Sorry to get off topic Shane, I will check out the …

Comment on La Sierra “outraged” over Educate Truth article by Victor Marshall.

Sorry to get off topic Shane,

I will check out the Science & Theology forum.
For those interested, here are a few ‘evidence for young earth’ links:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/10021606.html

http://www.physorg.com/news176660912.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/soft-tissue-fossilization

http://www.icr.org/article/fresh-jurassic-squid-ink/

http://www.icr.org/article/fossilized-biomaterials-must-be-young/

http://www.icr.org/article/114/

http://www.icr.org/article/302/

http://www.icr.org/article/1842/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/03/28/ostrichosaurus-discovery

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/young-age-evidence

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

Victor Marshall Also Commented

La Sierra “outraged” over Educate Truth article

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


La Sierra “outraged” over Educate Truth article
Sean,
Thank you for the timely clarification.


La Sierra “outraged” over Educate Truth article

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.


Recent Comments by Victor Marshall

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


Last Thursdayism
Farewell


Last Thursdayism
@Sean Pitman:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Last Thursdayism
@Bill Sorensen:

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

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

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

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

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


Last Thursdayism
@Bill Sorensen:

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

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

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

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

Well stated Bro. Sorenson.