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

swa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> On May 16, 4:16 pm, Chris Bell  wrote:
> 
>>s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>
>>>On May 15, 1:29 am, Dave Oldridge  wrote:
> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>And you (Chris) are neither very gracious nor honest.
>>>You should know quite well that many elderly persons are quite
>>>capable;
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>If we are not as mobile physically, we can still be mentally alert,
>>>even in disagreement.
>>
>>All agreed Gladys, but by the definition of life you quoted, not alive.
>>
>>snip>
> 
> 
>>>>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,
>>
>>>Not all will reproduce; but it is the fact of being able, ie. having
>>>the capacity to reproduce.
>>
What has the capacity to reproduce? Is it the individual, family, the 
species, or what?

>>So infertile people are dead? That includes me by the way, and many
>>others who have had surgery as a form of contraception.
>>
> 
> The definition is a generalisation.
> In respect of reproduction;
> living organisms have a reproductivve capacity
> even if some can't use it or some choose not to use it
> and some are wrongly required not to use it due to religious vows
> that
> should not have been imposed on anyone..
> 
Generalisations are very dangerous things. I should know because I am 
forever being accused of them! This is particularly true in any 
discussion of science. You must always test them by referring back to 
specifics.
> 
>>>'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 do not understand the difference. In physics, the difference between
>>micro and macro is basically whether you can understand the dynamics by
>>Newtonian mechanics or quantum mechanics.
>>
> 
> I have not read into Newtonian mechanics or quantum mechanics.
> But I can't see how they can be used to determine what happened in the
> beginning of life on this planet, earth, and for any scientist to say
> that on his/her authority that is how it happened - evidently as a
> means of eliminating God Almighty from that process of creation - is
> not possible because of the lack of scientific (repeatable, testable)
> proof.
> 
Gladys, you are being told repeatedly that creation and evolution are 
two completely distinct processes, with no connection between them. Why 
do you keep confusing them?

> The difference between 'micro' and 'macro' change is that former is
> happening all the time in every procreation within a species and
> through the lifetime of that organism. Macro-change is the change from
> one species (kind) to another species (kind), but I cannot see that
> that happened because of the addition of genetic information from the
> unicellular to the multicellular.
> That seems to me to be just a so-so story.
>
But evolution requires more than microchanges, which are as you say 
ubiquitous. There must also be separation, either geographically or 
through habitat change (eg climate change or catastrophic change by 
fire, flood, meteorite impact etc.). All this is well understood and 
taught, even in school.

> Gladys Swager

Chris