Wednesday, December 30, 2009
...A 13 good luck to the "poor illogic" evolution science, school boards and governments of the world...!
10^150 <> 2^500
2^500 - (pi * 10^150) =
Monday, December 28, 2009
History, Theory, Evidence, and Implications
By R.G. Price - March 5, 2006
Updated - May 2, 2006
Current Theory of Biological Evolution
The present day "Theory of Biological Evolution" has come a long way since the days of Darwin. The merger of Darwin's ideas with genetics, which took place in the 1920s, is known as Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, or neo-Darwinism. Some of Darwin's specific ideas have been rejected through scientific inquiry, holes in his ideas and evidences have been filled, and many new avenues of thought and evidence have been brought to light.
The most significant discovery that has impacted for our understanding of evolution is the discovery, in the 1950s, of DNA, the molecule that serves as the instruction set for life. What Darwin and other evolutionists that came prior to the discovery of DNA were primarily able to do was present evidence for the historical occurrence of evolution. What these people were not able to do, however, was fully explain how evolution actually took place, because they did not know how reproduction and inheritance actually work. Today DNA itself is at the center of our understanding of evolution, because DNA is really where evolution "takes place".
Present day evolutionary theory does, however, still contain the basic principles that were laid out by Charles Darwin. Those principles are:
* Common descent - All life on earth comes from a common ancestry, and thus all living things are related to other living things.
* Modification through reproduction - All living things on earth come from other living things, and when new livings thing are created there is a potential for the manifestation of novel traits.
* Mechanisms of selection - Living things that survive and produce offspring generally pass-on the their traits.
These three principles constitute the basis of "The Theory of Biological Evolution". Having said that, the principle of common descent is a somewhat contentious issue because total common descent for all life on earth is not a necessary aspect of evolutionary theory. In theory it could be possible that there are many different ancestral origins for life on earth, and if there is life on other planets it is almost certain that that life would have a different origin, yet we would also expect that that life would have developed through a process of evolution. Though the evidence does not suggest this, it could theoretically be possible that life on earth originated in several different environments and that the current population of the earth has multiple different origins. If this were true it would not invalidate "evolutionary theory" in general, but it would invalidate one of the specific principles of "The Theory of Biological Evolution", because this theory does state that all livings things on earth have common ancestry.
It is also important to note that The Theory of Biological Evolution only deals with the development of life from living things, it does not address, in any way, how life originated. There are evolutionary models that have been used to explain how life might have originated, but so far there is no specific explanation for how it did originate. Due to the passage of time, and our inability to go back in time, it will probably never be possible to say with certainty exactly how life did originate, but it will be possible to prove or disprove ways that living cells can naturally form from non-living organic matter. The import(ant) thing to note, however, is that The Theory of Biological Evolution does not address the origin of life, it only addresses the subsequent development of life once life existed. (Evolution theory does though...!)
For more information on biological evolution see: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_evolution.htmhttp://www.evowiki.org ; http://www.talkorigins.org . (added by the analyst). (So Book no.2 of Pure Logic, fully addresses what more is Evolution and Biology Evolution and what "brains" really are both Religion and Evolution "science"...!)(The highlighted areas above speak for themselves partially...!)(dec2009 message to all the "dumbo's" of the "world").
Monday, December 21, 2009
I am in debt with them. But it
is also a un-erasable testimony
of Humanities illogic in many
things, especially "Evolution".
Wikipedia does not clearly
categorize what Evolution is...
"Imagine a world in which every single person on the
planet has free access to the sum of all human knowledge."
— Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia
"Imagine a World in which every single person on the
planet finds out that many famous Bibliography of men
and women mentioned in Wikipedia, is of pseudo scientists
or other, of Evolution and/or Religion, rusting their minds out
to illogic, as well as that of others taught by them,
in Church and/or Education Institutes and Universities."
Well Wikipedia generally gives this information freely
available to all, but not clearly explained or
understandable to all ! Encyclopedias' policy is to
only publish well covered "peer" material, proceeding
from well "recognized sources" even though a "chimpanzee"
wrote it, as long as it is Academia and accepted Science !
Also because of copyright of these original new definitions,
Wikipedia could only mention as a general tab an
initial general coverage of what has to do with Pure Logic,
in Book no.1 , stemming from the first mention of a
definition of Pure Logic, by the Archbishop of Canterbury
William Thomson . But their "obscurantist" agenda is
more relevant than mine, that isn't.
- George F. Thomson, Modern proponent of Pure Logic for
Science and other. [Book of Pure Logic].
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
December 16, 2009, 3:38 am
The Missing ‘P’ Word in Climate Talks
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
COPENHAGEN — If you scan the most recent drafts of the climate agreement that delegates here are trying to complete, you’ll have a hard time finding the word population. I’m quite sure it’s not there. (Please let me know if you find it.) This is politically unsurprising, given how discussions of population growth inflame those fearing control measures, those with religious concerns about contraception and sometimes those seeing underpopulation where others see a problem. (There are other interesting reactions when the intersection of climate and population is explored.)
Friday, December 11, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
.Days after cheerfully percolating, Liu’s rodent fetus died, deformed and contorted, more seahorse than mouse, a developmental freak. The same thing happened to the next fetus she implanted, and the one after that. “Making babies is more complicated than we imagined,” Liu says. “And we knew going into this that making babies is very, very complicated.”
.Liu, 63, is a short woman with full cheeks, a rounded middle and smooth, unlined
skin who bustles along the corridors of her lab like a cartoon teapot. She is, by any measure, maternal, with two grown sons. Twenty-one years ago, Liu, then an assistant professor, joined the first team in the U.S. to have produced a test-tube baby. Now she and her partners can boast an enviable success rate. In the past several years, about 40 percent of the couples that came to her group conceived, and in 2004, the center’s 10,000th IVF baby was born.
.In outline, the gestation process seems straightforward. Sperm and egg meet. An embryo implants. Between them, mother and baby build a placenta and an amniotic sac. Fluid builds up around the growing embryo. Hormones move in and out. Nutrition, blood and oxygen pass through the placenta. Waste products are removed. There’s a gentle hum of maternal heartbeat and digestion. It’s like a well-modulated, high-end aquarium.
Except, of course, that it’s not. The actual sequence of events is exceedingly intricate. Miss one minor step, delete a gene expression, add a dribble too much or too little of a single hormone, and you’ll wind up with a baby who is dead or monstrous or, in what may be a blessing, both.
...the origin of life via evolution is "too simple", to expect
it to be viable. it is a mere "dream" and pseudo-science speculation...!
...religion in it's ancient logic is also pseudo-science,
in most of it's terminology...!
...ALTHOUGH IT IS A PURE LOGIC METHOD "TO SIMPLIFY",
EVOLUTIONISTS HAVE SINNED BEING "TOO SIMPLISTIC"
IGNORING THE REAL PROBLEM...!
...WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD OF PURELOGIC AND SCIENCE OF THE 21ST CENTURY...!
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Copenhagen climate summit December 7-18
...IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING
DECISIVE IN COPENHAGEN, THEN DO IT
IN A WORLD VIDEO-CONFERENCE SOON AFTER...!
...environment vs. world over-population
vs. non-renewable resources vs.
de-forestation vs. vs. vs. "...money"...!,
and our grand-children's and great-
grandchildren's and great-great
Climate denial in one pithy 428-word sentence thanks to Viscount Monckton
One of our top 10 climate change deniers gave a breathless account of why cap and trade would be bad for the US
...well who ever has the real data
of global climate change vs. the
world economy, and sea levels, plus
food and energy problems, better start
doing something, before their "pockets"
really hurt more than the irreperable