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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chris land who wrote (3847)	12/2/2000 10:48:07 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Movement? A theory created by scientists, and shaped by scientists. It is no longer a theory conceived merely by Mr. Darwin. Interesting as his observations were, the reality is far far more complex. Whether MR. Darwin wanted to cling to some irrational comfort on his death or not, what does it matter? It is anecdotal trivia and does not affect a scientific THEORY. Perhaps you do not know what a theory is? That would not surprise me. Here is the definition: the·o·ry (th-r, thîr) n., pl. the·o·ries. 1. a.Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. b.Such knowledge or such a system. 2.Abstract reasoning; speculation. 3.A belief that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: rose early, on the theory that morning efforts are best; the modern architectural theory that less is more. 4.An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. [Late Latin theria, from Greek from theros, spectator: probably thea, a viewing + -oros, seeing.] Now here is belief: be·lief (b-lf) n. 1.The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another. 2.Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. 3.Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons. [Middle English bileve, alteration (influenced by belfan, belfan, to believe;); see believe of Old English gelafa; see leubh- in Indo-European Roots.] Synonyms: belief, credence, credit, faith. The central meaning shared by these nouns is “mental acceptance of the truth, actuality, or validity of something”: a statement unworthy of belief; an idea steadily gaining credence; testimony meriting credit; put no faith in a liar's assertions. See also synonyms at opinion. Antonyms: disbelief More words that might help you: null hypothesis The assumption that any observed difference between two samples of a statistical population is purely accidental and not due to systematic causes. scientific method (sn-tfk mthd) n. The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis. ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-) n. 1.A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development. 2. a.The process of developing. b.Gradual development. 3.Biology. a.The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors. b.The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. 4.A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements. 5.Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity. [Latin volti, voltin- from voltus, past participle of volvere, to unroll; see evolve.] I DO hope this helps you. If you need further guidance, I am sure it will be apparent in your posts and I will be happy to help you further. It is clear to me you are in need of assistance, and I am here to help you.

To: Chris land who wrote (3847)	12/3/2000 1:44:31 AM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Hey Chris, You have a Creationist museum coming to the rescue. Now Creationists will be able to present their evidence of Biblical creation to counter that propaganda that we see in those secular museum. Presumably the Creationist Museum will have empty cases to counter the cases full of fossils that the secular museums have. Before the grand opening, I do hope that they will be able to find Noah's Ark, the cross that Christ was hung on, the Crown of Thorns, the Ark of the Covenant, the stone tablets with the commandments, (both the broken set and the good set), the bones of the talking snake form the Garden of Eden. Stuff like that will go a long way towards making the case for creationism. creationmuseum.org Click on concepts to see what they are planning on displaying. Del

To: Chris land who wrote (3847)	12/3/2000 12:19:02 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 28931

A theory created by who? This shows a complete ignorance of how science works. Scientific theories aren't created by individuals, they are initially conjectures and hypotheses, possibly by one person. This conjecture is analyzed by peer review and starts a process whereby the facts are attached to the skeleton of the theory. Those facts that don't stick are anomalous and put aside, not to be forgotten but to be brought up when the theory expands and evolves. The less of these a theory has, the better the theory. Creationist "science" seems to be completely unperturbed by the existence of such anomalies in their "theories". I quote this because they by-pass rigorous peer review and are arrested at the hypothesis stage. Anomalies are completely discarded or given explanations that aren't born out by data. The very existence of these anomalies forces a true theory to accommodate them. If I theorize that iron is both di- and tri-valent and recant, it doesn't change any of the facts that allow us to tell that iron has such behavior. My recantation is irrelevant to the facts and the theory. Evolution is itself evolving. Rather than viewing creation as a single moment, evolution (as we view it now) sees it as a continuous process with the gradual drift proposed by Darwin and radical evolutionary phases caused by environmental stressors. While Darwin's genetic drift does happen, it is not the primary evolutionary wedge creating speciation.