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. Re Sean’s Quote

    “There is also no known source of energy that could slowly drive continental drift.

    ” 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. ”

    Dear Sean

    Thanks for your comments.

    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.

    Your agnostic friend
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  2. 1. The cretaceous layer occurs worldwide
    2. Therefore, water occured worldwide and covered every scrap of land

    1. Humans occur worldwide
    2. Therefore, humans occured worldwide and covered every scrap of land

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  3. Sean,

    Despite my persistently repeated challenges, you still can’t bring yourself to admit that no one has actually measured the erosion rate from the summit of Mt. Everest. Nevertheless, I think you truly believe YOU know with precision the rate of erosion, in spite of the fact that some debate continues as to the mountain’s actual height (summarized nicely at Wikipedia–very interesting reading)! You apparently require this knowledge because you believe it shows that the mountain could not remain at 20,029 ft (1955, 1975), or 29,035 ft + 3 ft snow/ice (1999), or 29,017.16 ft + 11 ft of snow (2005) if it had been eroding at this supposedly well-documented rate for 50 million years.

    For your argument, I’m more than a little surprised that you would assume this supposedly well-documented erosion rate has been consistent over time. Your calculations also assume that tectonic (mountain-building) pressures, temperatures, and monsoonal rain have been consistent the past 50 million years. If, for example, temperatures were colder than today during substantial portions of the past 50 million years, glaciers would be even more likely than today to have stabilized the summit, actually contributing to the mountain-building process. This would be the opposite of what you have insisted, utterly destroying your argument.

    Frankly, I don’t think you have thought through many of your arguments carefully. A few examples illustrate the capriciousness of your logic. When convenient, mountain erosion rates remain constant over time, because they support a recent origin of Mt. Everest. But when convenient, radiometric decay rates cannot be constant over time, because they would imply long ages. What other evidences for YEC have you arrived at based on assumptions borne of convenience? Are you capable of changing your interpretations as you become aware of new science? I’m convinced that this particular theory of yours–the height and longevity of Mt. Everest–is one of Bob Ryan’s oft-spoken-of “rabbit trails.” He might also call it “junk science.” And the unbiased objective reader would note that it required “blind faith” to accept in the first place.

    The bottom line: I don’t understand how you can write here, and at DetectingDesign.com, about all the amazing evidences for Young Earth Creationism with such extreme dogmaticism. You write with forceful conviction that you are correct and others who disagree “are mistaken.” I think if you communicate with a little more humility, tentativeness, and open-mindedness, you would gain the respect and credibility you believe you deserve. As it is, you are still unable to say, “You’re right, Professor Kent; no one knows with certainty the erosion rate at the summit of Mt. Everest, and no one, including myself, can estimate with certainty what erosion rates might have been for this one mountain over the past 50 million years. Maybe I was premature in using it as a rock solid example of why we can be confident that the weight of evidence supports Young Earth Creationism.”

    God bless!
    Professor Kent
    Of whom was written, “You’ve clearly demonstrated your ignorance of what the literature really has to say regarding erosion and uplift rates of the great mountain chains.”

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  4. @Professor Kent:

    As it is, you are still unable to say, “You’re right, Professor Kent; no one knows with certainty the erosion rate at the summit of Mt. Everest, and no one, including myself, can estimate with certainty what erosion rates might have been for this one mountain over the past 50 million years. Maybe I was premature in using it as a rock solid example of why we can be confident that the weight of evidence supports Young Earth Creationism.”

    As far as the evidence that I’ve read and am able to comprehend, I think you’re mistaken Prof. Kent. I believe that scientists have a very good idea as to the average current yearly mountain top erosion rates for the Himalayan Mountains, to include Mt. Everest, based on the measurements and theories already listed. Just ask your friend the geology “expert”. After all, this is why geologists have concluded that the average annual uplift rate of Mt. Everest (~10 mm/yr) is mitigated by the average annual erosion rate (~3 mm/yr) on Mt Everest. I’m not making this stuff up…

    Given such high modern rates of erosion, it is very hard to imagine how these rates could have been significantly different given the mainstream notion that these elevations have been maintained for tens of millions of years. After all, it has been demonstrated that these rates are more tied to elevation than to weather or precipitation differences.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v426/n6967/full/nature02187.html

    Your argument for protective snow/ice is not valid for the Himalayan mountains as already noted because the snow and ice on these mountains (unlike your antarctic and southern South American examples) is not frozen in place but moves…

    Beyond this, you aren’t arguing with me here. You’re arguing with the conclusions of mainstream scientists regarding the average erosion rates of the Himalayan Mountains – to include Mt. Everest. If you don’t accept these argued rates from the mainstream perspective, what more can I say?

    Frankly, I don’t think you have thought through many of your arguments carefully. A few examples illustrate the capriciousness of your logic. When convenient, mountain erosion rates remain constant over time, because they support a recent origin of Mt. Everest. But when convenient, radiometric decay rates cannot be constant over time, because they would imply long ages.

    There you go again – making stuff up that I never said. I’m really not sure why you accuse me of questioning radioactive decay rates? I’ve never questioned the rate of decay of radioactive materials. There has been a fairly recent demonstration of an effect of solar flares on radioactive decay rates, but as far as I know this effect is rather minimal. Anyway, you seem to make it a habit of repeatedly attributing statements to me that I’ve never made… for some reason?

    You keep speaking of the extreme slope angle, yet Everest is regarded by many mountaineers as a relatively “easy” summit because, after all, it is not as steep as many other mountains. The summit slope is relatively broad and requires comparatively little technical climbing.

    I just had to respond to this comment in particular.

    Note that in this image the relief of the north face of Mt. Everest is very steep. Climbers don’t climb up this sheer massive cliff. Rather, they climb up the very narrow ridge. Notice also that most of the snow has been blown off in this particular picture. Mt. Everest simply isn’t constantly covered by non-moving glaciers or deep snow to protect it from erosion. After all, it is so tall that it is occasionally hit by the jet stream with winds over 100 mph…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  5. @Professor Kent:

    First, I have looked at your cited references and found more of my own. There is no question that you are the only “geologist” making claims that the erosion rate from Mt. Everest is known with certainty [not so!];

    Nothing is known with absolute certainty. However, it is true that geologists do indeed believe that the uplift of Mt. Everest is mitigated to a significant degree (~3mm/yr) by the erosion of Mt. Everest so that the overall elevation is not increasing as rapidly.

    that erosion happens more rapidly at the summit than at lower elevations [not so!];

    Erosion, everything else being equal, does indeed happen more rapidly with increased slope angle. Your argument that erosion happens more rapidly under a moving glacier or in a river bed under moving water is a given. Obviously, I’m not talking about “valleys” that are being eroded under a moving glacier. I’m talking about valleys that are at a lower relief compared to steep mountain slopes which are not at the bottom of moving glaciers or rivers…

    that the glaciers cannot be frozen to Everest’s rock, as documented in some very cold mountain ranges in South America and Antarctica [really?];

    The glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains, to include Mt. Everest, move. They are not frozen in place as is the case for much more southerly glaciers as are found in the most southern aspects of S. America and the Antarctic. In fact, when it comes to Mt. Everest in particular, much of the sedimentary layers are completely exposed as erosional surfaces – not covered by snow or ice at all much of the time. Just look at the picture of the north face of Mt. Everest I posted above. See much snow or ice there? Yet, most of those layers you see are sedimentary layers from the geologic column which contain fossils…

    and that the erosion rate is so rapid that the mountain couldn’t possibly be 29,000-some feet tall if it formed some 50 million years ago [this is faith-based geology at its finest].

    That’s not the argument. The hight of Mt. Everest has nothing to do with it. Mt. Everest could reasonably be much taller and it would make no difference to my argument that the sedimentary layers should have been washed away by now down to the underlying granite if the Himilayans really did start their orogeny some 50 million years ago. In other words, Mt. Everest could be just as tall after 50 million years, it just doesn’t seem remotely resonable that it would still be covered by fossil bearing sedimentary layers after tens of millions of years of erosion…

    Sorry, Sean, but I am arguing with YOU, not other geologists

    Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  6. Good photo, Sean. She’s a beauty from that angle! There are also a ton of Google images showing the gently-sloping, snow-encased actual summit that thousands of mountaineers have climbed over the years. Somehow, in spite of that jet stream, the summit stays covered in snow/ice–though not to protect it, as you rightly point out.

    How do you really know that the highest glaciers on Everest move at rates faster than those measured by geologists on South America and Antarctica? I have not read anywhere comparisons of movement among these very cold mountain ranges (yes, I happen to think that Everest and neighboring mountains are quite cold). Do you make this stuff up?

    I assumed you were on board with Paul Giem and the RATE initiative at ICR that has been questioning the stability of radioactive decay. Perhaps not. This gives more perspective as to why you are willing to assume constant rates of erosion, temperature, and rainfall in your calculations of how tall Everest should be. As an honest scientist, I can readily man-up to my mistaken assumption.

    Do you still insist that erosion is happening faster on the summit of Everest than at lower elevations?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  7. @ Sean Pitman

    Beyond this, you aren’t arguing with me here. You’re arguing with the conclusions of mainstream scientists regarding the average erosion rates of the Himalayan Mountains – to include Mt. Everest. If you don’t accept these argued rates from the mainstream perspective, what more can I say?

    Hmmm… This remarkable statement by you is really quite puzzling.

    First, I have looked at your cited references and found more of my own. There is no question that you are the only “geologist” making claims that the erosion rate from Mt. Everest is known with certainty [not so!]; that erosion happens more rapidly at the summit than at lower elevations [not so!]; that the glaciers cannot be frozen to Everest’s rock, as documented in some very cold mountain ranges in South America and Antarctica [really?]; and that the erosion rate is so rapid that the mountain couldn’t possibly be 29,000-some feet tall if it formed some 50 million years ago [this is faith-based geology at its finest]. Sorry, Sean, but I am arguing with YOU, not other geologists (unless you happen to be…naw, I won’t go there).

    Second, I think you should offer us some guidance as to when published research by geologists is believable. Obviously, the vast majority of geological publications contain assumptions and calculations that support the conclusion that life on this planet is more than a million-fold times more ancient than we know to be true. As Ellen White has declared, their science is “falsely so-called.” As Bob Ryan has described 17,328 times, it’s nothing more than “junk science.” You yourself dismiss the vast majority of it. But curiously, when you find something that you think might support or be needed by your argument, you defend it and the research it was based on tooth and nail. So how do we decide which geological studies are valid? Does it depend on whether or not they support the traditional SDA interpretation? Can we truly cherry-pick which studies are believable amongst the vast throng of “junk science” out there? Or should most of us throw up our hands because we lack your skill at science divination?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  8. Dear Wes

    Excellent polemic, I enjoyed it.

    Here is the problem. Bias. If one starts out assuming that the Bible is inerrant and all scientific ideas must conform or be wrong then the science is flawed. I have no problem whatsoever with theories from the Bible being tested. That is a good thing, it can only bring mankind closer to the truth.

    You see I don’t care if the scientist is an atheist, Hindu, Muslim, SDA, Catholic, etc, as long as that hat gets checked at the door when the objective science us done. But if one allows the heat of the hat to warm the cool of the head the subjective red flag gets raised. For example, I deplore Dawkins promotion of atheism based on his evolutinary science. On the other hand I admire a man like Dr. Clausen who, notwithstanding his profound faith, makes painful scientific discovery that is contradictory to that faith. That is sublime scientific integrity.

    That is why I encourage Sean to continue with his quest but do it with an absolute open mind. I am open to being persuaded that evolution is wrong but it will have to be by rationnal methods not prophetic utterance.

    Hope that helps.

    Cheers
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  9. And now, class, for today’s crystalline Socratic heuristics. Oh.., you, with your hand up…, no, NOT catechistics. What’s your name, kid?

    So when is working from a preconceived idea empirical — and, why not, existential? Add compassionate. And award-winning. Right, exactly! When the idea is from another scientist.

    Now, when is working from a preconceived idea idiotic and hootable and doctrinaire and knuckle-headed? Yes, precisely. Here’s your cookie! When it’s from the Bible.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  10. Hmmmm. Do I correctly register your (Ken’s) question, its wording? “….did Sean move to the data from his conclusion…?” Assuming this is a correct quote, it is to be noted that the syntax of the Seanistic protocol is carefully and, of course, crucially reversed. As previously recorded (you could look it up), the investigator moves from premise to data to a conclusion, not the other way around. Thus correctly vectored, progress of the empirical experience of this segment of the process is not faith dependent, the conjoining of faith to it irrelevant, and the attendant question, being unanswerable, evocative only of deeper fog.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  11. Re Wes’s Quote

    “So the next question is, what conclusion does he move to from the data? ”

    Dear Wes

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

    Regards
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  12. Re Bob’s Quote

    “I pointed out a key flaw in your argument which is (again) that even your own evolutionist friends do not argue for massive mountain building events in those 4000-5000 years that Bible believing Christians say the mountains were pretty much what we see today.”

    Dear Bob

    I start with the caveat that geology is not my forte and I did not do well in it ant university. Notwithstanding my ignorance, and please do correct me if I’m wrong, doesn’t mainstream geology theorize that the Rocky Mountains and the Himalayan Mountains are greater than 50 million years old?

    Regards
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  13. @ Bob Ryan

    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?

    Are you trying to make a point?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  14. 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

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  15. @Ken:

    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.

    That’s correct. Her research is so simple and obvious in regard to the flexible, even elastic, soft tissues and sequenceable proteins that it is impossible to deny. The only problem for mainstream science is that there is no known mechanism that would allow for the maintenance of such soft tissues and intact proteins over 100,000 years much less many tens of millions of years. Prior to Schweitzer’s discoveries, the mainstream consensus, based on kinetic studies of protein and DNA decay, was that no intact DNA or protein sequences would be able to survive beyond 100,000 years under ambient temperatures and no more than one million years under colder conditions.

    I also read that, notwithstanding she is an evangelical Christian, she believes in evolution. Do you know much about her or her work?

    I have written several essays and put together a short video clip of her work and its implications:

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilizeddna.html#Fresh

    I wonder if anyone did any C14 dating on the soft tissue that Schweitzer found and compared it to the surrounding bone?

    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.

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

    Your references are a bit outdated. At first Schweitzer’s discovery and conclusions were aggressively challenged in literature. Some suggested that the soft tissues might be nothing more than biofilms produced by modern bacteria. However, these challenges have all been falsified and Schweitzer’s conclusions confirmed – which is very problematic for mainstream science…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  16. Ken comments…..

    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.”

    Ken, Sean and I are not discussing the validity of the bible. We are discussing how anyone can know if it is the authority, or even the final authority to test everything else.

    I claim the bible is self validating by appealing to its prophetic utterances. Of course we examine history to see if what the bible claims by way of prophecy is true. The God of the bible claims to be the creator God. He validates His authority by demonstrating His infallible knowledge of past, present, and future.

    Sean claims we can validate His authority and the claims of the bible by science and nature. What does God state about science and nature that proves He created it? Even if He could demonstrate that He knows about every thing that exists, it would still not prove He created it.

    And I don’t deny that science and nature are a “means of grace” that God uses to help us validate His existence and authority. He also uses a thousand other avenues as a means of grace. A believer’s witness is one of the most powerful “means of grace”. Along with prayer, Christian fellowship, worship services…..etc.

    But as Sean has pointed out, Mormon’s and/or any other religion can appeal to these types of communication and claim they are worshiping the true God.

    Miracles and healing will not prove anyone’s religion is the true one.

    And no book but the bible can “self-validate” its claims by way of prophecy. It is infallible proof that no one can deny.

    As for harmony in interpretation of all the bible teaches, this is not the issue. Let any group of people unite if they will on a consistent biblical basis, and if they continue to hold to the bible, they will continue to agree. If division comes, someone is moving away, and whoever that is will eventually admit they are giving up the bible.

    Rome is classic. After the challenge of Protestantism and its claim of biblical authority, Rome had to eventually admit they had abandon the bible for spiritual revelations contrary to scripture.

    And so, Ken, I don’t worry about honest differences of biblical interpretation. The bible interprets itself. And those who are drawing wrong conclusions will either “repent” and confess they are mistaken, or, they will eventually challenge the bible itself.

    I believe God has made the bible clear enough so that “Wayfareing men, though fools, need not err therein.” Isa.

    I think it was Mark Twain who said, “It is not the things I don’t understand in the bible that concerns me, but the things I do.”

    Simply put, those who attack the biblical account of creation, will eventually admit they are abandoning the bible, if they haven’t already said so. Meaning, the bible is plain enough.

    And let me add, Ken. Everyone who is lost in the end, will simply admit they knew they were wrong all the time when confronted by God as they endeavor to take the Holy City after the 3rd coming.
    “Be not deceived, God is not mocked.” Or, as Luther said, “You can’t fool God.” He knows you know you are wrong when you attack Him and all you can do is “lie to yourself” until “God gives you up to strong delusion to believe a lie”. Why? Because people want to believe a lie and vainly hope they may “pull it off in the end.”

    I don’t want to be one of those, and I hope you don’t either. I know none of need be, it is our decision.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  17. Can’t “beat the devil on his own ground”? Recognizing, valuing, and presenting evidence is the devil’s ground? Why give the devil any ground, much less the high ground? While his generals went on and on bemoaning that the high, middle, and low ground was Bobby Lee’s, General Grant saw it more clearly, and let loose with, “Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault.” Gen. Pitman can be heartily tired of hearing that Evo owns the evidence. The evidence is as much Creation’s as Evo’s.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  18. @Bill Sorensen:

    Ken, Sean and I are not discussing the validity of the bible. We are discussing how anyone can know if it is the authority, or even the final authority to test everything else.

    I claim the bible is self validating by appealing to its prophetic utterances. Of course we examine history to see if what the bible claims by way of prophecy is true. The God of the bible claims to be the creator God. He validates His authority by demonstrating His infallible knowledge of past, present, and future.

    An appeal to history is not a “self validation”. The claim is validated against something else – real history in this case. And, the study of history is based on a form of scientific investigation and reasoning – i.e., human reasoning. It is therefore subject to the potential of falsification. Our understanding of history is not “infallible” as you claim. However, the science of history does become an external reference point to use as a basis to support the claim of the Bible’s superior credibility…

    Sean claims we can validate His authority and the claims of the bible by science and nature. What does God state about science and nature that proves He created it? Even if He could demonstrate that He knows about every thing that exists, it would still not prove He created it.

    There is no such thing as absolute proof. However, a being who is able to demonstrate knowledge about everything that exists and the power to produce certain features of the universe and of life itself would in fact be demonstrating creative power that would be indistinguishable, from our perspective, as a being with God-like power.

    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
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  19. @ Sean Pitman

    It would be impossible to cover mountains as high as the Andes, Rockies, or Himalayas, to include Mr. Everest, with water. Also, the very high rocky mountains that we have today would be unable to support the luxuriant vegetation that Mrs. White speaks of. Their height alone would create unlivable conditions for such life. Also, the extremely tall mountains that we have today create drastic climatic differences – to include the barren deserts that Mrs. White claims did not exist before the Flood. The only way that such deserts would not exist is if such extremely tall mountain chains did not exist before the Flood. Beyond all of this, all of our tall mountain ranges today are covered by sedimentary rock that contain marine fossils – to include Mt. Everest. In other words, they were once flat and covered by water – and Flood deposits/sedimentary layers were formed on top of them before they were uplifted as mountain ranges…
    This is why Mrs. White statements, as well as the Biblical statements about the condition of the pre-Flood world, are not only consistent with, but are actually supportive of the idea that the current tall mountain ranges we have today were the result of the energy released during the Flood – energy which initially produced very rapid continental movements and orogeny – as well as the formation of very deep and vast oceans and ocean trenches.

    My, my, how easily the pieces all fit together when one knows with certainty what God can or cannot do…o ye of little faith.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  20. @ Sean Pitman

    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…

    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.

    You’re having fun with semantics, Sean. Color me purple, as you wish.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  21. 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

    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.

    What do you think?

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  22. So let me get this straight. According to Dr. Pitman:

    There were no high mountains before the flood, such as the Himalayas…not because the Bible or Ellen White said so, but we can infer it as fact because it was impossible for them to have the luxuriant vegetation Ms. White spoke of. And Ms. White had her science right on this.

    These very tall and cragged mountains came about during the violent, tectonic forces accompanying the flood…not because the Bible or Ellen White said so, but because there had to be a lot of energy released during the flood, which is nonetheless consistent with the Bible and Ellen White.

    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. 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. 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.

    This all sounds like foundational SDA doctrine to me. Where would our Church be without such a proper understanding of the flood? My kudos to Dr. Pitman, who “gets it” and has it all figured out.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  23. @ Sean Pitman

    I don’t think I’ve run into anyone as seemingly obtuse as you are, deliberately so, in quite a while. Flood waters do not remain at maximum level forever you know. Also, the energy released during the Flood formed mountains very quickly via tectonic continental movements – very high mountains that did not exist before the Flood.

    You got me laughing here. You’re right: flood waters do not remain at maximum level forever. The author of Genesis said the waters were receding and then used the very same language describing the extent of the flood–that the water still covered “all” of the earth. You need to be consistent, dude, in how you interpret “all.” Either it means “all” all the time, or it can’t be trusted to always mean “all.” You’ve chosen to base a major part of your theology on one literal interpretation of “all” while admittedly dismissing many comparable usages–even within the same narrow portion of Genesis–as non-literal. That’s just plain and simple wrong. And you are too obtuse to see your arbitrary and capricious interpretation.

    Where does the Bible mention anything about “tectonic forces” creating mountains? You write as if you know this as fact. But you obviously made this up because you require observations from “science” to explain what your faith is too weak to accept. If God can form the earth at his spoken command (if you can still believe this absent any confirmatory science), why does he require “tectonic forces?”

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  24. “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

    Obviously, Sean, no one can know everything in the bible or everything the bible claims is true in and of itself. And we both agree that science and nature are “evidence” of certain biblical claims.

    I guess my main concern is how I understand your whole theory of faith and evidence. This is what I hear you saying, “If and when someone can prove the bible isn’t true, then I will reject it.”

    In this creation/evolution debate, those who oppose the bible appeal to nature and science to invalidate the bible. It would seem you are willing to meet them on their own terms, and then try to prove the bible is true by the means they claim it is not. All for the purpose of supporting your faith in the bible. I think you are in a losing battle. And if so, then you are walking on thin ice concerning your own faith.

    You don’t meet the devil on his own ground, nor argue with him on his stated basis for a conclusion. He is the master of his art and used this method to deceive Eve. Logic and human reasoning apart from divine revelation is a losing game.

    As bible Christians, we start with God’s revelation and then use reason to understand what He communicates.

    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. And this is exactly what Satan opposed in heaven and continues his attack on God here on earth.

    Who is responsible for sin? Satan says it is God. God, in the end, accuses Satan. We see from the bible account, few in this world side with God.

    So, the argument goes, “God created me, He is responsible for me.” And not a few “so-called” Christians take this position. But God has delegated authority, and to this extent, we are responsible for ourselves. And our eternal life is dependent on the right decision in this controversy of good and evil.

    My point is this, we start with God’s self revelation and then use reason to affirm His claims. If we use reason first, we will reject God’s claims about Himself and His kingdom.

    For example, the teaching from the bible on forgiveness and how it is available is not rational. The human mind could never rationally accept the fact that an innocent man can be charged with guilt in behalf of another. There is no justice in it. Biblical revelation alone can explain in what way it can be just. Love is the key, isn’t it? But love is not logical nor rational by pure human reason.

    At any rate, Sean, you won’t beat the devil on his own ground. And as for myself, I wouldn’t even try. And as a church, I doubt we have much real success in debunking evolution by nature and science. Jesus said, “Ye must be born again.” This goes beyond nature and science. Ask Nicodemus.

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  25. @Professor Kent:

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

    Not when it comes to radiocarbon in materials that have supposedly been sealed off from atmospheric radiocarbon for millions of years. For example, how are you going to “contaminate” coal or oil that has been buried under thousands of meters of sediment with significant quantities of radiocarbon?

    Perhaps it is you who needs to do a bit more reading on this topic…

    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.

    I don’t think I’ve run into anyone as seemingly obtuse as you are, deliberately so, in quite a while. Flood waters do not remain at maximum level forever you know. Also, the energy released during the Flood formed mountains very quickly via tectonic continental movements – very high mountains that did not exist before the Flood.

    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.

    This is a very strange statement coming from someone who claims to believe everything that the SDA Church teaches based on faith that is blind to all opposing or even potentially opposing empirical evidence. How could someone who actually believes like you claim to believe make such a statement? It seems almost likely you’re just posing as an Adventist for rhetorical purposes. You really don’t believe any of it do you? Who’s being deliberately dishonest here? Hmmmmm….

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  26. @Ken: I’ve read some of Nostradamus’ predictions. They’re about as accurate us your daily horoscope, and people get paid to come up with that junk. All this is a far cry from say Daniel 2, which is one of the more obvious prophecies in the Bible. Admittedly there are some difficult ones, but many many are made clear through a careful study of the Bible, since it is its own interpreter.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  27. Re Sean’s quote

    “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…”

    Dear Sean

    Is there any empirical evidence to indicate that surface water can move tectonic plates?

    Regards
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  28. @ Sean Pitman

    Not when it comes to radiocarbon in materials that have supposedly been sealed off from atmospheric radiocarbon for millions of years. For example, how are you going to “contaminate” coal or oil that has been buried under thousands of meters of sediment with significant quantities of radiocarbon? Perhaps it is you who needs to do a bit more reading on this topic…

    You and other readers can Google “ancient DNA contamination” for a good start on this issue. There are so many articles describing the problem that I’m not going to bother educating you with quotes from the literature. The unbiased, objective readers can read for themselves and judge your claims.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  29. 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?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  30. Can’t “beat the devil on his own ground”?Recognizing, valuing, and presenting evidence is the devil’s ground?Why give the devil any ground, much less the high ground?While his generals went on and on bemoaning that the high, middle, and low ground was Bobby Lee’s, General Grant saw it more clearly, and let loose with, “Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault.” Gen. Pitman can be heartily tired of hearing that Evo owns the evidence.The evidence is as much Creation’s as Evo’s.  

    Most eloquently stated, Dr. Kime. The idea that one can “prove” or disprove Biblical creation or evolution by referring to scientific evidence” is futile for both sides.

    Just look at how this website has turned into people trying to “prove” one side or the other, instead of focusing on our mission, which I still assume is to get the problem of teaching “evolution as fact” resolved at LSU.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  31. Some of us have been around the church for a long time. I’m in the middle of 5 generations of SDA’s. Many seem to feel that for sure, now something positive will happen in defense of bible Adventism. I don’t want to burst your bubble, but when you have been around as long as I have, you know that “talk is cheap”.

    Like some of you, I am “optimistically hopeful” but I don’t hold the same assurance that some of you seem to exude. The line between politics and truth is often blurred with politics winning out. Again, I hope this is not the case with LSU and our responsible leaders.

    Just a parallel that may be relevant. After Jesus death, the political elements in the Jewish society realized a significant split was developing in the nation. A politician has far less interest in what is right and wrong, than in holding unity and harmony for the sake of their own influence and power.

    The Judaizers who followed Paul all over the world were a part of this scenario. The purpose was to hold “the kingdom” together. And if Christanity could be initiated into historic Judaizism, their goals would be accomplished.

    Paul believed in unity. But it was to unite both Jew and Gentile into a true biblical Christ centered religion. In this context, Paul had no interest in political unity and “truth” stood head and shoulders above being “nice” and patronizing and telling everyone “I love you.”

    As Christians, we should and do love all mankind with the goal of being redemptive to bible truth.

    So, as you can see, I am optimistically hopeful that our leaders will hold truth above any political expediency. But having experienced and witnessed the past, I am not holding my breath.

    We should all continue to pray for our leaders that they will stand up and discipline where discipline is necessary. But a split is coming, (it is already here) and nothing in heaven or hell will stop it.

    If God sending His Son could not heal the apostacy in Judaism, it seems more than likely that such will not happen in Adventism. In fact, we are told it will not. “Two parties will be developed”, EGW. And it seems likely the majority will abandon the true bible faith and only a “remnant” will remain.

    I did not post to discourage anyone who hopes and prays for a true and viable biblical outcome. But don’t put your head in the ground and “over-expect”. It could lead to a more discouraging experience than being ready for a more realistic outcome.

    Keep the faith

    Bill Sorensen

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  32. @Professor Kent:

    1. The cretaceous layer occurs worldwide
    2. Therefore, water occured worldwide and covered every scrap of land

    1. Humans occur worldwide
    2. Therefore, humans occured worldwide and covered every scrap of land

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

    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…

    Do valleys erode at the same rate of summits? Just curious.

    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.

    Erosion is directly related slope angle – even more so than the local weather conditions. So, the erosion rates on mountains are indeed significantly higher than in the valleys.

    However, mainstream geologists claim that the Himalayan mountains, to include Mt. Everest, had attained their current height by 20 million years ago. In fact, it is believed that Mt. Everest was over twice it’s current height 20 million years ago (>15,000 meters tall) before half of it suddenly slid off. Beyond this, it is believed that these mountains have been exposed as erosional surfaces for over 50 million years.

    Now, it is very hard to imagine how the forces of erosion could have been significantly less than they are today on these mountains in the past (when it was thought to have been wetter locally and world-wide). After all, just two million years of erosion at today’s rates is more than enough to completely wash off all of the original thickness of the sedimentary layers from atop Mt. Everest and all of the rest of the Himalayan mountains.

    Would these Tsunamis depositing fossils have taken place before the flood, when you claim there were no large oceans; during the flood, when water covered the entire earth and we are told that all the deposits were buried; or after the flood? Were the deposits washed up on land or buried in situ under water?

    During the Flood. These massive tidal actions and tsunamis were responsible for destruction of life and largely responsible for the formation of the fossil record that we have today.

    Of course, there were post-Flood aftershocks. I personally believe that the Flood ended with the Cretaceous. The layers following the Cretaceous are post-Flood deposits.

    How do you account for the multiple fossil layers? Were these all deposited at one time (e.g., day 17 of the flood)? Or by multiple tsumanis? With such massive tsunamis, why didn’t the marine/lowland/montane sediments containing life forms from different ecological zones (a common creationist explanation for simple-to-complex stratification of fossils) get all jumbled together?

    I discuss the sorted nature of the fossil record on my website:

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html#Simple_Complex

    And, in response to the most fascinating implication of your evidence-based science, in which single direction do tsunamis generally flow–is it east, west, north, or south?

    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.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  33. @Professor Kent:

    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.”

    Of course you’re tired of the Himalayan talk because you clearly don’t know how to explain the obvious implications of the Himalayan erosion rates…

    So, your latest argument is that I’m being “highly selective” in quoting the scientific literature? Really? Why don’t you find any reference in literature that significantly contradicts the erosion and uplift rates I’ve listed for you regarding the Himalayan mountains? And, while you’re at it, why don’t you try to explain how the erosion rates could reasonably have been dramatically less over tens of millions of years of time that the Himalayan mountains were supposedly at their current elevations?

    You’ve clearly demonstrated your ignorance of what the literature really has to say regarding erosion and uplift rates of the great mountain chains. Why don’t you do a little bit more reading for yourself?

    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?

    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…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  34. Dear Sean

    Thanks for your candid comments on the lack of erosion on the Tibetan Plateau. My point here is that one can’t make generalized comments about erosion in the Himalayas to demonstrably argue for a young earth. Couple that with my previous remarks on the pure speculation of fast moving tectonic plates and I think you have a mountain to overcome if you wish to use the Himalayas as evidence of a Noachian flood. But I think we have reached the summit on this argument and I’m prepared to move on to other topics.

    I’ m enjoying our moveable feast. Wonderful civilized repast!

    Thanks for your kind comments on my nature. I think of myself as far less kind and ruthless in pursuit of the truth. I just think personal attacks are not necessary and cloud one’s objectivity when examining facts and theories. Ego can be an awful prism to view reality.

    Your comments on my fence sitting are very apt and I appreciate your concern for my salvation. That is a far more kinder, humanitarian appeal than fire and brimstone- the ‘hard sell’! But you see I am not looking for personal salvation as a pre cursor for investigation of reality. In fact, with the greatest respect for all my Adventist friends, I see that need as something that would cloud my objective judgement. Just as I see an atheist bias doing the same as well. If my agnosticism comes at the price of my mortal ‘soul’ I accept that as the price of relentless objectivity. Sean, in that I hope you can trust in my absolute sincerity.

    What concerns me about faith is the cart driving the horse when it corms to scientific investigation. My life long study suggests that all religions are social constructs of Man. That does not mean that I disparage faith or your faith. I find it quite remarkable and forth moreover a tool of moral and social order. I am especially interested in how religions schism over doctrinal differences and In I think Adventism is on the brink of that now, fueled by the debate of crescent creationism vs. theistic evolutionism.

    I’ ll send this now and continue with another post so I don’t lose this to date.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  35. @Professor Kent:

    You and other readers can Google “ancient DNA contamination” for a good start on this issue. There are so many articles describing the problem that I’m not going to bother educating you with quotes from the literature. The unbiased, objective readers can read for themselves and judge your claims.

    DNA contamination isn’t the same thing as radiocarbon contamination. There’s a big difference. Besides, there are ways to control for both DNA and radiocarbon contamination. These controls haven’t worked for radiocarbon in fossils, coal, or oil that is supposed to be many tens of millions of years old. The contamination argument might be reasonable if the problem were limited to only a few instances. However, explaining why every such sample that is actually analyzed has way too much radiocarbon in it is quite a problem for mainstream science.

    You’ve chosen to base a major part of your theology on one literal interpretation of “all” while admittedly dismissing many comparable usages–even within the same narrow portion of Genesis–as non-literal. That’s just plain and simple wrong. And you are too obtuse to see your arbitrary and capricious interpretation.

    The author of Genesis is very clear to the candid mind who is actually able to follow the concept of qualifications of “all” as in “all the land” or “all land-dwelling animals”… etc. Certainly the majority of Hebrew scholars are not confused by the author’s intended meaning here. This isn’t some private SDA interpretation of the intended meaning of the author of Genesis you know. You’re just making yourself look rather foolish is all… in your claims that the author of Genesis was obviously inconsistent. Your interpretations of the meaning of the Genesis narrative are not remotely obvious to most Biblical scholars…

    Where does the Bible mention anything about “tectonic forces” creating mountains? You write as if you know this as fact. But you obviously made this up because you require observations from “science” to explain what your faith is too weak to accept. If God can form the earth at his spoken command (if you can still believe this absent any confirmatory science), why does he require “tectonic forces?”

    I didn’t make anything up. My reference to a lack of the existence, before the Flood, of the massive jagged mountains we have today is from the writings of Mrs. White – from her book, Patriarchs and Prophets:

    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…

    But, of course, I’ve been “brainwashed by the SDA Church” according to you. You, on the other hand, have somehow avoided the Church’s brainwashing techniques? Yet still claim to believe all of the Church’s doctrines? How does this make any sense? One can only believe in the SDA Church’s doctrines if he/she has been “brainwashed”? – and you haven’t been brainwashed in your beliefs? Interesting…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  36. @ Sean Pitman

    You, on the other hand, have somehow avoided the Church’s brainwashing techniques? Yet still claim to believe all of the Church’s doctrines? How does this make any sense? One can only believe in the SDA Church’s doctrines if he/she has been “brainwashed”? – and you haven’t been brainwashed in your beliefs? Interesting…

    Yes, yes, surely you’ve got it figured out, no, no, quite interesting indeed, and what you don’t know would be a shock even to you.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  37. Loud Cries from the Bigger Tent, an Allegory (allegorical is big nowadays): “You accuse me of accepting theistic evolution? You lie! (By the way, what IS that?)”

    “You accuse me of denying the Bible? How do you know what I believe, just from what I’ve proclaimed! Don’t tell me what I believe. I can’t believe you said I deny the Bible — I’m a believer possessed of fuller, more transcendent faith than you.”

    “You accuse me of scoffing off the 6-day creation of Genesis 1? That’s abuse, that’s persecution; you’ve hurt me. Better a millstone be tied around your neck. I believe in the 6 days as much as you do! Only they’re allegorical, those days. And I see a broader meaning to Genesis 1 than what we’ve been taught (or what EGW says).”

    Moral: the Third Angel’s Loud Cry in the Broader Tent is “Broader Meaning,” not deeper understanding.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  38. Dear Sean

    Sorry to be like a dog with a bone but what about the erosion rate on the Tibetan Plateau? If forest and steppe grew on it how much has it eroded?

    Sean you have not presented any specific evidence to indicate that the Tibetan Plateau is 4000 years old. Like Dr Clausen. a GGI Adventist with a PhD in nuclear physics has said there is no young earth scientific model. Now I have read your website and read your critique on and old life on earth, but where is your young life on earth model? What is your scientific dating method?

    Cheers
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  39. And he does not believe in “alienating individuals or institutions!” Now he’s talking like my kind of guy; I like him and respect him already…

    Amazing that we can all be agreed on his approach.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  40. “Truth”, what is it? When this is settled, if it is, what will have changed? Those who oppose Bible truth and the Spirit of Prophecy remain in positions of leadership in the schools and the church. We have been given a glimpse of who will do what in an emergency. There is a line drawn in the sand. Some stood on God’s side. Many did not.

    It is left with each of us to decide whom we shall serve. Jesus is coming soon and we are only just now beginning to be tested in ways that will not decrease, but rather increase until probation closes. Let us love the erring, but let us not choose them over Christ. The truth will cause division. This division must take place before Jesus can come.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  41. Sean, as you have noted, one does not need to see the actual death to recognize that a crime scene has taken place. I emailed some of your Everest remarks to a highly-respected geologist colleague last week, and I think it would be best if I did not share his remarks here. The bottom line is that I think you stretch your facts too far to fit your compelling need to line up your ducks and know each one by its quack.

    You are right; I am ignorant of erosion and uplift rates of great mountain chains. I am but an organismal biologist who makes no claim to possess extraordinary knowledge of geology, molecular biology, philosophy, nuclear physics, cosmology, medicine, theology, church history…and truth. Again, I think one can find what they are looking for, and I think you’re among the best at that. Take this as a compliment.

    From my perspective, I’m laying this carcass to rest. Dine on as you wish; perhaps the Church has a second geologist with forensic skills willing to discuss the truth of erosion (or erosion of truth) with you.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  42. Fourth, I am bewildered as to why Seventh-day Adventists must be required to believe that reptiles and mammals (not to mention birds, which must surely be grouped with the mammals) at one time could not coexist because of different temperature tolerances. We surely don’t see this today. Mammals (and birds) abound in the hottest and most humid lowlands today, and reptiles currently abound in the cooler mountains. And, of course, to merely survive the flood, they all had to somehow coexist on one big boat called the ark.

    Perhaps someone could explain to me the physiological systems of these long-extinct animals that rendered small and large birds and mammals alike (some fast, some slow) unable to live in the lowlands, and the small and large amphibians and reptiles alike (some fast, some slow) unable to live at the higher elevations (that weren’t even very high, apparently).

    Fifth, I can’t help but wonder whether someone could get fired at Southern Adventist University for questioning their apparently official position. Anyone got an answer?

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  43. @Ken:

    Dear Sean

    Of course this raises the issue of theodicy and a designer that planned for death and destruction. Not a pretty concept is it?

    According to the Bible, God never intended for there to be any death or the suffering of sentient creatures in His universe. The death and suffering that now exists on this planet in the direct result of our own rebellion against God and His original plan.

    As you have often acknowledged if biological life is indicative of design this does not necessarily mean, ipso facto, that biblical God is the designer of our universe. Based on what we see it could be a haphazard designer who built in catastrophe and death into the equation. It could be a dice thrower who if It threw the celestial dice often enough in enough metauniverses would eventually, randomly hit upon a design that would render evolutionary evolving life upon certain planets with the right physical properties.

    Given the physical laws of the universe and of statistical probability in play in this universe that are known so far, it really doesn’t matter how many times the dice are thrown, evolution via the Darwinian mechanism would still be untenable.

    Also, when it comes to the responsibility for suffering and death, you forget about the concept of the freedom of choice that God has given to higher level intelligences throughout His universe.

    You earlier noted that EGW saw life on other planets. Why isn’t there life on all planets or only one planet if there is a design to the universe? Bit haphazard of a design isn’t it? I do not see a pattern there, unless it is one of random natural selection – life adapting to harsh environments where it is able.

    Just because you might now have done it the way it is does not mean that there isn’t very good evidence of deliberate design. Also, what may appear to you to be poor design at first approximation may turn out to have been very good design once you learn more information.

    Design flaw arguments have been around a very long time. Most of them end up becoming resolved once more information is discovered about the workings of the phenomenon in question. For example, the tonsils and appendix used to be routinely removed without any thought. No longer as it has since been discovered that tonsils and the appendix are functional parts of the body’s immune system. The same thing is true of the inverted human retina. It was once thought that the inverted retina was poor design; that no intelligent designer would have wired the human eye “backward”. This is no longer the case as many important functional features have been discovered for the inverted nature of the inverted retina that are ideally suited for the human condition.

    So, I would recommend that design flaw assumptions regarding the nature of the universe are also just a bit hasty. Why not have planets and moons and even entire solar systems or galaxies that serve other functions besides to host living things on their own surfaces?

    With respect, I think you are taking one of those ‘leaps of faith’ when you leap from the notion of design to the transcendent biblical God. Trite to say that all designers do not see the same design. Behe of the irreducible complexity argument clearly does not support young life on earth. He just sees life evolving from a later point than chemical soup.

    Actually, Behe does not believe in any kind of evolution beyond very low levels of functional complexity. He clearly believes in an “edge” to evolutionary progress beyond which the mechanism of RM/NS cannot go. He is therefore a theistic evolutionist in that he believes that intelligent input was required to produce all higher level functional differences within the biosphere…

    Look at the beginning of human life from a zygote. Clearly a repetitive design. Is human embryonics part of the evolutionary ‘design’ of simple celled organisms evolving to more complex ones? Arguable isn’t it? If God made Adam and Eve instantly in a day, why don’t we see a full formed miniature human formed on the day of conception?

    Embryologic recapitulation has been falsified. There really is no such thing. If you care to study embrylology in just a bit of detail you will soon realize the extreme intricacy of what is required to get all of the developing cells to interact and fold properly to end up with the final product. It is the height of magnificent design and mechanical engineering – absolutely amazing.

    Again, just because you might have done it differently does not mean that the evidence for design is therefore unrecognizable. Also, just because you may make a cake differently one day vs. the next doesn’t mean that the various methods of making a cake aren’t equally apparent as being the result of deliberate design.

    Sorry Sean, but for me at least, there are a lot of gaps to fill before I can make the leap of faith you advocate. I have to slowly and methodically build those rational bridges across the gaps to make progress down the ontological brick road.

    You cannot be more than you are. All I’m saying is that you’re missing out. You’ll only realize how much you’ve missed out once you get to the end of your yellow brick road and actually make the rational leap of faith to put your trust in God and start to develop a personal relationship with Him…

    Your comments on my fence sitting are very apt and I appreciate your concern for my salvation. That is a far more kinder, humanitarian appeal than fire and brimstone- the ‘hard sell’! But you see I am not looking for personal salvation as a pre cursor for investigation of reality. In fact, with the greatest respect for all my Adventist friends, I see that need as something that would cloud my objective judgement. Just as I see an atheist bias doing the same as well. If my agnosticism comes at the price of my mortal ‘soul’ I accept that as the price of relentless objectivity. Sean, in that I hope you can trust in my absolute sincerity.

    I do trust your absolute sincerity. In fact, I believe that if you really are absolutely sincere, that God will accept that sincerity and you will be saved in Heaven someday. However, in the mean time, you are missing out big time on the relationship and happiness that you could have had here and now. I realize that you cannot be more than you are, but you must also realize that this is no small issue for you personally. It might not mean a loss of your soul, but it certainly means a loss of what you could have had in this life regarding your own conscious realization of hope and happiness.

    What concerns me about faith is the cart driving the horse when it corms to scientific investigation. My life long study suggests that all religions are social constructs of Man. That does not mean that I disparage faith or your faith. I find it quite remarkable and forth moreover a tool of moral and social order. I am especially interested in how religions schism over doctrinal differences and In I think Adventism is on the brink of that now, fueled by the debate of crescent creationism vs. theistic evolutionism.

    You cannot escape the exercise of “faith”. Atheists and even agnostics make leaps of faith when they come to their conclusions regarding the nature of reality or the lack thereof. There is simply no escaping it. Science itself is based on making educated leaps of faith. All that matters is what faith you choose as most rational. Your agnosticism is your faith of choice – – that’s all.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  44. Funny how all those extraordinary tectonic forces during the flood failed to generate a tsunami large enough to roll the ark. Of course, angels probably calmed the water around the ark–though this (among many other miraculous Biblical events) would be difficult to demonstrate using science.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  45. Dear Ken, I noted your venturing, “…human centric, isn’t it?” Indeed it is. “For God so loved the world that he gave His own son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but…”(you know the rest), John 3:16. God Himself could not be more human centric, nor He who died for humanity. And believing thus is God centric, Bible centric. And SDA centric. To me, and I say this unashamedly, it would seem eccentric not to thus centered. Yes, we’re enjoying our Sabbath.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  46. @ Sean Pitman

    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…

    I think you’re making it quite clear that the majority of tectonic upheavel could not have occurred during the period of the flood while it was raining, as the mountains quickly would have emerged ahead of the rising flood waters. What you’re suggesting, basically, is that the extraordinary uplift of mountains had to have happened after the rain stopped.

    My two questions for you:

    1. Where are your data?

    2. Is it ever okay to say, “we don’t have a lot of information and we don’t have a clear picture of what happened before, during, and after the flood?” Of course, we come across as more intelligent and informed when we claim to have answers. Some of us can’t resist the bait.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  47. Re Sean’s Quote

    “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…”

    Dear Sean

    Thanks for your comments.

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

    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.

    Cheers
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  48. @Professor Kent:

    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.

    There really isn’t any need to “insist” that every inch of earth was covered. The Bible makes it absolutely clear that it was covered.

    “And the waters have been very very mighty on the earth, and covered are all the high mountains which [are] under the whole heavens; fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains are covered;” Genesis 7:19, 20

    Not only did the water cover all the high mountains by about 15 cubits, but there is the absent qualifying verses. Thus we’re left with a simple, but clear statement that all the earth was covered by water. Is there any verse to the contrary?

    Now it appears you’re claiming that because the Bible says there were mountain tops showing 40 days before Noah sent out the dove this somehow shows that the earth was not completely covered, right? How you didn’t mention that in the beginning of chapter 8 it says:

    The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.” Genesis 8:2, 3

    The waters were receding and decreased. So the water level goes down, revealing the mountain tops. Dove is sent out but finds no life yet.

    In regard to whether the all the animals died on the earth with exception to those on the ark, the Bible says this:

    “And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit[a] of life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.” Genesis 7:21-23

    This does not contradict 7:4, which says, “for after other seven days I am sending rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and have wiped away all the substance that I have made from off the face of the ground.” Other translations use earth instead of ground. Did he wipe away all the animals on the face of the earth? Yes. And what exactly did he mean when he said face of the earth? It’s all clarified in verses 21-23.

    You’ve pointed out no inconsistencies in the idea that all the land on earth was entirely covered by water and that only the land animals, birds, surface animals died.

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  49. The carrying capacity of moving water goes up by orders of magnitude with increase in velocity.

    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.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  50. @ Bob RyanAre you trying to make a point?  (Quote)

    The assumption was that you were following the argument that you carefully snipped out of that post.

    You were the one expressing doubt about the fact that Bible believing Christians argue that the mountains we see today came from the flood and that very little “mountain building” has gone on in the almost 2000 years since the flood.

    I pointed out a key flaw in your argument which is (again) that even your own evolutionist friends do not argue for massive mountain building events in those 4000-5000 years that Bible believing Christians say the mountains were pretty much what we see today.

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  51. Dear Prof Kent

    With great respect I don’t think love is conditional, or depends on what verses of Genesis or statements of EGW one accepts. Love transcends all such doctrinal differences and focuses on the well being and concern of others.

    I hope you are doing well and do not feel too wretched.

    Love
    Ken

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  52. 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).

    The pausity of logic in that response is astounding.

    Kent takes the statement by Ellen White that the “earth is now only 6,000 years old” and wildly claims that there is some way to bend and wrench the statement such that it really means “this planet and all life on earth are much older than 6,000 years” and that this is supposed to be something like a “valid wrenching” that we must all accept without question, or else be accused of being unfair or unkind!!

    how in the world are we supposed to take that kind of post seriously?!!

    in Christ,

    Bob

      (Quote)

    View Comment
  53. Regretfully, Dr. Pitman continues to provide evidence of his fundamental misreading of the literature on accelerator mass spectrometry technology as applied to radiocarbon measurements. I trust the time he takes away from his pathology practice to read and misunderstand the scientific literature about AMS radiocarbon dating does not impact on the quality of his reading of tissue samples.

      (Quote)

    View Comment

Leave a Reply to Shane Hilde Cancel reply