swa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Apr 28, 8:54 pm, Chris Bell wrote:
>
>>s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 27, 1:48 pm, Chris Bell wrote:
>>>
>>>>>On Apr 27, 11:05 am, swa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>
>>><snip>
>>
>>>God Questions and Answers
>>>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3008/
>>
>>>Is There a God?
>>>http://everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
>>
>>>>A website for you Gladys (and other ID believers)
>>>>http://www.newscientist.com/evolutionmyths
>>
>>>Chris, The website you have given tells those who read it that
>>>'evolution is the truth' and that that truth is not taught properly.
>>>But it does not tell that the 'Theory of Evolution' gives no
>>>indication how the whole process started and WHO started it. It's all
>>>a naturalistic process.
>>
>>Are you suggesting that the creation of the world was not naturalistic?
>>Please explain.
>>
>
> Naturalistic, in the sense that I have used the word, means that
> living organisms were created out of inorganic - not living - and
> somehow of themselves acquired life, as I have written below. .
>
In referring to creation, I was referring to the creation of the
universe (ie matter and energy), not life.
>>>Sometime in the vast ages of the past something that was not living
>>>suddenly of itself became living as a unicellular organism that had to
>>>have irreducible complexity to be able to live and divide into other
>>>organisms.
>>
>>I have asked you several times to define living for me. So far, you have
>>refused to answer. Unless you can do so, your comments above are
>>meaningless.
>>
>
> I'm sure you know what living means as I do also.
Well I don't. There are many types of organisms and stages of organisms
which I cannot classify as either living or dead. For example, is a
virus alive or not? There are things called resurrection plants which
dry out almost completely, but start to function as plants when rain
returns. Are they alive or dead? If you think it is so simple, please
tell me what your definition of living is.
You are living when
> you read this posting; the computer montor on which it is posted is
> not living.
>
I would say that the monitor is alive, as it is showing movement, using
energy and producing heat. In normal parlance, it is alive, because it
is switched on. Why do you think it is dead?
>
>>>At least two of those organisms in the same place and very much at the
>>>same time had to,. of themselves, develop male and female ***uality,
>>>and to 'know' how to express that ***uality in reproduction.
>>
>>***ual reproduction came quite late on in evolution (and its progress is
>>well do***ented). You should check your facts before you post nonsense.
>>
>
> I am not posting nonsense. It is a greater nonsense that in every
> instance of ***ual reproduction what I have posted above actually
> happened.
>
Sorry Gladys, but it is nonsense. ***ual devlopment developed from
s****es produced by organisms in a well understood process. Read about it.
>
>>>Evolution is the 'so-so myth'.
>>>It makes more sense that the omnipotent God Almighty created in a
>>>perfect state, but gave humans the ability to chose
>>>right and wrong. It is from the first choice of wrong that wrongs are
>>>still in the world today.
>>
>>Was it wrong to choose to eat meat? In the Garden of Eden there was no
>>death, and hence no meat eating. Are you a vegetarian? Do you know who
>>killed the first animals according to Genesis?
>>
>
> Check Genesis 2 and Genesis 9
>
Why won't you just answer the questions?
>
>>>The Christian faith is that as Jesus Christ overcame the wrong of
>>>death on the cross and was raised from death, that, as He promised, He
>>>will be with us to help us overcome wrongs as we meet them in our
>>>cir***stances, and will, at the end of this life, experience Eternal
>>>Life with God Almighty.
>>
>>What does it mean to "experience eternal life" as you have put it?
>>
>
> Eternal life is everlasting, for the Christian, with the Triune God of
> the Biblical scriptures in a perfect state of being.
>
A tautology is not an answer. eternal=everlasting
How do we experience this eternal life, ie what is your view on life
after death, and what does the bible say about it?.
>>>These are my thoughts as I have not read them elsewhere.
>>>Charles Darwin, (1809 - 1882) either did not know the work of
>>>scientists who were Christians who were responsible for the
>>>improvements that have come or he ignored that fact.
>>>He dropped out of medical studies (I don't blame him for that, I would
>>>have too in the cir***stances of medical practice in those days - even
>>>today).
>>>He passed in theology, but evidently didn't like the idea of being
>>>the village parson.
>>>He appeared to be a failure, to himself and to his family.
>>>He had an interest in nature.
>>>On his voyage in the Beagle, in the Galapogas Islands he saw the
>>>possiblility of solving the evolutionary problem that had first been
>>>set by the Greek philosopher, Anaxamander, and of which his
>>>grandfather Erasmus Darwin (1731 - 1802) wrote in his text, Zoonamia.
>>
>>He remained a faithful christian to the end of his life.
>>
>
> There are doubts about that. But Theistic evolutionists would like to
> think that was so.
>
>
>>>But what Charles Darwin actually did was to extrapolate from change
>>>within a species to change from one species to another species, and
>>>suggested that the fossil record would provide the evidence.
>>
>>>And close to 150 years later the topic is still being debated and
>>>despite intense indoctrination (ie no other evidence to the contrary
>>>is presented).
>>>in the schools and universities, there are those who are stating from
>>>the scientific evidence they have that
>>>'Evolution (ie macro-changes from one species to another species 'up
>>>the tree of life' didn't happen in the past and is not happening in
>>>the present' .
>>
>>They are a very small minority.
>>
>
> From 1962 Evolution has been taught in all High schools in NSW and
> from sometime later in all Primary and Pre-schools. So naturally most
> people will believe that evolution happened. I presume that has been
> much the same elsewhere.
>
But this is not true, as the New Scientist website pointed out. There
are high pro****tions of people who do not accept evolution in many
western countries (particularly the USA), despite what they are taught
at school. Are teachers so ineffective at science education? As Mark has
pointed out, almost everyone accepts Newton's law of gravity as a given,
yet the vast majority of scientists in both of those fields accept those
theories.
> > The secularists have their religion = evolution.
>
>>Not true. Evolution is science, religion is not. If some have turned it
>>into a religion, that is their problem, not mine.
>>
>
> Theistic evolutionists say that God created by evolution. But why
> would He work that way when He can create by the power of His word.
>
Why not?
>
>>>The (Biblical) Christians have their religion = God created, humans
sinned, God
>>>is guiding to a better future those who put their trust in Him.
>>>That is not to say that secularists (atheists) are not involved in
>>>that process of improvements, but they do have a tendancy to claim all
>>>the credits. <snip - but still true>.
>>
>>Many christians believe in the theory of evolution. Check church belief
>>surveys.
>>
>
> Yes, as above. The majority of people cannot do the experiments
> themselves and accept as they have been taught when that teaching is
> given in a plausible manner.
>
Just as the majority cannot check Newton's theory of gravity themselves,
but they still accept it. Why the difference?
Just as a matter of interest, which do you think falls faster in a
vacuum - a lead weight or a feather?
> Gladys Swager
>
|
