Here is a short report on Ted Wilson's recent statements at Annual Council regarding Creation and the SDA name -

http://www.educatetruth.com/news/ann-reports-on-wilsons-sermon-at-annual...

Quote:

Remember your name Seventh-day Adventist! It is so distinctive. The “seventh-day” refers to God’s power in creating this earth in six literal, consecutive, contiguous, 24-hour days and capping it with a memorial of that creation, the seventh-day Sabbath. This reminds us that we are a direct creation of God and not some chance anomaly of some impersonal evolutionary process. Saying you are a Seventh-day Adventist identifies you as a believer of this truth

I know they are going to update FB#6 at some point to even more explicitly match the prior "affirmation of creation" statement. I think some of the language you see above comes right out of the Affirmation text.

Anyway, I for one am glad that Elder Wilson is focused on addressing the topic and emphasizing the critical role it plays for the denomination.

As for how far "in the tank" we need to go with ice cores - those WWII bombers found in 250 feet of ice a few years ago is a good example of how "assumptions" can be misleading.

The recent evidence that neutrinos affect the rate of radioactive decay -- another reason to temper the evolutionist assumptions.

Remember - that no matter "how many billions" you care to slap into the middle of the Bible - NO EVOLUTIONIST will agree that all life forms came into existence a billion years ago nor even 500 million years ago. Slapping on the billions as if you are doing something to resolve the gap - does nothing when you are talking about a literal 7 day creation week. It only makes the problem worse.

in Christ,

Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

Bob Ryan===>The recent evidence that neutrinos affect the rate of radioactive decay -- another reason to temper the evolutionist assumptions.
________

Bob, this article is not about "evolutionist assumptions." It is about dating methods. As for neutrinos affect on the rate of radioactive decay, are you aware of any scientific clock that get's us to a "recent" creation?

Arguing the merits of science with people who're ideologically opposed to accepting its conclusions is comparable, in the words of Al Franken, to debating whether Bin Laden's people put too much oil in their hummus. It's just waisted energy.

As for Jan's suggestion of punting on the issue of YEC by keeping EGW's 6000 years out of the SDA creed, I've earlier suggested as much myself. It will give the church some breathing space, although it will, of course, not settle the issue of whether the scientific method is valid.

Aage,
You're right, which is why over time most learn to choose their conversations.

The problem as I see it though, is that too many SDAs are ideologically opposed to what science concludes but pretending they are not. It's the painful, weird insistence that really, no really, science does actually support a young creation. That there might be evidence for long age evolution but there is also evidence for a young creation and therefore who really knows anything and might as well believe young creation. And those scientists who insist otherwise are to be shouted down and labeled because they dared to challenge that carefully constructed defense.

Believing that the earth and/or life is young and was created suddenly is one thing but insisting that science supports it leads you into some bizarre world where thermodynamics doesn't mean what it does and WWII bombers encased in ice supposably shatter years of careful research but are ignored by scientists. It forces either ignorance or dishonesty and often a combination of both. A world where scientists are told by non-scientists that they have no idea what science is. It's ugly.

So the assumptions of evolutionists absolutely do not affect their interpretation of the data? If that's the case, we need to go a lot farther than you've suggested in this installment. We need to go all the way and totally reject the Genesis creation account in favor of the scientific evolutionary model. Evolutionary scientists are quite sure that all of their theory is true, not just the part about the age of the earth.
Posted by: Matthew Shallenberger (not verified) | 13 October 2010 at 12:07
_________

Matthew, you are mixing up issues. The current issue is age dating—not evolution. Genesis is total silent on the date of creation, and therefore our conclusions about the overall integrity of Genesis does not hinge on the outcome of scientific dating. As for evidence that points to the age of the universe or Earth, let’s put all of it on the table for examination. The reality is that any objective review of the data all points to a very ancient creation, and that is the simple problem for me, for all YEC, for GRI, etc.

Bob Ryan===>The recent evidence that neutrinos affect the rate of radioactive decay -- another reason to temper the evolutionist assumptions.
________

Bob, this article is not about "evolutionist assumptions." It is about dating methods. As for neutrinos affect on the rate of radioactive decay, are you aware of any scientific clock that get's us to a "recent" creation?

Posted by: Jan Long (not verified) | 13 October 2010 at 12:22
============================================

Well -- there is the Bible and the lineages of the people who lived since the days of Adam.

My point about neutrinos causing global and also instant variation in radiometrics, is that you now have a clock with "variable speeds". The question then becomes, what environmental changes affected the rate of Muon and Tao Neutrinos in the past? Who vast was the acceleration during those events? If your child is toying around with the clock and after having moved the hands an unknown amount - hands the clock to you and asks you "what time is it" what do you say? Hmmm well the second hand is moving 1 tic ever second. the minute hand moves one tic every time the second hand completes one round ... and so one with the hour hand. (Paying no attention at all to the unknown movement of the clock hands that just took place while your child was fiddling with the clock).

At some point - critical thinking should be seen as "necessary" by at least one evolutionist.

in Christ,

Bob

___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

I'm thinking we are getting bored with refuting your repeated incorrect assertions

/Bevin

"it is a good deal harder--obviously impossible, I would say--to explain how it can be made to fit with the Adventist doctrinal system."

The admission that SDA doctrines trump any scientific finding is what is promoted. At least, a true admission that whatever doctrines that the church adopts, any question regarding it will be immediately discarded.

This is exactly the prior conclusion the church decided before Copernicus and Galileo made their great scientific discoveries. That the SDA church has always felt the Catholic church placed tradition ahead of Scripture, is especially ironic when it is now adopting the same stance: that Creation occurred exactly 6,000 years ago (Thanks, Bishop Ussher), and set in granite and it is either accepted or all others will no longer be considered Adventists.

The one overlooked fact: only the local church decides its membership. So all the discussions are meaningless for affecting a single member.

One further point I should make regarding YEC presuppositions--presuppositions represent a starting point for thought and research, and as such it is natural to defend them. They only become a hindrance to intellectual progress when they become so emotionally important that we cannot clearly see the handwriting on the wall.

The reality is, a presupposition can fail, requiring that it either be abandoned, or revised. I believe that this reality is currently transpiring with YEC, and many are in denial. As a Church, we can avoid this trap by refusing to proceed any further down a data parched road. Again, our FB in this subject area can easily speak to the general biblical theme of God as creator, and at the same time avoid the details that will otherwise likely result in a painful day of reckoning.

I guess I’m too much of a postmodern. This discussion seems to be approached in a very modern way (“Here are all the facts; now that you know the facts, you can either accept them as true or remain in denial”). Come to think of it, I suppose this is just a typical Adventist approach. It’s the way we do evangelism, too (“Here are all the prooftexts on the Sabbath; now that you know the truth, you can either accept it or be in rebellion against God”).

I’m having a hard time understanding how we can separate scientific research from the scientist’s presuppositions. Jan, you and others have expressed your difficulty accepting creation science because they start with presuppositions which skew their interpretation of the data. Now, what I can’t fathom is why we never apply that same critical approach to evolutionary science. How can we be so certain that their interpretation of the data is entirely objective and correct? That’s a very modern assumption. I’m a postmodern. I don’t believe you can study anything without your presuppositions affecting the way you view it. To know is to interpret.

It seems that for many people on this site, finding common ground first means rejecting any possibility of YEC because science has already proved it to be an impossibility. Anyone who starts with a YEC framework is doomed to misinterpret or ignore scientific data (the responses to Bob, David, and others are evidence of this). The only people who correctly interpret scientific data are evolutionary scientists. So I’m still wondering: if that is true, why shouldn’t we just accept the entirety of evolutionary theory?

"why shouldn’t we just accept the entirety of evolutionary theory?"

Why, indeed? The church FINALLY accepted that the earth revolved around the sun, that the earth is a sphere and that there are millions of suns and planets yet undiscovered. The scientific mind is never completely settled as to having discovered all the facts and is constantly looking for more. That's the description of a scientist: curiosity leads to discovery.

OTOH, the Creationist has already made the decision to accept, prime facie, that the biblical account IS the only true one, so no new studies can conflict with that pre-determined position. This is what is dubbed "Creation Scientist" which is an oxymoron and millions have been spent on GRI to "discover" that the Bible story is factual. The recent report that there has yet no model been developed for a 6-day creation is evidence that they will continue to look, and your tithe money will keep them searching for the invisible unicorn.

Correction: The most troublesome postmodernist will NOT argue that a world-wide flood took place 2500 BCE

Beth: "Do you think that scientific findings and creationist apologists are equally vulnerable to supposition bias?" I think that's a loaded question which assumes there is no such thing as a scientist who believes in creation. But yes, I think everyone is vulnerable to interpreting data based on their presuppositions. Like I said, to know is to interpret.

"What evidence would convince BobRyan or David that God did not create the world in seven days? Or that a worldwide recent flood didn't occur?" What evidence would convince you that evolution isn't true?

Let me explain it this way. Creationists have found research that gives evidence in favor of (notice I didn't say "proves") a recent creation and a worldwide flood. They didn't do all of this research themselves, so you can't argue their methods are faulty. Sometimes they use research done by secular scientists. Now, what makes that evidence inadmissible or irrelevant? I can't think of any reason other than a presupposition that the Bible account is wrong, and therefore any evidence which supports that account is either misinterpreted or misapplied. But based on what I've read on this site, the real arguments and evidence that YECers present is NOT being studied at all. So it seems that no one is even attempting to determine the validity of YEC research.

Finally, to both Beth and Elaine: You understand my point. Thank you! If we're going to take seriously the scientific evidence as it stands, we can't accept just the long ages and leave out the evolutionary process. It's all part of the same package. That's what I was trying to tell Jan.

Matthew Shallenberger wrote
>>> Creationists have found research that gives evidence in favor of (notice I didn't say "proves") a recent creation and a worldwide flood.

Lets be more specific.

Raw data, doesn't give evidence of anything. It just is.

Hypotheses are conjured out of nothing substantive. They do not rely on data at all.

When one applies hypotheses to data, one can predict other data. When one compares the prediction to the other data, and finds it does not match, one can conclude that
1 - The input data to the hypothesis is wrong, OR
2 - The hypothesis is wrong, OR
3 - The hypothesis is misapplied, OR
4 - The other data is wrong, OR
5 - The comparison is wrong

Creationists have NOT provided hypotheses that are amenable to this level of testing. Instead they provide loosely constructed hypotheses that work when SOME of the data is input, and the output is compared against SOME Of the other data.

He continues
>>> They didn't do all of this research themselves, so you can't argue their methods are faulty. Sometimes they use research done by secular scientists.

This describes the data quite well.

He continues
>>> Now, what makes that evidence inadmissible or irrelevant?

The data is admissible subject to the usual scientific checking - namely that it can be remeasured by others, and those new measurements align with the original measurements.

The hypotheses are admissible. Indeed I often accept the hypotheses provided by the creationists on this and other websites

The hypotheses FAIL THE TESTING because invariably, and I mean INVARIABLY, I can point to real input data for which that hypothesis makes a prediction of other data, and the prediction turns out to be not match the other data when I go and look at that other data.

Let me give you an example:

Data: The Grand Canyon is sedimentary rock

Hypothesis: The Grand Canyon was made when sedimentary laid down before and during Noah's Flood, washed away as the Flood waters abated

Prediction: There should be lots of erosion in the Grand Canyon.

Creationist bows and smiles at me.

Data: There are breccia pipes in the walls of the Grand Canyon

Prediction: Since the Grand Canyon was made by Noah's Flood, the pipes can not have been there very long, and hence will not have metal deposits caused by leeching and depositing of metals within the pipe.

Data: http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/b2004/html/bull2004breccia_pipe_uranium_deposit... The Orphan Mine clearly shows vast amounts of metal deposits have occurred, so something is wrong.

We look at our list of things that could be wrong, and - voila - it is the hypothesis that stands out as wrong.

After you have repeated this process hundreds of times with organizations like Answers In Genesis and the Creation Science Institute, you realize these people invent and misquote the data, misapply the hypotheses, and ... You realize that they are charlatans.

But don't take my word for it - do your own research.

/Bevin

Matthew says:
"Creationists have found research that gives evidence in favor of (notice I didn't say "proves") a recent creation and a worldwide flood."

Can you direct me to web sites that argue in favor of a world-wide flood 2500 BC? I'd be really interested to see what arguments can be deployed to explained that Egyptian and Sumerian/Accadian culture came through the Flood without any visiable dislocation. So, any web sites dealing with a recent Flood?

Michael
I used EGW's numbers. If the world is about 6,000 years (her words)the Flood would have taken place around 2500. But even if we move Creation back in time, outside the Bible's actual numbers, YECs still face serious problems. That's why I would be interested in web sites that deal with the issue. I'd especially be interested in the arguments used in favor of the Bible's chronology of the Flood.

Those who advocate on behalf of the biblical flood almost always do so outside the historical context that the Bible forces it into. I have never seen anybody try to explain how the ancient shorelines of the 8000 year old glacial lake Agassiz remain exposed to the naked eye in the American midwest, when the expectation is that all the antedeluvian world was buried under hundreds and hundreds of feet of sediments. Nor have I seen any attempts at explaining why the Flood did not disrupt the ancient Sumerian/Akadian and Egyptian cultures.

Those who advocate on behalf of the biblical flood almost always do so outside the historical context that the Bible forces it into. I have never seen anybody try to explain how the ancient shorelines of the 8000 year old glacial lake Agassiz remain exposed to the naked eye in the American midwest, when the expectation is that all the antedeluvian world was buried under hundreds and hundreds of feet of sediments. Nor have I seen any attempts at explaining why the Flood did not disrupt the ancient Sumerian/Akadian and Egyptian cultures.

Posted by: Aage Rendalen (not verified) | 14 October 2010 at 10:09

As I understand it the YEC viewpoint and the bible give the view that there was no mountain ranges as we know them today. Since there is no evidence or verses that speak of matter that comes and covers anything, isnt the understanding that the mountains rose and the valleys/oceans sank?
In what way could anyone say EVERYTHING was covered. Covered with water maybe, not dirt. Where did the hundreds and hundreds of feet of sediments come from? Space?
As such ancient shoreline marks could have risen when the rocks under them subducted. Just because something was flooded for a few months does not mean it erases all the years or markings from the previous 2500 years does it?

Certainly not and one would never say that it would other wise why would we still see them after 4510 years of erosion and wear from the flood till the present now that they are above ground?

Matthew says: "I really don't see how these issues can be separated. Which came first, the theory that the earth is millions of years old, or the dating methods that support this theory? Evolution and long ages are related. Are you suggesting that there's no connection between the evidence you presented and evolutionary theory?

======================

This is a very intelligent question, meaning one that opens up rather than closes down inquiry and discussion. I hope you are serious with your question, as I hope to weigh in and get your response.

1. The old age of the earth had been discussed and accepted in the circles of British science for about 100 years before Darwin. For the history, read N.C. Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (Univ of Chicago), 1979.

2. The age of the earth is methodologically unrelated to the theory of evolution. If anything, evolution is a complex theory that explains the changes seen over time in the fossil record.

3. The history of various scientific dating methods, unfolded parallel to, but are not at all dependent on, evolutionary theory. There are about 10-15 well-known dating methods, all operating on completely different scientific principles. They all confirm the antiquity of the earth, and none support a young earth chronology.

I suggest that you take one dating technique and become familiar with it. I chose dendrochronology (tree ring dating) and studied it for ten years. This technique is not at all dependent on the theory of evolution...only deals with last 20,000 or so of earth history.

Good luck in your "dating" ;-)

Graeme

Matthew:

I think the history kind of goes like this.... with the 18th C scientific revolution, observers began to see the world a different way.... as an effect of causes. British and European explorers and "naturalists" began to collect data from all over the world, but also from the European countries, the colonies, Canada, and America. These included fossils, rock samples, descriptions of strata types etc. Different type of rocks, with their various originating processes, began to be differentiated: sedimentary, igneous, metamorphic etc. Maps and collections of samples developed by the Royal Society and independent collectors. Descriptions and comparative data published in the Proceedings and other journals.

Soon some general observations emerged: lower strata are generally older than overlying strata; sediments are the result of weathering processes; mountains formed by uplift and volcanic flows; etc.; and the idea of a "geological column", with an apparent progression of fossil forms from simpler to more complex. Early estimates of the time required to produce a "column" began to rise to the millions of years, (but there was no way to test this idea yet).

This was all in place at least a generation before Darwin published in 1859. His theory was an attempt to explain the diversity of life forms, and presumed the general sequence of the geological column.

Keep reading the history. There's no substitute.

Graeme

>>> Bevin, are you familiar with Clyde Webster's research on ash stringers at Specimen Creek in Wyoming?

No, I am not - so lets look at it together. Do the obvious thing - google "Clyde Webster ash stringers Specimen Creek Wyoming"

With some effort we find
http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_08/08cc_091-095.htm

It describes some localized floating of trees into a position where they become petrified and buried. So what? There is a huge difference between a large local flood and Noah's flood. A piece of data that supports a hypothesis of a large local flood does not show a global flood.

Remember, standard evolutionary theory has the entire Mediterranean Sea go from being forest to being ocean in a relatively short timespan. And there is lots of evidence to show it.

But there is a lot of other evidence that shows that, while the Med was filling up, and while the Specimen Creek trees were floating around, there were lots of other parts of the world that were low and dry.

/Bevin

Yes, and it's odd how geologists cannot really explain why oil sits miles below the surface, but dinosaur prints can be found on the very ground we walk on. You cannot have it both ways.

Neither can they explain, except through illogical gyrations, where layers do not fit their theories.

God created man in His own image. Where's the evolution?

How can we compare out sense of time with God's time?

If the 7 days are untrue, then the Seventh Day Adventist Church is a false church and should change its name. I'll bet that's coming.

The most appropriate characterization is not “loss of faith” but “revised faith.”

Jan, it may seem like a minor revision, but once you've accepted the principle that explicitly naturalistic human science trumps the plain statements of Scripture, there's no logical stopping place until you reach atheism or agnosticism. You'll have to toss out every miracle in the Bible, because they are all unacceptable to naturalistic science for the same reason that supernatural creation in one week is unacceptable to modern science. This process ends when the resurrection of Christ is denied. At that point, the church becomes primarily a (non-religious) charitable organization.

You might want to ask some of the Spectrumites who are further along this curve than you are. For example, Elaine, a frequent Spectrum poster, has eschewed belief in the supernatural and reduced Christianity to an ethical system only. Many others of the Darwin party who frequently post here have, like Bevin, talked themselves right out of the church.

It is argued that the church should be a big enough tent to hold both creationists and Darwinists, but it isn't the mission of the Adventist church to try to accommodate all doctrines and all practices. The Roman Catholic Church already has such a multi-century head start on that project that it would be pointless to compete with them even if we wanted to, which we don't.

The Seventh-day Adventist mission is to warn people of the soon coming of Christ, the presently ongoing investigative judgment in heaven, and to call the world back to worship on the biblical Sabbath, which commemorates God's creation of the world in a literal week (Gen. 2:2-3; Ex. 20:11; Rev. 14:7) In the absence of this mission, there's really no reason for the SDA Church to exist as a separate denomination. To attempt to incorporate Darwinism, or even long-ages creationism, into Adventism would destroy any possibility of trying to pursue this specific mission.

So this "revised faith" you proposed is really more like fundamental transformation of Adventism into something completely unrecognizable to believing Adventists (as opposed to the cultural "Adventists" who form Spectrum's main constituency).

Sir Peter Medawar the British zoologist and Nobel Prize winner stated, somewhat tongue in cheek. That is was no use to go to the scientific literature, because scientists generally,( most likely or frequently) leave out or distort their findings to maintain a proprietary hold on them or to prove a preconceived hypothesis, (one can find his statement in his charming little book Pluto’s Republic.)

Nowhere is that trend more frequently observed than in evolution, and in dating the earth crust and contents.

Another charming British author is Anthony Standen, educated at Oxford, taught at MIT and then became an editor for The Encylopedia of Chemical Technology. His little paperback entitled “Science in a Sacred Cow” Is a delightful debunking of Science as nominally published, polished, and worshiped.

His chapter entitled: How They Dish it Out is particularly helpful.

Both men are evolutionists. Yet they debunk much of the “scientific proof of either aging or evolutionary change.

The bottom-line is simple, there are as many or more stumbling blocks to the development of a cogent and defensible thesis for either aging technologies and tools, and evolutionary “evidence” as there are for YEC.

The major stumbling block has been the concept of uniformity. “All things continue as from the beginning.” Well they haven’t. The catastrophic events that have occurred are many and profound. Death is a constant with numerous post-mortem changes and distortion in both plants and animals.

Thus even 150 years later we still have to opposing unproven hypotheses. The nature of man is the tipping point. “My way or the highway!” The shame is that theologians and particularly administrative theologians tend toward the dogmatic—Teachers of Science generally hold to the same rigidity.

Certainly this thread will not settle the issue, nor will a witch hunt. It is either checkmate or disassociation.
Tom Z

I ask again: how do Creationists explain that the cultures of the Middle East were unaffected by the Flood? And what about Graeme's dendro-chronology, which traces the history of organic, dateable material at least 10,000 years back in history without any evidence of a cataclysm that destroyed every tree in the world 2500 BC.

I've argued Beth's point before that debating the merits of science with people whose ideological commitments don't allow them to accept its findings is futile. I'm only requesting these arguments for a recent Flood out of sheer curiosity. I just don't see how the arguments can even be made in the first place. To me it seems like a much better strategy to take it all on faith and declare that it's a mystery the way Catholics do when asked to explained transubstantiation.

Posted by: Aage Rendalen (not verified) | 15 October 2010 at 7:32
=============================================

Answer: Selective assumptions by evolutionists are merely the circular arguments they use to silence their own critical thinking.

They "assume" that tree rings are not affected by seasonal fluxuation that is not limited to an annual cycle.

They "assume" that there is a good "evolutionist" reason (rather than a Bible flood reason) that there are no trees alive on earth today older than 4800 years. (Hint those 4000 year old bristle-cone pines are not "all dying" as if that is their limit on life).

But having said that - I will admit to this - when our atheist and agnostic friends promote these "doubt the Bible always" arguments, it sounds much more "consistent" and well reasoned - than when a compromised Christian tries that same stunt.

in Christ,

Bob

___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

Bob
Why don't you humor me and provide some arguments in favor of positioning the Flood 2500 BC? Unfortunately, "creation science" consists in trying to tear down what established science has built up, instead of presenting its own case.

I wouldn't blame you for not coming up with any arguments in favor of a Flood smack dab in the middle of known Middle Eastern history. I don't think it can be done. Attacking me for making my argument, though, certainly will not lend credibility to your point of view.

Again, if you're unable to make your case, that's ok, but if you can, I'd be very interested in hearing you out.

Matthew:

"So my question is: how can we be certain that there aren't aspects of the data that scientists have missed because they were looking at the data through the lens of their presuppositions?"

We can't. In fact, we and they should assume that there are definitely things missed. But it has been a very unfortunate and insidious thing that some creationist organizations have done in suggesting that different assumptions makes YEC/YLC as scientifically feasible as long age geology and evolution.

The only way that works is if one of the assumptions is: only evidence that can be interpreted as supporting a YEC/YLC view is valid - the rest is wrong. And that is not an assumption that ethical scientists are willing to hold.

Matthew,
You're right - it is too late for me. I am open to the slight possibility that YEC might come up with a coherent *scientific* theory that incorporates all the evidence the same way that I am open to the slight possibility that bacteria don't ever cause disease. Anything in science can be overturned but some things are more likely than others.

However, my view is not even close to the dominate one among Spectrum posters and is even less popular among viewers. So stick around. You ask great questions and I'll let others whose views you might find more helpful respond. Please don't judge the site based on my lack of open-mindedness :)

And as for this:

"YEC may lack a coherent scientific model, but from what I've observed, the long-agers lack a coherent theological model."

I couldn't agree more. I've never tried to downplay the problems evolution causes for traditional Christianity and you are quite right. Theologically these are tough, tough issues which makes me sympathetic to those who want to continue to hold a YEC/YLC view.

"the long-agers lack a coherent theological model."

Well, duh. It is the YEC creationists who continually seek a theological model. Scientists do not have a theological model back of their studies. Why should they? Studying evidence to buttress a prior conviction, especially one not previously shown to be valid is like seeking to prove that the moon is made of blue cheese--proponents may continue to look, scientists have long ago dismissed such unreliable assumptions.

The mission, as I understand it, of GRI, is to discover proofs a short-age creation. Having been unable to do so, why
should we not be content with their lack of findings when given that specific mission?

Beth, I appreciate your honesty and openness. I respect your opinion and your right to hold it. By the way, I wasn't just referring to you in my last comment. Others on this site have frustrated me too. Please don't take my grumpiness personally. :)

Behold the world's oldest tree!!:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/33944715.html.

I was sorely disappointed and underwhelmed by this scrawny, 12-foot tall shrub. Turns out the date of 9,950 was arrived at by radiocarbon dating the roots, so it is just another claim for radiocarbon dating, and has nothing whatsoever to do with dendrochronology.

Graeme, hombre! Don't you think it a mite misleading, when discussing dendrochronology, to cite a 9,950 year old tree without noting that this based upon carbon dating of the roots, not counting the rings???

Matthew, you're quite right of course that most people's minds are made up on this issue.

And you're also right on target in noting that the model creates the data, both by determining what data are sought and by determining how the data is interpreted once found. I discuss this at some length in my book, "Dinosaurs - An Adventist View" available at Amazon or at your local ABC. I discuss it in the context of theories about human evolution, but it is true in all other areas, as well.

Given the vaguaries of name-spelling, I wonder if you're not very distantly related to Samuel Shellabarger, whose sprawling, swashbuckling historical novel about the conquest of Mexico, "Captain from Castile," I just finished reading today. First rate stuff!

Matthew, you are spot on, of course, about the implications of the Mt. St. Helens eruption for previous interpretations of Specimen Ridge at Yellowstone:

On May 18, 1980, an explosive event with profound repercussions for geological science took place. Mt. St. Helens erupted. In one day, this event literally overturned the long-age interpretation of Specimen Ridge. In the Roadside Geology book about Yellowstone sold in the park, geologist William Fritz described his reaction to mudflows he witnessed along the Toutle River in Washington. “It was just like Yellowstone!” he exclaimed. Since that widely-observed natural experiment in catastrophic geology, the work of volcanic mudflows has become the leading explanation for how the Yellowstone fossil forests were emplaced, layers and all. The old sign that explained the old theory to millions of park visitors is long gone.

Please note that William Fritz is not a creationist or young earther.

But there's also a very poignant Adventist angle on this story, namely that the old, now-discredited interpretations of Specimen Ridge caused Ronald Numbers to lose his faith in the Adventist view of origins. There's an excellent discussion here:

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200701.htm#20070112a.

and here:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=14853736073&topic=12664.

It is important to note that Ron Numbers lost his faith not because of any fact of nature, but because of a wrong interpretation of the data, now admitted to be wrong by conventional geologists.

It never ceases to be amazing that those who criticize the scientific community for their consensus on the longer age of the earth, nevertheless, accept readily the many other discoveries in various areas:

Copernicus
Galileo

William Jenner
Lister
Pasteur

Pythagoras
Euclid
Archimedes
Hippocrates

That's just the beginning of a list that could go on for pages. I can rest assured that no one here who has chosen to let the Bible be the last word on earth origins, would for a brief second go to the Bible for the best source for diagnosing and treating disease(although the Bible has much to say about them), for the best type of marriage (polygamy was never condemned), for the sin of slavery, and much more. It is only in this specific topic of origins that the Bible is considered the best and last word. This ignores that there were far earlier accounts of creation in the Sumerian and Babylonian stories--much of which was copied for the Genesis one. Are those all myths while Genesis contains the only "correct" account?

Matthew,
No worries and you were so polite I'm not sure it even counts as grumpiness. My husband was known to quietly remove sharp objects within my reach when I first started posting here but he couldn't stop the occasional head pounding the desk (I exaggerate but not much.) Besides, I figure if someone isn't moved to frustration by at least something on this site, they just aren't paying attention. Good luck with your inquiries.

hopeful, the site you link to doesn't rebut any creationist claims except the straw man implication that creationists believe all polystrate fossil trees were buried in the Genesis Flood. Creationists don't believe that, and it is not the issue.

The in situ forest growth interpetation of Specimen Ridge was that mulitple forests (about 30 of them) grew up and were buried by multiple volcanic eruptions, one at a time, over the course of about 20,000 to 30,000 years (an estimate arrived at by counting the rings of the larger trees in each forest horizon and adding together the ages of the oldest tree in each horizon).

What Mt. St. Helens showed was that a very similar formation, complete with multiple layers or horizons, could be created in one volcanic eruption. Thus, the Specimen Ridge formation could have been created in one eruption at any time in the first few thousand years following the Flood. Mt. St. Helens completely neutered the inference that Specimen Ridge could not have been formed within the time-frame available in the biblical model. That's the issue, and there's no rebuttal to it from mainstream geologists. That's why they took the old sign down, and re-wrote the visitor's guide at Yellowstone Park to reflect the idea that Mt. St. Helens provides the best analog for the creation of Specimen Ridge.

Bob, who doesn't believe in dendrochronology, argues, as Hopeful points out, that dendrochronology has established that no tree antedates the Flood. Apart from that argument, it seems as if none of you young earth creationists out there have anyhing to offer in defense of an admittedly crazy idea, that a world-wide flood, the greatest catastrophe ever to hit the Earth, left no marks on Egypt and Mesopotamia, even though its epicenter was in their backyard, just as their cultures were peaking.

You young earthers believe that life on Earth was created about 6000 years ago (at least those of you who follow EGW). The biblical chronology from Adam to Noah is unambiguous. If your premise of 4000 BC creation is correct, the Flood would have been caught on camera, so to speak. Yet when we rerun the geological and historical images, there is no Flood there.

If young Earth creationists are unable to follow their most basic premise to its obvious Flood conclusion, maybe it's time to change the premise.

And Matthew, I think your frustration is positive. It's a good thing to discover early in life that things aren't always as simple as you're told. That may sound condescending; it isn't meant that way.

Matthew says: "Graeme, hombre! Don't you think it a mite misleading, when discussing dendrochronology, to cite a 9,950 year old tree without noting that this based upon carbon dating of the roots, not counting the rings???"

===============================

I recently decided to take at least one day a week leave from all phones, internet, etc. I recommend it for the sake of sanity. Instead I'm spending most of this weekend attending the Chicago Int'l Film Festival and walking in the beautiful October sun.

Back to old trees. You are quite right (above) that the oldest tree is dated at 9,500 yrs using Carbon dating. I haven't read anything that corroborates that date in the tree ring literature. But I wasn't make a claim about tree ring dating at that moment, (see above). The point about the oldest tree was originally not mine; I was responding to those who would date such from after the Flood. No trees could survive a world-wide Flood? Makes no sense to me, even in a YEC model!

If I were a betting man, I would place money on the date of the oldest being revised at some time in the near future. Like the strongest man, or the national deficit, it's a moving and expanding target!

You are probably aware that tree rings and C-14 dates are carefully correlated with each other, and many other parallel techniques, including ash deposits from volcanic eruptions, and lake verve cycles. These form a corrective and help us see whether and how much our tree ring counts and C-14 dates need to be modified.

The result? ...in general the C-14 dates, are TOO YOUNG, not too old.

"...in general the C-14 dates, are TOO YOUNG, not too old."

Graeme, it is interesting that C-14 and dendrochronology often do not agree. In fact, dating by multiple methods typically results in conflicting dates, and the differences typically are resolved by a political consensus that places no great faith in any given dating method. Yet you criticize the YEC crowd for placing no great faith in them either.

But it is your ethics of argumentation that trouble me. Bob Ryan was saying that the oldest tree, as per tree ring dating, is 4,800 years old (which fits into a YEC model). You shot back, "no, the oldest tree is 9,550 years old," neglecting to add that this was based not upon dendrochronology--counting tree rings--but upon radiocarbon dating of the roots. So this "oldest tree" had nothing to do with dendrochronology at all; you changed lanes without signaling.

Were you trying to mislead Bob and the rest of us into believing that there exists a tree with 9,550 rings? Or were you merely trying to present "a moving and expanding target"?

Tony Clifton said : "Does anyone here really think that if we as a church, pander to the scientific community,..."

=====================

Welcome to the conversation, Tony!

As I understand it, this and other conversations about science and scripture here are not about what 'we as a church' should do, but each of us as free-thinking individuals in dialogue, using good faith and good reasons, understanding and sharing how we see things.

Hope to hear more from you.

Graeme

David Read
I understand you wrote a book from a creationist perspective. If you dealt with the Flood, how did you deal with the problems relating to its historical context? I've been trying to get the Young Earth crowd to explain how it fits into a 2500 BC context. I get no takers. Does this mean that they no longer believe in EGW's chronology of a 6000 year old Creation event?

To me it seems as if creationists would rather talk about the shortcomings of Evolution than give reasons for their own faith.

Matthew,
I'm sorry that I misunderstood you before, but still I'm trying. It seems you're emphasizing that nobody now counters Coffin's hypothesis that Specimen Ridge did not necessarily require a gradual long development as had been believed before the 1980 eruption of Mt St Helens. You then raise the question that the evolutionary model limited what scientists saw there as evidence & how it may be affecting conclusions elsewhere.

I agree, for whatever that's worth as a non-scientist Christian worshipping the Creator however God formed us & our universe. It does impress me that evolutionary science accepts a correction, such as that learned from St Helens, & adjusts whatever is necessary. Further, as Beth & Agee have described so articulately, the basic premises have withstood a long process of testing, discovery, & new information.

David Read provided info on his book at:
http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/don’t-send-your-children-says-mrs-white/
The relevant comment is from June 23 & begins,
I’ve thought long and hard about Ellen White’s amalgamation statements, and the result of my thinking about these statements is in my book, “Dinosaurs — An Adventist View” which is available at Amazon.com and at your local ABC. I’ll try to summarize my thinking here.

Bevin, the example I use in my book is the controversy over the KBS tuff. In that case, a layer was dated by radiometric dating, and faunal dating and fission track dating both correlated and confirmed that date. Later it was discovered that that date played havoc with the human evolution story, so the layer was re-tested, a different date was arrived at, and, once it had become clear in which direction the political winds were blowing, the new, very different date was correlated by faunal dating and fission track dating.

I discuss the episode in my appendix on radiometric dating, a condensed version of which is here:

http://educatetruth.com/science/?p=1.

Another discusson is here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/pigs.asp.

There are more examples in the book.

I discuss the episode in my appendix on radiometric dating, a condensed version of which is here:
http://educatetruth.com/science/?p=1.

Another discusson is here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/pigs.asp.

There are more examples in the book.

Your article can be summarized as

A range of samples was taken from a range of conditions, subjects to a variety of techniques, and yielded a range of dates running from approximately 0.5M to 20M years.

Since the techniques depended on the samples coming from rock that had a particular history, and since the rock could not be guaranteed to have had that history, the range of values is not surprising.

You make a great deal of the "incontrovertible" word, showing your ignorance or bias in the area.

All the scientists involved knew of the resulting wide range of dates, and knew of many causes for the variations. Studying all the data available, they settled on a tentative dating for the site, a dating that they knew was tentative and which they would overturn cheerily when better data became available.

As usual, you have cherry-picked and misunderstood the data and the situation to illustrate your preconceived ideas. This absolutely consistent modus-operandi of creationists is the main reason I give them zero credibility.

/Bevin

David
Thanks for responding. The fact that you're not comfortable with the standard OT Bible text (the Masoretic)for dating the Flood (around 2500 BC), implies that you, too, recognize that there is no way such a cataclysm could have taken place at that time. At least we agree on that. Moving the date up to 2300 BC makes it even more difficult to defend, however, and moving it back to 3500 BC places it within the lifetime of Adam, if EGW is to be believed. Even for you, the Masoretic text is as good as it gets, I think.

The truth of the matter is that in the 50,000-100,000 years modern humans have been around, there is absolutely no evidence of any universal catastrophe that disrupted life on earth by dumping hundreds or thousands of feet of sediments on top of them. And if you don't agree, can you point to a single civilization that qualifies as 'antedeluvian?'

You find it curious that we "have no recorded history until about the last 5,000, approximately when biblical history says we should start seeing human history." I think, David, that that has something to do with the emergence of the first great civilizations--and the development of literacy, don't you? These emerge at about the time when EGW said the world began. In fact, if we conflate the emergence of civilization with the creation of life on Earth, we would agree. The creation that took place 6000 years ago was that of civilized, literate humans, not of life itself. (Notice that Kain, when expelled, headed into the country of Nod. "Country" means civilization. It was there at the beginning. Hunter-gatherers don't have the concept of country, only land.)

David is simply wrong about

>>> have no recorded history until about the last 5,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting

He is simply confusing "recording" with "writing". We have lots of evidence of recorded history, if you accept the creation of objects records something.

It is NOT surprising that the creation of writing would allow rapid progress in education of each consecutive generation, getting from pyramids to radiological dating in only a few thousand years.

The earliest known European cave paintings date to Aurignacian, some 32,000 years ago

Other examples may date as late as the Early Bronze Age, but the well known prolific and sophisticated style from Lascaux and Altamira died out about 10,000 years ago

Cave paintings found at the "Apollo 11 caves" in Namibia may be among the earliest cave art. The estimated age of the images date from approximately 23,000 - 25,000 B.C

he Padah-Lin Caves of Burma contain 11,000-year-old paintings and many rock tools.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070215-stone-tools.html

Crude stone "tools" found in northern Minnesota may be at least 13,000 years old, a team of archaeologists recently announced.

The discovery, if confirmed, would put the objects among the oldest human artifacts ever found in the Americas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldowan

The Oldowan is significant for being the earliest stone tool industry in prehistory, being used from 2.6 million years ago up until 1.7 million years ago, when it was followed by the more sophisticated Acheulean industry. Oldowan

This stuff is documented all over the internet. If you really care, you'll invest the time rather than trust my judgement.

/Bevin

Bevin, the story of the KBS Tuff and the controversy over its dating is not sourced to AIG or any other creationist source. It was all in print from mainstream sources long before AIG ever came into existence. One of the sources that had the most revealing quotes concerning the KBS Tuff controversy was Roger Lewin's "Bones of Contention" a book first published in 1987, before Ken Ham founded AIG in 1994.

http://www.amazon.com/Bones-Contention-Controversies-Search-Origins/dp/0....

For example, it was Lewin who quoted Richard Leakey as saying, "One realizes that even in the most pure of sciences, which geophysics should be, there is a potential to identify careers, status, and results—and there’s a strong political element, too." Lewin, at p. 251.

It was Richard Leakey, not Ken Ham, who noted that radiometric dating, supposed to be pure science, actually contains "a strong political element."

It was in Lewin that I read the story of the "confirming" fission track dating, which was evidently an entirely non-scientific political exercise, as I describe in this footnote:

The fission-track dating of the KBS tuff at first confirmed Fitch and Miller, then later, remarkably, confirmed the younger date. Every time an atom of radioactive U-238 atom explodes, its nucleus is torn in half and the two halves are propelled through the crystal in opposite directions at great speed, boring a tiny tunnel through the crystal lattice. The idea behind fission track dating is to count the number of these fission tracks in the zircon crystal. When researchers Tony Hurford and Andy Gleadow did this on KBS tuff crystals, they independently reached a result of 2.62 m.y. plus or minus .40, a stunning confirmation of Fitch and Miller's number of 2.61 m.y. plus or minus .26. (Lewin, at p. 231.) Later, after the tide of opinion had turned against Fitch and Miller, Hurford and Gleadow re-counted the fission tracks and came up with 1.8 m.y., a stunning confirmation of Garniss Curtis’ results. After they changed their tune, they claimed that Fitch had subtly pressured them to reach a number that confirmed his radiometric results, but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that, later on, the subtle pressure to support Curtis and McDougall became just as great. (Lewin, at 243-247.) Hurford stated, “[Y]ou can bias your results 10 percent either way, easily. You go crystal by crystal, and you begin to see where the rolling average is going. If you need the count to be higher with the crystal you’re working on, so that it will fit in, you might include something that is a doubtful track. If you want the count to be lower, you don’t include it.” (Lewin, at p. 246.) But, of course, Hurford and Gleadow changed their results not by ten percent, but by more than 30%.

In accepting the paintings of evidence of historical significance, do you also accept the approximate day as 31,000 years ago? How do you choose a date if not that one? Surely, humans must have left those paintings, but when did they live?

Hopeful, thanks for those comments! I was just trolling for pictures of the remarkable artwork and didn't read the text on that page.

But the comments of Pettitt and Bahn demonstrate yet again that when the sacred cow of Darwinism (or even a pet theory like stylistic dating) is being gored, scientists give no more credence to radiometric results than do young earth creationists. When they want to toss a radiometric date, they do so without compunction or second thought, and suddenly it turns out that contamination is ubiquitous. This is a political process that is worthless as a means of getting at truth.

Bevin and Aage will have to forgive me for treating radiometric dating exactly like scientists treat it, to wit, I accept it when it agrees with my model and reject it when it disagrees with my model.

Does the question of dating lead to a conclusion that they are many thousands of years in error? Has any dating suggested that they could be less than 10,000 years old?

David Read===>once you've accepted the principle that explicitly naturalistic human science trumps the plain statements of Scripture, there's no logical stopping place until you reach atheism or agnosticism.
________

From the very beginning of this series I have stated that we should embrace all forms of knowledge—revelation, reason and empiricism. I included revelation, because I am comfortable with viewing it as the starting point—but not the end point of thought. But if we are to employ reason and empiricism in pursuit reality, then it is important to understand that these other tools will have a profound effect upon all interpretations of revelation.

From your statement above, I understand that you are uncomfortable with an approach that give credibility to reason and empiricism. I also recognize that most scientists would be uncomfortable with starting with revelation. Thus I am squarely in the middle.

As for revelation being an appropriate framework for considering science I would note that none of us can get outside of self or culture to make truly objective judgments (as Michael Polanyi point out and as I cited earlier). Thus, it certainly seems appropriate to include the idea of a purposeful universal order that comes out of revelation and put if forward as one among a number of hypothesis for consideration (in the scientific sense). Certainly it would be no more illegitimate to proceed on such assumption than to proceed on the basis of “string theory” and some of the bizarre hypotheses that have come to us from physicists in recent decades.

I do believe we can take the general outline of revelation seriously without committing bibleolatry--the sin we commit when we reach conclusions about our understanding of scripture that require us to reject reason and the data sitting right in front of us.

Therefore, while you describe me as being on a slippery slope, I am not sure that we honestly have any choice—if reason and data count for anything. In the meantime I would request that you wait until the conclusion of this series before drawing a slippery slop conclusion.

Aage,

Thanks for expressing your position. I think that's one of the more cogent arguments I've heard for those who want to, as you put it, "retain their faith in God and the Bible" as well as take seriously the scientific evidence.

That said, I'm curious what your theological model is and how you incorporate the data into it. Although I certainly think science is important, and I'm trying to understand it, theology is also important. Theology is perhaps of more interest to me because I'm not a scientist; I'm a theologian. So how do we fit the scientific evidence together with the biblical evidence to form a coherent theological model?

Those who reject a young-earth creation point out frequently that there is no coherent young-earth scientific model. But equally true is the fact that there does not seem to be a coherent theological model which incorporates long ages (at least one other person, I think Beth, has already agreed with my assessment on this point). I've seen the scientific evidence batted around for quite some time on here, and I'm fairly confident that between young-earthers and long-agers there will be no consensus on it any time soon. So I'm ready to move on to the theological aspects.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. The Bible thumpers that look to it for every answer that has ever arisen become Bible abusers.

Where is the idea that everything written in the Bible is to explain geology, anthropology, medicine (why not?), mental telepathy, demonology (yes, demons were believed then), and more.

Educated people rebel at those who place the Bible as the only book needed in one's library. Why read anything else? If it has the answer to every question man can ask--simply go to the Bible for answers.

Such a contortion is, as Aage wrote, the basis for young, educated members to leave in flocks. Note that the homophobic speaker in Finland caused 20,000 young people to resign from church membership in one week! Continue to press this topic and there will be more leaving the church as some of us have already done because we refuse to park our rational minds on the church steps

Matthew,
You asked Aage, so I hope you don't mind my chiming in. I think there are many who hold a theological model that incorporates long ages. As an introduction, I find this a pretty good one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

A meaningful verse for me is one included in both Mark & Matthew, "But many that are first shall be last; and the last first." I look forward to God's redemption, & an end to sin's tragic curse of survival of the fittest.
21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. Romans 8

Hopeful:

Yes, theistic evolution is one solution which has been proposed. I have two questions about it.

1) What does Hebrew and Old Testament scholarship say about theistic evolution's claims that the Bible's creation stories are "allegorical in nature?"

2) What does evolutionary science say about the prospect of adding God into the picture of origins?

David Read===>Jan, I'm puzzled as to where you see me rejecting reason and data. Mainstream science reasons from naturalistic premises; I reason from the premise that biblical history is realiable. We're all using reason, but we are reasoning from different premises.
________

I don't think it is necessary to get into specifics, because I see the problem as systemic to the approach you employ. Let me make a few observations that would clarify:

1. Let's start off with the fact that YEC and an ancient creation represent 2 different hypotheses that seeks its own data. Thus, the hypothesis can influence what gets accepted as data. Within limits and we can stipulate to that…
2. Humans develop hypothesis as a hunch to explain observations and data--thus YEC and ancient creation.
3. If we are honest investigators of truth we will avoid becoming so emotionally invested in our favorite hypothesis that we cannot deal with nonconforming data, but this is seldom the case with YEC. In the meantime, if we put all the data for YEC on one side of the ledger, and all the data for an ancient creation on the other side of the ledger it is clearly not a balanced equation by a long shot. The impression I am receiving from your postings is that there is no amount of data that would change your mind. That is why I don't believe that you respect the data.
4. One of the principles of science is that generally the simplest explanation is the best explanations. This general rule runs counter to the approach YEC generally employs. Because your sympathies lay with YEC I am gathering that you are comfortable with an approach that seek any outlandish explanation required in order to explain away inconvenient data. If it were necessary to violate this general rule in some cases, but not in others, that would be one thing. However, it seems that in order to support YEC it is necessary to explain away an overwhelming quantity of data that suggests long ages. At some point, I think we have to conclude that rationality is being subverted by such conduct.

Perhaps it would be worth pointing out that models, viewpoints, filters, theories, or whatever set of "assumptions" are used are indeed the crux of the matter. Choose the model that lacks the proper support from the evidence, and you can't do science with it. Which is why there is no coherent science done with YEC, or to set the cat among the doves, with any kind of creationism at all.

Of course one may choose a viewpoint that yields no coherent approach to the data and produces no proper science. But there's no reason to pretend that it has any value, save as a sop to those who will not open their minds to the importance of doing good science.

There's no reason to pretend that YECs even consider the same data. They do not. They ignore vast swaths of knowledge, and especially the concordance and the congruence of data in supporting a proper view. What do they do with astronomical dating? Nothing, it doesn't fit their model. What do they do with the congruence of dating by astronomical dating methods and radiometric methods? Nothing, their filter simply denies the results of such cross-checked evidence from totally different phenomena (a slam dunk for anyone open to the evidence).

We have no explanations for the cooling of the earth and of lava supposed to have erupted during the flood via YECism, and this is basic thermodynamics (consider the heat profiles near spreading ridges alone, which basically fit the standard model). No explanation for the lack of short-lived isotopes (that is, those with several million year half-lives and less) on earth. No explanations for metamorphic rocks, no explanation for the atmospheres' worth of carbon existing in rocks as kerogen, and the even larger reservoir of carbonates. No explanation for how a fine layer of iridium-rich material could form in a flood, nor really any explanation for any of the sedimentation (flood debris is found, but interleaved with non-flood sediments).

Deep time basically explains all of these matters, in one way or another, which is why geology didn't really get going as a science until geologists understood the necessity of long ages to explain the rocks.

No science can be done with YECism, basically. Even YEC geologists end up "borrowing" from real geology to do any work, as a professor of mine at Walla Walla College (University) did by using radiometric dating. He knew that it meant something, he just denied that it referred to age, the obvious and apparent answer.

Of course one may believe in static continents and say that one uses the same data (actually, ignoring much, although not nearly so much as YECs do) while using different interpretations than those who accept plate tectonics. What we really get from any kind of claim like that one is how utterly useless it is to stick with preconceptions, rather than learning to interpret according to methods and theories that actually reflect the data.

The great moments in science are those that allow us to gain a clearer picture of the data by improving our theories and interpretations. Thus one moves on from Newtonian mechanics to quantum mechanics (however incongruent the latter term may be) and relativity, if one really wants to understand physics well. One likewise moves on from static continents to plate tectonics, and from a young earth to deep time.

To reject the proper filters is to deny science, which must take its cues from evidence-based methods.

Glen Davidson

Being a creationist means recognizing the myths and by-faith-alone positions of evoutionism's doctrine on orgins for the junk-science and bad religion that it is.

It means rejecting "stories easy enough to make up but they are not science" based on the fossil record.

It means rejecting the total non-science claims to a "vast decrease in entropy" for the evolution of molecule-to-mind.

It means rejecting the discredited alchemy that "birds come from reptiles".

It means rejecting the fraudulent practices of evolutionism's Nebraska man, horse "sequence" that "never happened in nature" - in addition to things like Piltdown man and Ernst Haeckle's fraudulent illustrations for the idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. (as well as the many other frauds,
hoaxes and outright "stories" so central to evolutionism).

No wonder Dawkins goes into that 11 minutes of "ceiling meditation" when asked for just one example of a genome "acquiring" new coding genes and turning into another genome.

Of course many of our evolutionist friends would love nothing more than to wave their hands over all of it and call it "science" - and claim that anyone who accepts the Bible for what it says is "against science". The lack of critical thinking that goes into the blind faith statements for evolutionism is astounding.

Better to trust the word of God than the word of Darwin. Darwin himself came to the point of admitting that one is forced to choose between the two if they take a close look at both.

in Christ,

Bob

___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

The Opening Article here highlights a point that our evolutionist friends are fleeing from as fast as they can.

It speaks to the point of the Bible - reading the bible for what it says. It is a form of "Reading the Bible-ism" for "and accepting what it says-ism". And it says that this is contrasted against ... "not reading the Bible-ism"?? What?

Oh no wait! It contrasts "accepting the Bible-ism" with "plate tectonics"!! How "instructive". It is "THE" argument for Theistic evolutionists that has them fleeing from one side of that equation. It is really only the agnostic and atheist that can even play in that context when confronting Christians intent on accepting the Bible-ism.

Only in that context does it make sense to contrast the Bible with "plate tectonics". And as Darwin said even in his day, the thinking person "must choose" because what we see in fossilized stories about "how one thing came from another -- easy enough to make up but they are not science" is in fact not compatible with acceping what the Bible says-ism.

in Christ,

Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

When looking at C14 still remaining in what an evolutionist might call 'very old strata' the devotee to evolutionism would try to "explain the data away" while the one who accept the Bible account for history would take this as evidence that assumptions about long ages are flawed.

The same is true when finding DNA molecules remaining in what is supposed to be very old strata. DNA molecules and Protein molecules have their own measured half-lives that declare that such findings are "not possible" if the strata is as old as some assumptions make it.

The argument made that "all of our age assumptions are correct no matter the data to the contrary" is the blind by-faith-alone position of the evolutionist.

Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time" also admits that neutrinos are expected to affect radiometric decay rates. Recent confirmations of that fact - lead to the question about possible range in fluctuation and which types of neutrinos cause the most variation and at what concentration. We also need to know just how it is that the normal electron-neturino gets morphed into Muon and Tao neutrinos in transit from the sun to the earth. What causes that and do those Muon and Tao neutrinos account for the acceleration variable? What events affect or even amplify that effect? While being aware of the need to find the answers and "do the math" many still cling devotedly to 'I hope, I hope (click click) it is no change from our current model'.

in Christ,

Bob

___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

David Read writes

>>> Bevin and Aage will have to forgive me for treating radiometric dating exactly like scientists treat it, to wit, I accept it when it agrees with my model and reject it when it disagrees with my model.

That is NOT what the scientists do, and the fact that you claim it is what they do further demonstrates your failure to understand the scientific method and the scientific community.

Radiometric dating is well understood to be a complex problem.

The original material's composition needs to be determined.

The processes it has gone through since need to be determined.

The measurements made on it today need to be adequately accurate.

Then one can apply theories expressed as precise formula to try to estimate some of the time intervals that the processes operated on.

At any given site, one repeats these steps with as many different materials and theories as possible. Erosion, fossil dating, various radiological clocks, thermoluminesence, cooling rates, ancient written records, pollen, magnetic fields, ...

Since the processes that the material may have undergone (eg: water leeching, reheating, earthquake stresses, erosion, movement) are not quantitatively known with enough precision, it is not in the least bit surprising that the different estimates of ages disagree.

WHAT IS AMAZING IS HOW OFTEN THEY DO AGREE, and the less evidence there is of unmeasurable processes, THE MORE THEY AGREE.

Either the material is old, or God has created the greatest lie in the history of the universe.

All your misrepresentation of the scientific process and community simply show you don't understand the topic that you wrote a book about. Hardly a good reason for my wasting money on the book.

/Bevin

One more.... listen to the recent edition of Being on public radio with the hour-long interview with French geophysicist Xavier Le Pichon, who was instrumental in the development of plate tectonic theory.

This broadcast is an eye opener to those who only think about these issues from an American perspective.

http://being.publicradio.org/programs/2010/fragility/

Matthew,
Your questions are addressed in the link I made, which references scholarship for fuller study. I hope you read it.

Hopeful, the issues I asked about are discussed in brief in the Wikipedia article, but I didn't really see a discussion of criticisms of theistic evolution. That's what I was trying to get at. What are the problems with theistic evolution, and do we have explanations for them? (I think it's safe to assume that the Adventist church isn't going to breathe a sigh of relief when presented with theistic evolution and say, "Finally; we have a model that explains everything." Thus some apologetic work is needed by those who favor such a model.)

One of the questions which troubles me most is the issue of the interpretation of Genesis. Theistic evolution requires that the creation account in Genesis be something other than literal. However, the best Hebrew scholarship disagrees with this interpretation. Liberal scholars such as James Barr have even mocked evangelicals for their attempts to reinterpret Genesis in nonliteral ways. If we are to accept theistic evolution, it seems we need to deal with this issue.

There are other concerns we must consider as well, but for now I'll leave it at that.

Graeme, my book is also available on Amazon, if you cannot make it to an ABC. There is a certain amount of clearing the rubble from the foundations, but for the most part the book puts forward positive theories and explanations from a biblical and EGW perspective.

Matthew
Your question is very much to the point. I, too, would be interested in how creative Christian thinkers integrate faith and Evolution. I don't have the slightest problem understanding why David Reed and his ideological cohort fight Evolution; what I object to is their argumentation. Nor do I have a problem understanding those who want to go beyond the facts, but without pretending that the facts aren't there.

David Read writes...

>>> the notion that the earth is billions of years old, and the fossiliferious strata hundreds of millions of years old, is not ever going to change, regardless of the contrary evidence.

The problem is simply this.

There are thousands of reliable witnesses with videotapes saying the butler did it in the kitchen with the umbrella stand.

There is a handful of people of dubious track record, saying but without any videotapes, that the maid did it in the parlor with the candlestick.

Those people are contrary evidence, but the evidence is not credible.

Until CREDIBLE contrary evidence turns up, the notion won't be revised.

David Read writes...

>>> If you mention evidence, as Bob did, of live radiocarbon found in objects from strata notionally many millions of years old, the mainstream scientist must insist on contamination, regardless of the facts of the particular case. He knows it must be wrong, because the basic timescale is not up for debate. It is bedrock fact.

No, the main stream scientist goes and looks at strata and points to the tons of evidence showing contamination.

It is the Creationist charlatans who claim "God must have done this" without looking.

I have asked Bob for ONE credible instance of bad C14 data - he has not had time to reply yet.

David Read writes...

>>> If you find soft dinosaur tissue, and surviving biomolecules, in a dinosaur fossil notionally 67 million years old, well, I guess dinosaur tissue and biomolecules can last many millions of years longer than we had previously thought, because the basic timescale is not up for debate. It is bedrock fact.

We have previously discussed this on this forum.

Read about the issue here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus in the section on soft tissue.

The mere fact Creationist's like yourselve bring up such an ambiguous, not duplicated, experiment as though it is something that happens all the time simply shows your lack of understanding of the issue.

I notice your book gets a great review by Neil Wilson.

I am reminded of reviews of Immanuel Velikosky's books. The scientists all said "the science is nonsense but the history is great!" and the historians all said "the history is nonsense but the science is great!".

Where are the reviews by mainstream SDA scientists?

/Bevin

Seems to me, one has to break two of the ten commandments: that one about bibliolatry and that other one about bearing false witness, in order to dogmatize the fourth commandment (but only the Exodus version in a Protestant Bible) as the one and only door to salvation.

Kenneth James

Does having one's book listed on "Amazon.com" mean that it is credible?

Kenneth James

Kenneth, if you have some evidence that I've lied, bring it on. Otherwise, don't libel me in a public forum. What have I done to you?

Where are the reviews by mainstream SDA scientists?

Bevin, you obviously did not read all the blurbs.

Lawyers have long played a significant role in the conflict over origins. I think I understand why this is so. For lawyers, everything hangs in the argument, and when a lawyer sees an argument, he analyzes it for logical flaws, as wells as hidden premises and assumptions that may be wrong, or at least arguable. When I heard that another lawyer was writing a book about dinosaurs, I was at first skeptical. What can a lawyer know about dinosaurs in particular, and science in general that would qualify him to write such a book?

I soon found out the answer. He knows a great deal. David Read has qualified himself for this daunting task by digging deeply into the fundamentals of not only science as a discipline, and dinosaurs in particular, but he also displays extensive knowledge of geology and paleontology. He has assembled the issues in a logical and insightful manner. He presents his subjects with the skill of a good prosecuting attorney. There is no possibility of a hung jury in this case.

I recommend his book as an excellent and timely source of information, not only for the facts concerning the controversy on origins, but as a good introduction to the dinosaurs as well. -- --Arthur Chadwick, Ph.D., Professor of Biology and Geology, Southwestern Adventist University

Which is not to say that Dr. Chadwick agrees with everything in the book--he does not--just that he thought it was good enough to provide a jacket blurb.

I also had the manuscript reviewed by Dr. Kurt Wise. Dr. Wise was kind enough to read the entire manuscript and provide many helpful comments and criticisms. I made quite a few changes and revisions based upon his comments. He was unsympathetic to the book's central thesis, which depends on an Ellen White passage, but he said I had, for a layman, an unusually good understanding of science.

I'm sure you could also provide me with some helpful criticisms. Obviously, with a book over 600 pages in length, it would be impossible to get very detail right, and I haven't. Some mistakes that have been pointed out to me are (1) I have a picture labeled "seismosaurus" when the evidence now seems to indicate that the fossil animal previously so identified was really just a large diplodocus. See here: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2010/08/17/whatever-happened-to.... (2) I said Darwin was an atheist at the end, but the evidence only supports the term agnostic, (3) I cited a the 1954 version of one book when I actually was referring to a later edition of the same volume.

There are acknowledged problems with radiometric dating. So scientists came out with the highly touted isochron as the final, foolproof answer to solve all other problems.

The problem is, the isochron is based on an unsupported and undemonstrated premise that assumes that magma containing unknown amounts of both radiogenic and non-radiogenic isotopes of the daughter element, along with some amount of the parent nuclide, will have its isotopes evenly distributed so that, at solidification, lava starts out with a thoroughly homogenous mix of daughter isotopes, radiogenic and non-radiogenic. One can now start plotting the isochron with a slope of zero, and, voila, it no longer matters if there is old daughter istopes within the sample. The math beyond this point is correct, but the premise and starting assumption is invalid.

As to models, creationists actually do have a scientific basis for being creationists. If they would concentrate on demonstrating, scientifically, the characteristics of known sources of intelligence and then identify those same hallmarks in nature, they would be right smack in the middle of science, not theology, and no one could accuse them of being unscientific. I wish we would work on this angle more. There is data that give evidence for methods used by a Supreme Intelligence. This can be a totally scientific study, without appeal to the Bible.

As to the Biblical perspective on the origin of life and the Earth, it would be necessary to first provide evidence that the Biblical account is trustworthy, and this can be done in the field of religion, not in the field of science. And once that authority is established, the "mountains of data" will demonstrate that the Biblical paradigm is a realistic one re earth's history.

We need students who can pioneer away from the present mainstream model and produce fresh thinking and fresh approaches to the data. But how this can be done when most are under the tutelage of mainstream thought, is beyond me. If they don't acquiesce for the grade, then they cave under the pressure of authoritarian mainstream concepts...and ridicule...and they lose the chance to think independently and experiment with fresh ideas. Too bad.

Once all the Bible is proved to be factual and true beyond a shadow of doubt, it will no longer be religious belief but simply another branch of knowledge such as math or physics. Beware what is wished for and prepare to reap the results of unintended consequences.

Will the Bible then, be only another academic discipline to study as an elective? Or a requirement? No faith will be needed. Just imagine: if virginal birth is accepted, all the young girls with such a claim would have to be believed; if anyone claims to have been raised from the dead, no longer a miracle, but simply a fact; that a man can live in a sea monster and survive for 3 days, no problem, it will only be a normal everyday occurrence.

Elaine wrote: Once all the Bible is proved to be factual and true beyond a shadow of doubt, it will no longer be religious belief but simply another branch of knowledge such as math or physics. Beware what is wished for and prepare to reap the results of unintended consequences.

There is no such thing as proving beyond a shadow of a doubt. Indeed science does not deal in proofs. And I wasn't talking about proving the Bible. If it can be demonstrated to be trustworthy (and it can), then it will be discovered that the Biblical perspective can throw light on the "mountains of data" awaiting interpretation.

There are many ancient and older stories of creation: Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian, and because men declared the Bible as a "Holy Book" and "God's Word" how does one determine that only the Bible story is absolutely innerant and true? Muslims also revere the Koran and look to it for revelation.

It is only because those who were born in a Christian county are Christians. Had they been born in China or Saudi Arabia they would feel their religion is just as important as Christians. An accident of birth decided most everyone's religion and their training was also determined before birth. Did anyone here choose his parents or country or religion? We should humbly recognize that what we profess has much more to do with those things completely out of our control that wise decisions.

I found a link to Hasel's paper. I know that some here will not agree with his views on the authority of Scripture, but hopefully that will not hinder an honest reading of his scholarly work. He has copious footnotes for those interested in following up on his sources. This is the most comprehensive study that I've personally read on the days of creation.

http://ldolphin.org/haseldays.html

Rich, Hasel's paper can also be found in the book Creation, Catastrophe, and Calvary, edited by John Baldwin (another SDA Theological Seminary professor). This is an excellent resource for anyone wanting to understand what young-earth creationist scholars really believe. I highly recommend it, both to those who believe in a young-earth creation and to those who don't but who want to understand the young-earth position.

Matthew says: "One of the questions which troubles me most is the issue of the interpretation of Genesis. Theistic evolution requires that the creation account in Genesis be something other than literal."
=====================

I think you are close to the heart of the issue here, but maybe in ways that are not obvious. Genesis is a core text.in fact, THE core text on origins in Judaism/Christianity and in the west. There is no doubt about that. And the myriad interpretations over time have been important and influential--from Augustine, at least. We are agreed.

But your second sentence seems to point in another direction. Do you mean, if a reader believes in theistic evolution, they cannot accept or read or interpret Genesis in any literal fashion? I think this is a stretch. It is true to say that SOME interpreters have given allegorical, mystical, or philosophical interpretations, and SOME of these in the modern period would be considered theistic evolutionists.

But take another case altogether. I have taught the book of Genesis to freshman students for years. We read it very literally, even in the KJV! I don't usually allow deviations or allegorical readings in class. I want students to get face to face with the text and see what is really there. I don't give space for interpolations, criticisms or reinterpretations of the text that are not supported by it. We don't generally discuss evolution or its discontents or the science of it all. We just read the text, literally, in order to understand it.

I think it is perfectly easy to read Genesis literally and accept -- as an authentic account of what ancient Hebrews believed. This exercise has produced some of the most penetrating and insightful essays from students I have ever read on Genesis, especially from my Jewish students.

But theology is much more than explicating the literal text. But that is another topic.... shall we go there?

In teaching Genesis do the students never ask questions? What is the purpose of teaching if they are only reading literally and not allowed to deviate from the text?

If students aren't taught to do independent thinking doesn't that constrict or even delay the thoughtful and inevitable questions that will arise later? Unanswered questions are never killed, they simply are buried to fester until they find the answers, perhaps elsewhere.

How do you teach the two creation stories? How do you harmonize them? Which takes precedence?

Framework theology of Genesis provides an important emphasis: the purpose of the creation narratives. Revelation is primary & history is secondary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation

1. There is no such thing as "evolution from water to wine".

2. There is no such thing as "evolution from one slice of bread to a million slices of bread".

Water will remain water "over time" and one slice of bread will evolve into "no slices of bread" over time.

3. Jesus never argued for evolutionism - rather Jesus argued for the "reality" of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden - as the first marriage. Jesus argued that "the Word of God cannot be broken". Jesus argued from "Moses and all the scripture" teaching that He is the Messiah. Jesus said "sanctify them in Thy Truth - Thy WORD is Truth".

When the Sadducees doubted the miracle of the promised resurrection Jesus said "you do err in that you do not know the scriptures or the power of God".

Jesus said "in vain do they worship Me teaching for doctrines the commandments of me... you set aside the Commandments of God for your own traditions"

Jesus' model was to accept the Bible as it reads and toss all the man-made rationalizing used to bend and wrench the scriptures - out the window.

in Christ,

Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

What I meant was not a literal evolution from water to wine, but actually water turns into wine in the right circumstances. And Jesus showed that he could do this much faster than the natural process..
Wasn't that what Jesus intended to show the world. I am the creator, I know how it works...
I do not think that Jesus task on earth was to teach us to take everything literaly. Why did he use this strange story about Lazarus and the rich man in hell?? He did not focus on somenthing like: "accept the Bible as it reads". His focus was on the gospel. Men and women had to understand the helpless and desolate state of their hearts in order to understand the gospel. Everything else was secondary.
Why is it so important to know the details of creation? He is the creator, but the ancient Hebrews were not able to understand the details and may be we aren't either.

Continuing with Matthew on theological method, and Genesis:

You wisely state : "I think,,, our hermeneutical approach to Genesis has implications for our interpretation of other parts of the Bible as well. We cannot pretend that our interpretation of the creation account in Genesis happens in a vacuum and has no implications for our understanding of other parts of Scripture. We must be willing to accept the implications of our approach to Scripture if we want to come up with a coherent theology."

Yes, indeed, but it is not a one-way street. We could say on the other hand, quite correctly, that our hermeneutics for scripture as a whole have implications for our readings of Genesis. In other words, a dialogical relationship. But let's extend this one more step. So we have Genesis and the rest of the Bible in dialogue; also Genesis and other ANE creation stories in dialogue; Genesis and modern science in dialogue. etc.

So, I am arguing for a dialogical theology of Genesis, rather than a merely coherent one.

WDYT?

To Elaine, who asks: "In teaching Genesis do the students never ask questions?"

You misunderstand me. Of course we have lots of questions, and the students think for themselves, often quite brilliantly. This is a course that teaches critical thinking skills. The first skill is to see and face what is there.

The guidelines provide a particular type of reading experience that keeps the focus on the text. The "purpose" is to learn how to read literally. It's much more difficult than you would expect. It helps students sort out the difference between what a text says and what they think it means based on their preconceptions. I remember once student who said, with astonishment, "What? It all came out of water?" and another who asked, "If Eve was made from Adam's rib, then how did she come alive?" Another, "When God put Adam to sleep, and did something to him to produce Eve, does that imply that when we are sleeping, God is working on us to produce something new?"

I love it when the text astonishes us with its possibilities. Much more interesting than simply rehearsing our already-exiting understandings. It leads to independent thinking.

Questions of the relations between Genesis and science, etc are taught in upper level and graduate classes.

Graeme writes to BobRyan, above:

As I mentioned to Matthew above, my approach is dialogical (and incarnational). Yours is not. The Bible says it, and that's enough for you. That's OK for you, but not for me and for anyone who believes in scientific method, the study of history, etc.

Graeme: what Bob and many traditionalists use as their guiding epistemology is Divine Command Theory (God said it, I believe it, and that settles it).

See:
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/christian-ethics/divine-command-the...
- or -
http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Ethics/Moral_Theory/Religion_...

I contend this is a defective starting place and have argued against it here.

I am a compatiblist, implying that God's revelation and experientially-derived knowledge (such as science) ought to resolve. It appears from your comment that you are too. I think most Theists want to start with this - until there is dissonance between the two potential knowledge streams. Then the DCT folks trump anything experiential with their revelatory source.

This seems quite proper to them because, after all, that source comes from (infallible) God while the experiential source comes from (fallible) man.

This whole line of reasoning is seriously problematic IMO but, more to the point of my comment here, it is a fork in the epistemological 'road'. After parting company at that fork those with different presuppositions are merely talking past each other.

I would suggest that the only way for these seemingly interminable discussions on topics such as Faith & Science, Homosexuality, etc. to get traction, is to return to that separating point and analyze the arguments that caused the discussant to veer one way or the other.

Graeme
It's an interesting approach to the text of Genesis. I don't know how long it took me to realize that there is a talking snake in the Garden of Eden story. Not Satan, not Quetzacoatl, simply a talking snake. Nor did I realize for a long time that the reason God confused the languages was that he felt threatened that the tower builders breach the canopy, like Jack in the beanstalk story.

Graeme said:

"So theology is always the study of the mediations of God--and must include language, history, nature, the church, tradition, and spiritual experiences and practices, such as dreams, prayer, etc. Even our presuppositions are part of that study, and influence the shape of the theology we develop."

"We could say on the other hand, quite correctly, that our hermeneutics for scripture as a whole have implications for our readings of Genesis."
-----------------------------------------------------------

Very true. Our presuppositions do affect our study of Scripture. And our hermeneutical approach to Scripture affects everything we read in it, not just Genesis. Now we are getting to what I suspect is the heart of the matter: the hermeneutical approach to the Bible. The Seventh-day Adventist Church expresses in its first fundamental belief the official view of Scripture. The Bible is inspired by God and written by humans; it is authoritative; it is a reliable record of God's acts in human history, etc. Furthermore, the SDA Church holds to the principle of sola scriptura. While sources of data other than Scripture may be considered in SDA theology (as you pointed out), ultimately the Bible is the final authority. Scripture is seen as the starting point and the ending point to establishing doctrine.

Therefore, when we undertake discussions on origins, perhaps we are overlooking our underlying presuppositions about the role of Scripture. Perhaps we have two sides arguing back and forth about creation, but they will never agree because they are standing on different hermeneutical principles. Is it possible that before we can have a productive dialogue on origins, we must first establish our hermeneutical approach to Scripture? Can we debate the relative merit of the SDA Church's stance on creation without first discussing its fundamental belief on the inspiration and authority of Scripture?

Can we debate the relative merit of the SDA Church's stance on creation without first discussing its fundamental belief on the inspiration and authority of Scripture?

Posted by: Matthew Shallenberger (not verified) | 20 October 2010 at 2:21
===========================

Bingo!

Of course our atheist and agnostic friends will view it one way - our Muslim friends another way, our Jewish and liberal Adventist friends still another way.

There is a reason that acceptance of the Bible as a relable and accurate "account" of history is Fundamental Belief #1.

1. Holy Scriptures:
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

in Christ,

Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

Rich, you've arrived at the heart of the question. It does no good to insist on a particular interpretation of the Bible without first accepting that it is God's Word: a very difficult hurdle for many, and overcoming that is critical to any further evangelizing.

Adventists have, for most of their history, been "sheep-stealers" from converted Christians. Today, that field has been plowed over and trying to convert the groups you mention is far more difficult.

As an agnostic, why and how can I be convinced on external evidence that the Bible is God's word? Or that everything written within is inerrant, infallible, and of equal value? That it has the approval of God and men were merely writing God's thoughts?

That everything is factually correct, despite the obvious lack of historical substantiation and that some of the stories have much hyperbole that defies any archeological evidence. There are many anachronisms that give evidence of redaction, editing, and exaggeration.

Now, construct a process by which all of those can be answered before anyone can even begin to convert someone to Adventism.

"David Read's defense of EGW by imagining that the antediluvians did genetic engineering, & Bob Ryan citing discovery of the ark."

Such claims may be greeted by a few Adventists and many will feel more secure that the Bible and EGW has been "proved" correct.

Pass that by the man or woman on the street, or better yet, present that at any university and report on the response. It may be greeted with the same response as those who report seeing a flying saucer yesterday or men are now invading Mars.

"Such claims may be greeted by a few Adventists and many will feel more secure that the Bible and EGW has been 'proved' correct."

Undoubtedly "a few" will believe it. But "many will feel more secure" based on dubious claims (such as the ark being found)? An unwarranted and unfair conclusion. Regardless, are we going to judge the whole of Adventism based on what the average Joe in the pew believes, or based on what the official teachings of the church are and what Adventist scholars believe?

BobRyan writes:

"Of course our atheist and agnostic friends will view it one way - our Muslim friends another way, our Jewish and liberal Adventist friends still another way."

"There is a reason that acceptance of the Bible as a relable and accurate "account" of history is Fundamental Belief #1. "

Rich Hannon responds -

So how do you propose to persuade our atheist, agnostic and Muslim friends to accept Fundamental Belief #1? This would be necessary to evangelize them. FB#1 ought to be accepted a-posteriori but it seems to me that you continually treat it as a-priori!

Posted by: Rich Hannon | 20 October 2010 at 5:22
========================================

BobRyan replies -

It seems from your question that you are not an SDA that has attended any of our evangelistic series. At those meetings we generally start out with evidence for the Bible being the Word of God, reliable and trustworthy. Quite often we get to the point of Daniel 2 and 7 showing centuries of world history accurately predicted in the Bible.

Here is a 14 minute video where at the 10 minute point you will find out how an atheist scientist - a professor teaching evolution at the graduate level - talking about how he was convinced that the Bible is in fact the Word of God starting with the evidence from history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8T4N_Ii4_A&feature=related

If the atheist can see this point clearly - who am I as a Christian to pretent to be confused on this point?

in Christ,

Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

Bob Ryan===>It appears that the only "Complaint" is against the EducateTruth voices that say "people should notice" the evolution as fact campaign at LSU since many SDA parents were unaware of it at the time and since that doctrine directly contradicts our stated Fundamental beliefs. Did I miss anything?
_______

Yes, you missed the topic! The current topic is dating methods. ;-)

There seems to be a misunderstanding of the methods of Adventist evangelism. Evangelism does not consist in rounding up a group of folks willing to listen and then reading to them, in order, the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. I think it goes without saying that if we were considering evangelizing atheists and agnostics, we would not use the Bible as the starting point (obviously, because they don't believe that it contains truth). Evangelism would have a different starting point--the example of a godly life lived by believers. This could be manifested in various ways, such as community service, disaster relief, healthy living seminars, etc. Evangelism is not beating people over the head with our version of truth until, faced with unassailable logic and facts, they accept it (although regrettably too many have indeed attempted to evangelize in this way). Adventist evangelism assumes that truth lived out is its own best witness.

BobRyan replies to Rich Hannon's question about how atheists are convinced to accept the Bible -

It seems from your question that you are not an SDA that has attended any of our evangelistic series. At those meetings we generally start out with evidence for the Bible being the Word of God, reliable and trustworthy. Quite often we get to the point of Daniel 2 and 7 showing centuries of world history accurately predicted in the Bible.

Here is a 14 minute video where at the 10 minute point you will find out how an atheist scientist - a professor teaching evolution at the graduate level - talking about how he was convinced that the Bible is in fact the Word of God starting with the evidence from history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8T4N_Ii4_A&feature=related

If the atheist can see this point clearly - who am I as a Christian to pretent to be confused on this point?

------------------------

Then Elaine posts this --

Bob, in case you hadn't noticed, go back and read Rich Hannon's question:

"how do you propose to persuade our atheist, agnostic and Muslim friends to accept Fundamental Belief #1? This would be necessary to evangelize them. FB#1 ought to be accepted a-posteriori but it seems to me that you continually treat it as a-priori! That is, you do not admit into your system counter evidence that might dis-establish the Bible. To have a common ground for discussion with those potential converts you must first establish the Bible as reliable (which makes FB#1 a conclusion, not a premise)."

Or, should Adventists limit their evangelizing to Christians only?
==========================================

BobRyan replies -

This is the part where I was thinking that watching that 13 minute video of a former atheist and scientist talking about the facts that convinced him to change to a Bible Believing Christian would have been instructive.

Then there was that part about those who actually attend our evangelistic series finding out in the first 3 or 4 meetings the reasons why we think the Bible can be trusted.

What am I missing as far as that not addressing the point?

in Christ,

Bob
___________________________________________
"The Truth shall make you free" John 8:32

Marianne, thank you for your kind words. By the way, my name is German. It means "Echo Mountain," from the region in Switzerland where my ancestors lived. My grandpa has done rather thorough genealogical research into our family history.

As for evangelism: I agree with you. Many times our attitude, focus, and approach to evangelism have been less than ideal. But I do see hope for the future. The current generation of theology students is being trained to go out and do things differently. While there is not a total paradigm shift, there is the potential for significant changes in the way we do evangelism. Does this mean the message is changing? No, not so much as the way the message is being delivered. Is there still a place for the traditional evangelistic "campaign?" Yes, I believe there is. But we have placed too much emphasis on it, and we have misunderstood its proper role. Theology students (at least at my alma mater) are being trained to view evangelism as a process and a lifestyle, rather than a one-time event. I certainly don't have all the answers, and I'm no expert on evangelism, but I'm continuing to learn and observe.

I'm curious what is happening in Rwanda. You mentioned something about "horrible symptoms" there? What's going on?

Marianne, we do need to keep the focus on the gospel--on Jesus! Prophecy is important, but the problem is that we sometimes separate prophecy from the gospel. In reality, prophecy centers around Jesus Christ. A series of meetings on prophecy should not neglect the gospel; they should lift it up even higher!

If you're interested in reading more about evangelism, I'd recommend checking out some of Russell Burrill's books. Burrill radically revisions the way the church operates. Most churches (at least here in the States, and I suspect in most Western nations) probably could not shift entirely to Burrill's model, at least not without a long period of slow adaptation. But he still has a lot of good ideas. A good Burrill book to start with would be How to Grow an Adventist Church. He's written a lot of books; I haven't read them all.

Another good book is The Master Plan of Evangelism, by Robert E. Coleman. Although he's not an Adventist, Coleman's ideas fit well within an Adventist context. This book studies the ministry of Jesus and from His example draws principles for church ministry today (I say "today" but this book is actually several decades old; nonetheless it's still excellent--Jesus' methods will never be out of date). One of the great things about this book is its focus on discipleship. This is something that is sorely lacking in many Adventist churches today.

I hope that helps give you some ideas for resources. If you'd like, you can email me at mjs85@comcast.net. Since I've wandered off topic, I don't want to irritate the powers that be too much. :-)

Elaine said, "It's a wild ride." An understatement. To accept, literally, all the stories in the Bible as being truthful and factual is to continue the children's fairy stories....

I hope I am not misunderstanding you, and as I fear you are misunderstanding me. I never said anywhere in my posts that I teach or expect my students to believe in the historical truth of anything in Genesis. You are making that up.

Maybe you should take my course and learn how to read what people are actually writing.

============================

Aage, on the other hand, gets what I am saying. Thank you.

============================

Matthew is at the hermeneutical crossroads, which surely is where the conversation needs to be. The way it is commonly presented offers two roads...either we accept the Bible as God's Word and everything in the Bible is true, or we reject the Bible as divinely authored and doubt and reject everything in it.

So I say unto thee, 'taint necessarily so. Here's a more moderate and sensible position: the Bible is reliable as a guide to the faith and life of the ancient Hebrews and earliest Christians. God did not author the Bible, but its writers were inspired by particular perceptions of God, writing according to the prevailing idioms, metaphors and paradigm of their communities. If their writings had primary "authority" in their own communities, for us today they possess derivative or secondary authority because we are formed by them through reading and practice.

But, Matthew, I hear in your comments a third concern. You keep referring to "the relative merit of the SDA Church's stance on creation," the fundamental beliefs, etc. This suggest to me that we have several conversation partners here: scripture, science, the SDA church, EGW, and the theologian. So it is not a simple matter of scripture's authority versus that of science at all.

Whenever anyone says it a simple or black-and white issue, I'n reminded of what the Zebra said.... "That's my baby!"

Graeme, here's what I'm saying: it's pointless to discuss the SDA Church's stance on creation (which, if I read Jan correctly, is what this series is about) if we haven't dealt with the underlying issue of the role of Scripture. It seems to me that in general the two sides of the creation issue are approaching with two very different views of biblical authority. In your own view as you expressed it above I detect the influence of Kant. That is not a value judgment on your position, merely an observation.

Matthew: As I read Jan's column, it raises the question “how should the Church respond to this evidence?” (see essay above). He seems concerned about the damage that the Church might do or even suffer if the "compelling scientific confirmation" he summarizes is chronically disregarded.

Yes, again the role of scripture is crucial. It seems some who hold that Christians today should uphold the literal truth of every part of scripture, are moving more and more into the corner of those who must deny the overall validity of modern science as a source of knowledge. To me this is rather sad, and not in line with the Protestant Reformers at all. To me the moderate view is the classic Protestant position that scripture is deigned to give us certain knowledge of salvation, but not of science or history or anything else that could be derived by human enterprise--by using our minds. And it not a sufficient hermeneutic to say, "Well, we agree with science so long as it doesn't contradict scripture." They forget that it was scriptural arguments that were used for centuries to support everything from a flat earth to racism and slavery.

As I said in a previous post--or should have--all this talk of "authority" keeps the discussion in a very tight and unhealthy range. I prefer to think of scripture, science, the church, the world, etc in an ongoing dialogue, not a fixed hierarchy. Read Bakhtin (The Dialogic Imagination) on intertextuality, heteroglossia, etc.

Yes, I have been a reader of Kant, and have taught one of his books in depth. At least one of my teachers (Paul Ricoeur) was a Neo-Kantian, and also a Christian.

Matthew: I edited my post above to include a comment on Bakhtin, for your benefit.

As in a conversation, it doesn't matter where we begin but how we proceed and that we proceed. And there can be no irreversible and final starting point, no "one right place" to start. In a conversation, everyone has the right to modify their responses in dialogue with others.

We can only start where we are. Where we are is with what we have been given. We have scripture, and we have science, and we have church history, and we have our current cultural climate, and we have the needs and interests of the theologians or conversants.

There is no Archimedean point to give us a perfect view of it all and tell us where to be and how to go.

Bevin wrote on 14 Oct. 12:18 "Hypotheses are conjured out of nothing substantive. They do not rely on data at all."

This sounds more like "conjuring" than the scientific method. There may be a place for "wild card" searches or outside-the-box guesses,or even "leapes of faith" that leap-frog over plodding logic, but most productive hypotheses
are made after a thorough search of the scientific literature
and a good working knowledge of the raw data and the results of earlier observations by the researcher or others is obtained so that the hypothesis is designed to explain already known data rather than "not rely on data at all."
Even the ancient wise man taught a similiar approach in Prov. 18:13.

Bevin, I heartily agree with your last post,
but this is not what I was questioning, is it?

Hi Elaine:

Students first learn to read original sources directly, not through someone else's glasses. Later they can learn to handle other people's interpretations.

I quote from our Handbook: "An essential component of general education is learning how to appreciate and analyze texts intellectually, historically, and aesthetically. Through this general education requirement, students at Chicago learn how to interpret literary, philosophical, and historical texts in depth; how to identify significant intellectual problems posed by those texts; and how to discuss and write about them perceptively and persuasively. They also learn how to study a visual or performing art form. Finally, students learn how to study texts and art forms within a specific cultural and chronological frame. Students may choose from many options to meet these requirements." See http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/liberal/curriculum.shtml

Graeme