Comment on An apology to PUC by Sean Pitman.
Wow! This is so astounding. I mean no disrespect Sean, but this response from you is so much like the “Just So Story†approach, used by evolutionists, you so much denigrate. Now not only are all these organisms so obviously capable of “mega†dispersal, but the entire recent ice age is somehow able to fit into the story between the flood and now?
Absolutely. There is very good evidence that the Arctic was much much warmer in recent history than it is today and that places that are now dry barren deserts (like the Sahara in particular) were recently lush and green. Read up a bit on the Hipsothermal period and explain how millions of large warm weather animals, to include bison, wolves, mammoths, etc. lived happily within or very near the arctic circle? And how they were suddenly killed off by a very rapid change in the climate at the beginning of the first ice age following the Flood?
http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.html#The%20Warm%20Age
These are not my areas of expertise, so let me add a few more quotes from Brand.
“It doesn’t appear that ordinary migration over the earth from the landing place of the ark in the Middle East can explain all the large-scale biogeography of mammals. Some other still unknown factors must have been involved, possibly including some form of directed dispersal.†Beginnings, p. 133
I disagree. I see no compelling reason to believe that migrations couldn’t have happened very rapidly in the warm congenial environment right after the Flood.
“A short-age geological model predicts that the evidence will ultimately point to a more rapid process of glaciation, and some modern observations suggest that ice packs can grow or melt quite rapidly under the right conditions. But we don’t know how to explain other lines of evidence, especially studies of samples from polar ice and deep-sea sediments containing thousands of fine laminae that scientists interpret as annual layers.†Beginnings, p. 99-100
And the mammal migrations should be pretty easy to explain compared with say amphibians, whose migratory abilities limit them just a wee bit.
Amphibians could have survived outside of the Ark in the egg or larval stage. Even so, I don’t see a significant restriction on amphibian migration either…
And Brand’s reference to “directed dispersal†is fine, but that would hardly constitute scientific evidence.
True, but I don’t see any real need to appeal to “direct dispersal”.
And ice cores are a real tough one. It’s pretty easy to make a good sounding argument for multiple layers of sediment on continents from a worldwide flood, but yet another thing to make the same argument for ice laminae. I don’t care how you look at it, laminae in ice do look a whole lot more like annual precipitation layers than some process that might have only taken a few thousand years.
That’s where you’re mistaken. Most of the ice-core layers cannot be counted visually, but are dependent upon chemical analysis to count the layers. Such analysis is fraught with significant problems. I’m sorry, but ice-core dating, as with tree ring and the dating of ocean sedimentary layers, is anything but an exact science (more like voodoo). For more details on ice-core dating, see a fairly extensive essay I’ve put together on the topic:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/ancientice.html
And if you simply want to brush these two difficulties aside and say they represent just “small†challenges to flood geology, then you are doing just what you fault conventional geologists with doing. They often brush aside what evidence we have here and there that questions their theories, and it is little enough that they don’t feel all that threatened.
It doesn’t seem to me like you’ve done enough of your own investigation on these topics. You seem to think certain mainstream conclusions are more scientific than they really are…
I’m sorry, but the weight of the evidence is in the eyes of the beholder.
That’s always true – even for mainstream scientists. Depending upon one’s background and experience, the very same set of data can be and often is interpreted quite differently – even among top-level scientists.
I just like to say that my faith does not depend on the weight of the scientific evidence and it’s not a blind faith either. My strongest evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible and of the truth of the Bible is my personal relationship with that God through His Son, Jesus Christ. Because of that I don’t require that science provide more evidence for proof for Biblical events than against them. In fact, I find this kind of faith relevant enough that even were I to discover incontrovertible proof that the flood was a local event, it would not weaken my faith in the Bible. Rather, it would just weaken my faith in human skill at interpreting that word, and area where I already am a bit of an agnostic.
You sound very much like my LDS friends who know that their Book of Mormon is true because of their relationship with God. The Holy Spirit impresses upon their minds what is and isn’t true. They therefore have no need for any scientific or empirical evidence to determine the truth that the Book of Mormon is superior to all other sources of claimed Divine revelation, including the Bible.
Now, your personal relationship with God is all fine and good for you. However, what do you have to offer those who do not yet have such a relationship? or who think they have a relationship, but would benefit from understanding God’s plan and the hope of the Gospel message as described in the pages of the Bible? Upon what would you place the Bible to give it credibility in the eyes of someone other than yourself who needs something more than your personal assurance that the Bible is “true”?
So for now I will accept the flood story on faith and remain open to whatever God may have to show me in the future, including better scientific support for the flood, if such is to be found.
It doesn’t really matter does it? After all, you yourself noted that it is impossible for you to be wrong in your faith. Your faith is beyond empirical evidence. So, really, what’s the point in even discussing such evidence if the evidence itself really doesn’t matter more than a hill of beans?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
An apology to PUC
@OTNT_Believer:
Must you keep harping on the one statement on Darwin’s finches that few other than yourself and maybe some other creationists disagree with?
I have yet to see you present one phenotypic or genetic difference between any of Darwin’s Finches and other members of the Dome-nest Clade which could not be rapidly realized in a few thousand years. Certainly a 0.3% difference in cytochrome b isn’t a significant problem. I’m not sure what else makes you think that Darwin’s Finches are no uniquely evolved that they could not be explained as originating from Noah’s Ark a few thousand years ago?
As far as your arguments for the date of the first Egyptian dynasty being preceded by over a thousand years of cultural development, it simply doesn’t take very long for groups of humans to develop complex cultures and governments. Also, there are those who argue that the date for the first dynasty is more likely to be less than 4,500 years ago. Either way, the dating of Egyptian dynasties is hardly a very solid basis for challenging the historical SDA position on origins…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
The “striking phenotypic differences, and even unique genetic differences†among different populations of humans and dogs are the results of random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection or (in the case of dogs) artificial selection–not “some span of reproductive isolation.â€
It doesn’t matter how the reproductive isolation is achieved, be it “artificial” or “natural”. The resulting phenotypic differences are much more obvious between certain breeds of dogs or even various human ethnic groups than between certain “cryptic” species.
The reason why cryptic species are given taxonomic status while various breeds of dogs and human ethnic groups are not seems arbitrary to me. There really is no clear dividing line for taxonomic status on the one hand, but not on the other…
Humans don’t depend on the color or texture of eyes, hair and skin to avoid mating with chimps or apes, or even different groups of humans.
Are you kidding me? Humans are indeed biased in the choice of a mate toward those of similar phenotypic appearance. While this is not a universal rule (as is also the case with many kinds of cryptic species who also experience the occasional hybrids), it is certainly a bias.
When a female poodle is in heat, it doesn’t matter what “breed†a male dog belongs to, it is equally stimulated and could care less about the length, color or texture of eyes, hair, ears, snout, legs, tail, etc. The reproductive isolating method between dogs (genus Canis) and foxes (genus Vulpes) is likely based on olfaction rather than external morphology.
Have you considered the efforts of a Great Dane to mate with a chihuahua? Come on now, there are clear examples of not only artificial but natural reproductive isolate between various breeds of dogs and even between various human ethnic groups. Aborigines have arguably experienced some time of natural isolation, as have numerous other ethnic groups of modern and ancient humans. Unique phenotypic and even genotypic features were realized that are arguably more significant than the differences between the songs or nest structure of cryptic species of birds or the other very minor variations between cryptic species of frogs or giraffes, etc…
Again, don’t pretend like this is entirely objective science. It isn’t. There is a a fair amount of subjectivity in play here…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
An apology to PUC
@OTNT_Believer:
And the fact that taxonomists use a b it of subjectivity is a new revelation? Come on Sean, you are nitpicking. Of course there is some subjectivity.
Hey, I’m not the one who came out and said that the differences between Darwin Finches and all other birds were so dramatic and clear cut and objectively understood that they could not be reasonably explained in just a few thousand years… or that the Egyptian dynasties are definitively known to go back over 6,000 years (when they probably go back no more than 4,500 years)…
A “bit” of subjectivity involved here? – no?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
