Comment on GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation by BobRyan.
Since these exchanges are getting a bit long, letâ€™s see if I can summarize your arguments:
You seem to be suggesting that very high levels of functional complexity can evolve in a reasonable amount of time via the mechanism of genetic duplication and other forms of random mutations combined with natural selection. You believe this without any appeal to statistical analysis regarding minimum likely non-beneficial gap distances at various levels of functional complexity. You simply assume, as most scientists do, that the gap distances must be small enough since everyone knows that everything is related via evolutionary descent from a common ancestor of all life.
The evolutionist needs to find a way to explain away the fact that we do not see new thriving complex genomes in eukaryote life forms arising from simpler ones today. You have chosen one small aspect of the problem for focus. But there are many others.
1. Eukaryotes require a homologous match before anything is expressed. A one lucky shot sequence gets you nothing.
2. You cannot simply duplicate “a gene in a cell” – the dupication event must take place in a gamete and must find a paired match for offspring to express the trait. So dozens of lucky viral shots that miss the gametes – gets you nothing.
3. The new coding gene – coding for that “new feature” protein must also be transmitted, properly folded for the new protein, and delivered to the right site for expression in phenotype. Without the epigenome and infrastructure designed to deliver the protein in it’s properly folded form — you have nothing.
Simply “having” an unexpressed gene – does not allow natural selection to “favor the trait”.
Hence – no evidence at all for new coding genes in eukaryote systems of simple genomes giving rise to thriving complex genomes today – or ever.
BobRyan Also Commented
Suppose I tell you that I have discovered a flaw in Grigori Perelmanâ€™s proof of the PoincarÃ© conjecture. I have studied mathematics as part of my graduate training, but it is not my central area of expertise, and I have never published anything in a mathematics journal. I publish my attempted explanation of the error on my webpage. The one expert in topology who has read my webpage tells me that I demonstrate a profound ignorance of topology and need to get out and talk to some real mathematicians. Should you believe that I have discovered a flaw?
On the one hand – this is the dark ages argument that appeals to authority – the idea is that everyone is too stupid to see the problem so why trust yourself to “be your own Pope”. The Reformation argument was that each person should know enough about the bible to see a fraud when it comes along.
On the other hand – evolutionism has made its defense “every branch of real or imaginary science known to man”.
How was the average person for example to know that Othaniel Marsh had simply fabricated his 50 year long hoax of a horse series?
How was the average novice – suppose to deduce that Enrst Haeckle has fabricated his proof for the wild “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” argument with fraudulent claims in the form of wood carving.
How was the average novice supposed to simply “deduce” that the wild claims to Neanderthals in northern Europe was simply a fraud – a hoax by someone not skilled enough to actualy do the C14 testing on the samples he had collected?
How was the average novice supposed to simply “deduce” that Osborn’s wild claims to “irrefutable proof” of Nebraska man was nothing more than pig’s tooth hype and fiction?
The answer cannot possibly be that the average man was so skilled in all the sciences that he could scientifically unravel each fraud-ladened puzzle “on the spot”.
In many cases these frauds lasted for more than a decade – in fact most of them I listed lasted for 50 decades before being fully unmasked.
So Brad has made a good point. In theory evolutionism “should” be one of the best forms of fraud known to mankind and totally impervious to the average man’s attempt to discover that there is a problem.
But then .. there is always “the Bible” that would have informed “the average man” in all of these cases that he was being lied to in one form or another.
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
The actual title of this thread is – “GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation”.
however the evolutionist “playbook” insists that when the inconvenient details do not support a favorable view of evolutionism’s doctrine on origins the first think to do is “misdirect”, so that solving all the puzzles of life is “a key first step” to exposing any less-than-flattering fact regarding “belief” in evolutionism.
And so – in keeping with that – we find the following:
Clearly, Ellen White tells us that pigs can give leprosy to humans. Is there any evidence that pigs carry leprosy? Has there ever been a case of porcine-transmitted leprosy in humans? What is the evidence that eating port causes the â€œmost intense suffering to the human raceâ€ (other than â€œevolutionary thinkingâ€)? Was this statement inspired from God or did she get the idea from a non-inspired source?
Inquiring minds want to know (I got this phrase from an EducateTruther named Bob Ryan, so I am not being disrespectful, unChristlike, or condescending). Geanna Dane(Quote)
The “inquiring minds” comment is not a problem – the actual problem is that this totally off-topic rabbit trail is being offerred on this thread as a “first you must solve-all-puzzles known to man” strategy in defense of evolutionism.
I am sure this tactic plays well in some evolutionist circles – but why would they think it is a “best fit” here?
inquiring minds want to know.
GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
God said “SIX Days you shall labor… for in SIX DAYS the LORD Made…”
J. Knight responds
My point is this: by insisting that creation happened in a week identical to those we experience now youâ€™re adding a detail thatâ€™s not written into the story explicitly
That is the total non-starter response we get from evolutionists that simply wont allow inconvenient details to get in the way of a good “story”.
The real question is then — why do they think we will not “notice”???
â€“ the story leaves more room than youâ€™re offering.
Again we point out “SIX DAYS you shall labor…for in SIX DAYS the LORD Made” is the language that GOD uses when HE summarizes His OWN Gen 1:2-2:3 statements and actions.
This is a seemingly small addition, and as I said before if you read Genesis with the pre-conceived idea that it is a literal week, it reads fine.
I think we have found the missing link. The evolutionists imagine that God’s Ex 20:8-11 statement is a “preconceived idea about Genesis 1-2” that is not valid – or at the very least is no more valid than an evolutionist re-write of the text (in a true “I’m ok – you’re ok” model).
– To the less scientifically-interested members: This doesnâ€™t add anything to their salvation, their reason for remaining in the church, their ability to fellowship, or their ability to witness. They gain nothing that I can see.
– Those in the Science community: This is not consistent with anything they observe.
Hint: the “science” community does not “observe” the virgin birth, Jesus’ resurrection, the video taped 6 day creation week, the 2nd coming, the miracles of Christ, the New Birth, A solar system forming and planets “acquiring” air and water and land animals – from dust and gas …
The efforts to “imagine” that “science” observed the earth forming into a living biosphere of breathable atmosphere, water oceans, vegetation on land etc – is a fiction that even atheist scientists would struggle to support.
. I know a large set of elderly Adventists that entertain other ideas â€“
The World Church of Seventh-day Adventists flatly rejected evolution at the lastest GC session.
Ellen White’s 3SG 90-91 statement against evolutionism was fully accepted by Adventists in the 19th century – no complaints at all.
“I Know of 100’s of millions of Christians that believe in purgatory, prayers to the dead, indulgences etc” — this was never a basis for “doctrine” in all of time.
The Protestant “Sola Scriptura” testing of doctrine seems to be totally foreign to Adventist evolutionists. How did that happen in the Adventist church??
Recent Comments by BobRyan
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind