@Pauluc: Paul, What you need to do to refute Dominic Stratham’s …

Comment on The Creative Potential of Randomness and Chaos? by Gene Fortner.

@Pauluc:

Paul,

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.

FYI,

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.

Gene Fortner Also Commented

The Creative Potential of Randomness and Chaos?
@george:

George,

FYI

Migration of Life after the Flood Dominic Stratham


The Creative Potential of Randomness and Chaos?
@Arthur K:

Arthur,

FYI

http://www.detectingdesign.com/steppingstones.html


The Creative Potential of Randomness and Chaos?
@Pauluc:

Paul,

There are two well known Laws of Biology

Biogenesis – Life comes from life only

Heredity – After their kind.

Do understand that those two laws completely refute neo-darwinism?

Pop genetics is based on models that assume neo-darwinism,

> Population genetics as a scientific discipline makes use of mathematics and the principles of neo-Darwinism to try to understand how genetic variation spreads through populations and influences their evolution. It does so by assuming that all processes are purely natural and unguided, and that phylogenetic history is mainly the product of common descent, at least in multicellular organisms. The four main processes thought to affect population genetics — mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, and selection — are all unguided. The first three are random in their effect on evolution, meaning that they can be positive, negative or neutral in their effects on fitness; only natural selection acts in a directional manner to increase fitness.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/on_retrospectiv062881.html


Recent Comments by Gene Fortner

GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
yes


GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
Bill “How inane would it be to claim an apple tree is not an apple tree unless and until it has apples on it?”

Bill,

Comparing babies and apple trees is a bit more inane than comparing apples and oranges.

BTW,

“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?!


Summary of 60th General Conference Session (2015)
Thanks Sean


GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
Ethan,

IMHO,

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.


GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation
@Bill Sorensen:

Bill,

Sin is transgression of the law.

Where does it say being born is a sin?