Cool!

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

Allen wrote:

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...

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 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.

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; }

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Dan Fingerman wrote:

a

four-base ...

On Thu, July 31, 2008 6:25 am, randytoad wrote:

On Jul 31, 7:47 am, Dan Fingerman lists.opn.org> wrote:

or

know

seen

On Tue, July 29, 2008 8:11 pm, Garrison Hilliard wrote:

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.