----- 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. >