It is important to point out the fallicies but I do not think fallicies render a theory fatally flawed. A theory can still be useful and valuable even if the logic of the theory is not completely sound. For example, although it took over 150 years to provide calculus with a thoroughly logical foundation, that did not stop people from using it successfully. On the other hand it is annoying when an inconsistency is pointed out and the response is to dismiss it or explain it away without any real acknowledgement. Unfortunately that kind of response is to be expected when math replaces intuition in the art of theory making. harry
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I hesitated to post my original critique of Darwinian Evolution; and it is > the reason why I refrained from responding about Darwinian Evolution for so > long - that is; that I value this forum so much, that I do not want to > involve other topics in this forum other than Cold Fusion. I wish people > would not use this forum for propaganda of their beliefs and then exclude > other points of view; just like what Parks, Huzienga, and others are doing > wrt to Hot fusion. > > If you want to take shots at people who do not believe in Darwinian > Evolution, then be prepared to defend your position; albeit not in this > forum. > > This will be my last reponse also. > > I am prepared to discuss the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution with anyone; > anyone without the mindset of Parks, Huzienga and others. That is, people > who really what to know. Anyway, let me know where to go if you want to > discuss the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. > > So, if your think that I am "Completely wrong"; if you think I know nothing > about biology or evolution; my challenge to you is to identify a place or > forum where you want us to discuss. I'll show up. > > You criticize Parks for not even looking at the science befind cold fusion; > my challenge to you is - Are you prepared to look at the science behind the > movement against Darwinian Evolution? > > > Jojo > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jed Rothwell > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 5:58 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tritium in Ni-H LENR > > Sorry I opened this can of worms. One response only: > > Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Well, centuries after Darwin, other people have indeed found an organ that >> could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight >> modifications. The bacterial flagellum is one. The "organ" composing every >> other organ you have - the cell is another. > > > You are completely wrong. Factually wrong. Any advanced textbook on > evolution will cover the development of flagellum and cells. You are > quoting propaganda circulated by people who nothing about biology or > evolution. These statements are as ignorant as claims that cold fusion > violates the laws of thermodynamics, or that no reaction can produce more > energy than it consumes, and therefore cold fusion is impossible. (I saw > that recently!) > > I advise you not to comment on areas of science you know nothing about. One > of the most important lessons of cold fusion is that in nearly every case, > the experts who do the work and have studied the subject carefully are > right, and ignorant people from outside the field are wrong. Many people > imagine the situation is the other way around, and Fleischmann, Jalbert or > Iyengar were outsiders challenging the authorities. People think the MIT > plasma fusion scientists were the insiders who had knowledge of fusion. The > MIT people themselves thought so. That was a reasonable assumption in early > 1989, but it turns out their expertise is limited to plasma fusion. It does > not apply to cold fusion. > > If you wish to say something in rebuttal I promise not to respond. I will > let the matter drop. > > - Jed >
