Two points: I don't doubt that a handful of excellent books have been written and scientific breakthroughs made by outsiders, but you said most? I'm just thinking at random - physics and three great physicists, Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell and Albert Einstein, all comfortably within the scientific establishment. You could repeat the exercise in virtually every science. So where is the evidence for your claim? But my more central point revolves around "credible authors". Let me take an example. You may prefer to call it an analogy. Look at the popular art work of say van Gogh, or Picasso. Those unfamiliar with art often criticise it as childlike and unskillful. The truth is that both artists were very well versed in all the classic painting styles and were capable of delivering quality work in this style. A look at their early work shows that clearly. Because they had those skills, their dramtically different approaches could be recognised as of high quality. (Though in van Gogh's case, not till after his death.) Now, you appear from nowhere with a new theory. Before anyone with an education is going to invest time in reading your book, let alone commenting on your general summary, they need to have some evidence that you know what you are talking about. They are looking for published work, by yourself, in the field, to demonstrate that you have this understanding. Many of us could generate a hodge-podge theory that read as well, or better, than your own work. We have enough knowledge/experience/understanding to realise such theories are untenable. I do not wish this to sound in anyway offensive, but you asked why no initial response. I repeat, you need to give us evidence of your 'quality' or demonstrate in some way that you understand the theories you are seeking to replace or build upon. Otherwise you will get no serious takers.
I've gone to the site. I've searched for butterflies and God gametes and nothing is to be found. What gives? Edit: Since I couldn't access the book I went back and read, rather than scanned, your original post. Don't take this the wrong way, but do you have any scientific training whatsoever? (Sellf taught is fine.) Do you have any conception of the scientific method? If you do you, have you any intention of applying it to your work? Again, you may find these remarks offensive, but please recognise I have already given you the respect of reading your posts with an open mind, taken time to try to obtain a copy of your book with the intention of reading at least part of it, and taken time to provide a response that you have asked for. Yet I find it difficult to characterise what you have written as anything other than mindless, unsubstantiated drivel. I am standing ready to be corrected by you, with reasoned argument and evidence.
Dinosaur: For heavens sakes Dinosaur; give me a break. You even say in your follow up statement that; “Special Relativity which includes the logic leading to E = mc2 also makes claims about the speed of light limitation and concepts relating to time/space.” Most laymen (like myself) relate E=MC2 to Einstein’s theory of special relativity and the relativity of time and space. You questioned me in an earlier post about the time factor relating to the GG concept and I answered your query by referring to relativity of time. I also pointed out that the relativity of space and the fact that matter can not travel faster than light are also factors consistent with the GG model. Am I meant to spell out the whole theory of special relativity just because I referred to the relativity of time and space? If you want to contribute to my threads then why don’t you argue the merits (or other wise) of the God Gametes concept rather than picking me up on some pedantic points relating to terminology?
Robert_js: What observed phenomena does your theory explain that relativity can’t explain? What testable predictions could you make using your theory, and how would you go about testing them?
Robert_JS: You do not deserve a break. You apparently know zilch about relativity. Perhaps you know a little bit about high school geomety. Suppose you had said the following. I would have told you that you should not talk about geometry if you do not understand it. It is true that the Pythagorean Theorem is a valid theorem. It is true that one of the axioms of plane geometry is the shortest distance statement. It is nonsense to say that the Pythagorean Theorem implies the shortest distance statement. Even an amateur scientist should conform to some discipline in what he says.
Nasor: None. None. Read my post again. I only claim that the God Gametes theory is consistent with the relativity of time and space and the fact that matter can not travel faster than light. In other words; if there were a hierarchy of universes and each level were the reproductive system of the next higher level then relativity of time and space (and matter not being able to travel faster than light) is helpful to such a system. My theory is not testable. I have merely postulated a theory and am encouraged by the fact that it is consistent with what we know to be true. Despite what is repeatedly claimed by Darwinists I do not believe that natural selection is consistent with anything that we know to be true.
Alright, you're a definite hack. Unlike your hypothesis (not theory, since it remains untested), natural selection is testable and demonstratable.
Dinosaur: How can you criticise me for what I said here? I only quoted you and repeated what you said about E=MC2 being related to Einstein’s theory of special relativity and the relativity of time and space. You may or may not be surprised to know I know nothing about high school geometry. But can you please tell me what the hell you are going on about the Pythagorean Theorem for? Am I meant to know about it? Does it relate to evolutionary biology in any way or are you suggesting I should have included a chapter or two about Pythagoras in my book?
I understood your analogy Dinosaur. It is unfortunate that someone who is attempting fourth dimensional maths doesn't understand the two dimenional.
Robert_JS: LOL!! This thread has become a joke. You introduce relativity formulae and notions from that discipline to support your views relating to evolution. Next you admit to knowing nothing about high school geometry. That is like trying to use algebra and calculus vocabulary to support your notions and then stating that you do not understand arithmetic.
Thomas Edison was not a bad scientist and he had three months formal education. Even Einstein did not have a brilliant formal educational record. In one of Paul Davies books he claimed that Einstein was unable to do the maths that he needed to support his theory and went to his friend (going by memory here but think it was Marcel Gossman) for help with the maths. Einstein worked out the theory of relativity in his head; not on paper and not with maths.
He had a degree when he wrote his three famous papers in 1905. One of those papers was his doctoral dissertation. That is not quite true. Einstein sought assistance with Riemannian differential geometry, which at the time was a fairly obscure and advanced area of mathematics. And he did not work out the theory in his head. He may have had some basic ideas in his head, and a few guiding principles, but the guts of the theory was, in fact, worked out on paper, with maths.
There is a lot of evidence but rather than taking it from me why don’t you study the writings of Thomas Kuhn. In his landmark second book, The “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, he argued that scientific research and thought are defined by “paradigms”. Kuhn suggests that science works within the given paradigms of the day but when the constraints of the prevailing thought prove inadequate a crisis is triggered. He gives as examples the overthrow of Ptolemaic cosmology by Copernican heliocentrism, and the displacement of Newtonian mechanics by quantum physics and general relativity. Sure many scientific breakthroughs come from within the scientific community but many do not. You ask for examples and there are many. Just a few from my “out side of left field” file. Charles Darwin. He was an amateur botanist when joining the Beagle and as far as I am aware never had any formal training in evolutionary biology or any other related academic disciplines. His theory of natural selection was scorned by the establishment when first presented. Elizabeth Kenny. Australian bush nurse who was treated with contempt by the establishment but was proven correct with her treatment of polio. Ben Lexon. Lexon left school at 15 to become an apprentice panel beater. He invented the winged keel which was later to go on Australia II and win the America’s Cup in 1983. Mike O’Dwyer. O’Dwyer was a grocer who took an interest in rapid fire ballistic technology. As you can imagine the US defence department had spent billions trying to perfect this technology and said what O’Dwyer was attempting could not be done. O’Dwyer has proven them wrong. John Likoudis. In 1958 John Likoudis discovered the cause of, and the treatment for, peptic ulcer disease but went to the grave a vilified man. Antony van Leeuwenheok. (1632–1723) Leeuwenheok was a textile trader who used a lens to assess the quality of cloth. He discovered the world of micro organisms. Gregor Mendel. Morvarian monk who several times failed his examinations to be a qualified teacher but later discovered the gene. Alfred Wegener. Wegener was by training and profession a meteorologist but he is best remembered for the foray into geology that led to his formulation of the concept of continental drift. Thomas Alva Edison. American inventor who had only three months formal education. He singly or jointly held 1,093 patents. In addition, he created the world's first industrial research laboratory. Walter Heape. The transferring of embryos between one mother and another seems a very modern technique, but was first successfully achieved over a century ago. The experiment was successfully carried out by Walter Heape, a businessman who learnt embryology in his middle years. John Harrison. (1693-1776) The longitude problem was eventually solved by a working class joiner from Lincolnshire with little formal education. John Harrison took on the scientific and academic establishment of his time and won the longitude prize through extraordinary mechanical insight, talent and determination. Charles Dickens. Did not study at university and spent many years of his early life living in poverty. Jane Austin. Jane Austin left school at age eleven claiming that she had learned nothing. Pride and Prejudice was read and rejected by two publishers before being successfully published by a third. Michael Faraday. Had only a very basic education and throughout life remained mathematically almost illiterate. James Watt. Born in Greenock, Scotland, on January 19,1736, James Watt was the son of a successful ship's chandler. Having poor health as a child, Watt had little formal education.You also claim Albert Einstein as part of the establishment but he was a patents clerk at the time he published his theory of relativity. He had a poor academic record as a child and I expect the success of his theory has generated a revision of his early status. Both Copernicus and Galileo were hounded by the establishment. What more can I do? I have little hope of getting a publisher so I have self published in both book and ebook formats. I spend every spare minute advocating my theory on the internet. It seems however that most of my criticisms come from my lack of qualifications but judging from the above that is hardly a liability. I have changed my ISP with the view to charging for my ebook. You should still be able to access my internet site at www.godgametes.com but to download my ebook you will have to go to www.lulu.com/godgametes and pay for it. My concept however is adequately outlined in the four threads I have started on sciforums. So given you appear only interested in finding fault then I expect it would not be worth your investment to download my ebook. I do not think I should bother. My post on Human Evolution has had over 5,000 visitors and has been given the highest possible rating by sciforums. If you want be to take your criticisms seriously then challenge me on the points I make. Not on my lack of qualifications.
Be careful here Roman. My criticism is of natural selection not evolution. I have had to explain many times on this forum that I agree with evolution but not that Darwinian natural selection is driving it. Webster’s: (theory) 1. a mental viewing; contemplation 2. a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done How do you test (or demonstrate) that natural selection can design new body parts and evolve new species?
Paul Davies makes mistakes, just like everybody else. In any case, I don't have a copy of the book you refer to at hand, so I can't look up the relevant passage right now.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ....hey !! 1+2=3 !!! 1,2,3 how cool is that Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
