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: 16947" data-attributes="member: 397"><p><strong>Re: The Creation of Man</strong></p><p></p><p>Just thought now, Sir Fred Hoyle?s attitude towards Darwinism was similar to mine. However it took him only a short while to realize that the theory cannot work, while it took me long four years in college. But this is Sir Fred Hoyle, <a href="http://www.cf.ac.uk/maths/wickramasinghe/hoyle.html" target="_blank">http://www.cf.ac.uk/maths/wickramasinghe/hoyle.html</a> ? one of the brightest minds, founder of the Cambridge Institute of Theoretical Astronomy, prodigious mathematician and theoretical physicist, acknowledged to have been one of the most creative scientists of the 20th century, inquirer into the nature of life since his childhood, and author of the book ?Mathematics of Evolution?, first edition written in his 72. For those of us sticking to Darwinism or the textbook evolutionary theory, following our habits more than logic, let us not compare him to most biology high school or college teachers, the original messengers of this kind or epidemic misconception. His argument leaves no room for a validity of the prevailing dogma. Though it takes some effort/ interest to sort these things out, but not stick to the dogma. Many Universities do not keep the book in their libraries, they are not comfortable with it yet. Sir F. Hoyle was not religion driven; he was scientist as a dictionary defines. </p><p> </p><p>(From his book, p.2, -just for fun, this is from the introduction) ?All that homespun knowledge was wiped clean from my brain by the age of eighteen, because by then I had become convinced that biology was a doubtful subject. The trouble was that in reading widely during my early teens I ran into the Darwinian theory, for a little while with illusions and then with less respect than adults with bated breath were wont to show. The theory seemed to me to run like this:</p><p> </p><p>If among the varieties of a species there is one that survives better in the environment than the others, then the variety that survives best is the one that best survives.</p><p> </p><p>If I had known the word tautology I would have called this a tautology. People with still more bated breath, called it natural selection. I made them angry, just as I do today, by saying that it did nothing at all. You could select potatoes as much as you pleased but you would never make them into a rabbit. Nor by selecting oak trees could you make them into colonies of bats, and those who thought they could in my opinion were bats in the belfry. This made them angry too. Older folk in the know told me that selection did not operate to make complicated things out of complicated things, only to make complex things out of simple ones. I couldn?t understand how anything of the sort could be true, because, unlikely as it was, it would surely be less difficult to make a rabbit out of a potato than to make a rabbit out of sludge, which is what people said happened, people with line after line of letters after their names who should have known what they were talking about, but obviously didn?t.?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dmitri, post: 16947, member: 397"] [b]Re: The Creation of Man[/b] Just thought now, Sir Fred Hoyle?s attitude towards Darwinism was similar to mine. However it took him only a short while to realize that the theory cannot work, while it took me long four years in college. But this is Sir Fred Hoyle, [url=http://www.cf.ac.uk/maths/wickramasinghe/hoyle.html]http://www.cf.ac.uk/maths/wickramasinghe/hoyle.html[/url] ? one of the brightest minds, founder of the Cambridge Institute of Theoretical Astronomy, prodigious mathematician and theoretical physicist, acknowledged to have been one of the most creative scientists of the 20th century, inquirer into the nature of life since his childhood, and author of the book ?Mathematics of Evolution?, first edition written in his 72. For those of us sticking to Darwinism or the textbook evolutionary theory, following our habits more than logic, let us not compare him to most biology high school or college teachers, the original messengers of this kind or epidemic misconception. His argument leaves no room for a validity of the prevailing dogma. Though it takes some effort/ interest to sort these things out, but not stick to the dogma. Many Universities do not keep the book in their libraries, they are not comfortable with it yet. Sir F. Hoyle was not religion driven; he was scientist as a dictionary defines. (From his book, p.2, -just for fun, this is from the introduction) ?All that homespun knowledge was wiped clean from my brain by the age of eighteen, because by then I had become convinced that biology was a doubtful subject. The trouble was that in reading widely during my early teens I ran into the Darwinian theory, for a little while with illusions and then with less respect than adults with bated breath were wont to show. The theory seemed to me to run like this: If among the varieties of a species there is one that survives better in the environment than the others, then the variety that survives best is the one that best survives. If I had known the word tautology I would have called this a tautology. People with still more bated breath, called it natural selection. I made them angry, just as I do today, by saying that it did nothing at all. You could select potatoes as much as you pleased but you would never make them into a rabbit. Nor by selecting oak trees could you make them into colonies of bats, and those who thought they could in my opinion were bats in the belfry. This made them angry too. Older folk in the know told me that selection did not operate to make complicated things out of complicated things, only to make complex things out of simple ones. I couldn?t understand how anything of the sort could be true, because, unlikely as it was, it would surely be less difficult to make a rabbit out of a potato than to make a rabbit out of sludge, which is what people said happened, people with line after line of letters after their names who should have known what they were talking about, but obviously didn?t.? [/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