[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 

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 

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. . " 


Other related posts:

  • » [geocentrism] evolution possible.