|
|
Up |
|
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: josephusjosephus
Date: Sep 9, 2008 08:04
Gadi Evron wrote:
I got involved with this activity. we never ever got any "psi" to work
reliably. the only times it "worked" were coincidence and similar
antecdotal occaisions. real research requires statistics and close
control of conditions. this is yellow journalism. fear mongering. It
counts on the gullibility of the reader. It talks about stuff "OVER
THERE" but no real refernces.
josephus
|
| Show full article (1.11Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: Joseph.KonoJoseph.Kono
Date: Sep 8, 2008 01:01
Allen wrote:
>
> Hey, Daoud never replaces until Ken suits the following vision most.
>
http://course.bollywoodmantra.net
Bollywoodmantra doll
img { border: 2px solid Black }
pre { font: 6pt/8pt }
p,blockquote { font: 16pt; font-family: verdana, arial, 'sans serif' }
h1,h2,h3,h4,ul { font-family: verdana, arial, 'sans serif'; font: 14p...
|
| Show full article (1.14Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: Jim PrescottJim Prescott
Date: Aug 27, 2008 20:19
In reality, the only contribution that science can make to
the ideas of religion is atheism.
And that, my friend is the way God planned it!
========================
Jim Prescott
"I don't know who wrote the Book of Love, but I've got a pretty good idea
why the pages stick together!!"
HTTP://www.purehonk.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gadi Evron" gmail.com>
To: "Scientific discussion of extraordinary things"
lists.opn.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 7:35 PM
Subject: interesting note to Nature magazine
> My beliefs are different from most folks on this mailing list, as
> while conscious of scientific thought and critical thinking, I am not
> a believer in being a non-believer.
>
> Still, this is interesting...
|
| Show full article (2.75Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: Gadi EvronGadi Evron
Date: Aug 27, 2008 18:50
My beliefs are different from most folks on this mailing list, as
while conscious of scientific thought and critical thinking, I am not
a believer in being a non-believer.
Still, this is interesting if not inspiring:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7208/full/4541049d.html
We were perplexed by your Editorial on the work of the Templeton
Foundation ('Templeton's legacy' Nature 454, 253-254; 2008). Surely
science is about finding material explanations of the world --
explanations that can inspire those spooky feelings of awe, wonder and
reverence in the hyper-evolved human brain.
Religion, on the other hand, is about humans thinking that awe,
wonder and reverence are the clue to understanding a God-built
Universe. (The same is true of religion's poor cousin, 'spirituality',
which you slip into your Editorial rather as a creationist uses
'intelligent design'.) There is a fundamental conflict here, one that
can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about
the nature of reality.
|
| Show full article (1.97Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: Gregory.PavelkaGregory.Pavelka
Date: Aug 14, 2008 16:36
http://adjustment.googlebong.com
William Scandrett GoogleBong
img { border: 2px solid Black }
pre { font: 6pt/8pt }
p,blockquote { font: 16pt; font-family: verdana, arial, 'sans serif' }
h1,h2,h3,h4,ul { font-family: verdana, arial, 'sans serif'; font: 14p }
table,li,td { font-family: verdana, arial, 'sans serif'; font: 12p }
ul { list-style: disc }
ol { list-style: decimal }
body { background: "#EEEEEE" }
h1,h2,h3,h4,hr,p,ul,blockquote,pre { color:Black }
a:link { color:Blue }
a:visited { color:Blue }
a:active { color:"#008000" }
a:hover { color:"#008000" }
h1.header { padding:0em; margin:0 }
div.container { width:100%%; margin:0px; border:1px solid Black; line-height:150%% }
div.header,div.footer { padding:0.5em; color:white; background-color:Black; clear:left }
div.left { width:15%%; margin:0; float:left; padding:0; }
|
| Show full article (1.08Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: August PamplonaAugust Pamplona
Date: Aug 7, 2008 08:13
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Dan Fingerman wrote:
> On Thu, July 31, 2008 6:25 am, randytoad wrote:
>>
>> It could be that DNA or RNA are either the only likely
>> candidates for a replicating molecule or one of very
>> few possibilities, and therefore it's not
>> inconceivable that they could have been arrived at
>> independently. However it seems to me that if the
>> genetic code itself was substantially the same (or
>> even had large areas of overlap) in the organisms from
>> two separate places, we would be safe in assuming
>> transfer. Likewise a completely different code, even
>> using the same coding chemical, would suggest that the
>> organisms either evolved independently or that they
>> were separated at a very early stage in evolution.
>
> I think a different code using DNA would suggest a different origin, not
a
> common origin and early divergence. My understanding is that our
four-base ...
|
| Show full article (1.72Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: Dan FingermanDan Fingerman
Date: Jul 31, 2008 12:03
On Thu, July 31, 2008 6:25 am, randytoad wrote:
>
> It could be that DNA or RNA are either the only likely
> candidates for a replicating molecule or one of very
> few possibilities, and therefore it's not
> inconceivable that they could have been arrived at
> independently. However it seems to me that if the
> genetic code itself was substantially the same (or
> even had large areas of overlap) in the organisms from
> two separate places, we would be safe in assuming
> transfer. Likewise a completely different code, even
> using the same coding chemical, would suggest that the
> organisms either evolved independently or that they
> were separated at a very early stage in evolution.
|
| Show full article (1.28Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: randytoadrandytoad
Date: Jul 31, 2008 12:00
On Jul 31, 7:47 am, Dan Fingerman lists.opn.org> wrote:
> On Tue, July 29, 2008 8:11 pm, Garrison Hilliard wrote:
>> Life on Venus could be blown to Earth by powerful
>> winds, scientists claim. [...]
>> Prof Wickramasinghe said: "Venus and Earth have
>> often been referred to as sisters because of their
>> geological similarities.
>> "Our research proposes that the two sisters may be
>> biologically interconnected as well."
>
> I've often wondered about something. If we find life on Venus (or Mars
or
> somewhere else close enough for transfer to/from Earth), how could we
know
> for
> sure whether such life was transplanted or arose independently? I've
seen
> it
> argued that independent genesis is overwhelmingly likely if such life is
> based ...
|
| Show full article (2.11Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: Dan FingermanDan Fingerman
Date: Jul 31, 2008 04:47
On Tue, July 29, 2008 8:11 pm, Garrison Hilliard wrote:
> Life on Venus could be blown to Earth by powerful
> winds, scientists claim. [...]
> Prof Wickramasinghe said: "Venus and Earth have
> often been referred to as sisters because of their
> geological similarities.
> "Our research proposes that the two sisters may be
> biologically interconnected as well."
I've often wondered about something. If we find life on Venus (or Mars or
somewhere else close enough for transfer to/from Earth), how could we know
for
sure whether such life was transplanted or arose independently? I've seen
it
argued that independent genesis is overwhelmingly likely if such life is
based
on replicating molecules other than DNA or RNA. But I haven't seen the
opposite argued -- that DNA or RNA overwhelmingly indicates transfer.
|
| Show full article (1.01Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|