Skip to content

102 Comments

  1. Richard Sherwin
    25 April 2016 @ 4:13 pm

    Facts support a much older earth. Facts also support evolution. How can we expect a church that says the Bible is inspired by God to embrace science that is at odds with the Bible?

    • Jack Hoehn
      25 April 2016 @ 6:08 pm

      The facts support evolution of created life. As has been said evolution can explain the survival of the fittest. But evolution does not explain the arrival of the fittest. The systems that survive and adapt do so because they have been intelligently designed to do so. Creationists and evolutionists can begin to talk about a different interpretation of the facts than materialism only when we accept the facts of the age of the earth and Genesis as an outline of what happened suitable for 1300 BC but not a description of how or when God created the many different life forms that have since then “been fruitful and multiplied and replenished the earth” by many wonderfully designed mechanisms suitable for a battlefield between good and evil.

  2. ROBIN VANDERMOLEN
    25 April 2016 @ 5:22 pm

    Dr Hoehn,
    What an elegant and eloquent exposé of President Wilson’s antiquated and medieval grasp of twenty first century science.
    Your lucid explanations of complex concepts were refreshing. Hopefully you will expand this to book form— regrettably it will not be found on the shelves of thE Adventist Book Centers!

    I would be interested for your take on what segment of human life on earth could possibly have been spent in idyllic Eden and what segment would be post the “fall”?

    The horrifying truth about your expanded time span of life on earth is that human MISERY has existed on this planet for an exceedingly long time.

    It is hard for me to accept the fact that God, in an obsession to “vindicate” Himself, would allow 120,000 of wars, famines, plagues, pestilences, genocides, rapes, murders AD NAUSEUM so as to prove that his adversary Satan was “evil”

    What is even more dismaying for me is that the onlooking”universe” the supposed “jurors” in this arbitration, would not have risen up in a fury of vehemence, demanding that God stop the carnage.

    This leaves me with the pessimistic outlook that “the universe” is either imbecilic, incompetent, or totally lacking in compassion.

    120,000 years? In that epochal time span we may await the “Second Coming”. In anothe few millenia!

  3. Bugs-Larry Boshell
    25 April 2016 @ 6:50 pm

    This compendim of information as expertly assembled by Dr Hohen will certainly smash head on with the Facts Don’t Matter Cabal of True Believers who equate ignorance with holiness. Official Adventism will continue , led by Wilson to deliver itself to the dark ages where it will find the strange bedfellows of Islam. Thank goodness, experiential Adventism, represented by those with wisdom, is affirmed by thiis scientific exposition. It is also their source for reverberating guffaws reverbating as they watch the staggering blind idiots hand in hand with their willingly blind buddies.

  4. William Abbott
    25 April 2016 @ 8:10 pm

    Dr. Hoehn,

    Your four articles on natural clocks are very one-sided. You are unwilling to acknowledge the assumptions that underlie each of your many ‘natural’ clocks. This precludes any true discussion of these dating methods and reduces your four essays to propaganda.

    In the fifth and final essay anyone who questions your propaganda, or disagrees with your opinion, is labeled a ‘denier’ which is extremely demeaning and insulting. In calling them ‘deniers’ you are accusing all your opponents of fabricating and falsifying the historical record just as Holocaust deniers do. I kept waiting for science. I was sure the fifth essay would deal with light. You totally omit discussing the use of redshifting light to date the universe. Surely this would have been a better use of your pen than to mangle beyond usable recognition those three EGW quotes. Your point and her points are, shall we say, light-years apart?

    You have in a very one-sided manner totally avoided the huge issue of the assumptions which must be correct for your ‘clocks’ to accurately tell time backwards. You assert scientific authority like a medieval cleric asserting the church’s authority, pronouncing anathemas on all who might disagree.

    Science can only observe and measure. This is the activity of science. Models and assumptions tell us much, but they are not reliable when they assume too much. Surely you realize assumptions underlie isochron dating?

    • Bugs-Larry Boshell
      26 April 2016 @ 7:14 am

      William, as a skeptic of all scientific things except those that confirm your faith, how do you coexist in a modern world fueled entirely by modern science?

    • ROBIN VANDERMOLEN
      26 April 2016 @ 1:44 pm

      William Abbott,
      I did not need Dr Hoehn’s distinguished dissertation on the age of the earth, to know that the earth is EXCEEDINGLY old.
      I just have to drive fifteen minutes from my front door!

      I am fortunate to live on the slopes of a mountain taller than Mount Everest! HALEAKALA, ” house of the sun” in Hawaiian, only pokes 10,023
      feet above sea level . However, twenty miles offshore beyond the beaches of Maui, the Pacific Ocean is twenty thousand feet deep. The sloping shoulders of Haleakala descend below sea level to the ocean floor, making the total height 30,000 feet, higher than Everest.

      This volcano originated on the ocean floor. How many eons did it take to emerge above the sea, and then rise to a further 10,000 feet?
      Fifteen minutes from my front door, is a huge lava field, generated in 1790, by the most recent explosion. It is still so dense, so impervious, even to jack hammers, that residents on the other side have had to run their water pipes on top of the lava instead of an underground trench. How many more eons before this concrete-like formation breaks down to form dirt/sand/soil, sufficient to grow plants?

      My other home is a fifteen minute drive from a vast underground cavern. You descend hundreds of steps to enter vast floodlit caverns, with stalactites/mites. The guide explains that each stalactite only adds ONE CENTIMETER per century.

      Do the math, for a forty foot long stalactite!

      • DD
        26 April 2016 @ 2:11 pm

        “Speleothems form at varying rates as calcite crystals build up. Several factors can determine the rate of growth. Two important factors are the temperature outside (which affects the rate of decay of plants and animals, hence the amount of carbon dioxide in the soil), and the amount of rainfall. The shapes of speleothems are determined by how the acidic water enters the cave (by dripping, seeping, or splashing) and how the water stands or flows after entering the cave.”

        What exact atmospheric conditions determine stalactites/mites forming “ONE CENTIMETER per century”?

        • William Abbott
          26 April 2016 @ 4:09 pm

          Perhaps the guide’s exhalations have an effect.

          • DD
            26 April 2016 @ 6:58 pm

            Actually, I was wondering how old the guide was to have noticed a 10 millimeter growth within a period of 100 years?

      • William Abbott
        26 April 2016 @ 4:27 pm

        Robin Vandermolen,

        An assumption of uniform, observable, geological forces does lead one to conclude the earth his very old. The observed stalactite growth is simple math, based on observations. What is unknown and only assumed is those conditions that cause the stalactite growth rate were always the same.

        Cataclysmic geologic forces may have occurred in the past. Therefore the observed, relatively uniform, geologic forces we observe today may have had no bearing on the forces that shaped the earth in the past. If you are honest, you will realize assumptions underlie all paleochronology.

        And I hope Dr. Hoehn would agree with this much, whatever his five monographs are, they are not a distinguished dissertation on the age of the earth.

    • sufferingsunfish
      29 April 2016 @ 11:12 am

  5. ppriest
    25 April 2016 @ 10:27 pm

    Dr. Hoehn has presented only a small sampling of the evidence that could be presented for an old earth. By virtue creation nature is God’s second text book. Science is the study of that nature and for the past 50 or so year’s scientific measurement after measurement has pointed to an old earth. For those of who believe in a young earth please present the physical evidence that the earth is young. Where are your measurements showing the earth is young. The only arguments I hear from the YEC is science is unreliable and as such doesn’t provide reliable evidence for an old earth. This anti-science makes the church look foolish and only contributes to unbelief. To insist on a young earth, one must deny Biology, Genetics, Geology, Physics, Paleontology, Cosmology, and the list goes on. YEC are science deniers.
    Mr. Abbott talks about assumptions underlying the science the that gives us the measurements supporting an old earth. Yes there are assumptions. Every assumption is a hypothesis to be tested. The literature show that science has been there and done that. There are also assumptions behind a literal interpretation of Genesis. How about addressing those?

    • William Abbott
      26 April 2016 @ 4:43 am

      P Priest,

      The literature may have established the assumptions as fact but the science most definitely has not. The regular and persistent discovery of non-conformities in the geologic strata, ice cores, or in the mutation rates which NeoMD asserts in his comment, remain unaddressed. The ‘literature’ ignores the implications of these examples where the ‘natural’ clocks do not tell the right time, i.e. deep, evolutionary time. The assumptions in paleochronology remain assumptions. Assumptions of uniformity for which there is no evidence. If we can not trust the present observations of other scientists – as in the canals on Mars, how can we trust the observations they make concerning deep time in the geologic strata? There are no observations from the past, just assumptions that allow us to imagine we ‘know’ the assumptions are true.

      Ptolemy’s observations were pretty good. It was only those few, minor, unexplained non-conformities that kept Copernicus, Brahe and Keplar looking for something that no one else could see; ‘and yet it moves.’

      I quote Dr. Hoehn’s conclusion to his fourth monograph: “Each technique has strengths, weaknesses, and range of time it can estimate, but the agreement of several methods on the same samples gives independent support to the validity of the age of the specimen. Nature’s clocks have a message for us. Are we willing to hear it?” Let’s listen to the nonconformities also. Dr. Hoehn’s oracles may be…

      • William Abbott
        26 April 2016 @ 5:21 am

        false positives.

      • Mike
        26 April 2016 @ 10:00 am

        Spot on William.

    • William Abbott
      26 April 2016 @ 5:19 am

      P Priest,

      Christians are confronted with Jesus Christ’s acceptance of Scripture as authoritative. In other words, Jesus of Nazareth obviously believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. He interpreted marriage, divorce and adultery based on the Genesis account of creation. He referenced Noah and the literal flood. If your Christianity is comfortable with, “Jesus Christ didn’t know as much as we do. He wasn’t as smart or well educated. He was ignorant about science.” – you have for yourself a very malleable Messiah.

      That is quite a judgment against the Holy One of Israel.

      You guys think you have a preponderance of evidence that the earth is old. Fine. Is that the standard of proof? Do you really think you want to convict the Christ – whom the scripture said, “knew all things” while reasonable doubt remains? Has the standard of proof really come to we ‘deniers’ have to prove the universe is only six thousand years old or we lose by default? You really don’t care about paleochronology’s problems. They are just little problems. You choose to ignore them and demean and insult anyone that brings them up for discussion.

      “I beseech thee in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you might be mistaken?” O Cromwell

      • ROBIN VANDERMOLEN
        26 April 2016 @ 4:59 pm

        Christ also stated most emphatically and explicitly in the last chapter of the Bible: behold I am coming SOON!!!
        Apparently the heavenly clocks do not coincide with those on earth,
        as two millenia later, and counting, we still await with eager, but waning
        expectations.
        So “age” as we know it, is very fragmentary and ephemeral!

  6. DD
    25 April 2016 @ 11:29 pm

    It doesn’t matter what anyone says, because everyone believes what they want to believe. Scientists are constructing their own Universe according to what they find—layer upon layer; soon to arrive at the very first elements; and then—nothing. True Christians live in the Universe already constructed by the Creator; soon to leave it all behind to be One with Him for eternity, while everything else goes up in smoke.

    “8 Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. 9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. 10 The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect. 11 The counsel of the LORD stands forever, the plans of His heart to all generations.” Ps. 33:8-11.

    • Edwin A. Schwisow
      29 April 2016 @ 7:56 pm

      There was a time when educated Adventists worked exceedingly hard, and true to the evidence, to bring harmony between the evidence of the “Book of Nature” and “The Revealed Word”. How disheartening to now read in this fine publication that we’re all going to believe as we choose anyway, as if working hard to find a harmony between the two sets of evidence no longer is valuable to any of us. I don’t think that’s the case, and defeatist attitudes to the effect that we should just give up trying to establish any sort of harmony gives an uncertain ring to our testimony as a church, as Bible students, and as educated people in the sciences….

  7. NeoMD
    26 April 2016 @ 2:48 am

    Jack no so fast. Lets take a closer look at the DNA clock. The data you presented is calibrated in the preconceive paleontological age, but there is a more accurate and modern way to calibrate the DNA clock; this is done by the mutation rate per generation which is 60 per generation. The variability found in the mitochondrial DNA of humans, sea flies, fruit flies and nematodes suggest around 6,000 years and not 180,000 years. Furthermore 3 papers published in Science and Nature of the analysis of exons reveals the recent origin (6000 years) of human protein-coding variants.

  8. milton hook
    26 April 2016 @ 4:43 am

    I’m with Robin Vandemolen. I, too, would like to see this series published in book form. However, I think it could be improved by expanding the manuscript to include some answers to specific objections raised in this thread. However, I concede that some will never be persuaded that the earth is old. Was it Dr Lawrence Kohlberg who proposed that there are some individuals who never outgrow a literalistic or concrete frame of mind?

  9. Anon
    26 April 2016 @ 5:41 am

    Jack,
    In your article about radioactive dating you state that the half-life of potassium-40 is 1.25 million years. Somewhere you must have dropped a few zeros, as the half-life of potassium-40 is 1.25 BILLION years.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%E2%80%93Ar_dating

    • Jack Hoehn
      28 April 2016 @ 8:41 pm

      Yes, of course, it is a B-illion, not a M-illion, my typing or copying error. Jack is not an original expert on any of these things. He is just trying to bring a lot of experts together, many of them shown him by fellow Christians and Bible believers, who have shared with him the evidence why they are old earth Creationists. The evidence took a long time to break through my Young Earth bias as a through and through Seventh-day Adventist. I fought it as strong as William Abbot and friends are doing. I am a Creationist, I am not an Evolutionist, and I accept the Bible as factual. But I also understand now that God expects me to study and learn from nature. And God has shown me through a multiple of clocks, much like the down to earth observations of the brother living in Hawaii, the earth can not be 6.000 years old. I am not bothered if my fellow believers think it is or should be. I AM bothered when I am told that I can not be an Adventist if I refuse to believe the unbelievable. And that one very unlikely chronology of Creation based on speculation and formed during the ages of ignorance has now been elevated by our present administrators to the status of a Doctrine! God is the creator of heavens and earth is the doctrine. When and how he created is an opinion and a wonderful subject to study and explore and discuss, as I am happy to do on this great forum.

  10. Bugs-Larry Boshell
    26 April 2016 @ 6:55 am

    William, the Gospel account of Jesus is a Swiss Cheese of contradictions, errors, and time line contradictions, which you conveniently ignore, while poking miniscule needles into the mountain of facts learned by an army of honest people, including Dr Hohen. Their methodology allows for questioning, rethinking, and allowance for anomalies that might exist. Yours doesn’t, does it?

    Your vacaous “Yes, but, ” reply to Dr. Hohen, and his sources, require you to post an equally scholarly article rebuttaing his exposition in which you address how your pin pricks defeat his thesis.

    • William Abbott
      26 April 2016 @ 11:41 am

      Bugs,

      When models fail, when they demonstrate no skill, it is incumbent on the model’s proponents to explain why they failed. The opponents of the model do not have to prove the models have no skill. That is self-evident. Paleochronology has no null hypothesis. You can not prove they failed. The observations lead to conclusions that can not be proven wrong. All the assumptions have to be true for the paleochronology models to work. If one of the assumptions is wrong the data is of no value. Its worthless. Its like a balloon, one little pinprick is all it takes. When a model works until it doesn’t – it has no skill, no matter what the appearances. The quantitative models on Wall Street proved that spectacularly in the 2008 panic and meltdown. Only models gone bad can lose money that quickly. They are not supposed to lose money – ever.

      The climate models that predicted global warming have no skill. They have a demonstrated inability to model future temperatures. I am a science denier because I point that out? There is nothing vacuous in a “yes, but.” Its called logic. A true premise can be part of a false syllogism. A thesis is not an experiment. In summation, without a null hypothesis, I can not prove Dr. Hoehn’s clocks do not tell time. He can’t prove they do. He believes they do. Without a null hypothesis – it isn’t science. Its guessing and assuming.

  11. NeoMD
    26 April 2016 @ 9:21 am

    Jack from your training in medicine I suppose you are familiar molecular biology therefore DNA clock has to be the strongest of your points.
    When we remove the bias calibration of the mutation rate to fit with the paleontologist dates and we use the calibration of mutations from gram mother to gran child we have a far more reliable measurements and dates. The rate of mutation for generation is 60 nucleotides. With simple mathematics we can calculated the variants among humans. The existing mtDNA diversity is 38 to 40 base pair differences; these numbers fits very well with 6000 to 10,000 years, If you apply the 180,000 years we will have more than 400 base pair differences which is 10 fold higher of what really is. The problem becomes worse when the same method is use to analyze mtDNA diversity in sea flies, fruit flies and nematodes which represent a great proportion of the fila, all of them point out to a 6000 to 10000 years. If you apply the evolutionary dates for these insects and worms they had change several times the whole mtDNA. Do you have an answer for this dilemma? More to come

  12. ppriest
    26 April 2016 @ 12:36 pm

    A very convincing piece of evidence for an old earth was found in the form of a fossil nuclear reactor in Gabon, West Africa. It was found that the U-235 content was much lower than in normal uranium deposits. It was also found that the percentages of many isotopes at Oklo were similar to those of the spent fuel generated by modern nuclear power plants. This and other evidence lead scientists to conclude that the Oklo uranium deposits represented a fossil nuclear reactor. Fifteen natural fission reactors were found in three different ore deposits at the Oklo uranium mine. The uranium in the Earth is made up mainly of the isotopes, U-238 and U-235, although a very small percentage of U-234 will also be present. All of these isotopes decay at different rates. U-235 decays about six-and-a-third times faster than U-238. As a result, the proportion of U-235 to U-238 decreases over time. The present proportion in current uranium deposits is about 99.3 percent U-238 and about 0.7 percent U-235. Normally, uranium isotope ratios are the same in all uranium ores wherever, found on earth, in meteorites, or in moon rocks. So any change in this ratio indicates a process other than radioactive decay. In the case of the Oklo deposits the reduced ratio was due to a natural nuclear reaction. To support a chain reaction the U-235 needs to be around three percent. Calculating back from the present 0.7 percent to a three percent concentration places the reactor at 1.7 billion years ago.

    • William Abbott
      26 April 2016 @ 4:05 pm

      Ppriest,

      About Oklo; and assuming natural nuclear reactors operate on the planet. It stretches the imagination but the earth’s crust shows unmistakable signs of unimaginable past geological upheavals. We can also assume it is possible for great pressure waves and associated cavitation to develop in association with this sort of exothermic nuclear activity.

      Fabio Cardone, at the Institute of Nanostructured Materials, in Rome, Italy, experimentally demonstrated that cavitation–the generation and collapse of tiny bubbles in a liquid using pressure waves–causes the rate of decay of thorium-228 in solution to increase 1,000 times.

      The possibility exists that the observed, stable decay rates, are under certain conditions, not immutably stable. Perhaps when one is assuming they are looking at remnants of a natural nuclear reactor that operated 1.7 billion years ago, they should keep Cardone’s experiment in mind.

      Technetium and Promethium have no stable isotope forms. They are observed only when they are synthesized. Yes they have long relatively half-lifes, but their absence in nature is hardly proof that they once were present. Am I missing something?

      Radioactive dating proves the earth is old only if alpha decay rates have always been stable. One has to assume alpha decay rates were always stable – that assumption is not a fact.

  13. ppriest
    26 April 2016 @ 12:37 pm

    Apparently when the Oklo deposits would become saturated with water, the water would slow down the neutrons produce by decay allowing a chain reaction to start. As the temperature of the deposits increased the water would evaporate away shutting the chain reaction down. This process repeated itself hundreds of times until the U-235 isotope percentage dropped below what was required to sustain a chain reaction.

  14. ppriest
    26 April 2016 @ 1:18 pm

    Another convincing piece of evidence for an old Earth is found in the absence of radioactive isotopes with relatively short half-lives (T1/2) from the rocks of the earth. The half-life is the time it takes for ½ of an isotope to decay. All radioactive isotopes decay with a fixed half-life specific to that isotope. After one half-life, half of the original isotope will remain. After 10 half-lives there will only be one thousandth of the original amount, one millionth after 20 half-lives, one billionth after 30 half-lives, and after 50 half-lives, its gone.
    Ninety elements occur naturally on Earth up to Uranium element number 92. Technetium (Tc) element number 43 and Promethium (Pm) element number 61 do not occur naturally, that is they are not found in rocks on earth. Technetium has several isotopes Tc-98 (T1/2 = 4.2 x 106 yr), Tc-97 (T1/2 = 2.6 x 106 yr), and Tc-99 (T1/2 = 211.1 x 103 yr). The twenty-two other Tc isotopes have half-lives that measure in minutes to days. If it takes 30 half-lives for Technetium to disappear then the Earth would be at least 126 million years old. (2.6 x 106 x 30 = 120 x 106) Plutonium-244 has a T1/2 of 80 x 106 years. The absence of plutonium from the natural rocks of the earth indicates that the earth has been around for at least 30 half-lives of Pu-244, which puts the age of the earth at 2.4 billion years. Although this line of reasoning doesn’t provide an age of the earth, it does show that the earth is old.

  15. Jan Long
    26 April 2016 @ 9:08 pm

    Those who may seek a better understanding of the undeniable record of life on earth that extends out exponentially father than 6000 years may find the following couple of books helpful.

    1. The first one is authored by two Christian geologist, Davis A. Young and Ralph F. Stearley. The title of the book is “The Bible, Rocks and Time.” They chronicle the history of modern geological science which has its roots in the 17th and 18th Century. Many of the leading scientists were Christian and operated with Bishop Ussher’s chronology of the earth being a few thousand years old. These authors take the reader through the history of why science changed its thinking on the age of the earth, doing so for very compelling reasons, with really no other logical explanations for many of their findings. Such conclusions came long before radiometric dating. Such dating merely confirmed what was already known, and doing so with great precision that was not previously available.

    2. The 2nd book is also by a geologist, Dan Wonderly, “God’s Time-Records in Ancient Sediments.” Those wondering how long life has been on earth really have a very good laboratory in the sea. This is a compelling read for anyone interested in the reality of the age of the earth and life on it. This is an older book, but cited approvingly by a current the authors of the first referent above.,

  16. Jan long
    26 April 2016 @ 10:07 pm

    Also, let me applaud Jack Hoehn for a cerebral presentation, and for pointing out the obvious–that the emperor has no clothes.

  17. Neo MD
    27 April 2016 @ 12:55 pm

    Jack this has been published in The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium. 2015. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature. 526 (7571): 68-74
    ” Analysis of shared haplotype lengths around f2 variants suggests a median common ancestor ~296 generations ago (7,410 to 8,892 years ago; Extended Data Fig. 6c, d), although those confined within a population tend to be younger, with a shared common ancestor ~143 generations ago (3,570 to 4,284 years ago)”
    I think is time for you and some of the the believers in long periods of human life in this planet take a careful look what the unbiased research is saying.

  18. ppriest
    27 April 2016 @ 4:15 pm

    Neo MD, the same article in Nature says, “Our results show a shared demographic history for all humans beyond ~150,000 to 200,000 years ago. Further, they show that European, Asian and American populations shared strong and sustained bottlenecks, all with Ne < 1,500, between 15,000 to 20,000 years ago.”

  19. NeoMD
    27 April 2016 @ 6:22 pm

    Ppriest that is exactly my point when the calibration is done with the preconcive paleontological age we get that far years. but when is calibrated with the rate of mutations as for example of rare diseases ( Fu and Col Nature 2013) this only give less than 10,000 years.
    consider also
    http://uploads.ankawa.com/uploads/1422805122271.pdf
    http://www.icr.org/article/genetic-clocks-verify-recent-creation/
    https://www.icr.org/article/8017/

  20. NeoMD
    28 April 2016 @ 6:47 am

    P priest
    Exactly that is my point when a proper calibration is use the ages don’t go that far. For example the common ancestor ~143 generations ago (3,570 to 4,284 years ago)” goes with flood. Also if you look the paper of Fu in Nature 2013 where he uses the mendelian mutations for rare disease he reaches around 6000 years. Now when they use the calibration with geological ages they get ~200,000 year Consider to look the following summaries where is presented compelling arguments against long ages
    http://www.icr.org/article/genetic-clocks-verify-recent-creation/
    https://www.icr.org/article/8017/

  21. NeoMD
    28 April 2016 @ 6:57 am

    Jack I summited to comments to replay to Ppriest but still are waiting moderation. It will very sad if they don’t allow it because included a good and simple to follow references that really question the long age genetic clock.

  22. NeoMD
    28 April 2016 @ 12:25 pm

    Priest, the moderator decided no publish my 2 previous comments to answer you plus two references that really destroy the long age genetic clock , wellwell, you could look A Young-Earth Creation Human Mitochondrial DNA “Clock”: Whole Mitochondrial Genome Mutation Rate Confirms D-Loop Results by Jeanson and Genetic Clocks Verify Recent Creation by Tomkins

  23. Anon
    28 April 2016 @ 3:14 pm

    Another natural clock are varves, or layers of sediments, deposited annually on lake bottoms. Under certain situations the lake-bottom sediments can be cored and the layers counted, much like tree rings. This is of particular importance in calibrating Carbon-14 dating, as it reduces the uncertainty of that type of dating. The varves of two different lakes have been used for this purpose: Steele Lake in Minnesota, for dates back to 10,000 years; and Lake Suigetsu in Japan, for dating from 10,000 to about 50,000 years ago. These two lakes again demonstrate that life on earth is much older than 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/varve.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Suigetsu
    http://ww2.kqed.org/quest/2012/10/18/a-new-radiocarbon-yardstick-from-japan/
    https://www.life.illinois.edu/hu/publications/Tian_et_al._2005.pdf

  24. Sean Pitman
    28 April 2016 @ 5:00 pm

    Dr. Hoehn,

    I responded to your articles on natural clocks in some detail at:

    http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/common-arguments-against-a-7-day-creation-week/

    Edit by Jack: Jack Encourages you to read Sean’s article.

    Sean Pittman has devoted a great deal of attention to my articles, and his article is well worth reading for those interested in this topic, I strongly recommend it. He is one of the best of the clock deniers, and is very good at finding the problem here, the inconsistency there, and the “question” there, to challenge the whole world’s scientific consensus. He even found a photograph of me from somewhere to illustrate his article with!
    He quotes scientists who point out that different radioactive clocks depend on one another FOR ABSOLUTE DATES, but not one denies that the clocks tick at a fixed and invariable rate of radioactive decay. So I hope I can assume that he agrees that although the absolute date of the rocks may be not certain, THE AGE OF THE ROCKS ARE IN BILLIONS of years, not thousands? So perhaps he believes in a Billions of years old earth and universe, upon which a 6 day recent creation 6,000 years ago happened? That would be a good start to having a discussion. But then does his Biblical Literalism insist that earth predated the Sun and Moon by 4 days?
    I maintain that there are no serious scientific questions about the age of the earth in general terms, while the details are still subject to further revision and recalibration. But nothing in the past present or future can be imagined that will give us a 6,000 year old planet.
    If we can all agree with an old earth, it is very hard not to agree with the shorter clocks that all agree on a much longer than, 6,000 year old life story. So I maintain again that there are no serious scientific issues for Adventists, only theological issues. And Dr. Pittman has suggested several times that I should leave his version of the church.
    Sir I love God and Truth too much to walk away from this wonderful church, just because you don’t get it yet. It is not the science that is your problem, it is your 18th century theology that needs to be revisited.
    Ellen White led me to Christ, and she has assured me she is fallible. We have enough proof to accept that as a fact. (See my tribute to our wonderful fallible prophetess, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.) So I accept her teaching that church councils have often egregiously erred in the past, like our recent one did in the present. I understand but don’t accept her account of how volcano’s form or the age of the earth. She was born before bacteria and parasites were discovered, and thought malaria came from bad air and that Orion was a few miles across. Not her fault, mine if I don’t contextualize her ministry, and reinterpret her messages to fit more up to date information suitable for faith in the 21st century. To let Ellen White keep our church in the 18th century is simply idolatry. To not let her guide our spirituality is impoverishing.

  25. george manzuk
    29 April 2016 @ 8:43 am

    If for a moment, could there be a digression from science in this discussion? The portrayals in the Revelation are either the ‘wild imaginary events’ or ‘real incomprehensible acts’ by God at the end time. Since the following biblical acts are instantaneous, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to speculate the New Heaven and Earth creation will perhaps be somewhat the same format as that in described Genesis one.

    1. John sees a new heaven and a new earth appear.
    2. Jesus speaks billions of humans back into existence instantaneously.
    3. The New Jerusalem drops out of no where onto a recreated earth.

    It seems to me that at least one of the real problems for Christians believing in an old earth is that they beg the question whether or not God can speak ex nihilo without regard to time.

    EDIT BY JACK: Visions and Dreams are not reality, George. And speculations on the future are a very shakey foundation to base interpretation of the reality of rocks and trees and volcanos and DNA on. We are not questioning what God
    could do. We are questioning what God has actually done. If you think speculating on the future hinted in Revelation, gives you a strong basis for denying what is revealed by the evidenced the Creator has left in the many natural clocks in His creation, then I’ll decline to join you. And as I understand the Bible, Jesus has been working at least 2,000 years on “preparing a place for you” to “drop out of the sky”. The New Jerusalem, a city that we are told “has foundations”, being constructed for 2,000 years as Jesus “prepares a place for you” and still counting is not “out of nothing” is it? That sounds like a progressive creation to me, not a magical poof out of nothing instantaneous creation.

    • Bill Garber
      29 April 2016 @ 9:53 pm

      You raise a valid point, George. The more compelling question is what purpose God might possibly have in making special revelation and natural revelation appear so out of sync?

      And if they are in sync, we might use the same explanation we use to not preach the earth is flat and does not move while the sun moves relative to the earth, which the scripture clearly states and records Jesus as affirming scripture, when we stop preaching the Universe was created 6,000 years ago in 6 consecutive 24-hr days.

  26. sufferingsunfish
    29 April 2016 @ 11:25 am

    I went thru 8 grades of church school and graduated from an SDA college. I was not aware that the Creation epic was supposed to be a product of one’s opinion. To me it was thoroughly Biblical. To hammer Ted Wilson as the person who has almost alone promulgated a short Creation is not playing fair. The belief was around long before he was born. His emphasis on Creation demonstrates that he is a follower of Truth not the fiction of pseudo science.

  27. neoMD
    29 April 2016 @ 12:00 pm

    Jack don’t get offended what i going to write in regard to DNA clocks, seems to me that in this subject you were repeating without filtration what the evolutionist are saying not considering the most recent data of mutations rate. I challenge to you to take a closer look in the subject.

  28. Tobiwan
    29 April 2016 @ 8:01 pm

    This will really be an overly simple conclusion or thought that I have come to concerning the age of the world. Since none of us were present for the act, near or far in the past, and there is only a very brief record of the creation that could be very likely not much more then an account from a grandfather answering a question asked by his children to tell the story, around a campfire, of the beginning. This reality finding its way into the record with the very most important truth, “In the beginning God”, this truth repeated in the gospel of John that records some of the clearest pictures of the character of God. These pictures of God are much more valuable and important for the salvation of the church and the world then the how or when of creation.

    Ellen presents a beautiful picture of creation but still no clear information as to the when. We have brief snipets to wet our questioning minds as we try to see what is on the other side of this darkened glass.

    With the world falling apart around us there are many interesting questions without answers that, at least to me, can and are, because of opportunity costs, distracting us into forgetting the very important message and truth of “In the beginning God”

  29. NeoMD
    30 April 2016 @ 6:08 am

    The Neo Darwinian theory has been wounded by its most serious defenders; the population geneticist. These famous authorities: Muller, Crow, Kondrashov, Loewe, Keightley and Lynch new and published about the effect of mutations and their impact in the genetic meltdown. Dr. Sanford put this in evidence; we are going down not up, exactly like the bible teaches.
    Take a look to the paper that Dr Lynch wrote when he was accepted as member of National Academy of Science “Without a reduction in the germline transmission of deleterious mutations, the mean phenotypes of the residents of industrialized nations are likely to be rather different in just two or three centuries, with significant incapacitation at the morphological, physiological, and neuro-biological levels”
    http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.full.pdf

    EDIT BY JACK: NeoMD, Jack agrees with you 100%. Evolution by random mutation and natural selection doesn’t work. THe scientific evidence increasingly shows that the Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian mechanisms do not work. An Intelligent Designer has left his fingerprints all through nature, (although I think we need to add an “intelligent destroyer” as well to understand the great controversy we see throughout creation). Jack never has supported Darwinian or even Theistic Evolution, and has written on this before if you go back to the archives. However if we ignore the strong evidence for an old earth, how can we hope for others to believe us when we discuss the strong evidence against Darwinism? We have to be consistent in our witness. We need to adjust our mistaken chronology, just as we expect others to adjust to the necessity for an Intelligent Designer. We can not deny that created things evolve and adapt to changing circumstances, but there is no necessity from the evidence in nature to accept that it could have happened by itself without God speaking life into existence not in a second but in a progressive day to day creation each step building on the previous creative actions spoken by God into existence, and then the life forms obeying his command to be fruitful, to multiply, and to replenish the earth. We don’t need to agree just how old the earth is, or how long the days of creation were to agree on the basic Bible truth: God is the creator. IF we can unite on this fact, and be flexible to the other questions about how and when, we could reenter the dialog with the world needing a Savior, instead of marginalizing ourselves with an unnecessary fixation on an impossible age of the earth.

    • Nathan Schilt
      30 April 2016 @ 7:27 am

      NeoMD – I suspect you’ll get no argument from Jack against the point that neoDarwinian theory is being discredited by what has been its lynchpin – population genetics. Jack isn’t arguing for neoDarwinian theories or even theistic evolution. He is simply pointing out how scientifically untenable YEC/YLC are. That doesn’t mean they are wrong. They’re just can’t be proven by science.

      The same is true of NeoDarwinism. In its major claims it consists of what really smart people have concluded are reasonable inferences that can and should be drawn from science. What Jack is demonstrating is that traditional Adventist origins claims can a) not be scientifically supported; and b) cannot be reasonably inferred from the scientific evidence.

      IMHO, Adventists would be much better off putting their energies into disproving the naturalistic, determinative claims of neoDarwinian theory, using science and reason to demonstrate the overwhelming evidence for intelligent design, an endeavor that will open the door for the Intelligent Designer.

      • William Abbott
        30 April 2016 @ 1:34 pm

        Nathan,

        First: NeoMD wrote: “I think is time for you and some of the the believers in long periods of human life [on] this planet [to] take a careful look [at] what the unbiased research is saying.” He posts about that research. It is his principal argument with Dr. Hoehn. The DNA science does not point to long periods of human life. NeoMD’s referenced DNA research supports a YEC. Dr. Hoehn says the genome dates human life (Eden) at 100,000, + or -50,000 years. Is it beneath Dr. Hoehn to substantively respond to NeoMD’s referenced study, published in 2015 in Nature 1000 Genomes Project Consortium?

        Nathan you write, “IMHO, Adventists would be much better off putting their energies into disproving the naturalistic, determinative claims of neoDarwinian theory, using science and reason…” Why not also point out the many flaws in the scientific evidence about an old earth also? We don’t have to prove and probably can’t prove YEC, but the obviously flawed OE chronologies are not compelling. Dr. Hoehn ought to address the latest research when its brought to his attention.

        Why accept the proffered old earth chronologies when the science is based on assumptions instead of postulates? These four essays have done nothing to disprove the naturalistic, Neo-darwinian theories. They specifically set out to discredit the Scripture as authoritative about certain matters. Dr. Hoehn has decided he knows better than scripture.

  30. NeoMD
    30 April 2016 @ 6:15 am

    Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.full.pdf

    • Stephen Foster
      30 April 2016 @ 1:54 pm

      Well said, William Abbott. It appears that we have something upon which we agree! I must say that I also agree with Nathan that “using science and reason to demonstrate the overwhelming evidence for intelligent design” would in some instances “open the door for the Intelligent Designer;” but then again Dr. Hoehn believes in intelligent design—but just not as described in the very scriptures that were inspired by, and are indeed all about, the Intelligent Designer.

      • William Abbott
        30 April 2016 @ 2:05 pm

        I don’t disagree with Nathan’s suggestion. I just want to point out that is definitely not what Dr. Hoehn has been doing here. His is not tactical retreat – its a surrender!

        He is not “using science and reason to demonstrate the overwhelming evidence for intelligent design” He is using ‘science’ to discredit the authority of scripture.

        Stephen, We often disagree about what the scripture says. We don’t disagree on its authority. I appreciate that about you. (I do think your arguments in favor of women’s ordination would be more coherent if you’d cross the line, but you never do:-)

  31. Anon
    30 April 2016 @ 6:40 am

    It would be helpful if AT moderators placed posting guidelines near where comments are written. A number of us have submitted posts that are apparently rejected by the moderators, but without explanation. It would save time and frustration to know what is acceptable and what isn’t.

    • William Abbott
      30 April 2016 @ 3:12 pm

      Anon,

      It isn’t a problem with moderators rejecting posts, it just seems like it.

      Certain characteristics in a post, (like two links) will kick a post into moderation purgatory. Sometimes a comment gets out in a couple days.
      Some never do. But it is not malicious bias, rather benign neglect.
      At this point AT can’t field full time real time moderators.

      I’m supposing. I really don’t know.

    • Monte Sahlin
      01 May 2016 @ 4:31 pm

      If you go to the top of the home page you will see an “About” section which will bring you a pull-down menu that includes guidelines. But, you need to know that it is difficult to take seriously people who make comments with fake names and fake Email addresses like yours. If you are serious about comments on this Web site, you really should identify yourself. If there is a reason for your comments to be anonymous, then you should Email to the editorial team at atoday@atoday.org and identify yourself and give a reason for your need for anonymity. They you will be assigned a more reasonable pen name to use. — Monte Sahlin, CEO, Adventist Today

  32. Wilmer Arroyo
    30 April 2016 @ 6:56 am

    It is interesting how this attack on the 6,000 year creation is focused on Ted Wilson. It has been the teaching of the denomination for most of its existence if not all of it, and the entirety of the denomination voted to clarify this belief at the GC session.

    It isn’t Ted Wilson. It is the denomination.

    Edit by Jack: Wilmer, I have watched the General Conference presidents for my 70 years of Adventism. I have met personally several of our leaders. I have never seen a more authority demanding administration at the head of this church than the one we have now. And things such as the Bible and Science conference in Utah were obviously manipulated by who they invited, and the voted statement of that meeting was manipulated and changed by administration to say what they wanted it to say, as has been clearly documented. Voting by the “church”? The sheep usually follow their leader. The elevation of the scientific questions of the age of the earth, and the size of the flood, and the permanent subservience of women from a matter of opinion to a question of creedal doctrine is the shadow of one man’s conviction that he is called to save the church from change. Previous church leaders in the 1950’s (F.D. Nichols) drove the basic Chevy without the luxury of a heater to save money for “the work”. This one arrives at the GC session in a Black SUV surrounded by four bodyguards. It is a new day for this old Adventist. If you can help me see things differently, please do so.

    • William Abbott
      30 April 2016 @ 1:56 pm

      Dr. Hoehn,

      Why did you write this? ….and the permanent subservience of women from a matter of opinion to a question of creedal doctrine… I am truly embarrassed for you. This is such a gross misrepresentation of fact. The question is ordination of women not, “the permanent subservience of women.” The the biblical practice of not ordaining women as ‘ruling elders’ Signs of the Times, 1878 is long standing and it did not become part of our ‘creed’ last July.

      You would howl at the moon if Ted Wilson manipulated facts into blatant propaganda like you do right here in this post about the the supposedly manipulative and authoritarian Wilson. You have no credibility when you write stuff like that.

    • Elaine Nelson
      30 April 2016 @ 2:22 pm

      TW learned from the best “manipulator”–his father. He watched him manipulate the Glacier View “findings” and testified for the papal type of hierarchy on which the SdA church operated during the Merikay Silver vs. Pacific Press case. Why should anything different have been expected?

    • Jan Long
      01 May 2016 @ 9:44 pm

      Wilmer, regarding your comment: “It is interesting how this attack on the 6,000 year creation is focused on Ted Wilson. It has been the teaching of the denomination for most of its existence if not all of it, and the entirety of the denomination voted to clarify this belief at the GC session.”

      I agree that the the church has long held this view “informally.” This fact is certainly no argument for the FB #6 revision. The problem is taking an informal view and elevating it to formal status when there is so much contrary evidence. If the Church is so certain that creation was recent, the appropriate thing to have done would simply be to have patience. If science is wrong about the age of the earth and life on it, science will figure it out. There is intellectual fraud involved in calling an idea “truth’ while at the same time ignoring not just the wider scientific community, but also many leading Adventist scientists, and theologians. TW’s fingerprints are all over the FB #6 revision, so that point will likely be seen as completely appropriate to most fair-minded readers.

  33. EARL CALAHAN
    30 April 2016 @ 2:27 pm

    Project this issue a number of months or years forward, perhaps a few days before the grand
    moment, before, in a twinkling of an eye, the Lord God returns to Earth, in Glory, and at ATODAY
    the debate, is, “how old is the Earth”, and how long ago was the Creation of mankind?? This information would be of how much importance??
    The Lord God said “I would not that you be ignorant, brethren”. Should we saddle ourselves with
    information from the distant past, when in the past 50 years there has been an explosion of intelligence, of greater than all of prior history?? There is Truth, allegorical, and anecdotal, in the Biblical record, and of seer’s statements, and God has provided knowledge of the Earth’s age, if we but open our eyes, and our minds to the reality of the time in which we live. But, the important issue is, are we, today, ready to receive our Redeemer??

  34. NeoMD
    30 April 2016 @ 2:50 pm

    Nathan when one gives a serious look to the DNA clock finds surprises.
    1. In the past all rate mutation calibrations were base in preconceive dates, no in real calibrations that can be proved, that is why the long periods.
    2. Now we have better tools to calibrate the mutations rate like ones reported in the genes of the Russian Czar family and genes of generations of Anabaptist. This shows that mutations occurs a much faster rate.
    3. When these new tools are used the DNA clock goes less than 10,000 years.
    4. These findings are published by secular and christians scientist.
    5. The study done by Jeanson shows the variations in mitochondrial DNA of humans, water-flies, fruit flies and nematodes (big fila) fits better with a recent creation model. https://www.icr.org/article/8017/
    6. That is why I challenge Jack and others to take an unbiased look to the DNA clock; this fits much better with the teaching of the SDA church.

    EDIT BY JACK: Jack is challenged by all the Natural Clocks. The science is challenging and the theology of Creation is challenging. These articles are to recognize the challenges and discuss what they mean, and looking for a meeting ground in old earth creationism and intelligent design movements.

    Regarding DNA clocks, NeoMD quotes papers from the Institute for Creations Research, an organization devoted to support the answer that creation had to be from 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Starting with this “Answer” they filter all scientific information and discard any that do not agree with their a-priori supposition, and promote any they can find that might support the age of the earth they have accepted as Bible truth.
    Jack understands that molecular clocks are the least reliable of the Natural Clocks he was looking at. And that is why it was only one of the multiple Natural Clocks he looked at. However molecular DNA clocks are very interesting to Bible believers because it is the only clock (until we can find Adam or Eve’s bones and Carbon-14 date them!)to help us understand the time of Adam and Eve’s creation.
    So NeoMD is right if you accept a very fast rate of mutation, and the scientific consensus is right if you find a slower rate of mutation. I am willing to hold the question of the exact date of Adam and Eve’s creation as not yet established by the DNA clocks. But there are fossil remnants of humans that date with the independent C-14 radioactive clock to 40,000 years, and there are archeological remains of intelligent creatures including art and tools that radioactive date to 70,000 to 80,000 years ago. So for this reason alone it appears impossible to me for calculations for mutation rates that give dates closer to 10,000 years ago to be correct. The CSR folks have choosen mutation rates based on modern studies over a few short years, the slower rates are based on comparison with fossilized human remains and modern humans over 40,000 years, which is much more accurate as it is over a longer period of time than recent Anabaptists or Russian Czars.

    Let me quote from Reasons to Believe author Dr. Faza Rana, author of Who Was Adam, to give another conclusion to the DNA clocks:
    “dates derived from molecular clock analysis are best understood as estimates hampered by much imprecision. Calibrating molecular clocks is extremely difficult. The best way to determine mutation rates is still unclear. Even if the mutation rate is known, molecular clock analysis is still remarkably imprecise; typical uncertainties are on the order of ± 50,000 years.
    While the exact dates for mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosomal Adam may never be precisely known, the agreement between molecular clock analysis and the dates from the human fossil and archaeological records is remarkable and stands as one of the most significant accomplishments of modern science. To put it simply, molecular anthropology supports a recent origin of humanity from a small population near where theologians think the Garden of Eden was located and traceable back to single ancestral sequences for mitochondrial and Y chromosomal DNA. This is significant in light of the biblical account of humanity’s origin. There is no scandal. There is no controversy. The scientific and biblical stories of human origins harmonize quite well.”

  35. Cherry
    30 April 2016 @ 3:30 pm

    The “how?” and “why?” lines are going to be long in heaven!

  36. danny bell
    30 April 2016 @ 5:39 pm

    I really dont get why AT is publishing this rubbish…

    EDIT BY JACK: Because they love you, they publish your comments. Because some Adventists want to have a faith that is honest with the evidence from God’s Second Book, they publish articles asking us to be honest instead of foolish and dogmatic.
    Jesus has informed us that not dogma but truth makes us free.

  37. Carrol Grady
    30 April 2016 @ 6:03 pm

    I’ve read some convincing (to a non-scientist) arguments on both sides of this issue. You know what I wish? I wish that scientists of various persuasions could meet together in a respectful atmosphere and present their evidence and let the other side make their argument against it. Mostly, I’ve heard conflicting evidence presented with no answers from those who disagree.

  38. DD
    01 May 2016 @ 4:58 pm

    The Internet: the information highway accessing innumerable data. This plethora of so-called reliable “evidence” or “proven” information on any given subject, freely available for all wandering minds seeking entertainment, accepting selectively that which is appropriate, but rejecting the unpalatable. Would-be scientist’s gathering research data, (whether true or false), their imaginations running wild due to financial and technological backing; experimenting, supposedly at an advantage observing the natural world— pots acting like potters; creatures acting like creators.

    We suddenly have this “Book of Nature”, “God’s second book” which supersedes and transcends all other knowledge of the material world, the work of “honest” and great human minds—so we’re led to believe.

    Carnal, fleshly minded humans, occupied with the physical/materialistic world; religious intellectuals professing godliness; bored out of their minds as they work “exceedingly hard” to present these articles for everyone—because they “love” us.

    Is this what Christianity is all about?

  39. NeoMD
    01 May 2016 @ 5:41 pm

    Jack “NeoMD quotes papers from the Institute for Creations Research”
    Lets be honest I posted only one paper from Dr Jeanson because is ease to follow and his arguments are pretty hard to refute. But before that, I cited at least 3 to 4 peer review papers from Nature and Science where is shown a faster mutation rate.
    Jack “So NeoMD is right if you accept a very fast rate of mutation, and the scientific consensus is right if you find a slower rate of mutation”
    Really Jack, now is the scientific consensus or me? I was the one to point out that the recent scientific data supports a faster mutation rate, and is used to calculate the variation in humans, take a look of at the papers by Fu in Nature 2012, Tennessen in Science 2102, Keinan, Science 2012, and last report of Human Genome. (By the way Dr Rana needs to be updated in the most recent publications in regard to DNA clock, he wrote a book, not research papers that is a big difference)
    Jack “I am willing to hold the question of the exact date of Adam and Eve’s creation as not yet established by the DNA clocks”
    I applaud your decision in regards to DNA Clock.
    As an MD I was expecting from you to be more familiar with the human genetics and molecular biology than other “natural clocks”.

  40. William Abbott
    01 May 2016 @ 6:46 pm

    Dr. Hoehn,

    The Scientific method is a way of knowing things. It is a very narrow and very powerful way of knowing something is true. The Scientific method requires the experimenter to make observations, take measurements, repetitively and, if his postulates are true and is hypothesis is falsifiable, i.e. there is a null hypothesis, it is possible to know/learn whether or not the hypothesis is either true or false.

    I want demonstrate key components the ‘scientific’ dating mechanisms are missing and that makes it impossible for us to know the results of these experiments are true. If we are being ‘honest with the evidence’ as you say.

    For millennia men believed the sun, moon and stars revolved around the earth. Ptolemy’s Almagest was a thorough treaties on the the celestial bodies and their movements through the heavens during the year. Let’s be clear on something. The Ptolemaic mathematics and observations work remarkably well. The evidence for the ancient, universal belief the sun, moon and stars revolve around the earth is simply overwhelming.

    There are very minor explanatory gaps in Ptolemy’s system. There are some celestial movements that Ptolemaic system cannot explain. Starting with the careful astronomical measurements of Copernicus and Tyco Brahe, Johannes Keplar was able to conclusively establish the heliocentric ‘solar’ system. The earth, in fact, moves. (continued)

  41. William Abbott
    01 May 2016 @ 7:34 pm

    The earth, in fact, moves.

    Keplar did not have assumptions for postulates. He was measuring something measurable. He made predictions based on his observations and this is how he proved the earth moves. The predictions were true. It was not some statistical probability he could never measure. Keplar had a null hypothesis.

    Radioactive clocks make assumptions about what you call, “immutable radioactive elements”. The exact same ‘immutable’ terminology the ancients used to describe the celestial spheres. You have no evidence, you have only an assumption. There are any number of possibilities in the past (which you can not measure) that possibly affected decay rates in radioactive elements. If Sean Pitman or NeoMD or I introduce evidence that contradicts the assumptions, the data is dismissed as contradicting the scientific consensus — as biased and untrustworthy data.

    You may very well be doing exactly the opposite of what you think you are doing. You too can be dogmatic about scientific error. Insisting something is true when the truth is not apprehendable. Assumptions are terrible postulates. As Ernest Rutherford, the father of Nuclear Physics said: “All science is either physics or stamp collecting. If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.”

    • Bugs/Larry Boshell
      01 May 2016 @ 9:20 pm

      William, if you applied the same critique to the resurrection as you do to time clocking you couldn’t believe in the resurrection. It is permeated with problems that do much more to cast doubt on its reality. It is purely myth based, science is proposition based with testable hypothesis.

      If you want to mythologize science in order to question reason, you are required to also keep it where it is the currency of belief, your religion.

  42. William Abbott
    01 May 2016 @ 10:09 pm

    Bugs,

    The resurrection is historical, not scientific. If you think history is scientific… well that is what Marx thought he had discovered, scientific history. You can predict the future with scientific history, ask Marx.

    Scientists need to be humble. So do historians. There are limits to what we can know. I think the weight of historical evidence is on the side of the empty tomb and the resurrection. Call it belief if you like, its possible his corpse is here someplace, though nobody ever found it.

    I have no problem with Dr. Hoehn believing in an OE. I have no problem with him trying to persuade us all the scientific facts confirm his belief. I just want everyone to know there are a lot of assumptions under-girding his belief; deficient science, if you will. If his assumptions are wrong he is believing something untrue. Its a distinct possibility.

    You have admit Bugs, the biblical record is clear. “If you have seen me you have seen the Father” All other observations are forbidden. Nobody measures God.

  43. William Abbott
    01 May 2016 @ 10:16 pm

    and another thing Bugs,

    I’m not mythologizing science. I’m just restating the rules. I just know about hypothesis and postulates and experiments: rules of the game. It you don’t follow the rules it isn’t science. Its belief.

    • Bugs/Larry Boshell
      02 May 2016 @ 8:50 am

      Restating the rules? Exactly! You can, and should, restate the ten commandment rules exercising the same prerogative. Just be honest, William. You don’t care about rules, science, facts, reason, intelligence, only that your religious fantasy is unsullied. Your belief can only be supported in the world of make believe. So you don’t care about facts.

      I’m trying to understand why you even participate in this kind of discussion when the information is entirely counter to your cherished presuppositions. Nitpicking isn’t the least persuasive. Not one intelligent person is swayed by it. No viewpoints are adjusted by your carping.

      Of course, you can believe what you want. The arguments you have so far offered do nothing to add to your stature as a thinker. I know, you prefer belief over reason. You say: “If you don’t follow the rules it isn’t science. Its belief.” Since only you are freely the arbiter if what constitutes science, you have with this statement, inadvertently eliminated yourself from the benefits of the community of common knowledge. Myth continues as your bailiwick of choice.

      • William Abbott
        02 May 2016 @ 3:00 pm

        Bugs,

        Wow! That’s an ‘ad hominem’ attack if I ever read one. What gives? The ambrosia getting stale? You are way out of character my friend.

        I’m in San Juan, Puerto Rico this week. Today I presented a termite paper at a research symposium at the American Wood Protection Association’s annual meeting. I’ve been a member of AWPA for over thirty years serving on several technical committees and the executive committee. AWPA is the standards setting body for preservative treated wood in the US. Next week I’ll be in Hawaii checking preservative stake tests. I’m also a thirty year member of the IRG (International Research Group on Wood Protection). I currently serve on IRG’s communication committee. Over the years I have authored and co-authored several research papers and have been actively involved in the peer review process. For many years I have served on the advisory committee at Oregon State University’s Utility Pole Research Cooperative. I’m also currently rendering assistance and supporting work on preservative field trials in Australia. My graduate studies are in history. I have no formal training in science. But I am familiar with the rules. Believe me, my colleagues, friends and associates in the industry over the last thirty years would have nothing to do with me if I acted as you accuse me: “as arbiter if what constitutes science.” I will gladly repeat to any of my colleagues EXACTLY what I wrote here about science.

    • Stephen Foster
      02 May 2016 @ 10:59 am

      You are precisely correct with regard to hypotheses, postulates, and assumptions William; or at least, not being a scientist, I think that you are right. The dating of OE into the millions and billions of years is a case study in assumptions based upon confirmation biases; is it not? That sounds like faith and religion to me; but then what do I know?

      • Bugs-Larry Boshell
        02 May 2016 @ 11:40 am

        The “faith and religion” you falsely acuse the scientists of practicing has unlimited success in moving satellites, payloads and cameras to space with great regularity and percission. In two thousands of years your faith launches by you and your faith buds have not yet snagged the second advent! Why your improvision? Maybe you need more time. Or more faith!

        • Bugs-Larry Boshell
          02 May 2016 @ 11:43 am

          Impercision not Improvision

        • William Abbott
          02 May 2016 @ 3:05 pm

          Illogical Bugs. Very illogical. We find no fault with Kepler’s work. Space physics is cool. You know measuring real things, in real time. Launching satellites is real science.

          Want to talk about string theory?

          • Bugs/Larry Boshell
            02 May 2016 @ 3:48 pm

            What about string theory do you wish to discuss? Gittyupgo!

          • Bugs/Larry Boshell
            02 May 2016 @ 3:50 pm

            By the way, string theory doesn’t embrace a young earth or a Creator.

        • Stephen Foster
          02 May 2016 @ 6:36 pm

          Bugs,

          C’mon man! Are you suggesting that all science is equal in terms of the quality of methodology? I made specific reference to the assumptions that are used to guesstimate the ages of this planet, the things on this planet, and the universe; and the confirmation biases inherent in the assumptions and methods that have concluded or resulted in these guesstimates; and you go on a scoffing straw man building tangent with reference to all science and the second advent. Get a grip dude.

      • William Noel
        02 May 2016 @ 12:01 pm

        Stephen,

        The “It Is Written” program that aired this past weekend on 3ABN had an interview with the PhD scientist at the Creation Science Museum in Kentucky, who had a very coherent and thoughtful description of how many assumptions lie at the foundation of concepts about ancient time, including the rates of nuclear decay. His view was that there is good evidence to believe that nuclear decay rates were much faster prior to the Flood. At the same time, he readily admitted that it could not be proved. So it would appear that we do not have sufficient information to prove or disprove Dr. Hoehn’s viewpoint.

        In my lifetime I have seen the underlying assumptions in astrophysics rewritten at least twice as a result of new discoveries that have largely been driven by information gathered by space telescopes. So I prefer to leave enough room in each scientific belief for the introduction of new information that raises significant questions about what was previously believed to be indisputable.

  44. ppriest
    02 May 2016 @ 10:38 am

    The fact the AT won’t post my comments makes a real statement about AT. Its selectivity makes it no different that the selectivity of the Adventist Review or the gate keepers of the Pacific Press or any other SDA publishing house. As such it is not worthy of support.

    • Bugs-Larry Boshell
      02 May 2016 @ 11:08 am

      Paul, with this forum protocol subcontracted to a third-party source (as I understand it) it isn’t easily done. Try posting again, I think there might be an error, but I doubt you have been blocked.

  45. William Abbott
    02 May 2016 @ 7:43 pm

    Bugs,

    For fun, some clip art from Wikipedia: “There are several versions of superstring theory: type I, type IIA, type IIB, and two flavors of heterotic string theory (SO(32) and E8×E8). The different theories allow different types of strings, and the particles that arise at low energies exhibit different symmetries. For example, the type I theory includes both open strings (which are segments with endpoints) and closed strings (which form closed loops), while types IIA and IIB include only closed strings.[18]”

    “Compactification is one way of modifying the number of dimensions in a physical theory. In compactification, some of the extra dimensions are assumed to “close up” on themselves to form circles.[23] In the limit where these curled up dimensions become very small, one obtains a theory in which spacetime has effectively a lower number of dimensions.”

    Gittyupgo on string theory? I was being facetious. Lets not discuss string theory. I was just drawing a contrast between the elegant mathematics the support the practical science of launching satellites with the unintelligible hypothetical morass called string theory.

  46. ppriest
    02 May 2016 @ 7:49 pm

    Mr. Abbott, your statements on the hypothetical method and the null hypothesis is not entirely correct. You say you are a history major with little science back ground. Yet you talk like you know all about science.
    The power of the hypothetical method lies in its logical form: denying the consequent or affirming the consequent. Denying the consequent is a valid logical form while affirming the consequent is not. Each consist of two premises and a conclusion. Denying the consequent or prediction looks like this.
    1. If H is true, then P is true
    2. P is not true
    3. Conclusion: therefore H is not true
    Since the argument is in a valid logical form it provides proof that H is false. On the other hand, the argument affirming the preduction is true does not prove H that is true because the argument is based on an invalid logical form. The only interpretation one can make of this argument is that H is possibly true.
    One may ask, “Is it impossible to prove that a hypothesis is correct? If “prove” means “prove beyond a shadow of a doubt,” the answer is yes. Although it is impossible to prove conclusively that a hypothesis is correct, science can give very good reasons for thinking that it is. Two strategies can be used: confirming the hypothesis by repeated experiments, and confirming a hypothesis by means of a null hypothesis.

  47. ppriest
    02 May 2016 @ 7:50 pm

    If repeated tests show the predictions to be true, then the evidence adds up in support of the hypothesis. This is called strong inference. One well designed experiment will finish off a false hypothesis with a single stroke. However, it takes many confirming experients to establish the truth of a hypothesis. That is why progress in science is made by following the strategy of seeking to disconfirm hypothesis. This strategy results in steady progress in science and the reason why is clear. Any conclusion that does not exclude a hypothesis is doubtful and must be checked and rechecked. That is why testability and repeatability are foundations of science.
    The second way to confirm a hypothesis is with the use of the null hypothesis. Say a scientist in interested in evidence for a hypothesis, H. so he uses the argument that if H is false, then the P will also be false. This is called the null hypothesis. The argument looks like this:
    1. If H is false, then P is false.
    2. P is true
    3. Therefore, the hypothesis is probably true.
    Since this argument has the same form as denying the consequent, it is valid and if the premises are true the conclusion will also be true.

  48. William Abbott
    02 May 2016 @ 8:21 pm

    Ppriest,

    How would you construct the null hypothesis that the radioactive decay rates are immutable?

  49. Sean Pitman
    03 May 2016 @ 11:46 am

    So, in response to the evidence of historical family lineages showing much higher DNA mutation rates than those originally presented by Dr. Hoehn, he argues that he isn’t actually convinced that the DNA clock is very reliable after all as an independent clock?

    So… [you are right] if you accept a very fast rate of mutation, and the scientific consensus is right if you find a slower rate of mutation. But there are fossil remnants of humans that date with the independent C-14 radioactive clock to 40,000… to 80,000 years ago. So for this reason alone it appears impossible to me for calculations for mutation rates that give dates closer to 10,000 years ago to be correct. [C14] is much more accurate… over a longer period of time than recent Anabaptists or Russian Czars.

    Again, it all boils down to calibrations based on assumed reliability of radiometric dating methods. The evidence of much faster DNA mutation rates based on direct analysis of several known historical family lineages is rejected – for what reason? Because it doesn’t fit with one’s paradigm? and that is why mutation rates based on radiometric dating assumptions are favored instead? If the time indicated by a particular natural clock doesn’t fit with the primary paradigm, one is free to make it appear to tick faster by calibrating it by another favored clock? What about Dr. Hoehn’s original claim that DNA mutation rates are an independent natural clock? – not…

    EDIT BY JACK: Sean, these articles began by saying, when several independent clocks agree that suggests that we know the right time. You are trying to challenge this by suggesting they are not independent but all linked by “assumptions” one to another. Another clock denier suggest that radioactive decay rates were “different” at different times. (My understanding, and I suspect yours is, that if radioactive rates were ever different anytime in history the universe would not exist?)

    So that is why I titled my last article, clock deniers. If you start with a “Bible truth” that is an assumption, and you hold to your interpretation as divine, then you can deny anything and everything, and you must. If you hold that scripture truth is progressive and introduces us to truth but does not restrict truth, then when you learn that the earth is not the center of the solar system, and that the sun did not stand still for Joshua, and you learn that coffee is quite good for older Adventists with memory problem, then you follow the evidence and adjust your understanding of truth.

    I do not stand as an expert at any of the natural clocks, but the fact that they more or less agree may not mean there is a conspiracy in science, but rather that our previous understanding of scripture was just wrong. That in Bible knowledge as in historical and medical and scientific knowledge we all “see through a glass darkly” and sometimes just have to give up cherished beliefs for the evidence. I am now at this time of my life willing to hold to Jesus and not hold to my opinions of Jesus or my previous understanding of Jesus or his holy book. I serve a risen Savior, not one locked into the Old or New Testaments, and I am willing to follow the evidence as I try to serve him better.

  50. Jim Hamstra
    06 May 2016 @ 12:03 pm

    In the introduction to this five-part series, Dr Hoehn requested that we note our comments but hold them until the entire series was published. In the spirit of this request, I will now post a series of specific comments relating to the specific topics raised in the original articles.

    And in the spirit of free and open discussion that characterizes most of the Atoday web site, I am asking that the author refrain from editing my comments, or interjecting his own responses into what I will write.

    • Jim Hamstra
      06 May 2016 @ 12:18 pm

      General observations –

      1) I am neither a YEC nor an OEC nor (in my opinion) a Creation Denier nor (in my opinion) a Clock Denier. I have freely and frequently stated that I do not claim to know how old is (a) the observable Cosmos, (b) our local planet Earth, or (c) Earth-bound life. I do believe that is reasonable to conclude that these three entities were formed in this general order.

      2) Having diligently studied both Science and the Bible for 60 years, I am very well aware of most of the issues regarding attempts to arrange the things we can learn from these two sources, into a quantifiable chronology. I have become very dubious of those who claim to be able to “prove” their answers to these questions from either Science or Scripture or some combination thereof.

      3) I submit that those who self-identify with either “scientific” or “Biblical” methods of answering these questions, would be well-served to manifest less Hubris and greater Humility in asserting their conclusions and supporting arguments. As I frequently admonished my sons during their formative years, you cannot build yourself up by tearing other people down.

      • Jim Hamstra
        08 May 2016 @ 12:33 pm

        Part 3, DNA –

        Much of the discussion regarding DNA “clocks” both here and elsewhere is muddled by a lack of precision in using terminology.

        Specifically regarding gene sequences, it must be understood that in the genetic code, individual genes or sequences of closely related genes, are identified by unique genetic “markers” encoded with these genes in the DNA. For this reason, if the genes themselves are unaltered, their order of appearance in a given chromosome, has no known effect on the biological behaviors they induce or mediate. Innocuous alterations in the sequences of gene appearance within a specific chromosome are fairly common, occurring as frequently as once in each generation or a few consecutive generations. This fact forms the basis of identifying individuals and their ancestry by comparing DNA sequences.

        Using the term Mutation to include these innocuous apparently-random changes in the sequence of gene occurrences, can be confusing and even misleading. So I suggest the more precise mathematical term Permutation. Permutations count each different sequential arrangement of the members of a set, in other words, different orderings of the identical set of elements are distinct Permutations.

        (continued)

        • Jim Hamstra
          08 May 2016 @ 1:08 pm

          Combinations count only changes in the actual elements included in the set, not merely their order of appearance. Properly, we should only use the word Mutation when there is an actual change in the Combination of genes included in a chromosome, ie a gene has been removed, added or altered.

          Without making this distinction it is not possible to compare claims made by Dr Hoehn of Mutations occurring once in thousands of generations, with those made by Dr Pittman of Mutations occurring multiple times in a single generation. Presumably Dr Hoehn is discussing different gene Combinations whereas Dr Pittman is discussing different gene Permutations. When different speakers use the same words to denote different concepts or phenomena, the discussion becomes incoherent.

          I strongly agree with Dr Hoehn that life appears to have been designed to be surprisingly adaptable to changing circumstances. I also strongly agree with NeoMD that in the higher (ie more complex) life forms, observable mutations are almost always deleterious. This would strongly suggest that the amazing adaptations we can observe in the most complex life forms, probably incurred a notable loss of further ability to adapt. Insects in general and beetles in particular, seem to have retained an amazing ability to continue adapting by genetic changes. Whereas humans seem to adapt primarily by the application of intelligence, rather than by different Combinations of genes.

      • Jim Hamstra
        08 May 2016 @ 3:04 pm

        Part 4, Radioactive Clocks –

        In this section the author actually introduces Clocks (that directly measure elapsed time) as opposed to Calendars (that compile and attempt to correlate sequences of past events). This failure to distinguish between Clocks and Calendars is a common flaw in discussing many issues relating to Chronology.

        This section contains numerous errors regarding the operation of various kinds of clocks. To avoid being overly-pedantic I shall only comment on Cesium clocks and Radioactive clocks. A fundamental error is this section is the assertion that Cesium clocks are based on radioactive decay. Cesium clocks are based upon resonances in orbital electrons, whereas radioactivity emanates from the atomic nucleus. (see “en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock” for more details). The reason I highlight this error is because the casual reader might easily conclude that Radioactive Clocks are as accurate as Atomic Clocks which is manifestly false.

