Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
Sounds pretty hot. Why was nothing adjacent melted?
A blast like that and there's no debris field to either side? And there's no glass?
The Trinity test vaporized some stuff too, but it left a layer of glass. The stuff next to the stuff that vaporized melted. And Trinity was a tower burst if not an air burst. About a 100-foot tower IIRC. You're talking about something that dug the Grand Canyon.
I'm not an electrical engineer (maybe some kind-hearted soul out there will help), but in the event you are describing the electrical discharge would have to travel from the space body to the Colorado Plateau to cause surrounding terrain to vaporize. Since electricity by convention travels from positive to negative, this necessarily means the earth would act as the cathode...not the other way around.
I was given a small peice of Trinitite a couple of years ago. The stuff is very green, and definitely glassy.
What has caused us to be graced with this visit from Olympus?
"...endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."
Your mistake is to assume disjointness between "natural causes" and "intelligent causes." You are intelligent but also natural.
Don't know about all leftists, but Stalin embraced Lysenkoism, a form of Lamarckism, not Darwinism.
In fact, Darwin's discovery was that the environment provides for as rigorous selection of preferred traits as an animal breeder does. In other words, Nature provides an 'invisible hand', rather like that of classical laissez-faire.
But what about genetic programs? They are created by random crossings culled by a selection function. I don't know if you've seen any cases but they are simply a mess - effective but totally unreadable.
Like any good author, I cater to the masses -- that doesn't mean I agree with everything I write. " Junior in post#1233
The above was in my statement that you had plenty of articles on macro-evolution on both your list-o-links and your "Ultimate Resource". Methinks you are being quite dishonest on the subject of macro-evolution. You know quite well what it is about. While your statements may have "deniability" like any "deniable" statement, they were completely dishonest.
BTW - a librarian is not an author. To the best of my knowledge, none of the articles in those lists were written by you.
The development of a sexually reproducing biological organism in such a way that branches traceable to a common ancestor are no longer able to fertilize each others seed while remaining fertile.
No, it has nothing to do with the individual if it's a scientific theory. It has to do with the proof. If you're correct about the proof being there it just has not been presented to me effectively.
If we are talking science one should not be expected to wait for a revelation.
The program(s) is(are) still being "decoded" so I must rely on those who are working on it.
A 21st Century View of evolution
Molecular genetics has amply confirmed McClintock’s discovery that living organisms actively reorganize their genomes (5). It has also supported her view that the genome can "sense danger" and respond accordingly (56). The recognition of the fundamentally biological nature of genetic change and of cellular potentials for information processing frees our thinking about evolution. In particular, our conceptual formulations are no longer dependent on the operation of stochastic processes. Thus, we can now envision a role for computational inputs and adaptive feedbacks into the evolution of life as a complex system. Indeed, it is possible that we will eventually see such information-processing capabilities as essential to life itself.
I am extremely interested in what a non-religious alternative to evolution could be. If there is a non-religious entity creating living systems or guiding their evolution, how did it/they come into existence?
What I said was that I have come to doubt macro-evolution for non-religous reasons -- namely that my faith is not dependent on accepting a literal interpretation of Genesis. Certain parts of the Gospels, yes. But not Genesis.
I believed in God when I accepted evolution without question. I believe in God, now. If I ever again become convinced that evolution is how man came to exists I will continue to believe in God.
The only evidence for evolution which seems to be presented is either micro-evolutionary changes in particular species (which I accept as occurring but not as proof of macro-evolution) and the fossil record which isn't proof of evolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.