[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: "philip madsen" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 09:40:46 +1000

PS Apologies for the font sizes -- Wordpad, Yahoo!, and AiG in concert seem to 
have conspired against me and I haven't the time to re-edit the whole thing.Paul

No worries. Outlook express converts with a click or two.  I do it all the time 
to save looking for my glasses.  

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 12:59 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  Martin S

  First, the response to criticism of M Behe's Mouse Trap analogy. I went to 
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=442 as you 
suggested and read some of it, enough to know that I was never going to be able 
to competently assess its content.

  I did notice something however which caused me to go back to the top and 
check the origins. What I found was that the refutation was written by M Behe. 
Essentially, it's simply him stating that what he had said originally was 
correct. Then I noticed the sponsor -- Discovery Institute! I thought that you 
were directing me to a corroborating mainstream source. At the very least, 
someone other than the original author. I'm sorry but this is never going to 
sway me, even without my current well earned suspicion of anything from DI, 
CSR, AiG etc.

  Now to Baraminology. I snipped this from Wikipedia.


  Baramin Distance

  To refine this method, the concept of "Baramin Distance" was proposed. The 
initial study by Robinson and Cavanaugh tested several methods on the including 
genetic tests and Catarrhine primates, tests based on ecology and morphology. 
However, one criterion for determining a baramin is whether scripture says the 
two groups are separate,[4] so methods that did not separate humans from 
primates were rejected.[5]


  Baraminology is not accepted by the scientific community. It has been heavily 
criticized for its lack of rigorous tests, and post-study rejection of data to 
make it better fit the desired findings.[6] Baraminology has not produced any 
peer-reviewed scientific research,[7] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" 
found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and 
botany since 1924.[8]

  Instead, universal common descent is a well-established and tested scientific 
theory[9] that proposes all life derived from a common ancestor.[9] However, 
both cladistics (the field devoted to investigations of common descent) and the 
scientific consensus on transitional fossils are rejected by 

  I'm afraid that I'm in agreement with Wiki.

  It is not that I am automatically dismissive of anything from the above 
mentioned groups. It is just that if they were publishing good science, there 
would be much wider agreement. It is as though these people believe that there 
are alternative truths. It is Lysenko all over again.

  I found this on AiG.


  Based on my own biological research into created kinds, I would be even 
bolder than Nelson. Over the past decade, I have worked to develop new methods 
of studying created kinds using statistics.8 This research is still very new 
and preliminary, but a pattern is beginning to emerge. For land animals and 
birds, the created kind most often corresponds to the conventional 
classification rank called "family," which includes many species. There is 
evidence that the camel, horse, cat, dog, penguin, and iguana families are each 
a created kind.9 Like Nelson, I would put the coyote, wolf, jackal, and dog in 
the same kind, and I would include the fox. I would put the lion and house cat 
in another kind, and the llama and camel in yet another kind. Today these 
species (i.e., llama and camel) look amazingly different, but they seem to have 
been generated after the Flood from information already present within their 
parent kind. Lions, coyotes, and dromedary camels were probably not on the Ark 
but were born to parents within the cat, dog, and camel kinds.

  Again there is the Biblical reference. This is not science. I don't care 
particularly if this is taught in Sunday School or preached from the pulpit as 
religion, but it is not science.

  Sternberg however, is another matter.

  A good place to start is this link concerning the treatment Sternberg 
received for publishing Dembski back in August 2004: 

  I believe you've made a fair case here -- he does seem to have been roughly 
treated, at least from this single source anyway. If the material submitted, 
and in this case -- published -- meets the definition of science, there should 
not be any impediment to publishing. After all, if he is judged by his peers to 
be talking a lot of cobblers, then it is done in public and he will be publicly 
criticised. Most all revolutionaries are criticised publicly, and that is fair 
enough. An establishment which blows with every breath of change is worthless. 
New theories must earn their berth.

  In this vein also, I've asked elsewhere but got no response -- do you know 
why A E Wilder-Smith seems not to cast a shadow in the secular world despite 
his three doctorates, while in biblically sanctioned venues he seems to be 

  Also, have you checked your Uni-Pixel mailbox recently?

  Paul D

  PS Apologies for the font sizes -- Wordpad, Yahoo!, and AiG in concert seem 
to have conspired against me and I haven't the time to re-edit the whole thing.

  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: