Nothing beats The Addiator.
Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
You should note that the Communists executed the "Darwinists" as you call them. In particular the biologist Vil'yams was executed for opposing Lysenko.
Let's just say I got a real "charge" out of being there. It had the "potential" of being a dreary day, but sunshine broke through the clouds at the right "moment" and I was "galvanized" by the "powerful" view. :)
Nothing beats The Addiator.
A slide rule certainly does not. (You cannot add using a "slip stick") That was one of the few chuckles I got during the movie "Apollo 13." They were adding numbers using their slide rules. :)
Lotta collectors agree with you. I'm partial to rules made by Hemmi (Post Versalog, etc.).
From the famous "Liberty or Death" speech, March 23, 1775:
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.Could just as well have been an impassioned speech against creationism (had Darwin's work existed at that time).I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves ...
At least one manufacturer of slide rules, Faber Castell (German, I think) attached Addiators to the back of several slide rule models. I own one of those. Big-time retro.
Yes, you can. Use the C, D, and L scales.(I have a Post)
The word science didn't even exist until three or four centuries ago.
The earth was circumnavigated before then---before science...this was common knowledge already.
Wouldn't you have to say...
Prior to Science primitive cultures and people used to say that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe.
Our understanding or misunderstanding doesn't alter--prove--improve or change science in any way.
Bias(evolution--changes) and science(can not change) are two--opposite--different things.
Probably what would express your thinking--bias better...
Evolution used to say that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe...that is what you meant say!
Evolution is only a theory---a speculation with no proof---about morphing organisms and has nothing to do with the physical--social--metaphysical--philosophical sciences...even physics or geography too...and of couse theology unless you believe God/Truth/science is morphing/evolving too---do you??
Evolution is mega-quackery---snake oil---the worker's--fools paradise too!
Matter of fact---for most people after Darwin...science for them no longer existed because of their acceptance of his morphing animal--universe theory.
Evolutionary science is an oxymoron---contradiction---impossibilty...one is concrete the other is relative--abstract!
Evolutionary science is anthropoloy---bones--fossils--campfire/mushroom smoking cave drawings---grunts--growns...how about pre-literate/thinking---post civilized-intellectual too!
Prior to Science primitive cultures used to say that the earth was flat and was the center of the universe and animal morphing was a proven fact...common knowledge--self evident--unquestioned!
Animal morphing is science...how could that be---nobody ever observed it---pure fantasy--speculation--insanity!
Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
Date: 1622
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
one is concrete/absolute--unchanging...the other is relative/abstract--morphing!
Sorry, no. Absolutely no. (Unless you mean adding logrithmic values, which is what the C/D scales are all about, but that's for doing multiplication, not addition.) Simple addition could be done, however, with a pair of L scales, or any other 2 scales with equi-distant digits. Then it's just like measuring a distance by using multiple lengths of a ruler.
I carry such a string at all times. People are always commenting on the bulge in my trousers.
Folks like you should always wear the Shroud of New Jersey.
"Believed" is not a scientific term. Belief means having faith in something. It is not science. Science is observation first of all. It is verification of a theory, not belief. Now the question that should be asked is what is the basis for this belief? Is there anything scientific in it? Let's look up endosymbiosis:
The gap between eukaryotes, cells with nuclei, and prokaryotes, cells which lack nuclei, is considered by many biologists to be the most profound missing link in evolutionary history. In an attempt to describe the way in which this gap was bridged, scientists have proposed the serial endosymbiosis theory (SET). The term "endosymbiosis" specifies the relationship between organisms which live one within another (symbiont within host) in a mutually beneficial relationship. The SET states that the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes involved the symbiotic union of several previously independent ancestors. According to the theory, these ancestors included a host cell, an ancestor of mitochondria, an ancestor of chloroplasts, and, more controversially, a prokaryote that brought with it the structures that today provide cellular motion.
FROM: Serial Endosymbiosis
Euglena, not only presents the problem of where did the eye come from, but also where did the cell nuclei come from and how a plant-animal arose. Note that nothing above, in your posts or in any of the articles linked to on this subject explains the eye of the euglena. Even the ridiculous "belief" in endosymbiosis does not provide an answer to that question. Let's also look at what is going on here. A new theory (endosymbiosis) is being created out of whole cloth to support another theory (evolution) which cannot explain how eukaryotes arose through descent from prokaryotes. It is pretty much like the Ptolemaic theory of geocentricity - as more was discovered, the more epicycles were created.
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.