets the Bible in order to come more into line with mainstream scientists.

    No wonder LSU is in a state of fundamental contradiction. It’s own president is leading the way. What I don’t understand, however, is why Wisbey along with the LSU PR people are trying to cover up what LSU does in fact stand for in its science departments – the validity of promoting the modern synthesis view on the theory of evolution as the most likely explanation of origins on this planet. This is in fact what most of LSU’s science staff believe and promote in their classrooms and other public forums (i.e., outside lectures, speeches, published papers, public interviews, etc). So, why try to cover this up with contrary PR campaigns that use the testimony of otherwise innocent students? Why not be open and honest, even proud, about what LSU does in fact stand for?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  22. Bravus: It wasn’t me who rated the post – I haven’t been rating any – but you did select one slide from a whole course and use it to make claims about the whole course…

    The actual materials from entire courses are available for review now. There’s nothing in any of the materials that presents 6-day creationism in a favorable light if this concept is presented at all. All of the course materials present the ToE in the most favorable light possible without any contrary material whatsoever, much less any arguments in support of the SDA position on origins.

    This fact, combined with the many public statements of LSU scientists in support of the modern synthesis view of evolution as their own personal belief, is in direct contrast to the experience of Ramona. The fact that even one LSU science professor should be promoting the ToE as the most likely story of origins is bad enough and should call for an inquiry into the leadership of LSU.

    The fact remains that Ramona’s testimony, however sincere, and I believe it was sincere, is mistaken. We have the actual course materials of the professors in question. We have their independent statements of belief in Darwinism. We have their public statements calling the idea of a 6-day creation week “ludicrous”. We have their published papers and interviews in clear support of very long ages of life existing and evolving on this planet. We also have, though we really don’t need it, the testimony of numerous students besides Cerna and Bishop. Many students have come to me over the years in great concern over this issue, starting with Jason and Janelle Shives when I was first asked to speak to the student body at LSU. Many parents of current or former LSU students have also written or spoken to me face to face about their deep concern and heartache over this issue.

    I’m afraid the facts are in and they are undeniable. Perhaps the only way this factual information could be effectively overcome by LSU PR department is to have the teachers themselves record their own testimony and exactly what they do and do not teach regarding a literal 6-day creation week within and without of their LSU classrooms…

    You know this won’t happen because I happen to know that many of these teachers are simply too honest to purger themselves. They will not admit to supporting something which they do not support. Lee Greer, I happen to know, is a very sincere and honest young man. He would never mislead anyone as to his true convictions in favor of the ToE. If you ask him what he believes, he will honestly tell you. He will not tell you something other than the truth as he sees it.

    Now, I do admire Greer for his sincerity and honesty. However, the fact remains that he is fundamentally opposed, honestly so, to the stated SDA position on origins. Because of this, he is in direct opposition to the clearly stated request of his employer to actively support the concept of a literal 6-day creation week as the true story of origins. Greer does not and cannot do this. Therefore, his employer, the SDA Church, really has no choice in this case but to ask Greer to resign his position. The Church is forced to do this – or change its own position on origins. One or the other must take place to avoid the extreme cognitive dissonance that is now taking place on the campus of LSU.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  23. Adam: President Wisbey speaks for the students of La Sierra in expressing outrage at the attacks on Ramona’s testimony. The universal feeling on campus is that the educate truth article should be removed… not the video as the video supports the reality of LSU.

    The video supports the reality of what all of the science professors at LSU believe and promote? Really? Ok, how do you explain the lack of any support in the published lecture notes for a literal creation week from any of the science professors? How do you explain the personal testimony of many other LSU students stating that many of LSU’s science professors do in fact support the idea that Darwinism is in fact the most likely story of origins in their classrooms? How do you explain the personal testimony in support of the Darwinian story of origins from several of these teachers which has actually been published? How do you explain these teachers publicly referring to literal 6-day creationism as “lunacy”? How do you explain the published papers in mainstream journals from these teachers which clearly support the concept of the evolution of various kinds of plants, animals and other creatures, and humans as well, over vast ages of time?

    I mean, you can say all day long that your experience is contrary to the above-listed facts. However, you cannot deny that these facts are indeed publicly available facts – can you? How then do you explain these facts in light of your own testimony here? They just don’t seem to go together. It seems like you are deliberately ignoring the actual evidence because of your strong desire to support your school whatever the actual facts may be…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  24. @Sean Pitman M.D.: It appears that some almost want to make this a numbers game. As if the majority of students’ experiences could outweigh their professors admissions.

    If what Adam and Ramona say is true about how the professors teach evolution, than why haven’t we EVER heard a statement from the biology department that endorses the church’s position like almost every other Adventist university and college? They seem incapable of saying they believe in a six-day creation that occurred in the recent past. To me the answer to that question is easy, they simply don’t believe in it and they’re honest men and thus will not lie about their beliefs.

    If only LSU were as forthcoming as their professors.




    0
    View Comment
  25. Sean Pitman M.D.: On the other hand, we recognize that “creationists do not have an adequate explanation” for “radiometric dates of many millions of years . . . . The most difficult question is probably the apparent sequence of radiometric dates, giving older dates for lower layers in the geologic column and younger dates for upper layers.”

    Sean,
    I noticed that this section of Wisbey’s speech is actually a quote from James Gibson; director of the church’s ‘Geoscience Research Institute.’

    12 James Gibson (director, Geoscience Research Institute), “Frequently Asked Questions,” www. grisda.org/teachers. Accessed 12 March 2008; last update 5 March 2002.

    Is it possible that past ambivalence regarding the age of the earth has also had it’s source in GRISDA? With the publication of RATE and subsequent research by those at ICR relating to radiometric dating, is it not possible that we now do have adequate explanations for the radiometric problem?
    See links below:

    http://www.icr.org/article/diamonds-may-be-creationists-best-friend/

    http://www.icr.org/article/diamond-research-points-recent-formation/

    http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-376.pdf

    Also, Mr.Wisbey has the following quote in the footnotes of his speech.

    9 “Long-cherished opinions must not be regarded as infallible. . . . However long men may have entertained certain views, if they are not clearly sustained by the written word, they should be discarded. Those who sincerely desire truth will not be reluctant to lay open their positions for investigation and criticism, and will not be annoyed if their opinions and ideas are crossed. . . . We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed.” “Search the Scriptures,”
    Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, July 26, 1892, 465;

    This quote is actually contrary to the activities at LSU. The Scriptures support a young age of the earth. This is abundantly obvious. To interpret them differently one has to take a higher critical approach. A long age of the earth is not supported by Scripture and should be discarded – no matter how much ‘long-cherished’ evidence coming from secular/atheistic scientists seems to support otherwise.




    0
    View Comment
  26. Victor Marshall: I noticed that this section of Wisbey’s speech is actually a quote from James Gibson; director of the church’s ‘Geoscience Research Institute.’

    Yes, Wisbey did selectively quote Gibson, but in isolation. There are in fact many reasons to question the conclusions of the mainstream interpretation of radiometric ages – some of which have been more recently highlighted by the RATE project, and others which are based on different methods of age estimation – which dramatically disagree with mainstream conclusions.

    In any case, this speech strongly suggests where Wisbey’s sympathies really are – certainly not with the SDA Church’s view on a literal 6-day creation… despite his more recent very carefully worded support of 6-day creation since he has been brought under closer scrutiny: “I can support a 6-day creation week”… what kind of vote of support is that?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  27. @ Victor “The Scriptures support a young age of the earth.”

    Your conclusions are incorrect Mr. Marshall. The Scriptures do not support a young age of the earth. The Bible clearly states that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth……” We don’t know when that beginning was but we do know that there was indeed an Earth present when God started his acts of creation; “the Earth was formless and void.” Therefore the Earth theoretically could have been around for millions of years, just sitting here until God decided to come here and start creating. What the Scriptures do support is a young life, not a young earth. The Scriptures support the idea that life is about 6000 years old, not the actual Earth itself.




    0
    View Comment
  28. @Sean Pitman, M.D.:

    Sean, You said:

    There are in fact many reasons to question the conclusions of the mainstream interpretation of radiometric ages – some of which have been more recently highlighted by the RATE project, and others which are based on different methods of age estimation – which dramatically disagree with mainstream conclusions.

    You are again using information that is exactly correct to imply something that is false. The quoted statement is true; there are possible flaws in radiometric dating. However, your implication that a weakness in radiometric dating techniques can somehow be used as evidence supporting a recent six-day creation is absolutely false.

    To argue for a six-day creation can be only speculative, not scientific. Although I have long hoped for a scientific argument for a recent creation, I have never heard of one. There is no one at Geoscience Research Institute who can provide a scientific basis for a short history. Their entire presentation gives nothing more than a few reasons to be skeptical about the prevailing long-history model. (That is also what you have accomplished.) But, nowhere have I found a viable short-history model. Until someone produces such a model, there is absolutely no scientific basis for a recent creation. Weaknesses in evolutionary theories in no way suggest that life on the earth is young.

    People who expect a recent creation to be taught as science must understand that it is not possible to do so. You can believe such a thing, you can speculate about such a thing, but you can’t come up with a scientific basis to teach such a thing.




    0
    View Comment
  29. Fredrick W.: Your conclusions are incorrect Mr. Marshall. The Scriptures do not support a young age of the earth. The Bible clearly states that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth……” We don’t know when that beginning was…”

    Mr. W.
    The Scripture also states that ‘…in six days the Lord made heaven and earth.”

    Please forgive my pontifications. I am aware of the old-earth/young-life theory. What I should have said was ‘there is far more biblical evidence in favor of a young earth than an old one.’

    It is quite an assumption to place ‘millions’ (or more popularly, billions) of years between verse 1 and 2 without any clear Scriptural statement that such a time period existed – and then to pronounce that ‘the Scriptures do not support a young earth’, and that they therefore clearly teach an old earth. This is arguing authoritatively from silence.

    Theologians did not begin to develop such a theory based upon independent Biblical exegesis – but in response to scientific long-age speculations. The conclusion that the earth is old is not based upon Scripture – but science. A plain reading of the text does not support a pre-life epoch of millions or billions of years. No significant lapse of time is mentioned at all.
    Since the Scriptures do not specifically teach an old earth. And since Creation Science has brought serious challenges to the old-age presuppositions of secular science – perhaps we should leave the door open to a young earth, rather than pronouncing it to be ‘unsupported’ by Scripture.

    If I’m wrong, I guess during the millenium (when the earth reverts to it’s formless and void state for 1,000 years, not millions?) – I’ll have to ask the unfallen beings what kinds of questions they had for the Creator about these blobs of uninhabited matter left floating in outer space for vast eons.

    “For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited:…” – Is.45:18




    0
    View Comment
  30. <Also, Mr.Wisbey has the following quote in the footnotes of his speech.9 “Long-cherished opinions must not be regarded as infallible. . . . However long men may have entertained certain views, if they are not clearly sustained by the written word, they should be discarded. Those who sincerely desire truth will not be reluctant to lay open their positions for investigation and criticism, and will not be annoyed if their opinions and ideas are crossed. . . . We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed.” “Search the Scriptures,”Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, July 26, 1892

    It is interesting to note the quote that appeared in the foot notes of Mr. Wisbey’s speech. Clearly, one needs to read the entire article to see the context. Very many important points were left out as the following: “How shall we search the Scriptures? Shall we drive our stakes of doctrine one after another, and then try to make all Scripture meet our established opinions, or shall we take our ideas and views to the Scriptures, and measure our theories on every side by the Scriptures of truth? Many who read and even teach the Bible, do not comprehend the precious truth they are teaching or studying. Men entertain errors, when the truth is clearly marked out, and if they would but bring their doctrines to the word of God, and not read the word of God in the light of their doctrines, to prove their ideas right, they would not walk in darkness and blindness, or cherish error. Many give the words of Scripture a meaning that suits their own opinions, and they mislead themselves and deceive others by their misinterpretations of God’s word. As we take up the study of God’s word, we should do so with humble hearts. All selfishness, all love of originality, should be laid aside. Long-cherished opinions must not be regarded as infallible. It was the unwillingness of the Jews to give up their long established traditions that proved their ruin. They were determined not to see any flaw in their own opinions or in their expositions of the Scriptures; but however long men may have entertained certain views, if they are not clearly sustained by the written word, they should be discarded. {RH, July 26, 1892 par. 3}

    May we cling to the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Scriptures alone as our rule of faith and practice! Let us be satisfied with that which has been revealed!

    There is a warning that we would do well to take heed to:
    “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
    And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:18,19.




    0
    View Comment
  31. Carl: You are again using information that is exactly correct to imply something that is false. The quoted statement is true; there are possible flaws in radiometric dating. However, your implication that a weakness in radiometric dating techniques can somehow be used as evidence supporting a recent six-day creation is absolutely false.

    The numerous weaknesses in radiometric dating are combined with the numerous positive evidences for the recent creation of life on this planet – evidences which are far more consistent with the biblical story of origins vs. the story of mainstream evolutionary scientists.

    To argue for a six-day creation can be only speculative, not scientific.

    Not true. The idea of a recent creation of life on this planet is consistent with the currently available weight of physical data. Just because the majority of mainstream scientists interpret this data quite differently doesn’t mean that real scientific understanding or the most reasonable interpretation of the data is anything other than a recent formation of all life on this planet and a catastrophic model of rapid formation for the geologic column and fossil record.

    Although I have long hoped for a scientific argument for a recent creation, I have never heard of one. There is no one at Geoscience Research Institute who can provide a scientific basis for a short history. Their entire presentation gives nothing more than a few reasons to be skeptical about the prevailing long-history model. (That is also what you have accomplished.) But, nowhere have I found a viable short-history model. Until someone produces such a model, there is absolutely no scientific basis for a recent creation. Weaknesses in evolutionary theories in no way suggest that life on the earth is young.

    Evidence against a viable long age model is in fact evidence for a short age catastrophic model. Don’t you see that? If you defeat the null hypothesis, to a useful degree of predictive value, you must accept the alternate hypothesis – i.e., the young-age model in this case.

    People who expect a recent creation to be taught as science must understand that it is not possible to do so. You can believe such a thing, you can speculate about such a thing, but you can’t come up with a scientific basis to teach such a thing.

    Again, this simply isn’t true. There is abundant evidence which is far more consistent with a young-life model than with the mainstream interpretation of hundreds and thousands of millions of years of life evolving on this planet. You may argue that the holes which have been poked in the mainstream model are few and far between. Even if that were the case, these holes are massive and fundamentally destructive to the mainstream model in my view – and overwhelmingly support the young-life and catastrophic models of origins.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  32. After reading a number of Sean’s postings, I have come to the regrettable conclusion that he seems to belong to a school of thought that proclaims that if you say something that is factually erroneous over, and over, and over, again, again, again, this process of repeating the factual error many times will somehow turn that untruth into the truth. This technique seems to be very effective with certain kinds of individuals who are unfamiliar with evidence and predisposed for some reason to want to believe some factual untruth. Some of us recall that the technique was used quite effectively in a certain European country in the 1930s with very dramatic results.

    Sean keeps repeating what has become something of a mantra for him. In response to a recent posting of Carl which stated “To argue for a six-day creation can be only speculative, not scientific”

    Sean responded as follows: “The idea of a recent creation of life on this planet is consistent with the currently available weight of physical data . . . [T]he real scientific understanding or the most reasonable interpretation of the data is anything other than a recent formation of all life on this planet and a catastrophic model of rapid formation for the geologic column and fossil record.”

    This assertion, and similar statements by him which he repeats over and over again, are simply factually wrong. Even GRI scientists, as pointed out by others who have posted on this site, have essentially admitted that the overwhelming weight of the current scientific evidence and most reasonable interpretation of the current scientific data points to life being very old on this planet. On this point, Carl is absolutely correct.

    As Carl suggests, the best that the GRI group can do is to present “a few reasons to be skeptical about the prevailing long-history model. (That is also what you [Sean] have accomplished) . . . Weaknesses in evolutionary theories in no way suggest that life on the earth is young.” Carl has got this right.

    The point is that any weaknesses in how evolutionary biology reconstructs how organisms have developed over time has little to do with the nature of the massive amount of data supporting the essential accuracy of the current geochronological framework used in the earth sciences.

    I am reasonably certain that Sean will continue to insist that the 1-2% of the geochronological data which support his views should be accepted instead of the 98-99% which do not.




    0
    View Comment
  33. Professors are collecting money from SDA sources.

    Since the issue has been brought to “light,” it appears to me to be a lack of integrity that allows the professors to say to the SDA sources, “Up yours . . . and keep my checks coming.”

    I found that public school administrators who did not discipline “up yours” type of teachers were, in fact, in agreement with the teacher; using the teacher as a shield; while washing hands of responsibility.

    Only with parents’ push would things change . . . and there were many parent pushes in my 30 years of public school teaching. I always encouraged parents to be involved in their student’s education because I saw the quality of education improve with “light” and “parents’ push.”

    Parents needed to be involved earlier. “Trust me with your child; send us money; and go away” is the dream world for school administrators and teachers. “Inspect what I am teaching your child and inspect our school environment” is school administrator’s and teacher’s nightmare.

    Quality takes hard work and is painful for parents, administrators, and teachers . . . with the result of the students benefitting from the hard work and pain. I have seen the students benefitting over and over again through the years. Hummm, almost like “no pain; no gain.”

    Thank you parents and church members for your time spent in this worthy cause.




    0
    View Comment
  34. @Shane Hilde:

    My point in posting here is that I am responding to the assumptions of many who have posted here. Most comments seem to imply that LSU should stop teaching the science of evolution and start teaching the science of creation. Sean is arguing that because he can muster important objections to the dominant scientific views, there is more evidence for a short history of life than a long history; therefore, a short history should be taught.

    If someone has a scientifically supportable short-history model, I would think that the science staff at Geoscience Research Institute would make us aware of it and provide information so that it could be taught. GRI has been funded for more than fifty years to do just that – to provide a scientific basis for a recent creation. I am amazed at how casually Sean claims that he has accomplished what others have failed to do. It would be very helpful to get comments from GRI to clarify this issue.

    Since Sean repeats his claims frequently, I also will repeat mine: There is no scientifically supportable short-history model. There are many compelling evidences for a long-history model, many that Sean has not disputed.

    People who read this site must understand that the LSU biology faculty would enthusiastically teach a short history of life if someone could give them a scientific basis for doing so.




    0
    View Comment
  35. Ervin Taylor: After reading a number of Sean’s postings, I have come to the regrettable conclusion that he seems to belong to a school of thought that proclaims that if you say something that is factually erroneous over, and over, and over, again, again, again, this process of repeating the factual error many times will somehow turn that untruth into the truth. This technique seems to be very effective with certain kinds of individuals who are unfamiliar with evidence and predisposed for some reason to want to believe some factual untruth. Some of us recall that the technique was used quite effectively in a certain European country in the 1930s with very dramatic results.

    I find it most interesting that Erv Taylor tries to compare my thinking with that of Hitler and the Nazis. This is a classic attempt to portray or at least suggest that anyone who disagrees is morally corrupt if not downright evil. It couldn’t be that I’m just sincerely wrong? – could it?

    And, as far as repeating something over and over again, isn’t Erv the pot calling the kettle black here? Just a cursory review of AdventistToday will show that Erv is no less a broken record on this topic than I am – which is very interesting coming from someone who admittedly knows of no convincing empirical evidence for the existence of God. Even though he publicly pays lip service to the idea that their is a God, Erv is essentially agnostic in his thinking because he sees no physical evidence which necessitates the God argument. Yet, he is the executive editor of a “progressive” Adventist journal? Why, if not for anything other than social reasons, would anyone with this frame of mind think to take on the title of “SDA”?

    Yet, when it comes to producing “facts” in support of his notions of science, such as his repeated claim that amino acid racemization dating is a valid independent dating method, he brings nothing to the table but bald assertion as far as I can tell – even in the face of numerous recent publications to the contrary and repeated requests, on my part, for Erv to present some actual published data to back up his claims.

    The same is true of his “overwhelming” evidence for an ancient age of the geologic column and fossil record. If this claim is true, I’d love for someone like Erv to explain the general lack of expected uneven erosion, the maintenance of sedimentary layers for tens of millions of years on mountain ranges, the lack of sediment in the oceans, the lack of expected bioturbation within the geologic record, Chadwick’s universal paleocurrents, the existence of sequencable proteins and flexible soft tissues within many dinosaur bones, numerous Lazarus taxa, extensive, very thick and very pure coal seams, residual radiocarbon in both coal and oil, the lack of a statistically viable evolutionary mechanism, and on and on.

    These aren’t simply minor problems with the mainstream paradigm that so impresses Erv. These are huge problems which not only fundamentally undermine the long-age perspective for life on this planet, but support the recent catastrophic model very well at the same time.

    Sean keeps repeating what has become something of a mantra for him. In response to a recent posting of Carl which stated “To argue for a six-day creation can be only speculative, not scientific”

    Sean responded as follows: “The idea of a recent creation of life on this planet is consistent with the currently available weight of physical data . . . [T]he real scientific understanding or the most reasonable interpretation of the data is anything other than a recent formation of all life on this planet and a catastrophic model of rapid formation for the geologic column and fossil record.”

    This assertion, and similar statements by him which he repeats over and over again, are simply factually wrong. Even GRI scientists, as pointed out by others who have posted on this site, have essentially admitted that the overwhelming weight of the current scientific evidence and most reasonable interpretation of the current scientific data points to life being very old on this planet. On this point, Carl is absolutely correct.

    Even if all of the GRI scientists came to this conclusion, which simply isn’t true, it wouldn’t be correct. Beyond this, I personally know several current and retired GRI scientists and other well educated and well informed SDA scientists who do in fact believe that the significant weight of evidence is strongly in favor of a resent catastrophic model (Arthur Chadwick, Tim Standish, Leonard Brand, Ariel Roth, etc).

    Of course, young-life scientists are currently part of a distinct minority within the scientific community. But, this doesn’t mean that they are wrong or that they are incapable of thinking scientifically or of doing good science with high levels of predictive value.

    As an example, the catastrophic model was used to predict that formations thought to be termite nests within the geologic column must not be real termite nests. This prediction was confirmed, fairly recently, by Ariel Roth who proved that these formations where the result of inorganic processes.

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html#Termite

    As Carl suggests, the best that the GRI group can do is to present “a few reasons to be skeptical about the prevailing long-history model. (That is also what you [Sean] have accomplished) . . . Weaknesses in evolutionary theories in no way suggest that life on the earth is young.” Carl has got this right.

    The point is that any weaknesses in how evolutionary biology reconstructs how organisms have developed over time has little to do with the nature of the massive amount of data supporting the essential accuracy of the current geochronological framework used in the earth sciences.

    The weakness in the modern evolutionary synthesis isn’t limited to biology, or mechanism, but extends to geology and various mainstream dating methods as well. While not everything is yet understandable, the significant weight of evidence fits far more comfortably within a recent catastrophic model.

    Now, I know that each one of us thinks the other can’t seem to see the forest for the trees. That is why each individual person following this discussion will have to do his/her own bit of investigation regarding arguments on both sides of this issue. As it currently stands, at LSU anyway, students are only getting a very limited one-sided picture when it comes to interpreting the data that is actually available.

    I am reasonably certain that Sean will continue to insist that the 1-2% of the geochronological data which support his views should be accepted instead of the 98-99% which do not.

    Excellent prediction. Of course, I will also be prophetic, with a very high degree of predictive value, and predict that Erv will continue to insist that his little bit of unexplained data should really be given a weight of 99%. It’s like the intelligentsia during Jesus’ day suggesting that He performed miracles, like raising the dead, through the power of Satan. Sometimes people are simply incapable of correctly weighing the evidence before them. It is easier to simply pick the popular side rather than to come to an unpopular, but otherwise obvious, conclusion.

    Could this also be said of me? Of course. Bias is a possible blinder for all of us. However, I can assure you, I do in fact wish to know the actual truth – even if that truth be in favor of Erv and the ToE and quite distasteful to me. I am, therefore, as honest in my thinking and conclusions and my efforts to be scientific as I know how to be. Certainly no one can fault me for the earnestness and sincerity of my search and efforts thus far – which have been fairly extensive over the course of more than 10 years. And, I certainly do not fault Erv for his earnestness or obvious sincerity of opinion either. Ultimately, again, it all boils down to an individual search. Are you going to go with arguments from authority? – or are you going to consider as much of the available evidence as you can for yourself?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  36. Carl: There are many compelling evidences for a long-history model, many that Sean has not disputed.

    Please name one or two which I haven’t disputed. I bet I’ve disputed far more than you think I have. I don’t think you’ve read much of what I’ve presented on this topic…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




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

    Sean you said, “The idea of a recent creation of life on this planet is consistent with the currently available weight of physical data.”

    This statement is beyond astounding. What “weight of physical data”? In most cases, objections to current interpretations of the data do not become a “weight” of evidence in favor of a short history.

    One of your objections to dating methods is that they lack a calibration standard. That’s quite true, but it doesn’t suggest that you can fit millions of years into about ten thousand years. Suppose that geological dates in the range of a million years are wrong by a factor of ten. That means you might compress 1,000,000 years into 100,000 years, but that doesn’t create any evidence at all suggesting that life started about 10,000 years ago. There are reasons why the GRI site says clearly that radiometric dating methods pose a major challenge to belief in a short history. “The most difficult question is probably the apparent sequence of radiometric dates, giving older dates for lower layers in the geologic column and younger dates for upper layers.”

    Consider the Hawaiian Islands and the long chain of under-sea mountains that points NW and then bends to the NE where it joins the Aleutians. That’s pretty good evidence supporting plate tectonic theory even though it can’t all be explained. No matter how fast the continents might have moved, there’s no way to fit the mountain chain and the Hawaiian Islands into a history that is short enough to agree with Ussher’s chronology. You can’t even form the Big Island (the youngest of the group) within a short history, let alone the older islands and the mountain chain.

    If you have data giving compelling support for a short history, I haven’t seen it.




    0
    View Comment
  38. The more I read about this controversy (and see comments here on it), the more I wonder if it is truly the Omega apostasy predicted to rise near the close of time.

    Dr. J.H. Kellogg was seduced into believing that God was everywhere and in every thing, and because of it that god was nature, and nature was god. That was the Alpha apostasy (pantheism).

    In contrast to pantheism, current thought by evolutionists fundamentally boils down to the idea that God had nothing to do with life, and has seduced many into believing that God does not exist. Maybe this is the Omega apostasy?

    As Alpha is the first letter in the Greek alphabet, and Omega is the last, so pantheism would be the first of the major apostasies, and perhaps evolutionism the last.

    In a certain way, Pantheism is nearly an extreme opposite to Evolutionism in thought and philosophy. One philosophy says God is in everything, so everything must be God while the other says God is nowhere, so God does not exist.
    [However if He does exist and instituted evolution, He is a cruel God to use predation (predator and prey) as a mechanism for the development of life.]

    The implications of this run much deeper than a mere disagreement with scripture, as the ultimate implications of evolutionism strike at the very heart of Biblical Christianity.
    If evolution is correct, and life originated on its own, than God has no business involving himself in the sin process, because life and sin started on their own outside the realm of God.
    Furthermore, it implies that the controversy can arise again, and will arise again on some other planet as it evolves, for again, they start outside the realm of God.
    Still further, it implies that because life exists apart from God, than God is powerless to bring sin to an end because He cannot control what begins without His control.
    The philosophy of evolution not only destroys the reason for having the Adventist Church, but it also destroys the reason for Christianity at all!

    If life and sin and death all arose apart from God as evolution implies, than what was the purpose for Christ to come to this earth? And for what is Christ saving humanity from? Think about it some. There really is no need for a savior in a naturalistic paradigm that progresses through the mechanism of ‘survival of the fittest’. Ultimately, the best will survive anyway, weeding out the inferior physically and morally.

    Once you accept this philosophy (evolutionism), and add to it the lie told Eve in the Garden of Eden (that she would not die by eating of the forbidden fruit), and then mix in a little re-incarnation philosophy, you basically have the religion of Hinduism, which teaches that we all are progressing to a higher plane of existence, back to being ‘god’ (where they think we originated from anyway).

    Should LSU be outraged right now? Yes! All students and faculty should be outraged that their science teachers and their president hold to a philosophy so diametrically opposed to true Christianity, and so fundamentally at odds with scripture when in fact they are supposed to be a Christian university.

    Young Earth (YE)/ Young life creationists may not have all the answers as to what happened and when (yes, there are still unanswered questions). They may not yet have all the scientific proof for their position. However, they can show that there are fundamental flaws in the theory of evolutionism (from statistics, thermodynamics, etc.) and because of these flaws it brings into question the validy of the INTERPRETATION of the scientific data. Maybe the data support a different theory than the one currently adopted. It is possible, and should be honestly investigated by all.
    Whether evolutionists like to think so or not, the disagreements of the creationist philosophy are part of the TRUE peer-review process. Honest dialog is needed to discern the best interpretation of the data and for the peer review process to work as originally intended.

    All that being said, I don’t think there ever will be honest dialog between these two disagreeing parties because of a fundamental problem: I think that evil does exist, and that Satan exists, and that he has an agenda. I think evolutionism is part of that agenda, and he is using it as part of his plan to seduce and ensnare humanity.
    Unwittingly or not, I think many have become involved in something bigger than they are, and because of that I think this whole debate is part of the Omega apostasy predicted to arise just before the end of this world.

    Each person needs to come to a fundamental uderstanding with their own soul: Is the Bible really God’s Word, and can it be trusted? Evolutionism fundamentally says it is flawed, and untrustworthy. Creationists say it can be believed. One or the other is right, and the other is totally wrong. There is no middle ground.

    Given their position and what they stand for (being a Christian university), it is amazing to me that LSU faculty (Science teachers and president) have taken the position they have on this.

    Perhaps it shouldn’t be so surprising to me if I was correct in an earlier posting that this may be an instance of the Counter-Revolution: the outworking of the Omega apostasy.
    If you are one of the ones outraged, just be sure you know which side you are on.




    0
    View Comment
  39. 1. There is NO scientifically supportable argument for life popping up out of rocks and gas “given enough time”.

    2. There is NO scientifically supportable argument for what Isaac Asimov calls the “massive decrease in entropy required for molecule to human mind” evolutionism.

    3. There is NO science at all demonstrating the creation of new eukaryote genomes from more primitive ancestors.

    In fact Collin Patterson called those stories about “how one thing came from another” based on the fossil record “stories easy enough to make up but they are not science”.

    And YET – true “believers” in evolutionism will willingly teach “and believe” evolutionism “anyway”. Indeed as Richard Dawkins pointed out – it is the only option for the atheist “believer”.

    Thus Patterson can lament the distinctively by-faith-alone religious nature for the evolutionist argument — and yet still cling to it anyway!

    What is now surprising is the “scientificaly rigorous” canard being raised against creationism AS IF only “having the answers to ALL questions” should qualify a paradigm for acceptance when it comes to origins!!

    There is in fact NO such thing for evolutionism beyond the certainty of it’s proven history of fraud and hoax illustrations to make its case!

    This is where we could have hoped for some “critical thinking” on the part of LSU staff.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  40. Getting to the opening article for this blog thread –

    1. It would have been nice to see Wisby’s letter posted complaining about Educate truth (if he would allow it.).

    2. It is illogical for Wisby to put an opinion (no facts referenced) story by Ramona Bahnam out there to spin the LSU story line (AS IF it were not engaged in teaching evolutionism as fact ) and then insist that no one who differs with that POV be allowed to express a counter point of view because it would be a challenge to the opinions stated by Bahnam!

    If in fact he did this – then he is appealing to “marketing and propaganda maneuvering” rather than the use of objective reason and logic in his argument. I cannot tell if this is the case without seeing his argument in print.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  41. @JohnB:

    JohnB says:
    December 1, 2009 The more I read about this controversy (and see comments here on it), the more I wonder if it is truly the Omega apostasy predicted to rise near the close of time.

    Dr. J.H. Kellogg was seduced into believing that God was everywhere and in every thing, and because of it that god was nature, and nature was god. That was the Alpha apostasy (pantheism).

    In contrast to pantheism, current thought by evolutionists fundamentally boils down to the idea that God had nothing to do with life, and has seduced many into believing that God does not exist. Maybe this is the Omega apostasy?

    As Alpha is the first letter in the Greek alphabet, and Omega is the last, so pantheism would be the first of the major apostasies, and perhaps evolutionism the last.

    In a certain way, Pantheism is nearly an extreme opposite to Evolutionism in thought and philosophy. One philosophy says God is in everything, so everything must be God while the other says God is nowhere, so God does not exist.

    I too have been wondering about that same thing since I first learned about the 1995 AToday survey of all SDA collegiate and university science teachers and the followup meeting held about 5 years ago — along with this flareup at LSU.

    3SG 90-91 Ellen White addressed this problem as “the worst kind of infidelity” calling it “disguised infidelity” — (atheism). But she did not address the problem as one that was then coming from inside the Adventist church in her day.

    Also there are atheist science organizations like the British Center for Science and education that do attribute the demise of christianity in Europe and America to the success of evolutionism. They argue that to the degree that Christians hold to a real acceptance of the Bible as trustwothy – they reject evolutionism’s counter doctrines for origins.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  42. As was noted earlier – “science” progresses just fine in terms of actually working with biology or chemistry or physics without having to constantly “imagine that birds came from reptiles”.

    The same is true with aspects of physics when it comes to the subject of “angels”. No belief one way or the other about the presence of angels in the room – affects the study of physics.

    Back when the WTC’s were still standing – you could ride the elevator to the top floor and it would show the combined weight of all the people in the elevator — so you could see how the weight dropped as the elevator whent higher and higher (the old inverse squares law being seen in action). There was no “that proves there are no angels” argument associated – because linking those two is nonsense.

    God “makes” a living planet and evolutionists did not see him do it NOR can they make even the first living cell. So why should we think that medicine or plant sciences or physics cannot be done without “imagining that living cells popped up out of gas and rocks” or without “imagining that birds came from reptiles”.

    It is a canard offerred by diehard believers in evolutionism — but it makes no sense.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  43. The state of our church and the world today is as Jesus stated,”But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” Matt.24:37.
    “Because of his holy integrity and unwavering adherence to God’s commands, Noah was counted singular indeed and made himself an object of contempt and derision by answering to the claims of God without a questioning doubt. What a contrast to the prevailing unbelief and universal disregard of His law!…
    Noah was tested and tried thoroughly and yet he preserved his integrity in the face of the world–all, all against him. Thus will it be when the Son of man shall be revealed. The saved will be few, as is represented by Noah and his family…
    But the days before the Flood steal silently on as a thief in the night. Noah is now making his last effort in warnings, entreaty, and appeal to the rejecters of God’s message. With tearful eye, trembling lip, and quivering voice he makes his last entreaty for them to believe and secure a refuge in the ark. But they turn from him with impatience and contempt that he should be so egotistical as to suppose his family are the only ones right in the vast population of the earth. They have no patience with his warnings, with his strange work of building an immense boat on dry ground. Noah, they said, was insane.
    Reason, science, and philosophy assured them Noah was a fanatic. None of the wise men and honored of the earth believed the testimony of Noah. If these great men were at ease and had no fears, why should they be troubled? –Ms. 5, 1876, pp. 1-4. (“The Days of Noah,” cir. 1876.)

    The men of highest intellect in Noah’s day could be heard speaking something like this,”The laws of nature have been fixed; the recurring seasons have come and gone in regular order. Rain has never yet fallen. The rivers and brooks have never passed their boundaries. Fixed decrees have kept the waters from overflowing their banks. Why, to say that a sudden flood will come upon our world is indeed very preposterous! There is no scientifically supportable world-flood model. Furthermore, this man knows nothing of science, he has absolutely no known published scientific research to prove his claims. If Noah has a scientifically supportable world-flood model, we would think that the great scientists at the World Science Research Institute would make us aware of it and provide information so that it could be taught. Noah’s arguments for a great deluge of water flooding this world we live on can be only speculative, not scientific.”

    Many today in the scientific community believe that the great flood is simply a fairytale, or if it did happen, it was simply a local event. Many use modern scientific models to prove the Bible, but herein lies the most dangerous error!

    As in Noah’s day, men reason today,”The greatest scientists of our day who are well learned in the most extensive studies of the origin of life would enthusiastically teach a short history of life if they could find the evidence. Fact is, they have not been able to re-create a short-history model in their science labs. Therefore, to argue for a six-day creation can be only speculative, not scientific. If someone has a scientifically supportable short-history model, I would think that the science staff at the Geoscience Research Institute would make us aware of it and provide information so that it could be taught. GRI has been funded for more than fifty years to do just that – to provide a scientific basis for a recent creation. Even GRI scientists have essentially admitted that the overwhelming weight of the current scientific evidence and most reasonable interpretation of the current scientific data points to life being very old on this planet. Be not concerned, all things continue on as from the beginning. God does not work outside the bounds of the laws of nature. ”

    Woe is man!

    Romans 1:18-24
    For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
    Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”




    0
    View Comment
  44. Carl: Sean you said, “The idea of a recent creation of life on this planet is consistent with the currently available weight of physical data.”
    This statement is beyond astounding. What “weight of physical data”? In most cases, objections to current interpretations of the data do not become a “weight” of evidence in favor of a short history.

    Many of the objections to current interpretations of the data are due to the numerous evidences in favor of the very rapid, even castrophic, formation of much of the geologic record.

    One of your objections to dating methods is that they lack a calibration standard. That’s quite true, but it doesn’t suggest that you can fit millions of years into about ten thousand years.

    Not by itself, but with the additional evidence in support of a catastrophic model, the young-life hypothesis gains a great deal of predictive power…

    Suppose that geological dates in the range of a million years are wrong by a factor of ten. That means you might compress 1,000,000 years into 100,000 years, but that doesn’t create any evidence at all suggesting that life started about 10,000 years ago.

    As I’ve already explained to you many times now, there is positive evidence for a catastrophic model beyond the mere questioning of radiometric dates (dates which have often proven to be off by far more than a factor of 10).

    As an example of conflicting age estimates, consider the recent redating of Mather Gorge and Holtwood Gorge in Pennsylvania. These gorges were once thought to have eroded over the course of 1.8 million years based on geochronological and radiometric age calculations. However, in 2004 research measuring beryllium-10 levels (the measurement of beryllium-10 that builds up in quartz when exposed to cosmic rays) done by Luke J. Reusser, a geologist at the University of Vermont in Burlington, and other colleagues, suggests that these gorges may be as young as 13,000 years instead of 1.8 million years.

    To further illustrate this problem, consider that 3H dating has been used to establish the theory that the driest desert on Earth, Coastal Range of the Atacama desert in northern Chile (which is 20 time drier than Death Valley) has been without any rain or significant moisture of any kind for around 25 million years. The only problem with this theory is that recently investigators have 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.

    There are reasons why the GRI site says clearly that radiometric dating methods pose a major challenge to belief in a short history. “The most difficult question is probably the apparent sequence of radiometric dates, giving older dates for lower layers in the geologic column and younger dates for upper layers.”

    While there are aspects of radiometric dating that are not yet explained, radiometric dating clearly has serious calibration problems and is dramatically inconsistent with other means of producing very convincing maximum ages estimates for various geologic features.

    Consider the Hawaiian Islands and the long chain of under-sea mountains that points NW and then bends to the NE where it joins the Aleutians. That’s pretty good evidence supporting plate tectonic theory even though it can’t all be explained. No matter how fast the continents might have moved, there’s no way to fit the mountain chain and the Hawaiian Islands into a history that is short enough to agree with Ussher’s chronology. You can’t even form the Big Island (the youngest of the group) within a short history, let alone the older islands and the mountain chain.

    If you have data giving compelling support for a short history, I haven’t seen it.

    Upon what do you base your assertion that volcanic islands cannot be formed rapidly? You do realize, don’t you, that volcanic islands have been known to be produced practically overnight in modern times? – and to develop rapid ecosystems of both plants and animals? Just imagine how fast such islands could be built given much more rapid continental movements and crustal disturbances…

    http://www.jstor.org/pss/1551407

    The fact that continental drift occured is not in question. The rate at which it occured is very much in question. The significant weight of evidence clearly favors the idea that continental movements were much much faster in the past than they are today.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  45. @Sean Pitman:

    For your point about rapid island formation, you have given an example of a very small island, 2.7 km2, not even a mile in diameter. Hawaii (the Big Island) is almost 100 miles long and not quite as wide, in surface area about 5,000 times bigger than your example (and fantastically bigger by volume). The two high points are above 13,000 ft and the total formation rises about 50,000 ft above the ocean floor which has been depressed by its weight. It is at the end of a mountain chain that formed before Hawaii formed. The island is still growing in the way that it has formed by means of persistent lava flows.

    The older islands of the Hawaiian group are the high points of another large island that formed first and has now subsided into the ocean. How is the rapid formation of a tiny island supposed to convince me that Hawaii could have formed in less than the common geologic dates?

    You have not made your point.




    0
    View Comment
  46. Carl: How is the rapid formation of a tiny island supposed to convince me that Hawaii could have formed in less than the common geologic dates?

    You have not made your point.

    You’re missing the part of my argument for a much more rapid continental drift in the resent past, which would include much more active volcanic activity – in both frequency and quantity.

    In contrast, your entire argument seems to be based on the notion that volcanic activity could not have been significantly greater in the past than it is today. You are presenting a uniformitarian argument – an argument which is inconsistent with the weight of available evidence.

    The fact of the matter is, we know that volcanic activity was greater in the past than it is today – much much greater. And, there is very good evidence that this past wasn’t very long ago (see my response to Erv Taylor above for a short list of some of these evidences; or review the essay on my website about the geologic record).

    So, in this light, I don’t see how you’ve made your argument for the obviously ancient age of Hawaii all that definitive. Are your uniformitarian assumptions the best you have? – in combination with the assumptions of radiometric dating? How do you answer the evidence that works strongly against your uniformitarian ideas for continental drift at such a steady, constant, and very slow rate?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  47. One more point:

    Consider that even in modern times, with relatively subdued volcanic activity, Surtsey Iceland was formed very rapidly. Within just 8 days the volcano grew from the sea floor at a depth of 130 meters to sea level – in just over one week! And, this wasn’t even a big volcano; nor was it active for more than four years total.

    Are you really arguing that volcanic activity is unlikely to have been greater in the past than it is today? please…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  48. Surtsey Island came into being in less than 4 years time – and then was populated with plants, insects, birds etc in less than 45 years. Pretty hard to argue “not enough time” for islands to form in a 100 years much less a 1000.

    Estimates for the Great Lakes system assuming current rate of erosion never changed (hoping to ignore changes in geothermal and tectonic activity) started off at 35000 years “to form” just by observing the erosion rate of Niagra falls in 1845 — since then that number was reduced to less than 12,000 years when they found that the assumed “current rate” of erosion was miscalculated.

    Now let us factor in “changes in rates and volume of geothermal activity” — turns out a work wide flood complete with rapid geothermal changes — will do just fine.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  49. @Carl:

    Carl says:
    December 2, 2009 @Sean Pitman:

    For your point about rapid island formation, you have given an example of a very small island, 2.7 km2, not even a mile in diameter. Hawaii (the Big Island) is almost 100 miles long and not quite as wide, in surface area about 5,000 times bigger than your example (and fantastically bigger by volume). The two high points are above 13,000 ft and the total formation rises about 50,000 ft above the ocean floor which has been depressed by its weight. It is at the end of a mountain chain that formed before Hawaii formed. The island is still growing in the way that it has formed by means of persistent lava flows.

    The older islands of the Hawaiian group are the high points of another large island that formed first and has now subsided into the ocean. How is the rapid formation of a tiny island supposed to convince me that Hawaii could have formed in less than the common geologic dates?

    You observe that the Hawaiian islands “are bigger” than Surtsey — I find Your logic is illusive at that point.

    Or where you trying to say that you “have a metric” for how much geothermal activity “planet earth is capable of” producing at the surface and according to that stress metric — the Hawaiian islands exceed earth’s capability???

    If that was supposed to be your argument – then how odd that you never mentioned the all-important “metric”.

    Hint: Earth News:

    Earth spec:

    Mean radius 6,371.0 km
    Equatorial radius 6,378.1 km

    Circumference 40,075.02 km (equatorial)
    40,007.86 km (meridional)
    40,041.47 km (mean)

    Surface area 510,072,000 km²
    148,940,000 km² land (29.2 %)
    361,132,000 km² water (70.8 %)

    Volume 1.0832073 × 10^12 km3
    Mass 5.9736 × 10^24 kg

    Carl – your failed argument is of the form “yes but Hawaii is 100 miles long and not quite as wide” — AS IF earth’s 5.9 x 10^24 kg mass would struggle to produce a mere 100 mile long island (read – pimple on earth’s surface).

    Or were you merely expressing difficulting in comparing the size of earth to Hawaii? Or perhaps you were simply appealing to an as-yet undefined problem in physics for those islands forming quickly. In either case you need to state just what the difficulty is that you have imagined for the earth forming the Hawaiian islands in less than say 100 years.

    Without actually stating the problem (other than to observe that Hawaii has “size” and is “bigger than Surtsey”) – you argument is never actually framed much less successful.

    Thus the point of the Surtsey illustration remains unchallenged.

    Obviously.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  50. What is also interesting is the fairly rapid coastal erosion rate affecting the Hawaiian islands (15-30cm/yr). This is right in line with the global continental erosion rate – to include coastal bluffs around the world. Yet, if the long-term average erosion rate for the Hawaiian islands were, say, just 10cm/yr, why are those islands with long inactive volcanoes still above the water? – after a millions years of such erosive pressure?

    For example, the last volcanic eruption on Kauai is thought to have taken place some 1.41-1.43 million years ago. Given an average of at least 10cm/yr of coastal erosion acting on Kauai during this time, that works out to be 140 kilometers of erosion (~87 miles) – on all sides. How is it then that Kauai is still above water? It is currently only 33 miles long and 25 miles across at its widest point. Was its shoreline some 90 miles farther out on all sides 1.4 million years ago?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  51. @BobRyan:

    Bob,

    The size of Hawaii is important because 1) it has been built up by many lava flows, and 2) lava comes out hot and then takes a while to cool – the bigger the mass the longer it takes to cool. Hawaii is the youngest formation in the Hawaiian seamount chain which contains more than 100 volcanoes and is about 1500 miles long.

    There are four major volcanoes on Hawaii that have erupted in succession. One erupts and fades away, then the next one erupts, and so on, which takes time. The prevailing age estimate for Hawaii is about less than 500,000 years. The oldest part of the seamount chain (the NW end) is estimated to be 70,000,000 years old.

    My point has nothing to do with the size of an island as related to the size of the earth. The point is that a small island can form and cool much faster than a large island. Large masses of lava simply take a long time to build up and cool. The length of the seamount chain agrees roughly with its age and the speed at which the Pacific plate has been moving over the Hawaiian hot spot.

    I don’t see where I have failed by claiming that it takes longer to build a large island than to build a small island. And, when you consider the complete seamount chain, there are many islands that formed, some of which are now below the ocean surface. It certainly did not happen in a time period that is short enough to fit into Ussher’s chronology.




    0
    View Comment
  52. @Sean Pitman:

    Sean,

    I’m not an expert on the Hawaiian Islands, but, Kauai and the other islands except for Hawaii appear to be high spots on what was previously a large island that has sunk into the sea floor. I’m guessing that the vertical travel is much more significant than the horizontal erosion.

    Related to some of your earlier points, of course there was a period of greater vulcanism in the past. I don’t see how that makes the Hawaiian seamount chain young enough to fit into a short history.

    Regarding more rapid movement of the tectonic plates, how do you propose to start them up and then slow them down? From what I have investigated, there is no good theory to explain how there can be forces big enough to make the plates move much at all. There is a computer simulation (I think it was done by John Baumgardner) that says the plates can move fast if you adjust some of the parameters, but that doesn’t explain how the movement could start or stop. It takes a huge amount of energy to get a continent moving or to stop it.

    The movement of the tectonic plates is something that we can measure, so we know that it is happening even though we don’t have a good theory for why it happens. Based on the mid-Atlantic Rift and the Hawaiian seamount chain, I think it’s not convincing to argue that the plates have moved at much different rates in the past. Even if they did, getting them to move very far within the time frame of Ussher’s chronology is an outlandish suggestion.




    0
    View Comment
  53. Instructive point to keep in mind. The 2004 Indian Ocean quake/sunami was caused by a 60 foot instantaneous jump in the sea floor that stretched over a 1000 mile rift.

    All these “cannot move fast enough” arguments about what can or cannot happen in 50 to 100 years time – seem to fail in that they have no science behind them.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  54. @Carl:

    Carl says:
    December 3, 2009 @BobRyan:

    Bob,

    The size of Hawaii is important because 1) it has been built up by many lava flows, and 2) lava comes out hot and then takes a while to cool – the bigger the mass the longer it takes to cool.

    Indeed. Just as we see in the Surtsey Island case.

    Hawaii is the youngest formation in the Hawaiian seamount chain which contains more than 100 volcanoes and is about 1500 miles long.

    There are four major volcanoes on Hawaii that have erupted in succession. One erupts and fades away, then the next one erupts, and so on, which takes time. The prevailing age estimate for Hawaii is about less than 500,000 years. The oldest part of the seamount chain (the NW end) is estimated to be 70,000,000 years old.

    Estimates of age (as we saw with the age of the great lakes reduced from 35,000 year estimates to 12,000 year estimates overnight) is based on two critical assumptions.

    1. Measuring the current rate of change.
    2. Assuming no change in rate over time.

    My point has nothing to do with the size of an island as related to the size of the earth. The point is that a small island can form and cool much faster than a large island. Large masses of lava simply take a long time to build up and cool.

    1. The formation time limit (lower boundary) is not impacted by size until you get to a size where the earth itself simply cannot support the volume of geothermal activity required to move that volume of mass in the 100 year time limit given. That limit is not reached by the Hawaiian chain.

    2. The cooling time limit is impacted by size only to the extent that the earth’s ocean and atmosphere have reached some “limit” to absorb the heat released by volcanic activity. Recall that the Bible model starts with 40 days of rain and we have all land surface covered by water — during which time we have a huge amount of geothermal activity (all of it under water) — as the starting conditions.

    The question is — is 100 years the “long time” necessary (or is it too short a time) for ocean waters to cool laval flows? What is the metric f the amount of vegetation recorded between lava flows? 10,000 years worth? If the vegetation layer is not apparent between flows – then much of the sequence could have occurred underwater in a very short space of time.

    The details necessary to make some kind of emphatic “could not happen in a 100 years or a 1000 years” statement are all missing from your argument.

    when you consider the complete seamount chain, there are many islands that formed, some of which are now below the ocean surface. It certainly did not happen in a time period that is short enough to fit into Ussher’s chronology.

    Because “what law of physics” would be violated??

    I fail to see how you can put a number on something where you have not dealt with any metric showing a much needed limit to the physics of the problem.

    Further – your assumptions assume current rates of geothermal activity – which is a noticable problem when talking about the flood and “the earth’s crust broken up” in some fashion.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  55. Carl: Sean,

    I’m not an expert on the Hawaiian Islands, but, Kauai and the other islands except for Hawaii appear to be high spots on what was previously a large island that has sunk into the sea floor. I’m guessing that the vertical travel is much more significant than the horizontal erosion.

    It is thought that the exposed portions of Kauai have been exposed as erosional surfaces above water for over 1.4 million years. That’s pretty unbelievable given current rates of coastal erosion – and Kauai isn’t even the oldest inactive volcanic island in the chain – not by a long shot.

    Related to some of your earlier points, of course there was a period of greater vulcanism in the past. I don’t see how that makes the Hawaiian seamount chain young enough to fit into a short history.

    Greater vulcanism related to greater rates of continental disruption/movements would very likely translate into much more rapid quantitative release of magma. Therefore, your estimates of age based on current rates of magma release, with uniform extrapolation into the past, are very likely inconsistent.

    Regarding more rapid movement of the tectonic plates, how do you propose to start them up and then slow them down? From what I have investigated, there is no good theory to explain how there can be forces big enough to make the plates move much at all. There is a computer simulation (I think it was done by John Baumgardner) that says the plates can move fast if you adjust some of the parameters, but that doesn’t explain how the movement could start or stop. It takes a huge amount of energy to get a continent moving or to stop it.

    Of course it would take a huge amount of fairly sudden energy release to break up the continents and get them moving. If biblical account describes this energy release as being powerful enough to break up all the fountains of the great deep in a single day. We do know that there are massive impressions of impact craters in various places around the globe. A third of the Gulf of Mexico, for example, is covered by an impact crater.

    If the massive catastrophe of the Flood stared off as the result of massive asteroidal impacts, it is quite feasible for there to have been enough energy released from these impacts to break up the Earth’s crust and start a very rapid continental displacement. Obviously, over time, the energy used up by the continents as they moved and crashed against each other, building huge mountain ranges and ocean trenches, would slow them down – similar to a car crash. The initial speed of the crash diminishes dramatically over time as the energy of the crash is used up in deforming the cars.

    The movement of the tectonic plates is something that we can measure, so we know that it is happening even though we don’t have a good theory for why it happens.

    You mean mainstream scientists don’t have a good idea for why it happens. I think this is because they are looking for a cause that is not related to a historic release of massive energy. They are looking for a process that can slowly move massive continents against each other over hundreds of millions of years of time. Such a process, as you point out, has been very illusive if not completely untenable. There simply is no such viable energy source that could move continents around in a way that would build massive mountains and ocean trenches. Convection currents certainly don’t seem to be a viable solution to this problem.

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Continental%20Drift

    In short, continental drift, with the obvious associated massive mountain and trench building, is much more consistent with a catastrophic model compared to the evident weakness of the uniformitarian model.

    Based on the mid-Atlantic Rift and the Hawaiian seamount chain, I think it’s not convincing to argue that the plates have moved at much different rates in the past. Even if they did, getting them to move very far within the time frame of Ussher’s chronology is an outlandish suggestion.

    It is only “outlandish” because of your limited uniformitarian assumptions and your seeming inability to even consider the significant weight of evidence against your uniformitarian ideas. Your argument that it takes a long time for lava flows to cool off isn’t true – especially when you’re talking underwater flows. Also, it is quite clear that the past (i.e., the fossil record) was much warmer, universally, than it is today. The period right after the flood was very warm, globally. This warm period allowed for the rapid dispersal of plants and animals around the entire planet in much greater ranges than exist today. The ice ages were clearly sudden in their development, trapping millions of very large animals and large quantities of plant life that are today only found in very warm areas.

    The oceans were also very warm for a while after the Flood, and filled with nutrients from the upheaval, allowing for massive blooms of plankton and the formation of the world-wide cretaceous or “chalk” layer.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  56. Carl: I’m not an expert on the Hawaiian Islands, but, Kauai and the other islands except for Hawaii appear to be high spots on what was previously a large island that has sunk into the sea floor. I’m guessing that the vertical travel is much more significant than the horizontal erosion.

    On more point regarding this particular argument. If vertical travel was much more significant than horizontal erosion, Kauai would have had to sink (i.e., “traveled vertically”) more than 90 miles in the past 1.4 million years. You don’t see this as a problem for your argument?

    http://media.photobucket.com/image/hawaiian%20islands/ponomedia/Maps/hawaiian_islands_map.jpg

    http://www.hawaiianatolls.org/maps/NOAA_Hawaii_Arch300.jpg

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  57. Sean Pitman M.D.: The initial speed of the crash diminishes dramatically over time as the energy of the crash is used up in deforming the cars.

    Yes, it takes energy to deform the cars, but the total energy must ultimately be dissipated as heat. That’s why your brakes get hot when you stop the car. (More about this below.)

    Sean Pitman M.D.: It is only “outlandish” because of your limited uniformitarian assumptions and your seeming inability to even consider the significant weight of evidence against your uniformitarian ideas.

    The Atlantic is about 3,000 miles wide. Let’s suppose that South America has moved half of that distance in 10,000 years. That is 9,504 inches per year. Present movement is about 1 inch per year, so the average speed that you imply is 9,000 times faster. Plus, we need to get it stopped, and, to get an average speed of 9,504 inches per year, it must have moved mucc, much faster in the past. I think we know that South America has been approximately where it is now for at least 3,000 years, so it must have moved really, really fast some time before that. How did it come to a near stop without heating up the brakes and boiling the oceans?

    Sean Pitman M.D.: Your argument that it takes a long time for lava flows to cool off isn’t true – especially when you’re talking underwater flows.

    But, Hawaii has up to 13,000 feet of lava piled above the ocean that didn’t cool under water. Plus, there are many other large lava flows over land that have cooled. Plus, large flows don’t cool as fast as small flows not only because there is more heat, but also because the heat from the center must move through much more insulation before it escapes. So, yes, big islands take much longer to form than small islands.

    There seem to be no problems that you haven’t solved. It’s strange that your answers aren’t in high demand. Why don’t you propose your short-history model to the Geoscience Research science staff; have them review it and give you some added credibility.




    0
    View Comment
  58. Carl:

    Sean Pitman M.D.: It is only “outlandish” because of your limited uniformitarian assumptions and your seeming inability to even consider the significant weight of evidence against your uniformitarian ideas.

    Carl: The Atlantic is about 3,000 miles wide. Let’s suppose that South America has moved half of that distance in 10,000 years. That is 9,504 inches per year. Present movement is about 1 inch per year, so the average speed that you imply is 9,000 times faster. Plus, we need to get it stopped, and, to get an average speed of 9,504 inches per year, it must have moved mucc, much faster in the past. I think we know that South America has been approximately where it is now for at least 3,000 years, so it must have moved really, really fast some time before that. How did it come to a near stop without heating up the brakes and boiling the oceans?

    You assume that the heat generated would be enough to cook the planet and boil off the oceans. Based on what? While heat would certainly be generated, water can absorb a great deal of it without boiling and vaporizing. This planet contains a great deal of water…

    Sean Pitman M.D.: Your argument that it takes a long time for lava flows to cool off isn’t true – especially when you’re talking underwater flows.

    Carl: But, Hawaii has up to 13,000 feet of lava piled above the ocean that didn’t cool under water. Plus, there are many other large lava flows over land that have cooled. Plus, large flows don’t cool as fast as small flows not only because there is more heat, but also because the heat from the center must move through much more insulation before it escapes. So, yes, big islands take much longer to form than small islands.

    It is correct that larger flows take longer to cool, but not nearly as long as you imagine. Heat dissipates rapidly from basaltic rock. And, especially when you’re talking Hawaiian islands, the vast majority of this rock was produced underwater.

    There seem to be no problems that you haven’t solved. It’s strange that your answers aren’t in high demand. Why don’t you propose your short-history model to the Geoscience Research science staff; have them review it and give you some added credibility.

    It isn’t like the “problems” you’ve presented here so far are new or Earth shattering or that they are remotely as challenging as you make them out to be. You really haven’t presented any data in support of your assertions. It seems like your own bald declarations are enough to impress. Where are your numbers? Your calculations and statistical analysis behind your concerns? How do you explain the problem of rapid erosion? Your vertical sinking argument doesn’t seem to come remotely close to solving this particular problem.

    Beyond this, it wouldn’t matter what GRI did or didn’t publish on this issue, evolutionists don’t consider anything coming from GRI to be “credible” anyway. I don’t think my publishing anything with GRI would change your mind in the slightest.

    However, a paper of mine is currently being considered by GRI.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  59. Carl: Sean,

    I’m not an expert on the Hawaiian Islands, but, Kauai and the other islands except for Hawaii appear to be high spots on what was previously a large island that has sunk into the sea floor. I’m guessing that the vertical travel is much more significant than the horizontal erosion.

    In order to compensate for the horizontal erosion, the “vertical travel”, as you put it, would have to have been over 90 miles in 1.4 million years. Is that your argument? Really?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  60. The Atlantic is about 3,000 miles wide. Let’s suppose that South America has moved half of that distance in 10,000 years. That is 9,504 inches per year. Present movement is about 1 inch per year, so the average speed that you imply is 9,000 times faster. Plus, we need to get it stopped, and, to get an average speed of 9,504 inches per year, it must have moved mucc, much faster in the past. I think we know that South America has been approximately where it is now for at least 3,000 years, so it must have moved really, really fast some time before that. How did it come to a near stop without heating up the brakes and boiling the oceans?

    Again — lots of “assumptions” in your argument.

    1. Where did South America ‘start’? and when? and How do you know?
    2. We have lots of thermal vents in a 1600 mile geothermal zone with 100’s of active volcanos — right now in the Aegean sea. The water at the vents is about 750 degrees. And this is the case in our “now stable’ state. We are not talking about “the earth’s crust breaking up”.

    3. Changes in the earth’s crust allow movement – (currently radioactive decay allows for a lot of that movement). Going back in time – Less radiation – more heat allowed from other sources.

    In any case – the plate movement would slow overal as the entire surface cools. Today cooling is accomplished by moving water to the polar regions. In glacial conditions just after the flood — that cooling process would be many orders of magnitude larger than it is today.

    Lot’s o’ stuff to factor before arriving confidently at your “can’t happen” conclusion.

    So why “start with Can’t happen” before actually working through the math, the variables, the assumptions? Why rest your entire hope on guesswork?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  61. One more comment regarding the heat generated by massive volcanic activity:

    While there would be a lot of heat production, this effect would be largely countered by the volcanic gases which would rapidly cool off the planet:

    “When a volcano erupts, its ash reaches high into the atmosphere and can spread to cover the whole Earth. This ash cloud blocks out some of the incoming solar radiation, leading to worldwide cooling that can last up to two years after an eruption. Also emitted by eruptions is sulfur in the form of SO2 gas. When this gas reaches the stratosphere, it turns into sulfuric acid particles, which reflect the sun’s rays, further reducing the amount of radiation reaching Earth’s surface.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Volcanic_activity

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  62. @Carl:

    Carl says:

    But, Hawaii has up to 13,000 feet of lava piled above the ocean that didn’t cool under water.

    Lots of variables and “assumptions” going into that “conclusion-first” kind of answer.

    There are at least 3 factors that place lava flow above sea level. TWO of them allow for lava to have cooled BELOW sea level.

    1. The lowering of sea level after the flood.
    2. Crustal rebound due to lowered water levels
    3. additional Geothermal activity once sea level is reached.

    Your conclusion-first model seem to only focus on one of the mechanism that would account for materal observed to be above sea level today.

    It would have been a more compelling solution if it had accounted for all the variables.

    There seem to be no problems that you haven’t solved. It’s strange that your answers aren’t in high demand.

    Noah, Christ and Paul encountered those same ‘not in high demand’ results in times past. “Proof-by-popularity” is another avenue that has not proven to be as reliable in the past as you seem to have hoped.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  63. @BobRyan:

    BobRyan: In glacial conditions just after the flood — that cooling process would be many orders of magnitude larger than it is today.

    Wow. Many orders of magnitude? Suppose many equals 4. The cooling after the flood was 10,000 times greater than today? But Sean said,

    Sean Pitman M.D.: The period right after the flood was very warm, globally. This warm period allowed for the rapid dispersal of plants and animals around the entire planet in much greater ranges than exist today.

    First, it’s very warm just after the Flood, say about 4,500 years ago. Plants and animals grow (How long did that take?) in a way that we can’t imagine today, enough to produce huge coal and chalk deposits. Then it gets cold so fast that we have nothing to compare it with. The ice accumulates, then it melts, and here we are today with most of the ice gone. (Shouldn’t we also allow for more than one ice age?)

    You’re right. I don’t have the imagination to believe it.




    0
    View Comment
  64. Sean Pitman M.D.: I don’t think my publishing anything with GRI would change your mind in the slightest.

    I didn’t say publish something although that could logically be the result. I’m suggesting that peer review is an important step in establsihing credibility. Your ideas are more radical than I have heard from anyone else, so I’d like a little verification.

    Here are a few points that I am familiar from the GRI site which differ greatly from what you are saying:

    a) “Demonstrating that certain data don’t require long ages doesn’t prove a short-age model to be best.”

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

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

    d) ” … no one believes that science can independently demonstrate the exact 6-day length of creation.”

    These statements are very close to my understanding of the scientific data. If you are correct in your ideas, you ought to be able to convince GRI to make different statements. Until you do that, I can benefit from the information that you have collected, but I’m not even close to accepting your conclusions.

    If LSU were to start teaching what you propose, where would they find the faculty to do it? If you don’t gather support for your views, who will?




    0
    View Comment
  65. BobRyan: In glacial conditions just after the flood — that cooling process would be many orders of magnitude larger than it is today.

    @Carl:

    Carl says:

    Wow. Many orders of magnitude? Suppose many equals 4. The cooling after the flood was 10,000 times greater than today?

    We call it “the ice age” for a reason.

    And there have been “mini ice ages” since that one.

    The point is that rapid continental movement is facilitated by the breaking up of earth’s crust as is the rapid formation of island chains.

    Slowing of those same forces takes place all across the planet as the crust is rapidly cooled during the ice age.

    Height is accounted for by crustal rebound, lowering of earth’s seas and additional geothermal activity.

    The number of suddenly-frozen prehistoric animals in large massive burial fields such as Canada and the Americas suggests that the ice age is closely connected to the flood.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  66. @Carl:

    First, it’s very warm just after the Flood, say about 4,500 years ago. Plants and animals grow (How long did that take?) in a way that we can’t imagine today, enough to produce huge coal and chalk deposits.

    You seem to be arguing that coal and oil deposits are limited to post-flood plant and animal life.

    What is causing you to take such a position?

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  67. @BobRyan:

    Sean Pitman M.D.: It seems like your own bald declarations are enough to impress.

    Since you are the one trying to overturn the generally accepted theories of earth history, it seems that you are the one expressing “bald declarations” by stating that almost all of the scientists in the world are wrong and you are the one who can explain how everything will fit into a short history even though the GRI science staff admits that there is good evidence for the long-history model.

    I’m challenging your claim that you have everything figured out correctly.




    0
    View Comment
  68. Sean Pitman M.D.: It seems like your own bald declarations are enough to impress. Where are your numbers?

    Since you are the one trying to overturn the generally accepted theories of earth history, it seems that you are the one expressing “bald declarations” by stating that almost all of the scientists in the world are wrong and you are the one who can explain how everything will fit into a short history even though the GRI science staff admits that there is good evidence for the long-history model.

    I’m challenging your claim that you have everything figured out correctly.




    0
    View Comment
  69. @BobRyan:

    Well, I see that I shouldn’t have included coal, just chalk.

    Sean Pitman M.D.: The oceans were also very warm for a while after the Flood, and filled with nutrients from the upheaval, allowing for massive blooms of plankton and the formation of the world-wide cretaceous or “chalk” layer.




    0
    View Comment
  70. Carl: I’m challenging your claim that you have everything figured out correctly.

    You’re not really presenting substantive challenges or backing up your assertions with anything that has any real explanatory power. You’re just making assertions and presenting just-so stories off the top of your head as far as I can tell. You claim, without any backup whatsoever, that the Hawaiian islands are clearly and obviously ancient in their formation. Where is your evidence to back up this claim? As far as I can tell, you simply assert it without any actual data at all.

    Your attempts to explain the rapid horizontal erosion rates of these islands is clearly untenable. Your arguments for too much heat production is also unsupported and seemingly against the available evidence. What else do you have which supports your claim for the clear necessity of long periods of time for the formation of the Hawaiian island chain? What do you have that counters the evidence of a much more recent break up and drift of the continents? – as illustrated by the fact that these continents still fit together like a puzzle? – despite having been separated for some 200 million years? Can you actually explain how that could possibly be? – in the face of significant erosional pressures from all sides?

    I’m all ears… Do you have anything substantive to bring to the table?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  71. Carl: a) “Demonstrating that certain data don’t require long ages doesn’t prove a short-age model to be best.”

    Much of the data can only reasonably be explained by a short-age model. That’s the point. It simply doesn’t fit into the long-age model. That is why it works against the long-age model and for the short-age model at the same time… as I’ve explained to you several times before.

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

    That simply is not true. If anyone at GRI is actually making this claim, they are mistaken. And, there are several very well trained SDA scientists who will back me up on this one.

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

    I don’t know what you mean by “comprehensive”? There are certainly many more compelling evidences in favor of the short-age model vs. the long-age model… if that is what you mean.

    d) ” … no one believes that science can independently demonstrate the exact 6-day length of creation.”

    No one is arguing this point. The argument is for the idea that the short-age model is far more consistent with the weight of evidence vs. the long-age model… which in turn is consistent with a literal creation week.

    Also, there are a number of well educated SDA scientists who disagree with your assertions here… to include Leonard Brand, Arthur Chadwick, Ariel Roth, Tim Standish, etc.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  72. Carl: Well, I see that I shouldn’t have included coal, just chalk.

    Coal poses a very interesting problem for the old-age model. The problem is that there are some very large coal beds that are also very thick. This is a problem because these very extensive and thick coal bed are very pure. They are not contaminated by clay or other impurities that would be expected if they were indeed formed over vast spans of time. The purity of these coal beds speaks strongly in favor of a catastrophic watery deposition effect and deep and sudden burial by the overlying sedimentary layers (i.e., during the Flood).

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html#Coal%20Formation

    It is because of this that these coal beds speak against the long-age model and for the short-age model at the same time.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  73. Carl: First, it’s very warm just after the Flood, say about 4,500 years ago. Plants and animals grow (How long did that take?) in a way that we can’t imagine today, enough to produce huge coal and chalk deposits.

    No. Coal deposits where produced during the flood using pre-Flood plant material. Chalk deposits were producing during the later part of the Flood.

    Then it gets cold so fast that we have nothing to compare it with. The ice accumulates, then it melts, and here we are today with most of the ice gone. (Shouldn’t we also allow for more than one ice age?)

    It did get cold very very fast – fast enough to trap millions of mammoths and other large animals around the entire arctic circle before they could escape. It also froze them so fast that they didn’t have time to decompose. It was an almost instant cold snap.

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.html#Woolly%20Mammoths

    You’re right. I don’t have the imagination to believe it.

    That’s because you’ve clearly not studied very much of the data that is actually available on these topics… such as making the mistake of thinking coal deposits are thought to have been produced post-Flood.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  74. @Carl:

    d) ” … no one believes that science can independently demonstrate the exact 6-day length of creation.”

    By contrast —

    1. many evolutionists today “believe” that one day they will be able to show life forming out of gas, water and rocks (abiogenesis) despite the fact that science shows them today that such mythology is nothing more than “bad religion”.

    2. many evolutionists today “believe” that science will one day show eukaryote based genomes morphing from primitive simple ancestors to complex high-order genomes EVEN though there is no science demonstrating that such is the case.

    3. many evolutionists today “believe” that their by-faith-alone arguments in favor of evolutionism are to be placed “on par” with hard sciences (actual science) such as physics, math, chemistry and observable biology.

    And we even have a few atheist evolutionists coming out and lamenting the distinctly religious nature of the argument for evolutionism.

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

    By contrast our theistic evolutionist friends continually insist that until all questions are answered regarding the doctrine on orgins found in God’s Word — they will choose to believe in Darwin’s doctrine on origins “instead”.

    How sad.

    in Christ,

    Bob




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

    Coal poses a very interesting problem for the old-age model. The problem is that there are some very large coal beds that are also very thick. This is a problem because these very extensive and thick coal bed are very pure. They are not contaminated by clay or other impurities that would be expected if they were indeed formed over vast spans of time. The purity of these coal beds speaks strongly in favor of a catastrophic watery deposition effect and deep and sudden burial by the overlying sedimentary layers (i.e., during the Flood).

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html#Coal%20Formation

    It is because of this that these coal beds speak against the long-age model and for the short-age model at the same time.

    Which it seems to me – is also a problem for their arguments about lava layering in Island mountain chains if we are to believe that 5000 to 10,000 years of plant and animal life evidence was deposited between those layers — and yet it apparently vanished!

    The by-faith-alone nature of the argument for evolutionism is astonishing!

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  76. @Sean Pitman M.D.: Sean, would you mind to explain where you believe millions of mammoths came from more or less right after the flood? I *guess* most YECs believe mammoths and all other elephants living after the flood were descendants of one pair of proto-elephants aboard Noahs ark (?).

    Mark




    0
    View Comment
  77. Funny how the know-it-alls (Pitman, Ryan) are quick to put down others by pointing out the assumptions made and their lack of calculations and references. I find laughable the assumptions these guys (Pitman and Ryan) make themselves without a single reference to back them up (e.g., “Chalk deposits were producing during the later part of the Flood”, “The period right after the flood was very warm, globally”, “In glacial conditions just after the flood — that cooling process would be many orders of magnitude larger than it is today”, “it did get cold very fast”, “The number of suddenly-frozen prehistoric animals in large massive burial fields such as Canada and the Americas suggests that the ice age is closely connected to the flood”).

    I would love to see a population growth model that produced millions of mammoths from a single pair in the supposed short time between the flood and the quick-to-follow (or maybe not so quick) ice age(s). FASCINATING!




    0
    View Comment
  78. Sean Pitman M.D.: I’d love for someone like Erv to explain the general lack of expected uneven erosion, the maintenance of sedimentary layers for tens of millions of years on mountain ranges, the lack of sediment in the oceans, the lack of expected bioturbation within the geologic record, Chadwick’s universal paleocurrents, the existence of sequencable proteins and flexible soft tissues within many dinosaur bones, numerous Lazarus taxa, extensive, very thick and very pure coal seams, residual radiocarbon in both coal and oil, the lack of a statistically viable evolutionary mechanism, and on and on.

    While we’re getting explanations, perhaps Sean can explain the following: the Mid-Atlantic Rift, the Deccan Traps, Grotte Cosquer, Ice Man, the major impact craters, the Blue Lake rhinoceros, how the earth quickly stabilized to nearly its present condition following an ice age which followed a warm period which followed Noah’s Flood, Kennewick Man, river canyons that extend into the oceans, the formation of Mt. Everest and how we got all of our present animals from Noah’s Ark without much evolution. Since we know pretty well from history what was going on for at least the last 3,000 years, it seems that all of these explanations should fit into about the 1,000 years following the Flood.




    0
    View Comment
  79. @Frank L.: The (very crude) population model:
    A quick internet search yields “Elephants are slow and difficult to breed with an average of only 4 offspring during a lifetime of 60 years”. Taking this as a raw estimate and assuming that all these are female (i.e. extreme polygamy = number of males negligible) you arrive at roughly 600 years. Of course these assumptions are absurd and it would take much longer.
    …Maybe Sean can explain that better.

    Mark




    0
    View Comment
  80. Mark Houston: @Frank L.: The (very crude) population model:
    A quick internet search yields “Elephants are slow and difficult to breed with an average of only 4 offspring during a lifetime of 60 years”. Taking this as a raw estimate and assuming that all these are female (i.e. extreme polygamy = number of males negligible) you arrive at roughly 600 years. Of course these assumptions are absurd and it would take much longer.
    …Maybe Sean can explain that better.

    Mark

    Consider that the African elephant reaches breeding age at about 14, and its gestation period averages 670 days, while the Indian elephant matures even earlier and has a shorter gestation time. Therefore, it would not be unrealistic to assume that a single mammoth pair could have four offspring by the age of 25. Given an even split of male and female offspring, the next generation would produce 8 offspring in 25 years and the next 16… etc.

    Given the idealic conditions with abundant food that existed after the flood, it would take less than 19 generations to reach a million individuals – less than 500 years. Then, of course, they were suddenly wiped out, along with many other types of warm-weather plants and animals, all along the Arctic Circle by a sudden cold snap which began the first ice age.

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.html#Woolly%20Mammoths

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  81. In one of my prior posts – I noted that the polar icecaps extended down below the great lakes during the ice age and that even today a key planetary system for cooling hydrothermal heat in the oceans is via sea currents that carry warm water to the polar regions.

    I then note the aspect of basic physics that would predict a much larger polar ice region having much greater cooling capacity for warm ocean water.

    Frank then expresses doubt and suprise that such basic science might indeed be operating during that time, as he quotes my statement as an example of a doubted position by himself and fellow TEs.

    @Frank L.:

    In glacial conditions just after the flood — that cooling process would be many orders of magnitude larger than it is today”,

    And so – as we have been saying all along – the pro-evolutionist argument is much more of a by-faith-alone position than it is anything like actual science. They are simply taking darkness for light as if “that is a good thing”.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  82. Carl: While we’re getting explanations, perhaps Sean can explain the following: the Mid-Atlantic Rift,

    The mid-Atlantic Rift was created when the continents suddenly broke up and their separation began after a massive release of energy at the start of the Flood.

    the Deccan Traps,

    A few points to consider about the Deccan Traps:

    * Thick pile of basalt lava flows (~2,000 m thick)
    * Cover 500,000 km2 with a volume of >1,000,000 km3
    * Thought to have formed about 65 mya over the course of 30,000 years and played a role in the extinction of the dinosaurs
    * Individual flows understood to form very quickly (a few days) because they cover over 100 miles
    * Time between lava flows: 2 to 3 hundred years
    * Not enough time for significant erosion between flows

    If Deccan Plateau and Deccan Traps formed some 65 mya what would erosion do to them over this time? Current rates in this region of at least 4 cm/Kyr for granite and 16 cm/Kyr for basalt equals 2,600 meters and 10,400 meters of erosion respectively. How did the Deccan Plateau (granite), much less the Traps (basalt) survive?

    A similar problem plagues the Columbia River Basalt Group:

    * Northeastern US
    * 163,000 sq Km
    * 300 individual flows extending up to 750 Km from their origin
    * Miocene Epoch for 11 million years (17 to 6 million years ago)
    * Average time between flows = 36,000 years

    This is enough time for 6 to 7 meters (19 to 23 feet) of vertical erosion between each flow. Yet, there is no evidence of this erosion. None at all. Why not? This is also not taking into account that recent studies with cosmogenic Be-10 suggest that episodic erosion accounts for the vast majority of erosive force over time – up to an average of 17 times the yearly erosion rates measured by conventional traps and other method of direct measurements.

    Several thousand years worth of erosion can occur in one year (episodic erosion – Idaho Batholith, 1997)

    * (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001HyPr…15.3025M)

    As a curious aside, there are also several examples where two or three different flows within the CRBG mix with each other

    Grotte Cosquer,

    This is a cave in France where there are some fantastic cave-wall paintings, etchings and engravings. Obviously, these were produced after the Flood during an ice age when the water level was lower than it is today.

    Ice Man,

    Ice Man was frozen and preserved in ice. He is thought to have lived some 5,000 years ago according to mainstream scientists. I fail to see how Ice Man is an obvious problem for my position?

    the major impact craters,

    As I’ve already pointed out for you, major impact craters are evidence of massive asteroidal impact events – large enough to have started the Flood and continental drift.

    What is interesting, however, about the geologic record, is that relatively few impacts are preserved within it. This is interesting because their should have been a lot more if it does in fact represent hundreds of millions of years of time. Also, the quantity of asteroidal material within the geologic record is not nearly what one should expect given uniformitarian assumptions.

    These features are actually far more consistent with a recent catastrophic model.

    the Blue Lake rhinoceros,

    The Blue Lake Rhino was killed, sank in water, and was rapidly buried by pillow lava (forms under water)before it had time to be scavenged or decay – within the Columbian River Basalt Group noted above. In other words, this layer of basalt was originally produced under water and buried animals and plant materials as it formed – very rapidly and in short succession.

    how the earth quickly stabilized to nearly its present condition following an ice age which followed a warm period which followed Noah’s Flood,

    The Earth’s setup is very resilient… Changes can and do happen very quickly (both good and bad).

    Kennewick Man,

    Oh, you mean the Jean-Luc Picard look-alike? ; )

    http://swenglishrantings.com/swenglishrantings/Bilder/People/Jean-LucPicardKennewickMan.jpg

    He is supposed to be around 8-9Kyr old – by radiocarbon dating. Of course, it all depends upon if you believe the calibration techniques for radiocarbon dating back this far…

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html

    river canyons that extend into the oceans,

    Massive river canyons, bigger than the Grand Canyon, do extend into the oceans. However, these Canyons are features of rapid catastrophic formation. They are sharply and deeply cut with a V-shaped look and crisp outlines punched down from the surrounding landscape. These are features in favor of rapid, even catastrophic formation and massive continental water runoff. I fail to see how this speaks in favor of your position?

    the formation of Mt. Everest

    Mt. Everest is popularly thought to have started its formation around 50 million years ago when the Indian subcontinent crashed into the Asian continent. Around 20 million years ago, it is thought that about half of the sedimentary layers slid off the top of Mr. Everest, exposing the Ordovician layers… which are still exposed on the very top of Mt. Everest.

    What is problematic about this story is the fact that there is currently enough erosion in this region for all of the original thickness of the sedimentary layers atop Mt. Everest to have been completely washed off, down to the underlying granitic rock, several times over in 20 million years. Why then are these layers still there if Mt. Everest really was an erosional surface for such a long period of time?

