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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (93574)	1/13/2005 4:56:09 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 108807

"Has Science Discovered God?" abcnews.go.com

To: epicure who wrote (93574)	1/13/2005 5:08:21 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I imagine the two lines of scientists, peer-ranked Geologists and Evolutionary Biologists, lining up Pro-evolution and Anti-evolution. One line is considerably shorter than the other. I posted on the topic of democracy, the majority by historical precedent is usually wrong on matters of great import, but it is a little different in science. Einstein and the Wright brothers "proved everyone wrong" in very different ways. Einstein's proof required very careful observations of minute or very large phenomena, and not that for most purposes Newtonian Physics was "wrong", just that it was incomplete. But others had already figured out that there were problems with some kinds of experiments. The Wright Bros. OTOH, proved people wrong practically. Now if you consider the state of engineering in 1900 or so, it was many, many years behind the theoretical physics (and most engineers were not physicists). Physics had a hard time with POWERED flight, not so much because they thought it was not possible, because clearly, birds flew. What they doubted was the ability of people to create powerplants that were sufficiently powerful and airframes sufficiently strong to produce a higher lift and thrust than the drag and mass produced by such a large structure. People had been flying balloons since the mid 1700's on the Jardin de Tuileries. And gliders had been around for a long time, possibly before that. What was doubted (for good reason) was the ability of PEOPLE to build such structures. The issue was one largely of engineering and not one of fundamental theory. Everyone agreed that IN THEORY flight was possible, just like IN THEORY I could transport myself through a Black Hole. Most scientists today would say that as a practical matter that is impossible. But there can be breakthroughs.

To: epicure who wrote (93574)	1/13/2005 6:24:00 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I have seen transitional fossil species So are still alive. Others are forming as we speak. Others, poor things, are dead.

To: epicure who wrote (93574)	1/13/2005 11:27:55 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 108807

I don't blame you for trying to defend your theory by putting me down in a personal manner. Nor do I blame you for insinuating that I lack the knowledge to appreciate your superior wisdom on the subject, so that it is not worth your effort to try. I do not mind because these are common refuge ploys when one is arguing from weak ground. Darwin himself acknowledged that the absence of transitional fossils was the strongest argument against his theory, and expressed hope that they would one day be found (they have not). Evolutionists admit this, and now have developed a theory that animals and plants evolved suddenly in small, isolated populations without gradualism or transitional stages, while the larger populations remained static. With all your knowledge, you must surely be aware of this newer track. All of this is reminiscent of the crisis in astronomy in Galileo's time. The more anomalies that occurred to refute the earth as the center of the universe, the more the astronomical establishment concocted "patch" theories to explain away the anomalies. Patches were applied upon patches until eventually the accepted paradigm system collapsed under its own contrived weight. If you claim to have seen "transitional fossils" than I doubt you are clear on what the term means, such as a creature with part fins and incomplete legs, as well as some proportions of gills and lungs as a transitional stage of fish to amphibian. If you can get your hands on a specimen of that type, put it up on Ebay -- you'll make a fortune.