Re: West Virginia creationism

On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:40:17 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> 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. 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?

I've told you several times before that I am a committed Christian.
For the avoidance of doubt here are the key things that I believe in:

"I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen."


Other religious believers who subscribe to that Creed include
scientists like Ken Miller, Francis Collins and John Polkinghorne and
religious leaders like Pope Francis, the Archbishop of Canterbury and
Billy Graham. You persistently link acceptance of evolution with
atheism so once again, how come I and other religious believers have
no problem accepting the Theory of Evolution and the role of Natural
Selection?