Adventist Review examines LSU conflict

But this gives one pause for reflection. If the trees being killed are all pre-flood trees – then we should see a large group that are over 1600 years old at the time that they are uprooted. The fact that the 700 year number shows up layer after layer – implies that the catestrophic event happened after the world wide flood killed the pre-flood trees.
That means these are very likely post-flood 700 year old trees being wiped out by a sequence of catestrophic events. So it is likely a localized (North America only) event that happens 700 years after the flood.
in Christ,
Bob

This is correct. Speciment Ridge is made up of Tertiary sediments and is therefore a post-Flood formation.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Adventist Review examines LSU conflict

Nic Samojluk says:
April 3, 2010

Sean,

I greatly appreciate the time you have taken to answer point by point the objections presented by David Jacobson. Your answers make a lot of sense. They do build my trust in the historicity of Noah’s Flood story as recorded in the Bible.

As I read the comments which are posted above, I have been wondering. How come none of the LSU science and theology teachers step up to defend what the university has been doing on this issue.

How should we interpret this deafening silence on their part? I wish someone would organize a public debate over this issue with these science teachers having an opportunity to present a defense of what they are doing. It would be akin to what Elijah did with those who were opposed to the prophet’s strong held beliefs.

Hi Nic,

Very few, even among young-life creationists, want to get involved in a public debate on this issue because it would threaten those theistic evolutionists at LSU and at other schools and cause an even bigger ruckus within the SDA Church. This is why not too many want to be publicly associated with efforts like EducateTruth.com. They don’t want to be that politically incorrect in their associations…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Adventist Review examines LSU conflict

So, let anyone who is thinking of calling for a purge of the SDA educational system, first study the evidence carefully, and even try to take a look first hand. (Specimen Ridge is on public land.) I think you will come to appreciate that there can be good people, even devout people, who conclude that to be honest, they have to accept that the age of the earth must be greater than 6000 years.

— David Jacobson

Hi David,

I think your information on Specimen Ridge is just a bit outdated. What might seem obvious at first approximation, even after what seems to be careful investigation, often turns out later to be mistaken.

There are many problems with the in situ hypothesis, or the notion that the trees in the layers at Specimen Ridge actually grew there over generations of forests one on top of the other.

1. Many of the layers of “soil” are not at the base of the trees, but are often half-way up the trees.

2. The “soil” shows no sign of decay from top to bottom as would be expected in a normal forest setting. Also, the soil is water sorted, course to fine.

3. Tree-ring analysis of trees in different layers match – indicating that they grew at or near the same time.

4. Chemical analysis of the volcanic sedimentary material in the different levels indicates that this material was produced, in all of the levels, with in a 3-month period of time.

5. No remains of animal bones, skins, eggs, trackways, burrows, or other trace fossils have been identified in any of the layers.

6. The tops of the trees are cleanly cut off by the next layer, showing no evidence of decay or bioturbation and degeneration as would be expected if a new forest actually required extensive periods of time to produce the next higher layer.

7. The pine needs and leaves do not consistently match the trees which are associated with them. In other words, mats of leaves will be found associated with pine trees and mats of pine needs are found in association with deciduous trees.

8. While intact roots do remain, these largely consist of smaller roots. The larger roots, along with the branches and bark of these trees, have been broken off.

These features and others discussed on my website, are far more consistent with a sudden catastrophic formation of these layers and transport of the vertical trees within them…

For further information on this topic see:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html#Stacked_Forrests

I’ll give you one thing though… At least you’re not claiming to be something you’re not. You’re not taking money from an organization while directly undermining what that organization is paying you to do at the same time. This is admirable. LSU should follow your example and have those teachers who believe like you do to go and teach elsewhere for those of like mind who are more than willing to pay them for their views…

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
If the human immune system were the “perfect mechanism” that God originally designed it to be, you’d be right. However, after ~6000 years of sin and decay, the human immune system is no longer what God originally designed it to be – as evidenced by the great many, even among healthy vegan SDAs, who died during the pandemic. Water and light therapies are great and are helpful as layers of protection, but for many, especially those over the age of 65, whey were not enough. The mRNA vaccines were very effective in providing an additional much needed layer of protection during the pandemic. Now, I’ve very glad that you did not get sick enough to require hospitalization and that you avoided long-term injuries and death during the pandemic, but many many others were not so fortunate.

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
Yeah, I think you’re right…

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership

Hi Sean,

Hope all is well.

I see you wrote a recent article defending the covid vaccine. You seem to be the main protagonist in the church championing the cause of the covid vaccines.

I am on the opposite spectrum

I personally did not touch any of those vaccines, and won’t ever either. I just see to many red flags and it’s alarming to me. Could you possibly explain to me what Revelation 18:23 speaks about please? I would love to hear your take on that verse.

Justin S

Hi Justin,

Thank you for your note. I do appreciate your concerns and your convictions. It can be very confusing to sort out so many different voices saying so many different things regarding what to think and what do to keep oneself as healthy as possible.

Regarding Revelation 18:23, in particular, the term “pharmakeia” is best translated as “sorcery” here. There is no intended advice at all against modern medicine in this passage. After all, would it be wise to suggest that medications like antibiotics to treat bacterial infections or insulin to treat diabetes are evil “sorceries”? Again, such arguments only make the Christians who say such things look sensational and irrational – which puts the Gospel Message itself into a bad light for those who are considering following Christ.

COVID-19 and Vaccines – Update

Consider also that Ellen White herself promoted various medications and medical therapies of her day that she considered to be helpful in various situations? – to include the use of what was generally regarded as a “poison”, quinine, to prevent malarial infections for missionaries who worked in malaria-infested regions of the world? She wrote, “If quinine will save a life, use quinine.” (http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/the-arguments-of-adventists-opposed-to-vaccines/#Ellen-White-and-the-Smallpox-Vaccine) She also supported the vaccination of her son William, both as a child and as an adult (despite William having had an adverse reaction to vaccination as a child) (http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/the-arguments-of-adventists-opposed-to-vaccines/#Ellen-White-and-the-Smallpox-Vaccine). She supported blood transfusion when necessary, despite their risks (https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=2SM&lang=en&collection=2&section=all&pagenumber=303). And, she even supported using radiation therapy when appropriate, despite its risks (https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=2SM&lang=en&collection=2&section=all&pagenumber=303). Beyond this, she recognized the advantages of anesthesia during surgery and the use of medicines to relieve the intense pain and suffering of the injured or sick (https://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=2SM&lang=en&collection=2&section=all&pagenumber=286&QUERY=before+major+surgery&resultId=1&isLastResult=1).

I hope this helps you at least understand why I take the position that I take. I mean, I’m a pathologist with subspecialties in anatomic, clinical, and hematopathology and have studied COVID-19 and the mRNA vaccines in great detail. Beyond this, I’ve seen the results myself, with my own eyes – and so has my brother-in-law, pulmonologist Dr. Roger Seheult who runs a large ICU in S. Cal. We’ve seen ICUs overflowing, beyond max capacity, with the very sick and the dying during the height of the pandemic – the vast majority of whom were unvaccinated. Roger’s face and hands are the last things that many saw and felt on this Earth. It was very personal for us. We were actually direct eyewitnesses. And, we’re not alone. This very same situation was happening all around the world during the pandemic. Truly, the mRNA vaccines saved millions of lives and prevented many many more hospitalizations and long-term injuries.

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
Regarding Mandates:

“While the available data in 2021 and early 2022 suggested that being vaccinated conferred tremendous personal benefit to the recipient, such that it was unclear if there could be added gain for demanding others be vaccinated too for added protection. By mid-2022, vaccines did offer modest reduction in transmission, but personal health benefits against severe disease were largely retained. Yet, by the fall of 2022, with the emergence of the Omicron variant, a new verdict had emerged. Vaccines were unable to halt transmission in the presence of escape variants; thus, here too, mandates failed to meet the ethical pre-requisite of benefit to others, as a vaccinated person could still spread the virus. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed comparable rates of viral shedding comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated people with COVID-19 (Boucau et al. 2022).” (Vinay Prasad, 2024) 

I was never personally a fan of the vaccine mandates put out by the US government (or other governments around the world) since they seemed to me to be largely counterproductive and provide little benefit regarding limiting the spread of the virus after the Omicron variant came out. As Dr. Prasad points out here (Link), the mRNA vaccines were so good as far as personal protection was concerned, that limiting the spread of COVID-19, once the vaccines became available, was kind of a moot point.

That being said, once the government mandates were in place, I also didn’t see it as appropriate to claim religious liberty as a reason for refusing to get vaccinated – since there is nothing in the Bible that would prevent one from obeying a government mandate along these lines (Link). People often cite the case of Daniel and his three friends refusing the king’s meat as a Biblical basis for refusing to comply with vaccine mandates. The problem here is that the vaccines themselves were not unhealthy or unreasonable during a pandemic and their use was not recognized as a form of idol worship. Also, Daniel’s proposed 10-day test would not have had the same results with respect to the mRNA vaccines, but would have shown benefits for the significant majority of people.

As Ellen White put it:

“In cases where we are brought before the courts, we are to give up our rights, unless it brings us in collision with God. It is not our rights we are pleading for, but God’s right to our service.” (Ellen White, Manuscript Releases 5:69 – 1895)

Conrad Vine Continues to Attack Church Leadership
Wow! I had no idea.

However, this does seem to be inconsistent with the following on Canadian Law regarding Religious Liberty (from the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms):

Sincerity of belief is a question of fact. To establish sincerity, an individual must show that they sincerely believe that a certain belief or practice is required by their religion. The religious belief must be asserted in good faith and must not be fictitious, capricious or an artifice. In assessing the sincerity of the belief, a court will take into account, inter alia, the credibility of the testimony of the person asserting the particular belief and the consistency of the belief with that person’s other current religious practices (Multani, supra at paragraph 35; Amselem, supra at paragraphs 52-53). It is the sincerity of the belief at the time of the interference, not its strength or absolute consistency over time, that is relevant at this stage of the analysis (R. v. N.S., [2012] 3 S.C.R. 726 at paragraph 13).

The Court does not want to engage in theological debates when examining the practice or belief in question. The practice or belief in question need not be required by official religious dogma nor need it be in conformity with the position of religious officials. Freedom of religion extends beyond obligatory doctrine to voluntary expressions of faith and is not restricted to major and recognizable religions (Amselem, supra at paragraphs 46-50, 53, and 56). A protected religious practice need not be part of an established belief system or even a belief shared by others. An individual need only demonstrate a sincere belief that the practice is of religious significance to the individual (Little v. R., 2009 NBCA 53, leave to appeal dismissed, [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 417 at paragraph 7). It is not appropriate to adduce expert evidence showing sincerity or lack thereof (Amselem, supra at paragraph 54).

https://justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2a.html

So, given the above, are there any examples were someone actually was able to present so-called “objective” evidence in the form of a “tenet of religious faith”, which actually achieved success? where such an individual would not have been fired? I mean, let’s just say, for argument sake, that the Catholic Church had a fundamental tenet of faith which opposed vaccinations. Would this really have made a difference in Alberta for members of the Catholic Church? Would these people have been allowed to keep their jobs while all other vaccine objectors lost theirs? – despite the statements above suggesting that personal religious belief and liberties are not dependent upon that of an established belief system?

It’s not that I’m opposed to mandated civil laws in an effort to maintain public safety/health. For example, various kinds of jobs require one to be follow various personal health regulations – like working in the hospital or performing surgeries while masking and wearing sterile gloves and taking various vaccinations. There are also quarantine laws that are quite reasonable in various situations/settings. That being said, great efforts should be made to support personal religious/moral convictions as long as such support does not significantly interfere with the liberty and/or safety of others.

Any suggestions on any potential improvement of the wording of the SDA position on vaccines or other modern medical therapies and/or religious liberty statements?