Comment on GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation by Roger Seheult.
Brad, may I submit that you are no more an expert here than anyone else. You have been purposely guarded about your identity which tells me volumes. If you do not have the courage to stand up for your beliefs in a public forum then your beliefs are not worth believing and your posts will be viewed as such. I have no problem discussing this type of subject with other people at my work, or in my free time – face to face. no moniker – why can’t you.
What is the criteria for expertise?
Your answer “Either having a postgraduate degree in the particular field in question or having a publishing record in peer reviewed journals in that field.”
I have a post doc degree in medicine with a subspeciality in internal medicine and a sub-subspeciality in pulmonary diseases totaling 7 years after my doctorate. I published a article in an European peer reviewed journal on Hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and it’s response to endothelin recpetor antagonists at high altitude from a randomized controlled study that we performed. Based on your criteria I would be an expert in this field.
While the process of publishing a scientific paper is eye-opening and lets you see the bias that exists especially when peer review journals distribute submissions to the same experts in the field that you are competing with, I would say that I know more about the City of Nantes, France where my ancestors were from and the many cathedrales and churches that they built in the 1700s and 1800s than I do about the different meachanisms of hypoxia at altitude or inert gas technique employed to determine such stuff (others know far more) even though I have no degree in history nor degree in architecture.
Bottom line – get new criteria
Roger Seheult Also Commented
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
“Thanks for telling me you meant literal years. I’m not sure who the joke’s on, but this did make me laugh. If you like, you can add to my mathematical example that I have been working on topology for years, it is my hobby, I’ve talked about and read about it and am writing a book about it. Also, I tell you that I know more about topology than you know about Nantes. Should you believe I have disproved the Poincaré conjecture?”
No, [edit] but I’d probably pretend and at least consider that you knew what you were talking about.
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Roger, please stop deranging the peer review process. How dare you. (Quote)
You’re kidding right! I’m find it difficult to imagine someone who has published as much as you have to make a statement like that without jest.
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Great, again, show me where Sean Pitman claimed to be an expert. He claims to have at least “some understanding of protein structure.” That is very different from an expert.
Recent Comments by Roger Seheult
Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’?
There are too many of them. Where do I start. https://www.swau.edu/dinosaur-research-draws-world-wide-acclaim-inspires-new-tv-series
Mary Schweitzer’s T-rex.
That’s just off the top….
wait another one –
Walter Veith….
wait more….
Faith without Evidence: Are we really a bunch of ‘Flat Earthers’?
Ad hominum attack means that no other better arguments were available at the time of writing. I win.
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Ervin Taylor:
I literally have not logged on to this website in years. It looks like the same arguments are going back and forth which means that if you haven’t been able to solve them by now, you aren’t going to convence each other of your points. What is really amazing to me and anyone intersted in the topic, however, is the tone of the comments, which usually reveal the maturity of the writer especially if they include absolutes:
Examples:
“vast majority of scientifically-informed Adventists will thank Dr.Kent ”
“this misnamed web site”
“Dr. Kent has done a masterful job”
These are usually tip-offs to a lot. Also, it makes me wonder that if Sean Pitman is so ill-informed, and he operates on such a mis-leading web site, why does the good Dr. Taylor waste his time coming to this website, reading the material and then commenting on it? In fact I can bet that Dr. Taylor has spent more time on this web site then I have in the last year – and that speaks volumes about what Dr. Taylor really thinks of this website – perhaps the good Dr. Kent as well.
The Metamorphosis of La Sierra University: an eye-witness account
Again, the question is begged: Why would they work so hard to change the university rather than just leave and go where universities already believe the way you do? Dare I say that there lies a larger conspiracy that transcends LSU and that may be going on at your local SDA instituation? Again, why the push over a generation to change a whole university and to denude it of its fundamentals?
Educate Truth’s purpose and goals
Most of the blogs that are critical of this site aren’t interested in what this site is really out to do. They simply want to demonize it ergo Alinsky’s rule of indetify, demonize, and marginalize. Hence their cherry picking from the comments for their own purposes.
Thanks for the recap though.
