He presents many pieces of evidence. The conjecture is not pulled out of a hat. He pieces together the Bible and science. It fits. What he has purposely done is to not include EGW in his talks because of the target audience. But if he did, his case would be much stronger!

Stronger? It can't even address the fact that EGW said if God had not prohibited the fruit, there would have been no harm. The theory postulates that sin is a physical event, not a spiritual one.

The pieces might fit, but your underlying paradigm leads to the wrong picture.

Yes, stronger. In fact article upon article of EGW's fits together. And it is stronger when you take it all as a whole.

God prohibition - this has been addressed. Sorry you don't like it, I can't make you accept it.

The mistake is separating spiritual and physical. They are bound together. We are God workmanship. We are created beings. Is there a soul that is injected into the physical or separate from the physical? NO. But perhaps you think there is.

Eve would never have eaten the fruit if she won't have first distrusted God's Word and believed the lies of the antagonist.
True -- if she would have dismissed those doubts and said -- "no, I will believe God and obey Him", and walked away, all would have been fine. But she didn't dismiss them, instead she acted upon them and thus she fell. It was the DISTRUST of God, that enabled her to disobey and eat.


Exactly -- Adam and all his descendants (as well as all living creatures) were cut off from the tree of life.

Cut off from the tree of life -- meant they would die, they didn't need any MGE's in the fruit -- there was nothing wrong with the fruit itself.
They chose to listen to the antagonist instead of to the Creator and thus were "cut off" from the tree of life.


What happened afterward?
Once barriers in a person's mind and character against sin are broken down, the person looses the power to resist sin. We see that happening even today. How many lives are ruined because a young person was pressured to do a wrong act, something he didn't want to do and had no intentions of doing, but peer pressure pushed him into it and once that first breach was made, he soon finds himself deeper and deeper in that sin. Indeed "It is the nature of sin to increase".

There is no question that things got bad after the fall.



Though it seems strange that Adam and Eve had to have an MGE infusion through the fruit,
yet Satan would have "reaped the results of sin" (as in dropping dead from the poison of MGE's???) with no one to give him an MGE infusion?

To me the obvious answer is --
it's not the negative effect of MGE's, they are only another result of sin, not the cause of sin in the first place.

The cause of sin is distrusting God and believing the antagonist, the rest of the bad stuff follows.


James 1:15-16 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death.

Recall the parts on information theory. Melashenko says information is the key to everything. He said that sin is any change to the information system.

So what came first, Adam's information system being changed, or him eating the fruit? Despite all the evidence you can muster, one bad data point always send a good scientist back to the drawing board. You don't just keep repeating your favorite data points over and over. That's basic science.


Melashenko says information is always and only encoded on physical storage systems. And where is character stored? In the chemistry of the body.

Like I said, you probably haven't realized it yet, but this theory makes them one and the same. Look at Eden and try to fit the theory with the data; it will become clearer.

Your best answer was "I wasn't there so I don't know." You admit that's a non-answer. This is the level and quality of "addressed" that we have with this theory.

No, it is not the level of quality. There is much more evidence. Can I say precisely. No. And it may be a long time before we see past our dark glasses. However, the theory that man, the workmanship of God, can easily self-destruct also has no support. The evidence is that Devil is the "author" of sin and it is he that has attacked God's creation. And using God's second book, I do believe we can see evidence in what he did, and how he did it. I also see our hopelessness unless God intervenes.

Let me put it another way:

	God forbid	God NOT forbid
Satan damaged fruit	1. Adam dies? Yes / No	2. Adam dies? Yes / No
Satan NOT damaged fruit	3. Adam dies? Yes / No	4. Adam dies? Yes / No

As far as I can see, the theory cannot give a clear answer to any of this.

It should be fairly easy to see, actually: God gives life and upholds every aspect of His creation, and any disconnection from God results in lack of cohesion and life.

Adam self-destructed when he did that. So did Satan, one who was next to God. It works that way across the board.

God told us how to avoid that fate. There's a reason why they are not merely statements or suggestions, but commands. Any deviation necessarily ends in death.

The problem I see with this theory is that the "deviation" from God is defined as manipulation of genetic material. What I find in the Bible and SOP as deviation from God is founded on doubting God's love, distrusting God's word, disobeying God's commands. That's how it happened in Eden, and that's how it happens today.

Hm - any deviation ends in death - - not execution? I'm glad to see you are recognizing this part of the truth.

Adam self-destructed.. What was Adam's prohibition? Not to eat of the fruit. No eating, no fall. it is quite simple really. It was a EAT prohibition, not a THINK prohibition.