Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
The Creation of Man
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dmitri" data-source="post: 15950" data-attributes="member: 397"><p><strong>Re: The Creation of Man</strong></p><p></p><p><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div></p><p></p><p>Harte,</p><p></p><p>His fixed size universe is just a hypothesis, a play on math, if only to keep the diversity of views in cosmology. I guess there is little diversity in the evolutionary theory. He had been interested in evolution since his childhood. And he was very good at probabilistic models, all it takes to see the prevailing theory is misconception. He also knew about genes, proteins and genetics quite a bit. If you like, read his book, it is only 142 pgs. And the personality does not matter anyway, if you follow an argument you either agree or do not agree, not because a person may have been wrong with his cosmological ideas or did not get a phd in biology.</p><p></p><p>Gould saw problems in the theory, but he was not a good mathematician to pin the source. Mayr said that microevolution does not explain macroevolution, meaning we do not know what is going on at all. But they were strict evolutionists, thinking in terms of randomness + selection.</p><p>What turns out to be the reality is that neither randomness nor selection works on a single bit. Thus we do not have a theory. The tree of life with common ancestry is part of the theory; random mutations + selection was the other part to explain the tree. The single trunk tree is just a hypothesis; it may not be true BTW. The explanation in terms of randomness and selection is definitely wrong. Based on this, I think ID and panspermia are good alternatives. If you know of or come up with others, please, let me know. Kauffman?s self-organization looks a stretch to me, and overlapping with ID anyway, unless he says RNA soup was good for first life. Majority can be wrong, and science is not about voting anyway. (Though they thought different and voted in the AAAS for ID being unscientific.) I would not go with such a majority vote blindly, this is not a legislative act that you have to obey. Science should be about questioning and new ideas; not actually the case in the evolutionary theory nowadays. I am glad in the US you still find some reason here; in Europe almost nobody questions the theory at all. I think this is because most people just do not care much what is true and what is not, habits are stronger than reason. I like this forum, thank you,</p><p></p><p>Dmitri</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dmitri, post: 15950, member: 397"] [b]Re: The Creation of Man[/b] <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Harte\")</div> Harte, His fixed size universe is just a hypothesis, a play on math, if only to keep the diversity of views in cosmology. I guess there is little diversity in the evolutionary theory. He had been interested in evolution since his childhood. And he was very good at probabilistic models, all it takes to see the prevailing theory is misconception. He also knew about genes, proteins and genetics quite a bit. If you like, read his book, it is only 142 pgs. And the personality does not matter anyway, if you follow an argument you either agree or do not agree, not because a person may have been wrong with his cosmological ideas or did not get a phd in biology. Gould saw problems in the theory, but he was not a good mathematician to pin the source. Mayr said that microevolution does not explain macroevolution, meaning we do not know what is going on at all. But they were strict evolutionists, thinking in terms of randomness + selection. What turns out to be the reality is that neither randomness nor selection works on a single bit. Thus we do not have a theory. The tree of life with common ancestry is part of the theory; random mutations + selection was the other part to explain the tree. The single trunk tree is just a hypothesis; it may not be true BTW. The explanation in terms of randomness and selection is definitely wrong. Based on this, I think ID and panspermia are good alternatives. If you know of or come up with others, please, let me know. Kauffman?s self-organization looks a stretch to me, and overlapping with ID anyway, unless he says RNA soup was good for first life. Majority can be wrong, and science is not about voting anyway. (Though they thought different and voted in the AAAS for ID being unscientific.) I would not go with such a majority vote blindly, this is not a legislative act that you have to obey. Science should be about questioning and new ideas; not actually the case in the evolutionary theory nowadays. I am glad in the US you still find some reason here; in Europe almost nobody questions the theory at all. I think this is because most people just do not care much what is true and what is not, habits are stronger than reason. I like this forum, thank you, Dmitri [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
The Creation of Man
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top