Very good coverage of this intriguing time. Ariel. …

Comment on After the Flood by Ariel Roth.

Very good coverage of this intriguing time. Ariel.

Recent Comments by Ariel Roth

Complex Organisms are Degenerating – Rapidly
Great review. The redundancy factor helps explain why humanity has endured as long as the Bible indicates!

Common Arguments Against a 7-Day Creation Week
What an excellent reply to Jack Hoen’s comments. Thank you for defending the reliability of God’s Word in such a thorough and understanding approach.

When I first read the argument about Mount St Helens ash, it reminded me of the intriguing studies of several geologists about the rate of production by volcanoes. See my book ORIGINS: LINKING SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURES, pp 267-268. On the basis of current volcanic activity, it can be estimated that over geologic time there should be 74 times as much volcanic material out there compared to what is found.

There are many geologic factors such as: rates of erosion, paraconfrmities, uneroded “ancient” flat surfaces, the paucity of paleotopography in ancient sedimentary deposits, rates of mountain uplift, and residual carbon-14, that all support the the biblical creation model better than the long geologic ages model. While interpretations of the past history of the world cannot be as objective as we would desire, we are not without sufficient scientific evidence to believe God’s Word.

Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?
@Carl: I agree with you that the issue is very complex, and because human knowledge is so limited, I am not optimstic about so called “absolute proof.” I am impressed with the amount of data that just a few SDA scientists have been able to dig up that favors more the Biblical creation model than the secular evolutionary model. There is more about this in my books. I wish you well. Ariel.

Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?
@Carl: Anyone who has read my writings will be surprised at any implications that I may be inferring that Adventist geology may not “survive the onslaught of science.” While the issue is complex, as I recall the quotation appeared many years ago in Adventist Today, and when I read it I marveled as to how the writer could have so cleverly misconstrued my comments. There is lots of scientific data that is very hard to explain unless you accept the biblical account of beginnings. My concern was to urge Adventist scientists to defend their Church, the Bible and God, and their help was very much needed, because the very powerful scientific community has a strong secular bias that arbitrarily excludes the Bible and God in its explanatory menu. Science has enclosed itself in a box that limits its outlook, and can no longer claim unbiased truth in the area of origins. The advantage of Adventism is that we are more open and willing to look at the Bible and God.

There is lots of scientific data that seems to imply the necessity for God. See my latest book SCIENCE DISCOVERS GOD. The problem we as Advents are facing is that we are few in number, facing hundreds of thousands of scientists who hardly ever dare to mention God in their publications. We need the help of every Adventist scientist to strengthen faith in their Church, the Bible and God.