[geocentrism] Re: Evolution
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 06:54:44 +1000
Paul said.
There is an area in France where it is common for people to have six digits on
each hand instead of five. I'd say there was more information in their genomes
than normal for this to occur.
Not necessarily so Paul..Even in the 50's micro surgery in embryos were
producing these abnormalities, which also happen by accident.
It goes something like this. If the fertilised egg is split within the first
few days, or maybe it was hours, you got identical twins. Later when the first
features, such as the embryonic eye became evident, a portion of this cell if
cut and planted elsewhere, resulted in a complete eye.. I assume the same
proceedure would occur with heads or limbs.
The question is, was the abnormality of an extra fingure passed on by genetics,
or was it the propensity to have the accident, like any desease.
Philip.,
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 3:45 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution
Jack L
From Jack Lewis Wed Sep 26 22:18:19 2007
Referring to part of an earlier post from me -- From Paul Deema Wed Sep 26
16:20:34 2007 -- which contained a quote from an even earlier post from you -
' ... to show you that He exists and the evidence is all around you.
Believing in God is all about FAITH ...'
Contradiction explanation:- and the evidence is all around you. This clearly
talks about evidence. Evidence is about reality, whereas all about FAITH is
about faith which is all about belief without evidence. Last word on this!
You would probably say the evidence is circumstantial and therefore not proof.
No Jack I wouldn't say that. I would say there is no evidence -- only faith.
You're correct -- I cannot see the connection between Copernicus and Darwin.
That after all is why I asked you what connection you see. To state the obvious
Jack, Copernicus was concerned with what body orbited another body -- a matter
of physics; although to be sure, Copernicus did not understand this, as Newton
was still in the future, but before you can seek an explanation for how things
work, you need to know what it is that you need an explanation for. Darwin on
the other hand was concerned with life. He sought to explain why things were as
he observed -- more a parallel with Newton than Copernicus, but still only an
analogy. Their areas of concern are simply not even remotely connected. OK,
they both breathed air, but you and I breathe air -- that does not make us
joined at the hip. And I could of course mention many other things which
connect us but they also would be trivial. So if you are still convinced they
were Siamese twins, you will have to explain it to me.
You have never commented on my explanation why evolutionists are
evolutionists and creationists are creationists.
I don't have any recollection of this. For my money, it is because
evolutionists are swayed by reason, logic and evidence while creationists
believe that what some men say that other men say that God said something which
takes precedence is the truth.
'finding a fossilised rabbit in the Cambrian layer'
This would convince me too. And I do not think that you can produce one
convincing example.
This is actually an interesting exercise. Can you give me an example of what
would convince you of the non existence of God and an example of what would
convince you of the truth of evolution? For my part, I would have to give an
example which would convince me of the existence of God and an example of the
falsity of evolution. Put simply, how can each of our positions be falsified?
Are you up for it or not?
1 Abiogenesis. You have accepted that it is a scientific blank area. However
scientists believe (faith?) that an answer will turn up. I am content that this
is their position of faith.
2 Can you find an example of a genetic mutation that increases the
information in the genome? Richard Dawkins was asked this in a video and he
couldn't answer it! Perhaps you can find someone who can.
3 Can you find an example of one of Behe's 'irreducible complexities' that
isn't irreducible?
4 Can you find an example of 'information' that does not have an originator
or a recipient?
5 Can you find an explanation why the fossil record does not show an
abundance of finely differentiated organisms?
1. I did not say it was a blank area, scientific or otherwise. What I said
was that I think -- personally -- that it is the biggest hurdle science has to
clear. Actually, thinking about it off and on for a lot of years, there is
another hurdle that I think is greater.
2. There is much argument on this score, and between evolutionists and
creationists, it always seems to hinge on just what is meant by 'information'.
There is an area in France where it is common for people to have six digits on
each hand instead of five. I'd say there was more information in their genomes
than normal for this to occur.
3. In the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District decision[1], the judge
drew attention at some length to scientific opinion that this hypothesis of
irreducibility had been convincingly falsified. Convincing that is, if you are
swayed by reason, logic and evidence.
4. There is that concept of 'information' again. However -- no I can't. In
the whole process of evolution, there is an orderly progression, thus
everything which came before is an originator and everything which came after
is a recipient.
5. The fossil record is thin -- only a vanishingly small number of organisms
among the uncounted trillions of species and their uncounted trillions of
representatives has been preserved. You didn't venture an opinion when I asked
you how many T. Rex fossils had been found. The last I heard it was 10 or so.
Among horses however, the record is rather better. There is a very good range
of these which show the many many adaptations and small changes which have
occurred in the history of this division of life. (I really must learn
something of the hierarchy of life -- it's so awkward talking about it if you
don't have the vocabulary).
That'll do for now.
Paul D
[1] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
PS If you don't like Wiki, look here for what I regard as a pretty good
mining site -- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ (directory) or here
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/crebuttals.html or if you prefer christian comment
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm (which I've recommended several
times but had zero response -- if you've seen it, it must have been too
difficult to deal with).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it
now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1034 - Release Date: 27/09/2007
5:00 PM
Other related posts:
