coldcreation

Hello people, just thought I would drop by. It's been a while!!! A search on the internet brought me to this page, so I posted here. :-) Regards CC

Hey JMJ, :) Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun. ~Richard Dawkins We humans are an extremely important manifestation of the replication bomb, because it is through us - through our brains, our symbolic culture and our technology - that the explosion may proceed to the next stage and reverberate through deep space. ~Richard Dawkins CC

. Something has only just begun! CC

. Nothing will forever remain the same. CC

I've been posting absolutely nothing here at Hypography for quite some time. CC

The results in this book, according to the author himself "do not overthrow the Einsteinian General Theory of Relativity". The only thing he claims has been altered is "the very basic interpretation and foundations of the Einsteinian theory." What the author claims is being established is that "the language of Riemannian geometry is not the language of reality." (He prefers Euclidean geometry, absolute space and absolute time). He concludes that all of the consequences of the Einsteinian theory that apply to an actual physical universe should be interpreted in terms of infinitesimal light cloc

Newton description of universal gravitation and the three laws of motion was a scientific view of the physical universe. He showed that the motions of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws; removing the last doubts about heliocentrism and advancing the Scientific Revolution. His objective was to describe the natural world. The author of the book you mention in the OP has a quite different agenda: to justify "scientifically" the "Godhead attributes described within the Bible". His objective is to "increase our understanding of God's created visi

In the OP you posted a description of a book by the self-proclaimed creationist (a 1996 Templeton Prize Nominee) Robert A. Herrmann. His General Intelligent Design Theory (not to be confused with Einstein's General relativity theory) is an attempt to "transform God's thoughts into physical reality". His interpretation "shows that it is rational to assume that all physical-system behavior as investigated by science-communities is designed or controlled by intelligent agency." This, so the author claims, "is the first general solution to the problem of intelligent design." (Source: the author's

In in addition to the four known fundamental forces, a fifth force has been postulated. Theories of gravity such as Brans-Dicke theory have a fifth force—possibly with infinite range, which would manifest itself in an effect called the Nordtvedt effect. Lunar Laser Ranging Experiments and long baseline interferometry have been used to search for the effect, i.e., the existence of the fifth force is testable.(Ephraim Fischbach, Daniel Sudarsky, Aaron Szafer, Carrick Talmadge, and S. H. Aronson, "Reanalysis of the Eötvös experiment", Physical Review Letters 56 3, 1986) Another postulation of a

I could be mistaken, but it seems as if the author mentioned above is a perfect candidate for the Templeton Prize. He bridges the gap between sense and nonsense. EDIT-> According to this source, the author mentioned above is a creationist. And according to this source, the author invented what he calls, General intelligent design (i.e., nonsense). Confirmed. His own website states: "the described Biblical attributes and behavior of God are scientifically rational in content. Further, the modeled creationary processes can be intuitively described as transforming God's thoughts int

Thanks Pam, I must have missed your post. I await further testing, and until then side with Einstein's view that nothing can travel faster than c, not even neutrinos. CC

Hey Maddog. Do you have a link that discusses the "faulty wiring (lose connection) and an issue with the clock circuitry"? Thanks CC

Work! Ecstasy! Smash your brains! Chew, stuff yourself, gulp it down, mix it around! The bliss of giving birth! The crack of the brush, best of all as it stabs the canvas. - Max Pechstein

From Moontanman's wiki link: Bold added. Clearly what you write is incomplete. Lankester was perhaps the first "biologist" to come up with the theory of devolution. But devolution was originally a creationist idea, first presented as an evolutionary mechanism in 1857 by a devout Catholic, not circa 1880-1910 (as you write). Whether the physician Bénédict More should be considered a biologist is irrelevant, so too is the possibility that Lankester may have been the first biologist to adopt the idea of devolution. Key, is that Morel (the devout Catholic) produced the hypothesis of devol

Having something to rotate in is not a necessary condition of rotation. Euler's rotation theorem works for rigid bodies rotating in space, as it does for coordinate systems (what you call "environment"). In physics, according to the theory of special relativity, the Lorentz transformation describes how two observers' varying measurements of space and time can be converted into each other's frames of reference. In a homogeneous space, the Lorentz transformation is a linear transformation. It may include a rotation of space. Since relativity postulates that the speed of light is the same fo