[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:37:00 +1000

I could never fathom or accept why Aristotle and his philosophy of logic which 
Christians, St Thomas for example,  was held as a fine example of a proof of a 

This below I had never heard of, but now I know why..  Thanks chaps for 
encourageing me to look up abiogenesis,,, Talk about a learning curve. 

"According to Aristotle it was a readily observable truth that aphids arise 
from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty 
hay, alligators and crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of 
water, and so forth." 

Quite logical HUH!

But evolution does not espouse this abiogenesis..  not at all... or it 
shouldn't, not according to me. It is because I failed chemistry misarably that 
I am in a favourable position to discuss the subject objectively with precision 
and truth. 

Organic or inorganic ? It is a convenient way to differentiate groups. But 
still just chemicals, like acids and bases. 

I see no problem with synthesising and duplicating natures organic material , 
whether it has been done or not, it is no problem other than that of getting it 

Making such a chemical "alive" has not been done..  ??  are you sure?  Well OK 
maybe no artificial organic material has yet been made to live and grow..  But 
they are on track. Have you seen what they have done with artificial bone? Last 
time I looked, in the cloning process, lifeless organic DNA is taken  and 
inserted in an egg that has been made inert by the removal of its original 
nuclei. this is now a non living egg.  It will go nowhere nohow. Then they 
apply a spark of electrical charge. Bingo 50% of the time, and life begins. 

So therefore the idea or hypotheses of spontaneous generation as abiogenesis is 
a misnomer or mistake in interpretation. A spark has to occur. 

In evolution, for the whole world of lifes variety  to evolve, it only has to 
happen once. 

But if conditions were friendly or even unfriendly , why must it only be once. 

For me to believe that this is actually what happened is impossible, because I 
have His word that it did not happen that way. But I can and do believe it is 
theoretically possible, and it is the way God would have allowed it to happen 
had He wanted to support those who reject His existence. As I said before, for 
God , time He had plenty of.  Likewise is the theory of Heliocentrism a stand 
alone dynamically equivalent system within the Geocentric philosophy. 

He chose to do it differently to confuse the wise of this world, whose pride 
shouts with Lucifer, "I will not serve" .  


----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 12:00 AM
  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 


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.27/1020 - Release Date: 20/09/2007 
12:07 PM

Other related posts: