Last message on previous page:

I wouldn't use wikipedia as a reliable source either. It's abounding with certain info, but certainly doesn't have it all. It's not edited well, nor is it always correct.

Oops, you guys already said that. Well, I concur captain.

I wouldn't use wikipedia as a reliable source either. It's abounding with certain info, but certainly doesn't have it all. It's not edited well, nor is it always correct.

Wiki does seem to be steadily improving. Some topics are pretty hilarious, so it's sort of like pulling the handle of a Vegas slot. BUT: when you find an error, report it with an appropriate reference. Be a part of the solution.

Wikipedia and google and McDonnalds are joining forces to become the largest ....

I wouldn't use wikipedia as a reliable source either. It's abounding with certain info, but certainly doesn't have it all. It's not edited well, nor is it always correct.

Wiki does seem to be steadily improving. Some topics are pretty hilarious, so it's sort of like pulling the handle of a Vegas slot. BUT: when you find an error, report it with an appropriate reference. Be a part of the solution.

Naw, no matter what it will always have incorrect info. I'd rather a site be properly done from the start and be overseen by a large unbiased organization. We need a world online encyclopedia that is securely stored on multiple servers around the globe, AND in space. :-) Wouldn't it be great if we could backup our data on say...the moon or something with a beacon that could be found by future races? What better way to tell HC2 (Human civilization 2) four hundred million years from now, our story?

Meanwhile, everyone read this:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/har [...] 17#1396617
and add a post!

That's hilarious. I've been to technical meetings hosted by the ACS, AMA, you name it. You know what? Top researchers have plenty do disagree about. That's what science ia all about - conflict resolution, corroboration, etc. So if you can't get experts to agree about highly specific topics like string theory or the work function of nanowhiskers, then where in this universe are you going to find an "unbiased organization" to administer something as broad as an encyclopedia?

Science is fact. They might be disagreeing about superman and his flying abilities maybe.

Hate to open up Pandora's box here, but what about evolution? That's "science". Science that doesn't actually follow any scientific rules, but gives a basis to scientists to put an "age" on something that really doesn't have to pass any stringent tests to be considered "fact".

You know, for carbon dating to be correct, the object being "dated" has to be older than is measurable by any other means, and if the age is actually known, carbon dating is known to be consistently off by hundreds of thousands of years.

Sounds like psudoscience to me...

Oh man this is going to be a long convo about what is fact and what isnt.


I dont have the energy yet... I will respond after lunch.

Evolution has never been considered scientific fact. It is just a theory, like every other major scientific concept. One day, it may well be disproven (sp?). However, at the moment it has such a vast body of supporting data behind it collected over the past couple hundred years, that it seems unlikely to ever be found incorrect. Added to that is the fact that there is no other viable SCIENTIFICALLY TESTABLE theory for determining the "origin of species".

I would like to see the "scientifically tested" part of evolution, beyond that of the micro adaptations that happen within species, such as the ability to go from fresh to salt to freshwater over and over again. I would like to see scientific proof that anything can change species and actually survive longer than one generation.

If you want to say it hasn't been considered scientific fact, go to a college campus (where evolution is taught) and talk to some of the professors around. In most cases, you will find that the scientific community operates as though it were fact.

The fact that it can't be disproven doesn't make it the only one around. In fact, the fact that it can't be unequivocally proven in the first place makes it much harder to believe.

The fact that any debate about evolution turns into a theological debate eventually, means that it is more of a theology than anything based on science. The whole root of this issue is due to people's unwillingness to acknowledge that they have something to be accountable besides themselves or other humans. There is a huge denial in the world about how there might be something just a little more important than that which exists in the physical world.

And so stems the far-reaching, somewhat logical, and completely unproven theory of evolution. The theory of evolution, changing even at this moment, is something completely out of the minds of people who want to believe something, ANYTHING, that doesn't make them think their actions might be intrinsically wrong sometimes.

Refute me with your "scientific evidence".

As a lover of science and an apathetic ignorer of theology, let me just say one thing. No scientist worth a 100th their weight in dog feces ever considers anything absolutely proven, or fact. If they do, they aren't engaging in science anymore.

There is always the "Blind Watchmaker" explanation. But thats as far as I'm willing to go in this discussion. Arguing the point here is just about useless to be frank. Just about everyone here already has their minds made up and most likely are firmly entrenched in their core beliefs, for or against. Then again, I'd like to see how this debate turns out anyways. We have a lot of great minds here. Its good to push them a bit now and then, eh?

If it is only proven by a large stretch of the imagination is it proven? I would like to see ONE instance of Macro-evolution. I want to see how one species somehow translated into another species. I also want to know how, if the theory of survival of the fittest is correct, one species that changes to survive can have another part of the species continue on mostly unchanged. This would defeat the thought of the survival of the fittest, as the less-fit species would completely die out (not being the fittest) and be no more.

If anyone could show me a real record of that sort of a change, that would prove it enough for me.


Sorry about the rant on evolution. Its just one of those things that really gets my goat. I understand that this is a hardware forum and not some place that deals with deeper theological debates than "how does one choose the 'best' processor?" I guess my debating spirit gets the best of me sometimes and I just have to go off on something. This subject is one that my friends hear a lot about from me. Sorry to bring you guys in on that.

But my challenge still stands: Disprove me.

@Ninja:
Your points are both valid, and I agree with you on both.

You and I have similar views on the matter. This discussion should go on in my humble opinion, besides, if the mods take exception, I'll take responsibility for it. Stranger things have been talked about here.