Comment on An appeal to our leadership by Eugene Shubert.
And, what might you mean by â€œBiblical worldviewâ€?
Pertinent to the context of this thread and science in particular, I believe that the Biblical worldview, which is relevant to science and our debate, is unquestionably the supernatural creation of life on this planet in a fantastically brief period of time plus the Biblical account of the global flood. I think that covers most of it. I also believe that Clifford Goldstein presented an excellent interpretation of the fundamentals of Genesis recently. Did you ever catch his sermon, “Godâ€™s Man, Darwin”?
Eugene Shubert Also Commented
I picked up an interesting insight how our leaders and many church members think some time ago from a Spectrum article. The point that I picked up from a retired AU president was that there are two positions held by the church and its members. There is the â€œofficalâ€ position, such as a literal 7 day creation, and then there is the level of practice, what we as SDAs actually believe and practice.
I, for one, encourage the Seventh-day Adventist Church to stop showcasing the “28 fundamental beliefs” as if they really accept them as quintessential truths and to start being more honest publicly about what Seventh-day Adventists really believe.
I can make a list of strange theology that has been harbored among us like â€œGod does not kill.â€
There is no question that strange philosophy such as pan-Gnostic Adventist spiritualism and â€œGod does not killâ€ pantheism runs rampant in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. And the reason that the Adventist Church is sheltering and nurturing these beliefs is strongly rooted in the prevailing sentiment of New Age spirituality that many Seventh-day Adventists have embraced: “To condemn evil is a greater evil than doing evil.”
Why arenâ€™t such professors dismissed as soon as they refuse to teach SDA truth?
It’s simply too difficult for ordinary Adventist leaders and most church members to understand profound truth and its advantages over error. And without faith, it’s remarkably easy to believe the world and the devil’s lies.
As good as it sounds, I donâ€™t think we should spend so much time trying to â€œdefend the Biblical worldview in the framework of scienceâ€ because if science itself is not true, then we have already destroyed ourselves in depending upon it.
Evolutionists want to hide the fact that scientific theories contain unprovable assumptions. That’s why Darwinists are pseudo-scientists. Sister White knew better and proved that she understood the nature of scientific truth when she wrote, “The theories of great men need to be carefully sifted of the slightest trace of infidel suggestions.” She meant that truth and error could be separated and that the false assumptions could be rejected.
Recent Comments by Eugene Shubert
… the LSU evolutionists are employing a â€œfoxhole mentalityâ€ among their student devotees â€“ convincing them that it is â€œus against the rest of the Adventist church and against Adventist administrators that simply pay lip service to Bible creationâ€.
That is essentially correct. There are two sides to every issue. The dispute here is between science and the Bible. The scientists believe that science should be taught in science class. The opinionated non-scientists that reject science and have no clue what it is, are content with either replacing science with pseudo-science or just getting rid of the teaching of science permanently.
Since you have offerred no response to points raised â€“ the point remains.in Christ,Bob
I already presented the mathematical response: “The odds for any particular sequence of 100 flips of a coin is 1/2^100, which is not zero.”
Do you agree or disagree with the mathematics?
The rest of your attempt to articulate a thought about science is barely intelligible. If you wish to be understood, please write with precision in a scientifically discernible form. I do not understand lowbrow diction. Please learn and use the universal language of science.
Eugene, Now we know your true ambitions!
No, that part isn’t clear. But we do know your rank and the rank of your associates in The Seven Faces of Seventh-day Adventism.
In the case of the coin flip we have 100 very likely events (50/50) in sequence and by adding the statistics of â€œsequenceâ€ to the probability â€“ we get â€œNILâ€.
You’re speaking gibberish. â€œNILâ€ means “nothing; naught; zero.” The odds for any particular sequence of 100 flips of a coin is 1/2^100, which is not zero. And your expressed method of computation, “by adding the statistics of `sequence’ to the probability” is unabashed gibberish and demonstrates that you have absolutely no understanding of the science of probability theory.
You obviously feel great peace when unbelievers curse God because of your willful stupidity.
Are you proud of being a contributing influence that justifies unbelievers in their rejection of Christ?
Eugene so it is only scientists who can have the truth? Science is now superseding the Bible? Are you listening to what you are saying? You are saying that science is God!
It is as Steven Weinberg has said: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
In other words, “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (Ro 2:24).
So grow up and stop practicing deceit.