One other point: the estimate of 2-3 million years for …

Comment on Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment? by Bravus.

One other point: the estimate of 2-3 million years for the major uplift of the Tibetan plateau that was reported by Wang et al seems pretty solid, but the 40-50 million year period given in the online article Sean cited does not appear anywhere in Wang’s paper, and having a bit of a look around I can’t find much evidence of it in mainstream geological thinking, certainly as some sort of consensus age value to which most people agreed.

Doing science well does mean that results and interpretations will change as new data become available – it’s a feature, not a bug. But, like the claims in the KBS tuff discussion, on closer examination the dramatic changes turn out not to be so dramatic after all… and still are no help at all in getting to a sub-10,000 year old world. Even Sean’s own list above (which contains some extremely dodgy science like the human detrimental mutation stuff) contains 8 evidences for a world older than that and only 3 for one younger.

Carl is correct in making the point that picking nits on ‘mainstream’ dating does not establish a credible alternative framework.

Bravus Also Commented

Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?
Entropy is conserved (a) for the entire universe and (b) for a closed system. It is *not* conserved for an open system – and a living thing is a very open system indeed.


Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?
All that is accurate: there is energy loss at every step. Where you’re getting stuck is simply on the notion that energy is not in short supply – the sun provides plenty for the desirable work *and* the losses. As Asimov’s quote said, once I quoted the rest of it – the decrease in entropy of living things was far, far smaller than the increase in entropy of the sun… so there is no problem of *net* entropy decrease.


Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment?
So, we’re all clear now, right? Bob really doesn’t understand entropy.


Recent Comments by Bravus

Ted Wilson: “We will not flinch. We will not be deterred.”
Interesting that he says he is very proud of the GRI when they clearly said during the discussion that there is ‘no model’ of scientifically credible recent creationism that can be taught in our universities.


“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
My guess on the two-thirds thing is that what is actually being said is ‘more than two-thirds’. 99% is more than two-thirds… that specific number was chosen, not as the actual vote-count, but as a break-point: some motions need a simple majority, some need a two-thirds majority… and the vote well and truly delivered that, and more.

Just my interpretation.


GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Excellent, excellent post above. J. Knight.


“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
(that should be ‘place in the church’)


“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
Bobbie Vedvick, the quote you asked about was a parody, penned by me.

Faith (and many others in this thread), the comments about those who will be driven out of SDAism by this push tend to assume that they are in disagreement with what has always been SDA belief. This is not the case: the very strong literalist recent creationist position is a relatively recent view. Note that what has happened at this GC is a vote for a *change* to Fundamental Belief 6. SDA beliefs are being *changed*, and those who won’t go along for the ride told they have no ce in the church.