Comment on GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation by Gene Fortner.
Bill “How inane would it be to claim an apple tree is not an apple tree unless and until it has apples on it?”
Comparing babies and apple trees is a bit more inane than comparing apples and oranges.
“The ONLY DEFINITION FOR SIN that we have in the Bible is that it is the transgression of the law… IT CONDEMNS EVERY SIN, AND REQUIRES EVERY VIRTUE.” E.G. White, ST, March 3, 1890 par. 3.
If it is a sin to possess a fallen nature then there must be a law against it. Has God given a law forbidding anyone from being conceived with a fallen human nature? If there ever was a law that was impossible to keep, this would be it, for how could one choose not to violate it before one existed?!
Gene Fortner Also Commented
Sin is transgression of the law.
Where does it say being born is a sin?
No statement was necessary.
In fact I consider it thoughtless.
FB#6 should have absolutely no effect on their ability to support the world church and perform work faithfully and with integrity.
Recent Comments by Gene Fortner
A scientist starts with data, the proposes a hypothesis to explain that data. A creation scientists uses the scientific method to test the validity of the Bible.
So far the Bible is way ahead of secular scientist attempts to explain the universe.
Neo-Darwinism is dead.
Here are some of the attemps to replace it.
They too will fail
In Search of “Evolution 3.0”
There are eight contenders for the next incarnation of the theory of evolution.
I have heard and read that the theory of evolution is a “theory in crisis.” But the research path I’ve been on has led me to flip-flop on that notion depending on what I was reading at the time. However, very recently, I think I have come to settle on the “theory in crisis” side of the fence. It has always been my contention that, by far, the best refutations against the theory come from evolutionists themselves. By “best” I mean ones likely to be taken seriously by those who adhere to the tenets of evolutionary theory. This is because no matter how scientifically sound an argument is, if it comes from a source with the slightest religious or Intelligent Design affiliation, it is automatically discredited on that basis.
That being said, the ongoing search for the theory’s replacement, in my opinion, offers some of the most powerful evidence against the theory. It appears that the recent developments in microbiology and genetics have been at work silently in the background (i.e. with limited public exposure). I’ve just read through Stephen Meyer’s refutation of evolution in Darwin’s Doubt. It is very compelling scientific evidence. The result of this silent work is now manifesting itself in a search for a replacement for neo-Darwinian evolution.
The surfacing theories that I am currently aware of are:
1. Context-driven Actualization of Potential (CAP)
3. Natural Genetic Engineering
6. Evolutionary Developmental Biology
7. Neutral Evolution
8. Facilitated Variation
The fact that all of these new theories are surfacing
True but some try to use snowflakes as the appearance of design.
The ability to detect design is God given.
Send a couple of 10 year olds through a field looking for artifacts, they will come back with arrowheads, broken pieces of pottery, nails, ……
Louie Bishop Testifies, Again, about His Experience at La Sierra University
@Professor Kent: Prof,
The 2nd law applies to the universe, including open and closed systems.
Notice how sunlight (UV) degrades paint/skin/…
What you need to do to refute Dominic Stratham’s hypothesis is to come up with a hypothesis that matches the data better than his.
His hypothesis matches the data much better than current just so stories and it makes sense.
Your attempt to refute his hypothesis was a lazy man’s attempt at an apopeal to authority.
Engineers are much harder to fool because they design things.
Academia only has to come up with a story that matches the current dogma’s premise.
PS: A few hundred years ago, the consensus was against Galileo.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@pauluc: Bacteria did have the digestive function before nylon was invented. The fact that they could not digest nylon before nylon was invented is simply because there wasn’t any nylon to digest.
New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids [e.g. K. Kato, et al., ‘A plasmid encoding enzymes for nylon oligomer degradation: Nucleotide sequence analysis of pOAD2’, Microbiology (Reading) 141(10):2585–2590, 1995.] In fact, more than one species of bacteria have the ability, residing on plasmids. This suggests that the information probably already existed, and was just passed between different types of bacteria.
All that would be needed to enable an enzyme to digest nylon is a mutation causing loss of specificity in a proteolytic (protein-degrading) enzyme. This may seem surprising—how would a loss of information create a new ability? Answer: enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule (the substrate). Loss of information would reduce the effectiveness of its primary function, but would enable it to degrade other substrates, too. Since both nylon and proteins are broken down by breaking amide linkages, a change in a proteolytic enzyme could also allow it to work on nylon. If this process were continued, the result would be a general enzyme with a weakly catalytic effect on the hydrolysis of too many chemicals to be useful where much selectivity is required. To put it into perspective, acids and alkalis also catalyze many hydrolysis reactions, but they also lack specificity. Indeed, an inhibitor of a protein degrading enzyme also inhibits the action of the nylon degrading enzyme.