I believe in the Bible. It suggests a young earth …

Comment on Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism by Bob Pickle.

I believe in the Bible. It suggests a young earth created in 6 literal days, though how young I do not know with conviction. If I am wrong, it doesn’t really matter because I am saved not by my knowledge on origins but my faith in the blood of Jesus. Theistic evolutionists whom many here despise have the same access to Christ’s blood, whether they are Seventh-day Adventists or not.You would abandon God if you found that science and the Bible do not match up, but I have a personal relationship with God that compels me to believe he can be trusted regardless of how reliable the “physical evidence” might be.

Think about it a bit more. We are saved by faith, that is true. We must have a relationship with Jesus. We must believe.

But generally speaking, a theistic evolutionist who knows what the Bible says has chosen (a) not to believe the passages that refer to how God created the world, (b) not to have faith in what God has revealed in the Bible about how He created everything, and (c) not to truly have a deep relationship with Christ, for how can one have a relationship with someone if one refuses to believe what that someone says?

Check out Heb. 11. Saving faith can apply to anything God says. We can’t narrow it to only faith in one specific doctrine, or to only faith in certain verses to the exclusion of other verses.

Bob Pickle Also Commented

Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
Some questions for Dr. Geraty stemming from his June 1 letter(s), questions that might further clarify his position(s) and help resolve some of the controversy:

Second of all, I personally presume that Genesis 1 refers to an ordinary week, but since it does not say that explicitly, I am glad to give those interpreters who wish to interpret it differently the freedom to do so.

A lot of evolutionists and long agers out there believe that Genesis 1 refers to an ordinary week. Does Dr. Geraty believe that God actually did create the world during an ordinary week as Genesis 1 states?

I am not challenging the literal 6-day creation week. I am just challenging that that is the only way to understand the Biblical text.

Ellen White stated that to teach that the days of creation were anything other than 6 literal days is to teach a most dangerous form of infidelity. Does Dr. Geraty accept and endorse and promote this viewpoint?

It is also slander to say that I “hired professors to teach at LSU that I specifically knew would undermine the Church’s ‘fundamental’ understanding on a literal creation week.” There is no evidence for that and it is contrary to all I did to make sure we had professors who were supportive of the SDA Church and creationism.

Is Dr. Geraty specifically saying that he tried to only hire professors that believed that God created the world in 6 actual days about 6,000 years ago and that there has been a worldwide flood since? Is this what he means by “creationism”?

What specific actions did Dr. Geraty take when he became aware that teachers were undermining faith in the accounts in Gen. 1-11? Or, was Dr. Geraty totally in the dark about what some professors were teaching?

Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism

[LSU] continues to send out student missionaries and baptize students (the latest group this last weekend), defend the church and stand for truth around the world ….

Christ tells us they will know us by our love, not by our commitment to a seven literal historical, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour day week of creation 6,000 years ago which is NOT in Genesis no matter how much the fundamentalist wing of the church would like to see it there.

It would appear that Geraty just called evolution over long ages “truth.” Does not Geraty realize that such sentiments coming from a former university president amount to treason? And if Geraty holds such views, how then can he properly head up LLBN? Should he not resign from that position until he can conscientiously endorse the biblical view of creation?

Christ indeed said they will know us by our love. But how is it love to deny the truth of God’s declaration that He created the world in 6 actual days just thousands of years ago? How is it love to promote what Jesus testified was the most dangerous form of infidelity? How is it love to refuse to believe the One whom you claim to love?

Recent Comments by Bob Pickle

Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
“While the procedures were sloppy in this particular company, they do not appear to have significantly affected the overall integrity of the data.”

How do we know? a) How do we know that no other contractors were as sloppy? b) How do we know that “the overall integrity of the data” wasn’t “significantly affected”?

“Another reason I say this is because billions of people around the globe have now been fully vaccinated, giving researchers plenty of real-world data that clearly shows the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.”

Then why use randomized double-blinded trials at all if safety and efficacy can be clearly shown by just doling the real thing out to everyone?

Understand my question? The “real-world data” isn’t coming from something that is randomized and double blinded, and thus can never speak to the question of safety and efficacy like a randomized double-blinded trial can.

Mandates vs. Religious Exemptions
Sean, this article from the BMJ, authored by a double-vaccinated writer, is of interest: “Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial” at https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

The whistleblower was a clinical trial auditor, with a 20-year career in research. Her concerns about the conducting of the Pfizer trials weren’t addressed, the article states. It explains how the FDA doesn’t handle oversight issues in a timely manner, and gives examples. And all that calls into question the integrity of the Pfizer clinical trial data.

I found “How Fauci Fooled America” at https://www.newsweek.com/how-fauci-fooled-america-opinion-1643839 by professors from Harvard and Stanford also of interest. The observations made good sense.

I’m glad you aren’t in favor of vaccine mandates.

Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
Since you did not respond to my principal concern, I think it fairly reasonable to conclude that Jack Lawrence’s statement about the effect of withdrawing the Egyptian study from meta-analyses is at best of questionable accuracy, and at worst a prevarication, since you are unable to show how the withdrawal of that Egyptian study significantly impacts the particular meta-analysis I provided a link to.

And thus, there may really be a conspiracy out there, even if Ivermectin is not an effective treatment.

Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
Could you explain that? Above you said, “I have taken a look. And, I find no reason to conclude that this is not the case – as have numerous scientists who have also reviewed this study.” That can only mean that you already know what part of the study I’m overlooking. Why would you want to keep that a secret?

“… this isn’t something that interests me ….”

Certainly that can’t mean that you have no interest in making sure your links only go to credible sources.

The two links you gave to show that it doesn’t matter whether Jack Lawrence’s story is on the up and up or not:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389 is only about mild illness, and even admits “larger trials may be needed to understand the effects of ivermectin on other clinically relevant outcomes.” Thus, this study doesn’t refute the entire meta-analysis I linked to, even if this study’s results are reproducible.

https://rethinkingclinicaltrials.org/news/august-6-2021-early-treatment-of-covid-19-with-repurposed-therapies-the-together-adaptive-platform-trial-edward-mills-phd-frcp/ contains no data regarding Ivermectin. But I did find a news article claiming that the results about Ivermectin have not been published or peer reviewed yet.

Any explanation as to why double-blinded RCT’s in Bangladesh, India, Nigeria, presumably Iraq, and Spain would yield different results than the one from Columbia that you linked to? Each of those are listed in the meta-analysis regarding mild illness. (I said presumably Iraq because the meta-analysis called it an RCT, but didn’t include the words double-blinded.)

Perhaps part of the issue is what the Ivermectin was combined with. Comparing Ivermectin with Ivermectin + something else does not prove that Ivermectin isn’t helpful if one of those regimens is less effective than the other.

The news article about the Together Trial decried conspiracy theories. I think a good way to refute conspiracy theories is to show that there aren’t any, by proving that Jack Lawrence is legit. Otherwise, if he’s only a pseudonym, or employed or paid by a drug company, that’s not going to help squelch conspiracy theories.

Dr. Peter McCullough’s COVID-19 and Anti-Vaccine Theories
Sean, could you please address my question? I didn’t see where you answered it above.

The quote from Jack’s article at https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19-just-retracted/ :

“After excluding the data from the Elgazzar study, he found that the effect for ivermectin drops significantly with no discernible effect on severe disease.”

Is that really true?

Here’s a meta-analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

How does removing the Elgazzar study from this particular meta-analysis change the conclusion? I’ve looked at the various tables, and I just don’t get how Jack could make that statement, or how the person he’s citing could have made that conclusion.

If you think I’m misreading the meta-analysis, please cite or quote the relevant text or table, and explain what I’m overlooking.

I’m not looking for “I don’t see a problem.” I’m looking for, “Look at table X. If you remove the Elgazzar study from that table, the end result is that patients with Y disease receive no benefit at all.”

Above, you cited additional studies rather than addressing the truthfulness of Jack Lawrence’s statement as it pertains to removing the Elgazzar study from the meta-analysis I provided a link to. Those are two different issues.

Whether Jack Lawrence’s key contention is correct or not is essentially irrelevant to my question about his credibility. As far as I’m concerned, I don’t like the idea of taking Ivermectin, but whether one should take it or not is not my concern here.

If a masters student in London, whose hobby is to attack a conservative American Youtuber and who just happens to notice plagiarism in the intro of an Egyptian medical study, is so careless or ignorant as to not see that a claim about a meta-analysis is bogus, then something is dread wrong, and we aren’t being told what is really going on.

Why do I say that? Because the presumed level of astuteness that would lead to the detection of plagiarism would prevent the repeating of a bogus claim about a meta-analysis.

Perhaps the problem is that the meta-analysis I provided the link to wasn’t the same one reanalyzed by the person Lawrence cited. Still, due diligence would require that Lawrence make sure that the claim he’s repeating about meta-analyses is actually sound in the light of other meta-analyses, such as the one I linked to on the NIH website from April 2021.