Ervin Taylor: After reading a number of Sean’s postings, I …

Comment on La Sierra “outraged” over Educate Truth article by Sean Pitman M.D..

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
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman M.D. Also Commented

La Sierra “outraged” over Educate Truth article

Mark Houston: So, until proven wrong by a well documented 12 foot human skeleton (not photoshopped “photographs” from the internet) I won’t believe in the existence of (viable and healthy) human beings twice my size.

One more comment on the argument that such a massive creatures would be realtively wimpy:

Fossil ape remains are known from creatures that were up to 10 feet tall and weighed over 1200 lbs – dubbed “Gigantophithecus”. These creatures were no “wimps”.

Also, as far as muscle strength goes, it isn’t simply a matter of size. It is also a matter of muscle structure. Pound for pound, chimp muscle is about twice as strong as human muscle.

A chimpanzee’s skeletal muscle has longer fibers than the human equivalent and can generate twice the work output over a wider range of motion.

In the past few years, geneticists have identified the loci for some of these anatomical differences. One gene, for example, called MYH16, contributes to the development of large jaw muscles in other apes. In humans, MYH16 has been deactivated… Many people have also lost another muscle-related gene called ACTN3. People with two working versions of this gene are overrepresented among elite sprinters while those with the nonworking version are overrepresented among endurance runners. Chimpanzees and all other nonhuman primates have only the working version; in other words, they’re on the powerful, “sprinter” end of the spectrum.

http://www.slate.com/id/2212232/

Something to consider anyway before simply dismissing the idea of the plausibility of 12 ft. humans ever existing out of hand. The concept is at least plausible.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


La Sierra “outraged” over Educate Truth article

Mark Houston: I’m 6 feet tall. My double-sized twin would be 12 feet tall (no surprise there), 4 times stronger, because strength scales with length scale squared, since it essentially depends on the muscles’ cross sectional area, *but* 8(!) times heavier (since body mass scales with length scale cubed). So though vastly stronger than me, my big twin brother would be a weakling measured by his ratio of strength to body mass. He would also need 8 times more food and break his bones much more easily.

The only way out would be a totally different body plan or some trick like Kevlar bones. An elephant sized mouse would most probably be crushed by it’s own weight.

This argument doesn’t really hold true very well when one considers that there are people living today that are less than half the size of other people (to include proportional dwarfism). Yet, the taller proportional people are not relative wimps in comparison. And, human bones can be made to be surprisingly stronger, with very little added weight, as the size of a person increases – no need for Kevlar bones to produce a viable 12 footer.

Of course, there is a limit because of the inverse square law, but a 12 foot giant isn’t unreasonable.

The same thing is true of many types of post-Flood animals that were much much larger than modern-day counterparts. They really weren’t that wimpy because of their increased size…

As far as the lack of discovery of such fossil human remains, it could be due to the fact that finding a hominid fossil is very difficult to begin with. They are very rare relatively speaking. And, if Mrs. White is to be believed at all, she says that the pre-flood peoples were largely buried under vast mountain ranges and obliterated completely from the face of the Earth. Still, it would be very intersting to find one though…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


La Sierra “outraged” over Educate Truth article

Mark Huston:
Sean, I wanted to thank you again for your patience in answering my
questions. However, there are some more.
1) Do you also (like David C. Read and possibly many SDA) believe that
Adam (and antediluvians)in general) were 12 feet tall? After all, EGW wrote so.

Yes – but only based on the reliability of the inspiration of Mrs. White and my understanding that many creatures that lived right after the Flood where much much bigger than their modern day counterparts. So, it only seems to reason that humans would also be bigger to an equivalent degree…

2) You seem to believe in the authority of EGW. Do you believe that
indulgence in the solitary vice makes people dumb, sick and blind? EGW
wrote so. On the other hand it has been proven experimentally probably
countless billions of times that indulgence in the solitary vice has
no adverse effects on the physical health.

Not everything Mrs. White wrote about was under Divine guidance. Her ideas on masterbation were reflections of the opinions of her day. She never said that she was shown this bit of advice in vision or under divine inspiration.

In short, you have to read Mrs. White in context and understand what was and was not simply her personal opinion vs. what was shown to her by God.

3) You are a rare exception. Most young earth creationist I ever
talked to (or who talked to me) were of a quite aggressive know-it-all
kind. Why do you believe is that so? The story I recounted in the
educatetruth forum (about the teacher stating “evolution is wrong,
there can be no plants if there are no bees” ) really happened. And
the teacher was no little old lady, she was probably in her early 20s
whe she told me that. I was 6 and somewhat dumbfounded, because this
was the first time I realized that a person of authority could speak
utter nonsense, too. Of course I did not dare to raise a protest.

There are a lot of misinformed and overzealous people on both sides of this debate. Many evolutionists are just as passionate and zealous about the theory of evolution and end up saying some pretty outlandish stuff as well. That is why you have to end up doing your own investigation for your own self. Its fine to get some ideas from others, but don’t simply rely on others for your conclusions on topic that are personally important to you.

Later on I was told (just e.g.) that before the fall, the 2nd law of
thermodynamics was not valid(repeatedly, by people knowing really nothing about physics in general and thermodynamics in particular) and that neither had there been radioactive decay.

I’ve also found this same problem with most creationists. Many creationists use the 2ndLoTD as an argument because they simply don’t understand the 2ndLoTD. However, a bit of sympathy is needed here because I’ve run into quite a number of evolutionists who don’t understand it either.

The problem with the ToE isn’t the 2ndLoTD (i.e., there is plent of energy to do the work because the Earth is not a closed system), but a related concept that I call functional/meaningful informational entropy. There are similar features to the 2ndLoTD, but it is a unique concept that is independent of the 2ndLoTD.

For more information on this topic see:

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

I’ve also been lectured on the obvious invalidity of the special
theory of relativity, just because I had inadvertedly stepped on
someone’s toes by explaining that exact contemporaneousness depends
on the frame of reference.

Relativity does have some interesting logical problems (twin paradox and all), but it also explains some very interesting features as well. But, its kind of irrelevant to this particular discussion as far as I can tell…

4) My next question pertains to you, too: If e.g. Richard Dawkins says
something as a scientist, you consider it wrong (in most cases, at least). If he risks stepping far off his turf and says something regarding religion, philosophy and faith (i.e., roughly, that being an evolutionist necessarily makes you an adventist) – then all of a sudden young earth creationists agree, call him as a witness and cite him over and over again. Isn’t that intellectually dishonest (at least a bit)?

I’m not sure I understand this question? It seems to me though that just because I may disagree with someone on one point doesn’t mean I can’t agree on another…

5) My last question. YECs often claim that a merciful god could not
have created to a process akin to evolution because of the endless
aeons of suffering and death. I vividly remember someone (in some
atoday forum) stating such a got “is not worth having”. Are we to
judge?

How about a god who killed (not allowed to die, actively killed)
thousands or possibly millions of necessarily innocent children
through the Genesis flood?

I like neither of those 2 ideas, but maybe my education contained too
much New Testament and too little Old Testament (too much of the Luke
6, 29 stuff).

The difference would be God’s ideal intent. If God created this planet originally with the use of an evil mechanism like RM/NS, that would be a problem given that he originally called his creation “good”.

God killing off evil people and their children was painful for God. He only did it, not because it was what he wanted in an ideal situation, but because he had no choice regarding the preservation of a semblance of a chance for future generations to be able to appreciate the beauty of holiness. It was only in mercy, even for the wicked and their children, that he removed them from existence. And who is to say that God was able to save the souls of some of these children in this way? – which would have been lost otherwise? We simply cannot know all the reasons why God acted the way he did other than to know that God was forced to do what he did not want to do and that it was very painful to the heart of a infinitely loving God.

The same will be true at the end of time. The wicked will die an eternal death, not because of some arbitrary will of God, but because they themselves will prefer death compared to eternal life with God – which would be, for them, extreme torture. Therefore, it is in God’s mercy that he gives them what they themselves would choose amoung the options open to them.

Feel free not to answer any of those questions, but of course I’d
appreciate some answers.

Best wishes,
Mark

Good questions. I hope I’ve been of some help or at least a source of more thought stimulation for you…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman M.D.

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


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


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


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


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

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

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