[geocentrism] Re: The Big Bang

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jandj.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:04:43 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glover, Rob" <Rob.Glover@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 1:23 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: The Big Bang


> Oh please. Are you now arguing that God himself intervenes to create every
> single tomato plant, bacterium, and virus, every time?  Irrespective of
the
> need for sunlight and nutrients in the ground? Try putting a tomato seed
in
> a dark room in a dry bed of sand and asking God to make a plant out of it.
> If you really want to be spoon-fed the answer, sunlight works on
chlorophyll
> to give the plant energy. The plant draws moisture and nutrients from the
> ground via transpiration. The DNA in the plant cell nuclei uses this
energy
> and raw material to make new plant material. If God's around, he has
nothing
> he need do but watch.

I think you missed my point about circular reasoning. You are using the
tomato as proof that the Sun's energy is the energy that is the driving
force that created the tomato in the first place. No it didn't. The order
and complexity and the information could not possibly come about from just
chemicals and the energy from the Sun. The energy needed to do that would
have to be intelligently directed, the sun is simply just not enough. That's
what I meant about matter from energy. Put another way if man were able to
synthesise life from lifeless chemicals it would need a great deal of
intelligence. Claiming that man is merely doing what random nature has
already supposedly done is blatantly denying the obvious conclusion. This is
what Richard Dawkins tried to put across with his 'methinks it is like a
weasel computer program; all he did was to use his own directed intelligence
to get what he wanted. Given a computer only, how long would you have to
wait to get the required result $.6 billion years?

You simply do not want to believe, or even consider, an intelligent first
cause. You would never apply that in any other field of science accept in
origins and thus your stance speaks of wanting to believe the irrational
rather than the rational. That is the way I see your position but you are
quite unable to see my position. Don't forget Rob I once believed as you do
but because I have been shown the scientific absurdity of evolution, in all
its manifest forms, I can appreciate the magnificence of a creating God. The
science you espouse relies heavily on eventually being able to explain
everything in materialistic terms, but have you considered that science may
never be able to do that? Man will have long destroyed himself long before
that could ever happen. What is science actually doing for the future
happiness of the world. Do you think the world is getting sociologically
better or worse?

Jack Lewis


>
> Jack Lewis Wrote:
> "Are you seriously suggesting that the 'order' shown in the above
collection
> [Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and
> > lightning] is the same 'order' that is exhibited by life? This level of
> order is
> extremely complex and full of information. Hardly the same as lightning
and
> snowflakes!"
>
> No I am not. Where did I suggest that? Life is obviously more complex than
> those things. But my POINT is that those things are themselves more
ordered,
> locally, than the background they arise from. They themselves do not
> contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics as they draw their energy and raw
> material from the wider system in which they are embedded.
>
> Jack Lewis Wrote:
> > Argument from Personal Incredulity is a risky one to make,
> Well isn't this your position vis-a-vis an intelligent creator?
> You mentioned experiments that demonstrated matter can be created from
> energy. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't it take a great deal of
> intelligence, materials, and a whopping great big machine to achieve this?
> Unless you can witness this transformation happening naturally (rather
than
> assuming it happened), it requires a great deal of intelligence."
>
> What an absurd argument. The point of doing the experiments is to recreate
> the conditions which occurred naturally out there in the Universe at the
> beginning, but cannot occur naturally on Earth in front of our cameras and
> notebooks. By your own argument there, God must make the Sun shine,
because
> alhough we can create nuclear fusion ourselves in a laboratory, it
requires
> a lot of effort, cost, intelligence and a whopping big machine called JET
or
> TFTR. Naturally, it requires gravity, space, time, and a billion trillion
> tons of hydrogen gas. By your own argument, all lab experiments that show
> how any thing could arise naturally, in fact prove a creator. Rubbish.
>
>
> This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended
recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential
information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied,
disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an
intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any
attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
>


Other related posts: