[geocentrism] Re: Invitation

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:34:36 +0000 (GMT)

Jack L
Responses in teal
From Jack Lewis Sun Sep 9 21:05:57 2007
With respect Paul evolutionist scientists are not doing that! No matter how 
they try they will not be able to create life from just plain chemicals. [I 
misunderstood your meaning so I withdraw this comment though I do note your 
arrogance in predicting what scientists will not be able to do.]
The reason my emotion shows is out of frustration that scientists are trying to 
do that which is impossible and they are too blind to see it. [What these 
scientists are trying to do is to explain the evidence before them -- nothing 
more. That complete success has not thus far been demonstrated does not mean it 
will not be so tomorrow. (I recall once previously pointing out to you that 
what has happened in the past is not an eternally reliable guide to what will 
happen in the future. (Re:Apollo program From Paul Deema 2006 Mar 02)). 
Concerning impossibility, this is just an assertion on your part and has no 
empirical support. In any event, where is the skin off your nose?] Please spare 
me the argument that this has been many a famous last word. Just because a 
scientists persists in trying to do the impossible [Again -- you cannot prove 
that it is impossible.] does not mean that it will eventually be possible. 
There comes a time when you have to stop and
 accept the inevitable - a designer. [Well Jack, clearly you have come to this 
decision. You'll just have to get used to the idea that you are never going to 
see everyone agreeing with your every pronouncement.]
Here is an example from Richard Dawkins. He wrote a book called 'Climbing Mount 
Improbable'. In an e-mail to me he said that some people think that things 
evolved in one go i.e. fish to amphibians. This he said was highly improbable, 
but it could happen by taking lots of imperceptible steps up the evolution 
mountain until you finally reach the top. His first problem is that he has 
established that the top of the mountain is a goal to be aimed for. [I don't 
think so. I think he is attempting to explain what is plain to see, what 
already exists. I have not seen any attempt to predict what is yet to happen. 
Also, I don't think the problem is his -- I think it is yours.] Evolution has 
no intelligence and therefore no preconceived goals. [I don't think he has 
suggested that it has. I think you are projecting your impressions onto what he 
has said.] His next problem [Your next problem?] is, that what he says is OK so 
long as all the steps are not random but
 progress upwards (probability calculations not needed here because it has been 
predetermined). But according to Dawkins and other evolutionists, these 
imperceptible steps are random genetic mutations and filtered by natural 
selection (ignoring what mutated before there was any genetic material [See 
*Note below]). Natural selection is not a force or measurable entity it is 
merely a description of an effect. [No -- it is not an effect, it is a proces 
with many possible paths and many possible outcomes. To see what I mean here, 
have a look at the classic island isolations -- Hawaii, Galapagos, Madagascar, 
Australia. Widely differing distinct species but in each location, similar 
niches are occupied by similar creatures. There is almost always more than one 
solution to a given problem. If evolution is the process which has made this 
world, then what we see is just one outcome among countless possibilities, many 
of which could have gone in a different
 direction with equal utility. For instance, would we be better served if the 
basic plan of life had produced a dominant hexiped rather than quadruped 
structure? Would it have made any difference? They would both have worked!] His 
blindness is that if each mutation is random in its effect on the organism, it 
could go forward, or backward, or sideways. [Yes of course it could -- for an 
individual. However the backward (less fit) will not survive, the sideways 
(equally fit) may give rise to a related species and the forward (more fit) 
will probably -- by definition -- be more successful and ultimately more 
numerous.] Next time you are on a mountain, or hill, or anywhere for that 
matter, switch off your brain and then wander aimlessly around and see where it 
gets you and make sure you do not have a preconceived goal to aim for to start 
with. Also you have to decide when to stop wandering aimlessly without using 
your intelligence (brain must remain switched
 off) in reaching your non-determined goal. [Jack you seem to be overly 
concerned with the individual. Life isn't like that. When push comes to shove, 
he -- or the group with the advantageous mutation -- who can shove the hardest 
will get the food and the loser will be disadvantaged -- perhaps to the point 
of death. I suspect that, in the comfort of your warm home and your favourite 
chair, you espouse lofty notions of equality and egalitarianism but I have to 
tell you, when the chips are down, you will have to contend with those who are 
prepared to shove. In the big picture, it doesn't matter if one individual 
decides to wander blind folded around a mountain. All that matters for 
survival, is that a viable number of fit-to-survive individuals choose a 
different pursuit.]
The biggest show stopper for any evolutionist is chemicals to life!!! [*Note. 
Yes it is a considerable hurdle. However credible scenarios have been advanced 
and they are still based on the idea of great variation, "limitless" time and 
greatest utility.] Without it there is nothing to evolve. All ideas about 
evolution without a mechanism for abiogenesis is a religion about origins. [I'm 
sorry but it is now my turn to become emotional about the frustration I 
experience when you make this claim. Let me again (previous Re:Climate change 
From Paul Deema Wed Jun 6 17:57:08 2007) place before you the OCD definition of 
religion -- "Human recognition of superhuman controlling power & esp. of a 
personal God entitled to obedience, effect of such recognition on conduct & 
mental attitude". Just how do you reconcile this definition with your comments 
about those who follow the scientific path to wisdom?]
Paul D

Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.

Other related posts: