[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 06:23:32 -0800


Your trip to the dentist seems to have been a trifle traumatic, for otherwise why would you not know that a tongue-in-cheek remark from me, a staunch anti-evolutionist, regarding whether or not your dentist is the missing link*, would be anything other than humour?

Jack has my full support as regards abiogenesis. Without an explanation for this, the idea of organic evolution is a non sequitur and completely dead in the water (or should I say, disassimilated in the primordial soup?).

Similarly, if Steven and I have shown by straightforward observation that the World does not orbit the Sun, then heliocentricity is also dead in the water.

As regards James' posting to you, I found it to be of high quality and not in any way derogatory.

If you really are searching for truth, then let's see some evidence for it.

Jack has requested that you address abiogenesis, since all other things are digressions without a method of explaining this. This is a perfectly reasonable, logical and scientific request, and I look forward to you either supplying an answer or conceding that no answer is known.

(* This is another joke, by the way.)


-----Original Message-----
From: jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 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 evolution.
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
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 conclusion

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 now.

Other related posts: