off topic posts

[Demented LRH]

I fully support the proposal, except for Xenu stuff, although I do not think it will go too far because it violates the principle of separation of the Church and the State.

In my anti-evolutionary book I proposed a far better approach -- instead of teaching the Bible and other religious books in science classes, they can teach this material in history classes. Religion is a part of world history, it is being taught at state colleges; there is no reason why it cannot be taught at public schools.

I also proposed inclusion of criticism of the evolutionary theory in science curriculum without adding to it any religious presentation. Any theory, including the evolutionary theory, can be criticized from scientific point of view without involving a religion into a discussion.

What alternates to evolution are scientific and testable or are able to make predictions based upon their science?
This is the first I have heard of any.

It is not matter of finding alternatives to the evolutionary theory, but showing that it is false. My suggestion was to teach the evolutionary theory in science classes along with scientific objections to it. For example, Fisher had shown that a single mutation cannot spread to the entire species population (Fisher was an evolutionist who believed in a theory of nonrandom mutations). I provided a mathematical proof that no matter how many mutations have occurred simultaneously, they cannot spread to the entire species population. My article, Periodicity of Epidemics, was published in Computational Biology Magazine, it contains the aforementioned proof. In my anti-evolutionary book I have demonstrated that the laws of physics shows that the evolutionary theory is false.
As for the predictions, Darwin wrote inn his book Origin of Species, that production of species is never ending process. But that prediction happened to be false.

[Gnu]

I fully support the proposal, except for Xenu stuff, although I do not think it will go too far because it violates the principle of separation of the Church and the State.

In my anti-evolutionary book I proposed a far better approach -- instead of teaching the Bible and other religious books in science classes, they can teach this material in history classes. Religion is a part of world history, it is being taught at state colleges; there is no reason why it cannot be taught at public schools.

I also proposed inclusion of criticism of the evolutionary theory in science curriculum without adding to it any religious presentation. Any theory, including the evolutionary theory, can be criticized from scientific point of view without involving a religion into a discussion.

What alternates to evolution are scientific and testable or are able to make predictions based upon their science?
This is the first I have heard of any.

It is not matter of finding alternatives to the evolutionary theory, but showing that it is false. My suggestion was to teach the evolutionary theory in science classes along with scientific objections to it. For example, Fisher had shown that a single mutation cannot spread to the entire species population (Fisher was an evolutionist who believed in a theory of nonrandom mutations). I provided a mathematical proof that no matter how many mutations have occurred simultaneously, they cannot spread to the entire species population. My article, Periodicity of Epidemics, was published in Computational Biology Magazine, it contains the aforementioned proof. In my anti-evolutionary book I have demonstrated that the laws of physics shows that the evolutionary theory is false.
As for the predictions, Darwin wrote inn his book Origin of Species, that production of species is never ending process. But that prediction happened to be false.

If what you said is true, you would be famous. I guess the man is keeping you down, huh?
I am not finding a website for Computational Biology Magazine to search for the article.

Also, how has "production of species is never ending process" been shown to be false?
Also as an aside, Darwin could wrong on many things. Science is a constant search for data and new info shows old info to be incorrect and that incorrect info is sent to the dustbin. So Darwin being shown to be wrong has no effect on current evolutionary theory. I am amazed people still argue about this. It is probably funner to debate people who still believe in a geocentric universe or that dinosaur bones were buried by the devil to trick us.

[Demented LRH]

^^ You won’t find the article on the Internet because you have to be a subscriber for the magazine that I mentioned, its articles do not come free of charge. But I can arrange it for you if you give me your email address -- I will email the article to you. I can post the article on OCMB, but it will be of no use -- the OCMB software cannot copy mathematical formulas.

As I said before, I do not mind posting my OCMB articles under my real name, but this may cause difficulty for the website. If you are interested, I can give you the title of my anti-evolutionary book along with my real name.

As for the fame -- Fisher is famous enough, probably, you heard about him.
Will I be famous? Only the time will tell. Now I am planning to write my second anti-evolutionary book that will include the proof. Article do not make people famous, books do. The books made Darwin and Fisher famous, not their articles.

There are no recordings of new species produced in the last 10,000 years, which is approximately the age of the mankind. If you know about new species produced as the result of the evolutionary process, please, let me know.

Darwin was wrong about many things, as the neo-evolutionists say. Some say that he was wrong about the evolution going on forever. On the other hand, they failed to explain why the evolution stopped.

I heard about the trick of producing the dinosaur bones. But please, please, do not assume that all anti-evolutionists believe the words of some lunatic. To me it looks like the evolutionists use this “theory” as a straw man.