Neville J
I did think the comment was meant to be humour but as you will be aware, some people just don't get some jokes. Point at issue -- my post 'A bit of humour' clearly struck no chords here. It made me laugh out loud but I wasn't sure just what classification fitted it and so I conferred with a friend. He told me he thought it was irony, a word I have difficulty with, but which I thought likely to be correct. He is not of any particular persuasion found on this forum but he also reported it as not funny. There is no explanation I guess.
Abiogenesis I think is the biggest hurdle non creationists face. I have addressed the matter in that I have admitted that I do not have an explanation backed by any sources. I deem it to be beyond my ability to grasp. I do have thoughts on the matter but for the reasons stated, I think it pointless to air them. This is an honest statement of my position -- to do otherwise is to act dishonestly and I will not do that for any man. Further, it would be highly presumptuous of me to concede that no answer is (currently?) known. I can only speak for myself in this matter, though I will concede that my impression is that no answer is known.
While my understanding of evolution is a little greater, again I am not any sort of authority. But I feel that I am entitled to express an opinion on the matter as I do have some knowledge. I am confident that my assertion that abiogenesis and evolution are separate issues is sustainable. This being so, it is perfectly admissible to discuss them separately. The attitude that if abiogenesis is impossible then discussion of evolution is pointless I view as a cop-out. In any event, the point which is the source of this particular argument stated that both abiogenesis and evolution are negated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics and this does not require any particular knowledge or understanding of either of the two subjects to address the claimed negation which is why I asked for an answer to this question alone. (You -- and other members here -- should be aware that I have expressed a marked disinclination to engage in a debate on evolution for
three reasons -- it does not bear upon cosmology; it is not readily demonstrated either pro or con; and it is a can of highly emotional worms).
On your observation that the World does not orbit the Sun, I have differed from you previously on this matter with an explanation which you rejected. After recently spending two hours downloading your video 'Celestial Poles' and viewing it, I gave the matter further thought and when I find the time (after parrying the thrusts of multiple forum members is taken care of) I intend to revisit this issue. Look to your laurels sir! |[:-)
Regarding JA's post, I don't think I said it was derogatory. I have exchanged posts with him on the subject and I have the impression that we are reconciled. As I said to him, the words 'faith' and 'belief' have become so inextricably linked with religious practise, that I will not accept these terms linked with my position, as I argue here purely from a scientific position, and to do otherwise is to give tacit approval to what others will infer from any answer I might give which does not qualify the meaning of those words. Sorry if this offends -- it is not intended to do so.
Paul D
