I hardly call an article and some responses to it from back in 2014 covering the topic for some time. More like, it has been some time since the topic was covered. Ice core biology has progressed considerably since 2014. I remember some of the objections from back then, and they have all been adequately addressed since then to where records reaching back several 100s of thousands of years is now considered very dependable.
I also notice that these articles are rather short on quality references, or where quality references are used, the objections are pushed much farther than is appropriate given what the sources themselves actually say. The deficiencies are especially glaring in Ice Cores and the Flood: A Response to Brian Bull where the primary “scientific” challenges come yet again from an ICR source. And as for the lost squadron, this reference (http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl.htm) hardly qualifies as a scientific challenge. It is simply an eyewitness account by a non-scientist. Again, I am not a trained glaciologist either, but even I know that annual layers of snow can be many meters thick near the surface if a glacier, and are no indication of the thickness of layers deeper down. Due to the increasing weight pushing down from above, annual snowfall layers deeper in a glacier get compressed into varves that may be only a few mm thick. What may seem like a lot of accumulation in the short term shows as not much when looking at older and deeper varves.
In my experience fundamentalist arguments only allow for one “quality reference”, or in the case some sects, two-e.g., Joe Smith for Mormons, Mary Baker Eddy for Scientologists, EGW for Adventists, etc.-and in order to be considered “true science” any other theory or explanation must comport with those sources.
The fallacious reasoning behind this “thinking” is beneath discussion as it is essentially unreasonable and magical in nature.
That said, modern science starts from a similar but equally flawed premise, i.e., that the five human senses along with human logical sense are adequate tools for understanding the universe in which we live. Given the known, and possibly unknown, limitations of these faculties, there is no reason to accept this first principle any more than we should accept the Biblical claim that everything the Bible says is god’s honest truth.
So in either case, it seems we have little recourse other than to retreat into subjectivity when dealing with life’s big mysteries and to do what feels and seems best, both emotionally and spiritually. Which ultimately leads to trying irrational but nonetheless appealing statements like “Treat your neighbor as you’d like to be treated,” “Become as lilies in the field”, and “The meek shall inherit the earth.”
Of course, fundamentalist Christians will insist this “way that seems right to a man” is wrong just as science, which cannot account for emotions, will predictably claim that this approach is overly emotional. But both of those arguments are self refuting so in the end it seems we are best served when we go with our guts rather than looking to science or religion for answers to metaphysical questions.
Even if we agree on these qualities — i.e., there was no death, suffering, sin in Eden — I don’t see how this makes it perfect.
First of all, the Bible doesn’t say it was perfect. So, I fail to understand SDAs clinging to this adjective; this from a people who claim to uphold the Bible in what it says textually.
I’m not speaking of you, here: At the beginning of this quarter, at the Sabbath School I was attending, I had a number of members say I was wrong, and that God had made a perfect world.
I’d made my point, already — The Bible doesn’t say this — so I found no need, at that moment, to re-state it…though, now, perhaps, I wish I had, if only in the spirit of completion.
Second, Eden had a tree in the middle of it where Satan had direct, physical access to the two humans. How could this be “perfect”? This is something akin to an island paradise with an open sewer at its center. On what basis would one call that “perfect”?
Third, how can beings who can sin be considered “perfect”? With what definition of perfect are people working when they say Adam & Eve were made “perfect”?
It doesn’t logically infer this, at all.
We have no evidence that Eden’s conditions were planetary. We have no data on how the rest of the Earth was structured, set, or organized.
I think we are in agreement, here.
The Bible doesn’t describe Heaven as “perfect.” So, in my opinion, to do so is to make an extrapolation.
Further, as I said, Heaven has suffered a war. How can a place where warfare has taken place be “perfect”?
Heaven is a place where its newest arrivals will need to be healed. How can a place whose population needs healing be “perfect”?
Heaven is also a place where judgment will take place. I need someone to tell me how a place with an open, thorough judgment process involving unhealed people can be “perfect.”
What we’re left with is the individual initiative of members who are passionate about the subject — like you — but not a solvent denominational position. Ted Wilson calling SDAs to look for the old prophetic waymarks is not a scientific response. If this is the best SDAs can do, evolution has clearly won the argument.
If the people who hypothesize on the origin of the universe, the earth, and life based on macro evolution are only scientists “so-called,” then it seems we have to accept the remarkable proposition, based on your text, that scientists in these fields do not exist…and science in these fields doesn’t either.
• There isn’t a single scientific theory that takes a position on Psalm 14:1.
• There isn’t a single Bible-believing Christian who has yet formulated a way to quantize “GOD,” for the purposes of a formula or similar scientific proposition.
Until one does, they, like the scientists you seem to deride, are leaving God out of science, also.
Your “it” appears to refer to a literal 6-day creation. However, no, that’s actually not the primary reason, if you read the three versions of the 10 commandments carefully. It’s one reason, and a somewhat flimsy one at that, given the context of when the Sabbath was given & based study of the ancient manuscripts of Genesis and Exodus.
First, notably, the original text of Genesis doesn’t say God rested and doesn’t mention the sabbath or making it “holy”. From The Mechanical Translation Project (highly recommended!), a very literal/direct translation reads:
“and the skies and the land and all of their armies were finished, and Elohiym finished in the seventh day his business which he did, and he ceased in the seventh day from all his business which he did, and Elohiym exalted the seventh day and he set him apart, given that in him he ceased from all of his business which Elohiym shaped to make.” - Gen 2:1-3
“Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.”
1- The italicized text, which you’re probably referring to, is not in the oldest manuscripts and appears to have been added later by the editor/redactor who assembled the Pentateuch - around the same time that Genesis 1 was added to the beginning of Genesis. It’s a later addition.
2- Adventists don’t follow the commandment as written. We do perform work. We do make many exceptions for working, such as ministers and medical staff - when no such allowances were given in the commandment. We make no effort to stop those who serve us from working and we certainly don’t try to stop others in our towns from working. Our Sabbath is as a day of worship, which isn’t found anywhere in the Law. We’re clearly supposed to be resting, not worshiping.
“Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even in plowing time and in harvest time you shall rest.”
1- No reason for the sabbath is given in this revised version of the commandments, said to be written on the second set of tablets.
2- Again, the Sabbath is for rest - not worship, and we routinely make many exceptions to that rest. Here that rest requirement is emphasized by siting some of the most important work that was done, growing crops. So, even if the Sabbath rest caused crops to be diminished or to fail, perhaps leading to starvation, you still had to rest. No exceptions.
“Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.”
1- As with Exodus 20, we ignore much of the command as we don’t make any effort to keep those that serve us or others in our towns from working. We’re more than happy to let them work away.
2- Deuteronomy - the last version of the commandments written - gets to the real reason the Sabbath was given to the ex-slaves: Remember you were a slaves [where you had no rest]… therefore the Lord your God [who released you from that slavery] commanded you to keep the sabbath day [the gift of rest].
Every time the way to keep the sabbath holy is mentioned, that way is to rest. Not worship. And yet, Adventists focus on worship and make many exceptions to rest.
In the New Testament, every time the authorities harassed Jesus regarding keeping the Sabbath properly, they accused him of working. They didn’t accuse him of failing to worship or of worshiping wrong. And, indeed, those stories don’t suggest he or his disciples were worshiping at all on the Sabbath.
Our pastors’ biggest day of labor is on the Sabbath. As a result, one of my previous SDA pastors decided to make Sunday his rest day and also went to church down the street, I think at the Presbyterian church. If he hadn’t done this, he told me, he’d have been working 7 days a week, which many of our pastors do.
Somewhat ironically, if we were to keep the Sabbath according to a more literal reading of the commandments, we’d rest and play on the Sabbath and then (though the bible never states that we should worship every week), perhaps gather at church on Sunday. Any day would work for worship (or every day), as there’s no command to worship on a given day, but Sunday probably makes the most sense since it’s the other weekend day - when fewer people work.
the authors’ premise is that billions of yrs existed between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, what they call a “gap” period between primeval planet formation and the actual week of Creation, which they place at several possible positions after 11,700 yrs ago (they believe God directed this primeval planet formation just as surely as he directed events within Creation week)…notable positions they take is that theistic evolution is corrupt, YEC is error-filled, and Noah’s Flood never happened…they base these views and positions on their take on ice core science…in effect they represent Evolution Light…their copious use of the bible and egw is presumably designed to appeal to fundamentalist adventists…
i would say we’re due for another ice core article here on Spectrum fairly soon, give that it’s something that’s discussed somewhat regularly in Spectrum’s comment section…i can’t say for sure, but it does seem as though Spectrum’s comment section drives Spectrum articles, at least to some extent…i do see Spectrum’s coverage of ice cores, and other earth origin subjects, as ongoing (although Rich Hannon seems to be writing less and less)…
keep in mind, Creation Science - ICR, AiG, etc - cannot possibly be expected to agree with evolution…but this doesn’t mean their science is invalid…Creation Scientists are trained scientists…their premises and methods are scientific…the issue is that their catastrophic take, including their view of Noah’s Flood, is in stark contrast with the deep time uniformitarianism of evolution…there’s no point in using evolution to evaluate Creation Science, or vice versa…they cannot be expected to overlap in anything except the conclusion that life exists at this moment…
I remember that article, but it seems odd you would refer me to it, as it runs counter to the arguments you have been making. Most notably see this quote:
Because ice cores establish an age for the Earth very much greater than six to 10 thousand years, young earth creationists (YEC’s) endeavor to cast doubt on this science and resort to misquotation and selective quotation of science articles. and  YEC continue to present discredited evidence purported to invalidate ice core science, notably the depth of ice covering abandoned WW2 planes in Greenland. Repeatedly, this YEC reasoning has been exposed as error.,, and  Another YEC proposal is that the ice core layers observed are event layers (caused by storms and climatic events) and not annual layers, and, in an attempt to establish this, work by ice pioneers was misquoted (see ref. 17). These pioneers considered the above question very carefully and based on observations concluded storms and weather events did not affect chronology. The extreme regularity of new layer formation appears to exclude such variable events as agents of layer development.
Otherwise the article is interesting, not least because t actually takes the chronology of the ice varves seriously.
Well, if the flood never happened, then where did the fossils come from (not that there is a plausible model for how the fossil record could be laid down by the flood)? The fossil record is the elephant in the room for YEC and even OEC (old earth creation) models (including the gap model proposed by the article you mention). Even if you want to argue that the standard evolutionary/geologic models don’t cut it, what is the alternative? There’s the rub.
I see no need to use one to critique the other. Forget standard theory. I am waiting for those who accept a YEC model to explain how the fossil record was formed. That shouldn’t be too much to ask. And don’t just say the flood is responsible. If the answer is the flood, then there needs to be a plausible model based on the flood that would produce a highly ordered fossil record. It would need to explain many, many things that currently make no sense from a flood model. A few examples include:
Why are human fossils never found in the same strata as dinosaur fossils (or with trilobites, for that matter)?
Why do trilobite fossils never appear in the same strata as dinosaurs or mammals?
Why are flowering plant fossils, including pollen, never found below the Cretaceous, but are found in all strata from the Cretaceous to the present?
Why are mammals never found below the Mesozoic, but are found in all parts of the middle Mesozoic to the present?
Why do some dinosaur bones that have been found with soft tissue in them not also have DNA, if they were supposedly buried just 4,500 years ago in the flood, which is recent enough for the DNA to be enough in tact to sequence? A related question, since if the flood is when the fossils were laid down, which is so recent, why is DNA not salvageable from many more fossils?
And these questions are just the tip of the iceberg…
Revelation chapter 4 gives us the primary reason why all mankind worship God: “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” The fact that God delivered the Israelites from Egyptian bondage is an added reason why they should keep the Sabbath holy but does not negate the initial and primary reason given for all mankind.
Jesus made it clear that some work on the Sabbath is necessary; this includes work to relieve suffering and to sustain life.
Is it too much to ask that both science and religion admit that their arguments are based on limited facts and faith-based assumptions?
In which case, isn’t it safest to suspect that both are probably right on some stuff and absolutely wrong in other areas?
Perhaps more importantly, will there ever be a consensus view on the precise description of the creation process or an irrefutably “correct” perspective on how we should view our creator, given that, to date, neither science or religion has provided a DIY-er’s manual for breathing consciousness into supposedly lifeless master?
If we say and believe, “Yes, further along we’ll know all about it!”, it necessarily follows that those answers will not come from any party currently claiming to have the absolute “best and final” opinion in these matters or from anyone who’s not trying to find better solutions.
Multiple people have tried to point out the fallacious nature of your arguments.
Do you think repeating that error will make you seem smarter or that making the same mistake over and over will somehow convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with your “logic” to change their minds?
Do you disagree with the definition of insanity which says it is a psychosis to repeatedly do the same thing and expect different results?
I don’t recall having any communication with you regarding the Sabbath. Also, the fact that others have used the same argument that I am now using to defend the reason for keeping the Sabbath day holy is not a good reason why I should not use it. I respect your right to believe whatever you choose to believe. God does the same thing. Unfortunately it comes with a great price according to 2 Thessalonians chapter 2: “…because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.”
Shouldn’t this give one pause; the god they believe in is said to make people delusional and to believe falsehood? This sounds like a god created in the image of Goebbels. Reading the Bible carefully and without faith blinders is the best argument against its validity.
i’m not saying i agree with the article…my point was that ice core science, and other earth origins themes, has been a recurring feature here on Spectrum, which you seemed to be questioning…and as i’m thinking about it, even more previous articles occur to me (these aren’t ice core articles, per se, but part 2 does touch on it), and there may be others:
one of the criticisms that adventists i know have of Spectrum is that it airs articles that question Creation, as we understand it (the other major criticism i hear is its pro-LGBT stance)…my view, and i think Spectrum’s view, is that it’s good to question and examine things…after-all, we may very well live to see persecution and even martyrdom for our faith, and i, for one, want to be sure i know what i believe…
i think Creation Science does a good job with explaining the fossil record…the Snelling video in the following link is especially common sense, and clear (i tend to suspect it may be plagiarizing parts of Patriarchs and Prophets):
but other sites are also direct and understandable:
the reason why i’m so big on Creation Science is not necessarily because i think it has all the answers…i don’t think it does…but i do think its premise, that the biblical record represents the truth about our world, is correct…i think it’s only a matter of time, and funding, before it supplies a fuller answer…
evolution, on the other hand, is wholly off in my view…but given its erroneous deep time uniformitarian premise, i think it’s doing the best it can…i do expect that, given time, it will be constrained to accept more and more of what Creation Science is seeing…after-all, nature is also a record of truth…for instance, there was a time when the main theory for the cause of dinosaur extinction was a freak meteor strike, or even a climate change crisis…but more recently i’ve been seeing explanations that seem to see a flood, or some kind of violent deluge…and look at all the missing link hoaxes that are now acknowledged to be frauds and forgeries - Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, Ramapithecus, etc…
i do think there are evolutionists with integrity…they’re like lost souls in the Sunday churches…they’re doing the best they can with what they have…
well i doubt Creation Science is ever going to qualify for government funding, as long as evolutionists are defining what science is, and what it isn’t…look again at the cancel culture going on, already cited:
but the battle between evolution and creation isn’t new…here’s more:
honestly, the whole situation of censorship of Creation Science, or Intelligent Design, is now a cottage industry, so much so that the Discovery Institute issues a “Censor of the Year” award each Darwin Day (Darwin’s birthday of Feb 12) to the entity deemed to censor Creation Science the most thoroughly for that year…
but Creation Science is obviously appealing to the public who are sending in troves of donations…biblical Creation isn’t just an adventist tenet…basically all christians all over the world accept it, and are thrilled to support anything that appears to demonstrate and prove it…
i really think evolution is fighting a hopeless P.R. battle…if it were me, i’d invite them into the fold, along with their massive amounts of public support and donations…
Right! All of science is bent on correcting religions that believe correctly - based on the science textbook called the Holy Bible - that earth is about 6,000 years old. It’s the most important thing they do. They’re so bent on doing this they they’re all in cahoots - tens of thousands of them from all around the world - carefully working together to craft the biggest lie ever. Just to mess with young-earthers, 'cause you know, it’s fun.
That, along with insisting the world is round when the bible clearly says it’s flat and unmovable. Obviously.
I have a post that is about a week old “Awaiting Approval”. I suspect the problem is ithat it does mention transgender issues, thoush that is not the issue addressed. I wonder what the hold up is? If you are going to delete it, go ahead. I will not. Or let it stand. I don’t understand why you are doing this. Please explain.