Re: I don't laugh at atheists. They have accepted indoctrinations.

On May 15, 1:29=A0am, Dave Oldridge  wrote:
> Chris Bell Wrote
> > swa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:

> >> From what I taught about living organisms to children in my Second
> >> Grades I was of the opinion the term 'living' had been decided by
> >> scientists.
> >> But to verify I did look up some websites. The following is a
> >> slightly more detailed definition. Would you agree with it or do you
> >> have another definition.
> >>http://members.chillo.nl/r.kuizt_mrs-gren
> >> From the mnemonic 'mrs gren' living things have/need
> >> Movement, Repiration.Sensibility, Growrth, Reproduction, Excretion,
> >> Nutrition
>
> > (That would make senile old ladies dead then since they are neither
> > growing, sensible nor reproductive?). Sorry, Gladys, I couldn't resist
> > it.
>
And you (Chris) are neither very gracious nor honest.
You should know quite well that many elderly persons are quite
capable;
 we have an ac***ulated knowledge (wisdom),
but not welcomed by the younger generartion when we make references to
past times that had ethical attitudes (yes, indoctrinated) by many of
a higher order than some of the younger generation today, (not blaming
all of  that on the younger generation for the changes have been
imposed without adequate community consultation and many young people
have been led into ways not beneficial to them
If we are not as mobile physically, we can still be mentally alert,
even in disagreement.

> > No. And I don't have a definition, as the experts in that field are
> > unable to agree on one, I don't see that any input of mine would be of
> > any use.
>
> I would propose a definition that sort of goes as follows:
> Life is that which reproduces itself and evolves.
>
> I realize that this definition is somewhat radical, and that it may
> include such things as computer algorithms and molecular evolution.
=A0But=

> it is very functional.
>
The one above from the given website is more detailed and inclusive,

Not all will reproduce; but it is the fact of being able, ie. having
the capacity to reproduce.
'Evolving'  that is  micro-change which is happening all the time.
Unless macro-change can be demonstrated with it happening without
human intervention as God created originally and as humans were not
around to assist the change in the early milleniums deemed necessary
for such change the modern day proof must also be without human
intervention.

I have realised a possible reason why you are acusing those who do not
accept that God worked through evolution as being 'sinful' as
Evolution has been accepted from the mid 20th Century by the Vatican
as being scientifically proven.
If anyone disagrees with the Vatican judgements then that person is
counted by the Vatican to be sinful. That's one way to get
compliance.
Don't think, don't read what other scientists have to say on the
issues
 - just accept ...or else!

Gladys Swager