08.16.08
Designists and Darwinists ‘out of their minds’
Granville Sewall: “You have lost your mind”
In a Dec 21, 2005 American Spectator article, Jay Homnick wrote:
Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident…you have essentially “lost your mind”.
How has it happened that a majority of our intellectuals have lost their minds? I think I can explain. When one becomes a scientist, one learns that science can now explain so many previously inexpliable phenomena that one comes to expect that nothing will escape the explanatory power of our science forever (though the big bang, quantum mechanics and the fine-tuning of the laws of physics are beginning to raise doubts). When one becomes a biologist, or a paleontologist, one discovers many things about the origin and development of life, such as the long periods involved and the similarities between species, that give the impression of natural causes (”this just doesn’t look like the way God would have created things”). When one studies history (especially the history of religion), one may become overwhelmed by the misery and confusion of the human condition, and wonder, why is it so hard to see evidence of the hand of God in human history?
There is certainly something flatfooted in the inability of scientists to grapple with Darwinism’s limitations and flaws, but the invocation of intelligent design only compounds the confusion. The question has been driven into a false dualism where ID is taken to be the alternative to the failure of Darwinian selectionism, and that has simply muddied the whole question. The existence of ‘natural design’ is a possibility that religious critics simply cannot bring themselves to consider.
The immense complexity of natural organisms can’t be explained by natural selection. OK. But we can’t go on a metaphysical spree confronted with this fact and avalanche the question into a misleading antithesis, intelligent design.
Let it be noted that the idea of ‘intelligence’ applied to nature’s natural designs is problematical in the extreme, it simply does not compute. Whose intelligence? For those of ‘faith’ the question gets what is probably a completely misleading answer, the ‘divinity’ of Biblical or monotheistic belief. Even if one were a theist that sudden extension of belief seems implausible.
These tactics are regressive relative to the last and greatest, and now unconsidered, approach to these issues, seen in Kant, who struggled with the design question, but never let it become anything with a claim to proof. Until the ID-ists can discipline their critique in the light of this, the original critique of biology, the Darwinists are likely to stay ‘out of their minds’ and live onward in their foxhole of hysteria over the question of religion.
As to the question of ‘god in history’, I would recommend a look at the ‘eonic effect’ and the exposition of the historical dynamic behind the evolution of religion, and more specifically the emergence of the Old Testament.
The design argument fails the test case, Old Testament history.
Olorin said,
August 17, 2008 at 11:34 am
“There is certainly something flatfooted in the inability of scientists to grapple with Darwinism’s limitations and flaws….”
Huh?? Maybe you haven’t been keeping up with the research. Several groups of mainstream biologists are actively searching for life forms that might not have common ancestry with the ones we see. An entire new area of biology, epigenetics, is beginning to find evidence that DNA isn’t everything, that organisms may pick up inheritable changes from their environment rather than from mutations—this is contrary to Darwin’s theory.
Just as important as the “truth” of any explanation is the consequences of the basis for that explanation. Because of Darwin, research has burgeoned with new evidence, some of which extends the original theory, some of which modifies it,[1] some of which may eventually overthrow it in whole or in part. meanwhile, ID creationism and other non-natural explanations sit on their thumbs and do no research, attempt no further understanding. An ancient source says, “by their fruits shall you know them.” Conventional biology seems to have that one sewed up tight.
=================
[1] For example, Darwin thought that parental traits “:blended” in their offspring. Mendel later showed that this was wrong.
Olorin said,
August 17, 2008 at 11:50 am
Olorin said: “‘by their fruits shall you know them.’ Conventional biology seems to have that one sewed up tight.”
Sorry for the mixed metaphor. How about, “Conventional biology seems to have the whole orchard to itself.” Or maybe, “Conventional science seems to have all the apples.”
nemo said,
August 17, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Much of the new research is suppressed or rarely discussed in public, and to say that it supports Darwin is misleading.
Each advance gets grafted onto the old, e.g. evo-devo, and we never get the real implications of new advances.
We need a complete paradigm shift.
psiloiordinary said,
August 18, 2008 at 1:13 am
Wow Nemo you seem to be implying an international conspiracy of unprecedented scale involving people from all over the world of different faiths and political persuasions.
What evidence do you have to support this ?
Thanks,
Psi
nemo said,
August 18, 2008 at 5:48 am
You are setting me up for something I didn’t say.
Olorin said,
August 18, 2008 at 10:44 am
Scripsit Nemo: “Much of the new research is suppressed or rarely discussed in public,…”
Thus claims the ID creationist crowd. So where is it? Even if it doesn’t get published in a peer-reviewed journal, or described in a vanity book, or presented at a conference, there is always the internet. It’s very difficult to suppress anything on the internet. Anyone with a small PC and a few bucks can set up a web site and publish anything they like. SO WHERE IS IT?
Answer: there isn’t any. When Michael Behe testified at the Kitzmiller v Dover trial, being under oath, he admitted that there are no observations, no experiments, no calculations from data that constitute any evidence for intelligent design. Other ID proponents in other venues can claim that there is, because they are not under oath to tell the truth, and can’t be cross-examined to prevent evading criticism.
Believe thee me, anyone who comes up with solid positive evidence for intelligent design won’t worry about publication. He’ll be too busy packing his bags to pick up his Nobel prize. That’s what happens to people who overthrow theories with EVIDENCE. They get invitations to Stockholm.
nemo said,
August 18, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Good comment. I answered in a separate post, and upgraded your comment to the main post stream.
http://darwiniana.com/2008/08/18/behes-bottom-line-2/
Chris said,
August 18, 2008 at 5:57 pm
When you say “the Darwinists are likely to stay ‘out of their minds’ and live onward in their foxhole of hysteria over the question of religion.” You are wrong. Scientists are not hysterical over the question of religion. Religion and Theology are valid intellectual disciplines seperate and distinct from science.
Let me repeat: Scientists are NOT hysterical over the question of religion. They are hysterical over the definition of science. Science is a very particular intellectual discipline. By definition, it’s scope encompasses only that which is testable.
* * *
Definition of Science (source National Academy of Sciences)
The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.
***
When IDers try to inject nontestable explanations into science education and call it science that is a problem - and more than a rhetorical one. The scientific method is reponsible for virtually all of the medical, technological, and agricultural progress mankind has experienced since long before Darwin. America’s economic, industrial, military, medical dominance is dependent on science and science education. If we dilute what science means, we will dilute our ability to compete with rising powers such as China.
Science is not suited to the exploration of God. IDers grab hold of any open question in the field of evolution and, rather than offer a testable hypothosis, in essence say that since scientists haven’t answered the question, the only explanation must be an Intelligent Designer. Teaching such flawed logic undermines science education in very real ways. I may not be hysterical about it, but I am pretty damn upset - and so is my minister.
nemo said,
August 18, 2008 at 8:30 pm
The problem is that there is much in evolution that is ‘untestable’. The proposition about natural selection is, by and large, untestable. How can we test the hypothesis that natural selection is the main driver of human evolution? We can’t. So why assume it, and claim it as somehow proven
Olorin said,
August 19, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Quoth No-man: How can we test the hypothesis that natural selection is the main driver of human evolution? We can’t. So why assume it, and claim it as somehow proven
How can we test the hypothesis that nuclear fusion is the main driver of the Sun’s energy? We can’t. So why assume it, and claim it as somehow proven?
How can we test the hypothesis that gravitational force is the main driver of planetary orbits? We can’t. So why assume it, and claim it as somehow proven?
Chris said,
August 19, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Nemo,
Technically, nothing in science is ever proven we just get closer and closer approximations of the truth. That’s why evolutionary theory has not remained static over the years since Darwin. The concept of evolution predates Darwin considerably. Natural Selection is a significant element of evolutionary theory, but a great deal of nuance has been added over the years.
In order to drill down on my point and your question, it helps to understand what we mean by the term “Theory”. In the common vernacular the word “theory” is something along the lines of a hunch or a tentative explanation, which may or may not be true. In this regard it is closer in meaning to the scientific term “hypothesis” which means: A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. In science, the word “Theory” means something very different and this is the source of much of the confusion which arises when it is discussed by the general public. In science the word “Theory” means: “an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.”
Scientific theories are often modified as new facts emerge to provide a more accurate or complete explanation. The Theory of Evolution has evolved in this way. Occasionally, scientific theories are disproven and new theories providing better explanations of the accumulated facts emerge. In the case of evolution, including human evolution, numerous hypothesis have been tested and confirmed in numerous scientific disciplines all of which support evolutionary theory. These disciplines range from geology and paleontology to chemistry, statistics, genetics and developmental biology. In fact there is no Theory in science that is more tested or supported by a broader body of evidence than Evolution.
You say that there is much in evolution that is ‘untestable’. That is true and untrue all at once. Certainly there are many questions that remain unanswered. The same is true of the Theory of Gravity, yet few doubt it exists. It is also true that certain details are not directly observable or testable. Without time travel, we will remain in the dark on some details. But even this is not too big a problem. Science relies on indirect and circumstantial evidence all the time. Such evidence when there is enough of it can paint a pretty complete picture. Galileo could not go into space to observe the Earth revolving around the Sun. He relied on indirect observations to build an overwhelming body of evidence that that is what was happening. The same is true of evolution only the body of evidence is far greater. The fossil record is consistent with morphological evidence which is consistent genetic evidence which is consistent with the archeological record which is consistent with carbon dating, which is consistent with geographical distribution of genetic traits, etc.
You say: “How can we test the hypothesis that natural selection is the main driver of human evolution? We can’t. So why assume it, and claim it as somehow proven.” Actually we can. One reason Darwin was reluctant to publish the Origin of the Species by Natural Selection, was many of his ideas and predictions, though consistent with his observations remained untested. He couldn’t for instance offer any explanation about the physical mechanism of how traits were inherited. Nevertheless, the model of Natural Selection that he published was consistent with the facts known at the time and the observations he had made. Importantly, Natural Selection makes a number of testable predictions and scientists ever since have been testing those predictions which have held up to incredible scrutiny. One such prediction was that there must be a physical mechanism by which traits are passed from one generation to the next. The work of Gregor Mendel and of Watson and Crick have provided the answer. Another prediction was that all life forms descended from a common ancestor immortalized by Darwin’s “Tree of Life.” Evidence has been accumulating ever since in support of this. One very small example is that organisms in all three domains of life—archaea, bacteria, and the eukaryotes (animals, plants, fungi, and protists)— share roughly 500 genes in common.
The predictions and the accumulated evidence fill books. All of it is consistent with Natural Selection being the major driving force (but not the only force) behind evolution. Humans are not exempt from this. Evidence from geology, paleontology, physics, genetics, biochemistry, evolutionary developmental biology and many other disciplines all points in the same direction. The evidence is beyond all reasonable doubt.
On the other hand, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever of supernatural causes of evolution or creation and no testable hypothesis of such have been presented. This statement is not an attack on religion, it is simply the distinction of what is science and what is theology.
nemo said,
August 20, 2008 at 6:50 pm
These are just word games. Natural selection has many implausible aspects to it, therefore we have a need and a scientific right (and duty) to demand greater evidence at a higher standard. That simple. In rightly conducted science that would be obvious, but such is the obsession, the trained obsession, in the current generation of pseudo-science masquerading as Big Science promoting Darwinism, that it is impossible for people to get out of the Dawkins style of natural selection dogma.
The comparisons with physics are not relevant. Everything in physics is far better documented by evidence. It is not appropriate to compare physics with biology on this issue.
In the final analysis natural selection if false, and a look at history in the light of the eonic effect makes that clear enough to start demanding the correct standard of evidence.
Chris said,
August 20, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Nemo,
You are the one playing word games. You refer to Darwinism, even though the scientific community long ago adopted the term Theory of Evolution since the Theory goes well beyond Darwin and Natural Selection (although his ideas remain central to the Theory). You don’t like Dawkin’s views on religion, so you brand every scientist as being just like him. They are not. He is just one voice among many. You don’t like the evidence so you insist it is flawed. At the same time, you offer no evidence to support your argument.
The body of evidence in support of natural selection is as great or greater than for The Theory of Gravity. The comparisons with physics ARE relevant. The same scientific method is used. The same types of observations are used. The same types of evidence are used. The term Theory has been applied to both for the same reason - both Theories explain the body of evidence and make testable predictions. In both cases those predictions have been tested over and over, often by scientists of great religious faith (yes, there are many) and every one of those predictions has held up to scrutiny.
The so called Eonic Effect has nothing to do with science. It makes no testable predictions rather it insists that Darwin can’t be right based on a remarkably vague set of assertions. Ironically, one idea presented in the essays on the so-called Eonic Effect seems to be that evolutionary biologists weren’t around to observe early evolution directly, so it can’t be true and no amount of physical evidence can make it true yet at the same time those promoting the “eonic effect” can somehow draw all kinds of conclusions from a history they were not around to see either.
What testable hypothesis do you have to offer that would support your case? For that matter, what testable hypothesis do you have that would disprove the theory of evolution? If you don’t have one, then by definition, it is NOT science. It may be philosophy or theology, both of which wonderful intellectual traditions that are not bound by the very clear, very rigid parameters that define Science.
psiloiordinary said,
August 21, 2008 at 2:08 am
Hi Nemo,
I am writing this in the hope that you will read it before you delete it.
Censorship is usually the last gasp of the incompetent. The fact that you are actually stooping to censoring a question from me is pretty eloquent all of itself.
I think that perhaps some small part of you realises this.
Good luck to you and yours,
Regards,
Psi
nemo said,
August 21, 2008 at 5:55 am
I don’t delete comments unless spam, so you are paranoid. Resubmit the comment, it might have been deleted by accident.
psiloiordinary said,
August 21, 2008 at 6:46 am
OK - I have posted this twice before and it was deleted by accident twice. Perhaps we can discuss if this is more likely than the mental illness diagnosis on another thread?
- - -
Sorry Nemo - what did you mean?
Regards,
Psi
nemo said,
August 21, 2008 at 8:20 am
You have a previous comment here: http://darwiniana.com/2008/08/16/designists-and-darwinists-out-of-their-minds/#comment-149848
Is that what you are referring to?
psiloiordinary said,
August 21, 2008 at 9:33 am
Yes - I replied to your original response to this. This reply was deleted after a couple of hours.
I then posted another response early yesterday, again it went within a few hours.
Perhaps your spam filter is playing up? My previous responses were polite and short and had no links in them and as best I can remember would have had almost exactly the same wording.
Anyway - what did you mean?
Regards,
Psi
nemo said,
August 21, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Puzzling. I don’t delete comment from Darwin fans, btw. So I don’t know.
nemo said,
August 21, 2008 at 5:14 pm
The statements of Chris on the eonic effect don’t hack it. I think you should refer to the text, and follow the argument closely.
All these endless discussions: the issue is not complex: natural selection is not sufficiently documented, and almost certainly false as a full explanation.
The eonic effect, by the way, is about the factual basis of history and is better observed than anything Darwinists claim about deep time.
Please read the book.
Chris said,
August 21, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Nemo,
I have read a great deal of the online information regarding the Eonic Effect both here and elsewhere and honestly cannot make heads or tails of it. Most of the writing makes great claims about what it purports to show but is somehow vague on the specifics. I do not mean this as a glib or disrespectful statement. I really am at a loss to state concisely what the Eonic Effect purports to be, what scientific research it is based on (I see references to the philosopher Kant, but not to any scientists), what testable hypothesis it presents and what it demonstrates which refutes the Theory of Evolution. Could you try giving me a concise summary of what it is?
Also, in your last comment you said,”natural selection is not sufficiently documented, and almost certainly false as a full explanation.” Would you please elaborate on this. I would not argue that natural selection alone provides a full explanation, but it is almost certainly a major contributor.
Finally, would you please look at my earlier posting and tell me if you agree or disagree with the definition of science that I presented. If you disagree, please let me know how you would define Science. Having a common understanding of our terminology is essential to this discussion.
Thanks.
nemo said,
August 22, 2008 at 4:35 am
If I give you another concise summary you will jump at the opportunity to say you still don’t understand it. OK? I have learned this trick the hard way. Your ‘puzzlement’ is disingenuous.
Same with your statement about NS. I have explained the point hundreds of times, always the same response: explain it again. explain it again. explain it again, so that you can essentially ignore the critique.
The online material tends to be introductory to the text of the book. I am not required to cite a lot of scientists, if scientists are unaware of the phenomenon.
nemo said,
August 22, 2008 at 8:04 am
That said, I would be delighted to expand on the depiction of the eonic effect: here’s a short piece. Not adequate, but
http://www.eonix-papers.com/2008/08/15/what-is-the-eonic-effect/
The eonic effect is something fairly deep, and won’t yield to hostile Darwinians who refuse to see anything, and who think they have all the answers already.
nemo said,
August 22, 2008 at 8:10 am
Chris defines science:
Definition of Science (source National Academy of Sciences)
The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.
Does Darwinism predict the future of evolution? Obviously it fails this definition right off.
The eonic model of the eonic effect is not a predictive theory, but a new type of ‘theory’ based on the relationship of causality and freedom, with definite constraints on predictive pseudo-theories.
As to the need to cite scientists, there simply aren’t any decent scientific texts on the ’science of history’. They don’t exist.
Scientists are simply idiots on the question of a science of history, and thrown off the scent by Darwinian assumptions.
psiloiordinary said,
August 22, 2008 at 9:20 am
Hi Nemo,
Even more puzzling - you still ignore my question.
The red flags are piling up.
Regards,
Psi
nemo said,
August 22, 2008 at 3:07 pm
It doesn’t have to be this way: tell me what you want, or repost your statements or…
C’mon
and read World History And The Eonic Effect
I am going to post a quiz on the content.
Chris said,
August 23, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Nemo,
You made a few posts in regard to my last Post. I will address them in order:
In your first post, you say “Does Darwinism predict the future of evolution? Obviously it fails this definition right off.” Not so fast. Darwinism is not a scientific term. Natural Selection makes predictions. Evolutionary Theory, makes many predictions. If you want it to predict specifically what traits will evolve in a particular organism that is impossible given our current state of computing power. For one thing we would need to predict precisely how environmental conditions would change in the future. I don’t claim to predict the future in that sense. The sorts of predictions we’re talking about are a bit more simple than that. For the momment let’s limit ourselves to the Theory of Natural Selection as it was put forth by Darwin.
That made a number of predictions for which the answers were unknown. It predicted that a mechanism or mechanisms would exist in which offspring
were imperfect copies of the parent, rather than perfect clones. The discovery of DNA provided the proof of that prediction. It predicted that although new species would emerge only gradually over thousands or millions of years, new traits would emerge more quickly as environmental conditions favored certain traits over others. Animal husbandry provides a laboratory model of this, where man applies the specific conditional changes. Emerging drug-resistant bacteria are natural examples of this process. Natural selection predicts that the fossil record should reveal forms occuring in an ordered sequence from one form to another in a logical sequence of transitional forms. Although it is unlikely that paleontologists digging up ancient fossils will stumble upon every single transitional form, those they find should be in a natuaral progression over time. In otherwords, we shouldn’t see an early simple forms, followed by complex forms, followed by an simpler forms again in a random order and distribution. Rather we should see a logical progression over time. This is just what we continue to see in the fossil record. There are many more such predictions, every one of which has so far held up to testing and observation.
You said “If I give you another concise summary you will jump at the opportunity to say you still don’t understand it. OK? I have learned this trick the hard way. Your ‘puzzlement’ is disingenuous.” I am not being disengenuous. I am puzzled.
If the idea is that great change occasionally occurs in great bursts,I would agree. Both in terms of history and evolution. In fact, the mechanisms can be quite similar at times.
You said, “As to the need to cite scientists, there simply aren’t any decent scientific texts on the ’science of history’. They don’t exist.”
The Pulitzer Prize winning book, “Guns, Germs & Steel” by the scientists Jared Diamond examines human history through a scientific perspective I highly recommend it as it seems to be something you interested in. Another book you may want to read is Simplexity. It is a brief overview of the very new field of Complexity Science.
You said, “Same with your statement about NS. I have explained the point hundreds of times, always the same response: explain it again. explain it again. explain it again, so that you can essentially ignore the critique.”
You assume we are being disengenous and that we’re not trying. That is not true. I have yet to read anything on this site that provides any specific eveidence that refutes Natural Slection. Certainly the assertion is made, but where is the evidence?
An example from the Article you referenced in your post is:
“We speak of the eonic ‘effect’ rather than a theory, since we can detect a pattern but may not be able to explain it so easily. That’s it. However, this pattern conceals something very deep indeed, so a short answer to the question needs to be followed by a close study. Actually the methods created by our so-called eonic model (a formal scheme of periodization using the idea of transitions) usefully force us to examine world history in depth. We keep thinking we understand our historical past, but we rarely consider historical totalities in their full scope.”
What? So what if human history has unfolded in great bursts of change followed by periods of relatively little change? How is this pertinant? How does it undermine Natural Selection? Again, you think I am being sarcastic or glib, but I am not. Perhaps if you defined your terms a bit more precisely it would seem less vague. You defined the eonic model as, ” a formal scheme of periodization using the idea of transitions” What do you mean by a “formal scheme of periodization.” This is not a term I am familiar with. Also what is “the idea of transistions.” It seems you have developed these phrases to summarize some big ideas, without explaining to outsiders what the big idea is first.
nemo said,
August 23, 2008 at 3:44 pm
You’ll have to forgive: I suffer from weariness in replying ad infinitum to every Darwin defender, with their false education in evolution, producing endless defenses of Darwinism that are beside the point.
The question of prediction merely suggests that the meaning of ’science’ shifts when we address evolution. It just doesn’t fit into the rubric of physics. Your examples of prediction seem to me marginal at best. The point is that something is missing in the Darwinian argument.
As to the eonic effect, people automatically start criticizing the idea without the slightest idea of what it is about. I fear it requires a considerable study, one that noone convinced of Darwinism is going to pursue. It is easier to attack the surface.
Guns, Germs and Steel is interesting enough but doesn’t by any stretch of the imagination produce a science of history. Its search for causal explanations is totally misguided and inept, almost amateurish.
Noone is refuting NS, merely showing how it is not the driver of evolution. The eonic effect shows that natural selection is on the side lines in historical evolution. There is no association with the periods of creative advance. It is a purely secondary process. If anything, natural selection is anti-evolutionary: it can eliminate important advances.
The phrase ‘bursts of change’ is yours. Get acquainted with the terms of description. You ask how this issue is pertinent. Is discussion hopeless.
Isn’t falsification pertinent to the issue of evolution?
You are being wilfully unfair. You browse a brochure and then complain you don’t understand.
I can’t do no more than I have done. It’s your move.
The eonic effect stands in stark contrast to the claims of Darwinists, a glaring exception in our historical backyard.
Ask a library to get a copy of the book, a measly fifteen bucks. I think if you follow the argument in full the obvious character of the eonic effect will stand out
Chris said,
August 23, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Nemo,
I tire of this. You make great declarations which you are unwilling or unable to back up with a single specific example. You have not offered one specific criticism of Natural Selection or Evolutionary Theory. You just declare they are invalid. You tell me to get acquanted with the terms, but when I asked you to aquaint me with the meaning of two terms you used, you can’t or won’t. You declare the eonic effect stands in stark contrast to the claims of Darwinists, but have steadfastly refused to tell me how.
You dismiss every question, criticism or counterpoint without explanation, except we are all brainwashed or misguided. You say Guns, Germs and Steel is amatuerish, even though it is highly researched and footnoted, but again not a single example of how. I can only conclude the emporer has no clothes and move on.
nemo said,
August 23, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I fear you are describing your own behavior. My criticism of NS is simple: you can provide no conclusive proof it drives evolution. I, on the other hand, can propose, with evidence, what is missing.
Clearly the question of history requires some study and the framework provided by the eonic effect takes some study.
Guns, Germs, and Steel is a stupid book: geographical determinism. This sells, why I know not. It has turned a whole generation into confused idiots on history.
The Darwin emperor indeed has no clothes.
You must move on because you cannot bring yourself to refute what you won’t consider. Too bad.
nemo said,
August 23, 2008 at 6:53 pm
To say that I don’t offer any examples is outrageous. I have a six hundred page book with examples.
The real issue is that what I say is not allowed in public discouse, and therefore I have to be set up with some bogus charge, like, ‘you don’t offer any examples’, etc…
It takes time to cook a stew, you can’t demand the proof out of a shirt pocket, a somewhat long-winded demo is required.
psiloiordinary said,
August 24, 2008 at 2:03 am
Is there any question whihc does not lead to the answer; “Buy my book?”
I’ve had enough.
All the best to you.
Bye,
Psi
nemo said,
August 24, 2008 at 8:26 am
What’s your problem? If you have something to say, say it. Since my views are best presented in a book, it is wise to get a hold of it.
Otherwise the website http://eonic-effect.net has two hundred pages of material on the subject for those who are unable to afford the book.
Don’t miss the book’s falsification of Darwinism.
nemo said,
August 25, 2008 at 12:15 am
The question of the eonic effect can indeed through you for a loop, at first. It is an unexpected demonstration of something not supposed to exist: a non-random pattern in world history. We have to completely reorient ourselves to see evolution, and history in a new way.