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: J. C. Dithers who wrote (93791)	1/17/2005 10:17:52 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

No. That was not my point. Obviously even though my point was stated, you did not get my point. My point was there are transitional fossils. What those transitional fossils mean, I cannot say with certainty- because I am not of the religion of evolution, I merely think it is an interesting theory. I understand that what you are looking for are facts to buttress your faith. I think that limits you. I just look at the facts and wonder about them- and consider the options. I now think you may not be able to understand that. So be it.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (93791)	1/17/2005 2:11:21 PM
From: Tom C	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

evidence now proves that evolution is a scientific fact and no longer merely a theory? I’ll try to make this one of my last posts on this subject or more realistically, one of my last today. ;-) Yes, there is a lot of debate in the scientific community. What else would you expect? I’m not sure what a “scientific” fact is. A fact is a fact, is a fact. Scientific theories are put forth to try to explain observable facts. At no time is any theory in any branch of science a fact. Einstein’s theory of relativity is not a fact, but it is accepted as useful until something else comes along that can better explain observable facts. You probably know this; a key element of the teaching of science is the scientific method. 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon. 2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. The problem I have with Creationism or Intelligent Design is that steps 3 and 4 above are skipped. Ergo, they are not science and should not be in a science class no matter how popular or the politics of the situation. Creationism and Intelligent Design are just theories. When you look at 1 and 2 above, they might seem to stack up fairly well against the theory of Evolution. If you look at 3 and 4 you’ll understand why they are not science. You can go on and on about disagreements between Evolutionary scientists, that’s science. It’s what makes science interesting. If you are so up on Creationist and Intelligent Design “science,” what do they predict we will find going forward? The most important part of a science class is teaching the method not the facts or the individual theory.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (93791)	1/18/2005 1:20:05 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Do you not know that the word "theory" in science does not mean that it is just some sort of a whim or idea? It is a scientific term. When creationists use this argument my eyes roll, really. Can you scientifically assert that creationism or intelligent design are anything more than theories, and religious theories at that, not scientific ones? And why did you ignore the post with so many transitional species listed? I am always suspicious in the middle of an argument when someone starts ignoring posts. It really makes the argument not worth having.