"swa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <swager@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:43d9969c-12b5-4ccd-881c-b14b3aa836c8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 15, 1:20 am, Dave Oldridge wrote:
>> "s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
>> > On May 6, 12:17 am, "Lu R" wrote:
>>
>> > <snip>
>>
>> >> First there was creation then came evolution..what's so hard to
>> >> 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?
>
> For all of earth's history of living organisms life has produced new
> life, either by cell division or by bi-***uality.
Actually ***ual reproduction is cell division as well. However, it is
clear that life has a beginning. The earth was not always home to life.
Early on, it was way too hot and dry sup****t it.
However, it had not cooled to the point where it could sup****t it for
long before life appeared here. And the likes it is here now shows every
evidence of being descended from a single ancestral cell. How that first
cell arose as a question science has yet to answer, not because there are
no hypotheses, but because there are a plethora of them, very few of
which have undergone much testing yet.
> 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?
Actually, numerous experiments have been performed that suggest that
there are chemical pathways from simple, evolving replicators up to DNA
and RNA. And, given RNA alone, a primitive cell becomes possible.
>
> Life is chemical. Granted, the atoms
>> that make up the molecules of life had to be forged in early model
>> stars before anything resembling organic life could arise. What 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?
No. You are misreading what I wrote. What I intended to convey to you
is that the the heavier atoms -- like carbon and oxygen -- so necessary
to life must first be forged in an early generation of stars, before life
can possibly exist in the universe. All of our observations bear this
out. We see that stars forge heavier elements. We see that the early
universe (the further we see, the older the objects we perceive)
contained first-generation stars with little or no heavy element content.
Thus the very atoms necessary to biological chemistry are star stuff,
created in the nuclear furnaces of stellar cores.
>
>> Arguments by asserting the consequent are fallacies. Fallacies only
>> prove that their purveyors are either dishonest or illogical (perhaps
>> both). They 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. Evolutionary biologists do not really study
>> th
> e
>> biochemistry of life's origins. But 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.
I would submit that you did. Lie, that is. You have been told again and
again by me and others that evolutionary biology and abiogenesis are two
different disciplines. While it is true that those attempting to come up
with a theory of abiogenesis must come up with a theory that demonstrates
how evolution began, it is not true that evolutionary biologists need to
know how it began in order to study it.
Physicists do not know how gravity began. It is just always been there,
at least as far back as we can observe anything. That does not mean that
physicists cannot measure gravity, and experiment with it.
Just as astronomers observe that gravity is universal by observing its
effects, evolutionary biologists observe that evolution is universal by
inspecting what is happening to living organisms and by examining the
fossil remains of dead organisms.
Those who would deny the observation that evolution is general pretend
falsely to not accept it on the specious ground that its beginning is
unknown.
>
>> Creationists, on the other hand, avoid the subject of their own
>> movement's underlying dishonesty like the plague. Perhaps 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. Moreover, 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. It 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,
I rest my case. You spout your own denial as evidence.
The twin nested hierarchy is there, whether you deny it or not. And not
only that, it is evidence, whether you accept it or not.
And yes, that is the kind of evidence that proves things.
>
>> To the extent that proof is possible in the world of science, common
>> descent has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The doubts of
>> creationists are not reasonable. They are based on a superstitious
>> adherence to a fallacious understanding of the relation****p between
>> Scripture and God. They are an expression of fanaticism, not of
>> faith and not of reason. The 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?
A growing number of them are in museum drawers. Certainly in the case of
our own species that there are fossils from a rather cluttered family
tree, extending back nearly 6 million years.
Certainly, some notes on the tree are missing. It is not easy to become
a fossil. For example, there is no known fossil of a passenger pigeon.
Yet these birds, at one time, darkened the skies in eastern North
America.
In order to become a fossil, a carcass must be sequestered from
scavengers, be preserved in the sediments, either aquatic or desert,
until it is discovered. But we keep discovering more and more fossils
that fit the pattern of evolution. Despite the continual attempts by
creationists to misrepresent the fossil record, this is what is actually
happening.
So-called "flood geology" is a travesty. Its proponents try to represent
nearly all of the fossil record as being the result of a mythical
catastrophic global event that they place at about 4500 years ago. This
is ridiculous on the face of it. The fossil record depicts a series of
ancient ecologies stretching back more than half a billion years, each
one succeeding the next, punctuated by major extinction events such as
the Permian extinction, when 95% of all species came to an end, or the
lesser, though perhaps more famous extinction, known as the K-T event,
marking the boundary between the Cretaceous era and our Tertiary era.
And these eras have layers of their own, not so markedly distinct but
nevertheless showing an evolutionary progression. It was the
paleontology that convinced Darwin -- that and the changes he saw in
living animals. Of course today, we have ample genetic evidence that
clearly demonstrates that the morphological hierarchy derived earlier
from living and fossil species is essentially accurate.
The only way creationists are going to be able to make this evidence go
away is through the use of force. It would not surprise me to see them
attempt that, since virtually all of their activity is directed at
stirring up the spirit of the mob into political action.
That kind of activity is, however, a two edged sword. It is far easier
to stir up a mob than it is to control it afterwards. And if the mob
decides you deceived them in the stirring, they are apt to make short
work of you. That's not a threat -- it's a warning.
>
>> The only cure for a spiritual malady such as this is the traditional
>> one.
>
>> Spiritual conversion. Creationists present themselves as Christians,
>> bu
> t
>> they are not Christians. For them, Jesus Christ is someone they
>> occasionally misquote when they are trying to establish their heresy.
>> Other than that, they seem to have little use for Him. They
>> 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. That
>
>> 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.
Believe me, I do not accept the idea that the Vatican controls the entire
church. However, not every movement or group claiming to be part of the
Church of God is actually a part of it. I believe that creationism is a
latter-day heresy, and that those who give themselves over to it
completely, not only accepting the lies, but condoning them, have removed
themselves voluntarily from the communion of saints.
By no means even the majority of Protestant denominations are so besotted
with this heresy that they condone it. Just certain ones who happen to
be quite noisy.
>
>> > 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. That
>> is what the creed states. What 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.
I have read reams of creationist propaganda. There is little evidence
that any of the so-called scientists writing it have any intention of
writing science. Nor do they have any intention of correcting real
errors in the work of real scientists. Their entire effort seems to be
directed at discovering which lies will convince ignorant people. The
most readily. After several decades of observing them, I find that there
is no good in them. The only cure for that kind of deliberate obdurate
repetitive sin is spiritual conversion. They have to find God before He
can cure them. They are not looking for God however. They are looking
for ways to misrepresent Him.
It's like I said, scratch a loud proponent of creationism, and you will
find a devout narcissist.
>
> Or are you just out to gain as much mileage for your own point of view
> by absolute statements without the necessary proofs.
No proofs are necessary, as the creationists themselves provide the
proofs in their writings daily, hourly even.
One only has to become educated in the actual observations and
experiments and theories that comprise our knowledge of biological
evolution, of paleontology, of cosmology and astronomy, of nuclear
physics, and compare what they say with what the scientific community
actually knows, to see that their outpourings are carefully chosen to
sound scientific in the ears of ignorant people.
In legal terms, that is called mens rea, or evil mind. In short, the
nature of their lies shows that they are intentional. And that comes
back to my calling as a priest. They can sin all they want. God grants
them the free will to do so. But He also grants me the insight to see
that they ARE doing it.
As I recall it, you have been shown the facts on numerous occasions, not
only by me, but by others. You have attempted several logical fallacies
in order to cling to your position, even using my ordination in repeated
attempts at the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.
That makes it pretty clear that on some level you are aware of the
deceptive nature of your denial. I told you earlier that you have a
choice to make in that choice is whether to follow the path of deception
and untruth or whether to return to the path of truth.
Such choices become harder and harder to make correctly, the longer you
avoid them. The devil knows this and tempts you by introducing you to
invest more and more emotional capital in the denial until you get so
immersed in it that you throw all caution to the winds and start sinning
more and more deliberately as time goes on.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
|
