[geocentrism] Re: Evolution
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 19:37:59 +0100
Dear Paul,
This is likely to be the last response you will get from me on evolution, or
the lack of. Comments in red below.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 7:31 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution
Rubbish Jack. If Copernicus hadn't discovered the truth, someone else would
have. After all it was just sitting there waiting to be discovered. As soon as
the requisite knowledge, and from that -- technology -- became available, and a
capable enquiring mind came along, the discovery was inevitable.
You haven't listened to a word anyone has said on this forum about
Geocentrism. Science hasn't proved anything of the sort. Go back and study it
again.
There is no reason to equate the 'centre of everything' with a Creator. To do
so is highly presumptuous.
1 You may think that but mainstream science knows what it would mean and
that is unthinkable!
How can you possibly know what an entity capable of creating the universe
regards as appropriate?
2 Because I believe the BIble and that it is the word of God. For someone
who doesn't believe in God it is a daft question. Don't bother to gainsay this
you'd be wasting your time again.
In a later post you suggested Try Googling 'Protoavis'. so I did. Short
answer -- what I found was a single person claiming to have found a single
fossil which he claims upsets current thinking because, he claims, it is a more
advanced bird in much lower strata. It turns out that it was a single example,
not complete, indeed only scattered bones and probably from more than one
individual, mixed in with a tangle of bones speaking of one of those local
catastrophe events. The conclusions reached seem not to have any support among
paleontologists at large. Particularly his conclusions about more advanced
characteristics are seriously doubted.
You see it isn't about science its what explanation do you want to put your
faith in? It has to be what you want to believe.
re 'Footprints in the sand'. OK -- I certainly concluded that some
articulated multi limbed organism had passed that way. But there is no other
conclusion you can draw from the data you provided. Two legs? Four? Six? Big?
Little? Close together? Far apart? Deep? Shallow?
Paul don't you see what I was saying, I'm really staggered by your silly
comment. I regret that I didn't phrase my question in this way to start with!
If you saw some footprints in the sand on the beach at Margate, you WOULD
conclude that they were caused, whether by a dog's or cat's or donkey's or
human's foot and that they didn't happen by chance. Now do you get my point?
Does this prove that God exists and that He is responsible? No it doesn't. If
it did we wouldn't be trading references would we?
You just can't see it! Maybe it's me who can't see! Tell me what is it that I
can't see, I'm dying to know?
In Subject 'Grand Canyon' you posed a brace of questions. I'm not going to
address them all in detail -- that tactic would have me running from pillar to
post quoting rebuttals only to face another brace of similar questions.
Exactly Paul, now you are starting to understand why I refuse to allow myself
to get too carried along with evolutionary 'Ah but what about...' type
questions. Theye are divisive and cloud over the issue in hand.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html gives a lengthy
explanation which concludes -
Malone, along with many "young Earth global flood creationists", have no idea
that even data from the 19th century, presented by a creationist geologist is
enough to demolish the "polystrate fossil trees" part of their presentation.
"Polystrate fossil trees" are probably one of the weakest pieces of evidence
YEGF creationists can offer for their interpretation. I wish they would stop
using it.
Of course he wishes we would stop using it, its embarrasing for them. There
are a lot of other things they would like us to stop using, like seafloor
sediments, salt in the sea, too much helium, in the atmosphere, flaws in
radiometric dating etc. etc. Yes these are all standard creationist questions
because they won't go away and need to be answered. BTW polystrate fossils can
be organisms etc. as well as trees. See the two links below.
http://www.icr.org/article/445/ and http://www.icr.org/article/1144/
Specifically concerning the Grand Canyon and Mt St Helen's volcano though.
The Grand Canyon I've already addressed previously but briefly. Again -- the
creationist YEC Flood Catastrophe explanation proposed that sediments over a
mile deep were laid down, exposed, turned to stone and eroded to a depth of a
mile in one year. (Coincidentally, the world's coal was also laid down as
vegetation and 'coalified' in the same time frame).
I watched a video of coal being made in a laboratory in just a few minutes
its no secret.
If you believe that, you'll believe anything. There are numerous refutations.
This appears to be an appeal for millions of years! As I have said before
Paul you cannot appeal to evolution and its long age adherants to explain
evolution and long ages. Its circular reasoning. You will have to find another
way to explain long ages and evolution.
This is a true story because it happened to me. When I was an apprentice
draughtsman I produced a drawing which was then checked by my section leader.
"Jack this is the wrong length" he said "do it again". So I check the size with
my scale rule and found it to be correct. He checked it again and said "No it
isn't". So I asked him to come over to my drawing board, I put my rule on the
drawing and said "Look it's correct". He agreed and scratched his head. He then
got his own rule and measured it - guesse what?The drawing was wrong. What was
happening was that the ruler I had been using for at least 2 years had a
misprint on one of the scales. it read 15, 16, 17, 18, and 16 instead of 19!
the rule had two 16's engraved on it and no 19. The point I am trying to make
is you cannot check that something is correct using itself as a measure, you
need to use something else. What you would use to confirm the correctness of
evolution and long ages could be the items I mentioned further up.
From 'A History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth ' (which
Neville has already trashed -- he must be a fast reader!) I've selected a small
quote which bears upon this -
ConclusionAs we have seen, the idea of a universal deluge was the settled
interpretation of the church for nearly seventeen centuries, but that changed
as a body of compelling evidence undercutting that interpretation gradually
accumulated. The cumulative pressure of general revelation can be ignored only
so long. Christians must always be ready to reexamine even settled
interpretations when a wealth of external data call these interpretations into
question. God may be trying to tell us something! (Emphasis added).
If this conclusion were to be correct would that make you believe in God?
Please do remember that creationists also have highly qualified scientists
among them.
The volcano occurred in the recent past, during my life time, and at a time
that I owned a TV receiver. I watch the news. I saw the event. I'm also aware
of Krakatoa and vastly greater events in the geologic past. What are you
implying?
Just read it again with reference to the canyon that was formed. Maybe this
link will help http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r04/
You are critical of my not addressing macro evolution. Your comments in this
area suggest to me that your understanding of the mechanism is rather different
from mine. Perhaps if you spell out what you mean I might be better able to
address the matter.
This refers to one species evolving into another species e.g. fish to
amphibians, amphibians to reptiles etc. Macroevolution necessitates an increase
in genetic information leading to more complexity. Microevolution is only
within species and is usually a loss of genetic information. However I am aware
that in recent years, or at least since Darwinism has come under scientific
criticism, that the evolutionists have moved the goalposts. A new system of
classification of 'kinds' is demanded in order to minimise the efect of
creationist arguments. Once apon a time it was never a problem, only since
Darwin.
I would have thought that by now Paul, you would have sussed out that I know
you will never be persuaded to entertain creationist's criticism of evolution.
I have told you this before but without any comment from you confirming this to
be true. Therefore in the absence of this confirmation I am bringing our
discussions on evolution to an end. Feel free to comment on the above items but
I shan't be replying. You may like to think of this as some kind of
capitulation, and it is actually, it's capitulation to recognising time wasting
exercises.
Regards
Jack
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it
now.
Other related posts:
