tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post3155809580525029903..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Do you really "get" evolution?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger246125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71206155031046067302014-06-29T08:20:48.195-04:002014-06-29T08:20:48.195-04:00Unless I’m mistaken, people actually doing science...<i>Unless I’m mistaken, people actually doing science publish their findings. They expect people to read and judge their findings. That’s what RTB does, and with the scientific qualifications to do it credibly. Since you have looked at some of their information, you know that RTB is as qualified to interpret scientific findings as anyone.</i><br /><br />ROFLMAO! Funniest thing I've read all day.<br /><br /><i>Of course I have thought about it. In most cases, that’s the kind of question that does not have an answer one word in length, or one page, or one book, or even in one library. Each person finds that answer in process and time. I live near Grand Rapids, MI. I’ll buy the coffee, if you want a genuine attempt at that answer. </i><br /><br />Translation: "Holy fuck, that's a good question! He's really got me there. Now how do I weasel out of this without letting on that he's just shot down my entire argument?"<br /><br /><i>I can tell the difference between a lie and a worldview that influences interpretation.</i><br /><br />The difference being whether the person stating the falsehood is too stupid to realize it is false?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31959430732140732172014-06-27T22:08:53.521-04:002014-06-27T22:08:53.521-04:00Years ago I read of a lot of interesting things ab...Years ago I read of a lot of interesting things about animal behavior. For example, an oystercatcher (shorebird) was given the choice between its four normal-sized eggs moved to the right of its nest or one extra large fake egg an equal distance to the left. The bird chose the big egg, even when it was so big the bird could barely straddle it. The oversized egg was considered a "supernormal stimulus," much more appealing than the real thing.<br /><br />We can live lives filled with realistic, human-scale meaning, even though the universe is devoid of purpose or meaning. We can love and care for grandchildren, for example. Or teach. Or add to human knowledge. (Camus' third way?)<br /><br />Alternatively, we can seek huge, eternal, unrealistic meaning that qualifies as a "supernormal stimulus." We can imagine that kind of meaning and chase after it, like oystercatchers suckered by oversized eggs. Or like me eating too much good chocolate (so much more sugar and fat than would ever occur naturally!). Then I suppose we could think ourselves into suicide because the universe won't meet our unrealistic needs. <br /><br />Personally, I find very satisfying meaning in teaching, writing, describing interesting plants, and loving and supporting a fine person. My guess is that you can find such meaning, too. Barbarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03688261560720381631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85657844770493756282014-06-26T09:12:34.685-04:002014-06-26T09:12:34.685-04:00The whole truth said, - “what makes you think that...The whole truth said, - “what makes you think that meaning and purpose are intrinsic only to humans?” – I think it’s obvious in the record and empirical evidence of the morphology and anthropology of humans, vs. all other elements of our creation.<br /><br />The whole truth said, - “What makes you think that meaning and purpose are "intrinsic"? – Do you know of any culture where these types of issues and questions were not raised by people? Do you see anything any empirical data showing that cockroaches contemplate their meaning or purpose in life?<br /><br />The whole truth said, - “Are humans born with meaning and purpose?” – Yes. An open-minded reading of the Bible and conversation with mature Christians (not done over night) would show this. But, asking questions for the sole purpose of challenging another’s premise, with no intent to actually seek an answer, will not cut it.<br /><br />The whole truth said, - “What exactly is the "intrinsic" meaning and purpose of a human?” – You have a lot of questions here. I’ll use this to make my point on intrinsic and meaning and purpose. Using a non-biblical source, “The Myth of Sisyphus,” by Albert Camus. “THE MYTH OF SISYPHUS. “THE CENTRAL CONCERN OF THE MYTH OF SISYPHUS IS WHAT CAMUS CALLS "THE ABSURD." CAMUS CLAIMS THAT THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL CONFLICT BETWEEN WHAT WE WANT FROM THE UNIVERSE (WHETHER IT BE MEANING, ORDER, OR REASONS) AND WHAT WE FIND IN THE UNIVERSE (FORMLESS CHAOS). WE WILL NEVER FIND IN LIFE ITSELF THE MEANING THAT WE WANT TO FIND. EITHER WE WILL DISCOVER THAT MEANING THROUGH A LEAP OF FAITH, BY PLACING OUR HOPES IN A GOD BEYOND THIS WORLD, OR WE WILL CONCLUDE THAT LIFE IS MEANINGLESS. CAMUS OPENS THE ESSAY BY ASKING IF THIS LATTER CONCLUSION THAT LIFE IS MEANINGLESS NECESSARILY LEADS ONE TO COMMIT SUICIDE. IF LIFE HAS NO MEANING, DOES THAT MEAN LIFE IS NOT WORTH LIVING? IF THAT WERE THE CASE, WE WOULD HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO MAKE A LEAP OF FAITH OR TO COMMIT SUICIDE, SAYS CAMUS. CAMUS IS INTERESTED IN PURSUING A THIRD POSSIBILITY: THAT WE CAN ACCEPT AND LIVE IN A WORLD DEVOID OF MEANING OR PURPOSE.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03010537659336148757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14042964222459962852014-06-26T09:07:23.487-04:002014-06-26T09:07:23.487-04:00John said- “Denny, you can't expect anyone to...John said- “Denny, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously after that opening. That isn't science.” – John, Unless I’m mistaken, people actually doing science publish their findings. They expect people to read and judge their findings. That’s what RTB does, and with the scientific qualifications to do it credibly. Since you have looked at some of their information, you know that RTB is as qualified to interpret scientific findings as anyone.<br /><br />John said - “That's http://www.reasons.org/Search?q=classification+of+organisms%3B+ just headlines.” I’m sure you saw that they are links to specifics on the topic. Maybe you’re a scientist. I’m not. I don’t have recall for all areas of science at every depth from years of lab work. I read the people and their papers who do. The papers and RTB’s critiques are valid for discussion.<br /><br />John said – “Perhaps (a logical fallacy), but only because we choose our own meanings and purposes. That’s a type of logical fallacy too. I’m not talking in the subjective. I’m taking about the ‘ultimate.’<br /><br />John said – “Sure, evolution doesn't give meaning to life. But how exactly does God give meaning to life? Have you ever thought about that?” – Of course I have thought about it. In most cases, that’s the kind of question that does not have an answer one word in length, or one page, or one book, or even in one library. Each person finds that answer in process and time. I live near Grand Rapids, MI. I’ll buy the coffee, if you want a genuine attempt at that answer. <br /> <br /><br />John said – “How can you possibly know anything about the scientific merits if your only knowledge of science is filtered through a creationist source? Hint: they lie.” – Denny’s answer, How can you possibly know anything about the scientific merits if your only knowledge of science is filtered through a evolutionary naturalistic materialistic atheistic sources? <br /><br />Hint: they lie.” –I can tell the difference between a lie and a worldview that influences interpretation.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03010537659336148757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80041496444111557022014-06-25T18:46:46.406-04:002014-06-25T18:46:46.406-04:00Hi Piotr. Remember, be very careful.... :)
Here...Hi Piotr. Remember, be very careful.... :)<br /><br />Here's something else Hugh Ross, though he must know it, doesn't mention in his sleight-of-hand about galaxies: They <i>evolve</i>. <i>Elliptical galaxies evolve from interactions among spiral galaxies.</i> So though those galaxies may be full of old low metallicity stars now, it wasn't always that way. Plenty of time (10+ billion years) for planets and life to have arisen and to be present in those galaxies now.<br /><br />Dr. Ross is relying on you not to consider the age and dynamics of the universe when he makes statements that seem facially reasonable but depend on the false premise that the way things are now is the way they've always been.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72043281587448913622014-06-25T18:25:38.291-04:002014-06-25T18:25:38.291-04:00Barbara -
Denny needs it to be true that your lif...Barbara -<br /><br />Denny needs it to be true that your life can have meaning only through faith.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41917678829922149222014-06-25T13:27:25.550-04:002014-06-25T13:27:25.550-04:00It's certainly not the central hypothesis of p...It's certainly not the central hypothesis of physics.colnago80https://www.blogger.com/profile/02640567775340860582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32063124329261823842014-06-25T10:25:20.051-04:002014-06-25T10:25:20.051-04:00Denny,
Slow to respond; its field season.
You w...Denny, <br /><br />Slow to respond; its field season.<br /><br />You wrote, "Your truth claim, I think, also makes the point that your acceptance of meaning and purpose as tied to evolution (a materialistic proposition) is a faith choice." I think you missed my point completely. Evolution doesn't provide meaning. We humans want meaning, but we won't find it in that theory. We may, however, find satisfactory meaning in our lives. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73168725684206130012014-06-25T07:28:22.565-04:002014-06-25T07:28:22.565-04:00Speaking of evolution, here are some articles for ...Speaking of evolution, here are some articles for you guys and gals to ponder and comment about if you like:<br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140619142204.htm<br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140618220554.htm<br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140623225009.htm<br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140624092530.htm<br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140623131331.htm<br /><br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140623094624.htm<br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74862239212501001312014-06-24T20:14:49.550-04:002014-06-24T20:14:49.550-04:00Second part of a two-part response…
"[Evolut...Second part of a two-part response…<br /><br />"[Evolution] forms the subjects of every scientific journal…"<br />This clause is patent bullshit. Evolution <i>does not</i> 'form… the subjects of <b>every</b> science journal' [emphasis added], because, as noted above, <i>biology is only one of the <b>many</b> different fields of science</i>.<br /><br />"…all of which are reviewed by a scientifically qualified staff at my primary source of scientific information, Reason To Believe (reasons.org)."<br />Reasons To Believe. Hm.<br />From [ http://www.reasons.org/about/our-mission ]: "RTB's mission is to spread the Christian Gospel…", and "We believe the Bible is 100% without error / That includes all 66 books of the Old & New Testaments / Scripture is our supreme & final authority in all matters it addresses"<br />From the "support RTB" sidebar which is present on many pages of reasons.org: "Reasons to Believe is a ministry…"<br />From [ http://www.reasons.org/about/our-creation-model-approach ]: "The Bible (including Genesis 1–11) is the error-free word of God. / The message of nature will agree with what the Bible says."<br /><i>That</i> is what RTB, denny cochran's go-to source for scientific information and analysis, has to say for, and of, themselves. RTB is <i>not</i> a scientific organization; rather, RTB is a <i>ministry</i>, and RTB's primary focus is on <i>spreading the Gospel</i>. The staff of RTB may well be 'scientifically qualified', but given the fact that they <i>absolutely refuse</i> to even <i>consider</i> the possibility that the Bible might actually be wrong about stuff, RTB's staff is clearly not making good use of their scientific qualifications. And given the fact that RTB's 'President & Founder' made a patently farcical statement about how bad it would be for Earth if the Earth's orbital distance were even a couple percent different than it is, it's not at all clear why anybody should give credence to <i>any</i> of RTB's statements about science <i>whatsoever</i>. As the Word of God says, "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much." (Luke 16:10)Cubisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18112097625072217558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29993716779795370202014-06-24T20:12:51.978-04:002014-06-24T20:12:51.978-04:00This is going to be a two-part response, on accoun...This is going to be a two-part response, on account of it breaks the blog's 4Kcharacter limit…<br /><br />sez denny cochran: "I… 'look at evolution' all the time."<br />Do you <i>really</i> 'look at evolution all the time', denny cochran? Perhaps you do—but there's a chunk of dialogue from the movie <i><b>A Fish Called Wanda</b></i> which is highly relevant:<br /><i>Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.<br />Wanda: Yes, they do Otto, they just don't understand it.</i><br /><br />"It’s in every science magazine, including NatGeo, every TV documentary, like COSMOS, and all nature programs."<br />This sentence is true—but note what denny cochran <i>does not</i> say here. He <i>does not</i> say that <i>he, himself</i> has actually read any of those 'science magazines' he refers to, nor viewed any of those 'TV documentaries' he refers to, nor yet viewed any of those 'nature programs' he refers to. Therefore, denny cochran's words do not actually provide any grounds on which to conclude that he <i>has</i> actually read any of those 'science magazines' he refers to, or viewed any of those 'TV documentaries' he refers to, or viewed any of those 'nature programs' he refers to. One may reasonably wonder the alternate source(s) from which denny cochran is getting his information about those magazines/documentaries/programs he has not read/viewed… and one may, equally, reasonably wonder whether denny cochran has, in fact, read/viewed <i>any</i> of those magazines/documentaries/programs.<br /><br />"It’s the central hypothesis behind all scientific investigation."<br />This sentence is false. Evolution can be considered the 'central hypothesis' of the field of biology, and on that basis, may be considered the 'central hypothesis behind all' <i>biological</i> 'scientific investigation—but evolution most certainly is <i>not</i> 'the central hypothesis behind <b>all</b> scientific investigation" [emphasis added] Because, like, biology is <i>not</i> the <i>only</i> field of science, you know? Here, denny cochran is either ignorant or lying, depending on whether or not he <i>knows</i> that what he wrote is false.Cubisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18112097625072217558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83322059885434816652014-06-24T18:31:07.079-04:002014-06-24T18:31:07.079-04:00I don't know about that Judmarc. God may have ...I don't know about that Judmarc. God may have quite purposefully created a universe where things like eyes, mousetraps, and bacterial flagella simply cannot arise by naturalistic processes. But then he decided they would be good to have around (oh yeah, and whole organisms too) and therefore stepped in with other magic powers to bring them about. I think you underestimate the versatility of that christian god.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51543467482273045932014-06-24T17:54:55.619-04:002014-06-24T17:54:55.619-04:00It's getting creepy. To be sure, the very idea...It's getting creepy. To be sure, the very idea of choosing "Reasons to Believe" as one's "primary source of scientific information" already strains the imagination.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22119251088571763232014-06-24T17:44:40.801-04:002014-06-24T17:44:40.801-04:00I hadn't noticed that. The two posts are simi...I hadn't noticed that. The two posts are similar, but not identical. Weird.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64778188644537415372014-06-24T17:30:59.278-04:002014-06-24T17:30:59.278-04:00That was just a repost of his previous comment. I ...That was just a repost of his previous comment. I can't imagine why he would do that, but there you are.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62202841034426516252014-06-24T16:38:32.599-04:002014-06-24T16:38:32.599-04:00Blah, blah, fucking blah.
Any chance you might ac...Blah, blah, fucking blah.<br /><br />Any chance you might actyally answer any of the several questions people have respectfully and courteously asked you, Denny?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51087183435689096762014-06-24T16:13:45.033-04:002014-06-24T16:13:45.033-04:00Barbara –I do (quoting Barbara) “look at evolution...Barbara –I do (quoting Barbara) “look at evolution” all the time. It’s in every science magazine, including NatGeo, every TV documentary, like “COSMOS”, and all nature programs. It’s the central hypothesis behind all scientific investigation. It forms the subjects of every scientific journal, as with Stephanie Keep NCSE, all of which are reviewed by a scientifically qualified staff at my primary source of scientific information, Reason To Believe (reasons.org). RTB publishes a critique on virtually all scientific discoveries almost every day of the week, always with sources, and sometimes with an Abstract. As to what judmarc and others are trying to explain to me, I understand that they are trying to convince me that evolution is not only the best, but also the only rational explanation for how we all got here. I respectfully disagree, based on the information I have cited. You may look at RTB’s link http://www.reasons.org/Search?q=classification+of+organisms%3B+ and see what I found, when I entered “classification of organisms.”<br /><br />I think it’s fun to go for the big issue vs. wandering around in the weeds arguing over things that can’t be definitively proven. I’m referring to your truth claim. “Neither the universe in general nor the process of evolution provide meaning. That's simply true.” Yes, it is. And that truth, I think, makes your other comments a logical fallacy. More than once, now, you and other Sandwalk fans have said the universe doesn’t provide meaning and purpose. That’s because the universe is material. Material reality cannot provide something that transcends itself, ‘meaning and purpose.’ Yet, meaning and purpose are (in reality) intrinsic to human nature. <br /><br />Therefore, Yes, I do reject evolution, but not solely because it is without meaning and purpose, but also because (progressive) creationism provides a more logical and more complete explanation for how we got here – and why. I reject evolution based on the actual scientific merits offered by the people who propose it. Further, I respectfully suggest that virtually all scientific discoveries and information (discovered by mostly naturalistic evolutionary scientists) fail to support cause by chance, probabilities, or some other unguided explanation. Design (by inference or in fact), is what inevitably appears in scientific discoveries/data, as a more likely cause. Last, I believe there are sufficient correlations between natural science data and natural phenomena mentioned in narrative form in the Bible to give the Bible a stronger basis for addressing both the issue of cause, and meaning and purpose.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03010537659336148757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36812406087434686282014-06-24T14:02:26.769-04:002014-06-24T14:02:26.769-04:00Far be it from me to defend Hugh Ross's absurd...Far be it from me to defend Hugh Ross's absurd calculations. I was only pointing out that elliptical galaxies are in fact likely to host fewer planets than spiral ones -- perhaps merely tens of billions rather than hundreds of billions each ;). It seems, however, that over 50% of catalogued galaxies are spiral and only 12% are elliptical:<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9603040v1.pdf<br />Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62404236621578525652014-06-24T12:41:51.803-04:002014-06-24T12:41:51.803-04:00sez judmarc: "Be very careful when evaluating...sez judmarc: "Be very careful when evaluating seemingly plausible contentions from Hugh Ross. For example, he's said that if the Earth was just 1 or 2 percent closer to or further away from the Sun it would not be a favorable environment for life. This might pass unremarked until one realizes that distance from the Sun in Earth's elliptical orbit varies by more than 5%."<br />Yep. Other Creationists make an even more preposterously extravagant version of that claim—namely, that if the Earth was even so much as <i>one mile</i> closer to the Sun, or farther away from the Sun, that trivial change in orbital distance would render the Earth uninhabitable.<br />The closest Earth gets to the Sun (see also: "perihelion") is a bit under 91.5 million miles. The farthest Earth gets from the Sun (see also: "aphelion") is a hair over 94.5 million miles. The difference between the two is a little over 3 million miles… and it takes the Earth six months, half a year, to get from one to the other, and/or back again.<br />One year is a little over 31.5 million seconds; six months, therefore, is a bit over 15.75 million seconds.<br />If the Earth's orbital distance changed at a constant rate over the course of a year, it would take (15+ million / 3+ million =) about 5 seconds for the Earth's orbital distance to get one mile bigger or smaller. In reality, the amount of time it takes for the Earth's orbital distance to change by 1 mile varies over time.<br />Even so: If you want to know what the Earth would be like if its orbital distance were 1 mile different than it is right now? Wait a few seconds and see.Cubisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18112097625072217558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38162915851677246182014-06-24T08:51:49.719-04:002014-06-24T08:51:49.719-04:00Be very careful when evaluating seemingly plausibl...Be very careful when evaluating seemingly plausible contentions from Hugh Ross. For example, he's said that if the Earth was just 1 or 2 percent closer to or further away from the Sun it would not be a favorable environment for life. This might pass unremarked until one realizes that distance from the Sun in Earth's elliptical orbit varies by more than 5%.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73265837090991389422014-06-23T15:19:26.299-04:002014-06-23T15:19:26.299-04:00@Denny I respectfully disagree.
Actually there i...@Denny I respectfully disagree. <br /><br />Actually there is nothing respectful about your disagreement.<br /><br />You have made no attempt at honestly evaluating the evidence, you flaunt and revel in your ignorance, you attribute base motives to some of the commenters here who are highly qualified (I am definitely not one of those people, being but an interested layperson) in the field of evolutionary biology and who have generously taken time out of their undoubtedly busy schedules in an attempt to assist you.<br /><br />steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57496622697962760002014-06-23T15:19:17.578-04:002014-06-23T15:19:17.578-04:00When is Denny going to respond to my query as to t...<i>When is Denny going to respond to my query as to the broken vitamin C gene in the great apes and humans and whether the sun actually stood still in the sky for a day as claimed in the Book of Joshua.</i><br /><br />I guess those have not been discussed in his "primary source of scientific information, Reason To Believe." ROTFLMFAO!Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81220356376093416142014-06-23T15:16:14.111-04:002014-06-23T15:16:14.111-04:00Yes. And what response has it eliciited from Liar...Yes. And what response has it eliciited from Liar for Jesus Denny Cochran? An apology for lying to us and misrepresenting Richard Lewontin? A retraction? No. He has not replied to Joe's post and instead, just a few posts down, handwaves it away and repeats the lie about Lewontin's views.<br /><br />That's why I have no hesitation in heaping insults and abuse upon the likes of Denny Cochran. He may superficially appear polite and courteous, but this sort of dishonesty is far more disrespectful than any insult.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19395486823554630382014-06-23T14:42:21.744-04:002014-06-23T14:42:21.744-04:00I think Hugh Ross (and Denny after him) regards el...I think Hugh Ross (and Denny after him) regards elliptical galaxies as unlikely life-hosting environments because they are dominated by very old, low-metallicity stars. Elements heavier than helium are much less abundant there than in the disk populations of spiral galaxies, so there's less raw material for planet formation. However, it has been argued that elliptical galaxies also have their "galactic habitable zones":<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/lv2t5k6<br /><br />(The Sun, by the way, is relatively metal-poor for a typical planet-hosting star, so maybe Hugh Ross should count it out as well.)<br /><br />We already have <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.1050v1.pdf" rel="nofollow">one candidate planet</a> outside the Milky Way, but it's in M31 -- a spiral galaxy. Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82288404958111009082014-06-23T10:40:15.568-04:002014-06-23T10:40:15.568-04:00Re Peter
Ole Denny might also read the two books ...Re Peter<br /><br />Ole Denny might also read the two books by Ken Miller, no atheist he. Of course, ole Denny might not consider Roman Catholics to be Christians.colnago80https://www.blogger.com/profile/02640567775340860582noreply@blogger.com