Re: West Virginia creationism

Ron Dean wrote:

Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 14 May 2024 12:53:57 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
 

Martin Harran wrote:

On Tue, 14 May 2024 11:16:57 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Martin Harran wrote:

On Wed, 8 May 2024 15:01:28 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[...]
>

There is something, rarely mentioned in the literature.  Darwin was a
Christian until a great tragedy befell him and his family. That's the
death of his daughter, Annie in 1851 at the age of 10.  This naturally
caused great pain to Darwin and this terrible tragedy turned him against
religion and God whom he blamed.

>
Back on 17 April, you wrote:
>
"So, from this evidence I can see where I was clearly mistaken as to
Darwin's intent. He did not initially set out to discredit either
Paley or God."
>

I had no reason to question Darwin's motives, but I was _not_ aware of
the tragic death of his daughter.

>
In other words, you scrabbled around to find something that you could
use to persuade yourself that what you believed was correct, no matter
how much evidence there is against it.
>

>
Having been shown to have come out with utter  rubbish about the
effect of Paley on Darwin, you now turn to further rubbish to try to
hold on to your belief that Darwin was driven by some desire to get
rid of God.
>
I'm still waiting for you to explain how come I and other religious
believers have no problem accepting the Theory of Evolution and the
role of Natural Selection.
>

Natural selection is not inventive. It acts only on mistakes and errors
in the Genetic code. Each generation has a 100 or more mutations. So,
there is a genetic decline over time. If you write a lengthy script on
your computer, but a accidental set of letters or a word is found in the
script
This cannot improve your script, but multiple errors destroys the
specified information of the script
never improves the inforation.
This I would think is the same in specified information in DNA.

>
Yet again, you simply ignore my question. Does it not bother you at
all that you find that question so hard to answer?
>

There was no question. Except this one just above. I saw no question
mark (?).

 OK, seeing that you couldn't  grasp the underlying question in the bit
where I said "I'm still waiting for you to explain how come I and
other religious believers have no problem accepting the Theory of
Evolution and the role of Natural Selection.", here it is with a
question mark:

 >
It's matter of English grammar. A question is suppose to end with question mark.

not, if it is as here, an indirect question. See the Chicago Manual of Style, fifteenth edition (2003) at 6.72,  "Indirect question".

If not it can easily be overlooked.

 How come I and other religious believers have no problem accepting the
Theory of Evolution and the role of Natural Selection?
>

What do you believe concerning religion?

    

>

>
[...]
>

>
>

>