Posted on 04/29/2008 8:38:43 PM PDT by Soliton
You will no doubt be able to provide a specific citation for the Einstein quote — the date he said or wrote it and to whom.
Didn’t take this moron long to basically say Hitler was the Vatican’s fault... (rolling eyes).
In The Church’s Confession under Hitler, author Arthur Cochrane presents the not sufficiently well-known statement of exiled Albert Einstein, the great physicist, cited by Wilhelm Niemoller in Kampi und Zeugnis der bekennenden Kirche - Struggle and Testimony of the Confessing Church, p.526.
Stop right there and go read evolution 101
You seem well versed in the scientific roots of ID. Could you share your supporting evidence for ID without mentioning evolution?
LOL. As Joyce Meyers says, I can sit in a garage all day but that doesn’t make me a car.
That is a lie. A big one.
Lurkers go to my FR page and see for themselves.
Truth is truth
ID does not have a competing scientific argument to evolution. Hence the reason it can't be taught in science class. It could be discussed in philosophy or comparative religion, however. If you know what scientific evidence exists for ID, please share it. No one else will.
Dawkins is famous for condemning the Jewish G-d as a genocidal maniac. Now he blames chr*stianity in similar terms for the Holocaust.
Are you seeing the connection? The Biblical G-d is a genocidal maniac and chr*stians are genocidal maniacs. Therefore chr*stians are more "Jewish" (in the Biblical sense) than the Jews, and Jewish victims of anti-Semitism are in solidarity with ancient Canaanite pagans killed on orders from the Torah.
I guess Yehoshu`a Bin Nun was a member of the Klan!
Why is it that whenever people who are anti-science want to make their anti-science points, they drag out Einstein making quotes on social issues? Einstein was no better qualified to make a statement on social science or cultural issues than Forrest Gump.
If pictures of Catholic Bishops giving the Nazi Solute doesn’t convince you that some members of the Church were nazis, then nothing will.
It is more appropriate to ask whether Rudin or Ploetz, architects of Germany's peculiar notions of biology, were Darwinists, which they were of course. As for Darwin advocating Eugenics - well his son said he did. But why not ask how many great Darwinian scientists advocated eugenics? You know, the ones that should have known better than Darwin. The answer is: very many. See my FR homepage.
Cheapened science, and education. You may find John Dewey's essay "On the Influence of Darwinism" interesting. There's a link to it on my FR page.
It is most unfortunate that you bring this up, because the success of genetic algorithms in computer science show that 'natural selection', as understood by biologists, is either impotent or completely incoherent.
OK, I’d like to see you explain that one...:) When we use the underlying theory of evolution - genetic mutations and breeding - to solve mathematical problems, it works great.
Why doesn’t it work for evolution?
In a genetic algorithm, fitness is computed by some expression involving the characteristics of the system you are trying to optimize. In biology, fitness is computed by examining the relative numbers of offspring. If you tried to write a genetic algorithm with the biological version of fitness, it simply (and obviously) wouldn't work.
There aren't as many of these as you might think.
The article beginning this thread posted the following about these "wrong" place fossils:
And fossil remains have been found in strata dated at millions of years old; they are identical to Homo sapiens sapiens. That is, us. Hundreds of examples exist. ... A Professor of Geology found, in the lower Pliocene strata of Castelnodolo, near Brescia, a complete human skeleton indistinguishable from that of a modern woman. The staining in the bones, the depth and number of different strata above the skeleton and its position made it very highly unlikely it could have been a more recent burial. The inescapable conclusion is that this speciment of homo sapiens sapiens was walking around 3.5 million years ago.This example is completely false. First, the find was made over 100 years ago, and as was the case for just about all such finds back then it was poorly documented. It was more likely that the bones were intrusive into that old layer. More recently the bones were documented as modern by radiocarbon dating. In other words, they looked like modern human bones because they were modern human bones.
One should not grasp any these anomalous fossil "straws" as accurate without first doing a thorough check on their documentation. Most have been researched and found to be modern, but they live on as "proof against evolution" courtesy of the internet.
I’d say that fitness in biology is based upon the relative number of offspring that survive. Species and bloodlines that get too inbred can have lots of offspring, but they do not survive. I contend it is still a matter of fitness of the solution to the problem-set.
Additionally, many approaches with GAs use the approach of the fittest “parents” get extra children, while the worst parents get no children. Weight the reproduction of entities to fitness.
But see, here we’re discussing applications of evolution. NOT intelligent design! For evolution can be tested, modified, checked. ID simply can’t. You can’t even have this discussion about ID because it is fundamentally a supernatural basis. It is because it is.
THAT is what makes ID fundamentally not scientific.
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.