[geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  • From: "philip madsen" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 10:25:54 +1000

I guess you missed my point? 

Pterosauria.[1] They existed from the late Triassic to the end of the 
Cretaceous Period (228 to 65 million years ago). Pterosaurs were the first 
vertebrates to evolve flight.

Scroll down about half way and you will find a fairly good picture of a 
Paul D 

If you BELIEVE thats a photograph, then who took it please?  and how? 

Using your reasoning Paul, that all kinds have skeletons of bone is proof of 
evolution.. Is there an important word or two missing here? 

Paul D 

 Possibly, will rephrase. Just because all animals present calcium skeletons , 
some might say this is proof of a common ancestor. That is a long stretch of 
the imagination. As is believing a bird cannot devolve into having a beak with 
teeth, since the material is common, like finger nails and claws. 

Notice I don't deny the principle or theory of evolution as a possibility, as 
likewise I do not now deny the heliocentrist position as being dynamically 
equivalent to geocentrism within an aether, as a possibility in theory. 

But no matter how much these theories are supported, your conviction in them is 
in no way a proof of their actuality. 

To establish how your thoughts are rationalised, that I may assess your 
reasoning methods may I ask you to answer the following hypothetical question. 
Please consider it carefully, as I may find your answer illogical whichever way 
you go. 

Let us presume that you personally were present with all your wits and as many 
scientific and medical experts as you considered necessary, at the world 
renowned shrine at Lourdes, and observed the following. A man having been 
pre-examined as having no bones in the lower legs, emerges from a bath in the 
waters with restored bones  and normal legs. All this in front of your own 
eyes. Next another man is examined and shown to have eyes so damaged by a 
degenerative desease that there are no pupils, and he has no sight at all. He 
is certified as totally blind. He goes into the water, and emerges in minutes 
with ABSOLUTELY no change of the physical condition of his eyes what so ever, 
and yet sees everything around him with perfect vision as though he had perfect 
eyes. And this sight remained with him for the rest of his life. 

This is the question. In light of of what you have observed confirmed, and in 
light of all the consensus of scientific opinion regarding evolution which you 
hold, will your conviction in believing their opinion remain constant and 


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 1:10 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Evolution

  Philip M

  Comments in teal.

  Philip M From philip madsen Wed Sep 19 21:54:42 2007

  Paul you are stretching things a bit. 

  Do they then have photos, or perhaps an original in deep freeze? I have 
mentioned this url several times -- thus far no indication that anyone has 
looked at it. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/philos.htm#Science Scroll down 
to History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth by Davis A. 
Young, Ph.D. Scroll down about half way and you will find a fairly good picture 
of a Pterosaur. This picture has a striking resemblance to the famous picture 
of archaeopteryx, and while I can't at this second give you a url, I would be 
surprised if you have not seen a good picture of this animal. If you have, you 
could not have missed the unmistakable, well defined teeth and the exquisite 
preservation of the feathers.

  Do you believe then that Dinosaurs are reptilian.. ? Why? because thats what 
we have been told for centuries? Are you forgetting that speculation (and 
fraud) clothed these monster skeletons. ?

  The definition 'reptile' has been made by others -- much more able than 
myself -- from skeletal remains, that these skeletons have features 
characteristic of reptiles. The structure of the bones also display 
characteristics which speak of cold blooded creatures -- something to do with 
the holes which carry blood vessels I think it was. That they were not 
amphibian can also be determined by skeletal characteristics.

  Do you know that doubt has been cast on this speculation by more recent DNA 
tests that show these to be mammal rather than reptile..I've stated what I 
think about DNA in this context. also the dating method has been turned upside 
down by serious new evidence.. References? What reason other than faith in 
evolution would cause scientists to get angry at these new research data? Is 
this true or are you just projecting your anger onto them?

  And From philip madsen Fri Sep 21 07:45:24 2007

  Beaks may be/ are teeth... That some deformity may be propagated is liken to 
natural selection, but it is not evolution. I suppose you might want to believe 
that certain men who are covered in hair like an ape is a transitional? No -- 
these people 'suffer' from a normally switched off gene instead being 
expressed. The colloquial term I think is 'throw-back'. A deformed beak in a 
bird that work like teeth is no different from certain humans developing a real 
tail.. Its still a bird and its still a Human kind. Well think what you may but 
lacking a firm definition of what you would regard as transitional is a problem 
here. I have indicated what I believe is a reasonable definition.

  Using your reasoning Paul, that all kinds have skeletons of bone is proof of 
evolution.. Is there an important word or two missing here?

  Paul D

  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: