Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
Are you sure you want a response to it?
Barring the "age of the earth" question I can't think of a time you've been reluctant to express an opinion. By all means respond.
Heaven forbid, they are just good'ol plain commies eh?
In addition, Serge Bernstein's book on probability was not reprented on the same grounds. Even quantum mechanics was not fully accepted in the USSR because of its inherent indetermancy. The "Communist State" allowed of no "random" components. Every thing was designed by the Party.
To be fair, Kolmogorov was only censored but the evolutionary biologist Vil'yams was executed for holding Darwinist views. (I wonder if Vil'yams's family came originally from England.)
Nope. You will observe the effects of gravity.
Semantics. Gravity is a scientific fact. An undeniable fact by even the most obtuse. Evolution is not a fact and it has never been observed in any scientific manner. Evolution proposes the tranformation of species, such has never been observed. Gravity proposes the pulling of a smaller mass towards a greater mass, this is observed on a daily basis by every human being on earth. So there are scientific theories which are absolutely true and evolution is not one of them.
Of mine there have been plenty, just to list a few:
1. what Nobel Prize for biological work has tended to prove evolution? I asked that one of you and you just responded with a challenge which was met - and of course ignored.
2. how does a species change modes of reproduction while continuing to reproduce?
3. show that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex and does not disprove evolution.
4. show one single example of a species which has been proven to have transformed itself into a more complex species.
5. show a single example of a mutation which has created a totally new favorable function in an organism.
6. give a hypothesis showing how abiogenesis would be possible according to presently known scientific facts.
Need more?
Yup, just like you said. Your argument there says perfectly that multiple universes are just as unlikely to be fact as religion. After all, "it claims something to have happened which we know absolutely nothing about." -ME
Now that is a pretty ridiculous statement. Are you denying your own existence? Do you hate God so much that to deny him you are willing to say you do not even exist? Are you so far out as to say such a thing? -YOU
WHAT? Please explain how you made the conclusion that I doubt my own existence or doubt the existence of the universe. Intelligent Design and Multiple Universes are not the competing theories here. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SARCASM, ALL I SAID WAS THAT THE MULTIPLE UNIVERSE THEORY WAS JUST AS 'FAITH BASED' AS ANY RELIGION. THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL, HARD EVIDENCE FOR EITHER. You deny your own religion when you laugh at theories that have no evidence.
Do you or do you not agree that there is no hard evidence which supports any of the world religions and therefore creationism? I will concede all day, and all of the night, that there is no evidence which supports multiple universes.
LOL!
Yeah, right; oh Wildly Elliptical one.
Only G3k could manage to mangle the reality of Ted getting banned in yet another incarnation after having been banned for his misbehavior as "medved" and turn it into some sort of Evolutionary conspiratorial pogram.
In G3k's little twisted delusional world, he probably thinks we took out our guns and threatened Ted: "Register under a bunch of phoney screen names to mask your identity as a previously banned FReeper, or we'll shoot your ASCII bat, Splifford."
It never occurs to him that Ted managed to get himself banned the first time by his own hand, just as his new incarnations are banned because the management of FR doesn't like banned FReepers sneaking back in under phoney names.
Oh, yes; one last thing -- as for "silencing" a critic, how many voices is Ted supposed to get on FR (the rest of us have only one each.) Is he entitled to extra screen names for some reason? Is he exempt from the same rules we have to follow?
And finally, don't think for a moment that the Tedster ISN'T still with us.....
Bwaaa-haa-ha-ha. Yeah. You got it. It says it right there in the Bible so we're all wrong.
That is not the point that has been made. The point being made is that evolution and Communism are birds of a feather and go together. They are both atheistic and materialistic and give backing to each others views. Which came first is irrelevant to the point. That they do go together is proven by both chester's quote of the correspondence between Darwin and Marx in Post# 2040 and my post showing quotes of how much Marx was delighted by the Origins in Post # 2309
And there it is. The demonizing of freedom, and most importantly free will. This says quite clearly that subconsciously, you want to be controlled.
But beryllium falls like boron.
Very true indeed. The evidence is there for all to see but to those who willfully close their eyes to it.
Such a prediction by soliton is utterly ridiculous and completely unscientific. It is RNA that produces amino acids. Amino acids do not produce either RNA or DNA, they are just constituent parts of proteins when assembled properly by living things. You can take all the amino acids you want, all the proteins you wish and you will never get a single strand of DNA let alone a living organism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.