Posted on 09/23/2002 11:51:18 AM PDT by sourcery
Nope, he meant evolutionists. While Patrick was away there were no problems on the science threads. As soon as he got back two of them got pulled. And of course, he takes pride in his nefarious work.
Actually this discovery is another one in which genes are silenced by the organism. One of the functions of such silencing is to suppress the activity of mutated genes. Organisms have quite a few tactics for fixing mutations and errors. It has nothing to do with an 'RNA World' the micro-RNA is coded by DNA just as regular RNA is a transcription from DNA. This is indeed another kick at stupid evolution theory which claimed that all DNA between genes was junk. But then as medved used to say, this is no problem for evolutionists because it does not refute the prime process by which evolutio takes place - abracadabra shazam.
| . . , ,
| ____)/ \(____
| _,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
| ,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
| ,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
| ,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
| |/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
| ` ` V V ' '
There's a rumor going around that everything refutes evolution.
If you are speaking of Darwininianism, it really doesn't take this much.
It is said, Friend Henry, that a rumor run around the world before the truth gets its boots on.
Medved used to say many things-- f'rinstance, that our (approx.) 20,000 year old Earth was once a satellite of Saturn and that the Grand Canyon was carved by an electrical discharge. Those statements are also rather poorly supported. I expect that contributed to his removal from this forum.
Now, I expect someone to flame me for sliming the name of an individual who is no longer around to defend himself. I'm wearing asbestos boxers specifically in anticipation of such an event; I hope not to be disappointed.
(They're kind of itchy.)
Better...
NO, it is the attitude expressed here ---Those statements are also rather poorly supported. I expect that contributed to his removal from this forum. ---that is of low merit.
Free expression of ideas except for those I deem strange. He harmed no one.
Medved used to say many things-
Yup, but you cannot refute the above. Instead you resort to the usual mode of evolutionist argument of character assassination by lies and distortion. You should be ashamed of yourself.
| . . , ,
| ____)/ \(____
| _,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
| ,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
| ,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
| ,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
| |/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
| ` ` V V ' '
Where have I lied? And what did I distort?
You have more integrity than that Andrew; don't put words in my mouth. "Poorly supported." By which I mean, "a noteworthy absence of observations that might lead to such a conclusion."
Strange? Sure. I'm all about strange. And there are many strange theories out there. Some of them, however, are more valid than others, by virtue of support from equally strange observations.
I have no problem with anyone who wants to float a new idea. As long as support and defense is part of the package. Are you willing to defend Medved's theories?
I apologize, if you feel I put words in your mouth, but the statement was illustrating my interpretation of your post. How else can I say it? I might have explicitly labeled it as an interpretation, but I assumed that it would be viewed as an interpretation.
Again the whole point of my statement is that every person has equal access to expression of whatever ideas come to their mind in something we call free debate. If it is not free debate, then fine, state so. The fact that one has freedom to express their views is not connected to the believability or acceptance of those ideas. But in order to have any chance at such acceptance or believability they must be expressed. Even ideas rejected as foolish and silly considering their "obvious" disharmony with observation, e.g. the sun does move and the earth doesn't, after quite a long period of rejection and ridicule may ultimately turn out to be the "truth". In any case I do not have to espouse any particular theory in order to support its expression.
Medved did not engage in free debate. He was more interested in grandstanding and posturing than actual debate. Countless critiques and corrections of his work have been offered and ignored, dating back to (at least) 1995. Critics were "oppressors" and "censors," and the substance of the objections were almost uniformly disregarded.
The fact that one has freedom to express their views is not connected to the believability or acceptance of those ideas.
I agree.
But in order to have any chance at such acceptance or believability they must be expressed. Even ideas rejected as foolish and silly considering their "obvious" disharmony with observation, e.g. the sun does move and the earth doesn't, after quite a long period of rejection and ridicule may ultimately turn out to be the "truth". In any case I do not have to espouse any particular theory in order to support its expression.
Here is where we diverge. I would amend your statement this way: "But in order to have any chance at such acceptance or believability they must be expressed supported, and defended." The mere expression of an idea is not enough. I submit that refrigerators work because tiny leprechauns run about the shelves waving hand-held fans at the food. They get their energy by drinking milk straight from the bottle, which is why I sometimes find empty milk cartons in the morning.
Silly and harmless, of course. But if I persisted in posting that theory over the course of a decade or so, refusing to provide any evidence in support of the theory, paying no heed to any evidence to the contrary, and refusing to alter the substance of that idea in any meaningful way, then one might rightly begin to suspect there was a pathology at work.
But enough about dear departed Ted. Your larger implication, that I seek to prevent the free expression of ideas, is nonsense. I would expect, however, that an idea stand up to fairly rigorous scrutiny or else be discarded. I come up with some pretty wacky thoughts in the course of a day. Some of 'em even work; the rest are tossed back. If you have a theory that fits the facts as well or better, throw it on the table, let's give it a once-over and beat it as brutally as we have the theory of evolution.
Whether you seek to prevent the free expression is something I cannot determine. Only you can determine that. What I can say is that the effect of banning someone for his ideas is to engage in the suppression of free expression.
I was going to present medved's last post in order to show you that he was engaged in discussion of something other than his pet theories. The thread however, has been pulled. Once it was moved to the back room I refused to engage in the discussion because the premise there is to engage in uncivil discourse. The results are now obvious. PH got what he sought.
Well, it was a fun ride and I made a LOT of great friends on Free Republic... including one who came to my wedding. But nothing lasts forever, and maybe in a way it's a *good* thing, 'cuz there's no convincing some people that no increase in power makes that power any more pure. JimRob has drummed me out of Free Republic. Here's the reason he put on the screen that popped up on my end: Your posting privilege has been revoked. Reason: Democrat Now, I'm not a Democrat. Haven't been one since 1994 when I changed to Republican, and haven't changed that (yet). |
I will note three observations before abandoning the medved train of thought: First, JimRob, not PH, banned medved. Second, while every individual has the right to freely express his ideas, it is incumbent upon no one to provide the forum for that expression. And third, if medved wants to start a bulletin board system on his own website, there is nothing to stop him.
As I said, free expression(debate) is of a certain type. If it is not free then so be it. JimRob has no obligation to entertain anybody else's viewpoint. It is his site and he can do whatever he wants. The question is whether it is free debate or not. If it is not free debate then the limits should be delineated. Again, the owner is not even required to do that, however the consequences will be evident in the ensuing discussions. Now JediGirl.
Why are you still harping on this? The horse is dead.
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.