Whenever i read such things as: "Darwin's theory will be dumped into a bin with all the other outmoded scientific theories of the past"... it seems to me that it was not well founded...
I think Darwin/Wallace's theory, i.e. the basic "mutation / selection interaction" will not be dumped... maybe a bit refined, expanded or fine-tuned... but i think it will not be dumped... approximatly the same way that i does not expect that the gravitational theory will be dumped..
Even "outmoded scientific theories" have the advantage that they are only theories... and everyone is free to show any mistake, inadequateness, or just error... as long as he relies on scientific methods... It would be a fundamental error to use the fact that some theories became outdated, expanded or have been proven wrong as a proof that science itself leads to a dead end...
Pleas bear in mind that Cristianity re-named the inquisition, stopped staking, stopped crusading, stopped selling of indulgences... Does this proof that the present christian rules, commitments, will be outdated soon? Does it even proof that it was wrong to stop the inquisition, stop staking, stop crusading, or stop selling of indulgences...
Please before arguing against the evolution theories, check your arguments first on the man in the mirror, ... or ... just keep Matthew 7,1-5 in mind...
The law that forbids push daggers is well hidden in Annex 2 (forbiden weapons) under point 1.4.2 of the german gun regulations... see http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/waffg_2002/anlage_2_82.html Alclose look at this annex shows how many things that may be considered as weapons are actually forbidden in germany...
I would rather consider this as one-sided bacon... Just want to see the pan to fry it.... It it really would be a piece of moebius bacon, it would have the skin on both sides...
It may be noted that there are two laws in Germany that completely forbid you to own such a thing in Germany. (In Germany no push daggers are allowed and additionally it is alos not allowed to have a concealed weapon, i.e a gun pretending to be e.g. a push dagger).. Even if you would cut off the blade to overcome the first two restrictions, you would still have to proof that you have a need to own this weapon...
Not sure, the point is inflation... as soon as someone has more money than necessarry for the rest of his life, it becomes worthless... (and if a real inflation hits, it is just the same)... and if Disney really trashes Star Wars, eveny Fan will hate him for the rest of his life...
I think 4 billion Bucks is more thatn anyone may have awithout getting totally insane...
Olbers’ Paradox : The paradox states that at any angle from the earth the sight line will end at the surface of a star. Would work if there would only be stars in the universe. However the assumption "from th earth" shows that there is other stuff too, like the earth, planets, moons, asteroids, black holes and stuff... Thus, the paradox is based on a wrong assumption...
"irresistible force" and "immovable object" are just not defined in our universe... As the mass in our universe is limited, it seems not possible to generate an immovalbe object (or to have someone to watch it).
#3 - Epimenides’ Paradox is just not praradox... the inversion of the statement "all Cretens liars" is not "all Cretens are truthful" but "not all Cretens are liars". It should be possible to find a single not lying Creten person to proove that at least Epimenides is a liar (but not all Creten people)..
#5 - The unexpected hanging paradox suffers form causality. It would be no surprise to hang the guy on friday, only if he was not hanged before. Actually for friday he was right, it would not have been a surprise only on friday... actually he was inconsistend to be surprised to be hanged on wednesday...
I think Darwin/Wallace's theory, i.e. the basic "mutation / selection interaction" will not be dumped... maybe a bit refined, expanded or fine-tuned... but i think it will not be dumped... approximatly the same way that i does not expect that the gravitational theory will be dumped..
Even "outmoded scientific theories" have the advantage that they are only theories... and everyone is free to show any mistake, inadequateness, or just error... as long as he relies on scientific methods... It would be a fundamental error to use the fact that some theories became outdated, expanded or have been proven wrong as a proof that science itself leads to a dead end...
Pleas bear in mind that Cristianity re-named the inquisition, stopped staking, stopped crusading, stopped selling of indulgences... Does this proof that the present christian rules, commitments, will be outdated soon? Does it even proof that it was wrong to stop the inquisition, stop staking, stop crusading, or stop selling of indulgences...
Please before arguing against the evolution theories, check your arguments first on the man in the mirror, ... or ... just keep Matthew 7,1-5 in mind...
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/waffg_2002/anlage_2_82.html
Alclose look at this annex shows how many things that may be considered as weapons are actually forbidden in germany...
Just want to see the pan to fry it....
It it really would be a piece of moebius bacon, it would have the skin on both sides...
as soon as someone has more money than necessarry for the rest of his life, it becomes worthless... (and if a real inflation hits, it is just the same)...
and if Disney really trashes Star Wars, eveny Fan will hate him for the rest of his life...
I think 4 billion Bucks is more thatn anyone may have awithout getting totally insane...
The paradox states that at any angle from the earth the sight line will end at the surface of a star. Would work if there would only be stars in the universe. However the assumption "from th earth" shows that there is other stuff too, like the earth, planets, moons, asteroids, black holes and stuff... Thus, the paradox is based on a wrong assumption...
However nearly true for the relic radiation...
As the mass in our universe is limited, it seems not possible to generate an immovalbe object (or to have someone to watch it).
is just not praradox... the inversion of the statement "all Cretens liars" is not "all Cretens are truthful" but "not all Cretens are liars". It should be possible to find a single not lying Creten person to proove that at least Epimenides is a liar (but not all Creten people)..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyosis_follicularis_with_alopecia_and_photophobia_syndrome