        (continued)

        • Jim Hamstra
          08 May 2016 @ 3:24 pm

          Next I would like to answer a question which is often asked, but seldom answered correctly. Are the decay rates of radio-isotopes truly constant? The answer NO may surprise many science students because we have all been taught that these are indeed constants. And indeed for most purposes we do regard them as constants, because statistically speaking, under “normal” conditions they appear to be constant. But at very high pressures, very high ambient field strengths, very high energy levels, etc, atomic nuclei behave differently. So the simplistic answer is an example of failure to state the boundary conditions for the behavior of a physical model.

          Why did I say physical model? Because we have only been measuring decay rates for about a century. So except for fairly unstable isotopes, we have never actually measured the half-life, or even come close. Though we have good evidence and models to predict half-life, for most isotopes used for long-term dating the accepted half-lives are billions of years. In other words, we have only measured the phenomenon we are trusting, through a very small fraction of the range over which we depend on it! C14 is a notable exception in this regard, because its half-life is thousands of years. Not only can we measure a non-trivial fraction of its half-life, but we can also correlate more recently-formed Carbon sources with other historical sources to correlate these measurements.

          (continued)

        • Jim Hamstra
          08 May 2016 @ 3:45 pm

          The point of this mini-discussion of nuclear physics is NOT to Deny the utility of Radioactive Clocks. Rather it is to point-out that the indicated dates are NOT Facts but rather they are based upon a combination of observable Facts, plus Assumptions (eg constant decay rates, initial conditions, long-term stability of specimens), plus Inferences. For more examples of assumptions and other issues regarding Radioactive Clocks see “en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K–Ar_dating”, “en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating” and many other sources.

          Finally I would like to remind careful readers that the assertion int this article that entrained Argon in magma dissipates and escapes as the magma solidifies into igneous rocks, is not always true. The rate and degree of dissipation is heavily dependent on the thickness and mineral content of the magma. Among other things, the surface of some magmas solidifies into a relatively non-porous finish, while the interior is still very hot and infused with dissolved and entrained gases, including Argon. And careful practitioners of K-Ar dating are well aware of this and adjust their estimates accordingly, by Ar-Ar measurements and other methods.

      • Jim Hamstra
        08 May 2016 @ 4:00 pm

        Concluding observations –

        1) Throughout recorded history, the most reliable clocks have been based upon direct astronomical observations. That was true before the invention of the telescope and remains true today. The statement “let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years” Genesis 1:14 is still valid. In the Genesis narrative, Clocks and Calendars were created on Day 4.

        2) The invention of Atomic Clocks has given us the ability to measure time over modest intervals of time (decades to this point) with very high precision. Atomic Clocks have done absolutely nothing to displace astronomical observations for measurement of time over orders of magnitude longer intervals. However, Atomic Clocks both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial, have allowed us to make astronomical observations with far greater sensitivity and precision than was previously possible.

        3) Radioactive decay has given us the ability to learn a lot about the relative ages of things we find buried in the ground. We should not simply dis-regard this information because we find it disturbing.

        4) Those who claim they can “prove” how old are ancient objects, are mis-informed or mis-led.

    • Jim Hamstra
      06 May 2016 @ 12:27 pm

      Part 1: Trees and Pollen –

      This topic has already been explored in the article “Artful Clocks: Dendrochronology’s Limitations” by William Abbott and the numerous comments by Yours Truly and others. I see no point in repeating here what I already wrote there.

      “atoday.org/artful-clocks-dendrochronologys-limitations.html”

    • Jim Hamstra
      06 May 2016 @ 2:01 pm

      Part 2: Ash Clocks –

      This article reasons from the specific to the more general according to a well-defined pattern. First, describe your evidence. Next, state your assumptions. Finally, draw your conclusions (drawn from inferences applied to evidence using assumptions). So let us examine how well this method works in this specific article.

      I have no trouble with the descriptions of layers of volcanic deposits in the Palouse and the Columbia River gorge. I have been to these mountains and I have driven through these deposits, many times. I do live in Oregon and I do travel around the region frequently. I have no quarrel with the observed evidence.

      Next we read “Historically, we have human records or legends of volcanic eruptions during the last 4,000 years of at least 10 major Cascade volcanos (2).” However, if you click on the provided link, none of the 10 major eruptions described, occurred in the Cascades. So having read elsewhere about most of them previously, I fail to find in this article a connection to ash layers in the Palouse or the Gorge. Perhaps the author meant to say that major eruptions beyond the Cascades have also left identifiable deposits in these nearby places? This is a claim I could support but it is not the conclusion you would draw from Dr Hoehn’s article as it is written.

      (continued)

      • Jim Hamstra
        06 May 2016 @ 2:38 pm

        Regarding Mt Mazama and it caldera Crater Lake, I have visited there a few times. I have seen the video and the exhibits in the visitors’ center, and similar presentations at other natural history museums in Oregon. I have yet to see any derivation for the estimated date of 6,800 years ago given for this event. I think it is safe to say that since its signature ash deposits lie below the roughly 4,000 years of other deposits traceable to more recent eruptions in recorded history, the given date is plausible. But it is an Estimate, not a Fact. Yet every science presentation treats this given date as a fact.

        The link to the USGS Fact Sheet regarding the geological history of Mt St Helens is very interesting reading. Careful study revels that the mountain has gone through epochs of activity interspersed with epochs of dormancy. There is no attempt here to estimate based upon extrapolations from rates of ash layer accumulation. Rather the reconstruction of the last 50,000 years of (inferred) history is based upon radio-Carbon dating as organic material buried with the ash. There is no claim here that the ash accumulation itself represents an “independent clock”. Rather, Nuclear Clocks (see Part 4) are employed.

        (continued)

      • Jim Hamstra
        06 May 2016 @ 2:45 pm

        The given derivation for the estimate of perhaps 100,000 years of accumulated volcanic ash in the Palouse does not compute for me. Perhaps the author’s assumptions are not sufficiently explicit for me to reproduce the arithmetic? And does he assume that the generally accepted glacial epochs did not materially transport the underlying layers of ash? Or were they merely “surface erosion?

        I have no problem believing that the Palouse ash deposits represent 10s of thousands of years. Though it is possible they may represent 100s of thousands of years, there is nothing in this article that would convince me one way or the other. Whether they provide a useful independent “clock” is highly debatable.

  51. Jim Hamstra
    08 May 2016 @ 4:28 pm

    I appreciate that un-leashing this entire volley of comments at the end of Part 5 may seem a bit over-bearing.

    Unfortunately, we were not given the ability to post specific comments for each of the preceding Parts, so these comments do not appear in proper order or in proper context.

    EDIT by Jack: I rarely have reason to disagree in principal with Jim Hamstra. His reasoned voice is welcome to these discussions, and I am quite willing to accept corrections in the science, logic, or theology of what I am presenting.
    No where am I trying to establish or authenticate absolute dates for anything. This is a scientific question and must be answered by science. The purpose of my condensation of different ways of knowing the age of anything is not to present fixed dates for anything, except to state that when many different ways of looking at ages agree, it is more likely that their estimates are correct.
    I do not fully appreciate the difference for this purpose of a clock (that shows passage of a day) or a calendar (which we use to measure the passage of a year). So my choice of analogy for these articles is to a clock and the history of creation to a day, and that all the “clocks” show creation’s day was much much longer than 6,000 years of solar time.
    Mt. Mazuma’s eruption scientific consensus date seems reasonable to me, but that is not my point. The point is when I drive along the Columbia George from Walla Walla to Portland, that layer is revealed as a distinct layer of white ash less than a foot from the top of a cut that is 100 feet or more thick. And under the multiple layers of volcanic ash are volcanic lava or basalt flows before that, and under that are shifted continents moved in from someplace distant with continental drifts. So if it blew its top 4,000, 5,000, 6,000 years ago is not the point, the point it that whenever it was it was very recently in the history of earth. And the earth is 100’s of times older than that, at a minimum.
    My article is very simple, because I have one simple message. This world by any measure is very very old, and to impose a supposed Biblical Chronology from counting the ages of patriarchs you find in Scripture has to be wrong. Faith informs us God is Creator. And much evidence supports that. Science suggests long ages of the universe, earth, and life on earth, so informs us that Scripture is giving us an overview or simplification of God’s Creation.

    My church has taken a position on the chronology of life that is obviously in error by any reasonable evaluation of the evidence. We need to return the questions of the chronology of life to an opinion and not a doctrine in our faith. Then let us continue to hold to the revealed truth that God created life in 6 progressive steps outlined in Genesis 1. Then let’s argue the details and facts of the age of the earth and life on it as a scientific question, not a faith question.
    I hope Jim Hamstra can agree with me on that?

  52. Jack Hoehn
    15 May 2016 @ 8:09 am

    CLOSURE NOTE: Jack thanks the 1,230 readers of this article, and thinks the 101 comments have pretty well exhausted this topic. Readers will have to decide if the Adventist church has in council by vote made an error in elevating the chronology of creation to the status of a doctrine, or not.
    I also note that only about 200 plus or minus of the readers of this article have read all 5 articles in this series, so apparently the controversy is of more interest than the facts to many of us. But just an encouragement to read the articles in series before accepting or rejecting this suggestion.
    And at the end of many of the articles are references to some of my sources, listed for further study. If you seriously think Adventist truth, the Sabbath, and how to understand Scripture is endangered by the scientific evidence, please study those sources for further insights into how conservative, Bible believing Christians are not harmed in faith or practice by accepting valid science, and how you can accept the age of the earth without accepting Darwinian Evolution. Agreeing with science on facts like age of the earth, is the only way we can hope to help scientists and the world agree that the evidence also demands an Intelligent Designer that we can then introduce them to. This is Jack’s motive and plea, Adventism to remain a people of the Truth, not fable, and that we can still offer to this dying world a Savior who is true and much bigger than any of us knew in our childhood. The Comment Line will remain open, but I will not be monitoring it very often. Please contact me at drhoehn@msn.com if you have direct questions I can discuss with you one on one. Jack Hoehn