The Scientist

Yet another reason why other countries are soaring ahead of the United States in Science education, as well as medical, scientific and technological innovation.

Indiana again shows why America is loosing in the race to graduate thinking young people in the science fields. Think about what would happen to scientific research here if the upcoming November election results in the a republican victory.

Jerry Schneir

If they are teaching the creation stories of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Scientology as mythology, then I have no problem with this. In fact, what better way to help kids see that all religious myths are equally absurd if taken as history, and equally meaningful if taken as allegory.

It seems that the mythologies are to be permitted in the science curriculum. You are correct to say that, like ancient Greek mythology or traditional beliefs of aboriginal peoples, they are properly the stuff of literature or anthropology; however, this seems not to be the case.

This is all about using Indiana tax payer money to take the issue to the Supreme Court where there's a good chance that the ideologically weighted court will make a new precedent for their far right constituents.  Assuming it passes, someone will have to take them to court.  That's not a sure thing.  Since the conservative religious fundamentalists keep being told (incorrectly) that science is antithetical to their beliefs for them its a win/win.

There are some popular conceptions about religious beliefs that are dead wrong.  Here are a few of them:

That no one can be a scientist and also have religious faith.  Wrong.  At least one poll has shown that many scientists do, indeed, have religious faith;

That no one can be effective in research and have religious faith.  Wrong.  While it is necessary that a researcher treat results of empirical experiment as real, and not deny them, interpretation is not to be confused with certitude.  If it were certitude, there would be no need of interpretation.
 
That the existence of God has been disproved by science.  Wrong.  It has not.  Neither has the existence of God been proved by science.  At least not yet.  It has neither been ruled in nor ruled out by empirical means.  Some atheists go on the presumption that God does not exist until proven to exist.  Those who argue this often cite the "Occam's razor," reasoning.  Go back to ANY highly-developed phenomenon in science -- take concepts of what heat is, for example -- and apply Occam's Razor (which demands that the simplest notion of what experimentation ultimately will reveal about it, and that is not the way new knowledge turned out to be).  The more we humans learn about a phenomenon the MORE complex it turns out to be -- not the simpler.

That there is a comparable percentage of atheists in every field of scientific research.  Wrong.  A far smaller percentage of atheists are to be found among physicitsts, say, than biologists.  The deeper one delves into physics, the less certainty and the less consistency is discovered.  Nowadays the notion of parallel universes (other worlds with other "laws," is fairly well accepted. Different laws apply at different scales of reference (quantum scale "reality" is quite different from the scale most accessible to the human sensory experience.

That certain popular atheists in the sciences have reasoned away the existence of God for any but the most naive of thinkers.  Wrong.  Empirically God cannot be ruled in nor ruled out.  There always have been things scientists have not yet ruled in nor ruled out.  That does not make assumptions about those things one way or the other way more reasonable.  If one starts with the presumption God is not, then everything confirms it.  If one begins with the presumption God is, then from there everything confirms it.  Why?  Because BY DEFINITION logic leads inevitably back to the postulates with which it begins.  Pure objectivity is letting things not yet proved nor disproved remain open.  This does not rule out faith.  Faith is what we choose to believe until and unless it becomes settled:  ruled in or out, one way or the other.

To close one's mind to one possibility is not scientific.  To rely upon what one can
establish as a certainty in science, however, would result in tossing out all textbooks.  This is because the vast bulk of all we humans perceive ourselves to know for a certainty is based on circumstantial evidence,subjective interpretation of that circumstantial evidence, statistical probabilities, assumptions about things not yet discovered (vis a vis dark matter, what gravity is, what heat is, what light is).

Each of us, in every day of our lives, must act upon unfalsified assumptions.  We take our best guesses and act upon them, because if we did not we would never have enough "information certain" to function.

Some of the best argumentations one can use to support the validity and practicality of having a faith stance the God exists can be found among the very same thinkers who have chosen the stance (between two unknowns) that God does not exist.

Many philosophers have taken the one of the open stances, and many, the other.

That is any person's choice.  For those who have chosen one stance to belittle those who have taken the other, is not scientifically objective, is not the most intelligent choice, is not the most rational choice.  Why should there be a heated discussion over who is right and who is wrong in which choice he has chosen.

I have an atheist friend who said to me, years ago, "I'll start believing in God the day I am presented with solid, irrefutable evidence He exists."

I responded that I will stop believing in God the day I am presented with solid, irrefutable evidence He does not exist."  He and I agreed that day, years ago, to accept each the other's right to choose what we will assume.  And the day the question is settled, we shall both be on the same page.

The existence of God and other issues relevant to religion are not scientific questions. They cannot be offered in the form of hypotheses that are falsifiable. They are, from a scientific perspective, "meaningless."

So, it is possible for scientists to be religious in their non-professional lives, just as it is possible for them to be athletes or poets. These domains need not trench on each other's turf. Although I suspect that he concedes too much to the religious dimension, you might put your worries to rest by reading Stephen Jay Gould's "Rocks of Ages," which allocated empiricial knowledge to science and normative knowledge to ethics and religion.

It's not the final answer (which is a doubtful possibility anyway), but it may be a satisfactory compromise especially in the United States, where religion plays such a dominant role in public discourse.

Yet another reason why other countries are soaring ahead of the United States in Science education, as well as medical, scientific and technological innovation.

Indiana again shows why America is loosing in the race to graduate thinking young people in the science fields. Think about what would happen to scientific research here if the upcoming November election results in the a republican victory.

Jerry Schneir

If they are teaching the creation stories of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Scientology as mythology, then I have no problem with this. In fact, what better way to help kids see that all religious myths are equally absurd if taken as history, and equally meaningful if taken as allegory.

It seems that the mythologies are to be permitted in the science curriculum. You are correct to say that, like ancient Greek mythology or traditional beliefs of aboriginal peoples, they are properly the stuff of literature or anthropology; however, this seems not to be the case.

This is all about using Indiana tax payer money to take the issue to the Supreme Court where there's a good chance that the ideologically weighted court will make a new precedent for their far right constituents.  Assuming it passes, someone will have to take them to court.  That's not a sure thing.  Since the conservative religious fundamentalists keep being told (incorrectly) that science is antithetical to their beliefs for them its a win/win.

There are some popular conceptions about religious beliefs that are dead wrong.  Here are a few of them:

That no one can be a scientist and also have religious faith.  Wrong.  At least one poll has shown that many scientists do, indeed, have religious faith;

That no one can be effective in research and have religious faith.  Wrong.  While it is necessary that a researcher treat results of empirical experiment as real, and not deny them, interpretation is not to be confused with certitude.  If it were certitude, there would be no need of interpretation.
 
That the existence of God has been disproved by science.  Wrong.  It has not.  Neither has the existence of God been proved by science.  At least not yet.  It has neither been ruled in nor ruled out by empirical means.  Some atheists go on the presumption that God does not exist until proven to exist.  Those who argue this often cite the "Occam's razor," reasoning.  Go back to ANY highly-developed phenomenon in science -- take concepts of what heat is, for example -- and apply Occam's Razor (which demands that the simplest notion of what experimentation ultimately will reveal about it, and that is not the way new knowledge turned out to be).  The more we humans learn about a phenomenon the MORE complex it turns out to be -- not the simpler.

That there is a comparable percentage of atheists in every field of scientific research.  Wrong.  A far smaller percentage of atheists are to be found among physicitsts, say, than biologists.  The deeper one delves into physics, the less certainty and the less consistency is discovered.  Nowadays the notion of parallel universes (other worlds with other "laws," is fairly well accepted. Different laws apply at different scales of reference (quantum scale "reality" is quite different from the scale most accessible to the human sensory experience.

That certain popular atheists in the sciences have reasoned away the existence of God for any but the most naive of thinkers.  Wrong.  Empirically God cannot be ruled in nor ruled out.  There always have been things scientists have not yet ruled in nor ruled out.  That does not make assumptions about those things one way or the other way more reasonable.  If one starts with the presumption God is not, then everything confirms it.  If one begins with the presumption God is, then from there everything confirms it.  Why?  Because BY DEFINITION logic leads inevitably back to the postulates with which it begins.  Pure objectivity is letting things not yet proved nor disproved remain open.  This does not rule out faith.  Faith is what we choose to believe until and unless it becomes settled:  ruled in or out, one way or the other.

To close one's mind to one possibility is not scientific.  To rely upon what one can
establish as a certainty in science, however, would result in tossing out all textbooks.  This is because the vast bulk of all we humans perceive ourselves to know for a certainty is based on circumstantial evidence,subjective interpretation of that circumstantial evidence, statistical probabilities, assumptions about things not yet discovered (vis a vis dark matter, what gravity is, what heat is, what light is).

Each of us, in every day of our lives, must act upon unfalsified assumptions.  We take our best guesses and act upon them, because if we did not we would never have enough "information certain" to function.

Some of the best argumentations one can use to support the validity and practicality of having a faith stance the God exists can be found among the very same thinkers who have chosen the stance (between two unknowns) that God does not exist.

Many philosophers have taken the one of the open stances, and many, the other.

That is any person's choice.  For those who have chosen one stance to belittle those who have taken the other, is not scientifically objective, is not the most intelligent choice, is not the most rational choice.  Why should there be a heated discussion over who is right and who is wrong in which choice he has chosen.

I have an atheist friend who said to me, years ago, "I'll start believing in God the day I am presented with solid, irrefutable evidence He exists."

I responded that I will stop believing in God the day I am presented with solid, irrefutable evidence He does not exist."  He and I agreed that day, years ago, to accept each the other's right to choose what we will assume.  And the day the question is settled, we shall both be on the same page.

The existence of God and other issues relevant to religion are not scientific questions. They cannot be offered in the form of hypotheses that are falsifiable. They are, from a scientific perspective, "meaningless."

So, it is possible for scientists to be religious in their non-professional lives, just as it is possible for them to be athletes or poets. These domains need not trench on each other's turf. Although I suspect that he concedes too much to the religious dimension, you might put your worries to rest by reading Stephen Jay Gould's "Rocks of Ages," which allocated empiricial knowledge to science and normative knowledge to ethics and religion.

It's not the final answer (which is a doubtful possibility anyway), but it may be a satisfactory compromise especially in the United States, where religion plays such a dominant role in public discourse.

Yet another reason why other countries are soaring ahead of the United States in Science education, as well as medical, scientific and technological innovation.

Indiana again shows why America is loosing in the race to graduate thinking young people in the science fields. Think about what would happen to scientific research here if the upcoming November election results in the a republican victory.

Jerry Schneir

If they are teaching the creation stories of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Scientology as mythology, then I have no problem with this. In fact, what better way to help kids see that all religious myths are equally absurd if taken as history, and equally meaningful if taken as allegory.

It seems that the mythologies are to be permitted in the science curriculum. You are correct to say that, like ancient Greek mythology or traditional beliefs of aboriginal peoples, they are properly the stuff of literature or anthropology; however, this seems not to be the case.

This is all about using Indiana tax payer money to take the issue to the Supreme Court where there's a good chance that the ideologically weighted court will make a new precedent for their far right constituents.  Assuming it passes, someone will have to take them to court.  That's not a sure thing.  Since the conservative religious fundamentalists keep being told (incorrectly) that science is antithetical to their beliefs for them its a win/win.

There are some popular conceptions about religious beliefs that are dead wrong.  Here are a few of them:

That no one can be a scientist and also have religious faith.  Wrong.  At least one poll has shown that many scientists do, indeed, have religious faith;

That no one can be effective in research and have religious faith.  Wrong.  While it is necessary that a researcher treat results of empirical experiment as real, and not deny them, interpretation is not to be confused with certitude.  If it were certitude, there would be no need of interpretation.
 
That the existence of God has been disproved by science.  Wrong.  It has not.  Neither has the existence of God been proved by science.  At least not yet.  It has neither been ruled in nor ruled out by empirical means.  Some atheists go on the presumption that God does not exist until proven to exist.  Those who argue this often cite the "Occam's razor," reasoning.  Go back to ANY highly-developed phenomenon in science -- take concepts of what heat is, for example -- and apply Occam's Razor (which demands that the simplest notion of what experimentation ultimately will reveal about it, and that is not the way new knowledge turned out to be).  The more we humans learn about a phenomenon the MORE complex it turns out to be -- not the simpler.

That there is a comparable percentage of atheists in every field of scientific research.  Wrong.  A far smaller percentage of atheists are to be found among physicitsts, say, than biologists.  The deeper one delves into physics, the less certainty and the less consistency is discovered.  Nowadays the notion of parallel universes (other worlds with other "laws," is fairly well accepted. Different laws apply at different scales of reference (quantum scale "reality" is quite different from the scale most accessible to the human sensory experience.

That certain popular atheists in the sciences have reasoned away the existence of God for any but the most naive of thinkers.  Wrong.  Empirically God cannot be ruled in nor ruled out.  There always have been things scientists have not yet ruled in nor ruled out.  That does not make assumptions about those things one way or the other way more reasonable.  If one starts with the presumption God is not, then everything confirms it.  If one begins with the presumption God is, then from there everything confirms it.  Why?  Because BY DEFINITION logic leads inevitably back to the postulates with which it begins.  Pure objectivity is letting things not yet proved nor disproved remain open.  This does not rule out faith.  Faith is what we choose to believe until and unless it becomes settled:  ruled in or out, one way or the other.

To close one's mind to one possibility is not scientific.  To rely upon what one can
establish as a certainty in science, however, would result in tossing out all textbooks.  This is because the vast bulk of all we humans perceive ourselves to know for a certainty is based on circumstantial evidence,subjective interpretation of that circumstantial evidence, statistical probabilities, assumptions about things not yet discovered (vis a vis dark matter, what gravity is, what heat is, what light is).

Each of us, in every day of our lives, must act upon unfalsified assumptions.  We take our best guesses and act upon them, because if we did not we would never have enough "information certain" to function.

Some of the best argumentations one can use to support the validity and practicality of having a faith stance the God exists can be found among the very same thinkers who have chosen the stance (between two unknowns) that God does not exist.

Many philosophers have taken the one of the open stances, and many, the other.

That is any person's choice.  For those who have chosen one stance to belittle those who have taken the other, is not scientifically objective, is not the most intelligent choice, is not the most rational choice.  Why should there be a heated discussion over who is right and who is wrong in which choice he has chosen.

I have an atheist friend who said to me, years ago, "I'll start believing in God the day I am presented with solid, irrefutable evidence He exists."

I responded that I will stop believing in God the day I am presented with solid, irrefutable evidence He does not exist."  He and I agreed that day, years ago, to accept each the other's right to choose what we will assume.  And the day the question is settled, we shall both be on the same page.

The existence of God and other issues relevant to religion are not scientific questions. They cannot be offered in the form of hypotheses that are falsifiable. They are, from a scientific perspective, "meaningless."

So, it is possible for scientists to be religious in their non-professional lives, just as it is possible for them to be athletes or poets. These domains need not trench on each other's turf. Although I suspect that he concedes too much to the religious dimension, you might put your worries to rest by reading Stephen Jay Gould's "Rocks of Ages," which allocated empiricial knowledge to science and normative knowledge to ethics and religion.

It's not the final answer (which is a doubtful possibility anyway), but it may be a satisfactory compromise especially in the United States, where religion plays such a dominant role in public discourse.

But not in "science" class..

My name is Herman Cummings.  I’m the leading expert on the book of Genesis. 
 
I had written State Senator Dennis Kruse, about dropping the foolishness of Creation
science, and teaching the truth of Genesis.  But he is in a delusion, and thinks that “young
Earthâ€쳌 creation is what the Bible teaches.  He is wrong.  In fact, all current creationism
doctrines are in error, and misrepresent the Genesis text.  So now, instead of just the truth
of Genesis being given, the schools may now be mired down with the myths from Islam,
Hinduism, Buddhism, and others.
 
Genesis does not have any “creation storiesâ€쳌 or myths.  Genesis chapter one is about the
4.6 billion year history of life on Earth, and not about Creation Week.  Both the worlds
of Creationism and Theology do not understand the Genesis text, and teach false doctrines
that Genesis does not support.
 
I have a 62 minute PowerPoint presentation that reveals the truth of Genesis, which your
board members should all see.  It explains Genesis chapter one, and compares it with both
the geologic and fossil records of Earth.  None of those (other) “origin mythsâ€쳌 address the
prehistoric history of Earth.   It is the correct opposing view to evolution.
 
I also teach a 6-hr class for science teachers, which I call a “Genesis appreciationâ€쳌 course. 
It goes into more depth concerning the geologic and fossil records of our ancient past, and
 trains the teachers on how to teach the students about Genesis, and to answer the questions
 the students would ask.
 
Also, I give protection against the lawsuits that may be filed by the ACLU.  I can defeat
them in a court of law, in such a way that they would never oppose anything that is not
“evolutionâ€쳌 again.
 
Look me up on the internet.

Ephraim7@aol.com

But not in "science" class..

My name is Herman Cummings.  I’m the leading expert on the book of Genesis. 
 
I had written State Senator Dennis Kruse, about dropping the foolishness of Creation
science, and teaching the truth of Genesis.  But he is in a delusion, and thinks that “young
Earthâ€쳌 creation is what the Bible teaches.  He is wrong.  In fact, all current creationism
doctrines are in error, and misrepresent the Genesis text.  So now, instead of just the truth
of Genesis being given, the schools may now be mired down with the myths from Islam,
Hinduism, Buddhism, and others.
 
Genesis does not have any “creation storiesâ€쳌 or myths.  Genesis chapter one is about the
4.6 billion year history of life on Earth, and not about Creation Week.  Both the worlds
of Creationism and Theology do not understand the Genesis text, and teach false doctrines
that Genesis does not support.
 
I have a 62 minute PowerPoint presentation that reveals the truth of Genesis, which your
board members should all see.  It explains Genesis chapter one, and compares it with both
the geologic and fossil records of Earth.  None of those (other) “origin mythsâ€쳌 address the
prehistoric history of Earth.   It is the correct opposing view to evolution.
 
I also teach a 6-hr class for science teachers, which I call a “Genesis appreciationâ€쳌 course. 
It goes into more depth concerning the geologic and fossil records of our ancient past, and
 trains the teachers on how to teach the students about Genesis, and to answer the questions
 the students would ask.
 
Also, I give protection against the lawsuits that may be filed by the ACLU.  I can defeat
them in a court of law, in such a way that they would never oppose anything that is not
“evolutionâ€쳌 again.
 
Look me up on the internet.

Ephraim7@aol.com

But not in "science" class..

My name is Herman Cummings.  I’m the leading expert on the book of Genesis. 
 
I had written State Senator Dennis Kruse, about dropping the foolishness of Creation
science, and teaching the truth of Genesis.  But he is in a delusion, and thinks that “young
Earthâ€쳌 creation is what the Bible teaches.  He is wrong.  In fact, all current creationism
doctrines are in error, and misrepresent the Genesis text.  So now, instead of just the truth
of Genesis being given, the schools may now be mired down with the myths from Islam,
Hinduism, Buddhism, and others.
 
Genesis does not have any “creation storiesâ€쳌 or myths.  Genesis chapter one is about the
4.6 billion year history of life on Earth, and not about Creation Week.  Both the worlds
of Creationism and Theology do not understand the Genesis text, and teach false doctrines
that Genesis does not support.
 
I have a 62 minute PowerPoint presentation that reveals the truth of Genesis, which your
board members should all see.  It explains Genesis chapter one, and compares it with both
the geologic and fossil records of Earth.  None of those (other) “origin mythsâ€쳌 address the
prehistoric history of Earth.   It is the correct opposing view to evolution.
 
I also teach a 6-hr class for science teachers, which I call a “Genesis appreciationâ€쳌 course. 
It goes into more depth concerning the geologic and fossil records of our ancient past, and
 trains the teachers on how to teach the students about Genesis, and to answer the questions
 the students would ask.
 
Also, I give protection against the lawsuits that may be filed by the ACLU.  I can defeat
them in a court of law, in such a way that they would never oppose anything that is not
“evolutionâ€쳌 again.
 
Look me up on the internet.

Ephraim7@aol.com

At first I thought this might be intended as satire. So, I looked "the leading expert on Genesis" up on the Internet. I am sad to say that he seems to be serious. Although he implies that he is also an expert lawyer capable of defeating them in a court of law, he should be grateful that the ACLU exists; lest anyone try to shut him up, I think he might be in need of its services. Meanwhile, I presume that he and his PowerPoint presentation (no doubt available to all at a price) are unconnected to any college or university worthy of the name, for I doubt if tha AAUP would be as indulgent.

The existence of God is the scientific question most relevant to science. It can be offered in the form of a hypothesis and be falsifiable(although that won't happen). We once believed that it was silly to suppose that the earth was not the center of the universe and Bacon believed that astrology was nonsense since we could never get out there. Look where we are today. look at the great length that Thomas Aquinas went in his "Summa 
theologica" to apply ration and empirical methods to the theory of the existence of God. He was a scientists and we need more like him.

PIf the existence of God is a scientific question that can be presented in the form of an empirical hypothesis, please present it as such, and explain how it is falsifiable.

You are correct to say that it won't happen. You neglect to say that it can't happen.

As for St. Thomas, he was an admirable philosopher and a clever theologian. A scientist? Not so much ...

God might possibly exist but it does not seem likely, of course I respect your beliefs and right to believe. Someone said,"The Hand of God dulls the quest for truth", let's hope it does not.

At first I thought this might be intended as satire. So, I looked "the leading expert on Genesis" up on the Internet. I am sad to say that he seems to be serious. Although he implies that he is also an expert lawyer capable of defeating them in a court of law, he should be grateful that the ACLU exists; lest anyone try to shut him up, I think he might be in need of its services. Meanwhile, I presume that he and his PowerPoint presentation (no doubt available to all at a price) are unconnected to any college or university worthy of the name, for I doubt if tha AAUP would be as indulgent.

At first I thought this might be intended as satire. So, I looked "the leading expert on Genesis" up on the Internet. I am sad to say that he seems to be serious. Although he implies that he is also an expert lawyer capable of defeating them in a court of law, he should be grateful that the ACLU exists; lest anyone try to shut him up, I think he might be in need of its services. Meanwhile, I presume that he and his PowerPoint presentation (no doubt available to all at a price) are unconnected to any college or university worthy of the name, for I doubt if tha AAUP would be as indulgent.

The existence of God is the scientific question most relevant to science. It can be offered in the form of a hypothesis and be falsifiable(although that won't happen). We once believed that it was silly to suppose that the earth was not the center of the universe and Bacon believed that astrology was nonsense since we could never get out there. Look where we are today. look at the great length that Thomas Aquinas went in his "Summa 
theologica" to apply ration and empirical methods to the theory of the existence of God. He was a scientists and we need more like him.

PIf the existence of God is a scientific question that can be presented in the form of an empirical hypothesis, please present it as such, and explain how it is falsifiable.

You are correct to say that it won't happen. You neglect to say that it can't happen.

As for St. Thomas, he was an admirable philosopher and a clever theologian. A scientist? Not so much ...

God might possibly exist but it does not seem likely, of course I respect your beliefs and right to believe. Someone said,"The Hand of God dulls the quest for truth", let's hope it does not.

The existence of God is the scientific question most relevant to science. It can be offered in the form of a hypothesis and be falsifiable(although that won't happen). We once believed that it was silly to suppose that the earth was not the center of the universe and Bacon believed that astrology was nonsense since we could never get out there. Look where we are today. look at the great length that Thomas Aquinas went in his "Summa 
theologica" to apply ration and empirical methods to the theory of the existence of God. He was a scientists and we need more like him.

PIf the existence of God is a scientific question that can be presented in the form of an empirical hypothesis, please present it as such, and explain how it is falsifiable.

You are correct to say that it won't happen. You neglect to say that it can't happen.

As for St. Thomas, he was an admirable philosopher and a clever theologian. A scientist? Not so much ...

God might possibly exist but it does not seem likely, of course I respect your beliefs and right to believe. Someone said,"The Hand of God dulls the quest for truth", let's hope it does not.

Some researchers who have submitted
articles on The Scientist spurred me and I delivered a new definition of life
and a procedure to create experimental life.

Firstly
thank you for your kindness and willingness to enter into dialogue with me, a
person unknown internationally.

Allow me to
make a brief presentation: I am an electronics engineer, specialist in data
transmissions by electromagnetic waves, and manager of Clepsydra.

Since 1990
I have addressed issues about the quality of life and I have acquired over time
some knowledge in the field of molecular biology, necessary to understand the
phenomenon of life occurrence and life evolution. My son is student in
medicine.

Step1

Based on
the principles of knowledge management, in order to define the full life I
researched all the information produced by man, of course within the limits of
my ability and team that I work with, without neglecting it. Comparing
information from legends and religions, obtained through an unknown technology
of data transmission, against that produced by scientists, gained through
logical analysis and synthesis of information existing in nature, I delivered
the Evolutionary Creation Theory, assisted initially by a foreign intelligence
and then by man.

Perhaps the first form of life on the Earth
was sexless mono-cell organisms (see Stanley Miller), then being a worthwhile
addition of an external information to reach RNA and DNA and bi-sexed forms of
life.

The living cell is an open system that obtains dynamic equilibrium states
due to the radiant and substantial flows from the environment and in the
environment.

By
retaining information in magnetic field on the media, for the purpose of
sampling theorem and of the principle of the channel, we will be able to
understand harmonic accumulation dynamic on the live side of the programmes
describing different possible relationships with the environment, so we can
understand the formation of living organisms in cascaded coupling through
magnetic field-substance, and thus comprehending the feedback system (reverse
reaction positive and / or negative).

Transcript
information from magnetic field to substantial support has given rise to the
second language articulation, which uses words and phrases (programms) produced
by the combination of the nitrogenous bases (RNA, DNA), in accordance with the
lists of the Fourier spectrum of aminoacids.

The genesis
of genetic code, stored on RNA and DNA associated organic memory, can be
understood by interference waves using copying hologram hypothesis.
 

Step 2

From
Genesis 1-12, we can say that the grass and likely all sexless organisms are a
kind of virus produced by the enviroment (by Earth), in response to information
that emanates from God through their own magnetic field, before the appearance
of the Sun.

This is like
the information produced by a social system from the word and the action of the
Manager of that system, so, making a comparison to social systems.

The long
evolution of life is very short, but very suggestive, described by Daniel in
the 7.2-4. Other information that describes the emergence of humans, based on
evolution, is the one supplied by Paul in 1Chorintiens 15.45-47.

On the
basis of the information transmitted by Proverbs 25.2 Solomon, we can say that
Charles Darwin is one of the Kings of human knowledge.

This
information may be combined with Genesis 6.2 to describe rational intervention
of an external intelligence for the purpose of driving evolution in one pre-established
direction. This principle of creating opportunities, so that the system will evolve
in a predetermined direction, is used nowadays in management.

The actual
presence of paternal mitochondrial DNA in the sperm cells of boys naturally
born, not in vitro 'born', combined with information from the bible, Paul - Hebrews
4.12, Paul - 2 Chorintiens 2.1, and Luke 8.11, genetically certifies Genesis
and led me to the development of the theory about the inheritance of paternal
mitochondrial DNA (Adam mtDNA theory - - ISBN 978-606-92107-1-0), which completes
the Eve mtDNA theory.

Having
these elements, we can say that intelligent life is the product of an energy
boost, that contains an informational program, which defines the function and
role of each specific form of life, integrated in a functional system as a
whole and also, we can define viruses as information stored on material
surroundings by radiations of living organisms, as an environemental feedback
to the behaviour of the organism in the open environment.

Starting
from the assumption of the Genesis of life by induction of some other form of
life I gave you a plausible definition of life and we can properly convey the
efforts of scientists and funds allocated by an appropriate research purpose
set by common agreement.

Please take
these descriptions as bio-physical assumptions, until such time when they will
be confirmed or not by biologists in real life.
 

Step 3

To create a new form of life that does not
interact with the environment, I think you should first set a plan, also
working procedure of God:

1 - set up the information program for
carrying out the simplest known form of life, including the membranous
protection and cell multiplication;

2 - create a tyre protection, like a
magnetic resonant cavities (Faraday cage); install inside one or more video cameras
to record the images;

3 - create one or more transducers
broadband magnetic field (a simple chord or a coil may dither on 30 kHz - 300
MHz frequency); these transducers should be some copies of items containing the
life program of the desired form of life, but to be made from inorganic
materials with the capacity of storage of information;

4 - through a input gate insert the necessary
water and inorganic elements that forms the primary structure of life
established under paragraph 1;

5 - via another input gate insert a very
high frequency radiation for sterilization to be sure that there is no life in
the cavity; keep in
stand by this equipment in order to destroy the shape of life if you will need;

6 - through another input gate insert a
magnetic wave in the band 30 kHz - 300 MHz, that was modulated by the
information programme No 1, like a radio broadcast transmitted words;

7 - cord and / or coil logically should
swing and perhaps after a period of time should focus the surrounding matter in
the form of the structure set out in paragraph 1;

8-critical point could be obtained by
decreasing the intensity of the external magnetic field and its own resonance
in the oscillator, similar to cardiac pulse, i.e. to catch life.

9 - team must be composed of biologists,
biochemists, biophysicists and of course a manager.

This means the procedure of God:

- creat rezonant cavity - Genesis 1.6-8;

- creat water and earth as food - Genesis 1.2-10;

- inseminate seeds and words - Genesis 1.11-12

 

"To
those who win the victory I will give the right to eat the fruit of the tree of
life that grows in the Garden of God." (Revelation 2.7)

 

It is possible this plan to succeed or not,
but I do not think the deployment costs of are very high and I think that the
plan should be tried.

As Winston
Churchill once said about courage, I stood up and expressed my point of view
and now I sit down and listen to the opinions of others involved in this
dialogue.

I hope we
can continue the dialogue on this complex issue of life and its purpose.

 

Thank you
for the patience that you have shown.

Best
regards.

cosciua@yahoo.co.uk
 

Some researchers who have submitted
articles on The Scientist spurred me and I delivered a new definition of life
and a procedure to create experimental life.

Firstly
thank you for your kindness and willingness to enter into dialogue with me, a
person unknown internationally.

Allow me to
make a brief presentation: I am an electronics engineer, specialist in data
transmissions by electromagnetic waves, and manager of Clepsydra.

Since 1990
I have addressed issues about the quality of life and I have acquired over time
some knowledge in the field of molecular biology, necessary to understand the
phenomenon of life occurrence and life evolution. My son is student in
medicine.

Step1

Based on
the principles of knowledge management, in order to define the full life I
researched all the information produced by man, of course within the limits of
my ability and team that I work with, without neglecting it. Comparing
information from legends and religions, obtained through an unknown technology
of data transmission, against that produced by scientists, gained through
logical analysis and synthesis of information existing in nature, I delivered
the Evolutionary Creation Theory, assisted initially by a foreign intelligence
and then by man.

Perhaps the first form of life on the Earth
was sexless mono-cell organisms (see Stanley Miller), then being a worthwhile
addition of an external information to reach RNA and DNA and bi-sexed forms of
life.

The living cell is an open system that obtains dynamic equilibrium states
due to the radiant and substantial flows from the environment and in the
environment.

By
retaining information in magnetic field on the media, for the purpose of
sampling theorem and of the principle of the channel, we will be able to
understand harmonic accumulation dynamic on the live side of the programmes
describing different possible relationships with the environment, so we can
understand the formation of living organisms in cascaded coupling through
magnetic field-substance, and thus comprehending the feedback system (reverse
reaction positive and / or negative).

Transcript
information from magnetic field to substantial support has given rise to the
second language articulation, which uses words and phrases (programms) produced
by the combination of the nitrogenous bases (RNA, DNA), in accordance with the
lists of the Fourier spectrum of aminoacids.

The genesis
of genetic code, stored on RNA and DNA associated organic memory, can be
understood by interference waves using copying hologram hypothesis.
 

Step 2

From
Genesis 1-12, we can say that the grass and likely all sexless organisms are a
kind of virus produced by the enviroment (by Earth), in response to information
that emanates from God through their own magnetic field, before the appearance
of the Sun.

This is like
the information produced by a social system from the word and the action of the
Manager of that system, so, making a comparison to social systems.

The long
evolution of life is very short, but very suggestive, described by Daniel in
the 7.2-4. Other information that describes the emergence of humans, based on
evolution, is the one supplied by Paul in 1Chorintiens 15.45-47.

On the
basis of the information transmitted by Proverbs 25.2 Solomon, we can say that
Charles Darwin is one of the Kings of human knowledge.

This
information may be combined with Genesis 6.2 to describe rational intervention
of an external intelligence for the purpose of driving evolution in one pre-established
direction. This principle of creating opportunities, so that the system will evolve
in a predetermined direction, is used nowadays in management.

The actual
presence of paternal mitochondrial DNA in the sperm cells of boys naturally
born, not in vitro 'born', combined with information from the bible, Paul - Hebrews
4.12, Paul - 2 Chorintiens 2.1, and Luke 8.11, genetically certifies Genesis
and led me to the development of the theory about the inheritance of paternal
mitochondrial DNA (Adam mtDNA theory - - ISBN 978-606-92107-1-0), which completes
the Eve mtDNA theory.

Having
these elements, we can say that intelligent life is the product of an energy
boost, that contains an informational program, which defines the function and
role of each specific form of life, integrated in a functional system as a
whole and also, we can define viruses as information stored on material
surroundings by radiations of living organisms, as an environemental feedback
to the behaviour of the organism in the open environment.

Starting
from the assumption of the Genesis of life by induction of some other form of
life I gave you a plausible definition of life and we can properly convey the
efforts of scientists and funds allocated by an appropriate research purpose
set by common agreement.

Please take
these descriptions as bio-physical assumptions, until such time when they will
be confirmed or not by biologists in real life.
 

Step 3

To create a new form of life that does not
interact with the environment, I think you should first set a plan, also
working procedure of God:

1 - set up the information program for
carrying out the simplest known form of life, including the membranous
protection and cell multiplication;

2 - create a tyre protection, like a
magnetic resonant cavities (Faraday cage); install inside one or more video cameras
to record the images;

3 - create one or more transducers
broadband magnetic field (a simple chord or a coil may dither on 30 kHz - 300
MHz frequency); these transducers should be some copies of items containing the
life program of the desired form of life, but to be made from inorganic
materials with the capacity of storage of information;

4 - through a input gate insert the necessary
water and inorganic elements that forms the primary structure of life
established under paragraph 1;

5 - via another input gate insert a very
high frequency radiation for sterilization to be sure that there is no life in
the cavity; keep in
stand by this equipment in order to destroy the shape of life if you will need;

6 - through another input gate insert a
magnetic wave in the band 30 kHz - 300 MHz, that was modulated by the
information programme No 1, like a radio broadcast transmitted words;

7 - cord and / or coil logically should
swing and perhaps after a period of time should focus the surrounding matter in
the form of the structure set out in paragraph 1;

8-critical point could be obtained by
decreasing the intensity of the external magnetic field and its own resonance
in the oscillator, similar to cardiac pulse, i.e. to catch life.

9 - team must be composed of biologists,
biochemists, biophysicists and of course a manager.

This means the procedure of God:

- creat rezonant cavity - Genesis 1.6-8;

- creat water and earth as food - Genesis 1.2-10;

- inseminate seeds and words - Genesis 1.11-12

 

"To
those who win the victory I will give the right to eat the fruit of the tree of
life that grows in the Garden of God." (Revelation 2.7)

 

It is possible this plan to succeed or not,
but I do not think the deployment costs of are very high and I think that the
plan should be tried.

As Winston
Churchill once said about courage, I stood up and expressed my point of view
and now I sit down and listen to the opinions of others involved in this
dialogue.

I hope we
can continue the dialogue on this complex issue of life and its purpose.

 

Thank you
for the patience that you have shown.

Best
regards.

cosciua@yahoo.co.uk
 

Some researchers who have submitted
articles on The Scientist spurred me and I delivered a new definition of life
and a procedure to create experimental life.

Firstly
thank you for your kindness and willingness to enter into dialogue with me, a
person unknown internationally.

Allow me to
make a brief presentation: I am an electronics engineer, specialist in data
transmissions by electromagnetic waves, and manager of Clepsydra.

Since 1990
I have addressed issues about the quality of life and I have acquired over time
some knowledge in the field of molecular biology, necessary to understand the
phenomenon of life occurrence and life evolution. My son is student in
medicine.

Step1

Based on
the principles of knowledge management, in order to define the full life I
researched all the information produced by man, of course within the limits of
my ability and team that I work with, without neglecting it. Comparing
information from legends and religions, obtained through an unknown technology
of data transmission, against that produced by scientists, gained through
logical analysis and synthesis of information existing in nature, I delivered
the Evolutionary Creation Theory, assisted initially by a foreign intelligence
and then by man.

Perhaps the first form of life on the Earth
was sexless mono-cell organisms (see Stanley Miller), then being a worthwhile
addition of an external information to reach RNA and DNA and bi-sexed forms of
life.

The living cell is an open system that obtains dynamic equilibrium states
due to the radiant and substantial flows from the environment and in the
environment.

By
retaining information in magnetic field on the media, for the purpose of
sampling theorem and of the principle of the channel, we will be able to
understand harmonic accumulation dynamic on the live side of the programmes
describing different possible relationships with the environment, so we can
understand the formation of living organisms in cascaded coupling through
magnetic field-substance, and thus comprehending the feedback system (reverse
reaction positive and / or negative).

Transcript
information from magnetic field to substantial support has given rise to the
second language articulation, which uses words and phrases (programms) produced
by the combination of the nitrogenous bases (RNA, DNA), in accordance with the
lists of the Fourier spectrum of aminoacids.

The genesis
of genetic code, stored on RNA and DNA associated organic memory, can be
understood by interference waves using copying hologram hypothesis.
 

Step 2

From
Genesis 1-12, we can say that the grass and likely all sexless organisms are a
kind of virus produced by the enviroment (by Earth), in response to information
that emanates from God through their own magnetic field, before the appearance
of the Sun.

This is like
the information produced by a social system from the word and the action of the
Manager of that system, so, making a comparison to social systems.

The long
evolution of life is very short, but very suggestive, described by Daniel in
the 7.2-4. Other information that describes the emergence of humans, based on
evolution, is the one supplied by Paul in 1Chorintiens 15.45-47.

On the
basis of the information transmitted by Proverbs 25.2 Solomon, we can say that
Charles Darwin is one of the Kings of human knowledge.

This
information may be combined with Genesis 6.2 to describe rational intervention
of an external intelligence for the purpose of driving evolution in one pre-established
direction. This principle of creating opportunities, so that the system will evolve
in a predetermined direction, is used nowadays in management.

The actual
presence of paternal mitochondrial DNA in the sperm cells of boys naturally
born, not in vitro 'born', combined with information from the bible, Paul - Hebrews
4.12, Paul - 2 Chorintiens 2.1, and Luke 8.11, genetically certifies Genesis
and led me to the development of the theory about the inheritance of paternal
mitochondrial DNA (Adam mtDNA theory - - ISBN 978-606-92107-1-0), which completes
the Eve mtDNA theory.

Having
these elements, we can say that intelligent life is the product of an energy
boost, that contains an informational program, which defines the function and
role of each specific form of life, integrated in a functional system as a
whole and also, we can define viruses as information stored on material
surroundings by radiations of living organisms, as an environemental feedback
to the behaviour of the organism in the open environment.

Starting
from the assumption of the Genesis of life by induction of some other form of
life I gave you a plausible definition of life and we can properly convey the
efforts of scientists and funds allocated by an appropriate research purpose
set by common agreement.

Please take
these descriptions as bio-physical assumptions, until such time when they will
be confirmed or not by biologists in real life.
 

Step 3

To create a new form of life that does not
interact with the environment, I think you should first set a plan, also
working procedure of God:

1 - set up the information program for
carrying out the simplest known form of life, including the membranous
protection and cell multiplication;

2 - create a tyre protection, like a
magnetic resonant cavities (Faraday cage); install inside one or more video cameras
to record the images;

3 - create one or more transducers
broadband magnetic field (a simple chord or a coil may dither on 30 kHz - 300
MHz frequency); these transducers should be some copies of items containing the
life program of the desired form of life, but to be made from inorganic
materials with the capacity of storage of information;

4 - through a input gate insert the necessary
water and inorganic elements that forms the primary structure of life
established under paragraph 1;

5 - via another input gate insert a very
high frequency radiation for sterilization to be sure that there is no life in
the cavity; keep in
stand by this equipment in order to destroy the shape of life if you will need;

6 - through another input gate insert a
magnetic wave in the band 30 kHz - 300 MHz, that was modulated by the
information programme No 1, like a radio broadcast transmitted words;

7 - cord and / or coil logically should
swing and perhaps after a period of time should focus the surrounding matter in
the form of the structure set out in paragraph 1;

8-critical point could be obtained by
decreasing the intensity of the external magnetic field and its own resonance
in the oscillator, similar to cardiac pulse, i.e. to catch life.

9 - team must be composed of biologists,
biochemists, biophysicists and of course a manager.

This means the procedure of God:

- creat rezonant cavity - Genesis 1.6-8;

- creat water and earth as food - Genesis 1.2-10;

- inseminate seeds and words - Genesis 1.11-12

 

"To
those who win the victory I will give the right to eat the fruit of the tree of
life that grows in the Garden of God." (Revelation 2.7)

 

It is possible this plan to succeed or not,
but I do not think the deployment costs of are very high and I think that the
plan should be tried.

As Winston
Churchill once said about courage, I stood up and expressed my point of view
and now I sit down and listen to the opinions of others involved in this
dialogue.

I hope we
can continue the dialogue on this complex issue of life and its purpose.

 

Thank you
for the patience that you have shown.

Best
regards.

cosciua@yahoo.co.uk
 

If they do this, the kids will be in class 8 hours a day listening to various religious interpretations of life. Keep the magic sky people and talking snakes out of the classroom in public schools. There is NO evidence that any of this wishful thinking is remotely true - deal with it.

If they do this, the kids will be in class 8 hours a day listening to various religious interpretations of life. Keep the magic sky people and talking snakes out of the classroom in public schools. There is NO evidence that any of this wishful thinking is remotely true - deal with it.

If they do this, the kids will be in class 8 hours a day listening to various religious interpretations of life. Keep the magic sky people and talking snakes out of the classroom in public schools. There is NO evidence that any of this wishful thinking is remotely true - deal with it.

Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom.  This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.