[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 06:42:31 -0700 (PDT)

  I've printed and make a quick look at your article - I hope I'm up to the 
challenge - I think I'll enjoy it.
j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  I will look at the site and report back my thoughts on it in the next couple 
of days. If you would look at 
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible . It 
is oviously from a biased source, but is well done and the technical parts are 
explained so the unscientific can understand, and I would like to know your 
thoughts on it.
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    J A
    Re:Evolution ( Excerpts in red ) From j a Mon Sep 24 18:26:54 2007
  I don't remember your definition, but I would say that defining that word in 
such a way as to make discusion possible may be beyond us. But I'll try. 
Transitional form: A creature which shows the partial progression between two 
creatures which are extremely dissimilar, where the 3 creatures in 
consideration are part of an actual evolutionary progression, such that 
creature C is a descendant of B and B is a descendant of A.
  I can live with that though I have considerable reservations about ' ... 
extremely dissimilar ... '. My definition was as follows -
    Re:Evolution From Paul Deema Wed Sep 19 17:51:34 2007
  You seem reluctant, so I'll propose a tentative and hurried definition of 
transitional form -- "A species which exhibits characteristics of an earlier 
species together with characteristics of a later species. All, some, or none 
need be extant." How about taking a risk and give me your definition?
  You continue -
    Whether or not everyone on the planet (or just a majority, or just a 
majority of the scientists) agrees or not has nothing to do with truth, or the 
evidence and logic behind what we think to be true. It seems to me you've 
agreed with this type of statement before too, but in the end you are still 
using it as your justification for thinking it (evolution) to be true.
  I'm fairly sure I am on record as observing that the most profound question 
ever asked was by Pilate on the steps of the presidium -
    "Truth! What is truth?"
  Well we have two possibilities in life I think. You can run around in circles 
beating your breast in frustration at there being no way to know what is the 
truth thus achieving nothing, or you can proceed on the basis that intelligent 
and knowlegeable men probably have the answer to at least this problem, that in 
any event if they are wrong, events will demonstrate this and knowledge will 
still be advanced.
  Concerning justification for deciding that evolution is the answer to "...why 
we are what and where we are." Since I cannot, and neither can anyone else at 
this time with certainty, know the details of abiogenesis and evolution, 
including its existance or non existance, the stratification of the fossil 
record is sufficient proof for me that it happened. All the attention drawn to 
difficulties concerning understanding how this happenned or why this happenned 
are just diversionary tactics. The fact remains that at the lowest strata, no 
organisms are found. Next we again find no organisms, but we do find the 
burrows these worms made. Above this we find worms which have made carbonaceous 
shells as armour. In each layer we find creatures which did not exist in lower 
strata, while those in lower strata may well persist in higher strata but often 
do not. And so on up to the present day.
  That these layers are chronological in order can be shown by a variety of 
dating techniques only one of which is radiometric. Scientists are not 
comfortable with just one indication and rejoice when second and third 
different techniques give the same answer. But the primary technique springs 
from the certain knowledge that in any process of precipitation -- that which 
was precipitated first is at the bottom while that which is precipitated last 
is at the top.
  While trawling for info today I found this site -- 
http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/seven-creation-paradigms-2.html. It is not a 
pro-evolution site despite the name (this is often done to snare a trawler 
looking for the opposite of what you are peddling) but instead is one of those 
moderate sites which tries to present all the relevant data. At the end of it 
all however, I think they will decide that their paradigm is the correct one -- 
not a point on which they need be condemned as most do the same -- but they do, 
in moderate language, appear to try to present points from all angles.
  Tell me what you think.

  Paul D

  Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it 
  Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 

Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. 

Other related posts: