Posted: Apr 02, 2011 3:23 pm
Paul Almond
But as I've read on, that doesn't seem to be of any import to Paul, because he seems to agree that it's different. But then I don't see how one could erect a scientific theory of 'one bang = one process', since they are different and basically not connected except for that one thing lead to another. "One thing lead to another" I don't think counts as a scientific theory that tells us something new.
Suppose, just suppose that you didn't know any better for a moment, think. Then one may contend that the caterpillar was not connected/related to the butterfly. A Primordial process of evolution [inorganic] related to the Darwinian process.
Makes more sense than the Darwinian process poofing into existence from nowhere, out of the blue so to speak.
Paul.