[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

In defence of Pauls position: 

Now I have already challenged everyone to disprove my claim that this 
discussion creation versus evolution, is pointless because God did create an 
aged universe. I come into the discussion here only to point at what I consider 
is faulty reasoning when a creationist tries to debunk an evolutionist, in what 
I consider is his "just and reasonable scientific position" 

And to Paul, 

If you could only discern it Paul .This is wisdom: 

21 For, seeing that in the wisdom of God, the world, by wisdom, knew not God, 
it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe. 
22 For both the Jews require signs: and the Greeks seek after wisdom. 23 But we 
preach Christ crucified: unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the 
Gentiles foolishness: 24 But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, 
Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God 
is wiser than men: and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 


I also do not see it as fair, or profitable to God, to hurl science in which 
none can claim great expertise, at Paul, and expect him to have all the 
answers, let alone understand them. 

Jack said to Paul, 

If you walked a little bit further and found a tiny little crab, which is 
far-far-more complicated than a computer, because you are intelligent, you 
would assume that someone put it there or at least made it. Does this answer my 
'pointless' question? 

I cant agree Jack..  Paul already has his own body to observe, which is far 
more complicated than a crabs, without going to the beach. Biological items 
cannot be compared with inamimate objects such as a bucket or a computer. 

The problem I ,and presumably Paul as well, have with your reasoning is very 
basic. 

The primitive mind of man presumes that a complicated object such as biological 
life, must have a creator simply because of its complexity. Whereas it could be 
claimed that this is due to his inability to understand or conceive any other 
reason. Only by education, not divine revelation, does the native finally agree 
that the volcanoe on his island is not a god. 

People like Jack, also presume that this complex life form is perfect.  i.e. 
like as in the case of the bucket or computer, every bucket and every computer 
will be basically like every other bucket or computer and do its designed for 
job.  

But this is not so with biology. The very infinite diversity of variation most 
of which man in his entire life would never see or need, contradicts the idea 
of a designer. Some of these forms are far from perfect. And imperfections 
randomly occur beyond human reason. And yet in the deepest parts of the sea, 
next to volcanic rifts, beautiful , and the not so beautiful lifeforms have 
momentary existence.  

And the same goes with inorganic systems. Creationists often put up the 
mechanism of the watch which needs a creator, and compares it with the cosmos, 
as a proof of need for a Creator. But the cosmos is not perfect like a watch. 

The watchmaker would never put a bunch of "meteorites" in there to sabotage and 
destroy parts of it. Planets collide. The very random nature of the diverse 
actions that occur, all well within normal physical laws; actions that destroy 
rather than build, contradicts this argument of a designer. Is God then, less 
perfect than a watchmaker?

Jack, I believe in Creation, but my science could neve accept the logic of your 
arguements you are using here. So illogical. 

I believe the "creation scientist" is lacking in faith in creation, and is 
overcome with doubt in the face of an overwhelming barrage of scientific 
evidence supporting an aged world, when he has to resort to use science and 
other illogical arguments to defend his position. 

Creation is not a science.  .. evolution is.  Creation is in despite of science.

Philip. 

If you could only discern it Paul .This is wisdom: 

21 For, seeing that in the wisdom of God, the world, by wisdom, knew not God, 
it pleased God, by the foolishness of our preaching, to save them that believe. 
22 For both the Jews require signs: and the Greeks seek after wisdom. 23 But we 
preach Christ crucified: unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the 
Gentiles foolishness: 24 But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, 
Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God 
is wiser than men: and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jack Lewis 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 5:06 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution


  Dear Paul,
  I'm typing this in a 12pt font and yours appears to be in 10pt font. and I 
find it very difficult to read. May I suggest you go up a size for clarity. 
  I predicted when we started these discussions that talking to evolutionists 
is almost always a waste of time because they hedge-hop from one difficult area 
to another. In the same way, to try and convince me there is no God, would a 
waste of your time, it attacks our respective world views. Regarding the five 
questions I wanted you to give me something concrete that I could read. I am 
not about to troll through the internet on your recommendation. I need 
something I can read in one of your e-mails. You will need to provide me with 
your evidence. I know its called spoon-feeding but that is what I have been 
doing with you.
    First point.   You're correct -- I cannot see the connection between 
Copernicus and Darwin. 

    I'm astonished that you couldn't make the connection for yourself and felt 
it necessary to tell me something I already knew! What's more you knew I knew. 
Therefore I'll indulge you in the hope this will explain your above comment. If 
there were no Copernicus there would be no heliocentrism ergo if the world is 
at the centre of everything this would imply a Creator which in turn would 
bomb-out Darwin and his theory. This is the connection whether you see it not 
or agree with it or not. 

    Second point.   This would convince me too. And I do not think that you can 
produce one convincing example. In respect of which you simply stated BTW real 
birds were found in a strata millions of years before Archy. This then is an 
out of sequence fossil. Every time an O.O.S.F is found the evolutionists move 
the a few goalposts. References? (I did say convincing!)

    Try Googling 'Protoavis'. 

    Third point.   An example of an unrelated and apparently pointless 
question. If you saw a set of footprints going across some sand, what would it 
tell you? I'll answer yours if you answer mine.

    Once again Paul I'm astonished that you couldn't see the point I was making!
    If you saw a set of footprints you would know, because you are intelligent, 
that they were made by someone even though you couldn't see the person who made 
them. If you found a very uncomplicated plastic bucket and spade on a beach, 
you would know, because you are intelligent, that they didn't just appear out 
of nothing, some kid, who you can't see, probably left them there. However if 
you found a DELL computer on the beach, which is  much more complicated than a 
bucket and spade, you would still, because you are intelligent, know that it 
couldn't have appeared bit-by-bit by itself, someone, who you can't see, must 
have put it there. If you walked a little bit further and found a tiny little 
crab, which is far-far-more complicated than a computer, because you are 
intelligent, you would assume that someone put it there or at least made it. 
Does this answer my 'pointless' question? 


    Fourth point.   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?
    Evolution cannot be falsified and neither can a creationism, because we are 
not talking about science. If a rabbit fossil were found in the Cambrian do you 
really believe that evolutionists would capitulate to creationists? Of course 
they wouldn't they would simply do what they always do, when faced with a 
difficulty, simply would move their goalposts - so forget that line of argument.

    Regarding the existence or non-existence of God has been adequately 
answered above - to be precise so there is no misunderstanding, my second from 
last paragraph.

    Finally let me say that my belief in God does not depend on fossils or any 
other kind of evidence, they merely reinforce it.

    Jack 







----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: 269.13.33/1036 - Release Date: 28/09/2007 
3:40 PM

Other related posts: