There appears to be some interest in this subject, so I will continue
discussing it as long as people want to discuss it by responding. Apoligies
to Bill in advance if this is inappropriate.
First, let me make something very clear. My goal in brining up this
discussion is to try to draw a parallel between what is happening with Hot
Fusion and Darwinian Evolution Theory. Maybe, we can begin to understand
the hostility towards Cold Fusion and as part of the Scientific Community,
begin to rectify it.
In Hot Fusion, the science appears to be "Established". There are decades
of work associated with it. There appears to be some "established"
theories. Hence, when people like Parks, Huzienga and others dismiss Cold
Fusion out of hand, they are simply appealing to the "Triumph" of the
prevailing theories. In their minds, these theories are well founded and
well established.
In Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism thought, once again, there "appears" to be
some "established" theories (Albeit a theory you can drive a Mack Truck
thru.). In the same vein, people like Jed who dismiss Intelligent Design
and Creationism as "quack" science, are just as quick to point out the
Darwinian Evolution is "fact" just as Parks would point out that Hot Fusion
is "fact" to the exclusion of anything else. You see, the point that I am
making is that without realizing it, Jed has the same close-minded
tendencies as Parks do.
Why doesn't Jed study the principles of Irreducible Complexity, or Specified
Complexity, or Biological Chirality, or Abiogenesis, or Improbabality or DNA
Information, or Cell complexity, or the Bacterial Flagellum etc. These are
legitimate fields of science where there are published papers. I suspect
that if I meet Jed in person, and hand him a math paper by Stephen Myers on
Specified Complexity and Improbability, he would let that paper drop to the
ground without looking at it. Why, because just like Parks, he believes in
his pet theory so much, so convinced by its correctness, that he is willing
to be "unscientific" and "close minded" about Intelligent Design, while in
the same breath accuse Parks of being close minded to Cold Fusion.
Folks, there is a parallel here. We all have our pet "Hot Fusion" theories
that we can not and will not deviate from. For Parks, its Hot Fusion, for
Jed, its Darwinian Evolution, for me, its Intelligent Design and
Creationsim. We are all pretty guilty of close-mindedness and unscientific
behavior. Except that, I realize my close-mindedness, Parks do not, and Jed
does not seem to.
Now, to respond to Harry's points:
Yes, it is normal for a theory to have holes and shortcomings, while the
basic idea is still "useful". I think Quantum Mechanics falls in that
category. But the issue with Darwinian Evolution theory is that there is a
"hole" the size of an aircraft carrier at the center of the theory. There
is a enormous improbability problem at the heart of Darwinian and
NeoDarwinian theory. Huxley, a staunch Darwinian Evolutionists, who made
many assumptions favorable to Darwinian Evolution theory, still end up
calculating that the odds for the Darwinian Evolution of a Horse at
10^300,000. (That's a number with 300,000 zeroes.) Just to put this is
perspective, anything with odds of less than 10^50 is considered in
Statistics to be an "Impossible" event. There are only 10^98 atoms in our
known Universe. (If I remember correctly.) Even if the universe was a
Billion Billion Billion Billion Billio Billion Billion times older than it's
currently acceptable "Big Bang" age, that would still not leave enough time
to evolve a horse based on the Gradual Natural Selection premise of
Darwinian Evolution Theory.
Folks, Darwinian Evolution Theory is DEAD. Science and math killed it. Let
us mourn Darwinian Evolution Theory just as we mourn the death of Hot Fusion
theory.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Veeder" <hveeder...@gmail.com>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
It is important to point out the fallicies but I do not think
fallicies render a theory fatally flawed.
A theory can still be useful and valuable even if the logic of the
theory is not completely sound. For example, although it took over 150
years to provide calculus with a thoroughly logical foundation, that
did not stop people from using it successfully. On the other hand it
is annoying when an inconsistency is pointed out and the response is
to dismiss it or explain it away without any real acknowledgement.
Unfortunately that kind of response is to be expected when math
replaces intuition in the art of theory making.
harry
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; and it is
the reason why I refrained from responding about Darwinian Evolution for
so
long - that is; that I value this forum so much, that I do not want to
involve other topics in this forum other than Cold Fusion. I wish people
would not use this forum for propaganda of their beliefs and then exclude
other points of view; just like what Parks, Huzienga, and others are doing
wrt to Hot fusion.
If you want to take shots at people who do not believe in Darwinian
Evolution, then be prepared to defend your position; albeit not in this
forum.
This will be my last reponse also.
I am prepared to discuss the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution with anyone;
anyone without the mindset of Parks, Huzienga and others. That is, people
who really what to know. Anyway, let me know where to go if you want to
discuss the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution.
So, if your think that I am "Completely wrong"; if you think I know
nothing
about biology or evolution; my challenge to you is to identify a place or
forum where you want us to discuss. I'll show up.
You criticize Parks for not even looking at the science befind cold
fusion;
my challenge to you is - Are you prepared to look at the science behind
the
movement against Darwinian Evolution?
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 5:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR
Sorry I opened this can of worms. One response only:
Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, centuries after Darwin, other people have indeed found an organ
that
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight
modifications. The bacterial flagellum is one. The "organ" composing
every
other organ you have - the cell is another.
You are completely wrong. Factually wrong. Any advanced textbook on
evolution will cover the development of flagellum and cells. You are
quoting propaganda circulated by people who nothing about biology or
evolution. These statements are as ignorant as claims that cold fusion
violates the laws of thermodynamics, or that no reaction can produce more
energy than it consumes, and therefore cold fusion is impossible. (I saw
that recently!)
I advise you not to comment on areas of science you know nothing about.
One
of the most important lessons of cold fusion is that in nearly every case,
the experts who do the work and have studied the subject carefully are
right, and ignorant people from outside the field are wrong. Many people
imagine the situation is the other way around, and Fleischmann, Jalbert or
Iyengar were outsiders challenging the authorities. People think the MIT
plasma fusion scientists were the insiders who had knowledge of fusion.
The
MIT people themselves thought so. That was a reasonable assumption in
early
1989, but it turns out their expertise is limited to plasma fusion. It
does
not apply to cold fusion.
If you wish to say something in rebuttal I promise not to respond. I will
let the matter drop.
- Jed
