On May 15, 1:20=A0am, Dave Oldridge wrote:
> "s...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" wrote
>
> > <snip>
>
> > 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? =A0Life is chemical. =A0Granted, the
atom=
s
> 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. according to the above there was no Almighty Living Being -
greater than all that was created even the stars in which you are
stating that life was 'forged'?
> 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.
>
You have some debating tactics that I have never learnt.
I am relying on basic information that life had to produce life as
that has been the knowledge within the world through all past known
generations.
> > 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.
>
It is a lie according to your understanding. It is not a lie that I am
telling =3D
something that is deliberately opposite to what I know or have been
told..
> 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.
>
What is the dishonesty of the Creationist movement?
They state that God Almighty had to be there in the beginning to
create the Universe and living things.
They look for the scientific evidence that can indicate that is so.
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
The unity, that you mentioned above, that is common to all living
things, could be evidence for a Creator, an Intelligent Designer.
It did not happen by random chance, all of its own volitition, if it
could be said that non-living molecules could have some thought
processes involved in the changes from unicellular to the multiplicity
of multi-celluar organisms
The only cure for a spiritual malady such as this is the traditional
one. =A0
> Spiritual conversion.
=A0Creationists present themselves as Christians, but
> they are not Christians. =A0For them, Jesus Christ is someone they
> occasionally misquote when they are trying to establish their heresy.
=A0
Give those misquotes.
Other than that, they seem to have little use for Him. =A0They certainly
> choose to ignore His reiteration of the ninth Commandment.
>
No taking away of God's good name.
How do they take away God's good name?.
> 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.
>
So you believe that modern-day Christianity should only be compatible
with
the science of origins that you accept.
> > 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.
>
I have not known them to do that.
Creationists do not have a false God. Their God is the Triune God of
the Biblical scriptures. God, who made the heavens and the earth and
all that is
therein.
How could they be wor****pping a false god when they believe that way.
Yes, they do need to backtrack at times, but the secular and
theological scientists who believe either without that God or with
that God macro-evolution came to be have do respond in a similar way.
Checking evidence can be difficult and false assumptions can be made
by all scientists at times.
Gladys Swager
|
