By Shane Hilde
Newly elected North American Division president, Dan Jackson, was interviewed in Adventist World (September 2010) by Bill Knott and Mark Kellner. Jackson says he is a “dogmatic believer in a short-term, literal, six-day creation” and he anticipates this discussion will not “go on and on.” Spectrum reported that during a press conference following his election as NAD president, Jackson said he would visit LSU to tell the faculty he loved them:
Jackson said that he had just told LSU President Randall Wisbey that he wants an opportunity to come to LSU to tell the faculty that ‘we love them.’
Given La Sierra’s status at the center of the denominational debate on creation, Jackson may be sought to play a peacemaking role.
However, it seemed Spectrum’s hopes for Jackson disappeared when he gave his support for the change to fundamental belief #6. Two days after Jackson’s press conference, Keith Lockhart at Spectrum wrote:
Even Dan Jackson, newly elected president of the North American Division, who raised hopes in a press conference two days ago of a more tolerant approach to La Sierra University, which has been under fire for allegedly teaching evolution in science classes, said he was in ‘full agreement’ with the change.
The buzz surrounding Jackson’s comment must have caught his attention, “The fact that I say ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean that we won’t deal with issues.” It’s beginning to sound like we have a few leaders who are capable of addressing the La Sierra conflict.
[Excerpt from Adventist World]
“KNOTT: In addition to the systemic needs for institutional strength, financial support, and enrollment, there are the issues that we recently discussed at the General Conference session, particularly the science curriculum on Adventist campuses in North America. You’ve probably already begun sketching some process by which those issues come to fruitful discussion. What process will you be following?
“JACKSON: We need that discussion; I don’t think we should run away from it. I feel very keenly that one of the things we need to do is to embrace our institutions. They need to know that the crew in Silver Spring is saying to them, “We believe in Christian education.That’s part of the core teachings of our church. We’re not going to back away from that.” We need to let our educators know that we love them, that we want them, that they are a significant part of the ministry force of this organization.
“But while I say that, I don’t want anyone to mistake my own resolve. I am by faith a dogmatic believer in a short-term, literal, six-day creation. While I say that, and while I believe that, I don’t believe that we will resolve issues by alienating individuals or institutions. The fact that I say “I love you” doesn’t mean that we won’t deal with issues.
“KNOTT: When do you see that process beginning? Many members are a bit wary that the church will tend to put things off three, four, or five years, hoping that something will change. Are you talking about a conversation that starts within six months, or is this something that will stretch out over several years? I have two university-bound Adventist young people in my family, and they’re going to be in those classes this fall and beyond. Our kids are in the crucible right now.
“JACKSON: Let me make this point right now: I stand very close philosophically with our General Conference president. We have already set in motion a discussion to be conducted sometime this summer at General Conference headquarters with some of the leaders of our institutions. I would not anticipate that this discussion will go on and on.
“KNOTT: Many parents will be encouraged to hear that you have a short chronology of moving to address these issues.
“JACKSON: I’ll tell you why I have no softness [on this issue]. A precious child of mine, many years ago, went through an Adventist institution and had some challenges. I have no difficulty understanding the angst of parents; and my commitment is to do all I can to assist whoever is dealing with the issue to bring it resolution.”
@Ken:
I’m sure there was, but evidently not enough to produce enough moisture in the air to create rain clouds. It seems like it was a very very different world before the Flood…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@ Sean Pitman
You didn’t answer my questions. You only stated that the SDA Church takes no position on the age of the earth.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
I fail to see how Scripture has been undermined by the Inspiration given to Mrs. White?
As I’ve already explained, the SDA Church takes no official stand on the existence of the basic material of the Earth, or of the universe, before creation week. Therefore, this is an open question from the Church’s perspective…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentI would also add that Ellen White does not say the earth is exactly 6,000 years old. God never revealed the exact age. Even when calculating the age of the earth based on the biblical chronology, you can’t get an exact date because we don’t know many of dates from within a particular. So there is a margin of error, but it’s definitely not millions of years.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View Comment@Ken: Whether the earth (inorganic material) is older than life on the planet, doesn’t make much difference to me theologically. I lean toward the idea that earth and all life on it were created within the 6 days. I think it’s a moot point and hardly worth arguing over.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentNo ship could have survived a flood of that magnitude, not even Noah’s without divine intervention.
Patriarchs and Prophets
Darker and darker grew the heavens, and faster came the falling rain. The beasts were roaming about in the wildest terror, and their discordant cries seemed to moan out their own destiny and the fate of man. Then “the fountains of the great deep” were “broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” Water appeared to come from the clouds in mighty cataracts. Rivers broke away from their boundaries, and overflowed the valleys. Jets of water burst from the earth with indescribable force, throwing massive rocks hundreds of feet into the air, and these, in falling, buried themselves deep in the ground…
The massive ark trembled in every fiber as it was beaten by the merciless winds and flung from billow to billow. The cries of the beasts within expressed their fear and pain. But amid the warring elements it continued to ride safely. Angels that excel in strength were commissioned to preserve it.
Ethan(Quote)
View CommentIn this less-than-serious solution – Kent suggest that the Genesis 8:3-11 is too confusing to see that the waters were in fact covering all the earth BEFORE they began to recede.
Take a carefull look at the actual text – to see that Kent is simply trying out a rabbit trail.
Is there ANY point in the text above where the serious reader is left to speculate the wild fiction “the water did not in fact cover the entire earth at the flood so that even the tops of the mountains were underwater”??
Rather according to the text it is only AFTER the water receded to a sufficient point – that the tops of the mountains appeared. Totally destroying Kent’s argument.
The text then goes on to tell the reader that in vs 7 that it is the drying up of the water on the ground that is being investigated by these “bird” tests.
So the text is not even close to being “difficult” to understand – though Kent “imagines” he can obfuscate even the most direct statements of scripture to the point that he would actually post this –
As noted above – the strawman Kent is building his fallacious conclusion upon has been totally debunked. How then were we supposed to take his wild conclusions seriously? They do not hold true either to logic or any form of literary interpretation known to mankind. His method is still limited to “rabbit trails” that go nowhere.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentProfessor Kent said…..
“Yes, Bill, you are correct to point out these flaws in Sean’s placing his so-called science ahead of inspiration.”
The scripture is self validating. And while some natural law evidence is helpful to affirm the bible, there is enough inconsistencies in nature and science to leave doubt and unbelief in the biblical account.
Therefore, we must trust scriptural revelation as the first and final authority, and any other evidence as supporting at best.
Now I am aware that some time elements concerning events in the bible are not specifically revealed in every case. As an example, you will not find 3 seperate coming of Jesus in the old testament specifically revealed.
It simply speaks of the coming Messiah and often runs all the elements pretaining to this event as being singular in time. So, we can now see that the coming of Jesus is one event divided into 3 phases.
First coming, sin bearer
Second coming, to take the church home.
Third coming, destruction of the wicked and the creation of a new earth.
This is more easily understood as one coming divided into 3 phases. When we see it this way, it has a flowing continuity that fits all the comings together as one complete whole. But the bible eventually tells us about the 3 phase coming by way of prophecy, especially the book of Revelation.
Now if creation is also done in phases of time and long periods between each phase, we have no scriptual evidence of this fact. It is pure speculation and no biblical base.
If God wanted us to believe in periods of unknown time for the creation of the world, He would have revealed it to us. But since there is no such revelation, we must necessarily conclude there is none.
Thus, Gen. 1:1-5, must be considered as pretaining to day one in the creation process. This is how it is written, and we have no biblical evidence that it should be understood any other way. And thus, we don’t care what “science” or “nature” may reveal or affirm that seems contrary to the bible. Neither do we need to explain exactly how and why science and nature seem not to agree with every detail of the biblical account.
The bible is given to us on a “need to know” basis, and nothing outside this revelation is adequate in every detail to affirm what the bible states.
Bill Sorensen
Bill Sorensen(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s Quote
Dear Sean
That is certainly the physical reality of the world today. I look forward to reviewing any empirical science that suggests that these high mountain ranges emerged suddenly out of the sea in a short span of time. Doesn’t appear as if the Bible, EGW?, comments on this whatsoever. Wouldn’t Noah and his family had seen such mountain ranges emerging? I guess that depends where they were.
If a comet of asteroid large enough to break the earth’s crust hit at the time of the flood what would have happened to the atmosphere? I wonder if Noah could have drawn a breath? Also would there not have been other people with boats by the time of the flood? Ships can stay at sea with provisions for long periods of time.
It appears we agree the universe is old so no need to debate that issue. Very interesting what EGW said about alien life. The universe is a big place. I wonder how many other civilizations God might have created and why? Why would God specifically be coming to earth to reside after the resurrection of the dead? A bit human centric isn’t it?
I hope you all enjoy your Sabbath.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View Comment@Ken: The Bible does not explicitly say the earth is 6,000 years old. There are two sources though for this age: 1) the biblical chronology, and 2) the writings of Ellen White.
The biblical chronology is questioned in many Christian circles, even within Adventism, but I have not personally seen any sound arguments that have caused me to second guess the historicity of the Bible in this regard.
Shane Hilde(Quote)
View CommentShane,
Your explanation for the contrast between Gen 7:19 and 8:9 (though you identified the wrong verses) would be more compelling if “qualification” was consistently in place for each time “kol erets” was used. It would take some effort to confirm this, as there are more than 200 instances of “kol erets” in the Old Testament. In the vast majority of cases, “kol erets” could not have referred to the entire planet, which suggests that it is a colloquialism and not a statement of scientific fact. Here is but a small collection of examples:
“And the people of all [kol] the earth [erets] came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth.” (Genesis 41:57) (The people from the Americas did not go to Egypt)
“You shall then sound a ram’s horn abroad on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement you shall sound a horn all [kol] through your land [erets].” (Leviticus 25:9) (The Hebrews were not required to sound a horn throughout the entire earth)
“Thus for every [kol] piece [erets] of your property, you are to provide for the redemption of the land.” (Leviticus 25:24) (The law does not apply only to those who own the entire earth)
“behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all [kol] the ground [erets], then I will know that Thou wilt deliver Israel through me, as Thou hast spoken.” (Judges 6:37, see also 6:39-40) (kol erets could not refer to the entire earth, since it would not be possible for Gideon to check the entire earth)
“And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. Then Saul blew the trumpet throughout [kol] the land [erets], saying, “Let the Hebrews hear.” (1 Samuel 13:3) (Obviously, Saul could not have blown a trumpet loud enough to be heard throughout the entire earth)
“For the battle there was spread over the whole [kol] countryside [erets], and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword devoured.” (2 Samuel 18:8) (No, the battle did not take place over the entire earth..and could the forest truly “devour” people?)
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentRe Shane’s Quote
“@Ken: The Bible does not explicitly say the earth is 6,000 years old. There are two sources though for this age: 1) the biblical chronology, and 2) the writings of Ellen White.
The biblical chronology is questioned in many Christian circles, even within Adventism, but I have not personally seen any sound arguments that have caused me to second guess the historicity of the Bible in this regard. Shane Hilde(Quote)”
Dear Shane
Thanks, that is very helpful.
Do you then respectfully disagree with Sean’s position that the material of the earth before life was created is far older than 6000 years?
Regards
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentDear Sean, Bill. and Prof. Kent.
At times like this I’m sure the Royal Law of Love must be of great solace!
I read Genesis again. Where does it say anywhere that the earth is only six thousand years old or recent? Are we talking sola scriptura of combo scriptura/EGW?
May I express a bit of artistic license. Perhaps Sean’s position is not classic YEC or OEC, but Tolkeinian: MEC- Middle Earth Creationism. The rock was old, but became earth with life in the middle time between the creation of the universe and now.
Regards
your agnostic friend
Ken
Perhaps, like Tolkien, Sean’s position represents
Ken(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
It would be impossible to cover mountains as high as the Andes, Rockies, or Himalayas, to include Mr. Everest, with water. Also, the very high rocky mountains that we have today would be unable to support the luxuriant vegetation that Mrs. White speaks of. Their height alone would create unlivable conditions for such life. Also, the extremely tall mountains that we have today create drastic climatic differences – to include the barren deserts that Mrs. White claims did not exist before the Flood. The only way that such deserts would not exist is if such extremely tall mountain chains did not exist before the Flood. Beyond all of this, all of our tall mountain ranges today are covered by sedimentary rock that contain marine fossils – to include Mt. Everest. In other words, they were once flat and covered by water – and Flood deposits/sedimentary layers were formed on top of them before they were uplifted as mountain ranges…
This is why Mrs. White statements, as well as the Biblical statements about the condition of the pre-Flood world, are not only consistent with, but are actually supportive of the idea that the current tall mountain ranges we have today were the result of the energy released during the Flood – energy which initially produced very rapid continental movements and orogeny – as well as the formation of very deep and vast oceans and ocean trenches.
Mrs. White was shown many things by God of which she no doubt did not have a complete understanding. This does not mean that what she was shown gives us no clue as to the differences in the world that existed before the Flood and the effects of the Flood upon our own world…
Of course those of us who believe such things have just been “brainwashed by the SDA Church” right? ; )
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentDear Sean
Re Sean’s Quotes
“I’ve presented many features of the geologic column and fossil record to suggest that these records are very young indeed and were formed very very rapidly. You can review these evidences on my website if you wish under the headings of “Geologic Column” and “Fossil Record”.”
Specifically of the Tibetan Plateau or are you generalizing here?
“You seem to miss the point of demonstrating that mainstream dating techniques often signficantly contradict each other to the point of calling their credibility into serious question.”
I quite understand the psychology of the attack. But it is not just enough to attack Sean, you need to show the empirical evidence that the specific Tibetan Plateau is 4000 years old to counter the evidence.
“The basis in science, as I’ve already pointed out to you, is the fact that erosion rates are far to high for plate tectonics to have occured over many tens of millions of years.”
Certainly begs the question on the physics regarding the movement of the plates for which you which you seem to have no scientific explanation.
Sean, I’m pleased with our progress.
Cheers
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentDear Sean
I just wanted to let you know that I reviewed I read “Geologic Column and Fossil Record on your website. I only saw one power point page regarding Mt Everest and no discussion or reference to the Tibetan Plateau, or any science whatsoever to support that Mt Everest is only 4000 years old. If I’m wrong please quote the exact information.
I can only conclude that this is general speculation, rather that supported by specific research, on your part.
Sean, isn’t the Tibetan Plateau covered with grass steppe. If so why would the lava below or the 5000 meters of sedimentary layers be eroding at all? Remember that the Wang research that you brought to our attention to support your position, said that the Tibetan Plateau was 2- 3 million years old. You have not raised any specific research to counter Wang’s work.
Could you please specifically respond to the issue of the erosion of the Tibetan Plateau rather than just generalize about average erosion rates on Mt.Everest? Average rates mean nothing if parts of Mt Everest may not be eroding at all.
In science, specific research rather than generalization, carries the day.
Cheers
your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
You seem to miss the point of demonstrating that mainstream dating techniques often signficantly contradict each other to the point of calling their credibility into serious question.
I’ve presented many features of the geologic column and fossil record to suggest that these records are very young indeed and were formed very very rapidly. You can review these evidences on my website if you wish under the headings of “Geologic Column” and “Fossil Record”.
The basis in science, as I’ve already pointed out to you, is the fact that erosion rates are far to high for plate tectonics to have occured over many tens of millions of years. Obviously the movements of these plates had to have been much much faster in the past than it is today… just based on current erosion rates alone.
Then there is also the problem of ocean sediment deposition rates… etc.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
It is the voted SDA position on origins (at the most recent GC session) that the creation week took place over six literal days and that the Noachian Flood was in fact world-wide and killed all land-dwelling human and animal life save that preserved on Noah’s ark.
Your re-interpretation of the word “global” to mean only that the effects of the Flood were global, not that the actual Flood itself was global, is the same as suggesting that the days of creation weren’t really intended by the author to mean literal days. You also counter the statements of Mrs. White who claims that the fossil record is preserved evidence of the Flood which produced it – a record that is truly global in extent.
I’m sorry, but you are in active opposition to a fundamental position that the SDA Church, as an organization, considers to be very important – not at all trivial as you make it out to be. Your argument that such things have no significant bearing on salvation is irrelevant since none of the SDA fundamental beliefs have a significant bearing on salvation. One doesn’t have to be a Seventh-day Adventist to be saved or even understand any of the Gospel story at all. This isn’t an issue of salvation. None of the doctrines are. Hearing the Gospel story isn’t salvational either. However, this is an issue of providing people with a solid hope in the credibility of the Bible and in the reality of the bright future that they have before them… in the reality of the Gospel’s Good News of salvation.
I’d say that’s very important… at least for someone who is looking for a little more substance than blind-faith assertions can provide…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentRe Mountains of Information
Dear Sean
Thanks for all your valuable comments and references on the Himalayas. I’ve been reading the articles and it is clear the issues are complicated and ‘unfolding’ with more research.
From the Wang reference I segued to another article that is very informative:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173542.htm
Here the scientists concluded that the Tibetan Plateau, below Mt.Everest was 40 million years old, while Mt Everest was still under the sea. This may be why the sedimentary layers Of Mt. Everest have not eroded yet.
They found that the sedimentary layers of the Tibetan Plateau were 5000 meters thick and covered by lava. That is certainly an explanation why they might not have eroded yet, especially as it is a plateau.
The scientists used the following methods to determine the Tibetan Plateau was 40 million years old: magnetostratigraphy, apatite fission-track analysis and geochronology techniques. Note that these were not ‘leaps of faith’ or speculation but scientific methods to determine the age of the rocks.
Even the Wang article you cited refers to millions of years not thousands. That is a considerable order of magnitude by any stretch of the imagination.
Do I think these studies present the final age or that further work won’t narrow down range of age. No. But I don’t see anything in those articles suggesting the area is 4000 years old. Plus, I suggest sedimentary layers covered in lava, mitigates your erosion argument of at least the age of the plateau.
Interesting stuff.
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
Did you read the parts about the lack of erosion between layers? paraconformities? the lack of significant bioturbation? clastic dykes? The rapid detrimental mutation rate? Intact proteins and elastic soft tissues in dinosaur fossils? etc. The upper time limits for many of these features are well under 100kyr and some are well within 10kyr…
If one takes all of the available information into account at the same time, the only rational conclusion that I can see is that the geologic column and fossil records are the result of a recent series of very shortly spaced watery catastrophes on a worldwide scale – very much in line with the Genesis account of origins…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s Quote
“Did you read the parts about the lack of erosion between layers? paraconformities? the lack of significant bioturbation? clastic dykes? The rapid detrimental mutation rate? Intact proteins and elastic soft tissues in dinosaur fossils? etc. The upper time limits for many of these features are well under 100kyr and some are well within 10kyr…
If one takes all of the available information into account at the same time, the only rational conclusion that I can see is that the geologic column and fossil records are the result of a recent series of very shortly spaced watery catastrophes on a worldwide scale – very much in line with the Genesis account of origins…”
Dear Sean
I did and did not see one iota about the Tibetan plateau.
Rather than just generalize would you please answer my specific questions about the Tibetan Plateau? Otherwise you may leave the impression that you are being evasive and are afraid to do so.
Cheers
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
The primary influence on erosion rates is slope angle. The steeper the slope, the higher the average rate of erosion. Valleys that have a lower slope angle will have a lower overall average rate of erosion. River bed incision rates are not the same as average erosion rates over an area. Also, steep mountain ranges that are not covered by extremely slow moving glaciers will have a high erosion rate even if they are “frozen”. The repeated warming and cooling of high mountains adds to the fracturing of rock and therefore to erosion rates. Chemical erosion is also a significant factor.
The amount of snow in the high Himalayas also varies considerably. The greatest depths are recorded in the summer when the monsoons dump large amounts of snow on the higher elevation of the Himalayas. In the winter, high wind scour the landscape and blow snow away – producing erosion.
This is why the Himalayas experience frequent landslides and rapid erosion, creating precipitous topography with sharp peaks and V-shaped ravines rather than alluvial valleys or lakes. This same process of erosion also affects Mt. Everest. Consider the following reference along these lines:
So, you see, although the elevation of Mt. Everest is indeed increasing, the erosion rate of Mt. Everest is still very high at ~3mm/yr (and probably a bit higher at around 4mm/yr).
Interesting, but the Himalayas are not polar mountains nor are they protected against very high rates of erosion by very deep snow and very slowly moving glaciers…
Again, the Himalayan Mountains are not protected by very slowly moving glaciers that are “frozen to their beds” or by very deep layers of non-moving snow.
The Himalayas are eroding at different rates based on elevation with the higher elevations eroding more rapidly than the lower elevations. Also, as already noted and referenced for you, erosion rates are strongly related to slope angle. This is one of the main reasons why the higher elevations are in fact eroding away more rapidly than the lower elevations within the Himalayas.
Come on now, if this is the best your expert geologist friend can come up with, I’m distinctly underwhelmed…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@ Sean Pitman
I’ll also paste an informative quote from another article.
Kuhle, M. 2005. Glacial geomorphology and ice ages in Tibet and the surrounding mountains. The Island Arc 14:346–367.
“In addition, if the upper reaches of thin, high-altitude alpine glaciers become frozen to their beds, ridges and peaks may be protected from erosion and glacial valley long profiles may become more concave, adding a potentially important component to overall glacial relief production.”
Erosion rates are usually measured by sediment load in streams. If no one is measuring erosion rates from the summits, aren’t your conclusions a bit over-reaching? Yes, the Himalayas are eroding. A major factor is rainfall runoff associated with monsoons, which disproportionately affects the lower elevations. The resulting runoff is a major source of sedimentation in the world’s oceans. I believe you are mistaken to insist that the peaks themselves are eroding at the rates you are basing your arguments on. Where is your evidence that the erosion rates you have cited apply to the frozen summits?
God bless!
Professor Kent
…a curious and humble non-geologist
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s Quote
“Do you know any cars the size of continents? ;-)”
Dear Sean
Maybe those stretch limousine Hummers.
Cheers
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s Quote
“Originally fast in recent history with a significant slowing over time to the current rate of movement… as in a car crash where the beginning of the crash results in very rapid “mountain building”, so to speak, with a rapid decline in the rate of this movement as the energy is used up over time…”
Dear Sean
Do you know of any cars after crashing that are still moving 4000 years – let alone 4 minutes – later?
Just having a little fun with your analogy, my friend.
Cheers
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentDear Sean
Still no comments on the Tibetan Plateau?
Cheers
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentSean,
I recognize the superiority of your geology knowledge compared to mine. I have only had one course in geology, and it was close to 40 years ago. I don’t read much, either. However, I would like to meekly offer a few suggestions that might benefit your understanding:
1. Your sources, so far as I can see, make no mention of actual erosion rates from the summit of Mt. Everest, or even specifically from Everest itself. Also, I’m not sure what you mean by the “summit,” which itself, I believe, is perenially covered with snow and would be technically very challenging to measure erosion at. So why are you making claims about erosion rates on the summit if you cannot cite a source wherein those data are produced? Range-wide erosion measured from stream sediment does not equate to homogenous erosion rates for all valleys and summits.
2. I had read about the “buzzsaw” effect of glaciers. Apparently, you did not read about the evidence that contradicts the impact of buzzsaw effect on reducing mountain height. You can start with this:
Thomson, S. N., M. T. Brandon, J. H. Tomkin, P. W. Reiners, C. Vásquez, N. J. Wilson. 2010. Glaciation as a destructive and constructive control on mountain building. Nature 467:313-317.
From their work in the Patagonia Mountains of South America, the authors wrote: “That glaciation can act to protect an active orogen from erosion opens up the intriguing possibility that, given favourable glacio-climatic, geologic and tectonic conditions, a cooling climate can act to enhance topographic relief, not in the manner originally envisaged in ref. 16 through passive isostatic response to locally enhanced erosion, but by inhibiting erosion to promote further accretionary growth in orogen height and width.” Numerical modelling and the authors’ extensive thermochronological data suggest that, under extremely cold climatic conditions–and not just in Antarctica–mountain glaciers do not slide but are frozen to the bedrock, which protects mountain peaks rather than erodes them. (Now I’m not making a claim that Everest is particularly cold; the reader can decide that for him/herself.)
3. An issue you are overlooking is that a glacier does not cover the summit of Everest. Glaciers occur downslope where avalanche falls accumulate. If I’m not mistaken, I believe the movement of a glacier is going to be less at its higher elevation, and therefore glacier-associated erosion (the “buzzsaw” effect) will be greatest at its lower-elevation margin. When you have a perennial layer of snow packed against the actual summit rock, where is all that rock disappearing to?
4. You keep speaking of the extreme slope angle, yet Everest is regarded by many mountaineers as a relatively “easy” summit because, after all, it is not as steep as many other mountains. The summit slope is relatively broad and requires comparatively little technical climbing.
5. It’s funny…you stated that erosion is, in fact, higher on the summit of Everest than at lower elevations. And then, in your later post, you wrote: “That is why the height of Mt. Everest doesn’t increase even faster – – because it is being eroded, top down, at ~3mm/year as I’ve already explained to you several times now (ala the ‘buzzsaw’ effect). Compare this rate of mountain top and side erosion to the incision rates of the river or glacial beds which can be as high as 10-15 mm/yr.” Thank you for now agreeing with me.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
Do you know any cars the size of continents? 😉
🙂
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentSounds like you need to join Steven Daily. Or are you a member already? Those of us following this matter are also spending some time for the “poor” etc.–just not ALL of our time!
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentJ. A. Sylmar wrote
What you are describing is the very worst of science in highly stereotypical terms. One could offer similar stereotypes for many other disciplines, including theology, though it wouldn’t be charitable to do. Then again, charitability does not appear to be a common attribute among those who post here.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment“True, believing Seventh-day Adventists” accept the premise that he “Bible–and the Bible ALONE is our rule of faith”–and one can prayerfully read and reread the Bible from cover to cover and never find a single instance (unless you “twist” the wording to suit your fancy) where evolution is even hinted at.
Also, “true, believing Seventh-day Adventists” NEVER accept the premise that the Spirit of Prophecy (as given by Ellen White) is an addition to–and therefore part of–Scripture. Ellen White herself vehemently rejected any such idea. Rather it is the “lesser light” given to God’s people in these final days of earth’s history to “lead them to the greater light”–the Scriptures. It is a blessing from God who knew that the nearer we came to the end of time, with all the additional firey darts thrown out by the enemy of souls, the harder it would be for His true people to under-stand and remain faithful. It does not in any way contradict, or add to, what the Bible says–rather it reinforces and supports “every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.” It has helped me immeasurably to build my faith on “the solid Rock”–Christ Jesus. And I, personally, am grateful to God for it.
Satan hates the Bible and does every thing possible to lead us away from the truths of Scripture. He knows we are living in the last days of time as we know it and he is desperate to lead every soul possible to disbelief in God and His Word and their ultimate destruction. God knew all we would have to meet in these last days and He graciously gave us the Spirit of Prophecy to redirect our minds to the plain words of Scripture which will be our only safeguard in the troublous time ahead.
Unfortunately, Satan has placed men (and women?) in some (hopefully not all) of our institutions and, as a result many of our youth have been deceived and lost their faith in the plain words of God in Scripture. And we must never forget that “whoso ever shall offend one of [these] little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” Mark 9:42. (KJV)) Some day these “deniers of the faith” will have to stand before the judgement seat of God and answer for what they have done.
Meanwhile those of us who believe in what Scripture says must, with the help of God,do everything in our power to cast out these evil doers (this is what GOD calls them and He judges a tree by it’s FRUIT and bids us do the same–so it is not me–but Him–that is judging them) and restore our institutions to the Bible-based foundation upon which they were originally built.No one ever said it would be easy–fighting the devil is never easy but we must not falter, we must not be faint–we must press forward in faith till, in the strength that God alone can give, this evil is rooted out.
Yes, some–if not many–will suffer from their efforts to help remedy this evil– consider the three members of the LSU board who are having to meet the scorn of the faculty and other board members! But God sees their tears and their broken hearts and THEY WILL BE REWARDED SOME DAY. However, they need to know NOW that there are those of us who support them in our prayers–which may be the only way we can help at this point. And let all of us who know how to pray remember them each time we pray! We must not for one minute think that there is nothing we the “peons in the pews”) can do–that it is up to the “leaders” to do it all.It is true that they are in a position to do things we cannot do but our prayers and support are a very necessary part of this conflict!
I am a great lover and collector or stories–and one come to mind right now that illustrates what prayer can do–even prayers from many miles away.
[edit – short illustrations are desired. Longer stories, while interesting, are not the purpose of this particular site or directly relevant to this particular topic]
Lydian Belknap(Quote)
View CommentHey Nic! Good to see you here. You’re absolutely correct. Learning “about” evolution and its weaknesses don’t seem to be taught at LSU. Can anyone refute this? So far, nobody has come on to “defend” LSU’s pokicies.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentRE Lydian’s quote
“True, believing Seventh-day Adventists” accept the premise that he “Bible–and the Bible ALONE is our rule of faith”–and one can prayerfully read and reread the Bible from cover to cover and never find a single instance (unless you “twist” the wording to suit your fancy) where evolution is even hinted at.”
Hello Lydian
It is obvious you have a great strong faith and I respect that. I admire people of conviction,
However, if I may point out the obvious, the theory of evolution did not exist at the time the Bible was written so I don’t think it would be logical for it to appear there. We do know that every culture seemed to have its own version of creation, often times bearing striking similarities. At that time science was in its infancy.
For example, if the Bible were being written today I suspect there would have be references to cell phones, cars, websites;, and perhaps a more contemporary story of creation.Perhaps Moses would have received the Ten Commandments via computer! Like Sean Pitman has opined. perhaps God is revealing more and more present truth all the time, which causes mankind to recalibrate its understanding of creation.
Take care
your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentHi, Ken–
Thanks for your comments. I’m not a “young thing” any more and do not claim to able to understand and use most of the new technology…just a very old lady whose known God for a long, long time, and this is how I see it:
If the Bible were written today (regardless of whether or not God “text-messaged’ it or used some other modern means of communicating with us) it would STILL say, “In the beginning GOD created…”
It’s the MESSAGE, Ken–not the METHOD that is important.. Believe it or not, my God DOES know all about the new (to us) technology and He is smart enough be able to get His message across regardless of what man can come up with! To me, the question is, “Are WE smart enough to truly understand (and BELIEVE) what He is trying to tell us?”
Sometimes I wonder??????…Lydian
Lydian Belknap(Quote)
View Comment@ken:
What do you do with the following among numerous other evidences favoring a recent arrival of life on Earth?
Such time constraints are far more consistent with catastrophic events vs. mainstream thinking which seems to be off from the maximum allowable ages suggested above by several orders of magnitude…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentBegging the question,
If a theological truth were to contradict a scientific fact, would that
damage your faith in science?
J. A., Sylmar(Quote)
View Comment“We are living in the time of the end. The fast fulfilling signs of the times declare that the coming of Christ is near at hand. The days in which we live are solemn and important. The Spirit of God is gradually but surely being withdrawn from the earth. The agencies of evil are combining their forces and consolidating. They are strengthening for the last great crisis. Great changes are soon to take place in our world and the final movements will be rapid ones” 9T 11
In this episode, Pastor Bohr discusses signs of the times in our own church. Just as ancient Troy was invaded by trickery from the inside, after all outward warfare failed to bring down the walls of that famed city, so the devil has planted Trojan horses inside of our church and hopes to deceive many thereby.
Satan is “wroth with the woman” and is out “to make war with the remnant of her seed which keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 12:17. In this war he is primarily attacking those very two pillars by which the remnant is identified in Scripture, by downplaying the importance of God’s law, and by attacking the true gift and interpretation of prophecy, as some members are becoming embarrassed and ashamed of our distinctiveness and differences with other churches.
“We have more to fear from within than without”. This also happened in ancient Israel as the prophets often were hated and rejected by the religious people they were sent to. Jesus warned of “wolves that would come dressed in sheep’s clothing” that would arise from within the church and Paul said that in the last days there would be a form of godliness that denied the power of living holy lives. Even the Antichrist would be a believer and not some atheist from the outside. So we must look at the fruits of their lives and teachings. Many will point to their good works and names on the church books and say “Lord, Lord” in the judgment, but their hearts did not submit to obey.
The tide of worldliness and lax standards entering our churches is also discussed. He closes by reading Elder Pierson’s concerns from his last address as General Conference President.
Will we be of that class of church members in the end that “As the storm approaches a LARGE class who have professed faith in the third angels’ message, but have not been sanctified through obedience to the truth, abandon their position and join the ranks of the opposition”? (GC 608) Who will stand when the coming flood of the “river Euphrates” pours upon us from the mouth of the dragon as he tries to shake us and drown God’s people? May this message inspire us to remain true and firm on the solid Rock of truth.
Excerpt from: Secrets Unsealed ~ Present Truth for the Last Generation
J. A., Sylmar(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s quote
Dear Bill and Lydian
As you know, as an agnostic, I don’t agree with Sean’s conclusions. However I am in absolute agreement with his universal sentiments expressed in the above quote. We should not be in fear of science or subjugate it to any particular faith or non faith. We do not always agree on the conclusions of science but that should not impugn its universal virtue to hunt for the truth. I applaud Sean’s efforts to try to show a credible, scientific basis for young, recent life on earth. If he can convince rational minds of this he will have achieved a monumental milestone for the SDA faith.
Bill and Lydian, you have wonderful faith, but I think Sean has great faith as well. You all believe in the Bible and the SDA church. Perhaps God is speaking to you in His own unique way according to your own nature?
And all this from this spiritually, impoverished guy who likely doesn’t have a clue about the Creator!
Cheers
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentWhat does one think about this, especially given that most scientific information comes from those who are not guided by God’s word?
“It may be innocent to speculate beyond what God’s word has revealed, *if
our theories do not contradict facts found in the Scriptures;* but those
who leave the word of God, and seek to account for his created works upon
scientific principles, are drifting, without chart or compass, upon an
unknown ocean. The greatest minds, if not guided by the word of God in
their research, become bewildered in their attempts to trace the relations
of science and revelation. Because the Creator and his works are so far
beyond their comprehension that they are unable to explain them by natural
laws, they regard Bible history as unreliable. Those who doubt the
reliability of the records of the Old and New Testaments, will be led to go a step farther, and doubt the existence of God; and then, having lost their anchor, they are left to beat about upon the rocks of infidelity.”
(Christian Education, p.193)
J. A., Sylmar(Quote)
View CommentRe J.A.Quote
“Begging the question,
If a theological truth were to contradict a scientific fact, would that
damage your faith in science? J. A., Sylmar(Quote)”
Dear J.A.
That’s an excellent question.
What is the theological truth in question and who determines its truth: Catholics, Muslims, Buddists, Mormans, progressive SDA’s, fundamental SDA’s etc.? Even within your very own SDA ranks there is considerable dissension on theological truth. That is why this site exists!
So you see the dilemma, who determines theological truth? On the other hand science operates independently of faith or non faith as an universal tool of objective inquiry. That is why I trust its non biased focus. If Sean Pitman can prove scientifically the the Genesis account of creation is more credible than evolution then I can accept that. I don’t think he has done that yet. For example, when it comes to the age of the earth I don’t think Sean has offered any plausible explanation to SDA Ben Clausen of the GRI who says the evidence demonstrates the earth is old.
Hope that helps.
Regards
your agnostic friend
Ken
ken(Quote)
View Comment@J. A., Sylmar:
My faith is based on the living Word of God–not on human “science.”
Human science today is often vastly different from what it was just a few years back. What was “fact” then is now, in many cases, considered obsolete. Even Darwin is now discredited in some areas. Only God is the same yesterday, today and forever.
What He showed Moses many centuries ago is still truth today. The prophecies of Daniel and John, also written centuries ago, have never been proven wrong. The “spade” continues to unearth evidence that shows the Bible was correct but was for years considered by “scientists” as “proof” that the Bible was “wrong!”
We are at war with Satan, the enemy of souls, and his wrath against God and all who follow Him is only increasing as the years go by. He knows he is wrong and that the time when God will finally hold him–and all who follow his leadings-accountable is drawing very near. For now, mercy still lingers, and the truly “wise” will head God’s warnings and see the deceptions of Satan and his followers and”come out of spiritual”Babylon.”
Our youth MUST be made aware of the dangers they are facing–regardless of the difficulties we must face in getting rid of this–and other–evils that have been allowed to infect our institutions. We have shut our eyes on these evils far, far to long. Yes, we need to be loving and kind, but the time comes when evil must be called by it’s right name and that time is here, NOW! Our “loving kindness” must be for our children who are being led astray–not for the “wolves in sheep’s clothing” who are leading them astray!! The longer we allow this evil to continue the more young souls God is going to hold US accountable for.
Lydian Belknap(Quote)
View Comment@Bill Sorensen:
The natural world shows the distinct signature of its Author (Psalms 19:1 NIV and Romans 1:20 NIV). It is through the works of God that we can recognize Him. The Bible, along with His other works, is recognized as having a Divine origin because of the presence of the same Signature that we are able to recognize through our God-given reasoning abilities.
Human reasoning is not the enemy of Christianity, but its very base. God wishes to appeal to our mind; our reasoning ability. He does not wish to appeal to emotion or faith before He appeals to our reasoning mind. Our faith can be and should be based on a thoughtful reason that would appeal to an honestly searching mind. – 1 Peter 3:15 NIV
There are many “revelations” – some true, most false. How does one tell the true from the false without the use of a reasoning mind? – without a basis in empirical evidence that has general appeal to the reasoning candid mind?
You’re aversion to science and empirical evidence as a basis of faith works to remove Christianity from its proper place as a rational, even scientific, religion where physical evidence really has no place in the Church. This is contrary to biblical teaching…
I think you confuse a desire to avoid recognizing the truth with the dangers of science. It isn’t because Lucifer didn’t understand the truth as truth that he rejected the physical evidence. He rejected the evidence because he didn’t want what he knew to be true to actually be true. The problem was a lack of love for the truth that he knew; not the evidence for the truth itself.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentDear Lydian
I was touched by your comments. You are young at heart and have great grace.
I am very glad you have found peace and comfort with God. No one can change that and you are blessed.
Love
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentScientific research has, as all research has, a confirmatory bias: You find what you’re looking for (or you don’t find it). Nothing else. Then you start over again. But (I reiterate) the results of scientific research are not the same as the scientific data. Data is interpreted according to
presuppositions. Some call these presuppositions, if they are very
systematic, hypotheses. It’s just the way science is done.
J. A., Sylmar(Quote)
View Comment@Bill Sorensen:
Indeed. By searching we can indeed find out what God has made us able to discover about Himself (Jeremiah 29:13 NIV, Deuteronomy 29:29 NIV and Psalms 19:1 NIV). In fact, many of the founding fathers of modern science believed that by studying nature they were in fact studying the very mind of God.
The fact that God’s mind is infinite and we are finite does not mean therefore that we can’t discover anything about Him. It seems to be His intention that by studying we will discover more and more and more, while still having infinity before us yet to discover…
As Sir Isaac Newton once said, “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”
Indeed. And, prophecy is based on historical science which is itself based on a form of human reasoning.
Sin as reduced our mental abilities to be sure, but a reduction in mental ability is not needed for sin to arise. After all, Lucifer was and still is brighter and more intelligent than we are or than Adam was before the Fall. Yet, he still fell victim to rebellion against what he knew to be true – i.e., “sin”. It is the desire itself to rebel against known truth that warps the mind.
However, if one’s heart is set to earnestly and sincerely search out the truth and follow truth wherever it may lead, the mind and human reasoning will lead one toward a more and more rich understanding and appreciation of the Creator of the mind and of true science and natural law.
Not true. People who have no concept of the true God or of any God at all have been led to believe in at least the necessity of a God or God-like Creator simply by studying nature and natural law. This is exactly what Paul says when he notes, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” – Romans 1:20 NIV
I still don’t know what you mean by the term “self revelation”. If you mean “the Bible”, then you are mistaken because many people throughout history have learned about many aspects of God through the study of nature without ever having access to the Bible or to historical information about God.
This is simply not true. There are and have been entire cultures where historical knowledge of God had been completely lost. All that was left to such cultures was the study of God’s signature in the works of His hands – i.e., in nature…
Your notion that one cannot appreciate anything about God or His creative power without first knowing Him in some sort of mystical way or through some sort of historical knowledge is clearly mistaken my friend. It is because of the obvious creative power and intelligence needed to produce the universe and life on this planet that I’m still a Christian. The same is true for many scientists who have found God only through the study of nature and natural law – and nothing else. You discredit a very significant aspect of how God draws intelligent thinking people to Himself. Do not think God is restricted to only one method of attracting hearts and minds to Himself and His Glory and that science and rational thought and study never play a primary part in this process…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentMy, my, the earth seems to get younger and younger the longer we have EducateTruth to keep us on the right track.
And for those of you who don’t trust science, the Keeper of Truth will continue to set you straight, so be careful what ye write.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentMe again, Ken…
No, the theory of evolution did not exist then–but that doesn’t mean God didn’t know about it. (After all, none of the rest of us with our “theories” were around to “enlighten” Him–so it’s HUMAN “science” that wasn’t around then!) And He didn’t address it because He was presenting TRUTH.
Even today, “science” is continually changing some of its information as new things are “discovered” – and scientists frequently don’t agree with each other on many things. Even Darwin isn’t considered infallible any longer! So how can one really KNOW who or who not to believe concerning what, or what not is truth? Maybe you can find peace and confidence in trusting modern human beings but I can’t.
No, I don’t understand a lot of things in this old wold but I’ll take God at His word every time. So far, He has never let me down (I just wish He could say the same about me!)
You Bible believing friend,
Lydian.
Lydian Belknap(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent wrote:
I really shouldn’t post such pejorative and sarcastic comments that add nothing else of substance to the conversation. I only do so in this particular case to question Prof. Kent on why he claims to believe in the SDA Fundamentals while scoffing at evidence in support of these fundamentals? – and even claiming that there is no Biblical support for the notion of a world-wide Noachian Flood or for the recent creation of all life on this planet? – despite the testimony of most mainstream Hebrew scholars to the contrary? – such as late Oxford Professor Dr. James Barr?
From an SDA perspective, add to Barr’s testimony the testimony of Mrs. White – which is also very clear on this topic…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@Lydian Belknap:
And how do you know that the Bible is the “living Word of God” without the use of at least some form of human reasoning from the available evidence? – i.e., a form of scientific reasoning? How can you know that you have accurately picked out the true Word of God from the many competing options? Upon what is your choice in the Bible based?
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentBill, I liked your statement:
However, I’m getting the feeling that our shared view on this is a minority opinion here.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentSo, Erv, if you know so much about this subject, why not give us your “educated” opinion, if you actually have one. You, being an anthropologist, must educate us!
Ron Stone(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s Quote
Dear Sean
As always, thanks for your opinion. Is there any empirical evidence for your position? I couldn’t find anything related to this theory under a brief search of geotectonics or plate tectonics. Is there any scientific evidence whatsoever that flooding causes giant tectonic plates to move, versus surface materials?
Regards
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
Absolutely 🙂
The author of the Genesis account does allude to such a sudden release of energy. Specifically, he notes that all of the fountains of the great deep were “broken” in a single day.
Before the Flood, it never rained and there were no large oceans. The Earth was watered by four great rivers and every morning the surface of the Earth was watered by dew that came up from the ground; with the water being supplied by the extensive underlying network of “fountains”. This mechanism of watering the Earth would have produced an extremely lush planet worldwide. This is consistent with Mrs. White’s claim that there were no extremes of temperature on the pre-Flood Earth – that the entire planet was of a uniform temperature and extremely lush and verdant.
All of this changed in one day when catastrophe struck the planet and broke up the Earth, all over the place, in a single day, resulting is massive flooding and rapid continental movements and collisions…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
I don’t think I’m making myself clear. I don’t believe that the flooding cause the plates to fracture and move. I believe that some massive sudden release of energy, maybe from a large meteor impact, caused both the plates to fracture and the continental surfaces to be flooded. It is the massive impact that caused both events – rapid continental tectonics and worldwide flooding at the same time on a massive scale…
For further discussion of this topic see:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Continental
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s Quote
Dear Sean
Thanks for the clarification. Sorry if I was being obtuse on catching your (continental) drift. Excuse the pun, it strikes me we should all have some gentle fun on this forum from time to time.
That is an interesting theory- two catastrophes happening in conjunction to cause geological change. OK, so lets take your speculation a little further. Is there anything in the Bible or the writings of EGW that allude to such a massive release of energy being caused by something other, or addition with, Noachian flooding? And if not why not is such a profound conjunctive event resulted in world wide flooding?
Regards
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentDear Sean
Nice work.
Regards
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View Comment@Ken: Dear Ken, Re. the kind of creation I espouse, what other kind is there? I espouse God’s creation, the only kind there is, not Evo’s randomy, into which God cannot be nudged. But of course you are implying my espousal of the 6-day creation, like Genesis says. Espousal? We’re not just espoused, we’re married, let the world know it! And since I’m happily married, I really should not be flirting with charming agnostics, should I? Be gentle.
Regards,
Your charmed friend,
Wes
wesley kime(Quote)
View CommentRe Wesley’s Quote
Dear Wesley
Very witty, I enjoyed that!
The problem with my date Evo is she keeps slowly changing over the millenia. Adaptable gal, that ole Evo!
Cheers
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentBy the way, Dr. Pitman, what would you say to those who insist that true SDAs–and the only faithful Church employees–believe the earth (not just life) is no older than 6000 years (which is exactly what Ellen White said). Is it okay for liberals, like you, who believe in an older earth to continue within Church employment? Would you resist those who call for “old earthers” to resign or be fired?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@ Sean Pitman
I fail to understand why an educated theologian-scientist-physician like you would resort so often to the Argument from Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority). Are these the same scholars who tell us that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God, and that the Sabbath is no longer relevant? Is truth now up for vote, Dr. Pitman?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@ Sean Pitman
Returning to this, where exactly in the Himalayas were the estimates obtained? From the summits of these mountains or from the valleys? I was unable to access your references; the unpublished reports you cited to support your claims appear to have been removed from the internet.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentInteresting questions, Ken. There certainly are fossils atop Mt Everest, but my confidence in other statements about Mt. Everest is eroding much faster than the mountain itself.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s Quote
“Rather, it seems like the current motion of the continents was the result of a recent catastrophic release of energy with a rapid initial movement of the continents and then a slowing down of their movement with the building of tall mountain ranges and deep ocean trenches. We are simply experiencing the residual aftershocks of that original catastrophe…”
Dear Sean
As always, thanks for your comments.
I’ve been reading and thinking and have a couple of questions based on your quote.
1. When do you or any scientists predict that continental drift will come to a standstill if it is slowing down? Is there any physical model or physics whatsoever to demonstrate that friction and gravity after 4000 years would not have stopped catastrophic continental drift? Seems like a long time for massive amounts of material to still be moving, if there is no known source of energy to drive continental drift as you posit.
2. Based on your theory should the rate of growth of Mt.Everest be slowing down? From what I have read GPS readings seem to indicate that it continues to grow at about 2.5 inches a year. When should that stop? Does the weight of evidence support that, 4000 years later, the original energy released from the earth breaking up in one day, is still causing Mt Everest to grow 2.5 inches a year?
Sorry to be like a dog with a ‘continental drift’ bone but scientific inquiry demands rigour and extreme attention to detail.
‘Moving slowly along now.’
Your agnostic friend
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentSpeaking of demographic presumption, I assume that everyone here has one question in mind: did God leave room for doubt? (Some might have noticed that the Bible authors failed to report z- and t-scores.)
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentLike the April rains in Ohio, on good days every twenty minutes, and as much a part of the landscape, and as welcome, are the postings of our beloved resident professor. And as inclusive, identifying himself with “all SDAs,” “all conservative Christians,” with all “scientific” and “inquiring” and “right-thinking minds Christian and agnostic,” “all Christians and agnostics of faith” (quotation marks as per Dan Rather) en masse, like the raindrops falling upon the just and unjust alike, like holy water sprinkled upon the throng, with individual blessings upon right-thinking posters like the Marshalls et al singled out by name; indeed upon, it would seem, every man and woman and high school student in creation, upon us all, all except Sean. Such name-dropping. But, alas, there might be some who, otherwise half-dozingly entertained, just might wish the voice sui generis would presume to speak only for itself. Such demographic presumption evokes the proffer’s own standard request — where’s your data? Have you personally done statistically valid polls? Show us your protocol. And parameters. Where are Z- and T-scores? As a start.
wesley kime(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
You think? Maybe if your garden there in Hemet were just a bit deeper… The Cretaceous layers, around the globe, range from several hundred to well over a thousand meters in thickness.
Are you really questioning the worldwide distribution of the Cretaceous layers? – especially the K-T boundary?
The Bible says that all the fountains of the great deep were broken up in a single day. Such a huge release of energy is consistent with a break up of the supercontinent and very rapid continental drift. This position is consistent with the physical evidence – that continental drift occurred much much more rapidly in the recent past. The modern theory that continental drift has been occurring for some 250 million years is inconsistent with the current evidence of very rapid coastal erosion rates and ocean sedimentation rates…
The physical evidence is consistent with the Biblical statements of origins while, at the same time, being inconsistent with the mainstream theories of origins regarding the geologic column and fossil records. These are records of a series of shortly spaced watery catastrophes on a worldwide scale – just like the Bible says. This evidence of a Noachian Flood was intended by God to support a rational faith in the reliability of His written Word – the Bible. However, this evidence has been misinterpreted far beyond its clear meaning to the candid mind by mainstream scientists. Mrs White comments on this situation as follows:
Also, consistent with Mrs. White’s claim that there were no tall mountain ranges as exist today, the layers of the geologic column are universally very flat relative to each other. Many of these layers have a very extensive distribution, being found all over the world (such as the Cretaceous and the K-T boundary), strongly supporting the conclusion that there were no very tall mountain ranges during this time. The Earth was in fact a much flatter place and was entirely covered by water at the same time.
The universal paleocurrents noted by Prof. Arthur Chadwick, all flowing the same direction around the entire globe at the same time over all the continents, also supports this conclusion in line with the biblical story and commentaries of Mrs. White.
Beyond this, there is no evidence in the geologic column to support your notion that there were tall mountain ranges as exist today during the pre-cretaceous periods of time. This notion of yours is completely unsupported by the evidence. The Earth was in fact a much flatter place than it is today before the end of the Cretaceous… world wide. This is the reason why we see sea shells and diatomaceous sediments on all of the tallest mountain ranges and on all the continents in the world today. This is also one of the reasons why all of the tallest mountain ranges in the world today, from the Rockies to the Himalayas, are thought, by mainstream scientists, to have started their uplift within the past 70 million years. Before this time, there simply were no such mountain ranges of remotely similar height. In other words, the world was, according to mainstream scientists, much much flatter than it is today – right in line with the comments of Mrs. White regarding the sequence of events (except for the actual timing of these events of course).
Please review the following topographical map of the Earth during the various periods of time geologic column formation:
http://www.scotese.com/3Dmodels.htm
Note that before the late Cretaceous, especially during the Middle Devonian, there simply are no significant mountain ranges evidenced in the geologic record. Even according to mainstream thinking the continents were nearly completely covered with water and the average surface ocean temperature was close to if not over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. This is also consistent with a huge release of energy that significantly warmed the entire planet during the Flood and for several hundred years after…
So, there is really no need for your appeal to blind faith or that all the available evidence is clearly in support of the mainstream model of origins. That notion of yours simply isn’t true. Your argument that just because every point and every claim found in the Bible cannot be directly proved is a silly argument. If every point could be directly proved without reference to the Bible, there would be no need of having the Bible at all. The credibility of the Bible is derived, not from absolute demonstration of all of its claims, but by the demonstration of those claims that can be tested to be consistently reliable and by the lack of any clearly falsifying evidence regarding the Bible’s description of the empirical reality in which we live.
I’m glad to see, though, that you’ve dropped your most interesting argument that no one can determine erosion rates in the Himalayas because no one has been directly observing and recording erosion rates over the course of even a thousand years ; )
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman, M.D.(Quote)
View CommentContinued to Sean.
Sorry about spelling errors. Sometimes the intuition of this iPad is not too accurate! ‘ Crescent – vs. Recent’ creation! Oh brother.
OK on we go. I hope my agnostic voice can be of some value to the site, if only to provide a neutral straw man to he debate. I think there is a need for agnosticism in a world separated by strong ideologies each proclaiming their respective superiority over the others. Although I think to date that evolution presents the most compelling case for origins I am open to scientific persuasion that this is not the case.
Notwithstanding all of this the most important thing you have espoused to date is the Royal Law of Love. I’ ve always intrinsically felt that, thought certainly not practice it! I’ m a poor worknin progress in that regard but I ‘ ll keep plugging away.
OK, other duties call. I hope this has some value and is not mere naval gazing.
Cheers
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentIn response to the question, ” do ou believe Ellen White was correct…” I do simply state and declare, I do believe in a 6 literal day creation as described in Genesis and by Ellen White. I believe our earth is about 6,000 years old as chronicled in the Bible. These things are not difficult for me to understand
I do believe in the GAP theory, too. That human reasoning and knowledge has lots of GAPS in them that confuse amd lead many away from God. I believe Deut. 29: 29 gives us more answers then we generally give it credit for answering on this subject being duscussed here. Not familar with this verse? It lets us know that God has given us enough knowledge to get us through this world of sin and misery that is plagued by a literal fallen angel identifed as Satan.
And how is science doing on that- explaining the reality of demons and unfallen angels? A team of scientists from Central Michigan U came out to a house trailer in the area I once pastored in central Michigan in the late 80s- early 90s to investiage, scientificly a reported haunting. These scientists wired the house trailer all up to their instruments (yes, they had instruments for measuring this kind of thing- science is so, well, scientific these days!) so they could take a reading to see if the “spirit” manifestations in the house trailer where “positive” or “negative.” After their scientific work was done they told the lady living in the trailer “not to worry- the spirits in your house are positive spirits.” She was thrilled to know the spirit manifestations in her house trailer were positive and she had nothing to be concerned about. It made a nice converstaion piece, too, I”m sure, and after all, it was all very scientifically explained. Who can argue iwth science these days?
I think it is time to let grown men haggle over their scientific stuff. But some of us should gather our children around us and hold them close under the cloak of simple faith in God until the indignation is past.
BTW, Mt Everst is actually growing in height.
Pastor Doug Carlson
Associate Pastor, Battle Creek Tabernacle, Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
Douglas Carlson(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
As already noted numerous times, erosion rates are closely tied to slope angle. The Tibetan Plateau, being a plateau, has relatively little surface erosion because there is obviously no significant slope (the sloped edges of the plateau are a different story). This is why the average erosion rate of the surface of the Tibetan Plateau is less than 30 mm/ka while the erosion rate for the steep mountain slopes is around 4000 mm/ka.
Erosion rates are a good way to put a maximum cap on the exposure of certain features as erosional surfaces. The modern claim is that the Himalayan Mountains, to include Mt. Everest, have been at their current elevation as mountainous terrain for over 20 million years and have been uplifted as erosional surfaces for some 50 million years. Erosion rates on the mountainous slopes suggest that these ages are off by at least an order of magnitude. Other lines of evidence, such as that presented by Yang Wang on lake sediments, suggest the same thing… that the uplift of the Himalayas could not have taken place more than a couple million years ago.
This means that the uplift could have taken place much more recently than that. And, there are other lines of evidence that restrict the time of formation much much further – as I’ve already noted for you in this forum and on my website.
Some of these evidences include the very flat formation of the layers of the geologic column with minimum erosion between layers. The lack of expected bioturbation, universal paleocurrents on the surfaces of the sedimentary layers, the presence of significant amounts of radiocarbon within the fossils, the presence of elastic soft tissue and sequencable proteins within the fossils, the high mutation rate and rapid deterioration of the genomes of slowly reproducing creatures (i.e., the genetic meltdown rate puts a maximum cap on the age of many types of living things), etc.
All of these features are much more consistent with a very recent universal watery catastrophe or shortly-spaced series of catastrophes within recent history than with the mainstream interpretation of the geologic column, fossil record, and various geologic features like the Himalayan Mountains and even the Tibetan Plateau.
As I’ve already explained, there is a young-life model that suggests that much of the geologic column and fossil record was produced by a recent worldwide Flood or very closely-spaced series of flood that were likely part of a single universal Flood – consistent with the Noachian story recorded in Genesis and more loosely in the nearly universal Flood legends of ancient cultures around the world today.
The evidence for the recent occurrence of such a Flood, as already noted, comes in the form of maximum age limits of many features associated with either the geology itself or the fossils or organic material within the geologic column. K-Ar dating, and other such radiometric dating methods, are not the only ways to reasonably estimate elapsed time – nor are these radiometric dating methods consistent with each other or other the other dating methods listed (as noted by Yang Wang).
Now, it’s fine to conclude that you really don’t have enough evidence to come to a reasonable conclusion in the credibility of the Biblical account – or even the existence of God as is your position. However, you do yourself a great disservice to remain in the boat you’re in. At the very least, the evidence for the existence of a Designer that is effectively indistinguishable by humans from a God or God-like Intelligence and Power is, in my opinion, enormous. Even many modern physicists are coming to this conclusion based on the anthropic features of the universe itself that are needed to make this place able to support complex life.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/detectingdesign.html#Special
Given such evidence, how reasonable is it for someone to continue to avoid taking advantage of what God offers to those who believe in Him and ask for His personal help in daily life? I know it is nice to be in an unfalsifiable position. You can never be wrong because you don’t put yourself out on the line. It is very easy to simply avoid taking any position whatsoever on the existence of God – to be free to argue all sides without personally committing to one or the other. However, this fence-sitting position is not without its own costs and losses. You will end up loosing much that you might have had in this life if you remain on your fence…
Just something to think about. I do appreciate your natural kindness and apparent sincerity, but I do not envy you your position.
All the best…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentIt could be a haphazard God as you point out. Dawkins also points out the utter absurditity of an intelligent being deliberately choosing to create and sustain such a tooth-and-claw disease and extinction system.
However the Bible tells us of origins where there is no disease and death as God designs and creates the system. Only after rebellion do we see the “result” of the free will choice for rebellion.
Neither Genesis 1 or 2 describes life as arising in a harsh environment where able. Rather the world is “formatted” as we see in Genesis 1 and all conditions are “made” to be ideal.
Ellen White claims to have seen in vision 1 or two inhabited world personally but in her descriptions of the universe as she said God described it to her – she states that there are in fact many inhabited worlds in the universe.
Ken
With respect, I think you are taking one of those ‘leaps of faith’ when you leap from the notion of design to the transcendent biblical God. Trite to say that all designers do not see the same design. Behe of the irreducible complexity argument clearly does not support young life on earth. He just sees life evolving from a later point than chemical soup.
It is readily agreed that many in the Intelligent Design group are in fact still evolutionists. However they are believing in evolutionism in a context that is not “distinctly atheist” by choosing an I.D form of evolutionism. Logic would tell us that this is where ALL the T.E’s would be gathered – but innexplicably many of them choose self-conflicted arguments so consistently that they fail to see their blunder in this regard.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentA little more regarding the erosion rates or “unroofing” of the mountain tops of the Himalayan region:
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s Quote
“At the very least, the evidence for the existence of a Designer that is effectively indistinguishable by humans from a God or God-like Intelligence and Power is, in my opinion, enormous. Even many modern physicists are coming to this conclusion based on the anthropic features of the universe itself that are needed to make this place able to support complex life.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/detectingdesign.html#Special
Given such evidence, how reasonable is it for someone to continue to avoid taking advantage of what God offers to those who believe in Him and ask for His personal help in daily life?”
Dear Sean
Of course this raises the issue of theodicy and a designer that planned for death and destruction. Not a pretty concept is it?
As you have often acknowledged if biological life is indicative of design this does not necessarily mean, ipso facto, that biblical God is the designer of our universe. Based on what we see it could be a haphazard designer who built in catastrophe and death into the equation. It could be a dice thrower who if It threw the celestial dice often enough in enough metauniverses would eventually, randomly hit upon a design that would render evolutionary evolving life upon certain planets with the right physical properties.
You earlier noted that EGW saw life on other planets. Why isn’t there life on all planets or only one planet if there is a design to the universe? Bit haphazard of a design isn’t it? I do not see a pattern there, unless it is one of random natural selection – life adapting to harsh environments where it is able.
With respect, I think you are taking one of those ‘leaps of faith’ when you leap from the notion of design to the transcendent biblical God. Trite to say that all designers do not see the same design. Behe of the irreducible complexity argument clearly does not support young life on earth. He just sees life evolving from a later point than chemical soup.
Look at the beginning of human life from a zygote. Clearly a repetitive design. Is human embryonics part of the evolutionary ‘design’ of simple celled organisms evolving to more complex ones? Arguable isn’t it? If God made Adam and Eve instantly in a day, why don’t we see a full formed miniature human formed on the day of conception?
Sorry Sean, but for me at least, there are a lot of gaps to fill before I can make the leap of faith you advocate. I have to slowly and methodically build those rational bridges across the gaps to make progress down the ontological brick road.
Cheers
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentSince editing is not possible on this particular site – those last to paragraphs above should be formatted like this —
It is readily agreed that many in the Intelligent Design group are in fact still evolutionists. However they are believing in evolutionism in a context that is not “distinctly atheist” by choosing an I.D form of evolutionism. Logic would tell us that this is where ALL the T.E’s would be gathered – but innexplicably many of them choose self-conflicted arguments so consistently that they fail to see their blunder in this regard.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
Freezing alone does not significantly reduce granitic erosion rates. Covering the rocks with deep snow or ice that is not moving does significantly reduce erosion rates – as would be expected.
In your references glaciers that are not moving are described as being “frozen to their beds”. However, those glaciers that are moving produce enhanced erosion – as would be expected.
You need to read up a bit on a theory called “glacial buzzsaw”. As it turns out, mountain tops that are above the line were snow does not melt are rapidly eroded by moving snow and ice in a “buzzsaw” effect. There are a few exceptions to this rule – usually regarding mountains in the South Pole. The suggested reason for these exceptions, as your own references point out, is that it is so cold at the South Pole that the glaciers are frozen in place and therefore do not move and therefore do not cause erosion.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1737061/climate_change_causes_mountains_to_downsize/
Faster rock uplift rates lead to more terrain at higher elevations thus allowing for more ice and snow accumulation. Steeper slopes (higher relief) at higher elevations result in greater movement of both snow and ice in a downhill direction (except in some places at the South Pole of course). Such movement of snow and/or ice, along with the many landslides in the Himalayas (the primary mechanism of very high erosion rates in the Himalayas), drive erosion rates that can match and sometimes exceed the mountain uplift rates. Of course, because landslides are primarily responsible for the greatest amount of erosion over time, erosion rates over short periods of time are episodic.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~bodo/pdf/gabet08_modern_erosion_himalaya.pdf
It is for such reasons that “Mount Everest, the highest mountain in the world, is still growing as India continues to push into Eurasia. Average growth in the Himalayas is 3-5 mm/year total as measured using the Global Positioning System (GPS) units that have been placed on the top of Mount Everest by scientists. This growth includes the uplift from the two colliding plates (about 1 cm/year) and erosion of the mountains (approximately 3 mm/year). Not only is Mount Everest growing higher every year, it is also being pushed in the north-easterly direction about 3 cm/year as India continues to move northward into Eurasia!”
http://madsci.org/posts/archives/2003-07/1058996766.Es.r.html
http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=1075
This particular reference, as already noted for you before, is in fact talking about erosion affecting the top of Mt. Everest. That is why the height of Mt. Everest doesn’t increase even faster – – because it is being eroded, top down, at ~3mm/year as I’ve already explained to you several times now (ala the ‘buzzsaw’ effect). Compare this rate of mountain top and side erosion to the incision rates of the river or glacial beds which can be as high as 10-15 mm/yr. Also, sediment yield derived from the measurement of suspended load in Himalayan rivers suggests that fluvial incision drives hillslope denudation of the landscape at the scale of the whole range.
http://www.geo.tu-freiberg.de/oberseminar/os03_04/martina_b%F6hme.pdf
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2001/2001JB000359.shtml
Oh, and by the way, the tops of the Himalayan Mountains are not the only surfaces covered by thick sedimentary layers within the Himalayan region you know. The “valleys” in between the mountain peaks are also covered by sedimentary layers as well. So, either way you want to look at it, there’s a problem when it comes to explaining the continued existence of these sedimentary layers within the Himalayas…
That’s the problem. The snow and ice is not frozen in place in the Himalayas, but is moving. Of course, this movement results in very rapid erosion (along with the other forces of erosion in play that I’ve already mentioned).
The slope angle of these high-mountain “valleys”, as you call them, is quite steep. Therefore, these very steep “valleys” are also eroding quite rapidly… as are the tops and sides of the mountains themselves…
I’ve given you references discussing the erosion rates of the mountains themselves – erosion rates which significantly affect the uplift rates (rates that are known based on GPS mapping). I’ve also given you the mechanism of mountain top erosion – i.e., glacial buzzsaw:
What else do you want? I know, why don’t you tell me what you think the mountain top erosion rate of Mt. Everest is? – have any references to counter mine?
Come on now…
Exposed granitic rock has an average erosion rate that is much faster than the rate you would assume based only on chemical erosion or in comparison to a frozen corps. This is, of course, because of landslide erosion due to cracking of the granitic rock as it is exposed to changing weather conditions over time and because of the “buzzsaw” effect of moving snow and ice down the granitic slopes.
These rates and mechanisms of mountain erosion have already been published Professor. They aren’t anything new…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentPraise God that we have leaders who are following this admonition:
“The want of the world is the want of men,– men who will not be bought or sold; men who in their inmost souls are true and honest; men who do not fear to call sin by its right name; men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole; men who will stand for the right thought the heavens fall.” Colporter Ministry p. 54.
Virginia Dart-Collins(Quote)
View CommentThe MOST fundamental of Adventisit beliefs is to seek truth, no matter where it is found or where it leads. Sadly, it seems to me that the denomination is about to abandon this most fundamental of principles in favor of “faith” and orthodoxy.
There may be split comming, but which side is committed to truth?
Ron Nielsen(Quote)
View CommentWhile I’m mildly optimistic the “proof of the pudding will be in the eating.”
As someone indicated — talk is cheap. This scandal has been long enough evident and proven that at least preliminary steps *must* be taken very soon. Lip-service alone is ineffective. I’m quite certain there are powerful forces that will support the status quo of LSU and its president.
GMF(Quote)
View CommentEven Ervin Taylor recognizes that the liberals time is short. His agreement on Spectrum (Sept.12 2:28)to the statement, “Conservatives are fighting and winning the denominational war” shows that he admits the liberals are in trouble.
Taylor says either the liberals “deny” or “don’t care.” The real truth is that liberals don’t have the “numbers” to “fight” very well (despite their academics trying their best such as at LSU, and on Spectrum and AT.) And the SDA Church is spreading most abundantly in areas outside the U.S. where most new members are more conservative.
Taylor and his cronies know that their time is short, as we are seeing more SDA’s become aware of what has been going on “behind closed academic doors” for decades at LSU and other places. They will, I believe, continue their fight, as they have much more passion than most bible-believing SDA’s.
Despite the false argument that liberals have a “better way” to evangelize (using solely the social gospel) their “fruits” aren’t keeping up with the “fruits” of the traditional, more conservative evangelistic methods.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentSounds like there’s a man with spine and a smile here. We watch and pray.
Pat(Quote)
View CommentI was rather shocked that Elder Jackson said this:
By faith? No! Surely he jests.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View CommentBob, This type of trick was first used by Ervin Taylor in one of his articles about EducateTruth. He claimed we were all complaining because LSU was teaching “about” evolution.
Interestingly, Taylor also claimed that this website was running out of steam and would probably soon be kaput. We all can see how perceptive Taylor is in his predictions!
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View Comment‘twould be a sorry eventuality to be caught in a tit-for-tat discussion, even of a vital topic, when “a cloud about the size of a man’s hand” appears. I’d be guessing a lot of even clever arguments in defense of the truth will be feeling suddenly stale on the tongue.
Oneness with Jesus Christ, that means one Life shared by two, is what He’ll come to affirm or to deny in the lives of the professors (academic and otherwise). Without this first in place, chances are we’ll spend time posting words at each other that He would never post. With this in place we may find ourselves deeply attracted to the needs of the widows, fatherless, poor, captives of sin, with…sorry…just not enough time for argument.
These are the real new clothes…do all the emperors in the room have them on?
“But go and see what this means… …that the life of Jesus might be manifest in our mortal bodies.”
“…and beginning at the eldest…”
Daryl Hoyt(Quote)
View CommentSounds like God has answered our prayers and has put the GC and NAD presidents in place to rein in the runaway buggy.
From what I can infer, they will be dealing with the issue at LSU (and elsewhere) shortly, decisively and dogmatically. I have a smile of satisfaction.
Jonathan Smith(Quote)
View CommentDuring my long years of service to this Church as a Pastor/Bush-Pilot/RN in the South American jungles, I learned this phrase: “Hechos no palabras”.
That means: “Action, not simply words”. I’m looking with some anxiety on the future in this discussion/conflict.
We pastors are trained to be “compassionate”, “long suffering”, but we misuse those virtues if we simply say “understanding things” and don’t deal decisively with difficult issues.
I’m praying that this matter will promptly be resolved to God’s satisfaction, and hope other readers of this site will join me.
Kindest regards,
Pastor Richard Gates/RN
(Retired GC Mission Aviation Bolivia/Peru)
Richard Gates(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
Only life on Earth. The material of the Earth may be and I think is far older than 10,000 years. I also think the Bible suggests the pre-existence of the material of the Earth before the beginning of “creation week”. It was during creation week that the material of the Earth was ordered and structured so as to allow for the support of complex life. At the start of this creation account the author notes that the Earth before creation week was “formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” – Genesis 1:2 NIV
This statement strongly suggests the pre-existence of the material of the Earth before the creation week started. It is just that this material was not properly ordered or structured yet, before the creation week. God had to do a lot of forming of the actual material of the Earth before it could be inhabited by and support complex life…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentAs an individual who has grown up in the church and church schools, the whole contemplation of evolution as a rule in our institutions was shocking. I am pleased, as well as my family, to see President Ted Wilson and his staff address these issues in short order. Yes, the shaking is in progress, and yet, all must be done in love, as referenced by our new NAD President. We each will be judged individually, and held accountable. We must Stand Firm on those precepts which the Bible makes absolutely clear, and remove those who support otherwise. Let us look to the cross, and behave likewise. The Bible states in Ecc. 4:10 “For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.” when one falls, to have others standing by to pick them up, and that is what each of us, in Christian love, are charged to do. Let us not just have the mark in our foreheads, but move forward with postive, deciding action. 1 Thes. 5:16-17 Rejoice evermore (because God is always in charge!) and pray without ceasing (for forces unseen are at work, which we, as humans cannot battle except through prayer).
Prayerfully,
Kevin Manestar
Kevin Manestar(Quote)
View Comment@Ron Nielsen, So, where does most of your “truth” come from? Human wisdom, cultural beliefs, how you feel? Most of the “orthodoxy” find their truth (and faith)in the Bible.
Ron Stone M.D.(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s Quote
Dear Sean
Thanks very much, that helps to narrow down the issues. I did go to your website and read the excerpt on C 14 and coal. Interesting stuff.
I’ll focus on the age of life on earth.
Regards
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View CommentDear Sean
I just read about Dr.Mary Schweitzer’s research on finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Fascinating stuff!
Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems as if mainstream science is accepting rather than repressing her research.
I also read that, notwithstanding she is an evangelical Christian, she believes in evolution. Do you know much about her or her work?
Regards
Ken
Ken(Quote)
View Comment“We have already set in motion a discussion to be conducted sometime this summer at General Conference headquarters with some of the leaders of our institutions. I would not anticipate that this discussion will go on and on.”
Since “this summer” is now over, the “discussion” should already have taken place. Has anyone heard anything about the “discussion”?? Or did he mean next summer, which doesn’t begin for nine months?
And what are these discussions supposed to be about? I recall that the church had a three-year series of “discussions” on this issue from 2002 to 2004. The upshot of these discussions was that the church affirmed its doctrine of creation, but the rogue professoriate was essentially confirmed in the notion that it can hold and teach heterodox positions without consequences. Further “discussions” along those lines will only make the problem worse.
I would advise everyone to wait and see what happens, otherwise you are setting yourself up for a “Lucy and the football” moment.
David Read(Quote)
View CommentThey might just as well have said “LSU is allegedly an Adventist University”.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan(Quote)
View CommentThere is nothing wrong about teaching evolution in our schools. What is wrong is teaching it as the scientific TRUTH to the point of refusing to consider adverse scientific data which tends to support the biblical view of origins. My understanding is that at LSU, science teachers routinely ignored the contributions of Adventist creationist scholars arguing that only peer reviewed books were allowed in their curriculum.
I learned about the theory of evolution from Adventist teachers in Academy over six decades ago and saw nothing wrong with this because it was presented as an erroneouis theory which contradicted the clear teaching of the Bible about origins. I believe that this is the correct approach to the teaching of evolution in our schools.
Nic Samojluk(Quote)
View CommentWhen Jackson said:
“I’ll tell you why I have no softness [on this issue]. A precious child of mine, many years ago, went through an Adventist institution and had some challenges. I have no difficulty understanding the angst of parents; and my commitment is to do all I can to assist whoever is dealing with the issue to bring it resolution.”
It tells me that he has experienced some things that we have been seeing for all too along. It takes people who have been through the mire to understand. I believe he does. There appears to be a resolution on the horizon at last.
Spectrum’s use of the word “allegedly” caught my attention also. Certainly they know what is being taught at LSU as well as the rest of us. Using such phraseology is deception and deceiving is lying. Have they no shame? Don’t they realize that there will come a time when they will have to give an account for such as this? Pointedly, Heaven or Hell? Which?
Bill
Bill Eichner(Quote)
View Comment[edit – off topic reposts are not encouraged]
Wayne Matlock(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
Why not post what he said? I’d be most interested. You can edit any inappropriate language if you wish, but by all means, do let me know the explanation your most esteemed geologist friend shared with you as to why sedimentary layers have not been washed off the Himalayan mountains many times over by now. After all, as far as I know, the facts I’ve listed off for you are rather conservative. And, I’m not the only one who has noticed a problem between the lack of erosion and the assumed time that certain surfaces are supposed to have been exposed to forces of erosion…
Consider also a more recent paper published in 2008 by Yang Wang et. al. of Florida State University. Wang and her team found thick layers of ancient lake sediment in the high Himalayan mountains filled with plant, fish and animal fossils typical of far lower elevations and warmer, wetter climates. Paleo-magnetic studies determined the sample’s age to be only 2 or 3 million years old, not tens of millions of years old. In an interview with Science Daily she said:
And, in the abstract of their paper, Wang et. al. wrote:
So, how does your geologist friend explain this apparent discrepancy between known erosion/uplift rates and the assumed ages of these mountain ranges? – not to mention the dramatic discrepancies noted by Wang et. al. when it comes to the dating methods used to estimate the ages of these mountain ranges?
I didn’t say that ecologic zonation is not a proposed mechanism to explain certain features of the fossil record. I said that it was not the only mechanism. It is a reasonable mechanism to explain some, but certainly not all, features of the fossil record.
As I’ve already noted for you, ecologic zonation is one among many potential explanations for the sorting of various features of the fossil record. It is by no means the only explanation (even at SAU since I personally know several of the science professors there) nor is any one explanation completely adequate by itself to explain all of the features of the fossil record.
Note also that a complete explanation of the fossil/geologic record is not needed before one can recognize the significant weight of evidence for a recent catastrophic origin. You don’t have to understand or explain every aspect of the record in order to recognize that the weight of evidence that is understandable is clearly that of a catastrophic event that took place within fairly recent history…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment@ Sean Pitman
You claim to have considerable knowledge about geology in general, and erosion in particular. I’ve been wondering why you would insist that peaks erode faster than valleys, particularly since soils on the highest peaks (like the Himalayas) are frozen and to a large extent covered by snow, and because meltwater in the valleys would cause more erosion. Your claims have seemed counter-intuitive to me, but as you have pointed out, I’m no geologist and have a poor grasp on erosion. Surely you are well read and have seen the article I’ll paste an abstract of below. Have you considered writing the authors to point out their flawed conclusions?
T.A. Stern, A.K. Baxter, and P.J. Barrett. 2005. Isostatic rebound due to glacial erosion within the Transantarctic Mountains. Geology 33:221-224.
In temperate climates, 25% of peak elevations in mountain ranges can be created by isostatic rebound as a response to erosional incision. Significantly more relief generation and peak uplift are, however, possible for glacial erosion in a polar climate. We incorporate regional isostasy using flexure of an elastic plate to show that isostatic rebound as a response to glacial incision can account for as much as 2000 m or 50% of peak elevation in the central Transantarctic Mountains. Differences in relief of at least 5500 m over lateral distances of just 40 km are evident within the central part of the 3000-km-long mountain range. Such strong relief is possible because a polar climate since the middle Miocene has resulted in freezing conditions at high elevations, which acted to preserve the peaks, whereas wet-based glaciers at low elevations have produced optimal conditions for enhanced glacial incision. Because isostatic rebound results in permanent peak uplift, this mechanism provides an explanation of why the Transantarctic Mountains are one of the higher and more long-lived continental rift margins on Earth.
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Ken:
This really doesn’t help at all because Mt. Everest is thought to have attained more than its current elevation (as high as 15,000 meters) over 20 million years ago. That’s far far too long ago for there to be any remaining sedimentary layers atop Mt. Everest. Given just a couple million years all of the sedimentary layers atop Mt. Everest would have been washed completely away by now. That’s the problem in a nutshell – beyond the fact that there is still a great deal of argument over the actual start of the uplift of Everest as an erosional surface (many scientist still beleive it happened some 50-60 million years ago).
Not true. 5000 meters of thickness would be eroded in less than 2 million years at current erosion rates at these elevations. Also, the original overlying thickness of the lava layers would not provide significant protection. These layers would also have been eroded completely away in less than 2 million years.
These are notoriously untrustworthy dating methods and are inconsistent with dating methods used to show that lake bed sediments within this region are no more than 2-3 million years – as per the work of Yang Wang et. al. as already noted above in this thread and linked below for your convenience.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080611144021.htm
It is a more than an order of magnitude in contradiction with models that suggest that the Tibetan Plateau has been at its current elevation for tens of millions of years. It just goes to show that various means of estimating age, within mainstream science, can be very very inconsistent and contradictory. The erosion rate evidence, on the other hand, seems to put a very solid cap on maximum ages that is in strong contradiction to most mainstream models and dating methods.
The erosion argument only puts a maximum age on certain geologic features. It suggests that the entire geologic column was set in place within the last few million years at most. This is strongly opposes mainstream thinking and is at least consistent with a recent catastrophic model of origins. Other features of the geologic/fossil records, as I’ve listed on my website, narrow the maximum age of these records even further – much much closer to the ~4000 year old model than to the mainstream model of many tens and even hundreds of millions of years of time.
There is no known energy source that could drive continental drift slowly over tens of millions of years. The current drift that is occurring is the result of a recent catastrophic release of energy and very rapid drift which is consistent with the residual drift that we see today.
I don’t have to know a specific source of the catastrophic energy release to know that such an event is most consistent with the evidence. Could the energy have been produced by the impact of one or more large meteors? Sure. Are there other potential sources of catastrophic energy release? Sure, but it really doesn’t matter to the argument at hand…
Originally fast in recent history with a significant slowing over time to the current rate of movement… as in a car crash where the beginning of the crash results in very rapid “mountain building”, so to speak, with a rapid decline in the rate of this movement as the energy is used up over time…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View CommentRe Sean’s Quotes
“Given the lack of very tall mountain ranges, any massive impact or sudden release of energy on the Earth would have produced huge Tsunamis traveling a very high speeds around the entire globe – with nothing to stop them from going around and around the whole Earth (depositing sedimentary layers each time around).”
“Consider the following statements of Mrs. White in this regard:
Some of the people bound their children and themselves upon powerful animals, knowing that these were tenacious of life, and would climb to the highest points to escape the rising waters. Some fastened themselves to lofty trees on the summit of hills or mountains; but the trees were uprooted, and with their burden of living beings were hurled into the seething billows. One spot after another that promised safety was abandoned. As the waters rose higher and higher, the people fled for refuge to the loftiest mountains. Often man and beast would struggle together for a foothold, until both were swept away.
– Ellen White, PP, p. 100 ”
Dear Sean
Do you think these two statements are compatible?
Cheers
Ken
ken(Quote)
View Comment@ Sean Pitman
Would these Tsunamis depositing fossils have taken place before the flood, when you claim there were no large oceans; during the flood, when water covered the entire earth and we are told that all the deposits were buried; or after the flood? Were the deposits washed up on land or buried in situ under water?
How do you account for the multiple fossil layers? Were these all deposited at one time (e.g., day 17 of the flood)? Or by multiple tsumanis? With such massive tsunamis, why didn’t the marine/lowland/montane sediments containing life forms from different ecological zones (a common creationist explanation for simple-to-complex stratification of fossils) get all jumbled together?
And, in response to the most fascinating implication of your evidence-based science, in which single direction do tsunamis generally flow–is it east, west, north, or south?
Professor Kent(Quote)
View Comment@Professor Kent:
The links to the PDF files of the abstracts and papers (which were published by the way) are still active. I just tried them out again and they still work. Many more references regarding erosion rates within major mountain chains are available. Just do a bit of searching yourself if you don’t believe me or if you actually question the erosion rates I’ve listed to any significant degree. Here’s another one I found for you to consider (as already noted above, but obviously you did not even try to read):
“The comparison between the Brahmaputra and the Ganga shows that the eastern Himalaya has a higher erosion rate (2.9 mm/yr) than the western Himalaya (2.1 mm/yr).” [over 200 cm/kyr]
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/29/1/23.abstract
Or this letter published in 2003 by the journal Nature noting that erosion rates in the Himalayas have a “long-term” range from 2-5 mm/yr:
http://lgca.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr/perso/pvanderb/doc_pedago_fichiers/TUE558_articles/Burbank_Nature2003.pdf
Why then are you arguing that no one can tell what the erosion rate on Mt. Everest is or was over the past thousand years? or more?
The reasoning is not at all inconsistent with a worldwide Flood since the entire world is in fact covered by sediments that were deposited by water (water that was flowing in the same direction world-wide at various points in time by the way).
At the very least this evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that during this period of time and before, there were no high mountain ranges as there are today – as also noted by Mrs. White and consistent with the Biblical claim that all the “mountains” that existed before the Flood were low enough to be completely covered by the waters of the Flood.
Clearly, even by mainstream thinking, the entire world was a much flatter place during the formation of the geologic/fossil records than it is today. That’s a fact which even mainstream scientists accept. I’m quite surprised, actually, that you would think to challenge this particular statement of Mrs. White since it is at least one of her statements that is very much in line with mainstream scientific thinking…
Given the lack of very tall mountain ranges, any massive impact or sudden release of energy on the Earth would have produced huge Tsunamis traveling a very high speeds around the entire globe – with nothing to stop them from going around and around the whole Earth (depositing sedimentary layers each time around).
Such a view is not only consistent with the Biblical account of the Flood, it is consistent with the general features of the geologic record to include the very flat layers world-wide, the uniform direction of water flow world wide, and the general lack of uneven erosion between layers as well as the general lack of significant bioturbation.
People are free to doubt in the face of otherwise overwhelming evidence to the candid mind. People are able to doubt even in the face of someone being raised from the dead before their very eyes or in the face of the 10 plagues of Egypt that came exactly at the announcement of Moses. What are the odds? You don’t need z- or t-scores spelled out for you to understand that the odds of random chance or luck being the true explanation are extraordinarily slim. Yet, you are still free to doubt just the same in the face of clearly overwhelming odds. Remember, science isn’t about what is possible, but what is probable…
However, even if you think you are correct in your views, you are not free to expect the SDA Church to pay you or anyone else to express views that directly undermine the Church’s clearly stated goals and ideals – even if you think your ideas are much more reasonable and scientifically sound. As any viable organization, the Church must hire only those representatives who are actually willing to accurately represent what the Church stands for as an organization. This really isn’t about judging those who are honestly sincere in their disagreement with the Church. There are many such people who very honest and sincere. It is just that honesty and sincerity aren’t enough to get a paycheck from the Church… or any other organization for that matter with which one fundamentally disagrees.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman(Quote)
View Comment