    Rather, such features are much more consistent with sudden catastrophe and rapid original continental drift and mountain formation.

    and how we got all of our present animals from Noah’s Ark without much evolution.

    I’m not sure I understand this argument? A fairly significant variety of breeds or changes within a “kind” has occurred very rapidly since the Flood. The pre-loaded information originally contained within the wolf is quite obvious in the hundreds of dog breeds we have today. The same is true of many other types of plants and animals.

    Because of Mendelian variation and the like, such front-loaded information can be rapidly and differentially expressed in very short periods of time – over a handful of generations.

    Since we know pretty well from history what was going on for at least the last 3,000 years, it seems that all of these explanations should fit into about the 1,000 years following the Flood.

    We still are suffering aftershocks from the Flood. And, our records are not nearly as complete as you think they are.

    For example, it is also interesting to note that Simkin et al. recorded 3,018 eruptions between 1900 and 1969, but only 11 eruptions were recorded from between 1 and 100 AD. So obviously, as one goes back through recent history, the number of known volcanic eruptions drops off dramatically, though they were most certainly still occurring – just without documentation.

    Now, why don’t you at least try and answer my questions?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  83. Frank L.: Funny how the know-it-alls (Pitman, Ryan) are quick to put down others by pointing out the assumptions made and their lack of calculations and references. I find laughable the assumptions these guys (Pitman and Ryan) make themselves without a single reference to back them up…

    The references are all listed on my website regarding these individual topics…

    Also, it isn’t like you guys are coming up with anything new here. Your arguments, presented thus far, are very common and old. Anyone significantly familiar with this debate would have come across these particular arguments dozens of times in very short order…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  84. Re: Pittman and Asscherick Appear on 3ABN to Address …

    http://www.atoday.com/content/pittman-and-asscherick-appear-3abn-address-evolution-teaching-sda-campuses

    On December 4th, 2009 Seanpit says:

    Before I respond to Burdette’s most interersting insights, here’s a link to the entire two hour 3ABN program (for those who are interested):

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/videoclips.html#Science

    On December 2nd, 2009 mattburdette says:

    The irony in this cannot be overemphasized. Asscherick and Pittman are correct in saying that employees of Adventist institutions are ethically responsible to do what they are paid to do; they forget, for some peculiar reason, that scientists are paid to do science (and not theology). Science, by its very nature, cannot and must not begin with any cosmological presuppositions (whether evolution or creation). To expect scientists to teach what the church teaches is to ask them to have a conclusion before doing science. Any scientist who is willing to affirm a religious dogma as a starting point of scientific inquiry is not a scientist, and does not deserve a paycheck from anyone.

    You forget that the SDA Church has in fact directly asked all teachers and school boards to actively support the stated SDA position on origins.

    “We call on all boards and educators at Seventh-day Adventist institutions at all levels to continue upholding and advocating the church’s position on origins. We, along with Seventh-day Adventist parents, expect students to receive a thorough, balanced, and scientifically rigorous exposure to and affirmation of our historic belief in a literal, recent six-day creation, even as they are educated to understand and assess competing philosophies of origins that dominate scientific discussion in the contemporary world.”

    http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat55.html

    So, at the very least, any school that decides to go against this request by their employer, the SDA Church in this case, should be open and honest about the fact that its science teachers are openly undermining the stated SDA position on origins in their classrooms, calling the idea of a literal 6-day creation week “ludicrous” given the enormous weight of the scientific evidence, as they see it anyway, to the contrary.

    Beyond this, your argument here highlights a common yet fundamental misunderstanding of how science actually works and operates. You argue that science cannot begin with presuppositions. Yet, it is impossible to do science without beginning with presuppositions and basic beliefs about what certain kinds of data or experiences are most likely to mean. Science is not purely and objective practice because of this. There is a great deal of subjectivity in science. This is why different scientists looking at the very same data can come the very different conclusions on how to interpret the data. This is also why some people are better at producing more accurate/reliable predictions than are other people. This is also why, ultimately, everyone must come to their own “scientific” conclusions. The notion that mainstream scientists are most likely to be correct in their interpretations of the data is itself a prediction of the future based on past experience – on the individual level.

    In short, there is a great deal of potential for bias in science, as has been recently illustrated by the whole global warming E-mail scandal where it was shown that certain groups of scientists were suppressing other groups of scientists and even fraudulently manipulating the data itself.

    One more thing on this particular point: It is erroneous, in my opinion, to suggest that science and religion are inherently separate enterprises. The conclusions of science do in fact have religious implications and religion, if it is based on anything more than wishful thinking and blind faith, can be very scientific. Certainly the Bible advises us to test all things and hold even religious ideas up for potential falsification under reasonable analysis.

    Second, Asscherick and Pittman are ignoring a rich history of Adventist anti-creedalism. When a person is baptized in an Adventist church, and welcomed in as a member of our community, they take a baptismal vow. This is what Adventists are held to theologically. Nowhere in that vow is the doctrine of creation (any interpretation of it). They have no right in this community to deny anyone’s Adventist identity based on a belief that no one is asked to affirm as a test of fellowship.

    The baptismal vow asks one if they believe in and uphold the stated SDA fundamental beliefs. Beyond this, you don’t seem to be well informed on early SDA history. While it is true that the early SDA Church tried to avoid creedal statements, as the church grew bigger, a statement of faith became unavoidable. The same thing is true of a basis of paid representation.

    Although originally opposed to such constraints, it was John Loughborough, together with James White, who first started to realize the need for some sort of enforcement of Church order and discipline – i.e., a Church government.

    Consider the following comments and quotes by JN Loughborough in his The Church, Its Organization, Order and Discipline (1907):

    “When those who back in the “sixties” [1860s] witnessed the battle of establishing church order now hear persons, as conscientious no doubt as those back there, utter almost the identical words that were then used by those opposing order, it need not be wondered that they fear the result of such statements as the following: “Perfect unity means absolute independence, – each one knowing for himself. Why, we could not have outward disorganization if we all believed in the Lord. . . . This question of organization is a simple thing. All there is to it is for each individual to give himself to the Lord, and then the Lord will do with him just what he wants to, and that all the time. . . . Our only safety, under God, is to go back to the place where God is able to take a multitude of people and make them one, without parliamentary rules, without committee work, without legislation of any kind.” – General Conference Bulletin of 1899.

    God Requires Rules:

    “Superficially considered, this might seem to be a blessed state, a heaven indeed; but, as already noted on a preceding page, we read of heaven itself and its leadings that “the god of heaven is a god of order, and he requires all his followers to have rules and regulations to preserve order.”

    “As our numbers increased, it was evident that without some form of organization, there would be great confusion, and the work could not be carried forward successfully. To provide for the support of the ministry, for carrying on the work in new fields, for protecting both the church and ministry from unworthy members, for holding church property, for the publication of the truth through the press, and for other objects, organization was indispensable.”
    – Testimonies for the Church,” No. 32, page 30.

    As it turns out, the leaders of the early SDA Church at first thought that no enforcement of any kind was needed to keep the Church from fragmenting. This was true as long as the Church was small and made up of originally like-minded people. However, as the Church grew larger, this view soon became obviously untenable. Loughborough was one of the main proponents of this sort of church order and discipline – along with James White. Very quickly all of the early Church leaders changed their minds regarding Church order and discipline when they saw that their original ideas of completely hands-off freedom of Church representatives were quickly failing to do what they thought they would do. So, the leadership started issuing cards of commendation signed by James White or John Loughborough.

    Of course, those who were not considered to accurately represent the views of the Church did not receive these cards of commendation. And what was the attitude of such persons? – according to Loughborough?:

    “Of course those who claimed “liberty to do as they pleased,” to “preach what they pleased,” and to “go when and where they pleased,” without “consultation with any one,” failed to get cards of commendation. They, with their sympathizers, drew off and commenced a warfare against those whom they claimed were “depriving them of their liberty.” Knowing that it was the Testimonies that had prompted us as a people to act, to establish “order,” these opponents soon turned their warfare against instruction from that source, claiming that “when they got that gift out of the way, the message would go unrestrained to its `loud cry.’ ”

    One of the principal claims made by those who warred against organization was that it “abridged their liberty and independence, and that if one stood clear before the Lord that was all the organization needed,” etc. Upon this point, when church order was contested, we read: “Satan well knows that success only attend order and harmonious action. He well knows that everything connected with heaven is in perfect order, that subjection and thorough discipline mark the movements of the angelic host. . . . He deceives even the professed people of God, and makes them believe that order and discipline are enemies to spirituality; that the only safety for them is to let each pursue his own course. . . . All the efforts made to establish order are considered dangerous, a restriction of rightful liberty, and hence are feared as popery.” – “Testimonies for the Church,” Vol. I, page 650.

    Burdette:

    They want people who “carry the company card” to say the “company line.” The Adventist company line is not dogma about a specific interpretation of the Bible; our company line is that Jesus is coming, and that all people are called to the obedience of the faith of Jesus. Perhaps Asscherick and Pittman have forgotten our other fundamental beliefs, such as Unity in the Body. Yes, that must be the one that they forgot. They forgot that unity assumes diversity, and never homogeneity.

    If our company line were in fact limited to these basic statements, which are very good indeed by the way, there would be no point in having a unique SDA Church. We could all simply join any old group that had nothing more to say than these basic points. But, the fact of the matter is, the SDA Church thinks more truths have been discovered beyond these two you’ve mentioned here – which are also important to spread as part of the Gospel’s Good News…

    Burdette:

    Asscherick laments critique from within the church. He said that truth can withstand scrutiny, but apparently doesn’t think it can do so from within the religious community. Strange indeed. We as a church have affirmed our belief in a growing understanding of truth, and said that we expect to refine our belief statements as we grow in understanding. Where else should we think critically about our own beliefs if not in our academic institutions? Critique from the academy is a service to the church, not a detriment.

    Asscherick and I simply think that it is pointless to be extremely schizophrenic as an organization that wishes to remain viable. Employees cannot be allowed to advance significantly faster or slower than the organization as a whole if the organization itself is to remain vaible and effective. If you have truth that goes fundamentally beyond the organization, perhaps you need to leave the organization in order to best present your truth.

    Certainly you shouldn’t expect the organization to pay you to go around telling everyone that the stated ideals of the organization are “ludicrous” – right? – Especially if that organization has specifically asked you not to do what you are in fact doing. Continuing to do what your employer has specifically asked you not to do, on the employers dime, is robbery of your employer’s time and money. How is this not patently obviously?

    Sean Pitman

    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  85. Any scientist who is willing to affirm a religious dogma as a starting point of scientific inquiry is not a scientist, and does not deserve a paycheck from anyone.

    Every atheist professor on the planet would surely agree with this idea so long as we “add” that “God must not be included in any finding”. (hence their distaste for the Romans 1 concept of intelligent design)

    No big surprise there – and we all agree that our young adults can get that same “science without God” line at every public university all up and down the street. If that is our “highest goal” then we need not waist one more cent imagining funds need to be invested in “SDA science”. Stick with “Bible schools”. (Some denominations actually do that)

    So WHY in the world did SDAs divert ONE DIME of funds from evangelism or missions to fund and staff the teaching of SCIENCE? Why have “SDA” science when we can get atheist-science all day long?

    I have been shown that without Bible history, geology can prove nothing. Relics found in the earth do give evidence of a state of things differing in many respects from the present. But the time of their existence, and how long a period these things have been in the earth, are only to be understood by Bible history. It may be innocent to conjecture beyond Bible history, if our suppositions do not contradict the facts found in the sacred Scriptures. But when men leave the word of God in regard to the history of creation, and seek to account for God’s creative works upon natural principles, they are upon a boundless ocean of uncertainty. Just how God accomplished the work of creation in six literal days he has never revealed to mortals. His creative works are just as incomprehensible as his existence. {3SG 93.1}

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.