Comment on Perspectives from alleged LSU students by Eugene Shubert.
No. I’m not saying that and I did not say that.
Creationism assumes an almight[y] God who can do miraculous things. He can create something out of nothing. The human articulated laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant.
That’s the problem with traditional creationism. It is a terribly ancient and comparably unenlightened view of science. The issue here is the most exalted understanding of science ever conceptualized by the human mind. For the first step toward understanding the real science of molecular and quantum creationism, see An Irrefutable Definition of Science.
God is not subject of physical restrictions. If you do not accept that premise, then you do not accept the Bibleâ€™s testimony.
In the interest of maintaining a consistent reality, God has agreed to obey a fixed set of rules (the laws of physics). These are the equations of His quantum mechanics and the law of large numbers. Properly understood, the fundamental laws of physics are not relevant restrictions. As the Spirit of prophecy states, “God does not annul his laws, or work contrary to them; but he is continually using them as his instruments.” This statement by Sister White is perfectly consistent with modern quantum theory.
Do you believe in the ENTIRE Word of God, or just the parts that you can prove with non-biblical measures?
I believe the Bible. Do you believe in the perpetuity of Spiritual gifts?
Eugene Shubert Also Commented
… 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.
Recent Comments by Eugene Shubert
Eugene, since you are preeminently qualified in things scientific, I will also here post your self-proclaimed qualifications in another very important field: â€œâ€¦my credentials really are unbelievable. By faith and prophetic understanding, I suppose that I have been appointed to bring about the fulfillment of William Millerâ€™s dreamâ€¦ The second half of the dream foretells an experience fulfilled largely by meâ€¦â€ â€œI believe that I had a revelatory experience somewhat comparable to the Apostle Paul and William Millerâ€¦ At the end of those 3 incredible weeks I had all of Daniel and Revelation figured outâ€¦ I was supernaturally driven to study the book of Daniel and was in a constant state of being continually overwhelmed by revelation. At the end of it I was a Bible scholar that had all of Daniel and Revelation figured out.â€
â€œI can not be accused of bias. For those who understand my notes I think itâ€™s obvious that the conclusions I came to were given to me by Godâ€¦ God has given me incredible new light that answers the greatest theological riddles in Adventism:â€¦â€ â€“ Eugene Shubert â€˜The New William Millerâ€™
That’s a very clever way to condemn my opinion. You are imputing to me the empty boasts of the Intelligent Design movement, which is big on claims but has no results. When it comes to theology, science is the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. I have bookfulls of new results that agree with this science. Those are my qualifications. You should have cited those links.
BobRyan: On the contrary â€“ Intelligent Design is a science that has not only been proven â€“ it has been proven to the point of commercial viability. Consider the case of the â€œSCANâ€ function of your radio tuner in your car.
That’s a bad example Bob. All car radio tuners are built to focus in on signal strength, not intelligence. You are right though, such a radio could be built that could filter out loud noise but then the extremely annoying long screech that precedes public service alerts, which announce possible tornadoes, wouldn’t be heard. However, there is nothing new or special about intelligently designed filters that could detect intelligent signals for such a simple feat of engineering to be called a science all by itself.
Do you have a degree in a scientific field Bob?
@Eugene Shubert: â€œThe real problem is that mainstream creationists completely misunderstand the definition of science.â€
Are you sure about that Eugene? Or is this just another over-generalization?
I’m sure and the only thing I’ve ever over-generalized is the Lorentz transformation. Consider how persons in the Intelligent Design community respond to criticisms that ID isn’t science:
On 12 February 2010, the blog uncommondescent.com quoted this criticism of the ID movement in their article, Darwinian Desperation: Petition to Re-Classify â€œNon-Scienceâ€ Books:
â€œScience can be defined as the process of using empirical evidence to make predictions and test hypotheses in the effort to increase our understanding of the world around us. ID seeks to answer many of the same questions about life on Earth that science does. However, the two differ drastically in that ID invokes supernatural explanations to explain natural processes, while science explains natural processes using empirical data. As the study of ID does not involve the use of empirical evidence to make predictions and test hypotheses, it cannot be considered a science under any circumstances.â€
Here was their rebuttal:
â€œSomeone needs to tell these guys that there simply is no widely accepted, widely agreed upon definition of what science is, so invoking a particular one to justify their animus against ID isnâ€™t all that helpful.â€
As is plainly self-evident, that response is no defense unless the majority of noteworthy discoverers of the laws of nature disagree significantly on the definition of science.
Sadly, the Intelligent Design movement is in denial. There is a significant agreement on the definition of science among world-class scientists. It is absolutely shameful for informed Christians to not know this. There is nothing Christian or logical in refusing to accept An Irrefutable Definition of Science.
Is there a limit to how many of these fundamental beliefs a professor can openly reject and still be considered an adequate representative of the church?
Anyone who professes to be a Seventh-day Adventist is a professor of the church. The biggest problem with the opening question is that no Adventist in his heart really believes all 28 official beliefs. It’s impossible to justify believing in a contradiction. No one really believes belief number 14:
“Through the revelation of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures we share the same faith and hope, and reach out in one witness to all.”
The Spirit of prophecy compilation titled The Seven Faces of Seventh-day Adventism refutes that official belief in a flash.
Defining Adventism: A poll
The “28 fundamental beliefs” are meant to showcase a reasonable orthodoxy and effectively cover up ridiculous heresies that Adventists believe with great enthusiasm.