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. Regards Jack ----- 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?] Jack Paul D ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it now.