[geocentrism] Evolution

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:07:20 +0100

Dear Paul,
It looks as though I'm having the same problem that Neville has with you and I 
wonder if it worth perusing evolution with you any further. Your comments to my 
posting are just standard, hackneyed, mantra that can be found in any book on 
evolution. If you are really interested in evolution I suggest you get to grips 
with evolution's most difficult problems. This is what I was trying to do in my 
previous e-mail. You are completely missing the point when you scrap around 
quoting evolutionary beliefs without ever considering how evolution got going. 
Here is a list of evolutionary problems, problems that you won't see in 
standard textbooks or in the media because they are too troublesome.
1    The origin of the cosmos is unknowable or testable. Plenty of constantly 
changing speculation but no facts.
2    Abiogenesis.
3    Infringement of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
4    Accounting for genetic information and the genetic code without an encoder 
and a code recipient.
5    No real finely delineated transitional fossils. 
6    Fish to amphibians.
7    Amphibians to reptiles.
8    Reptiles to mammals etc. etc
9    Pollystrate fossils.
10  Radiometric dating
Etc. etc. etc.

Next, you seem to be incapable of recognising an analogy. Dawkins' Mountain 
wasn't a real mountain but simply a difficult path in which organisms must go 
to evolve. It wasn't my analogy but Dawkins', I was merely describing what he 
was saying. How well do you think your computer's operating system would work 
if you allowed random changes to the program? How long do you think it would 
take for these changes to create an improved program? 

I am very happy to be called arrogant about scientists never being able to 
create life from first principles. As a Christian I am against gambling (i.e. 
taking chances with money to win more money) however I would be more than 
willing to put my entire life savings on a bet at William Hill's or Ladbrokes 
that scientists will not create life, in the way of abiogenesis, within the 
next 20 years or even 30 years. This, to me, is not a gamble but a dead cert. 
What odds do you think they will give me? In fact I may even try this because 
to be able to calculate the odds they will have to talk to evolutionists and 
they know it can't be done.

I have attached a few bits and pieces for you peruse through. Take your time.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 6:34 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Invitation

  Jack L

  Responses in teal

  From Jack Lewis Sun Sep 9 21:05:57 2007

  With respect Paul evolutionist scientists are not doing that! No matter how 
they try they will not be able to create life from just plain chemicals. [I 
misunderstood your meaning so I withdraw this comment though I do note your 
arrogance in predicting what scientists will not be able to do.]

  The reason my emotion shows is out of frustration that scientists are trying 
to do that which is impossible and they are too blind to see it. [What these 
scientists are trying to do is to explain the evidence before them -- nothing 
more. That complete success has not thus far been demonstrated does not mean it 
will not be so tomorrow. (I recall once previously pointing out to you that 
what has happened in the past is not an eternally reliable guide to what will 
happen in the future. (Re:Apollo program From Paul Deema 2006 Mar 02)). 
Concerning impossibility, this is just an assertion on your part and has no 
empirical support. In any event, where is the skin off your nose?] Please spare 
me the argument that this has been many a famous last word. Just because a 
scientists persists in trying to do the impossible [Again -- you cannot prove 
that it is impossible.] does not mean that it will eventually be possible. 
There comes a time when you have to stop and accept the inevitable - a 
designer. [Well Jack, clearly you have come to this decision. You'll just have 
to get used to the idea that you are never going to see everyone agreeing with 
your every pronouncement.]

  Here is an example from Richard Dawkins. He wrote a book called 'Climbing 
Mount Improbable'. In an e-mail to me he said that some people think that 
things evolved in one go i.e. fish to amphibians. This he said was highly 
improbable, but it could happen by taking lots of imperceptible steps up the 
evolution mountain until you finally reach the top. His first problem is that 
he has established that the top of the mountain is a goal to be aimed for. [I 
don't think so. I think he is attempting to explain what is plain to see, what 
already exists. I have not seen any attempt to predict what is yet to happen. 
Also, I don't think the problem is his -- I think it is yours.] Evolution has 
no intelligence and therefore no preconceived goals. [I don't think he has 
suggested that it has. I think you are projecting your impressions onto what he 
has said.] His next problem [Your next problem?] is, that what he says is OK so 
long as all the steps are not random but progress upwards (probability 
calculations not needed here because it has been predetermined). But according 
to Dawkins and other evolutionists, these imperceptible steps are random 
genetic mutations and filtered by natural selection (ignoring what mutated 
before there was any genetic material [See *Note below]). Natural selection is 
not a force or measurable entity it is merely a description of an effect. [No 
-- it is not an effect, it is a proces with many possible paths and many 
possible outcomes. To see what I mean here, have a look at the classic island 
isolations -- Hawaii, Galapagos, Madagascar, Australia. Widely differing 
distinct species but in each location, similar niches are occupied by similar 
creatures. There is almost always more than one solution to a given problem. If 
evolution is the process which has made this world, then what we see is just 
one outcome among countless possibilities, many of which could have gone in a 
different direction with equal utility. For instance, would we be better served 
if the basic plan of life had produced a dominant hexiped rather than quadruped 
structure? Would it have made any difference? They would both have worked!] His 
blindness is that if each mutation is random in its effect on the organism, it 
could go forward, or backward, or sideways. [Yes of course it could -- for an 
individual. However the backward (less fit) will not survive, the sideways 
(equally fit) may give rise to a related species and the forward (more fit) 
will probably -- by definition -- be more successful and ultimately more 
numerous.] Next time you are on a mountain, or hill, or anywhere for that 
matter, switch off your brain and then wander aimlessly around and see where it 
gets you and make sure you do not have a preconceived goal to aim for to start 
with. Also you have to decide when to stop wandering aimlessly without using 
your intelligence (brain must remain switched off) in reaching your 
non-determined goal. [Jack you seem to be overly concerned with the individual. 
Life isn't like that. When push comes to shove, he -- or the group with the 
advantageous mutation -- who can shove the hardest will get the food and the 
loser will be disadvantaged -- perhaps to the point of death. I suspect that, 
in the comfort of your warm home and your favourite chair, you espouse lofty 
notions of equality and egalitarianism but I have to tell you, when the chips 
are down, you will have to contend with those who are prepared to shove. In the 
big picture, it doesn't matter if one individual decides to wander blind folded 
around a mountain. All that matters for survival, is that a viable number of 
fit-to-survive individuals choose a different pursuit.]

  The biggest show stopper for any evolutionist is chemicals to life!!! [*Note. 
Yes it is a considerable hurdle. However credible scenarios have been advanced 
and they are still based on the idea of great variation, "limitless" time and 
greatest utility.] Without it there is nothing to evolve. All ideas about 
evolution without a mechanism for abiogenesis is a religion about origins. [I'm 
sorry but it is now my turn to become emotional about the frustration I 
experience when you make this claim. Let me again (previous Re:Climate change 
From Paul Deema Wed Jun 6 17:57:08 2007) place before you the OCD definition of 
religion -- "Human recognition of superhuman controlling power & esp. of a 
personal God entitled to obedience, effect of such recognition on conduct & 
mental attitude". Just how do you reconcile this definition with your comments 
about those who follow the scientific path to wisdom?]


  Paul D

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

Other related posts: