[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 20:06:26 +0100

Dear Paul,
I'm typing this in a 12pt font and yours appears to be in 10pt font. and I find 
it very difficult to read. May I suggest you go up a size for clarity. 
I predicted when we started these discussions that talking to evolutionists is 
almost always a waste of time because they hedge-hop from one difficult area to 
another. In the same way, to try and convince me there is no God, would a waste 
of your time, it attacks our respective world views. Regarding the five 
questions I wanted you to give me something concrete that I could read. I am 
not about to troll through the internet on your recommendation. I need 
something I can read in one of your e-mails. You will need to provide me with 
your evidence. I know its called spoon-feeding but that is what I have been 
doing with you.
  First point.   You're correct -- I cannot see the connection between 
Copernicus and Darwin. 

  I'm astonished that you couldn't make the connection for yourself and felt it 
necessary to tell me something I already knew! What's more you knew I knew. 
Therefore I'll indulge you in the hope this will explain your above comment. If 
there were no Copernicus there would be no heliocentrism ergo if the world is 
at the centre of everything this would imply a Creator which in turn would 
bomb-out Darwin and his theory. This is the connection whether you see it not 
or agree with it or not. 

  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!)

  Try Googling 'Protoavis'. 

  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.

  Once again Paul I'm astonished that you couldn't see the point I was making!
  If you saw a set of footprints you would know, because you are intelligent, 
that they were made by someone even though you couldn't see the person who made 
them. If you found a very uncomplicated plastic bucket and spade on a beach, 
you would know, because you are intelligent, that they didn't just appear out 
of nothing, some kid, who you can't see, probably left them there. However if 
you found a DELL computer on the beach, which is  much more complicated than a 
bucket and spade, you would still, because you are intelligent, know that it 
couldn't have appeared bit-by-bit by itself, someone, who you can't see, must 
have put it there. If you walked a little bit further and found a tiny little 
crab, which is far-far-more complicated than a computer, because you are 
intelligent, you would assume that someone put it there or at least made it. 
Does this answer my 'pointless' question? 

  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?
  Evolution cannot be falsified and neither can a creationism, because we are 
not talking about science. If a rabbit fossil were found in the Cambrian do you 
really believe that evolutionists would capitulate to creationists? Of course 
they wouldn't they would simply do what they always do, when faced with a 
difficulty, simply would move their goalposts - so forget that line of argument.

  Regarding the existence or non-existence of God has been adequately answered 
above - to be precise so there is no misunderstanding, my second from last 

  Finally let me say that my belief in God does not depend on fossils or any 
other kind of evidence, they merely reinforce it.



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

Other related posts: