[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:16:06 +0100

Dear Paul,
I did respond to this posting on the 19 Sept. so did Martin regarding blood 
clotting. However I didn't spend a lot of time dealing with every aspect of it 
because I'm still waiting to hear an explanation for abiogenesis or chemical 

Your firm conviction about T-Rex and DNA ignores the evidence. This evidence is 
disputed by scientists who are as blinkered as you are. For them to accept that 
the DNA is real will completely undermine all their beliefs and work and 
therefore it must be ridiculed as much as possible.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 7:41 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Evolution

  Jack L

  I was wondering why there was no response to this post when I found it via a 
search in my 'Sent' folder but it did not appear in my 'In box'. If you did 
receive it but declined to respond then so be it. If not, then you now have an 
opportunity to do so.

  In the meantime, let me address your recent post concerning T. Rex DNA. Quite 
simply, it is my firm conviction that this is some sort of fraud, a hoax, a 
conspiracy. Period.


  Jack L

  I've had a look at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/life-cr.htm and 
it does look interesting however it is the musings of an academic and is very 
speculative. It would require the skills and knowledge of one similarly 
qualified to follow most of what he says.

  The other thing which disturbs me is the way God and all the trappings of 
Goddom are liberally scattered through the site. He makes it obvious where his 
'loyalties' lie. Now the man has a Ph D -- though in what discipline is not 
stated. If it is in the chemical/biological arena and he is doing real 
research, then if he finds weakness, improbability, conflict -- why not just 
state that that is what he found. If he is correct, then that is knowledge 
which may or may not be useful to others -- depending upon whether or not these 
results can be duplicated. Involving God in the discussion just displays his 
bias and immediately alerts his readers to this. There are christian scholars 
engaged in the sciences who publish papers which contain just the facts, so why 
does he mention this? It has no scientific value.

  Some of his discussion is interesting but I fear he has already come to a 

  Regarding Michael Behe and his well worn mousetrap, I've read a number of 
discussions of his theories and why, after significant investigation (he did 
rather throw a spanner into the works after all) these theories have been 
largely discounted. The blood clotting cascade was very interesting. One of 
those aforementioned investigations looked into this function and to this 
blundering amateur, a very good case was made for an alternative explanation 
for its origin which falsified the irreducible complexity argument. Sadly I 
can't recall who this was and a search for such info -- along with similar 
searches for every other thing I can't remember -- would exhaust my remaining 
allotment of time.

  I found an interesting article while on this subject which you might look at 
here -


  It is titled and authored as shown immediately below together with the 
distilllation of the results.

  The Elusive Scientific Basis of Intelligent Design
  by George W. Gilchrist

       Intelligent Design
       68 832 
        Expanded Academic Index
       14 298 
        Life Sciences Collection
       45 963 
       29 228 
        Science Citation Index
       10 333

  The article explains the criteria for the search but in essence it is a 
result of a search of the scientific literature -- published research papers -- 
over this and the previous decade to discover the relative activity in the two 
indicated fields. I think you can see immediately why I'm not particularly 
interested in ID.


  Now to your second post. I'm running short on time and a minor crash just 
lost me about 20m worth so I'll be brief -- comments in teal.

  Now you can see what I mean about being drawn into other areas of evolution 
before coming to a consensus about abiogenesis first. E.g. Transitionals and 
the definition of a kind. Again you show your ignorance of evolution by asking 
what did the kangaroo, or lemur or carnivorous caterpillars micro evolve from? 
[How does this show my ignorance?] Creationist's say that, as the fossil record 
confirms, .[ I suggest that it does not so confirm. You might care to check 
this christian source -- http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm and if 
nothing else, please tell me why you don't like what it says. Also, see PS 
below. ] that all the different kinds were created and that subsequent 
microevolution may have changed them a little e.g. alligators, kangaroos and 
dragonflies or a lot e.g. dogs, cats and monkeys but they still all remained 
the same kind. [ Well -- which kind is the kangaroo descended from? And are you 
suggesting that it can breed with an alligator?]

  Regarding 'Archy' as it is affectionately know is a bird. Just for minute 
Paul ask yourself why there are not an infinite number of transitional types 
spread right across the fossil record? [ Sorry, but that is a ridiculous 
proposition on at least two counts. I'll explain if you ask. ] Surely plain 
common sense tells you that it cannot just be the plain 'kinds' that got 
fossilised. [ No indeed not. But as long as you reserve to yourself the 
authority to decide whether or not 'Archy' is transitional, then of course you 
will always decide in your favour. Still while we're there, when was the last 
time you saw a bird with teeth? ] Even Darwin was worried that he hadn't come 
across any and that his theory was dependant upon finding them. A recent 
curator of the Natural History Museum is on record as saying that he had never 
seen or heard of a transitional fossil; if you want the quote I can provide it. 
I think that had Darwin lived a lot longer he would have retracted his theory 
because the transitionals, as he envisioned, have never materialised. [ In your 
opinion plus one. I still have that creationist perspective on evolution! ] 
There are only a few listed as transitionals and of course creationists as well 
as others dispute them. [ And a very much greater number do not. ] You must 
remember that there a lot of scientists who do not accept evolution and who are 
not creationists. [ If the table in the section above is any guide, there can't 
be too many. ] If your are right then there must be millions of indisputable 
transitionals. [ Not so! I'm sure you would dispute them all. Question -- How 
many T. Rex skeletons have been found? ] Creationists are, by-and-large, 
content with secular science's definition of what a kind is [ Hardly! Secular 
science has never defined a 'kind'. That is a biblical concept, for which 
secular science has many times asked for a definition from creationists and 
never been obliged and this includes you. Note: You will have noticed that 
Martin S has corrected me in this particular. ] - so don't bother to go down 
that road with me - but by all means check it out for yourself. 

  You seem reluctant, so I'll propose a tentative and hurried definition of 
transitional form -- "A species which exhibits characteristics of an earlier 
species together with characteristics of a later species. All, some, or none 
need be extant." How about taking a risk and give me your definition?

  Paul D

  PS On the same site, one level up at 
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/philos.htm#Science there are quite a number 
of articles from a surprising range of sources from Dembski to Dawkins.


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

Other related posts: