Comment on LSU Board news release and actions by Eugene Shubert.
Carl:
I believe that science must be taught with complete honesty whether or not it supports SDA traditional beliefs.
The truth about science is that science is always changing. Light was first thought to be composed of particles. Then that model was abandoned in favor of a wave model, the belief that light is a vibration of a luminiferous aether. Modern science is now back to the particle model.
Carl:
So, the complete scientific picture should be taught including the fact that there is no plausible explanation for life within a short history
According to real, quantifiable science, all the fundamental laws of physics are ultimately probabilistic and it is possible for the Red Sea to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day (Genesis 2:7). The process is understandable, although highly improbable. It still satisfies the definition of science. An example of a process that isn’t understandable, demonstrable, or in any way provable, is the assertion that it’s logically possible for all life to have descended from a single-celled animal in small incremental steps. Darwinists today aren’t even able to quantify what Darwin meant by slow, sure steps.
Eugene Shubert Also Commented
LSU Board news release and actions
Carl: To me, the tragedy of Adventism is that we can’t have a rational discussion of the problem because it isn’t safe to do so. As soon as anyone challenges our traditional beliefs, a cry goes up to get them dismissed. That’s the purpose of this Website, and, as long as it’s effective, we will stay locked in our established traditions no matter how irrational our position becomes. By doing so we become completely irrelevant to the educated world, nothing more than another tourist attraction in the history of religions.
The straightforward, obvious and commonsense interpretation of Scripture is secure. However, if I discovered that the entire foundation of Christianity is a lie, then I would renounce my former faith but certainly not strive to convert Christians to believe in Darwinism.
I respect having a logically consistent position but see no reason to adopt the assumptions that the world embraces. Frankly, I think it’s logically inconsistent to trust in Jesus for salvation and at the same time entertain the idea that the Savior didn’t understand Genesis in a straightforward literal way.
Recent Comments by Eugene Shubert
Perspectives from alleged LSU students
BobRyan:
… the LSU evolutionists are employing a “foxhole mentality†among their student devotees – convincing them that it is “us 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.
Perspectives from alleged LSU students
BobRyan:
Since you have offerred no response to points raised – 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.
Perspectives from alleged LSU students
Stephen Vicaro:
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.
Perspectives from alleged LSU students
BobRyan:
In the case of the coin flip we have 100 very likely events (50/50) in sequence and by adding the statistics of “sequence†to the probability – we get “NILâ€.
You’re speaking gibberish. “NIL†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?
Perspectives from alleged LSU students
Richard Sherwin:
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.
