[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:05:33 +0100

Dear Paul,
My Abiogenesis Doc was written by myself after extracting the information from 
Wilder-Smith's book. This was the first time I came across this argument and I 
was gobsmacked by it. This gave me a whole new weapon to use against 
evolutionists. No more do I need to be constantly drawn from one area of 
contention to another every time I hit an evolutionists nerve. I used to belong 
to a Christian run creationist e-mail forum who would use argument after 
argument against evolutionists but never pining them down to resolve each issue 
before going on to the next. I told them that they were wasting their time 
trying to knock down the evolutionary edifice when all they had to do was to 
point out that the edifice had no foundation. But no, they preferred to amaze 
each other at how clever they were at chasing evolutionists and never catching 

Your reference to the stratified fossil is an example of what I feared would 
happen and that is digression into another area without fist laying to rest 
abiogenesis. Your problem of not understanding it will not be solved by 
browsing through another area that you may not understand either. You stated 
that the stratified fossil record as being 'overwhelming', overwhelming in what 
way? It is quite clear what your problem is - you will not consider that life 
must have been created. The chemistry involved in disproving that abiogenesis 
occurred in a random fashion is beyond intelligent rational argument. Why can 
you not accept it? What it proves is that there must have been intelligent 
input into the origin of life - if it exists and it couldn't happen without 
help then it must have happened with help. You said the former must have 
occurred because of the latter. This is utter nonsense and flies in the face of 
the above facts. Do yourself a favour and put a little more research into 
investigating abiogenesis and molecular biology. You don't have to study the 
whole subject, just its supposed beginning. Try and find someone who will make 
a convincing case that the very high level of chirality found in life can come 
about by random processes. It will be like finding someone who will can make a 
case for a computer program developing by itself without any help from a man or 
a computer. 





----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 1:38 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  Jack L

  From Jack Lewis Sat Sep 15 18:46:58 2007

  ' Therefore left-handed chirality in the amino acids of life are an absolute 
necessity. However it has also been discovered that nucleic acids are all 
right-handed. Therefore Miller's racemates are useless for abiogenesis.'

  Well Jack you may be comfortable with this information but it's all Greek to 
me I'm afraid. Chemistry in general, among all the things I don't know, is the 
thing I don't know the most -- and organic chemistry doubles that in spades. 
Even if you explained it to me, I doubt it would help but if you are so moved, 
please try -- I will give it my best attention.

  I did do some digging however. First, I tried to learn what a 'racemate' was. 
Well I found something which would probably have been significant to one 
skilled in biochemistry but of little help to me. Pretty much like your 
reference 'Abiogenesis MS.doc' which reads like a memory jogger written to 
himself by a professional. It certainly isn't of much use to anyone ignorant of 
these matters.

  Next I looked for references to A.E. Wilder-Smith. This was an eye-opener. 
Almost 30,000 hits so no shortage. But when I started looking for likely sites 
among those on offer, I soon discovered that they were overwhelmingly biblical, 
creationist and the like. Indeed, I scanned the first eight pages of hits 
without finding one secular site. This seems strange to me as he was variously 
touted as being one of the very few to have gained three doctorates and was 
lauded on one site as being Europe's greatest scientist. He also found time it 
seems to have made the rank of General and served with NATO, though in what 
capacity was not stated. Why is there no mention in the scientific mainsteam of 
a man of such talent and stature? A conspiracy perhaps?

  I also discovered while on this little journey, numerous statements from 
which you no doubt gain confidence in your denial of abiogenesis and evolution. 
For myself, rather than simple assertion that it is impossible, I prefer to 
accept the overwhelming evidence that the latter has occurred -- the stratified 
fossil record -- and the former must have occurred, because of what followed. 
That the precise mechanisms are not fully understood is not an impediment. That 
is the way all things are discovered.

  Paul D

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

Other related posts: