Is The General Conference Afraid Of Blacksda? Options

[Artiste]

The OP made this comment.....
Since it has been decided that we are sticking with the name BlackSDA, is the question above still relevant?

please stay on topic... thank you.....

Since the question "Does the General Conference have some reason to want to suppress this information?" refers to information on 3ABN issues, yes, the question is still relevant.

The question did not ask whether BlackSDA was going to change its name or not.


**********************************************************************

[SoulEspresso]

Unless we have an insider at the GC, is there any way to know?

I've noticed they've said as little as possible about this whole issue.

The worst of it, as far as the GC goes, was the blackmailing financial arm-twisting of the president ... but that cat's already out of the bag and has been for months.

(edited for more accurate language)

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Aug 29 2007, 07:58 AM

[Artiste]

Unless we have an insider at the GC, is there any way to know?

I've noticed they've said as little as possible about this whole issue.

The worst of it, as far as the GC goes, was the blackmailing of the president ... but that cat's already out of the bag and has been for months.

It's true that we can't know anything definite without insider's comments, but my question was based on the fact that they seemed to be making requirements of BlackSDA that weren't made for other online discussion forums.

We were informed by Observer that MSDAOL and CA were also asked to apply for licenses and that MSDAOL received one, but MSDAOL has a paypal donate button, which Ms. Parker said was unacceptable, as well a banner ad for the Pickle/Joy fund.

And then BlackSDA was specifically asked to change its name, which as I pointed out earlier, would make it more difficult to get 3ABN information from search engines.

Gailon Joy mentioned in his letter quoted in the thread topic by that name that a GC Vice-President called him and requested that the investigation not harm the cause of SDA ministry. I feel that the GC is lying low and hoping that this situation will somehow resolve itself without further distressing effects on the church.

Can't say that I like that possibility ... and come to think of it, why would the Vice-President think it was the investigation that would be the cause for harm to the church rather than the fact of the church's leadership having such a close relationship with 3ABN and then not doing anything to let the constituency know about 3ABN problems. The GC has known about those problems for the last two years.


********************************************************

This post has been edited by Artiste: Aug 29 2007, 01:23 AM

[Pickle]

For what it's worth:

Regarding Catholic views on salvation, Conway's Question Box denies that Jesus died in our place for our sins. It denies the subsitutionary atonement. Rather, it says that Jesus' death opens up for us a way to pay for our sins that we wouldn't have otherwise.

Regarding ice cores and the like, Pb and He retention rates in zircons taken from alleged 1.5 billion-year-old granite samples from deep wells near Los Alamos indicate that those rocks are only thousands of years old. If the ice core data cannot fit into that framework, another interpretation of that data is in order.

[PeacefulBe]

For what it's worth:

Regarding Catholic views on salvation, Conway's Question Box denies that Jesus died in our place for our sins. It denies the subsitutionary atonement. Rather, it says that Jesus' death opens up for us a way to pay for our sins that we wouldn't have otherwise.

Regarding ice cores and the like, Pb and He retention rates in zircons taken from alleged 1.5 billion-year-old granite samples from deep wells near Los Alamos indicate that those rocks are only thousands of years old. If the ice core data cannot fit into that framework, another interpretation of that data is in order.

Do you suppose the "world" was here before He created life on it? That will be an interesting question to get an answer for from our Creator when we can hear it directly from Him. Until then, perhaps getting to know Him here the best we can with the resources He has provided so He can lead us into faith seems like a good course of action.

What science knows of the physical world is ever-evolving. Sometimes another interpretation of data is, indeed, necessary.

Having faith and trust in an unchanging God, however, is always safe.

[LaurenceD]

I'd like to see 3abn, or the Hope Channel, broadcast an intellectually honest debate over whether the SDA church--as a whole--more resembles the RCC or Galelio. Remember, the church considered his telescope an instrument of the devil much the same way Henke considers Humphrys "miracles" explanations inadequate (re helium-zircon at Los Alamos).

So, anyone still open to Present Truth, about the age of the earth could either wade through the controversial "Spat of Minutia" vs. "Gaps of the Gods" to reach a decision...

Henke's questions Humphrys can't answer http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/appendixd.html

vs.

Humphrys crticism of Henke http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

...or one could simply count the annual growth rings in ice cores, or even our oldest trees (like Methuselah), and reach a far less debatable conclusion. Did God have mountains miraculously spew ash into the atmosphere 7600 years ago when Mount Mazama (Crater Lake in Oregon) erupted? Out of the last 100,000 years, Christian scientists have explained that God created the first 94,00 layers of ice by speaking them into existence, and the last 6,000 are natural, but why would he fake Mt Mazama's eruption by placing it's ash in the ice 7600 layers down??? Or Tm. Toba's eruption 73,000 years ago in Indonesia???

Snowfall in Greenland, that very year Mazana erupted, captured the very distinguishable ash in that year's snowfall--which melted into one of the hundreds of thousands of annual growth rings in the ice. An unmistakable dating method. And there are numerous volanoes within the last 2,000 years, that we can verify with history, that pinpoint the ice core data to those exact historical years. Historians account of Mt Vesuvious eruption of AD 79 can be verified through the ice cores, for example.

Amazing that we now have an undebatable scientific method to verify historians, and even religious writings. I personlly don't use the method of reaching a conlusion first, then finding a study that will support it. Openness does not allow it. And that's where Galelio's method differed from the church. He was willing to acknowledge something that was repeatedly and demonstrably irrefutable.

But, I doubt you'd ever see anything but a one-sided presentation of this on 3abn. I've seen similar things.

[Pickle]

Do you suppose the "world" was here before He created life on it?

Hard, solid scientific evidence suggests that it was not around for millions of years prior to creation week.

Besides the He and Pb retention experiments, we have other things that have a bearing on the age of the earth, such as the U-238/Pb-206 ratios in U-238 halos in coalified wood from Devonian, Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene strata that indicate that those strata are all the same age, and that they are but thousands of years old. Of course, that would concern after life was created, and so it is a little different than your question.

[Pickle]

Amazing that we now have an undebatable scientific method to verify historians, and even religious writings.

Do we really? Or are we accepting the interpretations, methods, and conclusions of skeptics without critically analyzing their claims for ourselves?

Have you personally examined the ice cores you have referred to and have you personally verified that there are as many layers as claimed and that no two layers were laid down in the same year?

I personlly don't use the method of reaching a conlusion first, then finding a study that will support it.

You may not, but the very ones who derived this method of dating may have.

[Pickle]

Henke's questions Humphrys can't answer http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/appendixd.html

vs.

Humphrys crticism of Henke http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

Going through Henke's objections would take a bit before seeing if it's just smoke. Are you able to make an evaluation of his claims?

[Statrei]

Having faith and trust in an unchanging God, however, is always safe.

The problem is that when people say they have faith in God in these matters they are only showing faith in ancient goatherders who knew nothing of how the earth was created. One only has to look at the picture of the Creator that they created. They present a picture that resembles the rulers around them but on a grander scale. All theories of creation agree that man was the last form of life to make its appearance.

[LaurenceD]

Do we really? Or are we accepting the interpretations, methods, and conclusions of skeptics without critically analyzing their claims for ourselves?

Have you personally examined the ice cores you have referred to and have you personally verified that there are as many layers as claimed and that no two layers were laid down in the same year?
You may not, but the very ones who derived this method of dating may have.

The reason the layer in the ice are considered unmistakable by the majority of our best scientists, ie up to a point in time (about 50,000 years), is becuase the annual growth rings in ice are so similar to the growth rings in a tree. Below 50,000 years of ice rings, compression requires them to be counted more by the tens or hundreds of rings, esp down at the 150,000 to 200,000 layers, because of the weight that's on them. BTW, the weight of two mile high accumulation of ice has warpped the bedrock on the surface of the continent. So, by relocating the drilling rigs, they found that one layer doesn't duplicate the data found in the next. Plus, that was 15-20 years ago in Greenland. Now, they found that the snow in the Antarctic is much lighter, with far less moisture content, and the annual growth rings much clear, with no contamination of questionable runoff, and they have now clearly counted down to the 750,000 year range--before hitting the ocean under the continent.

And what is there that indicates these scientists are "skeptics?" I think that's an unknown, but familiar, joker card that Chrisitans afraid of Present Truth often throw out on the table to create doubt over something so simple to understand--counting growth ring in ice or trees.

Asking if one has personally examined ice cores is yet another. This comes from the same school, albeit a differnt class, that asks if you have personally examined the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts and verified that nothing contained within has been borrowed from other sources, but is all 100% original.

The GISP research, methods, results, and sources are all public information. The problem of runoff (layers overlapping) was solved early on by relocating the drilling rigs to locations where the highest points were centered on through...thereby eliminating the contamination of surrounding snow melt.

Again, terms like "may have" are simply considered joker cards to the majority of open and qualified scientists.

I realize this is off-topic, and don't intend to pusue it...just wanted to mention it in passing as related to Present Truth and those who are accused of undermining the faith of believers.

[PeacefulBe]

I'd like to see 3abn, or the Hope Channel, broadcast an intellectually honest debate over whether the SDA church--as a whole--more resembles the RCC or Galelio. Remember, the church considered his telescope an instrument of the devil much the same way Henke considers Humphrys "miracles" explanations inadequate (re helium-zircon at Los Alamos).

So, anyone still open to Present Truth, about the age of the earth could either wade through the controversial "Spat of Minutia" vs. "Gaps of the Gods" to reach a decision...

Henke's questions Humphrys can't answer http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/appendixd.html

vs.

Humphrys crticism of Henke http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

...or one could simply count the annual growth rings in ice cores, or even our oldest trees (like Methuselah), and reach a far less debatable conclusion. Did God have mountains miraculously spew ash into the atmosphere 7600 years ago when Mount Mazama (Crater Lake in Oregon) erupted? Out of the last 100,000 years, Christian scientists have explained that God created the first 94,00 layers of ice by speaking them into existence, and the last 6,000 are natural, but why would he fake Mt Mazama's eruption by placing it's ash in the ice 7600 layers down??? Or Tm. Toba's eruption 73,000 years ago in Indonesia???

Snowfall in Greenland, that very year Mazana erupted, captured the very distinguishable ash in that year's snowfall--which melted into one of the hundreds of thousands of annual growth rings in the ice. An unmistakable dating method. And there are numerous volanoes within the last 2,000 years, that we can verify with history, that pinpoint the ice core data to those exact historical years. Historians account of Mt Vesuvious eruption of AD 79 can be verified through the ice cores, for example.

Amazing that we now have an undebatable scientific method to verify historians, and even religious writings. I personlly don't use the method of reaching a conlusion first, then finding a study that will support it. Openness does not allow it. And that's where Galelio's method differed from the church. He was willing to acknowledge something that was repeatedly and demonstrably irrefutable.

But, I doubt you'd ever see anything but a one-sided presentation of this on 3abn. I've seen similar things.

LaurenceD, absolutely fascinating!

[LaurenceD]

LaurenceD, absolutely fascinating!

It is! I've been studying this stuff for years. It's not to say everything is conclusive, but it does say we have much to learn...as did the church in Galelio's time. Back then, the church's scholars could think of every reason why not to accept his Present Truth. Every trick was tried. Are we in the same danger today? I think some are...esp a certain sect.

[PeacefulBe]

The problem is that when people say they have faith in God in these matters they are only showing faith in ancient goatherders who knew nothing of how the earth was created. One only has to look at the picture of the Creator that they created. They present a picture that resembles the rulers around them but on a grander scale. All theories of creation agree that man was the last form of life to make its appearance.

Statrei, I agree that often faith in God is invoked as a form of denial or by relying on what one has learned from others. It is important to weigh everything we can comprehend when seeking to know Him. I happen to strongly believe that God manifests Himself to each individual from the moment they are sentient. I know that has been my experience.

Some humans have the mind to be able to clearly see the sense and order in the scientific evaluation of the physical universe. I find it thrilling to see what man can make of it and am certain that many theories are either right on the mark or very close. While I enjoy considering these premises and weighing them against the records of the "goatherders", fully comprehending their conclusions as yet escapes my grasp in a similar way that calculus does, so I continue to make sense of it all in my own way. That is where my faith comes in, knowing that the Voice I hear in my life either belongs to my Creator or is a powerfully comforting and illuminating delusion. Either way, I have peace and joy as the pieces of the life puzzle fall into place. Those that I still grasp in my hand when He returns will be answered. That is my faith and I would further qualify it as "child-like" for I have seen the eagerness that my children and grandchildren have sought knowledge.

btw, on a nit-picky semantic note, I believe that "woman" was the last life form to make its appearance when all else was nicely in place.

[Statrei]

Agreed, PB. We would make great strides if we were able to accept that each man sees what he sees without assigning them, in turn, to heaven and to hell. We are guilty of repeating the Cain/Abel syndrome. If Cain had not been made to believe that the Creator loved him less because of his independent choice of offering, thus rendering him dispensable, he would never have killed his brother.