[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:41:31 +0000 (GMT)

Jack L
I've made an effort to engage with you on this subject despite my stated 
misgivings, answering all of those questions you've asked which appear to be 
non rhetorical. I've described my thinking on these matters at length and 
provided you with references to support my thinking. For your part you have 
largely ignored my questions, failed to comment on my references and simply 
posed more questions. So if you want to continue this debate, I'll pause to 
allow you to correct these omissions from just my last post and your response. 
To remind you of those matters which you have simply ignored, here they are 
again -
First point.   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.
Second point.   This would convince me too. And I do not think that you can 
produce one convincing example. In respect of which you simply stated BTW real 
birds were found in a strata millions of years before Archy. This then is an 
out of sequence fossil. Every time an O.O.S.F is found the evolutionists move 
the a few goalposts. References? (I did say convincing!)
Third point.   An example of an unrelated and apparently pointless question. If 
you saw a set of footprints going across some sand, what would it tell you? 
I'll answer yours if you answer mine.
Fourth point.   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?
Paul D

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

Other related posts: