[geocentrism] evolution/geocentrism
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 08:26:08 +1000
Not fair Mike.
Most of the time you assert to us that the theories can be demonstrated to
work in practise which justifies the theory as acceptable. You even go as
far as making them axiomatic.
Yet here for creating life, you talk of several methods "There are many
theories as to how it started exactly and each in
themselves demonstrates how it COULD have happened."
Thats what Phil is saying about the universe! How it could be........
The only way they can demonstrate this is if you can replicate it under
laboratory conditions. As far as I know no one has made living material from
dead inorganic material or even dead organic material.
Your case is no different from the religionist who claims that miracles do
happen, but cant actually make one himself.
Worse actually. As I have said elsewhere, there are witnesses/relics et al
at aleast available for research in the latter.
For evolution, there is no evidence. Not a single demonstration of creating
life. No fossils of the inbetween failures, or transgenic lifeforms.
You can keep a dead body fresh, you may even chemically reproduce the flesh
from inorganic materials, (though it aint done yet) you can even make
organic cells reproduce in the lab, but you cannot and never have brought
anything to life, let alone create a living cell.
And this is the same weak argument of calling theory a fact, that you use
against geocentrists.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: <geocentric@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 8:09 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Challenge Jack Lewis
>>Why would it be? That's just a silly assertion. I might as well say in
>>reply "No, if evolution were false you'd be a ham sandwhich". Justify
>>your claim.
>
> OK Mike,
> I'll make the same statement to you as I made to Alan.
Ok, but this justify Philip's claim.
> The evolution idea stands or falls on abiogenesis. Until someone can
> demonstrate that life can come from non-life (not to just say it),
There are many theories as to how it started exactly and each in
themselves demonstrates how it COULD have happened. We don't know
which, if any of the current, was the actual way it started, but in
principle they're all the same.
> Louis Pasteur was right. Life can only come from life.
Just saying that non-life can't beget life doesn't prove anything. The
theory of evolution EXPLAINS how non-life could have begot life.
> Without this
> evolution is merely a system of philosophical beliefs about origins.
When we're dealing with 3.5 billion years of history, it is unlikely
that we will ever know every detail about every organism. I suspect
that whatever advances are made you will always be able to find
something to flag up as a "problem" with the theory that justifies you
claiming it's 50/. Before the discovery of DNA the criticism by
anti-evolutionists was that there was no mechanism and so it was just a
theory. Before the discovery of nuclear power they couldn't see how the
sun could have been burning long enough to allow all this evolution to
happen.
To maintain the creationists stance requires a belief in goal posts
moving faster than the speed of light, no wonder they don't like Einstein.
> That is
> why NASA is supposedly sending probes all over the universe searching for
> anything that can be construed as life because they believe it will help
> them figure out how life started on Earth. Carl Sagan died a disappointed
> man because SETI produced nothing. Please, please do not bother replying
> unless you can come up with answer or point to an answer.
Oh ok them, I'll just listen to your sermons and keep my knowledge of
science to myself.
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] evolution/geocentrism
