Comment on Are LSU professors breaking the 8th commandment? by Bravus.
It’s unhelpful (and rude) to assume that one’s interlocutors are stupid.
I understand the concept of upper limits. My point was that an upper limit of 10 million year allows a 6000 year age, but does not require it. If that’s the standard, why not just accept a 4.5 billion year age, since that also allows a 6000 year age in the sense that it is within that limit?
The topic under discussion is developing a scientific set of evidences that positively establishes and supports a sub-10,000 year age for the earth, not simply one that allows it.
The Wikipedia article you linked suggests that the Indian plate first collided with Asia about 50 million years ago, and that the process of building the Himalayas is on-going. That is *not* the same thing at all as the Himalayas being completely there 50 million years ago, and *is* consistent with the idea of the relevant pass basin in the Wang article being raised to its present altitude over the past couple of million years. That work (one paper which is appropriately modest anout its claims and limits) may have brought some of the dates forward, but 20-fold is a huge exaggeration. Making claims that border on dishonesty does not strengthen your case.
The detrimental mutation rate notion comes out of a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and seems to be most often used by eugenicists… It has been repeatedly debunked…
So, instead of proclaiming how dumb you think I am, how about getting started on that list of positive scientific evidences for a young earth.
Table of Contents
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.
