Noah’s Flood – A Lynchpin for the Creation Story
by Chris Barrett
It seems to me as the evidence for an old earth piles up and the debate heats up, there is an increasing absence of common sense and honesty from some participants. There is a massive and growing amount of evidence for an old earth, old life and an evolutionary process. In spite of this Young Earth Creationists (YEC) continue to defend their position. It seems to me anyone who has studied these data with an open mind should seriously question a 6000 year-old-earth, a special creation, and a global flood.
I am a Christian, but to me this evidence is beyond dispute. I find it frustrating and embarrassing when fellow Christians invoke fanciful, bizarre or outrageous explanations of geology, fossils and other data to defend their position.
For example, one YEC explanation for the Ice Age suggests that at some point in the flood, water erupted at supersonic speeds from a massive split around the planet. Starting below ground level it was able to rise above the atmosphere, freeze, and come down as hail, creating an instant Ice Age! Really?
I invite YEC to be confronted by their own authority – the Bible.
In Genesis the Bible describes a sequence of events immediately after Noah and through to Abraham. From it we get a quite detailed description of the land in the region of Israel, Sinai, and Egypt. We can compare this description with those very places today. When we do this we discover there is basically no difference geologically between the land that Noah and Abraham walked on, to that of today. Israel, the Sinai Peninsula and Egypt today are essentially unchanged. There may be more desert and less water, as time has passed, but the mountains, the rivers, the oceans and the shores are the same. What does this mean?
The unchanged landscapes of Israel, the Sinai Peninsula, and the deserts of Egypt define beyond dispute where in the geologic column of Noah's flood supposedly took place. This is at the very top. There are land forms and geologic features, on and under the surface of the land, which by their very nature must predate the Noah period.
Above the current ocean levels, in the deserts, and on the Sinai Peninsula, there are large sections of fossilized corals, and fossilized coral reefs. These were all there for Noah, Abraham, and Moses to kick their toes on. Corals do not grow in the desert, and yet they are there today, and it has been dry, at least since Noah built his ark.
How do we explain this? The size corals, which are still evident in these places, could never have grown during a 12 month flood, even in idealized conditions.
The only possible explanation is they must exist from an ocean prior to Noah's time. These corals overlay vast depths of the geologic column. There are up to 8 kilometers of depositional material, oil, and the recent discovery by Israel of the massive Leviathan Gas reserve, as proof in point. All these are deeper than corals in the deserts where Abraham walked.
Then there are the two massive salt domes in the Rift Valley, under the Dead Sea. The Mt Sodom and Lisan Diapirs, with some 500 cubic kilometers of salt being forced up from the depths. The Mt Sodom Diapir stretches from kilometers below surface and rises some 200 plus meters above the Dead Sea level. The Lisan Diapir's top remains over 100 meters below surface, stretching up from a depth of 7 kilometers.
These domes are gigantic, multi kilometer long, bubble like shapes rising ever so slowly to the surface, cutting through the thousands of meters of deposited material overlaying them.
YEC Flood proponents believe the Rift Valley opened up in the last several months of the flood, not at the beginning.
Surely there is no known, nor rationally imaginable scenario, whereby one can explain the emplacement of 500 km3 of highly soluble salt, in a freshly opened rift, underneath 7000 meters of depositional sedimentary material during the last few months of the flood after the waters had receded!
I have not yet even mentioned the significant chalk beds in Israel. If there was a scenario to explain these salt domes it also must explain the formation of the chalk beds within the same time frame. This is even more difficult!
I suggest unless we are willing to invent absurdities to defend God and Noah's story, it is much simpler, and more respectful of people's intelligence, to accept that the Rift Valley, and the salt domes predate Noah, and there has not been a significant flood event to disturb them since the salt was deposited.
There are many other fossil corals, reefs, salt domes and occurrences of the geologic column around the world, all dictating against a global flood. This is different in that there can be no argument as to their position in the column relative to the flood story. The Bible describes the land. Whatever Noah's flood was, it had nothing to do with the placement of the geologic column which lies underneath these features. The Biblical description and unchanged nature of the land proves this.
What about the creation week and a 6000 year old earth? Frankly, it is impossible to fit into even a casual observation of the geologic data. The thousands of meters of geologic column below Abraham's feet, the eons of time it suggests have passed, and the development of life form complexity from bottom to top, are the lynch pin which collapses the entire young earth and special creation story.
We Christians need to accept this and put our efforts into understanding God and a Gospel in relation to an old earth and old life framework. That is not easy, but perhaps only then can real dialogue take place.
Mr. Barrett contributes another voice of common sense and rationality to this overheated topic within the Adventist tradition. One conclusion from the decades of debate inside our little religious subculture on this subject is that the problem is primarily a theological and not a scientific one. From a calm rational perspective, the scientific evidence for deep time is overwhelming. Classical Adventism has positioned itself in a theological box and does not see any way out. A number of our theologians have offered a way out, but institutiional objections have only delayed the enevitable. It will take generations of slow adjustments as certain individuals and groups die out and others of larger vision come to take their place.
A couple comments:
1) We have ~100 methods pointing to a young age for earth and life and ~40 methods pointing to an old age. Does 40 beat 100 or 100 beat 40? Science is supposed to follow the weight of evidence and creation science has it in spades in most areas and easily beats universal common descent. But, the evolution and atheist establishments consistently refuse to follow the weight of evidence. They follow naturalism assertions instead and apriori rule out and actively hide and suppress much evidence that points to God and Bible truth being accurate. This violates even Darwin's own principle which I agree with:
“A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question" Charles Darwin, 1859, Introduction to Origin of Species, p. 2
Another fact is that even many of the 40 methods pointing to an old earth have recently been debunked by by many cases of soft tissue that have been found in dinosaurs. Even evolutionists agree that all science that we know shows that soft tissue can at max by 15-100,000 years old. So, that means that many of the old age methods can not possibly be accurate. But, of course evolutionists now are choosing to discard science and prop up universal common descent as they have many times in the past and trying to say that there must be a way that soft tissue can last 60+ million years.
See videos 1-5 here..and the notes as well.
http://www.youtube.com/user/TruthIsLife7#g/c/648C2EAD205F397C
See these links:
a) A summary of 100+ methods for laymen pointing to a young age for
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
b) Techniques That Argue for an Old Earth Are Either Illogical or Based on Unreasonable Assumptions.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences24.html#wp3303729
c) Most Scientific Dating Techniques Indicate That the Earth, Solar System, and Universe Are Young.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences33.html#wp2534183
d) Many technical papers on dating methods that support a young earth are here (and I have other sites as well, but most of the scientists here have degrees from secular universities and do quite good work):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/radiometric-dating
e) Scientists on dating methods pointing to a young earth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKbaHoINReA&feature=related
3) On the coral issue, see video 6 in this link.
http://www.youtube.com/user/TruthIsLife7#g/c/648C2EAD205F397C
4) On the evidence for a global flood, this is a very impressive new seminar on the vast evidence that exists for a global flood by respected German geologist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-BaMAt4dnE (Dr. Silvestru, Geology and Deep Time)
Start at 36:00. From ~54:00 there's a very good section on catastrophic plate tectonics.
Many more videos of evidence are here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TruthIsLife7#g/c/14FDE276E5C97E24 (videos 2-9 are by Dr. Wise with a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard. He deal with plant order in the fossils, one of the supposedly best evidences for universal common descent, showing how creation science is better even here).
3) Consistently when the Bible and conventional historical or scientific wisdom have conflicted, the Bible has been right. Whether it's the existence of Hittites, David, the Israelites in Egypt, spontaneous generation vs. biogenesis, steady state vs. a beginning and stretching of the universe, God's statements have proven trustworthy and unrivaled in accuracy. Sometimes it takes time for establishments to realize their pseudoscience for what it is…in the case of spontaneous generation it took 1500+ years. But, it consistently happens. It IS important to question BOTH the scientific and theological establishments since both have been and can be wrong. But, there's no rational reason to give up trust in what God has said (not everything in the Bible is what God has said tho) which has unrivaled accuracy far better than any scientific establishment over 1000s of years for man's current opinion. People who have chosen to follow man's wisdom instead of God's clear principles (such as bleeding patients as the Greeks taught instead of respecting the Bible's claim that "Life is in the blood") have caused untold misery and even much death. It's just not smart or rational.
This video summarizes Dr. Kuhn's Seminal work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" which shows that all over science, theories may have anomalies, due to human fallibility and lack of knowledge, etc…but scientists don't give up the theory because of that. Same goes for creation science and Bible claims. The weight of evidence is important..and the Bible as well as creation science has that in spades (I have ~200 videos in playlists on my youtube channel, http://www.youtube.com/user/truthislife7, showing this. See the creation playlists.) The problems are due to lack of human knowledge about science, not the Bible's being mistaken. This is a good intro video to Kuhn's view of science that are critical to understand. The Big Bang for example has a serious horizon problem among others, yet scientists don't abandon it (I think it has good evidence too..and if true is a great support for the existence of God).
Fundamentals of Scientific Understanding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSDvkDApMso (start ~1:25)
That's only a small bit of evidence. I'm working on a book on all sorts of issues between creationist and evolutionists, Christians and atheists..trying to get it publishable this year hopefully.
Bryan
Make sure you watch the flood video by Dr. Silvestru above..that's a VERY solid one. It's part of a recent very good creation superconference here:
http://www.thestreamtv1.com/School_Of_Creation/index.html
I looked at the links. Much of the arguments are attacks on the science and data and a reinterpretation to fit the data into a shorter time scale. Oh well, nice propaganda. Humans invent gods by the hundreds.
Common sense, or blissful ignorance? The evidence against an old earth is what is mounting. Mr. Barrett igonres all the evidence compiled by Creationist scientists over the years. I wonder if he has even listened to the lectures on creation vs. evolution by our own Dr. Walter J. Veith? Peter described well the attitude taken by Mr. Barrett and others like him: "all things continue as they were from the beginning . . . . " I Peter 3:4. Uniformitarianism makes assumptions that cannot be proven and all conclusions based on those assumptions are dubious at best.
The eruption of Mt. St. Helens showed how rapidly sedimentary deposits can be made, and canyons formed. There are so many unwarranted assumptions that must be made to achieve the alleged age of the earth that the effort ceases to be true science.
I expect this sort of nonsense from the agnostic and the atheist, but from a SDA? Why is it that so many will accept science over the Bible when the two are in disagreement? With so many discrepancies and errors in the radiometric dating methods how could anyone place any faith in their conclusions?
The blatant rejection of the Spirit of Prophecy that underlies many of these assumptions is a sad commentary on how far we have fallen.
Very good comments. The links in the above post might be helpful as well.
Mr. Butler seems not to know that very few scientists, including many Adventist scientists, take "creation science" arguments for a young earth or young life serioiusly. The general validity of most radiometic dating methods have been well validated. Current objections almost entirely derive from non-scientists and are based on theological and not scientific objections.
I assume that the term "Spirit of Prophecy" used by Mr. Butler refers to the views of Ellen G. White (This is not the place to note the inappropriate traditional use in classical Adventism of that Biblical term to refer to her). I would suggest that placing her views in proper historical and theological context constitutes an excellent commentary on how far, in a positive direction, a matured Adventism has progressed.
"The general validity of most radiometic dating methods have been well validated." So do you now accept the finding that the U/Pb ratios in U-238 halo centers in Jurassic and Triassic coalified wood indicate that those samples are not nearly as old as evolutionists assert?
"… a matured Adventism has progressed." On what logical and rational basis do you believe that regression from sola scriptura back to a pre-Reformation exaltation of human opinion above the Word of God is in fact "progress"? Typically "progress" does not denote a retreat, and I do not see how an abandonment of sola scriptura, given the history of the last 2500 years, can honestly be called "progression" rather than "regression."
Why do so many accept science over the Bible?
This was the position of the church when confronted with Galileo's finding that the earth revolved around the sun, not the sun revolving around the earth which was inferred from the Bible. When did Adventism stand by the Bible rather than choosing the scientific evidence? How long does it take for Adventism to finally agree with scientific findings? Only in medical science is the Bible diagnosing and treating of diseases discarded. Do Adventists accept Mendel's discovery? Do they accept that the universe is billions of years old, which cannot be disproved with the astronomical discoveries? Ignoring the discoveries of scientists in geology, paleoanthropology and the earth sciences only brings disrepute in the educated populace who may be those they are trying to convert.
Unfortunately for those who bow down to the god of science, too often today's "science" is tomorrows myth, as new discoveries are made. But the Word of God is constant and unchangeable. Only our understanding of it increases.
Horace,
Science does not make the claim of being a god. Science is a methodology which illuminates mechanisms underlying natural phenomena. Even SDA theologians interpret the bible outside of itself taking into account, language issues and ancient culture. The creation story is a rehash of the Babylonian creation myth. That makes sense when you put genesis into context with knowledge that the Babylonians carted off the Jews into slavery for a time.
Hogwash!
Elaine,
The church had accepted Aristotle's ideas of geocentrism. Galileo challenged THAT understanding that the church tried to twist the Bible to fit. Dr. Hannam deals with this extensively in his recent book.
Out of 1000s of cultures, it was the Bible, Creation science and Christian scientists that laid and built the foundations of modern science, its most important processes and pioneered most of its branches. The records of history show that much of modern science as well as other aspects of modern civilization was built on a theistic superstructure and modern atheism is just a fa?de built on that. Not only the foundation but much of the interior that holds up the structure was built largely by creationists, and they were drawing both principles and specific scientific concepts directly from the Word of God.
Dr. Hannam has degrees in physics and history from Oxford and London universities and a Ph.D. in the history of science from Cambridge University and wrote “God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science". He just released a new book, “The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution” This has been reviewed very positively by major secular scientists and organizations:
“Well-researched and hugely enjoyable”. New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/08/the-great-and-the-quite-good-best-books-of-2009.html
“It is engaging, informative and I heartily recommend it.” says Ruth Francis, Head of Press for Nature http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/10/ruths_reviews_gods_philosopher_1.html.
Dr. Hannam also gave an overview of the above book in a presentation at the Royal Society (1st scientific society in history which was started by a creationist Christian John Wilkins who also published ideas on speciation in the 1600s, LONG before Darwin.) about how Christianity and the creationist view of the world laid the foundations of modern science that no other culture ever achieved (Dr. Hannam is not a creationist. He’s an evolutionist. But, he agrees that the creationist view was fundamental to the development of modern science. This makes the claim even stronger since it is admitted by an evolutionist). Watch it here and a rough summary of it is after the review of the book belw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-k24Q01vck
Bryan,
A degree in physics, or disciplines in biology (biophysics, physiology, molecular biology) or chemistry do not validate the "truth" of the genesis creation myth.
Biblical descriptions of "a sequence of events immediately after Noah and through to Abraham" will describe only the post-Flood world, because the Flood came during Noah's life. The Bible does not give a detailed description of the land in the region of Israel, Sinai and Egypt until the time of Abraham, and he lived at least 500 years after the Flood, and possibly more like a thousand years afterward, depending upon variations in the chrono-genealogical data among biblical manuscripts. There would have been time for quite of bit of geological activity including fluctuations in sea levels.
The fossil corals of Sinai are quite young geologically (dated from 15,000 to 2 million) and are very likely post-Flood. There have apparently been several fluctuations in sea level relative to land on the Sinai in the geologically recent past. This is apparent from shelves or terraces that have formed at the site of ancient coastlines. No creationist disputes that sea levels have fluctuated–especially relative to any given piece of land–in the post-Flood era. A post-Flood Ice Age would have lowered sea levels world wide, and then raised them again as the glaciers melted away.
There have been fluctuations in sea level relative to land in the historical past, as indicated by the columns on a temple of Serapis at Pozzuoli, Italy. The temple was built by the ancient Romans, obviously above sea level, but subsidence had sunk the temple to some 23 feet of column depth, as indicated by scarring to the columns caused by the marine bivalve Lithodomus. Subsequently, volcanic eruption lifted the temple above sea level again. Charles Lyell was so impressed by this proof of geological activity that he put an engraving of the temple columns in the frontispiece of Principles of Geology. Apparently, similarly fluctuations have occurred on the Sinai.
Regarding the salt domes in the rift valley, it seems apparent that aspects of the Genesis Flood were conducive to massive precipitation of salt. Likely this precipitation was spread evenly along the bottom, but currents gathered it into the deepening rift, like sweeping dirt into a crack in the sidewalk, creating a very large salt deposit. Subsequent Flood-deposited sediment buried the large salt deposit, but because salt is generally less dense than the overlying sediment, it tends to move upward toward the surface, forming domes, diapirs, sheets, pillars and other structures as it rises.
The same conditions that caused massive precipitation of salt also caused massive blooms of diatoms, and/or precipitation of calcium carbonate. The Cretaceous chalks are thought to be the result of slow diatom oozes over long ages, but very slow deposition is inconsistent with the preservation of fossils found in the Cretaceous chalk in North America, such as in the Niobrara Formation, and the preservation of whale fossils in diatomaceous Cenozoic deposits in Peru. See here:
http://origins.swau.edu/who/chadwick/raul.pdf.
There's really nothing in Mr. Barrett's article that shakes my faith in the biblical chronology. Darwinists interpret according to their model, and we creationists interpret according to ours.
Mr. Read is quite correct: scientists interpret according to their model and Young Life Creationists interpret according to their model. The first refects reality and the second reflects wishful thinking.
Erv,
If you were truly an objective scientist, I would think you would be open to all possibilities, and not be making derogatory comments about creation science. Yet you have here denied that creation scientists are really scientists, and have essentially called evolution reality and creation science wishful thinking. Does not this smack of bigotry as well as demonstrate a lack of objectivity?
Again, a truly objective scientist would not be closed-minded to any possible explanations of the evidence.
Bob calling Creationism a science is an oxymoron. Creation implies the supernatural and places creationism outside the realm of science. Science can only investigate natural causation, not supernatural.
I blame literacy. We as a society have been literate for hundreds of years. We have forgotten what it is like to not be able to read or write. We have forgotten that stories maybe used purposes other that the actual story. Maybe I tell a story about a man who takes a great jouney, but the point is not about the man but it is a memory aid, it is a map of the area. The Peace Make story of the Iroquois isn't just a founding story of how they came to be, it is actually their constition.
I don't know what purposes the original telling of the Genesis stories had. I do know it was written from an eastern non-linear mind set and not a western scientific linear mind set. Some of the earliest manuscripts didn't have word breaks, vowel, or punctuation. I think it is wise to recogize the inherent uncertainty of our understanding of scripture.
To stake everything on a story that is thousands of years old, while similar ones in other cultures are readily acknowledged to be only their way of describing the beginning of the earth, is to accept only one, in the Bible, that is absolutely scientifically true in every detail. It has acquired that position because it was designated long ago as "God's Word" and could not contain errors, contradictions, and was literally true.
The Genesis story was told for thousands of years before it was finally written down. Prior to that, it was passed down through hundreds of generations, each teller was interpreting the story as he told it. There was no miracle involved in protecting it from possible error, and there is much evidence that there are contradictions and several voices in many of the Torah's stories.
The Hebrew Bible was a DESCRIPTION of the world its people lived and functioned in, and not a PRESCRIPTION for people of all time. If it were, we would be obeying orders to kill all foreigners; take their virgins for wives, and believe in talking serpents and donkeys and sea creatures that swallow humans who live after three days.
If one chooses to read the Bible literally, there are enormous problems, especially in explaining the numerous contradictions. However, if seeking principles of life–mostly from the NT, there are many benefits. The literal reading has caused more atheists than is possible to calculate.
Almost no book is intended to be read only literally or only symbolically. People are not using their minds very rationally when they force it to be only one or the other. The Bible is a large book with major parts that are indisputably literal, including creation science, but also parts that are symbolic, poetic, idiomatic and more.
Some of the OT commands were not for all time true. Not everything said in the Bible was meant to be followed in all situations at all times. Some was only for specific contexts were God condescended to meet the people where they were…even what He asked them to do was not always His ideal…but maybe step 1 or 2 towards His ideal. Even at Jesus time, Jesus couldn't say all he wanted because they were slow to understand.
People refusing to take God's words literally when they are obviously so and in context and metaphorical, etc. such as the health commands..and God's statements that hell is something that devours, NOT ETERNAL, has driven millions from belief in God and harmed millions in real life.
David Read wrote,
"The fossil corals of Sinai are quite young geologically (dated from 15,000 to 2 million)"
Wow. Do you mean 2 million years or 2 million days old?
It appears that there may be two Huge misunderstandings here, one on the part of Bible students, and the other on the part of Science students.
1.)Adventist Bible students have made the mistake of assuming that the Bible contains a chronology of creation, and that guesses and conjectures about how and when God created are from the Bible — in fact the Bible has no chronology of when creation happened, and next to nothing about how God created. The Bible states that God created, but it does not tell how or when he created. That is conjecture. May I quote Sister White on this? “Just how God accomplished the work of Creation, he has never revealed to men…” Ellen G. White, Christian Education, page 193.
2.) Science students have made the huge mistake of thinking that if the evidence shows that the creation of life as we know it took a long time, that it could have happened by itself due to random chance mutations and survival of the stronger or so called fittest. In fact no mutations are ever observed to increase fitness, even when some have a temporary survival advantage such as the sickle cell trait in malaria lands. The DNA code found in every fossil and living form of life proves that intelligence and organization pre-dates any forms of life. All life forms were planned and designed capable of adapting, growth, and development. Darwinian mechanisms for the creation of life are in fact scientifically dead, but most scientists either don't yet understand this, and are unwilling to admit it for philosophical and religious reasons.
So with Bible studings thinking wrongly their guesses and suppositions about the Bible, are the same as "believing the Bible"; and Science students thinking wrongly that long time and evolving creatures prove no Designer was needed; is it any wonder we have an apparently insoluble conflict?
How I yearn for Adventist Bible Students honest enough to admit our past errors of misunderstanding of what the Bible was really saying in Genesis. (See the records of the Adventist Forum Genesis meetings September 2-4, in Chicago.)
And for Adventist Scientists who will thoughtfully and fully support the science of Intelligent Design, which is truly on the cutting edge of scientific advance.
And for Adventists Theologians who are brave enought to get out of the unexamined ruts they are stuck in, and start at Genesis, but not end there. We have guidance beyond Genesis from Ellen White. The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan is on display in the geologic record for all to see. Adventism knows that that Controversy between Light and Darkness (John 1:1-4) didn't begin in the garden of Eden, it began in heaven during the planning for the creation of life on earth. Satan and his fallen rebels have been on earth from the first Creation Day till the last Creation Day. It is time to understand that the Conflict of the Ages, has been going on for ages on earth, long before the creation and fall of man, as well as since then. So many made up problems dissapear if we could use our Adventist theology in new and innovative ways.
Back to the past is never the route the Adventist Movement has taken before. It will be our death knell to try it now. Let our elected leader-servants run the mechanics of church organization. Let the Spirit of God lead our theology foward to accept the facts of a clearer understand of what the Bibles does and does not say, and what true Science does and does not say.
How I yearn for that! How I yearn….
What I wish for is a creationist who takes a look at the various questions which the DNA code raises for its model and then goes on to explain the data after the creation model. Creationists talk about statistics, geology, astronomy, chemistry and a number of other fields of science which are unrelated to biology when they try to show that the unifying theory in biology is wrong. Where are the critics of biology who are willing to use biological arguments to do so? Could any of the creationists reading this blog write an article critisizing evolution from a genetic/systematic biology perspective? Dont forget to adress the issue of how nonessential parts of DNA are mostly identical between closely related species.
Thomas,
Interesting post and you are correct abut the DNA sequences. However, some genes are almost identical even between very disparate species. The genese that control the expression of calcium pumps in neurons that we study are almost identical from human down to the fruit fly. Also referring to the "non essential" DNA, we now understand that this intronic DNA probably codes for micro RNA that controls the translation of mRNA. There is a big explosion in this area. Good reading and you can google and get some good reviews.
Since the natural world and observations of it cannot either prove how life began on this planet, nor disprove the biblical six-day creation narrative—despite evidence of trends that lead to admittedly logical conclusions of at least how life has continued on this planet, if not how it began as well—it is then at least as intellectually valid to believe in ID and/or the six-day creation narrative as it is to disbelieve them; notwithstanding any/all inevitable protestations of pretentious erudition to the contrary.
As for “deep time,” how does the biblical account that “the earth was without form and void; and darkness covered the face of the deep” enter the equation; since we are given no biblical clue as to how long “the earth” was in existence in this (above-described) condition?
As for DNA, since the genetic code is at its essence “information” in the truest sense of the word, from where did the information originate? Who or what actually provided the information in the DNA code?
As Cris Carter would say, “C’mon man!”
Stephen, you must not only look at the power of the accepted science to describe these things, and decide that any lack it has automatically makes ID or six day creation valid alternatives. You must also look at ID and six-day creation on their own merits in describing the evidence and be able to conclude that they in fact give better answers than does the standard science. Better as defined through explaining the evidence.
Thomas,
For me, it is a fools errand to try to reconcile the conclusions drawn from the tools and theories employed by limited and (by definition) faulty men/women who seek to explain the origin of life on earth. Attempts to reconcile science with the purposefully mysterious ways of God invites confusion.
Scientific methods are designed to "make sense" within that arena — to be proven and validated by limited processes. Science rejects the subjective and dismisses the unprovable. Spiritual things are, for scientists, against their religion, so to speak. "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned," 1 Corinthians 2:14. Creation was a spiritual event (Genesis 1:2).
Mixture of the two (science and the spiritual) is incompatible (including the so-called "creation scientists," in my opinion). "My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts," says the LORD. "And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine." Isaiah 55:8. Debates about the two will, by their nature, be frustratingly circular.
Thus, they devolve into name-calling.
Preston, are those of us trying to understand Genesis and the rest of the Bible, not just as "limited and (by definition) faulty" as those struggling with Science? Or do you feel you and I get a special ability when we think we understand Genesis?
Jack, I believe that, in our own (intellectual) power alone, Genesis and the rest of the Bible is more difficult to understand than chemistry and biology. It is only by the revelation of the Holy Spirit that the Bible is has symmetry and clarity. For me, reading the Word is a spiritual venture, primarily.
Preston
How does what you wrote relate to what Stephen wrote? Was he not arguing in the limited and faulty way which your protested?
Thomas,
Although I think that Stephen has powerful genetic intellectual gifts (smile, please), I agree that debating spiritual issues from a scientific basis is a trap for everyone in the conversation. However, if we are to discuss the "deep time" scenario rationally, it seems logical and important to consider the "without form and void" factor (re: to the pre-creation description of the earth in Genesis 1:2) in the formation or examination of ID or evolution theories.
Preston,
Just a thought, but it was EW who said "science and the Bible, correctly understood, do not contradict" (not sure on verbatum). Then again, one of her bio's implied that she was afraid of saying a word for fear it would be taken as inspiration.
IMO, the only book more cryptic than Genesis is Job. Wow, God and the devil making bets on whether Job would cave?? It seems that some things are just meant to be stories, and sketches.
songbird,
Mrs. White is very likely correct, but her premise ("science and the Bible correctly understood . . .") provides a thruway of escape. In 54 years, I have yet to find an arbiter of the "correct understanding" of science OR the Bible, much less the intersection of the two!
I'm with Elaine on this one.
Cheers.
I guess the old maxim is true. A person will believe what he wants to believe, no matter where the evidence points.
Horace,
As an old salesman, I can attest to this. We were trained to leverage the fact that people buy for emotional reasons and cite facts to justify and rationalize their decision.
I am emotionally tied to God. On purpose.
Interesting. I have not yet abandoned the idea of creation in 6 days, but I suspect if I listened any more to Veith et al that I likely would. I know only enough science to get myself into trouble, so I tend not to focus on science. But I cannot fit history into 6000 years. I especially cannot fit everything between the earliest evidence of civilisation and the time of Abraham into a few hundred years.
Every so often someone hits upon a theory from some scholar that places an event within a timeframe that allows for a flood around 2500 BC and it gets shared eagerly around. But it usually leaves 99% of the evidence unaccounted for. The latest was the claim that Indo-European languages arose about 2200BC, which is close to the time of Babel. That was put forward as 'scientific' evidence that the tower of Babel story could be true. Unfortunately, it doesn't account for the need some language families have for a time depth of 15-40,000+ years. Australian and Austronesian require that long, and the Indo-Pacific/Papuan languages may require up to twice that time. If the suggestion of a connection between the Australian and Papuan languages is correct, then even more time is needed. We could, as some have suggested, accept the idea that God may have confused languages a number of times, artifically speeding up changes that would take generations so they took only a few years. But when you start talking about parents speaking a language unintelligible to their children, and this being repeated for generations, I think we have left the realm of reality.
I can accept the basic message of the Bible: God created everything there is. I even can accept, by faith, that he did it in 6 days. Beyond that, things get fuzzy.
You should watch the links in my post near the top of the page. There is vast evidence for creation science that many have never understood or been aware of.
Does anyone really believe that the uses of numbers the Bible are literal? It would seem to me they are more symbolic. With most of them being symbolic as in Revelation's 144,000, how could we decide where to draw the line between literal and symlbolic or just a wild guess. The use of numbers over a million isnn't used in the early civilizations as far as I can find. We know the chronologies are not written to be literal as they are different and have other points to be made. The parables the same thing–it is what they mean and not that they actually happened as stated (i.e., the richman and Lazarus).
I would say the Bible writers were of a different mindset than today and certainly not science oriented. Maybe they were post-modern, a term that scientists just hate!
Why can't we just realize and recognize that science and religion cannot ever be harmonized, nor should they be. Religion depends on faith; science cannot claim faith but seeks evidence while religion needs no evidence.
No, we do not agree Elaine. Most of us can not accept the schizophrenia of two incompatible worlds. We are spiritual and material beings, and we want one God to rule both. We may not have done a good job yet of reconciling both, but just giving up is not an option we accept. Sorry!
Keep trying! Maybe the one who finds the key to unlock the dilemma will explain to the rest of us. For some, we simply don't have the time or energy to keep trying to find the key.
In response to cb25's comment ("To accept an evolutionary process does not throw out God.
"): no, it does not throw out God, but it makes Him into a liar, and undermines His written word; because the Scriptures assume the veracity of the Genesis record, and give no hint of evolution. If we can't accept Gen. 1-11 at face value, then how about the virgin birth and the resurrection? In churches which have acccepted the myth of evolution, many people have also come to deny the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus. There is a domino effect, and it is inevitable.
I wonder, which is least damaging to God? That we, given our present assumptions read parts of the bible in a different way than what it was intended for? Or that God made the world in such a way that anyone who would study it close enough would have to conclude that it was made in a different way than what really took place?
I can see that there will be no meeting of the minds on this, because, from my perspective, it is becoming more and more foolish to perpetuate an OEC position, given the mountain of evidence that's out there. I've been studying this issue for decades myself, and not just SDA sources. The prevailing theories on the age of the earth are shot full of holes, but the biases in the scientfic community are such that these holes are patched over with clever rhetoric.
And by the way, if we can't ascribe supreme authority (infallibility, inerrancy) to Scripture, then we might as well "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
But I thought our traditional position was that we did not ascribe inerrancy to Scripture. We seem to be careful to circumscribe the infallibility of Scripture also.
For Christians, this contradictory dichotomous practice of interpreting scientific information in ways that “disprove” the Biblical narrative is ultimately silly and nonsensical. It does not make sense—at all—to accept the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent, omniscient creator via the Bible, while simultaneously arbitrarily disbelieving the Bible when it concerns things that are literally supernatural—on the basis that they are supernatural.
On the other hand, it is at least logically coherent not to believe in the concept of an omnipotent, benevolent, omniscient creator—or anything in the Bible of a supernatural basis—because of the supernatural nature of that which is described therein.
Stephen
You missunderstand the problem. At least for me it is not a case of "arbitrarily disbelieving the Bible when it concerns things that are literally supernatural–on the basis that they are supernatural". It is rather a case of accepting the reality that events that take place leave vissible results. Volcanic eruptions leave lava beds, earthquakes cause the breakdown of structures and/or tsunamis. Supernatural events also leave visible evidence. Elisha returning the Shunamite womans son to life would have given her grandchildren through this son, Jesus multiplying bread and fish would have left a very pleased crowd of people. Events leave different kinds of results in the world, and major events such as the creation of the world or a worldwide flood should leave huge and unmistakable results.
The problem isnt that the events in question are supernatural but that rock and stone and cell tell a different story.
Oh, I think I understand the problem all right. The problem is that the Bible is believed at will, arbitrarily, for a variety of reasons; that is what arbitrarily literally means. You claim to believe the Bible’s supernatural claims when you see evidence that satisfies your sensibilities, someone else may have a different standard for belief.
The point is that to “believe” arbitrarily is a nonsensical copout; in fact, the mother of all copouts in my view.
Belief in the God of the Bible is logically an all or nothing proposition. It makes no sense to believe in Him and not to believe any and all of His claims of supernatural actions.
Jesus said that "because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Thus, it is good to believe without having seen the evidence, but at the same time it is clear that the evidence exists to be seen for those whos faith is weak. You summarised my view as "You claim to believe the Bible’s supernatural claims when you see evidence that satisfies your sensibilities". This is not how I would summarise it. I did not require that I personally must see the evidence, only that the evidence exist so that someone can see it. I have not seen the grandchildren of the woman of Shunem, nor have I spoken with anyone who was feed by Jesus on that mountain some 2000 years ago, but there have existed people who have been close friends with the witnesses of these events. The problem with creationism and ID are that evidence exists, and that this evidence points in a different direction compared to where the miracle requires it to point.
Huh?? Bear with me Thomas, but I do not understand what you are saying. It is impossible for me to determine whether you agree with yourself or not.
Since faith is in part “…the evidence of things not seen,” are you saying that you–or someone–either can be, should be, or needs to be influenced by the evidence of things that are seen in order to…what, somehow modify faith?
Whether I agree with myself or not.. My previous post uses the defining supernatural event of christianity as its startingpoint, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is the event which singularely makes the difference between you and I being christians and not being so, and we believe it by faith because we have not seen it. But the 12 disciples saw the resurrected Jesus, His mother and other people who followed Jesus saw Him resurrected. Paul uses the existance of about 500 eyewitnesses as a major point of support for the gospel.
Thus I am saying that Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, pointed out that the evidence of Jesus resurrection (the supreme supernatural event as recognised by christians) was seen by and influenced more than 500 eyewitnesses to produce faith in them.
Also, in the first letter of John we read "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life."
And in the second letter of Peter we read: "For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain."
Clearly, it was important for these apostles to stress that the supernatural event which they proclaimed was no mere exalted idea or thought structure but a real event to which they were either personally witnesses to or for which living witnesses in bulk could be found. Nowhere in the bible are supernatural events something which is expected to be believed against or despite evidence. Rather, supernatural events are the evidence which supports Gods claims.
Some observations:
Noah did not have a flood, God is who produced.
The evolutionist try to explain thinks of the past considering present conditions, but they do only when is convenient to them they.
If they were consistent with the principal to judge the past with present conditions they will find out the evolution backbone even is weaker that the “flood”. The great example is mutations (key stone of evolution). At present time we know and mutations are deleterious and lethal, but they wanted us to believe the opposite (make us better, stronger, more intelligent), So science is against the backbone of evolution.
How old the earth is only the creator knows. But saying that dead was before sin is just heresy. Goes against the teaching of the eternal gospel.
Mutations also never add information. At best they rearrange informaton or lose it altogether. There is no know mechanism by which new genetic material can be spontaneously added to an organism.
The evidence for the flood is worldwide. That it was fairly recent is also apparent. The evidence is there, if one is willing to look for it.
Mutation plus selection does add information.
The evidence against a recent worldwide flood is overwhelming. Just say a miracle happened to make the world look old and all is well. Don't try to use science or any kind of observation as evidence that a miraculous event occured. The occurance of a miraculous event is not falsifiable.
Roscoe stated “Mutation plus selection does add information”
I agree with that. The question is what kind of information?
Here is where science goes against evolution. The mutations that we observe and are reproducible are deleterious and lethal. I can mention hundreds even thousand examples of them.
Now show us 50 mutations that make us better, what about 10? maybe 5? having hard time?… what about at lest one.
Inducing mutations has been a plant breeding technique for almost a hundred years now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding
This would obviously not work if all mutations were deleterious and lethal.
Now you have to be careful what you compare and how is done.
In plants they do the mutations with x rays and chemicals. And still we don’t know the long term effects.
Try that in animals or humans and you will see the result is the deleterious and deathly. Hiroshima Nagasaki Chernobyl rings the bell?
The example is sufficient to show that the generalisation of calling all mutations deleterious and lethal is false. I did not attempt to say neither more nor less than that.
Thomas just you did not mention one mutation that makes us better. I can give you thousands of examples that mutations are deleterious and lethal. Do you see where the evidence is?
Hoarces post said that mutations never add information to an organism. I failed to see that your comment on "deleterious and lethal" was restricted to only humans. My bad..
As a Christian I have to reject what is being proposed here because of its logical conclusions: There is no God.
The author or Hebrews says that: "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." (Heb 11:3).
But faith for Ervin Taylor, Barret and others = wishful thinking.
Just who has proposed that there is no God?
How can there be a God if there is has never been any natural or scientific evidence of such a Being?
ANYONE who suggests that scientific observation of fossils, rocks, or cells, or…whatever, is determinative as to whether the Bible’s version of origins is correct (or plausible) is using this logic; whether they admit it to anyone–or even to themselves–or not.
Roscoe, you must read between the lines. We may speak in cryptic terms and yet be unable to avoid the logical conclusions of what we're saying.
It is by faith that we accept the reading of the Geological column that accomodates a creator God. It's faith that leads us to accept that what we see may not be what was, i.e., evidence of millions of years between the layers of.
You need to trash God in order to accomodate Mr. Bartlett and Taylor's views. That is the inescapable fact.
The question has been asked: "Just who has proposed that there is no God?"
Perhaps one good calm and rational answer would be EVOLUTIONISTS!
T
Theistic evolutionists believe in God. Believing in God and agreeing with you are not the same thing.
If evolutionists believe there is a God, they don't a believe a word he says…
As a factual matter, many evolutionists believe in God, but question the truthfulness of what humans, who say that they speak for God, say about Him/Her. Even Ellen White took the position that God is not represented in the words that mere humans use to describe God.
If the choice is between what "humans" say about God, I'll choose the ones who wrote Scriptures. It has stood the test of time, can't say the same for atheistic or theistic scientists.
Scriptures, Brother Taylor, that's the standard. If you can't agree on that, then you should not theologize, stick with a-theistic science.
Theistic evolutionists believe in Jesus as the Christ ?
Simple answer to David's simple question: Some do and some don't.
Chris,
The salt domes you speak of as large bubbles rising slowly, what are the surrounding sediments like? Are they violently fractured by the rising salt? What I am asking is if these sediments appear to have been solid, hard rock at the time the salt apparently rose, or do they give the appearance of being softer? If they appear to have been softer, then a flood scenario is the likely explanation, since that model calls for a lot of sedimentary layers to potentially all be soft at the same time.
As far as the origin of the salt itself, consider Walter Brown's theory in In the Beginning, which calls for the waters that gushed out of the earth during the Flood to be highly mineralized. As far as corals go, I think possible explanations for these have been floating around for decades, after modern storms caused corals to "grow" rapidly when coral was transported and rammed into existing coral in another location. (I'm not sure where you got the 80-year figure between the Flood and Abraham.)
For your next blog entry, why not try a different approach? Why not take what the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy say about creation, the Flood, and the age of the earth, and look for possible explanations of the evidence that support these divinely inspired sources rather than contradict them? After all, this is Adventist Today, and so it might be assumed that these various blogs here will not undermine Adventism's fundamental belief in the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice, including matters of faith or belief regarding origins.
Was it mutation that caused the southern hemisphere humans to have darker skins because of climate, and the northeners to have lighter skin?
Was it harmful or beneficial (to the people) to have sickle cell that prevented malaria, while at the same time causing damage? Did it allow larger population to survive that might have otherwise died of malaria? (Children are more vulnerable.)
Does the "increased knowledge" relate to mutation or what? Mere education? Do genes mutate to improve the race, e.g., the approximately dozen members of the most talented musicians of the Bach family? Does acquired knowledge improve the genes through generations? We now know more about nature than has ever been known previously, and we shouldn't discount all the genetic discoveries in the past decade which may reveal information that contradicts much of received intelligence. Should we dare limit our knowledge to what is known currently?
Mrs. Nelson I will assume I’m talking to my gram mother. With the respect I will say “Abuelita”
Was it mutation that caused the southern hemisphere humans to have darker skins because of climate, and the northeners to have lighter skin?
Depends how far (south or north) you wanted to go because people that had close to the North Pole they are the similar color to the ones who live in South America.
Was it harmful or beneficial (to the people) to have sickle cell that prevented malaria, while at the same time causing damage?
We know that this mutation results in deleterious effects a live full of pain (while in crisis) and died sooner if medical treatment is provided.
Did it allow larger population to survive that might have otherwise died of malaria? (Children are more vulnerable.)
Who knows but not every single place that is found malaria they have sickle cell.
Does the "increased knowledge" relate to mutation or what? Mere education?
Abuelita i don’t understand your question
Do genes mutate to improve the race, e.g., the approximately dozen members of the most talented musicians of the Bach family?
No as far we know, on the contrary mutation resulted in diseases and death. The Nazis at one point they really believed in evolution and they implemented their diabolical methods to exterminate other “inferior races”
The family of Back have a mutation to makes they great musicians? Hum… they have to prove.
Does acquired knowledge improve the genes through generations?
Is complicated, we know that smart, normal and retarded children may born from very intelligent parents. Genius kids are born from average parents and when they have their own kids they could have intelligent, normal or retarded children. (Linear regression)
Should we dare limit our knowledge to what is known currently?
Of course not, but what we know is pretty clear that mutations are against evolution. If some day is proven that mutations makes better, stronger, more intelligent we may have to accept the facts. By the same talk if same day the sasquatch appear we may have to accept his existence and maybe we could invite him eat a cake with Ice cream. But until day this are just wishful thinking
I will strongly agree with the question and statement below raised by Mr. Butler among his other very pertinent, calm and rational comments:
T
David, you wrote:
"The family of Back (sic) have a mutation to makes they great musicians? Hum… they have to prove.
Evidently you are not familiar to what the majority of musicians say is the greatest musician of all time: Johann Sebastian Bach. His family for many generations were widely known throughout Europe. He composed all his music dedicated "Sola de Gloria" and composed dozens of masses, religious cantatas and more.
I was not referring if the family of Bach were accomplished musicians. I was referring that somebody has to prove if this was because they have a “specific genetic mutation”. Is most likely that their accomplishments were a result of the environment (good lessons, high stimulation, family pressure etc, etc) that a genetic mutation.
But then the question arises: Are such effects only dependent on environment, or is it possible that increased education plus environment cannot be transmitted genetically?
I recall some years ago reading of an adopted boy who was always so different from the family who raised him–poorly educated, but loving, parents with little exposure to other worlds outside their immediate small town. He began early to be extremely interested in the arts and theater, and long afterward, he discovered the identity of his parents: they were both Shakespearean actors! There was nothing in his environment that would have given him such interest.
This has been shown repeatedly in twin studies: twins separated at birth when meeting in adulthood had many more same interests from foods to hobbies and even dress preferences!
Of course that question is interesting but somebody has to prove, to identify the “specific mutation”, but like I said before until now is wishful thinking.
A more serious question is why not all the descendents of Bach are great musicians?
Mr. Fogg has again contributed to reasonable discourse on this thread with the comment: “The evidence against a recent worldwide flood is overwhelming. Just say a miracle happened to make the world look old and all is well.” Excellent suggestion although that approach might call into question what kind of God would do that. But that is for another discussion.
GRI ) of the Adventist Church, which has spend literally millions of dollars of tithe money over a period of more than 30 years, had such a difficult time coming up with solid scientific evidence supporting the idea of a recent world wide flood? Do they need to spend more money? How much longer should they be given? At some point, perhaps a reasonable person would conclude that the GRI has been given an impossible task because convincing scientific evidence simply does not exist.
Might I ask those who insist that there is a lot of evidence in favor of a recent worldwide flood why the Geoscience Research Institute (
Erv,
A reasonable person cannot conclude that such does not exist if they have read the literature. The U/Pb ratios in coalified wood samples from Triassic, Juerassic, and Creatceous strata would be just one example. David Read's book on dinosaurs, which you reviewed, catalogs other evidence, such as lower strata layers containing dinosaur tracks but little or no dinosaur bones, and higher layers containing dinosaur bones but little or no plants. Yet another example would be the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, which indicates that the portion of the geologic column containing such anomalies and above are much younger than what evolutionists assert and assume, which in turn requires something akin to a catastrophic flood to produce what we now see.
When you suggest that no convincing scientific evidence of the Flood exists, what are you really saying? What sort of reasonable, unbiased person would conclude that the above is not convincing evidence, even if ultimately they decide against the biblical account?
I'm not sure why GRI has a difficult time coming up with evidence for a recent flood. I rarely peruse their material because others are more active in debunking the myths of evolution, and are, frankly, doing a better job at it. I find the evidence more than convincing. Too many dubious assumptions must be made to achieve a flood that happened more than a few thousand years ago. The assumption of a certain rate of depositon of sediment, for example. But there is no way of knowing the rate of depostion at the time the sediment was laid down. And the eruption of Mt. St. Helens has shown that canyons complete with "many years worth" of sedimentary deposists, can form in days, or even hours, given the right conditions. Even some evolutionist are coming around to the idea that the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly by fast moving water. The aftermath of the flood fits that scenario well. That's only one example. There are many moe.
Oh, and if the flood occurred as long ago as some here would like to believe, we'd have to throw out the Biblical chronology, which, although it may have a few gaps, certainly does not allow for more than a few hundred years one way or the other.
Why is it that so many are so willing to question the Bible before they question the conclusions of so-called scientists?
It just occur to me an interesting conversation is going on among, Elaine, Chris, Erv , Quimo, Roscoe, Thomas and others who do not believe in the 6 day literal creation and the flood. They are having their time of their lives attacking to the ones who believe in the creation as well in the flood. Suddenly a young man no educated in the prestigious universities of this world engage in the conversation and He says my name is Jesus I came from a little town call Nazareth and this what I have to tell you “For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be” Matthew 28:30.
I wonder how they will answer…
Now here is a really a problem to the ones who they call themselves Christians and don’t believe what Jesus believe.
Jesus believed in the flood, as is described in Genesis (nothing more nothing less). If He believed so I do.
If the flood did not occurred, Jesus, the Messiah, the Creator, the one who stated he was the true believed in a lie?
If a “Christian” does not believe in the flood why he will believe in the Second Coming of the Lord? Well Jesus put together both events one as a guaranty to the other.
Well said, David. It may be time for me to stop beating my head against the wall. Maybe . . . .
David,
I believe that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I cherish the Sabbath. I've accepted Jesus Christ as my Saviour and I look forward to His second coming. May I call you my brother?
Dear Roscoe you can call me brother, because you are my brother in Christ
Hey – Roscoe Fogg
What about the flood man, what about the flood? Do you believe that Jesus was WRONG about the flood? A simple yes or no would suffice. (Other non-flood combatants may answser this question too). NO DUCKING PLEASE! Yes or No?
♥T
Mr. Butler thinks that other YEC/YLC apologetic organizations such as Answers in Genesis do a "better job" than GRI. The reason is that Answers in Genesis and similar organizations are totally irresponsible in how they handle scientific data. At least the GRI has some reasonable standards by which it operates. (By the way, some YEC/YLC organizations consider the GRI to be "too liberal" because it views the age of the earth as being billions of years old.)
Brother Taylor, you advocate so much the separation of science and theology yet, at the same time, you would like to see theology bow down complete to modern science.
Can we PLEASE keep them separate?
What we choose to believe as christians should not depend on the confines of atheistic science, it's simply called FAITH (what you call "wishful thinking"). Scientists should also be free to analyze their data how they see fit while respectfully allowing Christians to see things how Scripture helps us to.
You seem confused on how you'd like to have both relate to each other.
If the SDA church has funded the GRI for so many years with the specific mission to "prove" the Bible story of the flood, and they admit they have no evidence whatsoever, who among those posting here are far more knowledgeable in such sciences to conclude they know much better than the SDA-sponsored study group? Are they to be believed?
Where is the evidence? Would throwing more money hasten the answers? Send more money to GRI, those who are determined to find evidence.
I read the comments from top to bottom and a few observations are apparent to me. The gentleman who wrote the article and those who support him think they are presenting new information to those who believe in a literal 6 day creation. Unlike evolutionists, creationists are willing to look at all evidence from every aspect, not discounting an idea because an athiest is involved in the process. The tone taken by the creationists in this comment section are markedly different from the berating and belittling tone the evolutionists have taken. I am embarrassed for the evolutionists positions as well as their lack of respect.
Christ Will Create A New Heart In His Followers
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3.The change that must come to the natural, inherited, and cultivated tendencies of the human heart is that change of which Jesus spoke when He said to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”… He virtually said to Nicodemus, It is not controversy that will help your case. Arguments will not bring light to your soul. You must have a new heart, or you cannot discern the kingdom of heaven. It is not greater evidence that will bring you into a right position, but new purposes, new springs of action. You must be born again. Until this change takes place, until all things are made new, the strongest evidence that could be presented would be useless…. EGW
Spencer, you may have "evolutionists" here who believe Science has done away with the Creator, but most of us on AT do not believe this. We believe the Creator is greater and more amazing that we used to think, and that the Genesis story is a short introduction to a much larger and more wonderful reality. Since the WORLD of God has enlarged and expanded our understanding of the WORD of God for us, we feel we are grown up Christians, not atheist evolutionists. Yet you suggest we have only two choices–believe against the evidence that it happened 6,000 years ago in 144 hours, or be atheists. There is another choice. We can believe that God is the Creator of all that is, and humbly admit that how and when He did it, we didn't fully understand in our childhood and youth.
It is not fair, not kind, and not true to paint us a godless evolutionists. We are God's best friends and even if we are wrong in our science, we are not His nor the church's enemies. If you wish you can continue to categorize and demonize us as "evolutionists", but it would be more correct to refer to us as "long term Creationists". This conversation would be more useful if we realize it is largely between two types of Creationists, not between creationists and evolutionists.
Jack,
I understand the sentiment of what you are saying, and, I'm sure that there might be more accurate descriptions of your position (as you've provided). But, the bottom line is, though you believe in God, you don't believe the way His Word BEGINS is accurate and is flawed.
In essence, you are saying, "We understand more than what the Bible reveals," effectively putting your knowledge in a superior position to the way God chose to introduce Himself to us in His Word.
That requires more confidence in ourselves than limited believers are entitled to have — to say the very least.
If Genesis (the beginning) is wrong, how could what follows be right?
This is why those of us believe that this quasi-evolutionist theory is, wittingly or not (doesn't really matter), undermining the authenticity of God and the authority of the Bible.
If you go to this link, video #6 is by a Ph.D. in marine biology who deals with the coral issues and a global flood directly. See also my links at the top of the page.
http://www.youtube.com/user/TruthIsLife7#g/c/14FDE276E5C97E24
Wow! So a world where death occurred for millions of years and was but the stepping stone for the improvement of creation actually needs the death of Christ more than God's "real" creation?
I find that impossible to find in Scriptures, precisely the place where we learn about death entering the world by 'sin' and where we read that Christ was the agent of Creation.
The implications of your blog continue to be to the effect that if there is a God, you don't believe a word he says.
Flooding a comment with links demonstrates the paucity of ability to explain one's opinions. The internet has all sorts of material ready at a click. There is no sorting for veracity only a proliferation of information by a request.
Using the Bible for a source of the latest and best scientific evidence is used very selectively as anyone can prove almost anything using the Bible; and it has been done since it was written. How soon is forgotten that the church for nearly 1500 years used the Bible as "proof" that the earth had four corners and that the sun revolved around the earth. Are the creationists here willing to stand by Joshua's command for the sun to stand still? It's there–in the Bible. There is no "starting date" for Creation, only the very faulty genealogical record "assuming" backwards. Had God wanted man to know more, He surely would have told us. The age of the earth has absolutely no relationshp to one's salvation, as the one command echoing through the centuries is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." There was never a mention of doctrinal belief on the age of the earth; but men choose trivial pursuits and avoid the weightier matters.
Adventist long age creationists don't disbelieve in Noah and his flood. They disbelieve in the theories that try to make that flood explain everything in geology.
Adventists who permit Sister White to be a human spokesman for God who gave God's message using the common science of her day, instead of a divine immaculate source of data are just trying to prevent our church from reproducing the sin of the first Christian church who made the mother of Christ immaculate and divine. We Adventists who love and respect Ellen White are greatly grieved by those who follow the devil's plan of making her irrelevant to the 21st century by the sin of deification of her writings as sources of secret knowledge. Both the Bible, Jesus, and the Spirit of Prophecy spoke God's messages using the science their audience knew. Today Jesus would not speak of epilepsy as being caused by demons.
With all due respect Chris, have you read the posting guidelines? They tell us to try to limit posts to 3 paragraphs. I could post literally 100s of pages of proof in just minutes on some topics with absolutely no problem at all, many that I have personally written. If you are not willing to go and watch professional presentations of evidence which relate directly to the things you claimed, showing how science supports the Bible extremely strongly, then you aren't really interested in the Bible or science when they conflict with the beliefs you've built up.
Here's one article for example on the massive salt formations and with time I can find others.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_116-118.pdf
I've personally read and watched literally 1000s of hours of atheist and evolution arguments (most recently "Your Inner Fish"). Then I've compared them to the evidence I've personally read and some that I've seen on both sides as well as from top notch creationists like "Dr. Jonathan Sarfati" in his book "The Greatest Hoax of All" which just destroys Dawkins arguments for Darwinism.
I was responding first of all to your claim that the evidence for an old earth is mounting up. That is simply not true and I listed reasons why that would fit in the 3 paragraph limit. If it's OK to ignore that limit, I can post many pages with detailed references instantly. But, it's not possible for any person to be an expert in all areas and I for sure am not…and don't be so naive as to demand that of me or anyone. I have arguments that I myself have read and developed about aspects of coral. But, Dr. Robert Carter has his Ph.D. in that area and has much better developed arguments than I do. So, you have a duty to go and watch him if you have any real interest in science and the Bible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulSD973a9hg
If you really care about the Bible and science, you need to take the time to look at the evidence on both sides as even Darwin said was essential. I know that you haven't to any significant extent because of a number of things you've said. You may have investigated some, but it was either very superficial or one sides or at best you had no idea of the right places to look. I've now provided you with several of the right places to look that deal exactly with your major topic of concern. If you refuse to go and check them, you're doing a disservice to yourself, science and the Bible.
I have recently had atheists make the same kind of demand as you have, that I'm supposed to an expert on every possible field (and then when I go and do a ton of reading and bring back the evidence, they just dismiss it all, saying I don't have a Ph.D. in the right area). That's not a rational tactic or demand from anyone, since again:
A) NO one can be an expert on every topic and
B) I'm going through multiple personal crises in my personal life with dishonest people causing great trauma to my family and
C) I spend most of my time with atheists helping them to come to faith in the Bible and our Creator since there is nothing more important.
While I commend you for being willing to question theology as should be done, you did not dig very deeply into the evidence and you are using a couple anomalies to discount an entire theory…that is a profound misunderstanding of how science works. If that technique were used by real scientists, none of them would believe in the Big Bang theory because of the horizon problem for example. To discount 100s and 1000s of lines of evidence by just one is a profoundly unscientific approach. I strongly recommend you watch the link on Kuhn above for a primer into the philosophy of science. It is the weight of evidence that matters FAR INFINITELY more than any anomaly, although anomalies can have an impact too.
I'm not at home now, but when I get home, I can post a couple longer referenced articles I've written on this topic if needed.
God bless,
Bryan
Blogger, Mr. Barrett blogs:
''I am a Christian, but to me this evidence is beyond dispute.''
As a Christian one will always have lots and lots to do with the word 'FAITH' (at AT some of the eminent writers prefer to call it 'Wishful thinking' a lame effort that is often employed also by the individuals and groups who try to question the resurrection of Jesus by attributing the 'Evidence' of the desciples seeing the reurrected CHRIST). If there are evidences well and good but one should be careful on relying on 'Evidence' too much. Somewhere I read this 'A faith built on proofs can easily crumble when those 'Proofs' at times turn out to be……'.
'Faith' and 'Evidence': Hebrews 11:1 'Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'. When faith is involved evidence is a secondary thing I guess as the person will be walking by faith and not by sight.
Mr. Barrett asserts: 'It seems to me anyone who has studied these data with an open mind should seriously question a 6000 year-old-earth, a special creation, and a global flood'
The bible believing SDA Christians didn't invent the Special creation because as a bible believing Adventist Christian will always stick to only one account of Creation (Genesis account), And it is all those 'millions of years group' that invented this theory of another creation in place of Genesis version. That is too well known. Whether one believes it or not-There is no another truth of Creation except the one for which we as a bible believing SDA take stand and are often made fun of. Origin of Creation can never be compared to Original Creation (Genesis). Science is good. When used and understood properly it will always lead to a more closer faith walk with the one WHO GIVES WISDOM TO MANY SCIENTISTS.
But when Science too much tries to be master of everything on the basis of it's basics such as Matter (Earth), Space (Heaven), Energy/Power (God), Time (In the begining), Action (Created) etc. then it falls short of it's purpose of bringing glory to God.
Data on global flood: I at times find it funny seeing the frail effort of people when they try to ask this question (mostly to support their own miilion of years' theories and to question the truth of God's word): There are enough datas to prove there was a global flood (Personally I would believe this even if these datas were not available): 'Scholars have found legends of remarkably similar nature (Global flood reporting) in many of the world's tribe and nations' (Emphasis supplied).There are more than 80 such legends and traditions around the world's tribes where the global flood story is featured in more or less the similar manner. How can this be? This needs a serious thought.
One thing is clear mankind has only one 'Original account of creation and the flood story also is supported by the historical facts.
Even if this is difficult to accept why not take into account Bryan Bissell's (second comment) view (At least) of the weight of evidence.
It just occurred to me that those who are engaged in this discussion come to the table with 2 contradictory mindsets. One group appears to have more faith in science than in the Bible and will side with science when it appears to be in conflict with Scripture. The other group takes the Bible as its authority and final arbiter of truth, even when it appears to be in conflict with science. One may argue that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is in error, but the traditional methods of Biblical interpretation used by SDA's are not unique and they are based on the most straightforward understanding of the text, depending on context, style (narrative, prophecy, poetry, allegory, etc.), and how other inspired writers (Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc.) have interpreted it.
There is no reason to abandon our historic understanding of the flood narrative just because current science appears to have proved it erroneous. I don't know much about salt domes, but I do know one thing: there were no scientists there when they were formed; no one to measure their rate of formation. There are many factors which would affect the rate at which these salt domes (or any other type of formation or deposit) were formed. Since these factors are impossible to know this far removed in time from the event, certain assumptions must be made in terms of chemical composition, rate of flow, etc.. Therefore, any conclusions based on these assumptions cannot be accurate. It's sort of like walking into a room and seeing an hour glass that is half full. One assumes that it was turned over a half hour ago, but unless someone tells you that, it is an unwarranted assumption.
Hey – JIMS Seven Sir,
I just heard about the 6,9 earthquake in your area. It’s nice to know you’re ok. Your post indicates that you are safe. We are praying for you guys out there in the Himalaya’s. God bless.
T
Mr. Hammond,
Yes, It is measured the same as you mentioned, the reports of loss of life and wealth are still coming in. God is good and We have made it to another day without complications. Thank you for your prayers for peace and restoration in the Himalaya's. God bless you and many others who are praying for us at these difficult times. Signing off with this beautiful quote I received in my email from a dear friend:
''There is so much of these natural disasters all around the world. I believe that they are a reminder that we are not in charge of this planet and also these signs tell us we are heading to our heavenly home. It’s closer than we think…''
Stay blessed.
Praise the Lord! Brother JIMS Seven, Wise man from the East…Praise the Lord!
Psalm 91:1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.
Psalm 91:2 I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.
☺
T
A quote I found interesting from the http://biologos.org/blog/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-a-qa-with-dennis-venema webpage:
"Your assumption, that “evolution offers a mechanism for understanding the existence of living organisms that doesn’t require the existence of a god” holds weight only if one has the view that “natural explanations” and “theistic explanations” are a zero-sum game. This is a God-of-the-gaps approach, where God has less and less to do as we understand more and more how nature works (and a view I reject). Logically, if I held this view I would view science as an inherently evil activity, since any natural explanation diminishes the activity of God from this viewpoint. Your view is also one that science cannot establish as correct, since science cannot speak to the absence of divine action in an observed phenomenon."
Dennis Venema
Emphasis added by me.
How can you know it was turned over an hour ago? Did someone tell you that, or did you just make that assumption? Someone could have turned it over when it was half empty, only seconds before you entered the room. It is the same with trying to date past events that occurred before detailed record were compiled. Radioactive decay rates are not always constant, yet that's what so much of the dating mechanisms are based on. Erosion rates are not constant, and yet that is what the erroneous conclusions about the age of the Grand Canyon were based on. Too much is taken for granted by those who make these assessments, partly because they have already decided that evolution is a fact and the earth is billions of years old. Any evidence that seems to be contrary to that philosophy is discounted–unless the scientist is really searching for the truth.
Hey – Bryan Bissell, Sir
Thanks for the informative links you have provided. Evolutionists have unambiguously tried to pull their evolved wool over our eyes which in most cases is forced onto the general public using unscrupulous politicking via a majority of atheist scientists ganging up via the state supported educational institutions and schooling systems which are freely available as pulpits to further the ideals of a godless society and moreso a godless Universe. I'm so glad there are people like yourself and the many others out there who say; "How 'bout' NO!"
It seems many evolution scientists have their heads stuck in the 'fossils' for far too long which has caused them to avoid seeing the rather inconvenient truth (to them that is) that Intelligent Life is a product of an Intelligent Creator who is NOT governed by the constraints of time, space and matter. From the micro sub-atomic particles of matter to the giant stars that 'hang' in space and the innumerable designed 'systems' found throughout the known universe, there is undeniable order and purpose. Evolution grossly lacks a reasonable explanation for this: just lots of Hoo-hah.
God Bless
T
Sorry, I meant a half an hour ago in that first sentence.
cb25,
You write:
"That is to assume that the interpretations, authorship, and authority we ascribe to scripture are correct and "cut and dried". Perhaps they are not and it is we who make God a liar by perpetuating as truth our assumed unerstandings (sic) ."
This is the essence of the problem. Those of us who pitch are tents near the so-called conservative camp, assume that the "authorship, and authority we ascribe to scripture ARE correct and 'cut and dried,'" per 2 Timothy 3:16 and Revelation 22:19.
It is fashionable and reasonable to question the writings of EGW, as all things are to be proved by the Bible. Debating interpretations of the Bible is also, obviously, valuable and edifying. However, when the authority Word of God is questioned, there seems little value in discussing anything, as we (those who accept its complete authority) hold no common beliefs with those who question both its authority and authenticity.
Dr. Walter Veith has been brushed aside as one who has erroneous views. Here are a few excerpts of his views. I think it is only fair to him as a scientist to have his view also considered in such a discussion. He has, from what I have gathered, shaken the very basis of evolution theory and debunked it as a true science just like many other reputable scholars like Dr. John Lennox and Dr. Ravi Zacharias who unlike Dr. Veith are not SDA's.
Professor Walter Veith obtained his doctorate in zoology from the University of Cape Town in 1979. He believes that the theory of evolution does not provide a plausible explanation of our origins, and that the geological and paleontological data do not support evolution over long periods of time, but rather imply catastrophism, which is consistent with the Genesis account.
These theories of compromise are not substantiated in biology or geology, and contradict the Word of God.
[This article is adapted from The Genesis Conflict by Professor Walter J. Veith, PhD Zoology, renowned author, scientist, and lecturer from South Africa’s Cape Town University. Veith believes that the theory of evolution does not provide a plausible explanation of our origins. His findings are also available on DVD or online through Amazing Discoveries™.]
It is rather odd that scientists defending ‘old earth’ and evolution theory as found in this blog should try and avoid a very credible Christian and Scientist like the honourable Dr Walter Veith by trying to discredit him: not based objectively on the science he subscribes to but based on a subjective effort to discredit him
It seems many evolution scientists have their heads stuck in the 'fossils' for far too long which has caused them to avoid seeing the rather inconvenient truth (to them that is) that Intelligent Life is a product of an Intelligent Creator who is NOT governed by the constraints of time, space and matter. From the micro sub-atomic particles of matter to the giant stars that 'hang' in space and the innumerable designed 'systems' found throughout the known universe, there is undeniable order and purpose. Evolution grossly lacks a reasonable explanation for this: just lots of Hoo-hah.
God Bless
T
Trevor
Could you be persuaded into giving a one paragraph summary for each of the Dr's you mentioned above, describeing how they have debunked evolution? I am a little familiar with Dr Zacharias through his podcasts, and the wikipedia biography of Dr Lennox shows that he is a veteran defender of theism. Neither wikipedia biography mentioned their evolution debunking work.
Is God the God of all, are only the god of the Hebrews?
If the Hebrews are the only people who both knew and understood God and chose to write of him as they perceived, what about all the rest of the world who may have had a different view of god, or god(s)?
Why should the Hebrew description of the flood be the only possible one when many other flood stories abound in other cultures?
Why is the Bible considered the only possible history of ancient peoples when most people also have their own histories? Why do Christians limit their knowledge of God from the limited view of the OT writers, when no one can claim to have seen or known God's mind?
Why do we limit our information of history to the one told by the OT when it is one of only many historical accounts? How can it be verified from outside sources, or should it be accepted as the only possible account? IOW, if we accept every word of the Bible as authentic, inerrant and infallible, why read other books if it has the answer to everything–whether history, medicine, biology, astronomy, geology, and anthropology? Why waste time and money seeking further education when for most of western civilization the Bible was their sole source for information?
The author of this question: "Why waste time and money seeking further education when for most of western civilization the Bible was their sole source for information?" has clearly failed to realise that Western Science as we know it was initiated by the Christian's desire to know more and understand more about the Omipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Holy Creator, Whom we call God (All Praise and glory and honour and power be unto Him forever and ever – Amen). Well, this was at least until the great deception of athiestic evolution theory came along from where all other great deceptions evolve: the deceiver himself – satan.
Yours in the ROCK of Ages
T
Ms. Nelson has failed to take into consideration the fact that it wasn't the Hebrews who "chose" to write about Him. "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." II Peter 1:21. That same Holy Spirit foresaw our day and the age of skepticism (it isn't much different from the antediluvian skepticism), and inspired the authors of the Bible to write it in a manner that would be comprehensible to all generations, without the aid of modern "science" to decode it for us. We take it on faith, but that faith is based on the "evidence of things not seen." Heb. 11:1.
And thanks, Trevor, for that commentary on Dr. Veith. He has seen the issue from both sides, and if anyone has credibility on this issue, it is he.
I just want to thank Chris for this terrific column, as well as those who have made some of the scientific issues more accessible to a rank layperson such as myself. This has been very informative. While I am very much a skeptic – probably unbeliever would be more accurate – when it comes to creationist science, I continue to be mystified by the pervervid efforts to keep the Creationist and ID challenges out of the "earth origins and development" curriculum in even church universities. Understanding and articulating these issues requires a high degree of of scientific and mathematical expertise, which definitely requires university training or its equivalent.
Given the ostensible commitment of higher education to diversity and the right to be wrong, shouldn't university students be thoroughly exposed to the best aguments offered up by scientists who provide the scientific foundation for origins theories that 75% of Americans believe in? After all, how would progressives feel if non-orthodox theological views, such as universal salvation, radical monotheism, and process theology were censored from the curriculum of SDA religion departments?
"We take it on faith, but that faith is based on the "evidence of things not seen." Heb. 11:1.
It cannot be both: either it is faith, or it is factual, verifiable evidence. Science does not seek proof from some religious book, but based on known evidence at that time.
Unlike science, religion seeks evidence both from the Bible AND science. Which is it?
Elaine has forgot or never understood the doctrines of being a Seventh Day Adventis. Yes, the old and new testaments are the foundation of our faith and we do hold the Bible to be infallible and eternal.
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. I Corinthians 3:18, 19
If I am thought a fool because I believe the Bible to be inerrant and everlasting then call me a fool.
In Six Days
Why fifty scientists choose to believe in creation
edited by John F. Ashton PhD
But surely they must all be part of the lunatic fringe, since no reputable scientist would believe those fairy tales.
An excellent book. I highly recommend it.
As a PK for more than 80 years I am far too familiar with Adventism than many here: the doctrines, the politics, the financial shenanigans and more.
Doctrines are only what are formulated by a religious group based on their interpretation of the Scriptures, and these are not static, as any student of Christian history recognizes.
Adventism adopted many of its doctrines from the universal church which agreed upon them through political pressure and much violent disagreements. Adventism has also not been static. It once adopted the "shut door" as doctrine; the sabbath was not originally a doctrine; the Levitical dietary rules were also not original, but only added by EGW; and the organizational structure is designed on the Roman church, as the late president Neal Wilson testified in court.
While Adventism may not change, people do, and there is much evidence that the church in different parts of the world is nothing like the U.S. church. The SDA church has reason to continue adding converts, especially in first world countries: it cannot replace the attrition rate here fast enough to continue losing membership. Check the attrition rate of young people, many who are second, third, and fourth generational SDA. There must be a reason.
Elaine,
Since you claim to know so much about Adventists and Adventism (having, as you do, about a 30-year head start on me), you should understand that attrition of membership in the so-called First World is something that SDA’S have predicted would happen—for a reason—as we approach the end of time.
You think you’ve seen attrition? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!
(Oh, and BTW, the Sabbath has, obviously, always been a doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists.)
EGW added doctrines? That's nonsense. She only brought our attention to what was already there, but which had been lost sight of during the dark ages. If you read the Bible carefully you will see that John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul did the same thing. No new doctrine; only a reminder and sometimes an ampflication of what was already there. All the doctrines of the SDA Church are in the Bible. Ellen White didn't invent them. But it's a convenient argument for those who don't like her, or who are unwilling to search like the Bereans to see if these things are so.
To get this back on topic: equating flat earth and geocentricity theories with YEC is preposterous for the simple reason that the earth can be measured as can its position in space. But the science of origins has no such tools and remains in the realm of speculative science. The Biblical view is just as valid, and, as many of us believe, has more evidence on its side.
Why do ostensibly intelligent people call their intelligence into question by substituting reductio ad absurdum and ridicule for rational discussion? To suggest that challenging aspects of evolutionary dogma is like challenging the heliocentric view of our solar system or arguing for a flat earth is incredibly childish and insulting – hardly worthy of a blogger who wishes to be taken seriously. Do 75% of Americans and a large number of well-trained scientists believe in geocentrism or a flat earth?
Astonishingly, after demeaning the possibility that Creationists or ID advocates could possibly offer any credible criticisms of random mutation or natural selection, you proceed, Chris, to suggest that Christians need to offer students an understanding of how God created through an evolutionary process. Maybe that could go in the class on science fiction. We'll teach students that propositions which cannot be falsified nevertheless should be believed. Exactly why? And how would that fit into your definition of education? Maybe science as a foreign language for recovering creationists? Perhaps we should add the care and management of unicorns as well. Oh, and anthropocentrism…can't forget about that? Hope my sarcasm isn't too subtle for you.
If you think places of education confine themselves to what is reasonable and true, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. Higher education is higher indoctrination.
cb25, Sir
Please give ONE example of each of the following with you mention which based on your own NT Greek, OT Hebrew and Canon has caused you to be 'pushed over the edge' which Dr. Veith has been accused of doing:
"I rechecked and he misquotes, miss interprets, and twists words."
Please cb25, just one misquote, miss interpretation or twisted words example you have found with his views regarding his explanations as a scientist/zoologist in terms of our origins.
T
I challenge any of you heliocentrists to prove that the Earth revolves around the Sun. I can refute any evidence that you give.
Blogger Mr. Barret declares:
To: Bryan Bissell Sir,'…your comments are nothing more than an attempt to create links and feed readers into the creationist sites.' I wonder what is his (cb25) attempt here?
Then he demands : 'Man up and provide direct comment on the blog points.' But later at some point He responds to Mr. Hammond implying he (cb25) doesnot have CDs etc and etc. So Mr. Barret what should we do (you don't want to go and listen to the experts view pointed by Mr. Bissell and you don't want to accept the researched explaination by Mr. Hammond)? Actually some elderly and respected commentators here in AT do that quite often. I think we should only be providing the links and explainations that supports your blog (point) rather than…. hahaha ….LOL.. (no offense)..have a good day.
cb25 aka blogger Mr. Barrett:
We in our SS time have a segment in our local Church called the 'Feature talk'. The presenter brings out some amazing things either from nature or from some inventions and discoveries etc. The end of that presentaion is always linked to the power, wisdom and providence of God-An important connection or lesson whatever we call it (perhaps some might immediately call us first class doctrinated people hahaha).
Now moving on to your statement/purpose etc (in the light of your claim as a 'Christian' in this blog): 'My purpose here is to raise the issues we as Christians face in an attempt to further understanding and dialogue.'
Good in fact very good but personally I feel the 'attempt to further understanding and dialogue' should concentrate on exalting the ONE who says, 'The cattles on a thousand hills are mine', 'The earth is the LORD's and the fullness thereoff', 'Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool'
The common point in our attempt as 'Christians' (you say) 'understanding and dialogue' to exalt the the ONE who has 'no begining and end' falls without even reaching the middle path if our purposes don't agree, forget about reaching the end. The local SS practise I pointed above and your 'attempt to further understanding and dialogue' I think vary a lot. As a Christian we have to chose one: Either we accept the authority of the Bible or go about proving our logics and findings falsely believing they are better than the WORDS of the Carpenter of Nazereth. Please there is no middle line there. Though we label ourselves, Progressive, Liberal, Traditionalist etc certain truths never change: The truths of Biblical account of Creation, Sabbath, Sanctuary and the IJ to name few. We are either Sheeps or Goats.We cannot be both.
RE: 'I think you missed my point on the cd's. They were borrowed from someone and have been returned.'
Your explaination on CDs understood. Fine.
But you yourself again claim '….I have listened to them at great length. In addition I have listened to many links and more than Mr Bissell provided.' then you would have atleast have some soul searching then because he didn't provided some bogus links (moreover he also made some effort to clearly write certain researched facts and he has been sincere enough to claim that one cannot be expert in everything). If not I am afraid you must have listened or read those with biased attitude (Correct me here but be genuine- not to me but to yourself)
RE: 'have no problem with links, but I believe they should be accompanied by a brief point or two that addresses the blog so as to stay on topic and show the writer has actually grasped the issues presented in the blog and is making an effort to address such. Mr Blissel did none of those things as I read it.'
To tell you the truth personally I found the posts of David (Sir), Mr. Hammond and Mr. Bissell more convincing than your blog. They brought in more new and better infos than yours (In this you as a blogger have succeeded-in getting the discussion unfold logical and factual truths). Please don't take it as a group campaign/attack hahaha. I would show my appreciation someday to your posts as well when I get convinced of the matters you present here in your blog and as a regular blogger you will perhaps be writing more often i guess.
RE: 'The thousands of meters of geologic column below Abraham's feet, the eons of time it suggests have passed, and the development of life form complexity from bottom to top, are the lynch pin which collapses the entire young earth and special creation story.'
Yes, Times have changed. You and I have changed but someone hasnot changed, His WORD hasnot changed…..Do we dare to take HIM on HIS WORD? It is then that we begin to understand (you say) things better from Biblical perspective………good day
PS: If you have time and want to comment again to my post please re-read Mr. Hammond, David and Mr. Bissell's post as there is no point we both contributing to the chain posts again and again 'beating around the bush' as my view and belief on genesis account and global flood remains unchanged.
cb25, sorry my typing is slow and due to some very personal reason could not reply earlier so in haste would just try to say this much: I knew you would come up with this coral issue for which directly or indirectly it was addressed (not forgetiing many other topics in those links) to an extent of convincing a humble mind nevertheless you thought something else. The issue of Spiritual warefare I guess is much bigger than you or me so to say 'my credit' or 'his credit' is little childish…LOL….
RE: Dr. Veith- I am apalled at your response towards the post on Dr. Veith. It is like questioning the credibility of that man's knowledge ad by the way how much more in these small column post should we expect? WHOLE THESIS……..I stick to my previous post on this and as a fellow human i am convinced by what Mr. Hammond presented citing Dr. Veith….I don't need to know what clothes he wore? where he slept? etc….hope you get what I am saying.
RE: 'Most commentators'…the words that I or you or someone else are putting in here reveals about ourselves much….more than that you should not expect me to name people…..what say????good day
I only raised the issue regarding the honourable Dr. Walter Veith whose name was mentioned by you Sir. I was rather surprised at your remarks regarding Dr. Veith as he is a very credible scholar and scientist. I can’t help but think whether you were looking for someone with data to fit your beliefs or some beliefs to fit your data. If that was the case then I can understand why you would react in such an ‘over the edge way’ to the lectures on the media lent to you: they won't go down well with a die-hard evolutionist, it is understandable.
You must remember also that Dr. Veith is not alone in his findings as others also subscribe to much of his research and can reasonably say that he is a very credible scientist and scholar whose findings support the Biblical narrative you have rejected. One thing clear to me from all this discussion within this blog and elsewhere is that evolution and creation CANNOT be conflated as they contradict each other.
Secondly, I have to state, that evolution at its core is contradictory: in that life’s intricate COMPLEX biological systems evidently and unambiguously reveal remarkable intelligence and design, which leave natural selection and ‘chance’ or whatever, left clutching on to major straw-men which is really just over the top dodgy theory and sensationalism. The bottom line is that evolution is contradictory as it has NO basis or rational reasoning for the very EVIDENT phenomena of intelligent design AND a Creator as revealed in the Holy Bible. The overwelming evidence of how life on our planet exists with all its amazing wonders is the biggest argument in favour of ID and a Creator God behind all of this. Sin and evil is another anomaly that evolution theory would find impossible to address or resolve or explain. The Bible offers ample explanation and remedy: The Blood of Christ which was shed on the Cross says it all. I am a believer in the Blood of Christ and the Redemption afforded to me by His great sacrifice. Fossils can only remain silent on this.
T
"If we are really honest, we must at least recognize that our claim that the Bible is "truth" is no more or less valid than the others who claim their "Book" is truth."
Indeed, it is quite shocking for anyone who claims to be a Christian. Thank God for dishonest people! Your trite sop to radical postmodernism constitutes intellectual entropy. Knock yourself out trying to be God. If fairness demands that we regard all sacred texts as equally valid, then fairness likewise demands that we view none as valid. Quite remarkable! Having abjured external sources of moral and religious authority, it is good to know, Chris, that your own unhawsered moral wisdom and insight is strictly tongue-in-cheek.
Even as solipsistic Christians (now there's an oxymoron) throw themselves into the abyss of nihilism, they joyously and obliviously proclaim how wonderful it feels to fly above the madding crowd. I thank God that He has gifted me with limited intelligence which cannot easily escape the gravitational fields of common sense and experience.
If everyone who claims to give the Bible final authority could only interepret it exactly the same! There's the rub: no two people will agree to the same interpretation, unlike the Muslims or perhaps the Mormons, who do not argue or even discuss the differences.
Why do we believe the Mormons have an "odd" religious belief? Adventists also believe that we will be taken up to heaven (somewhere in the great beyond) through a "hole" in Orion, and we will celebrate Sabbath during the week-long journey (that's one that defies explanation), and later we can visit the ETA on other planets. Not more far-fetched than the Mormons who may be some of the occupants we may visit?
That sounds fun i think i'll enjoyed and for sure my kids will too! any way they very sad when they found out that the "sasquatch" or the "pithecanthrpous erectus" are not coming to have pizza or ice cream.
I don't understand, Elaine, why you impose different standards on Christian beliefs than you impose on the beliefs of scientists. When it suits your purposes, you crow about the ability of scientists to have diverse opinions, and to change those opinions based upon new theories and evidence. But you scoff at diversity in Christian beliefs, as if inconsistencies and contradictions invalidate Scripture. Similarly, why are the consensus pillars of science validation of the Truth of science, but consensus pillars of faith are evidence of obduracy and obscurantism?
One of my primary reasons (there are many) for often being contemptuous of liberal pretensions is the pathological and hypocritical refusal of progressives to judge their own arguments and beliefs by the same standards they apply to those who reject their worldview and beliefs. It is one of the clearest identifying characteristics of fundamentalist religion – "We don't have to play by the rules we apply to others because we have the Truth"
Cb25, Sir
You mention ‘irreducible complexity’. I have a basic gist of this term. I am not a molecular biologist or a geneticist etc., so have refrained from previously mentioning this on these blogs.
“Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". These examples are said to demonstrate that modern biological forms could not have evolved naturally.” – [Wikipedia]
The ‘bacterial flagellum’ is one such organism displaying ‘irreducible complexity’. So there was a ‘court case’ in 2005 where Behe testified in favour of ID which without any surprise went in favour of the larger vocal scientific community (Atheistic Evolutionists). This teeny-weensy, molecular motor or ‘machine’ is indeed quite a fascinating phenomenon I must admit.
One of the arguments against this uses a five part mouse trap which without any ‘one’ of the five essential parts won’t work as a mousetrap. So the evolutionist who guy who claims against this takes two parts of his choice off which allows the now defunct mosuetrap to be used as a – believe it or not – a ‘tie clip’ (an unsightly one at that). This mousetrap mutation exercise is used a ‘proof’ against ID. It gets worse. So they find a poison injecting bacteria which causes bubonic plague and is equipped with an injecting like tool to function and claim that when about 200 or so parts of the ‘bacterial flagellum’ are removed it is still a functional organism albeit not a molecular motor which is long defunct when the first part is removed. Evolutionists say that the molecular structure which is made up of various components can naturally ‘come to the party’ and combine into other such alternative mechanisms.
My questions are:
1] How is it that the evolution scientist makes the ‘intelligent design’ decision to remove ‘certain’ parts from the mousetrap to make a ‘tie clip’ which in itself is a completely different thing entirely, and then sidetrack from the issue that there is no mousetrap anymore, and point to natural 'luck' mutation (in the case of the mousetrap an assisted planned mutation) as the process by which such highly complex systems function? Is this true science? Luck?
2] Why is it that the removal of one of the components of the bacterial flagellum renders it non functional as a molecular motor and not even able to function as anything else not even a bubonic plague 'injection' bug?
3] If this is therefore a proven fact that this real functional purposeful very well structured and designed bacterial flagellum cannot on its own change its purpose, function, structure and design, then how did it became such an irreducible complex system on its own? What was its state before it evolved to its current state? Where are the transitional ‘fossils’? Why or how or when would the bubonic plague ‘tie clip’ mutated-mousetrap-poison-injection-mechanism evolutionists try to moot, ‘pull their socks up’, and start acting 'smart' and display… – can I use the taboo words of evolution science … – INTELLIGENT DESIGN?????
T
"If we are really honest, we must at least recognize that our claim that the Bible is "truth" is no more or less valid than the others who claim their "Book" is truth. Shocking thought I know, but we have to be fair."
Hogwash! For one thing the internal consistency of the Bible is unrivaled by any other work. And it has had an effect on mankind that no other book has. But beyond that, the Bible has what no other "sacred" text has: fulfilled prophecy. If nothing else, the time prophecies in Daniel that pinpoint the time of the Messiah are indisputable evidence that the Bible is divine rather than human in origin. Even if Daniel was written later than we believe (and I don't buy that theory) it was still written before the Messiah arrived. Try to find that sort of thing in the Koran, the Book or Mormon, or any other so-called sacred work.
I would be careful if you wish to use the "time prophecies in Daniel" as "indisputable evidence" of the divine origin of the Bible. That is very sandy soil on which to build anything if you want a solid foundation, given the nature of the interpreations which have been offered to explain what whoever wrote Daniel was addressing.
Mr. Taylor Sir,
There are many proofs of Bible's divine origin: I will not go in there and Time prophecies in Daniel are just few of those proofs. I will not go here elaborating as to how and where of those prophecies as the blogger desires us to focus more on his side of the story. I will just end my note here with this quote :
'Sir Isaac Newton called the seventy weeks the foundation of the Christian religion.' (Wikipedia)
Researchers such as John Pratt did believe in Time prophecies of Daniel I guess. Whatever their area of interest one thing is certain that even the LEARNED MEN (if that is required as proof of Bibles's acceptance as to it's divine origin-Personally i don't need that)
Thanks
Ery so how sandy is the book Daniel?
Looks the Jesus very comfortable using the book of Daniel as trustable prophetic word
Matthew 24:15-26 "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."
Luke 21.20-21 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains…"
I’ll not be surprise if you not answer I realize that favorite answer is silence when things gets hot
Looks like Jesus was very comfortable using the book of Daniel as trustable prophetic word
Matthew 24:15-26 "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."
Luke 21.20-21 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains…"
I’ll not be surprise if you not answer I realize that favorite answer is silence when things gets hot
My favorite answer is silence when someone makes statements so lacking in logic or relevance that commenting on it would only call attention to it and expose the author to ridicule.
ABOUT CORAL REEF GROWTH (Enewetak) & DR. CARTER’S PRESENTATION
This is an area of historical science and so we only have partial evidence, not complete evidence. Nobody observed the corals growing so there is significant uncertainty because of that. More study is being done, but it is hampered as usual by the chokehold of funding that evolution has. More research and improvements are being found, but, here are some brief answers we know now. Note that I am not a Ph.D. scientist in marine or coral areas..and I don’t think you are either (which makes me wonder how you can so easily trumpet that Dr. Carter is “wrong” when you haven’t even contacted him to check if there is further research and evidence he didn’t have time to present in that short lecture…very disturbing as well).
Let’s look at Enewetak for now and we can deal with others if needed:
FACT: The Enewetak reef is about 1405 m thick.
FACT: Observed rates of growth range from ~5mm/year to ~414mm/year with many in the 100-200mm range (These are ONLY the observed rates of coral growth NOW. Faster or slower rates may have occurred but not been observed).
FACT: Drilling operations into the atoll have shown that a significant amount of the material (up to 70 percent of the bore hole) was “soft, fine, white chalky limestone,” not well-cemented reef limestone (H.S. Ladd and S.O. Schlanger, “Drilling Operations on Eniwetok Atoll,” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 260-Y (1960): 863–903.).
FACT: In 1972, Cyclone Bebe ‘constructed’ a rampart of coral rubble 3.5 metres high, 37 metres wide and 18 kilometres long in a few hours.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n1/coral-reef
It’s really hard to calculate growth rates precisely because:
a) coral grows many branches and so the growth adds up exponentially.
b) coral is eaten and broken and it’s difficult to know how much of that has happened.
c) there are many known factors affecting growth rates (such as the above) + possible unknown factors + unknown past conditions.
But, a VERY superficial and inaccurate calculation gives us: 1405m = 1,405,000mm
5mm/year rate =281,000 years estimated coral age
50mm/year rate =28,100 years estimated coral age
100mm/year rate =14,050 years estimated coral age
200mm/year rate =7,025 years estimated coral age
300mm/year rate =4,683 years estimated coral age
414mm/year rate =3,393 years estimated coral age
This doesn’t count branching factors, eating factors or others. Since ~70% of Enewetak isn’t even coral (which backs up Dr. Carter’s hypothesis on this of much sediment being pushed up by geothermal endo-upwelling), we don’t even need the fastest rates or possibly even the medium rates to account for Enewetak coral. The calculations above also demonstrates that in some cases, esp. in areas of historical science where we have incomplete information, unknowns and can’t test things for certain, people on all sides can choose the “evidence” that fits with their own expectations and biases. This doesn’t work overall…but people can cherry pick..and then use the foolish method of following anomalies like coral or salt domes instead of 100 methods which have many physical facts stronger than coral or salt domes to excuse themselves from following the vast weight of evidence.
This is a possible explanation for Enewetok (and ALL the Darwinian ones are only “possible” explanations as well. NONE are certain).:
“It may be significant that this atoll, along with many of the other atolls in the western Pacific, ultimately rise from volcanic pedestals. It is known that heat coming from these volcanoes draws cold, nutrient-rich water into the cavernous atoll framework and circulates it upward, through the atoll via convection. This process is called geothermal endo-upwellling42 and helps provide nutrients to the reef organisms near sea level.
Here is a possible scenario of how the Eniwetok Atoll may have become so thick in the few thousand years since the Flood (figure 9). The reef began as a volcanic platform. Carbonates (limestones) began to accumulate on the platform as the result of bacteria and other organisms that can precipitate calcite, especially in volcanically warmed water. This produced much of the “soft, fine, chalky limestone” found within the reef. Carbonate-producing organisms (like corals) were brought to the platform as small larval forms, transported by ocean currents. This explains the occasional occurrence of various corals and mollusks found within the deeper parts of the drill core. The volcanic heat source allowed the carbonate mound to grow, deep below sea level, and the process of geothermal endo-upwelling to begin. The combination of nutrient supply and heat may have allowed the carbonate mound to grow much faster than observed coral reef growth rates today. As the carbonate mound approached sea level, shallow water reef corals were permanently established and thrived as a result of the upwelling process.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/arent-millions-of-years-required
Regarding Dr. Carter’s presentation:
1) You talk about coral reefs above current sea level. Dr. Carter’s presentation deals directly with several of them. He points out that there's a lot of calcium carbonate in many of them that was not formed by biological processes, much near the continental surfaces. And this can’t be that old, because it hasn't all been dissolved by rain water and washed away.
2) There are also underground corals to explain. Dr. Carter shows with referenced papers that it’s HIGHLY unlikely that some of these are actually reefs, since they don’t have reef framework builders
3) Dr. Carter makes the solid point that the problem of coral is one for BOTH creation and evolution science evolution’s ice age is also only about 10,000 years ago which still presents massive problems if you assume slow growth rates of 5mm per year.
4) It’s possible that some corals came through the flood and were not totally destroyed. It’s also highly likely that because of all the magma and volcanic activity that warmed up the waters, that some places had quite warm water conditions that are ideal for fast growth. Considering coral branching, it wouldn’t take much time to grow quite large sections of coral given the right conditions which seem to be present at that time.
As the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” showed very well, heat can of course melt things, but sometimes, that heat can cause ice ages if it’s in the wrong place. But this doesn’t necessarily mean an ice age for every part of the planet. It can cause some places to even get hotter and drier.
So, the flood could have warmed up the water near the equator such as in Sinai and Ur, yet caused ice ages in more northern/southern places, leaving the Sinai coral to continue growing.
There’s MUCH more. But, I’m trying to keep this as short as possible. For more on this, check:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/arent-millions-of-years-required
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j13_1/j13_1_1-2.pdf
Creationist Solutions to the “Reef Problem”
http://www.cedarville.edu/event/geology/2007_proceedings.pdf
http://creation.com/how-long-does-a-coral-reef-take-to-grow
http://www.icr.org/article/a-50-year-study-shows-coral-clocks-unreliable/
All the best and God bless,
Bryan
Two points on your interesting post, Bryan: 1) An often overlooked point in these discussions is the chokehold, which you mention, that evolutionary theory has on government funding. When the government subsidizes something, it grows and becomes politicized, whether the something is poverty, corporate fraud, or a religious branch of science. The most recent and current area where that phenomenon has been apparent is in the discredited discipline of climate science, where government funding to test hypotheses contra to the prevailing metanarrative of catastrophic global warming has been virtually nonexistent. 2) Using the thoroughly discredited propaganda film – "An Inconvenient Truth" – as authority for any scientific proposition only makes an informed reader question the validity of other authorities you rely upon. You better reach for your wallet when Al Gorebull is promoting assertions that might otherwise seem self-evident.
An excellent example of libertarian political assumptions getting in the way of objective understandings would be my good friend Nate's comments about climate science studies. The facts are the world is getting warmer and that human activites are contributing to that warming. The scientific question at issue is the degree to which humans are contribuiting, how fast the world will continue to warm, and what will be the consequences. Since, the economicc interests of large multinational corporations are involved and thus a lot of funding for lobbying and propaganda from these corporation come into play. I'm glad that their money has been well spent in convincing individuals who are usually well informed such as Nate to take the position he does.
With respect to the so-called "chokehold" evolutionary theory has on govenment funding, that is correct since the federal government (NSF, NIH, etc.) funds science not metaphysics.
So let me see if I've got this straight, Erv. Your opinions are based in science and reason. If folks disagree with you, their opinions are based in religion or politics. Hmmm…must be nice to have the world figured out so that you're always right. I somehow suspect that you are way out of your area of expertise when it comes to climate science. Indeed, parts of the world are getting warmer, and parts are getting colder. It's called weather. Most of the inferences and prophecies of AGW activists over the past two decades have been mugged by reality. Unfortunately, reality seems to be a four letter word for those who worship Mother Gaia.
I would be most interested in facts about how much corporate funding has funded AGW skeptics. You have been drinking too much Kool Aid.
Nathan,
Is every single topic or subject matter about (American) domestic politics with you? This, almost needless to say, is not only inherently divisive, but often distractive of the points that you attempt to make.
By beholding (or listening) we become changed.
That said I fully understand that, for you, the referencing of “An Inconvenient Truth” is akin to the mentioning of “Niagara Falls” in the old Three Stooges routine.
Unfortunately, Stephen, there is very little in American life, including science, that is not political. I concede that controversial statements as analogies detract from the point one is ostensibly making. John Rawls called them strong analogies. I call such such allusions drive-by opinionating. Weak analogies are of course preferable, because they are universally accepted and don't get in the way of the point one wants to make.
Sometimes I miscalculate. But I think politics is pretty interwoven with faith-science issues. To acknowledge and highlight the reality that politics and money are primary drivers of science may be controversial. But isn't it a legitimate part of the debate? My criticism of the use of "An Inconvenient Truth" as authority was indeed too political. But even if I agreed with the movie's conclusion, I would be critical of using it as an authority on science. Nevertheless, your point about avoiding "drive-by" shots is well taken.
Chris,
Been very busy, so sorry for late response, and thanks for the wishes on family…and I hope things are going well for you as well no matter how much we disagree. I try to assume that people are sincere and really interested in facts and I want to emphasize that I think you are even though the way you evaluate evidence is extremely problematic both scientifically and theologically. But, your claim that none of the links I listed are new (when several are to a conference and presentations given just a month or so ago which indisputably have quite a bit of new information) and the way you have very seriously misrepresented what was said in the coral presentation by Dr. Carter is really disturbing and makes it appear that you wish to support secular evolution (creationists were publishing on creationist evolution levels LONG before Darwin) no matter what evidence is against it and follow anomalies instead of the weight of evidence.
I find it incredible that you can allege that Dr. Carter’s whole lecture was “made up” or “clutching at straws” or that he has no answer for Enewatak or that it doesn’t fit the data (see next post for this). None of these allegations are true at all. Either you didn’t actually watch the presentation or you don’t understand what counts as scientific evidence or the difference between observable evidence and inferential scientific evidence. He presented quite a bit in the limited time he had that DOES support a creationist viewpoint and also pointed out some things that are impossible for evolutionists to explain about corals. BOTH views have some difficulties though and Dr. Carter has the integrity to admit creationists don’t have all the answers yet (an integrity that is OFTEN, but not always, missing among evolutionists in my experience with literally 1000s of evolutionists).
I’ll summarize a few things on corals below (and will need to go beyond 3 paragraphs to do that unfortunately…but your allegations are very seriously misrepresenting facts and so it is necessary). But before that, we need to keep these things in mind in discussions like this so that emotions don’t lead us to ignore important evidence:
**1) WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE: Almost all major theories have anomalies, but these do not and can not cancel the weight of evidence. Avoid following the red herring of thinking that anomalies falsify the weight of evidence. They don’t. The coral problem even if it really is a problem can not change the fact that 100 methods and countless confirmations of them, support a young earth. It is a very fundamental violation of science to claim that “all the information on the sites you mention is pointless (because of coral or salt domes)”. This can not be more crucial to understand..esp. when you obviously haven’t even read much of those sites. Soft tissue in dinosaur fossils does a LOT more to damage the old earth methods than coral does damage to young earth methods because
a) We have no known scientific processes that can justify soft tissue lasting more than 100,000 years and
b) We have observed rates of growth for coral than can explain even Enewatok forming in just a few thousand years.
**2) HISTORICAL SCIENCE IS IMPERFECT: When science tries to proven things in history, it’s often working on partial evidence and often unaware of much important evidence and unknown factors and processes we currently do not fully understand and with time OFTEN changes. Because of this, Darwinian explanations of the corals are also not demonstrable and are just as uncertain as creationist ones. This video summarizes a bit of the issue of 2 kinds of science superficially.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/two-kinds-of-science
**3) BIBLE TRACK RECORD VS. SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENTS: The updates in science and science have consistently vindicated the Bible in countless areas over time and continue to do so (see the recent book ‘The Myth of JunkDNA” for example). The Bible has a far better track record than ANY scientific establishment in history. If we just assume that current science is god and infallible, we will be blown about by every wind of foolishness and almost certainly proven wrong with time by more updates. Once we are convinced that evidence shows God is real and inspired the Bible, there’s just no wisdom in trusting anything about what God has revealed (again questioning religious establishments is good, but to question the Bible is no different from questioning the scientific method and whether it’s valuable). Examples:
a) Ronald Numbers heard that fossil forests in Yellowstone were 30,000 years old. He decided to put current science above scripture, and eventually slid into agnosticism. Now, those same fossil forests fit with creation science extremely well and are very major problems for evolution. See: http://creation.com/the-yellowstone-petrified-forests
b) The eminent English Christian surgeon Arthur Rendle Short and others had to decide whether to trust the Bible or accept the scientific establishments “Piltdown Man” claims long before it was proven to be a hoax. Now we know what was wisest.
There are countless cases like this.
**4) Dawkins makes a crucial point in diatribe against theistic religion, showing that if evolution is true, then Jesus death and torture was only for a myth and useless, saying,
‘Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic?! Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual.’
&
Dr. Will Provine a Cornell biologist and evolutionist makes an even stronger true statement.
“As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” No Free Will. Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. By Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) pg. 123.
Beware that in supporting evolutionary concepts above the Bible, you could be contributing to making people atheists. This is especially problematic since so many major and minor concepts of universal common descent have been utterly refuted and abandoned even by evolutionists. See http://www.darwinspredictions.com
**5) Atheists and evolutionists have done their best using political weapons, naturalism and other foundational violations of science to cut off all information, research and monetary funding into anything that is even remotely religious in science, esp. creation science. It’s phenomenal that with evolution being given an astronomical BILLIONS of dollars PER YEAR advantage that creation science has the evidence it does have and is doing so well. Then there’s the constant persecution of creationists that has been documented in the recent book “Slaughter of the Dissidents” by former atheist and evolutionist Dr. Jerry Bergman. If there were an even remotely fair playing field in science and education, I guarantee you that the majority of scientists and people would QUICKLY become creation scientists.
**6) PRIDE IS THE ENEMY: If I am wrong and you are right, me changing to follow you is a win for both of us. The reverse is also true. PRIDE is the biggest enemy. If truth causes 1 or both sides to change, THAT is a win. Following the overall weight of evidence (from history, science, experience, prophecy and many more lines of evidence) even though there might be some anomalies is absolutely crucial, esp. considering that atheistic and evolution philosophies (which are not the same, but very closely connected) have been involved in directly causing dire harm to knowledge, science, history, civilization as well as destroying belief in the Bible. Atheism alone has killed more than 30 times more people in just 100 years than ALL religions in ALL history COMBINED, including even false ones (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html). It also has no solution at all for billions of cases of injustice in history. Furthermore neither atheism nor evolution have done anything to advance science except their own narratives. They have done much harm and no good and offer NOTHING for our future. NOTHING. Why be biased in favor of evidence for them???
7) TRUTH SETS US FREE/FALLACIES DON’T: Fallacies and misreprsentations are probably the biggest enemy of truth, both scientific and religious. We need to avoid them like the plague they are. Watch this TED talk on why being wrong is good for us to see that even secular people recognize the value of admitting errors in progressing in knowledge and truth and this has long been a basic principle of religion as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F6gBIXW3XY
(Evidence on coral reef issues continues in the next post.)
ABOUT CORAL REEF GROWTH (Enewetak) & DR. CARTER’S PRESENTATION
This is an area of historical science and so we only have partial evidence, not complete evidence. Nobody observed the corals growing so there is significant uncertainty because of that. More study is being done, but it is hampered as usual by the chokehold of funding that evolution has. More research and improvements are being found, but, here are some brief answers we know now. Note that I am not a Ph.D. scientist in marine or coral areas..and I don’t think you are either (which makes me wonder how you can so easily trumpet that Dr. Carter is “wrong” when you haven’t even contacted him to check if there is further research and evidence he didn’t have time to present in that short lecture…very disturbing as well).
Let’s look at Enewetak for now and we can deal with others if needed:
FACT: The Enewetak reef is about 1405 m thick.
FACT: Observed rates of growth range from ~5mm/year to ~414mm/year with many in the 100-200mm range (These are ONLY the observed rates of coral growth NOW. Faster or slower rates may have occurred but not been observed).
FACT: Drilling operations into the atoll have shown that a significant amount of the material (up to 70 percent of the bore hole) was “soft, fine, white chalky limestone,” not well-cemented reef limestone (H.S. Ladd and S.O. Schlanger, “Drilling Operations on Eniwetok Atoll,” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 260-Y (1960): 863–903.).
FACT: In 1972, Cyclone Bebe ‘constructed’ a rampart of coral rubble 3.5 metres high, 37 metres wide and 18 kilometres long in a few hours.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n1/coral-reef
It’s really hard to calculate growth rates precisely because:
a) coral grows many branches and so the growth adds up exponentially.
b) coral is eaten and broken and it’s difficult to know how much of that has happened.
c) there are many known factors affecting growth rates (such as the above) + possible unknown factors + unknown past conditions.
But, a VERY superficial and inaccurate calculation gives us: 1405m = 1,405,000mm
5mm/year rate =281,000 years estimated coral age
50mm/year rate =28,100 years estimated coral age
100mm/year rate =14,050 years estimated coral age
200mm/year rate =7,025 years estimated coral age
300mm/year rate =4,683 years estimated coral age
414mm/year rate =3,393 years estimated coral age
This doesn’t count branching factors, eating factors or others. Since ~70% of Enewetak isn’t even coral (which backs up Dr. Carter’s hypothesis on this of much sediment being pushed up by geothermal endo-upwelling), we don’t even need the fastest rates or possibly even the medium rates to account for Enewetak coral. The calculations above also demonstrates that in some cases, esp. in areas of historical science where we have incomplete information, unknowns and can’t test things for certain, people on all sides can choose the “evidence” that fits with their own expectations and biases. This doesn’t work overall…but people can cherry pick..and then use the foolish method of following anomalies like coral or salt domes instead of 100 methods which have many physical facts stronger than coral or salt domes to excuse themselves from following the vast weight of evidence.
This is a possible explanation for Enewetok (and ALL the Darwinian ones are only “possible” explanations as well. NONE are certain).:
“It may be significant that this atoll, along with many of the other atolls in the western Pacific, ultimately rise from volcanic pedestals. It is known that heat coming from these volcanoes draws cold, nutrient-rich water into the cavernous atoll framework and circulates it upward, through the atoll via convection. This process is called geothermal endo-upwellling42 and helps provide nutrients to the reef organisms near sea level.
Here is a possible scenario of how the Eniwetok Atoll may have become so thick in the few thousand years since the Flood (figure 9). The reef began as a volcanic platform. Carbonates (limestones) began to accumulate on the platform as the result of bacteria and other organisms that can precipitate calcite, especially in volcanically warmed water. This produced much of the “soft, fine, chalky limestone” found within the reef. Carbonate-producing organisms (like corals) were brought to the platform as small larval forms, transported by ocean currents. This explains the occasional occurrence of various corals and mollusks found within the deeper parts of the drill core. The volcanic heat source allowed the carbonate mound to grow, deep below sea level, and the process of geothermal endo-upwelling to begin. The combination of nutrient supply and heat may have allowed the carbonate mound to grow much faster than observed coral reef growth rates today. As the carbonate mound approached sea level, shallow water reef corals were permanently established and thrived as a result of the upwelling process.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/arent-millions-of-years-required
Regarding Dr. Carter’s presentation:
1) You talk about coral reefs above current sea level. Dr. Carter’s presentation deals directly with several of them. He points out that there's a lot of calcium carbonate in many of them that was not formed by biological processes, much near the continental surfaces. And this can’t be that old, because it hasn't all been dissolved by rain water and washed away.
2) There are also underground corals to explain. Dr. Carter shows with referenced papers that it’s HIGHLY unlikely that some of these are actually reefs, since they don’t have reef framework builders
3) Dr. Carter makes the solid point that the problem of coral is one for BOTH creation and evolution science evolution’s ice age is also only about 10,000 years ago which still presents massive problems if you assume slow growth rates of 5mm per year.
4) It’s possible that some corals came through the flood and were not totally destroyed. It’s also highly likely that because of all the magma and volcanic activity that warmed up the waters, that some places had quite warm water conditions that are ideal for fast growth. Considering coral branching, it wouldn’t take much time to grow quite large sections of coral given the right conditions which seem to be present at that time.
As the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” showed very well, heat can of course melt things, but sometimes, that heat can cause ice ages if it’s in the wrong place. But this doesn’t necessarily mean an ice age for every part of the planet. It can cause some places to even get hotter and drier.
So, the flood could have warmed up the water near the equator such as in Sinai and Ur, yet caused ice ages in more northern/southern places, leaving the Sinai coral to continue growing.
There’s MUCH more. But, I’m trying to keep this as short as possible. For more on this, check:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/arent-millions-of-years-required
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j13_1/j13_1_1-2.pdf
Creationist Solutions to the “Reef Problem”
http://www.cedarville.edu/event/geology/2007_proceedings.pdf
http://creation.com/how-long-does-a-coral-reef-take-to-grow
http://www.icr.org/article/a-50-year-study-shows-coral-clocks-unreliable/
All the best and God bless,
Bryan
Chris thinks that he is doing everyone a service by bringing what he assumes is new information to us unlearned young earth creationists. He also thinks that he is doing a good thing by putting a chink in the armour of our faith when he is actually doing the devils work. He wants to equate us with terrorsists because we are fundamental in our beliefs and take God at his word and then states we Seventh Day Adventist are no different and wonders why some might say he is pushing it. By the grace of God I am not writing this in all caps and with many, many exclamation points.
What he forgets is that we are Seventh Day Adventists and the core of our faith is the word of God. Not some other book as the Mormons or other religions do. We are Seventh Day Adventist Christians. He tells us that what he is presenting to us is scary but what he doesnt realize is that we have already heard this and it doesnt belong in the Seventh Day Adventist church. You are poisoning the well and it has to be stopped.
I just saw the most curious thing. An anti-evolution webpage making a case for entire new (unique) genes evolving in a timespan of decades or less: http://www.darwinspredictions.com/#_4.2_Genomes_of
Might I ask Mr. Albracht how he going to stop a rational discussion on this topic?
I believe a rational discussion is necessary but for evolution in any form to be passed off as truth in an Adventist publication is wrong.
ok, cb25, you're the boss – Sir. I would remind you though that Philosophically, it is evolution theory rather, which ends up in difficult places where evidence for ID is irrefutable and therefore consistant with Bible Creation, made possible by Jesus Christ the Creator Himself, Who, I might add, via His incarnation, died on the cruel cross of Calvary to redeem us from the curse of sin and its disastrous result: death.
You say you were a Creationist. I'm curious to know, were you also one who believed in the traditional historical views of Adventism before Dr. Veith as you say, 'pushed you over'?
Just one small question Sir. I've asked Dr. Taylor the same question but he hasn't answered this so far.
Was there death before Sin, or was there Sin before death?
In the ROCK of the Ages
T
Brother Spencer Albracht, Sir – I'm with you on this one. [PLEASE NOTE: Below is just my opinion and is relevant to such discussion which stands diametrically opposed to the traditional Adventist position]
Just between you and me, I think this website is notoriously NOT specifically a Seventh-day Adventist one: so I've been told. At first glance one may assume it is because of the usual Adventist name but it does not necessarily refer to Seventh-day Adventist but rather a compromised Christian version which embraces and leans towards Rome. (Just watch what will happen for what I am posting and see how all hell will break loose). I've been told that it is a – quote: "Holy Cow" (unquote) of some sorts on which homosexuality, denigration of the Holy Sabbath, Creation and the Biblical account of it found in Genesis is discarded, the promotion of sin as non-sin, that death occurred before sin entered the world contrary to the Holy Bible, that Ellen White is irrelevant, that the Law of God as seen in the Ten Commandments is optional or at best even made void, that the flood is a myth contrary to all the evidence confirming it, that 'educational' pursuits will lead one to Christian maturity rather than the working of the Holy Spirit of which the Third World is cited as proof, that Cultural and Socio-Political influence is allowed to supersede Biblical standards of Christian behavior and guidelines, that the Investigative Judgment is nonexistent, that the fulfillment of prophecies found in the Holy Bible are untrue, that Jesus may not be coming soon, that Sunday Sacredness aka sun worship is not a counterfeit of the Holy Sabbath, that the change of the Sabbath is just a myth, that Holy communion is a meaningless exercise, that there is no remnant contrary to what is found in Revelation, that the Church of Rome is kosher and isn't the Anti-Christ and the Beast revealed in Daniel and the Revelation as proclaimed by the early protestant reformers, that evolution theory is a valid doctrine and an option of Christian belief, etc., etc…
and counting.
This apostate form of CULTure is encouraged and defended as rational discussion for 'those who like to think they can think' or 'in the name of seeking answers to base their compromised belief systems' – but again just between you and I, it is a notable front to destabilize Adventism and attempt to hand it over to the Church of Rome on a silver platter (well in this case a 'fossil' one).
Just watch how my freedom to express such opinions is anathema to the gurus who milk and worship the – quote: 'Holy Cow' (unquote), no offense to Hindus intended.
T
Thanks for the post. Your position is now completely clear. Keep it up.
According to Mr. Hammond, there are those who wish to "destablize Adventism and attempt to hand it over to the Church of Rome. . " What an amazing fantasy life Mr. Hammond has! Even if such a strange thing might be accomplished, I'm sure that our Roman Catholic friends would politely decline to take us since we are such a disfunctional church. Why take on more problems? They have their hands full with their own issues.
Well, at least we know where you stand on this issue, and it is completely out of harmony with not only Scripture, but the official positon of the SDA Church. Thanks for the clarification. Even if the church officially turned against this doctrine, it so so clearly Biblical (Paul clearly states that death was a result of sin and preceded it) that I could not abandon it.
I fear for you. You are on dangerous ground.
Perhaps we should remember that the old observation that the best argument against Christianity is Christians. If I just read books, Adventism is persuasive, but when I see Adventists in action, it makes me wonder. Just how do we reconcile a God who was willing to sacrifice his Son and risk everything to save sinners, with church members who are willing to sacrifice other members over a disagreement on doctrine or practice?
I just image a strange meeting; in one part of the table are “Charly” and “Ricky” with the “gospel of the survival of the fittest” and other side Jesus, Peter and maybe Paul with the “eternal gospel “
“Charly” starts the conversation; after my trip to the “Galapagos” I was convinced that we evolve from very elemental cells to what we are now by brutal evolution.
“Ricky” jumps to the conversation and says; yes, yes! Thanks to “Charly” I wrote some books and make a few millions.
Peter can hardly hold himself, he wanted to take his sword and cut some tongues, and maybe some necks but he holds himself, he is a new man.
Paul wanted to blast them with philosophical arguments, but also he holds himself because also he is a “new man”
Jesus looks at them and he says; I was in the beginning … I created the mankind to my image and it was very good. My heart was broken in peaces when your parents fell into the words of the deceiver. I offered my life for them and for you, and if you accept my give, I will create a new heart in you, also you will have chance to witness with your eyes that my words are so powerful to create again a new heaven and heart were dead will be no more.
Brother T, Sir, I appreciate your devotion to God more than you know. The same is thought of others who have expressed their devotion to God and his Word. I love and appreciate my fellow believers more than words can say.
Now when he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. I Samuel 18:1
The encouraging words written by those who defend God and his ways gives me strength in my walk. I know I am not alone in my beliefs but it always shocks my system to know there are so many apostate Adventists in the congregation.
Adventists, Bible thumping Adventists, are expected to say what is right, not what is politically correct. I do not want to brag but I am an Seventh Day Adventist and I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. By the grace of God I love the Bible and love God's eternal truth that he has shared with me and many others. I am blessed to attend a Seventh Day Adventist church that preaches and teaches the Bible and the Bible only. I know there are other Adventist churches out there that do not like to speak Adventist speak and want to attract others into there flock by compromising God's truth and compromising your understanding and salvation. You can talk down to me. You can think you know more than me or think to be more enlightened than me due to my antiquated thinking. He is old school, we have moved on. I will not think the same of you. I will not talk down to you and I will not belittle your beliefs. I will stand firm on the Bible and I will not apologize. My heart goes out to the mom or dad who has the wayward child or the brother or sister whose loved one is caught up in what is fashionable today. I can only imagine the heartache so many feel.
Keep fighting the good fight T. Say it like it is.
The certainty how happened will not know, because all are retrospective analysis. Retrospective analysis no matter how strict they are incomplete and several times inaccurate when compared to prospective or o real time observation. Why? Because we don’t know all the variables, we assume that all the changes are on similar conditions that we observe at present time.
If you go to the high planes of Bolivia or Peru you will find out big seashells in the high flats lands and salars (UYUNI). An evolutionist will say the mountains are growing that is why these shells are up there (almost 12,000 feet high plains) a creationist will say you see that is the evidence at one period of time the flood was there (shell in flat area where maintains are not growing) and salt dry lakes as evidence that one tine sea water was there.
In my flied we cannot give the highest credibility when the experiments are not reproducible. We could have educated impressions but certainties not. How appropriate are the words registered in Job 34 when God said to Job Were you there when I made the world? If you know so much, tell me about it. 5 Who decided how large it would be? Who stretched the measuring line over it? Do you know all the answer?
At least you are honest to say where you stand in regards SIN /Death/SIN in this planet.
So how you explain “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned”
Was Paul wrong?
Looks like Jesus was very comfortable using the book of Daniel as trustable prophetic word
Matthew 24:15-26 "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."
Luke 21.20-21 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains…"
I’ll not be surprise if you not answer I realize that favorite answer is silence when things gets hot
I have to admit that JIMS Seven is spot on. Our questions are been candidly evaded based on keeping to the topic. We obviously will have to comply out of mutual courtesy. I took a chance and provided some details regarding 'irreducible complexity’ and the bacterial flagellum's interesting phenomenon which is a classic example of 'irreducible complexity'. I brought this up when I saw the terms used by cb25. I wrote in my personal capacity based on my understanding of it from gurus in this field. I know Dr. David is on such expert.
I'm afraid cb25 should have chosen another topic for a first blog but it was his call and he has taken a very extreme position and seeks to defend it at all costs. My personal opinion is that he may have inadvertently already been pushed over the top in terms of his beliefs and may just have been looking for more ammo to back his beliefs up from the Dr. Veith media. Nothing to feel bad about as it is your belief and personal choice. I will admit though that cb 25 has been quite honest and very civil and courteous in his dealing with us. He has been honest too in stating the 'death before sin' question posed to him (The Honourable Dr. Taylor has dodged this one). I'm sure though that as a die-hard evolutionist, Dr. Taylor must know that his position will be the same as cb25: death before sin. It is an intricately woven part of evolution theory. That's a no brainer!
Back to the topic for now: "Jesus Christ, Himself, related the Great Flood of Noah's day to His own return to earth to reign over it and the people in it. See Luke 17:20-27, 19:11-27; John 5:22-23, 12:32, and Rev. 22:12."
What Noah's Flood account just a myth as evolutionist’s assert? Is Jesus also wrong in referring to a nonexistent flood? Do they even question His Divinity and Creatorship? Methinks so!
T
cb25, Sir – You asked: "John, as someone asked "who has said there is no God?" That is neither explicit nor implicit in my blog. You and a couple of others have made that assumption."
Here is the culprit ☺that asked this:
—–
T
cb25, sir I'm sure you have by now noticed that when the 'reply' option is used in all good intent, the whole conversation and blog gets messy. I would prefer to post comments as new rather than the reply.
—–
Here is the culprit ☺that asked this:
—–
T
Chris, from your original article, I didn't gather that the locus of your argument regarding fixed sea levels and shore lines was Ur of the Chaldees (or kasdim). (In your article, you say the Bible gives a "detailed description of the land in the region of Israel, Sinai, and Egypt," but Ur probably was not anywhere near any of those places.)
A preliminary problem with your argument is that no one knows where Ur was; the word "Ur" could be translated as "city" or as "land." If Abraham merely immigrated from the "land of the kasdim," that's not a sturdy foundation for the argument that sea levels couldn't have been higher during post-Flood biblical times.
There is a popular theory that Biblical Ur was on the site of Tell el-Mukayyar, but that is just a theory. Assuming that theory is true and correct, an interesting fact about that site is that some of it sits on an elevated area that is about 20 meters (66 ft.) above the height of the surrounding plains. It could have been a functioning city–perhaps a sea port or river port–even given much higher sea levels than those that currently prevail.
Moreover, I'm afraid I did not, in my original comment, clearly spell out the point of the story of Lyell and the Temple of Serapis. I did not mean to imply that the Mediterranean Sea rose and then fell by more than 21 feet between Roman pagan temple building days and 19th Century geological touring days. Sometimes land gets submerged not because sea levels rose but because land levels subsided, and sometimes land formations rise relative to ocean levels not because sea levels fell but because land was lifted up. That could easily have happened in the Sinai without effecting at all the relative land-sea levels in the land of the Chaldees, or Tell el-Mukayyar, because the Sinai is several hundreds of miles away, clear on the other side of the Arabian Penninsula.
Whatever else may be interesting about the fossil corals of the Sinai, they pose no threat whatsoever to the Biblical timeframe.
Folks: I need to remind one more time, you have been specifically requested to limit your posts to a reasonable collection in the range of 3 paragraphs. From this point forward, lengthy posts will become invisible and your comments will be lost to the thread. You may also be interested in informal polling indicating an almost universal response of 'always skipping those long boring posts.' If you find your post missing, you'll know this message is for you. Please heed and be more circumspect – CH
I'm not sure I understand your point, Chris. The fact that a theory is not totalistic doesn't render it a dead end. Evolutionary theory, by your the argument, is also a dead end since it only moves the ultimate causation problem back further. The conundrum of the "first cause" renders every attempt to understand cause and effect a philosophical dead end. ID doesn't claim to be a philosophical movement, does it? It is simply the application of logic and statistical probability to scientific data that casts doubt on natural selection and random mutation theories.
DNA evidence in the courtroom is just as significant for what it disproves as for what it proves. The fact that a defense attorney may not be able to prove whose blood was collected at the crime scene or how it got there doesn't really matter if the statistical odds against it being the defendant's blood are overwhelming. Moving the problem back a step, or billions of steps is pretty significant isn't it, especially when the problem is not ultimate causation, but theories of macroevolution?
Perhaps in another column you will share with us the better ways of objectively demonstrating the probability of a God. The fact that ID does not prove the probability of God, much less Biblical creation, hardly undermines the reality that ID poses serious and responsible challenges to natural selection and random mutation.
Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For a time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from truth, and be turned aside to fables.
II Timothy 4 : 1-4
Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries. But these speak evil of whatever they do not know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves. These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves. They are clouds without water, carried about by the winds; late autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, pulled up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever. These are grumblers, complainers, walking according to their own lusts; and they mouth great swelling words, flattering people to gain advantage; how they told you that there would be mockers in the last time who would walk according to their own ungodly lusts. These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.
Jude 8,10 12,13 16,18-19
Chris,
(a) There is no picture on the p. 12 which your link went to. Could you direct me to which picture you are speaking of? A photograph is prefered. (b) Brown's theory is no more imaginative than evolution. (c) Your comment about corals seems to ignore my point about storms causing coral reefs to drastically increase in size overnight. (d) Since the dispersion from the Babel did not occur until Peleg, why are you suggesting that Ur was occupied longer than Peleg?
Given the counsel regarding "seeds of doubt" in COL 41 and elsewhere, I am interested in hearing about your personal efforts to reconcile the supposed findings of skeptics with sacred history. What proposals have you personally come up with or located regarding the Sinai coral formations, etc., that reconcile these with biblical chronology? To just leave everyone hanging can plant seeds of doubt in people's minds that can lead to apostasy and the loss of heaven, as COL 41 states.
So what answers have you found that affirm faith in the accuracy of God's Word, and if you are short on answers, to what sources would you direct folks for such answers?
In his first post David Read wrote "The fossil corals of Sinai are quite young geologically (dated from 15,000 to 2 million) and are very likely post-Flood." Time units were omitted, but geologic ages are typically given in years not days. David's age range is not consistent with the "biblical timeframe."
Roscoe, obviously I do not believe in the conventional chronology. I was referring to the conventional dates for relative dating purposes only, not because I actually believe in the absolute dating. I should have thought that was clear enough from the nature of my comments.
Would Mr. Albracht please enlighten the rest of us of who he thinks will not "endure sound doctrine"? That sounds as if he is suggesting that some of us are not following the God-given results of scientific investigations. Is that correct?
"God-given results of scientific investigations"? Really, Ervin? If you start with the assumption that God never did anything, you'll end with the conclusion that everything happened on its own and by accident. But, having started with atheistic premises, it is awfully cheeky to then blame God for the outcome of your "scientific investigations."
Would David Read explain why he thinks that "conventional dates" are reliable for "relative dating purposes?"
Roscoe, I accept the principle of superposition, i.e., that younger layers overly older ones. Thus, for example, the Plestocene was deposited later than the Cambrian. Relative dating doesn't depend on absolute age dating, and is seldom in dispute between creationists and Darwinists. The dispute is about absolute age dating. My understanding is that the fossil corals of the Sinai are Pleistocene, relatively young geologically in anyone's model, and post-Flood in a creationist model.
I too would be facinated why Mr. Read thinks that "conventional dates" are reliable for "relative dating purposes"? Also, would Mr. Read please identify who on this thread holds to the assumption that "God never did anything" and starts with "atheistic premises"?"
Ervin, mainstream science starts and ends with the assumption that God never did anything:
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Is this really news to you, Ervin?
Darwinists and David Read are relying on the construct of the geologic column to determine relative ages. According to a prominent creationist (Hovind), “Poly-strata fossils, missing layers, layers out of order, misplaced fossils, and layers in reverse order all invalidate the geologic column.”
Roscoe, polystrate fossils do cast doubt on the absolute dating, but not on the relative dating (i.e., lower levels are relatively younger than higher levels). George McCready Price believed that the geolgical column was not a valid construct even of relative ages, but since the 1940s, almost all creationists have acknowledged that geological activity subsequent to the initial deposition–usually orogeny (mountain building)–has caused the instances of out-of-order strata. If he really said what you've quoted him saying, Kent Hovind may have been influenced by Price, but that idea does not reflect current creationist thinking; it is about 70 years out of date.
Chris, the idea that Tell el-Mukayyar corresponds to the biblical "Ur of the chaldees (or kasdim)" is one of those things that many people seem to believe, but that may not be true, like the idea that the volcanic Mt. Arrarat in modern Eastern Turkey corresponds to the biblical "mountains of Arrarat."
More to the point, how does mainstream geology explain the fossil corals of Sinai if not by resort to tectonic uplift? My understanding is that all of them are Pleistocene in age, and, during the Ice Age, the sea levels were variously lower than now because of the water locked up in glaciers. How would corals formed during that time now be above the water line–when the sea level is now higher than during the Ice Age, because the Ice Age glaciers have melted–without tectonic uplift?
David Read, It doesn't really matter. Since the Creation and the Flood were Supernatural events, nothing discovered in nature can contradict them. My faith in God does not depend on any scientific theory or discovery whether evolutionary science or creation science.
Roscoe, it does matter. In theory, it is possible that the data of nature could contradict the Creation and Flood, even though they were supernatural events. As interpreted by mainstream science, the data of nature do contradict them, but that is because mainstream science begins by denying these events and interprets the data accordingly. Creation science begins by assuming that these events happened, and interprets the data accordingly. One's faith, worldview, or philosophy determines one's beginning assumptions for interpretation of the data.
So if you are saying that origins is really much more within the domain of faith than of science, I agree completely for the above reasons. But if you're saying that we should believe by blind faith alone, and not try to show how the evidence supports our faith, I couldn't disagree with you more.
Data cannot contradict a Supernatural event. There is no way to predict the consequences of a supernatural event. There are no known laws governing cause and effect for a supernatural event. Use the term "creation model" if it makes you think you are doing science, but any creation model is non-falsifiable.
Mr. Read might wish to remember the elementary differences involving "atheism" (the complete rejection of theism), "agnosticism" (there is insufficient publicly-observable, objective evidence for theism or atheism), and "non-theism" (there may or may not be a supernatural force or deity but even if there is, there is no publicly-observable, objective basis of determining the nature of supernatural actions in the physical world and so the presumed actions of a presumed supernatural force can not be used in offering explanations for the causes of any physical phenomena). These are simple and straightforward distinctions.
Ervin, it isn't true that miracles leave no trace. Certainly, the discrete, simple miracles Jesus performed left verifiable results: people who had been blind could see, the lame could walk, and lepers had healthy skin. And in fact Jesus would tell the former lepers to go present themselves to priests to certify their cleanness.
In other words, the miracles were supernatural, but the physical results were natural and plain for everyone to see. The same is true of the creation and the Flood. They were supernatural events, but they left plainly observable results for everyone to see; in the case of the creation, the living world around us, in the case of the Flood, the thick layers of fossiliferous sedimentary strata.
What historical or scientific evidence do we have that the stories describing the miracles of Jesus are literally true? None. That belief requires faith that transcends evidence.
As any politician would know, the evidence of a crowd pleased at being feed only lasts until they are hungry again. The point is that there was evidence for anyone to see in times close to the event.
Also, while very local miracles leave shortlived or hard to find evidence, very large miracles would leave widespread and easy to find evidence. The real problem then would both be the lack of such evidence for major miracles such as creation or a worldwide flood as well as the evidence that contradicts such miracles.
Thomas and Roscoe:
It is interesting that we moderns have no direct evidence at all of Jesus' miracles. The people he healed are long dead, as are their descendants to the 20th generation.
By contrast, we do have plenty of direct evidence of the major supernatural acts of the Creation and the worldwide Flood. As Paul wrote, ". . . what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Yet people often choose to believe, on the word of witnesses long dead, in the miracles that Jesus performed, but choose not to believe in the Creation and the Flood, even though we are surrounded by the evidence.
David
I would be very interested in seing a creationist explanation of the evidence found in the genetic code (since I know more in this field than I do about statistics and geology which apparently are the creationist favourite fields of study.) Thus far, the evidence I may begin to evaluate for myself plainly points away from the creationist understanding of Genesis.
Thomas, leave aside, for a moment, the creationist understanding of Genesis, and think about the term you just used: "genetic code." DNA is indeed a genetic code. A code is a way of storing and communicating intelligent information. The existence of a code implies the existence of a code-maker and an intelligent agent who put intelligence in code form.
Once you admit that DNA is a genetic code, you've already exploded the artificial "rule of science" that only materialistic explanations can be considered, and you're free to do origins science along creationist lines, or however else you want. The rest is just working out the details.
The "code" part is of course a matter of semantics. The real question is how creationists could successfully explain the apparent relatedness of species (even beyond the borders that creationists have set up as safe evolution zones through defining microevolution). Data that would put Homo and Pan in the same baramin lends itself poorly to doing science along creationist lines..
Thomas,
We know that a code does not necessarily have to encode intellegent information, it can encode garbage. Just the EXISTANCE of a code does not inply intelligence.
Are you familiar with the work of the "father of genetic algorithms," John Holland. His work, including:
Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems
Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity
Emergence: From Chaos to Order
is facinating. I've used genetic programing in some of my research, it's a very powerful idea. It's a technique that mimics the process of natural selection
I have not read Hollands work, although I did read a few similar papers such as this: http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v7/n2/full/nrg1771.html
Jesus Christ, Himself, related the Great Flood of Noah's day to His own return to earth to reign over it and the people in it. See Luke 17:20-27, 19:11-27; John 5:22-23, 12:32, and Rev. 22:12."
Was the Genesis Flood account just a myth as evolutionist’s assert? Is Jesus then also wrong in referring to a nonexistent flood? Do they even question His Divinity and Creatorship? Methinks so!
Those to subscribe to this school of evolution theory thought, fall by default into a category which believes that 'death occured before sin entered the world' pointing out their anti-biblical position (whilst some still claim otherwise? weird). These evolutionists say they 'honestly' look at 'facts'. What facts? Then there are those from within the same rabbit hole who conflate both evolution and theism. Who are they kidding? Fossils?
T
cb25,
I appreciate the Jan Long quote.
Do you think that considering "solid data that suggests a contrary conclusion" admits that a contrary conclusion is possible? Creationists will not entertain a contrary conclusion no matter what the data. They ought to stop pretending to do science.
Some creationist think that if they can just falsify the theory of evolution, they win. Hardly, if the theory of evolution is falsified, another scientific theory will take its place. The prospect of creating a whole new theory would actually be very exciting to most scientists. More work for everyone!
I had missed Mr. Fogg's comment of last week. Excellent point. Might I just slightly adapt one sentence: "If the Darwinian version of how evolution works is somehow falsified, another scientific theory will take its place." Now I realize that our YEC/YLC friends think that Darwinian evolution has been falsified. Their misundertanding of that is as seriously wrong as their misreading of Genesis.
A definite improvement.
Mr. Barrett
Base in your analysis of geology, for you evolution makes more sense. You arrived to that conclusion probably after a sincere interpretation of the data that was available. I presume that you interpreted that could happen in the past was base of what occurs in the present. (for example if the formation of 1 cm of coral takes 100 years a coral of 30 meters will take 300,000 years).
So the principle is; what we observe today explain what could happen in the past, fair enough. So lets be consistent with that principle. The fundamental principal of macroevolution is mutations; we evolve from inferior cells, animals, until what we are now (make us better). Today we observe thousands of mutation that are deleterious and lethal, until now we do not know one mutation that makes us better. That is fact. So base in the principle of judging the past with what we observe now the theory of evolution really is a very fragile position. The fundamental piece of evolution (mutations) disproves the theory.
David, the problem with your argument above is that its fundamental premise is wrong. Mutations is not the fundamental principal of macroevolution. Macro and microevolution occur because different processes (mutation is only one of them) create variation in a population, and this variation lets some individuals succeed better than other individuals of the species do. The importance of this variation is easily seen when a new pathogen arrives. In populations with no variation, what kills one kills all. In populations with variation, at least some survive to live another generation. Microevolution happens when one part of a population adapts itself to a different circumstance than the other part. This can be caused by events such as migration (a few american plants end up in europe and start to adapt to their new surroundings), changes in land elevation (hills being pushed up as mountains or sinking down towards sea level) or that two equally viable variants happen to appear. The difference between micro and macroevolution is simply the number of adaption events that the two species have gone throguh since the divide started.
It was surprising when one of the anti-evolution sites quoted above (I made a short post pointing it out earlier) argued that evolution is disproved by the discovery that major adaption events can occur in a short timeframe (using for instance the example of bacteria being able to eat nylon a mere couple of decades after the fibre began to be produced). I could not quite figure out why the discovery that evolution is faster than previoucly thought would be a threat to it. If anything it should give pause to the branch of number theory and probability math known as ID.
Mr. Barrett
You see we have to be consistent other wise the seriousness is lost.
Now for a Christian this represent even more challenge. Defies the credibility of Christ, He believed that GOD made the man, He believed in the flood and used as a guaranty for his second coming and believed that sin was before dead.
The theistic evolutionist is not consistent neither with Science or Christianity.
Dr. David's statement is brilliant: "The fundamental piece of evolution (mutations) disproves the theory."
Imagine: the theory of evolution CONTRADICTS itself thereby making it ILLOGICAL and therefore IRRATIONAL in my opinion.
T
There's a big difference between not identifying a specific beneficial mutation and showing that beneficial mutations do not exist. (In mathematics, not being able to prove a theorem is not the same as proving that the theorem is false.) Identifying beneficial mutations is technically very challenging.
See "Accentuating the Positive: Researchers Closer to Pinpointing Beneficial Evolutionary Mutations in the Human Genome" at
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=positive-selection-mutations-human-evolution
A reader of Mr. Hammond's posting has the advantage of knowing when he is making a logically weak point. Anytime he capitolises words like CONTRADICTS, ILLOGICAL, IRRATIONAL, we can all know that he needs to do that since even he realizes how problematic his argument is. It the equilivant of a preacher's notes which say, "poor logic and weak argument, pound the pulpit and speak loudly."
You're too hung up on a "designer". The premise of ID is not a "designer". And you greatly oversimplify the ID claim. The premise is that cellular and sub-cellular processes which are natural, random, and reflexive should not demonstrate incredibly complex features indicating that the functions of the organism were prescinded. It may have been, as Richard Dawkins has suggested, aliens from parallel universes who guided the processes and implanted the genetic material. Intelligent design is the conclusion, not the premise.
The conclusion I draw from negative DNA evidence – "some other dude did it"- may be wrong. But the negative DNA evidence unequivocally establishes that it is not the defendant's blood. That's the most ID can do. It can't prove a "designer". But it certainly can, and in my opinion does, disprove natural selection and random mutation as an explanation for how we got from a singled celled organism hundreds of millions of years ago to 21st Century life forms.
To my earth bound mind, the chances of natural selection and random mutation producing the world we live in from nothing are virtually zero, as is the chance of a designer popping up from nothing, as is the chance of someone rising from the dead. A designer requires that I believe in only one impossibility. Billions of impossible random reflexive adaptations leading to incredibly and unnecessarily complex life forms is more than even the White Queen, who could believe six impossible things before breakfast, could handle.
Mr Barrett lest be consistent, consistency gives credibility. Show us one proven mutations that makes better. If you want I can show you thousands, and millions of people dies each year. I image that you are familiar with p value of statistics; this is so strong <0.00000001.
Roscoe mention may be in the future will able to identify good mutation, well until that day, is just a dream or mirage!
Mr Barrett lest be consistent prove one mutation ( i mean that we can replicate over and over now) that can improve us.
David, did I just see you request an example of a repeatable chance event?
Atheist Today
Lyleism – A Lynchpin for the Big Bang Story!
By Doesn't Getit
It seems to me as the evidence for a new earth piles up and the debate heats up, there is an increasing absence of common sense and honesty from some participants. There is a massive and growing amount of evidence for a new earth, new life and a devine process………
Atheist 1: I thought this was an atheist publication that espoused an evolutionist's point of view.
Atheist 2: Well, this new blogger is a progressive atheist.
Atheist 1: What?
Atheist 2: You know, a progressive atheist. He beleives that God did have something to do with evolution.
Atheist 1: That doesn't make any sense. Does he not understand what an atheist stands for? What the definition of atheism is?
Atheist 2: Yes, but he is progressive. He wants to change the definition of atheism.
Atheist 1: You can't do that. Atheism is exactly what it is. You can't change the definition. It's atheism! I'm an atheist, I don't believe in God. This is for like minds, not creationists. Don't you get it!
Atheist 2: Oh, he get's it. He is progressive!
Atheist 1: You have to be kidding……………………..
Yes, I agree with much of what you say. I have no problem with a God who paved the way for a world that, should the crowning work of His creation choose to trust the serpent over God's word, would both reveal and limit through death the terrible consequences of that rebellion. I tend to think that the Garden planted by God was an island in the outside evolved world. The Biblical account suggests to me that, when Adam and Eve sinned, they were banished from the garden to a world quite like our present world.
After all, in the timeless framework of eternity, the plan of salvation, we are told, was put in place long before sin. Christ's sacrifice worked backwards in time to save. Could it be that a plan to reveal and ameliorate the effects of sin was likewise put in place before humanity appeared on the scene?
cb25 mentions the Geological Column. 1] I would point out that the fossils in all of the column are complex NOT simple as he makes claim. 2] Evolutionists and creationists agree that the best conditions for forming fossils are flood conditions (Parker, 2001). 3] By the way, the Geological Column is found … where it belongs in evolution books which in my opinion belong in the fiction section of the library ☺:
"The column is supposed to represent a vertical cross-section through the earth’s crust, with the most recently deposited (therefore youngest) rocks at the surface and the oldest, earliest rocks deposited on the crystalline “basement” rocks at the bottom. If one wishes to check out this standard column (or standard geologic age system), where can he go to see it for himself? There is only one place in all the world to see the standard geologic column. That’s in the textbook! … almost any textbook, in fact, that deals with evolution or earth history. A typical textbook rendering of the standard column is shown in Figure 44. This standard column is supposed to be at least 100 miles [160 km] thick (some writers say up to 200 [320 km]), representing the total sedimentary activity of all of the geologic ages. However, the average thickness of each local geologic column is about one mile (in some places, the column has essentially zero thickness, in a few places it may be up to 16 or so miles [25 km], but the worldwide average is about one mile [1.6 km]). The standard column has been built up by superposition of local columns from many different localities." (Morris and Parker, 1982 – Emphasis in original). From The geological column: Does it exist?
5] These fossilised trees can be seen to extend though thousands or even millions of years of rock strata, which suggests that these trees were buried quickly and not by a slow process taking millions of years. 6] Evolutionist believe that land plants did not appear until over 100 million years after the Cambrian trilobites died out, yet over sixty genera of woody pant spores, pollen and wood itself have been recovered from the lowest "trilobite" rock from around the world (Parker, 2001). 7] There are numerous examples of strata of rock either missing or being misplaced (Parker, 2001).
Dr Gary Parker in his book Creation facts of Life states that "Thus, a walk though the Grand Canyon, then, is not like a walk through evolutionary time; instead it's like a walk from the bottom of the ocean, across the tidal zone, over the shore, across the lowlands and into the upland regions".
Hmm, interesting!
T
8] nowhere in the world does the complete column exist. 9] The majority of the geological periods are missing in the field. 10] those defending the column have invented ad hoc reasons to explain the missing geologic periods, they did not deny the hypothetical nature of the column. 11] creationists remain more than justified in highlighting the essential non-existence of the standard geologic column. 12] anti-creationists have argued that the 1% of the earth’s surface where the lithologies of all ten geologic periods can be found simultaneously is somehow more significant than the remaining 99% where they are not superposed. 13] any mixing of organisms during the Flood has already been accounted for by evolutionists by such things as long-ranging fossils (which are thereby not used as index fossils), and ‘reworking’ rationalizations, etc. 14]
To the diluviologist this means, of course, that only the local succession has to be explained by Flood-related processes. Very seldom do all ten geologic systems have to be accounted for in terms of Flood deposition. 15] There is no escaping the fact that the Phanerozoic geologic column remains essentially non-existent.
"It should be obvious, to all but the most biased observers, that it is the anti-creationists who misrepresent the geologic facts. The geologic column does not exist to any substantive extent, and scientific creationists are correct to point this out." [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp]
T
Must say I am thoroughly enjoying the toing and froing here, and feel that Chris is doing an admirable job defending himself against a solid barrage. Would have to say, I am more enclined to agree with Chris than with the YEC/YLC side, even if there are points I would disagree with Chris on.
Here are a miscellany of thoughts:
-on another thread I posted that there is a higher percentage of science faculty in the UK that believe in a God than occurs in the arts faculty. After the scientists think about what they see, the question they come back to is – why.
– theology and science are not exclusive of each other. A belief in a creator is going to influence the interpretation of facts differently to a non-belief in a creator.
– given a belief in a creator, some people will endeavour to understand what the Bible means through the lens of science, whereas others will endeavour to understand science through the Bible. Galileo's catholic church used the later, and so does the modern adventist church. And so do some of those posting on this thread.
– the message of Genesis, some will understand it to illustrate that God is the creator, others will seek to use it to define how God created. The bigger message would have to be that God created.
– science attempts to answer the how. Faith attempts to answer the why.
Mr Barrett:
Like stated before consistence gives us credibility.
You wrote, “I do believe that what and how things happen today is a guide to how things happened in the past.” very good.
I used the same argument; I have to assume that what I observe today (mutations for us are deleterious and lethal and are pretty reproducible) is also a solid guide to what happened is the past. So evolution cannot be explained by mutations that make us better!, I feel very confortable believing that mutations in us produce devolution ( making us worse)
I have given you the credit for your analysis; I hope you will do the same for my, not using data that we cannot observe at the present time.
Chris, what you're saying is that you've been convinced by mainstream interpretations of the data. I don't deny that people can be convinced by mainstream interpretations, just as people can be convinced by creationist interpretations. Some people really are persuadable.
That's why creationists need to continually work on creationist intepretations of the data. That's also why the "blind faith" approach to believing in the biblical narrative–advocated by some who want to teach mainstream origins science instead of creationism in Adventists colleges–is a total catastrophe. If we take that approach, soon no one will actually believe in the biblical narrative. Most people's faith is not so strong that they will continue to believe in the biblical narrative when it seems like all the evidence points in the other direction.
cb25 You haven't really read what I posted. The glorified 'geological column' doesn't really exist in its entirety. It is shown in books and in schema and models. Sir, The very fact that we have sought to threaten impoliteness towards me comes as no surprise. What is worse, though, is that evolutionists like yourself and others, who openly defy the Almighty Creator God by arguing Atheistic philosophical scientific methods to prove the Bible wrong, have been impolite to the God very God of Heaven and Earth. I would not find it very difficult to call this defiance Blasphemy Sir. By taking the position of death before sin you and others insult the Grace and Mercy of God in Christ Jesus who died for the sins of this world. You can't be taken seriously therefore as a believer in God or the Bible, Christian Belief and the authority of Christian Canon as seen in the Word of God, the Holy Bible.
Those expletives you suggested you couldn’t mention in parenthesis can very well be used to describe more aptly just what evolution theory is. People like Walter Veith and others who stand up for Biblical Creation Truths are far more reliable than those who hide within the millions of years evolution theory chaos. You know for a fact that no-one has witnessed to the Geological Column forming. Where is there a repeated observable occurrence of it? This immediately takes it OFF the empirical science platform and places it in its rightful philosophical meta-physical sphere in atheist books. There is no rambling Sir, in my post. I have quickly summarized a few objective points which point out that there is no real Geological Column which you have tried to pass off as real. These, as stated in my earlier posts are best found and left in the evolution 'fiction' story books.
T
The events surrounding the siege of Srebrenica during the violent breakdown of the Yugoslav republic in 1995 are also not repeatable. The events surrounding the explosion on mount st Helens are not repeatable. The spread of the bubonic plague throughout eurasia in the middle ages is not repeatable. Yet noone contests the historical reality of these events. Why is there no concensus that all of these non-repeatable events are removed from the science platform and really belong in the philosophical metaphysical aisle of the library?
A very relevant response from Thomas "Vastergottland" which YEC/YLF advocates (see Mr. Hammond's most recent posting) will, I suspect, completely, either ignore because they don't understand the point, or entirely miss the point.
Evolution, The Theory of / Has NOT Contributed To Science or Medicines.
Evolution is Not a Fact, it is a Myth, it is a Religion, and Not Proven
"Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, believed in Darwinism. In fact, she cited Darwinism to support her crusades for birth control. She was also a eugenicist. Call it pure happenstance, if you will, but Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the U.S., and — coincidence or not — about 36% of aborted babies in this country are black. Blacks make up only 12-14% of the United States population."- Wes Vernon (Washington-based writer and vet. broadcast journalist), from his review of Ann Coulter's book,"Godless"
[Bounoure, Louis]
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups. The theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."- Louis Bounoure [Dir. of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum]; The Advocate, March 8, 1984, p.17
[*Skell, Philip S.]
"I recently asked more than seventy eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."-Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Penn St. Univ., member of the Nat. Acad. of Sciences; Why Do We Invoke Darwin?-Evolutionary Theory Contributes Little To Experimental Biology; The Scientist 2005, 19(16):10; Aug.29, 2005.
[Agassiz, Louis]
"The theory of the transmutation of species is a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendency."- Louis Agassiz [ Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation]
T
Maybe just a few more fossils for thought:
[Bertalanffy, Ludwig von]
"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds."- Ludwig von Bertalanffy, biologist
[Bierle, Donald A.]
"Like many high school and college teachers today, I held the viewpoint that evolution was based on solid scientific facts. But when I started looking for those facts, I couldn't find them. The evidence for the origin of life by spontaneous generation from chemicals, and for the intermediate fossils that allegedly prove the macroevolution of all major life groups, was simply not there."- Donald A. Bierle [biologist/zoologist], former evolutionist and skeptic
"I was still committed to evolution when I professed faith in Jesus Christ, but as I studied books and articles written by evolutionists, it became increasingly clear that they were committed to a philosophical and religious — rather than purely scientific — world view. They held to their 'faith' in evolution even though the crucial evidence for it was clearly lacking."- Donald A. Bierle [biologist/zoologist], former evolutionist and skeptic
[*Cohen, I. L.]
"Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish … It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice – between logic and emotion – between fact and fiction … In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail – no matter what the final result is – no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process … After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers … If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then Lets cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back … Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong… The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."- I. L. Cohen [Member of the New York Academy of Sciences; Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America], Darwin Was Wrong – A Study in Probabilities PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc. pp 6-8, 209-210, 214-215
T
Chris, so if I understand correctly, you're saying that the Sinai corals pre date the most recent ice age, meaning that they formed during the interglacials when sea levels were higher than now.
During the last interglacial, the sea level was up at most about 8 meters, and the highest sea level during the Pleistocene interglacials was about 15 meters higher than today.
First, is that even high enough to account for the Sinai corals? I thought you said the highest were now 20 meters above sea level.
Second, are you saying that 8 meters of sea level rise or even 15 meters of sea level rise would make Tell el-Mukayyar (which was on a 20 meter hill) uninhabitable? Or make the entire biblical "land of the Chaldees (or kasdim)" uninhabitable?
Third, how does the Milankovitch theory of Ice Ages account for interglacials so much warmer than today that sea levels were 8 to 15 meters higher? Are very slight cyclical changes in the 1) the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit around the sun, 2) the tilt of the earth’s axis relative to the plane of its orbit around the sun, and 3) the precession of the equinoxes sufficient to create conditions so warm that they raise the oceans by as much as 15 meters? (And isn't it awfully silly to worry about supposed man-made global warming when natural Milankovitch cycles can raise sea levels by 15 meters above the current level anyway?)
Chris, I'm looking at the article you gave me the link to, and it looks like it acknowledges that strong tectonic uplift of fossil corals is common in the area and acknowledged in the literature. Here for example:
"In this respect, strong vertical tectonism in a similar structural setting is well documented on Tiran Island, at the intersection between the Red Sea and the Dead Sea-Gulf of Aqaba transform, where Quaternary coral terraces are hundreds of meters above the present sea level (Y. Bartov, pers. comm., 1982)."
If "vertical tectonism" raised some coral reefs "hundreds of meters" above the present sea level, can you really rule out that the fossil reefs on the Sinai were lifted a few meters by vertical tectonism? Doesn't this shake your confidence a little?
I would like an answer to these questions:
What was God doing over the millions of years you say this earth took to evolve – a Matrix move that lasted that long? Couldn't He be considered a fraud if He watched while people and animals developed in the primordial stew? If God could not have created this earth in a week, then how could He be God – omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent – and what sense would it make to serve Him?
Not more and more evidence, just more and more interpretation of evidence by people who are already basing their intepretations upon materialistic premsises.
The idea that there was high water mark of 20 plus meters in an interglacial seems to come mostly from papers by Paul Hearty and much of it seems to be based upon an analysis of one cave in Bermuda. He's concluding way, way too much based upon very little evidence. What's the causal mechanism for so much warming and so much deglaciation from current levels?
And he is admitting that if the sea was that high it was only a brief "spike" not a sustained coastline. A sustained sea level that much higher than today would leave an unmistakable terrace all over the world. In one of his papers he starts making excuses for the lack of other additional evidence of such a high interglacial sea level: "why other lines of evidence may not reveal a +20 spike at MIS 11" "why rapid spikes in sea level may leave little evidence on coastlines".
But assuming it is true–and I doubt very mcuh that it is–a short spike in sea levels wouldn't be inconsistent with human habitation of Mesopotamia before and after the spike so it doesn't do anything to disprove biblical history.
Also assuming it is true, it really is ludicrous to worry about man-made global warming. If the warm phase of natural Milankovitch cycles will raise sea levels 70 feet above current levels, then there's certainly absolutely nothing pitiful man can do to avoid catastrophic sea level rises, and it is perfectly idiotic to cripple our economy trying to avoid them.
I agree that of course there is more data, but the raw data is not "evidence" that points in one direction or another until it is interpreted. . . . But I see that you acknowledged that at the end of your post.
Trevor, I basically agree with Chris that arguing about the existence or non-existence of the "geologic column" is a sterile exercise. The order of deposition of the strata is clearly real and is just as necessary for a creationist to try to make sense of the geology as for a mainstream scientist.
What isn't necessarily true is the conclusions about time that mainstream scientists derive from the concept of the geological column. These depend upon assumptions about rate of deposition that are often inconsistent with other evidence, like, say, the preservation of fossils, or the lack of erosion on the surface of a stratum thought to be hundreds of millions of years older than the layer conformably overlying it.
Chris, we have not been discussing "recent times (>20k yrs)." You've been saying the fossil corals pre-date the last glacial advance (>110k yrs ago). Assuming that's true, the corals could have been lifted well before the area became "relatively quiet tectonically."
Where are you coming up with the number 200 years? Assuming the fossils were lifted tectonically, they could have been built pretty much any time before the region became tectonically quiet. Your tenuous, hypothesized connection between the Sinai fossil corals and biblical "Ur" (wherever and whatever that was) depends upon the corals having been formed during higher interglacial sea levels. If they were lifted tectonically, they're not necessarily connected to the interglacial sea levels.
Again, "the little window of time" is based upon your idea that the corals are remnants of higher interglacial sea levels, which you think would have prevented the settlement of Biblical Ur.
I don't think there is a little window of time. I think the corals could have formed during the first thousand years or so after the Flood and been lifted tectonically.
The Exodus, during which the children of Isreal wandered through the Sinai, was over a thousand years after the Flood. I don't think the patriarchs wandered through the Sinai, but even if they did, so they wandered through a few earthquakes? So what? They lived in tents, and nobody was ever killed when his tent collapsed on him.
pat harve asks very pertinent questions which quickly get categorised in the philosophical department by cb25.
That's ok; but one should also put this whole blog in its rightful place too: in the philosophical department together with the Geological Column HYPOTHESIS. The link cb25 advocates above is basic'k'ally the 'other' camps philosophical views which try and POSE as empirical sciences. What the Geological Column 'hypothesis' DOES show though and strongly suggests, IS THAT A CATASTROPHIC FLOOD of Biblical proportions did in fact take place. Maybe that's the part where cb25 may dosed off whilst watching those Walter Veith Tapes. Readers can see that many in the scientific Community in my posts above are not DECEIVED by such hype-potheses as sci-fi evolution theory. Back later …
T
Comment deleted as off-topic & inappropriate. This is a discussion forum, not to be used as a crusade to convert anyone to a particular belief system. Accepting others as they are, is part of the great admonition and all are asked to show this spirit in discussing topics here. A topic not of an individual's particular belief does not make it necessarily wrong. Discuss, learn and disagree civilly, please. CH
Thomas
There is a big difference between historical events and biological facts.
To ask to reproduce historical events to give credibility is beyond absurd.
But if you read very careful the argument of Mr. Barrett, he is judging the past by present observations. So I used the same argument. Mutations in us are deleterious and lethal, therefore that also happened in past. Therefore is reasonable to conclude that the fundamental piece of evolution (mutations) disproves the theory.
As I already said, mutations are not the fundamental piece of evolution.
Also, may I point you to Popperian falsification theory. To give the classic example; All swans are white.
No amount of white swans can prove that this is a true statement while one black swan will prove that it is false.
It seems to me that the branches of biology to which you object are at least partly historical in nature.
Well I think the Editor has clearly displayed a bias against my posts and has continued to delete them yet others are allowed to freely engage their views. This cements the Fundamentalist attitude displayed by so-called progressives so I guess it's Farewell to all in 'progressive' AToday land. I was not off topic and was exchanging my views in an appropiate manner. Goes to show how some schools of thought will favour one group over the other. Editor, go ahead and delete all my posts on this website and delete me off the AToday registration too. This reminds me so much of the satire by George Orwell called – 'An Animal Farm'. Talk about Investigative 'progressive' Judgment. Go ahead Editor CM – make my day! Going, going, …
♥T
Don't give up so easily, Trevor. There needs to be a few of us to stir up trouble and be thorns in the sides of the skeptics and revisionists.
We know that all this business about an old earth and a flood that was much earlier than a few thousand years ago is pure poppycock, but we have to keep trying to get through to the unenlightened. They may not have had the advantages that we have.
Might I ask Mr. Butler what "advantages" he and Mr. Hammond have had? I am curious as to what kind of education one might have had to be able to say with a straight face that "all this business about an old earth and a flood that was much earlier than a few thousand years is pure poppycock." (By the way, I just love the sound of the word "poppycock." It has such a poetic quality.)
Even though we disagree on this subject, we both agree on the sound of the word "poppycock." Almost makes me wish I was British, old chap.
I was speaking somewhat in sarcasm. What I might consider to have been advantages, could easily be interpreted as disadvantages by those with whom I have disgreements on this subject. If I have had any advantages they have been in the realm of having studied this issue off and on for most of my life. I was a biology major, and had professors who clearly articulate the creationist position in a time when there was much less information available then there is now. What convinces others that the earth is old, has had an opposite effect on me. There are explanations that satisfy both camps. I accept the explanations that are in harmony with the Bible because I have more faith in the Bible than I do in fallible scientists. When all the dust settles both camps must excercise a great degree of faith. I happen to believe that there is more reason to believe the Biblical version than the scientists' version. Only by twisting Scripture ("Scriptorture") can one make the Bible agree with current scientific theories on origins. "Faith is the . . . evidence of things not seen."
Might I ask Mr. Butler if he has faith in fallible theologians?
No, only in the inerrancy of Scripture, which was not written by theologians, but by men inspried by the Holy Spirit. The Bereans ran Paul's teachings through the filter of Scripture. I try to do the same. If something appears to be contradictory to Scripture, I'll go with Scripture, all the while trying to understand it better. When someone (as was stated here on this forum) says that there was death before sin, I reject that because it is opposite of what the Bible clearly teaches.
You say you believe in the "inerrancy of Scripture." Just to be clear, you believe that every statement in the Bible must be taken as literally true?
Trevor in the last days i was given lectures to a group of physicians in Acapulco ( nice place) I did not see your deleted comments. Your participation in AT is vibrant, fun and though provoking. If the editor deletes you from AT will be sad, and the seriousness of open debate will be damage.
Chris,
(a) If I scroll up, there are lots of illustrations, but I have no idea which illustration you were directing attention to. (b) You seem to be comparing apples to oranges. Evolution is based on possibilities that have never been observed, and Brown's theory is based on very observable data. In other words, both sides discuss both data and possibilities. Regarding the highly mineralized-water aspect of Brown's theory, see http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Limestone.html which discusses the very observable problem of earth's excess limestone.
(c) How do you know that we are talking about growth-related size rather than storm-related? Have you personally observed these corals?
Regarding reconciling, what efforts have you made to try to reconcile them? How much time and effort have you put into trying to come up with solutions?
Actually, it does not seem that any special education in the sciences is necessary if the Bible is the final answer. Anyone can read the Bible and be fully informed on most any subjects by eliminating anything that appears to disagree with the Bible.
BTW, if humans are fallible, is the Bible, written by humans, infallible? Is that now the position of the SDA church that the Bible is both fallible and inerrant?
Hi Chris.
(a) I have not digested every word of the article, but I keep seeing words like "interpretation," such as in the caption for Fig. 4, which indicate that lots of this is speculative and uncertain. In contrast, the same book of Genesis that calls the Dead Sea the "Salt Sea" speaks in no uncertain terms regarding the age of the earth, creation, and the Flood.
(c) Is it not possible that a weakness in your research is the relying on the data and theories of skeptics and infidels, when most of the time such individuals will not be sharing information contradicting their theories, often because they do not see such information since they aren't expecting it to be there? Before concluding that the Bible must be wrong, I would recommend that you do your own independent, thorough, and critical evaluation of such individuals' research.
If you can't have a fertile valley "on top of salt," why are farmers in the southern Jordan Valley growing bananas? Genesis describes a previously more fertile area near the Salt Sea, and millennia later we have an area near the Dead Sea where they grow bananas, a fact used by the Israeli government to lure tourists to visit.
Hi Chris.
(a) The article's repeated use of words like "interpretation" make clear that it isn't talking about certainties. It also makes clear that there have been other different "interpretations." So which interpretation is correct, if any? Sounds like speculation to me. (b) If you do not believe that Sodom was near the Dead Sea, where do you think it was?
What determines whether one is an infidel or skeptic is whether one believes the Bible or not. A scientist who refuses to believe the Bible and who repeatedly promotes conclusions that contradict the Bible may object to the use of these terms, but the labels fit nonetheless. We should remember that God told the Adventist church long ago that those who promote the idea that the days of creation are long ages are promoting a most dangerous form of infidelity.
"Old earth and life." How old do you think life is on earth? Was there death before Adam and Eve sinned, or do you think the apostle Paul was wrong when he denied that idea? But note that according to conventional radiometric dating techniques, as brought out at http://www.halos.com/reports/science-1976-coalified-wood.htm, Triassic and Cretaceous coalified wood samples were at least 270 to 760 times more recent than commonly dated by evolutionists. Given the references to these strata in the article on the salt domes, these corrected "dates" must be taken into account. Does your 70 to 17k figure take this into account?
I would say the Bible writers were of a different mindset than today and certainly not science oriented. Maybe they were post-modern, a term that scientists just hate!
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the 6 days of creation were symbolic? How about the 40 days and 40 nights that it rained during the flood? 3 days and 3 nights that Jesus was in the tomb. 50 days from the resurrection to Pentecost? Where do you draw the line? Context is the key word. So many of the numbers in Revelation are symbolic that the it's logical to take the144,000 as symbolic. But in the narrative sections of Scripture, it is also logical to accept numbers as being literal, unless the context requires otherwise. Nothing in Genesis hints at symbolism when it comes to the parts that are simple narratives. Gen. 3:15 is one clear exception, and it isn't concerned with numbers.
What are the mathematical odds of the number 40 that is used so often in the Bible, a truly accurate number? Long before humans developed mathematical skills the body digits numbered 40 and that may have been as far as they calculated. The moon had fixed schedules of 28 days (marked by the sun) and there were seven visible stars where the number 7 could be used.
As an aside: sabbaths were calculated by the moon and the Jewish calendar indicated that: from the first new moon, seven days were counted which was sabbath, etc., making every sabbath dependent on the moon. If such a method were followed, sabbath would fall on a different day of the week in a short time. The new moon and sabbath are mentioned together at least six times in the Bible and there is evidence that the new moons as well as sabbaths were observed by the Isrealites. The well-known verse in Is.66:23 connects the two events as the worship time in Israel and the new earth. Why is the new moon competely ignored but sabbath is to be a continual ceremony?
The 144,000 could be 12×12: remember, there were 12 tribes (12 gates of the Holy City?) and the number twelve is used more than three dozen times in the Bible. Could it be that it was one of the largest numbers to which they could count? Hundreds was also used many times, but probably meant a "large number" and merely an estimate of a bigger group. If the Exodus was 600,000, as has been estimated, the time to cross the Red Sea would have been far longer than the story; which is why most numbers in the Bible are not considered factual. Actually, the Bible writers recalled a time which was both pre-modern, and pre-literate.
Elaine, do you ever read any other theologian's persepectives other than the liberal ones? The new moon was used to calculate when various feasts started–notably the Passover. The only sabbaths that were calculated by the new moon were the ceremonial ones. That all pointed forward to the Messiah and had no further significance after Messiah came. The weekly Sabbath was never calculated by the moon, and did not point forward to anything. There are those on the fringe who are trying to insist that the weekly Sabbath be calculated that way, but since it is a memorial of creation, and is clearly tied to the creation week in Exodus 20:8-11, one must reject that position.
Humans did not "develop" mathematical skills. The antediluvians were far superior mentally than we are, and I'm sure they could count beyond the digits on their hands and feet.
It is more likely that there were well over a million people crossing the Red Sea when you factor in women and children. Calculate all you want, but I don't think the time factor is the problem that so many liberal theologians make it out to be.
Now, how do we tie this into the flood? 40 days and 40 nights. Yes, 40 was used symbolically in the Bible, but to take the number 40, when it is in the middle of an historical narrative, and try to make it symbolic, goes against the normal rules of exegesis.
Hi Chris.
"Death before sin." Wow! I found what you wrote elsewhere on this. Personally, I think people who put their own personal opinions above the Word of God have a severe ego problem, since they somehow think they are smarter than God. But then, on what logical basis are you using your understanding of a Bible story to date salt domes and alleged corals if you don't believe the Bible anyway? Why are you taking the stories about Abram to be autoritative if you don't take what the Bible says about Adam, sin, and death to be authoritative?
Note that, assuming you understood my point, you indicate in your reply that you are determined to hold your opinions regarding salt domes and alleged corals even if standard radiometric dating techniques demand that there is not enough time for evolutionary explanations for these phenomena to take place. This suggests a lack of scientific objectivity since it puts preconceived opinions above clearly observable data.
The fact that the U/Pb ratios in the U-238 halos are too high and about the same for Triassic and Cretaceous coalified wood samples suggests that these layers were deposited at the same time, relatively recently, presumably by a catastrophic flood. Common sense demands that any hypothesis regarding the salt domes and alleged corals cannot ignore these facts when the article you provided a link to depicts the salt domes in relation to Jurassic and Cretaceous strata.
Truthfully, all the info on the relationship between the new moon and sabbath were largely from Jewish sites–they should be the experts on that subject since Adventists would not know of it except through Judaism, which I recall, gave us the Hebrew Scriptures.
"The emegence of the moon–from darkness to light–is a picture of God's salvation for the Jewish people. In Talmudic times, the day marking the New Moon was fixed by actual observation by at least two witnesses. As soon as the new moon was visible as a waxing crescent, the Sanhedrin in Israel was informed (by the blowing of trumpets from mountain top to the next) and Rosh Chodesh was formally announced. This system was later discarded in favor of the fixed calendar developed by Hillel II (c360 C.E.), which has been in use to the present day)..The entire Jewish calendar was dependent upon knowing when Rosh Chodesh began, and without this information the set times for the festivals and holidays would be lost. Therefore, during times of persecution, the Jews were often forbidden to observe Rosh Chodesh as well as Shabbat, in order to keep from them obeying God" (www.hebrew4christians-com).
Other sources: Encyclopedia Biblical, http://www.jewishencyclopeda.com (sabbath). According to the Jewish Encyclopedia.com under Calendar: "Every two or threee years, as the case might be, an extra month was intercalated."
An additional problem: In Tonga, the SDA church worships on Sunday, because when a change was made to the International date line, Satuday became Sunday. In effect, man, not the heavenly bodies, determine when a day begins and ends. If this is so, then really man can establish or set apart which day Sabbath is, and when it begins and ends. In essence, man places himele in the place of God as the one who sets apart, or sanctifies a day.
None of that new moon stuff changes the weekly Sabbath. It remains constant. Those living near the international date line do the best they can. If the line ran in a straight line from pole to pole, that would solve the problem. I'm sure God accepts the Tongan's solution as their best effort, just as He accepted the faith of the thief on the cross as his best effort–even though he was not baptized, never went to church, never went out to share his faith. Confusion caused by the International Date Line is no excuse for abandoning a core Biblical doctrine.
Tongan Adventists in the USA worship on Saturday… as Sabbath keepers… We had a Tongan group at our local church. And several of their evangelism meetins were led out by Tongan preachers who had come from the island… And Saturaday was always the day they commemorated as the Lord's Day… Sabbath.
cb25 your Adventism could nuance your reply to the question if there was death on earth before Adam and Eve's fall a bit more. Try this. You Adventism taught you that sin did not originate on earth. As our prophetess revealed it started in heaven before the creation of earth, and the planning for the Creation of Earth seemes to have been the issue that revealed Lucifer's jealousy of the Son of God. Your Bible also reveals that after Michael defeated Lucifer the fallen (sinful) angels fell to earth. This was not the created earth, this was the formless and void precreation earth.
So our Adventism suggests that Creation itself took place in the context of fallen moral creatures, so any death on this created earth was "post fall" but not post the Adam/Eve fall, post Satan's fall. And the Geologic record may record the Great Controversy between Christ the Creator (my Intelligent Designer) and Satan the wanna-be Creator (my Intelligent Destroyer). The human creation had a choice to make, which party would they follow. When they decided to know Evil and well as Good, then death came upon humans. And St. Paul's statement is fully compatible with this if you understand it to mean "human death" came from the human choice and fall. But Jesus in John 8:44 says the devil "was a murderer from the beginning" he doesn't say he was a murder from the fall. The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the earth (Revelation 8:14), not from the sad choice of Eve/Adam. The Lamb was slain already from Satan's and angelic fall. I'm not trying to be literal or physical, but it has helped me understand that Creation itself is a part of the Great Controversy, and Light and Darkness began to fight on day one through day six. That is why each Creation Day begins in darkness and ends in light. When that stage's battle is over, God says it is good. Suggesting that it wasn't that good at the start of that stage? That is why Geology records a series of battles. That may be why death was on earth before Eve/Adam choose which side they were on. Even in the protected Garden the only reason they didn't die was access to a Life Tree, otherwise they like other creatures on the battle field would be subject to death even before they elected to experience Evil.
Death came on earth after sin, Satan and his host's sin, he was murdering from as Jesus says "in the beginning." Human death came after Eve/Adam's choice, so death passed from plants and animals to mankind. Does this help anyone? It has helped me a lot.
If only sabbath were observed by the world calendar–which was accepted hundreds of years ago. But faithful sabbath observers, beginning with Judaism, have been told that sabbath is from sundown to sundown; a very difficult situation in the far northern reaches of the globe. From experiences of SDAs living there, Adventists often went to evening vespers then shopped until "sundown" around midnight. With the sun rarely seen during the long winters, there is another problem with adhereing to the Bible rule. These adjustments were never considered when sabbath was given originally to the small area of Palestine, all in one time zone.
All the nine other laws of the Decalogue are "morals" that should be practiced always; sabbath is the only one that specifies a time when it is to observed, and if it is called the "moral" law, is one who does not observe it, as described by God in the Torah, is he considered to be "immoral"? Stealing is illawful and doesn't depend on time; ditto for lying and all the other nine. A law that is only pertinent to one day in seven cannot be considered a "moral" law.
I see the arguments of desparation. There is no problem deciding what day is the 7th day. All Christians know which day is the first day, which makes it obvious which day is the 7th. Messing with the calendar doesn't change that. The fact that the hours of daylight and darkness create problems in the arctic zones is no reason to abandon the observance of the Sabbath elsewhere. I believe God honors those who do their best to come to a reasonable solution. In the summer at Barrow, Alaska, the Sabbath would obviously begin around midnight, and in the winter abound noon on Friday. I don't know how they do it up there, but that's how I would do it if I were on my own.
So, now you're the authority on which laws are moral and which are not? The 10 commandments are a clearly a unit. To treat one differently than the others makes no sense. Our treatment of God seems to come under the category of morality just as much as our treatment of our fellow man. The fact that time is an element does not take away from the morality of the commandment, because it was God who made the rule, and from that fact alone it becomes a moral issue.
Laffal, if Sabbath is "observed" on Sunday in Tonga, doesn't that indicate that it is a "feeling" or sentiment that does not require adherence to the calendar? Many European calendars a few years ago showed Monday as the first day of the week, making Sunday the 7th. If the command is to observe the "7th day" it all depends on when a first day is.
Remember that the commandment to “remember” a specific pre-sanctified day as a reminder (itself) of who created whom, was given so that at some point time all of mankind—to include all nations who would eventually be blessed through Abraham’s seed—would know both who created whom, and how.
That is ONE version of the Ten. The one in Deuteronomy said, "It was not with our forefathers" which would indicate it had not been given previously, wouldn't it?
Also, in the same chapter (5) of Deuteronomy, the fourth commandment says: "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt….and because of this, God has commanded you to keep the sabbath day."
Just as there is a selective choice of stories (Gen. 1 preferred to Gen. 2) and the Ex. 20 version of the covenant given, over the one in Deuteronomy, there are rejections of the earliest Christian writings, Paul, who wrote that no one should be judged about days and "Let everyone be convinced in his OWN mind." Christians were given a new covenant and not the one given with the Israelites; neither were Christians ever given a specific day of "rest" as were the Israelites. Except for believing in Christ, Adventism simply included Judaism with belief in Christ.
The drivel spewed out by theological "scholars" who reject the divine inspiration of Scripture seems to get better press here than the material produced by those who accept the dvine origin of the Bible. It's easy to try to make the Bible argue with itself; it takes more scholarship, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit to detect the harmonious thread that exists from Genesis to Revelaton.
I would certainly agree with Mr. Butler that it "takes more scholarship . . . to detect the harmonious thread that exists from Genesis to Revelation." Members of the Adventist Theological Society use a lot of their scholarship in the service of tradtitional Adventism to impose on the Bible a set of propositions that may or may not be obvious from a "plain reading" of the Biblical texts. One of these debatable propositions is a view that there is a "harmonious thread that exists from Genesis to Revelation." One should not object when someone—be it John Milton or Ellen White—does that, but please don't suggest that the "harmonious" thread is obvious. Any such "harmonious" threads are imposed on the Biblical narratives through "creative" interepretations that emphasize one set of texts and ignore others or take them totally out of their original context. Of course since a number of New Testament writers did that with Old Textament texts, I suppose any modern person can not object.by saying that this practice is "non-Biblical".
If there is no harmonious thread from Genesis to Revelation, then the Bible is human, rather than divine in origin, and we might as well go watch the Yankees (pick your favorite sports/entertainment god) and forget about all this religion nonsense. There is no middle ground. The harmonious thread will be obvious only as the Holy Spirit enlightens the student of the Word. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. But, the skeptic will always find something to hang his hat on. That's not the fault of the inspired record.
I regret to conclude that Mr. Butler is arguing that either the Bible is all human or all divine in its origins. How about it being part of both? Is that not possible? The issue then will be what is human and what is divine. Is that not correct?
That's a red herring, if I ever saw one. The prophets were God's penmen, obviously, but the messages are divine in origin. What's so difficult about that? You have repeated the question so often asked by the skeptic: what part is inspired and what part is not? The little lady warned us not to go down that road. We start with the assumption that it is all inspired, as Paul said. If all Scripture is inspired by God, then it is clearly divine in origin. The key word was origin. If it is of human origin then it is no different than any othe piece of literature.
There is no reason why it cannot be divinely inspired yet also human. God can inspire a truthful message in a fallible form. The assumption that the Bible must be infallible and inerrant because it has a divine origin is simply an assumption. I believe the evidence of the bible itself (and Ellen White, if anyone is inclined to accept her words) is that it is both divinely inspired and fallibly human. So we have a fallible human document which originates with God and is sufficient for his purpose – which is that we be led to him and find salvation, not that we know with infallible accuracy all the details of history. The Bible is an infallible guide to salvation in that it leads to God who is the source of salvation.
Mr. Butler is spot on AGAIN by stating "That's a red herring, if I ever saw one." in referring to the "all human or all divine" dichotomy posed (a false one at that) – well, even poppycock too, would suffice. The writer of the "all human or all divine" statement doesn't substantiate what is implied with at least some Biblical support. Ah but of course, the Bible canon is NOT the basis of the Christian Life for some in progressive circles as aptly indicated here.
This quote sums-up the vital place the Bible has in formulating our Christian Belief:
Note: The same Spirit that breathed reason into us breathes revelation (not (R)EVOLUTION) among us…
♥T
Chris,
Your comments come across to me as if your reliance on "observable data" is subjective, not objective. If that be the case, no amount of evidence would be convincing to you because things would still look old to you, even when they are not.
Far better would it be to acknowledge the time constraints imposed by the U/Pb ratios already mentioned, and then ensure that your theory for the origin of the salt domes and alleged corals falls within those contraints. If you feel resistant to that idea, then I would suggest that neither the Bible nor science is the ultimate authority for you. The question would then be, what is?
Given the very evil results COL 41 depicts as resulting from planting seeds of doubt as you have done in this blog, I really think you need to rethink all of this. It isn't as if God never told you and me in explicit terms that we should not be doing this. Read COL 41 and see if you don't think it applies.
One additional thought is that you are putting so much stock in "observable data" which you have admitted that you have never personally observed. Therefore, you aren't basing your conclusions on observable data at all since you haven't observed that data, but must instead be basing them upon the assertions of skeptics and infidels, which for some reason you have decided to give more weight to than, and to exalt above, the Word of God and the Testimony of Jesus. Would not this qualify as apostasy?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview7.html provides an explanation for salt domes. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview4.html refers to salt water being found in German and Russian superdeep boreholes. http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors95/jan95/composite.ashx confirms that a lot of salt water was found in the KTB borehole.
Really, discounting Brown's hypothesis by calling it imaginative and saying it doesn't appeal to common sense is woefully inadequate given the topic you have chosen and the issues you have raised. Please be specific as to why his hypothesis cannot possibly be a plausible explanation.
Brother Trevor: Just in case if you still see AT comeback, your comments where fun and insightful I loved when you just to throw some fossils to chew. Some of the evolutionists were becoming toothless by your comments.
I am indeed very touched by my wise friend from the East JIMS Seven (and others 'wise') who have suggested that I continue engaging on this website's blogs wrt expressing my humble opinions, views and beliefs which may sometimes rub some folks up the wrong way. No hard feelings – at least for me though, although I must say that I feel somewhat 'restricted' in order to avoid censorship. I have dealt with discrimination in many forms for most of my life JIMS Seven, so it's no skin off my back, although I hope I'm not been accused here on this blog of discriminating against FOSSILS (hahaha ☺)…
In the ROCK of the Ages
♥T
Dear Dr David
Thanks kindly Sir. I hope I am not as difficult to 'read' as the hypothetical Geological Column ☺…
♥T
Trevor at one time I was so naïve, that actually believe that in one, or many parts of the earth was a “real geological column” showing all what the evolutions claim. When I really pay attention this infamous column only exist in the text books with the help of a lot of imagination.
A point to consider too in this discussion in terms of the Biblical Account of the Flood been questioned and also inadvertently ridiculed, imho of course, in order to justify evolution philosophy/sophistry, which, from what I have gathered is passed off as empirical evidence and proof of evolution origins. Those who base their Christian Belief and Faith on the WORD of GOD can find NO 'jot or tittle' that would support such a claim. Every philosophical belief and system should always tested by the Bible: not the other way round. Skeptics and infidels are free to test the Bible in this regard as it may be their prerogative to do so but Bible Believers aren't bound by such non-Christ theories. The Bible stands as our rule of Faith and Belief. Indeed: "Every Scripture passage is inspired by God. All of them are useful for teaching, pointing out errors, correcting people, and training them for a life that has God's approval. [2Tim 3:16]
In the ROCK of Ages
♥T
Cb 25.
Would you recognise a beneficial mutation if you saw one David?
Thomas I did realized your previous comments. So what is the fundamental piece of evolution if is not mutations? The all theory falls in pieces without it. Show us a mutation that makes us better, i don’t have a problem admitting facts and realities.
David, I already explained evolution previously in this thread. If you have any objections, you might wish to present them in that context. Also, I suggested beneficial mutations which you dismissed because the example did not apply directly to humans. I will submit another example, one which you as a medical practitioner will appreciate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_immune_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_hypermutation
Thomas I was able to read your column. Good now we getting a little big technical.
“David, the problem with your argument above is that its fundamental premise is wrong”
how wrong? 100% 50% 30% 1% less than that?
“Mutations is not the fundamental principal of macroevolution”. So what it is?
“Macro and microevolution occur because different processes (mutation is only, one of them)” so i guess I was not 100% wrong. Could mention the others? How many were identified?
“create variation in a population, and this variation lets some individuals succeed better than other individuals of the species do”. How this variation is created? and where is create and how you call that variation?
I also checked the wikipedia links. That is not a mutation that makes us better! please be serious.
Let just put a example; a mother is exposed to a bacteria GB streptococcus (antigen) , her immune system immunoglobulin will work in the “hypervariable regions in order to combat the bacteria. Is that information transfer to her babies and protect them? NOT AT ALL, Each year in the word 2,000,000 newborn babies die because infections by GB strep or E Coli.
Not to beat a dead Eohippus, but lost in all the debris seems to be the fact that natural selection, which either selects or rejects any particular trait, whether it be detrimental or beneficial, can only select from whatever information is in the genetic code. It cannot add anything new. New information is indispensable to get from a "simple cell" to a simple minded layman, even one like me. The fact that there may be a few beneficial mutations is a red herring, since the vast majority of mutations are not favorable to the species. There isn't enough time, even in the evolutionary time scale, to have produced Einstein from ein cell.
David, you are wrong because you hypotetise that evolution is standing one one singular pillar, mutations. Evolution requires genetical variation, and as a doctor you ought to be aware of the main source of genetical variation in any species which has sexual reproduction. In fact, the very reason that close relatives are forbidden in most laws (including mosaic law) to start families is that genetic variation is diminished when the parents are too close relatives. The reason for these functions being the main source of variation is of course that most mutation-induced variation is neutral in effect.
As for the links, I would consider a mutation that lets my body defend itself against a new pathogen to be good for me.. That this mutation is not inherited does not disqualify it as an answer to your challenge to find mutations that make us better (as individuals).
Bacterial mutations:
Did you know that an experiment started since the 60ths is trying to see if E Coli will result in MACROEVOLUTION. Until now 50,000 generations were observed, some of them may are bigger but did E Coli evolved to another bacteria? NO…. sorry, still after all this years and millions of dollars E. Coli is E Coli. Did E Coli become salmonella or a new organism … NO.
Just out of curiosity, I wanted to ask Trevor and David if they were ever once members of an Adventist group in Australia known as the “Concerned Brethren”?
I still have not received a response from Trevor about whether he was once a member of the "Concerned Brethren?" Every time he posts, my suspicion about his affiiation with the "CBs" increases.
Erv this is the first time I hear about “Concerned Brethren”
My affiliations are to Christ, to mainstream SDA church, and to 3 medicals and scientific societies
David. Thank you and congratulations about your affiliations
Human milk: the best nutrient and also a great source on temporally passive immunity, (igA, lactoferrin) but nothing to do with mutations. Also despite human milk still we have neonatal infections, like early and late GB strep infections.
The fact that we don't yet have an explanation doesn't prove evolution. Many so-called "vestigial" structures have been found to have a unique function.
How do we know that both men and women didn't have the capacity for breast feeding before the fall? When men had to go out and work "by the sweat of their brow, while the women cared for the children, the function may have been selected out by a mutation. I'm just speculating–which puts me in good company, since that what most evolutionists do. It sounds a bit far-fetched, but no more far-fetched than "punctuated equilibrium." We may yet find a function for human milk lines in men, just as we have for the "vestigial" appendix.
Reality:
I see, you meant “Supernumerary nipple” (different nomenclature) this occurs in both male and female but actually is seen more common in males, why more in males? I guess any body imagination could fly with that. Many times are isolated findings; other times are associated to diseases (renal, even malignancies)
Speculation:
Do you think this is evidence of mutation or evolution? Good luck in trying to explain it and even more trying to prove it. The speculations are over the place so I don’t put to much weight in speculations.
The embryo have several transitional changes and some of them they will disappear this time and others not
Why some persons present with extra nipple in the “milk line” and other not? Why some individual may have one umbilical artery and other 2 umbilical arteries or may have duplication of the urogenital system? Why some individual they have hypertrachosis?
By the way polytheia (many nipples) is linked with abnormalities of the urinary tract. Such abnormalities include supernumerary kidneys, failure of renal formation, and carcinoma of the kidney.[16-18] The association of polythelia and renal anomalies is not ironclad but is supported by some studies.
If you want to believe in evolution because of that, to me is a very fragile platform. Like I stated before mutations the fundamental piece of evolution disproves this theory. I can give thousands of examples.
Why I participated in this block? To change the mind of the evolutionist? No…I’m not that naive. I do it to show, that for of some the theory evolution is contradictory to its basis. The fundamental base is mutation (we evolved from lower forms of live to what we are now because mutations occurred). but until now the mutations that we know and can be prove are deleterious and lethal. This is overwhelming and can be demonstrated over and over.
Because of my training (nuclear physics, biochemistry, doctor in medicine with 6 years of post doctoral fellowship and several years of experience in basic science, transitional and clinical research) I don’t denies facts or realities. If some day is proved that mutations make us better, I’ll accept the facts but never speculations that can not be proved.
You stated
“If you refuse to believe in evolutionary processes because you can't "see" a mutation, that is a very fragile platform. Well show me a mutation that makes us better, I will show you thousand that are deleterious and lethal, to start trisomy 21, 18, 13, etc etc.
Secondly, it ignores many things that others would say are mutations. Could you mention which ones are those? And more import can be proved?
Third, it will eventually face the day when incontrovertable mutations are demonstrated even to the doubters. When that day comes I have not problem to accepted, but until day is just a mirage (maybe some day also the BIG FOOT will appear)
The burden to prove if milk lines are related mutations is on the evolutionists. You are the ones who proposed not the other way around.
Because dog and human have thee it does not prove that we have a common ancestor.
How convenient, when we ask for evidence of the statements, no solid answer!
I was raised in a secular environment where evolution was the bread of every single day; religion was not part of my routine. I did not reject this theory until I was highly educated and trained with rigor to question what makes no sense with present observations. Like I said before the highest credibility is given to reproducible observations, this is much superior to any retrospective analysis where we do not know all the variables that were involved.
The theological dilemma that theistic evolutionist have is not small, if one believes in evolution basically discredit the teaching of the gospel. DEATH BEFORE SIN is contrary to the teaching of Old and New Testament. In other words is a heresy.
I have hypothesis to test about David. My hypothesis is that his rejection of evolution occurred not because he was "highly educated" but because he became a convert to the Adventist Church and changed his views because of that. David is my hypothesis correct or not correct? I'm going to assume you, being a Christian, are going to tell the truth and not lie about this.
I rejected evolution not because of my faith… these days we can find a church to whoever taste. To me the corner stone of evolution (mutations) disproves the theory. Like I said before when the reproducible evidence show us that mutation makes better i will have not problem to accepted it.
Chris,
"Given even a semblance of unirormity …" On what basis are you concluding that there has been uniformity in erosion? Does this not beg the question? Does this not assume as true what must first be proven?
"… I find his matierial so 'out there' …. I am not trying to rubbish the guy, but it is crazy." The guy is not an Adventist, and yet his hydroplate agrees with what some of what Ellen White describes: (a) Not enough water in the pre-flood seas to cover the land. (b) No clouds appearing before. (c) Huge jets of water gushed out of the earth, throwing massive boulders high into the air. True, there are some differences, such as (a) no clouds being seen and (b) no drops of rain falling until after the fountains of the deep opening up, when Ellen White has these two things occuring just a little before. But nevertheless, since a divinely inspired prophet describes much the same thing as Brown's theory, and since the Bible's account depicts the fountains of the great deep as a cause of the deluge, it can't be entirely crazy, and parts of it must be true, whether we are hdeitant to admit it or not.
"Perhaps someone who upholds Browns theory could explain …" First of all, we must establish that fossils of coral, clams, and one-celled organisms have been clearly identified in the limestone. The author of the article you provided a link to is an evolutionist and a skeptic, and has either rejected or is ignorant of the corrections that radiometric dating has made to evolutionary assumed ages for Triassic formations. After we establish the point that these fossils have definitely been located, we must then establish that these fossils are of organisms that grew in their present location, and were not transported.
I'm beginning to get a clear picture of what this website is all about. I originally thought it was operated by SDA's, but I now see that that is not the case. No wonder we're not getting anywhere with these discussions. You reject the SOP, and I Tim. 3:16. No wonder I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall.
That AT permits Mr. Butler to make his illogical and misdirected comments is a sign that AT is a mature part of Adventism–the "Big Tent" part. I hope that "cb25" continues to contribute his perspective which has the virtue of having some rationality attached to it.
"Rationality": a distinctly missing process with many contributors here. Preconceived ideology trumps rational thinking.
Here we go again, all those opposing the views set forth in defense this blog are labeled as illogical and misdirected. The Big Tent faction is just was it is: a Big Tent, albeit pitched on sea-sand with maybe a few seats taken. In my opinion, (I could be wrong), this blog seems extremely non-SDA aligned and even non-Christian for that matter and goes to the extent of insinuating that even Jesus' and Peter's reference to Noah's Flood may be 'illogical and misdirected'.
Now what if we hypothetically say that the Pentagon has on it's website a free discussion page which allows Al Qaeda to contribute a blog article. We all know very well that the heat in the kitchen will rapidly escalate. This blog on AT too will have to deal with the heat it generates and the 'flood' of respondents. I would also suggest to contributors and readers to consider too that as Jesus ( and Peter) affirmed the Flood in Noah's day He (and Peter) warned that FIRE will ultimately be the fate of the wicked.
I can without a shadow of doubt say both scientifically (empirically) and philosophically that there is reproducible EVIDENCE that fire BURNS…
♥T
oops typo's:
The Big Tent faction is just what it is…
Matt 18:9
♥T
They thought Noah was a nutcase, too. Prevailing scientific theory did not have room for something so illogical and irrational as rain. The majority is seldom right. That's why the concept of a remnant is found throughout the Bible. But, apparently, few here accept the Bible as their final arbiter of truth, so those of us who defend it may be wasting our time; and if they do, it's interpreted to fit their preferred lifestyles and biases.
Someone above mentions "as for EGW"…
Well I think it would only be fair to post a few quotes from her writings, some fossils to chew on perhaps?
♥T
Note to Trevor: they don't believe in the SOP here. You're wasting your time quoting her, although a few of us do appreciate it.
Chris
I think this may be one area where there is a growing divide in the SDA church, between those who claim the Bible is true because 'God says so', and those who claim that the Bible is true because it records the truth. The former see no point in using any human knowledge to prove the Bible is true, as that would be presumptuous. I have been looking for a quote in an early Australian paper where one of the early leaders here made the point that believers do not test the Bible by human knowledge, but they do use human knowledge to prove to unbelievers that the Bible is true. Our pioneers had no problem turning to history or science to provide evidence that the Bible record was accurate. Nor were we above changing our understanding of what the Bible meant based on history or science. Perhaps because we had faith in human knowledge confirming our beliefs. But now we face a time when almost every branch of human learning challenges the traditional SDA understanding of some fundamental SDA beliefs. And so we see a turning from the traditional SDA use of human knowledge to a form of mysticism where the Bible becomes true by definition, not by fact. There is an appearance of spiritual humility in saying that what God says is true by definition, but it is a long way from the traditional belief that what God says is true because he is truthful, and it raises some disconcerting questions about our view of God. Are we to argue that a lie becomes the truth simply because God says it?
We have also seen a rise in the number of SDAs (among others) who cannot separate "what the Bible says" from "what I believe the Bible means by what it says". If we are to begin from the position that "what I believe the Bible means by what is says" is beyond doubt, it is not only the discussion of origins that becomes impossible, but virtually every part of SDA belief and practice. We become reduced to only dialoguing with those who already accept our conclusions. If we allow our understanding of the Bible and Ellen White to become the authority on which we judge all things, we will find ourselves talking to smaller and smaller circles of believers. I am not sure how we overcome this dilemma. We cannot rid ourselves of all assumptions and presuppositions, but perhaps naming them and asking if they stand up to logic, or need more examination, may be a good start. We need 'heretics' like you to come along and make us think about what we believe, and what we base those beliefs on. I don't believe you have wasted your time here, even if you could undoubtedy have found more relaxing ways of spending it. I hope you will write a few more blogs before you're finished.
Man cannot "prove" the Bible. It proves itself by the internal consistency (in spite of beliefs to the contrary by liberal theologians), fulfilled prophecy, and changed lives. Its effect on mankind is unlike any other book.
May I be permitted to slightly rephase a relevant comment of Mr. Riley: "Are we to argue that a lie becomes the truth simply because someone wrote that God says it?" Given the human condition–e.g., our ability to fool ourselves in so many ways–I would suggest that saying that "God said this" or "God said that" is highly presumptuous. It is mere fallible human beings who have said and say that "God says this and that." We know that some of the things that some people stated that they had obtained directly from God were and are simply wrong. And some of these errors are found in parts of Scripture. Being "inspired" does not guarentee that one can not write something which is simply factually incorrect.. "Test the Spirits" is still a good idea.
A question: Can one be an Adventist without accepting EGW as a Prophet of God?
Case in point: The church I have attended the last 20 or so years, has never (insofar as I remember) ever used a quote from EGW in a sermon, nor used her name. No member of which I am familiar, refers to her as an authority of Bible interpretation.
Should the church and its members be considered Adventists? The conference certainly believes they are. There is no requirement of which I am familiar, that a church must use her quotations or teach of her importance to Adventism.
Would you welcome such a church and its members as fellow Christians? Or, would you consider them not Adventists? Given the conversations here, why is it even necessary to posit such a question?
Answer: yes, but, continual disbelief in the SOP will eventually take one out of the SDA Church. Like it or not, the SOP was given to the church to act as a compass to keep us on track. If we didn't have it, we would have disentegrated into various factions years ago, like so many other churches have. Our biggest danger here in the last days is not Sunday laws or persecution, it is deception. Jesus said that if it were possible Satan would deceive the elect. He's doing a pretty good job of that lately.
If belief in EGW as a prophet is the guaranteed retention for Adventists, then to rely on an extra-biblical authority to remain a Christian makes of Adventism a cult.
Just as one cannot be a true Mormon if he rejects their Bible or the Joseph Smith's status as their prophet, both are cults. Those who rely solely on the Bible are the only true Christians; all others are cults. Walter Martin knew this well and "skirted around" calling Adventism a cult by 160 explanations why not. Methinks he protested too much.
Since when was this the definition of a cult? If applied rigourously, both the RC church and all the various Orthodox churches – all of whom rely on tradition as an extra-biblical authority – would be cults.
Who defines heresy? The powerful defines both orthodoxy and heresy, the latter includes all those who do not adopt the "orthodox" position defined by the majority.
Cult: "a religion regarded as spurious or unorthodox."
The original Christians were called "cultists." Cults differ from sects; sects occur by schism within a conventional religious body. "Cults are not simply new organizations of an old faith; they are new faiths, at least new in the society being examined. Cult movements always start small–someone has new religious ideas and begins to recruit others to the faith. Cult movements violate prevailing religious norms and are often the target of considerable hostility." (Rodney Stark,
The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History.
That description describes most new religious beliefs: Christianity was a cult when it began; all other Christian denominations that separated from the one church began as a cult or movement. Mormons were originally a cult as was Adventism; when they garner sufficient numbers they become recognized as a separate religion.
The church doesn't define heresy; the Bible does. The fact that so many misinterpret it is not the fault of the Scriptures; it stems from a lack of commitment to the truth. Of course I realize, based on the direction these discussions are moving, that many of those who post here are not convinced that there is any way of determining absolute truth. Not suprising in this post modern society, where truth is perceived to be relative. I say "perceived" because the statement that "truth is relative" is an assumed "truth," and it must also be condidered to be relative. Those who say there is no absolute truth, don't know what they're saying, because they've uttered the statement as if it were an absolute truth, thereby denying their major premise.
And, by the way, Mormons are stil considered to be a cult by many evangelicals. Although I believe the term is used quite loosely these days.
The Bible has been used by various religious denominations to define heresy differently. What is heretical in Adventism is not heresy in Baptists or Methodists. Each church has its lists of heresy, consider: Is disbelief in sabbath as a requirement not heresy in Adventism? Is it in Methodism? Is disbelief in 1844 heresy in Adventism? In Presbyterianism?
Refusing to accept that only the Bible as one interprets it is very egocentric: "My church is the only correct interpreter"I believe the Catholics make similar claims.
Chris,
Yes. Sometime, should we end up in the same place for a few hours, I would like to hear how you got from where you were then to where you are now.
One of my favorites stories of the Bible is the history of the blind man: He replied, "Whether he is a sinner or not, I don't know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!"
My wife and I we wanted to have children, and tried every single possibility in the best centers of the country for seven years with no positive results. Both been physicians knew our possibilities were getting pretty slim. At that time my wife got a Bible and started to read the “fantasies of the Bible” one night she had the urge to read the birth of the prophet Samuel. We got so impressed that we decide to give the change to the method of PRAY since all failed before. That month she got pregnant. Some body could call causality but for us was a real miracle. Now we have four children, the youngest one after having normal infancy suddenly when at 15 months was incarcerated in his world… yes with autism. My wife been child neurologist offered every available treatment, and resources. Needless to say our frustration was enormous with the results. I recall one I went with son sit in a church and silence I pray with the desperation of a father. “ God your word created the heaven and earth, you know one day I’ll die I give my son to you”. Now my son is 5 Y/O enjoying and interacting with his twin brothers and sister and being a very popular kid in his kindergarten. Yes in we give a chance to the REAL author of the Bible He will exceed the highest expectation even with our limited faith. Some of us were convicted of the power and authority of the BIBLE because at one time we were blind but now we see.
David: I'm sure anyone that reads your narrative will be glad that there was a positive outcome for your family. That is not at issue. The question which often is asked is how should one respond when the same kind of prayer and dedication you express does not result in a positive outcome? I think we all are aware of instances where that has been the case. How would you explain the fact that your prayers were answered and equally sincere prayers of others are not?
One of the points I’m making is, our Lord will give us what we need in order to believe in him. Each individual has a different experiences. When I read the New Testament I see that John had a complete experience that Paul. The latter one needed an extraordinary experience to be converted. I’m a man that believes in facts so I was reach at that level.
Few years ago I meet one of the most wonderful, worm, and positive person who told me; that biggest blessing that she received was her handicap child, the miracle never occurred, but the 20 year of daily care for him left in her a deep appreciation for life, humankind, and dependence of God.
The ability to accept what one cannot change is the sign of maturity. If prayer brings desired change, that is always welcomed, but to tell someone to pray often does not bring the wanted results. What then?
I do not if i follow you Elaine, I'm not suggesting that all the request to GOD will be fulfill in the way i expected, that will be naive for my part. ( i do not give to my children all the request they have in the way they expected either). These experiences that occurred to me in such critical moments were extraordinary, special, probably that was we needed, my wife and me, to confirm our thrust in the LORD. I don't know if every single blind in the time of Jesus was healed, but the one described in John 9 had an extraordinary experience. I join him saying One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!"
Elaine and Erv a personal question. Have ever you saw or experience an extraordinary event that is difficult to explain with the common logic? if that happen what was your reaction?
Dear Dr. David, Praise the Lord for your testimony of His blessing in answer to your prayers. I am very impressed that a man of your calibre, in light of your qualifications and and achievements, would resolutely stand in defence of our faith as Seventh-day Adventists. Your knowledge of scientific method, research and study is indeed a blessing to me (and many others I would assume). I know very little about science, per se, but what I do know really amazes me so much and makes me want to appreciate our Creator even more and just praise and worship Him even more. What I do know (just like you perhaps) is "the way of the cross": this I am all too familiar with – and the amazing grace I have found in my personal experience by faith in God even surpasses the wow factor of the empirical sciences. Thanks again! Praise the Lord!
♥T
Chris,
"However, for the last 10,000yrs of "recorded" history (Egypt based on archeology etc), …" Egyptian chronology has drastically collapsed over time as archeologists have discovered that some of the dynasties that they thought were consecutive were in fact and instead simultaneous. It ought to be collapsed further to bring it into line with sacred, recorded, Bible history.
"As for EGW. I do not accept her as a 'divinely inspired prophet', …" So, based on your statements thus far, you don't accept Genesis, the gospels, Paul, Peter, Ellen White, and the constraints imposed by radiometric dating. That makes it difficult to carry on any sort of discussion, and raises the question of why you are blogging on the question of origins at Adventist Today. "I think dating is a second step in the issue and less relevant. At this point, there seems to be no compelling reason not to accept the data I have to date that these fossils and organisms grew in their present location." There seems to be no compelling reason? Jesus' own testimony by the Holy Spirit through Moses, Matthew, Paul, Peter, and Ellen White, and the fact that in situ growth is impossible within the time constraints imposed by radiometric and other dating methods, none of this is compelling? Then how do you define "compelling"? (I note that your statement was more absolute than that none of this seems compelling to you.)
"It is perhaps only our preconcieved desire to uphold the Biblical Creation account as literal that causes us to seek answers beyond the obvious." That works both ways. Is it your preconceived desire to uphold an infidel theory that causes you to seek answers beyond the obvious? The fact that zircons from deep Precambrian granite samples contains levels of radiogenic Pb and He that are only consistent with an age of thousands of years, due to a lack of loss via diffusion, imposes a time constraint on the entire geologic column that doesn't permit the evolutionary scenario to take place. That and the other findings already cited are so obvious. But you're going to have a difficult time finding the most obvious explanation for the formations you refer to if you never go to personally study them, and if you are unwilling to accept what Jesus has said about the matter.
Chris,
Did you write http://oldearthmygod.com/where-to/a-pinch-of-salt? If so, it explains your original statement, "YEC Flood proponents believe the Rift Valley opened up in the last several months of the flood, not at the beginning," and your later reference to Snelling.
To discredit Noah's Flood on the basis of the theories of a single scientist doesn't make sense to me, particularly Snelling. Snelling also has proposed a semi-naturalistic, diffusion-based origin of polonium radiohalos, which in reality is miraculous. His hypothesis requires that nearly all transport of isotopes occurred above the annealing temperature to account for the absence of alpha recoil tracks, and that nearly all radioactive decay occurred below the annealing temperature, so that the polonium halos could form. That would be miraculous, and yet Snelling seemed to want his theory to be mostly naturalistic, from what I recall. I really couldn't make sense of it all.
I think it unfair to state that "YEC proponents believe the Rift Valley opened up in the last several months of the flood, not at the beginning," if there is not general agreement among YEC proponents on this point. You shouldn't be discrediting all YEC proponents on the basis of the theories of Snelling.
Comments posted above, now showing as 'Anonymous' are in reality postings by 'cb25.' Apologies for this operator error, which will be corrected as soon as possible. CH
Chris,
I am right that polonium halos are well discredited? I never said any such thing. What I said is that Snelling's semi-naturalistic hypothesis regarding the origin of Po halos makes no sense to me. And if a semi-naturalistic hypothesis makes no sense, how much more nonsense would a naturalistic hypothesis be? At least Snelling recognizes an important requirement that any plausible diffusion hypothesis must have: It must explain the absence of fossil alpha recoil tracks, a simple, observable fact that most evolutionists ignore because otherwise a diffusion hypothesis is impossible.
We must remember that the testimony of Jesus through Moses and Ellen White trumps the personal opinions of Silvestru, you, me, and the blogger at oldearthmygod.com any day, and so a lot of water must have come from beneath the ground during the Flood, whether Brown's theory is exactly correct or not. We certainly don't want to get so caught up with salt domes and coral reefs that we, like the blogger at oldearthmygod.com, descend to the depths of calling Bible-believing scientists "dogmatically directed," "scientifically miseducated," "simply confused," "intellectually dishonest," with "views … fixed as a fossil."
Since you have studied the matter in depth, tell us what scenario you see that fits within the chronological constraints imposed by Pb & He retention rates and the U/Pb ratios in Triassic, Jurassic, and Eocene coalified wood samples. For me, I have too many unanswered questions to properly analyze it all right now. I can't even tell from the pictures at http://oldearthmygod.com/where-to/noahs-flood that we are really talking about coral reefs. The pictures aren't close up enough. (Do you have better ones than his?) I'm unwilling to take that blogger's word for anything without some sort of confirming evidence. Note that he gives no explanation of how a non-catastrophic burial of breeding whales could produce the whale fossils that he asserts Abraham probably saw, instead of the whales simply decaying away. Is his Bible-unbelieving bias hindering him from seeing the scientific problems with what he is proposing produced the whale fossils, as well as preventing him from discovering viable answers to the questions he raises?
Bob Pickle,
Hi, sorry, I misread you on the polonium halos. I will get back to you more on the other quesions later, after I try to get it clearer where you are coming from.
As far as my view the halos are discredited, and aside from your point, there is endless material on the net about them. The naysayers seem more cogent to me. I've placed a link to a sample below.
Cheers
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
Bob Pickle,
Hi Bob, I've just re-read a whole lot of stuff on AIG, etc, re pb, he zircons etc. There are about 15 methods of dating the ages of earth etc. All corrolate very well. There are some exceptions, but as I've said before…big deal! Seriously, I have been down this road and believed all this stuff in the past. The big picture is what matters.
In fact, I don't think we even need any dating method to reach a conclusion the earth is extremely old.
Here are some links for you to check out also. (when you get time, which I am also short of atm)
Covering from a sound scientfic perspective dating methods etc:
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/main_issues.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/creationist_age_earth.html
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/paleosol.htm
Google the following for an example of the anomolies exploited by AIG etc: Absence of extraterrestrial 3He in Permian–Triassic age sedimentary rocks
Sorry, to put a bunch of links. I have read them all, plus most everything on AIG over time.
Cheers
Has anybody mentioned fish? Most fish live in a stable predictable environment, with the fresh or salt water conditions and food they need to survive. Many fish need plants or rocks or corals to survive normally. A giant worldwide flood for a year would kill a vast majority of the species of fish and water environment related creatures. Most Salt water fish could not survive a diluted ocean. River, swamp, and many lake fish would die or would not be able to reproduce successfully.
What about trees? Almost all trees on the Earth would die during the flood. Making claims is simple; explaining them are not so easy. Someone care to answer these questions?? Or will it be the same: "God can do what he wants; he makes the rules."
Bob Pickle,
Bob, I was just looking into your comment about the whale fossils in Wadi Al Hitan. I note this point:
"This site has the world’s highest concentration of the fossilized skeletons of archaic whales. They are evidence of many millions of years of coastal life in the shallow nutrient-rich bay of an early sea. The fossils of different periods and levels are valuable clues to its past geologic and geomorphic processes, its Eocene vertebrate and invertebrate life and the evolution of modern cetaceans 40 million years ago" http://www.eoearth.org/article/Wadi_Al-Hitan_%28Whale_Valley%29,_Egypt.
While I have obviously not been there, it seems from research and videos I have seen of the areas that the fossils were indeed formed in shallow ocean areas, over long periods of time. How were they left there without being chewed up by scavengers?
Don't know, but that is a far lesser problem than trying ti explain how these unique kinds of creatures, are gathered together in such a location, and in different layers if it was the result of one cataclysmic event. ie, why are these fossils only in this one place etc?
Once again, I would suggest that if we were not to have a "flood agenda", these questions would not even be "suggested" by the context. In other words the geology, layers, type of fossils, position etc would not suggest anything other than insitu burial.
Cheers
Elaine,
Re the fish and how they would survive. Yes, too salty for freshwater fish and too fresh for salt water fish!
You are no doubt familiar with the White Cliffs of Dover. I find it amazing these are composed of dead Coccoliths. (current deposition rates for these is barely centimeters a year under ideal conditions).
Defenders of a global flood have to demonstrate how the mind boggling amount of coccoliths required to build those cliffs (and the hundreds of kilometers of the similar formations eslewhere) could have lived, died and formed these cliffs etc during a global flood – all in under a year!
cb25,
We know the explanation: God only made it to look ancient–He's the "Ancient of Days," isn't he? Was this earth created only 6,000 years ago? It surely looks much older.
How's that explained?
Chris,
You write, "As far as my view the halos are discredited, and aside from your point, there is endless material on the net about them. The naysayers seem more cogent to me. I've placed a link to a sample below. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html." Have you personally read Gentry's published reports, his peer-reviewed articles, or just the criticisms of his naysayers? My guess based on your reply is that you haven't read his published reports.
To illustrate the problem and why I think so, note that Thomas Baillieul at the link you gave stated, "Migration of radon along fractures with hold-up points at tiny structural traps would result in exactly the same concentric ring pattern assigned by Gentry to polonium alone (because polonium is a daughter isotope of radon decay). Assigning a halo diameter to radon is difficult as the radon alpha decay energy is very close to that of polonium-210; the two ring structures commonly cannot be distinguished (Moazed, et al., 1973)." Now if Baillieul knows much about Gentry's findings, he knows he just lied. While the rings of Rn-222 and Po-210 are indistinguishable in mica, they are distinguishable in fluorite. This is such a basic point, and this point along with the absence of excess fossil alpha recoil tracks near halo centers, and along with the absence of Po-218 and Po-214 halos in coalified wood, falsifies all Rn diffusion hypotheses.
I would think one would have to be pretty biased to not notice such an obvious problem with Baillieul's article on the pro-evolution TalkOrigins apologetic site, and to think that Baillieul's arguments somehow refute the Po halo evidence. And that is my concern. You have a strong, pro-evolution bias, and you're missing some pretty obvious things.
Chris,
It is interesting to note that Dalrymple's article doesn't touch Pb and He retention rates in zircons from deep-granite cores, U/Pb ratios in U halos from Triassic, Jurassic, and Eocene coalified wood, or even lack of enough erosion between strata at the Grand Canyon. I can only conclude that he doesn't have an answer for these "anomalies."
You write, "How were they left there without being chewed up by scavengers? Don't know, but that is a far lesser problem than trying ti explain how these unique kinds of creatures, are gathered together in such a location, and in different layers if it was the result of one cataclysmic event. ie, why are these fossils only in this one place etc? Once again, I would suggest that if we were not to have a 'flood agenda', these questions would not even be 'suggested' by the context."
And if you did not have an evolutionary agenda, you would certainly incorporate cataclysmic burial into your theory of how these fossils formed, since if there was no cataclysm, the bones would have been scavenged instead of fossilized. It is overly simplistic to call Noah's Flood a single cataclysmic event when the Flood could easily involve multiple turbidity currents depositing numerous layers, each time burying more of the individuals who had perhaps sought shelter from the high seas.
Hi Bob,
I don't want to labor the point more than necessary, but you suggest:
"And if you did not have an evolutionary agenda, you would certainly incorporate cataclysmic burial into your theory of how these fossils formed…."
Yes, I now do see things through evolutionary glasses, but, (and I cannot stress this enough), I spent the last 4 plus decades looking at these things through creation glasses. I did this for as long as I could. Eventually the "anomolies" within the creation model were too much to ignore. Yes, as you note, there are anomolies in what I understand too.
Just this morning I was doing some reading on the Chalk beds eg White Cliffs of Dover. I read Snellings footnote explanation of the multiple layers of hard, soft and burrows in them. This is a bit of his comment (its found of Creation Minstries site):
"Once the explosive blooms had generated the voluminous foraminiferal shells and coccoliths, these would then sink and be swept away by the Flood currents before being deposited in the alternating bands of the chalk beds. Other marine life would have been trapped by these surges and entombed alive, hence their presence in the chalk beds. In whatever moments they had before expiring, it is not inconceivable that some of these creatures would try to reestablish their living positions on whatever momentary surfaces they found themselves on."
I'm serious..he really wrote that! Translate the last bit and he's suggesting dying worms dug holes in what would have been soft deposited material! Worms are good, but imho it is NOT conceivable that half dead worms could do so, let alone that the holes would be firm enough to remain. Of course most the rest of the argument is no better either.
When you mention "turbidity" I cannot help thinking of Veith. Yes. I wore those glasses once. I'm almost embarrassed to admit it.
I know you see things through those glasses somewhat. Bob, are there not at least moments when you stand back and look at the big picture? Are there not moments when all the "little" anomolies in the creation/flood model attempt to add up to cause serious question? I've actually reached the place where I cannot understand honest, good people failing to see the problems…
A bit of bARK to chew on perhaps…
Quote: Why is it that many people, including many Christians, can’t see the geologic evidence for the Genesis Flood? It is usually because they have bought into the evolutionary idea that “the present is the key to the past.”" [Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D]
He goes on to give Six Evidences for the Genesis Flood:
♥T
Here is the personal testimony of Dr. Veith's journey from Evolutionist to Creationist. He is a reputable scientist and a humble Seventh-day Adventist Christian too.
Link:
http://www.bible-tube.com/veith-walter.php
♥T
Hi Trevor,
More later perhaps, but here's a thought re each of your points:
1. Fossils above sea level: Proof only that water once covered that point. Causes? Flood? Uplift? Higher sea levels? Until data are looked at it proves nothing.
2. Rapid burial: Cause? Any of a number of possibilities. Examination of data from a posteriori approach required.
3. Rapid deposition: Assumption "rapid"? Cause? a posteriori needed ie "no glasses" or presuppositions.
4 plus…and so it goes. each one of these can be either explained, seen as anomolies, or evidence of a flood.
I have to go, but more later…
Hi Trevor,
I have watched the Vieth Testimony. Very interesting.
I guess one would hope I am now on my knees weeping tears of repentance:) ? No.
A couple of things.
1. It is very clear that Vieth became a creationist because he became an SDA Christian. He was not convinced of the validity of Creation in its own right, rather, he came to believe, through a range of events that the Bible was correct. He also came to the view that the YEC creation interpretation of scripture was correct. That became an a priori position from which he HAD to accept Creation and toss evolution.
2. One of the events he describes is his response to a 1st year girl who attempted to defend creation in his lecture. He was deeply guilty about his arrogant, rude, unkind method of dealing with her. His guilt becomes a catalyst for a step in finding God. Whether she was right or wrong he had no place to treat her like he did. His guilt may never have been intended by God to drive him to Creation, but simply because it was a disgraceful way to treat anyone.
Ironically, the same attitude still lives on…he now treats evolutionists with a similar attitude as he treated that girl!!! I think he learned the wrong lesson. He thought he found truth, when he may have been better finding humility.
3. He strings together some amazing circumstances that lead him to belived he has found truth. I have a family member who has "found" truth in an extremely mystical "cult" through a series of amazing circumstances. Do they have the truth?
4. He implies that the Catholic priest who did the exhorcism was in league with the devil and the devil simply stepped back. I think the devil is smarter than that. Think: he already has vieth as an atheist. What more does he need? Why on earth would the devil set up an event which is going to help and atheist FIND God? Yes, in a catholic church, but he found God there! Perhaps he should rather say "thank God for catholic priests"
5. Having accepted as an a priori fact that he must accept creation if he accepts adventism, veith now sets out to "prove" creation is right through science. Exactly the opposite of the method through which he came to believe in creation. What changed? NOBODY it seems could have convinced HIM from facts that creation YEC was fact?! He came to believe a priori IN SPITE of the facts. Why now use the opposite method? (yes whales etc with no transitionals was a "fact", but an indefensible one as I see it)
6. In his showdown over creation at the Uni, a Post grad girl stands up and acuses the Uni staff of destroying her faith in God through evolution. That is perhaps the most tragic scene in the whole testimony. For how long will we Christians lead people to believe they CANNOT believe in God and Evolution? For how many young people is her story reality? Too many I fear.
Veith found God within evolution, and within catholisim. And who's to say that was not a genuine finding? Who's to say he had to journey into YEC before he really found God?
I wonder what a blessing he could have been upholding faith in God's existence and reality while teaching at his original university. No, the pendulum swings….the gunner changes sides, but still shoots with the sam arrogance and lack of humility. Now he just demolishes evolutionists instead of creationists, and reinforces the belief that one cannot find God and accept the reality of how old this world is and how God may have brought it to be…
Cheers
You've just proved the point that two people with different would views can take the same evidence and manipulate it to mean what they want it to mean. Is there any true objectivity in the science of origins? I doubt it. Everyone comes to the table with their preconceived ideas (including, and sometimes especially, scientists). But everything that science can determine is consistent with the Biblical narrative. And we will continue to disagree on the point of whether or not one can believe in God and evolution. The two are mutually exclusive, in my opinion, because (and here you will fall back on the "whose interpretation?" argument) Scripture, when understood properly (I know, who decides what's "proper?"), does not allow for evolution. If evolution is true, the Scriptures are false. And if the Scriptures are false, we're all wasting our time preaching from them, because no one can really know what truth is. The Scriptures claim to be God's word to man. They either are or they aren't. My studies lead me to conclude that the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of their being divinely inspired, and thus trustworthy.. At some point faith must come into play. I simply don't have enough faith to believe in evolution. There are so many holes in the theory that if it were any other kind of scientific theory it would have been thrown out long ago. It has about as much evidence as the theory of spontaneous generation did when Pasteur demolished it.
I have long been puzzled as to why so many people want to unite evolution and Christianity. I have come to the conclusion that the main reason is that too many people are afraid of being ridiculed by the majority. Such was the case before the flood (oh, yeah, I forgot, you don't really buy into that scenario, do you?), and such was the case when the apostles went out preaching their unscientific message of a man who was also God, dying and being resurrected and then ascending to heaven (I assume you still believe in that, at least). They were in the minority, laughed at and persecuted, but they knew it was truth, so they had no other option but to preach it. Evolution destroys the gospel message. I don't believe in a weak god who had to use an inefficient method of trial and error (natural selection) to get to Adam and Eve. It's utter nonsense. I believe in a powerful God who "spake and it was done; commanded and it stood fast;" you know, the God of the Scriptures?
I'd rather be thought an ignorant fool by the skeptics here at AT, then buy into the devil's fairy tales and be deceived in the end.
Well said Horace! (For what it’s worth, I would like to associate myself with these remarks.) If the Bible is essentially poetry, mythology, and fairytales, or if I believed that to be the case, why should I even consider wasting my time bothering with those who are convinced otherwise?
Thank-you, Brother Foster. Though we may disagree on another subject here at AT, I appreciate your remarks regarding this one.
I’m with you when you’re right! lol
A few points to remember/consider/accept (just my opinion of course):
Personally, I’ll go with the authority and 100% trustworthiness of Almighty God the Creator and by faith hold fast to the Truth revealed in the Holy Bible, like Dr. Veith and many others have also done than bow down to one of the greatest deceptions ever known and embraced by atheists and forced down the throats of the general public.
♥T
If ever you go to South America and visit the high planes you will able to see shells above 12,000 feet high, is hard to imagine how these shells got it on these places. The flood is the best explanation.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/11c18d7b774a.jpg
Horrace,
Yes, as you say "You've just proved the point that two people with different would views can take the same evidence and manipulate it to mean what they want it to mean."
However, that truth does not prove that the manipulated evidence is going to provide a compelling argument or truth.
Trevor,
Veith's arguments are only convincing to someone who has accepted the Bible as the final authority and therefore is complelled to cling to any argument (no matter how weak) to justify the position they have already taken a priori.
The ones who deny the flood (including Mr. “lynchpin”) have a hot potato in their hands.
Jesus believed in the flood and used as guaranty of his second coming. Did Jesus illustrate the seriousness of his coming with a fairy tail? I don't think so. Did Jesus believed in the evolution? No way Jose….no way Mike!
The is no "hot potato" if one takes seriously the belief of the Chrisitian Church since the 4th Century AD that Jesus was 100% human as well as 100% divine. Orthodox Adventrist Christians believe that also. Thus David's objections appears be based on a misunderstandings of a foundation Christian belief. Becauses he was human, a Jew, and lived 2000 years ago, he most certainly thought that Adam and Eve were real people and the flood was a literal event a few thousand years before his time. I'm surprised that this is news to David.
As for Dr. Veith, his arguments are stock fundamentlist arguments. Enough said.
It should be remembered that Jesus also told stories; one of the parable of the rich man in hell begging for something to cool him from the flames of hell.
Now, that has been used since written to prove that Jesus believed in a burning hell.
'Nuff said.
Amazing! Higher criticism at its "finest." The idea that Jesus, who was in constant contact with His Father, made erroneous statements about one of the most important events in history (the creation–not evolution–of our first parents) borders on sacrilege. The idea that God the Father (does anyone here still believe in the omniscient triune Godhead?) would allow Jesus to make erroneous statements, thus deceiving millions of believers, is equally preposterous. The idea that Jesus was "culturally conditioned," a "product of His times," is also ludicrous. Have mercy!
Point of clarification: the above comment was in response to Ervin Taylor, not to Elaine.
I understand that Mr. Butler's world view does not allow him to see what Christians have believed for over a 1000 years. It is certainly his right to believe in his own rightness. Don't we all?.
Why are you an Adventist if I may ask?
People may believe whatever they please, but take the authority from the writings John, Paul and the apostles is order to accommodates their believes is ignorance.
One has only reed the first chapter of John to notice who was or is Jesus. Jesus himself told the Jews “before Abraham I’m” evoking the name holy name of GOD.
Did Paul believe in the evolution? NO. Now is interesting to notice that Paul was not taught by another man, he was taught by Jesus Christ (after his resurrection in full divinity)
So….Paul is now infallible?
The infallible is GOD who taught Paul. The same one who said, “sin is before dead”. I know some of the “evos” will try to play with that concept, but there is no reasonable way around. Sorry the evolution was never mentioned. The “evos” less infallible that Paul who was direct taught by Jesus in his full divinity. No way Mike!
YOU have plenty of scientific resources to defend both the flood and creation and refute evolution. YOU CHOOSE which side you want to align with. I would argue the evidence has been undermining evolution.
Tell me, if we evolved from a cell or primordial slime, then why is there beauty in nature and why do we have the sense to observe that beauty? How would that evolve? And please don't insult one's intelligence with God guided it that way.
Also, if we evolved to need the nutrients from the ground-then how did "plants" evolve to draw those nutrients out of the ground and make it edible for some other evolving creature to eat (us)? Then, how did the DNA realign to produce different flavors for the "evolving" tastes of the creatures over here that have preferences in tastes and flavors.
And there is no way you can convince anyone that we evolved 2 seperate, but fully compatible genders, for reproduction.
Evolution is incompatible with Christianity nor does the science support it.
And please don't confuse evolution and natural selection. One is a myth and one is how we get different shapes, sizes and colors within each kind.
JaNe,
I see you have been dropping in on many threads…
I see Joe has replied to you on the other blog since you wrote this. Read his reply again….there is much food for thought in it…
Beyond that, your points require far too much space to even begin here, but all reflect a closed mind, so there would be little point anyway…
Cheers
I strongly feel that JaNe has raised a number of valid queries and thoughts in the recent posts made on a number of blogs. Trying to discredit JaNe by suggesting that a 'closed mind' is reflecting what has been posited reveals a lack of understanding who or why we are Seventh-day Adventists. This seems to be very evident amongst the cultural Adventist faction.
♥T
JaNe
You raised several questions that never were answer satisfactorily. Furthermore evolution was never proved. That theory is full of holes like Swiss cheese, when is submitted to the highest degree of science (reproducible facts) it does not stand.
JaNe and Trevor,
There are valid points raised. One could go on forever.
A point or so…JaNe asks how could beauty and intelligence evolve from slime? Sure, good point. But if JaNe is going to argue on that level, and suggest there must be a God because it is impossible for such things to happen by chance. JaNe must allow the question: Where did God come from, because such intelligence, beuaty, creativity could not have arisen out of nothing.
The argument from design or intelligence is self defeating because you claim as proof against one thing the very fact you have to assume for the other.
The other points made about DNA, Gender, Incompatibility of Christianity and evolution, and natural selection are either dependent on the first claim, a priori, or ignoring data available.
DNA? If a "self existent God" can either always be, or arise from nothing, dna should be no problem to chance either.
I'm not saying this is or is not the case, however, let's not debate on a level that ignores data or problems.
Whether one believes in the literal creation of Genesis or some form of Intelligent Design, the unanswered question remains: From whence did God come? When someone is ready to answer that question, further questions may then be addressed.
Elaine,
Yes, one can either ask "from whence did God come?" Or, "from whence did life come?" Both end up forcing one to an a priori (faith) position for nothing can be proven. (This is the only point at which Herb was correct that scientists and theologians have similar problems. Beyond that he was quiet wrong imho)
This is perhaps where confusion sometimes comes into the discussions that take place here. Some have a hard time addressing questions about evolution and how life has developed without "importing" into the discussion pre suppositions and assumptions from whichever side of the question they have "taken" on the first questions!
For example, many could not take the content of the blog above at face value because of all the assumptions, presuppositions etc relative to the first questions that perhaps got in the way.
Hey – Roscoe Fogg
What about the flood man, what about the flood? Do you believe that Jesus was WRONG about the flood? A simple yes or no would suffice. (Other non-flood combatants may answser this question too). NO DUCKING PLEASE! Yes or No?
♥T
Roscoe can answer, but there is evidence from the histories of people who lived in the region of the Tigris and Euphrates that there was a great flood. Jesus probably was referring to this common flood story which all the people knew of at that time.
Trevor,
Like Elaine, Roscoe can answer…as for me….I have not said there was no flood. Simply that whatever it was it was not the time frame required by a YEC, nor was it the proportions one can get from a literal reading of the story. ie global.
There is archeological and mythological evidence to support an innundation around ancient Mesopotamia long before Noah's time.
If you want to set up ultimatums to force "yes" or "no", go ahead, but I suspect that you are putting Him (Jesus) to a test/question that was not relevant to either context or purpose of his flood "affirming" comments.
By forcing such positions and questions you do the cause of faith and Christianity no favours.
Just as people can turn The Bible into a god and worship it, people can worship science–without even understanding what it is and is not. It is true that for some science takes the place of God.
At the same time, it seems to me that there is common ground for those who seek greater truth and understanding, regardless of the methods they use. An a priori assumption that there is or is not a God is neither essential nor germaine, it's just beside the point (so you can jointly seek truth, even if some are believers and others are not). One can use science to study physical realities, regardless of what one believes about God.
Studying "spiritual" matters does not lend itself to objectivity and observation. Even so, The Bible exists. There is a physical reality. What it says can be compared historically with other physical realities. But when one insists on bringing in spiritual and subjective experience, that is beyond the ability or mission of scientific inquiry.
Theology can be a "science" to the extent that it uses the scientific method–which requires some level of objectivity and observability by more than one person.
So, why can't we just all get along and stop unnecessarily beating on each other?