@Bill Sorensen: Bill, Sin is transgression of the law. Where does it …

Comment on GC Delegates Vote to Tighten Language of Fundamental #6 on Creation by Gene Fortyner.

@Bill Sorensen:


Sin is transgression of the law.

Where does it say being born is a sin?

Gene Fortyner Also Commented

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

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?”


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?!

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


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 Fortyner

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

God and Granite Cubes
Nima Arkani Hamed and others have proposed over 1e500 universes because fewer of them would not obviate fine-tuning. Why believe in them? As a New Scientist writer has explained:

But the main reason for believing in an ensemble of universes is that it could explain why the laws governing our Universe appear to be so finely turned for our existence … This fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the Universe was designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude of universes — a multiverse.

Cosmologists deserve credit for making the choice so clear. In that spirit, Discover Magazine offers the multiverse as “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator” (2008).

It matters that this stuff is considered “science” today.



God and Granite Cubes

Yes we “know” how “Evolution works”. What we don’t know is how “Evolution” can produce the new information required for new organs and new body types. In fact all empirical science demonstrates otherwise. A mechanism for new information is sadly lacking in the currant theories.

The limit of evolution seems to be defined by the Laws of Biogenesis and Heredity.

God and Granite Cubes

You have no empirical evidence for Neo-Darwinism (evolution).

The is absolute empirical evidence for the laws of Biogenesis and Heredity. They disprove evolutionary theory.

Don’t you think you should give some proof of evolution before you philosophize about topics you clearly have little knowledge?

God and Granite Cubes
I think Intelligent Design is a more modern form of Deism.


I don’t think you really know what the Theory of Intelligent Design is.

Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection” [1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things.

Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?

Where did you get that idea? As usual an ignorant media presented a biased view. What happened in Pennsylvania and Kansas is that the school boards thought that the glaring warts of evolutionary be taught along with regular evolutionary theory. A straw man was created (creationism / intelligent design) to defeat what should be considered normal science methodology.

To the average high school student Intelligent Design is self evident and does not need to be taught. The Theory of Intelligent Design in a rigorous form in probably more appropriate to the university.

Now, that design could include evolution perfectly well. It’s very clear that there is evolution, and it’s important. Evolution is here, and intelligent design is here, and they’re both consistent.

It depends on what you call evolution, if you mean;

“The doctrine that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that life resulted; and that all living things have descended from that common ancestral form of life.”
Evolution as taught is not supported by the data, God designed life to adapt, not evolve, and that “adaptation” has an edge, based on its Kind. This is well supported by the Law of Biogenesis and the Laws of heredity.

God could have created the universe, set the parameters for the laws of physics and chemistry and biology, and set the evolutionary process in motion,

God did create a fine tuned universe for carbon based life and life with the ability to adapt and produce the variety of life that we see in the fossil record and extant life.

You beg the question as to why academia does not want to teach the glaring faults in evolutionary theory.