Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.


Expand Messages
  • leonmaurer@aol.com
    I thought this dialogue between several scientist/philosophers related to evolutionary theory and the controversy between Creationism and Darwinism might be of
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 11, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I thought this dialogue between several scientist/philosophers related to
      evolutionary theory and the controversy between Creationism and Darwinism might
      be of interest to all students of theosophy... There is some genetic data here
      that places serious doubt on Darwin's theory.

      While not a part of this dialogue, my own position rests solely on my ABC
      hypothesis that substantially aligns with the Secret Doctrine teachings, and also
      questions Darwinism as well as Creationism in favor of consciously guided
      intelligent engineering following fundamental laws inherent in primal SPACE's
      zero-point G-force or "Spinergy" (ZPE on the physical plane, Fohat on the
      spiritual). http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield-spherical-colo_F.jpg


      Philip Benjamin wrote:

      June 9, 07
      Hi, Alfredo:

      You asked: "Why only humans have such physical properties? Are you a

             I was never a member of any Creationism Society, nor a participant so
      far, but I confess and profess that I am a CREATURE a term which is
      invariably found in any biological Text or Journal. However, Creature
      implies CREATION, a term invariably omiitted and shunned in all modern
      biological literature. Natural Selection involves a SELECTOR, in lieu of
      which I coined the term Natural Technology (NATEC, for short).

      Appended below is an answer from KJ Forum Archives, as requested by Herbert
      FJ. Muller, M.D., November 8, 2005

      Best Regards

      TA81-82 (De&Pal)

      Commentary 31 (to C27, Muller)

