[geocentrism] evolution possible.
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:40:45 +1000
Is evolution possible?
What Copernicus proposed as a system, the Church allowed as an exercise. It was
not condemend as such. Much like science fiction may discuss other worlds and
other life forms. But fiction nonetheless. When Galelleo took it up, he went
further. He advocated it was the truth and even further, states that the word
of God and the church was in error. This he did on no proof whatsoever, but
purely from a preferred position.
There is no doubt that from appearances which none can distinguish from
illusion, either way, excepting they chose directions of science to conform or
explain it, either theory could be correct. It depends from which scientific
base the problem is approached. The minority view or the majority acceptance.
Thankfully consensus does not confirm scientific truth.
For those who accept the revelation of God as the absolute truth, the direction
science must take is already decided for us. That it fails to reach a true
consensus in the majority of scientific opinion should be of little concern to
the Christian, in the matter of the supernatural life, ie of faith. We may
treat the subject as an exercise in science, an exercise and nothing else, just
so long as we retain and maintain that heliocentrism is heresy, and
unacceptable.
In the matter of evolution, once again Divine revelation has closed the matter
for us. But the position as regards science is vastly different. The science
involved with evolution and for evolution is so fraught with speculation and so
litle to do with evidence normal to the scientific method, that one could say
it is non existent.
Whereas I could state above that there is a good case for scientific discussion
of either side in geocentrism versus heliocentrism, such is not the case when
we debate creation versus evolution.
In creation, the scientific method cannot be applied. It is purely a matter of
revelation and faith. The scientific method cannot be applied within the rules
of secular science which forbids the examination of revelation and or any
evidence which supports it. The reason, according to Paul, is the random
nature, and non repeatability of what is called supernatural phenomena.
Yet repeatedly I hear from evolutionist supporters, mention of the randomness
and nonrepeatibility of the processes believed to be responsible for where we
have evolved to, today.
All of the alleged processes, with all their complexity and variation are faith
based upon the examples of natural selection presented to the world by one man,
Charles Darwin. There is nothing else. They have absolutely no evidence of
cross species evolution, or new species evolution. Not one atom of organic
biological matter has ever been duplicated, let alone living biological
material.
I would never be so bold as to go with Jack and say that they will never
acomplish such an experiment. History is replete with examples of the people of
God falling into that trap. But I do side with Jack when he states that
evolutionists have very little to support their case other than FAITH in the
belief that natural selection in a single species can develop new and different
species. I do not condemn that approach. Such faith is what drove Edison on
till he discovered an electric light that worked. Such is not a religious or
supernatural faith.
Nevertheless, notwithstanding all of that, and in keeping with the Word and
revelation of God, that he created the world some few thousand years ago, I can
state with certainty that He created an evolved world. He did. From the moment
everything was created, even Adam and Eve, all had an age, considerably older
in years and aeons than the microsecond of creation.
From this I can defend my position, that as an exercise, I may, without denying
creation, consider the science of evolution beginning with just two equal and
opposite non material electrical charges called a proton and an electron. From
there, I can understand how the Pauls and Dawkins of the world can have hope in
discovering or conjecturing on the complete mechanisms that caused the
diversity we have today.
All that remains is for me to get them to consider this question. "If you are
to consider such random and unrepeatable forces in nature, why do you exclude a
prime source and mover, and other forces, which are called supernatural because
they are random and unrepeatable? Whatever the reason, this is still a denial
of evidence. . "
Philip.
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] evolution possible.
