[geocentrism] Re: Mumbo-Jumbo
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jandj.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:38:04 +0100
Dear Mike, this is pretty much what I expected of you. You haven't answered
my question. How did life spring from non-life. Since I believe in a Creator
and am His creation I do not expect to be able to understand Him and so I
cannot explain Him to you in the way you would like.
So back to the question again life from non-life how?
I'll send you an attachment privately that may help you.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: <geocentric@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 10:37 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Mumbo-Jumbo
> >>If you want to run off and spout reams of mumbo jumbo at each other with
> >>out any critique from those that disagree with you then fine - it ain't
> >>science but that's your business. But please examine you conscience
> >>before telling others that sceintists aren't willing to listen to your
> >>ideas or engage with you.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Mike.
> >
> >
> > Dear Mike,
> > I've had it up to here with you and your attitude. If you want to accuse
> > others that what they believe is mumbo-jumbo lets just examine what you
> > believe.
>
> That was specifically in response to Steve/Ancient and his inability to
> differentiate between scientific theories and flights of fancy, and
> anybody else who wants to discuss his nonsense with him elsewhere, free
> from any critical objections. As you are still here (and even talk to
> Richard Dawkins sometimes) this obviously wasn't aimed at you. As I've
> told you, I respect the fact that you engage with the likes of me.
>
> > The most rational and intelligent conclusion to come to when one looks
at
> > the incredible complexity, design and purpose of life is that something
> > intelligent must have been responsible for it. If you came across an
empty
> > tin can on a deserted desert island you would naturally assume something
put
> > it there. This is the position of creationists.
>
> This argument would have convinced me before Darwin came along. And so
> I would have been left completely perplexed as to the origin of life,
> and may well have been religious as a result. But the argument is
> flawed whether you know about evolution or not. I'm sure you've heard
> the counter but I'll give it a go. If there is such a designer of life
> then he too is far too complex to just happen to be and necessitates yet
> another designer, a super-god if you like. The same argument goes for
> the super-god ad infinitum. If you choose to only apply the argument
> once and say "well god was already there" then why? And if you're going
> to stop at an arbitrary level then why even apply it once? It's really
> just a statement that you don't know. And before Darwin this was true.
>
> > You are a confessed atheist which means that you believe in the totally
> > absurd notion that a tin can could make itself and appear unaided by any
> > intelligent input onto the island. This is a simplified view of
evolution
> > and all its bedfellows. Now this is real mumbo-jumbo.
>
> You should really understand evolution before claiming it is mumbo
> jumbo. Do you think it possible that a random collection of molcules
> COULD happen to be a very crude replicator? If so, and the replication
> is not too perfect, then a random changes which make the odd one
> replicate better will out replicate the others. Random changes could
> occasionally be the sort that increase complexity.
>
> I've seen simulations of very simple replicators and it is incredible
> how quickly they take on characteristics that we can't help but
> anthropomorphise. This proves nothing, but does aid the imagination in
> seeing that something like this, over billions of years, could beget
> complexity.
>
> Regards,
> Mike.
>
Other related posts:
