Very well put! I think we need to not to be afraid to admit that we
hardly know anything
at all. It is the mystery of it all that makes life so delicious.
Peace and gratitude, D. Mindock
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Irwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 5:56 PM
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] The Lutec over unity device
Hi All,
I really don´t care much for this so I´ll keep it quick. I agree with your
comments Bob. Folks who don´t understand DNA well have great difficulty with
this evolution stuff. There have also been many religious frauds, with the
"Shroud of Turin" coming immediately to mind. I´m not an agnostic. If
anything I think folks should have an even larger idea of God rather than a
small simplistic one. I mean where did the energy for the Big Bang come from
anyway? It was large enough to spread the entire universe out from something
extremely small and yet spawned fusion reactions in stars. Last I read,
fusion reactions are the most powerful reactions we´ve actually seen. So at
some point there had to be a "Power" greater than a fusion reaction. Call
that whatever you will. It´s difficult for me to look into the night sky,
see the beauty, and not believe there´s something else greater than mankind.
Humbly,
Tom Irwin
-----Original Message-----
From: bob allen
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11/04/05 17:57
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Lutec over unity device
Tim Brodie wrote:
I'm always interested that people use the *Theory* of Evolution as
an example of Science. At best you could call it an hypothesis,
since to be science a theory must be observable and repeatable.
things like phyolgenetic relationships, as indicated via the similarity
of the dna of the genome are certainly observable and repeatable
As I've looked into this idea of evolution, what I've found is alot
of conjecture and interdisciplinary circular reasoning. Stories
that constantly change. Comets this year, asteriods last year,
volcanoes the year before.
If you are talking about the mass extinctions which have occured from
time to time over a hundreds of millions of years, then different
extinctions have been discussed in the context of different events.
Nothing here contradicts the simple notion that the diversity of life we
see is due to random mutations selected for by various forces.
"These fossils are x-millions of years old" say the *biologists*
"because they're found in rock x-millions of years old." "These rocks
are x-millions of years old" say the *archiologists* "because these
fossils are in them, and we know that these animals lived x-millions
of
years ago."
Actually, there are a whole bunch of methods for dating. In addition to
stragraphy, there are numerous radioactive decay series, with
overlapping half-lives, archeomagnetic dating which utilizes the
meandreings of the magnetic poles, obsidian hydration, fission track,
amino acid racemization, and on and on. There is no circular reasoning
here. the methods are essentially indipendently verifiabe, and a ages
determined from first principles.
Look, an unobserved series of historical events happened. No
transitional species have ever been found (notwithstanding several
publications' attempts to present them from time to time) that
has stood up to scrutiny.
what? just in terms of human evolution, australopithecenes
evolutionarily precede "homo" genera. Within Homo, are a series of
species such as erectus, habilis, and on and on. And if you look at the
dna the relationships are overwellminingly obvious. There is a gradual
change in the dna as you move across the spectrum of life. My dna is
more like a chimpanzee's than the chimpanzee's is like a gorilla's. Put
another way, the dna of a sea squirt is more like mine than it is to a
salmonella bacteria. One must really try hard to not see the
relationships among life.
Remember whole hominid skulls fashioned
from one pig's tooth? No? That's because it isn't of general
interest to the evolutionary *scientists*, and thus we still find
Piltdown stories being published in children's 'science' textbooks.
so frauds have occured. they don't negate the theory.
Evolution is not science, it's a worldview that fits a set of
religious beliefs and as such is really only a religious
precursor. Certainly not science.
criminently, there is nothing religious about recognizing that the
easiest way to explain biological diversity is random mutations and
selective pressure to create what we have in the world around us.
--
Bob Allen
http://ozarker.org/bob
"Science is what we have learned about how to keep
from fooling ourselves" — Richard Feynman
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
