New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues



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.”

558 thoughts on “New NAD president: ‘I love you’ doesn’t mean we won’t deal with issues

  1. @ Sean Pitman

    Oh, and by the way, ecological zonation is not the only reasonable explanation for the evident sorting of the fossil record (likely a complex combination of factors), nor is it presented as such by SAU. Why don’t you actually provide the reference to the quote you list?

    Sorry, but you are misinformed. Ecological zonation is indeed the sanctioned explanation at SAU. My friend’s email didn’t give the exact reference, but a simple Google search yielded it:

    https://www.southern.edu/faithandscience/resources/Pages/origins5.aspx

    I take it you disagree with this SAU position. I’d like to know why. I hope you are not interested in seeking employment there.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  2. My SDA biologist friend emailed me the following statement, apparently from some paper or report published at Southern Adventist University.

    As the flood waters rose, they encountered higher, cooler, and dryer habitats. Dinosaurs are buried below layers with large mammals; therefore, they lived at lower elevations than the mammalian communities did. Lower elevations are warmer than higher elevations; therefore, dinosaurs lived in warmer, more humid biomes than modern mammals do. Large mammals would have been too hot to survive within the dinosaur communities. This is why there are no large mammals buried with the dinosaurs.

    I find this statement regarding the sorting of fossil layers by ecological zonation fascinating on a number of accounts. First, I was led to believe by Sean Pitman that the pre-flood climate was very even, which would be the case if, indeed, there were no tall mountains. Where did all these different biomes come from?

    Second, Ellen White stated that “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 (PP, p. 100).” I can’t think of many animals more powerful and tenacious of life than those pre-flood saurian reptiles. Why couldn’t they have made it to those taller mountains?

    Third, Ellen White also stated, “Often man and beast would struggle together for a foothold, until both were swept away (PP, p. 100).” Swept away? If animals, including humans, were “swept away” by the water, then why weren’t they mixed in with other animals? Why is it that animals from different biomes that were “swept away,” or sloshed about by Pitman’s giant tsunamis, failed to become just a little jumbled up somewhere–yes, somewhere–on this planet?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  3. @ Sean Pitman

    Look, we both know that you do not believe in the SDA position of a truly worldwide Flood where the water of the Flood covered the entire surface of the Earth and killed all land animals save those on the Ark. You may call yourself a Seventh-day Adventist, but you are in fundamental disagreement with the pillar of the SDA Church on the topic of origins. That’s fine and all, just don’t present yourself as something you’re not – as truly believing in and actively upholding all of the pillars of the SDA Church as an organized body…

    I am continually saddened by the dogmatic position you and others take on trivial spiritual issues which, for the sake of “truth,” can be erected as pillars. Believing the flood covered every scrap of land at one point in earth history (which is not the focus of any SDA fundamental belief) has no more bearing on one’s salvation than believing that God forbids one from receiving a blood transfusion, or instructs us to take up poison and serpents. If being a “Seventh-day Adventist” requires a firm position on such trivial points, and people like you are determined to police the membership on these issues, then the SDA Church has become an exclusive club based on ideology rather than fellowship in a loving creator and savior.

    The irony, however, is that I do not take a dogmatic position in either direction on the extent of the flood. I have some skepticism about the meaning of “all” in Genesis, just as you refuse to believe Ellen White’s very clear dictate that the earth is no older than about 6,000 years (3SG 91.1). I don’t believe we have all the facts, and I think it’s a mistake to declare to the world, “we have it right, and if you do not believe as we do, you’re an idiot and you can’t be one of us.” I have met many SDAs in my lifetime who were warm, gracious, and inviting. I would like to be able to say the same of you.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  4. @ Sean Pitman

    LOL – You’re trying to compare humans to water?

    No…obviously the logic escapes you.

    Look, you’ve tried to argue that world-wide water-deposited sediments and the lack of tall mountain ranges during the formation of the geologic record is inconsistent with the Biblical account of a truly world-wide Noachian Flood – a Flood that was not just “world-wide in effect” as you argue (contrary to the position of the SDA Church). Such an argument doesn’t hold water given all the available evidence. But Oh, I remember, we’ve all been “brainwashed by the SDA Church”, according to you, to believe that the flood waters of the Noachian Flood did in fact cover the entire Earth and wipe out every land-dwelling creature on the planet save those within Noah’s ark…

    Not so. All I’ve done is question whether your “understanding” is based on evidence or faith. It’s pretty clear to even the casual reader that you make great leaps of faith regarding the many geological and biological events associated with the flood. Your theology unquestionably dictates your “science.” And hungry souls want to believe every statement you make against modern science…even though you repeatedly denigrate their faith.

    I’m tired of the Himalayan talk. I find your statements to be based on a highly selective fishing expedition of the literature. That’s okay, but again it’s theology driving your “science.”

    The fact is that their is evidence of world-wide flow patterns on the surfaces of the sedimentary layers within the geologic record (which shift directions in a world-wide manner). Such evidence is simply inconsistent with the mainstream perspective – dramatically so.

    I’m still greatly amused that tsunamis would flow in a single direction from the point of generation, particularly when there is no land (entirely covered by the flood) to buffer their action. This would certainly be consistent with a supernatural (non-scientific) explanation for the deposition of fossils. Fascinating observation.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  5. Dear Sean

    The irony of course is you again refer to Wang’s research on the Tibetan Plateau which talks about 2-3 million years not 4000 years. Big difference my friend.

    Sean, it is not persuasive to use mainstream science simply to contradict itself but not offer concrete, specific evidence to establish your case. Where is the specific, concrete evidence or research by any geologists to show the Tibetan Plateau is only 4000 years old? Your personal speculation or plain denial is simply not empirical.

    Regarding your response to my slow versus fast tectonic plate query, unfortunately I can only conclude that your response is faith based as you provide no basis in science. The fact remains that the plates are moving slowly.

    On we go.

    Cheers
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  6. Re Sean’s Quotes

    “There is no known energy source that can adequately explain continental drift with the building of massive mountains and ocean trenches over vast periods of time.”

    “The catastrophic model is not based on knowing the original source of energy or the point or points of its original release. The catastrophic model is based on features of the geologic column and fossil record that cannot be reasonably explained without invoking a catastrophic event or closely-spaced series of events within recent history.”

    Dear Sean

    Thanks for your candid comments.

    Please compare your two statements.

    You do concede that continental drift is now happening at a slow rate correct? And even though you say there is no known energy source that drives ‘slow’ continental drift building mountains, that is exactly what is happening at Mt Everest right now, correct?

    On the other hand you very forthrightly admit, for which you should be commended, that you do not know of any source of energy that drives rapid continental drift hence rapid mountain building. (not talking about vocanos here)

    So, which plate tectonic theory makes more sense: slow or fast?

    Cheers
    your agnostic friend, mentally drifting along slowly

    Cheers
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  7. @Ken:

    I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. Are you putting forward the above as estimates you agree with?

    I propose that these are very reasonable maximums for the age of these particular features. These features could, of course, be produced much more rapidly and are therefore consistent with life on Earth being less than 10,000 years old. These features are not, however, consistent with the mainstream view of life on Earth being hundreds of millions of years old…

    How old do you think the extant universe is?

    Probably very old indeed. I see no evidence to suggest that the mainstream view on the age of the universe itself is unreasonable. My real contention with mainstream science is over the presumed age of life on Earth.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  8. 9-20-10

    Maybe I’m showing my not-very-scientific mind here but I’ll chance it anyway.

    We must remember that God did NOT create tiny babies–either human or non-human animals, birds, etc. He did NOT create tiny saplings of trees and bushes and wait a long time for everything to “grow up.”

    Adam and Eve were created full grown adults and the trees and bushes were also full grown when God created them–some no doubt already producing wonderful fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains, etc. for food for Adam and Eve and all the creatures He had made, to eat.

    So why should the “fact” that fossils “appear” to show the earth was “very old” be a surprise or a problem?” What else could we expect to find?

    The God who can tell us centuries in advance what will happen in the future (Daniel 2 and many others) can be fully trusted to tell us all we need to know about what happened in the past–at least that is what my not-very-scientific mind tells me.

    (Now I await the massive response reminding me of how ignorant I really am!)

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  9. Re Sean’s Quote

    “Probably very old indeed. I see no evidence to suggest that the mainstream view on the age of the universe itself is unreasonable. My real contention with mainstream science is over the presumed age of life on Earth.”

    Dear Sean

    Thanks, that helps to clarify matters. I understand your position as to life on earth being recent. May I ask for a bit more clarification so I clearly understand your position. Are you saying the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years, or only life thereon?

    Thanks for your patience with your inquisitive, agnostic friend!
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  10. @Professor Kent:

    Nice appeal to authority. The majority of Hebrew scholars either don’t accept the Seventh-day Sabbath or the divinity of Jesus. Are you going to trust them as well? Why not be consistent? I’m sorry, but you happen to hold the minority interpretation of the Biblical text on the issue of the Sabbath. Who is worse off–you or me?

    You’re the one who said that it is that the Biblical authors were not clear in their description of the Biblical flood as being truly universal in nature. Yet, their description is quite clear to the majority of Hebrew scholars – even those Hebrew scholars who don’t believe in the Bible as anything other than a moral fable. These same liberal scholars still believe that whoever wrote Genesis clearly intended to convey to their readers that the Noachian Flood was universal in nature – covering the entire planet and killing off all land-based life on Earth.

    I believe in a world-wide flood that killed off all human beings but likely did not kill off all animals (marine, aquatic, or land–everything having the breath of life in it).

    Is it unfathomable to believe that a flood could impact an entire planet without killing off every single lifeform? Is it unfathomable to believe that a glaciation event could effect an entire planet without killing off Where, exactly, is the conflict?

    The author of the Genesis account does not say that the Flood killed off all marine/aquatic life. The text specifically says that, “Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.” – Genesis 7:22 NIV

    And yes, it is unfathomable to me to believe that all human life, and all land animal life, could be wiped out without the entire globe being involved in the Noachian Flood. I’m rather surprised that you do not see what appears to me to be a rather obvious conflict in your statements…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  11. 9-19-10

    I hope I didn’t give the impression I don’t believe in true science in the post I just made because I wholeheartedly DO. I do believe the evidence is THERE and I think our young people should be able to find it, understand it, and give an answer to anyone who questions them.

    But I ALSO believe that they should be learning to know the true God of science, the One who knows the end from the beginning, the One who created them, the One who died for them, the One who can transform them into His likeness, help them fulfill the mission He has for them, and make them fit for a place in the kingdom He is preparing for them. Our textbooks–especially our Bible text books–should thoroughly ground them in the truths we hold dear (or do we truly hold them dear anymore?)

    I know dedicated teachers who long for more meaningful Bible and science textbooks–and some who “sneak them in” when the conference isn’t looking! Very early grade school is not too early to start giving them the spiritual “roots “they so desperately need in order to face life successfully and come out God-fearing and God-enabled missionaries for Him in whatever place they go or whatever place they work..

    Thankfully, we DO have a core of young people who are willing to stand up for truth (Thank you, Louie Bishop and others like you! May your tribe continue to increase.) Unfortunately, we do have many who are confused and without a compass to guide them to the right way. This condition must not be allowed to continue! We must stop our bickering and put all of our powers behind solving the problems that confront us. The same God who parted the sea for Israel can–and will–work with us and for us when we prayerfully dedicate our feeble powers to His strength and might!

    Lydian

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  12. 9-20-10

    Another thought: The earth–which was without “form and void” –was also apparently around for who knows how long before God turned it into paradise and put life on it. So, to me anyway, arguments about the age of the EARTH are worthless and a waste of time. We will spend eternity learning more and more of the wonderful works of our Creator God! I can hardly wait!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  13. Ken said –
    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?

    Atheists that “believe in” evolutionism are not going to let this part of their religious conviction go without a struggle.

    After Schweitzer’s first paper appeared in Science, some critics suggested that she published it before conducting enough analysis. Schweitzer agreed with this claim at least in part. She explained that the team published its findings as step to securing funding for later work [source: Yeoman].

    A response to Schweitzer’s 2007 paper — the one reporting the presence of protein — points out several questions about the findings, including the likelihood of contamination. The comment, written by Mike Buckley and an array of co-authors, notes:

    •The likelihood of collagen breakdown
    •Tests that should have been performed but were not
    •The inability to perform standard analyses on fragmented peptide sequences [source: Buckley et al.].
    In their response to the comment, John M. Asara and Schweitzer assert that Buckley and his co-authors misinterpreted the data [source: Asara].

    Schweitzer’s 2008 paper describing protein sequences adds some weight to the idea that the tissue belonged to the T. rex and not an unrelated contaminant. But some critics remain unconvinced. For example, researcher Christina Nielsen-Marsh was quoted in by National Geographic as saying that the sequences described “make no sense at all” [source: Norris]. In the minds of many, the presence of peptides in a specimen as old as a T. rex is impossible. This means the only option is that the protein came from another source.

    In an article published in the journal PLoS One on July 20, 2008, researchers Thomas G. Kaye, Gary Gaugler and Zbigniew Sawlowicz argue just that. This team conducted more than 200 hours of scanning electron microscope analysis on a variety of dinosaur fossils. It came to the conclusion that Schweitzer’s samples contained bacterial biofilm, not T. rex tissue. The paper argues that while the T. rex bone acted as a protective layer, it preserved bacteria, not dinosaur protein. According to the paper, the objects that looked like red blood cells were spherical collections of iron and oxygen called framboids, and the apparent soft tissue was essentially pond scum. Through carbon dating, the team also determined that the material was modern, not prehistoric [source: Kaye et al.]. In statements made to National Geographic, Schweitzer stood by her findings, noting, among other things, that Kaye’s team did not address more recent protein studies of her T. rex samples [source: Roach].

    Their main “remaining” argument is the idea “If the tissue is less than 100,000 years old then it is not Dinosaur because they lived before that time”. And is an effort to avoid “our dating of Dinosaur fossils is flawed as can be proven by this soft tissue find where tissue that should not have survived is still present”.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  14. For those infatuated with the notion that Dr. Pitman become a biology professor at La Sierra University, he has clearly disqualified himself for becoming an SDA employee in any capacity. He actually believes the earth is older than 6,000 years.

    Who else reading or contributing to this website believes Ellen White was simply wrong when she wrote “the world is now only about six thousand years old.?” (3SG 91.1) Bob Ryan? David Read? Paul Giem? Rich Constantinescu? Roger Seheult? I think folks should come clean about this.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  15. @Professor Kent:

    Every reader here knows that SDAs believe the earth is only about 6000 years old, so you are undermining our fundamental beliefs to even suggest any other possibility. Exactly how old do you think the earth is, Dr. Pitman? Since your faith is not enough to accept Genesis at face value, or even Ellen White’s unmistakable word use, exactly how old does your science tell you the earth is? Inquiring minds want to know.

    Neither the Bible nor Mrs. White speak of the material of the Earth as being young. Rather, they clearly speak of life on Earth and the structure of the Earth needed to support life as being young. The Bible actually suggests, as already noted, that the basic material of the Earth had already been created, way back “in the beginning” before the start of the “creation week” where God transformed the Earth into a place that could actually support complex life.

    Try not to take the biblical statements out of context or make them say what they do not clearly say…

    I’m amused by how you have to qualify the writing.

    Genesis 7:4 says, “Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

    What is it about “every living creature I have made” that you do not understand? Do you believe that God did not make the marine and aquatic creatures? Killing every human outside of the ark was one thing, but what was the point of killing every creature on dry land, but sparing those in the marine and aquatic systems? What kind of logic is this?

    What kind of logic is it to take a passage out of the context of the rest of the author’s comments on the topic? Why do you pluck a single statement out of the context of the authors further qualifications on what exactly took place? You know as well as I do that the author of Genesis was very clear in noting that every living thing on the land that had “nostrils” died in the Flood. In other words, those things that lived in the water could survive outside of Noah’s ark – as well as those things on land, like plant life that don’t have nostrils.

    Try to use some common sense here…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  16. Sean Pitman most inexplicably wrote:

    The material of the Earth may be and I think is far older than 10,000 years.

    Heresy! Heresy! You’ve joined the ranks of the infidels!

    May I remind you of what Sister White wrote:

    Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old.

    Every reader here knows that SDAs believe the earth is only about 6000 years old, so you are undermining our fundamental beliefs to even suggest any other possibility. Exactly how old do you think the earth is, Dr. Pitman? Since your faith is not enough to accept Genesis at face value, or even Ellen White’s unmistakable word use, exactly how old does your science tell you the earth is? Inquiring minds want to know.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  17. I’m amused by how you have to qualify the writing.
    Genesis 7:4 says, “Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

    I am amused by your endless efforts to “game” the text simply to come up with another way to say nay.

    Genesis 7:21-24

    20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

    21And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

    22All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

    23And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

    24And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  18. @Ken:

    Even if the Bible is infallible how does rational man decide whose interpretation is so, as exemplified by yours and Sean’s profound disagreements.

    This is a very insightful comment Ken. Given that the Bible is infallible, we all agree that we humans are still fallible. Therefore our interpretation of that which is infallible remains subject to the potential for error.

    This is why I say that, while I do believe the Bible to be the Word of God, infallible as a whole, I recognize that my own conclusion is limited by my own subjective nature – a nature that is subject and even prone to error. Therefore, the best I can say is that the evidence seems to me to strongly favor the conclusion that the Bible is in fact Authoritative. Yet, I cannot claim absolute perfection for this conclusion since I do not have access to or understand all knowledge. There is still the potential for error and falsification given the limitations of humanity – especially my own humanity…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  19. @Bill Sorensen:

    I suggest this is either Pantheism, or pretty close to it.

    Then you have a very strange understanding of Pantheism. The study of nature with the goal of better understanding the Author of nature is in no way a form of Pantheism – i.e., that Nature is God. That’s not true at all.

    At any rate, after reading many of your posts, I simply do not agree with your conclusions. Nor do I think the bible supports your conclusions.

    You build your theories, in my opinion, on obscure passages and ignore the clear and plain teachings of the bible.

    Some of the passages I quote are among the most popular in the whole Bible. Most would hardly call them “obscure”. They are very clear and make perfect sense to the rational mind. Why wouldn’t one be able to discover truths about the author by studying the author’s works? Both the Bible and Mrs. White are very clear on this topic…

    When you deny that some knowledge of God has been preserved even in heathen cultures, and people can “find out God” simply by nature would leave us to wonder why God destroyed nations of people and closed their probation when their children (at least some) could and would no doubt eventually find the true God in nature.

    You are confusing knowledge with motive. Having empirically-based knowledge of God doesn’t mean that the heart will love God. Lucifer has far greater empirical knowledge than you or I will ever have in this life. He knew all the facts. He had first-hand knowledge of what we can only theorize about. Yet, he will not be saved.

    The fact is, there was no “means of grace” available so they could learn and know the true God. Even nature could not enlighten them. As for Romans one, Paul says of the heathen, ….”because although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God.” Vs. 21

    Exactly. The knowledge of right and wrong was there, but that isn’t enough to change the hearts of some people who have been so steeped in rebellion from birth that they have learned to actually love the lie. Additional empirical knowledge will not change a heart that is bent on rejecting the truth that is already known – the truth regarding what is right and wrong as far as how to treat one’s neighbor (which is intuitively known by all mankind – even the heathen who have never known anything else of God).

    Again, this has to do with a problem of motive, not empirical knowledge of God’s existence or anything else about Him and His plan for our salvation.

    No one can find out God by science, unless God the Holy Spirit is present and in this way, God reveals Himself. Nature and science can only be a “means of grace”, if and when God Himself acts in them and uses them for His self revelation.

    You continue to think that empirical knowledge is somehow linked with salvation. It isn’t. Motive is the basis of salvation. Knowledge, gained through a form of scientific investigation of the natural world and of the written Word as it matches the real world in which we live, does not save a person. Such empirical knowledge has the power to give a person hope in the future, but it does not affect the motive directly. Only the Holy Spirit can convert the heart – and that only if the individual is willing to listen to the calls of the Holy Spirit on the heart.

    But you have already made it plain that you do not believe the bible is the final authority to test any and all other ideas of truth. So you place nature on the level of the bible as a teaching tool. And then try to convince people of the God who is creator by way of science.

    The Bible’s authority is based on its reasonableness as it is tested in what it says about the reality in which we live against that reality. There is no other way in which you can determine that the Bible is the true Word of God vs. other competing options unless you do at least some form of scientific testing of the Bible against physical reality.

    Nature and science are faulty and fallible. The bible is infallible.

    You would be unable to come to that conclusion without first investigating the Bible and testing it to see that it is in fact reliable in what it says about reality. In other words, if you happened to have been born into a Mormon family, you would have grown up using the very same arguments you’re using now in defense of the Book of Mormon as the only true Word of God. You would have no basis upon which to determine your error and accept the Bible as the real Word of God since your basis of faith is entirely emotion-driven by what you call “self-authentication” – – a circular form of reasoning…

    Again, I doubt that your meaning is clear, even to yourself. As we near the end, we will necessarily be required to be very clear and definitive in exactly how we understand the bible’s authority vs. any other revelation.

    I appreciate your support of the Bible as the Word of God – which I also believe. But, it is also important that we understand why we, as Seventh-day Adventists, believe the Bible to be the Word of God. It isn’t because we have some deep feeling that our Book is true, as the Mormons have for their Book. Rather, we have, or at least can have, a much more thoughtful, rational, even scientific, religion that appeals to the candid mind. In other words, in our religion that heart can in fact follow the mind. The mind comes first, and then the emotion follows…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  20. @ Sean Pitman

    The author of the Genesis account does not say that the Flood killed off all marine/aquatic life. The text specifically says that, “Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.” – Genesis 7:22 NIV

    I’m amused by how you have to qualify the writing.

    Genesis 7:4 says, “Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

    What is it about “every living creature I have made” that you do not understand? Do you believe that God did not make the marine and aquatic creatures? Killing every human outside of the ark was one thing, but what was the point of killing every creature on dry land, but sparing those in the marine and aquatic systems? What kind of logic is this?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  21. Sean said……

    “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.”

    I suggest this is either Pantheism, or pretty close to it. At any rate, after reading many of your posts, I simply do not agree with your conclusions. Nor do I think the bible supports your conclusions.

    You build your theories, in my opinion, on obscure passages and ignore the clear and plain teachings of the bible. When you deny that some knowledge of God has been preserved even in heathen cultures, and people can “find out God” simply by nature would leave us to wonder why God destroyed nations of people and closed their probation when their children (at least some) could and would no doubt eventually find the true God in nature.

    The fact is, there was no “means of grace” available so they could learn and know the true God. Even nature could not enlighten them. As for Romans one, Paul says of the heathen, ….”because although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God.” Vs. 21

    No one can find out God by science, unless God the Holy Spirit is present and in this way, God reveals Himself. Nature and science can only be a “means of grace”, if and when God Himself acts in them and uses them for His self revelation.

    But you have already made it plain that you do not believe the bible is the final authority to test any and all other ideas of truth. So you place nature on the level of the bible as a teaching tool. And then try to convince people of the God who is creator by way of science.

    Nature and science are faulty and fallible. The bible is infallible.

    Again, I doubt that your meaning is clear, even to yourself. As we near the end, we will necessarily be required to be very clear and definitive in exactly how we understand the bible’s authority vs. any other revelation.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  22. Re Bill’s Quote

    “If we leave out the phrase “the heavens” in the beginning statement, we have “In the beginning God created the earth, and the earth was without form and void.”

    Dear Bill

    Naturally I am not a biblical scholar. But I wonder when you leave out a key word of a phrase, or interpret it to mean just our atmosphere: (‘heaven’) if you are not engaging in as much creative, versus literal, biblical interpretation as Sean.

    Respectfully
    your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  23. Re Sean’s Quote

    “Since there were no great oceans before the Flood, the boats in existence during this time would not have been built for rough ocean voyages – but would have been build only for easy going lake, river, and shallow sea voyages. Such vessels would have been no match for the Noachian Deluge.”

    “The heat of the energy release would also have been absorbed by the massive amount of water involved in the Flood.”

    “All the mountain ranges that exist today are covered by sedimentary layers that were deposited by the Flood.”

    Dear Sean

    Again thank you very much for your comments. I think we are making great progress!

    What about rough seas?

    How much has the peak of Mount Everest eroded since you were born? Do you know of small hills or knolls, not made of hard rock, that you saw as boy that are still there and have not eroded to flat ground?

    Would the heat absorbed by the water have boiled the whales?

    Sean, I think we are making progress. We agree the universe is old. We agree that before life on earth, the material comprising the earth was old. We agree that even on the highest mountain ranges, fossilized remains of marine life, but not man, are found. We agree that the source of life on earth being recent is not the Bible but rather the commentary of EGW. We agree that EGW did not hold any science degrees. We agree that EGW did have ‘conditional’ prophecies that did come true.

    Please correct me if I’m I’m wrong on any of these points in our empirical quest for truth.

    Regards
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  24. @Bill Sorensen:

    So, as I said, we have no biblical evidence that vs. 1-5 in Gen. 1 are not all accomplished on the first day. And unless biblical evidence is presented to affirm something different, we should simply state the matter is closed and move on.

    This simply isn’t true Bill. Both the Bible and Mrs. White mention the existence of physical features and intelligent beings within the universe before the beginning of our own creation week. Therefore, the “in the beginning” mentioned in the opening lines of Genesis most likely is talking about a time far before the creation week of our own planet.

    It is for this reason that the SDA Church has not taken a position on the origin of the universe itself or even of the basic materials of our own planet. While the author of Genesis made it abundantly clear what was done to our own planet within the literal creation week, he was not so clear regarding the rest of the universe. Your own personal interpretations not withstanding, such questions are still “open” from the perspective of the SDA Church as an organization.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  25. We have no evidence from the scripture itself that everything stated in Gen. 1:1-5 did not occur on the first day. Those who accept the bible accept the biblical declarations without reference to science and nature.

    Science and nature can affirm some biblical declarations, but they hold no authority over the word of God, nor should we consider anything contrary to the word simply because science and nature seem not to be consistent with the biblical declarations.

    God can use nature as best serves His purpose. And He can manipulate nature for the same reason. God exists outside of nature, and is not subject to it, rather, nature is subject to God.

    Thus, a true Christian accepts the biblical declarations as the final authority as “Holy men of God spake as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.” This is the only viable true confession of faith for the Christian community. Anything else, leads to confusion, doubt, skeptcism and apostacy.

    In the end, everyone is their own “church”. And when we stand before God, He will not ask, “What did your church believe and teach?” Rather, He will ask, “What do you believe and teach and practice?”

    People ban together under the influence of the Holy Spirit and unite to declare their faith in God’s word. Thus, a unified “church” is created by the Holy Spirit, made up of many individuals who hold a unified faith concerning the teaching of the bible.

    If an individual abandons the unified doctrine, they must necessarily leave of their own accord, or, the body must seperate them from the group. This is the biblical norm.

    While people can study any biblical doctrine and question and comment the various teachings and implications of that doctrine, they are not free to attack the doctrine and change its basic meaning and application.

    So, as I said, we have no biblical evidence that vs. 1-5 in Gen. 1 are not all accomplished on the first day. And unless biblical evidence is presented to affirm something different, we should simply state the matter is closed and move on.

    The devil is a master of creating confusion and doubt concerning clear biblical declarations. He began in heaven and used the same tactic on Eve in the garden. He always begins by challenging the clarity of a God given declaration and claims we can not be sure we have understood God’s meaning and intent. And from there leads people into obscurity and doubt concerning the clear statements of God’s word. And today, the bible is being undermined incessantly by these tactics, even in the SDA church.

    Soon, the lines will be drawn, and sad to say, according to scripture and EGW, few will stand true and loyal to be bible. God help us to understand these issues and our natural weakness to yield to human influences that would undermine our faith. We see it everywhere in the church, and none of us are immune to the deception.

    Keep the faith

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  26. Dear Ken,
    “Would God,” you asked me, “have also created those aliens, that EGW talked about…? Are humans at the top of God’s pecking order in this big universe?” Aliens? Pecking order?
    Alas, I can’t find “alien” in my concordances and E.G. White index. I fear it’s rather a sci-fi construct, alien to EGW or scripture, or the SDA vocabulary that I know. That there are inhabitants of unfallen worlds, to use vocabulary more familiar to me, yes, of course. That God is human-centric and has put humans high on His pecking order, to use your vocabulary, is attested by the fact He gave His only beloved Son to redeem them, to use St. John’s vocabulary. Meanwhile, back at LSU….

    Your alien but never alienated friend,
    Wes

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  27. Bill,

    As you are well aware, Ellen White wrote:

    Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old.” (3SG 91.1)

    Sean Pitman has made clear that he does not believe any straightforward reading of her words. He insists that she cannot be referring to the age of the earth, but instead is referring to the age of life on the earth. Shane Hilde says he leans toward taking Ellen White at her words, but he does not think the SDA Church has an official position. I assume Bob Ryan believes she is correct, because he has cited this passage a hundred gumpteen zillion times.

    What about you. Do you believe that Ellen White was correct in stating the world is now only about six thousand years old, or do you, like Sean Pitman, think she was simply wrong? Do you believe Adventists generally dismiss her statement as wrong? I’ve been an SDA most of my life, and I am discovering there is a lot more subjectivity in interpreting inspiration than I had realized before.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  28. Re Wes’s Quote

    “Alas, I can’t find “alien” in my concordances and E.G. White index. I fear it’s rather a sci-fi construct, alien to EGW or scripture, or the SDA vocabulary that I know.”

    Dear Wes

    Well said. Although, I imagine at times you think my arguments come from another planet!

    We do use the term alien when we are talking about illegal immigrants but that context was not applicable to my comments.

    Hopefully those ‘inhabitants’ of other planets are not too jealous of God giving his only Son to us humans. That’s a lot of focus on one species of one planet, don’t you think?

    Your friendly fellow inhabitant
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  29. Re Wesley’s quote

    “God Himself could not be more human centric,”

    Dear Wesley

    Thanks for your comments. Would God have also created those aliens, that EGW talked about, in His own image or rather in some inferior image? Are humans at the top of God’s pecking order in this big universe?

    Regards
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  30. Sean, I never suggested that the “universe” was created on the first day. The bible does not claim such. It states this earth was created on the first day…….and “The earth was without form, and void.”

    Other worlds are not mentioned as to when they were created.

    Vs. 16 says, “Then God made two great lights”. This means at that time is when He made them. And finally states, “He made the stars also.” This statement may indicate the stars were not necessarily made at that time. But does not clearly specify one way or the other.

    We must accept the obvious and let the obscure be of less importance. None the less, we don’t build massive theories about the whole issue based on what is not directly and clearly revealed.

    Your theory places some doubt on the obvious. And once you do that, you begin the process of undermining other clear biblical doctrines and teachings. For if the issues of creation are not clear, how can we know anything else is clear?

    I think you are on shakey ground at best and are leaving open more possibilities for unbelief than solid biblical faith. For instance, you said……” “in the beginning” mentioned in the opening lines of Genesis most likely is talking about a time far before the creation week of our own planet.”

    But you are wrong. This statement has no implication that it may refer to the creation of the universe or some part of it besides this world.

    If we leave out the phrase “the heavens” in the beginning statement, we have “In the beginning God created the earth, and the earth was without form and void.” The phrase “the heavens”, if it refered to some other period of time, could lend itself to total confusion in the flow of all the rest of what is stated. For it is stateing what was created on the first day. So, “The heavens” must necessarily refer to our atmosphere and its various counter parts. Not some other part of the universe.

    Bill Sorensen

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  31. @Ken:

    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.

    The early mountain building was no doubt much more rapid than it is today. However, mountain ranges are still growing today and have been growing ever since the Flood. Erosion rates, of course, have kept their height in check to at least some extent. In fact, for the Rockies in particular, the erosion rate seems to be about equal to the uplift rate so that the overall elevation of the Rockies remains the same over time.

    In fact, it is the extremely high erosion rates on the mountains that strongly supports their young age. Mt. Everest, for example, supposedly started its uplift some 50 million years ago from the mainstream perspective. Yet, Mt. Everest is still covered with a thick layer of sedimentary layers – layers that should have been washed away many times over if Mt. Everest has in fact existed as an erosional surface for 50 million years.

    The same is true of continents as a whole which are being eroded away from the top down and from the edges inward in a very rapid manner.

    For further discussion of this problem of continental and mountain erosion rates see:

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion

    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?

    If the result of such an impact was to produce a huge flood right away, the atmospheric quality would have been preserved by the removal of particulate material from the atmosphere by the intense downpour. The heat of the energy release would also have been absorbed by the massive amount of water involved in the Flood.

    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.

    Since there were no great oceans before the Flood, the boats in existence during this time would not have been built for rough ocean voyages – but would have been build only for easy going lake, river, and shallow sea voyages. Such vessels would have been no match for the Noachian Deluge.

    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?

    The Bible suggests a great many other worlds inhabited by intelligent beings – as does Mrs. White. As to the reason for their creation, it is probably the same reason God has for our own creation.

    Why would God specifically be coming to earth to reside after the resurrection of the dead? A bit human centric isn’t it?

    Not if you consider what God paid to rescue us from our own rebellion. All Heaven was emptied by God to save the one lost sheep from all of Creation. In the sacrifice of Jesus, God, in Jesus, paid an infinite price. Though we were originally created “a little lower than the angels” (Psalms 8:5), through the experience of salvation we will gain a closer walk with God than even the angels can experience. We will be God’s witnesses throughout eternity to the love and grace of the One who saved us (Isaiah 43:12 NLT).

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  32. Bob Ryan wrote

    A mere 61mm erosion rate in North America per year would significantly reduce the landscape in only 10 million years, to say nothing of 100 million or 500 million years.

    Funny that we had no tall mountains before the flood, then they appeared during the flood, and then the only force acting on them ever since has been erosion. If I understand this correctly, Bob Ryan, Sean Pitman, and all true Adventists believe that mountain-building, uplift processes, and sediment deposition could only have happened during the flood.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  33. @ Sean

    Your re-interpretation of the Bible to suggest that certain areas need not have been covered by water contradicts the clear reading of both the Bible and Mrs. White and makes the story internally inconsistent. There would have been no need for an Ark if the entire world was not to be covered by water.

    I’m sorry, Sean, to be so inconsistent. I had understood that God intended to destroy all humans except those preserved in the ark. I didn’t realize the purpose of the flood was to kill all land-dwelling, nostril-breathing animals except for those God chose to preserve during the flood. I further assumed that humans did not occupy every continent, but apparently they must have since God deemed it necessary to drown every one of them. Lastly, I assumed that if the flood covered most of the earth’s surface–say, 95%–that Noah and his family and all those special animals still required an ark to save them. I didn’t realize they had the knowledge and capacity to relocate to the highest mountains on the planet–presumably on another continent. Internal consistency certainly is important for interpreting the Bible and Ellen White. Thank you for helping my understanding.

    By the way, where does the Bible or Ms. White say the earth is older than 6,000 years? Just curious about the internal consistency with interpreting 3SG 91.1.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  34. Guess I was up too late at night, cuz my math was way off. 400 cm/kyr would be 4 m every thousand years, or 16 m since the flood four thousand years ago. 16 m. Sounds like very fast erosion, indeed! But who has been measuring this the past 1000 years to give us the 400 cm/year?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  35. Dear Ken,
    That God is human-centric and has put humans high on His pecking order, to use your vocabulary, is attested by the fact He gave His only beloved Son to redeem them, to use St. John’s vocabulary. Meanwhile, back at LSU….Your alien but never alienated friend,
    Wes  

    Yes, Dr. Kime, “back at LSU” is absolutely correct. When are we going to actually “get back” to the real subject of this website? Or, maybe I should say, ARE we?!

    Trying to “convince” someone to believe Creationism, or prove Creationism by empirical evidence or argument is usually hopeless. People believe generally what they choose to believe. If someone wants to believe God’s Truth, he will. If one wants to believe humanistic philosophy, and reject God’ Truth, there is plenty of “evidence” for that.

    In the bible, Jesus and his disciples taught and preached the Truth. They did NOT try to “prove” anything.

    Look at some of the professors and administrators at LSU. They’ve studied God’s Truth and Man’s “wisdom.” And, they’ve chosen to believe humanistic philosophy OVER God’s Truth. Despite Sean’s protests, the choice is clear for many.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  36. Sean,

    Help me get this straight. You believe that:

    1 – There were no high, craggged mountains before the flood. “The sharp, ragged edges of earth’s rocky framework were buried beneath the fruitful soil” (E. G. White, PP).

    2 – During the flood, the water washed away the fruitful soil to expose the sharp ragged edges.

    3 – During the flood, the water covered the highest of these mountains.

    4 – During the flood, new soil laden with fossils was deposited on these mountains while the mountains were under water. In other words, the fruitful soil washed away and was replaced by fossil-laden soil that was not washed away.

    5 – During the flood, these mountains dramatically arose out of the water with this new fossil-laden soil (that the waters did not wash away) due to tectonic forces (moving of the continental plates) unleashed during the flood.

    6 – In 1953, Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay became the first post-deluvians to climb the highest summit on this planet.

    Is this scenario correct?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  37. Well, Ken, I was not trying to be ambiguous. Here is how it starts. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth……”
    Here is how it is interpreted in the 4th commandment…..”For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth…..”
    It seems more than obvious “the heavens” in Gen. 1:1-5, are same that fall within the “six days” explained in the 4th commandment.

    In these two options we have this.

    Option A.

    “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1 does not include any life on earth, nor even the heavens of day 2, it refers to an unsaid “let there be heavens and earth” before day 1 that created just a without-form and void earth with water covering the surface of the deep. Presumably in your model very close to day 1.

    Option B.

    “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1 includes the heavens and the earth that we see today and all life on earth, and all the universe –

    “for in Six days God created the heavens and the earth” Ex 20:11 refers just to the heavens and earth mentioned in Genesis 1 during the six evening-mornings and not to the entire universe.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  38. @ken:

    Dear Sean

    Again thank you very much for your comments. I think we are making great progress!

    What about rough seas?

    There were no rough seas before the Flood as the weather was very mild and consistent world wide.

    How much has the peak of Mount Everest eroded since you were born? Do you know of small hills or knolls, not made of hard rock, that you saw as boy that are still there and have not eroded to flat ground?

    Mt. Everest is eroding very rapidly, at around 400 cm/kyr. That’s a big problem for mainstream age estimates of the uplift of Everest since all sedimentary layers should have been washed off of Mt. Everest long long ago – if it did indeed begin its orogeny some 50 million years ago…

    Did you read the website link I gave you earlier on this topic?

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion

    Would the heat absorbed by the water have boiled the whales?

    Obviously not since whales and sea life in general are still here ; )

    Water is able to absorb a great deal of energy before it experiences a significant increase in its own temperature.

    Sean, I think we are making progress. We agree the universe is old. We agree that before life on earth, the material comprising the earth was old.

    Reasonable so far…

    We agree that even on the highest mountain ranges, fossilized remains of marine life, but not man, are found.

    True…

    We agree that the source of life on earth being recent is not the Bible but rather the commentary of EGW.

    Not true. The recent arival of life on this planet is confirmed by both the Bible and Mrs. White…

    We agree that EGW did not hold any science degrees. We agree that EGW did have ‘conditional’ prophecies that did come true.

    One doesn’t need a degree in science before one can explain what they are seeing “in vision” from God. Even a child can describe what they are seeing to the point of providing useful information. Also, Mrs. White made both conditional and non-conditional prophetic statements…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  39. @ Sean Pitman

    Mt. Everest is eroding very rapidly, at around 400 cm/kyr. That’s a big problem for mainstream age estimates of the uplift of Everest since all sedimentary layers should have been washed off of Mt. Everest long long ago – if it did indeed begin its orogeny some 50 million years ago…

    400 cm/kyr. According to this figure, we have lost approximately 1200 cm (= 120 m) of sedimentary rock from Mt. Everest since the flood. Three questions:

    1. Where did you get this datum? I’d be very impressed if you measured this yourself (or perhaps your esteemed colleagues?), and even more so from repeated trips to the summit over an extended period of time. After all, it would be helpful to learn whether or not this rate of loss has been relatively consistent over time. I don’t think satellite imagery has been around long enough to give us a clear idea of erosion rates, and I’m doubtful it could distinguish between igneous and sedimentary rock.

    2. How thick is the sedimentary layer there currently, and how thick was it to begin with? Inquiring minds want to know.

    3. In 1953, when Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay wedged themselves between the ice and the rock formation known today as the “Hillary Step,” was this sedimentary rock from which the smooth surface of a trilobite or a whale’s rib could have caused a slip? Just curious.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  40. What kind of scientist are you? Do you honestly believe that no one has any idea of erosion rates?

    I’m the kind of scientist that wants to see the source. I didn’t question erosion rates in general, and you know it. I questioned your source for one specific claim on one specific mountain (but I know you want to color me purple). What kind of scientist are you? Most scientists provide the source for their claims. At detectingdesign.com, you wrote:

    Just look at the sedimentary layers on Mt. Everest. This mountain is thought to be over 50 million years old. Yet, sedimentary layers still cover its highest peaks? Erosion, over the course of 60 million years, translates into at least 60,000 vertical meters of lost sediment and still there are significant amounts of the geologic column on Mt. Everest? Originally, after the warping and uplifting in this region supposedly started some 50 Ma, the thickness of the sediment above the currently exposed Ordovician layer was no more than 6,000 meters.95 Does this makes any sense?

    Beyond this, some scientists, such as Harutaka Sakai suggest that Mt. Everest used to be much taller and thicker than it is today – about 15,000 meters tall! But, about 20 million years ago Sakai argues that about half of it slid off, exposing the Ordovician layer that currently tops Mt. Everest at about 8,848 meters in elevation. 94 If Everest currently has an erosion rate of about 200 cm/kyr, imagine what the erosion rate would be like for a mountain nearly twice as tall?! At just 200 cm/kyr, this works out to be 40,000 meters of erosion in just 20 million years. An erosion rate of 200 cm/kyr is about average for the Himalayan region given the newer estimates based on 10 Be and 26Al measurements, which suggest an average erosion rate of the Himalayas of 130 cm/kyr for the lower altitudes and up to 410 cm/kyr for the steepest areas with an average in the high Himalayas of about 270 cm/kyr. 96,97

    So where does one find references 94, 95, 96, and 97? Who is Harutaka Sakai, what is his evidence, and why should I believe him? Did you sit in his Sabbath School class in 1988, or did he publish in the prestigious journal SCIENCE? I couldn’t find these refs before, which prompted my frustration, but this time I noticed that your essay ends with “In fact, many geologists now think that the small upper layer mant…” Perhaps you stopped in mid-thought (nay?), or inadvertently left off the end of your article (eh?). So hey, what do you now say?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  41. So here we are in a research lab. A brilliant scientist, PhD of course, a Principal Investigator, first sits down and thinks hard and concocts a theory or hypothesis, and then goes after data that will prove or disprove his theory.

    So where did he get the idea for the theory in the first place? Usually from another scientist, that scientist’s published data and conclusions, and the second scientist sets out to prove or disprove the first scientist. That’s science in action, the best kind of science. Happens all the time. I know, I was an NIH research fellow at Washington University.

    But if the idea came from the Bible, by definition and peer review it’s not a theory at all but myth, disproved already – and no way it’ll ever get funded much less published unless to scorn, except to scorn. Now then, young man, you know how you’d jolly well better write up your grant application. And you know the comments and catcalls and hoots and hisses your blog will get.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  42. Re: “…Sean will valiantly try to continue to configure science into his preconceived beliefs…”

    My dear Ken, You’re always such a creditably and exemplarily, refreshingly gentlemanly agnostic, sir. But with all deference and diffidence may I respectfully submit that, oh my, it just sort of seems, I’m afraid, that recently, well, you’ve become rather fixated on reconfiguring Sean’s science for him. Misunderstanding, surely.

    Yours, Wes

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  43. @Professor Kent:

    Now this is where things get fuzzy for those of us lacking superior reasoning skills. Tall mountains like the Himalayas could not have appeared during the flood until after they were first completely covered by the flood waters, because the Bible and Ellen White both said that the flood covered all the mountains, including those that rose up during the flood to heights the flood could not have possibly reached.

    That’s true. And, this is exactly what we see. All the very tall mountains that we have today are covered by sedimentary fossil-bearing rock…

    And, of course, the fossils on these mountains had to be preserved by the flood before the mountains could rise up above the flood during the flood because after the flood the mountains were too high for marine deposits to form on them.

    Correct…

    And, if Ms. White is correct in telling us that soil was stripped from the mountains by the flood (we know she had her science right on this), then by some miracle these fossil-laden soils actually ended up remaining on the mountains rather than being washed away by the flood (in spite of Ms. White’s statement), and all this while the mountains that were covered by the flood somehow rose up during the flood to heights that the flood could not have reached.

    The mountains that exist today are not inconsistent with Mrs. White’s description of the pre-Flood mountains being much different than they are today – i.e., beautifully symmetrical and covered with rich soil and verdant vegetation. This is not the state of many mountain ranges today – for obvious reasons given the world wide nature of the Flood and the intense and sudden release of energy that would have been required to produce such a Flood.

    I never said I didn’t believe in a global flood. What does the word “global” mean? If a volcanic eruption had “global” effects, with ash spewed into the atmosphere and circulating throughout the world, reducing light levels and temperatures, it would have a negligible effect on a blind cave salamander. So would we say, “aha, the effects aren’t global!” I don’t think so. Likewise, if a massive flood covered much of North and South America, as well as Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia, but did not cover some mountain peaks, would we call this a “local” flood? I don’t think so.

    “Global effects” are not the same thing as a “global flood”. The Bible specifically claims that the Flood was in fact global – even noting that all the high mountains of the pre-Flood world were completely covered by water to a depth of more than 20 feet at the same point in time – your argument that they later become visible above water level notwithstanding…

    Beyond this, the SDA Church, as an organization, teaches that the Flood was global in the sense that the entire world was covered by water (brainwashing us all of course – according to you).

    Your re-interpretation of the Bible to suggest that certain areas need not have been covered by water contradicts the clear reading of both the Bible and Mrs. White and makes the story internally inconsistent. There would have been no need for an Ark if the entire world was not to be covered by water.

    Also, your notions are inconsistent with the physical facts. All the mountain ranges that exist today are covered by sedimentary layers that were deposited by the Flood. The fossils they contain, according to Mrs. White, were to an evidence to post-Flood mankind that the Genesis account was in fact true history and could be trusted.

    In the days of Noah, men, animals, and trees, many times larger than now exist, were buried, and thus preserved as an evidence to later generations that the antediluvians perished by a flood. God designed that the discovery of these things should establish faith in inspired history; but men, with their vain reasoning, fall into the same error as did the people before the Flood–the things which God gave them as a benefit, they turn into a curse by making a wrong use of them.

    – Ellen White, PP, p. 112

    In short then, your views on the nature of the global Flood (not really being global in the sense of the entire world being covered by water) are in opposition to the clearly stated position of the organized SDA Church, the obvious meaning of the Biblical text (obvious to me, the SDA Church, and most of even liberal Hebrew scholars). Your views are also in opposition to the geologic and fossil records which clearly indicate that the entire planet was covered by water – to include the very tops of the highest mountains in existence.

    Why then would you think to propose such views? What questions do your views help to answer? What’s your reasoning? At this point they appear to make no sense from either the Biblical perspective or the scientific perspective.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  44. Dear Ken, Thank you kindly, good friend. Being seriously old and retired from the lab (research and clinical) and from writing no-nonsense pathology reports (I was a pathologist too), and since you brought it up, and since I like a cheekiness as much as the next professor, I’d rather talk about Sean and whether he’s a scientist than Evo vs. creationism, theistic or otherwise. But, sh—h-h-h, not too loud, or Sean will hear us talking behind his back and shush us up.

    Let us proceed,. The title of this polemic as personal profile is, “ERGO; moveOn.org”

    As I hear him, Sean is indeed proceeding from a premise, unashamedly, no question. Like a scientist should proceed, must proceed, always proceeds, they all do, or should. That’s the scientific method. Having a premise per se is scientific per se, nor anti-scientific per se. It doesn’t take a PhD in philosophy of science per se to know that. Ergo, Sean’s a scientist, per se. His proceeding from a premise is not the question. To always and always make it the question is to spin the prayer wheel, just setting it spinning in the breeze. Like Evo never got started. So let’s moveOn.org (as a neologistical generic verb)

    The question is not whether he proceeds from a premise – the Bible, no bones, even dinosaur bones, about it — but whether you like his premise. You don’t. Is that the real question, whether you like his premise? Ergo – fill in the blank. MoveOn.org.

    No, the question is how he proceeds. He proceeds like a scientist by demanding scientific evidence, i.e. data (which gets him guff from the Purer-higher-Groundless-Faith crowd). Ergo, Sean’s a scientist with thick skin, like a scientist has to have. Moving right along—

    No, the question is where he gets his evidence. Same literature, same universally available and accepted data as Evoeans. He can give references, plenty of references, footnotes, no less. How scientific can you get, footnotes! Ergo, Sean’s a scientist who knows his literature and knows the data and how to present it. Move it, Sean.

    So the next question is, what conclusion does he move to from the data? That there is evidence for Intelligence, he concludes. That the evidence is not inconsistent with a 6-day creation. Or a Noachian flood, smashing tectonic plates and all. Ergo, Sean knows how to come to a conclusion from evidence, and present it. Next move, the pivotal question.

    Pivotal question: do you like his conclusions? You don’t? So what do you conclude? There’s only one allowable conclusion? Ergo, Sean can’t be a scientist, his science can’t really be science, he is closed-minded, his premise is just a myth, he left his lab coat and ID array at the door? He’s the one who should be fired? Now he’s getting guff from the science, er, community. Ergo, the conclusion turns out to be more crucial than the premise, after all. (Oh no!) Ergo-Ergo, Sean is a scientist with thick skin who wants and finds scientific evidence for or against his premise, weighs it, comes to creditable conclusions, but the wrong conclusions, and gets guff from both sides, and is no scientist. Ergo, he MUST be a real scientist. Galileo (he always gets into it) got guff from only one side. Ergo, Sean is twice the scientist.

    Oh, we forgot to work “bias” into it. Ergo, wrong vocabulary? Ergo, skewed?
    But seriously, your move.
    Happy ergos, W

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  45. @Professor Kent:

    Guess I was up too late at night, cuz my math was way off. 400 cm/kyr would be 4 m every thousand years, or 16 m since the flood four thousand years ago. 16 m. Sounds like very fast erosion, indeed! But who has been measuring this the past 1000 years to give us the 400 cm/year?

    Just as I thought: no one. No answer even at Detectingdesign.com. Nice feel-good story.

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#Erosion

    What kind of scientist are you? Do you honestly believe that no one has any idea of erosion rates?

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  46. Re Bill’s Quote

    “Science and nature can affirm some biblical declarations, but they hold no authority over the word of God, nor should we consider anything contrary to the word simply because science and nature seem not to be consistent with the biblical declarations.”

    Dear All

    I’ve been waiting for someone to say this. Although I respect Bill’s biblical erudition and his deep faith, this type of statement runs so counter intuitive to empirical reality it is incredulous. Bill gets the problem though, he understands how science makes the biblical account of creation and the Noachian flood appear mythical.

    Sean, I’m afraid Prof Kent is making some good points when it comes to the flood and what happened. You seem to be filling in the gaps with speculation to explain many things. Where is the scientific proof that the tectonic plates moved very quickly at the same time of a world wide flood? When you make these statements as if they are facts you lose empirical credibility in my mind. It makes your other conclusions suspect.

    Empirical science is a cold, rational business. It is devoid of faith or non faith and seeks objective answers. That is precisely why I trust it. Mixing faith, or non faith, with science is like mixing oil and water- they don’t. Sean will valiantly try to continue to configure science into his pre conceived beliefs of creation and the Noachian flood. If he is right eventually he will sway mainstream science. But when he speculates – even within the SDA ranks – the rational verdict will be harsh.

    By the way I watched a great program on PBS called the God in America. I think you would all enjoy it. It does not seek to attack any faith but rather explain its rise in America.

    Evangelistic charismatics are interesting powerful agents of social change that sway the masses. It is why religions schisms occur, because power can only be split so many times within an organization before it splinters. There is a strong human component, not just doctrinal, to this phenomenon. i.e Note the extremely boisterous debate between Sean and Prof.Kent- much more than doctrinal dispute going on there! Your church, as evidenced by the great dialogue on this site, is going through this now. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

    I thank you for reading my agnostic comments and hope they are of benefit.

    Be well
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  47. Professor Kent says:

    Funny that we had no tall mountains before the flood, then they appeared during the flood, and then the only force acting on them ever since has been erosion. If I understand this correctly, Bob Ryan, Sean Pitman, and all true Adventists believe that mountain-building, uplift processes, and sediment deposition could only have happened during the flood. Professor Kent(Quote)

    Even your friendly neighborhood evolutionist is not going to argue for “A lot of mountain building in the past 5000 years”. What part of that statement are you struggling with?

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  48. Professor Kent asks…..

    “What about you. Do you believe that Ellen White was correct in stating the world is now only about six thousand years old, or do you, like Sean Pitman, think she was simply wrong? Do you believe Adventists generally dismiss her statement as wrong? I’ve been an SDA most of my life, and I am discovering there is a lot more subjectivity in interpreting inspiration than I had realized before.” Professor Kent

    I have stated on a number of posts that I hold to the clear biblical idea of creation being about 6000 yrs. ago. This includes all the rocks and any layers of earth and nothing existed prior to the first day event.

    The first 5 verses of Gen. 1 are all a part of the first day of creation. This is how the bible presents it.

    “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void.” This statement can not be seperated from what follows with the intent of claiming this happened previous to the first day. I think the flowing continuity of all these verses require that we understand all this took place on day one.

    The evidence of rocks and other scientific observations are useless in determining the age of the earth. And those who try to prove the biblical account by science and nature are simply backing themselves into a corner with no way out.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  49. @Professor Kent:

    I further assumed that humans did not occupy every continent, but apparently they must have since God deemed it necessary to drown every one of them.

    There were no “continents” before the Flood. There were no great oceans and it never rained either. The Earth was watered by four great rivers and the “fountains” that were broken up during the Flood. It is quite reasonable to consider that the entire Earth was populated by humans after 2000 years of reproduction by the very long lived race – and that these humans would have been smart enough to escape to those areas that were not flooded by the Flood. Mrs. White speaks of humans trying to escape to the highest points available before these also became overrun by the flood waters.

    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

    So, you see, the concept of a truly world wide Flood, where every inch of the Earth’s surfaces were covered by water, is clearly supported by both the Bible and Mrs. White and is the stated position of the SDA Church as well. Your idea of a limited Flood that did not cover the entire globe is in conflict with the SDA Church’s position on this topic – as well as with the interpretation of most Hebrew scholars (even liberal scholars).

    By the way, where does the Bible or Ms. White say the earth is older than 6,000 years? Just curious about the internal consistency with interpreting 3SG 91.1.

    As I’ve already explained, several times, neither the Bible or Mrs. White are clear on the age of the basic material of the Earth. Therefore, this particular question remains open from the Church’s perspective and really has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. There are, however, very clear statements from both the Bible and Mrs. White noting that the universe itself existed prior to creation week along with many other intelligent beings living on other worlds…

    Help me get this straight. You believe that:

    1 – There were no high, craggged mountains before the flood. “The sharp, ragged edges of earth’s rocky framework were buried beneath the fruitful soil” (E. G. White, PP).

    Correct…

    2 – During the flood, the water washed away the fruitful soil to expose the sharp ragged edges.

    Indeed – – and the underlying granitic rock itself was broken up and warped into much higher mountain ranges and ocean basins and trenches than existed before the Flood.

    3 – During the flood, the water covered the highest of these mountains.

    Right… as per both the Bible and Mrs. White.

    4 – During the flood, new soil laden with fossils was deposited on these mountains while the mountains were under water. In other words, the fruitful soil washed away and was replaced by fossil-laden soil that was not washed away.

    “Soil” is not the same thing as the sedimentary layers in which fossils are found today. Soil that can support extremely rich and vertant life is quite different. Such rich soil as covered the hills and mountains before the Flood would have easily been washed away. As the waters and massive tsunamis covered and reformed the planet during the Flood and subsequent aftermath, flat sedimentary layers would have been deposited which would not resemble the previous “soil” that once covered the Earth. Then, as the surface of the Earth broke up into continents and tectonic activity went into full swing, the newly formed sedimentary layers would themselves have become warped and folded – as well see today even on the tops of the highest mountain ranges in the world…

    5 – During the flood, these mountains dramatically arose out of the water with this new fossil-laden soil (that the waters did not wash away) due to tectonic forces (moving of the continental plates) unleashed during the flood.

    Water-deposited fossil-bearing sedimentary layers do indeed cover all the great mountain ranges in the world today…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  50. @Bill Sorensen:

    “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void.” This statement can not be seperated from what follows with the intent of claiming this happened previous to the first day. I think the flowing continuity of all these verses require that we understand all this took place on day one.

    Many scholars, to include many leaders and founding fathers of the SDA Church, disagree with you here. Your particular interpretation of the first verses of Genesis simply isn’t as obvious as you would like to think. In this line, consider the comments of Gerhard Pfandl, Ph.D. – an associate director of the Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists:

    M. C. Wilcox [editor of Signs of the Times] in 1898 wrote, “When did God create, or bring into existence, the heaven and the earth? ‘In the beginning.’ When this ‘beginning’ was, how long a period it covered, it is idle to conjecture; for it is not revealed. That it was a period which antedated the six days’ work is evident.”

    The same view is found among Adventists today. For example, Clyde Webster, former associate director of the Geo-Science Research Institute, in his book The Earth writes, “There is no reference in Scripture within creation week that addresses the creation of water or the mineral content of dry land. . . . The only reference made to their creation is ‘in the beginning.’ It seems possible then that the elementary inorganic matter is not bound by a limited age as is the living matter.”

    More recently, at the 2002 General Conference-sponsored Faith and Science Conference, Richard Davidson from Andrews University stated that “[T]he biblical text of Genesis 1 leaves room for either (a) young pre-fossil rock, created as part of the seven days of creation (with apparent old age), or (b) much older pre-fossil earth rock, with a long interval between the creation of the inanimate ‘raw materials’ on earth described in Genesis 1:1,2 and the seven days of Creation week described in Genesis 1:3ff (which I find the preferable interpretation).”

    Seventh-day Adventists do not believe that life existed on earth prior to Genesis 1. Only nonfossil bearing rock can be billions of years old.

    – Gerhard Pfandl, Ph.D. ( Link )

    So, you see, this is the reason why the SDA Church as an organization has not taken a definitive stand one way or the other on the origin of the basic material of the Earth in particular. The verses can reasonably be interpreted in different ways…

    The evidence of rocks and other scientific observations are useless in determining the age of the earth. And those who try to prove the biblical account by science and nature are simply backing themselves into a corner with no way out.

    Again, there is no such thing as absolute proof. Your appeals to the historical fulfillment of prophecy as absolute are mistaken since your views are dependent on the accuracy of historical science – a science that has a component of subjectivity and therefore a potential for error. The Bible is not self-authenticating like you imagine from the perspective of someone who has not grown up in the Church. Authentication must be based on the weight of evidence, not absolute demonstration since such demonstration does not exist…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  51. @Professor Kent:

    So where does one find references 94, 95, 96, and 97? Who is Harutaka Sakai, what is his evidence, and why should I believe him? Did you sit in his Sabbath School class in 1988, or did he publish in the prestigious journal SCIENCE?

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/geologiccolumn.html#References

    The references (94-97) are listed at the bottom of the webpage as follows:

    Harutaka Sakai, a geology professor at Kyushu University, western Japan ( http://staff.whsh.tc.edu.tw/~huanyin/kuo_9.htm )

    M.P. Searle, Extensional and compressional faults in the Everest-Lhotse massif, Khumbu Himalaya, Nepal, Journal of the Geological Society, London, Vol. 156, 1999, pp. 227-240. (http://eprints.ouls.ox.ac.uk/archive/00000811/01/searle_1999.pdf)

    D. Vance et. al., Erosion and Exhumation in the Himalaya from Cosmogenic Isotope Inventories of River Sediments ( http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/Annual/2003/24.pdf )

    D. Vance et. al., Cosmogenic Isotope Constraints on Erosion Rates in the Himalaya ( http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/research/experiments/tandem/Annual/2000/15.pdf )

    Other studies using different methods have show the erosion rates in the Himalayan region to be similar to that suggested above:

    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

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  52. Amen Pat!

    On a side note – Spectrum said

    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.

    Notice how coy libs are becomming when it comes to admitting publically that LSU even TEACHES evolution much less endorses it as the right answer for the doctrine on origins.

    They claim that someone is alleging that LSU “teaches” evolution. This is amazing given that ALL of our Universities TEACH evolution in terms of telling students what it is. The problem is with those that promote evoluitonism as the religion with the right answer for the doctrine on origins. But the Spectrum author quoted above apparently can’t be moved to honestly admit that LSU “teaches” evolution. And yet they express dismay that Elder Jackson might not favor evolution as if that is not a good thing for a university that only “allegedly” teaches evolution.

    Amazing!!

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  53. Re Sean’s Quote

    “If you would take the time to review my website you would find no references to the Bible or Mrs. White. My point in this particular forum is that the available evidence is consistent with the statements of these texts on origins while being strongly inconsistent with mainstream theories. At one point in time the entire planet was covered by water since the Cretaceous layer has a worldwide distribution. The layers of the geologic record are also extremely flat relative to each other. During the formation of this column, obviously, there were no very tall mountain ranges as exist today… just like Mrs. White says she was shown. These features are consistent with her claims. The same is true of the biblical claims regarding the recent formation of all life on this planet and a recent world wide Noachian deluge. This claim is consistent with the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence as far as I am able to tell…

    Sean Pitman”

    Dear Sean

    Good reply.

    I want you to know that I have read considerable portions from your website and will continue to do so. I enjoy them and am that much better informed as a result.

    You make a valid point on the distinction between this forum and your website. This forum does indeed deal with issues of faith as well as science. The problem though is that the reader can get confused as to which statements are faith based versus science based, or perhaps based on both.

    To your credit, you have avoided mixing faith apples with scientific oranges on your website. I’m not sure however, if, regarding your previous statements I cited, there is specific empirical data that support these points. Are you saying that in general the empirical evidence corroborates these ‘faith’ based statements?

    Kind regards
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  54. @Ken:

    Sean,if these theories are based on empirical data then I’d be most happy to review the data you rely upon. If, however these statements are based on your belief in the Bible and the prophetic utterances of EGW, then I ask whether you are subject to a faith bias when you are conducting your scientific inquiry on origins.

    If you would take the time to review my website you would find no references to the Bible or Mrs. White. My point in this particular forum is that the available evidence is consistent with the statements of these texts on origins while being strongly inconsistent with mainstream theories. At one point in time the entire planet was covered by water since the Cretaceous layer has a worldwide distribution. The layers of the geologic record are also extremely flat relative to each other. During the formation of this column, obviously, there were no very tall mountain ranges as exist today… just like Mrs. White says she was shown. These features are consistent with her claims. The same is true of the biblical claims regarding the recent formation of all life on this planet and a recent world wide Noachian deluge. This claim is consistent with the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence as far as I am able to tell…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  55. From what I have read GPS readings seem to indicate that it continues to grow at about 2.5 inches a year.

    Ken, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everest and http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-33523.html make me wonder about that 2.5 in. figure.

    The former says, “Two accounts suggest the rates of change are 4 mm (0.16 in) per year (upwards) …, but another account mentions more lateral movement (27 mm/1.1 in), … and even shrinkage has been suggested.”

    It sounds to me like no one knows for sure.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  56. Re Sean’s Quote

    “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.”

    Hi Sean

    I’m interested in this. Do you have references to the science in this regard?

    Cheers
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  57. Re Age of Mountains

    Hi Sean

    I was scanning your website to look for information on the speed of movement of tectonic plates but did not see any information. If you have specifically commented on that could you please direct me to that specific article.

    Many thanks
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  58. Re Sean’s Quote

    “The real question is, what do you think the data says? Even scientists are forced to make leaps of faith beyond which the data will conclusively support. Scientific theories are subject to potential falsification. Therefore, the conclusions of scientists are not absolute, but are dependent upon leaps of faith that cannot be known, with certainty, to be valid. The best anyone can say when coming to a particular conclusion about the reality of the world in which one finds ones self is that all beliefs regarding the true nature of reality are in some degree subjective and therefore potentially wrong.

    In short, I’ve based my own conclusions on the best available evidence that I can personally understand and that make rational sense to me; not on blind faith or some emotional conviction. I dare say that you can do no better…”

    Dear Sean

    As always thanks for your comments

    I quite agree with you, I don’t think my subjective “I” can do any better. In fact I think my subjective “I” or eye does far worse than you who has studied the topic far more thoroughly than myself. That is why, as best as I can with my human foibles and subjective ego, attempt to view the data objectively without a faith or non-faith bias. Moreover I think the objective capacities of men like Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein and Darwin, won over the subjective parts of their human personalities when it came to their scientific theories. Are you of that ilk or does your SDA faith prevent you from doing so? That is the question my dear friend, who so wonderfully has espoused the Royal Law of Love. Look into your heart on that one my dear man, as I have done in mine.

    If Jesus, or EGW, or any other modern day prophet should appear and speak to me then I will factor that into my reckoning. So far that has not happened but I remain open to the possibility. If reading the Bible, which I have done -as well as many other ‘sacred’ texts – results in a spiritual experience that suggests my rational reckoning is wrong, then so be it.

    The real question is not what “I” think the data says. The real question is what objectively the data says. Now if enough rational minds examine theories over time, be it gravity, evolution etc. what conclusions does collective rationality reach? That is far more the question or the test than whether “I” could do better. I cannot.

    Dear Sean, please look at the following statements you have made and advise whether this comes from your empirical study of the data or from your faith in the pronouncements of EGW and your interpretation of the Bible.

    “Since there were no great oceans before the Flood, the boats in existence during this time would not have been built for rough ocean voyages – but would have been build only for easy going lake, river, and shallow sea voyages. Such vessels would have been no match for the Noachian Deluge.”

    “There were no “continents” before the Flood. There were no great oceans and it never rained either. The Earth was watered by four great rivers and the “fountains” that were broken up during the Flood.”

    “There were no rough seas before the Flood as the weather was very mild and consistent world wide.”

    ” 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,if these theories are based on empirical data then I’d be most happy to review the data you rely upon. If, however these statements are based on your belief in the Bible and the prophetic utterances of EGW, then I ask whether you are subject to a faith bias when you are conducting your scientific inquiry on origins.

    Respectfully
    your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  59. @ Sean Pitman

    The non-fossilized remains of dinosaurs and even coal and oil have significant amounts of radiocarbon when none should be left at all. The usual arguments for this particular curious finding is that it must be the result of contamination or in situ formation. Neither of these arguments seems very convincing to me. Rather, it is far more likely, given all the information in hand currently, that these remains simply aren’t very old.

    Ancient samples are notorious for their contamination. Do some more reading.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  60. @ Sean Pitman

    What do you do with the author’s own qualification? Why would the author only describe, specifically, the land animals being destroyed by the flood? Why not mention the sea animals as well? Come on now. The story is internally consistent as it reads. It wouldn’t make sense to save whales or dolphins and other sea creatures in the ark when they would be able to ride out the storm on the outside. Do you have a point here? Or are you just trying to be obtuse?

    In Genesis 7:4, God says “I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.” But you insist that, to be “internally consistent,” you must advance 17 verses to read that “all living things” had to refer, instead, to “every living thing that moved on the earth.” Fine.

    In Genesis 7:19, God says “[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.” You insist that “every inch of the earth was covered,” but to be “internally consistent,” you need to advance only 14 verses to Genesis 8:9, which reads, “But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark” (NIV). And from Genesis 8:5, we know that the tops of the mountains were visible 40 days before this! So if you are honest in being “internally consistent” with your interpretation of the coverage of water, you would recognize that you have been deceived. That, or perhaps you are simply intellectually dishonest.

    If you are going to demand being “internally consistent” in identifying which life forms died, then you are being internally inconsistent–and patently dishonest–in describing the extent of the flood waters, and in demanding that others share your inconsistency and dishonesty as well.

    Admit it: your interpretation of scripture is prejudicial and biased by what you have been brainwashed by the Church, and its culture, to believe it tells you.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  61. Dear Bill

    Thank you for your profound, sincere thoughts.

    Noting the differences between you and Sean, I am confused how the Bible can interpret itself. Aren’t you and Sean interpreting aspects of it differently? How or where does the Bible interpret itself without human commentary? Sound like a tautology to me.

    Regards
    Ken Ken

    The bible is not “one” book, is it Ken? It is 66 books over many years of time in putting it together. And then we must remember each book and/or statement and concept is not written in a vacuum. It is built on many other books and statements.

    So that the later writers make comments assuming you already know some things that have been stated before. If we keep this in mind, we are less apt to read something and wrest it from its true meaning and purpose. Or simply put our own personal private interpretation on the statement.

    But, sad to say, this is how many read the bible and not a few commentaries miss this important point. And this is why some people think the old testament is one “religion” and the new a different “religion” altogether. Defined as “despensationalism”, by some. This idea has many twists and turns but always in the end, play off law and gospel in opposition to each other.

    The bible can be a difficult book, or not, depending on how you preceive the various concepts presented. In almost every case, every concept is discussed in the format of parallel and contrast. So that how the concepts agree is important, but how they disagree is equally important. Here is a list of examples…..

    Old and new covenant
    Law and grace
    Justification and sanctification
    faith and works
    Jesus as God and man…..etc.

    I could easily list a dozen more “enigmas” and paradoxes. But as I said before, the bible will interpret itself and explain itself to any mind open to the mind of the Holy Spirit. And ultimately, no one need accept anyone elses interpretation unless and until they see clearly the point any one is making from the bible itself. So, the bible “is of no private interpretation.”

    What I don’t understand, I am not required to believe. This is contrary to Rome who declares we must accept the church’s interpretation whether we understand it or not. Sad to say, more than a few SDA’s are willing to sell their accountability to the church by saying, “Well, if the church has decided, then we should go along.” And such statements are made without any consideration of the right or wrong of the church’s decision.

    Now it is true, other people can help us understand the bible as they explain their understanding of scripture. Every Christian is a “means of grace” and an avenue ordained of God as a witness to bible truth. But this in no way means they are always right, so we must investigate for ourselves.

    But the most important point is the bible is a self revelation of God to the human family, communicated by “holy men of old” as they were instructed and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Each building on what had gone before, so that, ultimately, Moses is the final authority. Even Christ being subject to “Moses and the prophets.”

    Listen to everyone carefully, trust no one completely. and affirm and confirm everything finally by the bible. For it is by the bible that the Holy Spirit creates and sustains the Christian community.

    And this too, is a confession of faith.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  62. @Sean Pitman:

    9-22-10

    “The same thing is true of prophecy. Just because one can demonstrate very accurate foreknowledge doesn’t mean that this individual is really God. It just means that we can’t tell the difference between someone with such power and what we would recognize as ‘God’.” – Sean Pitman

    Sean, you have me completely confused. If you can’t base your belief in God because of prophecy what can you base it on? You certainly can’t base it on human science.

    (As someone once said to an extremely intelligent friend of mine: “Sir, you need to put the “cookies” on a lower shelf so the children can reach them!”)

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  63. Sean said…..

    “Human reasoning is not the enemy of Christianity, but its very base. God wishes to appeal to our mind; our reasoning ability.”

    Sean, I have never suggested that God is opposed to human reasoning. I stated plainly that “human reasoning” is subject to revelation first, and natural law is secondary as it is a field of its own.

    God and natural law are not one and the same, neither are they on the same page. God transcends natural law.

    “Canst thou by searching, find out God?”

    Apparently, you think so.

    Prohecy validates the bible more than any other singular “proof” or evidence. It proves that God can see, past, present, and future. And this is the same God who claims He has created everything that exists.

    Much of science is faulty evidence at best. Sin has warped science and natural law. “The heavens declare the glory of God” because He has claimed He is the creator of it. What god that we can preceive of, is there who can create? None. We can not even preceive a creator god except the true God tell us so and how it is possible.

    We can learn aspects of God and about God by way of His creation, but only as we first learn and hear of His power and existence by His “self revelation.”

    Some knowledge of the true God has been passed on from generation to generation even in heathen lands. They did not learn it by way of speculation nor by examining science. Yes, the heathen have some knowledge of the true God because it was passed on to them from generation to generation. God preserved it through Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and their decendents.

    Moses wrote it down and we hold his testimony as the ultimate authority as God’s revelation of Himself to the human family. If the devil can obscure this revelation or destroy confidence in it, then he knows he can destroy the one true faith and deceive all humanity about who God is and/or if there even is one.

    Science is at best, a vague and misunderstood revelation of God. You must move people from science to the bible if they show any interest in origins. And if the Holy Spirit is present, they will soon see how faulty science is in determining origins. A scientist may ponder the mystery of life, but he won’t find the answer in nature. Nature may create questions, but it will not give the answers. Only the bible can do that.

    I would never deny the necessity of human reasoning in comprehending the reality of God and His self revelation. But human reasoning must stand still and wait for God to speak before anyone can know what is the truth of the matter.

    “The power of Christ alone can work the transformation in heart and mind that all must experience who would partake with Him of the new life in the kingdom of heaven. “Except a man be born again,” the Saviour has said, “he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3. The religion that comes from God is the only religion that can lead to God. In order to serve Him aright, we must be born of the Divine Spirit. This will lead to watchfulness. It will purify the heart and renew the mind, and give us a new capacity for knowing and loving God. It will give us willing obedience to all His requirements. This is true worship.”
    38
    {CD 37.3}

    Notice especially……”The religion that comes from God is the only religion that can lead to God.”

    Now maybe you believe all this, Sean. But if so, you don’t communicate it well in your posts. You leave the impression that science is an equal revelation of truth and the bible is not the final authority. I personally reject such an idea, and apparently more than a few who post do to.

    Now I believe a person has a right to qualify and re-qualify as many times as necessary in explaining what they mean and what they believe. The human language is not adequate to convey a perfect thought or idea about anything. So we use many words, stated many ways, until the main thought is clearly preceived.

    And this goes for the bible as well. Jesus told many parables, and each was to convey some thought or idea about the kingdom of God. No one parable, or singular thought or idea could convey an adequate understanding of truth. Yet each thought and idea was in harmony with what had been communicated before.

    Having said this, I choose to believe that in at least some aspects, I am not understanding the points you are making. On the other hand, when you keep repeating the same thought patterns again and again, there will come a time when a person must conclude they do understand your points, and then must simply reject the conclusions.

    And finally, God has said He created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested the seventh. Nothing outside this statement can “prove” it. Not science nor any other evidence. This is how I, and I think many other Christians understand it and believe it.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  64. @ Sean Pitman

    @…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?

    I haven’t called into question the SDA Fundamentals, which I believe in. I don’t put my faith in Dr. James Barr or other “mainstream Hebrew scholars;” after all, they reach other conclusions very different from SDAs. And I certainly do believe in a world-wide Noachian Flood. I just don’t believe the Bible supports the interpretation that it covered every single inch of land, for the inescapable reasons pointed out at the Ravi Zacharias thread.

    From an SDA perspective, add to Barr’s testimony the testimony of Mrs. White – which is also very clear on this topic…

    Yeah, it’s a shame that SDAs don’t take sola scriptura more seriously. But I do appreciate your frank admission.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  65. People don’t want and don’t like an intense and confrontational religion.

    We are all inherently lazy and seek the course of least resistence. The result is compromise in every area of life. Technology has played an important part in leading people into a lazy free and easy life style.

    But technology has stimulated sin in principle. What we are finding out is this, technology can’t out run sin. The more we deal with sin by way of technology, the greater the fall when sin eventually overtakes it.

    All the ease and wealth in the world won’t cure the sin problem. Science seems to think so. The human mind is never content for we never have enough “stuff” to assure future security.

    In the realm of salvation, it is God against science. And those who try to harmonize science with the creation story will never accomplish their goal.

    The natural world and the spiritual world are not against each other, but can not be described by reason alone. For a Christian, revelation transcends science. And the bible is the revelation we place our faith in.

    Spiritual reasoning and natural law reasoning are not one and the same thing. Spiritual reasoning goes beyond natural law and accepts the God of natural law Who is not subject to natural law. If He created it, He is not subject to it. It is subject to Him.

    The axe head floats. The dead are raised. God creates. None of which can be explained by natural law.

    The old testament believer worshipped the creator God. All false religions worship creation itself. The principle and the conflict between the two is alive and well in the world today, and even in the SDA church.

    The technoligical “tower of Babel” is about to come down and the confusion is intensifying daily. The lines are being drawn and the final battle is about to begin.

    We better know what we believe and why and be ready to stand in defense of bible truth or we will be swept away by the flood of infidelity.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  66. Dear Sean

    Below is the reference to Dr.Schweitzer’s paper, I thought would interest you.

    “Proc Biol Sci. 2007 January 22; 274(1607): 183–197.
    Published online 2006 October 31. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3705.

    PMCID: PMC1685849
    “Copyright This journal is © 2006 The Royal Society
    Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present
    Mary Higby Schweitzer,1,2* Jennifer L Wittmeyer,1 and John R Horner3
    1Department of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
    2North Carolina Museum of Natural Science, 11 W. Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27601, USA
    3Museum of the Rockies, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA
    *Author for correspondence (Email: schweitzer@ncsu.edu)
    Received July 7, 2006; Accepted August 10, 2006.”

    Regards
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  67. @Professor Kent:

    So you are telling me that “all” in this passage does not mean “all living things?” ALL simply does not mean ALL? It means only those animals that move on the land and have nostrils?

    What do you do with the author’s own qualification? Why would the author only describe, specifically, the land animals being destroyed by the flood? Why not mention the sea animals as well?

    Come on now. The story is internally consistent as it reads. It wouldn’t make sense to save whales or dolphins and other sea creatures in the ark when they would be able to ride out the storm on the outside.

    Do you have a point here? Or are you just trying to be obtuse?

    For those infatuated with the notion that Dr. Pitman become a biology professor at La Sierra University, he has clearly disqualified himself for becoming an SDA employee in any capacity. He actually believes the earth is older than 6,000 years.

    Who else reading or contributing to this website believes Ellen White was simply wrong when she wrote “the world is now only about six thousand years old.?” (3SG 91.1) Bob Ryan? David Read? Paul Giem? Rich Constantinescu? Roger Seheult? I think folks should come clean about this.

    Given the Genesis narrative and the description of Earth’s creation beginning with a pre-existing planet that was, “without form and empty [of life]” (Genesis 1:2) as well as Peter’s comment in the New Testament that God created the structure of Earth “out of water and by water” (2 Peter 3:5 NIV), and even the statement in Job where the author claims that, “the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy” (Job 38:7), it is quite reasonable in this context that Mrs. White was talking about the creation of the structure of the Earth that is now able to support complex life.

    This structure and the life upon the Earth is clearly described in the Bible as being produced over six literal days. This is the basis of SDA FB#6. The idea that the universe itself and perhaps even the material of the Earth existed before the Creation Week is not out of the question given the Genesis account or the statements of Mrs. White. This is why the SDA Church has not taken a fundamental stand on the gap theory or the age of the universe itself. The Church has only taken a stand on the age of life and the structure of the Earth needed to support complex life. That’s it.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  68. Re Bob’s Quote

    “Through carbon dating, the team also determined that the material was modern, not prehistoric [source: Kaye et al.]. In statements made to National Geographic, Schweitzer stood by her findings, noting, among other things, that Kaye’s team did not address more recent protein studies of her T. rex samples [source: Roach].”

    Dear Bob

    Thanks very much, very interesting.

    I’m curious whether they tried to carbon date the bones and compare that to the tissue. What if that yielded different dates or no dates at all on the bones. That would suggest different ages for the tissue and bones right?

    I also read Schweitzer’ paper where she speculated that somehow the tissue might have became preserved within the bone. I guess that is another possibility.

    The beauty of science is not always in its conclusiveness but in its ongoing relentless search for the truth.

    By the way, were you referring to Schweitzer as an atheist? She is a proclaimed evangelical Christian isn’t she?

    Regards
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  69. Re Bill’s quote

    “Logic tells us God created us and is solely responsible to give and maintain life. No amount of “logic” could understand why God would create us and then put us on trial. And then threaten us with destruction if and when we rejected His test. But this is exactly what the bible teaches us.”

    Dear Bill

    That is a very, honest, candid admission regarding very problematic theodicy. It exemplifies one of the reasons rational minds struggle with biblical faith.

    That is why death as part of nature makes more sense to me. Organisms live and die as part of an ongoing natural life cycle. Does that mean humans don’t have souls or once upon a time were immortal in the Garden of Eden? I don’t know that, but I have not seen, understood, critically read, had revealed or otherwise experienced anything to remotely suggest that is the case.

    I fairness, I find no logic in atheism. We exist or stem from- at least in a Cartesian sense I think we do – from some original cause. I don’t think humans can rationally grasp infinity. Do I think evolution is the most rational theory for the emergence of life on earth? Yes. Do I think that rationalism can explain the cause behind the big bang, at least the inaugural big bang that may have initiated metaverses? No, I have not seen a rational explanation for that yet, although Stephen Hawking alludes to one in his new book: The Grand Design. I haven’t read that yet. Could there possibly be a transcendent god? Possibly, but it could be some force that we do not remotely have the capacity to wrap our limited human minds around- hence an explanation for the conundrum of theodicy.

    I understand and appreciate your argument regarding prophecy but so many people make predictions. Is Nostradamus a prophet for example?

    Those are some of the reasons why I remain an agnostic.

    Respectfully, your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  70. Sean Pitman wrote:

    Neither the Bible nor Mrs. White speak of the material of the Earth as being young. Rather, they clearly speak of life on Earth and the structure of the Earth needed to support life as being young.

    Excuse me. Was Ellen White not clear enough?

    Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old.” (3SG 91.1)

    Where did she say in this passage, or elsewhere, “The world is much older than six thousand years old, but life on it is only about six thousand years old.” Please help me out here, Sean. Personally, I think you’ve let your science get in the way of your faith in a simple “thus saith the Lord.”

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  71. Dear Sean

    I posted my comments to Bob on Dr.Schweitzer before I saw your reply. Thanks very much, I hope I haven’t wasted your time as obviously I am not up to speed on her work or criticism thereof. I will follow up on your comments and see if I have anything of value to add.

    I appreciate your candid admission on the limitations of subjective natures. Hence my agnosticism to ‘attempt’ to look at everything objectively, without a non faith of faith bias. Not being smug here as I recognize the realistic limits of idealism. Humans seldom, if ever, reach that level. I like the climb though, each step seems a little firmer than the one below.

    Cheers
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  72. @ Bob Ryan and Sean Pitman

    According to God: “For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made” (Genesis 7:4 NIV).

    So you are telling me that “all” in this passage does not mean “all living things?” ALL simply does not mean ALL? It means only those animals that move on the land and have nostrils?

    According to God: “[The waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.” (Genesis 7:19 NIV)

    So you are telling me now that “all” in this passage can only mean ALL? ALL can only mean ALL? The waters covered ALL of the mountains, even those on the other side of the world where, perhaps, no humans had ever lived?

    In the majority of instances in the Bible, the Hebrew “kol erets,” meaning “whole earth,” does not refer to the entire planet earth. Of the 205 instances of “kol erets” in the Old Testament, it might refer to the entire planet just 40 times, and even some of those are questionable. So do you really insist that we are going to form the bedrock of SDA theology on taking this one phrase in this one instance literally, and dismiss other uses of the very same phrase?

    I find it quite amusing how you can pick and choose to your own liking when a word is literal and when it is hyperbole. And without consistency. Sorry, Bob, but I think you’re the one playing games with God’s Word–not me.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  73. For those infatuated with the notion that Dr. Pitman become a biology professor at La Sierra University, he has clearly disqualified himself for becoming an SDA employee in any capacity. He actually believes the earth is older than 6,000 years.Who else reading or contributing to this website believes Ellen White was simply wrong when she wrote “the world is now only about six thousand years old.?” (3SG 91.1) Bob Ryan? David Read? Paul Giem? Rich Constantinescu? Roger Seheult? I think folks should come clean about this.  

    I think Sean will say she did not mean the actual “physical world” (rocks, dirt, water, etc.) Right Sean? Only the “living” stuff? The idea that we can “age” something by using only our human reasoning seems wrong.

    The paralytic had been “paralyzed” for many years, with the subsequent atrophy of tissues that would occur. When Jesus “healed” the paralytic, did the nerves, muscles, and other tissues suddenly become “whole” (normal) immediately. It seems they did–he got up and actually walked away.

    However, we have no known scientific explanation of “how” this could occur. When cells, tissues, and organs “heal” it takes time. (Sean, being a pathologist, is an expert at understanding this) More time than “suddenly” is needed. When the people looked at the former paralytic, would his body show the “sudden” healing or be in the phase of gradual healing?

    If someone had looked at his muscles and seen the normality, would they have “misinterpreted” the healing as not having “enough time” to take place?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  74. Re Bill’s quote

    “Nature and science are faulty and fallible. The bible is infallible.”

    Dear Bill

    For sake of argument let’s presume your statement is correct. Let’s say as an agnostic I am evaluating your’s and Sean’s interpretation of the Bible. Whose interpretation is right? Logically both cannot be infallible. Possibly one could be infallible, or – both may be fallible.

    I’m sure you see the dilemma. Even if the Bible is infallible how does rational man decide whose interpretation is so, as exemplified by yours and Sean’s profound disagreements.

    Let’s look at another issue being debated here amongst FB’s SDAs: the age of the earth. Sean thinks that the material of the earth is far older than 10,000 years. Lydian at first thought that the earth, without form or void, was around before paradise was created, then recanted and said the earth if only about 6000 years old. ( that’s OK Lydian, no one- definitely not me- is faulting your honest change of mind ). Prof Kent, by his interpretation of the Bible, alleges that Sean has committed heresy and has joined the ranks of the infidels.

    Yet, I think you are all in agreement that what is being taught at LSU’s biology department, is contrary to FB #6.

    My observation is that you all appear to have strong SDA faith. But who is right, if anyone? As an agnostic I don’t know, but your dilemma in a teapot is indicative of the greater macro dilemma of faith in general. Faith, even inter denominational faith, is highly subjective. Thus, for me as a rational agnostic, I need an objective barometer to evaluate the question of the origins of life. And that is science, which looks at the issue dispassionately, objectively, without bias – or mixed interpretations – of faith, or bias of atheism.

    That is why I applaud Sean for attempting to use empirical evidence and science to support the Genesis account of creation. He is trying to put meaningful flesh on the bones of faith to make whole the SDA body. That greatly appeals to the rational mind. And – I say this somewhat tentatively so as not to insult anyone – if God did not mean us to examine issues rationally then the converse is that faith has an irrational component. Frankly I think this latter notion of a god is mysticism and superstition.

    As always, I am most grateful to be able to share my thoughts with all of you. I believe in service to mankind, even if my agnostic mindset serves to clarify or strengthen your faith. That is all good!

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  75. @Lydian Belknap:

    Sean, you have me completely confused. If you can’t base your belief in God because of prophecy what can you base it on? You certainly can’t base it on human science.

    But I do use prophecy as one of the evidences for my belief in the Bible as the true Word of God. It is just that human beliefs about external reality are all subjective. That means that it is possible that I have misinterpreted the prophetic evidence based on my misunderstanding of the relevant historical science.

    In short, all your understanding or beliefs regarding what is and is not “true” about the world in which you live is based on, or at least can and should be based on, a form of scientific reasoning from the best available empirical evidence (from your own individual basis).

    In other words, your statement that useful belief or faith can’t be based on human science is mistaken. A form of human science or reasoning is always required when we humans come to our understanding of truth. There simply is no magic behind it…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  76. Re Wesley’ Quote

    “Look, if indeed there is not one shredy-shred-shred of evidence for Creation, only for Evo, as is being touted, paradoxically, by both extremes, the sober Bible believer and the whimsical whatever, faith takes over, of course. But if indeed there is evidence for Creation, didn’t God provide it? Does not such evidence devolve upon God’s Creation itself – its rocks, flagella, creatine, DNA? If so, why forfeit it? Might we not have to answer for ignoring what God has given us, like talents? Or is evidence itself of random origin, like all Evo? wesley kime

    Dear Wesley

    Conversely, why isn’t evolution evidence of a different kind of creation than what you espouse? Evidence is evidence notwithstanding theories of creation.

    Regards
    your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  77. The Bible is very clear as it reads regarding the author’s intent to describe a truly world wide Flood that destroyed all land-based animal life on the planet. This story is also internally consistent for if there had not been a truly world wide Flood, there would have been no need to build an ark to protect both human and animal life from complete extinction. I mean really, in 120 years, Noah and his family could have simply moved to the region that would not be affected by the Flood. Why the need for an ark if the Flood wasn’t to be world wide? – or if there was no need to protect land animals from extinction?

    One has to think rationally here for just a minute to understand why the significant majority of conservative and even liberal Hebrew scholars (to include SDA scholars) clearly understand the intended meaning of the author of the Genesis account to describe a truly universal Flood. The same is true for the author’s intent to describe the Creation Week as being a real week of literal days.

    As far as what, exactly, was created during that week, both the Bible and Mrs. White are very clear that all life and the structure of the Earth needed to support life were created during that week. However, both the Bible and Mrs. White claim, in no uncertain terms, that the universe was already in existence and that intelligent beings lived here before our Creation Week began. Job, in particular, notes that at our Creation the “son of God shouted for joy” (Job 38:7). Where did the “sons of God” live before our world was created?

    So, the idea that the universe and other intelligent beings already existed before we came along is not in question in the writings of either the Bible or Mrs. White. And, this idea is not opposed to the SDA fundamental beliefs either…

    As far as the material of the Earth, Peter notes that the “Earth was formed out of water and by water” (2 Peter 3:5 NIV). The author of Genesis suggests also that at the beginning of the Creation Week water already existed; covering the surface of this planet” (Genesis 1:2). Mrs. White’s comment that the Earth is “about 6,000 years old” is not at all inconsistent with the possibility that the universe itself and perhaps even some unformed material of the Earth itself was already in existence before God started forming the Earth to support life.

    This idea really makes no difference, however, to the point at hand – i.e., that the author of Genesis describes a literal creation week where at least the structure of the Earth and all life on Earth were created during that very short time in recent history. That idea is beyond serious question as far as the author’s intent is concerned. This is why the SDA Church only endorses the idea that the creation week was a literal week where God made all living things on this planet and that the Noachian Flood was a universal Flood that occurred within recent history – with the only people and land animals surviving being those that were present on that ark. The SDA Church takes no official position on the “gap theory” where there was an indefinite span of time between “the beginning” of the universe mentioned in Genesis 1:1 and the start of our particular Creation Week… even though both the Bible and Mrs. White strongly suggest that there was in fact a gap in time here…

    The arguments of those like Prof. Kent that the Flood was not necessarily universal are only meant as an effort to argue for a local or regional flood so as to have another way for land animal preservation besides those that were saved on the ark (a common effort of those who wish to try to harmonize the conclusions of mainstream science, in some way, with the claims of the Bible – a futile effort by the way). In short, Prof. Kent does not really believe in, at least he does not promote, all the SDA fundamentals as truth despite his repeated claims to the contrary…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  78. @ Pastor Carlson

    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.

    Amen to this, brother!

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  79. @ken:

    Please compare your two comments regarding your theorie(s) of the energy that drives continental drift. This is why I’m having problems with the credibility of what you are saying. With respect, I don’t think you can have your ‘continental cake and eat it too’. Sometimes continents move fast, sometimes slow, it all depends on what? Science or concordance with EGW’s statements. I’m bewildered by these contradictions without scientific reference.

    There is no known energy source that can adequately explain continental drift with the building of massive mountains and ocean trenches over vast periods of time. My statement about the Earth’s rotation relative to the moon is not an effort to explain continental drift via the daily deformation produced by the gravitational action of the moon on the planet. Rather, such deformations may contribute to the lack of re-solidification of the continental shelves. Overall, however, I think current continental drift rates are largely the result of aftershocks from the original point of massive energy release that broke up the continents to begin with. In other words, even though I do not buy-in to many of the features of certain catastrophic models (to include your reference to Baumgardner’s ideas), I do think that the evidence clearly favors a recent catastrophic model for continental drift of some kind…

    Re Sean’s Quote

    “Consider that an average growth rate of 4 mm/yr is equal to around 4 million mm of growth in one million years – or 4000 meters per million years. Given 50 million years since Everest is suppose to have started it’s uplift, that works out to be over 200,000 meters of elevation. Yet, Mt. Everest is only ~8,848 meters tall today.”

    Have you not omitted offsetting erosion here?

    This is taking into account offsetting erosion. Mt. Everest is still growing at a rate of 4 mm/yr despite erosion.

    That’s the problem I’m trying to get you to understand. Even given your argument of offsetting erosion keeping pace with the rate of uplift, the realization of 200,000 meters of offsetting erosion over the course of 50 million years would have completely wiped away all the sedimentary layers on top of the granitic rock many many times over. The fact that these layers, which were originally no more than 6,000 meters thick in these areas, are still there is very good evidence that these mountain ranges have not been uplifted nearly as long as mainstream scientists claim…

    Re 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 ”

    Do you think these two statements are compatible?

    Why not? The “mountains” before the Flood simply weren’t vary tall – likely no more than a thousand meters tall. They were symmetrical and entirely covered with thick rich soil and verdant vegetation according to Mrs. White. That means that they could not have been nearly as tall as the great mountain ranges we have today on Earth because verdant vegetation cannot survive at very high altitudes. This is also consistent with the evidence within the geologic record which supports the idea that during the formation of the geologic/fossil records there simply were no great mountain chains as exist today. The entire Earth was a much much flatter place.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  80. @ken:

    What is the ‘known’ energy source that supports the recent catastrophic model? What and where was the original point of massive energy release?

    The catastrophic model is not based on knowing the original source of energy or the point or points of its original release. The catastrophic model is based on features of the geologic column and fossil record that cannot be reasonably explained without invoking a catastrophic event or closely-spaced series of events within recent history.

    It is like in forensic science. One does not have to know the actual mechanism of death to know that a particular crime scene occurred recently and catastrophically…

    I’m not trying to be argumentative here I’m just trying to understand if there is evidence to back up your theory or whether like Baumgardner it is just a model. Nothing wrong with models and theories by the way.

    I’ve giving you a number of points of evidence in support of the recent and catastrophic formation of the geologic/fossil records. Your request for evidence in support of a particular mechanism, which is a lot harder to conclusively demonstrate, does not negate the very strong evidence of sudden catastrophe.

    My point comparing your tsunami theory to EGW ‘rising waters’ vision was why she did not describe such massive waves that would have hit without warning. How did Noah’s Ark survive those waves? Divine intervention? Hard for me to rationally imagine that.

    That is exactly what Mrs. White says. She claims that the Noachian Flood was so fierce that Satan himself feared for his life and that the Ark would have been destroyed had God not sent angels to protect it from the raging waters of the Flood…

    As the violence of the storm increased, trees, buildings, rocks, and earth were hurled in every direction. The terror of man and beast was beyond description. Above the roar of the tempest was heard the wailing of a people that had despised the authority of God. Satan himself, who was compelled to remain in the midst of the warring elements, feared for his own existence.

    But amid the warring elements it [the Ark] continued to ride safely. Angels that excel in strength were commissioned to preserve it.
    – EGW, PP, p. 99, 100

    The simple idea that the waters of the Flood quietly rose and fell is mistaken. The Flood was an extremely violent event and was simply part of the overall catastrophe that impacted the Earth at that time.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  81. Dear 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)

    1. All doctrine is tested “sola scriptura”. The doctrine on the flood having all life on dry land destroyed and waters covering the tops of “all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered” to a depth of 15 cubits Gen 7:19-20 – is directly from scripture. No text from Ellen White needed to provide that information. Interestingly – it is not likely that Noah was jumping out of the ark and measuring. This is God providing “details” to Moses.

    2. While there is no “doctrine on the age of rocks” in our 28 Fundamental Beliefs – we do have the Bible record of the ages of man. And we do have Ellen White also being “told by God” about the age of earth (6,000 years) just as Moses was “told by God” the details of the flood. That figure matches closely to the record of history that we find in scripture.

    The only question then is the timing for the creation of the “formless and void” state in Genesis 1:2 where “waters covered the face of the deep”, and the content of what that creation constitued in terms of rocks or simply dust and gas or ??.

    3. It is true that given all that we know from what God told Ellen White – there were already worlds – with civilizations on them before God created life on earth. This is not a “Fundamental Belief” in our set of doctrines – but those who accept the doctrine on Spiritual Gifts, the gift of prophecy and the historic fact that God gave that gift even in more recent times – to Ellen White, will all understand this point.

    So again – our 28 Fundamental Beliefs are tested “sola scripura” but there is no “sola scriptura” teaching in scripture that says that prophets are limited to “paraphrasing existing scripture”. They provide details/facts/information that you do not find in scripture. As in the case in Acts where Agabus tells Paul what is about to happen to him when he goes to Jerusalem or when the men of the schools of the prophets warn Elisha in the Old Testament that Elijah is about to be taken up into heaven. Elisha was not going to be able to open his Bible and find a text saying “hey Elisha – Elijah will be taken to heaven today”.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  82. @Professor Kent: We know from Genesis 8:2-3 that the waters were receding and in proceeding verses that the mountains began to show. So when we read in verse 9 that “the waters were on the face of the whole earth,” we can safely assume the author is not literally speaking of every inch of land being covered. If water was covering the whole planet with the exception of some mountain peaks, how would we describe it? I think it’s quite reasonable to say that the whole earth was covered with water despite knowing that some peaks are showing.

    Contrast this with Genesis 7:9 where all the mountains are described as being covered. Here there is no qualifier. A plain, straightforward reading gives us every indication that the whole earth, even the mountains, were covered by water. Chapter 8, however, qualifies “the whole earth.” I think the context of these verses makes the meaning quite clear.

    I’ll have to get to your all life forms were destroyed idea later. Time for bed.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  83. @ Sean Pitman

    As the earth came forth from the hand of its Maker, it was exceedingly beautiful. Its surface was diversified with mountains, hills, and plains, interspersed with noble rivers and lovely lakes; but the hills and mountains were not abrupt and rugged, abounding in terrific steeps and frightful chasms, as they now do; the sharp, ragged edges of earth’s rocky framework were buried beneath the fruitful soil, which everywhere produced a luxuriant growth of verdure.

    – Ellen White, PP, p.44

    Notice that Mrs. White claims that the rugged rocky mountains we see on Earth today were the result of the energy released during the Noachian catastrophe. Such a catastrophic release of energy is quite consistent with the breaking up of continental plates and their initially rapid collisions with each other…

    – Sean Pitman

    Upon further reflection, I don’t see how this passage supports, or is consistent with, the assumption that the breaking up of continental plates and their initially rapid collisions with each other would cause the rugged mountains. From her words, the mountains were already present; there is no indication that they formed, or even grew in height. It would be much more consistent with her language to conclude that the “rugged” nature of the mountains resulted from erosion of soil from the floodwaters.

    So why the need to state as fact things like plate tectonics, when Ellen White had no apparent knowledge and, at least in this passage, offered no hint of such happenings? Again, you are imposing too much of your “science” on inspiration.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  84. Dear Sean and all

    As you recall, in a previous blog I asked Sean for scientific references or models supporting the break up of the tectonic plates at the time of the Noachian Flood. In fairness I found one at Global Flood. org. I reprint it here for everyone’s edification.

    [Length of article too long. Please provide link instead.]

    I hope this assists with the ongoing debate.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  85. @Ken:

    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.

    Continents are like huge icebergs. Their “roots” extend deep into the mantle of the Earth. They are truly massive. The massive energy release that caused the original break up of their structure would take quite a while to completely dissipate. Beyond this, the constant pull of the Moon on the Earth (and the Sun to some extent) warps the Earth on a daily basis and provides a mechanism for keeping the massive continents from settling into place and becoming stable again.

    2. Based on your theory should the rate of growth of Mt.Everest be slowing down?

    From its rate of original uplift, yes. Again, this is where the erosion rate problem for mainstream thinking comes into play – in a very significant way.

    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?

    “In 1994 researchers placed a global positioning satellite (GPS) device on the South Col, a plateau below the summit. Readings suggest that Everest grows 0.1576 inches (about four millimeters) each year.”

    http://www.nationalgeographic.com/features/99/everest/roof_content.html

    Consider that an average growth rate of 4 mm/yr is equal to around 4 million mm of growth in one million years – or 4000 meters per million years. Given 50 million years since Everest is suppose to have started it’s uplift, that works out to be over 200,000 meters of elevation. Yet, Mt. Everest is only ~8,848 meters tall today.

    This strongly suggests that whatever force drove the Indian subcontinent into the Asian continent did so recently – not some 50 million years ago. Otherwise, there would be no sedimentary layers left atop Mt. Everest (because of the very high erosion rate in the region) and the Himalayan mountains, in general, would be much taller than they are today…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  86. @ Sean Pitman

    Consider that an average growth rate of 4 mm/yr is equal to around 4 million mm of growth in one million years – or 4000 meters per million years. Given 50 million years since Everest is suppose to have started it’s uplift, that works out to be over 200,000 meters of elevation. Yet, Mt. Everest is only ~8,848 meters tall today.

    I had no idea that informed geologists believe in uniform rates of mountain building and erosion. But if that’s what they believe, then your reasoning cannot be faulted.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  87. Dear Wes

    Thanks for your kind words.

    I’m indeed sorry if I’ve left the impression that I want to reconfigure Sean’s science. Actually I want to do exactly the opposite: encourage Sean to focus on empiricism. What I hope Sean will do is let us know when he is speculating or theorizing versus when he is citing scientific research.

    I like that evolution is being vigoursly attacked. It is not a sacred cow and needs to be strenuously examined to test it’s merit. Sean has a very important role in this. But such attack must be based on good rigorous science to be credible, not speculation. Hence where is the science to demonstrate the tectonic plates moved dramatically at the time of the flood and caused mountains covered in sediment to rise well above the flood waters? Is this based on EGW proclamations or scientific facts? I’m OK if it is the former as long as it is clarified so. Perhaps Sean can address this issue if I am misunderstanding what he is saying.

    Wes, I hope this helps to clarify mt former comments.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  88. @Ken:

    Or is the question did Sean move to the data from his conclusion based on faith?

    The real question is, what do you think the data says? Even scientists are forced to make leaps of faith beyond which the data will conclusively support. Scientific theories are subject to potential falsification. Therefore, the conclusions of scientists are not absolute, but are dependent upon leaps of faith that cannot be known, with certainty, to be valid. The best anyone can say when coming to a particular conclusion about the reality of the world in which one finds ones self is that all beliefs regarding the true nature of reality are in some degree subjective and therefore potentially wrong.

    In short, I’ve based my own conclusions on the best available evidence that I can personally understand and that make rational sense to me; not on blind faith or some emotional conviction. I dare say that you can do no better…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  89. Dear Wes

    I do enjoy your writing.

    Faith vs. agnosticism as the more productive, non biased scientific tool? I can live with the verdict on that my friend. Who do you suggest we put on the jury?

    Obsessed? Oh so very guilty as charged. your honour. But on the topic of origins not any particular faith.

    Cheers
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  90. Sean Pitman wrote

    At one point in time the entire planet was covered by water since the Cretaceous layer has a worldwide distribution.

    Despite years of gardening, I haven’t seen the cretaceous layer in my backyard. Do you suppose I’m not digging deep enough?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  91. Welcome again, class, to Philosophy of Science 101. Today’s carefully devised Socratic: Ignoring all other variables (e.g., data, protocol, even bilateral bias, direction of process vector, etc.), which of the following, as a scientific tool, is the more productive in the lab (not the blog)? (1) Sean’s faith. (2) Agnostic obsession with it.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  92. Regarding George Mallory’s non-eroded body, Sean Pitman wrote:

    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.

    Could you be more clear? Why, exactly, is it you would expect “landslide erosion” and the “buzzsaw” effect of the glacier that does not cover the actual summit of Everest to erode more snow-buried rock on the summit of Everest than the body of a frozen human on the summit? And why would a landslide erode rock but not a frozen human body?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  93. @ Sean Pitman

    The Himalayas are eroding at different rates based on elevation with the higher elevations eroding more rapidly than the lower elevations…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).

    Sean, you crack me up. Are you suggesting that geologists err in their claims that a frozen landscape slows rates of erosion? Are you suggesting the summit of Mt. Everest is not frozen? Do you seriously believe slow-moving glaciers are absent from Mt. Everest? What force at the summit is causing erosion at a rate greater than ice movement and water runoff in the valleys? Why can’t you provide actual estimates of erosion from the summit itself, or from other summits in the Himalayas, rather than make up your own estimates? Your calculations are derived from sediment loads in streams extrapolated over area; do you even know whether the calculations are based on 2-dimensional (flat earth) or 3-dimensional (ridges/valleys) area?

    If the actual summit of Mt. Everest is truly eroding at the rate you indicate (3-4 mm/year, which I believe is based on your totally flawed understanding of geology), you’ve got a much bigger problem. In 1924, George Mallory perished on the summit. Yet 75 years later, his frozen body was rediscovered, exposed on the surface but remarkably intact. Can you please explain how, in 75 years, 225-300 mm (8.9-11.8 inches!!!) of rock eroded all around Mr. Mallory’s body, when his frozen flesh did not erode at all? Not even the papers in his wallet were degraded! My understanding of geology is rudimentary, but I was under the impression that human flesh, leather, and paper would degrade more readily than rock.

    I think you have an outstanding opportunity to make an earth-shaking contribution to our understanding of geology: that high elevation rock is far more brittle than human skin. If your science and reasoning are as solid as frozen human flesh, you should have little difficulty publishing in one of the world’s premier journals: either Science of Nature.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  94. @ Shane Hilde

    @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.  (Quote)

    So, like Bill, you lean toward the earth being created on day 1. Isn’t this the majority opinion, if not the official position, of the SDA Church?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  95. Ken wrote

    At times like this I’m sure the Royal Law of Love must be of great solace!

    It depends, Ken, on which verses from Genesis and statements from Ellen White you accept as literal, and how these match up to those who appoint themselves as watchkeepers in the Church. Examples include:

    1 – Age of the earth. The Bible makes no explicit statements, though the chronologies (which are notoriously incomplete and inconsistent) certainly imply a short time, as Shane Hilde notes. However, Ellen White makes many unambiguous statements, including, “the world is now only about six thousand years old” (3SG 91.1). Sean Pitman says that this cannot be believed, because what she clearly meant (in his imagination) is that life on earth is only about six thousand years old. If an SDA employee believes life (or even the earth itself) is older than 6,000 years, they are labelled as thieves and liars (and immoral by some folks here).

    2 – The extent of the flood. Genesis 7:19 and Genesis 8:9 both tell us that the water covered the entire earth. Sean Pitman says that a true SDA must take 7:19 literally and 8:9 figuratively. SDA employees who disagree with him are labelled as thieves and liars (and immoral by some folks here).

    3 – The life forms that were destroyed. Genesis 7:4 says that all living things were going to be destroyed, and Genesis 7:19 comments only on land-dwelling animals being destroyed (with no mention of plants, marine life, or aquatic life). Sean Pitman says that the former was incorrect, and that we must believe the latter. To me, this is like reading in one place that Jesus died to save all mankind, and in another place that Jesus’ death would only save those who believe in Him (with no mention of those who rejected Him). I can’t discern what is “acceptable” for the SDA employee to believe regarding what died outside of the ark.

    So…if you’re an SDA employee and happen to choose “wrong” in what you believe to be literal or figurative, those who feel called to maintain “truth” will subject you to public ridicule and shame on the World Wide Web, and call for your resignation or firing. Is this your notion of the Royal Law of Love? Would you take solace in it?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  96. Re Sean’s Quote

    “Consider that an average growth rate of 4 mm/yr is equal to around 4 million mm of growth in one million years – or 4000 meters per million years. Given 50 million years since Everest is suppose to have started it’s uplift, that works out to be over 200,000 meters of elevation. Yet, Mt. Everest is only ~8,848 meters tall today.”

    Dear Sean

    Have you not omitted offsetting erosion here?

    Cheers
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment

Leave a Reply