      by Philip Benjamin
      8 November 2005, posted 12 November 2005

      [Herbert FJ Müller]
      Do you have a creationist or not-pseudo scientific explanation for the great
      similarity between the genomes of chimpanzees and humans ?
      [Philip Benjamin]
      I can only attempt a scientific or rational explanation from well established
      facts. Whether they agree or disagree with any particular school of thought
      including Evolution, is of no concern or interest to me.
      I have to treat this as a composite question requiring the relevant facts of
      molecular biology to be put into the context of convergence, divergence,
      homology, typology, paleontology, chromosome numbers, protein/DNA/RNA
      sequencing etc. May be a note on C-14 dating also.
      The sequence-divergence between bacterial cytochrome C-2 and various
      cytochromes, ranging from insects to mammals, including monkeys and humans
      is a constant 64-65 %. [from Dayhoof, Dayhoff Atlas of Protein
      Sequence and Structure, National Biomedical Research Foundation, Silver
      MD, VOl 5 Matrix 1 p D-8]. Transitional or intermediates are totally absent
      deductions of the dayhoff matrix. All euchariotes are EQUALLY distant from
      bacterium (Rhodospirillum rubrum).
      The actual biochemical differences between monkeys, apes and man are trivial.
      When the differences in their protein sequences (Dayhoff Atlas, Matrix 10, p
      D-56, 12, p D-88) are considered, they are equidistant from the bacterium and
      fall into non-overlapping classes, with no intermediates between them and the
      bacterium. DNA or RNA sequences also lead to the same results. None of them
      turns out to be ancestral or primitive with respect to the other. Dayhoff
      Matrix 1, p D-52 shows no molecular evidence for the typical evolutionary
      cyclostome-> fish-> amphibian->reptile->mammal. This finding remains quite
      surprising to the Darwinian school of thought.
      The pattern of diversity at a molecular level shows a highly ordered discrete
      hierarchical scheme- not gradually changing -ancestral-primitive-advanced
      links with intermediates smoothing over, but distinctly isolated sisterly
      This supports the empirical, discrete typology advanced by 19th century
      anatomists, which they presented as evidences against evolution. Now,
      biology support that typology. There are very few cases when the degree of
      morphological divergence from any out group may not exactly correspond to
      molecular divergence from the same out group. Only, the extent of
      divergence does not always seem to agree with the degree of molecular
      Gradualness is not an essential characteristic of Nature, discreteness is.
      Matter/energy is discretely constituted, so also space and time as Planck
      Biological complexities which carry sentience are also built of irreducible
      discrete units of complexity, precisely sufficient to sustain life.
      is non sequitur here also. No gradual process can generate a life
      unit of life form.
      For Darwin, phenotypic similarities were not governed by the DNA code. He did
      not have to encounter the DNA code as a barrier for speciation. In the light
      the present knowledge of complicated DNA coding which is quite different for
      each true species, in spite of similarities even at the molecular levels, it
      too simplistic to imagine that legs prove evolution. Today, Darwin himself
      have considered it nonsensical to assume that because a creature needed legs,
      it simply grew them ! Solid molecular biological facts say no.
      What is more significant is that close molecular similarities
      animals not only have similar structures, but have uniquely different ones
      which makes the idea of common ancestry an adult fairy tale. It must also be
      noted that the legs of a man, a woman, a bunny rabbit, a spider and an
      have surely vastly different structures and textures from one another, but at
      the molecular level the genetic structures that determine these differences
      too close ! The octopus has an eye quite similar to human (convergence), but
      that does not make her any biologist*s distant Aunt ! The bubonic plague
      only Norway rats and humans, but that gives no biologist any privilege to
      descend from rats. Cytochrome C, an amino acid sequence, in turtles is more
      similar to people than in rattlesnakes. Are we therefore cousins of turtles?
      Then how can we be cousins of octopus and rats also ? What has octopus to do
      with turtle? How about those creatures which look alike in many ways, yet
      certain organs which are remarkably different (divergence). For example, some
      shrimps have compound eyes with totally different structures from those of
      shrimps with *lens cylinders* that bend light efficiently to focus on a
      single point. Other shrimps have a **mirror system** within its eyes! Did the
      shrimps figure all these out? No way, because at the molecular level they are
      identical! Convergence is often specified by non-homologous genetic systems.
      opposite, divergence, is often specified by homologous genetic systems. How
      both prov eevolution? This is no corroboration for gradual evolution. There
      is only an
      inscrutable * Natural Technology*, NATEC for short, way beyond the reach of
      Darwin*s imagination.
      A grandiose name like **pentadactyl limb, must be very scientific (Penta =
      and dactyl = finger.), but it is only the **five-boned** arm and leg found on
      all land vertebrates. In reality, there are many more different bones in the
      wrist and hand, in spite of molecular structural similarities, but that is
      ignored. Besides, it surely does not prove that the creatures made these for
      themselves because they felt a need, or copied one another. The**five bones**
      the arms and hands of a mice cannot make it a biologist*s ancestor. It isonly
      *Natural Technology* factor, enabling arms and legs to have the broadest
      possible functional movements in different species.
      Darwinian homology (from Origin, 1962 6th edition, p 492) is **relationship
      between parts which results from development from corresponding embryonic
      parts**. De Beer concludes that this is false. He enumerates the vast
      dissimilarities of the early stages of embryogenesis in different vertebrate
      classes, such that the adult homologous structures cannot be mapped out to
      homologous parts in the earliest stages of embryonic development, neither to
      similarities of location of cells in the embryo or parts of the egg from
      these structures are ultimately differentiated. See Homology, An Unsolved
      Problem (1971), Oxford University Press, London by Sir Gavin de Beer. He
      further states ** The attempt to find homologous genes, except in closely
      species, has been given up as hopeless. What mechanism can it be that results
      the production of homologous organs, the same `patterns,' in spite of their
      being controlled by the same genes? I asked that question in 1938, and it
      not yet been answered**( p. 16).
      In higher life forms almost every gene is found to produce
      more than one organ system. Homologous structures are indicated by very
      different genes in different species. See E. Mayer (1970), Populations,
      and Evolution, Harvard U Press, Cambridge, Mass, p 93.
      Sir Alister Hardy(The Living Stream, Collins, London, p 493) concludes; **
      The concept of homology is absolutely fundamental to evolution- yet in truth
      cannot explain it at all in terms of present day biological theory**. Randall
      quoted in William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, p. 189: ** Homologous organs are
      now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different
      species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a
      common ancestor has broken down.**
      No biologist can assume that Homology is determined by ancestry and then
      conclude that homology is evidence of ancestry. That is circular reasoning
      very characteristic of evolutionary thinking. Add to it the complete lack of
      paleontological evidence. All that is left is *the facile and irresponsible
      speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the
      Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology.** See *Evolution
      and Taxonomy, Studia Entomologica*, Vol. 5, October 1962, p. 567.
      **Taxonomists [those who classify plants and animals according to their
      appearance] have never had an objective basis for homology . . they cannot
      at present give it any objective basis, even though it is a logical necessity
      in the evolution of animals.**—*R.E. Blackwalder, Taxonomy: A Text and
      Reference Book (1967).
      **A great darkness had settled on the majority of British zoologists in the
      early decades of this century.**—*G.P. Wells, quoted in Perspectives in
      Experiential Biology (1976). **If, then, it can be established beyond dispute
      that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species
      not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common
      ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in
      ruins.** Thomas Hunt Morgan, The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of the
      Species,** in Scientific Monthly 16(3):237 (1923)].
      **Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how random evolutionary
      processes could have resulted in such an ordered pattern of diversity, the
      [totally opposite] idea of uniform rates of evolution is presented in the
      literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of every
      paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of
      astrology than a serious twentieth-century scientific theory has become a
      reality for evolutionary biologists . . Yet in the face of this extraordinary
      discovery [of structures so totally diverse], the biological community seems
      content to offer explanations which are no more than apologetictautologies.**

      Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306
      **The concept of homology is fundamental to what we are talking about when
      we speak of evolution, yet in truth we cannot explain it at all in terms of
      present-day biological theory.** Sir A. Hardy, The Living Stream (1965), p.
      **By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between
      cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship . . it
      unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove
      and evolution of the higher categories of units.**—*N. Heribert Nilsson,
      Sysnthetische Artbildung (1953), p.
      Chromosome Counts:
      If all life forms have a common ancestry, number of chromosomes, and the
      DNA count should be the same for all. This is not true at all. Homology is
      superficial physical similarities between various creatures, such as the
      emphasis on **five bones** in the arm ignoring crucial factors, such as finer
      details of bone structures, chromosome counts etc). More closely related
      creatures have been found, in fact, which are entirely different in many
      especially at the molecular levels. Chromosome and its DNA counts are much
      better indicators of closeness of species. However, there are no numerical
      similarities in each **family branch, only a confusion of numbers at all
      This lack of numerical similarity is highly revealing. It is clear that there
      cannot possibly be any relationship between the various species—even those
      supposed to be **closely related.**
      No respectable biologist would suggest that by removing one or several
      chromosomes, a new species would be produced. That could not be, for the gene
      factors containing the millions of DNA codes are to be found all along those
      chromosome strings. To remove even one chromosome would remove millions of
      vital body factors.
      **Chromosome number is probably more constant, however, than any other
      single morphological characteristic that is available for species
      Eldon J. Gardner, Principles of Genetics (1968), p. 211.
      Because the genes determine all body parts and functions, we would expect
      the smaller life forms would have fewer chromosomes, and there is a tendency
      in this direction; but, even in this, there are striking exceptions as will
      be seen
      below. (The Cosmarium, a simple algae, can have as many as 140 chromosomes,
      and Radiolaria, a simple protozoa, has over 800, whereas human beings only
      have 46.)
      At the bottom of the evolutionary plant tree are the ALGAE: What similarity
      you find in any of these numbers? Chlamydomonas, 16 / Chorda, 56 /
      22, 24 / Closterium (n=194) / Cosmarium, 40, 120-140 / Cystophyllum, 32-48 /
      Laminaria, 62 / Nitella (n=9,18) / Sirogyra (n=16, 32, 50). Just up the trunk
      from the algae, we come to the FUNGI: Bacillus, 1 / Clavaria (n=8) /
      Escherichia,1 / Neurospora (n=7) / Phytophthora, 8-10 / Saccaromyces, 30,
      45, 60.
      Further up the plant kingdom trunk we go out onto the branch marked
      PTERIDOPHYTES: Adiantum, 60, 120, 116 / the DICOTYLEDONS: Brassica, 18, 20 /
      Chrysanthemum, 18, 36, 56, 138, 198 /It is called the ANIMAL INGDOM. Moving
      upward from bottom to top, here are the chromosome counts of a few of its
      branches: PROTOZOA: Euglena, 45 / Radiolaria (over 800) / Amoeba, 30-40.
      REPTILA: Elaphe, 36 / Hemidactylus, 46 / Alligator, 32 / Chamaeleon, 24 /
      Lacerta, 36, 38 / Emys, 50 / Anguis, 36, 44 MAMMALIA: Ornithorhynchus, 70 /
      Didelphys, 17-22 / Erinaceus, 48 / Sorex, 23 / Lepus, 36-46 /
      It is obvious that each branch of the ancestral trees is but a jumbled maze
      chromosome numbers, having little mutual correspondence. What about size of
      organism, from small to large? We already referred to the fact that even
      here we
      do not find a clear-cut pattern. The smallest life form ought to have the
      chromosomes and the largest ought to have the largest. That would be a fact
      which would encourage the evolutionists, but consider the following list:
      Aulacantha (protozoa): 1600 / garden pea: 14 /man: 46 / deer mouse: 48 /
      donkey: 62 / small monkey (Macaca rhesus): 42 / cow: 60 gorilla: 48 /
      Gypsy moth: 62.
      The evolution of sex is a major puzzle in modern Evolutionary Biology
      **/wiki/Evolutionary_biology**, due to the so-called two-fold cost of sex.
      Several explanations have been suggested by biologists including
      W._D._Hamilton, Alexei_Kondrashov, George_C._Williams, to explain
      how this cost of sex is overcome. In an asexual species, each member
      of the population is capable of bearing young. Intrinsically,
      this implies that with each generation, an asexual population
      can grow more rapidly. What then is the evolutionary selection
      advantage here?
      **It might reasonably be thought that the amount of DNA in the genome would
      increase pretty steadily as we advance up the evolutionary scale. But, in
      measurements of total DNA content are quite confusing. While the mammalian
      seems to have about 800 times more DNA than a bacterium, toads (for an
      have very much more than mammals, including man, while the organism with most
      DNA (of those so far studied) is the lily, which can have from 10,000 to
      times as much DNA as a bacterium!**—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery.
      (1983), p. 174. bacterophage-0x174: 0. 000,003,6 / bacteriophage-T2:0.000,2
      / colon bacteria: 0.004,7 / yeast: 0.07 / snail: 0.67 / sea urchin: 0.90 /
      chicken: 1.3 / duck: 1.3 / carp: 1.6 / green turtle: 2.6 / cattle: 2.8 /
      man: 3.2 / toad: 3.7 / frog: 7.5 / protopterus: 50 / amphiuma: 84.
      Here is what *Dobzhansky had to say about that table!
      **More complex organisms generally have more DNA per cell than do simpler
      ones, but this rule has conspicuous exceptions. Man is far from the top of
      list, being exceeded by Amphiuma [an apode amphibian], Propterus [a
      and even ordinary frogs and toads. Why this should be so has so long been a
      puzzle.**—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics of the Evolutionary Process
      (1970), pp. 17-18.
      Colin Patterson Senior Palaeontologist at British Museum of Natural History
      an address given at the American Museum of Natural History on November 5,
      commenting on the gaps/missing links stated: **These gaps might be due to
      failure in fossilization, or to mistakes in the genealogy, or to wrongly
      identified fossils; or they could be (and have been) taken to show that the
      theory of evolution is wrong** . [Evolution (1978) p.133].
      ** Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says
      that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and
      progression, (after the FIRST SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF LIFE, this added by
      me, Philip Benjamin). This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the
      history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory,
      unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science,
      for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test**.
      See Evolution (1978) pp.145-1
      ** Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is
      whether they were ancestors of anything else**. [Evolution (1999) p.109]
      Michel Denton (1996) notes in EVOLUTION p 286 that ** molecules give no
      support to the traditional view of the vertebrates as a series of
      advanced classes leading from the cyclostomes to the mammals. In fact, when
      the vertebrates are compared with non-vertebrate organisms, all types are
      equidistant apart.** What has been revealed as a result of the sequential
      comparisons of homologous proteins is an order as emphatic as that of the
      periodic table. Yet in the face of this extra ordinary discovery the
      community seems to offer explanations which are no more than apologetic
      tautologies** ( ibid, p 306). Why ? Because it is blasphemy to question the
      goddess of Evolution!
      David Hume in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 1779 (Collins London,
      1963, part 7, p 149) considered organisms as only superficially machine-like,
      organic or natural in essence. How would Hume have assessed a modern high
      speed battery operated speech-processing computer to which he was suddenly
      exposed? Perhaps a *natural brain* with ears and all, preserved hidden in a
      box. How will he reconcile with its speed and versatility? An
      objet d*art? That is precisely how Darwin found Evolution.
      Even in what Darwin would ignorantly call a simple single cell, there is a
      Cosmic perfection and a constancy of numerous well-managed operations,
      but verging on transcendence, beyond all comprehension bestowed under the
      aegis of randomness or complexity. It is an ingenuity of ethereal elegance
      the scope of the combined intelligence of all science and technology. Even
      only a miniscule fraction of the real is known today and most probably for
      Try to assemble one, it will be guaranteed dead on arrival. Only a fanatic
      of the dark-age type can deny that. Evolution is one such view, unless one
      equates microevolution with macroevolution.
      A final facetious note about HM question. If a Ford truck has 60%, and a
      van 80% of the parts that make a Toyota sedan, it simply means these parts
      designed, engineered and produced by a single source somewhere, unless they
      are counterfeits. No Biologist will assume that Ford and Chevy are the
      (*ancestors*) of Toyota, because of the common and massive similarities.
      That will be a blatantly bad and unacceptable logic, except when some rigid
      religious superstitions are associated with it. The unique and discrete
      between them soon become evident, which make each of these vehicles distinct
      and different- not a *descendent* of one from another.
      A more Scientific Name than Evolution:
      Genetic engineering, molecular engineering, nanotechnology are all in vogue
      but not during Darwin*s time. What he was proposing was in fact, a *Natural
      Engineering* rather a *Natural Technology* for a sudden transition from
      inorganic to organic, then from inanimate to animate, and from animal
      to human consciousness/mind via a Natural Information Technology. Darwin
      not have coined any of these words, instead he adopted an ancient/primitive
      of Evolution. (Darwin himself was not of much formal education, he failed in
      everything he tried, including theology. Besides, nothing of molecular
      did exist in his days).
      It is high time that Evolution be considered obsolete and replaced by
      Engineering* or Natural Technology, NATEC, for short. The first stage of this
      will be to Life Sciences what the unfalsifiable Big Bang theory is to
      Those who want to append to it their pet philosophy or religion or faith or
      design can do so outside the academic curricula and with no bearing on
      scholarship. They do that all the time to the Big Bang theory also, causing
      no academic apprehensions and consternations or scholastic suspicions.
      Carbonate rocks are abundant both above and below the Paleozoic Precambrian
      boundary. How can C-14 isotope be present in any measurable quantity here?
      After 5730 years half of it will be gone through radioactive decay. After
      ten half-lives, there's very little C14 left. Eventually, all of it will be
      So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can't be dated at
      all. If C-14 is detected in samples which are millions of years old, that is
      confusion or contamination. By the way, there is C-14 even in diamonds!
      Philip Benjamin

      >From: "apj60" <apj60@...>
      >To: "medinuclear" <medinuclear@...>
      >Subject: RE: Ontic units and phonons
      >Date: Fri,  8 Jun 2007 12:12:12 -0300
      >Dear Philip:
      > > Yes, dear Alfredo, I am a Physicalist just as you and Chris Lofting and
      > > some others are, though we differ in the definition of physicalism. What
      > > stupifies me is this ionordinate affinity of Tucson Pundits for Eastern
      > > Mysticism as if that is what the West has been missing all along.
      >OK, I understand. I was there last year. There is an aura of mysticism in
      >the air - and lots of parties and drinking...
      > > As a matter of fact and as you have implied, your ion based digital
      > > Physicalism is not different from quantum physicalism or neural or any
      > > other ORDINARY materialistic physicalism in explaining Taxonomy. It is
      > > *garbage in, garbage out* or psychism in psycism out. When Psychism
      > > of fundamental particles is assumed or implied in the very premise,
      > > then panpsychism is an inevitable conclusion.
      > > There is absolutely no ground to accept that premise, empirically
      > > or experimentally or experientially, unless the Swamian monistic
      > > pantheistic mysticism is accepted as the fundamental principle of all
      > > living matter, which is the stark reversal of scientific methodology-
      > > Experiment to Observation to Inference.
      >I am not a materialist. My physicalism refers to dynamic energy/information
      >patterns that occur in entangled ion populations. This is not "ordinary". I
      >am not assuming Psychism in fundamental particles. I am proposing that
      >mental activity emerges in an entangled ion population under special
      >initial and boundary conditions (low-entropy living tissue interacting with
      >environmental information).
      > > You wrote: ** In the past you stated that consciousness would be related
      > > to dark matter and other 'hidden' aspects of the physical world.

      > > it seems you are a Physicalist about consciousness, like me**. All
      > > phenomena, be they Psy or Phy, must have a physical substrate, since they
      > > are perceived in the physical realm by physical devices of all kinds both
      > > live and dead. Visible phenomena relate to visible (ORDINARY) matter.
      > > Invisible phenomena must relate to invisible (EXTRAORDINARY) matter.

      > > Since ordinary matter has an Aufbau , extra ordinary matter has its own
      > > corresponding extraordinary Aufbau. Invisible implies non-electric
      > > (charge-less) and of negligible mass ( not mass-less). Whether it is the
      > > Dark Matter of Astrophysics or String Theory or something else need not
      > > be the primary concern.
      >Do you consider quantum information visible or invisible??? I think it is
      >indirectly measurable, but the measurement affects the information.
      >Therefore it may be classified in a third class in the Taxonomy...
      > > This proposal has no need for panpsychism, as all other physicalist
      > > theories. There is a differential presence of different invisible but
      > > particles in the different tax, culminating in humans having all the
      > > invisible particles corresponding to proton, and neutron (or sublevels
      > > thereof) and electron. In Plants only the electrons may have their dark
      > > counterparts, in animals only electrons and protons have their dark
      > > counterparts. Thus there is a dark physical substratum for the psy
      > > (qualia) as there is a visible physical substratum for psy phenomena
      > > (properties). The Chris Lofting method seems sound, if applied in this
      > > differential context.
      >Yours is a good and interesting hypothesis, but how could it be tested?
      > > Resonance has an awareness built into it. Resonance between the visible
      > > and the invisible bodies couples with entanglements is the basis for self
      > > awareness. The three primary taxa cannot be a mere continuum of
      > > concatenations of ordinary matter, only one taxon (humans) is complete
      > > with ALL dark and light matter particles. It is not quantum theory which
      > > incomplete, but particle physics.
      >Why only humans have such physical properties? Are you a Creationist?
      > > Again you wrote: *Also it seems that Rudolf Steiner made a good job to
      > > conciliate Eastern Theosophy with Cristianism*. I have not seen this work
      > > yet. IMHO, if he has reconciled the two, it is either a compromise or he
      > > does not correctly understand either or both. However since he uses the
      > > term Christanism he may have a point. Christianism, nor Christendom is
      > > the same as a representation of a Biblical world view. More often than
      > > they are contrary to the Bible. Physical Resurrection which is the
      > > foundation of Christian faith, has no place in Eastern Mysticism. That
      > > be an oxymoron. Physical means physical or bodily, not metaphysical or
      > > mystical. Most of those having a Christian world view, conveniently
      > > the fact of an Omnipresent Physical but Invisible Reality. I wonder why
      > > how they can do that in these days of pocket technology of omnipresent
      > > and all-seeing waves of information.
      >Your analysis of this problem seems good to me. I do not know the details
      >of Steiner´s doctrine (called "Anthroposophy"), possibly his synthesis was
      >not based on a physical analysis like yours. Did you find a Physicalist
      >interpretation for the Bible? Very interesting...
      >Alfredo Pereira Jr.

      See what's free at

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.