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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: briskit who wrote (129618)	8/3/2005 8:03:09 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793824

Let science consider data and various theoretical understandings. All scientific theories have "gaps" in them. It's the nature of the beast. Earth circling the Sun was a huge jump. It was another huge jump to change that circle to an elliptical orbit. Right now we have a huge hole in classical Physics between "Macro" and Micro." Quantrum Physics seems to be nutty. If we went the route of "ID," we would say that "God" did it this way, and we can't know more. The obvious answer would be to privatize the school system and let people teach what they want. But this is not going to happen. When I look at the brainwashing that is going on in the religious polygamy schools in Colorado and the Muslim Madrasses, I don't think I would want it to happen.

To: briskit who wrote (129618)	8/3/2005 8:08:43 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793824

Isn't it possible to have a debate about evolution using the current scientific literature pointing out the difficulties with evolution, without making it about "creationism and fundamentalists"?...Nonetheless, there is a significant body of literature discussing problems with certain aspects evolution, or am I wrong? There are, indeed, questions about certain aspects of evolution but there is no debate that the earth is more than a few thousand years old. The political issues derives from fundamentalists objecting to the long timeline of evolution and pushing creationism as the scientific alternative, therefore, the political issue is about "creationism and fundamentalists." Were this not a political issue for fundamentalists we would be left with a healthy scientific discussion among scientists of the nooks and crannies of evolution in the labs and academia and political discussions here about other issues.

To: briskit who wrote (129618)	8/3/2005 10:57:23 PM
From: haqihana	Respond to of 793824

briskit, In the argument between evolution, and ID, just look at Australia. The animals there are kin to those on mainlands, but look completely different. That is explained by the continental shifts that have gone on for millions of years, and are still happening today. The animals on Australia were free of the elements on the mainland to be like them, and evolved in a way that suited their environment.

To: briskit who wrote (129618)	8/4/2005 1:06:12 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793824

The present day consensus is that the Universe is something like 14 billion years old, the Earth is something like 4 1/2 billion years old, and life on Earth has been around for maybe 3 1/2 billion, maybe 4 billion years. But just today I was reading arguments against the Big Bang theory. The really neat thing about science and scientists is that they admit that they don't have all the answers. If you're satisfied with that, you're probably not a 6-day-Creationist.

To: briskit who wrote (129618)	8/4/2005 1:40:14 AM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 793824

Nonetheless, there is a significant body of literature discussing problems with certain aspects evolution, or am I wrong? That's what is misunderstood about evolution as a scientific concept. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution, that is - the explanation of how evolution works - is subject to experimental verification and revision. Copernicus observed, as a fact, that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Just because he didn't know Newtonian physics doesn't mean the Copernican Theory was false because the explanation of how it worked changed over time. Derek