 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
My question is: Have you had a chance to hear Dr. Sean Pitman's presentation dealing with ice cores. He is also a scientist, and he did analyze the available evidence dealing with said subject. His conlsusions differ widely from what was presented on January 28 at the Loma Linda University Church. If you haven't, I encourage you to visit his web site and read his conclusions. As a good scientist that you are, you probably welcome the opportunity of doing so, since all good scientists are always open to different ideas about the best way to interpret scientific data. You can access this topic at his web site. I am eager to hear what is your opinion about this alternative way of explaining the results of the ice core data. I hope you will find somehow time from your busy schedule to do this and share you opinion with the readers of this forum: |
| Quote: |
| I’m having a little difficulty in figuring out any direct relationship between the Greenland and Antarctic ice core data and Darwinian evolution. Nic certainly can be very creative in manipulating almost any topic to make it somehow relevant to his favorite subject. However, Darwinian evolution is not that topic but Nic still is here being very “creative” in the construction of his headline “Is Charles Darwin Moving to Loma Linda? ... I think I can remember something about the part of a presentation dealing with ice core data and I am fairly confident that there was no connection made between Charles Darwin and ice cores. What was mentioned was that the corpus of scientific data that supports the modern understanding of the magnitude of geologic “deep time” ... |
Thanks for the compliment, Erv, but Nic is not that creative! I cannot accept the compliment, because I do not deserve it. The connection between geologic deep time and Darwinian evolution is quite evident for all to see. If you omit said deep geologic time, you do not have Darwinian evolution. You do not need a 20/20 vision to see the connection between the way the ice cores evidence is interpreted and the theory advanced by Darwin. The first time I read about ice cores, I was very impressed, and I thought that the case for a short chronology might be dead, but when I listened to Sean Pitman present the same topic as interpreted by the defenders of the short chronology, I realized that the same data can be interpreted both ways, as supporting either a long chronology or a short one. In the event you haven't heard him, I suggest that you visit his web site. I am interested in knowing what you think of it! His site can be accessed at the following Internet address:
Ancient Ice and Ice Core Dating
http://sdaforum.com/v-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=5239
My only reason for posting the article in question was related to the issue of fairness. I understand that those in the short chronology camp would have liked to have a chance, and still are eager to have a chance to respond, using scientific evidence, but the invitation to do this is not forthcoming. I believe that people like you have a golden opportunity to exert your influence so that this invitation from the church becomes a reality. If you believe that the long ages is supported by the scientific data, there is no reason for you to fear, since you would prevail in this controversy.
I have no reason to reject scientific data, provided it is correctly interpreted. But how can I determine who is right if those in the opposite camp are denied a chance to make their point? If science prevails in showing that a short chronology has no chance to survive, I have no problem, since my faith is not based on the age of dirt. I believe that the universe, and perhaps planet earth, is much older than some of the short chronology defenders suggest, but I doubt that human life goes back millions of years. Besides, I have a hard time reconciling the long ages allotted to dinosaurs, when I read reports alleging that evidence of DNA has been found in dinosaurs bones.
I believe that I am not the only one having a hard time determining who is right, and who is interpreting the evidence for long ages correctly. But how can we make up our minds if those defending a short chronology are prevented from explaining the reasons for their position?
Dinosaur bone tissue supports young earth belief
http://sdaforum.com/v-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=5896
Should Testing Be Limited to
Natural Causes?
by Nic Samojluk
I have a few questions for John Buchholz. He stated the following:
| Quote: |
|
Science can only investigate natural causes as they succumb to repeatable measurements. |
First: How does this apply to the controversy dealing with the dating of ice cores? We have different scientists looking at the same scientific data, but they are interpreting said information in two highly controversial ways. How can I, a non-scientist, determine who is right if I am allowed to hear only the argument of one of them? Can a judge be impartial if he allows only one party to testify?
Second: Is it wrong for a scientist who happens to believe in the existence of a Creator to test the reliability of God's promises? Was it wrong for Gedeon to put his fleece out and thus test whether the mesage he received was really from God? Should he have ventured with his 300 soldiers into a battle where the odds were definitelly stacked against him? Would it be wrong for someone to verify the accuracy of Jesus' promise who said: Ask and it shall be given you? Would it be unacceptable for him to put his trust in the biblical challenge which reads: Taste and see that God is good? Was it wrong for doubting Thomas to say: Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands ... I will never believe!
Third: Were Gideon and Thomas testing natural causes or rather supernatural causes? Would you say that the results of those experiments carried out by men of faith unscientific and unreliable?
Fourth: Sometime ago I received the sad news that a close friend of mine had died. He was still relatively young. He carried a life-long grudge against his parents, and he grabbed every opportunity to relate to others how he had been a victim of psychological neglect by his parents when he was a child. One of the Ten Commandments has a promise attached to it: Honor your father and your mother, that you may have a long life in the land which the Lord, your God, is giving you. Isn't this a scientifically testable hypothesis which someone like you could investigate? Would it be wrong to set up an experiment to determine if those who are proud of their parents tend to live longer than those whose mind is set on their parents' imperfections?
Fifth: Sometime ago archaeologists discovered numerous hierogliphics left by the Mayan civilization. Scientists immediately concluded that said enigmatic scriblings were the result of intelligent design, and not the product of natural causes. You are an expert in DNA, which is so complex scientists are still trying to map the human genome. Why is it scientifically acceptable to atribute the Mayan's inscriptions to intelligent design, and at the same time deny the same conclusion for the human DNA, which is millions of times more complex?
Sixth: When foreign tourists visit the Mount Rushmore National Monument and look at the faces of four presidents: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, they immediately recognize those sculptures as the result of intelligent design. Why is it wrong to atribute to design when we look at the face of a just-born baby? If human beings were the result of natural causes, wouldn't most of human beings be deformed? But in actual experience the opposite is true. Have you ever wondered why is this so? Do I posess an unscientific mind in reasoning this way?
Seventh: Scientists are required to keep an open mind to all possible explanations. Is it scientifically reasonable to reject any possible explanation for natural phenomena that has any reference to the supernatural? Isn't this an evidence of a close mind? Is it wise to reject a potential hypothesis a priori, before the investigation has even started?
Will There be a Respnse to the Mind/Spirit conference?
by James Carter
I attended the Mind/Spirit conference a few weeks ago where the Genesis account of creation was subtly and purposely discounted. I was really shocked at how one-sided and unchallenged the presentations were and how many Adventists in "high positions" are claiming clear contradictions of the Bible and the official SDA stance on the creation/evolution debate. I have been in contact with several professors in the Biochemistry department, as well as other disgruntled church attendees, and there have been talks about doing a rebuttal conference to uphold the Adventist position with scientific data from scientists who do see strong evidence for created life on earth ~6,000 years ago.
It seems to me that there are at least two primary problems that are causing so many Adventists to challenge our beliefs. First, there is a lot of "back patting" going on between people with respected degrees. The theologians and physicians don't have the time or the background to investigate "scientific" claims that contradict the scriptures, so they put their trust in individuals who they think are important and ought to know the truth from a scientific perspective. This is understandable. Nobody can be an expert at everything. Then, all the scientist has to do is show a few convincing slides showing data that supports their hypothesis, which must match the secular evolutionary viewpoint to be accepted in peer-reviewed journals, and the non-scientists is compelled to believe it. Unfortunately, as a scientist, I see how biased we all are and how much false trust there is in our work by the general public (although I think the public is finally starting to doubt scientific integrity with all the contradictions being published now). The mistake people make is that they don't bother to evaluate how the data was gathered and filtered, the presumptions made about the analytical techniques, and the contradictions that often exist.
The second problem I see is that often times people make up their minds not on the basis of irrefutable evidence, but because a small part of them wants to believe a certain way. This is most common among atheists, who don't want there to be a God who holds them accountable for their actions. They have the notion that Christianity is for the weak and restricts freedom. With Adventists, I see a lot of people leave the church because they falsely associate religion with some of its followers who give it a bad name. People who are legalistic, unloving, judgmental, unforgiving, uncompassionate, and seem devoid of any joy will do more to push others away from religion than any atheist could.
I just finished the first draft of a two-part paper that I have spent the last year working on (in between doing experiments and school-related projects). It has to do with ancient biomatter such as DNA, protein, tissues, fats, etc. that have been unexpectedly found in dinosaurs and other ancient specimens. I have uncovered numerous forensic science experiments which have shown that biomaterials decay rapidly, no more than a few thousand years under the best conditions. This is a serious problem for evolutionists, since the creatures need to be old enough for evolution to occur.
Ellen White on Origins
by Sean Pitman
I received via E-mail from Sean Pitman a link to a long list of quotations selected from the writings of Ellen G. White related to origins. I will include here only a few short comments in order to whet your appetite and entice you to read the rest of this material.
| Quote: |
| I was then carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which GOD performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week. The great GOD in his days of creation and day of rest, measured off the first cycle as a sample for successive weeks till the close of time ... Infidel geologists claim that the world is very much older than the Bible record makes it. They reject the Bible record, because of those things which are to them evidences from the earth itself, that the world has existed tens of thousands of years. And many who profess to believe the Bible record are at a loss to account for wonderful things which are found in the earth, with the view that creation week was only seven literal days, and that the world is now only about six thousand years old ... Because the bones of human beings and of animals found in the earth, are much larger than those of men and animals now living, or that have existed for many generations past, some conclude that the world is older than we have any scriptural record of, and was populated long before the record of creation, by a race of beings vastly superior in size to men now upon the earth. I have been shown that without Bible history, geology can prove nothing. Relics found in the earth do give evidence of a state of things differing in many respects from the present. But the time of their existence, and how long a period these things have been in the earth, are only to be understood by Bible history. It may be innocent to conjecture beyond Bible history, if our suppositions do not contradict the facts found in the sacred Scriptures. But when men leave the word of GOD in regard to the history of creation, and seek to account for GOD's creative works upon natural principles, they are upon a boundless ocean of uncertainty ... Inferences erroneously drawn from facts observed in nature have, however, led to supposed conflict between science and revelation; and in the effort to restore harmony, interpretations of Scripture have been adopted that undermine and destroy the force of the word of God. Geology has been thought to contradict the literal interpretation of the Mosaic record of the creation. Millions of years, it is claimed, were required for the evolution of the earth from chaos; and in order to accommodate the Bible to this supposed revelation of science, the days of creation are assumed to have been vast, indefinite periods, covering thousands or even millions of years. Such a conclusion is wholly uncalled for. The Bible record is in harmony with itself and with the teaching of nature ... Rightly understood, both the revelations of science and the experiences of life are in harmony with the testimony of Scripture to the constant working of God in nature ... 1904. 8T 258, 259. At Creation All Things Material or Spiritual Stood Up at God's Command — The theory that God did not create matter when He brought the world into existence is without foundation. In the formation of our world, God was not indebted to pre-existing matter. On the contrary, all things material or spiritual, stood up before the Lord Jehovah at His voice, and were created for His own purpose ... |
Free Mailing List Club!
If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.