Adventist Heritage
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
noreply+feedproxy@google.com on behalf of Educate Truth <shwinston@gmail.com>
Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:38 AM
Adventist Heritage
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Posted: 16 Apr 2013 11:11 AM PDT
By Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D. . In October of 1992, Spectrum Magazine ran an article written by a young physician,
Gary Gilbert, in which he attempted to justify his loss of faith on the basis of the existence of pseudogenes.
Pseudogenes are regions of DNA that have codes very similar to known...
Click on the title to read more.
You are subscribed to email updates from Educate Truth
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610
Spam
Not spam
Forget previous vote
1
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
HOME
ABOUT
Editorials
CONTACT
THE HISTORY
Theology
News
WHAT WE BELIEVE
LSU BOARD OF TRUSTEES
213 COMMENTS
By Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D.
.
POSTS
Enter keywords...
La Sierra
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and
Pseudogenes
APRIL 16, 2013
EMAIL
Recent Comments
Sean Pitman on The Full History of La Sierra
University vs. Louie Bishop
Sean Pitman on The Full History of La Sierra
University vs. Louie Bishop
Sean Pitman on Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and
Pseudogenes
In October of 1992, Spectrum Magazine ran an article written by a
young physician, Gary Gilbert, in which he attempted to justify his
loss of faith on the basis of the existence of pseudogenes.
Pseudogenes are regions of DNA that have codes very similar to
known genes, but often have stop codes in every reading frame,
so that no protein could ever be produced from the code they
contain. They were presumed by evolutionists to be copies of
protein-coding genes that, through the process of evolution, have
been mutated so extensively that they are no longer functional.
Gilbert learned that there was a pseudogene within the five
functional genes of the beta globin gene family on chromosome 11 that was present in both
humans and chimpanzees. Since the likelihood of a functional gene being similarly disabled
in both humans and chimpanzees is very low, Gilbert concluded, in his Spectrum article, that
both humans and chimpanzees were descended from a common ancestor that had that
pseudogene. Gilbert decided, on that basis, that the Biblical account of origins could not be
correct and therefore concluded that we humans arose as a result result of evolutionary
processes. Of course, this was a huge stretch, but it was enough for Gilbert; and his article
was the basis for a number of Adventists losing their sense of direction in scripture, especially
with regard to origins.
Sean Pitman on The Full History of La Sierra
University vs. Louie Bishop
George Evans on Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and
Pseudogenes
George Evans on Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and
Pseudogenes
Pauluc on The Full History of La Sierra
University vs. Louie Bishop
Pauluc on The Full History of La Sierra
University vs. Louie Bishop
PhilCromwell on The Full History of La Sierra
University vs. Louie Bishop
David Read on Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and
Pseudogenes
Recent Posts
Are pseudogenes functionless?
For decades, I have explained to students in molecular biology that pseudogenes are not
functionless and never were. In the case of the beta globin gene, I pointed out to them that
the two pseudogenes in the beta globin gene family (there are five globin genes which occur
on the chromosome in the same order as they are utilized in the developmental process) are
so placed that one of them is located just before the genes that are activated in ontogeny (at
the beginning of fetal development), and the other one is located just before the two beta
globin genes that are utilized in the adult. That was, for me anyway, clear evidence for
regulatory functionality. So, I instructed my students to this concept.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Bringing the Real World to Genesis: Why
Evolution is an Idea that Won’t Die—IV [A
Review]
The Full History of La Sierra University vs.
Louie Bishop
Is La Sierra University Legally Distancing
Itself from the Church?
In philosophy class, I handed out or at times gave, as part of the final exam, Gilbert’s article
as required reading for my students. I required them to analyze his logic and conclusions.
Almost always the students concluded that Gilbert was not coming to the data to find
answers, but he was seeking to use science to support his own pre-determined philosophical
position.
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Another Student’s Perspective of La Sierra
University
Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
It has taken some years for our understanding of pseudogenes to come out of the dark. First
came indications that many pseudogenes were functional. Then certain experiments that
knocked them out indicated that quite a number were in fact essential (1, 2). More recently,
in 2012, the startling revelations of the ENCODE project (3) demonstrated that almost all
DNA was functional. This discovery was soon followed by articles boldly proclaiming that
“Pseudogenes are not pseudo any more” – such as an article by Wen et. al. (4) In this
particular article the authors note:
Experience at La Sierra University
Two Conflicting Arguments in Defense of La
Sierra University
LSU Responds to Issues Regarding Dr. Diaz
and WASC
WASC Team Recommends Formal Notice of
“The study of functional pseudogenes is just at the beginning. There remain many
questions to be addressed, such as the regulatory elements controlling the cell or
tissue specific expression of pseudogenes. But, definitely, the so-called
pseudogenes are really functional, not to be considered any more as
just “junk” or “fossil” DNA. Surely, many functional pseudogenes and novel
regulatory mechanisms remain to be discovered and explored in diverse
organisms.” [emphasis added]
Finally, within the last year, the hemoglobin pseudogenes have themselves been the object
of some study, specifically the HPPB1 gene that sits amidst the “functional” genes of the beta
globin locus. As we had suspected on the basis of a considered study of placement, it is not
only highly conserved (something Gilbert could have seen early on), but is essential for
function. Even a single base change in the pseudogene region is responsible for pathology in
humans (6).
What is the take home lesson from this? When we think we find evidence that a clear reading
of the Bible story of origins is wrong, it would be well to consider the mantra of the skeptic:
“An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.” Before you decide God was wrong
when He wrote with his finger in stone (7) that he made the earth in six days, perhaps we
would be well served to consider all the evidence, and then, with humility, acknowledge our
own ignorance and bow before the Creator in reverence and awe. Who knows, had the
author of this article reserved judgment, or better yet, had he pursued the functionality of the
pseudogene, perhaps we could be talking about the Adventist Nobel Laureate who
discovered the functionality of pseudogenes? - instead of lamenting for a soul who chose to
abandon the Biblical account of origins to follow the philosophies of Darwinism.
References:
1. Shinji Hirotsune, Noriyuki Yoshida, Amy Chen, Lisa Garrett, Fumihiro Sugiyama,
Satoru Takahashi, Ken-Ichi Yagami, Anthony Wynshaw-Boris & Atsushi Yoshiki. 2003.
An expressed pseudogene regulates the messenger-RNA stability of its homologous
coding gene. Nature 423, 91 – 96;
2. Evgeniy S. Balakirev and Francisco J. Ayala. 2003. Pseudogenes: Are They “Junk” or
Functional DNA? Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 37, pp. 123-151
3. The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An Integrated Encyclopedia of DNA
Elements in the Human Genome. Nature. 489: 57-74
4. Yan-Zi Wen, Ling-Ling Zheng, Liang-Hu Qu, Francisco J. Ayala and Zhao-Rong Lun.
2012. RNA Biology 9:1, 27–32.
5. Moleirinho A, Seixas S, Lopes AM, Bento C, Prata MJ, Amorim A. 2013. Evolutionary
Constraints in the β-Globin Cluster: The Signature of Purifying Selection at the δ-Globin
(HBD) Locus and its Role in Developmental Gene Regulation. Genome Biology and
Evolution. 5: 559–571.
6. Giannopoulou E, Bartsakoulia M, Tafrali C, Kourakli A, Poulas K, Stavrou EF,
Papachatzopoulou A, Georgitsi M, Patrinos GP. 2012. A Single Nucleotide
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Concern Regarding LSU
La Sierra University Hires Another Darwinist
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Polymorphism in the HBBP1 Gene in the Human β-Globin Locus is Associated with a
Mild β-Thalassemia Disease Phenotype. Hemoglobin. 36 (5): 433-445.
7. Exodus 31:16-18
Share
Featured, Opinion
Arthur Chadwick, beta-globin, featured, Gary Gilbert, junk DNA, pseudogenes, Spectrum Magazine
Bringing the Real World to Genesis: Why Evolution is an Idea that Won’t Die—IV [A Review]
213 Responses to “Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes”
George Evans
April 16, 2013 at 12:11 pm
Reply
Beautiful article, Dr. Chadwick. Mammalian genes are looking more like
different kinds of Lego’s. While all that “junk” is the instructions showing
how to put them together to make the different animals.
(Quote)
Well-liked:
18 1
Sean Pitman
April 16, 2013 at 4:41 pm
Reply
@George Evans:
Exactly! The “junk” is more important than the “genes”…
(Quote)
Well-liked:
14 Bob Helm
2
April 16, 2013 at 2:40 pm
Reply
Dr. Chadwick, thank you for your fine article. I also read Dr. Gary
Gilbert’s “Spectrum” article in 1992, and as I remember, it was one of the
first overtly pro-Darwin articles to appear in “Spectrum.” But rather than
give up on the Biblical creation account, I wrote to the Geoscience
Research Institute to get their response and waited for further research
on pseudogenes. Once again, time and research have shown that “God’s
truth abideth still,” as Martin Luther so aptly wrote in the hymn, “A Mighty
Fortress.”
(Quote)
Well-liked:
george
22 2
April 16, 2013 at 4:17 pm
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Reply
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Howdy all
I thought Mr. Darwin was a naturalist not a philosopher. Mr Chadwick
may not agree with him but is he right to mislabel the man’s calling?
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
3 11
Rhonda Dinwiddie
April 16, 2013 at 7:01 pm
Reply
It seems apparent that even the concept of “fossil” DNA or “junk” genes
will soon become fossilized . . . a dead remnant of neo-Darwinism, just as
did the concept of phylogeny recapitulating ontogeny and the extreme
dependence upon so-called “vestigial” structures for support of Darwinian
evolution. Once upon a time it was believed that there were scores, if not
hundreds, of vestigial structures in adult humans. Almost all of them have
been recanted. Just because we are not yet aware of the function of a
piece of genetic code or an organ in the body doesn’t guarantee that one
doesn’t exist. This is a fairly recent area of study, and only additional time
and research can provide the hard statistical evidence upon which one
can base a reasonably sound conclusion.
(Quote)
Well-liked:
19 0
Professor Kent
April 16, 2013 at 7:57 pm
Reply
When we based our beliefs on science and human reason rather than a
personal relationship in Jesus, we need to be prepared for the knowledge
base to change. That is its nature. Much of what we think we know today
will likely change in time, but God never changes.
If you think you need the fossils and polonium halos and pseudo
pseudogenes to believe God is real, then you simply don’t know Jesus.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
Sean Pitman
3 18
April 16, 2013 at 9:27 pm
Reply
Certainly the Holy Spirit guides the minds of those earnestly
searching for Truth. However, the Holy Spirit does not replace the
human mind or negate the need for human effort and investigation to
search out truth from error based on the weight of evidence that God
has provided – evidence calculated to appeal to the intelligent,
candid, rational mind. Otherwise, what would be the point of giving us
powers to reason and think in a rationally manner? – from cause to
effect or from effect to likely cause?
God might never change, but our understanding of Him most
certainly can change and grow and improve over time with additional
experiences and additional evidences. For example, did the disciples
of Jesus have more faith in Him and His identity before or after the
empirical evidence of Resurrection was given to them?
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Well-liked:
20 2
David Read
April 17, 2013 at 3:28 pm
Reply
@Professor Kent: “If you think you need the fossils and polonium
halos and pseudo pseudogenes to believe God is real, then you
simply don’t know Jesus.”
True. But if you know Jesus and you know that God is real, then
obviously you do not do science pursuant to the assumption that God
has never intervened in the material world. You do creation science.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
pauluc
8 2
April 18, 2013 at 12:01 am
Reply
@David Read:
Science has no opinion on whether God or the supernatural have
never intervened they assume that he does not routinely
intervene and that we can assume natural process as
explanation. Only in that way can you at all invoke predictable
causation and effectively manipulate the natural world. That is
how evidence based medicine works and how evidence based
science works. Whether you like the philosophy or not it is the de
jure standard in science.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
0 8
Sean Pitman
April 18, 2013 at 8:17 am
Reply
Again, science does not rule out intelligent manipulation as a
cause for various phenomena in nature. Entire scientific
disciplines are based on the ability to detect deliberate
intelligent activity through the study of the artifacts that such
activity leaves behind – like forensic science and
anthropology for example, and even SETI science.
Clearly then, there is absolutely no inherent reason why God
could not act in a similar detectable manner in our world –
where we could in fact recognize His signature, or at least a
signature of some form of intelligent design and manipulation,
in various features of the natural world.
To suggest otherwise is not a scientific position; it’s a
philosophical or even religious position.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Like or Dislike:
5 2
George Evans
April 18, 2013 at 6:57 pm
Reply
@pauluc:
“Science has no opinion on whether God or the supernatural
have never intervened they assume that he does not
routinely intervene and that we can assume natural process
as explanation.”
I would venture a guess that a large percentage of
evolutionary scientist despise the idea of God and the bible.
You are certainly a kind, trusting soul, Paul.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 1
David Read
April 23, 2013 at 8:15 am
Reply
@pauluc: “Science has no opinion on whether God or the
supernatural have never intervened . . .”
Not true, Paul. When science insists on abiogenesis, even
though there is no empirical or logical reason to believe that it
could happen, science is expressing an extremely strong– in
fact absolute–philosophical opinion that if God exists, to exist
is all God has ever done. If Science were open to the
existence of a Creator God who had ever created or
otherwise intervened in nature, science could easily say,
“God created the first life forms, then evolution took over.”
But, of course, the entire purpose of evolutionary science is
to be able to deny the existence of a Creator God without
looking foolish. It has not been entirely successful. Because
when people claim that life can accidentally self-assemble, or
that the genetic code somehow wrote itself, they look foolish.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 0
Sean Pitman
April 18, 2013 at 8:43 am
Reply
The interesting thing is that polonium halos, pseudogenes, and
fossils are able to lead people to Jesus who do not already know
him. There are many examples of people being lead to God
through the study of nature and the discovery of the Divine
signature in various features of nature…
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
Nic Samojluk
8 2
April 18, 2013 at 6:39 pm
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Reply
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Of course! The Psalmist dstated that the heavens declare the
glory of God, and we find in the last book of the Bible a call
toworship the One who made heavens,the earth, and the
fountaimns of water.
The theory of evolution is a clever maneuver designed in hell
to lead humans to give credit for what exists to the god of
Natural Selection.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 2
Professor Kent
April 16, 2013 at 9:00 pm
Reply
Bob Helm: Once again, time and research have shown that “God’s
truth abideth still,” as Martin Luther so aptly wrote in the hymn, “A Mighty
Fortress.”
Ummm…where did “God’s truth” tell us anything about pseudogenes?
Showing that one interpretation regarding evolution has been wrong
offers no support whatsoever for creationism. The evolutionists will
actually welcome the new knowledge and incorporate it into their theory
with as much enthusiasm as creationists deride the misunderstading.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
Sean Pitman
2 21
April 16, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Reply
Functional pseudogenes have long been a creationist prediction…
not a prediction of neo-Darwinism.
(Quote)
Well-liked:
20 2
George Evans
April 17, 2013 at 8:44 pm
Reply
@Sean Pitman: Maybe someone will look back ten years ago at
talk,origins and we will become famous for predicting this.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
George Evans
6 1
April 17, 2013 at 8:38 pm
@Professor Kent:
“The evolutionists will actually welcome the new knowledge and
incorporate it into their theory with as much enthusiasm as
creationists deride the misunderstading.”–Professor Kent
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Reply
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
If you knew better you would be ashamed of a scientific hypothesis
that has had to undergo so many modifications to fit data that was
not predicted. If evolution was a physics hypothesis it would have
been dropped long ago. The value of a scientific theory is
predictability. Junk DNA was a prediction of the theory. It has failed,
yet again. But you’re correct. The believers will pick up the pieces,
tape them together with duct tape, and continue to bow to their idol.
The sane ones are the creationists who continue to deride this failed
evolutionary contraption.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 David Read
4
April 18, 2013 at 12:29 am
Reply
@Professor Kent: I think the revealed truth that Bob Helm was
referring to is that apes and humans do not share a common
ancestor, they share a common designer. The notion that the
“pseudogene” was a commonly inherited genetic mistake was
supposed to be evidence of common ancestry, but it was not a
mistake. It has a function, and hence its appearance in both humans
and apes is not evidence for common ancestry. God’s truth abideth
still, to quote Martin Luther and Bob Helm.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
7 2
Professor Kent
April 16, 2013 at 9:08 pm
Reply
Chadwick wrote:
“it would be well to consider the mantra of the skeptic: “An extraordinary
claim requires extraordinary evidence.” Before you decide God was
wrong when He wrote with his finger in stone (7) that he made the earth
in six days, perhaps we would be well served to consider all the
evidence.”
I don’t think the author himself believes God literally created “the heavens
and the earth” in six days, which is exactly what was written in stone. I’d
bet he’s an old earth and young life creationist.
And while I personally accept that there were six literal days of creation
(on a planet created previously), little could be more extraordinary than
such an amazing claim. Let’s be honest: no evidence whatsoever exists
that there were six literal days of creation. Showing that pseudogenes
aren’t pseudogenes does not remotely constitute evidence that there
were six literal days of creation–and Chadwick himself surely recognizes
this.
I don’t understand the need for such sensationalized reassurances. At
best, they celebrate human reason and reassure only those whose faith
is brittle.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
2 18
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
George Evans
April 17, 2013 at 8:52 pm
Reply
@Professor Kent: You wrote, “Showing that pseudogenes aren’t
pseudogenes does not remotely constitute evidence that there were
six literal days of creation…” I will admit it is not conclusive evidence,
BUT the whole reason they were called pseudogenes came from the
idea that they were damaged remnants of of genes from the distant
past now mangled by mutations over millions of years. Hello! There
regulatory functionality is at least evidence in FAVOR of a recent
creation.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 0
David Read
April 18, 2013 at 12:49 am
Reply
@Professor Kent: Jeff, I think you’re being a bit obtuse. The
complexity of the genetic code is itself evidence of design. And the
fact that we humans, who are pretty smart in many ways, are still
struggling to comprehend the non-obvious features of the genetic
code (such as how some parts regulate the expression of other parts)
shows just how complex the genetic code really is. And an argument
for design is obviously an argument in favor of supernatural creation
as opposed to accidental self-assembly.
Narrowing the discussion to the issue of apes and humans, the
invalidation of a seemingly compelling argument that apes and
humans shared a common ancestor obviously weakens the case for
Darwinism and, pari passu, strengthens the case for special creation.
You say, or at least imply, that God makes extraordinary claims, but
why do YOU find God’s revealed truth more to be more
“extraordinary”, i.e., hard to believe, than the speculations of finite
humans? The answer, of course, is that such is the culture of
science, as well as your own professional acculturation, since you are
a scientist. That doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. What does
surprise me a little bit is your seeming lack of awareness of how
greatly that culture conflicts with a biblical worldview.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Professor Kent
7 1
April 16, 2013 at 10:53 pm
Reply
Sean Pitman:
Functional pseudogenes has long been a creationist prediction… not a
prediction of neo-Darwinism.
So what. If pseudogenes aren’t pseudo, all it means is that DNA conveys
more information than previously believed. The evolutionist says, “ah,
evolution has honed more of the genome than we previously believed.”
This is hardly a magic bullet. Celebrate all you want, but as you well
know, it offers absolutely zero evidence that the Genesis account is true.
(Quote)
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Hot debate. What do you think?
2 16
David Read
April 18, 2013 at 1:02 am
Reply
@Professor Kent: You mean “ah, random mutations have destroyed
or inactivated less of the genome than we previously believed.”
It’s not a “magic bullet” because there are no magic bullets that will
invalidate either creationism or Darwinism, because they’re both
deeply ensconced in the realm of religion, rather than observable,
replicatable day-to-day science.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 1
Sean Pitman
April 18, 2013 at 8:13 am
Reply
This is not entirely true. When it comes to effective falsification,
based on the weight of evidence in hand, Darwinism is rationally
untenable. The weight of empirical evidence clearly favors the
Biblical perspective on origins.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
8 0
Professor Kent
April 16, 2013 at 10:57 pm
Reply
Curiously, the creationist notion of “devolution” suggests that
chromosomes will accumulate non-functional (junk) DNA. So why are you
saying, Sean, that creationists have long predicted that pseudogenes
(junk DNA) should not exist?
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
Sean Pitman
2 12
April 17, 2013 at 7:07 am
Reply
Not when it comes to shared pseudogenes… or the idea that the
majority of the genome is nonfunctional or that numerous parts are
nonfunctional in the very same way in different species. Note also
that a decrease in functionality is not the same thing as a complete
loss of function. True pseudogenes do exist, but the vast majority of
the genome is still functional to one degree or another. After all, living
things haven’t been around very long on this planet…
In any case, it is a matter of record that creationists have long been
arguing that most shared “pseudogenes” are probably beneficially
functional – which has proven to be true. I myself have been
presenting this concept on my website for over 10 years now.
Obviously, Dr. Chadwick has been teaching the same thing for over
20 years. This is truly a creationist prediction that proved true in the
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
face of neo-Darwinian claims.
(Quote)
Well-liked:
15 3
Penelope Bidwell
April 17, 2013 at 7:45 am
Reply
Be still, and know that I am God!! When we talk to Jesus every day,
when we get to know Him on a personal basis, really get to know Him,
when He becomes our very best Friend, it is very, very hard to
understand how another human being could not see and accept the 6
day literal Creation fully and completely. When we see how scripture has
been proven through the finds in archeology, through the events in
history that years before had been predicted, I have to ask myself, “Why
all this chatter?” But then I have to remind myself that not everyone has
that kind of relationship with our Lord. For those of you who do, I am
richly blessed by your words and comments. for those of you who do not
know Christ, I feel a very deep sorrow. Pseudogenes were created for a
very specific reason. And some day, we will all understand the whole
plan of DNA. What a wonderful God we serve!!!!!
(Quote)
Well-liked:
11 0
Nic Samojluk
April 17, 2013 at 7:52 am
Reply
@Rhonda: “It seems apparent that even the concept of “fossil” DNA or
“junk” genes will soon become fossilized …”
You have stated a great truth, I believe!
(Quote)
Well-liked:
11 0
Professor Kent
April 17, 2013 at 10:46 am
Reply
Nic Samojluk: @Rhonda: “It seems apparent that even the concept of
“fossil” DNA or “junk” genes will soon become fossilized …”
You have stated a great truth, I believe!
According to the “devolution” theory that Sean Pitman advocates and
other creationists espouse, the DNA of longer-lived organisms has long
been and continues to be rendered “junk” by the rapid accumulation of
deleterious mutations.
Get a clue.
So which is it? (1) Selection changes DNA to yield functional
improvements over time? Selection continually maintains the function of
DNA, including duplicate sections thought to be unnecessary or degraded
by mutations? Selection cannot overcome deleterious mutations so that
much of DNA over time loses information and function?
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
You have a good grasp of “truth,” Nic, so which is it?
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
1 11
Sean Pitman
April 18, 2013 at 8:56 am
Reply
@Professor Kent:
As I’ve already explained in response to this very same argument of
yours in a note above, living things haven’t existed very long on this
planet – only a few hundred human generations is all. Consider also
that if the majority of the human genome were in fact non-functional,
we’d all be dead.
That is why the significant majority of the human genome is still
function while still inevitably degenerating over time. True nonfunctional pseudogenes are relatively rare. And, when they are highly
conserved between different species, that is a big clue that they are
in fact functionally beneficial.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
6 1
pauluc
April 18, 2013 at 11:24 am
Reply
@Sean Pitman:
Sean I’m afraid if you actually looked at the data on the
comparative genomics of the globin genes you would perhaps
appreciate that both Arts and your defence of the functional
importance of pseudogenes is completely specious. It looks to
me and most scientist like the chance and contingency
represents the best assessment of most of the genomic structure.
1] Read the review at
http://perspectivesinmedicine.cshlp.org/content/2/12/a011627.long
and follow up the original literature that is referenced there if you
believe scientists are lying about the details of the genomic
structure.
2] Why do the primates share this pseudo gene and not the other
mammalian species?
3] Look at the alpha genes in figure 3
http://perspectivesinmedicine.cshlp.org/content/2/12/a011627/F3.large.jpg
and the beta genes in figure 4
http://perspectivesinmedicine.cshlp.org/content/2/12/a011627/F4.large.jpg
and answer a few simple questions.
4] Why are there different gene copy numbers between the
different species but very similar pattern of pseudogenes and
structure in higher primates?
Humans; 7 alpha 2 pseudogenes, 6 beta 2 pseudogenes
Chimp; 8 alpha genes 1 pseudgene, 6 beta 1 pseudogene
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
5] If the function of pseudogenes are at all important why are
there none in platypus or bat that have 6 alpha/4 beta and 6
alpha/2 beta respectively.
6] Across the species examined almost all the homologs have
pseudogenes in some species of other.
7] If you look at figure 4 you will see that the progression of beta
gene expression through life is seen with greatest complexity in
primates and humans but is not a feature of marsupials or
monotremes monotremes where only embyronic and fetal/adult
forms of the beta and alpha components of haemoglobin is
produced.
8] If you look at figure 5 the complexity of regulation in an
erythroid cell line is evident and shows that the encode data for
transcriptional factor binding sites and DNase hypersensitivity
sites really does not show significant activity at the site of the
beta pseudogenes (figure 5c). It is hard to argue that it has
importance compare to to the LCR region
I conclude that as you are want to do you use an exception to
argue your case. What are the other pseudogenes that you
predict by your model of origins that are functionally critical and
designed. Enough with the hand waving some specificity is
needed.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Sean Pitman
2 5
April 18, 2013 at 1:02 pm
Reply
4] Why are there different gene copy numbers between the
different species but very similar pattern of pseudogenes and
structure in higher primates?
Humans; 7 alpha 2 pseudogenes, 6 beta 2 pseudogenes
Chimp; 8 alpha genes 1 pseudgene, 6 beta 1 pseudogene
Because, as I’ve already pointed out, non-coding DNA is
more important than coding DNA. Proteins are like the basic
bricks and mortar for building a house. Non-coding DNA is
the blueprint that dictates how the basic bricks and mortar
are to be used – what type of house to build.
5] If the function of pseudogenes are at all important why are
there none in platypus or bat that have 6 alpha/4 beta and 6
alpha/2 beta respectively.
Again, as I’ve already explained, just because every creature
doesn’t share the same functionality doesn’t mean that
functional sequences aren’t beneficial in the creatures they’re
in. Just because you can live without your legs or arms
doesn’t mean that they’re not important to you.
6] Across the species examined almost all the homologs
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
have pseudogenes in some species of other.
So what? Lots of systems have homolog components. That
has nothing to do with explaining the novel functional
differences beyond very low levels of functional complexity. In
human design it has more to do with conservation of design
when building similar systems with similar structural and
functional needs.
7] If you look at figure 4 you will see that the progression of
beta gene expression through life is seen with greatest
complexity in primates and humans but is not a feature of
marsupials or monotremes where only embyronic and
fetal/adult forms of the beta and alpha components of
haemoglobin is produced.
Again, so what? This says nothing about the enhanced
functionality of the primate system and does not speak speak
against the argument that only intelligent design could have
produced these enhancements – unless you can actually
come up with a statistically viable mechanism. Of course, you
haven’t done this. You admittedly have no idea how RM/NS
can produce much of anything beyond very low levels of
functional complexity. You just have faith, blind faith, that
somehow someway, it must have happened. It’s not testable
in a falsifiable manner and it is not demonstrable either.
Again, that’s not science. That’s blind faith philosophy – a
form of blind faith religion.
8] If you look at figure 5 the complexity of regulation in an
erythroid cell line is evident and shows that the encode data
for transcriptional factor binding sites and DNase
hypersensitivity sites really does not show significant activity
at the site of the beta pseudogenes (figure 5c). It is hard to
argue that it has importance compare to to the LCR region
You’re completely ignoring the other reasons for its
importance and overall functionality and the reason why it is
so heavily conserved by natural selection. The beta
pseudogenes appear to have only a limited job for a very
limited time. This does not mean, however, that their function
is therefore non-beneficial or unimportant.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 pauluc
1
April 19, 2013 at 8:17 am
Reply
@Sean Pitman:
Sorry Sean
I am having trouble following your logic. let me try to
summarize
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
1] The fine structure within the globin genes across all
species from monotreme to man is designed.
2] Humans with higher levels of complexity and finer
regulation of stage dependent forms was designed that
way with pseudo genes.
3] The pseudogenes are critical for regulatory function
because non-coding DNA is more important than coding
DNA.
4] Pseudogenes as common and critical builing blocks
actually dont have to be used. Whether or not they are
used doesnt have any effect on whether or not they are
important.
“..says nothing about the enhanced functionality of the
primate system and does not speak against the argument
that only intelligent design could have produced these
enhancements”
In other words the designer can arbitirarily use anything
to do anything and yet it is clearly designed that way.
I really dont understand then how your design inference
has any predictive value.
As Gilbert originally concluded it seems to me the sharing
of genomic structure including a beta region pseudogene
across primates and more particularly the sharing of an
alpha gene between just man and chimps gives every
appearance of common ancestory. Whether the
pseudogenes are functional does not have anything to do
with this conclusion particularly when you concede that
the functional pseudogene in the beta region is not seen
in other than primates when the designer hypothesis
would predict that this essential building block for
haemoglobin expression should be seen in all animals
having hemoglobin.
If you disagree I think you need to tell me the precise
predictions of the design model. To me your model pales
against a simple model of chance and contingency. Of
gene duplication to give the alpha and beta cluster and
then subsequent duplication within these 2 clusters gives
the final primate form including almost identical structure
between man and chimps. Variation and functional
selection seems a compelling argument to me.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Sean Pitman
1 6
April 19, 2013 at 9:53 am
Reply
I am having trouble following your logic. let me try to
summarize
1] The fine structure within the globin genes across
all species from monotreme to man is designed.
For functional sequences, like the eta-globin
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
pseudogene, that is certainly the best hypothesis until
the Darwinists can come up with something more
scientific than non-testable non-observable just-so
story telling.
2] Humans with higher levels of complexity and finer
regulation of stage dependent forms was designed
that way with pseudo genes.
Same answer…
3] The pseudogenes are critical for regulatory
function because non-coding DNA is more important
than coding DNA.
Yes. Non-coding DNA is responsible for using the
same or similar genes (or basic “bricks and mortar”
so to speak) to build very different functional systems
and very different creatures.
4] Pseudogenes as common and critical builing
blocks actually dont have to be used. Whether or not
they are used doesnt have any effect on whether or
not they are important.
In many cases that’s correct. You can live without an
arm. That doesn’t mean your arm isn’t important or
useful to you or that it wasn’t designed.
In other words the designer can arbitirarily use
anything to do anything and yet it is clearly designed
that way.
A designer can design any way he/she wants. The
evidence for design isn’t based in the arbitrary ability
of the designer to create, but in the inability for any
known non-intelligent process to produce the artifact
in question.
I really dont understand then how your design
inference has any predictive value.
How do you think design inference works in forensics
or anthropology? Hmmm? I’ve asked you this
question many times before and you consistently
avoid addressing it – for obvious reasons. The
scientific basis for design inference has general
application to any and all artifacts throughout the
universe. The rational basis for detecting design is
not limited to arrowheads, pottery shards, murder
victims, or radio signals coming from space. It can
also be applied to biological systems.
As Gilbert originally concluded it seems to me the
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
sharing of genomic structure including a beta region
pseudogene across primates and more particularly
the sharing of an alpha gene between just man and
chimps gives every appearance of common
ancestory. Whether the pseudogenes are functional
does not have anything to do with this conclusion
particularly when you concede that the functional
pseudogene in the beta region is not seen in other
than primates when the designer hypothesis would
predict that this essential building block for
haemoglobin expression should be seen in all
animals having hemoglobin.
This is a different argument from shared mistakes.
This is the “nested hierarchical pattern” argument
(NHP). The NHP argument is entirely based on
sequence similarities without any consideration of the
underlying functionality involved or the minimum
sequences differences required to achieve the
qualitatively novel differences in function. While the
common descent hypothesis can explain sequence
similarities quite well, to include the production of
NHPs, the common descent hypothesis cannot
explain functional differences beyond very very low
levels of functional complexity – outside of invoking
sequential design over time (i.e., “slow creation”).
You see, ID isn’t based on explaining sequence
similarities, but on explaining functionally unique
differences. The functional differences are key here –
as I’ve pointed out many times for you before.
If you disagree I think you need to tell me the precise
predictions of the design model. To me your model
pales against a simple model of chance and
contingency. Of gene duplication to give the alpha
and beta cluster and then subsequent duplication
within these 2 clusters gives the final primate form
including almost identical structure between man and
chimps. Variation and functional selection seems a
compelling argument to me.
It would seem compelling to me too if I weren’t
considering the minimum specific changes required to
achieve the novel beneficial functions involved.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Nic Samojluk
4 1
April 19, 2013 at 7:27 am
Reply
Remember what Dr. Sanford said in his Loma Lecture about junk
DNA. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the weight of evidence
seem to suggest that much of what recently was thought to be junk
DNA is no longer considered to be useless.
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Dr. Paul Giem reported in a Loma Linda lecture that the percentage
of useless DNA has been decreasing at an alarming rate to the
surprise of and disappointment of evolutionists!
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
7 1
Professor Kent
April 18, 2013 at 1:12 am
Reply
David Read: if you know Jesus and you know that God is real, then
obviously you do not do science pursuant to the assumption that God has
never intervened in the material world. You do creation science.
I believe fully that God has intervened in the material world. But virtually
all of God’s original creation and his interventions are, quite simply,
beyond science. We cannot falsify supernatural events using the
naturalistic approach of science. Moreover, the Church, like you and me,
will never accept Sean Pitman’s position that we follow the science rather
than inspiration.
There has never been, nor ever will be, a smoking gun, magic bullet, or
rock with the words “made in heaven” to prove beyond doubt the veracity
of Genesis 1. Ultimately, we choose to believe in God and accept Christ’s
sacrifice on our behalf regardless of how or when the earth was made,
and the evidence that supports it.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 7
Sean Pitman
April 18, 2013 at 8:11 am
Reply
You’re asking for absolute demonstration. That’s not science or faith.
That’s not going with the “weight of evidence”. God does not offer
absolute proof, but the weight of evidence.
“Perfect assurance . . . is not compatible with faith. Faith rests not on
certainty, but upon evidence. Demonstration is not faith.”
Ellen White, Letter 19d, 1892, cited in The Ellen G. White 1888
Materials, pp. 1029, 1030.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
David Read
7 2
April 18, 2013 at 3:59 pm
@Professor Kent: “I believe fully that God has intervened in the
material world.”
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Reply
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
No, you don’t. If you really believed that, you would do science
accordingly. But you don’t. In fact, you do science according to the
assumption that God never intervened in the material universe. So I
have to assume that that is what you really believe, protestations to
the contrary notwithstanding.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 1
Nic Samojluk
April 19, 2013 at 6:57 am
Reply
David, can I say a big AMEN to what you said?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 Nic Samojluk
1
April 19, 2013 at 7:18 am
Reply
The resurrection of Jesus Christ was the magic bullet. The historical
evidence suggests that this is what lead to the implosion of Pagan
Rome.
The evidence was so strong that millions of Christians chose death
rather than deny that Jesus was in fact alive folowing his crucifixion.
Do you deny the weight of historical evidence? Science demands
absolute proof from religious faith, but cannot provide absolute proof
for the its pet theory about origins!
Science denies the scientific evidence favoring Intelligent Design in
nature. I thought that true science was suppossed to follow the
evidence regardless of where it lead the one doing research!
Shutting the door to evidencee contrary to its pet paradigm is not
what true science is supposed to defend!
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Professor Kent
4 1
April 18, 2013 at 8:55 am
Reply
David Read: You say, or at least imply, that God makes extraordinary
claims, but why do YOU find God’s revealed truth more to be more
“extraordinary”, i.e., hard to believe, than the speculations of finite
humans? The answer, of course, is that such is the culture of science, as
well as your own professional acculturation, since you are a scientist.
That doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. What does surprise me a little
bit is your seeming lack of awareness of how greatly that culture conflicts
with a biblical worldview.
God in scripture makes extraordinary claims. Evolutionism makes
extraordinary claims. If the evidence was as strong to support either set
of claims as the most vocal advocates of either side claimed, we wouldn’t
have this discussion, much less Educate Truth. Virtually everyone would
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
be in agreement.
The simple reality is that extraordinary evidence is lacking for both sets
of claims. Honest people, kncluding scientists, acknowledge that
accepting either set of claims (and I unabashedly accept God’s claims) is
based largely on faith. You yourself have acknowledged this.
When did culture enter this conversation? What exactly do you think I
think about culture and evolution?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 7
Sean Pitman
April 18, 2013 at 9:05 am
Reply
Jeff Kent wrote:
“God in scripture makes extraordinary claims. Evolutionism makes
extraordinary claims. If the evidence was as strong to support either
set of claims as the most vocal advocates of either side claimed, we
wouldn’t have this discussion, much less Educate Truth.”
That’s not entirely true. Many people do not make decisions based
on the weight of evidence. As Jesus pointed out, some people will
not accept certain realities even if someone were to be “raised from
the dead” as a demonstration. They simply love their lie too much to
let it go. It’s more a matter of desire than of evidence for many.
However, God will give those who honestly desire to know the Truth,
and who are willing to search for Truth will all their heart, enough
evidence to make a rational decision for Him – Jeremiah 29:13
Remember, this isn’t about absolute demonstration, but about the
weight of evidence that you, as an individual, have been given to
rationally understand.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
David Read
9 3
April 18, 2013 at 4:21 pm
Reply
@Professor Kent: “The simple reality is that extraordinary evidence is
lacking for both sets of claims. Honest people, kncluding scientists,
acknowledge that accepting either set of claims . . . is based largely
on faith. You yourself have acknowledged this.”
Jeff, I could not possibly agree more. And since you acknowledge
that both views are based upon faith, I must ask you again why you
do apologetics for the adversary’s faith, instead of for what you claim
is your own faith?
Because that’s what your doing. When you do mainstream origins
science, you are essentially arguing for the view that God has never
intervened in the material universe. When you do creation science,
you’re doing biblical apologetics.
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
You have acknowledged that both views are equally faith-based, and
yet you continue to do apologetics for a faith that you claim is the
opposite of your own faith. Why?
This is where you–and many other similarly situated confessed
Christians–are fooling yourselves. You think it is somehow okay for
you to claim that you believe in a Creator God, while at the same
time devoting your professional lives to building up an edifice of
evidence and argument designed to show that the world is
accidentally self-created. Why do you think that is okay? Why do you
think that devoting your career to arguing against the meaningful
existence of a Creator God is an appropriate way to serve God?
The obvious answer is, “hey, I’m a scientist, this is how science is
done, and I have to make a living.” But the rich irony of that particular
cop out in your particular case is that there would be plenty of
positions for creation scientists if only the colleges affiliated with
creationist denominations would stay true to their denominational
mission. And yet, on this site, you have obsessively defended La
Sierra for its betrayal of its denominational mission; La Sierra has
stocked its paying science positions with atheistic apologists instead
of biblical apologists, and you constantly, obsessively argue that it is
somehow doing the right thing. That is what I call irony.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Nic Samojluk
4 2
April 19, 2013 at 6:55 am
Reply
@David: “And yet, on this site, you have obsessively defended La
Sierra for its betrayal of its denominational mission; La Sierra has
stocked its paying science positions with atheistic apologists
instead of biblical apologists, and you constantly, obsessively
argue that it is somehow doing the right thing. That is what I call
irony.”
Precisely! Those defending theistic evolution and methodological
naturalism while pretending to remain faithful to the Bible are
deceiving themselves.
True scientists have a great advantage over those limiting their
research to natural events. True scientists take into consideration
all evidence available to us–including natural and supernatural
evidence.
The historical evidence recorded in the Bible provides the basis
of our reliance on the power of God over nature and even over
death itself. This was the mission of Jesus Christ.
Scientist who dismiss the historical evidence provided by Jesus
are a bunch of fools who are fooling the entire world.
Those in charge of La Sierra Univesity have fallen into this trap
which was designed in hell. The theory of evoloution is a clever
design of Satan whose objective is to lead humans to the worship
of Nature instead of Almighty Creator.
It is high time for the church to divest itself from this institution.
There is no need for a acrimonious fight. This could be
accomplished through a friendly divorce.
This institution can function idependently from the General
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Conference like the Quiet Hour, 3ABN and many other
independent ministries. LSU loves freeddom. Let them have it!
LSU has been destroying the faith of their students in the most
fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith: the doctrine of
creation.
The last message to the world is a call to worship the One who
created heaven and earth and the fountains of waters. This is our
mission–not the teaching of evolution as the best explanation for
origin!
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 1
PhilCromwell
April 19, 2013 at 6:50 pm
Reply
@Nic Samojluk:
Nic, I appreciate your core summary of the views that Sean,
and David and other are expressing. I am new coming here
with a bible based perspective that does resonate with what
you have said.
My only disagreement probably is that I am not sure that a
divorce of the Church from LSU is going to be the best
approach in the long term. I think there must be some way for
bringing unity within the church short of simply chopping off
institutions. I think we can trust Ted Wilson to help
reformation in the schools. After all I do think the church
should have loyal educational institutions to train its people.
This site should be at the forefront in strategies to do that.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 1
Sean Pitman
April 20, 2013 at 7:31 am
Reply
April 21, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Reply
I couldn’t agree more…
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 0
Nic Samojluk
@Sean: “My only disagreement probably is that I am
not sure that a divorce of the Church [...]”
I meant a friendly divorce like when a parent grants
his/her grown up child its independence and cuts the
emotional and physical umbilical chord.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 1
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Nic Samojluk
April 21, 2013 at 12:45 pm
Reply
@Phill: “I think we can trust Ted Wilson to help
reformation in the schools.”
I do trust his intentions; what I am not so sure is about
his ability to effect such a major transformation. The
doctrine of long ages bug has infiltrated so deep into the
biology and the religion departments that only a miracle
would be able to bring said school back to the Adventist
fold.
We do need Adventist schools, but when an institution
persistently departs from a doctrine so foundational to
Adventism like Creation, the educational entity has
crossed the line and must be given its freedom to go its
own way.
It is hard for a parent to let a son or daughter assert its
independence, but in every case the time comes when
this must be done. The same is true about fiercely
independent shools that value their freedom more than
their loyalty to the parent entity that has given them their
life.
La Sierra University can function on its own without its
dependence on the GC. It is high time to cut the umbilical
chord. If the school is so enamored with Darwinian
evolution, let them experiment on their own dime.
This never ending controversy between LSU and the
church is not healthy to the parties. Let them function
independently like 3ABN, The Quiet Hour, Adventist
Today, Advindicate, and many other similar
organizations.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 George Evans
1
April 19, 2013 at 10:45 pm
Reply
@Nic Samojluk: You keep saying, “This could be
accomplished through a friendly divorce.”
But I don’t want to divorce her. I want to cure her.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Nic Samojluk
3 0
April 21, 2013 at 1:03 pm
Reply
@George: “But I don’t want to divorce her. I want to cure
her.”
You can’t legally impose a medical procedure on an
unwilling patient. You must seek the patient’s consent.
This has been tried and failed.
The church must learn from the father of the Prodigal
Son. He granted his wayward son his independence and
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
gave him his inheritance in spite of the risk that was
involved in doing so.
(Quote)
2 Like or Dislike:
1
Professor Kent
April 18, 2013 at 9:00 am
Reply
Sean Pitman: You’re asking for absolute demonstration. That’s not
science or faith. That’s not going with the “weight of evidence”. God does
not offer absolute proof, but the weight of evidence.
No I’m not. I’m pointing out how ridiculous it is to demand that only one
side makes extraordinary claims and is therefore required to produce
extraordinary evidence.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
4 8
Sean Pitman
April 18, 2013 at 10:40 am
Reply
Both sides do make extraordinary claims. Only one side produces the
weight of extraordinary evidence to support its claims…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
Nic Samojluk
9 2
April 18, 2013 at 6:26 pm
Reply
April 18, 2013 at 6:30 pm
Reply
I say a big AMEN to this!
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
7 Nic Samojluk
1
I agree, the weight of evidence favors the believers in creation.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Nic Samojluk
5 1
April 18, 2013 at 9:26 am
Reply
@Kent: “DNA of longer-lived organisms has long been and continues to
be rendered “junk”
This is not what I have been reading in the news. Worshiping Natural
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Selection instead of the One who created heaven and earth is in direct
opposition to the last message for the world found in thee book of
Revelation.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
6 2
Nic Samojluk
April 18, 2013 at 9:30 am
Reply
@Kent: “Moreover, the Church, like you and me, will never accept Sean
Pitman’s position that we follow the science rather than inspiration.”
I believe that this is a misrepresentation of Pitman’s beliefs. My
understanding is that he teaches that there is no contradiction between
what nature teaches and biblical Revelation.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
Bob Helm
10 1
April 18, 2013 at 11:18 am
Reply
Dear Professor Kent,
I have no doubt that Darwinists will attempt to incorporate the new
information regarding pseudogenes into their paradigm, although the
hardliners in the Darwinian camp are currently busy trying to debunk or
explain away the fine work of the ENCODE project. Louis Agassiz was
right. Because evolution has a strange hold on the human mind,
Darwinists fail to see that they have been chasing a phantom for 150
years.
I am glad that you personally affirm Biblical creation, but your wholesale
rejection of Christian apologetics disappoints me. Seventh-day Adventism
and New Testament Christianity have always rejected the concept of
“blind faith.” Consider how the authors of the Gospels repeatedly appeal
to prophecy as evidence for Jesus’ Messianic claims. And Paul told King
Agrippa that the Christ Event did not occur in a corner. Your concept of
“blind faith” and your desire to confine theology and natural science to
totally separate, airtight compartments stem, not from the New Testament
or from Adventism, but from the 18th century Enlightenment.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
pauluc
8 1
April 18, 2013 at 11:42 am
Reply
@Bob Helm:
Tell us about ENCODE in a few sentences. I dont think it shows what
you think it does. Certainly the DI CMI ICR take on it is jaundiced.
The original data is freely and completely available. It would be only
appropriate that you read it before confidently proclaiming that
scientist working on molecular genomics “..are currently busy trying to
debunk or explain away the fine work of the ENCODE project.”
Such statements really make me doubt your credibility and ability to
critically evaluate information.
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
You will not at all find any scientist in the field in consternation over
ENCODE. Rather they are joyfully incorporating these new
observations into models of genomic structure and gene regulation
that have existed based on simpler and less complete data for some
years now.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 6
Sean Pitman
April 18, 2013 at 12:50 pm
Reply
You will not at all find any scientist in the field in consternation
over ENCODE. Rather they are joyfully incorporating these new
observations into models of genomic structure and gene
regulation that have existed based on simpler and less complete
data for some years now.
Yes, and not bothering to note how many creationists predictions
are being confirmed these days by the genome project in the
face of long-held neo-Darwinian predictions. Evolutionists are
very flexible. They are very good at ignoring the various
predictions that used to be “key arguments” once they are shown
to be false and incorporating confirmed creationist predictions into
neo-Darwinism. It’s easy to do when your dealing with just-so
story telling instead of a falsifiable scientific theory…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
8 pauluc
2
April 18, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Reply
@Sean Pitman:
That is because as I have said before to a scientist unless it
is in the peer reviewed literature it doesn’t exist.
Lets not get into the argurment that creationist cant publish in
the literature. That argument is voided until you can show me
the rejection details for you manuscript.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
Sean Pitman
2 8
April 18, 2013 at 1:34 pm
Reply
That is because as I have said before to a scientist
unless it is in the peer reviewed literature it doesn’t exist.
Well, that’s wrong. It does in fact “exist” for the individual
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
doing the science – like it did for Leonardo da Vinci when
he was doing his own science for himself. Science need
not exist for anyone else in order for it to exist for the
individual and for it to give the individual the right answer
– regardless of what anyone else thinks or knows.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
6 3
pauluc
April 18, 2013 at 9:00 pm
Reply
@Sean Pitman:
Its called trade secrets which to most scientists is the
most unhelpful of intellectual property as it locks away
observation and impedes the progress of knowledge.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
0 Nic Samojluk
4
April 19, 2013 at 7:48 am
Reply
Dr. Paul Giem gave a lecture recently dealing with an
article which disappeared from the record of peer
reviewed literature when the editors discovered that it
could be used to support views contrary to the theory of
evolution.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Nic Samojluk
6 0
April 18, 2013 at 6:24 pm
Reply
Blind faith is what the defenders of the theory of evolution are
teeaching.
Defenders of the doctrinee of creation have a more sure foundation
for their beliefs:
They have both the evidence from the natural world and the
testimony of
Scripture and that of Jesus Christ.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 pauluc
2
April 18, 2013 at 11:07 pm
Reply
@Nic Samojluk:
I think your are confused. All Christians whatever their
understanding of biology have a doctrine of creation. A doctrine of
creation does not stand as the antithesis of a theory of evolution;
it is actually the antithesis of atheism. The proper comparison of
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
a theory of evolution is a theory of creation. If you want to have a
theory of creation you have to define it and test it with the same
rigor as the theory of evolution is defined and tested. This
comparison is a very one sided comparison when subjected to
the same de jure standard of methodological naturalism found in
all areas of science.
Any dialogue about creation is done a disservice by conflating a
theory of creation with a doctrine of creation.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
0 5
Nic Samojluk
April 19, 2013 at 12:57 pm
Reply
@pauluc:
@Pauluc: “If you want to have a theory of creation you have
to define it and test it with the same rigor as the theory of
evolution is defined and tested.”
How do you test the theory of common descent? How do you
rule out the alternative theory of common design? How do
you test the theory that nothing could have produced
everything? How far can methodological naturalism take us?
The problem with evolutionists is that if they can posit one
chance in a trillion that life as we know it today is the product
of natural selection, they will choose that chance and ignore
the trillion chance agaqinst it. Does this make common sense
and is it based on logic?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 0
Nic Samojluk
April 21, 2013 at 7:32 pm
Reply
@pauluc: “The proper comparison of a theory of evolution is
a theory of creation. If you want to have a theory of creation
you have to define it and test it with the same rigor as the
theory of evolution is defined and tested. …”
The existence of the universe and life in it is conclusive
evidence in favor of the theory of creation.
Science has no credible explanation for the presence of life
and the existence of the universe.
The Big Bang is nothing more than philosophical speculation.
Singularities are not based on scientific facts and cannot be
validated by observation, experimentation or replication,
which are the cornerstones of scientific research.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Bob Helm
0 0
April 18, 2013 at 11:26 am
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Reply
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Professor Kent, I would add that Sean Pitman has never said that we
should follow science rather than revelation. However, he does affirm
natural theology and the concept of “God’s two books,” i.e. the Bible and
nature, and that rightly understood, they should be in harmony.
Furthermore, the concept of “informed faith” or faith supported by
evidence has always been close to the heart of Adventism. I encourage
you to read the chapter in “Steps To Christ” entitled “What To Do With
Doubt” to get Ellen White’s perspective on faith and evidence.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
6 2
Bob Helm
April 18, 2013 at 3:04 pm
Reply
Pauluc, you misquoted me. I doubt that any scientists working on
genomes would try to explain away ENCODE. But I have been dialoging
on facebook with a biologist who is a committed Darwinist, and he
characterized the ENCODE researchers young and immature, and willing
to play loose with the data in order to get published. He went on to claim
that, contra ENCODE, no more than 20% of the human genome is
functional.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 0
pauluc
April 18, 2013 at 10:20 pm
Reply
@Bob Helm:
You are probably both right but do not have a common vocabulary.
There is an essential difference between being functional and being
expressed. 70-80 of the genome is expressed as RNA as has been
shown in ENCODE. But that does not translate to 70-80% of the
genome as being functional. You need to define what you actually
mean. If you take the paradigm of gene expression in eukaryotes
there are introns that are expressed with the exons in the nucleus but
deleted from the mRNA before it is exported to the cytoplasm for final
protein expression. Are the introns functional maybe much of it is but
probably not all. Similarly the repetitive elements are expressed as
RNA but are they functional? Unlikely.
As for misquoting it would be easier to understand your message if
you didnt use the term Darwinist which most would contend is
equivalent to biologist.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Sean Pitman
0 6
April 19, 2013 at 9:26 am
Reply
Again, you’re mistaken about repetitive elements being nonfunctional. They do have important functionality. In a Science
article published back in 2003, Wojciech Makalowski presented
arguments for the functionlity of “Junk DNA”, to include repetitive
elements, that seem to echo what design theorists have been
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
saying for a very long time:
Although catchy, the term “junk DNA” for many years repelled
mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA. Who,
except a small number of genomic clochards, would like to dig
through genomic garbage? However, in science as in normal life,
there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed,
explore unpopular territories. Because of them, the view of junk
DNA, especially repetitive elements, began to change in the early
1990s. Now, more and more biologists regard repetitive elements
as genomic treasure.”
Makalowski, Wojciech. 2003. Not Junk After All, Science
300:1246-1247
Since this time, numerous papers have been published on the
functionlity of non-coding regions of DNA – to include repetitive
regions.
There are clear theoretical reasons and many well-documented
examples which show that repetitive DNA is essential for genome
function. Generic repeated signals in the DNA are necessary to
format expression of unique coding sequence files and to
organise additional functions essential for genome replication and
accurate transmission to progeny cells. Repetitive DNA sequence
elements are also fundamental to the cooperative molecular
interactions forming nucleoprotein complexes. Here, we review
the surprising abundance of repetitive DNA in many genomes,
describe its structural diversity, and discuss dozens of cases
where the functional importance of repetitive elements has been
studied in molecular detail. In particular, the fact that repeat
elements serve either as initiators or boundaries for
heterochromatin domains and provide a significant fraction of
scaffolding/matrix attachment regions (S/MARs) suggests that the
repetitive component of the genome plays a major architectonic
role in higher order physical structuring. Employing an information
science model, the ‘functionalist’ perspective on repetitive DNA
leads to new ways of thinking about the systemic organisation of
cellular genomes and provides several novel possibilities
involving repeat elements in evolutionarily significant genome
reorganisation. These ideas may facilitate the interpretation of
comparisons between sequenced genomes, where the repetitive
DNA component is often greater than the coding sequence
component.
Shapiro and von Sternberg, 2005 (Link)
A 2011 PNAS paper argues the same thing for the ALU repetitive
elements – that they are actually functionally beneficial:
“It’s been hard to say whether these Alu-derived exons actually
do anything on a genome-wide level,” said senior study author Yi
Xing, Ph.D., assistant professor of internal medicine and
biomedical engineering, who holds a joint appointment in the UI
Carver College of Medicine and the UI College of Engineering.
“Our new study says they do — they affect protein production by
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
altering the efficiency with which messenger RNA is translated
into protein.”
(Link)
(Link)
And the list goes on and on…
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 0
PhilCromwell
April 20, 2013 at 10:10 am
Reply
@Sean Pitman: Sean you are so right although I think the
authors you cite are wrong in their contention that the alu
repeats are somehow important in evolution and
recombination. Exonization of alu as you said is critical for the
fine control of gene expression by inclusion of alu in mRNA.
That there are a million copies that are maintained by
retrotransposition in humans obviously means that there is
many opportunity for alu to participate in this frequent and
important process of gene regulation It is clearly designed to
allow flexibility and fine control of gene expression. I agree
though that their statements about the phylogeny of alu is
really just a reflection of their preconceived ideas about
evolutionary origins that doesnt even consider the design
implied by the pervasive function.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 Bob Helm
0
April 20, 2013 at 9:53 pm
Reply
Darwinist is just short for Neo-Darwinist. While the majority of
biologists subscribe to Neo-Darwinism, I would contest your
statement that Darwinist=biologist. I prefer “Darwinist” to
“evolutionist” because the latter is a slippery term. Even
creationists believe in micro-evolution.@pauluc:
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Professor Kent
2 1
April 18, 2013 at 6:18 pm
Reply
Nic Samojluk: @Kent: “DNA of longer-lived organisms has long been
and continues to be rendered “junk”
This is not what I have been reading in the news. Worshiping Natural
Selection instead of the One who created heaven and earth is in direct
opposition to the last message for the world found in thee book of
Revelation.
H-E-L-L-O-!
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Read this:
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john-sanford-lectures-oninevitable-genomic-deterioration/
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 5
Sean Pitman
April 18, 2013 at 8:35 pm
Reply
Yes, and notice that the genome hasn’t been around very long,
something that Prof. Kent continues to ignore.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
6 0
pauluc
April 18, 2013 at 11:00 pm
Reply
@Sean Pitman:
Not quite. The human genome has been estimated to be around
for at least several million years. It just hasnt been understood
but that does not mean it hasnt been around.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
0 6
Sean Pitman
April 19, 2013 at 8:46 am
Reply
That’s the Darwinian story to be sure, but that story is in
conflict with the weight of evidence that strongly suggests
that the genome could not survive that long. Detrimental
mutations would have wiped it out long ago and sent it into
extinction – along with all other slowly reproducing genomes.
The same is true for the elastic soft tissues that remain in
dinosaur bones, etc…
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 1
Nic Samojluk
April 19, 2013 at 12:43 pm
Reply
@Pauluc: “The human genome has been estimated to be
around for at least several million years. It just hasnt been
understood but that does not mean it hasnt been around.”
Milllions of years? Why is it then that human artifacts date
only a limited number of years measured in thousands
instead of millions?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 0
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
George Evans
April 19, 2013 at 10:05 pm
Reply
@Professor Kent: @Professor Kent: @pauluc: Paul said,
“The human genome has been estimated to be around for at
least several million years.”
I find that hard to believe because the person who designed it
said he did it about 6,000 years ago. And He doesn’t lie.
(Quote)
2 Like or Dislike:
Nic Samojluk
0
April 19, 2013 at 6:31 am
Reply
I did, and here is what Dr. Sanford stated:
“In the past five years or so, the discovery that non-coding DNA is
largely functional, has pretty much destroyed the notion of “junkDNA”. …”
This seems to negate your position! Does it not? Can you elaborate
on this? What conclusion do you harvest from his preesentation in
Loma Linda?
I was preesent at said lecture! Please, explain how you intepret hi
conclusions!
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 Professor Kent
0
April 18, 2013 at 6:25 pm
Reply
Bob Helm: I am glad that you personally affirm Biblical creation, but
your wholesale rejection of Christian apologetics disappoints me.
Seventh-day Adventism and New Testament Christianity have always
rejected the concept of “blind faith.”
Don’t be absurd. I have never advocated blind faith. Recognizing the
error in much of apologetics does not equate to blind faith. Twisting every
fact to fit a theory about a supernatural event that cannot be duplicated
by the naturalistic approach of science is simply misinformed belief based
on a fragile faith devoid of the surety one has when in a personal
relationship with Jesus.
Get on your knees and look toward heaven. You won’t find God by
digging up dirt.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Sean Pitman
2 5
April 18, 2013 at 8:38 pm
Reply
Blind faith is defined, for most people anyway, as a type of faith that
exists independent of the need for support from empirical evidence or
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
a rational basis. That is exactly the type of faith you’ve always argued
for – empirically blind faith. You say that faith can have evidentiary
support, but that such support is not required. That’s the definition of
fideism.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
6 0
pauluc
April 18, 2013 at 10:56 pm
Reply
@Sean Pitman:
Exactly Sean and that is exactly a description of the the faith you
manifest in the canonical text and the the writings of EG White.
They cannot be scrutinized by any rational method that will yield
empirical evidence since to do so is by definition higher criticism
and that is forbidden.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
0 6
Sean Pitman
April 19, 2013 at 8:51 am
Reply
The basis of my faith can be scrutinized by rational
methodologies and is open to the potential for falsification.
Your faith, on the other hand, cannot be rationally scrutinized
and is therefore not open to even the potential for
falsification. What is also interesting is that the fideists in this
forum (you and Jeff Kent) have faiths that do not agree with
each other. God is evidently telling you guys different things
about reality… and neither one of you can change your faith
based on any kind of argument or evidence presented
because your faith has no rational basis – because faith,
according to you guys, trumps human reasoning.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Nic Samojluk
7 0
April 19, 2013 at 6:21 am
Reply
Yes, blind faith is the willingness to trust someone’s claim without
the need for evidence that such a person’s claims can be relied
on.
Paul said that Abraham believed and that he was justified on the
basis of faith. Yet, when I go to Genesis, I discover that such a
declaration is found in chapter 15 instead of chapter 12.
My estimate is that about ten years elapsed between the time
God called Abraham and chapter 15 when he was justified on the
basis of faith.
Between chapter 12 and chapter 15 there was a religious
experience which convinced Abraham that God could be trusted.
This was not a blind faith, but a faith based on the weight of
evidence.
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Besides, Abraham probably inherited some faith from a long line
of ancestors who worshipped the true God going back all the way
to Adam and Eve.
His was not a blind faith, but rather a faith based on evidence.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
6 David Read
0
April 18, 2013 at 10:31 pm
Reply
@Professor Kent: Jeff Kent says, “Recognizing the error in much of
apologetics does not equate to blind faith. Twisting every fact to fit a
theory about a supernatural event that cannot be duplicated by the
naturalistic approach of science is simply misinformed belief based
on a fragile faith devoid of the surety . . .”
But twisting every fact to fit a naturalistic theory is okay? Because
that’s exactly what mainstream science does.
For example, everything in human existence, absolutely without
exception, shows that you never get a code without a codemaker.
You never get music without a musician, writing without a writer,
computer code without a programmer, etc. Yet mainstream science
insists that we got the genetic code, which is more complex than all
of the foregoing, without a designer. That’s what I call “twisting every
fact to fit” into science’s philosophy of naturalism.
Why is it okay for mainstream science to twist facts to fit its theories
but not for creationist to construe and interpret the data of nature in
accordance with revealed truth?
God wants you to be fully converted, in both heart and mind. And it
doesn’t matter which is converted first. Some people have a heart
experience that eventually results in them changing their views on
origins, while others see design in nature and it leads them to the
God of nature. Either is okay.
But you seem to be “halting between two opinions.” You believe in
God and have a relationship with Christ, but that relationship has not
converted your mind or your approach to your profession. You insist
on doing your scientific work in a way that effectively denies what you
claim to believe. It would be too rude to say you lack integrity, but
clearly your Christian beliefs are not integrated with your work life;
there is no integration between your faith and your work.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Nic Samojluk
7 0
April 19, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Reply
@David Read: “For example, everything in human existence,
absolutely without exception, shows that you never get a code
without a codemaker. You never get music without a musician,
writing without a writer, computer code without a programmer,
etc. Yet mainstream science insists that we got the genetic code,
which is more complex than all of the foregoing, without a
designer. That’s what I call “twisting every fact to fit” into
science’s philosophy of naturalism.”
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
You have expressed my views on this issue in a crystal clear
manner. How can some Adventists be blind to such clear logic?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 0
Nic Samojluk
April 19, 2013 at 6:08 am
Reply
How do you explain the fact thaqt Jesus took such pains to provide
physical evidence of his supernatural power over nature, disease,
and even over death?
If all we need is to get on our knees and pray instead of digging dirt,
why did he spend three years providing convincing evidence that he
was indeed what he claimed to be?
You are dismissing the evidence which convinced Jesus disciples to
choose death rather than denying the evidence they had witnessed
for three year about the supernatural power of the one who claimed
to be the Son of God.
Jesus did not come and claimed: “I am the Son of God. Get on your
knees, stop digging dirt, and worship me beause I am God.”
He devoted his entire ministry in his effort to convince his followers
that he was the one who he claimed to be by means of supernatural
acts.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 1
Professor Kent
April 18, 2013 at 6:31 pm
Reply
Bob Helm: Professor Kent, I would add that Sean Pitman has never
said that we should follow science rather than revelation.
Not true. He has argued vociferously that we should follow science rather
than revelation. This is what Sean Pitman has said: “I, personally, would
have to go with what I saw as the weight of empirical evidence. This is
why if I ever honestly became convinced that the weight of empirical
evidence was on the side of life existing on this planet for hundreds of
millions of years, I would leave not only the SDA Church, but Christianity
as well” (http://www.educatetruth.com/theological/the-credibility-offaith/comment-page-1/#comment-18717).
What part of “I, personally, would have to go with what I saw as the
weight of empirical evidence” do you not get?
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
George Evans
4 6
April 18, 2013 at 10:32 pm
Reply
@Professor Kent: Professor you keep ignoring the word WEIGHT of
the evidence. Sean has never said that, pound for pound, evidence
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
trumps revelation. He is saying the evidence would have to be
overwhelming, to sway him. Quite punching that straw man, you’re
looking silly.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 1
Sean Pitman
April 19, 2013 at 10:02 am
Reply
@George Evans:
The problem is that God generally doesn’t give us a supernatural
revelation or “privileged information” regarding certain truths, like
the Divine origin and credibility of the Bible and certain particular
interpretations of various Biblical passages – for instance. Such
truths are only discovered by carefully searching out the
Scriptures and comparing their claims with various evidences and
our ability to think and reason according to the gifts that God has
given us to do so.
Generally speaking, God does not trump our God-given abilities
to think and reason and decide from the weight of evidence.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 1
Nic Samojluk
April 19, 2013 at 12:28 pm
Reply
@George Evans: “Professor you keep ignoring the word WEIGHT
of the evidence. Sean has never said that, pound for pound,
evidence trumps revelation. He is saying the evidence would
have to be overwhelming, to sway him. Quite punching that straw
man, you’re looking silly.”
That is the way I interpret what Pitman said about scientific
evidence. His statement should be understood as supporting his
faith both in the Bible and the evidence we find in nature.
He believes, I think, that when all the evidence is in, there will be
a harmony between revelation and science.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Sean Pitman
3 1
April 19, 2013 at 12:45 pm
Reply
I believe there already is harmony between the weight of
empirical evidence, or science, and Revelation. I don’t
believe that neo-Darwinism is based on valid science. It is, as
Ellen White described it, “science falsely so called.”
(Quote)
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Like or Dislike:
5 1
Nic Samojluk
April 19, 2013 at 5:57 am
Reply
He said this because he is sure that such evidence will never exist.
This statement by Pitman can be interpreted as undeniable evidence
of his strong confidence in Scripture instead of absooute reliance on
science.
Evidently you have chosen to go with the worst intepretation of what
he stated.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 2
George Evans
April 19, 2013 at 11:23 pm
Reply
@Nic Samojluk: You said Sean “said this because he is sure that
such evidence will never exist.”
I could agree if you changed the words “is sure” to something like
“predicts”.
(Quote)
1 Like or Dislike:
0
Nic Samojluk
April 21, 2013 at 1:09 pm
Reply
@George: “I could agree if you changed the words “is sure”
to something like “predicts”.”
Sean is convinced and has predicted that such strong
evidence will never come to light.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Professor Kent
2 0
April 18, 2013 at 6:34 pm
Reply
So Bob, would YOU reject Scripture if one of its most fundamental claims
was shown by science to be patently false? Absolutely, physically
impossible? I mean with greater than 99.99999999999999999999%
certainty.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 Sean Pitman
5
April 18, 2013 at 8:51 pm
Reply
@Professor Kent:
Like Jesus wasn’t really physically raised from the dead? Somehow it
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
was demonstrated that his body was still here with us? where His
body was stolen and secreted away like the priests originally
claimed?
I think that would be a problem for most Christians – as it would have
been for his disciples as well. Faith, in the face of such evidence
would certainly be “in vain”. – 1 Corinthians 15:14
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 2
George Evans
April 18, 2013 at 10:35 pm
Reply
@Sean Pitman: But that body would be CSI’ed down to the
toenails!
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 Nic Samojluk
0
April 19, 2013 at 5:48 am
Reply
There is no way for science to provide this kind of certainty. A single
resurrection, would negate such a claim by science, and the Bible
provides credible evidence that Jesuss Christ did come back to life, in
addition to Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 1
Bob Helm
April 20, 2013 at 10:04 pm
Reply
Yes, I would. Just as I reject the claims of the Book of Mormon
because the weight of evidence does not support it. If we refuse to
evaluate claims on the basis of evidence, we are liable to follow any
charlatan that comes along- like Jim Jones or David
Koresh.@Professor Kent:
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Bob Helm
4 0
April 18, 2013 at 10:30 pm
Reply
Professor Kent, have you ever heard of the British philosopher W.K.
Clifford? I subscribe to “Clifford’s Principle”: “It is always wrong,
everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient
evidence.” So if there were no good evidence for Christianity, I would be
forced to reject it. I am not a Christian simply because Christianity makes
me feel good or because I was brought up in the faith or for some other
whimsical reason. I am deadly serious about my relationship with Jesus
Christ! If the evidence for Jesus’ claims is lacking, by all means reject
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
those claims. I have no desire to promote something that is akin to Santa
Claus or the Easter bunny! But it seems to me that the evidence in favor
of Christianity is overwhelming, and that’s why I am a Christian. Now
don’t misunderstand my view of faith. I affirm that my faith in Christ is the
Holy Spirit’s work,but the Spirit has used good evidence to work this faith
in me. In regard to creationism, I cannot say that the evidence for it is
overwhelming, but I believe that there is very good evidence in its favor.
And since the weight of evidence in other areas (particularly Bible
prophecy) has led me to affirm the divine origin of holy scripture, I trust
that the divine Author knew what He was talking about when He inspired
the Genesis creation account. Furthermore, I am not very impressed with
the evidence for Darwinism, and I see no reason to try to marry
Darwinism with Christianity. While I gladly affirm that there are true
Christians who are theistic evolutionists (the human mind seems fairly
adept at simultaneously holding to contrary concepts), I am convinced
that the term “theistic evolution” is an
oxymoron.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
7 1
Nic Samojluk
April 19, 2013 at 11:57 am
Reply
@Bob, you have expressed my views with masterful precision. Can I
hire you as my spokesperson?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Professor Kent
4 0
April 19, 2013 at 9:35 am
Reply
David Read: Why is it okay for mainstream science to twist facts to fit
its theories but not for creationist to construe and interpret the data of
nature in accordance with revealed truth?
It’s not okay. I haven’t defended it. Extremists on both sides are wrong.
David Read:
But you seem to be “halting between two opinions.” You believe in God
and have a relationship with Christ, but that relationship has not
converted your mind or your approach to your profession. You insist on
doing your scientific work in a way that effectively denies what you claim
to believe. It would be too rude to say you lack integrity, but clearly your
Christian beliefs are not integrated with your work life; there is no
integration between your faith and your work
You have no clue what you are talking about. I do research that has
absolutely nothing to do with origins. I publish science in professional
journals that would reject my papers if I wrote, “Oh, by the way, God
created this species 6,000 years ago.” The other part of my work at a
private Christian institution is teaching, and I share my relationship with
Jesus daily. What could you possibly know about that when you have
never met me, seen me at work, or know anything about my work?
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
I think you’re a poor judge of character.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 7
George Evans
April 19, 2013 at 11:49 pm
Reply
@Professor Kent: After explaining that an evolutionary scientist,
coming across a code, normally assumes there is a code maker; but
when he comes across a code in DNA, suddenly assumes there isn’t
a code maker; David Read asks Professor Kent:
“Why is it okay for mainstream science to twist facts to fit its theories
but not for creationist to construe and interpret the data of nature in
accordance with revealed truth?”
To which Professor Kent, leaving off the context, replied:
“It’s not okay. I haven’t defended it. Extremists on both sides are
wrong.”
Kent makes it sound like David is referring to some wild extreme
twisting, when he is simply referring to the basic tenets of evolution,
which we all know Kent does defend.
Professor Kent, can you explain this discrepancy?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
David Read
3 0
April 24, 2013 at 2:01 pm
Reply
@Professor Kent:
“I do research that has absolutely nothing to do with origins.”
Then why are you constantly on this site arguing against the biblical
view of origins and in favor of the atheistic view? If you don’t even
have a professional stake in the issue, why is it so important to you to
constantly argue that the biblical view of origins must be believed by
faith alone, without any support from reason or evidence, and that all
of the scientific evidence supports the atheistic view of origins?
“I publish science in professional journals that would reject my papers
if I wrote, ‘Oh, by the way, God created this species 6,000 years
ago.’”
If you were curious about Creationism instead of intent on ridiculing
it, you’d know that creationists don’t think God created “species” six
thousand years ago, but types of animals that Adventist scientist
Frank Lewis Marsh called Baramin. Since the Flood, each baramin
has diversified into many different species. This is a concept that has
been endorsed by Harvard Ph.D paleontologist Kurt Wise and other
extremely well qualified scientists. But you’re more interested in
ridiculing creationism than even trying to understand it.
And frankly, I don’t think there’s any good excuse for Christian, much
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
less Seventh-day Adventist, scientists providing content for journals
run by anti-Christian, anti-Biblical bigots. If the Ku Klux Klan wanted
you to publish in their journal, would you do it? Then why do you
provide content for journals bigoted against theism and creationism?
“The other part of my work at a private Christian institution is
teaching, and I share my relationship with Jesus daily.”
What Jesus do you think you have a relationship with? The Jesus of
the Bible is the Creator God. (Jn. 1:3; Heb. 1:2) Do you think He
created by predation and death and disease over the course of 600
million years? The Jesus of the Bible is the second Adam who
succeeded where the First Adam failed. (1 Cor. 15:22; Rom. 5:12-21)
If there was no actual Adam and Eve, and in the mainstream origins
narrative there certainly is not, how can Christ have been the second
Adam? The Jesus of the Bible spoke of the creation and the Flood as
literal events. (Mat. 19:4; 24:38-39) Was Jesus wrong about this, or
did He simply lie to his listeners to make a point?
And of course, Jesus came to die for and redeem fallen humanity, but
in the mainstream view of origins there absolutely has been no fall
whatsoever. To the contrary, there has been an astonishing rise from
amoeba to Mozart, from slime to Einstein. There certainly is no need
whatsoever of a redeemer. Darwinism makes absolute nonsense out
of Christ’s identity and mission on earth, and out of Christianity. You
can’t be an evolutionist and be a Christian. They do not go together.
So again, what Jesus do you think you have a relationship with?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Professor Kent
1 0
April 19, 2013 at 9:59 am
Reply
There are many people who take Sean Pitman’s approach toward
“potentially falsifiable empirical evidence” and find the “weight” of
evidence lacking.
They look at the multitude of claims in scripture that violate all laws of
nature and say, “look, these are physically impossible; this is a fairy tale.”
These are supernatural claims like forming a living breathing organism
from dirt; tapping a rock with a stick so that water rushes out; the sun
standing still for hours; throwing a stick in water and seeing an axe head
float; curing a leper with a voice command; a virgin woman giving birth; a
three-day-old human body returning to life. I could go on and on.
There are thousands of similarly fantastic stories told throughout the
history of mankind, and they continue to this day. To believe ANY of them
is to set aside one’s reliance on “potentially falsifiable empirical evidence”
and say, “hey, I don’t understand it, but I am going to believe in it even
though it is demonstrably false by the methods of naturalistic science.”
We all pick and choose what we believe; we all look to evidence; but
when we believe in something that science demonstrates to be physically
impossible, one is obviously deceived to continue claiming their beliefs
are “superior” because they’re based on scientific evidence.
For you guys to claim that your beliefs are upheld by the “weight” of
“potentially falsifiable empirical evidence” is an outright lie. You guys (and
I) believe in things that science makes 99.999999999999% clear are
physically impossible. You have your “evidence” to believe, just as I do,
but you’re too arrogant to admit the evidence is something VERY
different from the glaring and unforgiving light of science. VERY
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
DIFFERENT. It is NOT based on science.
Sean claims he would give up his beliefs if science convinced him that life
could not have been on this planet for only a few thousand years. Yet he
holds steadfastly to his beliefs even though science has shown
convincingly that his belief in so many other things, including the
resurrection of Lazarus and Jesus, were scientifically untenable and could
not have physically happened. This simply demonstrates his
idiosynchratic choices and heterodox theology based largely on his
peculiar obsession with one issue and the recognition he craves for being
an “authority” on it.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
0 5
Sean Pitman
April 19, 2013 at 10:09 am
Reply
Sean claims he would give up his beliefs if science convinced him
that life could not have been on this planet for only a few thousand
years. Yet he holds steadfastly to his beliefs even though science has
shown convincingly that his belief in so many other things, including
the resurrection of Lazarus and Jesus, were scientifically untenable
and could not have physically happened. This simply demonstrates
his idiosynchratic choices and heterodox theology based largely on
his peculiar obsession with one issue and the recognition he craves
for being an “authority” on it.
That’s not now science works. There are many hypothesis in science
that have very high predictive value without anyone knowing why or
how the phenomenon in question actually works. As I’ve explained to
you before, the resurrection of the dead is not scientifically impossible
or untenable. There’s no scientific reason to say that, given someone
with enough knowledge and creative power, especially someone with
evident access to Divine Power or God-like power, that a body still
could not be raised from the dead. To the contrary. The weight of
empirical evidence in hand suggests that it did actually happen. Just
because one cannot demonstrate how it happened does not mean
that it did happen or that the hypothesis that it did happen isn’t
scientifically supported or otherwise empirically rational. The same is
true for the origin of the universe. The artifactual nature of the
universe is clearly evident, even for most physicists who see a Divine
or God-like signature behind the fundamental laws of nature, without
knowing how it was or could be done. Still, the design hypotheses for
these artifacts is quite clearly supported.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Nic Samojluk
5 2
April 21, 2013 at 7:19 pm
Reply
@Sean: “The weight of empirical evidence in hand suggests that
it did actually happen. …”
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Amen! Jesus is alive. This Kent will not deny; which means that
Kent’s naturalistic approach is not worth a dime for discovering
the truth!
What’s the point of trying to demonstrate that the resurrection is
impossible if you believe that it is possible because it did actually
happen?
The resurrection of Jesus could have been falsified by Jesus
contemporaries by simply producing the dead body of Jesus.
They didn’t to this, and didn’t even try!
Case closed, Kent! Give up your worthless philosophy based on
human wisdom!
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
0 0
George Evans
April 23, 2013 at 4:21 pm
Reply
@Nic Samojluk: You wrote, “The resurrection of Jesus could
have been falsified by Jesus contemporaries by simply
producing the dead body of Jesus.
They didn’t to this, and didn’t even try!”
You are correct about the possibility of falsification. But do we
know they didn’t try?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
0 0
Nic Samojluk
April 24, 2013 at 9:38 am
Reply
@George: “You are correct about the possibility of
falsification. But do we know they didn’t try?”
There is no evidence that they tried! Some of them had
witnessed the resurrection of Lazarus.
My guess is that they felt no need to find out the truth
because Jesus had provided ample evidence that he had
power over nature and death itself.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
0 0
Sean Pitman
April 25, 2013 at 8:09 am
Reply
Actually, the Roman guard also witnessed the
Resurrection of Jesus as well. There was no need for
further investigation. They already knew, first hand,
the truth of the disciples’ claims.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
0 0
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Nic Samojluk
April 19, 2013 at 5:11 pm
Reply
@Kent: “They look at the multitude of claims in scripture that violate
all laws of nature and say, “look, these are physically impossible; this
is a fairy tale.” …”
You do believe that such supernatural events did really happen. Do
you hold such beliefs as a result of evidence or the lack of evidence?
1. If evidence, then can you describe it?
2. If lack of evidence, then is not your faith blind?
Finally, was the faith ot the disciples and followers of Jesus Christ
based on evidence or the lack of evidence?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 0
George Evans
April 20, 2013 at 12:07 am
Reply
@Professor Kent: I will just take the first of your list of things that are
“physically impossible”.
I agree it is physically impossible to form a living breathing organism
from dirt, IF there is no God in the vicinity. But how is it physically
impossible if God is there?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 Professor Kent
0
April 19, 2013 at 1:31 pm
Reply
Bob Helm: I am convinced that the term “theistic evolution” is an
oxymoron
Agreed. Totally. I’ve never defended it, though I defend rather than
belittle those who choose to believe in it. “Creation science” is another
oxymoron. Science can’t test origins. Period. Talk about “weight of
evidence” all you want, but the evidence for age of life is completely
subject to personal interpretation (to which you all are entitled) and there
is no scientific evidece for a creation event over a 6-day period.
Again, the Church does not base its views on physical evidence–not the
“weight” of it or anything else. It’s based 100% on scripture (with some
support from Ellen White, despite its claims of “sola scriptura”). And that
won’t change in our lifetimes. If you wish to disagree with the Church,
and deride those like me that agree with the Church, and call its fideists
and “angry,” then be my guest. You certainly amuse me.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Sean Pitman
0 6
April 19, 2013 at 3:27 pm
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Reply
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
There is very good evidence, the weight of evidence, for the recent
creation of life on this planet and a worldwide Noachian-style Flood,
as described in the Bible. Many of the details of the Bible cannot be
directly tested or demonstrated, but the overall credibility of the Bible
can be established based on those elements and claims that can be
investigated and subjected to testing – with the very real possibility of
effective falsification. That is why the Bible should be viewed as more
credible than the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an or any other book
claiming to have a Divine origin.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
6 0
Bob Helm
April 20, 2013 at 10:09 pm
Reply
I never called anyone angry. I affirm you as my brother in Christ, even
if we don’t always agree! Certainly, the church should affirm sola
scriptura. But why do we have confidence in the principle of sola
scriptura? Again – here is where apologetics and the weight of
evidence play an
essential role.@Professor Kent:
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 Professor Kent
0
April 19, 2013 at 1:44 pm
Reply
Nic Samojluk: There is no way for science to provide this kind of
certainty. A single resurrection, would negate such a claim by science,
and the Bible provides credible evidence that Jesuss Christ did come
back to life, in addition to Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus.
In the modern age of science, there have been billions upon billions of
human deaths with zero documented resurrections after >24 hours. Birds
and mammals that we breed to consume have a similar physiology, and
none of trillions upon trillions have come back to life after >24 hours. You
say science can’t provide a level of 99.999999999999% certainty. Okay,
what percentage would you peg a human resurrection at? Go ahead:
make me look bad.
There is no difference between a supernatural resurrection and a
supernatural creation in terms of what science can support. Science
absolutely cannot falsify either event, in spite of your wildest imagination.
You’ve accepted both on similar levels of evidence. If you are going to
make the pretense, as Sean does, that your set of beliefs are “superior”
because they are backed by “potentially falsifiable empirical evidence”
(i.e., science), you’ve deluded yourself as well.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
0 6
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Sean Pitman
April 19, 2013 at 3:30 pm
Reply
Science is pretty conclusive that human resurrection cannot be
achieved by any known naturalistic means or human level
intelligence. Science has not shown, however, that human
resurrection cannot be achieved via suprahuman intelligence and
creative power – such as God-like creative power. Quite the contrary.
The best evidence in hand strongly favors the conclusion that such
an event did in fact happen in Earth’s history – as recorded by the
Bible. The Biblical account is therefore not on the same level as a
just-so children’s story or moral fable. It has the weight of empirical
evidence to back it up…
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 0
Nic Samojluk
April 21, 2013 at 7:01 pm
Reply
@Kent: “You say science can’t provide a level of 99.999999999999%
certainty.”
That certainty was demolished by the resurrection of two men: Jesus
and Lazarus!
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 0
Professor Kent
April 19, 2013 at 1:50 pm
Reply
Nic Samojluk: You are dismissing the evidence which convinced
Jesus disciples to choose death rather than denying the evidence they
had witnessed for three year about the supernatural power of the one
who claimed to be the Son of God.
No I’m not. I’m just not equating it to “potentially falsifiable empirical
evidence.” SDAs certainly don’t accept or reject Christ’s death based on
the “weight” of “potentially falsifiable empirical evidence,” and neither do
they accept Genesis 1 based on the “weight” of “potentially falsifiable
empirical evidence.”
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
0 5
Sean Pitman
April 19, 2013 at 3:32 pm
Reply
That’s not true. If there was no evidence supporting the story of
Jesus’ death and resurrection, why then should we put our faith in
this story over any other fantastic story in any other religious text or
morale fable? – blind faith? Fidestic religion? What good is that?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
6 0
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Nic Samojluk
April 21, 2013 at 6:56 pm
Reply
@Kent: “SDAs certainly don’t accept or reject Christ’s death based
on the “weight” of “potentially falsifiable empirical evidence …”
You are probably thinking about those Adventists who have inherited
the religion of their parents. First generation Adventists usually get a
heavy doses of predictive prophecies found in Scripture and act on
this to join the church.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 0
Professor Kent
April 19, 2013 at 1:55 pm
Reply
Nic Samojluk: He believes, I think, that when all the evidence is in,
there will be a harmony between revelation and science.
And what did he say he would do if there was not harmony? He has
made crystal clear that he would go with the science and his reason on
numerous occasions. Would you do the same? Would you reject God’s
word and instead trust someone else’s science and your own ability to
decipher it? Have the courage to say a “yea” or “nay.”
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
0 4
George Evans
April 20, 2013 at 12:29 am
Reply
@Professor Kent: You said that Sean “has made crystal clear that he
would go with the science and his reason on numerous occasions.
Would you do the same?”
If the scientifically confirmed body of Jesus Christ was found in a
tomb near Jerusalem, would you continue to believe in the risen
Christ?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 0
Nic Samojluk
April 22, 2013 at 5:27 pm
Reply
@Kent: “And what did he say he would do if there was not harmony?
He has made crystal clear that he would go with the science and his
reason on numerous occasions. Would you do the same?”
Here is what Pitman allegedly stated:
“I, personally, would have to go with what I saw as the weight of
empirical evidence. This is why if I ever honestly became convinced
that the weight of empirical evidence was on the side of life existing
on this planet for hundreds of millions of years, I would leave not only
the SDA Church, but Christianity as well”
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
(http://www.educatetruth.com/theological/the-credibility-offaith/comment-page-1/#comment-18717
This statement seems to indicate that Pitman’s faith in the biblical
record and biblical chronology is so strong that he is willing to defy
the odds of being wrong.
I agree with him on the belief that millions of years of pain, suffering
and death is not the way God created human life. Such theory
contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture. Darwinian evolution
destroys the most fundamental pillar of the Christian faith: the belief
that God created humans in a perfect state, there was a moral fall,
which moved God to implement a Plan of Salvation.
If Darwin is right, then we have no need for a plan of salvation. We
have done quite well thanks—not to Jesus Christ—but rather to
natural selection and genetic mutation. We started as an insignificant
cell, progressed through apes to Homo Sapiens. This is what Pitman
rejects, and I do as well. Pitman sees no chance that empirical
science will ever produce credible evidence matching this wild
scenario.
I see his statement as confirming his unswerving reliance on the
biblical story. I do agree with him with this view with the following
minor observation:
In the unlikely event that science would be able some day to
empirically demonstrate that the theory of evolution is right, then I
would opt for Dr. Jack Provonsha’s golden parachute:
Instead of abandoning the Bible and Christianity, I would consider the
possibility that the pre-Adamic animal life was the result of the activity
of Satan following his expulsion from heaven. The suffering, pain and
death of animals for millions of years would be the result—not of
Adam’s sin—but the rebellion of Lucifer in heaven.
Now regarding the story of creation recorded in the book of Genesis,
I believe that it represents a reliable record of the creation of the
human race. My view is that the information found in Genesis 1 & 2
was not the result of a dictation Moses received from heaven.
The record does not make any reference to a vision. I conclude,
therefore, that Moses most probably inherited said information from
his ancestors going back all the way to Adam and Eve
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
0 2
Sean Pitman
April 23, 2013 at 11:51 am
Reply
Dr. Jack Provonsha’s alternative explanation is unBiblical, an
effort to support the co-existence of Darwinism with Christianity.
Therefore, it is not a valid alternative and removes the rational
basis for faith in the Word of God as it clearly reads.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 0
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Professor Kent
April 19, 2013 at 2:30 pm
Reply
Sean Pitman: There’s no scientific reason to say that, given someone
with enough knowledge and creative power, especially someone with
evident access to Divine Power or God-like power, that a body could be
raised from the dead. To the contrary. The weight of empirical evidence
in hand suggests that it did actually happen.
Wow! Science actually supports Christ’s death!
With your reasoning, I’m sure would then agree there’s no scientific
reason to say that, given someone with enough knowledge and creative
power, especially someone with evident access to Divine Power or Godlike power, that a body couldn’t experience a warm feeling when the gut
upon reading the Book of Mormon. Right? In fact, millons of Mormons
who have experienced the sensation attest to this reality. Indeed, “the
weight of empirical evidence” supports this claim, too!
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 7
Sean Pitman
April 19, 2013 at 3:23 pm
Reply
I don’t think many would argue, to include my LDS friends, that
there’s much of a comparison between a fuzzy warm sensation and
actually seeing the Resurrection…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Bob Helm
6 1
April 19, 2013 at 3:43 pm
Reply
Professor Kent,
Why is the virgin birth of Jesus Christ so incredible in your eyes? Dolly
the sheep and subsequent clones were born asexually. If scientists can
achieve this feat today, why can’t the Lord of science do the same thing?
And as I recall, the DNA that was used to clone Dolly came from another
sheep’s ear. If that is the case, why is it so far-fetched to believe that
God designed Eve from Adam’s rib? And as as for the dead rising, I am
only aware of one scientific law that prevents it – the second law of
thermodynamics, which requires movement from order to disorder, and
death is clearly more disordered than life. However, the second law does
not apply in an open system with directed energy being fed into that
system to create order. Human beings can design clones today, but a
clone of a dead person is a replica. It’s still not the same person. But
what if we postulate a clone that has its brain wired identically to the brain
of the person who died, so that all the memory comes back? Of course,
human beings are not intelligent enough to pull that off, but suppose God
is intelligent enough. Isn’t that what a bodily resuurection really is? If God
is real, I don’t see why the resurrection of the dead is far-fetched at all.
God’s miracles are merely unexplained events that can strengthen faith.
They are not magic or capricious. They are possible for one simple
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
reason – God’s intelligence is vastly greater than the intelligence of
human beings!
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 0
Bob Helm
April 19, 2013 at 4:44 pm
Reply
Professor Kent,
One more thing. I have no desire to belittle those who believe in theistic
evolution. Belittling people is always contrary to the spirit of Christ. I
reserve the right to politely disagree, and I do disagree with theistic
evolution. But while I disagree with theistic evolution and even protest
against it, I want to be kind to those who hold to this view.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 1
Professor Kent
April 19, 2013 at 6:37 pm
Reply
Sean Pitman: If there was no evidence supporting the story of Jesus’
death and resurrection, why then should we put our faith in this story over
any other fantastic story in any other religious text or morale fable? –
blind faith? Fidestic religion? What good is that?
There is evidence. Obviously. But where is the physical evidence? What
do we have other than an eyewitness account? We have eyewitness
accounts–hundreds–of encounters with Bigfoot and with aliens. If you
insist Christ’s resurrection is supported by scientific evidence, I’d like to
know what it is. You tell me why your intelligent, God given brain is able
to discern truth from eyewitnesses better than Joe Blow scientist.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Sean Pitman
0 5
April 20, 2013 at 7:39 am
Reply
Where is the nonphysical evidence of the details described in the
Bible? – outside of the testimony that the Bible itself gives? – that
Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a Holy life, died, and was
Resurrected? All these is dependent upon the witness of the Bible
itself and the Bible’s established credibility.
How then is the credibility of the Bible established? Through
historical evidence, to include fulfilled prophecies, the willingness of
all of the disciples to put their lives on the line for their story, and the
fact that no one countered the testimony of the disciples regarding
the empty tomb.
I’d say that’s far far better evidence than any alien or Big Foot
encounter story… at least for anyone who is actually looking for the
Truth.
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Of course there are those who will reject this evidence – obviously.
However, there were those in Jesus’ day who would reject the Truth
even though they themselves saw Him raise Lazarus from the dead.
For such people, the weight of evidence isn’t the answer. They love
their lies so much that they won’t change their minds regardless of
the evidence presented – they actually want to be deceived. For
such, there is no hope – nothing further God can do.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 0
Professor Kent
April 19, 2013 at 6:58 pm
Reply
Bob Helm: Why is the virgin birth of Jesus Christ so incredible in your
eyes? Dolly the sheep and subsequent clones were born asexually. If
scientists can achieve this feat today, why can’t the Lord of science do
the same thing?
It is incredible because it defies all evidence known to science. Do you
think it was an ordinary event? You’re moving the goal posts by saying
God could do it. Of couse an omnipotent power, the God you and I
believe in, God could do it. But the rational human mind who depends on
naturalistic science and rejects metaphysical explanations, which you and
Sean repeatedly invoke, would never believe in the resurrection of Jesus.
They would logically reject scripture on this basis alone.
Bob Helm: God’s intelligence is vastly greater than the intelligence of
human beings!
I totally agree. But if one depends solely on “potentially falsifiable
empirical evidence” and denies metaphysical explanations, they won’t
recognize this. They have to look to other sources of evidence, like
eyewitness accounts and scripture, to arrive at this conclusion and
concede the possibility of a resurrection.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
0 6
Sean Pitman
April 20, 2013 at 7:30 am
Reply
The a priori rejection of the existence of God or His Signature in
nature or His ability to perform acts of intelligent design in our world
is not a valid position of science. It is a philosophical position, not a
scientific position. True scientific methodologies take on no a priori
position regarding the likely credibility of any hypothesis before the
hypothesis is tested.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
6 1
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Bob Helm
April 20, 2013 at 8:49 pm
Reply
How does the virgin birth defy all evidence known to science when
science has achieved virgin births with clones? @Professor Kent:
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 0
Professor Kent
April 19, 2013 at 7:01 pm
Reply
Sean Pitman: I don’t think many would argue, to include my LDS
friends, that there’s much of a comparison between a fuzzy warm
sensation and actually seeing the Resurrection…
So you’re acknowledging that the evidentiary basis is similar, only that
one is far more a fantastic claim than the other. You choose to believe
the more fantastic claim and reject the other.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 6
Sean Pitman
April 20, 2013 at 7:27 am
Reply
That’s not what I said. What I said is that compared to actually seeing
the Resurrection, personally, a warm fuzzy feeling doesn’t compare.
The disciples of Jesus claimed that they actually saw, with their own
eyes, the physical Resurrection of Jesus. As evidence to their
claimed witness, they all put their lives on the line. For additional
evidence, none of the those who hated Jesus disputed the claims of
the disciples with regard to their claim that Jesus tomb was in fact
empty – despite being guarded by a bunch of Roman soldiers. That’s
far better evidence, in history, than some warm fuzzy feeling.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
6 george
1
April 19, 2013 at 7:36 pm
Reply
Couldn’t that ole fuzzy warm feeling be considered empirical evidence of
the Spirit of God? For some folks that may seem more sensate than
relying on the hearsay story of folks with a vested interest that said they
saw a feller come back to life over 2000 years ago.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 6
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Professor Kent
April 20, 2013 at 10:37 am
Reply
george: Couldn’t that ole fuzzy warm feeling be considered empirical
evidence of the Spirit of God? For some folks that may seem more
sensate than relying on the hearsay story of folks with a vested interest
that said they saw a feller come back to life over 2000 years ago.
Absolutely.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 5
Sean Pitman
April 21, 2013 at 6:48 am
Reply
Not when the historical evidence shows that all of the disciples of
Jesus put their lives on the line for the story they told. Some vague
warm fuzzy feeling isn’t going to do that when it comes to a story that
someone knows isn’t true…
People die for all kinds of things. There are martyrs a-plenty.
However, not very many people are willing to put their lives on the
line for a story that they know for a fact isn’t true. The fact that all the
disciples of Jesus put their lives on the line strongly supports the idea
that they really did believe that He was raised from the dead – they
really believed their fantastic story.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 Professor Kent
1
April 20, 2013 at 10:41 am
Reply
George Evans: Kent makes it sound like David is referring to some
wild extreme twisting, when he is simply referring to the basic tenets of
evolution, which we all know Kent does defend.
Professor Kent, can you explain this discrepancy?
The only discrepancy is in your imagination. I’ve never defended the
basic tenets of evolutionism: abiogenesis and common ancestry for all life
forms. I reject them outright, and have stated hundreds of times at this
website that I’m a creationist. Stop making uninformed assumptions. Pay
attention.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Sean Pitman
2 4
April 21, 2013 at 6:43 am
Reply
You do claim to be a creationist, but based strictly on a type of faith
that requires no basis at all in empirical evidence. This allows you to
argue like an evolutionist while still claiming to be a creationist. You
always sound very much like an evolutionist, more ardent than many
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
atheists that I’ve debated. You even appear to get angry when any
empirical evidence, from biology or geology/fossils, is presented in
support of the Biblical perspective.
It’s like you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. Pick your side
and actually defend it with something besides wishful thinking
already.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 1
George Evans
April 21, 2013 at 10:16 pm
Reply
@Professor Kent: You wrote, “The only discrepancy is in your
imagination. I’ve never defended the basic tenets of evolutionism…”
You are purposely obfuscating.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 0
Professor Kent
April 20, 2013 at 10:45 am
Reply
George Evans: I agree it is physically impossible to form a living
breathing organism from dirt, IF there is no God in the vicinity. But how is
it physically impossible if God is there?
It isn’t. Problem is, you can’t accept this possibility based on “potentially
falsifiable empirical evidence” and claim your beliefs are superior
because they’re based on science and your reason. You absolutely
cannot falsify the claim that God made it happen.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 4
Sean Pitman
April 21, 2013 at 6:39 am
Reply
Yes, you can. You can falsify the God-only hypothesis by showing
that some other mechanism is also able to do the job. You can also
effectively falsify this hypothesis by showing that the other associated
evidences, such as the claim that Jesus tomb was empty, aren’t
true…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Nic Samojluk
4 2
April 22, 2013 at 1:05 pm
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Reply
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
@Sean: “Yes, you can. You can falsify the God-only hypothesis
by showing that some other mechanism is also able to do the job.
You can also effectively falsify this hypothesis by showing that the
other associated evidences, such as the claim that Jesus tomb
was empty, aren’t true…”
This is a brilliant response! I am saving it in my computer memory
for future use. Thanks, Sean, for the crystal clear manner in
which you answered Kent’s objection.
(Quote)
5 Like or Dislike:
0
George Evans
April 21, 2013 at 10:51 pm
Reply
@Professor Kent: I asked you, “But how is it physically impossible [to
form a living breathing organism from dirt] if God is there?”
You answered, “It isn’t.”
Remember that!
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
0 0
Professor Kent
April 20, 2013 at 10:48 am
Reply
Bob Helm: Professor Kent,
One more thing. I have no desire to belittle those who believe in theistic
evolution. Belittling people is always contrary to the spirit of Christ. I
reserve the right to politely disagree, and I do disagree with theistic
evolution. But while I disagree with theistic evolution and even protest
against it, I want to be kind to those who hold to this view.
I admire your stance, Bob. Well stated.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 1
Professor Kent
April 20, 2013 at 10:50 am
Reply
Sean Pitman: The a priori rejection of the existence of God or His
Signature in nature or His ability to perform acts of intelligent design in
our world is not a valid position of science
Testing God’s existence is not a valid position of science. You simply
cannot verify a historic event because you can’t replay it.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 5
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Sean Pitman
April 21, 2013 at 6:46 am
Reply
There are many ways to verify historical events to very useful
degrees of predictive value. If there were no such ways, then there
would be no valid historical sciences. There’d be no way to tell if
Abraham Lincoln was in fact a historical figure or if the Civil War did
in fact happen as described.
I’m sorry, but the study of history can in fact be based on valid
scientific methodologies and empirical evidence.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 1
George Evans
April 21, 2013 at 11:13 pm
Reply
@Professor Kent: Sean stated, “The a priori rejection of the existence
of God…is not a valid position of science.”
You replied, “Testing God’s existence is not a valid position of
science.”
Therefore Sean is right. If you can’t test God’s existence scientifically,
then you can’t reject His existence scientifically.
Remember that!
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 Professor Kent
0
April 20, 2013 at 10:53 am
Reply
Sean Pitman: The best evidence in hand strongly favors the
conclusion that such an event did in fact happen in Earth’s history – as
recorded by the Bible. The Biblical account is therefore not on the same
level as a just-so children’s story or moral fable. It has the weight of
empirical evidence to back it up…
Your conclusion is based strictly on your interpretation of the evidence–
evidence which does not meet the standards of modern science and null
hypothesis testing. There are no statistical probabilities. Your insistence
on “weight of empirical evidence” is pure hubris.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Sean Pitman
0 6
April 21, 2013 at 6:37 am
Reply
I think this is why we have been talking past each other all of these
years. You have a very different view of evidence, of empirical
evidence, than I do. By default then you also have a very different
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
view of science and the definition and functional basis of science.
The fact is that Biblical prophecy is evidence, empirical evidence,
with the potential for falsifiability and predictive value – to include a
basis in statistical probabilities. In other words, one can actually figure
out the odds of all the prophecies about Jesus being randomly
fulfilled by sheer luck.
Again, this is a rational basis in empirical evidence. It is not “pure
hubris” to present people with Biblical prophecy as a very good basis
for a rational starting point for solid faith in the claims of the Bible.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 2
Nic Samojluk
April 22, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Reply
@Kent: “Your conclusion is based strictly on your interpretation of the
evidence–evidence which does not meet the standards of modern
science and null hypothesis testing. There are no statistical
probabilities. Your insistence on “weight of empirical evidence” is
pure hubris.”
Try selling your strange and unreasonable demands on historical
investigation to a real historian. Do you think that you would
succeed?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Professor Kent
4 0
April 20, 2013 at 11:07 am
Reply
Sean Pitman: How thin is the credibility of the Bible established?
Through historical evidence, to include fulfilled prophecies, the willingness
of all of the disciples to put their lives on the line for their story, and the
fact that no one countered the testimony of the disciples regarding the
empty tomb.
These do not equate to “potentially falsifiable empirical evidence.” None
of this is “scientific.” Fulfilled prophecies, for example, are merely fulfilled
interpretations of prophecies. There’s no problem accepting these things
and labeling them as evidence, but none of these remotely resemble the
level of evidence you insist your faith is based on. You cannot falsify any
of these items.
Sean Pitman: I’d say that’s far far better evidence than any alien or Big
Foot encounter story… at least for anyone who is actually looking for the
Truth.
This is based on your interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence
itself.
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Sean Pitman: Of course there are those who will reject this evidence –
obviously. However, there were those in Jesus’ day who would reject the
Truth even though they themselves saw Him raise Lazarus from the
dead. For such people, the weight of evidence isn’t the answer. They
love their lies so much that they won’t change their minds regardless of
the evidence presented – they actually want to be deceived. For such,
there is no hope – nothing further God can do.
Most people who reject God and Scripture do not love lies. They use
YOUR approach: they use their God-given brains and rely on the most
compelling evidence available to them, evidence they interpret in a very
different way than you do.
Let’s get something straight. Your claim to possessing superior
beliefs because they are based on science and rational
thinking are based entirely on interpretation rather than
empirical evidence. Your claims are vacuous. You should boast less.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Sean Pitman
4 4
April 21, 2013 at 6:33 am
Reply
Sean Pitman: How then is the credibility of the Bible established?
Through historical evidence, to include fulfilled prophecies, the
willingness of all of the disciples to put their lives on the line for their
story, and the fact that no one countered the testimony of the
disciples regarding the empty tomb.
I personally hold tight to each of these. However, these do not equate
to “potentially falsifiable empirical evidence.”
Yes they do. They are statements about historical events that can be
investigated and potentially falsify? Did the disciples in fact put their
lives on the line for their story? That question is potentially falsifiable.
Did the enemies of Jesus even try to counter the claim that Jesus’
tomb was empty? That also is a potentially falsifiable claim. That is
empirical evidence.
None of this is “scientific.” Fulfilled prophecies, for example, are
merely fulfilled interpretations of prophecies. Interpretations. There’s
no problem accepting these things and labeling them as evidence,
but none of these remotely resemble the level of evidence you insist
your faith is based on. You cannot falsify any of these items.
Again, not true. Everything is an “interpretation” Jeff. Many of the
prophecies are too specific to be rationally “interpreted” any other
way than in their fulfillment in Jesus birth, life, and death. The
prophecies can be effectively falsified if Jesus didn’t do what they
claimed He did when He actually lived and died. This is very good
empirical evidence. In fact, it is extraordinary empirical evidence.
This is based on your interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
itself.
All evidence must be interpreted in science. Otherwise, all scientists
would agree all the time. That’s just not the case. This does not
mean that the Biblical prophecies are “evidence” – they are evidence.
They are fantastic empirical evidence in support of the Biblical claims
for Divine origin.
Sean Pitman: I’d say that’s far far better evidence than any alien or
Big Foot encounter story… at least for anyone who is actually looking
for the Truth.
This is based on your interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence
itself.
What is evidence without interpretation? Nothing. However, for those
willing to consider Biblical prophecy with a candid mind, the evidence
they offer, the empirical evidence, is very clear – the interpretation is
obvious based on the historical evidence.
Sean Pitman: Of course there are those who will reject this evidence
– obviously. However, there were those in Jesus’ day who would
reject the Truth even though they themselves saw Him raise Lazarus
from the dead. For such people, the weight of evidence isn’t the
answer. They love their lies so much that they won’t change their
minds regardless of the evidence presented – they actually want to
be deceived. For such, there is no hope – nothing further God can
do.
Most people who reject God and Scripture do not love lies. They use
YOUR approach: they use their God-given brains and rely on the
most compelling evidence available to them, evidence they interpret
in a very different way than you do.
That’s not true. Most people who seriously study Scripture with the
motive of actually finding the Truth do in fact find God. This is a
promise of God after all. – Jeremiah 29:13
Beyond this, only God knows the heart of a person – to include the
mental capabilities given. That is why this is not an issue of salvation
per se. Will honestly confused people who never understood the
Divine origin of the Bible or the literal nature of the Genesis account
be in Heaven? To be sure! However, this does not discount the fact
that learning the truth about these things here in this life comes with
great rewards here and now.
Let’s get something straight. Your claim to possessing superior
beliefs because they are based on science and rational thinking are
based entirely on interpretation rather than empirical evidence. Your
claims are vacuous. You should boast less.
You tell me the difference between evidence and interpretation of the
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
evidence. Show me a scientific conclusion that is based on evidence
without any interpretation of the evidence…
The fact is that observations are meaningless until they are
interpreted. The question is, does the interpretation make rational
sense? Does it match the hypothesis in a meaningful way? That’s
science.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 3
Nic Samojluk
April 21, 2013 at 3:31 pm
Reply
@Kent: “These do not equate to “potentially falsifiable empirical
evidence.””
Your claim is only partially true. The resurrection of Jesus is not
subject to scientific falsification today, but said event was potentially
falsifiable by the contemporaries of Jesus Christ.
All they needed to do was to produce the dead body of Jesus. They
didn’t even try because the evidence was so overwhelming.
The same can be said about Lazarus. There was a large number of
individuals, including Jewish leaders, who had witnessed how this
man came out of the tomb on the fourth day after being buried there.
The scientific evidence was so impressive that in a few centuries the
entire pagan Roman empire collapsed under the weight of what the
wisest men of the time could not deny.
The followers of Jesus were so impressed with these facts that they
were willing to give their lives for this undeniable belief.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 0
Sean Pitman
April 23, 2013 at 6:53 am
Reply
Actually, this does qualify as empirical evidence today – since
these events were so very well documented (to include the fact
that Jesus’ body could not be found by His enemies). The
historical sciences are very very clear in this regard.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 1
Professor Kent
April 20, 2013 at 11:28 am
Reply
This has become a stupid conversation that gets more stupid with each
stupid post. I can’t believe I’m even responding to anyone who claims
they have science to back up their belief in God. Utterly stupid.
(Quote)
Hot debate. What do you think?
3 7
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Nic Samojluk
April 21, 2013 at 6:21 am
Reply
@Kent: “This has become a stupid conversation that gets more
stupid with each stupid post. I can’t believe I’m even responding to
anyone who claims they have science to back up their belief in God.
Utterly stupid.”
Most scientists admit that the universe is fine tuned for life. In
addition, we now have the evidence from DNA which suggests that
billions of sequentially arranged genes could not be tyhe product of
chance and natural selection.
Yet you are saying that there is no scientically based evidence for a
Designer? What is you estimate of the probablillity that the fine tuning
of the univers and the finely arranged
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 1
Nic Samojluk
April 21, 2013 at 6:43 am
Reply
@Kent: “This has become a stupid conversation that gets more
stupid with each stupid post. I can’t believe I’m even responding to
anyone who claims they have science to back up their belief in God.
Utterly stupid.”
Most scientist agree that our universe shows evidence of fine tuning,
and we have the additional evidence from the extremely complex
arrangement of the DNA, and you seem to argue that there is no
evidence for a Designer?
Do you really believe that the information contained in the human
DNA is the result of chance and natural selection? What is the
probability of this having evolved without the intervention of intelligent
activity?
Some years ago, Dr. Collins, the man in charge of the human
genome project, said the following in his speech during a graduation
ceremony at Loma Linda University: I was tempted to read to you the
entire DNA sequence, but I changed my mind when I discovered that
it would take me 32 years of non-stop reading.
And you believe that arguing for the evidence of a Designer is
actually a sign of stupidity? The Bible says: “The fool said in his
heart: There is no God.”
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 1
Sean Pitman
April 21, 2013 at 7:24 am
Reply
How can a fideist argue that anything is “utterly stupid”? based on
what evidence?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 3
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
George Evans
April 22, 2013 at 12:03 am
Reply
@Professor Kent: You said, “I can’t believe I’m even responding to
anyone who claims they have science to back up their belief in God.”
You could believe it if you would accept the empirical evidence of all
the posts with your name on them.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 0
David Read
April 24, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Reply
@Professor Kent: “I can’t believe I’m even responding to anyone who
claims they have science to back up their belief in God. Utterly
stupid.”
Jeff, what makes it even more stupid is that you keep doing it over
and over; this thread is about the 50th time you’ve engaged in this
debate with Sean, even though you know exactly what Sean’s
position is, and it hasn’t changed.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
0 Bob Helm
1
April 20, 2013 at 8:44 pm
Reply
We have more than just the eyewitness accounts. We also have
prophecies that were fulfilled in an amazing way, and the writers of the
New Testament repeatedly appeal to those prophecies. Consider Daniel
9 as one example. This prophecy begins with a beautiful description of
the gospel of free grace in verse 24. Then it goes on to point to the time
of the Messiah’s appearance and death, and it asserts that after these
events, the city of Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed again,
as they were by Nebuchadnezzer. I am aware of the attempts to explain
this prophecy away by trying to fit it to the time of the Maccabees, but
why then does it fit the time of Jesus so beautifully – far better than any
Maccabean fit? This kind of evidence is completely different from the
Mormon “burning in the bosom.”
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Professor Kent
3 1
April 20, 2013 at 11:32 pm
Reply
Sean Pitman: The Biblical account is therefore not on the same level
as a just-so children’s story or moral fable. It has the weight of empirical
evidence to back it up…
It has the weight of your interpretation of evidence–very little of it
“empirical”–to back it up. There’s a big difference, as you well know.
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 4
Sean Pitman
April 21, 2013 at 7:09 am
Reply
Not true. It has a great deal of empirical evidence to back it up –
evidence which has general appeal and which is very difficult to
honestly interpret any other way. Again, we’re not talking about
Nostradamus-like prophecies here. We’re talking about amazingly
specific prophecies and other forms of empirical evidence regarding
the historical accuracy and authenticity of the Biblical accounts.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 3
Professor Kent
April 20, 2013 at 11:38 pm
Reply
Bob Helm: How does the virgin birth defy all evidence known to
science when science has achieved virgin births with clones?
First off, science can’t confirm whether an individual born 2000+ years
ago was conceived without human sperm. Second, naturalistic science
can’t demonstrate parthenogenesis in mammals without supernatural
intercession or the modern technology essential for it to be accomplished
today.
What is wrong with conceding that many claims of scripture can only be
accepted on faith? That science simply cannot examine supernatural
events? What is wrong with you people? Where did your faithophobia
come from? It’s laughable.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 5
Sean Pitman
April 21, 2013 at 7:02 am
Reply
Again, for the umpteenth time, while many Biblical stories cannot be
directly evaluated, they can be rationally supported by evaluating
those elements connected with these stories that can be empirically
evaluated – such as the lives of the disciples who told the stories and
the fact that they put up their own blood as collateral. Also, the
prophecies themselves that refer to these stories can be evaluated
for their own predictive value.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 3
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Bob Helm
April 21, 2013 at 10:50 am
Reply
What is wrong with conceding that many claims of scripture can only
be accepted on faith?
I fully realize that 21st century scientists cannot perform X rays of
Mary’s womb or insert instruments into her womb to determine
exactly what took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Of
course, I accept the virgin birth on faith! My point was that we now
have examples of virgin births occuring as a result of modern
scientific technology, and since science has now produced virgin
births in mammals, if God is real, we have an analogy for how He
could have done the same thing. @Professor Kent:
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 0
Professor Kent
April 20, 2013 at 11:43 pm
Reply
Bob Helm: We have more than just the eyewitness accounts. We also
have prophecies that were fulfilled in an amazing way, and the writers of
the New Testament repeatedly appeal to those prophecies.
I agree, and take solace in this, but for most prophecies only an
interpretation has been fulfilled. Don’t forget that “spiritual things…are
spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:13, 14), not validated by rigor of the
scientific method.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 4
Sean Pitman
April 21, 2013 at 7:07 am
Reply
This isn’t true. If prophecies could be easily interpreted to mean
vastly different things, they wouldn’t be useful as a basis for rational
faith. It is precisely because they are open to the very real possibility
of falsification that they form a very solid evidentiary basis for faith.
Biblical prophecies aren’t like the vague lines of Nostradamus, for
example. If they were, the Bible’s claims to Divine origin would rightly
be suspect.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Sean Pitman
4 3
April 21, 2013 at 7:21 am
Reply
Note also that true science is also “spiritually discerned” as well. All
truth is God’s truth. The ability to think rationally, to think scientifically,
is a gift of God where we think God’s thoughts after Him – as Newton
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
pointed out. Without the guidance of the Spirit of God, valid science
would also be impossible.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 3
Professor Kent
April 20, 2013 at 11:44 pm
Reply
George Evans: I find that hard to believe because the person who
designed it said he did it about 6,000 years ago. And He doesn’t lie.
Show me a quote where God said this.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 5
Sean Pitman
April 21, 2013 at 7:04 am
Reply
You know very well that the Bible is quite clear about the recent
creation of all life on this planet – as is Ellen White. While an exact
date is not given, it is fairly easy to figure out the relative span of
time for the existence of life on this planet.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 2
George Evans
April 22, 2013 at 12:18 am
Reply
@Professor Kent: You asked me to show you where God said He
made everything. From the scientific report of Moses, he made two
tablets of stone and then God engraved them with, among other
things, these words, “For in six days the LORD made the heavens
and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..”
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
0 Professor Kent
0
April 20, 2013 at 11:45 pm
Reply
Bob Helm: I never called anyone angry. I affirm you as my brother in
Christ, even if we don’t always agree!
Thank you, Bob. You’re a gracious soul. (Sean called me angry.)
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 2
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Professor Kent
April 21, 2013 at 7:26 am
Reply
Sean Pitman: It has a great deal of empirical evidence to back it up –
evidence which has general appeal and which is very difficult to honestly
interpret any other way.
So now you’re calling into question the honesty of those who interpret the
evidence differently than you do. Only yo and Adventists who think like
you are honest.
So if the evidence was as straightforward as you insist, and
interpretation is not what matters, why do so many Christians come to
very different conclusions regarding the Bible? We would all agree on the
“weight” of the evidence if we all interpreted it the same. Obviously.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 5
Sean Pitman
April 21, 2013 at 7:28 am
Reply
Many Christians are cultural Christians who were born into the faith
and who haven’t really analyzed the basis for their faith the point of
being willing to put their lives on the line for it. Many Christians
haven’t studied Biblical prophecies in detail. That is why Biblical
prophecies still favor very prominently in Adventist apologetics and
evangelistic campaigns – because of the general rational appeal to
the evident interpretations of these prophecies and how they are
clearly fulfilled by historical events.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 Professor Kent
3
April 21, 2013 at 7:29 am
Reply
Sean Pitman: This isn’t true. If prophecies could be easily interpreted
to mean vastly different things, they wouldn’t be useful as a basis for
rational faith. It is precisely because they are open to the very real
possibility of falsification that they form a very solid evidentiary basis for
faith.
Again, many Christians arrive at different conclusions regarding what is
prophesized. And you think this has nothing to do with different
interpretations? This is in large part why much of the secular world thinks
Christians are nuts who argue endlessly and can’t agree on much of
anything. Get real.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 4
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Sean Pitman
April 21, 2013 at 7:36 am
Reply
It’s no different with science. Many scientists also argue endlessly
over the correct interpretation of the evidence.
I’m just saying that for me it is clear and that many come to other
interpretations because of personal desires or philosophical
motivations – not because of what the evidence is clearly suggesting.
Ultimately, however, each individual must answer for him or herself.
That is why the evidence must be considered on a personal basis.
No one else can answer for you. You must do your own searching
and weighing of the evidence.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 3
Professor Kent
April 21, 2013 at 7:30 am
Reply
I can’t believe I’m responding to someone who thinks evidence, or the
weight of it, is not subject to interpretation.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 5
Sean Pitman
April 21, 2013 at 7:32 am
Reply
I thought I said just the opposite. Science cannot be done without an
interpretation of the evidence. However, without any evidence and
rational argument, there is no science.
The same is true of faith. Faith requires a personal interpretation of
the evidence. However, without even an attempt at a rational
argument based on evidence, a “reason for faith” (1 Peter 3:15),
there is no valid Biblical-style faith. The argument that no such
rational evidence-based argument is needed, is a fideistic position
that is, by definition, a rejection of rationality.
Instead, we are asked to be prepared to give a reason for the hope
that is within us – a reason with general appeal. What reason would
you give for your faith in the Divine origin and credibility of the Bible?
For your faith in the literal creation week or the Virgin Birth or the
Resurrection of Jesus? If you appeal to prophecies or the martyrdom
of the apostles or any other such “reason” are you not basing faith on
rational arguments? If not, if you could get to a point where you say,
“None of it ultimately matters. I have faith regardless of any rational
reason for it.” that’s a problem. That’s a fideistic position that has no
rational basis or appeal.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 3
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Bob Helm
April 21, 2013 at 11:10 am
Reply
In regard to the interpretation of Bible prophecies and scripture in
general, there is something called exegesis, which is intended to produce
the objective meaning of the text. Of course, some pericopes of scripture
are difficult to exegete, and the process of exegesis is not always 100%
accurate. But in the case of Daniel 9, you have a prophecy that points to
the time for the Messiah’s appearance and death, and then goes on to
predict the abomination of desolation and the destruction of Jerusalem
and the temple. The fact that these events really did occur at the
specified time and in the order that was predicted strongly affirms the
Messianic interpretation of Daniel 9 as valid exegesis. To think that these
events fell into place chronologically by chance does not seem possible.
The prophecy is simply too specific for a chance fulfillment. It does not
have a wax nose! So I have to conclude that while there is no absolute
proof for the Christian Faith (as in mathematical proof), there is strong
evidence to back up Jesus’ claims. Sir Isaac Newton saw this plainly
when he called Daniel 9 the cornerstone of the Christian faith. Again – I
am glad to acknowledge someone who holds to a fideistic position as a
brother in Christ, but this position has more in common with the
Enlightenment and Barthian Neo-Orthodoxy (which speaks of faith as a
blind leap in the dark) than with true New Testament evangelical faith.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
PhilCromwell
4 0
April 21, 2013 at 3:57 pm
Reply
@Bob Helm:
You will obviously have a better understanding than me but I thought
that the Barthian neo-orthodoxy and fundamentalism were really both
derivative of the enlightenment. My understanding was that higher
criticism which was the enlightenment approach to scriptures led to a
reaction with an emphasis on the fundamentals of Christian faith, a
high view of scripture and a characterization of higher criticism as
illegitate approach since scripture was beyond “scientific”
investigation. In contrast neo-orthodoxy responded to the
enlightenment by recognizing the legitimacy and findings of higher
criticism but maintaining that Christian faith and the revelation of God
does not come through scientific understanding or investigation but
through a direct revelation from God or as you characterize it a leap
of Faith.
Some in Adventism (including for example George Reid ) may not
think we fit comfortably with fundamentalism particularly the
foundational belief concerning scripture
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is
divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually
true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only
in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its
authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but
includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
That is how Creation Ministries International phrase it. I do think that
summarizes our belief as historical Adventists and as it is enshrined
in our fundamental beliefs on inspiration of scripture. It is from that
position that we must address questions on origins as Sean has done
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
so well.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
2 0
Nic Samojluk
April 21, 2013 at 6:50 pm
Reply
@Bob: “But in the case of Daniel 9, you have a prophecy that points
to the time for the Messiah’s appearance and death, and then goes
on to predict the abomination of desolation and the destruction of
Jerusalem and the temple.
The fact that these events really did occur at the specified time and
in the order that was predicted strongly affirms the Messianic
interpretation of Daniel 9 as valid exegesis. To think that these events
fell into place chronologically by chance does not seem possible. The
prophecy is simply too specific for a chance fulfillment. It does not
have a wax nose!”
Thanks for reminding us about this incredibly accurate prediction.
This could have been falsified if the events had not take place as
predicted.
Predictive prophecy id indeed the cornerstone of the Christian faith.
Christians have a big advantage over doubters. The Bible talks with
authority about the past, the present, and the future.
There is much fanfare about the predictive power of the theory of
evolution. This power is a pigmy when compared with what the Bible
has to offer.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 George
1
April 21, 2013 at 12:25 pm
Reply
“Not when the historical evidence shows that all of the disciples of Jesus
put their lives on the line for the story they told. Some vague warm fuzzy
feeling isn’t going to do that when it comes to a story that someone
knows isn’t true…”
Well pahdner Sean,
That must mean that all those jihadists that blow themelves up because
they know they are going to see their God are right as well. Are you
saying matrydom is proof of the witnessing of divinity?. If so, my
empirically minded friend, it seems there may be a lot of evidence for
polytheism.
In my very long life i’ve heard, seen and read about a lot of fellers, and a
few gals, sayiing they are in touch with God or are appointed ones. What
kind of empirical test would you suggest to seperate the wheat from the
chaff?. I’m afraid if is based on eye witness accounts of fellers with a
vested interest in the outcome, albeit martyrdom, you may have some
genuine competition as to who wears divine robes.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
5 3
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Sean Pitman
April 21, 2013 at 1:34 pm
Reply
Lots of people die for all kinds of reasons. However, not very many
die for a story that they themselves know for sure isn’t true –
especially when they’re a bunch of normal chicken-hearted guys to
begin with. The martyrdom of the disciples testifies to the fact that
they really did believe what they were saying about Jesus.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 3
George Evans
April 22, 2013 at 12:33 am
Reply
@Sean Pitman: In other words we can be pretty darn sure none
of the disciples found Jesus body in a tomb.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 0
Sean Pitman
April 23, 2013 at 11:52 am
Reply
I think that’s pretty clear from the evidence in hand…
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Nic Samojluk
3 0
April 22, 2013 at 12:40 pm
Reply
@George: “What kind of empirical test would you suggest to separate
the wheat from the chaff?.”
Since you already believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus, you
have no need to perform any empirical tests!
Now, for those who do not share this belief in a live Jesus Christ, all
you need to offer this person is the evidence from both history and
the record of those witnesses who saw him following his resurrection.
Said unbeliever will have to decide on the basis of the historical
evidence. This is what historians do when dealing with historical
events.
Weighing the historical evidence is totally different from a blind faith
based on someone’s claim.
True faith is based on evidence. Those who rejected Jesus and
crucified him did in spite of the evidence provided to them by Jesus
Christ.
When Jesus began his ministry, he did not say: “I am the Messiah.
You have to believe what I say because I God.”
He rather demonstrated his power over nature and over death. Those
who accepted him acted on the basis of verifiable evidence.
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 3
Professor Kent
April 21, 2013 at 5:34 pm
Reply
Sean Pitman: Note also that true science is also “spiritually discerned”
as well. All truth is God’s truth. The ability to think rationally, to think
scientifically, is a gift of God where we think God’s thoughts after Him –
as Newton pointed out. Without the guidance of the Spirit of God, valid
science would also be impossible.
This is as fideist an argument as one can profer.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 4
Sean Pitman
April 23, 2013 at 6:48 am
Reply
Hardly. Once one realizes that the evidence points toward the
existence of a personal God, it isn’t much of a leap of logic to
conclude that God designed us to find Him – that He is the source of
all of our abilities – to include our ability to reason from cause to
effect and from effect to likely cause.
Compare this to the fideist position that proposes that God does not
want us to use our God-given abilities to think and reason as a basis
for finding Him or discovering His Word… that human reason is
always suspect and is always trumped by a form of faith that requires
no rational support or empirical evidence.
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 Professor Kent
3
April 21, 2013 at 5:36 pm
Reply
George: In my very long life i’ve heard, seen and read about a lot of
fellers, and a few gals, sayiing they are in touch with God or are
appointed ones. What kind of empirical test would you suggest to
seperate the wheat from the chaff?. I’m afraid if is based on eye witness
accounts of fellers with a vested interest in the outcome, albeit
martyrdom, you may have some genuine competition as to who wears
divine robes.
To Sean, virtually anything can be empirical evidence.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
4 2
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Sean Pitman
April 23, 2013 at 6:51 am
Reply
That’s right. Anything that exists outside of one’s own imaginations,
that really exists or existed in the physical world, can be used as
empirical evidence for or against the validity of a particular
hypothesis…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 Professor Kent
3
April 21, 2013 at 6:01 pm
Reply
Sean Pitman:
Did the disciples in fact put their lives on the line for their story? That
question is potentially falsifiable. Did the enemies of Jesus even try to
counter the claim that Jesus’ tomb was empty? That also is a potentially
falsifiable claim. That is empirical evidence.
Martyrs are well documented among Christianity, Islam, Judaism,
Hinduism, Bahai faith, Sikhism, and other faiths. Looks like “empirical
evidence” demonstrates that all of these faiths are valid. Further, absence
of evidence hardly qualifies as falsifiable evidence for how authorities
reacted to the empty tomb. You can’t assume that everything they said
and did was recorded. The bottom line: we can’t replay these events to
find out for sure what happened and what did not happen.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Sean Pitman
3 3
April 23, 2013 at 6:43 am
Reply
Martyrs are well documented for many faiths and creeds. However,
they have something in common – almost none of them were willing
to die for something they knew was a lie.
Beyond this, God allows his children to be martyred precisely
because of such evidence. That is why the 2nd-century Church
Father Tertullian wrote that, “the blood of martyrs is the seed of the
Church,” implying, of course, that the martyrs’ willing sacrifice of their
lives leads to the conversion of others.
We can be more sure of the life and death of Jesus than pretty much
any other historical figure. The events are very well documented by
ancient texts. So much so that if you do not believe the evidence for
Jesus credible, then you really cannot think much of the historical
sciences in general.
Of course, you seem to equate science with the production of some
kind of absolute form of evidence or demonstration. You forget that
science is not needed when such demonstrations, such as an ability
to replay the actual events, is in hand. Science only becomes useful
when there is less than complete information in hand. Science, like
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Biblical faith, is based on the weight of evidence, not demonstration.
That is why, in science, as in real faith, there is always the possibility
of being wrong…
Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 Bob Helm
3
April 21, 2013 at 8:00 pm
Reply
There’s something else to consider regarding the resurrection of Jesus
Christ. Obviously, His enemies knew where He was buried. So all they
had to do to refute the good news and stop Christianity dead in its tracks
was to produce His corpse. That would seemingly not be a difficult thing
to do, and since the high priest Caiaphas, who condemned Jesus to
death, was a Sadducee who had a vested interest in denying the
resurrection, I’m sure he would have loved to produce Jesus’ dead body.
But he never did! In fact, it is ironic that Caiaphas’ ossuary, which
contained his bones, was discovered in Jerusalem in 1990. So the bones
of the high priest who condemned Jesus to death have been discovered.
But Jesus’ bones have never been discovered! Now when you couple
data like that with Old Testament prophecies like Daniel 9 finding their
focus in Jesus, the evidence for Christianity truly becomes overwhelming.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 2
Professor Kent
April 23, 2013 at 8:20 pm
Reply
Sean Pitman: Martyrs are well documented for many faiths and
creeds. However, they have something in common – almost none of
them were willing to die for something they knew was a lie.
Yes, they died because they sincerely believed in their religious views.
Their decision to die not based on the objective “weight” of the evidence,
but on their interpretation of it. With martyrs from so many faiths, the
majority of them were obviously wrong. Thus, if you want to use
martyrdom as “evidence,” you must assume that their interpretation of it
was correct.
QUESTION: What is more stupid than taking a bullet for wrong beliefs?
ANSWER: Taking a bullet for believing in someone who had wrong
beliefs.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Sean Pitman
1 2
April 24, 2013 at 7:28 am
Reply
The evidence of martyrdom is in support of the concept that the
disciples weren’t lying. They weren’t making up the story of what they
said they saw. People do not put their lives on the line for what they
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
know, for a fact, is false. People may be tricked into strongly
believing something false, and putting their lives on the line for it.
However, people almost never put their lives on the line for what they
themselves know, for sure, is a lie.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 1
George Evans
April 24, 2013 at 5:42 pm
Reply
@Professor Kent: I think you are purposely being obstinate. Would
you expect 12 people to dedicate their lives to a leader who said he
would resurrect himself in three days, when they saw his dead body
still in the grave? In other words, if he failed?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 1
Professor Kent
April 23, 2013 at 8:27 pm
Reply
Bob Helm: There’s something else to consider regarding the
resurrection of Jesus Christ. Obviously, His enemies knew where He was
buried. So all they had to do to refute the good news and stop
Christianity dead in its tracks was to produce His corpse.
How do you falsify one alternative hypothesis: that the disciples stole and
disposed of His body? There are other alternative hypotheses as well.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 2
Sean Pitman
April 24, 2013 at 7:25 am
Reply
These “alternatives”, such as the one originally proposed by the
Priests that the disciples “stole” his body as all the Roman guards
slept, are so ludicrous as to only be believed by those desperate for
Jesus to still be dead – not by those rationally considering the weight
of evidence and the likelihoods of the various stories presented.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
George Evans
4 1
April 24, 2013 at 5:53 pm
Reply
@Professor Kent: You asked, “How do you falsify one alternative
hypothesis: that the disciples stole and disposed of His body?”
Roman honor is at stake. You would have to believe that the Romans
didn’t know how to guard a tomb or do a search for evidence.
(Quote)
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
Like or Dislike:
1 1
George
April 23, 2013 at 8:35 pm
Reply
“His enemies knew where He was buried.”
As did his disciples; the problem with the double edged sword of
supposition is it cuts both ways.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 2
Professor Kent
April 23, 2013 at 8:36 pm
Reply
Sean Pitman: There are many examples of people being lead to God
through the study of nature and the discovery of the Divine signature in
various features of nature…
And vastly more examples of people who rejected God because of the
way they were mistreated by others. Not that any of you care enough to
redirect your energy.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 4
Todd
April 24, 2013 at 2:29 am
Reply
Sooo…what ever happened to Dr. Gary Gilbert? Now that science has
shed some light on the misunderstanding that led him to renounce
Christianity, has he again become a Bible-believing Christian and
embraced God as Creator?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Professor Kent
1 0
April 24, 2013 at 7:31 am
Reply
Todd: Sooo…what ever happened to Dr. Gary Gilbert?
Dr. Gilbert apparently did the commendable thing. He looked at the data,
weighed the evidence, and thought the weight of empirical evidence
refuted scripture. He chose to follow the evidence rather than scripture.
Ironically, this very approach–testing scripture against evidence–is
allegedly what the LSU Religion and Biology people do, which really,
really ticks off readers at this website. And this is exactly what Sean
Pitman advocates as well, and when someone objects, it really, really
ticks off readers at this website.
I, too, wonder if Dr. Gilbert would change his mind. My thought: people
were elated if he took his disbelief with him and left the church, and few if
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
any cared enough for his soul to win him back to Christ. (Someone likely
tried to win him back to creationism–that’s the higher priority, it seems.)
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 5
Nic Samojluk
April 24, 2013 at 9:31 am
Reply
@Kent: “Ironically, this very approach–testing scripture against
evidence–is allegedly what the LSU Religion and Biology people do,
which really, really ticks off readers at this website.”
There is a fundamental difference between what LSU did and what
Pitman is doing. When I talked to one of science professors at the
height of the controversy, I asked him why he did not present both
sides of this issue, and this is what said:
“I was hired to teach science—not religion.” He felt no need to
consider all the evidence. In contrast, Pitman has been looking at all
the evidence—both pro and con.
If you dismiss evidence favoring intelligent design, there is no way for
you to arrive at truth.
Evolutionists will not admit any evidence contrary to their a priory
position stating that there is no such thing as intervention into the
natural movement of events.
They are set in their goal of keeping the door closed to any divine
activity in nature.
If a researcher starts with the conviction that there is no such thing as
a designer, then he will dismiss all evidence to the contrary.
Closing the door to evidence contrary to one’s set position is a
violation of true scientific inquiry.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
1 Professor Kent
0
April 24, 2013 at 7:40 am
Reply
Sean Pitman: ludicrous as to only be believed by those desperate for
Jesus to still be dead – not by those rationally considering the weight of
evidence and the likelihoods of the various stories presented.
You seem to have a strong opinion. I know a lot of other rational people
who think your opinion is ludicrous. Funny how different people look at
the very same evidence and reach completely different opinions. How
can that be when the “weight of evidence” can only go one direction?
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
Sean Pitman
0 3
April 24, 2013 at 7:51 am
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Reply
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes | Educate Truth
The “weight of evidence” is determined individually according to
individual backgrounds and experiences.
(Quote)
Like or Dislike:
3 0
Leave a Reply
Name (required)
Email (required)
Website (optional)
Submit Comment
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
© 2013 Educate Truth. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/gary-gilbert-spectrum-and-pseudogenes/[4/25/2013 12:35:47 PM]
Powered by WordPress. Designed by