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: maceng2 who wrote (24555)	7/24/2006 10:27:11 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

it's amazing how much a wrong theory can be held on to, if a scientist decides to dig his hills in on a specific dogma (theory). One of the more interesting scientists was Lord Kelvin. He made important studies on electricity and thermodynamics. He made a study of the temperature of the earth and based on sunlight and radiation (the same kind of calculations that are done for global warming now) he was able to determine how long it took for the earth to cool from a molten blob to the form we find today. The age of the earth from his calculation was no more than 100 million years. This didn't seem to be enough time to fit the new theory of natural selection by Darwin. Both Charles Darwin and Lord Kelvin insisted that there must be something wrong in the other's theory, but neither could identify an error. With the discovery of radiation, and the studies of the energy potential of uranium ores by Marie Curie it became clear that the temperature of the earth did not rely solely on sunlight, and therefore the earth could remain full of lava much longer than Lord Kelvin surmised. Lord Kelvin did dig in his hills, but that did not stop the scientific community from making great discoveries in the ensuing years. TP

To: maceng2 who wrote (24555)	7/24/2006 9:57:10 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 28931

<However, it's amazing how much a wrong theory can be held on to, if a scientist decides to dig his hills in on a specific dogma (theory). . What some people don't understand is that it is THE PERSON that get's attached to things, be it religion, or some scientific idea... or for that matter hating religion, or hating some scientic idea. Now it seems to me (JMO) that folks that tend to be quite serious about getting attached to things tend more towards severe religions and wacky cults... BUT that certainly doesn't mean the same thing doesn't happen in ALL areas of life to some extent. Science is no exception... there is all sorts of 'laughable' science out there. DAK