The league of (extra)ordinary gentlemen
- Thread starter kaushik
- Start date
It is a complex amalgam of various situations - social ethos, meaningless education system. terrible political system, and as you correctly put it - a lack of togetherness and pride. But what really surprises me all the time is the completely lack of curiosity to improve oneself, to learn, and maintain things well.
Mars, you said it right - cinema, politics, and labour. The first two do not create wealth and are more parasitical in nature. The third is lowest in the wealth creation chain, and this is something the West has recognised. They will keep exploiting this as long as it suits them.
Of course, our population is a scourge on our national system, but again that could have been exploited positively for some of the largest production and wealth creation systems in the world. Instead it is being exploited negatively by low production the creation of demand and consequent unhappiness.
Cheers
srramanujam
Active Member
By definition, a theory cannot be indisputably proven. But it does not mean the theory of evolution is as weak as a hypothesis i may propagate as Ramanujam.
Tricky thing - the definition of theory and hypothesis. I may betray my ignorance with this explanation, but will neverthless try one.
Hypothesis is the beginning, an educated (or) uneducated guess of why things happen. Some practical observations may support this hypothesis. With repeated oberservations and experiments two things can happen. There could be a counterexample (or) consistency.
As you find more and more observations that fit the hypothesis, it acquires the character of a theory. i,e repeatedly verified and no contradictions or counterexamples. It then becomes a scientific theory. It is generally regarded as something true, not merely a paper statement. Hence it is very different from hypothesis.
Evolution is certainly considered a theory, and not just a mere hypothesis.
The next complication - Again, by definition, a theory can be disproved. In the future one may find a counterexample. Right now, all available observations and experiments still support the theory. However it does not mean that all theories WILL be disproven (or) you can disregard the current weight of evidence.
I think the next complication is Law, something which is determinate and can explain every observation. For example, law of gravity or motion or thermodynamics. Maybe i can avoid venturing further into that area.
What Dawkins' latest book assembles is a mass of obervations, experiments and examples in support of the theory.
To that extent, evolution is a theory, and not a hypothesis. Other alternatives to evolution are not even hypotheses, since there are many contradictions and counterexamples to them.
I guess, the burden for pro-hypothesis person is in finding the proof through experiements and observations, while the burden for a anti-theory person may be in finding the counterexample or contradiction through whatever means.
Oh, can we get back to valve amplifiers please.
srramanujam
Active Member
Just found this piece
Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:
Start with an observation that evokes a question: Broth spoils when I leave it out for a couple of days. Why?
Using logic and previous knowledge, state a possible ansser, called a Hypothesis: Tiny organisms floating in the air must fall into the broth and start reproducing.
Perform an expierment or Test: After boiling some broth, I divide it into two containers, one covered and one not covered. I place them on the table for two days and see if one spoils. Only the uncovered broth spoiled.
Then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication: "Only broth that is exposed to the air after two days tended to spoil. The covered specimen did not."
Other scientists read about your experiment and try to duplicate it. Verification: Every scientist who tries your experiment comes up with the same results. So they try other methods to make sure your experiment was measuring what it was supposed to. Again, they get the same results every time.
In time, and if experiments continue to support your hypothesis, it becomes a Theory: Microorganisms from the air cause broth to spoil.
I have a CD of about 45 min that talks a lot about theory, hypothesis and law. Maybe when we test the next valve amp, we can use it for auditioning.
Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:
Start with an observation that evokes a question: Broth spoils when I leave it out for a couple of days. Why?
Using logic and previous knowledge, state a possible ansser, called a Hypothesis: Tiny organisms floating in the air must fall into the broth and start reproducing.
Perform an expierment or Test: After boiling some broth, I divide it into two containers, one covered and one not covered. I place them on the table for two days and see if one spoils. Only the uncovered broth spoiled.
Then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication: "Only broth that is exposed to the air after two days tended to spoil. The covered specimen did not."
Other scientists read about your experiment and try to duplicate it. Verification: Every scientist who tries your experiment comes up with the same results. So they try other methods to make sure your experiment was measuring what it was supposed to. Again, they get the same results every time.
In time, and if experiments continue to support your hypothesis, it becomes a Theory: Microorganisms from the air cause broth to spoil.
I have a CD of about 45 min that talks a lot about theory, hypothesis and law. Maybe when we test the next valve amp, we can use it for auditioning.
Amongst the Jainas, the Shwetambaras (white clad) believe women have an equal opportunity to undertake the spiritual quest. They believe the 19th Teerthankara Malli was a woman. The Digambars do not rule out the possibility of spiritual attainment for women on grounds of inequality but for practical reasons. They believe it is essential to be naked when on the spiritual quest, hence for reasons of decency, women are excluded. Therefore to attain Moksha, rebirth as a man is necessary because only he can live the full ascetic ideal.
Dont recall the many women philosophers in mainstream Hinduism, but Bharati who was Mandan Misras wife and appointed judge in the debate with the Adi Sankaracharya foxed him and he had to concede defeat. We do have a lot of godesses though if not mortal humans who undertook the philosophical challenge. Most woman saints appear to come from the more recent Bhakti movement only, not from the more rational and scientific philosophical movements of earlier times that involved intellectual rigor like Nyaya, Vaisesika or Samkhya or Yoga. I'm referring to the original Samkhya finally documented by Sage Kapila not the version propounded by Adi Sankaracharya who rejected Kapila's version and synthesized and transformed it into a fashion which was not actually meant to be integrated as such.
Edit: One must remember also that written knowledge in Indian tradition is almost always a mid-point to end point of a long held oral tradition over many 100 centuries, not the beginning of a philosophical movement. So if women have contributed to intellectual foundations and debates in many movements, we wouldn't know about it. Lengthy prose is a western tradition, we have only poetry and verses besides story telling with magical events to arouse wonder and curiosity. An amazed "how can that be?" results in pondering and aids memory and recollection - an effective tool in the absence of writing tradition.
Here is a list: [nukkad] Women Saints of India
Women Saints of Tamil Nadu , India
On a lighter note, women and spirituality only conjure in me, images of someone handing me my chosen spirits in a wine glass ... :licklips:
Cheers
Edit: PS - One must understand of course, that the Jaina and Buddhist nuns undertake a lot of philosophical enquiry over decades on their path to moksha.
Last edited:
Any answers to the key question - if evolution takes so painfully long, how is that NOT a single fossil has been discovered that displays partially evolved physical structure?
Regards
Any answers to the key question - if evolution takes so painfully long, how is that NOT a single fossil has been discovered that displays partially evolved physical structure?
Regards
Define a partially evolved living organism
The creationist theory propounds that all living organisms never undergo any change. Hence all of them needs to look/remain the same since they were created. Prove this please.
You are asking everyone to prove evolution. Can you please provide solid concrete indisputable proof for creationism/god/moksha or whatever? The same concrete evidence that you are demanding from the evolutionists????? Lets us not have double standards here :indifferent14:
Please note that disproving evolutionary theory does not automatically prove existence of god or creationism. You are just back to the REALM OF THE UNKNOWN. It is like saying that if one cant prove the milk has come from a cow, you can use contrived theories to prove that the milk came from outer space :sad:
HI GUYS,
While this thread is really interesting to read it could get ugly.
Doubt anyone of us is more 'evolved' to prove/ argue against anything really.
I continue to read on though i cant really contribute in any meaningful way.
Rgds
While this thread is really interesting to read it could get ugly.
Doubt anyone of us is more 'evolved' to prove/ argue against anything really.
I continue to read on though i cant really contribute in any meaningful way.
Rgds
Frankly, this is one of the most thought provoking threads I have ever had the pleasure to read. Makes you sit up and think, and makes you feel proud to be part of an elite group that dares to think out of the box. I am sure the participants are mature people who enjoy a discussion and agree to disagree if needed politely and as good gentlemen.
Till about the age of 45, I was a confirmed atheist and to some extent never believed in God. I had to question everything. Writings by S. Radhakrishnan, Issac Asimov and a host of others were devoured ravenously and made it necessary for my head to see everything logically and scientifically. I would travel far and wide and stay in 'haunted' houses to meet a paranormal 'being'. Fortunately or unfortunately I never had the pleasure.
But after that I have a had a series of events in my life that has changed me completely and made me a firm believer in God. I suppose belief in God has a lot to do with age and the need for an external power to give you strength. When you are young, you believe most of the power is within you. When you start facing insurmountable hassles you realise you are not as strong as you thought you were.
Cheers
Last edited:
Rem
New Member
psychotropic
Well-Known Member
i guess that would mean i have a long way to go. I am still 27, and my parents (now in their 50s) who brought me up saying that "there probably is no god" have now turned believers (and even religious to an extent)....I can't envisage something like that happening to me, but of course it's not possible to rule these things out.
Anyways, as things stand I believe that whatever has happened and is happening in the universe is an organic process without a plan, 'meaning' or creator, since I have seen nothing to suggest that this is the case. Like Dinyaar said these threads have the potential to turn ugly, but so far it's been impressively civilised. And it definitely is a privilege to discuss these matters in such a civilised manner.
EDIT: venkat, i forgot to add that yours was a moving post. Thank you.
Anyways, as things stand I believe that whatever has happened and is happening in the universe is an organic process without a plan, 'meaning' or creator, since I have seen nothing to suggest that this is the case. Like Dinyaar said these threads have the potential to turn ugly, but so far it's been impressively civilised. And it definitely is a privilege to discuss these matters in such a civilised manner.
EDIT: venkat, i forgot to add that yours was a moving post. Thank you.
Last edited:
Ramanujam - while I thoroughly enjoyed reading this exposition about the fine points of difference between hypotheses and theories, the bottomline appears to be that the evolution theory as put forward by Darwin is far from being proven scientifically.
As for contradictions and counter-examples, there are many to be found even in the theory of evolution. Hence I disagree with the statement that ALL available evidence (scientific) points to the evolution theory of Darwin as being right. On reading a couple of extracts from Darwin's signature book on this subject I also came away with the idea that he was virulently racist - not that this necessarily had an impact on his theory. Still...
To end this, your excellent post prodded me to try and see if I can learn more about how 'theory' is actually defined. And when I went to Wikipedia, this is what I found. Most fascinating indeed, but still a bit unclear - if you get my drift.
----------------------------------
The term theory has two broad sets of meanings, one used in the empirical sciences (both natural and social) and the other used in philosophy, mathematics, logic, and across other fields in the humanities. There is considerable difference and even dispute across academic disciplines as to the proper usages of the term. What follows is an attempt to describe how the term is used, not to try to say how it ought to be used.
Although the scientific meaning is by far the more commonly used in academic discourse, it is hardly the only one used, and it would be a mistake to assume from the outset that a given use of the term "theory" in academic literature or discourse is a reference to a scientific or empirically-based theory.
Even so, since the use of the term theory in scientific or empirical inquiry is the more common one, it will be discussed first. (Other usages follow in the section labeled "Theories formally and generally.")
A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:
it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.
Oh and did this thread at some point focus on Valve amplifiers??
By the way what happened to your purchase decision?Well not everything is chaotic. If you see nature, it falls into a definite seasonal events that repeat themselves every year. There are intricate sensors that force clouds to move in particular direction and rain where the land is parched. A cross section of cold and warm areas on the earth make this planet liveable. Birds (and animals) instinctively understand this and migrate. We humans, on the other hand, are stupid. We pride ourselves on our intelligence and get hammered by nature every now and then. We are slowly destroying the delicate ecological balance, and I fear, we may all end up paying a huge price for this down the line.
One thing I would advise to all 'non-believers' is do something very simple. Take a couple of days off, and disappear into nature - a wild life resort or something with no connection to civilisation. I once stayed for 4 days in a hut in the middle of nowhere in Aanamalai hills. No electricity, no toilets, no kitchen, no mobiles, no bed to sleep on, AND nothing to do. Believe me it changes the way you think. The rules of the game are completely different. You are protecting yourselves against insects, snakes and unknown animals, and everything else becomes meaningless. You will see a beautiful sequence of simple events that all participants of nature will adhere to. When breaking a traffic rule could mean death, you will never drive on the wrong side of the road. Such events cannot be repeated day after day after day without some rules, unwritten though they may be.
Chaos theory is just staring to mature and it is too early in it's evolution to explain anything in an understandable manner.
Cheers
Hi,
This thread reminds me of Tamil writer Sujatha(miss him badly), who has written some fascinating things about the God and science conflict.
This is a part of a blog article by one Mr.Baradwajrangan about Sujatha.
'Now, this is what he does. Like that other Tamil instructor so beloved to those of a certain age Maa. Nannan (from Doordarshans Vaazhkai Kalvi), who opened up to us a world of etymology and spelling and pronunciation, armed with nothing more than a piece of chalk, an easel-tilted blackboard and the patience of the ages Sujatha first breaks down the verse word for word, stopping to intone, for instance, that nalkuravu is Old Tamil for poverty. Having approached the passage at a building-blocks level, Sujatha now stands back a little and talks about the most immediately apparent meaning, which is Nammazhvars contention that the image of the Lord he laid eyes on was an amalgamation of antonyms poverty and wealth, poison and life-giving nectar, amity and enmity, hell and heaven and therefore, He is (and is responsible for) everything. And after this is when Sujatha doffs his Indian hat his truly reverential, emotional, subjective Indian hat; theres not a note of condescension or scepticism in this robo-dog creators appraisal of the religious text at hand and looks at things from a decidedly objective, Western perspective. He marvels that you could extrapolate this philosophy of God into the utmost extreme of antonyms: namely, if you think He exists, He exists; if you dont, He doesnt. But because of His all-encompassing nature, even His non-existence is proof of His existence. And after this dizzying demonstration of circular reasoning, Sujatha signs his piece off with the Tamil equivalent of the mind boggles, capping off what could have been a fuddy-duddy exercise in esoteric academia with a cheeky flourish of hipness. And thats why hell be missed because, like few before him, he got us in touch with the uncoolest of things in the coolest of ways.'
CHEERS,
SRI
This thread reminds me of Tamil writer Sujatha(miss him badly), who has written some fascinating things about the God and science conflict.
This is a part of a blog article by one Mr.Baradwajrangan about Sujatha.
'Now, this is what he does. Like that other Tamil instructor so beloved to those of a certain age Maa. Nannan (from Doordarshans Vaazhkai Kalvi), who opened up to us a world of etymology and spelling and pronunciation, armed with nothing more than a piece of chalk, an easel-tilted blackboard and the patience of the ages Sujatha first breaks down the verse word for word, stopping to intone, for instance, that nalkuravu is Old Tamil for poverty. Having approached the passage at a building-blocks level, Sujatha now stands back a little and talks about the most immediately apparent meaning, which is Nammazhvars contention that the image of the Lord he laid eyes on was an amalgamation of antonyms poverty and wealth, poison and life-giving nectar, amity and enmity, hell and heaven and therefore, He is (and is responsible for) everything. And after this is when Sujatha doffs his Indian hat his truly reverential, emotional, subjective Indian hat; theres not a note of condescension or scepticism in this robo-dog creators appraisal of the religious text at hand and looks at things from a decidedly objective, Western perspective. He marvels that you could extrapolate this philosophy of God into the utmost extreme of antonyms: namely, if you think He exists, He exists; if you dont, He doesnt. But because of His all-encompassing nature, even His non-existence is proof of His existence. And after this dizzying demonstration of circular reasoning, Sujatha signs his piece off with the Tamil equivalent of the mind boggles, capping off what could have been a fuddy-duddy exercise in esoteric academia with a cheeky flourish of hipness. And thats why hell be missed because, like few before him, he got us in touch with the uncoolest of things in the coolest of ways.'
CHEERS,
SRI
psychotropic
Well-Known Member
hey vortex......on the scale that you and ramanujam have mentioned......i agree evolution is a 'theory' but with a lot of solid observable phenomena in its favour. Using the same standards the following ideas are not even worthy of being called a hypothesis
(a)a supernatural force, phenomenon or plan ( or 'meaning') has dictated and dictates how the universe is unfolding
(b) all species somehow sprung up in their present form
Considering what we have for alternatives, evolution makes a pretty compelling case for itself. I am not even saying that the theory of evolution in its present form is perfect or even the 'right answer', but it's a compelling one given the available information. Whereas (a) and (b) really aren't compelling in light of the available information, as the only thing they have going for them is that our previous generations told us so.
and with regard to gobble's question about fossils. What are these 'partially evolved species?' If you want partially evolved species, look at chimpanzees.....there is probably no such thing as a partially evolved species.....evolution happens so gradually that it is unlikely that there will ever be something that is clearly 'half and half,' and species in various stages of evolution can co-exist. Can you explain exactly what you would expect in this 'partially evolved species' that you refer to?
Even assuming that such 'partially evolved species' did exist, the number of fossils that we have on hand is miniscule. There are possibly hundreds of thousands or even millions of species of which no trace has remained, and therefore it is not surprising that if such 'partially evolved' species existed, we don't yet have fossils of them.
Oh ya, and i just found he following on wikianswers:
What do you mean by "partially evolved"? Since evolution is an ongoing process, any existing species will always be in a state of change.
If you're referring to intermediate forms, some of the best examples to have been found in recent years are various fossils that show characteristics of both dinosaurs (scales, teeth, claws on all 4 appendages) and birds (beaks and feathers).
(a)a supernatural force, phenomenon or plan ( or 'meaning') has dictated and dictates how the universe is unfolding
(b) all species somehow sprung up in their present form
Considering what we have for alternatives, evolution makes a pretty compelling case for itself
. I am not even saying that the theory of evolution in its present form is perfect or even the 'right answer', but it's a compelling one given the available information. Whereas (a) and (b) really aren't compelling in light of the available information, as the only thing they have going for them is that our previous generations told us so. and with regard to gobble's question about fossils. What are these 'partially evolved species?' If you want partially evolved species, look at chimpanzees.....there is probably no such thing as a partially evolved species.....evolution happens so gradually that it is unlikely that there will ever be something that is clearly 'half and half,' and species in various stages of evolution can co-exist. Can you explain exactly what you would expect in this 'partially evolved species' that you refer to?
Even assuming that such 'partially evolved species' did exist, the number of fossils that we have on hand is miniscule. There are possibly hundreds of thousands or even millions of species of which no trace has remained, and therefore it is not surprising that if such 'partially evolved' species existed, we don't yet have fossils of them.
Oh ya, and i just found he following on wikianswers:
What do you mean by "partially evolved"? Since evolution is an ongoing process, any existing species will always be in a state of change.
If you're referring to intermediate forms, some of the best examples to have been found in recent years are various fossils that show characteristics of both dinosaurs (scales, teeth, claws on all 4 appendages) and birds (beaks and feathers).
Ramanujam - while I thoroughly enjoyed reading this exposition about the fine points of difference between hypotheses and theories, the bottomline appears to be that the evolution theory as put forward by Darwin is far from being proven scientifically.
As for contradictions and counter-examples, there are many to be found even in the theory of evolution. Hence I disagree with the statement that ALL available evidence (scientific) points to the evolution theory of Darwin as being right. On reading a couple of extracts from Darwin's signature book on this subject I also came away with the idea that he was virulently racist - not that this necessarily had an impact on his theory. Still...
To end this, your excellent post prodded me to try and see if I can learn more about how 'theory' is actually defined. And when I went to Wikipedia, this is what I found. Most fascinating indeed, but still a bit unclear - if you get my drift.
----------------------------------
The term theory has two broad sets of meanings, one used in the empirical sciences (both natural and social) and the other used in philosophy, mathematics, logic, and across other fields in the humanities. There is considerable difference and even dispute across academic disciplines as to the proper usages of the term. What follows is an attempt to describe how the term is used, not to try to say how it ought to be used.
Although the scientific meaning is by far the more commonly used in academic discourse, it is hardly the only one used, and it would be a mistake to assume from the outset that a given use of the term "theory" in academic literature or discourse is a reference to a scientific or empirically-based theory.
Even so, since the use of the term theory in scientific or empirical inquiry is the more common one, it will be discussed first. (Other usages follow in the section labeled "Theories formally and generally.")
A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:
it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.
Oh and did this thread at some point focus on Valve amplifiers??
psychotropic
Well-Known Member
hey venkat, i absolutely agree with you. Not everything is chaotic. I just said I believed it was organic.....and there can be organic harmony. The "music of nature" if you will.
And I have my explanation for it and you have yours....and we can also live in harmony
And yes, we must swap notes when I'm 45.
And I have my explanation for it and you have yours....and we can also live in harmony
And yes, we must swap notes when I'm 45.
I am feeling quite embarrassed to accept that I cannot understand, forget about participating, in this new chain of thoughts. But trust me, it is turning out to be an amazing experience to read passively about people's opinion on science v/s nature.
On second thoughts it should be science and nature.
On second thoughts it should be science and nature.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,650
- Points
- 0
Me too ...
Quiet interesting where we started and where we are!
hey vortex......on the scale that you and ramanujam have mentioned......i agree evolution is a 'theory' but with a lot of solid observable phenomena in its favour. Using the same standards the following ideas are not even worthy of being called a hypothesis
(a)a supernatural force, phenomenon or plan ( or 'meaning') has dictated and dictates how the universe is unfolding
(b) all species somehow sprung up in their present form
Considering what we have for alternatives, evolution makes a pretty compelling case for itself
and with regard to gobble's question about fossils. What are these 'partially evolved species?' If you want partially evolved species, look at chimpanzees.....there is probably no such thing as a partially evolved species.....evolution happens so gradually that it is unlikely that there will ever be something that is clearly 'half and half,' and species in various stages of evolution can co-exist. Can you explain exactly what you would expect in this 'partially evolved species' that you refer to?
Even assuming that such 'partially evolved species' did exist, the number of fossils that we have on hand is miniscule. There are possibly hundreds of thousands or even millions of species of which no trace has remained, and therefore it is not surprising that if such 'partially evolved' species existed, we don't yet have fossils of them.
Oh ya, and i just found he following on wikianswers:
What do you mean by "partially evolved"? Since evolution is an ongoing process, any existing species will always be in a state of change.
If you're referring to intermediate forms, some of the best examples to have been found in recent years are various fossils that show characteristics of both dinosaurs (scales, teeth, claws on all 4 appendages) and birds (beaks and feathers).
Psychotropic,
In science a theory cannot be compelling. It is either proven or not proven. While personally I might be happy if the theory satisfies, say 7 out of 10 tenets, scientific temper in and of itself would certainly frown at this. On that scale, the evolution theory as proposed by Darwin does not completely and absolutely explain what we see today in nature.
About Gobble's reference, the word that he may have wanted to use was 'the missing link'. (Feel free to correct me, Gobble, if this was not what you meant).
Psycho - in his 'Origin of the Species' there are a few references to these 'missing links' in his proposed theory of evolution. What really struck me as being totally unscientific was his seeming insinuation that the black man and the aboriginals may be the 'missing link' between less evolved forms and human beings themselves.
I guess an excuse can be made out for him as a man of his times. Which is what I get to read in many places on the internet. Still...
The problem with disputing the theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin is simply that once you say a word against this, you automatically seem to put yourself up as a supporter of Creationism or Intelligent Design or whatever you might call that school of thought. In my mind that is a pretty shallow way of looking at things.
This is like calling up a stranger off the road and asking him whether he is good or bad
. This sort of thinking very conveniently forgets that there are shades of grey everywhere and in everything.At present what we have in our hand is a mystery. To dismiss people offhand just because they do not wish to believe in Darwin's theory even when it has not been proven to the satisfaction even of the scientific community, strikes me as being a bit peremptory. Of course what they may wish to believe in alternatively is their business entirely.
This is just my thought process. For the record, I do not out of hand reject Darwin's theory. It is interesting. It is a work in progress. And those that say that all that we see is the work of some higher power also interest me. From what I have read, seen or observed, I am not able to make myself fall in with either group. I am just a bystander
Get the Award Winning Diamond 12.3 Floorstanding Speakers on Special Offer
Similar threads
