Posted on 04/29/2008 8:38:43 PM PDT by Soliton
This is just anthoer hapless attempt to take the eye off the ball: namely liberals censor those that disagree with them, be it science, government or the law.
Your efforts are pointless.
Some think that by reading scripture, or attending church makes one a Christian and so forth.
Hitler read some scripture to the masses at Nuremberg, therefore he was a Catholic.
It’s basically the Daily Kos just oozing off their reservation.
Uhhhh, because he could and loves to drive liberals mad!
“The claim that Hitler was Catholic is just bogus. He may have been raised
Catholic, but by the time he tookpower, he was as atheist as the Communists.
And this author knows it.”
Maybe not.
If the author has been hangin’ with Bill Clinton or Maureen Dowd.
You Mean Hitler Wasn’t A Priest?
http://www.nationalreview.com/shiflett/shiflett012102.shtml
RE: your picture of Bill Clinton
What’s up with that?
I thought Bill was/is a Southern Baptist.
That sure doesn’t look like communion in the couple of Southern Baptist
churches I’ve visited.
Simply AMAZING!
It never ever ceases to amaze me how people think attending church makes one a Christian!
But NOW because the nazis photographed themselves in and around churches, clergy and the like, Hitler was a Catholic!
Hitler walked into a cathedral, so he was a Catholic!
A chaplain pictured with the troops, so of course: HITLER was a Christian!
WHO KNEW?
Perhaps you can point out ONE single New Testament scripture that justified Hitler’s actions?
This post is simply beyond words! I’m not a Catholic, but I think it’s most obvious to virtually all that perhaps you’ve wandered way too far off the daily kos!
So far you’ve been able to display that you can cut and paste, nothing more.
But I guess the jury is still out on what a rather extensive nazi library you hold and rather or not you bought the nazi propoganda for real!
Any chance you have any pics of Hitler and the nazis embracing ancient nordic paganism?
Nahhhhhhh....nevermind.
You are right, ID is agnostic. The implications of ID can be left to religion and philosophy.
“There aren’t as many of these as you might think.”
All it takes is one to falsify the TOE.
All it takes is one to falsify the TOE.
If it is the right one, and if it is verifiable, you are correct.
But the list of nonsense I usually see presented as out-of-sequence fossils doesn't falsify anything. The one I cited above took only a few seconds to debunk through a google search.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation. If 10,000 items suggest one thing, and one suggests the opposite, it makes sense to double check that one contrary fact to see that it is really accurate.
Not true.
Oh, I get the claim, it's just that the conclusion drawn by the claim is false! We already know - from the hard, pure mathematical world of genetic algorithms and chaos theory - that we can start with an infinite problem-space and hundreds or thousands of failing solutions. And within a matter of a few dozen or hundred generations end up with solutions that START to work. And over a few hundred or thousand generations, with solutions that work really well!
If your algorithm was worth anything, it would be put to use solving a real problem using real chemistry.
How does the algorithm determine if a mutation is viable or not? Unless it is used in a real world context it is interesting but useless. It sounds like a complicated game of hotter/colder.
“One word: fossils.”
One word: observation.
“Science is built on the backs of earlier scientists. It is a multi-generational process, and using observed data from earlier researchers is valid and accepted, and allows for observations beyond the lifespan of a single person.”
Yep, and when enough generations have actually taken place (with written/visual records) so that, for example, the evolution from a fish to a bird can be completely observed and documented then we will be able to confirm the TOE.
“The absence of a fully observed process does NOT mean the process does not exist; it just has not been confirmed, meaning the theory is still a theory.”
I agree, it has not been confirmed because the observation has never taken place. So it shouldn’t be sold to the public as having been confirmed, is a fact, is true, etc., as many on FR have claimed.
“You may find John Dewey’s essay “On the Influence of Darwinism” interesting.”
Interesting. Dewey was a socialist utopian and he had some radical ideas which are still pervasive in schools today.
March 29, 1998
Pro-abortion and Protestant President Bill Clinton received the Holy Eucharist at Queen of the World Church in Johannesburg, South Africa.
The priest who gave the Communion alleged he was just applying the latest directive of ecumenism that came from the South African Bishops Conference.
Yeah, therein lies the rub. The data cannot be independently tested or replicated through experimentation because it has been discovered, not observed during testing. To go from a strong suggestion to claiming that the TOE is fact, truth, and all the other claims made on FR and other places is quite a leap.
"If it is the right one, and if it is verifiable, you are correct."
Again, that's the problem. There is no way to verify any piece of fossil data by re-test and independent observation under controlled conditions.
Thanks for the info on that photo of Bill Clinton.
I don’t know if the “priest” was Catholic, Anglican, Episcopalian
or some other flavor.
I just know that at least for non-Catholics visiting Catholic services
can cross their arms on their chest and approach the priest for a
blessing. But they are NOT to partake of the bread & wine.
Knowing Clinton is (probably nominal) Southern Baptist, I just knew
there was something Clintonian about the event depicted in that photo.
Then how did the designer come into being? Did the designer evolve? Was the designer created by a big-bang type event? Who designed the designer?
If your algorithm was worth anything, it would be put to use solving a real problem using real chemistry.
Heh, GAs are used extensively in chemical kinetics and identification of optimum molecular shapes.
How does the algorithm determine if a mutation is viable or not? Unless it is used in a real world context it is interesting but useless. It sounds like a complicated game of hotter/colder.
It uses a fitness function - a means of determining how well the solution fits the target goal. In biological terms, that would be how well the individual survives and thrives. In mathematical terms, it's an overall fitness score based upon what you want.
In one way, it is like doing "hot/cold", but in this case you take thousands of guesses at once, and you tend to head in the direction of guesses that lead to hot.
At which time it moves from theory to fact. Until then, it's a theory, because we do have observed micro-evolution, and we do have some observations called fossils.
I agree, it has not been confirmed because the observation has never taken place. So it shouldn’t be sold to the public as having been confirmed, is a fact, is true, etc., as many on FR have claimed.
I don't think anyone would dispute micro-evolution as a fact; no need to look beyond different dog breeds, or ring species. That is an established fact.
Macro-evolution is still a theory; anyone who claims otherwise is scientifically wrong. However, general relativity is still a theory as well. Should it not be taught?
ID does not have any examples NOR observations to even warrant a rigorous definition of a hypothesis, let alone a theory. How come it should even be taught in a school?
I fully concede evolution is a theory; what evidence do you know of that would give ID the standing of a theory? Without that standing, why is there even a debate about ID being taught in schools, other than from a purely theological/religious viewpoint?
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.