On May 15, 1:20=A0am, Dave Oldridge wrote:
> "s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
> > On May 6, 12:17=A0am, "Lu R" wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> First there was creation then came evolution..what's so hard =A0to
> >> believe about that?
> > But what kind of evolution?.
> > Words in English can have more that one meaning, sometimes differing
> > in that meaning in part or in the whole. The meaning is determined
> > within the context of the whole sentence.
>
> > First came creation.
> > Living had to produce living.
>
> Where is this requirement found? =A0
For all of earth's history of living organisms life has produced new
life, either by cell division or by bi-***uality.
That is one of the requirements - essentails - and was taught to
Second Grade children about 40 years ago. What has been the
discovery(ies) since that time that has shown by repeatable and
testable scienticic experiments that life can come from non-living?
Life is chemical. =A0Granted, the atoms
> that make up the molecules of life had to be forged in early model stars
> before anything resembling organic life could arise. =A0What is also
clear=
,
> however, is that they will inevitably be forged in such stars.
>
So you have a theory - an hypothesis that eons ago life was 'forged'
in the stars and somehow came to earth all by random chance?
> Arguments by asserting the consequent are fallacies. =A0Fallacies only
> prove that their purveyors are either dishonest or illogical (perhaps
> both). =A0They prove nothing about the subject matter of the fallacy.
>
> > Macro-evolutionists avoid that issue as they would avoid the plague.
>
> This is an outright lie. =A0Evolutionary biologists do not really study
th=
e
> biochemistry of life's origins. =A0But many biochemists study it, and
> hundreds of papers are written every year on the subject.
>
Strange, there was a time, not so long ago, when that was stated to be
so in these postings by convinced evolutionists. When did that all
change?
I did not lie - and I resent that assertion by you as I stated what
had been told me by those who claimed they were experts.
> Creationists, on the other hand, avoid the subject of their own
> movement's underlying dishonesty like the plague. =A0Perhaps they
should,
> since it is a plague that will ultimately destroy them -- a plague of
> truth.
> Give the scientific experiments that prove that they are telling known
un=
truths.
> > However, there is micro-change in all living species.
> > It would be better to use the term 'micro-change' or any other that
> > gives the same meaning, but which cannot be confused with macro-
> > evolution up the 'tree of life' or along 'cladistic branches.
>
> > No one has proved that a unicelluar organism finally became a human
> > over milleniums. 'Molecules-to-man', 'particle-to-professors',
> > 'goo-to- you-via-the-zoo',did not happen.
>
> There is a good deal of genetic evidence sup****ting the unity of all
> life. =A0Moreover, the phylogenetic trees derived from morphological
> analysis of living and fossil species correlate extremely highly with
the
> phylogenetic tree mathematically derived from the sequenced genomes of
> living organisms. =A0It is not necessary, even, to completely sequence
> genomes in order to derive this tree.
>
That seems to me to be 'observational science'. You want evolution to
be right so correlations are made between various informations and hey
presto! it's all proved,
> To the extent that proof is possible in the world of science, common
> descent has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. =A0The doubts of
> creationists are not reasonable. =A0They are based on a superstitious
> adherence to a fallacious understanding of the relation****p between
> Scripture and God. =A0They are an expression of fanaticism, not of faith
> and not of reason. =A0The organizations that promote creationism are
> intrinsically and deeply dishonest, their proponents being incapable of
> honesty with themselves never mind with others.
But where are the 'unkown ancestors' that are hinted at on the
cladistic branches?
> The only cure for a spiritual malady such as this is the traditional
one. =
=A0
> Spiritual conversion. =A0Creationists present themselves as Christians,
bu=
t
> they are not Christians. =A0For them, Jesus Christ is someone they
> occasionally misquote when they are trying to establish their heresy.
=A0
> Other than that, they seem to have little use for Him. =A0They certainly
> choose to ignore His reiteration of the ninth Commandment.
>
This has nothing to do with spiritual conversion - either the the
Roman Catholic or Orthodox faiths. I am finding it hard to recall
which one you have stated previously. It it is to the former there are
so many heresies and traditions that are not in the New Testament that
the Vatican can hardly say that it is even Christian.
> I am being forced, by observing their behavior, to conclude that
> creationists have severed their relation****p with Jesus Christ in favor
> of a relation****p with a misguided crusade against honest science.
=A0That=
> is to say: latter day creationism and Christianity are mutually
> incompatible.
>
That is your opinion. The Vatican has worked hard since Vatican II to
present itself as the one true church. I hoped many will not be
tricked into believing that each and every one of its pronouncements
is true.
> > The work of the Intelligent Designer, God Almighty indicates Creation
> > of the original species and then change within each 'kind' - species -
> > within various environmental conditions as Charles Darwin saw in the
> > finches in the Galapogas Islands.
>
> All things visible and invisible are the work of Almighty God. =A0That
is
> what the creed states. =A0What creationists state, is that only the
things=
> that creationists permit to exist are created by Almighty God, while all
> other things are created by men or by nature or by chance or by any
other
> false god that the creationists have invented.
>
How do you know their ideas on that issue. As the Creationist
scientists all have high Tertiary qualifications I am sure that they
are well aware of those microscopic organisms that can only be seen
with the the highest resolution microscopes.
Or are you just out to gain as much mileage for your own point of view
by absolute statements without the necessary proofs.
Gladys Swager
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
