"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

I was counting the two possibilities you claim are offered by the science
of
Cosmology, not the "fallback" I presume you intend to offer because of
some flaw
in the others. I find it rather impressive that you can not only
summarize all
of the possibilities offered right now in a few words, but that you're
confident
this includes all possibilities that will be offered for all time.

I don't think that I said that I was confident that I could foresee all
possibilities that might be offered in the future.

My (unpalatable) views are based on current scientific thinking. The
mistake that you, and Wally, are making is that you assume that I am a
religious fanatic. You really need to read my posts again. I'm not very
religious.


Regards


Donal
--

Donal wrote:

My (unpalatable) views are based on current scientific thinking.

Just which peer reviewed "Scientific" journal should I peruse to read articles
which would suggest that "current scientific thinking" is no longer in accordance
with the Theory of Evolution"?

Cheers
Marty

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

My (unpalatable) views are based on current scientific thinking.

Just which peer reviewed "Scientific" journal should I peruse to read
articles
which would suggest that "current scientific thinking" is no longer in
accordance
with the Theory of Evolution"?

Sorry about taking so long to reply. I have a huge amount of unread posts to
catch up on!

I didn't mean to imply that scientists agreed with me. I was trying to say
that my arguements are based on scientific thinking.

IOW, I am not relying on religious beliefs to back up my contentions.

Scientists agree that Man could not have evolved in the available time
unless there were periods of *intense* development.

They try to suggest that man underwent extreme development during periods of
intense radiation. This theory is completely discredited by practical
observations.


Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote

Scientists agree that Man could not have evolved in the available time
unless there were periods of *intense* development.

That's the first time I heard that and doubt its factuality considering that
a new species of moth evolved in 'Blymie' in less than one human lifetime.
The original species was white matching the bark of a type of tree. A few
'mutants' were varigated but that was a disadvantage (made them more visible
to birds) so few survived to breed.

Come industry, soot from then new factories darkened the bark making white
moths more visible and vulnerable to birds than their varigated brothers and
sisters and the whites disappeared from the region whilst the varigated
thrived and evolved into a new species that cannot breed with their
anticedents any more than we can breed with other mammals. The much-older
white species still exists - just not in industrial England.

It follows that, if a brand new species of insect can evolve in less than a
century then man could easily evolve in millions of years, and I doubt many
'scientists' agree otherwise.

OTOH an Artic expedition experimenting to find the optimum length of their
artificial day discovered that 25 hours was about right. This argued that,
unlike Earthly species, we had evolved elsewhere - probably Mars. It also
explained why it's so hard to get up in the morning (c: