[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:23:55 +0100

Dear Paul,
I just noticed that you said that if you don't respond we may feel that you 
have acquiesced. Not so, I don't expect you to respond to everything that 
everyone says. In that I support you wholeheartedly. That is why I try and keep 
my discussions to the point in question and don't always respond to all that 
you say or ask. I may give you food for thought but I shan't be insisting that 
you come back to me on all of it. I hope you agree.

Jack 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 4:41 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution


  JA

  Thank you for your response.



  "I'm sorry to say this post from you is unnecessarily argumentative and 
confrontational. Worse, it includes an accusation that my position on the 
subject of evolution in particular -- and by implication -- science in general, 
can be equated to faith. I deny that now as I have previously, and as a result 
of this, I see nothing to be gained by addressing the remainder of this post. 

  Paul D" 

  Paul, I have re-worded the statement to remove the part you find offensive. I 
personally don't understand why you have a problem calling what you think to be 
true, as faith. 

  It is not offensive as such -- my problem is that if I let it pass or fail to 
address it specifically, it will be interpreted by many as acquiescence. The 
corollary to this is that it will then be interpreted by many to mean that I 
agree with the deeply ingrained attitude that faith means religious faith, that 
belief means religious belief, that science can be equated to religion. In this 
company, that is how it has been interpreted in the past and I do not wish 
anyone to understand this to be so, so I must find other words to express my 
confidence, my understanding.

  Calling something transitional, does not make it transitional. You are 
assuming it to be transitional because you can imagine how it could be and then 
you turn around and call it evidence to support your contention that evolution 
is true and this contention that evolution is true is what caused you to view 
it as transitional in the first place. Do you not see the circular problem here?

  I've posted requests twice to others to define what they mean by 
'transitional form'. I have posted mine. When we agree what the word means, we 
will be able to discuss the matter.

  If this makes it easier for you to read and somehow less accusatory, I would 
be happy to rephrase my entire original post. 

  I realise that matters of faith are not where you want to think that you are. 
You want to be a practical and thoughful person, on a higher path of science, 
evidence, probabilities and practicality. My point to you is that you are not 
free from the things you dislike in others, faith, preconceived notions, 
assumptions, brainwashing, culture, peer pressure, etc.... - No one is free of 
these things, not me, not you, or enyone else here. It seems you have agreed 
with me previously that all people, religious or scientific, are influenced by 
these same faults. I say that evolution is a result of these unsavory 
characteristics, and that you as a man of science and practicallity might want 
to examine whether or not that is true.

  I have agreed previously that this is true. I have not changed my mind. 
However, evolution is a process, which, to the best of their ability to 
discern, many men of science and 'non-diploma-possessing' people, is the best 
explanation of why we are what and where we are.

  JA 

  Paul D



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

Other related posts: