[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:45:37 +0000 (GMT)

Jack L
From Jack Lewis Wed Sep 26 22:18:19 2007
Referring to part of an earlier post from me -- From Paul Deema Wed Sep 26 
16:20:34 2007 -- which contained a quote from an even earlier post from you -
' ... to show you that He exists and the evidence is all around you. Believing 
in God is all about FAITH ...'
Contradiction explanation:- and the evidence is all around you. This clearly 
talks about evidence. Evidence is about reality, whereas all about FAITH is 
about faith which is all about belief without evidence. Last word on this!
You would probably say the evidence is circumstantial and therefore not proof.
No Jack I wouldn't say that. I would say there is no evidence -- only faith.
You're correct -- I cannot see the connection between Copernicus and Darwin. 
That after all is why I asked you what connection you see. To state the obvious 
Jack, Copernicus was concerned with what body orbited another body -- a matter 
of physics; although to be sure, Copernicus did not understand this, as Newton 
was still in the future, but before you can seek an explanation for how things 
work, you need to know what it is that you need an explanation for. Darwin on 
the other hand was concerned with life. He sought to explain why things were as 
he observed -- more a parallel with Newton than Copernicus, but still only an 
analogy. Their areas of concern are simply not even remotely connected. OK, 
they both breathed air, but you and I breathe air -- that does not make us 
joined at the hip. And I could of course mention many other things which 
connect us but they also would be trivial. So if you are still convinced they 
were Siamese twins, you will have to
 explain it to me.
You have never commented on my explanation why evolutionists are evolutionists 
and creationists are creationists.
I don't have any recollection of this. For my money, it is because 
evolutionists are swayed by reason, logic and evidence while creationists 
believe that what some men say that other men say that God said something which 
takes precedence is the truth.
'finding a fossilised rabbit in the Cambrian layer'
This would convince me too. And I do not think that you can produce one 
convincing example.
This is actually an interesting exercise. Can you give me an example of what 
would convince you of the non existence of God and an example of what would 
convince you of the truth of evolution? For my part, I would have to give an 
example which would convince me of the existence of God and an example of the 
falsity of evolution. Put simply, how can each of our positions be falsified? 
Are you up for it or not?
1 Abiogenesis. You have accepted that it is a scientific blank area. However 
scientists believe (faith?) that an answer will turn up. I am content that this 
is their position of faith. 
2 Can you find an example of a genetic mutation that increases the information 
in the genome? Richard Dawkins was asked this in a video and he couldn't answer 
it! Perhaps you can find someone who can. 
3 Can you find an example of one of Behe's 'irreducible complexities' that 
isn't irreducible? 
4 Can you find an example of 'information' that does not have an originator or 
a recipient? 
5 Can you find an explanation why the fossil record does not show an abundance 
of finely differentiated organisms?
1. I did not say it was a blank area, scientific or otherwise. What I said was 
that I think -- personally -- that it is the biggest hurdle science has to 
clear. Actually, thinking about it off and on for a lot of years, there is 
another hurdle that I think is greater.
2. There is much argument on this score, and between evolutionists and 
creationists, it always seems to hinge on just what is meant by 'information'. 
There is an area in France where it is common for people to have six digits on 
each hand instead of five. I'd say there was more information in their genomes 
than normal for this to occur.
3. In the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District decision[1], the judge drew 
attention at some length to scientific opinion that this hypothesis of 
irreducibility had been convincingly falsified. Convincing that is, if you are 
swayed by reason, logic and evidence.
4. There is that concept of 'information' again. However -- no I can't. In the 
whole process of evolution, there is an orderly progression, thus everything 
which came before is an originator and everything which came after is a 
5. The fossil record is thin -- only a vanishingly small number of organisms 
among the uncounted trillions of species and their uncounted trillions of 
representatives has been preserved. You didn't venture an opinion when I asked 
you how many T. Rex fossils had been found. The last I heard it was 10 or so. 
Among horses however, the record is rather better. There is a very good range 
of these which show the many many adaptations and small changes which have 
occurred in the history of this division of life. (I really must learn 
something of the hierarchy of life -- it's so awkward talking about it if you 
don't have the vocabulary).
That'll do for now.
Paul D
[1] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html
PS If you don't like Wiki, look here for what I regard as a pretty good mining 
site -- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ (directory) or here 
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/crebuttals.html or if you prefer christian comment 
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm (which I've recommended several 
times but had zero response -- if you've seen it, it must have been too 
difficult to deal with).

      Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.

Other related posts: