[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:13:08 +0100

Dear Paul,
Once again I have to reiterate that without a mechanism to explain chemical 
evolution, there is nothing to evolve. You continue to use evolutionary 
assumptions, hypotheses and guesswork to try and mask this thorny problem. 
Neville hit the nail on the head in his posting to you over this problem. 

You asked me to strike a bargain with you regarding the 2nd L.O.T. My position 
on this is that science has shown that in a closed system if something is left 
alone e.g. a car in a field, it will tend to disorder (entropy) unless it is 
acted upon by directed energy. The arguments put forward by evolutionists is 
whether or not the world is a closed system. You may say that it doesn't have 
to be directed, but it does, how else can it continue! Randomness is the enemy 
here. You can shove as much wind, sunlight, electricity as you like at it but 
unless it is directed, the car will eventually disintegrate by the random 
actions of wind, sunlight and electricity (lightning). Is this not pure common 

You are right that I haven't reciprocated because it is pointless. You must 
remember that although I don't have any PhD's I can read and generally 
understand those who do and it from those that I extract my information. For 
almost every evolutionary statement that is made, someone has refuted it. As 
you know macroevolution cannot be tested and this is extremely important when 
trying to prove your point. 

I'm sorry if I sound like I'm talking down to you but if you can't see or more 
probably, don't want to see, then that's when my patience wears a little thin. 
Dawkins got roasted in a debate and that finished him off from further exposure 
to creationism. Also Dawkins is one of the rudest man I have ever seen when 
talking about creationism. He once started a lecture by saying that he will be 
'doing a bit of creation bashing'. Oh yes and there also is, Prof. Steve Jones 
who can be very vitriolic.  

Another thing you need to learn and that is you cannot use evolution as your 
argument against those who criticise evolution. So by saying that T-Rex has 
been extinct for 65,000,000 years as an argument against detecting DNA is using 
evolution to back-up evolution - circular arguing. You will have to find 
something else that will work for you.

As I keep saying I'm not interested in being dragged around from one 
evolutionary argument to another. I prefer to, as I keep saying, to deal with 
each issue on its own before going on to another. However since you are trying 
to find the 'truth' below are some other very thorny areas to check-out. 
1    DNA is a code, everyone who is anyone agrees with that. Now here is the 
rub! How does a code come about randomly? 
2    How do you account for the 'information' that is stored in the DNA? 
Information needs an originator, a language, and a recipient that can read or 
understand the information. There has to be prior interaction between the 
originator and the recipient in order for the code to be understood. This is an 
axiom! I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was creationists who first brought 
up the problem of information because clearly it needs an intelligent source. 
3    Genetic mutations. You have probably already found out that genetic 
mutations are almost always fatal or create a loss of genetic information. It 
never ever increases the genetic information. So how do get organisms to 
increase their complexity without an increase in information?

Finally Paul, here is a philosophical thought for you to be mulling over. 
Almost all the people who are involved in promoting evolution have 
philosophical and materialistic reasons for pursuing it. They don't care if 
they are wrong because to them they are accountable to nobody and it really 
doesn't matter anyway as long as they get their grants and get paid. Give me 
one good, solid, down-to-earth reason why evolutionists need to promote 
evolution? What is the benefit to them and us? Take eugenics for example, this 
was an idea in which evolution was to be used by man to artificially direct the 
course of evolution to get rid of the sick, the mentally ill in fact anyone who 
was considered a burden to society - creationists would be top of the list. 
There should be plenty on the web about it.

Cloning is another example. We are constantly bombarded with how cloning (using 
embryonic stem cells) would help cure Altzheimers and Parkinson's diseases etc. 
This is trying to use moral blackmail on us so that the pharmaceutical 
companies can be allowed to compete with each other to patent drugs to cure 
diseases. They couldn't give a damn about us, they only want to make a lot of 

To a Christian it matters a great deal as to what the truth is and that's the 
difference between us. So we don't have to prove anything, we just need to 
believe that life was designed by a creator. You, however do have to try and 
prove something and you also do it from starting at an
equal position of faith as we do, an assumption, a belief, a gut feeling it you 
like that life was not intelligently created.

I have said much in this posting and its main aim is to get you to surf the net 
for evolutionist's answers. When you have them, we or I can then direct you to 
a creationist site for the critique which is all you can expect rather than an 
answer. We show you the holes in evolution and you have to try and plug them, 
but eventually, as happened to most of us on this forum, it starts to make 
sense that evolution is nonsense.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 3:00 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  Jack L
  Let's strike a bargain. I asked first -- why do you think the second law of 
thermodynamics precludes the possibility of abiogenesis and/or evolution?
  You'll note that I have made an effort to read your references and answer 
your questions. So far I don't think you have made any attempt to reciprocate. 
You have attempted to talk down to me, you have strongly intimated that I am 
ignorant of anything to do with evolution, and adversely contrasted my level of 
understanding with yours. Frankly, I see why others, especially Richard D, 
don't want to debate with you.
  See From Paul Deema Wed Sep 12 16:59:30 2007
    I'll try to read all of the response to Point 9 by tomorrow night's efforts 
but perhaps you will favour me by then with your ideas about the Second Law of 
Thermodynamics and how you see its pronouncements proving the non occurrence of 
abiogenesis and/or evolution.

  Concerning your response to my post which referred to blood clotting cascade 
-- I have apologise to you -- you did respond. I found it in my Spam Bin along 
with my outgoing post mentioning the post in question. Apparently, the net 
nanny dislikes one of those site urls you provided. This post also contained 
this little outburst -
    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.
  T. Rex and his collegues have been extinct for around 65,000,000 years. There 
is just no way DNA is involved or it is as I suggested -- hoax, fraud, or 
  You really should stop second guessing what other people's motivation might 
be and suggesting that I am blinkered is the latest in a lengthening list of 
insults you've directed at me. I ask you to cease this practice and instead 
debate the issue with some decorum.
  And from the fifth post on this subject from you in less than two hours we 
have -
    A question for Paul. Do you think it is OK for this kind of thing to happen 
or would you dismiss it as an isolated case or even evolutionists are not 
  My answer is contained in my response to Martin S.
  Paul D

  ----- Original Message ----
  From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Sent: Friday, 21 September, 2007 11:03:38 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  Dear Paul,
  When is an argument merely gainsaying and when is it a spirited discussion?
  Accepting that you do not want to respond to the rest of James' post, how 
about just addressing the comment he made in red?


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

Other related posts: