New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues



By Shane Hilde

Newly elected North American Division president, Dan Jackson, was interviewed in Adventist World (September 2010) by Bill Knott and Mark Kellner. Jackson says he is a “dogmatic believer in a short-term, literal, six-day creation” and he anticipates this discussion will not “go on and on.” Spectrum reported that during a press conference following his election as NAD president, Jackson said he would visit LSU to tell the faculty he loved them:

Jackson said that he had just told LSU President Randall Wisbey that he wants an opportunity to come to LSU to tell the faculty that ‘we love them.’

Given La Sierra’s status at the center of the denominational debate on creation, Jackson may be sought to play a peacemaking role.

However, it seemed Spectrum’s hopes for Jackson disappeared when he gave his support for the change to fundamental belief #6. Two days after Jackson’s press conference, Keith Lockhart at Spectrum wrote:

Even Dan Jackson, newly elected president of the North American Division, who raised hopes in a press conference two days ago of a more tolerant approach to La Sierra University, which has been under fire for allegedly teaching evolution in science classes, said he was in ‘full agreement’ with the change.

The buzz surrounding Jackson’s comment must have caught his attention, “The fact that I say ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean that we won’t deal with issues.” It’s beginning to sound like we have a few leaders who are capable of addressing the La Sierra conflict.

[Excerpt from Adventist World]

KNOTT: In addition to the systemic needs for institutional strength, financial support, and enrollment, there are the issues that we recently discussed at the General Conference session, particularly the science curriculum on Adventist campuses in North America. You’ve probably already begun sketching some process by which those issues come to fruitful discussion. What process will you be following?

JACKSON: We need that discussion; I don’t think we should run away from it. I feel very keenly that one of the things we need to do is to embrace our institutions. They need to know that the crew in Silver Spring is saying to them, “We believe in Christian education.That’s part of the core teachings of our church. We’re not going to back away from that.” We need to let our educators know that we love them, that we want them, that they are a significant part of the ministry force of this organization.

“But while I say that, I don’t want anyone to mistake my own resolve. I am by faith a dogmatic believer in a short-term, literal, six-day creation. While I say that, and while I believe that, I don’t believe that we will resolve issues by alienating individuals or institutions. The fact that I say “I love you” doesn’t mean that we won’t deal with issues.

KNOTT: When do you see that process beginning? Many members are a bit wary that the church will tend to put things off three, four, or five years, hoping that something will change. Are you talking about a conversation that starts within six months, or is this something that will stretch out over several years? I have two university-bound Adventist young people in my family, and they’re going to be in those classes this fall and beyond. Our kids are in the crucible right now.

JACKSON: Let me make this point right now: I stand very close philosophically with our General Conference president. We have already set in motion a discussion to be conducted sometime this summer at General Conference headquarters with some of the leaders of our institutions. I would not anticipate that this discussion will go on and on.

KNOTT: Many parents will be encouraged to hear that you have a short chronology of moving to address these issues.

JACKSON: I’ll tell you why I have no softness [on this issue]. A precious child of mine, many years ago, went through an Adventist institution and had some challenges. I have no difficulty understanding the angst of parents; and my commitment is to do all I can to assist whoever is dealing with the issue to bring it resolution.”

558 thoughts on “New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues

  1. For those infatuated with the notion that Dr. Pitman become a biology professor at La Sierra University, he has clearly disqualified himself for becoming an SDA employee in any capacity. He actually believes the earth is older than 6,000 years.Who else reading or contributing to this website believes Ellen White was simply wrong when she wrote “the world is now only about six thousand years old.?” (3SG 91.1) Bob Ryan? David Read? Paul Giem? Rich Constantinescu? Roger Seheult? I think folks should come clean about this.  

    I think Sean will say she did not mean the actual “physical world” (rocks, dirt, water, etc.) Right Sean? Only the “living” stuff? The idea that we can “age” something by using only our human reasoning seems wrong.

    The paralytic had been “paralyzed” for many years, with the subsequent atrophy of tissues that would occur. When Jesus “healed” the paralytic, did the nerves, muscles, and other tissues suddenly become “whole” (normal) immediately. It seems they did–he got up and actually walked away.

    However, we have no known scientific explanation of “how” this could occur. When cells, tissues, and organs “heal” it takes time. (Sean, being a pathologist, is an expert at understanding this) More time than “suddenly” is needed. When the people looked at the former paralytic, would his body show the “sudden” healing or be in the phase of gradual healing?

    If someone had looked at his muscles and seen the normality, would they have “misinterpreted” the healing as not having “enough time” to take place?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  2. “The same thing is true of prophecy. Just because one can demonstrate very accurate foreknowledge doesn’t mean that this individual is really God. It just means that we can’t tell the difference between someone with such power and what we would recognize as “God”.” – Sean Pitman

    Obviously, Sean, no one can know everything in the bible or everything the bible claims is true in and of itself. And we both agree that science and nature are “evidence” of certain biblical claims.

    I guess my main concern is how I understand your whole theory of faith and evidence. This is what I hear you saying, “If and when someone can prove the bible isn’t true, then I will reject it.”

    In this creation/evolution debate, those who oppose the bible appeal to nature and science to invalidate the bible. It would seem you are willing to meet them on their own terms, and then try to prove the bible is true by the means they claim it is not. All for the purpose of supporting your faith in the bible. I think you are in a losing battle. And if so, then you are walking on thin ice concerning your own faith.

    You don’t meet the devil on his own ground, nor argue with him on his stated basis for a conclusion. He is the master of his art and used this method to deceive Eve. Logic and human reasoning apart from divine revelation is a losing game.

    As bible Christians, we start with God’s revelation and then use reason to understand what He communicates.

    Logic tells us God created us and is solely responsible to give and maintain life. No amount of “logic” could understand why God would create us and then put us on trial. And then threaten us with destruction if and when we rejected His test. But this is exactly what the bible teaches us. And this is exactly what Satan opposed in heaven and continues his attack on God here on earth.

    Who is responsible for sin? Satan says it is God. God, in the end, accuses Satan. We see from the bible account, few in this world side with God.

    So, the argument goes, “God created me, He is responsible for me.” And not a few “so-called” Christians take this position. But God has delegated authority, and to this extent, we are responsible for ourselves. And our eternal life is dependent on the right decision in this controversy of good and evil.

    My point is this, we start with God’s self revelation and then use reason to affirm His claims. If we use reason first, we will reject God’s claims about Himself and His kingdom.

    For example, the teaching from the bible on forgiveness and how it is available is not rational. The human mind could never rationally accept the fact that an innocent man can be charged with guilt in behalf of another. There is no justice in it. Biblical revelation alone can explain in what way it can be just. Love is the key, isn’t it? But love is not logical nor rational by pure human reason.

    At any rate, Sean, you won’t beat the devil on his own ground. And as for myself, I wouldn’t even try. And as a church, I doubt we have much real success in debunking evolution by nature and science. Jesus said, “Ye must be born again.” This goes beyond nature and science. Ask Nicodemus.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  3. Re Bill’s quote

    “Logic tells us God created us and is solely responsible to give and maintain life. No amount of “logic” could understand why God would create us and then put us on trial. And then threaten us with destruction if and when we rejected His test. But this is exactly what the bible teaches us.”

    Dear Bill

    That is a very, honest, candid admission regarding very problematic theodicy. It exemplifies one of the reasons rational minds struggle with biblical faith.

    That is why death as part of nature makes more sense to me. Organisms live and die as part of an ongoing natural life cycle. Does that mean humans don’t have souls or once upon a time were immortal in the Garden of Eden? I don’t know that, but I have not seen, understood, critically read, had revealed or otherwise experienced anything to remotely suggest that is the case.

    I fairness, I find no logic in atheism. We exist or stem from- at least in a Cartesian sense I think we do – from some original cause. I don’t think humans can rationally grasp infinity. Do I think evolution is the most rational theory for the emergence of life on earth? Yes. Do I think that rationalism can explain the cause behind the big bang, at least the inaugural big bang that may have initiated metaverses? No, I have not seen a rational explanation for that yet, although Stephen Hawking alludes to one in his new book: The Grand Design. I haven’t read that yet. Could there possibly be a transcendent god? Possibly, but it could be some force that we do not remotely have the capacity to wrap our limited human minds around- hence an explanation for the conundrum of theodicy.

    I understand and appreciate your argument regarding prophecy but so many people make predictions. Is Nostradamus a prophet for example?

    Those are some of the reasons why I remain an agnostic.

    Respectfully, your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  4. Dear Bill

    Thank you for your profound, sincere thoughts.

    Noting the differences between you and Sean, I am confused how the Bible can interpret itself. Aren’t you and Sean interpreting aspects of it differently? How or where does the Bible interpret itself without human commentary? Sound like a tautology to me.

    Regards
    Ken Ken

    The bible is not “one” book, is it Ken? It is 66 books over many years of time in putting it together. And then we must remember each book and/or statement and concept is not written in a vacuum. It is built on many other books and statements.

    So that the later writers make comments assuming you already know some things that have been stated before. If we keep this in mind, we are less apt to read something and wrest it from its true meaning and purpose. Or simply put our own personal private interpretation on the statement.

    But, sad to say, this is how many read the bible and not a few commentaries miss this important point. And this is why some people think the old testament is one “religion” and the new a different “religion” altogether. Defined as “despensationalism”, by some. This idea has many twists and turns but always in the end, play off law and gospel in opposition to each other.

    The bible can be a difficult book, or not, depending on how you preceive the various concepts presented. In almost every case, every concept is discussed in the format of parallel and contrast. So that how the concepts agree is important, but how they disagree is equally important. Here is a list of examples…..

    Old and new covenant
    Law and grace
    Justification and sanctification
    faith and works
    Jesus as God and man…..etc.

    I could easily list a dozen more “enigmas” and paradoxes. But as I said before, the bible will interpret itself and explain itself to any mind open to the mind of the Holy Spirit. And ultimately, no one need accept anyone elses interpretation unless and until they see clearly the point any one is making from the bible itself. So, the bible “is of no private interpretation.”

    What I don’t understand, I am not required to believe. This is contrary to Rome who declares we must accept the church’s interpretation whether we understand it or not. Sad to say, more than a few SDA’s are willing to sell their accountability to the church by saying, “Well, if the church has decided, then we should go along.” And such statements are made without any consideration of the right or wrong of the church’s decision.

    Now it is true, other people can help us understand the bible as they explain their understanding of scripture. Every Christian is a “means of grace” and an avenue ordained of God as a witness to bible truth. But this in no way means they are always right, so we must investigate for ourselves.

    But the most important point is the bible is a self revelation of God to the human family, communicated by “holy men of old” as they were instructed and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Each building on what had gone before, so that, ultimately, Moses is the final authority. Even Christ being subject to “Moses and the prophets.”

    Listen to everyone carefully, trust no one completely. and affirm and confirm everything finally by the bible. For it is by the bible that the Holy Spirit creates and sustains the Christian community.

    And this too, is a confession of faith.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  5. @Ken: I’ve read some of Nostradamus’ predictions. They’re about as accurate us your daily horoscope, and people get paid to come up with that junk. All this is a far cry from say Daniel 2, which is one of the more obvious prophecies in the Bible. Admittedly there are some difficult ones, but many many are made clear through a careful study of the Bible, since it is its own interpreter.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  6. Can’t “beat the devil on his own ground”? Recognizing, valuing, and presenting evidence is the devil’s ground? Why give the devil any ground, much less the high ground? While his generals went on and on bemoaning that the high, middle, and low ground was Bobby Lee’s, General Grant saw it more clearly, and let loose with, “Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault.” Gen. Pitman can be heartily tired of hearing that Evo owns the evidence. The evidence is as much Creation’s as Evo’s.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  7. @ Sean Pitman

    The non-fossilized remains of dinosaurs and even coal and oil have significant amounts of radiocarbon when none should be left at all. The usual arguments for this particular curious finding is that it must be the result of contamination or in situ formation. Neither of these arguments seems very convincing to me. Rather, it is far more likely, given all the information in hand currently, that these remains simply aren’t very old.

    Ancient samples are notorious for their contamination. Do some more reading.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  8. @ Sean Pitman

    What do you do with the author’s own qualification? Why would the author only describe, specifically, the land animals being destroyed by the flood? Why not mention the sea animals as well? Come on now. The story is internally consistent as it reads. It wouldn’t make sense to save whales or dolphins and other sea creatures in the ark when they would be able to ride out the storm on the outside. Do you have a point here? Or are you just trying to be obtuse?

    In Genesis 7:4, God says “I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.” But you insist that, to be “internally consistent,” you must advance 17 verses to read that “all living things” had to refer, instead, to “every living thing that moved on the earth.” Fine.

    In Genesis 7:19, God says “[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.” You insist that “every inch of the earth was covered,” but to be “internally consistent,” you need to advance only 14 verses to Genesis 8:9, which reads, “But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark” (NIV). And from Genesis 8:5, we know that the tops of the mountains were visible 40 days before this! So if you are honest in being “internally consistent” with your interpretation of the coverage of water, you would recognize that you have been deceived. That, or perhaps you are simply intellectually dishonest.

    If you are going to demand being “internally consistent” in identifying which life forms died, then you are being internally inconsistent–and patently dishonest–in describing the extent of the flood waters, and in demanding that others share your inconsistency and dishonesty as well.

    Admit it: your interpretation of scripture is prejudicial and biased by what you have been brainwashed by the Church, and its culture, to believe it tells you.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  9. @Sean Pitman:

    9-22-10

    “The same thing is true of prophecy. Just because one can demonstrate very accurate foreknowledge doesn’t mean that this individual is really God. It just means that we can’t tell the difference between someone with such power and what we would recognize as ‘God’.” – Sean Pitman

    Sean, you have me completely confused. If you can’t base your belief in God because of prophecy what can you base it on? You certainly can’t base it on human science.

    (As someone once said to an extremely intelligent friend of mine: “Sir, you need to put the “cookies” on a lower shelf so the children can reach them!”)

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  10. @Professor Kent:

    In Genesis 7:19, God says “[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.” You insist that “every inch of the earth was covered,” but to be “internally consistent,” you need to advance only 14 verses to Genesis 8:9, which reads, “But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark” (NIV). And from Genesis 8:5, we know that the tops of the mountains were visible 40 days before this! So if you are honest in being “internally consistent” with your interpretation of the coverage of water, you would recognize that you have been deceived. That, or perhaps you are simply intellectually dishonest.

    There really isn’t any need to “insist” that every inch of earth was covered. The Bible makes it absolutely clear that it was covered.

    “And the waters have been very very mighty on the earth, and covered are all the high mountains which [are] under the whole heavens; fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains are covered;” Genesis 7:19, 20

    Not only did the water cover all the high mountains by about 15 cubits, but there is the absent qualifying verses. Thus we’re left with a simple, but clear statement that all the earth was covered by water. Is there any verse to the contrary?

    Now it appears you’re claiming that because the Bible says there were mountain tops showing 40 days before Noah sent out the dove this somehow shows that the earth was not completely covered, right? How you didn’t mention that in the beginning of chapter 8 it says:

    The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.” Genesis 8:2, 3

    The waters were receding and decreased. So the water level goes down, revealing the mountain tops. Dove is sent out but finds no life yet.

    In regard to whether the all the animals died on the earth with exception to those on the ark, the Bible says this:

    “And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit[a] of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.” Genesis 7:21-23

    This does not contradict 7:4, which says, “for after other seven days I am sending rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and have wiped away all the substance that I have made from off the face of the ground.” Other translations use earth instead of ground. Did he wipe away all the animals on the face of the earth? Yes. And what exactly did he mean when he said face of the earth? It’s all clarified in verses 21-23.

    You’ve pointed out no inconsistencies in the idea that all the land on earth was entirely covered by water and that only the land animals, birds, surface animals died.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  11. @Professor Kent:

    Ancient samples are notorious for their contamination. Do some more reading.

    Not when it comes to radiocarbon in materials that have supposedly been sealed off from atmospheric radiocarbon for millions of years. For example, how are you going to “contaminate” coal or oil that has been buried under thousands of meters of sediment with significant quantities of radiocarbon?

    Perhaps it is you who needs to do a bit more reading on this topic…

    If you are going to demand being “internally consistent” in identifying which life forms died, then you are being internally inconsistent–and patently dishonest–in describing the extent of the flood waters, and in demanding that others share your inconsistency and dishonesty as well.

    I don’t think I’ve run into anyone as seemingly obtuse as you are, deliberately so, in quite a while. Flood waters do not remain at maximum level forever you know. Also, the energy released during the Flood formed mountains very quickly via tectonic continental movements – very high mountains that did not exist before the Flood.

    Admit it: your interpretation of scripture is prejudicial and biased by what you have been brainwashed by the Church, and its culture, to believe it tells you.

    This is a very strange statement coming from someone who claims to believe everything that the SDA Church teaches based on faith that is blind to all opposing or even potentially opposing empirical evidence. How could someone who actually believes like you claim to believe make such a statement? It seems almost likely you’re just posing as an Adventist for rhetorical purposes. You really don’t believe any of it do you? Who’s being deliberately dishonest here? Hmmmmm….

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  12. Can’t “beat the devil on his own ground”?Recognizing, valuing, and presenting evidence is the devil’s ground?Why give the devil any ground, much less the high ground?While his generals went on and on bemoaning that the high, middle, and low ground was Bobby Lee’s, General Grant saw it more clearly, and let loose with, “Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault.” Gen. Pitman can be heartily tired of hearing that Evo owns the evidence.The evidence is as much Creation’s as Evo’s.  

    Most eloquently stated, Dr. Kime. The idea that one can “prove” or disprove Biblical creation or evolution by referring to scientific evidence” is futile for both sides.

    Just look at how this website has turned into people trying to “prove” one side or the other, instead of focusing on our mission, which I still assume is to get the problem of teaching “evolution as fact” resolved at LSU.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  13. @Lydian Belknap:

    Sean, you have me completely confused. If you can’t base your belief in God because of prophecy what can you base it on? You certainly can’t base it on human science.

    But I do use prophecy as one of the evidences for my belief in the Bible as the true Word of God. It is just that human beliefs about external reality are all subjective. That means that it is possible that I have misinterpreted the prophetic evidence based on my misunderstanding of the relevant historical science.

    In short, all your understanding or beliefs regarding what is and is not “true” about the world in which you live is based on, or at least can and should be based on, a form of scientific reasoning from the best available empirical evidence (from your own individual basis).

    In other words, your statement that useful belief or faith can’t be based on human science is mistaken. A form of human science or reasoning is always required when we humans come to our understanding of truth. There simply is no magic behind it…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  14. @ Sean Pitman

    Not when it comes to radiocarbon in materials that have supposedly been sealed off from atmospheric radiocarbon for millions of years. For example, how are you going to “contaminate” coal or oil that has been buried under thousands of meters of sediment with significant quantities of radiocarbon? Perhaps it is you who needs to do a bit more reading on this topic…

    You and other readers can Google “ancient DNA contamination” for a good start on this issue. There are so many articles describing the problem that I’m not going to bother educating you with quotes from the literature. The unbiased, objective readers can read for themselves and judge your claims.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  15. @ Sean Pitman

    I don’t think I’ve run into anyone as seemingly obtuse as you are, deliberately so, in quite a while. Flood waters do not remain at maximum level forever you know. Also, the energy released during the Flood formed mountains very quickly via tectonic continental movements – very high mountains that did not exist before the Flood.

    You got me laughing here. You’re right: flood waters do not remain at maximum level forever. The author of Genesis said the waters were receding and then used the very same language describing the extent of the flood–that the water still covered “all” of the earth. You need to be consistent, dude, in how you interpret “all.” Either it means “all” all the time, or it can’t be trusted to always mean “all.” You’ve chosen to base a major part of your theology on one literal interpretation of “all” while admittedly dismissing many comparable usages–even within the same narrow portion of Genesis–as non-literal. That’s just plain and simple wrong. And you are too obtuse to see your arbitrary and capricious interpretation.

    Where does the Bible mention anything about “tectonic forces” creating mountains? You write as if you know this as fact. But you obviously made this up because you require observations from “science” to explain what your faith is too weak to accept. If God can form the earth at his spoken command (if you can still believe this absent any confirmatory science), why does he require “tectonic forces?”

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  16. @Ervin Taylor:

    Regretfully, Dr. Pitman continues to provide evidence of his fundamental misreading of the literature on accelerator mass spectrometry technology as applied to radiocarbon measurements. I trust the time he takes away from his pathology practice to read and misunderstand the scientific literature about AMS radiocarbon dating does not impact on the quality of his reading of tissue samples.

    Regretfully, Dr. Taylor doesn’t feel the need to back up his claims.

    The facts are as follows:

    AMS Machine background: >90,000 years (no counts in 30 minutes)
    Geologic graphite: ~70,000 years
    Anthracyte, Coal, and Marble: 40,000-52,000 years

    Schmidt et. al., Nucl Inst and Meth, 1987, B29:97-9
    As reported by Paul Giem in “Scientific Theology”, La Sierra University Press, Riverside, CA, 1996.
    Paul Giem, 1997b. Carbon-14 dating methods and experimental implications. Origins 24:50-64.
    Paul Giem, M.A., M.D., Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon, Origins 51:6-30 (2001). – http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

    Hard to explain such consistent findings with the mantra of “contamination”…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  17. @Professor Kent:

    You and other readers can Google “ancient DNA contamination” for a good start on this issue. There are so many articles describing the problem that I’m not going to bother educating you with quotes from the literature. The unbiased, objective readers can read for themselves and judge your claims.

    DNA contamination isn’t the same thing as radiocarbon contamination. There’s a big difference. Besides, there are ways to control for both DNA and radiocarbon contamination. These controls haven’t worked for radiocarbon in fossils, coal, or oil that is supposed to be many tens of millions of years old. The contamination argument might be reasonable if the problem were limited to only a few instances. However, explaining why every such sample that is actually analyzed has way too much radiocarbon in it is quite a problem for mainstream science.

    You’ve chosen to base a major part of your theology on one literal interpretation of “all” while admittedly dismissing many comparable usages–even within the same narrow portion of Genesis–as non-literal. That’s just plain and simple wrong. And you are too obtuse to see your arbitrary and capricious interpretation.

    The author of Genesis is very clear to the candid mind who is actually able to follow the concept of qualifications of “all” as in “all the land” or “all land-dwelling animals”… etc. Certainly the majority of Hebrew scholars are not confused by the author’s intended meaning here. This isn’t some private SDA interpretation of the intended meaning of the author of Genesis you know. You’re just making yourself look rather foolish is all… in your claims that the author of Genesis was obviously inconsistent. Your interpretations of the meaning of the Genesis narrative are not remotely obvious to most Biblical scholars…

    Where does the Bible mention anything about “tectonic forces” creating mountains? You write as if you know this as fact. But you obviously made this up because you require observations from “science” to explain what your faith is too weak to accept. If God can form the earth at his spoken command (if you can still believe this absent any confirmatory science), why does he require “tectonic forces?”

    I didn’t make anything up. My reference to a lack of the existence, before the Flood, of the massive jagged mountains we have today is from the writings of Mrs. White – from her book, Patriarchs and Prophets:

    As the earth came forth from the hand of its Maker, it was exceedingly beautiful. Its surface was diversified with mountains, hills, and plains, interspersed with noble rivers and lovely lakes; but the hills and mountains were not abrupt and rugged, abounding in terrific steeps and frightful chasms, as they now do; the sharp, ragged edges of earth’s rocky framework were buried beneath the fruitful soil, which everywhere produced a luxuriant growth of verdure.

    – Ellen White, PP, p.44

    Notice that Mrs. White claims that the rugged rocky mountains we see on Earth today were the result of the energy released during the Noachian catastrophe. Such a catastrophic release of energy is quite consistent with the breaking up of continental plates and their initially rapid collisions with each other…

    But, of course, I’ve been “brainwashed by the SDA Church” according to you. You, on the other hand, have somehow avoided the Church’s brainwashing techniques? Yet still claim to believe all of the Church’s doctrines? How does this make any sense? One can only believe in the SDA Church’s doctrines if he/she has been “brainwashed”? – and you haven’t been brainwashed in your beliefs? Interesting…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  18. Look, if indeed there is not one shredy-shred-shred of evidence for Creation, only for Evo, as is being touted, paradoxically, by both extremes, the sober Bible believer and the whimsical whatever, faith takes over, of course. But if indeed there is evidence for Creation, didn’t God provide it? Does not such evidence devolve upon God’s Creation itself – its rocks, flagella, creatine, DNA? If so, why forfeit it? Might we not have to answer for ignoring what God has given us, like talents? Or is evidence itself of random origin, like all Evo?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  19. Regretfully, Dr. Pitman continues to provide evidence of his fundamental misreading of the literature on accelerator mass spectrometry technology as applied to radiocarbon measurements. I trust the time he takes away from his pathology practice to read and misunderstand the scientific literature about AMS radiocarbon dating does not impact on the quality of his reading of tissue samples.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  20. Re Sean’s quote

    “Notice that Mrs. White claims that the rugged rocky mountains we see on Earth today were the result of the energy released during the Noachian catastrophe. Such a catastrophic release of energy is quite consistent with the breaking up of continental plates and their initially rapid collisions with each other…”

    Dear Sean

    Is there any empirical evidence to indicate that surface water can move tectonic plates?

    Regards
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  21. @Ervin Taylor:

    Regretfully, Dr. Pitman continues to provide evidence of his fundamental misreading of the literature on accelerator mass spectrometry technology as applied to radiocarbon measurements. I trust the time he takes away from his pathology practice to read and misunderstand the scientific literature about AMS radiocarbon dating does not impact on the quality of his reading of tissue samples.

    Regretfully, Dr. Taylor doesn’t feel the need to back up his claims.

    The facts are as follows:

    AMS Machine background: >90,000 years (no counts in 30 minutes)
    Geologic graphite: ~70,000 years
    Anthracyte, Coal, and Marble: 40,000-52,000 years

    Schmidt et. al., Nucl Inst and Meth, 1987, B29:97-9
    As reported by Paul Giem in “Scientific Theology”, La Sierra University Press, Riverside, CA, 1996.
    Paul Giem, 1997b. Carbon-14 dating methods and experimental implications. Origins 24:50-64.
    Paul Giem, M.A., M.D., Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon, Origins 51:6-30 (2001). – http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm

    Hard to explain such consistent findings with the mantra of “contamination”…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  22. Re Sean’s Quote

    “The water didn’t move the plates. The sudden energy release that produced the massive Flood moved the plates – possibly, perhaps even likely, something like a large meteor impact…”

    Dear Sean

    As always, thanks for your opinion. Is there any empirical evidence for your position? I couldn’t find anything related to this theory under a brief search of geotectonics or plate tectonics. Is there any scientific evidence whatsoever that flooding causes giant tectonic plates to move, versus surface materials?

    Regards
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  23. @Ken:

    Is there any scientific evidence whatsoever that flooding causes giant tectonic plates to move, versus surface materials?

    I don’t think I’m making myself clear. I don’t believe that the flooding cause the plates to fracture and move. I believe that some massive sudden release of energy, maybe from a large meteor impact, caused both the plates to fracture and the continental surfaces to be flooded. It is the massive impact that caused both events – rapid continental tectonics and worldwide flooding at the same time on a massive scale…

    For further discussion of this topic see:

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

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  24. Re Wesley’ Quote

    “Look, if indeed there is not one shredy-shred-shred of evidence for Creation, only for Evo, as is being touted, paradoxically, by both extremes, the sober Bible believer and the whimsical whatever, faith takes over, of course. But if indeed there is evidence for Creation, didn’t God provide it? Does not such evidence devolve upon God’s Creation itself – its rocks, flagella, creatine, DNA? If so, why forfeit it? Might we not have to answer for ignoring what God has given us, like talents? Or is evidence itself of random origin, like all Evo? wesley kime

    Dear Wesley

    Conversely, why isn’t evolution evidence of a different kind of creation than what you espouse? Evidence is evidence notwithstanding theories of creation.

    Regards
    your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  25. Re Sean’s Quote

    “I don’t think I’m making myself clear. I don’t believe that the flooding cause the plates to fracture and move. I believe that some massive sudden release of energy, maybe from a large meteor impact, cause both the plates to fracture and the continental surfaces to be flooded. It is the massive impact that caused both events – continental tectonics and worldwide flooding on a massive scale…”

    Dear Sean

    Thanks for the clarification. Sorry if I was being obtuse on catching your (continental) drift. Excuse the pun, it strikes me we should all have some gentle fun on this forum from time to time.

    That is an interesting theory- two catastrophes happening in conjunction to cause geological change. OK, so lets take your speculation a little further. Is there anything in the Bible or the writings of EGW that allude to such a massive release of energy being caused by something other, or addition with, Noachian flooding? And if not why not is such a profound conjunctive event resulted in world wide flooding?

    Regards
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  26. Regretfully, Dr. Pitman continues to provide evidence of his fundamental misreading of the literature on accelerator mass spectrometry technology as applied to radiocarbon measurements.I trust the time he takes away from his pathology practice to read and misunderstand the scientific literature about AMS radiocarbon dating does not impact on the quality of his reading of tissue samples.  

    So, Erv, if you know so much about this subject, why not give us your “educated” opinion, if you actually have one. You, being an anthropologist, must educate us!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  27. @Ken: Dear Ken, Re. the kind of creation I espouse, what other kind is there? I espouse God’s creation, the only kind there is, not Evo’s randomy, into which God cannot be nudged. But of course you are implying my espousal of the 6-day creation, like Genesis says. Espousal? We’re not just espoused, we’re married, let the world know it! And since I’m happily married, I really should not be flirting with charming agnostics, should I? Be gentle.

    Regards,
    Your charmed friend,
    Wes

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  28. @Ken:

    Thanks for the clarification. Sorry if I was being obtuse on catching your (continental) drift. Excuse the pun, it strikes me we should all have some gentle fun on this forum from time to time.

    Absolutely 🙂

    That is an interesting theory- two catastrophes happening in conjunction to cause geological change. OK, so lets take your speculation a little further. Is there anything in the Bible or the writings of EGW that allude to such a massive release of energy being caused by something other, or addition with, Noachian flooding? And if not why not is such a profound conjunctive event resulted in world wide flooding?

    The author of the Genesis account does allude to such a sudden release of energy. Specifically, he notes that all of the fountains of the great deep were “broken” in a single day.

    Before the Flood, it never rained and there were no large oceans. The Earth was watered by four great rivers and every morning the surface of the Earth was watered by dew that came up from the ground; with the water being supplied by the extensive underlying network of “fountains”. This mechanism of watering the Earth would have produced an extremely lush planet worldwide. This is consistent with Mrs. White’s claim that there were no extremes of temperature on the pre-Flood Earth – that the entire planet was of a uniform temperature and extremely lush and verdant.

    All of this changed in one day when catastrophe struck the planet and broke up the Earth, all over the place, in a single day, resulting is massive flooding and rapid continental movements and collisions…

    In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. – Genesis 7:11

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  29. @ Sean Pitman

    You, on the other hand, have somehow avoided the Church’s brainwashing techniques? Yet still claim to believe all of the Church’s doctrines? How does this make any sense? One can only believe in the SDA Church’s doctrines if he/she has been “brainwashed”? – and you haven’t been brainwashed in your beliefs? Interesting…

    Yes, yes, surely you’ve got it figured out, no, no, quite interesting indeed, and what you don’t know would be a shock even to you.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  30. @ Sean Pitman

    You’re just making yourself look rather foolish is all… in your claims that the author of Genesis was obviously inconsistent. Your interpretations of the meaning of the Genesis narrative are not remotely obvious to most Biblical scholars…

    I fail to understand why an educated theologian-scientist-physician like you would resort so often to the Argument from Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority). Are these the same scholars who tell us that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God, and that the Sabbath is no longer relevant? Is truth now up for vote, Dr. Pitman?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  31. Re Wesley’s Quote

    “And since I’m happily married, I really should not be flirting with charming agnostics, should I? Be gentle.”

    Dear Wesley

    Very witty, I enjoyed that!

    The problem with my date Evo is she keeps slowly changing over the millenia. Adaptable gal, that ole Evo!

    Cheers
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  32. Re Sean’s Quote

    “Before the Flood, it never rained and there were no large oceans. The Earth was watered by four great rivers and every morning the surface of the Earth was watered by dew that came up from the ground; with the water being supplied by the extensive underlying network of “fountains”. This mechanism of watering the Earth would have produced an extremely lush planet worldwide. This is consistent with Mrs. White’s claim that there were no extremes of temperature on the pre-Flood Earth – that the entire planet was of a uniform temperature and extremely lush and verdant.”

    Dear Sean

    Was there evaporation?

    Regards
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  33. Re Sean’s Quote

    “Before the Flood, it never rained and there were no large oceans. The Earth was watered by four great rivers and every morning the surface of the Earth was watered by dew that came up from the ground; with the water being supplied by the extensive underlying network of “fountains”. This mechanism of watering the Earth would have produced an extremely lush planet worldwide. This is consistent with Mrs. White’s claim that there were no extremes of temperature on the pre-Flood Earth – that the entire planet was of a uniform temperature and extremely lush and verdant.”

    Dear Sean

    Was there evaporation?

    Regards
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  34. @Ken:

    Was there evaporation? [before the Flood]

    I’m sure there was, but evidently not enough to produce enough moisture in the air to create rain clouds. It seems like it was a very very different world before the Flood…

    The world before the Flood reasoned that for centuries the laws of nature had been fixed. The recurring seasons had come in their order. Heretofore rain had never fallen; the earth had been watered by a mist or dew.

    – Ellen White, PP, p. 96-97

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  35. By the way, Dr. Pitman, what would you say to those who insist that true SDAs–and the only faithful Church employees–believe the earth (not just life) is no older than 6000 years (which is exactly what Ellen White said). Is it okay for liberals, like you, who believe in an older earth to continue within Church employment? Would you resist those who call for “old earthers” to resign or be fired?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  36. @Professor Kent:

    Oh for sola scriptura…

    I fail to see how Scripture has been undermined by the Inspiration given to Mrs. White?

    By the way, Dr. Pitman, what would you say to those who insist that true SDAs–and the only faithful Church employees–believe the earth (not just life) is no older than 6000 years (which is exactly what Ellen White said). Is it okay for liberals, like you, who believe in an older earth to continue within Church employment? Would you resist those who call for “old earthers” to resign or be fired?

    As I’ve already explained, the SDA Church takes no official stand on the existence of the basic material of the Earth, or of the universe, before creation week. Therefore, this is an open question from the Church’s perspective…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  37. Sean said…..

    “As I’ve already explained, the SDA Church takes no official stand on the existence of the basic material of the Earth, or of the universe, before creation week. Therefore, this is an open question from the Church’s perspective…”

    Sean Pitman

    In other words, Sean, “the church” does not endorse EGW’s understanding of the 6,000 year period. And in this light, let’s list other things “the church” does not endorse or demand as a “test of faith” to be a SDA. Things EGW specifically writes about.

    The investigative judgment
    Health reform
    Dress and jewelry
    Music
    Theater going and drama in church……etc.

    So, for you, when the bible says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”, the “beginning” refered to, is not the beginning of creation week.

    Maybe the bible should have said, “In the beginning of this world, God altered the things He created eons before and formed what we now see as the result of His alterations.”

    I don’t see this as the biblical intent. You must use your imagination and considerable speculation to conclude such an idea.

    Of course, this would explain why “rocks” were millions of years old on day one of the “alteration”.

    The first five verses are written in a continum that allows for no such intepretation, and all that is stated is on the first day.

    The alteration theory can only lead to more and more confusion. Let the bible speak for itself, and we need no educated scientist to tell us something different from what is clearly stated.

    So, when you stated, “….the SDA Church takes no official stand on the existence of the basic material of the Earth, or of the universe, before creation week.” you are saying the SDA church has abandon the clear biblical revelation and is leaving open human speculation to determine something already clearly stated in the bible.

    I reject your affirmation of what the church affirms and what it does not. And I think more than a few SDA would agree with EGW as I do.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  38. @ Bill Sorensen

    So, when you stated, “….the SDA Church takes no official stand on the existence of the basic material of the Earth, or of the universe, before creation week.” you are saying the SDA church has abandon the clear biblical revelation and is leaving open human speculation to determine something already clearly stated in the bible.

    I reject your affirmation of what the church affirms and what it does not. And I think more than a few SDA would agree with EGW as I do.

    Yes, Bill, you are correct to point out these flaws in Sean’s placing his so-called science ahead of inspiration. I don’t understand the inconsistencies in how he interprets some passages in a straightforward manner and others in a convulated way that supposedly matches his science. I don’t believe he would be fit to work for the SDA Church.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  39. @ Sean Pitman

    Is it okay for liberals, like you, who believe in an older earth to continue within Church employment? Would you resist those who call for “old earthers” to resign or be fired?

    – Professor Kent

    You didn’t answer my questions. You only stated that the SDA Church takes no position on the age of the earth.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  40. Dear Sean, Bill. and Prof. Kent.

    At times like this I’m sure the Royal Law of Love must be of great solace!

    I read Genesis again. Where does it say anywhere that the earth is only six thousand years old or recent? Are we talking sola scriptura of combo scriptura/EGW?

    May I express a bit of artistic license. Perhaps Sean’s position is not classic YEC or OEC, but Tolkeinian: MEC- Middle Earth Creationism. The rock was old, but became earth with life in the middle time between the creation of the universe and now.

    Regards
    your agnostic friend
    Ken

    Perhaps, like Tolkien, Sean’s position represents

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  41. @Ken: The Bible does not explicitly say the earth is 6,000 years old. There are two sources though for this age: 1) the biblical chronology, and 2) the writings of Ellen White.

    The biblical chronology is questioned in many Christian circles, even within Adventism, but I have not personally seen any sound arguments that have caused me to second guess the historicity of the Bible in this regard.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  42. I would also add that Ellen White does not say the earth is exactly 6,000 years old. God never revealed the exact age. Even when calculating the age of the earth based on the biblical chronology, you can’t get an exact date because we don’t know many of dates from within a particular. So there is a margin of error, but it’s definitely not millions of years.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  43. Re Shane’s Quote

    “@Ken: The Bible does not explicitly say the earth is 6,000 years old. There are two sources though for this age: 1) the biblical chronology, and 2) the writings of Ellen White.

    The biblical chronology is questioned in many Christian circles, even within Adventism, but I have not personally seen any sound arguments that have caused me to second guess the historicity of the Bible in this regard. Shane Hilde(Quote)”

    Dear Shane

    Thanks, that is very helpful.

    Do you then respectfully disagree with Sean’s position that the material of the earth before life was created is far older than 6000 years?

    Regards
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  44. Professor Kent said…..

    “Yes, Bill, you are correct to point out these flaws in Sean’s placing his so-called science ahead of inspiration.”

    The scripture is self validating. And while some natural law evidence is helpful to affirm the bible, there is enough inconsistencies in nature and science to leave doubt and unbelief in the biblical account.

    Therefore, we must trust scriptural revelation as the first and final authority, and any other evidence as supporting at best.

    Now I am aware that some time elements concerning events in the bible are not specifically revealed in every case. As an example, you will not find 3 seperate coming of Jesus in the old testament specifically revealed.

    It simply speaks of the coming Messiah and often runs all the elements pretaining to this event as being singular in time. So, we can now see that the coming of Jesus is one event divided into 3 phases.

    First coming, sin bearer
    Second coming, to take the church home.
    Third coming, destruction of the wicked and the creation of a new earth.

    This is more easily understood as one coming divided into 3 phases. When we see it this way, it has a flowing continuity that fits all the comings together as one complete whole. But the bible eventually tells us about the 3 phase coming by way of prophecy, especially the book of Revelation.

    Now if creation is also done in phases of time and long periods between each phase, we have no scriptual evidence of this fact. It is pure speculation and no biblical base.

    If God wanted us to believe in periods of unknown time for the creation of the world, He would have revealed it to us. But since there is no such revelation, we must necessarily conclude there is none.

    Thus, Gen. 1:1-5, must be considered as pretaining to day one in the creation process. This is how it is written, and we have no biblical evidence that it should be understood any other way. And thus, we don’t care what “science” or “nature” may reveal or affirm that seems contrary to the bible. Neither do we need to explain exactly how and why science and nature seem not to agree with every detail of the biblical account.

    The bible is given to us on a “need to know” basis, and nothing outside this revelation is adequate in every detail to affirm what the bible states.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  45. @Ken: Whether the earth (inorganic material) is older than life on the planet, doesn’t make much difference to me theologically. I lean toward the idea that earth and all life on it were created within the 6 days. I think it’s a moot point and hardly worth arguing over.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  46. Ken wrote

    At times like this I’m sure the Royal Law of Love must be of great solace!

    It depends, Ken, on which verses from Genesis and statements from Ellen White you accept as literal, and how these match up to those who appoint themselves as watchkeepers in the Church. Examples include:

    1 – Age of the earth. The Bible makes no explicit statements, though the chronologies (which are notoriously incomplete and inconsistent) certainly imply a short time, as Shane Hilde notes. However, Ellen White makes many unambiguous statements, including, “the world is now only about six thousand years old” (3SG 91.1). Sean Pitman says that this cannot be believed, because what she clearly meant (in his imagination) is that life on earth is only about six thousand years old. If an SDA employee believes life (or even the earth itself) is older than 6,000 years, they are labelled as thieves and liars (and immoral by some folks here).

    2 – The extent of the flood. Genesis 7:19 and Genesis 8:9 both tell us that the water covered the entire earth. Sean Pitman says that a true SDA must take 7:19 literally and 8:9 figuratively. SDA employees who disagree with him are labelled as thieves and liars (and immoral by some folks here).

    3 – The life forms that were destroyed. Genesis 7:4 says that all living things were going to be destroyed, and Genesis 7:19 comments only on land-dwelling animals being destroyed (with no mention of plants, marine life, or aquatic life). Sean Pitman says that the former was incorrect, and that we must believe the latter. To me, this is like reading in one place that Jesus died to save all mankind, and in another place that Jesus’ death would only save those who believe in Him (with no mention of those who rejected Him). I can’t discern what is “acceptable” for the SDA employee to believe regarding what died outside of the ark.

    So…if you’re an SDA employee and happen to choose “wrong” in what you believe to be literal or figurative, those who feel called to maintain “truth” will subject you to public ridicule and shame on the World Wide Web, and call for your resignation or firing. Is this your notion of the Royal Law of Love? Would you take solace in it?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  47. @ Shane Hilde

    @Ken: Whether the earth (inorganic material) is older than life on the planet, doesn’t make much difference to me theologically. I lean toward the idea that earth and all life on it were created within the 6 days. I think it’s a moot point and hardly worth arguing over.  (Quote)

    So, like Bill, you lean toward the earth being created on day 1. Isn’t this the majority opinion, if not the official position, of the SDA Church?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  48. @Professor Kent: We know from Genesis 8:2-3 that the waters were receding and in proceeding verses that the mountains began to show. So when we read in verse 9 that “the waters were on the face of the whole earth,” we can safely assume the author is not literally speaking of every inch of land being covered. If water was covering the whole planet with the exception of some mountain peaks, how would we describe it? I think it’s quite reasonable to say that the whole earth was covered with water despite knowing that some peaks are showing.

    Contrast this with Genesis 7:9 where all the mountains are described as being covered. Here there is no qualifier. A plain, straightforward reading gives us every indication that the whole earth, even the mountains, were covered by water. Chapter 8, however, qualifies “the whole earth.” I think the context of these verses makes the meaning quite clear.

    I’ll have to get to your all life forms were destroyed idea later. Time for bed.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  49. Dear Prof Kent

    With great respect I don’t think love is conditional, or depends on what verses of Genesis or statements of EGW one accepts. Love transcends all such doctrinal differences and focuses on the well being and concern of others.

    I hope you are doing well and do not feel too wretched.

    Love
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  50. @ Sean Pitman

    As the earth came forth from the hand of its Maker, it was exceedingly beautiful. Its surface was diversified with mountains, hills, and plains, interspersed with noble rivers and lovely lakes; but the hills and mountains were not abrupt and rugged, abounding in terrific steeps and frightful chasms, as they now do; the sharp, ragged edges of earth’s rocky framework were buried beneath the fruitful soil, which everywhere produced a luxuriant growth of verdure.

    – Ellen White, PP, p.44

    Notice that Mrs. White claims that the rugged rocky mountains we see on Earth today were the result of the energy released during the Noachian catastrophe. Such a catastrophic release of energy is quite consistent with the breaking up of continental plates and their initially rapid collisions with each other…

    – Sean Pitman

    Upon further reflection, I don’t see how this passage supports, or is consistent with, the assumption that the breaking up of continental plates and their initially rapid collisions with each other would cause the rugged mountains. From her words, the mountains were already present; there is no indication that they formed, or even grew in height. It would be much more consistent with her language to conclude that the “rugged” nature of the mountains resulted from erosion of soil from the floodwaters.

    So why the need to state as fact things like plate tectonics, when Ellen White had no apparent knowledge and, at least in this passage, offered no hint of such happenings? Again, you are imposing too much of your “science” on inspiration.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  51. Shane,

    Your explanation for the contrast between Gen 7:19 and 8:9 (though you identified the wrong verses) would be more compelling if “qualification” was consistently in place for each time “kol erets” was used. It would take some effort to confirm this, as there are more than 200 instances of “kol erets” in the Old Testament. In the vast majority of cases, “kol erets” could not have referred to the entire planet, which suggests that it is a colloquialism and not a statement of scientific fact. Here is but a small collection of examples:

    “And the people of all [kol] the earth [erets] came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth.” (Genesis 41:57) (The people from the Americas did not go to Egypt)

    “You shall then sound a ram’s horn abroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all [kol] through your land [erets].” (Leviticus 25:9) (The Hebrews were not required to sound a horn throughout the entire earth)

    “Thus for every [kol] piece [erets] of your property, you are to provide for the redemption of the land.” (Leviticus 25:24) (The law does not apply only to those who own the entire earth)

    “behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all [kol] the ground [erets], then I will know that Thou wilt deliver Israel through me, as Thou hast spoken.” (Judges 6:37, see also 6:39-40) (kol erets could not refer to the entire earth, since it would not be possible for Gideon to check the entire earth)

    “And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. Then Saul blew the trumpet throughout [kol] the land [erets], saying, “Let the Hebrews hear.” (1 Samuel 13:3) (Obviously, Saul could not have blown a trumpet loud enough to be heard throughout the entire earth)

    “For the battle there was spread over the whole [kol] countryside [erets], and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword devoured.” (2 Samuel 18:8) (No, the battle did not take place over the entire earth..and could the forest truly “devour” people?)

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  52. It depends, Ken, on which verses from Genesis and statements from Ellen White you accept as literal, and how these match up to those who appoint themselves as watchkeepers in the Church. Examples include:

    1 – Age of the earth. The Bible makes no explicit statements, though the chronologies (which are notoriously incomplete and inconsistent) certainly imply a short time, as Shane Hilde notes. However, Ellen White makes many unambiguous statements, including, “the world is now only about six thousand years old” (3SG 91.1). Sean Pitman says that this cannot be believed, because what she clearly meant (in his imagination) is that life on earth is only about six thousand years old. If an SDA employee believes life (or even the earth itself) is older than 6,000 years, they are labelled as thieves and liars (and immoral by some folks here).

    The pausity of logic in that response is astounding.

    Kent takes the statement by Ellen White that the “earth is now only 6,000 years old” and wildly claims that there is some way to bend and wrench the statement such that it really means “this planet and all life on earth are much older than 6,000 years” and that this is supposed to be something like a “valid wrenching” that we must all accept without question, or else be accused of being unfair or unkind!!

    how in the world are we supposed to take that kind of post seriously?!!

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  53. 2 – The extent of the flood. Genesis 7:19 and Genesis 8:9 both tell us that the water covered the entire earth. Sean Pitman says that a true SDA must take 7:19 literally and 8:9 figuratively. SDA employees who disagree with him are labelled as thieves and liars (and immoral by some folks here).

    In this less-than-serious solution – Kent suggest that the Genesis 8:3-11 is too confusing to see that the waters were in fact covering all the earth BEFORE they began to recede.

    Take a carefull look at the actual text – to see that Kent is simply trying out a rabbit trail.

    Gen 8
    3 And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.

    4 Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat.

    5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.

    6 So it came to pass, at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made.

    7 Then he sent out a raven, which kept going to and fro until the waters had dried up from the earth.

    8 He also sent out from himself a dove, to see if the waters had receded from the face of the ground.

    9 But the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, and she returned into the ark to him, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her, and drew her into the ark to himself.

    10 And he waited yet another seven days, and again he sent the dove out from the ark.

    11 Then the dove came to him in the evening, and behold, a freshly plucked olive leaf was in her mouth; and Noah knew that the waters had receded from the earth.

    Is there ANY point in the text above where the serious reader is left to speculate the wild fiction “the water did not in fact cover the entire earth at the flood so that even the tops of the mountains were underwater”??

    Rather according to the text it is only AFTER the water receded to a sufficient point – that the tops of the mountains appeared. Totally destroying Kent’s argument.

    The text then goes on to tell the reader that in vs 7 that it is the drying up of the water on the ground that is being investigated by these “bird” tests.

    So the text is not even close to being “difficult” to understand – though Kent “imagines” he can obfuscate even the most direct statements of scripture to the point that he would actually post this –

    In Genesis 7:19, God says “[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.” You insist that “every inch of the earth was covered,” but to be “internally consistent,” you need to advance only 14 verses to Genesis 8:9, which reads, “But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark” (NIV). And from Genesis 8:5, we know that the tops of the mountains were visible 40 days before this! So if you are honest in being “internally consistent” with your interpretation of the coverage of water, you would recognize that you have been deceived. That, or perhaps you are simply intellectually dishonest.

    If you are going to demand being “internally consistent” in identifying which life forms died, then you are being internally inconsistent–and patently dishonest–in describing the extent of the flood waters, and in demanding that others share your inconsistency and dishonesty as well.

    Admit it: your interpretation of scripture is prejudicial and biased by what you have been brainwashed by the Church

    As noted above – the strawman Kent is building his fallacious conclusion upon has been totally debunked. How then were we supposed to take his wild conclusions seriously? They do not hold true either to logic or any form of literary interpretation known to mankind. His method is still limited to “rabbit trails” that go nowhere.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  54. Dear Sean, Bill. and Prof. Kent.
    At times like this I’m sure the Royal Law of Love must be of great solace!
    I read Genesis again. Where does it say anywhere that the earth is only six thousand years old or recent? Are we talking sola scriptura of combo scriptura/EGW?
    May I express a bit of artistic license. Perhaps Sean’s position is not classic YEC or OEC, but Tolkeinian: MEC- Middle Earth Creationism. The rock was old, but became earth with life in the middle time between the creation of the universe and now.
    Regards
    your agnostic friend
    Ken
    Perhaps, like Tolkien, Sean’s position represents Ken(Quote)

    1. All doctrine is tested “sola scriptura”. The doctrine on the flood having all life on dry land destroyed and waters covering the tops of “all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered” to a depth of 15 cubits Gen 7:19-20 – is directly from scripture. No text from Ellen White needed to provide that information. Interestingly – it is not likely that Noah was jumping out of the ark and measuring. This is God providing “details” to Moses.

    2. While there is no “doctrine on the age of rocks” in our 28 Fundamental Beliefs – we do have the Bible record of the ages of man. And we do have Ellen White also being “told by God” about the age of earth (6,000 years) just as Moses was “told by God” the details of the flood. That figure matches closely to the record of history that we find in scripture.

    The only question then is the timing for the creation of the “formless and void” state in Genesis 1:2 where “waters covered the face of the deep”, and the content of what that creation constitued in terms of rocks or simply dust and gas or ??.

    3. It is true that given all that we know from what God told Ellen White – there were already worlds – with civilizations on them before God created life on earth. This is not a “Fundamental Belief” in our set of doctrines – but those who accept the doctrine on Spiritual Gifts, the gift of prophecy and the historic fact that God gave that gift even in more recent times – to Ellen White, will all understand this point.

    So again – our 28 Fundamental Beliefs are tested “sola scripura” but there is no “sola scriptura” teaching in scripture that says that prophets are limited to “paraphrasing existing scripture”. They provide details/facts/information that you do not find in scripture. As in the case in Acts where Agabus tells Paul what is about to happen to him when he goes to Jerusalem or when the men of the schools of the prophets warn Elisha in the Old Testament that Elijah is about to be taken up into heaven. Elisha was not going to be able to open his Bible and find a text saying “hey Elisha – Elijah will be taken to heaven today”.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  55. The Bible is very clear as it reads regarding the author’s intent to describe a truly world wide Flood that destroyed all land-based animal life on the planet. This story is also internally consistent for if there had not been a truly world wide Flood, there would have been no need to build an ark to protect both human and animal life from complete extinction. I mean really, in 120 years, Noah and his family could have simply moved to the region that would not be affected by the Flood. Why the need for an ark if the Flood wasn’t to be world wide? – or if there was no need to protect land animals from extinction?

    One has to think rationally here for just a minute to understand why the significant majority of conservative and even liberal Hebrew scholars (to include SDA scholars) clearly understand the intended meaning of the author of the Genesis account to describe a truly universal Flood. The same is true for the author’s intent to describe the Creation Week as being a real week of literal days.

    As far as what, exactly, was created during that week, both the Bible and Mrs. White are very clear that all life and the structure of the Earth needed to support life were created during that week. However, both the Bible and Mrs. White claim, in no uncertain terms, that the universe was already in existence and that intelligent beings lived here before our Creation Week began. Job, in particular, notes that at our Creation the “son of God shouted for joy” (Job 38:7). Where did the “sons of God” live before our world was created?

    So, the idea that the universe and other intelligent beings already existed before we came along is not in question in the writings of either the Bible or Mrs. White. And, this idea is not opposed to the SDA fundamental beliefs either…

    As far as the material of the Earth, Peter notes that the “Earth was formed out of water and by water” (2 Peter 3:5 NIV). The author of Genesis suggests also that at the beginning of the Creation Week water already existed; covering the surface of this planet” (Genesis 1:2). Mrs. White’s comment that the Earth is “about 6,000 years old” is not at all inconsistent with the possibility that the universe itself and perhaps even some unformed material of the Earth itself was already in existence before God started forming the Earth to support life.

    This idea really makes no difference, however, to the point at hand – i.e., that the author of Genesis describes a literal creation week where at least the structure of the Earth and all life on Earth were created during that very short time in recent history. That idea is beyond serious question as far as the author’s intent is concerned. This is why the SDA Church only endorses the idea that the creation week was a literal week where God made all living things on this planet and that the Noachian Flood was a universal Flood that occurred within recent history – with the only people and land animals surviving being those that were present on that ark. The SDA Church takes no official position on the “gap theory” where there was an indefinite span of time between “the beginning” of the universe mentioned in Genesis 1:1 and the start of our particular Creation Week… even though both the Bible and Mrs. White strongly suggest that there was in fact a gap in time here…

    The arguments of those like Prof. Kent that the Flood was not necessarily universal are only meant as an effort to argue for a local or regional flood so as to have another way for land animal preservation besides those that were saved on the ark (a common effort of those who wish to try to harmonize the conclusions of mainstream science, in some way, with the claims of the Bible – a futile effort by the way). In short, Prof. Kent does not really believe in, at least he does not promote, all the SDA fundamentals as truth despite his repeated claims to the contrary…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  56. @Professor Kent:

    the hills and mountains were not abrupt and rugged, abounding in terrific steeps and frightful chasms, as they now do; the sharp, ragged edges of earth’s rocky framework were buried beneath the fruitful soil, which everywhere produced a luxuriant growth of verdure. There were no loathsome swamps or barren deserts. – Ellen White, PP

    Upon further reflection, I don’t see how this passage supports, or is consistent with, the assumption that the breaking up of continental plates and their initially rapid collisions with each other would cause the rugged mountains. From her words, the mountains were already present; there is no indication that they formed, or even grew in height. It would be much more consistent with her language to conclude that the “rugged” nature of the mountains resulted from erosion of soil from the floodwaters.

    It would be impossible to cover mountains as high as the Andes, Rockies, or Himalayas, to include Mr. Everest, with water. Also, the very high rocky mountains that we have today would be unable to support the luxuriant vegetation that Mrs. White speaks of. Their height alone would create unlivable conditions for such life. Also, the extremely tall mountains that we have today create drastic climatic differences – to include the barren deserts that Mrs. White claims did not exist before the Flood. The only way that such deserts would not exist is if such extremely tall mountain chains did not exist before the Flood. Beyond all of this, all of our tall mountain ranges today are covered by sedimentary rock that contain marine fossils – to include Mt. Everest. In other words, they were once flat and covered by water – and Flood deposits/sedimentary layers were formed on top of them before they were uplifted as mountain ranges…

    This is why Mrs. White statements, as well as the Biblical statements about the condition of the pre-Flood world, are not only consistent with, but are actually supportive of the idea that the current tall mountain ranges we have today were the result of the energy released during the Flood – energy which initially produced very rapid continental movements and orogeny – as well as the formation of very deep and vast oceans and ocean trenches.

    So why the need to state as fact things like plate tectonics, when Ellen White had no apparent knowledge and, at least in this passage, offered no hint of such happenings? Again, you are imposing too much of your “science” on inspiration.

    Mrs. White was shown many things by God of which she no doubt did not have a complete understanding. This does not mean that what she was shown gives us no clue as to the differences in the world that existed before the Flood and the effects of the Flood upon our own world…

    Of course those of us who believe such things have just been “brainwashed by the SDA Church” right? ; )

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  57. @ Sean Pitman

    The arguments of those like Prof. Kent that the Flood was not necessarily universal are only meant as an effort to argue for a local or regional flood so as to have another way for land animal preservation besides those that were saved on the ark (a common effort of those who wish to try to harmonize the conclusions of mainstream science, in some way, with the claims of the Bible – a futile effort by the way). In short, Prof. Kent does not really believe in, at least he does not promote, all the SDA fundamentals as truth despite his repeated claims to the contrary…

    I never said I didn’t believe in a global flood. What does the word “global” mean? If a volcanic eruption had “global” effects, with ash spewed into the atmosphere and circulating throughout the world, reducing light levels and temperatures, it would have a negligible effect on a blind cave salamander. So would we say, “aha, the effects aren’t global!” I don’t think so. Likewise, if a massive flood covered much of North and South America, as well as Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia, but did not cover some mountain peaks, would we call this a “local” flood? I don’t think so.

    You’re having fun with semantics, Sean. Color me purple, as you wish.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  58. @ Sean Pitman

    It would be impossible to cover mountains as high as the Andes, Rockies, or Himalayas, to include Mr. Everest, with water. Also, the very high rocky mountains that we have today would be unable to support the luxuriant vegetation that Mrs. White speaks of. Their height alone would create unlivable conditions for such life. Also, the extremely tall mountains that we have today create drastic climatic differences – to include the barren deserts that Mrs. White claims did not exist before the Flood. The only way that such deserts would not exist is if such extremely tall mountain chains did not exist before the Flood. Beyond all of this, all of our tall mountain ranges today are covered by sedimentary rock that contain marine fossils – to include Mt. Everest. In other words, they were once flat and covered by water – and Flood deposits/sedimentary layers were formed on top of them before they were uplifted as mountain ranges…
    This is why Mrs. White statements, as well as the Biblical statements about the condition of the pre-Flood world, are not only consistent with, but are actually supportive of the idea that the current tall mountain ranges we have today were the result of the energy released during the Flood – energy which initially produced very rapid continental movements and orogeny – as well as the formation of very deep and vast oceans and ocean trenches.

    My, my, how easily the pieces all fit together when one knows with certainty what God can or cannot do…o ye of little faith.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  59. So let me get this straight. According to Dr. Pitman:

    There were no high mountains before the flood, such as the Himalayas…not because the Bible or Ellen White said so, but we can infer it as fact because it was impossible for them to have the luxuriant vegetation Ms. White spoke of. And Ms. White had her science right on this.

    These very tall and cragged mountains came about during the violent, tectonic forces accompanying the flood…not because the Bible or Ellen White said so, but because there had to be a lot of energy released during the flood, which is nonetheless consistent with the Bible and Ellen White.

    Now this is where things get fuzzy for those of us lacking superior reasoning skills. Tall mountains like the Himalayas could not have appeared during the flood until after they were first completely covered by the flood waters, because the Bible and Ellen White both said that the flood covered all the mountains, including those that rose up during the flood to heights the flood could not have possibly reached. And, of course, the fossils on these mountains had to be preserved by the flood before the mountains could rise up above the flood during the flood because after the flood the mountains were too high for marine deposits to form on them. And, if Ms. White is correct in telling us that soil was stripped from the mountains by the flood (we know she had her science right on this), then by some miracle these fossil-laden soils actually ended up remaining on the mountains rather than being washed away by the flood (in spite of Ms. White’s statement), and all this while the mountains that were covered by the flood somehow rose up during the flood to heights that the flood could not have reached.

    This all sounds like foundational SDA doctrine to me. Where would our Church be without such a proper understanding of the flood? My kudos to Dr. Pitman, who “gets it” and has it all figured out.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  60. Re Sean’s Quote

    “It would be impossible to cover mountains as high as the Andes, Rockies, or Himalayas, to include Mr. Everest, with water. Also, the very high rocky mountains that we have today would be unable to support the luxuriant vegetation that Mrs. White speaks of. Their height alone would create unlivable conditions for such life. Also, the extremely tall mountains that we have today create drastic climatic differences – to include the barren deserts that Mrs. White claims did not exist before the Flood. The only way that such deserts would not exist is if such extremely tall mountain chains did not exist before the Flood. Beyond all of this, all of our tall mountain ranges today are covered by sedimentary rock that contain marine fossils – to include Mt. Everest. In other words, they were once flat and covered by water – and Flood deposits/sedimentary layers were formed on top of them before they were uplifted as mountain ranges…”

    Dear Sean

    That is certainly the physical reality of the world today. I look forward to reviewing any empirical science that suggests that these high mountain ranges emerged suddenly out of the sea in a short span of time. Doesn’t appear as if the Bible, EGW?, comments on this whatsoever. Wouldn’t Noah and his family had seen such mountain ranges emerging? I guess that depends where they were.

    If a comet of asteroid large enough to break the earth’s crust hit at the time of the flood what would have happened to the atmosphere? I wonder if Noah could have drawn a breath? Also would there not have been other people with boats by the time of the flood? Ships can stay at sea with provisions for long periods of time.

    It appears we agree the universe is old so no need to debate that issue. Very interesting what EGW said about alien life. The universe is a big place. I wonder how many other civilizations God might have created and why? Why would God specifically be coming to earth to reside after the resurrection of the dead? A bit human centric isn’t it?

    I hope you all enjoy your Sabbath.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  61. “Also would there not have been other people with boats by the time of the flood? Ships can stay at sea with provisions for long periods of time.”

    No ship could have survived a flood of that magnitude, not even Noah’s without divine intervention.

    Patriarchs and Prophets

    Darker and darker grew the heavens, and faster came the falling rain. The beasts were roaming about in the wildest terror, and their discordant cries seemed to moan out their own destiny and the fate of man. Then “the fountains of the great deep” were “broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” Water appeared to come from the clouds in mighty cataracts. Rivers broke away from their boundaries, and overflowed the valleys. Jets of water burst from the earth with indescribable force, throwing massive rocks hundreds of feet into the air, and these, in falling, buried themselves deep in the ground…

    The massive ark trembled in every fiber as it was beaten by the merciless winds and flung from billow to billow. The cries of the beasts within expressed their fear and pain. But amid the warring elements it continued to ride safely. Angels that excel in strength were commissioned to preserve it.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  62. Funny how all those extraordinary tectonic forces during the flood failed to generate a tsunami large enough to roll the ark. Of course, angels probably calmed the water around the ark–though this (among many other miraculous Biblical events) would be difficult to demonstrate using science.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  63. Dear Ken, I noted your venturing, “…human centric, isn’t it?” Indeed it is. “For God so loved the world that he gave His own son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but…”(you know the rest), John 3:16. God Himself could not be more human centric, nor He who died for humanity. And believing thus is God centric, Bible centric. And SDA centric. To me, and I say this unashamedly, it would seem eccentric not to thus centered. Yes, we’re enjoying our Sabbath.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  64. We have no evidence from the scripture itself that everything stated in Gen. 1:1-5 did not occur on the first day. Those who accept the bible accept the biblical declarations without reference to science and nature.

    Science and nature can affirm some biblical declarations, but they hold no authority over the word of God, nor should we consider anything contrary to the word simply because science and nature seem not to be consistent with the biblical declarations.

    God can use nature as best serves His purpose. And He can manipulate nature for the same reason. God exists outside of nature, and is not subject to it, rather, nature is subject to God.

    Thus, a true Christian accepts the biblical declarations as the final authority as “Holy men of God spake as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.” This is the only viable true confession of faith for the Christian community. Anything else, leads to confusion, doubt, skeptcism and apostacy.

    In the end, everyone is their own “church”. And when we stand before God, He will not ask, “What did your church believe and teach?” Rather, He will ask, “What do you believe and teach and practice?”

    People ban together under the influence of the Holy Spirit and unite to declare their faith in God’s word. Thus, a unified “church” is created by the Holy Spirit, made up of many individuals who hold a unified faith concerning the teaching of the bible.

    If an individual abandons the unified doctrine, they must necessarily leave of their own accord, or, the body must seperate them from the group. This is the biblical norm.

    While people can study any biblical doctrine and question and comment the various teachings and implications of that doctrine, they are not free to attack the doctrine and change its basic meaning and application.

    So, as I said, we have no biblical evidence that vs. 1-5 in Gen. 1 are not all accomplished on the first day. And unless biblical evidence is presented to affirm something different, we should simply state the matter is closed and move on.

    The devil is a master of creating confusion and doubt concerning clear biblical declarations. He began in heaven and used the same tactic on Eve in the garden. He always begins by challenging the clarity of a God given declaration and claims we can not be sure we have understood God’s meaning and intent. And from there leads people into obscurity and doubt concerning the clear statements of God’s word. And today, the bible is being undermined incessantly by these tactics, even in the SDA church.

    Soon, the lines will be drawn, and sad to say, according to scripture and EGW, few will stand true and loyal to be bible. God help us to understand these issues and our natural weakness to yield to human influences that would undermine our faith. We see it everywhere in the church, and none of us are immune to the deception.

    Keep the faith

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  65. @Bill Sorensen:

    So, as I said, we have no biblical evidence that vs. 1-5 in Gen. 1 are not all accomplished on the first day. And unless biblical evidence is presented to affirm something different, we should simply state the matter is closed and move on.

    This simply isn’t true Bill. Both the Bible and Mrs. White mention the existence of physical features and intelligent beings within the universe before the beginning of our own creation week. Therefore, the “in the beginning” mentioned in the opening lines of Genesis most likely is talking about a time far before the creation week of our own planet.

    It is for this reason that the SDA Church has not taken a position on the origin of the universe itself or even of the basic materials of our own planet. While the author of Genesis made it abundantly clear what was done to our own planet within the literal creation week, he was not so clear regarding the rest of the universe. Your own personal interpretations not withstanding, such questions are still “open” from the perspective of the SDA Church as an organization.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  66. @Professor Kent:

    Now this is where things get fuzzy for those of us lacking superior reasoning skills. Tall mountains like the Himalayas could not have appeared during the flood until after they were first completely covered by the flood waters, because the Bible and Ellen White both said that the flood covered all the mountains, including those that rose up during the flood to heights the flood could not have possibly reached.

    That’s true. And, this is exactly what we see. All the very tall mountains that we have today are covered by sedimentary fossil-bearing rock…

    And, of course, the fossils on these mountains had to be preserved by the flood before the mountains could rise up above the flood during the flood because after the flood the mountains were too high for marine deposits to form on them.

    Correct…

    And, if Ms. White is correct in telling us that soil was stripped from the mountains by the flood (we know she had her science right on this), then by some miracle these fossil-laden soils actually ended up remaining on the mountains rather than being washed away by the flood (in spite of Ms. White’s statement), and all this while the mountains that were covered by the flood somehow rose up during the flood to heights that the flood could not have reached.

    The mountains that exist today are not inconsistent with Mrs. White’s description of the pre-Flood mountains being much different than they are today – i.e., beautifully symmetrical and covered with rich soil and verdant vegetation. This is not the state of many mountain ranges today – for obvious reasons given the world wide nature of the Flood and the intense and sudden release of energy that would have been required to produce such a Flood.

    I never said I didn’t believe in a global flood. What does the word “global” mean? If a volcanic eruption had “global” effects, with ash spewed into the atmosphere and circulating throughout the world, reducing light levels and temperatures, it would have a negligible effect on a blind cave salamander. So would we say, “aha, the effects aren’t global!” I don’t think so. Likewise, if a massive flood covered much of North and South America, as well as Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia, but did not cover some mountain peaks, would we call this a “local” flood? I don’t think so.

    “Global effects” are not the same thing as a “global flood”. The Bible specifically claims that the Flood was in fact global – even noting that all the high mountains of the pre-Flood world were completely covered by water to a depth of more than 20 feet at the same point in time – your argument that they later become visible above water level notwithstanding…

    Beyond this, the SDA Church, as an organization, teaches that the Flood was global in the sense that the entire world was covered by water (brainwashing us all of course – according to you).

    Your re-interpretation of the Bible to suggest that certain areas need not have been covered by water contradicts the clear reading of both the Bible and Mrs. White and makes the story internally inconsistent. There would have been no need for an Ark if the entire world was not to be covered by water.

    Also, your notions are inconsistent with the physical facts. All the mountain ranges that exist today are covered by sedimentary layers that were deposited by the Flood. The fossils they contain, according to Mrs. White, were to an evidence to post-Flood mankind that the Genesis account was in fact true history and could be trusted.

    In the days of Noah, men, animals, and trees, many times larger than now exist, were buried, and thus preserved as an evidence to later generations that the antediluvians perished by a flood. God designed that the discovery of these things should establish faith in inspired history; but men, with their vain reasoning, fall into the same error as did the people before the Flood–the things which God gave them as a benefit, they turn into a curse by making a wrong use of them.

    – Ellen White, PP, p. 112

    In short then, your views on the nature of the global Flood (not really being global in the sense of the entire world being covered by water) are in opposition to the clearly stated position of the organized SDA Church, the obvious meaning of the Biblical text (obvious to me, the SDA Church, and most of even liberal Hebrew scholars). Your views are also in opposition to the geologic and fossil records which clearly indicate that the entire planet was covered by water – to include the very tops of the highest mountains in existence.

    Why then would you think to propose such views? What questions do your views help to answer? What’s your reasoning? At this point they appear to make no sense from either the Biblical perspective or the scientific perspective.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  67. @Ken:

    That is certainly the physical reality of the world today. I look forward to reviewing any empirical science that suggests that these high mountain ranges emerged suddenly out of the sea in a short span of time. Doesn’t appear as if the Bible, EGW?, comments on this whatsoever. Wouldn’t Noah and his family had seen such mountain ranges emerging? I guess that depends where they were.

    The early mountain building was no doubt much more rapid than it is today. However, mountain ranges are still growing today and have been growing ever since the Flood. Erosion rates, of course, have kept their height in check to at least some extent. In fact, for the Rockies in particular, the erosion rate seems to be about equal to the uplift rate so that the overall elevation of the Rockies remains the same over time.

    In fact, it is the extremely high erosion rates on the mountains that strongly supports their young age. Mt. Everest, for example, supposedly started its uplift some 50 million years ago from the mainstream perspective. Yet, Mt. Everest is still covered with a thick layer of sedimentary layers – layers that should have been washed away many times over if Mt. Everest has in fact existed as an erosional surface for 50 million years.

    The same is true of continents as a whole which are being eroded away from the top down and from the edges inward in a very rapid manner.

    For further discussion of this problem of continental and mountain erosion rates see:

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

    If a comet of asteroid large enough to break the earth’s crust hit at the time of the flood what would have happened to the atmosphere? I wonder if Noah could have drawn a breath?

    If the result of such an impact was to produce a huge flood right away, the atmospheric quality would have been preserved by the removal of particulate material from the atmosphere by the intense downpour. The heat of the energy release would also have been absorbed by the massive amount of water involved in the Flood.

    Also would there not have been other people with boats by the time of the flood? Ships can stay at sea with provisions for long periods of time.

    Since there were no great oceans before the Flood, the boats in existence during this time would not have been built for rough ocean voyages – but would have been build only for easy going lake, river, and shallow sea voyages. Such vessels would have been no match for the Noachian Deluge.

    It appears we agree the universe is old so no need to debate that issue. Very interesting what EGW said about alien life. The universe is a big place. I wonder how many other civilizations God might have created and why?

    The Bible suggests a great many other worlds inhabited by intelligent beings – as does Mrs. White. As to the reason for their creation, it is probably the same reason God has for our own creation.

    Why would God specifically be coming to earth to reside after the resurrection of the dead? A bit human centric isn’t it?

    Not if you consider what God paid to rescue us from our own rebellion. All Heaven was emptied by God to save the one lost sheep from all of Creation. In the sacrifice of Jesus, God, in Jesus, paid an infinite price. Though we were originally created “a little lower than the angels” (Psalms 8:5), through the experience of salvation we will gain a closer walk with God than even the angels can experience. We will be God’s witnesses throughout eternity to the love and grace of the One who saved us (Isaiah 43:12 NLT).

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  68. Sean, I never suggested that the “universe” was created on the first day. The bible does not claim such. It states this earth was created on the first day…….and “The earth was without form, and void.”

    Other worlds are not mentioned as to when they were created.

    Vs. 16 says, “Then God made two great lights”. This means at that time is when He made them. And finally states, “He made the stars also.” This statement may indicate the stars were not necessarily made at that time. But does not clearly specify one way or the other.

    We must accept the obvious and let the obscure be of less importance. None the less, we don’t build massive theories about the whole issue based on what is not directly and clearly revealed.

    Your theory places some doubt on the obvious. And once you do that, you begin the process of undermining other clear biblical doctrines and teachings. For if the issues of creation are not clear, how can we know anything else is clear?

    I think you are on shakey ground at best and are leaving open more possibilities for unbelief than solid biblical faith. For instance, you said……” “in the beginning” mentioned in the opening lines of Genesis most likely is talking about a time far before the creation week of our own planet.”

    But you are wrong. This statement has no implication that it may refer to the creation of the universe or some part of it besides this world.

    If we leave out the phrase “the heavens” in the beginning statement, we have “In the beginning God created the earth, and the earth was without form and void.” The phrase “the heavens”, if it refered to some other period of time, could lend itself to total confusion in the flow of all the rest of what is stated. For it is stateing what was created on the first day. So, “The heavens” must necessarily refer to our atmosphere and its various counter parts. Not some other part of the universe.

    Bill Sorensen

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  69. Re Sean’s Quote

    “Since there were no great oceans before the Flood, the boats in existence during this time would not have been built for rough ocean voyages – but would have been build only for easy going lake, river, and shallow sea voyages. Such vessels would have been no match for the Noachian Deluge.”

    “The heat of the energy release would also have been absorbed by the massive amount of water involved in the Flood.”

    “All the mountain ranges that exist today are covered by sedimentary layers that were deposited by the Flood.”

    Dear Sean

    Again thank you very much for your comments. I think we are making great progress!

    What about rough seas?

    How much has the peak of Mount Everest eroded since you were born? Do you know of small hills or knolls, not made of hard rock, that you saw as boy that are still there and have not eroded to flat ground?

    Would the heat absorbed by the water have boiled the whales?

    Sean, I think we are making progress. We agree the universe is old. We agree that before life on earth, the material comprising the earth was old. We agree that even on the highest mountain ranges, fossilized remains of marine life, but not man, are found. We agree that the source of life on earth being recent is not the Bible but rather the commentary of EGW. We agree that EGW did not hold any science degrees. We agree that EGW did have ‘conditional’ prophecies that did come true.

    Please correct me if I’m I’m wrong on any of these points in our empirical quest for truth.

    Regards
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  70. Re Wesley’s quote

    “God Himself could not be more human centric,”

    Dear Wesley

    Thanks for your comments. Would God have also created those aliens, that EGW talked about, in His own image or rather in some inferior image? Are humans at the top of God’s pecking order in this big universe?

    Regards
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  71. Dear Ken,
    “Would God,” you asked me, “have also created those aliens, that EGW talked about…? Are humans at the top of God’s pecking order in this big universe?” Aliens? Pecking order?
    Alas, I can’t find “alien” in my concordances and E.G. White index. I fear it’s rather a sci-fi construct, alien to EGW or scripture, or the SDA vocabulary that I know. That there are inhabitants of unfallen worlds, to use vocabulary more familiar to me, yes, of course. That God is human-centric and has put humans high on His pecking order, to use your vocabulary, is attested by the fact He gave His only beloved Son to redeem them, to use St. John’s vocabulary. Meanwhile, back at LSU….

    Your alien but never alienated friend,
    Wes

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  72. Re Wes’s Quote

    “Alas, I can’t find “alien” in my concordances and E.G. White index. I fear it’s rather a sci-fi construct, alien to EGW or scripture, or the SDA vocabulary that I know.”

    Dear Wes

    Well said. Although, I imagine at times you think my arguments come from another planet!

    We do use the term alien when we are talking about illegal immigrants but that context was not applicable to my comments.

    Hopefully those ‘inhabitants’ of other planets are not too jealous of God giving his only Son to us humans. That’s a lot of focus on one species of one planet, don’t you think?

    Your friendly fellow inhabitant
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  73. Re Bill’s Quote

    “If we leave out the phrase “the heavens” in the beginning statement, we have “In the beginning God created the earth, and the earth was without form and void.”

    Dear Bill

    Naturally I am not a biblical scholar. But I wonder when you leave out a key word of a phrase, or interpret it to mean just our atmosphere: (‘heaven’) if you are not engaging in as much creative, versus literal, biblical interpretation as Sean.

    Respectfully
    your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  74. Sean,

    Help me get this straight. You believe that:

    1 – There were no high, craggged mountains before the flood. “The sharp, ragged edges of earth’s rocky framework were buried beneath the fruitful soil” (E. G. White, PP).

    2 – During the flood, the water washed away the fruitful soil to expose the sharp ragged edges.

    3 – During the flood, the water covered the highest of these mountains.

    4 – During the flood, new soil laden with fossils was deposited on these mountains while the mountains were under water. In other words, the fruitful soil washed away and was replaced by fossil-laden soil that was not washed away.

    5 – During the flood, these mountains dramatically arose out of the water with this new fossil-laden soil (that the waters did not wash away) due to tectonic forces (moving of the continental plates) unleashed during the flood.

    6 – In 1953, Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay became the first post-deluvians to climb the highest summit on this planet.

    Is this scenario correct?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  75. Bill,

    As you are well aware, Ellen White wrote:

    “Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old.” (3SG 91.1)

    Sean Pitman has made clear that he does not believe any straightforward reading of her words. He insists that she cannot be referring to the age of the earth, but instead is referring to the age of life on the earth. Shane Hilde says he leans toward taking Ellen White at her words, but he does not think the SDA Church has an official position. I assume Bob Ryan believes she is correct, because he has cited this passage a hundred gumpteen zillion times.

    What about you. Do you believe that Ellen White was correct in stating the world is now only about six thousand years old, or do you, like Sean Pitman, think she was simply wrong? Do you believe Adventists generally dismiss her statement as wrong? I’ve been an SDA most of my life, and I am discovering there is a lot more subjectivity in interpreting inspiration than I had realized before.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  76. @ Sean

    Your re-interpretation of the Bible to suggest that certain areas need not have been covered by water contradicts the clear reading of both the Bible and Mrs. White and makes the story internally inconsistent. There would have been no need for an Ark if the entire world was not to be covered by water.

    I’m sorry, Sean, to be so inconsistent. I had understood that God intended to destroy all humans except those preserved in the ark. I didn’t realize the purpose of the flood was to kill all land-dwelling, nostril-breathing animals except for those God chose to preserve during the flood. I further assumed that humans did not occupy every continent, but apparently they must have since God deemed it necessary to drown every one of them. Lastly, I assumed that if the flood covered most of the earth’s surface–say, 95%–that Noah and his family and all those special animals still required an ark to save them. I didn’t realize they had the knowledge and capacity to relocate to the highest mountains on the planet–presumably on another continent. Internal consistency certainly is important for interpreting the Bible and Ellen White. Thank you for helping my understanding.

    By the way, where does the Bible or Ms. White say the earth is older than 6,000 years? Just curious about the internal consistency with interpreting 3SG 91.1.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  77. Dear Ken,
    That God is human-centric and has put humans high on His pecking order, to use your vocabulary, is attested by the fact He gave His only beloved Son to redeem them, to use St. John’s vocabulary. Meanwhile, back at LSU….Your alien but never alienated friend,
    Wes  

    Yes, Dr. Kime, “back at LSU” is absolutely correct. When are we going to actually “get back” to the real subject of this website? Or, maybe I should say, ARE we?!

    Trying to “convince” someone to believe Creationism, or prove Creationism by empirical evidence or argument is usually hopeless. People believe generally what they choose to believe. If someone wants to believe God’s Truth, he will. If one wants to believe humanistic philosophy, and reject God’ Truth, there is plenty of “evidence” for that.

    In the bible, Jesus and his disciples taught and preached the Truth. They did NOT try to “prove” anything.

    Look at some of the professors and administrators at LSU. They’ve studied God’s Truth and Man’s “wisdom.” And, they’ve chosen to believe humanistic philosophy OVER God’s Truth. Despite Sean’s protests, the choice is clear for many.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  78. @Professor Kent:

    I further assumed that humans did not occupy every continent, but apparently they must have since God deemed it necessary to drown every one of them.

    There were no “continents” before the Flood. There were no great oceans and it never rained either. The Earth was watered by four great rivers and the “fountains” that were broken up during the Flood. It is quite reasonable to consider that the entire Earth was populated by humans after 2000 years of reproduction by the very long lived race – and that these humans would have been smart enough to escape to those areas that were not flooded by the Flood. Mrs. White speaks of humans trying to escape to the highest points available before these also became overrun by the flood waters.

    Consider the following statements of Mrs. White in this regard:

    Some of the people bound their children and themselves upon powerful animals, knowing that these were tenacious of life, and would climb to the highest points to escape the rising waters. Some fastened themselves to lofty trees on the summit of hills or mountains; but the trees were uprooted, and with their burden of living beings were hurled into the seething billows. One spot after another that promised safety was abandoned. As the waters rose higher and higher, the people fled for refuge to the loftiest mountains. Often man and beast would struggle together for a foothold, until both were swept away.

    – Ellen White, PP, p. 100

    So, you see, the concept of a truly world wide Flood, where every inch of the Earth’s surfaces were covered by water, is clearly supported by both the Bible and Mrs. White and is the stated position of the SDA Church as well. Your idea of a limited Flood that did not cover the entire globe is in conflict with the SDA Church’s position on this topic – as well as with the interpretation of most Hebrew scholars (even liberal scholars).

    By the way, where does the Bible or Ms. White say the earth is older than 6,000 years? Just curious about the internal consistency with interpreting 3SG 91.1.

    As I’ve already explained, several times, neither the Bible or Mrs. White are clear on the age of the basic material of the Earth. Therefore, this particular question remains open from the Church’s perspective and really has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. There are, however, very clear statements from both the Bible and Mrs. White noting that the universe itself existed prior to creation week along with many other intelligent beings living on other worlds…

    Help me get this straight. You believe that:

    1 – There were no high, craggged mountains before the flood. “The sharp, ragged edges of earth’s rocky framework were buried beneath the fruitful soil” (E. G. White, PP).

    Correct…

    2 – During the flood, the water washed away the fruitful soil to expose the sharp ragged edges.

    Indeed – – and the underlying granitic rock itself was broken up and warped into much higher mountain ranges and ocean basins and trenches than existed before the Flood.

    3 – During the flood, the water covered the highest of these mountains.

    Right… as per both the Bible and Mrs. White.

    4 – During the flood, new soil laden with fossils was deposited on these mountains while the mountains were under water. In other words, the fruitful soil washed away and was replaced by fossil-laden soil that was not washed away.

    “Soil” is not the same thing as the sedimentary layers in which fossils are found today. Soil that can support extremely rich and vertant life is quite different. Such rich soil as covered the hills and mountains before the Flood would have easily been washed away. As the waters and massive tsunamis covered and reformed the planet during the Flood and subsequent aftermath, flat sedimentary layers would have been deposited which would not resemble the previous “soil” that once covered the Earth. Then, as the surface of the Earth broke up into continents and tectonic activity went into full swing, the newly formed sedimentary layers would themselves have become warped and folded – as well see today even on the tops of the highest mountain ranges in the world…

    5 – During the flood, these mountains dramatically arose out of the water with this new fossil-laden soil (that the waters did not wash away) due to tectonic forces (moving of the continental plates) unleashed during the flood.

    Water-deposited fossil-bearing sedimentary layers do indeed cover all the great mountain ranges in the world today…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  79. @ken:

    Dear Sean

    Again thank you very much for your comments. I think we are making great progress!

    What about rough seas?

    There were no rough seas before the Flood as the weather was very mild and consistent world wide.

    How much has the peak of Mount Everest eroded since you were born? Do you know of small hills or knolls, not made of hard rock, that you saw as boy that are still there and have not eroded to flat ground?

    Mt. Everest is eroding very rapidly, at around 400 cm/kyr. That’s a big problem for mainstream age estimates of the uplift of Everest since all sedimentary layers should have been washed off of Mt. Everest long long ago – if it did indeed begin its orogeny some 50 million years ago…

    Did you read the website link I gave you earlier on this topic?

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

    Would the heat absorbed by the water have boiled the whales?

    Obviously not since whales and sea life in general are still here ; )

    Water is able to absorb a great deal of energy before it experiences a significant increase in its own temperature.

    Sean, I think we are making progress. We agree the universe is old. We agree that before life on earth, the material comprising the earth was old.

    Reasonable so far…

    We agree that even on the highest mountain ranges, fossilized remains of marine life, but not man, are found.

    True…

    We agree that the source of life on earth being recent is not the Bible but rather the commentary of EGW.

    Not true. The recent arival of life on this planet is confirmed by both the Bible and Mrs. White…

    We agree that EGW did not hold any science degrees. We agree that EGW did have ‘conditional’ prophecies that did come true.

    One doesn’t need a degree in science before one can explain what they are seeing “in vision” from God. Even a child can describe what they are seeing to the point of providing useful information. Also, Mrs. White made both conditional and non-conditional prophetic statements…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  80. Professor Kent asks…..

    “What about you. Do you believe that Ellen White was correct in stating the world is now only about six thousand years old, or do you, like Sean Pitman, think she was simply wrong? Do you believe Adventists generally dismiss her statement as wrong? I’ve been an SDA most of my life, and I am discovering there is a lot more subjectivity in interpreting inspiration than I had realized before.” Professor Kent

    I have stated on a number of posts that I hold to the clear biblical idea of creation being about 6000 yrs. ago. This includes all the rocks and any layers of earth and nothing existed prior to the first day event.

    The first 5 verses of Gen. 1 are all a part of the first day of creation. This is how the bible presents it.

    “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void.” This statement can not be seperated from what follows with the intent of claiming this happened previous to the first day. I think the flowing continuity of all these verses require that we understand all this took place on day one.

    The evidence of rocks and other scientific observations are useless in determining the age of the earth. And those who try to prove the biblical account by science and nature are simply backing themselves into a corner with no way out.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  81. Dear Bill

    “Naturally I am not a biblical scholar. But I wonder when you leave out a key word of a phrase, or interpret it to mean just our atmosphere: (‘heaven’) if you are not engaging in as much creative, versus literal, biblical interpretation as Sean.”

    Respectfully
    your agnostic friend
    Ken

    Well, Ken, I was not trying to be ambiguous. Here is how it starts. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth……”

    Here is how it is interpreted in the 4th commandment…..”For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth…..”

    It seems more than obvious “the heavens” in Gen. 1:1-5, are same that fall within the “six days” explained in the 4th commandment.

    What do you think?

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  82. @Bill Sorensen:

    “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void.” This statement can not be seperated from what follows with the intent of claiming this happened previous to the first day. I think the flowing continuity of all these verses require that we understand all this took place on day one.

    Many scholars, to include many leaders and founding fathers of the SDA Church, disagree with you here. Your particular interpretation of the first verses of Genesis simply isn’t as obvious as you would like to think. In this line, consider the comments of Gerhard Pfandl, Ph.D. – an associate director of the Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists:

    M. C. Wilcox [editor of Signs of the Times] in 1898 wrote, “When did God create, or bring into existence, the heaven and the earth? ‘In the beginning.’ When this ‘beginning’ was, how long a period it covered, it is idle to conjecture; for it is not revealed. That it was a period which antedated the six days’ work is evident.”

    The same view is found among Adventists today. For example, Clyde Webster, former associate director of the Geo-Science Research Institute, in his book The Earth writes, “There is no reference in Scripture within creation week that addresses the creation of water or the mineral content of dry land. . . . The only reference made to their creation is ‘in the beginning.’ It seems possible then that the elementary inorganic matter is not bound by a limited age as is the living matter.”

    More recently, at the 2002 General Conference-sponsored Faith and Science Conference, Richard Davidson from Andrews University stated that “[T]he biblical text of Genesis 1 leaves room for either (a) young pre-fossil rock, created as part of the seven days of creation (with apparent old age), or (b) much older pre-fossil earth rock, with a long interval between the creation of the inanimate ‘raw materials’ on earth described in Genesis 1:1,2 and the seven days of Creation week described in Genesis 1:3ff (which I find the preferable interpretation).”

    Seventh-day Adventists do not believe that life existed on earth prior to Genesis 1. Only nonfossil bearing rock can be billions of years old.

    – Gerhard Pfandl, Ph.D. ( Link )

    So, you see, this is the reason why the SDA Church as an organization has not taken a definitive stand one way or the other on the origin of the basic material of the Earth in particular. The verses can reasonably be interpreted in different ways…

    The evidence of rocks and other scientific observations are useless in determining the age of the earth. And those who try to prove the biblical account by science and nature are simply backing themselves into a corner with no way out.

    Again, there is no such thing as absolute proof. Your appeals to the historical fulfillment of prophecy as absolute are mistaken since your views are dependent on the accuracy of historical science – a science that has a component of subjectivity and therefore a potential for error. The Bible is not self-authenticating like you imagine from the perspective of someone who has not grown up in the Church. Authentication must be based on the weight of evidence, not absolute demonstration since such demonstration does not exist…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  83. Well, Ken, I was not trying to be ambiguous. Here is how it starts. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth……”
    Here is how it is interpreted in the 4th commandment…..”For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth…..”
    It seems more than obvious “the heavens” in Gen. 1:1-5, are same that fall within the “six days” explained in the 4th commandment.

    In these two options we have this.

    Option A.

    “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1 does not include any life on earth, nor even the heavens of day 2, it refers to an unsaid “let there be heavens and earth” before day 1 that created just a without-form and void earth with water covering the surface of the deep. Presumably in your model very close to day 1.

    Option B.

    “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1 includes the heavens and the earth that we see today and all life on earth, and all the universe –

    “for in Six days God created the heavens and the earth” Ex 20:11 refers just to the heavens and earth mentioned in Genesis 1 during the six evening-mornings and not to the entire universe.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  84. @ Sean Pitman

    As the waters and massive tsunamis covered and reformed the planet during the Flood and subsequent aftermath, flat sedimentary layers would have been deposited which would not resemble the previous “soil” that once covered the Earth. Then, as the surface of the Earth broke up into continents and tectonic activity went into full swing, the newly formed sedimentary layers would themselves have become warped and folded – as well see today even on the tops of the highest mountain ranges in the world…

    I think you’re making it quite clear that the majority of tectonic upheavel could not have occurred during the period of the flood while it was raining, as the mountains quickly would have emerged ahead of the rising flood waters. What you’re suggesting, basically, is that the extraordinary uplift of mountains had to have happened after the rain stopped.

    My two questions for you:

    1. Where are your data?

    2. Is it ever okay to say, “we don’t have a lot of information and we don’t have a clear picture of what happened before, during, and after the flood?” Of course, we come across as more intelligent and informed when we claim to have answers. Some of us can’t resist the bait.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  85. @ Sean Pitman

    Mt. Everest is eroding very rapidly, at around 400 cm/kyr. That’s a big problem for mainstream age estimates of the uplift of Everest since all sedimentary layers should have been washed off of Mt. Everest long long ago – if it did indeed begin its orogeny some 50 million years ago…

    400 cm/kyr. According to this figure, we have lost approximately 1200 cm (= 120 m) of sedimentary rock from Mt. Everest since the flood. Three questions:

    1. Where did you get this datum? I’d be very impressed if you measured this yourself (or perhaps your esteemed colleagues?), and even more so from repeated trips to the summit over an extended period of time. After all, it would be helpful to learn whether or not this rate of loss has been relatively consistent over time. I don’t think satellite imagery has been around long enough to give us a clear idea of erosion rates, and I’m doubtful it could distinguish between igneous and sedimentary rock.

    2. How thick is the sedimentary layer there currently, and how thick was it to begin with? Inquiring minds want to know.

    3. In 1953, when Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay wedged themselves between the ice and the rock formation known today as the “Hillary Step,” was this sedimentary rock from which the smooth surface of a trilobite or a whale’s rib could have caused a slip? Just curious.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  86. Guess I was up too late at night, cuz my math was way off. 400 cm/kyr would be 4 m every thousand years, or 16 m since the flood four thousand years ago. 16 m. Sounds like very fast erosion, indeed! But who has been measuring this the past 1000 years to give us the 400 cm/year?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  87. The carrying capacity of moving water goes up by orders of magnitude with increase in velocity.

    A mere 61mm erosion rate in North America per year would significantly reduce the landscape in only 10 million years, to say nothing of 100 million or 500 million years.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  88. @Professor Kent:

    Guess I was up too late at night, cuz my math was way off. 400 cm/kyr would be 4 m every thousand years, or 16 m since the flood four thousand years ago. 16 m. Sounds like very fast erosion, indeed! But who has been measuring this the past 1000 years to give us the 400 cm/year?

    Just as I thought: no one. No answer even at Detectingdesign.com. Nice feel-good story.

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

    What kind of scientist are you? Do you honestly believe that no one has any idea of erosion rates?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  89. What kind of scientist are you? Do you honestly believe that no one has any idea of erosion rates?

    I’m the kind of scientist that wants to see the source. I didn’t question erosion rates in general, and you know it. I questioned your source for one specific claim on one specific mountain (but I know you want to color me purple). What kind of scientist are you? Most scientists provide the source for their claims. At detectingdesign.com, you wrote:

    Just look at the sedimentary layers on Mt. Everest. This mountain is thought to be over 50 million years old. Yet, sedimentary layers still cover its highest peaks? Erosion, over the course of 60 million years, translates into at least 60,000 vertical meters of lost sediment and still there are significant amounts of the geologic column on Mt. Everest? Originally, after the warping and uplifting in this region supposedly started some 50 Ma, the thickness of the sediment above the currently exposed Ordovician layer was no more than 6,000 meters.95 Does this makes any sense?

    Beyond this, some scientists, such as Harutaka Sakai suggest that Mt. Everest used to be much taller and thicker than it is today – about 15,000 meters tall! But, about 20 million years ago Sakai argues that about half of it slid off, exposing the Ordovician layer that currently tops Mt. Everest at about 8,848 meters in elevation. 94 If Everest currently has an erosion rate of about 200 cm/kyr, imagine what the erosion rate would be like for a mountain nearly twice as tall?! At just 200 cm/kyr, this works out to be 40,000 meters of erosion in just 20 million years. An erosion rate of 200 cm/kyr is about average for the Himalayan region given the newer estimates based on 10 Be and 26Al measurements, which suggest an average erosion rate of the Himalayas of 130 cm/kyr for the lower altitudes and up to 410 cm/kyr for the steepest areas with an average in the high Himalayas of about 270 cm/kyr. 96,97

    So where does one find references 94, 95, 96, and 97? Who is Harutaka Sakai, what is his evidence, and why should I believe him? Did you sit in his Sabbath School class in 1988, or did he publish in the prestigious journal SCIENCE? I couldn’t find these refs before, which prompted my frustration, but this time I noticed that your essay ends with “In fact, many geologists now think that the small upper layer mant…” Perhaps you stopped in mid-thought (nay?), or inadvertently left off the end of your article (eh?). So hey, what do you now say?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  90. Re Bill’s Quote

    “Science and nature can affirm some biblical declarations, but they hold no authority over the word of God, nor should we consider anything contrary to the word simply because science and nature seem not to be consistent with the biblical declarations.”

    Dear All

    I’ve been waiting for someone to say this. Although I respect Bill’s biblical erudition and his deep faith, this type of statement runs so counter intuitive to empirical reality it is incredulous. Bill gets the problem though, he understands how science makes the biblical account of creation and the Noachian flood appear mythical.

    Sean, I’m afraid Prof Kent is making some good points when it comes to the flood and what happened. You seem to be filling in the gaps with speculation to explain many things. Where is the scientific proof that the tectonic plates moved very quickly at the same time of a world wide flood? When you make these statements as if they are facts you lose empirical credibility in my mind. It makes your other conclusions suspect.

    Empirical science is a cold, rational business. It is devoid of faith or non faith and seeks objective answers. That is precisely why I trust it. Mixing faith, or non faith, with science is like mixing oil and water- they don’t. Sean will valiantly try to continue to configure science into his pre conceived beliefs of creation and the Noachian flood. If he is right eventually he will sway mainstream science. But when he speculates – even within the SDA ranks – the rational verdict will be harsh.

    By the way I watched a great program on PBS called the God in America. I think you would all enjoy it. It does not seek to attack any faith but rather explain its rise in America.

    Evangelistic charismatics are interesting powerful agents of social change that sway the masses. It is why religions schisms occur, because power can only be split so many times within an organization before it splinters. There is a strong human component, not just doctrinal, to this phenomenon. i.e Note the extremely boisterous debate between Sean and Prof.Kent- much more than doctrinal dispute going on there! Your church, as evidenced by the great dialogue on this site, is going through this now. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

    I thank you for reading my agnostic comments and hope they are of benefit.

    Be well
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  91. Bob Ryan wrote

    A mere 61mm erosion rate in North America per year would significantly reduce the landscape in only 10 million years, to say nothing of 100 million or 500 million years.

    Funny that we had no tall mountains before the flood, then they appeared during the flood, and then the only force acting on them ever since has been erosion. If I understand this correctly, Bob Ryan, Sean Pitman, and all true Adventists believe that mountain-building, uplift processes, and sediment deposition could only have happened during the flood.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  92. Re: “…Sean will valiantly try to continue to configure science into his preconceived beliefs…”

    My dear Ken, You’re always such a creditably and exemplarily, refreshingly gentlemanly agnostic, sir. But with all deference and diffidence may I respectfully submit that, oh my, it just sort of seems, I’m afraid, that recently, well, you’ve become rather fixated on reconfiguring Sean’s science for him. Misunderstanding, surely.

    Yours, Wes

      (Quote)

    View Comment

Leave a Reply to Bob Roe Cancel reply