Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (512)	9/15/1999 4:17:00 PM
From: Nate	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

so why don't we change the basis of science to try to disprove a theory instead of changing it to fit there purposes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To: TigerPaw who wrote (512)	9/15/1999 4:31:00 PM
From: Tunica Albuginea	Respond to of 69300

Wake up Nate!! Get on with the program!! Tiger said correctly that it is not the job of science to prove the truth. They just go from theory to theory; if any facts don't fit the theory you just disregard that and move on. You can actually do that well into the next millenium without any problem as long as folks aren't too inquisitive ( as in the last 30 years ), Message #512 from TigerPaw at Sep 15 1999 4:11PM that is not falsifying creation It's just another link in the chain of evidence. It's not a normal activity in science to try to prove a theory wrong. Theories are tested and if they fail to explain all evidence they are modified in a way that explains better. Sometimes there is a name change. When Newton's theory of gravity had trouble with certain facts Einstein developed modifications called the theory of relativity. That didn't prove Newton was wrong, only that modification was necessary. When creation theory is shown to be lacking the adherents attack the evidence instead of working to make the theory more correct. TP AND by eliminating any other kind of theories TA