[geocentrism] Re: Evolution
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:16:58 +1000
Dear Philip,
We are all arrogant whether we like it or not. Jack
Dear Jack,
The word is too broad of meaning. I don't intend using it about anyone unless
it includes impatience with people, and even then not objectively. Notice I did
not accuse, but posed the question: "Are you not being rather arrogant ...."
did you miss that?
arrogant adjective
unpleasantly proud and behaving as if you are more important than, or know more
than, other people:
Notice the combinations. Knowing more is not synomonous with behaving as though
one is more important, nor is it necesarily even like being unpleasantly proud.
The word or know more . SHOULD NOT BE in the definition or else the English
language is almost useless. Do I hear cheering?
I mean arrogant as simply "proud" . and even then, as this is a subjective
condition, one cannot accuse another of it. I hope that I say something like
"His actions indicate pride or arrogance" and only when these actions tend to
belittle another person.
Further more, having superior knowledge, or being superior, and having the
courage to pass on and teach that knowledge is not arrogant, so long as it is
without pride, with humility, and done with charity. And what is charity
ultimately, but to desire the salvation of a soul for God. Nothing else.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 2:03 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution
Dear Philip,
We are all arrogant whether we like it or not. You are arrogant about Roman
Catholicism, Neville is arrogant about geocentrism and I am arrogant my faith
and geocentrism, which includes creation. We all believe we are correct (have
knowledge of the truth) therefore we either agree to disagree or we express
ourselves and beliefs in an arrogant way. ultimately God will be the judge.
Question:
How complicated must something get before it is considered 'un-designed'? Or
put another way;
What is the minimum that can be removed from a 'biological' organism that
will allow it to be considered designed?
My Thoughts:
I suspect that the difference will reduce down to whether it is 'alive' or
not. I then ask myself, what then is it about being 'alive' that would make it
un-designed?
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:09 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution
That's my whole point Philip, even you can't see it! Our own bodies are a
living testimony to a fantastic complex creation that cannot be compared to a
bucket, spade, computer or even a crab. Jack.
Dear Jack ,
Are you not being rather arrogant almost insulting in predisposing yourself
as the ultimate perfection in the ability to reason. It is you who have limited
your rational science as to what you call "complexity of order" whereas I and
others can see it more clearly as a complexity of disorder.
Let me put it differently. It is not perfect. In a very small way man has
perfected some of these imperfections. The Polio Vaccine is just one example
that comes to mind, saving millions and millions of childrens lives. The
disorder in nature even fights this simple intervention, as new deseases
develope.
I know that if I were to ask you to explain some of this your response
should be ,
It is written, 'Who can divine the ways of the Lord......my ways are not
your ways.. etc.
You cannot see what I and others can see. Whereas the bucket and the
computer are ordered and symetrical, almost perfect designs (they do what they
were designed to do always) , life and the cosmos by its complexity is not
ordered, but the opposite, wildly disordered, lacking any evident design or
purpose other than experimentation .
You are indeed like the person who would think the "volcano is a god".
I wonder and worry that your faith could withstand being truely enlightened
in science, based as it is upon your claim to superior intellectual reasoning
capability. It is not a sound base upon which faith is built.
27 But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may
confound the wise: and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he
may confound the strong.
Perhaps this is the reason why there are so many opposing varieties in the
world today claiming to be the true religion. People consider themselves too
wise, and too strong...
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 7:39 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution
Dear Philip,
See all below.
-- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 11:47 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution
I cant agree Jack.. Paul already has his own body to observe, which is
far more complicated than a crabs, without going to the beach. Biological items
cannot be compared with inamimate objects such as a bucket or a computer.
That's my whole point Philip, even you can't see it! Our own bodies are
a living testimony to a fantastic complex creation that cannot be compared to a
bucket, spade, computer or even a crab. So why do you stop at common sense
reasoning as soon a 'life' (biology) is the subject? You're postion is no
different than Jacques Monod, whose book was trounced by Wilder-Smith.
Jack
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.33/1037 - Release Date:
29/09/2007 1:32 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1039 - Release Date: 29/09/2007
9:46 PM
Other related posts:
