USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[walker 0]

Hi all

There is no creationist theory or hypothosis it is book the bible like harry potter.

Darwinism is a fact not a theory and if Jesus ever existed as anything more than a fictional character he is decended from monkey's fish and slugs just like the rest of us.

Kind regards Walker

[billybob2002 0]

Hi all

There is no creationist theory or hypothosis it is book the bible like harry potter.

Darwinism is a fact not a theory and if Jesus ever existed as anything more than a fictional character he is decended from monkey's fish and slugs just like the rest of us.

Kind regards Walker

Darwinism is an scientific theory not fact. Look in any modern science textbook to see that it is a theory, Walker. I see religion trying to pop-up again...

[harley 3 1185 0]

Darwinism is an accepted theory - accepted by a very large proportion of educated people.  However, there are those who CHOOSE to BELIEVE that Creationism is more acceptable than Darwinism.  That many people accept Darwinism is a sign of how many of us belive in Science.  That people believe in Creationism suggest they trust God more than science. .

[SPQR 0]

Quote[/b] ]

The rise in racist attacks a reality in France - statement made by Dominique de Villepin, Minister of interior (AFP)

Paris, August 27, 2004

French Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin has acknowledged that "the increase in racist and anti-Semitic acts is a reality in France" and called for increased security in an interview in Saturday's Le Monde.

The minister considers these facts require "heightened awareness and far-reaching action" based on a tougher criminal response, education of the very young and increased security.

To that end, he said, "Protection will be increased at sensitive places. For example, I want to encourage the installation of video surveillance systems, in liaison with the religious authorities."

The minister said the police had "recorded 160 violent anti-Semitic acts in the first seven months of this year compared with 75 in the corresponding period in 2003."

"Eleven of the 160 acts have been attributed to the far right, 50 were committed by individuals of Arab-Muslim descent and 99--i.e. the majority--took place for reasons that are unclear."

Referring implicitly to the vandalization of Jewish cemeteries in France in the past few months, Mr. de Villepin warned, "The risk of copycat action is undeniable. (...) Desecrations are increasing and affect all religions, Christians and Moslems. Islamophobic acts are multiplying dangerously."

The French Justice Ministry said Thursday that from January 1 to August 20, 2004, it had counted 298 judicial procedures for racist and anti-Semitic acts, including complaints filed directly with the courts.

I guess tolerance is alive and well in France...  

Quote[/b] ]Desecrations are increasing and affect all religions, Christians and Moslems. Islamophobic acts are multiplying dangerously

It's about fighting any racist crime, not only ones concerning french victim citizens of jewish religion.

And we haven't yet lynch or hang anybody yet.

Arrogant, I could add that we react faster than you should have 41 years ago....

Quote[/b] ]'Mississippi Burning' trial begins

Jury selection under way in 1964 murder case

PHILADELPHIA, Mississippi (CNN) -- Forty-one years after three civil rights workers were killed in rural Mississippi, jury selection began Monday in the murder trial of a Baptist preacher accused of instigating the crime.

Edgar Ray Killen walked free in 1967 after an all-white jury deadlocked, voting 11-1 in favor of his conviction for his role in the deaths of three young men who had come to Mississippi to register black voters.

The lone holdout said she could never convict a preacher.

Edgar Ray Killen is 80.

Monday, prosecutors summoned about 400 people to the courthouse in Philadelphia, Mississippi, to undergo questions as potential jurors in the case against 80-year-old Killen.

"This is a sad day for the state of Mississippi, after 40 years of moving forward, and going back and opening up an old crime like this," Killen's attorney, James McIntyre, said Monday. "The state of Mississippi needs to be going forward, not backwards."

The current murder charges followed an investigation -- prompted by the U.S. Attorney's office in Mississippi -- that ended last year, Neshoba County District Attorney Marc Duncan said Monday.

Duncan said prosecutors "presented all the evidence that we had in the case against anybody and everybody," to a grand jury, which had the option of indicting others in the case.

"After their deliberations, they decided to indict Mr. Killen and only Mr. Killen," he said. "That was a grand jury decision."

About the accusation

The case involves the 1964 deaths of two white New Yorkers, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, and James Chaney a black man from Meridian, Mississippi.

Schwerner, 24, Goodman, 20, and Chaney, 21, were participating in "Freedom Summer," when young people from around the country came to the South to register black voters.

On June 21, the men were driving on Mississippi back roads to investigate a torched church that was to have been home to a school.

The FBI says Ku Klux Klan members beat several church members then set the church afire, leaving it a charred ruin.

But before the three men reached the church, police arrested the men for speeding and tossed them into the Neshoba County Jail.

Prosecutors say that while the three were sitting in jail, a gang of about 20 Klan members put a plan in motion to kill them. Hours later, police released the civil rights workers, who drove away in their station wagon.

Two carloads of Klan members followed them, authorities said.

During the 1967 trial, former Ku Klux Klansman James Jordan testified that Killen told the men involved that deputies "had three of the civil rights workers locked up, and we had to hurry and get there and we were to pick them up and tear their butts up."

Authorities said that after a chase, the mob forced the civil rights workers off the road, grabbed them from their car and shot them dead at close range.

The men used a bulldozer to bury the bodies in an earthen dam.

After a 44-day search, FBI agents dug the bodies from under 15 feet of dirt.

The state never charged anyone with murder, and federal statutes against murder did not exist at the time.

Instead, the federal government tried 18 men, including Killen, on charges of conspiring to violate the civil rights of the victims.

Seven were convicted and served prison sentences of no more than six years. Eight were acquitted. Killen went free.

A frail Killen maintains his innocence.

Defendant accommodations

In March, Killen broke both legs in a tree-cutting accident. The judge has rejected a request that the trial be delayed, but has made provisions for the defendant to be made comfortable during the trial, which is expected to last about two weeks.

Civil rights activist Lawrence Guyot recently told CNN that the arrest of Killen made him "proud to be a Mississippian."

Guyot said he knew Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner and "almost got in the car with them" on that fateful night in June 1964. (Full story)

"It is never too late to do what is right," he said. "Justice delayed should not be justice denied."

The killings helped spur national support for the civil rights movement.

The investigation inspired the 1988 movie "Mississippi Burning," directed by Alan Parker, which was nominated for seven Academy Awards, including best picture.

In France, we are so intolerant, that we shouldn't have authorized "White Supremacist" mouvements like (with some extracts of their site) :

- Ku Klux Klan : "Welcome to the Ku Klux Klan! Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America! A Message of Love NOT Hate!"

- National Vanguard : "The new science of race", "Stop White Genocide", "A future for white children", "They don't deserve our help, no more help for Israel",...

to have freely a site on Internet, thank to a sanctified freedom of any speech (on the other side, I can tell tell them all the good I think about them)  

With Goggle, anybody can without any efforts find the E-adress of those mouvements' sites, I refuse to give...

-------------------

Well, Walker, billybob2002 is right, Darwinism is a theory, not a fact.

A theory built from observed facts and fossiles.

But Creationism would never be a theory, as it is not based on facts (or baised ones) but on beliefs.

In Science, first you have to gather facts and then you built a theory.

With zelots, first you have a dogma, than you look for facts, even if you have to biase them, in order to fuel your dogma.

It's like the Quram quantifying lightspeed and so on... Creationism, it's not related to Science.

Believing it as a theory is as stupid as secular people considering science as if it was a monolithic faith.

Science is the domain of doubts.

Religion is the domain of beliefs.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]In France, we are so intolerant, that we shouldn't have authorized "White Supremacist" mouvements like :

- Ku Klux Klan : Welcome to the Ku Klux Klan! Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America! A Message of Love NOT Hate!

- National Vanguard : "The new science of race", "Stop White Genocide", "A future for white children", "They don't deserve our help, no more help for Israel",...

to have freely a site on Internet, thank to a sanctified freedom of any speech (on the other side, I can tell tell them all the good I think about them)  

Somebody does not know the term, sarcasm. I though, , would had helped. You take cheap shots, I take cheap shots. Anyway, you see, there is this thing called the constitution that protects them (the groups named) like anybody else to a certain extend. You made hate them but they have "rights" like everybody else.  The KKK member has the same rights of a black person and the Nation of Islam member has the same right of a white person. The US govt. isn't authorizing any of those group. They are american, so, they have the same rights of other americans.

[Grim_Fandango 0]

Darwinism is an accepted theory - accepted by a very large proportion of educated people.  However, there are those who CHOOSE to BELIEVE that Creationism is more acceptable than Darwinism.  That many people accept Darwinism is a sign of how many of us belive in Science.  That people belive in Creationism suggest they trust God more than science. .

I totally agree, it's a bit hard to argue faith over science, since it is a purely subjective thing to believe in something.

I mean the Darwinists have a thousand skulls of our ape-like ancestors, the die-hard Christians have a 2000 year old book, the authenticity of which is yet to be decisively proven. I'm not gonna be the judge of what people believe in, but my own oppinion is that if you see it it's there, and if you don't, who cares. So I'll "believe" if God comes over for coffee some day, that's the least he could do.

On the topic of US politics, I think the values between Europe and the US are so conflicting that (at least) cultural alienation is absolutely unavoidable.

The US are prone to absolutist negotiations (with us or against us), where as Europe likes to find a solution to everything (perhaps naive), the US believes in free enterprise above all else, Europe believes in people above free enterprise, religion means alot in the US, science means more in Europe, and so the beat goes on...

(that's a generalisation, and there will always be different oppinions from different people, but those are general differences that I see in the US-Europe relations)

I'm not gonna pass judgement on Americans or their actions and their system, but I definetely like my home in Denmark a lot better.

[Crazysheep 1]

Darwinism is an scientific theory not fact. Look in any modern science textbook to see that it is a theory, Walker. I see religion trying to pop-up again...

Actually, that evolution happens IS a fact. It's been observed in many species, butterflies for example, so it's proven. The reason it's referred to as a theory is that it's a theory that evolution is where humans came from.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Actually, that evolution happens IS a fact. It's been observed in many species, butterflies for example, so it's proven. The reason it's referred to as a theory is that it's a theory that evolution is where humans came from.

Walker was talking Darwinism in reference to "human evolution", I think...

edit: oops...

[Sophion-Black 0]

The term "theory" is misunderstood by people. Any scientific hypothesis is a theory. The theory of gravity is a theory - a theory very well backed by empirical evidence - and so is evolution.

Creationism on the other hand has nothing to do with science and has no evidence to back it up.

As for the "people should have a choice", that may work in politics, but hardly science. 2+2 is always 4 - you don't have a choice to believe that it is 5. The theory that is "correct" is the one that is best supported by evidence - unless a new theory comes that has better backing by evidence.

The theory of evolution is not a theory, meaning speculation. It is a fact as much as the existence of gravity is.

i cometh with pistols blazing

Quote[/b] ]Websters Dictionary-second edition

a group of general propsitions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena 2. an explination whose status is still conjectural 4. a guess or conjecture.

I believe it is you have misunderstood what a theory is

What you are refering to is LAW

Quote[/b] ]Hi all

There is no creationist theory or hypothosis it is book the bible like harry potter.

Darwinism is a fact not a theory and if Jesus ever existed as anything more than a fictional character he is decended from monkey's fish and slugs just like the rest of us.

Kind regards Walker

FAITH WALKER. i believe you set up a whole world of attack on that one

I suggest we stop on the releion debate kids before this starts getting out of controll.

[miles teg 1]

Yeah enough of the country bashing. Fortunately all of America is not like the USAF Academy.

BillyBob is right, we do have quite a bit of freedom of speech. Sometimes maybe a little too much, but its always good to rock the boat a little.

The KKK these days are a tiny pitiful little organization. There are a few other ultra right wing Aryan nation groups that are more dangerous but still they are on the fringes of American society.

I 100% agree with SPQR about how science answers the how and religion answers the why.

In other words, for me at least, religion (at least my own spiritual beliefs that don't map on to any organized religion) tells me that there is a higher power behind all of this wonderful science and logic that we see in our universe and our own planet. So I'm quite comfortable believing in a creator and in believe that I do serve some purpose or purposes in this universe.

However I agree also that religion should not interfere with science unless science is trying to do something that will innocent harm human beings (like the technology of warfare and how to build a better WMD, or conducting unethical experiments on humans).

First and foremost religion should NEVER BE FORCED UPON OTHER PEOPLE period. These idiots that rant and rave about evolution mostly don't even understand the theory of evolution. I can't tell you how many times I've had to educate both Christians and Muslims about evolution.

But worse, they have the nerve to try and push for their religious beliefs to be published in books on science. All that is needed is just emphasis added that evolution is just a theory and the best theory that science has so far and that students are welcome to keep an open mind. Furthermore they should teach students opposed to evolution to try and refute the rock solid elements of evolutionary theory or to try and prove creationism using science. It is extremely difficult to refute the gradual changes in species seen in the fossil record or more importantly, genetic information showing the clear transitions and developments of species. They also have enormous trouble refuting all of the numerous methods of scientific dating. So if they believe so strongly then it should encourage them to learn even more about science rather believing in a blind literal interpretation of biblical scripture which they know NOTHING or very little about the origins of. The most helarious thing in the world is seeing a confrontation between a Christian fundamentalist and a Christian scholar who speeks ancient Hebrew and Aramaic and who has studied the earliest Christian texts and documents.

It's just pitiful listening to the arguements that Christian fundementalists use to justify their political beliefs...interpretations of scripture that are just pulled out of their ass the same as Islamic fundamentalists do.

But to listen to a true Christian scholar who is has studied the historical context, the original languages used in the religion, and who has analyzed the original texts....ah... now that is truly worth listening to if for anything, to understand the early culture of the religion. It is the same listening to very wise and well educated Islamic scholars. They are well trained in not only the science of the Hadiths and the Qu'ran but also in Islamic history and often in the theologies of other religions as well as in philosophy and in sciences.

The best religious scholars are also generally very humble and wonderful people who give very practical advice for how to be a more compassionate, loving, and socially responsible human being.

I really enjoy listening to those types of religious people.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Opting Out in the Debate on Evolution

By CORNELIA DEAN

Published: June 21, 2005

When the Kansas State Board of Education decided to hold hearings this spring on what the state's schoolchildren should be taught about evolution, Dr. Kenneth R. Miller was invited to testify. Lots of people thought he was a good choice to speak for science.

Dr. Miller is a professor of biology at Brown University, a co-author of widely used high school and college biology texts, an ardent advocate of the teaching of evolution - and a person of faith. In another of his books, "Finding Darwin's God," he not only outlines the scientific failings of creationism and its doctrinal cousin, "intelligent design," but also tells how he reconciles his faith in God with his faith in science.

But Dr. Miller declined to testify. And he was not alone. Mainstream scientists, even those who have long urged researchers to speak with a louder voice in public debates, stayed away from Kansas.

In general, they offered two reasons for the decision: that the outcome of the hearings was a foregone conclusion, and that participating in them would only strengthen the idea in some minds that there was a serious debate in science about the power of the theory of evolution.

"We on the science side of things strong-armed the Kansas hearings because we realized this was not a scientific exchange, it was a political show trial," said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, which promotes the teaching of evolution. "We are never going to solve it by throwing science at it."

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, a large organization of researchers and teachers, and the publisher of the journal Science, also declined to participate.

"If the evidence for modern Darwinian theory is so overwhelming, they should have called the bluff on the other side and come and made their arguments," said John West, a political scientist and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a research organization that supports work challenging the theory of evolution. "They should have put up or shut up."

Dr. West said that although most of the institute's resources support research on intelligent design, the theory that life on earth is far too complex to have evolved without the guidance of an intelligent agent, the organization does not advocate that students be required to learn it. Nor does it object to the teaching of evolution, he said.

"The majority of biologists obviously support Darwinian evolution in its full-fledged view," he said. "The question is, are there legitimate, peer-reviewed criticisms? If there are, students should know about them."

In theory, this position - "teach the controversy" - is one any scientist should support. But mainstream scientists say alternatives to evolution have repeatedly failed the tests of science, and the criticisms have been answered again and again. For scientists, there is no controversy.

Dr. Miller said he decided to stay away from the hearings because he was convinced that the panel would recommend a "teach the controversy" approach regardless of the testimony presented. "The people running things were people whose minds were already made up," Dr. Miller said in an interview in May, before the panel's recommendations were announced.

He said he had anticipated that "they would say, 'This is such a fascinating controversy that what we need to do is let the children of Kansas have the same benefit' " of learning about it.

When the hearings ended, the subcommittee running them concluded just that. The hearings had produced "credible scientific testimony that indeed there are significant debates about the evidence for key aspects of chemical and biological theory," the panel said, and it is "important and appropriate for students to know about these scientific debates."

Still, scientists who stayed away say they did the right thing.

Declining to testify "can be made to look as if you do not want to defend science in public, or you are too afraid to face the intelligent design people in public," Dr. Miller said.

But, he said, taking part in this kind of argument only contributes to the idea that there is something worth arguing about, and "I wasn't interested in playing a role in that."

Part 2

From part 2:

Quote[/b] ] Like other scientists, she said that if someone identified a flaw in evolutionary theory that could not be dealt with, science would have to modify the theory or even scrap it. But the criticisms raised have fallen in the face of scientific scrutiny, she and others say, yet opponents of evolution raise them again and again.

So a few years ago, she said, "even I threw in the towel."

"Our willingness to engage their ideas," she went on, "was not being reciprocated."

Quote[/b] ] It is not surprising that defenders of evolution are staying away from the hearings, he wrote, "since it's a debate that can't be won."

"After all, interpretations of Genesis are a matter of faith, not facts," he wrote. But faith and facts "should not be pitted against each other; the theory of evolution does not, in fact, conflict with the religious views of most Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu followers."

The one thing that keeps going through my mind when reading this is "We fear what we don't understand." It's like the fundies are afraid that if evolution is true, then God doesn't exist...that it is some kind of assualt on their core beliefs.

And on the topic of religion, how many christians have really thought about the inherent racism of the oath on the Bible. I honestly say I haven't (though I'm not Christian).

Quote[/b] ]Judges to consider Quran use for oaths

Islamic center's offer to donate books was denied in Greensboro

GREENSBORO

The state's judges will be asked this week to decide whether witnesses in North Carolina courtrooms can be sworn in on a Quran rather than a Bible.

The move comes after Guilford County judges rejected an offer last week by the Greensboro Islamic center to donate copies of the Quran, the Muslim holy book.

The Administrative Office of the Courts will ask the opinion of the state's judges when they meet this week at judicial conferences in Asheville and Wrightsville Beach, said Dick Ellis, a spokesman for the office.

"We'll take the input of the judges and bring it together and try to come up with an answer that pleases most people and follows the law," he said.

That move came after the office got queries on the issue last week.

In a preliminary opinion issued last week, a lawyer for the Administrative Office of the Courts said that state law allows people to be sworn in using a Quran rather than a Bible, Ellis said. But Guilford County judges told officials with the Islamic center Friday that they would not allow that in their courtrooms.

"An oath on the Quran is not a lawful oath under our law," W. Douglas Albright, Guilford's Senior Resident Superior Court judge, said earlier in the week.

That decision disappointed Syidah Mateen, who tried to donate the copies of the Quran.

"This is a diverse world, and everybody does not worship or believe the same," she said.

Ellis said he is not aware of anyone ever being allowed to swear on anything other than the Bible in a North Carolina courtroom.

Anyone who objects to that may take an oath, which means that they raise their hand and affirm to tell the truth.

[miles teg 1]

Animal Rights Extremism a Priority for FBI

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050621/ap_on_bi_ge/biotech_conference

Quote[/b] ]

PHILADELPHIA - Violence by environmental and animal rights extremists against U.S. drug makers has increased so much in recent years that it's currently the FBI's top domestic terrorism issue, a top agency official says.

"There has been an increase in the use of incendiary devices as well as explosive devices," said John Lewis, FBI deputy assistant director in charge of counterterrorism. "There's a very clear indication that there's no move to slow down or stop — in fact, just the opposite is true."

The agency has about 150 open cases of arson, bombings and other violent crimes associated with militant environmental and animal rights activists protesting the experimental use of animals in medical research, he said.

Lewis made the comments Monday in an address to some of the 18,000 biotechnology executives gathered here at the four-day Biotechnology Industry Organization's annual convention.

Some of the same groups associated with the wave of violent attacks on biotechnology companies said they planned demonstrations outside the convention center Tuesday.

Though the protesters vowed to be peaceful, convention organizers and Philadelphia police were taking no chances.

Security was high inside and outside the convention center. A helicopter hovered over the National Constitution Center on Sunday night while police on the ground formed a corridor through a small smattering of jeering demonstrators to ensure the conventioneers could arrive unmolested to a party inside.

Meanwhile, as the attacks nationwide increase along with hits to companies' bottom lines and worker morale, industry leaders and their crisis consultants are advocating a radical shift in strategy. They are beginning to fight back aggressively.

Chiron Corp. of Emeryville, Calif., which was bombed in 2003 and is still the subject of actions that include credit card fraud against some of its employees, won a restraining order in a California court against a group allegedly involved in much of the activity. The company also refused to renounce its ties to the protesters main target: Huntingdon Life Sciences, a Millstone, N.J. laboratory that does animal experiments for biotech and drug companies.

"We believe if we just kept our heads down, it would go away," said John Gallagher, director of Chiron's corporate communications. "That was unrealistic."

Gallagher said the attacks have cost Chiron at least $2.5 million, much of it associated with heightened security at public company events such as analyst meetings.

"That money would have been much better spent on drug development," Gallagher said.

The FBI is searching for the fugitive Daniel Andreas San Diego, who has been charged with the Chiron bombing and another at a Pleasanton, Calif. cosmetic maker. Neither bombing wrought serious damage or injuries.

San Diego has ties to several animal rights groups, including one called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, which is better known as SHAC.

SHAC and its adherents have waged a decade-long campaign against Huntingdon Life Sciences. Some of the tactics used against Huntingdon and the companies it contracts with include the vandalizing of executives' cars and houses, harassing employees and their families and the posting of personal information on public Web sites.

Six SHAC members face federal charges of conspiracy and interstate stalking that carry maximum penalties of between three and five years, plus fines up to $250,000. They are charged under the federal Animal Enterprise Protection Act, a 1992 law that was expanded in 2002 and equates their alleged activities with domestic terrorism.

A judge in Trenton, N.J., declared a mistrial in the case Monday after the lawyer for one of the defendants was too ill to continue with the trial. The case is not likely to come to trial before September, said Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Again, this proves my point of what I was saying a month or two ago about how the FBI has its priorities really screwed up.

Yeah these are criminals, but to make these guys a priority over Islamic extremists and right wing militia groups???

That's just nuts.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[denoir 0]

The term "theory" is misunderstood by people. Any scientific hypothesis is a theory. The theory of gravity is a theory - a theory very well backed by empirical evidence - and so is evolution.

Creationism on the other hand has nothing to do with science and has no evidence to back it up.

As for the "people should have a choice", that may work in politics, but hardly science. 2+2 is always 4 - you don't have a choice to believe that it is 5. The theory that is "correct" is the one that is best supported by evidence - unless a new theory comes that has better backing by evidence.

The theory of evolution is not a theory, meaning speculation. It is a fact as much as the existence of gravity is.

i cometh with pistols blazing

Quote[/b] ]Websters Dictionary-second edition

a group of general propsitions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena 2. an explination whose status is still conjectural 4. a guess or conjecture.

I believe it is you have misunderstood what a theory is  

What you are refering to is LAW

I really don't know why I bother but,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Quote[/b] ]

In the sciences, a theory is a model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon. Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method.

In physics, the term theory generally is taken to mean a mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. An example would be "electromagnetic theory", which is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism, the specific results of which can be derived from Maxwell's equations.

The term theoretical may be used to to describe a certain result that has been predicted by theory but has not yet been observed. For example, until recently, black holes were considered theoretical. It is not uncommon in the history of physics for theory to produce such predictions that are later confirmed by experiment, but failed predictions do occur. Conversely, at any time in the study of physics, there can also be confirmed experimental results which are not yet explained by theory.

For a given body of theory to be considered part of established knowledge, it is usually necessary for the theory to characterize a critical experiment, that is, an experimental result which cannot be predicted by any established theory.

Unfortunately, the usage of the term is muddled by cases such as string theory and "theories of everything," each probably better characterized at present as a bundle of competing hypotheses for a protoscience. A hypothesis, however, is still vastly more reliable than a conjecture, which is at best an untested guess consistent with selected data, and is often a belief based on non-repeatable experiments, anecdotes, popular opinion, "wisdom of the ancients," commercial motivation, or mysticism.

Other claims such as Intelligent Design and homeopathy are not scientific theories, but pseudoscience.

[edit]

Models

Humans construct theories in order to explain, predict and master phenomena (e.g. inanimate things, events, or the behaviour of animals). In many instances, it is seen to be a model of reality. A theory makes generalizations about observations and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas.

A theory has to be something which is in some way testable; for example, one can theorize that an apple will fall when dropped, and then drop an apple, to see what happens. Many scientists argue that religious beliefs are not testable, and thus not theories, because they are matters of faith.

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state..."Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

[edit]

Types

There are two uses of the word theory; a supposition which is not backed by observation is known as a conjecture, and if backed by observation it is a hypothesis. Most theory evolves from hypotheses, but the reverse is not true: many hypotheses turn out to be false and so do not evolve into theory.

A theory is different from a theorem. The former is a model of physical events and cannot be proved from basic axioms. The latter is a statement of mathematical fact which logically follows from a set of axioms. A theory is also different from a physical law in that the former is a model of reality whereas the latter is a statement of what has been observed.

Theories can become accepted if they are able to make correct predictions and avoid incorrect ones. Theories which are simpler, and more mathematically elegant, tend to be accepted over theories which are complex. Theories are more likely to be accepted if they connect a wide range of phenomena. The process of accepting theories, or of extending existing theory, is part of the scientific method.

[edit]

Further explanation of a scientific theory

In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or much of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.

Theories start out with empirical observations such as “sometimes water turns into ice.†At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations.

Some examples of theories that have been disproved are Lamarckism and the geocentric universe theory. Sufficient evidence has been described to declare these theories false, as they have no evidence supporting them and better explanations have taken their place.

[edit]

Characteristics

There is sometimes confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,

2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,

3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,

4. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and

5. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.

This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics (with minimal interpretation), plate tectonics, evolution, etc.

Read the link for better formatting.

Or if you wish to read a single line, do it here:

http://www.answers.com/topic/theory

Read them both, it might be educational for you. I am a bit surprised though that you haven't been taught the basics of the scientific method in school. I guess that also comes from a strong religious lobby

[harley 3 1185 0]

As U.S. Politics go, would somebody please give me a valid reason why President Bush and many members of the Congress who support him seem to have a vendetta against Amtrak?

Courtesy of CNN, I have the figures for FY06; Amtrak will recieve 1.2 billion dollars. To say this chicken-feed is an understatement. This means the company can barely keep the trains running and upgrade emergency problems; let alone increase service, upgrade the fleet, increase passenger volume. Bush is hell bent on forcing Amtrak into the arms of the states and out of the Federal Budget.

Amtrak has stated that $1.8 bn is the necessary amount, yet this has fallen on deaf ears.

To put this piddling amount into perspective, $45 bn will finance the war in Iraq in FY06, and for the next 6 years the Highway system will recieve $290 bn.

Amtrak had appealed to Congress for 12 billion dollars over the next 6 years, which now seems very unlikely.

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta once went on record for the President to say that he (the President) "wanted Amtrak to be state funded as the highway system is" (ie. through State Sales Tax on Gas). If Bushy boy had actually done this, Amtrak would be getting in the area of 40 billion dollars a year now. That the Transportation Secretary doesn't know how his programs are funded is a wee bit daft, wouldn't you say?

[Akira 0]

Well, I certainly don't know all the particulars, but I can say that Amtrak is somewhat of an anamoly in this day and age. Amtrak tickets are far more expensive than plane tickets. The US is not so dependant (or used to?) trains like Europe is, where it is a common public transport.

[EiZei 0]

Well, why throw away money for the blue-stater's needs..

[Akira 0]

Well, why throw away money for the blue-stater's needs..

Not quite sure what you mean there...

[harley 3 1185 0]

Well, the North East Corridor is located in "Blue Territory". But ridership on Amtrak has consistently been rising for the past 5 years, whilst for varying reasons, air travel has slowed down. If capacity is increased, it will most likely be filled. It's also a greener alternative than flying, so even the eco-friendlies (of whom there are many) will take the train.

I will concede, that in some places it's rather a moot point. Where abouts in Texas are you, Akira?

[Akira 0]

The thing is, people forget Amtrak spans the country. Definitly it has uses in the eastern Super-City corridor, but does it need to have a route from San Antonio to Chicago? Or from SA to DC? Trimming the fat would be somewhat of a wise course in my view. One can ride SA to Chicago for $200. You can also fly there and get there a lot quicker which is what most people are interested in.

I personally would love to take a train trip before it disappears.

[harley 3 1185 0]

From reading a great many Rail Road magazines, and Amtrak testimonials, the only reason that Amtrak has to cut down on long-haul (SA to Chicago for instance) trains is either because they cannot afford to keep them running as TBA squeezes the budget, or that the right of way cannot be negotiated; ie. the mega rail carriers UP, NS and BNSF can't spare space on the track as their orderbooks continue to fill and fill and fill.

Of course, seeing as pretty much every passenger railway in the world operates on some kind of subsidy, the question with Amtrak is how self-sufficient should it be? TBA wants it entirely self sufficient within a couple of years, and this would mean a massive loss of service at a time when rail ridership grows. Where's the logic in that?

[SPQR 0]

billybob2002

Quote[/b] ]Somebody does not know the term, sarcasm. I though, , would had helped. You take cheap shots, I take cheap shots. Anyway, you see, there is this thing called the constitution that protects them (the groups named) like anybody else to a certain extend. You made hate them but they have "rights" like everybody else. The KKK member has the same rights of a black person and the Nation of Islam member has the same right of a white person. The US govt. isn't authorizing any of those group. They are american, so, they have the same rights of other americans.

I guess, whichever the country, there's always many corpses in everybody's cupboard

As a matter of fact, in France too, some criminals were prosecuted very lately. I'm thinking about Maurice Papon, prefect at Bordeaux (my town) for the Vichy government during WW2, for having collaborated with the nazi regime, helping them zealously in deporting french jews. Long story, not the place to talk about it. Just to tell that he was cought up with History.

In France, the first law of the Human rights tells that all men and women are equals. So any mouvement, party, association preaching racial superiority, racism, violence... and so on are illegal. Otherwise, freedom of speech is protected by the Law.

As conclusion, Freedom of speech is one of the greatest inventions of Humanity, a precious gift protected and cherished by Americans, as well as Europeans and others, a gift many people in the world, sadly, don't have. We can have many disagreements, and fight hard for our opinions, but in the end, we stay united against those who would like to terrorize us and to shut our mouths up (except of course, morons of any side ).

Sophion-Black, when some claimed to draw their gun when hearing the world "Culture", others draw theirs when they hear the word "Science"...

Miles Teg

Quote[/b] ]The best religious scholars are also generally very humble and wonderful people who give very practical advice for how to be a more compassionate, loving, and socially responsible human being.

I really enjoy listening to those types of religious people.

This is the kind of person I always listen carefully, with a lot of pleasure, as they really bring us a worthy message.

Currently, I'm thinking about Malek Chebel, a secular scholar and pious muslim, whose texts about Islam, its History, its "Grandeur" are really passionnating. I would give my life for such men

Akira

Quote[/b] ]Judges to consider Quran use for oaths

Islamic center's offer to donate books was denied in Greensboro

First, I thought it was a good idea, as it is more respectfull about the variety of religions.

However, after a bit of thinking, I think it brings a problem : you'll have to possess each exemple of sacred book. And for unbelivers, what could you do ?

Did the use of the bible started with the first wave of colonization ? As they were all protestants, or christians later, the problem didn't exist.

Currently, many faiths exist in the USA. In order to respect all beliefs, maybe the Bible should be replaced by a more secular but also very important, sacred-like text as your Constitution ?

[Sophion-Black 0]

EDIT: nevermind, i was half right. LAW IS ALWAYS TRUE, that is why its not a LAW.

THIS set me stright

[Akira 0]

EDIT: nevermind, i was half right. LAW IS ALWAYS TRUE, that is why its not a LAW.

THIS set me stright

Did ya see this part?

Quote[/b] ]Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Akira

Quote

Judges to consider Quran use for oaths

Islamic center's offer to donate books was denied in Greensboro

First, I thought it was a good idea, as it is more respectfull about the variety of religions.

However, after a bit of thinking, I think it brings a problem : you'll have to possess each exemple of sacred book. And for unbelivers, what could you do ?

Did the use of the bible started with the first wave of colonization ? As they were all protestants, or christians later, the problem didn't exist.

Currently, many faiths exist in the USA. In order to respect all beliefs, maybe the Bible should be replaced by a more secular but also very important, sacred-like text as your Constitution ?

That is certianly possible. A more non-secular oath for atheists is needed, but for religious people, there is no higher oath than swearing on your book of faith. Over all I don't think it would be that expensive to furnish the needed sacred texts (especially if a group offers to donate them!, and would be a site more "multi-cultural" that assuming every person holds the Bible as "an ultimate truth."

[miles teg 1]

I agree Akira. But, the judge has a point about the legal issues. A secular oath swearing with the right hand held up or a religious oath, swearing upon the bible, are the only two oaths that "legally" can be upheld in court. If someone swore an oath on the Qu'ran, believe it or not, some lawyer for a defense team or even a prosecution could legally say that the testimony does not count because it was not sworn in one of the two ways permissible under the law. It would likely require a supreme court ruling to change that or a change in federal and state laws by state legislatures. But because of the power of Christian fundamentalists, especially in the Southern States, and because of the general hostility towards Islam in the United States, very few politicians would be willing to tackle such an unpopular clause as their political opponents would quickly cast them as being "anti-Christian".

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>