[geocentrism] Re: Fruitless arguments
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jandj.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 22:00:28 +0100
Dear Mike,
Do you know,I really did not expect anyone to reply, except perhaps Alan
Griffin on the subject of abiogenesis. It's interesting nobody else has
offered anything on this.
Your reply is exactly what I was talking about. What it amounted to was a
lot of arm waving and just plain wrong. Science is littered with personal
biases, it, by necessity has to be, unless the scientists are not human! You
proclaim that science is about constantly questioning and then you ridicule
Neville for attacking that which, in your eyes is beyond attack! This is
exactly what I'm about, starting from basics and questioning the
unquestionable and one thing at a time.
If I understand my own posting correctly, I was simply stating how I propose
to conduct my own investigations in future and the reasons for it. So I'm
not going to be drawn into fruitless exchanges anymore. So why don't you
just sit back and wait for it, well at least from me anyway?
----- Original Message -----
From: <geocentric@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 2:26 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Fruitless arguments
> This is pure nonsense. You try to scientifically validate your faith
> and then deny the utility of science when your "proofs" are shown to be
> wrong.
>
> Philosophically everything is just faith. Science is about what we can
> know assuming our senses aren't just figments of our imagination.
> Although many lay people may just take science on faith, scientists are
> constantly questioning every aspect of science. Scientists may get
> entrenched into a certain paradigm but it is always up for shooting down
> however divine it may seem (Newton obviously coming to mind here).
> Science is about seeking truth however uncomfortable or unituitive that
> truth may be. What you do is not science. You have blind faith, you
> already "know" the answers and try to refute science that disagrees with
> you and provide your own "science" to prove your faith (and often
> relying on the very science you refute).
In the area of evolution, as creationists we never atempt to cover-up that
we believe it in faith, but not blind faith- we can see the evidence just as
clearly as evolutionists. However the evolutionist cannot allow himself the
luxury of faith and therefore has to try and account for everything
materialistically- he has no choice! The creationist, ironically, does have
the luxury of having access to the evolutionist's own science and uses it to
show up it's flaws. "Foul!" I hear you shout, "that's not fair", "it
shouldn't be allowed" etc. Well the reality is that evolution does have an
exceedingly great number of problems. Please don't ask me to start to list
them because it is precisely this that I'm through with. Abiogenesis first
then we can address the rest later, which I don't expect to be very taxing.
Jack Lewis
Other related posts:
