[geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:06:51 +0000 (GMT)
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||| First post for the year -- welcome back to all!
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jack L
I've included two of your posts in this thread with comments.
Paul D
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
/*
You are forgiven your messy attachments! |[:-)
Just an open mind. Not relative to anything. Characterised principally by being
able to acknowledge a point made by your adversary as correct instead of
objecting to every point made on principle (or simply ignoring it) and
especially those points which are quintesentially obvious.
*/
From Jack Lewis Sun Dec 23 22:34:14 2007
Sorry about the messy way I sent the attachments. I'll be more careful next
time.
I'm glad you thought the articles had some debating merit. However an open mind
with respect to what? Do you mean with respect to the two articles or to other
things?
Finally may I wish you a thoughtful Christmas and a preposterous New Year:-)
Jack L
Paul Deema wrote:
Jack L
I've extracted the text from that unreadable file you sent me and have
'textised' the other one as well -- about 92% reduction in file size! Some
typos have been fixed and hyperlinks removed.
I find the content of both files quite interesting and stuff for a fertile
debate -- if only you had an open mind.
Paul D
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
/*
I'll try one more analogy -- please try to grasp what it is I'm saying. You've
seen those wonderfully imaginative demonstrations involving -- in some cases I
believe -- more than a million dominoes, each arranged so as to fall when
struck by the previous falling domino (or something struck by a falling
domino). It is a fascinatingly compulsive spectacle.
Abiogenesis is like the first domino being pushed sufficiently that its centre
of gravity falls outside its base of support. Once this happens, all that
follows is preordained.
And what I mean by "...try to understand..." is that I'm aware that you can
posit all manner of events which could derail the process. This matters not. If
your positted event does not occur, then they will all fall.
The aether on the other hand is like the water in a canal. When a barge is
deposited in it, it displaces just the the amount of water which equals its own
weight. The barge can then be towed to the next loch. Without it, the barge
would rest in the mud and to a first approximation -- you couldn't move it.
Thus it must always be there for the canal to funcion.
Again, I'm sure you can raise all manner of objections. I say again -- it
matters not.
Thus I say yet again -- abiogenesis and the aether cannot be compared, as they
are different each from the other in a fundamental manner.
*/
/*
Concerning fossils found in waterborn sediments and the idea that the smaller
were buried first and the larger later. Why then do we not find rabbit
skeletons buried with the trilobytes and elephants buried with the hadrosaurs?
Now to the matter of the "...scientific absurdities..." and scientists being in
denial. As gently as I can manage Jack -- you are not my first point of
reference when it comes to deciding what is scientific and what is not and I
suspect that this is true for a great many of my peers and my betters. Not to
put too fine a point on it, I think you overestimate your ability to determine
what is 'scientific' and what is not, especially in light of the fact that most
everytime a new idea is floated past you, your usual response is to ask someone
else what position you should take on the matter.
*/
From Jack Lewis Sun Dec 23 10:13:08 2007
Dear Paul and Regner,
Unfortunately Paul you picked a bad example as an analogy for evolution.
1 The building needed drawings from an architect.
2 The bricks did not make themselves.
3 The building could not build itself.
It is impossible for you to try and describe evolution, the 'goo to you' type
of evolution by comparing it with man made artefacts. If you want to use a
building as a true analogy then you must consider that the bricks came about by
some process that doesn't require intelligence. How many millions of years do
you suppose must elapse before bricks, complete with manufacturer's name,
spontaneously materialise? Of course the idea is daft and nobody would make
such a suggestion, without the bricks you couldn't build a house. Therefore
those who would continue to maintain that bricks must have come about by some
random natural spontaneous event simply because they exist, is not a very smart
conclusion. You may claim that you don't yet know the answer how bricks came
about, but a cursory inspection shows they couldn't have happened by chance
random processes. So why is it so difficult to apply the same reasoning to life
which is massively more complex that a
clay brick?
Regarding evolution and the unimportance of abiogenesis, the fossil record does
not show gradual change but thousands of set kinds - many of which are now
extinct. Since the fossils are found in water-born sediment, it makes sense
that the smallest organisms get buried first followed by the larger creatures.
That is the most obvious and simplest interpretation of the evidence. The only
reason for denying this interpretation is its close similarity with the events
described in the Bible therefore by default there has to be another
explanation. It is this explanation that is full of scientific absurdities
which the scientists are unable to see because they are in denial. Abiogenesis
is their most fundamental and greatest problem. Regner's suggestion that the
first organisms could have come from some other part of the cosmos merely
shifts the problem to somewhere else and again, it is not a very scientific
suggestion. You can look at all the skyscrapers in
New York and marvel at them but any suggestion that their building blocks
could have happened by chance is a non starter - no bricks, no building, it
really is that simple.
Jack L
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail
Other related posts:
