<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Jan 21, 2010, Anna Taylor wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font>What if his theory of evolution was based on "his" own perspective. <br>It's called "Darwin's":) What makes it 100% viable? Last I heard it <br>was still a theory<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And what do you think the word "theory" means, a guess? A theory is a group of thoughts to explain something, such as Copernicus's theory that the Earth goes around the sun or Newton's theory of gravity or the theory of cause and effect. Some theories explain things better that others and no theory explains things better than Darwin's.</div><div><br></div><div>I do give you credit for realizing that Gordon's ideas are totally incompatible with Darwin's, but joining the creationists camp seems like a very high price to pay to embrace his looney teachings.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Does it matter if it's [consciousness] in the neuron or the brain?</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes it matters. Gordon says signals between neurons are not involved in consciousness, that means there are 100 billion completely independent entities in your head with absolutely no way to interact with each other in any way. And that is idiocy of the highest order.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Darwin is a theory, Psi is not mathematically possible and John will never agree unless he sees it with his own eyes</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That is not true at all, I don't need to personally experience Psi, as I've said many many times just show me a pro Psi article in Nature or Science, that's all I ask.</div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div> <br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>