There is no need to second guess these models since they do a pretty good job
of messing up in a manner that should be obvious to everyone. Even those who
strongly believe that man is the main culprit in the warming period should take
note of the inconsistencies.
If someone is of the
The evidence only proves that you failed. You failed to stimulate
macro-evolution. Can it be stimulated?
From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:48:18 +0800
Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in
Hi John et al
It can be shown logically that it is impossible to argue against the
hypothesis that God created the world in 4004 BC such that it had all
the appearance of there having been Darwinian Evolution up until that
point, as I have discovered previously. The possibility that life
This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have ever
seen.
Surely you can do BETTER than this? It's a bleedin' disgrace..
And stop misusing the proof word all the time : D
I do recognize one particular thing though, I see it time and time again in
arguments like these:
OK, would you believe the calculations of a staunch evolutionist? Julian
Huxley, a staunch evolutionist, calculated the odds for evolving a horse by
chance and came up with 1 chance in 10^300,000. That's a number with 300,000
zeroes. Considering that there are only 10^94 subatomic particles
Hi Nigel,
Thanks again for your reply but it seems like you were answering someone
else's query. I did not remotely suggest recent creation and did not
think that I promoted alien impregnation. The alien impregnation that I
spoke of was of the sexual variety and is a well known case that
Jojo
I will send only one email about this subject.
The fact that a stucture like DNA is involved increases the chances to produce
new lifeforms dramatically.
If there were only atoms and molecules involved and no mechanism to arrange
them the chance of creating a horse would indeed be very
Dear Bob, David, and Jojo,
Thank your for your suggestions.
Since the electrodes are removable, I was planning to attach a length of
heavy conductor where the electrodes are attached (probably automotive
battery cables). That way, the welder doesn't have to be mounted over the
cell. The welder
Hi John
Evolutionary principles can help understand how the first self
replicating cell originated. For example all the evidence suggests
that it came from an RNA based predecessor, where RNA is replicated and
splits into chunks to form enzymes etc. We are currently finding RNA
has far
Actually, my friend, DNA vastly complicates Macro-Evolution because DNA is
essentially a repository of Information.
Try scrambling a few letters in a book and see if you come up with more
information. No, you will not, information is lost everytime there is s
mutation. Information which is
Thanks for giving me a specific time-frame within the you tube link to fast
forward to. Right now I don't have the time to wade through the entire lecture,
but I did listen to the specific section about disproving the horse evolution
theory. I did perform a spot check here and there. I do see
I also previously developed a method for running standard electrolysis and
attempting to trigger LENR with pulses. The way it works is to place the
active cathode (say some type of nickel) in between two additional
electrodes in the cell. In this case, the nickel electrode would be placed
in
I believe in the Bible fully from cover to cover. The Bible says the Universe
and the Earth was created in 6 literal days. Now, the day may not necessarily
be 24 hours but the idea was that God created everything in a short time.
When he did that is not revealed in the Bible. Many Biblical
Do you have a free copy of this Forbidden Archeology book.
The Bible teaches us to hear (eaxmine) the matter before asnswering
(concluding) it. So, I'd like to read this on my spare time if I have access
to a free copy. I am not willing to pay for one.
Jojo
- Original Message
Last night it struck me that these voltage measurements are going to
require a compensating loop to subtract out the induced voltage in the
measurement loops. If you had a simple twisted pair wire to make the
measurement, you would still end up with a measurement loop through which
the magnetic
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140821-global-warming-hiatus-climate-change-ocean-science/
So, the mainstream now says no global warming for 10 - 15 years?
Well, your prediction is wrong.
Yes, why would I not believe that the number 10^300,000 is correct? But who is
to say that Huxley et al are answering the right question??
First of all they are making assumptions about certain small numbers
(probabilities that things will occur). Large errors
You have a point.
Though my view is, it may not be worth making these elaborate modifications.
Are we striving for superaccuracy, or are we just trying to hit it in the
ballpark? To me, the most important question is to see if the input power is
in the vicinity of 5J. If it is, that would
This type of spot welder is likely to deliver something in the range of
50-300 joules, without any means of controlling it (but measurable). Mills
only claims that he should be able to detonate his wet particles with 5
joules and get the same output, but has never demonstrated this AFAIK. The
You illustrate a typical denial reaction that seems to have taken hold here in
Vortex. If you do not like the result, you say it is an error or an outlier or
incompetence. (my friend Jed does that a lot.) If Huxley was a creationist,
you would say he is biased and not objective or not
The universe is in a constant state of creation, evolution and decay. The
past, present and future are just humanities attempt to pin it down, like
wrestling a greased pig. God has big fuzzy dice and rolls them every day.
I hope that clears things up.
On Wednesday, August 27, 2014, Jojo Iznart
In his bomb calorimetry demo, he demonstrated an input of about 200+ J.
Correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm working from memory here. In the bomb
calorimetry, they seems to have demonstrated a COP of 4+
I think the spot welder need to be modified to maintain a fix gap between the
electrodes
In his previous bomb calorimetry, only a COP of about 2 was reported. I
have previously pointed out in detail the flaw in this calorimetry owing to
the variable heat taken away by the large copper electrodes between the
control and the actual experiment. Because of this flaw, the COP could be
In my opinion. Calorimetry using water is a non-starter. There is just to
many points of entry where error can creep in. The biggest of which would be,
will a hydrino transition even occur under water. It seems to me that it would
electrolyze and split the water first before it initiates a
Hi Nigel,
Thanks again for your answer, but again I cannot find the data point I
am after in all the interesting information you have provided! So I
will try again.
Purely as an illustration or analogy, consider the growth of the human
body. It starts at conception having many embryonic
John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis. Your
unyielding adherence to Darwinian dogma is blinding you and preventing you from
asking the right questions. You assume Darwinian Evolution is true first and
that skews your analysis.
For example, you assume that the
If evolution is driven by a random process via random mutations, then evolution
can not be reversible, since it is unlikely that a random mutation would occur
that cancels out a previous random mutation. The odds are astronomical for
that to occur.
The fact that we see E. Coli gain penicilin
It would appear that you are not qualified to say that calorimetry using
water is a non-starter. First, in DI water there is no electrolyte added
(just the opposite) and there will be no current flowing through this water
being used to capture the heat and thermalize the UV. The DI water has no
First, you can not guarantee that the water is 100% deionized, can you? DI
water sold in stores is not completely Deionized.
Second, because you can not guarantee number 1 above, you can not guarantee
that no electrolysis will occur. If there is current flowing thru that water,
it will
You do not appear to know what you are talking about; except in one
respect: You are correct that it is Jack's experiment and his course of
action is absolutely his choice.
My inputs to this topic are terminated. I have no intention to
contributing to this becoming a flame like some of the
http://phys.org/news/2014-08-scientists-human-worm-genomes-biology.html
Scientists looking across human, fly and worm genomes find shared biology
Researchers analyzing human, fly, and worm genomes have found that these
species have a number of key genomic processes in common, reflecting their
On 28/08/2014 1:11 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
John, my friend, you have a fundamental problem in your analysis.
Your unyielding adherence to Darwinian dogma
You are mistaken. I have no adherence to Darwinian dogma whatsoever.
If Darwinian dogma (whatever that is) happens to coincide with my
On 28/08/2014 1:17 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
If evolution is driven by a random process via random mutations, then
evolution _can not be reversible_, since it is _unlikely_ that a
random mutation would occur that cancels out a previous random
mutation. The odds are astronomical for that to
Jojo,
Here's one (actually a few ): clymene dolphin
plus 2-4% of all flowering plants, inc. many sunflowers, and many crop
species.
BTW. This whole 'odds' thing is a joke. Julian Huxley, for example, did
not state his opinion re; the astronomical 'odds' of a horse, but did
ridicule the guy that
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote:
Thanks to all who noticed and kindly commented on my leaving the Vortex-L
list (apparently actually getting off the list takes rather longer than I
expected …).
You will never leave by this method. You are trapped! It is
As pointed out, the odds for a mutation occuring that would result in a feature
that is useful enough is astronomical. (See my first link). Its like
fllipping 1000 consecutive heads followed by 1000 consecutive tails. Unlikely
does not mean possible. It depends on the odds. If it is
You seem to be implying that you know that the Coelacanth is 350 million years
old from radiometric dating techniques. Please do tell, what sort of
radiometric dating tells you that it is 350 million years old?
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au
To:
If it could be shown it could be used for propulsion. His five dreams:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/27/technology/elon-musk/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
Look my friend, you and I appear to have a difference in what we think should
be the goal of this replication attempt. That is why I said, we need to step
back and think about this before we (or Jack) embark on an elaborate
modification plan to build whatever it is he decides.
1. If Jack
Ken, are you saying the Clymene dolphin is an example of Macro-evolution. It
seems to me that it is just a variation of the spinner dolphin. Not sure what
you are claiming here.
Which 2%-4% of flowering plants are you referring to? Please be specific so
that I can research it to see if you
This is a perfect example of what I am talking about.
There are facts here. The facts are that human, fly and worm appears to have
some common genomic processes. These are facts that I will not deny.
This is the interpretation. That human, fly and worm have a common ancestor.
The
Just I was the middle of viewing several interviews with him and figured out
that he is aware of all things, however try to find out an evolutionary
(smooth) way to change the world. I believe Tesla Motors name is not
coincidental this way.
Do you recall R. Stiffler? At 1996, we are
Thank you for your candor, Jojo. Appreciate it.
I have no desire to challenge your beliefs. It's pretty clear to me that your
beliefs are very important to you, as are my own. I can respect that. Under the
circumstances I think it only appropriate that I comment (or critique) my own
From: Jojo
Do you have a free copy of this Forbidden Archeology book.
The Bible teaches us to hear (eaxmine) the matter before asnswering
(concluding) it. So, I'd like to read this on my spare time if I have
access to a free copy. I am not willing to pay for one.
Alas, an
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
PS. Most of my responses are answers to queries. Carbon Dating is
science (supposedly) and Darwinian Evolution is science (as Jed would
claim) so what off topic flame are you referring to. Responses to
religious
On 28/08/2014 7:59 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
You seem to be implying that you know that the Coelacanth is 350
million years old from radiometric dating techniques. Please do tell,
what sort of radiometric dating tells you that it is 350 million years
old?
I don't know how these particular
On 28/08/2014 7:42 AM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
As pointed out, the odds for a mutation occuring that would result in
a feature that is useful enough is astronomical.
If the necessary information is present from the beginning, then it only
needs to be triggered and it will express itself. This is my
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 1:12 AM, Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote:
This has got to the worst calculation of evolution probabilities I have
ever seen.
Surely you can do BETTER than this? It's a bleedin' disgrace..
Then why don't you go to the effort of dismantling it?
And stop
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com wrote:
Well, your prediction is wrong.
***Well, you went nowhere near to showing where it was wrong.
Yes, why would I not believe that the number 10^300,000 is correct?
***because he worked out the math. Unlike your
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28898223
'Widespread methane leakage' from ocean floor off US coast
This could be bad news...
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com wrote:
50 matches
Mail list logo
