Re: TE, souls and freedom and a complaint
andrew (amandell@jpusa.chi.il.us)
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 07:01:35 -0500Hey I asked this thread to run on the assumptions of TE to get somewhere
with a
few things. Please don't import this captive bit here. It is already all
over the place. I understand that at times you have recieved the same jabs
but this is all nonsense. Every other post contains either insinuations of
dire spiritual problems or cute rephrases of obviously "so and so" is an
ignorant goof. Maybe folks dig it but what is the fruit? The truth is
working through all these questions is difficult for all,both educated and
not. Our very meaning can be tied into the answers. I think the details and
discussion are vital but this is no land for arrogance. Most on this list
would claim to follow Christ, well maybe TE or ID was clearly not one of
his "main points"
but love and honor were. All on this list who are crossing that line would
serve their Lord best by taking it down a notch no matter who threw the first
ad homawhatever. Not to say weak ideas shouldn't be thrashed just humbly
thrashed. Alright I am done.
This taking on by TE/ECs the midset of the scientific materialist-
>naturalists against their fellow Christians who are creationists is evidence
>that TE/ECs, to varying degrees, have been taken "captive through [a] hollow
>and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic
>principles of this world rather than on Christ" (Col 2:8).
>
>Steve
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>"DNA replication is so error-prone that it needs the prior existence of
>protein enzymes to improve the copying fidelity of a gene-size piece of
>DNA. `Catch-22,' say Maynard Smith and Szathmary. So, wheel on RNA
>with its now recognized properties of carrying both informational and
>enzymatic activity, leading the authors to state: `In essence, the first RNA
>molecules did not need a protein polymerase to replicate them; they
>replicated themselves.' Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it
>relevant to point out for 'biologists in general' that not one
self-replicating
>RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (10^24) of artificially
>synthesized, random RNA sequences." (Dover G., "Looping the
>evolutionary loop", Review of "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life
>to the Origin of Language", by John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary,
>Oxford University Press: 1999, in Nature, 399, 20 May 1999, pp217-218)
>Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>