Evolution

What is a human being? What is life? Can science give us reliable answers to such questions? The electricity of life. The meaning of human consciousness. Are we alone? Are the traditional contests between science and religion still relevant? Does the word "spirit" still hold meaning today?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Evolution

Unread postby webolife » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:20 pm

Aristarchus,
Without a viable mechanism, the yellow highlighted sections in your quote indicate a belief system based entirely upon wishful thinking. The phrase, "genetically engineered environment" particularly stands out here. The diagram of a redundantly duplicated gene sequence simply indicates one of the many ways that pre-existing information can lead to genetic variation, as a part of micro-evolution, and sheds no light whatever on the creation of new "lineages" as is being claimed. The rest of the quote is simple a description of several of the mechanism-less factors that "must have happened" if the assumed process of evolution actually took place. It's all circular.

Tholden,
I agree with your understanding that in any macro-evolutionary scenario some sort of spontaneous generation must happen somewhere, even if it is not naturally possible for it to have occurred on Earth. I am not a fan of saltation, however. I admire the late Sir Fred Hoyle and have been significantly influenced by his writings, but this is a proposition I just don't accept. Also, as you will read in many of my posts, I am not an adherent to the Saturn Myth. I've been posting on TB for a few years now, so folks who have seen me around for a while know that I am a hold-out for any kind of information beyond imaginatively interpreted hieroglyphs and "oral tradition" that might indicate such a transformation took place in our solar system. The stability of the current system simply does not warrant my credence at this time. My interest in and acceptance of much of EU depends in no way on the veracity of the Saturn Myth. I have a high degree of respect for Talbott and others who disagree with me about this but that is why this is a forum, and not a monologue.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evolution

Unread postby Aristarchus » Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:31 pm

weboflife wrote:Without a viable mechanism, the yellow highlighted sections in your quote indicate a belief system based entirely upon wishful thinking.


The science is further investigated in the below video. I already posted it here once. In addition, you might want to peruse, or, at least, make a cursory glance at Joseph's CV on his web page Brain Mind.

Evolution of Life on Other Planets
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison
User avatar
Aristarchus
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby webolife » Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:45 pm

Watched the entire video.
I thought you said this was a scientific investigation?
The video, while containing interesting information about gene structure and function, gives no scientific basis for its many assertions about the preponderance and predominance of the life and living things in the universe. The fact is that no other organisms or environment suitable for the existence of organisms has been observed anywhere besides Planet Earth. So this panspermia view is entirely wishful thinking. Not to assert unequivocally that it is incorrect, just that it is not a scientific/evidence-based assertion. The video is replete with acquiescence to the many [I believe incorrect] assumptions that attend a standard evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record, but I do agree with the assertion that the information in DNA is preexistent as related to the variability of life on earth.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evolution

Unread postby tholden » Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:32 pm

webolife wrote:... so folks who have seen me around for a while know that I am a hold-out for any kind of information beyond imaginatively interpreted hieroglyphs and "oral tradition" that might indicate such a transformation took place in our solar system. ....



I've come up with what I view as a sufficiently simple way to start conversations about the nature of the pre-flood system.......

Wikipedia (harmless to use wiki as a source since no controversy exists as to axial tilts...)

Axial tilt of major celestial bodies

Object Axial tilt (°) Axial tilt (radians)
Mercury ~0.01 0.00
Venus 177.4 3.10
Earth 23.44 0.41
Moon 6.688 0.03
Mars 25.19 0.44
Ceres ~4 0.07
Pallas ~60 ~1
Jupiter 3.13 0.06
Saturn 26.73 0.47
Uranus 97.77 1.71
Neptune 28.32 0.49
Pluto 119.61 2.09


Clearly, if our system had formed up from a swirling disk of solar material as claimed, all axial tilts should be approximately the same and near zero. What the data appears to be saying is that the sun captured most of the other bodies and did not originate with them...

Uranus and Pluto don't fit into any sort of a pattern and may have been picked up in separate events.

The (present) sun, Mercury, Ceres, and Jupiter with tilts under ten degrees probably comprise an original system.

Saturn, Earth, Mars, and Neptune with tilts around 25 degrees appear to represent another and smaller system which the present sun captured en-mass. The largest body in that system would be Saturn, i.e. the body associated with the chieftain god in all of the oldest pantheistic religious systems:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11g9wj22 ... re=related

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophi ... aturn.html

The one special case is Venus. An axial tilt of 177 degrees means that the thing is basically upside-down and rotates the wrong way but, funny thing, it always shows us the same face at inferior conjunctions. Bob Bass noted that the backwards spin could not possibly be primordial and must have arisen via contact with some other body, and the curious phase lock with Earth tells us which body that was. That would be the catastrophe which Velikovsky described as occurring several centuries after the flood. There is sufficient reason to believe that Venus was part of the Saturn/Mars/Earth and probably Neptune system before the flood. Iconography doesn't show Neptune in that system to my knowledge; it does show Saturn, Venus, and Mars.

Ev Cochrane's description of the myths surrounding the planet Mars indicate that the flood waters most likely amounted to the oceans of Mars getting dumped onto this planet; Mars' orbit finally came too close to us on one final cycle of the old system:

http://www.bearfabrique.org/Catastrophi ... dwarf.html

Cochrane's website is:

http://www.maverickscience.com/index.htm

Ev believes that a dead white man by the name of Lamarck can yet save evolution: I don't. He believes that the Saturn system was some unspecified very, very long time ago: I prefer Heinsohn and Ginenthals version of the thing which would have the flood itself no further back than around 1500 BC. Other than that however, I believe the picture of the pre-flood system which Ev, David Talbott, and Dwardu Cardona have reconstructed to be fairly accurate.

There are several versions of a Saturn theory floating around. I believe the only real question is which of them will ultimately be accepted. To my thinking there's enough real evidence for that.
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Evolution

Unread postby nick c » Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:18 pm

hi Ted,
tholden wrote:Gunnar Heinsohn is best/brightest category in European academia and a frequent speaker at NATO gatherings since his population youth bulge theories predict political unrest with near 100% accuracy; he's also a major player in the ongoing efforts to reconstruct Med-basin chronologies. His "Wie Alt ist das Menschengeschlect" describes the problem with the dating schemes typically associated with Neanderthal studies:
Mueller-Karpe, the first name in continental paleoanthropology, wrote thirty years ago on the two strata of homo erectus at Swanscombe/England: "A difference between the tools in the upper and in the lower stratum is not recognizable. (From a geological point of view it is uncertain if between the two strata there passed decades, centuries or millennia.)" (Handbuch der Vorgeschichte, Vol I, Munich 1966, p. 293).

The outstanding scholar never returned to this hint that in reality there may have passed ten years where the textbooks enlist one thousand years. Yet, I tried to follow this thread. I went to the stratigraphies of the Old Stone Age which usually look as follows

modern man (homo sapiens sapiens)

Neanderthal man (homo sapiens neanderthalensis)

Homo erectus (invents fire and is considered the first intelligent man).

In my book "Wie alt ist das Menschengeschlecht?" [How Ancient is Man?], 1996, 2nd edition, I focused for Neanderthal man on his best preserved stratigraphy: Combe Grenal in France. Within 4 m of debris it exhibited 55 strata dated conventionally between -90,000 and -30,000. Roughly one millennium was thus assigned to some 7 cm of debris per stratum. Close scrutiny had revealed that most strata were only used in the summer. Thus, ca. one thousand summers were assigned to each stratum. If, however, the site lay idle in winter and spring one would have expected substratification. Ideally, one would look for one thousand substrata for the one thousand summers. Yet, not even two substrata were discovered in any of the strata. They themselves were the substrata in the 4 m stratigraphy. They, thus, were not good for 60,000 but only for 55 years.

I tested this assumption with the tool count. According to the Binfords' research--done on North American Indians--each tribal adult has at least five tool kits with some eight tools in each of them. At every time 800 tools existed in a band of 20 adults. Assuming that each tool lasted an entire generation (15 female years), Combe Grenals 4,000 generations in 60,000 years should have produced some 3.2 million tools. By going closer to the actual life time of flint tools tens of millions of tools would have to be expected for Combe Grenal. Ony 19,000 (nineteen thousand) remains of tools, however, were found by the excavators.

There seems to be no way out but to cut down the age of Neanderthal man at Combe Grenal from some 60,000 to some 60 years.

I applied the stratigraphical approach to the best caves in Europe for the entire time from Erectus to the Iron Age and reached at the following tentative chronology for intelligent man:

-600 onwards Iron Age
-900 onwards Bronze Age
-1400 beginning of modern man (homo sapiens sapiens)
-1500 beginning of Neanderthal man
between -2000 and -1600 beginning of Erectus.

Since Erectus only left the two poor strata like at Swanscombe or El-Castillo/Spain, he should actually not have lasted longer than Neanderthal-may be one average life expectancy. I will now not go into the mechanism of mutation. All I want to remind you of is the undisputed sequence of interstratification and monostratification in the master stratigraphies. This allows for one solution only: Parents of the former developmental stage of man lived together with their own offspring in the same cave stratum until they died out. They were not massacred as textbooks have it:

monostrat.: only modern man's tools

interstrat.: Neanderthal man's and modern man's tools side by side

monostrat.: only Neanderthal man's tools

interstrat.: Neanderthal man's and Erectus' tools side by side

monotstrat.: only Erectus tools (deepest stratum for intelligent man)

The year figures certainly sound bewildering. Yet, so far nobody came up with any stratigraphy justifiably demanding more time than I tentatively assigned to the age of intelligent man. I always remind my critiques that one millennium is an enormous time span--more than from William the Conqueror to today's Anglo-World. To add a millenium to human history should always go together with sufficient material remains to show for it. I will not even mention the easiness with which scholars add a million years to the history of man until they made Lucy 4 million years old. The time-span-madness is the last residue of Darwinism

It is not only obvious from this, that Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens not only lived in proximity during the same time, but they lived in the same cave at the same time! Homo Sapiens did not kill off Neanderthals, because they were their mothers and fathers. The most likely situation from the information gathered from Combe Grenal, and other sites, is that Neanderthals were giving birth to Homo Sapiens and there was an intermediate period when Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens both occupied the same cave. Then there came a time when all the Neanderthals got old and died and no more were being born, their children who were homo sapiens now were all that was left. It seems to me that there is a hitherto undiscovered mechanism (no doubt involving cosmic catastrophes and electrical discharges as well as possibly other forms of radiation) that results in the creation of an entirely new species from an older one. The time scales are very short. No ancient aliens are needed, though I have nothing against aliens per se! The arrival of new species after cosmic catastrophes is across the board, that is numerous plant and animal species become extinct and are replaced by new species, not just humans.

Ovid wrote (in Metamorphoses, book 1) concerning the events after a global flood:
So when Mother Earth's diluvian mud
Again grew warm under the rays of the sun,
She brought forth innumerable species, restoring some
Of the ancient forms, and creating some new and strange.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mwMLFW ... &q&f=false


Nick
Last edited by nick c on Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: spelling correction- diuvian should be diluvian
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2464
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Evolution

Unread postby starbiter » Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:23 am

Hi Nick: using the lizards that changed rapidly with a new enviornment as a model, then people might change with a new environment. Radiation could also be a factor.

When modern human bones are found within mountains, it might imply young mountain (duning), not ancient bones.

Michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: Evolution

Unread postby Aristarchus » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:38 am

weboflife wrote:Watched the entire video. I thought you said this was a scientific investigation?
The video, while containing interesting information about gene structure and function, gives no scientific basis


It's a scientific hypothesis based upon evidence, but it doesn't claim to be definitive. In addition, your second sentence isn't completely clear as to what you're asserting. The latter comes off as claiming something "interesting information about gene structure and function," but then appears to assert that there is no "scientific basis." I would, again, suggest looking into the CV for Rhawn Joseph. He does have proven credentials. With that said, I do believe in my opinion that Rhawn Joseph can be too far reaching in his claims, and that the EU model provides sufficient claims that counter his as it regards the role of planets in the early solar system and the days of ancients. Although, I do not throw out the basis of some of his hypothesis and research based soley on that which I might dismiss. There are no absolutes.

weboflife wrote:The fact is that no other organisms or environment suitable for the existence of organisms has been observed anywhere besides Planet Earth.


The Journal of Cosmology allows for rebuttals to Rhawn Joseph's hypothesis, as in the following:

Understanding the Origins of Life on Earth

However, the discussion and investigation requires reading both the pros/cons of the argument, not merely writing off the hypothesis and research with simple claims that are supposed to act as refutations.

There is evidence that even small animals can survive the extremes of outer space.

Stuttgart Scientists Prove Animals can Survivie in Outer Space

Two types of the 1-millimetre long creatures were launched 270-kilometres into space for the “FOTON-M3 Mission” in September 2007. Schill and his colleagues published their findings in the latest edition of the science publication Current Biology.

Schill has studied the wee eight-legged “survival artists” for some 5 years, and chose them for the experiment because of their hardiness. They live in water and can survive extreme temperatures, radiation, lack of water – and now cosmic conditions in the experiment conducted by Schill and his Swedish colleague Dr. Ingemar Jönsson for Universität Stuttgart. Water bears survive the bad times by going into an state called “cryptobiosis,” where organisms respond to harsh conditions by suspending all metabolic functions until a hospitable environment returns.

And that's exactly what happened as they were exposed to the vacuum of outer space and cosmic radiation in the BIOPAN-6 Module during the European Space Agency (ESA) mission.



weboflife wrote:So this panspermia view is entirely wishful thinking.


No. It is not merely "wishful thinking," whatever that is supposed to imply. The way that I measure the scientific integrity of any research or hypothesis is to gauge how it doesn't rely on absolutes, but rather, a careful study of its own claims.

For example, the following site will allow the reader to make up his/her own mind about what is currently going on in the theory of panspermia:

Cosmic Ancestry: Life comes from space because life come from life
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison
User avatar
Aristarchus
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby tholden » Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:53 pm

nick c wrote:It is not only obvious from this, that Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens not only lived in proximity during the same time, but they lived in the same cave at the same time! Homo Sapiens did not kill off Neanderthals, because they were their mothers and fathers. The most likely situation from the information gathered from Combe Grenal, and other sites, is that Neanderthals were giving birth to Homo Sapiens and there was an intermediate period when Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens both occupied the same cave. Then there came a time when all the Neanderthals got old and died and no more were being born, their children who were homo sapiens now were all that was left.


I'd rate that a fairly strong candidate for the real version of things. Nonetheless the genetic gap between a Neanderthal and one of us is enormous. What you're talking about is creatures being able to perceive some new requirement on the horizon and modify their own morphology in major ways from one generation to the next, and you might want to call this a question of semantics but to me that is genetic re-engineering and not evolution.
tholden
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Evolution

Unread postby webolife » Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:11 pm

Aristarchus,
I appreciate your posts, and your views on the concept of panspermia. Re; the video,the pre-existence of information in DNA does not necessitate a panspermia origin. My "scientific basis" comment was related to the strong assertion of panspermia as though it were the only or even the most reasonable explanation for the initial appearance of complex biodiversity on Earth. Furthermore, I find the complex and diverse "explosion of life" [the so-called Cambrian explosion] to be unreconcilable by any theory of macroevolution [in agreement with the producers of the video, and I presume with you], yet moving it's origin to another planet or rafting it to earth on comets or plasma streams only distances the question of origins. Many on these threads "solve" [or think so] the problem of origins by simply asserting that complex life has always existed and is part of the fabric of the ever-existent universe. Were this the case, I would think that for all our billions of dollars and decades of searching, something would have been seen by now. This does not prove it didn't somehow happen... argument from lack of evidence is at best weak... simply that it is not a scientific case. Our beliefs may actually be similar behind some semantic differences, but I am sensitive to arguments that are called "scientific" when they are built on a flimsy foundation of presumption.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evolution

Unread postby JaJa » Sat Feb 12, 2011 2:09 pm

Can someone correct me if I am wrong;

Bacteria has been around (apparently) since the beginning of time (whenever that was) which would mean they are one of our earliest ancestors, perhaps one or two steps up from 'the' original common ancestor.

If evolution is a continuous process and because of the speed at which bacteria can mutate shouldn't we be able to continuously observe these distant cousins evolving into something other than bacteria?
Omnia in numeris sita sunt
User avatar
JaJa
 
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:23 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby JohnMT » Mon Feb 14, 2011 10:14 am

Seems to me that 'Evolution' is about as obscure as 'Dark Matter'

Is there any real evidence to the contrary?
JohnMT
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:52 am

Re: Evolution

Unread postby webolife » Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:48 pm

The observable and relatively rapid rise of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria in hospitals is one of the more powerful evidences against evolution. Here's the simple reason why. First of all these bacteria were always resistant, by obvious fact of their existence; they didn't become "immune" [bad/disinformed word choice], or even "develop resistance". The resistant trait was a tiny part of the original diversity of the bacterial [eg. staph or strep] genome. It was selected out by overuse of antibiotics and those hand sanitizer type products which killed their promissed 99.99% of the bacteria, leaving only the few resistant bacteria. These otherwise "wimpy" bacteria then had a "sterile" habitat all for themselves, without the natural and beneficial competition of the other varieties. I have been advised numerous times by doctors after leaving a hospital stay [wife had 4 C-sections, I've had a couple surgeries] to get out and play in the dirt, do gardening, etc. to build up the natural diverse flora on the skin as a hedge against "super[wimpy] bacterial infection". This natural selective [micro-evolutionary] scenario is diametrically opposed to the premise of macroevolution, which is to say that no new organisms resulted, only altered population ratios. This is the same story as the famed peppered moths of Mancester, England. Had Darwin realized this in his day, the [macro]-evolutionary paradigm of the last century would never have taken hold. And Biology would have not been hurt by its absence. The only source for "new" information to drive macroevolution is random mutation, which has such [observably] deleterious immediate and long-term effects that to demand its consistent and informational [yet purely accidental] accumulation as the rule for billions of years, resulting in the myriads of varieties [including us!] from a moneran or "chemical soup" origin, is simply ludicrous. Or at least unscientific. The case for evolution would be helped by a fossil record that showed a gradual development of complex forms over time, but this is not the case either. Complexity rules from the beginning of the story [eg. the Cambrian explosion] and ancient forms are identifiable by their modern counterparts [eg. the "oldest" bat is 100% bat, identifiably human forms predate their supposed "ancestors", etc.]; not to mention the lack of transitional forms... where there should be primarily transitional forms in the record, we see instead only the rarely alleged candidate, such as Archaeopteryx or Tiktaalik, which were despite some unusual traits respectively 100% bird and 100% fish.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evolution

Unread postby Levatio » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:56 am

Thanks for all your awnsers. I'm starting to understand it.

However, I'm left with some questions.

If I'm correct, micro evolution is responsible for different kinds of birds, dogs and monkey's and such? And macro evolution is responsible for the difference between the said birds, dogs and monkey's?

And the human ancestors (some) have lived together in the same timespan?

Levatio.
"Perfection is an illusion of our imperfect brain."

"The essential principle — "eager to be corrected" — will always be the best guide in the broad, interdisciplinary investigation of the Electric Universe." -- David Talbott
Levatio
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:26 am
Location: Den Haag, Netherlands

Re: Evolution

Unread postby webolife » Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:22 pm

Yes, Levatio, you have described the allegations of evolution.
Micro-evolution, I would say, is responsible for the variety of organisms within [approximate] family taxa, ie geni, species, subspecies, breeds, varieties.
Macro-evolution is an unwarranted [by logic and evidence] extrapolation that is not, IMO, responsible for anything.
Yes, a case can be made for the coexistence of humans with any/all their alleged ancestors.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Evolution

Unread postby Levatio » Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:43 am

Hmm.. I'm still not sure if I fully understand it.
So actually, Electrostatic fields could be responsible for the difference between, let’s say, chickens and humans. Because they have the same embryonic early stage, you could say that the electrostatic fields could change the outcome.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Recapitulation.html

In laboratory experiments the researchers there Dr. Guido Ebner and Heinz Schürch exposed cereal seeds and fish eggs to an "electrostatic field" – in other words, to a high voltage field, in which no current flows.

Unexpectedly primeval organisms grew out of these seeds and eggs: a fern that no botanist was able to identify; primeval corn with up to twelve ears per stalk; wheat that was ready to be harvested in just four to six weeks. And giant trout, extinct in Europe for 130 years, with so-called salmon hooks. It was as if these organisms accessed their own genetic memories on command in the electric field, a phenomenon, which the English biochemist, Rupert Sheldrake, for instance believes is possible.



http://www.urzeit-code.com/index.php?id=23 (As earlier mentioned by Jarvamundo)

Perhaps this could be the reason for a bat having the same bones in its wings like humans in their arms, even though they have different functions?

Secondly, the difference between a species. My guess is, that animals, plants and such, are somehow able to adapt their body to the environment.

Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ution.html (as mentioned by starbiter)

So could this be why there have been found numerous fossils, through the years, with a striking resemblance of each other, while being different species? Like the early dinosaur birds, and birds nowadays. They needed to adapt their selves to the environment?

:?:

Am I walking the right or wrong path?
"Perfection is an illusion of our imperfect brain."

"The essential principle — "eager to be corrected" — will always be the best guide in the broad, interdisciplinary investigation of the Electric Universe." -- David Talbott
Levatio
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:26 am
Location: Den Haag, Netherlands

PreviousNext

Return to The Human Question

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest