Four new LSU board members
Here is a bit of good news for Randal Wisbey and Fritz Guy –

Spectrum will have more of a voice on the LSU board than in the past.

================================
Alvin Kwiram
Kwiram is Professor Emeritus at the Department of Chemistry, University of Washington. He received his BA in Physics and BS in Chemistry from Walla Walla College in 1958, and completed his doctoral work in Chemistry at the California Institute of Technology in 1962. From 1964 to 1970 he was on the faculty of Harvard University, before joining the University of Washington (UW). In the late ’60s he became president of the newly formed Association of Adventist Forums. In 2007 it become known as Adventist Forums (AF). AF also publishes Spectrum magazine. Kwiram wrote “Can Intellectuals Be at Home in the Church?” in September 1976 for Spectrum magazine. Readers might find this of interest in light of the current controversy with LSU.
=============================

Notice that at no point does the announcement of LSU board members include the fact that they are good Christians or that they believe in Adventist doctrine or that they have ever taken a decisive stand for the truth against some form of opposition.

Those qualities “might have been” either an outright requirement or possibly “worth mentioning” in the years surrounding the founding of LLU and LSU – but in the modern PUC and SECC climate – it appears they are not a criteria for selection much less “worth mentioning”.

Any administration that seeks to take up the reins of the runaway process at LSU has its work cut out for it. Without a miracle or two – that LSU horse will simply “stay outside the barn” while calling for an exodus by even more horses.

in Christ,

Bob

---

Four new LSU board members

Professor&#032Kent: And yet, we recently learned that the LSU board clearly sided against the LSU biologists, and actually manipulated the survey results to make LSU work worse. As T. J. Willey described at Spectrummagazine.com (http://tinyurl.com/3dgfwzd), the Board did what no honest investigator would dare to try: the Board added the “Neutral” option selections with the “Agree” ones, and at other times with the “Disagree,” with the express purpose of augmenting the case against the LSU science teachers.

Q: Did you SDA religion professor explain that praying to the dead is not good Bible doctrine when that subject came up in class? – (which would be the SDA doctrinal position).

–Yes they did explain that point clearly.

A. Strongly agree.

B. Nothing stands out – not a significant point in the class discussion.

C. Strongly disagree.

Students that either strongly disagree or that came out of the class clueless as to the SDA answer on that subject – just “might” get lumped into the same “Well then your professor totally flubbed up” category.

Apparently this idea comes as a huge surprise to some of the folks in the big-left-tent.

in Christ,

Bob

---

Four new LSU board members

This conflict has gone so far, according to an Adventist Review article, that some believe that the university is teaching the “theory of evolution to biology students as the explanation for the origin of life.” This is an example of conflated polemics that arises when the worlds of science and religion collide and wash over each other.

Notice the shell game used by the TE group?

When this issue first came up we got a complaints of the form “How dare you suggest LSU is promoting evolution just by listening to students and seeing the statements to the press, and watching them on video, and seeing the class outline”.

At the same time we also got complainsts of the form “How dare you suggest that promotion of evolution as the real truth about origins by our LSU profs is wrong. Only a fringe group of SDAs would still cling to creationism in this modern age. Give us science not the Bible”.

Now that LSU itself has admitted to its blunder (at least at the board level) we get spin doctoring like you see in the paragraph above – so kindly pointed out to us by Kent.

So many twists and turns to their responses as they try to have it “both ways”.

in Christ,

Bob

---

Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case

Mack Ramsy:: : but the one thing we know for certain is that it was designed to change. There are so many back up and redundancies designed to make whatever changes that DNA faces to be profitable for the organism, or if their deleterious to ensure they don’t damage the subsequent generation (yes there are very complex methods for doing this) The immune system in fact does it intentionally.

BobRyan:
Obviously the references above to “designed” and “intention” could not be overlooked by the objective unbiased reader applying a bit of critical thinking to the topic. And so my response below merely states the obvious point of agreement on a part of that post.

No wonder the application of a bit of critical thinking just then – demands that we conclude from your remarks above – that you are an example of an evolutionist that is strongly in favor of Intelligent Design. I too favor I.D.

Mack Ramsy:
Obviously the references abov

I don’t believe in ID as it’s traditionally defined. I believe that God created a system designed to evolve.

BobRyan:
Obviously the references abov
In your earlier statement you claimed that system was designed with “redundancy and backup” features. That is not something rocks, gas and water could ever do – hence the term “Intelligent Design”.

But perhaps you have access to more highly advanced rocks, gas and water?

Also you mention “intention” as if the immune system was deliberately designed with an end goal in view.

As it turns out – it is those “intention” and “Intelligent Design” aspects (so key to your response above) that are at the very heart of I.D. enabled science were we have the freedom to “follow the data where it leads” even if it leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does not fit atheist dogma about there “being no god”.

how odd then that you seem to later back pedal on your prior observation.

Thus you seem to be in somewhat of a self-conflicted position at the moment.

At least given the content of your statements about “intent” and “backup systems” and “redundancy” designed into the systems themselves (even to the point of “error correction” as we see in the case of nucleic polypeptide amino acid chains and their chiral orientation).

Of course all that just gets us back here
http://www.thebranch.org/videos/Creation_Calls.mov

Mack&#032Ramsy: My language in this forum is not formal. Try not to get caught up in semantic issues.

Out of curiosity is that statement supposed to provide a solution to just how it is that something “not designed” is able to exhibit unique design characteristics such as “back up systems” – “redundancy” – error correcting mechanism and an “immune system with intention” regarding a specific outcome or goal?

No doubt the study of biology most definitely shows us that such things are present “in nature” based on “observations in nature” – and so you are right to state it as you did.

So if you are then going to double back and reject what you just affirmed – what do you have by way of “explanation” for such a self-conflicted course?

Reaching for a solution of the form – “Pay no attention to my actual words if they do not serve to deny I.D.” does not provide as satisfactory resolution to the problem as you may have at first supposed.

in Christ,

Bob

---

Strumming the Attached Strings
@David Read:

Erv Taylor is not “afraid” to post here – but he is “Afraid” to have well thought out views posted on AToday that do not flatter his agenda.

That was not news right?

in Christ,

Bob

---

Michigan Conference vs. LSU – Right Wing Politics or Truth in Advertising?
@John J.:

John&#032J&#046: The fact remains, any decision direction or policy made by a church, conference, union or GCEC can be reversed or changed by those they serve.

Agreed and the fact that the constituency are not voting to reverse it – is a sign that this is not merely the views of the Administration in Michigan.

As for hierarchy – there is no doctrinal authority in the administrators.

And as for administrative hierarchy – the GC leadership has no authority to dismiss rogue teachers which is one of the reasons that this particular meltdown at LSU seems to go on and on and on. It slows at times and it speeds up at other times – but the fire is not simply put out.

in Christ,

Bob

---

A “Christian Agnostic”?

ken:: Let’s continue shall we. You posit that Adam and Eve were producing telomerase as adults as a result of eating fruit from the tree of life. Would you agree that the production of adult telomerase was a direct result of the environment or did the gene(s) affecting production of the a enzyme as adults mutate in their progeny?

1. I never stated whether the fruit from the Tree of Life provided the telemerase enzyme or simply provided a trigger enzyme/protein that caused Adam and Eve to produce Telemerase. Either way the end result was the same.

2. The salient point is that we have a known mechanism that affects the aging of cells starting with new borns.

This is simply “observation in nature” given in response to your question about an observed mechanism in humans for the 900 year life span the Bible mentions.

BobRyan:
It is hard to “do the study” without having them under observation.

1. But it is not hard to see the gradual decline in ages over time.

2. It is not hard to see the Bible declare that access to the Tree of Life was the determining factor.

3. It is not hard to see that even in humans today – the ability remains for us to produce telemerase – but we quickly lose that ability.

4. It is not hard to see what effect that has on the telomeres of infants.

The list of knowns for this mechanism are far more impressive than the “I imagine a mechanism whereby static genomes acquire new coding genes not already present and functioning in nature and that this happens for billions of years”.

Ken: Hi BobWe are making good progress!Thanks for your admitting thaf we do not have Adam and Eve or their progeny under observation to do the study.

My pleasure.

Let’s look at the empirical results of your observation. There is no physical evidence that the progeny or descendants lived to 900 years, right? Thus there is no physical evidence that the tree of life provided longevity through the increased production or activation of telermerase right?

There is evidence that a mechanism does exist whereby access to an enzyme would in fact affect the aging process of human cells.

That mechanism is observed in nature to be related to the enzyme Telemerase.

There is a ton of evidence that food contains enzymes and proteins and that the human body can produce enzymes in response to the presence of trigger proteins and enzymes.

It is irrefutably true that humans still today produce telemerase in the case of infants just before birth. Impossible to deny it – though you seem to want to go down that dead end road.

You asked about the “mechanism” that can be observed today that would account for long ages of life recorded in the Bible.

You now seem to be pulling the classic “bait and switch” asking for the video of the people living for long ages before the flood.

Nice try —

As I said before – your method is along the lines of grasping at straws in a true “any ol’ exuse will do” fashion.

in Christ,

Bob

---

SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
Rev 21 does not say the planet has no light – it says the City has no NEED of light from the Sun.

The inconvenient deatils point to the fact that the New Earth will have a Sun and Moon but the New Jerusalem will have eternal day due to the light of God’s presence.

This is not the hard part.

in Christ,

Bob

---