I am a new member and have been looking at Blogs for the first time over the past few weeks. I have written a book, finished last month, which deals with many of the issues about reasoning discussed at this site, but I attempt to cut through them somewhat, as there is so much potential in the facts out there to be ordered that I don't spend a lot of time considering the theory relating to my reasoning in providing some order to it in my book. I discuss reasoning, and many of the principles raised in posts here, but my interest is in reasonably framing the conditions of my hypotheses and making them clear, whatever they may be. For example, immediately before 2 particles collides we can fairly accurately predict what will happen because our conditions are very closed, but nature has broad universal sweeps of properties in four forces and how they more generally structure matter (including biology and humans in particular) and hypotheses relating to those explanations are more broad.

My book tries to cover the entire sweep on nature, based upon the use of the four forces in physics, and extends to an explanation of the emergence of biology on planetary surfaces. You are all most welcome to read it, its a free download at http://home.iprimus.com.au/marcus60/1.pdf and well worth a quick flip to see if the coverage interests you. My website in www.thehumandesign.net (a non-spiritual Design) for additional information including a Blog in future. It is entirely novel, and without any input from scientists or philosophers. I am a lawyer of long standing, and do my research by checking facts at the library (and internet now) and I simply constructed a view over a period of several decades. A bit like ongoing Sunday contemplations accumulated into a theory. I hope you enjoy it, and my posts at this site if I get an opportunity to contribute further.

Could you possibly provide a simple reason why it is wrong, to let me know what to look for if I go to your links? It is fine if you have no time to provide a simple reason, rather than "this seems wrong", but I would much prefer any reason at all or any reasoning at all. Just a short sentence would be fine to address your key point. Otherwise it appears disrespectful, like "back to the drawing board, lad" without any reason whatesoever. I am happy to argue my post above, which explains very clearly the meaning of the quote you chose. but I cannot go chasing rabbits of a decription I do not know, were I to chase rabbits. See this as a challenge Vladimir, in response to what seems a lazy reply.