Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Jpc12243: "Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?"
• Previous message: Allan Dunn: "Re: Homo Sapiens needs to be classified in sub species."

In article <DEE9vu.L4G@crash.cts.com>,
roosen@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen) wrote:
> In fact, Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis is a much more popular view
>of the origin of life and is a far more satisfactory basis for a globally
>acceptable cosmology.

What are you talking about? Gaia doesn't have anything to do with
cosmology -- it's a hypothesis about why Earth is suitable for life.

> With what we now know about telepathy, Shapley's advice was right on.

Roosen, which "we" are you using? We scientists know about telepathy
mostly that it doesn't work under experimental conditions.

(Okay, I'm not a scientist, but the point stands.)

--

Carl Fink       carlf@panix.com      madscientist@genie.com

Assistant Sysop, GEnie's First and Fourth Science Fiction RoundTables

The SFRT page has moved AGAIN, to http://www.sfrt.com/sfrt1

• Next message: Jpc12243: "Re: Big Bang: How widely accepted?"
• Previous message: Allan Dunn: "Re: Homo Sapiens needs to be classified in sub species."