[geocentrism] Re: Challenge Jack Lewis
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:18:11 +1000
I will not allow myself to get into this impossibl debate here because it is
off subject and covers so much, other than to say just once the following.
I do not dispute natural selection either up (success) or down (failure.)
That is not evolution. This is the survival of the fittest. I prefer to put
it , THE FITTEST TO SURVIVE.
Likewise for creationists, to call themselves scientific creationists, or
follow "creation science" are foolishly misguided, and have as many
differing views as there are Christian denominations. They look fo imagined
loopholes in reality, like there is not enough sand in the gulf of Mexico to
explain the wear of the grand canyon.
God is not that stupid. Its like saying that on creation day, the garden of
Eden had a forest of trees without no age rings.
Then those who say He started a spark billions of aeons ago and it went from
there, by natural selection. Where are all the failures? Where are the
cross genetic species? Whether you are prepared to accept it or not,
biologists and geneticists are already disputing among themselves over what
actually evolution is. Cross breeding genetically is impossible. So they say
the species developed separately from the soup.
I'm sorry but this one is what Alan can call wishful thinking. I'm not
knocking you. I've held the same convictions, for many years in the past.
It doesn't gel.
Remember the delightful fascinating enjoyable movie "I'm Alive" The perfect
robot, with artificial intelligence, became conscious of being.
That is the crix of it. "Being." Smart machines arn't beings Dogs or monkeys
can never reason and tell us that they are beings though we call them
sensual beings.
The dog today is the same state as 5000- years ago. The most intelligent
animal after the horse, not counting the dolphin.
What turns the intelligent machine, biological or mechanical into a
conscious being?
Read Asimov's "THE BIOLOGY OF THE HUMAN BRAIN"
Scanning waves and all, no one knows where the soul (being) is anywhere
within the human body.
No if evolution was real, the universe would be full of Babylon 5 people.
LOL That aint real science.
Phil.
----- Original Message -----
From: <geocentric@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 1:06 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Challenge Jack Lewis
Totally wrong I'm afraid Phil. Evolution is as much fact as is the
statement that the earth goes round the sun. Even more so because you
can't use relativity to say that evolution is just one perspective.
Just the presence of differentail suvival rates of competing organisms
due to their ability to suvive (tautological) combined with their
passing on their characteristics with occasional modification
(undenialbe) necessitates evolution with a small "e". Domestication of
animals is proof enough of this. Evolution with a big "E" is not much
of a step from there and is the ONLY theory (scientific theory that is)
we have ever had which explains how we came about. There is absolutely
overwhelming evidence that evolution happened. I have read many books
on it and read many arguments against it. The arguments against it are
as silly as the arguments against NASA having gone to the moon.
Computer simulations of evolution have given us great insight into how
substrate independant evolution is. All you need is something that
replicates (some sort of crystal for instance, genetic algorithm, or
computer virus) with some variation. When resources run out there will
be competition and the more efficient replicators will out-replicate the
others. That's it!
I'm afraid great damage has been done to the ability of many Americans
to think logically due to this ridiculous trend to teach that evolution
is just a theory and creationism is an equally viable alternative. It
just ain't true I'm afraid. You can believe the earth is flat if you
like, and force schools to teach that a round earth is just a theory
too, the earth will still be round.
Regards,
Mike.
Philip wrote:
> I don't see a great deal of damage in that! Evolution is fact!
> Where is the "damage"? Alan.
>
> And that one statement is the sum value of your science, and your
reasoning
> in almost everything you say. Not even the most devout evolutionist with
> real scientific qualifications would declare that evolution is anything
> other than a theory. It is not a fact.
>
> Philip.
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
