"swa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <swager@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:cc89306b-7822-
42cf-b409-9d46d4378702@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 15, 1:29 am, 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.
But
>
>> it is very functional.
>>
> The one above from the given website is more detailed and inclusive,
I prefer comprehensive rather than then, restrictive definitions of this
term.
>
> Not all will reproduce; but it is the fact of being able, ie. having
> the capacity to reproduce.
Self reproduction, is of course a feature of all living organisms.
> '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.
Once again, you play this fallacy of equivocation. How many micro-
changes, does it take before you acknowledge a macro change? What
mechanism is seen to be preventing micro-changes from ac***ulating in
genetically separate populations? It has eluded science altogether.
Only creationists seem to be able to see it, and they are singularly
unable to show it to anyone else.
Humans, as smart and powerful as we are, are still part of the NATURAL
environment of the living things that we come in contact with. Selection
is selection, whether it is done by humans or by lions.
It is even selection when a sperm fails to fertilize a suitable egg, if
that failure is due to something genetic.
>
> 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.
I am not accusing the liars of being liars because they don't accept that
God worked through evolution. I'm accusing them of being liars because
they say untrue things about evolution to their followers. Things that
they know are untrue.
> 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!
Nice little subtle attempt at argumentum ad hominem again, Gladys. I am
not a Roman Catholic. Have said that numerous times and you ignore it
again and again and again, apparently on the theory that LYING about my
denomination and accusing me of being a Roman Catholic will somehow
endear your argument to those bigots who hate Roman Catholics. This is
not only a fallacy, it appears to be a deliberate fallacy designed to
deceive some peanut gallery audience that you believe is reading these
posts on the side. I would suggest you give up this idea of sending for
God. I can tell you right now, He doesn't like it.
I have read what lots of scientists have to say on the issues. The
trouble is, among those scientists promoting so-called "creation
science," I have yet to find an honest man. And having been fed most of
these lies as a teenager, and finding them still in place, more than 50
years later, still being retold, not as corrections of real science, very
dearly and obviously for their deception value, then I have to speak out
and say what I see to be happening.
If you wish to sell your soul to the devil, as I was clearly tempted to
do, then stick with creationism. Help liars invent better lies, testing
them on the ignorant people around you. You may be rewarded with cash
and various semblances of honor. But you will have sold your soul, for
those specific rewards, and the devil will collect what he has bought.
You continually try to misrepresent me as calling the liars liars, simply
because they disagree with me. That is not the case. I call them liars,
because they tell me things I know to be untrue and do it for very
obvious reasons, thinking that I might not know they are untrue.
When someone represents himself as an expert in a branch of science and
the then totally misrepresents the knowledge contained in that branch of
science, then he's lying either about the expertise or about the science.
Personally I don't care which. Once it becomes manifest that someone is
a liar and is addicted to it, then I cease to believe a word he says
without checking it out for myself. Can you give me any good reason why
I should not do that?
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
|
