On 26/01/2009, at 2:13 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
I was getting at another point entirely. For evolution to make
sense, you
have to have millions of years of time over which it occured.
For the history of life on earth to make sense, yes. For evolution,
no. We've seen
-Original Message-
From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 10:36 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
Dan wrote:
Even really
Dan M wrote:
Which scientists? Are they the same ones who are skeptical about
evolution?
:-)
I don't believe that The Big Bang Theory is on as sound a footing as
evolution do you?
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Dan wrote:
Sorry, I made my last post prior to reading this one.
The actual process of nucleosynthesis is though to have stopped 20 minutes
after the big bang. We know that the inflationary period had to end after
densities were below those sufficient to produce magnetic monopoles.
So, if
I didn't read about it before last night but this summary of the problem of
induction from the Wikipedia article on the Cosmological Principal
describes
my feelings rather well:
Empirical observations of patterns occurring within a limited scope can
shed no light on the state of things outside
- Original Message -
From: dsummersmi...@comcast.net
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
Finally, I assume that modern physics (say from SR on) is correct, and we
do not live in a Newtonian/Maxwellian universe
Dan wrote:
If you really believe that, then you would throw most of evolutionary
theory out, beause we've only been making good scientific measurements over
a very limited scope of time, say the last 150-200 years.
The difference in limits of scope between evolution on earth and universal
On 26/01/2009, at 7:38 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
Empirical observations of patterns occurring within a limited scope
can
shed no light on the state of things outside that scope.
If you really believe that, then you would throw most of evolutionary
theory out, beause we've only
On 26 Jan 2009, at 00:20, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 26/01/2009, at 7:38 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
Empirical observations of patterns occurring within a limited scope
can
shed no light on the state of things outside that scope.
If you really believe that, then you would throw most
On 26/01/2009, at 7:38 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote:
Empirical observations of patterns occurring within a limited scope
can
shed no light on the state of things outside that scope.
If you really believe that, then you would throw most of evolutionary
theory out, beause we've
Original Message:
-
From: Doug Pensinger brig...@zo.com
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:15:44 -0800
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
Dan wrote:
If you really believe that, then you would throw most of evolutionary
theory out, beause we've only
Original Message:
-
From: Wayne Eddy we...@bigpond.net.au
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 08:10:41 +1000
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
- Original Message -
From: dsummersmi...@comcast.net
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Monday, January 26
On 24/01/2009, at 10:53 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Charlie Bell
char...@culturelist.orgwrote:
It's closer to the first example you suggest than the second, but
it's
part of a general trope of less-good science writing that pitches
every new minor spin on
Charlie said:
It's closer to the first example you suggest than the second, but it's
part of a general trope of less-good science writing that pitches
every new minor spin on science as rewriting the whole body of theory
that is really starting to wind me up.
The Physics Revolutionised For
On 24/01/2009, at 8:56 PM, Richard Baker wrote:
Charlie said:
It's closer to the first example you suggest than the second, but
it's
part of a general trope of less-good science writing that pitches
every new minor spin on science as rewriting the whole body of theory
that is really
On 1/24/2009 3:07:57 AM, Charlie Bell (char...@culturelist.org) wrote:
On 24/01/2009, at 10:53 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Charlie Bell
char...@culturelist.orgwrote:
It's closer to the first example you suggest than the second, but
it's
part of a
At 10:36 PM Friday 1/23/2009, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Dan wrote:
Even really revolutionary data, like the data that suggests dark energy, are
written up in such a way that it implies that the big bang is now in
question. That drives me crazy in the same way.
Yea, god forbid scientists that
Ronn! wrote:
Seen the back cover of the latest (Feb.) issue of _Astronomy_?
(There's at least one more ad inside.)
Null Physics?
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Doug Pensinger brig...@zo.com wrote:
Yea, god forbid scientists that are skeptical about the bing bang!
Not to mention the badda boom.
Nick
(rim shot, please)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
It is exceedingly difficult to judge exactly what the rest of the world
thinks about the election of Obama
I'll tell you what the populace of New Zealand I live among thinks (and
I suspect a considerable many more nations)...
It's nice to see an adult get elected. Someone who thinks
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.orgwrote:
It's interesting, but I'm really sick of the evolution can't explain
this schtick. Evolution explains how diversity occurs. Extinction
events are known, some are understood. That we don't know the specific
causes of
On 24/01/2009, at 2:58 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Charlie Bell
char...@culturelist.orgwrote:
It's interesting, but I'm really sick of the evolution can't explain
this schtick. Evolution explains how diversity occurs. Extinction
events are known, some are
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Charlie Bell char...@culturelist.orgwrote:
It's closer to the first example you suggest than the second, but it's
part of a general trope of less-good science writing that pitches
every new minor spin on science as rewriting the whole body of theory
that is
-Original Message-
From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
Behalf Of Charlie Bell
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 5:16 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
It's closer to the first example
Dan wrote:
Even really revolutionary data, like the data that suggests dark energy, are
written up in such a way that it implies that the big bang is now in
question. That drives me crazy in the same way.
Yea, god forbid scientists that are skeptical about the bing bang!
Doug
-Original Message-
From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 10:36 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
Dan wrote:
Even really
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/07/the-milky-way-c.html
Horoscope enthusiasts will be happy to hear that a grand cosmic force does
indeed seem to be responsible for controlling the direction of all life on
Earth. However, this grand cosmic cycle has more to do with extinction than
27 matches
Mail list logo
