Comment on PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood? by Eddie.
Mary Anne L., if you had been following this website for a very long you would realize that it is actually Sean, not Professor Kent, who reapeatedly insinuates that our faith does us no more good than beleiving in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. It is Professor Kent, not Sean, who has repeatedly emphasized and promoted the role of faith. Professor Kent is SDA and believes in the Bible not because of the preponderance of scientific evidence but because of faith. Professor Kent’s faith is not blind. He recognizes that there is scientific and historical evidence supporting what the Bible teaches, but not EVERYTHING that is mentioned in the Bible. There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence whatsoever that the sun ever stood still, that a man can survive for 3 days in the belly of a fish, that Jesus was conceived within a virgin, or that a person could be resurrected from the death. And there is no SCIENTIFIC evidence that the flood covered every speck of land. If you believe in those things, Professor Kent is trying to tell us that the basis of your belief is faith, not evidence.
Table of Contents
Eddie Also Commented
PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?
People pick and choose what they want to believe–and then search for evidence to support their beliefs. Sean is no exception.
PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?
@Bob Ryan:
Clearly the evolutionists are duping themselves more often than not when trying to dupe the public.
The amazing thing is that a number of these deceptions are carried on for more than 4 or 5 decades at a time!!
But critical thinking demands that we look at what “never happened in nature†and find out how pure fiction was foisted onto the general public for decade after decade.
Those human footprints along the Paluxy River are another classic example.
PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?
The Bible was never intended to be a scientific textbook in which texts are scrutinized and assessed for scientific accuracy. God’s purpose was to reveal the Rock of Ages, not the ages of rocks. The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
Recent Comments by Eddie
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
SDA Bio Prof: The Bible makes multiple falsifiable prophecies about Nebuchadnezzar conquering Egypt, yet history never records it happening. Does this mean the Bible is effectively falsified?
Sean Pitman: Egyptians had a strong tendency not to record their losses… only their victories.
Sean, does that mean YOU personally believe Babylon conquered Egypt, just as predicted by two prophets? In the absence of any empirical evidence? If the Egyptians didn’t record their losses, why wouldn’t the Babylonians have recorded such a stunning victory?
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
Holly Pham: One of the things that has always concerned me is that, according to what I’ve read, birds and reptiles have completely different forms of respiratory systems (flow-through vs. bellows) How is this explained by evolutionists?
Evidence from the vertebrae of non-avian theropod dinosaurs suggests that they, too, possessed unidirectional flow-through ventilation of the lungs. So, according to evolutionary theory, it evolved first in “primitive” non-avian theropods rather than in birds, and comprises one of many shared derived characters supposedly linking birds with more “advanced” theropods. However, I don’t think there is any evidence or even a hypothesis for a step-by-step process of HOW it evolved. Here is a reference:
http://www.ohio.edu/people/ridgely/OconnorClaessensairsacs.pdf
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Bob Helm: Bob, if you send me an e-mail at sdabioprof2@gmail.com I will send you a pdf file of a 1991 article published by Chatterjee in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 332:277-342, titled “Cranial anatomy and relationships of a new Triassic bird from Texas.”
Curiously his description is based only on cranial anatomy. I don’t think he ever published an analysis of its postcranial anatomy.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
David Read: Eddie, ecological zonation will yield the same basic order that you’re pointing to: invertebrates appear before vertebrates; fish appear before amphibians; amphibians appear before reptiles; reptiles appear before mammals; reptiles appear before birds, etc.
It could, and it’s the best creationist explanation, but it doesn’t explain why flowering plants were absent from lowland forests. Or why so many land plants appeared before mangroves, which today occur strictly in the intertidal zone. Or why no pre-flood humans have been found. Or, if Sean is correct that the flood ended at the K-T boundary, why many modern groups of birds and mammals (including marine mammals) which first appear during the Tertiary were not buried by the flood.
David Read: The fact that something appears before something else in the fossil record is not proof than anything evolved into anything else.
True.
David Read: You seem to be complaining that God has not made the fossil evidence compulsory, i.e., so clear that no reasonable person can possibly doubt it. And if God hasn’t made the evidence skeptic-proof, then the skeptic is God’s fault, God is responsible for the skeptic.
I’m not complaining. I’m merely pointing out that the evidence can be interpreted in different ways by honest people. And I’m relieved to see that even you don’t think the evidence is crystal clear.
David Read: Only people of faith can be saved, that is, only people who are willing to trust God and put away doubts can be saved.
I agree.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
David Read: Those tracks are so obviously bird tracks that the fact that some scientists want to assign them to “birdlike theropods” is itself a very useful teaching tool as to how the model creates the data.
David Read: That the model actually creates the data is one of the hardest concepts to get across, not only to lay people but even to the scientists themselves.
How does the model affect the data? Data don’t change and they shouldn’t change. It’s the interpretation, not the data, that is affected by the model.
