[geocentrism] Re: Challenge Jack Lewis
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 09:06:35 +1000
Isn't it marvellous, in the scientific sense you condemn our belief in a
geocentric eniverse as being a possibility simply because we do so without
according to you any without any rational scientific thought, summarised by
you as wishful thinking,
Yet you likewise expect us to accept evolution as a science which by your
own proposition is believed in by 99% of the scientific world, when "They
may disagree on how best to describe it, or the details of how it
actually happened. " wishful thinking.
Whats the difference? Its just a matter of two faiths.
evolutionsts are saying it must be true, we know how but cant prove it yet.
Geocentrists are saying, it must be true, we know how but cant prove it yet.
When you can duplicate it in the lab and give life to inanimate material
then you may have a case.
By the way majority opinion or belief does not a truth make. Also I meant by
soul, "being." Don't ask more. Aristotle philosophy and metaphysics is not
my cup tea. Like you I deal with what I have observed or can observe.
Unlike me, you have set certain things dogmatically impossible and refuse to
even contemplate looking.
I am like St Thomas who said "Unless I can put my finger in the hole in His
side I will not believe it is Him" Whereas you dogmatically say He does not
exist.
There is a big difference of approach to research in that.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: <geocentric@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 10:41 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Challenge Jack Lewis
Philip wrote:
> 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.
[ except to say 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.
Evolution is inescapable if you have selection (natural or otherwise)
and variation in offspring.
> 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.
Yes, they're very dishonest in their representation of orthodox science
to the less well informed. And they call themselves Christians and get
on their moral high horse at the likes of me!
> 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.
No, he put the rings there, like he put the starlight there so Adam and
Eve could see the stars straight away, like he put the fossils there to
test our faith, like he didn't have anything better to do than delight
in confusing his creations LOL
> 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?
Dead.
> Where are the cross genetic species?
What are they?
> Whether you are prepared to accept it or not,
> biologists and geneticists are already disputing among themselves over
what
> actually evolution is.
They may disagree on how best to describe it, or the details of how it
actually happened. None bar those with religious objections doubt it
happened.
> Cross breeding genetically is impossible. So they say
> the species developed separately from the soup.
When two interbreeding populations are seperated for long enough that
they drift apart genetically to the extent that they can no longer
interbreed they become different species. Species are only apparent in
retrospect.
> 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.
...but obviously haven't read much on what orthodox science has to say
if you think these objections are serious.
> 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.
Yes, I guess if you believe there is some magic spark in the human soul
then you must believe AI can't ever be sentient. I wonder how the
creationists stance will change as AI gets better and better. I used to
believe there was something special in consciousness, much reading about
evolution and AI have led me to believe otherwise. Just because
something seems on the surface to be inconceivable doesn't mean it
really is.
> The dog today is the same state as 5000- years ago. The most intelligent
> animal after the horse, not counting the dolphin.
I think it would be more accurate to say that it is the most in tune
with humans - it evolved from wolves along side humans. Look at the all
the ridiculous pedigrees in dog shows. Do you think those animals could
have existed in the wild without human keepers. Evolution by unnatural
selection very evident there.
> What turns the intelligent machine, biological or mechanical into a
> conscious being?
Good question. We don't know. But we didn't used to know about
bacteria, people believed that when they were ill they were possessed by
some sort of spirit - now we know better. Just because there are things
we don't understand yet (or maybe ever) doesn't mean that someone elses
supernatural explanations are any good. I'm happy to accept that there
are things we don't understand - it's what keeps scientists in work
after all.
> Read Asimov's "THE BIOLOGY OF THE HUMAN BRAIN"
Why?
> Scanning waves and all, no one knows where the soul (being) is anywhere
> within the human body.
There is no proper definition of "soul" so it's not suprising that no
one knows where it is.
> No if evolution was real, the universe would be full of Babylon 5 people.
> LOL That aint real science.
Why would it be? That's just a silly assertion. I might as well say in
reply "No, if evolution were false you'd be a ham sandwhich". Justify
your claim.
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
