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

Please follow and like us:
37

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

  1. @Sean Pitman M.D.: Thanks for the explanation. However, even *if* Mammoths had multiplied like E. coli on a petri dish for half a millenium (after hyper-evolving from the ancestor of all african and indian elephants, mastodonts and many others (?)) – do you really think there was a huge catastrophe happening up north while there were already pyramids being built in ancient Egypt? Do you further believe that the ice age was happening just 4000 years ago, most probably a millenium after
    the famous Oetzi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman) was killed high up a nowadays Italian mountain?
    Last but not least: Why should the catastrophic cooling have happened 500a *after* the flood?

    …puzzled,
    Mark

    View Comment
  2. The self-defeating nature of the theistic evolutionists argument is apparent to all. If you are going to argue that only the every-day public university all-for-evolutionism never-include-God brand of “science” — is “real science” then we can all get that at the public university of our choice — thank you very much.

    What’s more — “There is one conveniently located near you”.

    (The findings are detailed in the Aug 11 (2006) issue of the journal Science.)

    Among the factors contributing to America’s low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.
    “American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody …

    Religion belief and evolution

    The analysis found that Americans with fundamentalist religious beliefs—defined as belief in substantial divine control and frequent prayer—were more likely to reject evolution than Europeans with similar beliefs. The researchers attribute the discrepancy to differences in how American Christian fundamentalist and other forms of Christianity interpret the Bible.

    While American fundamentalists tend to interpret the Bible literally and to view Genesis as a true and accurate account of creation,

    Theistic evolutionists inside our teaching instutions are in effect arguing their own demise along with the demise not only of Adventism’s Seventh-day Sabbath but also of Christianity itself.

    Darwin “noticed”.

    Dawkins “noticed”.

    Provine “noticed”

    P.Z Meyers “noticed”.

    The British Centre for Science and Education “noticed”

    And so also do the bible believing Christians inside the SDA church “noticed” that inconvenient detail.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  3. Sean Pitman M.D.: Now, why don’t you at least try and answer my questions?

    I’ll try to be more clear about my main point, a point that you have not addressed in any way that I can recognize. I give you credit for raising questions about the standard model for earth history – some of your questions are more than trivial. However, invalidating the standard model does not provide a short-age model.

    What is your sequence of events following the Flood? Let’s suppose that the Flood occurred about 2,300 BC. Further, suppose that we can be pretty sure from historical records that the earth has been generally stable since 1,300 BC. So, in the 1,000 years following the Flood, the continents broke apart and separated by about 3,000 miles, the sea floor formed with many magnetic reversals, Mt Everest leaped up to 28,000 feet, we had a warm period quickly followed by an ice age, it got warm again (but not as warm as before), the ice melted and the oceans rose several hundred feet.

    In the animal kingdom while these cataclysmic geological events were taking place, kangaroos found their way from the Ark to Australia (or maybe they just rode along as Australia moved), Ice Man got to Europe, Kennewick Man got to North America, during the warm period of a few hundred years the animals proliferated rapidly and divided into the many species that we see today (was this evolution?), many froze in the ice age, others survived and quickly adapted to a different climate, etc.

    Then, suddenly, all of these very rapid processes stopped and things have been very stable for the last 3,000 years.

    Somehow, discrepancies in erosion rates, sedimentation rates and dating methods still don’t convince me that a short-age model can work. The earth and its life look to be very old whether or not I like it (which I don’t).

    View Comment
  4. Carl: I’ll try to be more clear about my main point, a point that you have not addressed in any way that I can recognize. I give you credit for raising questions about the standard model for earth history – some of your questions are more than trivial. However, invalidating the standard model does not provide a short-age model.

    You’ve made this argument several times. We simply disagree here. Invalidating the standard model can only be done with the presentation of evidence which necessitates a short-age more catastrophic model. That’s how its done.

    As far as your statement that many of my arguments are “trivial”, well, I think the same thing about your arguments. You’ve made numerous just-so statements without any backup whatsoever. Several of your arguments are clearly untenable and show a lack of experience with or understanding of the evidence at hand.

    What is your sequence of events following the Flood? Let’s suppose that the Flood occurred about 2,300 BC. Further, suppose that we can be pretty sure from historical records that the earth has been generally stable since 1,300 BC. So, in the 1,000 years following the Flood, the continents broke apart and separated by about 3,000 miles, the sea floor formed with many magnetic reversals, Mt Everest leaped up to 28,000 feet, we had a warm period quickly followed by an ice age, it got warm again (but not as warm as before), the ice melted and the oceans rose several hundred feet.

    I don’t think the Earth has been nearly as “stable” as you suggest. There have been numerous massive catastrophic events since the Flood. What is clear, however, is that continental drift and mountain building did indeed happen very rapidly. The many magnetic reversals are a consequence of the massive disturbance within the Earth’s core due to the enormous energy released at the beginning of the Catastrophe and occurring rapidly over time as the continents were ripped apart and moved rapidly away from and into each other, quickly building huge mountain ranges and ocean trenches. A warm period followed, which was in turn followed by a rapid cold snap which started off the first of several ice ages (which were all relatively short). As we are now discovering, the Earth’s climate can change far faster than any modern scientist ever imagined.

    In the animal kingdom while these cataclysmic geological events were taking place, kangaroos found their way from the Ark to Australia (or maybe they just rode along as Australia moved), Ice Man got to Europe, Kennewick Man got to North America, during the warm period of a few hundred years the animals proliferated rapidly and divided into the many species that we see today (was this evolution?), many froze in the ice age, others survived and quickly adapted to a different climate, etc.

    That’s right. Rapid proliferation and adaptation is easy if there is enough food. Mendelian variation is a form of change over time which is influenced by natural selection, but it is based on pre-programmed information that was already there pre-existent within the ancestral gene pool of options. It isn’t based, as Darwinian evolution is, and the establishment of entirely new genetic options within the gene pool.

    Then, suddenly, all of these very rapid processes stopped and things have been very stable for the last 3,000 years.

    Again, things haven’t been as stable as you imagine for 3,000 years. We are, even now, still feeling the aftershocks of the catastrophe that produced the Flood.

    Somehow, discrepancies in erosion rates, sedimentation rates and dating methods still don’t convince me that a short-age model can work. The earth and its life look to be very old whether or not I like it (which I don’t).

    That’s too bad, because as far as I can tell these discrepancies, as you call them, are dramatic. There is also the finding of preserved soft tissue, protein, and even DNA within dinosaurs and other plants and animals which supposedly died and were buried many tens of millions of years ago. There is residual radiocarbon in coal and oil. There are massive very thick and very pure coal deposits. There are massive fossil burial grounds with stream orientation. There are worldwide paleocurrents all indicating water movement in the same direction – worldwide. There is a universal lack of expected bioturbation between layers of the geologic record. There are many dramatic paraconformities with very sharp flat surfaces covering vast areas, sometimes with features of mixing with overlying and underlying layers… etc.

    The list goes on and on. Besides the problems with the lack of expected erosion or sedimentation, all of these features bespeak a sudden, rapid, catastrophic formation of the geologic and fossil records. Your arguments to the contrary carry no weight besides your just-so assertions.

    Your biggest argument seems to be that you simply cannot imagine such a catastrophe as the one I’m describing. Well, who can? There is nothing uniformitarian about it. It cannot be compared to anything that we now experience. Yet, the evidence of catastrophe is quite clear.

    Beyond this, if a person still sees the evidence as being overwhelmingly in favor of ancient and evolving life on Earth, over hundreds of millions of years of time (as you do), what is that person doing taking a paycheck to teach at an SDA University? – in the face of a very specific request of the SDA Church organization for all employees to support the stated SDA position on origins?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  5. Sean Pitman M.D.: Invalidating the standard model can only be done with the presentation of evidence which necessitates a short-age more catastrophic model.

    Nowhere have you presented a critique of dating methods that would shorten the time to about 10,000 years. For your argument to succeed, it’s not good enough to show that you can explain 100,000,000 years in 1,000,000 years; you must show that the dating can be compressed into less than 10,000 years. Your argument about erosion certainly does not invalidate radiometric dating. As you have said to me, perhaps you simply lack the imagination to see how some improvements in the standard model might resolve the problems that you have raised without changing the time frame by very much.

    Sean Pitman M.D.: The many magnetic reversals are a consequence of the massive disturbance within the Earth’s core due to the enormous energy released at the beginning of the Catastrophe and occurring rapidly over time as the continents were ripped apart and moved rapidly away from and into each other, quickly building huge mountain ranges and ocean trenches.

    In a few hundred years, the floor of the Atlantic Ocean forms complete with magnetic reversals and you conclude that magnetic reversals must have happened very quickly. You know that the reversals happened quickly because the ocean floor formed quickly. Sounds a bit circular.

    Sean Pitman M.D.: I don’t think the Earth has been nearly as “stable” as you suggest. There have been numerous massive catastrophic events since the Flood.

    Really big cataclysmic events in the last 3,000 years? And, no one wrote about them? And, these events somehow show that the earth is young?

    Also, what are the dating problems with the Bretz Floods that cut through lava layers that were already in place with multiple layes of vegetation between lava layers? Only 3,000 years ago rather than the proposed 12,000 years ago?

    Sean Pitman M.D.: That’s right. Rapid proliferation and adaptation is easy if there is enough food. Mendelian variation is a form of change over time which is influenced by natural selection, but it is based on pre-programmed information that was already there pre-existent within the ancestral gene pool of options.

    The root idea here is interesting, that God created life in a way that would facilitate evolution (with or without natural selection). I think your suggestion is that genetic material in the animals in Noah’s Ark was programmed to evolve and proliferate very, very rapidly for a short period of time and then to stabilize as we now see it. Where’s the evidence for that? The only reason I can see to favor such a speculation is that you can’t have a short history without it. Seems rather circular.

    View Comment
  6. @Sean Pitman M.D.: Sean (we’re way off topic, but this is interesting!): You write:
    “Your biggest argument seems to be that you simply cannot imagine such a catastrophe as the one I’m describing. Well, who can?”
    One big argument of doubters (like me, seemingly amongst others):
    I (We ?) can’t imagine the whole thing happening within the last 4500 years or so. According to what I’ve read about YEC and the recent global flood, there was the flood, then a warm period for just enough time to have millions of mammoths roam (nowadays) Siberian plains while 99,9% of humankind had become pagans and idolaters again, egyptians were building pyramids (and Sumerians Ziggurats, maybe). At the same time (or most probably 1300 years earlier), Oetzi was already dead and frozen inside an alpine glacier. Prehistoric copper mining also seems to have been roughly contemporaneous with the mammoths’ sudden (and cold) demise (http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/archaeologie/ufg/en/ufg_forsch01-09.htm).
    This is not about creation or evolution. This is about outlandish stories told as if they were undisputed fact.
    Sean, you very often if not always write “is, was, happened…” where you should at least have written “might be, might have been, could have happened”
    I vividly remember an SDA teacher telling me (perfectly sure of herself) “evolution is wrong, because, obviously, plants could not have existed before bees”. This really happened (I’d never dare to be as funny as Erv Taylor) and started putting me off already as a six year old 1st grader.

    …still puzzled,
    Mark

    View Comment
  7. @Mark Houston:

    Mark Houston says:
    One big argument of doubters (like me, seemingly amongst others):
    I (We ?) can’t imagine the whole thing happening within the last 4500 years or so.

    1. I cannot imagine why anyone who claims to believe in the God of the Bible would leap off into doubt over something you cannot disprove.

    2. I cannot imagine why anyone who knows anything at all about exegesis would simply “imagine” that the Bible can be “bent” to every wind of evolutionist constantly-changing “doctrine”.

    3. I cannot imagine why having nothing but guesswork to support objections to the Bible – anyone would suppose that “guesswork wins”.

    And there you have the most basic — the most fundamental difference in this entire discussion.

    Let each one pick the side as they so choose – but as for me and my house…

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  8. @Carl:

    What is your sequence of events following the Flood? Let’s suppose that the Flood occurred about 2,300 BC. Further, suppose that we can be pretty sure from historical records that the earth has been generally stable since 1,300 BC. So, in the 1,000 years following the Flood, the continents broke apart and separated by about 3,000 miles, the sea floor formed with many magnetic reversals, Mt Everest leaped up to 28,000 feet,

    sooo much guesswork on the part of our evolutionist friends – so little time.

    How about

    1. mountain and Island chains formed at the end of the flood — before Noah left the Ark.

    2. Land mass moved sometime beween the date of the flood and the time of Peleg when “the earth was divided”. (Creating even more mountain chains)

    In other words – the are a zillion lines of guessing available.

    But in the end — all you have to argue that God’s word is wrong — is merely “more guessing”.

    Which is – I think, the point!

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  9. While I appreciate discussions regarding the evidence for and against evolution and creationism, they are not germane to the issue that this website is dealing with.

    The Seventh-day Adventist Church has been extremely clear on what it’s position is in regard to the theory of evolution.

    Professors at an Adventist university are openly teaching the theory of evolution without addressing the evidence for the churches position. On top of that the university is covering up what they’re professors are doing by a PR campaign that is designed to send that message that these professors are in support of the church’s position and are teaching it.

    In fact their new seminar class, as far as I know only one creationist is teaching the class and he was only given two lectures. Gary Bradley, I hear is helping with the class. This class is useless! The perpetrators in this whole fiasco are the ones teaching the class that supposedly supports the church’s position and these professors don’t even agree with it.

    Come out in the open LSU! Admit your professors endorse the theory of evolution and exclude creationism from their classes.

    As important as these discussions on creation are, they are a red herring to this whole controversy. There are other websites that deal with this subject. I’ve attempted to create one where this kind of conversation can take place.

    View Comment
  10. Mark Houston: @Sean Pitman M.D.: Thanks for the explanation. However, even *if* Mammoths had multiplied like E. coli on a petri dish for half a millenium (after hyper-evolving from the ancestor of all african and indian elephants, mastodonts and many others (?)) – do you really think there was a huge catastrophe happening up north while there were already pyramids being built in ancient Egypt? Do you further believe that the ice age was happening just 4000 years ago, most probably a millenium after
    the famous Oetzi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman) was killed high up a nowadays Italian mountain?
    Last but not least: Why should the catastrophic cooling have happened 500a *after* the flood?

    …puzzled,
    Mark

    The proliferation of Mammoths at the rate mentioned isn’t at all untenable given the lush vegetation that was present at the time (which we know of because it is still present in the stomachs and even the mouths of these animals). Also, Mendelian variation can happen very quickly – in just a handful of generations. There is no need to evolve new information when the needed information for diversity is already pre-programmed into the gene pool.

    Also, you assume that the mainstream ideas for the age of the Ice Man is correct. Given that these assumptions are based on radiometric dating, radiocarbon in particular, they should be taken with just a little grain of salt. Also, I don’t see any problem with the start of pyramid building or early civilization during this time. This is all consistent with the biblical narrative…

    As far as a sudden ice age happening several hundred years after the Flood, who knows? There could be any number of reasons for a sudden cold snap following a warm Hipsothermal-like period (there was a lot of energy released during the Flood). For example, a massive volcano could have cooled off the planet very rapidly.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  11. Shane Hilde: As important as these discussions on creation are, they are a red herring to this whole controversy. There are other websites that deal with this subject. I’ve attempted to create one where this kind of conversation can take place.

    It is kind of a red herring for the purposes of this particular issue. However, it is a related red herring. Therefore, this seems like as good a forum as any to have discussions on questions regarding this red herring. In short, I don’t think allowing for such discussions in this forum is a bad thing…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  12. @Shane Hilde:

    Shane Hilde says:
    December 7, 2009 While I appreciate discussions regarding the evidence for and against evolution and creationism, they are not germane to the issue that this website is dealing with.

    The Seventh-day Adventist Church has been extremely clear on what it’s position is in regard to the theory of evolution.

    Professors at an Adventist university are openly teaching the theory of evolution without addressing the evidence for the churches position. On top of that the university is covering up what they’re professors are doing by a PR campaign that is designed to send that message that these professors are in support of the church’s position and are teaching it.

    It is true that the main issue is that not only is the denomination standing squarely behind the Bible doctrine on origins – but so also is the LSU board claiming to affirm that doctrine — all the while providing “cover” for LSU professors to promote the atheist counter doctrines on origins found in evolutionism.

    Some here have then brought up the idea that we should REJECT the SDA church, the Bible, Ellen White and even the LSU board’s own stated affirmation of the Bible doctrine on origins and of the flood – because evolutionist speculation does not favor it, or because we do not have a detailed minute-by-minute video of exactly what happened during and after the flood to yield the results that we see today.

    The exercise so far is not to convince evolutionists against their will so much as to show that even without the video of the flood or of creation, some of the extreme by-faith-alone arguments against the Bible are simply not well thought out.

    However as you point out – there is a danger there – because the list of puzzles and “storytelling” that can be raised against the Bible on “any subject” is in fact “endless” and if given enough time will distract from the key point just by virtue of “sheer volume”.

    There is an entire evolutionist industry funded and goal-oriented to coming up with even more “stories easy enough to tell” when it comes to opposing the Bible doctrine on origins.

    So while I agree with providing a few examples where that storytelling is eposed as a transparent by-faith-alone all-for-darwinism attack on the Bible doctrine regarding origins, I also think that we need to not let this thing get derailed.

    In my view the business case – that an employee should not be undermining the prinicples of the company for which he/she works is a small part of the problem here since the college Administrators may well have deliberately hired pro-evolutionist staff at some point.

    (Kinda like nailing Al Capone on tax fraud instead of murder).

    I also think it is very helpful to have the theistic evolutionists here come out as they have and admit that their “belief” in evolutionism requires them to argue that SDA doctrines are wrong, Ellen White is wrong and the Bible is fiction.

    It is helpful to have them admit that for them “the truth” is whatever evolutionists like Dawkins would claim regarding origins – and that they see the Bible as either dead wrong, as fiction, opposed to “truth” or at the very least “bendable to the usages of evolutionism” when it is convenient to do so.

    Thus the real nature of the underlying principles comes to the surface.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  13. Carl:
    Nowhere have you presented a critique of dating methods that would shorten the time to about 10,000 years. For your argument to succeed, it’s not good enough to show that you can explain 100,000,000 years in 1,000,000 years; you must show that the dating can be compressed into less than 10,000 years. Your argument about erosion certainly does not invalidate radiometric dating. As you have said to me, perhaps you simply lack the imagination to see how some improvements in the standard model might resolve the problems that you have raised without changing the time frame by very much.

    There are many features which supposedly took, not just one million years, but tens or even hundreds of millions of years to form, which cannot have formed in more than a few tens of thousands of years at the farthest stretch of the imagination based on currently available data. If there is evidence that some feature that is supposed to be 60 million years old is almost certainly no more than 60,000 years old, max, there’s a huge problem there in age estimation which strongly favors the idea of a fairly recent sudden catastrophe. There are also certain features that suggest and even more recent and rapid process.

    Here are some examples of time constraints that dramatically counter mainstream thinking:

    Continental erosion rates: Time constraint: < 10 million years
    Mountain sedimentary layer erosion rates: < 10 million years
    Ocean sediment influx vs. subduction: < 5 million years
    Detrimental mutation rate for humans: Extinction in < 2 million years
    Radiocarbon in coal and oil: < 100,000 years
    Preserved proteins in fossils: < 100,000 years
    Paraconformities: < 10,000 years
    Erosion rates between layers: < 10,000 years per layer
    Pure thick coal beds: < 100 years
    Minimal bioturbation between layers < 5 years per layer
    Worldwide paleocurrent patterns: < 1 year

    So, while you are correct that such time constraints don't prove a literal 6-day creation week, they are far more consistent with catastrophic events and recent creation of life described in the biblical record than with the notions of mainstream scientists which are off by several orders of magnitude.

    Are you really so sure of yourself in your belief that the available evidence clearly falsifies the biblical account of history? How confident are you in your imaginations that the features you're talking about clearly require the time periods you suggest? Based on what "overwhelming" evidence?

    In a few hundred years, the floor of the Atlantic Ocean forms complete with magnetic reversals and you conclude that magnetic reversals must have happened very quickly. You know that the reversals happened quickly because the ocean floor formed quickly. Sounds a bit circular.

    If a coin flip did not land on heads, then it is very likely that it landed on tails. That’s a circular argument, but it isn’t necessarily illogical or non-scientific. Circularity isn’t necessarily bad in science as long as one can demonstrate the reliability of the key component of the circular argument to a useful degree of predictive value and as long as no component can be shown to be significantly inconsistent with the overall hypothetical/theoretical argument.

    So, given that continental drift did originally occur very rapidly, it only stands to reason that whatever caused such a huge release of energy (like the impact(s) of large meteor(s)) would produce a great deal of disturbance within the core of the Earth as well – resulting in rapid magnetic reversals as the continents rapidly moved around.

    You see, the argument is internally consistent.

    Beyond this, magnetic reversal patterns have their own problems when it comes to their standard interpretation.

    However, there seem to be just a few problems with paleomagnetism. One would think that as the sea-floor spread out from the ridge that the alternating “normal” and “reversed” magnetic bands would extend vertically all the way through the crust. Vertically drilled cores have shown that this is simply not the case. The surface pattern of alternating bands of magnetic polarity is not preserved as neatly in the rocks below the surface. Interestingly enough, the magnetic polarity changes back and forth as one moves down the core samples. This finding seems to disprove the theory that the oceanic crust was magnetized entirely as it spread laterally from the magmatic center. Some scientists are even suggesting that magnetic reversals were formed very rapidly.

    More information on this topic at:

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Paleomagnetism

    Really big cataclysmic events in the last 3,000 years? And, no one wrote about them? And, these events somehow show that the earth is young?

    There weren’t that many people keeping written records on most part of the globe until recently in history. Also, these events don’t necessarily show that the Earth is young in and of themselves; just that the Earth can experience very sudden massive non-uniformitarian changes. That means, your arguments which are entirely based on uniformitarian assumptions just aren’t good enough to support your ideas for ancient life on Earth.

    Also, what are the dating problems with the Bretz Floods that cut through lava layers that were already in place with multiple layes of vegetation between lava layers? Only 3,000 years ago rather than the proposed 12,000 years ago?

    The vegetation between the CRGB did not grow there, but were buried there during the rapid sequential lava flows – along with your rhino. The layers themselves are very flat with no erosion between the layers. Many of these layers also formed under water.

    The Bretz floods were actually sudden and catastrophic in nature. J Harlen Bretz actually argued for many decades for the idea that the Scablands of Washington State were in fact formed catastrophically instead of over millions and millions of years as was the prevailing mainstream paradigm of his day. It wasn’t until the source of the massive amounts of water needed to produce Bretz floods was actually discovered and found not the be related to a world-wide flood, but a local flood, that Bretz’s ideas were accepted by mainstream science – despite the overwhelming physical evidence in favor of Bretz’s theory for decades prior.

    More information on this very interesting story at:

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

    The root idea here is interesting, that God created life in a way that would facilitate evolution (with or without natural selection). I think your suggestion is that genetic material in the animals in Noah’s Ark was programmed to evolve and proliferate very, very rapidly for a short period of time and then to stabilize as we now see it. Where’s the evidence for that? The only reason I can see to favor such a speculation is that you can’t have a short history without it. Seems rather circular.

    The evidence for Mendelian variation? Have you not studied the basis of biological diversity when it comes to breeding? It is ironic that the majority of the diversity that impressed Darwin can be explained without using Darwinian-style evolution. Most of these variations, like changes in finch beaks, various moth patterns, etc., can be explained with the use of Mendelian variation or the pre-programmed potential of an otherwise static gene pool of options to give rise to different phenotypic expressions within that same pool of genotypic options.

    More information on this topic at:

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

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  14. Sean Pitman M.D.: Also, you assume that the mainstream ideas for the age of the Ice Man is correct. Given that these assumptions are based on radiometric dating, radiocarbon in particular, they should be taken with just a little grain of salt. Also, I don’t see any problem with the start of pyramid building or early civilization during this time. This is all consistent with the biblical narrative…

    …Sean, thanks for your answer(s)? (And Shane, thanks for allowing me to continue asking questions right here). I’m not arguing as an evolutionist here. One can doubt details of the theory of evolution without being a creationist and vice-versa.
    Anyway: Until some days ago I thought the catastrophic cooling was assumed to have happened directly after the flood – I probably got that wrong.

    Now it should have happened some centuries after the flood, maybe due to a gigantic volcanic eruption (did that leave massive amounts of ash or other traces? are there historical references, maybe in cuneiform or hieroglyphs ?)
    …And did e.g. penguins and antarctic fish evolve their marvelous ways of coping with extreme cold after this event? (Sorry, I wanted to confine this to mammoths alone).

    I’m really looking forward to a comprehensive natural history that contradicts neither obvious facts nor common sense nor the biblical account taken literally.

    Mark

    View Comment
  15. Mark Houston: …Sean, thanks for your answer(s)? (And Shane, thanks for allowing me to continue asking questions right here). I’m not arguing as an evolutionist here. One can doubt details of the theory of evolution without being a creationist and vice-versa.

    It’s kinda hard to doubt too many of the details of evolution without being a creationist; and visa versa – at least in my experience.

    Anyway: Until some days ago I thought the catastrophic cooling was assumed to have happened directly after the flood – I probably got that wrong.

    Probably…

    Now it should have happened some centuries after the flood, maybe due to a gigantic volcanic eruption (did that leave massive amounts of ash or other traces? are there historical references, maybe in cuneiform or hieroglyphs ?)

    There are records of many very large volcanoes after the flood to include ash within post-flood sedimentary layers.

    …And did e.g. penguins and antarctic fish evolve their marvelous ways of coping with extreme cold after this event? (Sorry, I wanted to confine this to mammoths alone).

    Yes. Birds can rapidly loose their ability to fly as cavefish can rapidly loose their ability to grow eyes – with just one point mutation in fact. Loosing something is much easier than evolving something brand new that never was present within the gene pool of ancestral options.

    The evolution of antifreeze, on the other hand, is an example of real evolution in action of a novel functional system. It isn’t based on a loss of some pre-existing system or interaction. However, the antifreeze function is a very low level function that requires less than 30 or so loosely specified amino acids at minimum.

    Many such low-level systems are known to evolve rapidly in nature – and in the lab. The reason why such low-level evolution is so commonplace is because of the odds of finding novel low-level systems in a short span of time are very good. However, as you move up the ladder of functional complexity, the evolvability declines, exponentially, until there are no examples of evolution in action at or beyond the 1000 fsaar level – not even close.

    For further discussion of this topic see:

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Calculation

    I’m really looking forward to a comprehensive natural history that contradicts neither obvious facts nor common sense nor the biblical account taken literally.

    Mark

    The “comprehensive” argument is a bit subjective don’t you think? – meaning different things to different people? As Einstein once said, “A beautiful theory can be destroyed by just one ugly fact”…

    It all depends upon what you do and do not understand as being of the greatest weight on one side or the other. Science is, therefore, subjective to at least some degree…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  16. Sean Pitman M.D.: Yes. Birds can rapidly loose their ability to fly as cavefish can rapidly loose their ability to grow eyes – with just one point mutation in fact. Loosing something is much easier than evolving something brand new that never was present within the gene pool of ancestral options.

    …I’m really grateful for your readiness to give answers! Though this Q&A session is threatening to grow out of bounds there’s (at least) one more thing: It’s not about penguins losing the ability to fly. It is rather about gaining the ability to swim (very) well (that could have been present before the flood), mechanisms to cope with extreme cold as an individual (some tricks with the blood circuit) and as a group (presumably hard-wired behavioral patterns allowing penguins not to freeze to death by warming each other).

    best,
    Mark

    View Comment
  17. Mark Houston: …I’m really grateful for your readiness to give answers! Though this Q&A session is threatening to grow out of bounds there’s (at least) one more thing: It’s not about penguins losing the ability to fly. It is rather about gaining the ability to swim (very) well (that could have been present before the flood), mechanisms to cope with extreme cold as an individual (some tricks with the blood circuit) and as a group (presumably hard-wired behavioral patterns allowing penguins not to freeze to death by warming each other).

    best,
    Mark

    Many types of birds can swim. Swimming under water is very similar to flying actually. So, there’s really not much to learn there as far as I can tell.

    As far as group behavior to keep warm – it seems like birds are pretty smart animals and would quickly learn that huddling together and even rotating the huddle works better than standing off by yourself.

    Birds are surprisingly creative and can learn new tricks and solve seemingly difficult multi-step problems which they have never seen before. However, there may also be some hard-wiring going on… I don’t know?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  18. @Sean Pitman M.D.:

    As far as a sudden ice age happening several hundred years after the Flood, who knows? There could be any number of reasons for a sudden cold snap following a warm Hipsothermal-like period (there was a lot of energy released during the Flood). For example, a massive volcano could have cooled off the planet very rapidly.

    The “earth’s crust broken up” implies lots and lots of dust in the air and much more than one geothermal or hydrothermal event for the production of dust in the upper atmosphere. And dust results in cooling – as does the white reflective effect of the polar ice caps.

    Plenty of opportunity for winterization of the polar regions.

    Still the exact scenario for dividing of the earth has lots of options.

    All significant division of land masses could have taken place during the flood – since the only thing “required” for population of all land masses is “land bridges”. The loss of land bridges after 1000 years or so would not be unthinkable. Movement continents does not have to be simultaneous – but certainly makes sense to have more movement while the earth’s crust is still relatively “broken up”.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  19. I am so very puzzled that people are adamant about evolution when all conclusions drawn are all guesswork.

    You read statements like
    It probably changed…
    Maybe that accounts for…
    That is a possible reason…
    etc
    etc

    Let us face it, whereas the Bible stated definitely what happened, evolutionary theory stings out guesses after guesses, assumptions after assumptions and after a time when these are not challenged they assume this as fact.

    I cannot find one naturally occurring phenomenon that can be explained by macro evolution, NOT ONE. And people who claim to believe in God put aside a clear unambiguous account of life and hang their hats on speculation and wild assumptions.

    Can evolution explain why a man is different from a woman in many ways yet each need to be alive simultaneously for the human race to continue? Can evolution explain the complexity of the brain or even a single cell?

    According to the theory of evolution, there is some development of an organism if over a very long period of time changes occur. The big assumptions are:

    1) There is a long period of time
    2) Somehow the organism (human or pre-human) will remain alive to allow these changes to take place
    3) That any change taking place is beneficial

    Sometime later a much improved organism evolves.

    My analysis according to these theories, these “improving changes” can be either independent or dependent on what happened before but in all this the organism must remain alive. How does one explain how the nervous, the muscular, the circulatory, the digestive, the respiratory, excretory and skeletal systems of a human can develop in like manner.

    From what I understand all these complex systems are mutually dependent and have to be coexistent at all times for the person to live.

    When we consider that the reproductive systems of the male and the female are simultaneously needed to ensure the species continue then we see that the math to show the probability that all these necessary random mutations happening simultaneously does not exist for such a probability is ZERO.

    In other words, mathematically speaking, there is no mathematician alive who can use math to show any positive (non zero) probability that all these mutually dependent complex systems could evolve in a mindless manner and yet be in place when needed.

    No wonder the Psalmist was led to explain:
    Psalms 139:13-16 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

    I do not know why people accept foolishness and then try to pass that off as science.

    Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson debated about positive and normative economics many years ago. Positive is supposed to be “what is” and normative is supposed to be “what ought to be”. In all the arguments for evolution as science, we hear we cannot depend on miracles (singularity) and that science looks at the evidence and draws conclusions. Thus the argument is positivist.

    Yet by disclaiming creation, evolution has rejected their own premise, by excluding a possible explanation for live. Thus “no creation explanation” is now normative. So their methodology and assumptions are now contradictory.

    Secondly according to their doctrine, the evidence should give the clues. So they cycle among (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis):

    spontaneous generation
    “Primordial soup” theory
    The deep sea vent theory
    Wächtershäuser’s hypothesis
    Radioactive beach hypothesis
    “Genes first” models
    “Metabolism first” models
    Autocatalysis
    Clay theory
    Gold’s “Deep-hot biosphere” model
    “Primitive” extraterrestrial life
    Extraterrestrial Amino Acids Seeding Earth
    Lipid World
    Polyphosphates
    PAH world hypothesis
    Multiple genesis
    Abiogenesis

    and more.

    This makes my head spin! The only conclusion we can draw that there is a crazy force compelling these deluded souls to conduct spiritual suicide. They would rather spin the craziest stories that deny their own definition of science than accept creation.

    May God have mercy on their souls

    View Comment
  20. Gentlemen: While I cannot reply to all points and counterpoints, I just want to say that the Flood occurred in phases: (1)Inundatory (Gen. 7:11b,12), (a) eruptive (7:11), (b) ascending (7:17),(c) zenithic (7:17,19), (2) Recessive (8:2,3), (a) abative (8:3), (b) dispersive (8:5). Of these phases the eruptive one seems to be the most powerful phase, fed by forces in the mantel of the earth. We also all know the awesome power of large quantities of water in gauging, cutting, covering surroundings and so on. Furthermore, sudden rifts in the earths crust would have unleashed giant tsunamis according to how many of these occurred. That shifting of the continental plates occurred can hardly be doubted, that they occurred quickly is supported by mountain chains, layers and other features discussed in various forums. If evolution were true, the millions of years, this earth should be covered with fossil bones and the like 1 mile thick around the globe. Where are the millions of years fossils? There are not enough of them for that length of time. They occur frequently in particular areas swept and accumulated there by water. One more point, 6000 yrs should produce a human population of how many? Lets assume they multiplied this way: 2 -150yrs – 4 – 8 – 16 – 32 – 64 … At any rate after 32 exponential multiplications within 4800 yrs there shoud be today some 8.6 billion people on the earth, Well, today we may have 6.5 billion or so according to estimates. Diseases and wars, etc. reduced the numbers from what it could have been. However, if we start the exponential increase from 2350 BC, then we should have 4360 yrs, a good number for 6.5 billion people of today. So, don’t knock Bible history, if you cannot imagine something, trust in the Word instead of imaginations. Come on, let us be true believers, not only when it suits us.
    Remember also this: Most strata appear to have been deposited in subaqueous marine settings. Uniformitarians insist that life has been evolving for hundreds of millions of years. That much life over that much time should have left plentiful body and trace fossils throughout the rock record. However, this is not always true. In fact, the vertical rock record for any given location typically contains few fossils, and those are usually concentrated in specific zones or along bedding contacts, and not evenly distributed throughout the column as you would expect. – Geologists will state that the Galapagos Islands are located at the intersection of five tectonic plates. When these shift they can create large cracks (faults) in the crust of the earth. Many of such faults are underneath the oceans of the world. The Flood explains the source of the force required to cause these plates to crack, move and overlap. Slow events over millions or even billions of years would never be able to achieve such changes. We all know the tremendous power large amounts of water have. That is the answer we see in the shapes and layers all around the world. Thus, the Galapagos Islands were created over time by the Flood overlapping the crust in that area, followed by volcanic activity, earthquakes, tidal waves, giant storms and further shifting of crustal plates. In the Galapagos archipelagos the western islands are still geological hotspots today. That is why the `younger’ islands occur on the western side while they grow `older’ as you travel east.
    Enough for this time.
    I graduated from LSC in 69. Sadly how things have changed in some respects. There is power in the Word, but man’s wisdom is faulty. Origins science is like history untestable. No one has seen it happen. Only God was there. Normal operational science we all can agree on. We can repeat it and come of with same results. So, keep those areas of science separate.
    As for me, I support literal creation.
    Johnny Zwick, BA,BS LSC, LLU.

    View Comment
  21. Shane, When I became US citizen, I changed my middle name.

    At any rate. It seems that the first posting was rejected because I used my middle name. I would like to emphasize that we keep areas of science separate, i.e. normal, repeatable, operational science separate from origins or historical science. The first we can all agree on, the second can be based on believes of the beholder. Creation is historical or origins science. No human was there, no one but God has seen it. We accept it nased on faith alone. Then Adam and Eve came forth. Then some 150 ysr(?) later there were 4, then 8, 16, 32 … Starting from 2350 BC to today, some 4360 yrs. that would figure out to be around 6.5 billion people today (a generation = 40 yrs, 32 exponential increases), as we now have on earth. If man originated some 50,000 years ago, there would be some 332 generations. The resulting population today should be: 1 with 100 zeros. Well, where are they hiding?

    As we can tell, if the millions of years were true, there ought to be many more bones,of man and animals all over the earth. We do not see that. Large areas in the rocks and on the ground do not contain such numbers of fossil evidence.

    What is being discovered in various places around the world are mass graves, deposited by flowing water.

    As far as history goes, the histpry of man is not older than about 2350 BC. Egyptian history, the dynasties are a haphazard house of cards, and not truly bonified science.

    The power of water, if we look at it as God would see it from above, the immense quantity of it in the oceans, is sufficient to acoount for the geological features we see, once they are agitated by fissures and faulting in the earth’s crust, the shifting of the continental plates. The forces unleashed are sufficient to account for mountain formation, etc.

    We also may consider the phases of the Flood: (1) Inundatory (Gen 7:11b,12), (a) eruptive (7:11), (b)ascending (7:17), (c)zenithic (7:17,19), (2) Recessive (8:2,3), (a) abative (8:3) (b) dispersive (8:5). Of those phases, the eruptive seem to be the more forceful phase.

    Anyhow, since no one saw God creating anything, we accept that based on faith that the eyewitness account of God is true. Since no one can see “age”, we know it is guesswork and we can move on using real, normal, operational science we can repeat in labs and obtain same or similar results, and leave historical science to the realm of belief and world views. Albeit, Christians do have a firm foundation to rely on His Word against that of unbelievers for as “the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Isa. 55:9.

    Amen to that.
    Hans J. Zwick

    View Comment
  22. @Sean Pitman M.D.: Sean, thanks, I respect your efforts to answer my questions (in stark contrast to other YEC supporters who react to plain questions with ad hominem attacks)! Thanks also for admitting that (at least for once), you don’t know, too :-).

    Mark

    View Comment
  23. @Sean Pitman M.D.: Wouldn’t it be helpful if the church leadership, meaning the General Conference, would post, for the benefit of all, the proper procedure for dealing with ‘new’ ideas? I have never seen it in writing but had it explained to me by a pastor many years ago. Your ‘new’ idea, meaning something that is different than what is found in the 28 fundamentals, should be studied with the local pastor first. If he cannot explain it to your satisfaction he is to send it to the local conference. There a committee will be selected to study it.

    Failure to come up with a clear explanation then results in it being sent on up-line to the Division Conference and finally to the General Conference who will turn it over to the Biblical Research Institute. They will do an exhaustive search on the issue and bring their findings to “The General Conference in session.” There the duly elected representatives from all over the world will hear ‘the findings’ and either vote it up or down. Then the ‘settled issue (as for as the church in general is concerned)’ is announced to the church laity worldwide.

    The individual with whom the ‘new’ idea originated has to make a choice. He/she will either accept the BRI findings or reject them. Either way, would not a truly born again individual grant the rest of the church the right to continue to believe like they always have? just as the rest of the church grants that individual the right to live their on convictions? as long as it doesn’t require them to embrace the ‘new idea’ whether or not they agree with it?

    It has been a long time since I heard that procedure. If it is incorrect I would appreciate hearing the correct procedure – with the source of your information, meaning anyone reading this that believes you have the right information. A direct posting from the General Conference would be preferred, then there couldn’t be any question about it.

    This would not, and does not remove the responsibility of the school administration to remove the teachers AND other staff who are not teaching and/or supporting the churches stated beliefs. All SDAs voiced the embracing of all Seventh-day Adventists fundamentals upon interring the church. How anyone can believe they have a right to make their own personal decision to insist that the church as a whole should embrace a ‘new idea’ without it being first cleared through the proper procedure is just impossible for me to understand. All the people I have known who come to disagree with what they originally (upon entering the church)believed, simply withdrew their membership.

    To those of you who are in opposition to the church in general: If you were in my employ you would not be very long. However, someone in an earlier posting recommended against using a harsh approach. That I agree with. I have been through this and I did use a very gentle approach. That gentleness saved most (they did conform to what the company needed from them) and some just left. In a period of nine years dealing with some four hundred and fifty employees, I experienced a turnover of less that twenty.
    In my last job I did not work in management. That company had about four hundred employees. They turned over one hundred plus in the first nine years I worked for them. I highly recommend using the gentle approach, but you do have to get compliance or give up your own job.

    To all who read this posting: Do not let this problem blind you to the storm clouds gathering around us in the political world! The time of trouble is fast approaching. Hope to see you in heaven.
    Sincerely, your Brother in Christ.

    Wayne Matlock

    View Comment
  24. @Johnny Zwick:

    Johnny Zwick says:
    December 8, 2009 Gentlemen: While I cannot reply to all points and counterpoints, I just want to say that the Flood occurred in phases: (1)Inundatory (Gen. 7:11b,12), (a) eruptive (7:11), (b) ascending (7:17),(c) zenithic (7:17,19), (2) Recessive (8:2,3), (a) abative (8:3), (b) dispersive (8:5). Of these phases the eruptive one seems to be the most powerful phase, fed by forces in the mantel of the earth. We also all know the awesome power of large quantities of water in gauging, cutting, covering surroundings and so on. Furthermore, sudden rifts in the earths crust would have unleashed giant tsunamis according to how many of these occurred. That shifting of the continental plates occurred can hardly be doubted, that they occurred quickly is supported by mountain chains, layers and other features discussed in various forums. If evolution were true, the millions of years, this earth should be covered with fossil bones and the like 1 mile thick around the globe. Where are the millions of years fossils?

    Minor correction – the 600-million year’s worth of depositions that are supposed to be in the geologic column as a remaining fossil record in it’s accepted thickness today – should total 100 miles as an “average” all over the world. (Some writers argue it should be up to 200 miles deep.

    Instead the deepest we find in any one place is estimated at about 16 miles and the average depth is only 1 mile.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  25. 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
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  26. Interesting question: why have there never been any 12 foot human skeletons or fossil remains found?

    (honestly just interested, not making an aggressive point or trying to win an argument)

    View Comment
  27. Dear souls who concern for LSU; It was the first night of APC at LLU and Prof. Jan Paulien read pg. 49 of Fundamentals of Christian Education. I was impressed and spent the next eight months reading the entire book. It was the 2nd time in 50 years I had read it. The outline of Adventist education is clearly set forth and one can measure the extent departure from the measure of the model.
    Perhaps it is too much to expect university professors of (whatever) to put the Word of God above the science of their speciality. If we place our science above the God of science and disclaim any and all responsibility to our theology, then we have become displaced persons of little faith, and have not enough faith to pass on to our students. For those who still believe that this church was blessed with a prophet, here is one quote from the model. She writes: “The light has been given me that tremendous pressures qill be brought upon every SDA with whom the world can get into close connection. Those who seek the education that the world esteems so highly, are gradually led further and further from the principles of truth until they become educated worldlings….And there are some who, having secured this worldly education, think that they can introduce it into our schools. But let me tell you that you must not take what the world calls the higher education and bring it into our schools and sanitariums [read medical centers] and churches. We need to understand these things. I speak to you definitely. This must not be done.” {FCE 535.9-536.5}.
    Re ipsa loquitur, thus those who still believe and trust will understand. As for the rest…
    In all sincerity and earnest simplicity, Ed Christiansen

    View Comment
  28. @Sean Pitman: My last questions seemed too far off topic (and too many at once), so I sent them in a private email. Nonetheless I again want express my gratitude for the many detailed answers!
    Just one additional note: Relativity has at most one “logical problem”, which is not really a problem but simply something contradicting our everyday experience:
    Velocities don’t exactly add up and the sum of two velocities can never exceed the speed of light in vacuum. This has been experimentally verified countless times. The rest is pure logic, even the famous twin-paradox.

    @Bravus: 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. By the same token, “super strong” insects are no wonder of nature. Their enormous strength (compared to their body mass) is just in accordance with the twin story above. Nothing more.
    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.
    I was just curious because time and again I heard stories of ancient/antediluvian giants (which strongly interested me long before I grasped scaling-laws).

    Thanks for all the answers!
    Mark

    View Comment
  29. The good old square-cube law will get ya every time… but I’m sure there’s a response being written even now about the superior just-created nature of antediluvian muscles…

    View Comment
  30. 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
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  31. A whole lot of talk, and very little listening (on both sides). Again, the disturbing issue at LSU (which really should be a disturbing issue at any university, Adventist or otherwise), is the fact that honest scientists who actually do science and see credible evidence for the creationist view are attacked with ridicule and sarcasm. They are labeled the “lunatic fringe,” and students who ask honest questions about weaknesses in the theory of evolutionary theory are herded down the evolutionist path by professors who use the same tactics—ridicule and sarcasm. It’s politics, not science. If you want to bring a politician down, paint him out to be a caricature and an idiot. It’s the stuff of Saturday Night Live, and it’s an effective propaganda technique. That’s what scientists are doing to each other, rather than engaging in productive, respectful dialogue. How refreshing it would be to hear someone on either side admit, “There is much we do not know, and still much to learn. I am convinced that the evidence weighs on ‘such-and-such’ a side, and these are the reasons why. But I understand and respect the questions that have been raised and appreciate the opportunity to re-examine the weaknesses in my own position.”

    View Comment
  32. @Edwin L. Christiansen (ret.):

    Ed said —

    ============================
    Dear souls who concern for LSU; It was the first night of APC at LLU and Prof. Jan Paulien read pg. 49 of Fundamentals of Christian Education. I was impressed and spent the next eight months reading the entire book. It was the 2nd time in 50 years I had read it. The outline of Adventist education is clearly set forth and one can measure the extent departure from the measure of the model.
    Perhaps it is too much to expect university professors of (whatever) to put the Word of God above the science of their speciality. If we place our science above the God of science and disclaim any and all responsibility to our theology, then we have become displaced persons of little faith, and have not enough faith to pass on to our students. For those who still believe that this church was blessed with a prophet, here is one quote from the model. She writes:

    “The light has been given me that tremendous pressures qill be brought upon every SDA with whom the world can get into close connection. Those who seek the education that the world esteems so highly, are gradually led further and further from the principles of truth until they become educated worldlings….And there are some who, having secured this worldly education, think that they can introduce it into our schools. But let me tell you that you must not take what the world calls the higher education and bring it into our schools and sanitariums [read medical centers] and churches. We need to understand these things. I speak to you definitely. This must not be done.” {FCE 535.9-536.5}.

    Re ipsa loquitur, thus those who still believe and trust will understand. As for the rest…
    In all sincerity and earnest simplicity, Ed Christiansen
    ==================

    Ed – thank you for sharing that.

    It is helpful from time to time to recall just how far we have drifted from the original intent and design. It is good to remember for a few minutes exactly why so much time and money was diverted to creating these schools to start with – instead of just dumping all the resources into evangelism and relying on non-SDA universities for education.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  33. 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
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    View Comment
  34. If you exclude the Bible from your study of Science then you just checked the only absolute truth about the creation of the world, at the door. To look at the facts about the Grand Canyon and suggest that it took millions of years to create it, is to look at the facts through the blind eyes of the evolutionist. The creationist looks at the same facts and it makes just as much sense to him that the great flood of Noah, helped to create the Grand Canyon and that it was probably made in little more than two weeks. If the Atom bomb of World War II had been developed with the same level of “science” as that of evolutionary theory, we would still be trying to get it to work. There is a very real reason why more and more evolutionary scientists are giving it up. Because it truly does not add up. To suggest that you believe in God and that you believe the Bible as a Seventh-day Adventist Christian does and still believe that a big bang started the whole process moving millions of years ago, means that you are actively looking for a reason to throw out the rest of the Bible and chase science as the savior of the world. Only the God that created science can save the world, and anyone with half a brain can see that. Call Harvard University and see if they will accept an application from a creation scientist. Even if he was willing to try and teach from the textbooks on evolution, they would not hire him. Why would we as Seventh-day Adventist’s hire someone to teach creationism when we know he believes in evolution. That would be as intelligent at the CIA hiring agents from the KGB. This is a conflict of interest at best. There are more important things for us to be doing with our time. In case you haven’t noticed, prophecy is being fulfilled and Jesus will soon return. Unless I’m mistaken, after Jesus comes, this whole argument is completely irrelevant anyway. Unless you are actively doing what Christ has called you to do, you are speeding down the road in the direction of that city called Lost. Heaven is in the opposite direction. Hang a U turn, and a thousand years from now, you can cruise through heaven laughing about this stupid controversy. The only good thing that has ever happened in history that came about due to a big explosion, is when they put out a fire in the oil fields with a big bang. You could throw hand grenades out the window of an airplane all day for billions of years and the explosion will not write one DNA code or produce even one amoeba. Anyone knows that the very term evolution, means that something evolved from something. What they cannot answer, is where the something came from. The ‘Truth’ is that all something’s were created by God. And there is no science to indicate that He created matter and then left it up to the evolution guru’s to start making something evolve. Let’s get back to the bigger matters at hand. Jesus loves you. If you don’t know this, go find out why. The truth will indeed, set you free. Free from sin and free from stupid arguments like this. Carey Robson, past student of La Sierra College 1977.

    View Comment
  35. @Edwin L. Christiansen (ret.): Dr. Christiansen, I for one am glad that though you are retired, your brain is functioning normally. Sometimes I truly have to wonder about some people.

    I appreciate this input and will treasure the comment from the SOP that you have provided. I sincerely hope that those believing in evolution will compare themselves to Eve standing at the tree of knowledge of good and evil and even the angels of Satan just before they bought into his lie and fell with him.

    It is always the case that in pursuit of exaltation, that people or created beings, “wanting to be like God(s)”, rejected the plain truth, received strong delusion and believed the lie.

    I am blessed to know that God does not hide from us what is necessary to know. I am pleased that He has honoured us in giving us enough information that we can intelligently serve Him in a chaotic and rebellious world.

    Thank God it is still not too late for those who oppose His plainly declared truth to see the light and come in out of the darkness. God is great!

    View Comment
  36. In response to Matte Burdette….

    i find real irony in Matte’s statements that scientists are “paid to do science” and that a scientist “must not approach science with any presuppositions” The truth is, we all approach life with presuppositions. Scientists do as well… those with Godless, evolutionary faith, rule out anything and any evidence that would point to intelligent design and Our Creator, and come up with theories that exclude the very One who designed and runs the universe. Evolutionary ideas are infact, ultimately faith based, as the ideas continue to change, and evolutionary ideas from the past, which were dogmatically held as proven fact for many years are discarded and “new” ideas which are diametrically opposed are held up as truth… this is not science, but faith… in fact, i have noticed over the years as I read news articles the frequent use of the words scientists “believe” this or that, or scientists “theorize” or “think” Or whatever… (all faith based words, not empirical scientific facts) scientific facts must be interpreted, and applied to a belief system, either one of Godless, mindless random chance, or seen in light of the marvelous design which is all around us for those who truely have an open mind to see…..

    the real question is, will we put our faith in the theories of men, that change all the time? or in the Word of GOd which stands firm through the tests and trials of life? Each of us must decide for ourselves…

    The irony is that we are even having this discussion at a Christian SDA school…. there are many fine schools where these theories can be studied and taught as fact. LSU and other SDA schools must insist that all teachers and staff agree with and teach a world view on this topic that reflects the Biblical, SDA view. Period… don’t agree, don’t like it, choose another school. that’s ok..

    please don’t corrupt my alma matter any further with this…..

    View Comment
  37. 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.

    @Sean Pitman:

    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.

    You underestimate the power of determined doubt and disbelief. Your argument is that some plausible example showing that a given detail recorded in some inspired text is at least reasonable, should suffice.

    However that is not the iron-clad video taped – specimen-in-a-jar “proof” that a truly determined doubter would need in most cases.

    But even more to the point – even you would not argue that what God showed Ellen White “should not be accepted” until time elapsed such that sufficient research had been done on primates showing how muscle strength can be enhanced “by design”.

    By contrast – in the “doubt-first” model it is fully acceptable to reject whatever God says until you find a specimen that fully displays whatever detail is claimed through an inspired statement.

    Merely showing that a body plan solution “exists for some primates” opens a door to more affirm the conviction of believers – but does it break down the wall of determined disbelief without having an actual video or an exact specimen displaying the attribute that is claimed? That remains to be seen.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  38. Wayne, why put it into a savings account? That is almost like burying treasure, and I don’t know if that is good stewardship either.

    There are plenty of independent ministries that could use good support, and I would recommend sending money to them instead. Let the conference know the money is gone, and will stay that way until the problem is remedied.

    Here are a few of the ministries, and what they do:

    Light-bearers ministries (Oregon?) sends out FREE literature by the cargo-container load to developing and 3rd-world nations in their languages. This is an incredibly good use of money!;

    Maranatha Missions (California)is building churches, schools, orphanages throughout the world. Another great place to send funds!;

    Kenneth Cox ministries (California) has a very good program with 3ABN, and I recommend it to everyone. Message is right on, and it is another great place to help finance;

    Arise Institute (Asscherick, et al. California) has a great message, and is another good place to support;

    Pioneer Memorial Church (Dwight Nelson, Michigan), has a great program, with 3ABN and alone.

    Breath of Life Ministries (Walter L Pearson, Washington DC), has a great message, and worthy of support.

    I’m sure there are lots more too, but I don’t think it is a good thing to just bury the treasure like the Unfaithful Steward condemned by Christ in His parable.

    Anyway, those are just my thoughts, and some ideas for the good use of funds.

    View Comment
  39. Dr. Ron Stone,

    I Believe I did not mention tithe in my posting above, knowing a lot of people’s opinion on the subject. I also still believe in the church structure, and believe the SDA movement inspired by God and is still part of His true Church.

    However, (though not directly pertinent to this topic string) I also remember Christ’s words in John 10:16 , where He said that “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.” To me that implies that His true Church (Church triumphant) is not necessarily the same thing as the church militant.

    Because of that, the verse in Malachi 3:10 [“Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house”] and the verse in Matthew 7:21 “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” can go together quite well to give an idea what the true ‘storehouse is: i.e, it is not limited just to the denominational structure.

    I would also like to point out that Mrs. White supported a missionary (I believe it was a teacher, though I could be wrong) with her own tithe for a time because the established church refused to.

    So, in conclusion, I think it is very legitimate to return tithe to institutions that are outside the established hierarchy of the church structure if they are in fact using that money to further the work of God, because, indeed they truly are part of that ‘storehouse’ described in the Bible.

    Again, I did not mention ‘tithe’ in my original comment, but it is still very legitimate to return it in this manner also.

    View Comment
  40. @JohnB:

    Hi John.

    Thanks for responding. I have supported many of those ministries you mentioned. There are some really good works going on with them. I always use offering money for them. I could never feel right about using the tithe money for anything except to support our regular and faithful pastors. We have had some really good ones! We have one of those now.

    Only the tithe will be put in savings. Any other funds will be used for the local church needs and/or for those ministries. The tithe will not be withheld very long. I know our GC leaders are good faithful people. I am satisfied they are trying to figure out what the best way is to correct this problem now and have been all along. We can’t judge the honesty of heart of those we are opposed to. I know you know that. I’d say the GC is simply following the instructions of Jesus Himself concerning uprooting wheat along with the tares.

    I know they (the GC) do need some time, but I do believe they will get the job done. That’s why I haven’t stopped turning in the tithe already. There was another incident some years back that gave me an occasion to communicate with them. When they examined the information I sent, the reaction was immediate and swift. It’s un-related to the issue we are dealing with here so I must not talk about that. If Brother Bob Spanglar is still serving in the GC, he could tell you about it.

    I keep referring to the GC. I know the Pacific Union leadership are responsible for this, but the GC can have great influence on them.

    I am truly an organization man. I will be supporting it till the day I die. My reaction to this problem is not to put undue pressure on our Brothers in the GC or the PU, but to let them know that there are a lot of us who want our church to stay pure with the teachings it was presenting when we joined it. If something is to be changed, the framework for doing so without dividing the denomination is built into its existing rules and bi-laws (See my posting on Dec. eight above).

    However, I do not want another school year to start with the same problem. I just couldn’t bear that! It would be so very re-leaving if they could correct it in time for second semester this school year. May God bless everyone involved.

    Sincerely your Brother in Christ,

    Wayne Matlock

    View Comment
  41. You may publish this reply. If we don’t stand up for something we will fall for anything. God is not mocked. God can create by speaking one word. The problem is our brains are too inadequate to handle Science Facts that we cannot ourselves reproduce. Has anyone created a human lately? Does anyone know where God holds the hail for the day of destruction? Go ahead, agrue with God, He will win! Take Him on! But your god, is not my God! “Cursed is the one who trusts in man who depend on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord.” Jeremiah 17:5 Jer 17:7 Blessed is the man that trusts in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.Jer 17:8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreads out its roots by the river, and shall not fear when the heat comes, but its leaf shall be green; and shall not be anxious in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    Jer 17:10 I the LORD search the heart, I test the mind, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. LSU student 65-66 LLU graduate 1968 School of Dental Hygiene.

    View Comment
  42. Good points Connie.

    In one of Erv Taylor’s recent posts he appears to agree that the by-faith-alone position taken by Greer and himself in their all-for-materialism endorsement of evolutionism – is not at all in agreement with actual Bible doctrine on origins.

    Thus your appeal to the Bible position on this subject – will get “dead silence” from them in general.

    It is to be expected.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  43. OldmanEd writes again; Weeks ago I sent off a message to the president of the LSU Board, in which I reminded him of the Omega of Apostasy spoken of by EW. (Some of us simple folks are too sophisticatedly challenged to get over her). There should be no surprise here. If anyone knows about, or has read concerning the “Church Emergent” and how the Gospel is being systematically dismantled by mainline churches, the “problem” at LSU falls in line. Where there used to be bright lights there are now ‘dim bulbs.’ If anyone wants a wider context of LSU, the church, churches at large, and that ‘roaring lion’, they are invited to read, Faith Undone, by Roger Oakland.
    On th broad front the bad news is that things are falling apart. The good news is that Christ about to pick up the pieces that are salvagable. e.c.

    View Comment
  44. I appreciate very much what “OldmanEd” has to say. The theories of evolution do seem perfectly compatible with the Emerging Church movement, which I have learned about and am deeply concerned about, and I also see it as very likely the very cleverly disguised third entity of the three-fold union (Catholicism, apostate Protestantism, and spiritualism). I also read Faith Undone, and am so glad to know there are others who are concerned (Dr. Samuel Pipim is another who has spoken out).

    About the controversy with LSU, I very much support the efforts to expose the error being taught, and what I say next does not diminish that: I am just concerned that the editors of this website maintain a respectful and kind attitude and take great care about what they write so as not to unnecessarily give Dr. Wisbey or anyone else just cause to lash out and to become hardened in a wrong position. I am not suggesting that they (the editors) have done so, I cannot determine that. But just a caution–to refrain from adopting the editorial style of worldly publications, and rather to pray for the spirit of Christ as they choose their words. One concrete suggestion, for example, is to use titles of address or first names, such as using “Dr.” when speaking of LSU’s president. I know it is a little thing, but whatever can be done to show respect and a loving attitude would help our cause greatly. Besides exposing error, do we not want to influence our “wayward” brothers and sisters for the good?

    Thank you for considering these thoughts, and may God continue to guide and bless,

    skr

    View Comment
  45. Hi All,
    You may publish if you wish,It is outragous that these teachings of evolution are in our own Institutions. Forget the Board, it appears there not doing there job. There must be someone higher in our constitution to overule the Board like the Heads of the SDA movement or constitution. If not God is higher and thats who they are arguing with. If the president of LSU won’t do anything to correct the situation then remove him from his position, and let the heads keep removing people till they get the right results. If our Pastor in our local church is preaching contrary to the beliefs of SDA constitution, their quick to remove them. The Professors at LSU may not be Adventists but there employed by Our constitution so there bound by law to teach only what we stand for and believe. If it does not get resolved and it continues, let them be forwarned that God is in control and He will have the last say. Mr President and Board Members of LSU, ask yourselves a question do you think by letting the professors teach Evolution and not creation in GOD’S own University is going to give you a ticket into the new earth? I am no judge and don’t propose to judge here either, Thats what I would be asking myself if I were in you peoples position. I looked up what the unpardonable sin was, and that is somebody standing in the way of the Holy Spirit from working. Is that what is happening here? I am from Australia and I will do my part in spreading what the President of our own University is allowing in his college under his power and control to Adventists in our country. How do you spread something quickly around the nation like a bushfire across the country, send out emails. God said no one is allowed to change the dot on the i or the crossing of the t in His commandments, Commandment 4 evolves around creation. If they speak contrary to My Word (The Bible) then the truth is not in them.
    Noel

    View Comment
  46. Christ said the weat and the tears will grow together and dont we see it so many times in our church Gods church.
    Personaly this may be a bit stong but why are not these men that teach not according to Gods word ”fired” along with the people at the uni that surrport them and replaced with people that will teach Gods word?

    View Comment
  47. @Robbie:

    Robbie – that is the real question to be answered. Why do the LSU administrators or at the very least the Pacific Union Administrators take action?

    The answer for the LSU admin seems to be that they are still toying with the idea that the Bible might be an evolutionist document.

    The answer for the Pacific Union is less clear.

    The answer as to why the North American Division is so silent – is even less clear.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    View Comment
  48. In response to Dr. Stone regarding Dr. Wisbey, you may very well be right, and if so, the action you suggest may very well be necessary. My appeal for expressing ourselves with care and in a spirit of brotherly love does not contradict or preclude the taking radical action when called for to preserve the integrity of our educational institutions.

    Sandi

    View Comment
  49. Hi fellow beievers,
    just letting you know that I also have copied and psted everything that come to my computer and emailed to all sda members on my list.
    keep the pressure on the prayers for this idiotic predicament.
    Blessingd Noel
    Australia

    View Comment
  50. @Noel Hockey:
    Hi Noel

    The rules and bylaws committee during the constituency meeting is the place to fix a lot of problems. It will take some effort but it can be done. If you would like more detailed information, my email address is waymat@swbell.net. Contact me if you like and I will share my own experience in serving on that committee.

    This invitation on communication is extended to anyone who would like to talk, especially those of you who have been checking the ‘Dislike’ marker on my comments. I would be very interested in knowing what exactly did you disagreed with. I may be old but I’m not too old to learn. Let me hear from you. Perhaps you can supply information I don’t have that could change my conclusions?
    Sincerely your Brother in Christ,

    Wayne Matlock

    View Comment
  51. I noticed this was written a while ago and still gets comments! I always appreciate your tips. I often wonder if it takes one of two comments to get the ball rolling.Very good job. Thanks again.

    View Comment

Comments are closed.