If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Here's the results of a study (at 19:45 min.) in the video. Feel free to watch the whole movie if you never watched it, it is very interesting.
The chart has been proved wrong. The author of the chart (his name is on the chart) when he saw this movie made many official protests since the data used was not real data but a simple creation.
Carl
Last edited by Carl Bilodeau; Monday, 12th October, 2009, 12:17 PM.
5) Journalists are always trying to get a balanced story with both sides, but for science issues that can distort the scientifically accepted viewpoint. For example, if every story on evolution (for example the recent story of Ardipithecus) had a "balance" and included the viewpoint of a creationist that would mislead the public.
LOL journalists are the WORST offenders when it comes to activism and slanting a story... remember it is their job to sell papers (or get viewers) and the more extreme and sensationalistic the headline the better they sell...
media slant has been known for a long time
"I do not chance to know an editor in the country who will deliberately print any thing which he knows will ultimately and permanently reduce the number of his subscribers. They do not believe that it would be expedient. How then can they print the truth?" - Henry David Thoreau
I personally have experience with media outright lying when they quote someone... the last people I would believe is the media.
I recall being surprised by the results of an interview, with a local newspaper reporter, that I had when I was a junior many years ago.
Btw if Paul is interested he might sometime debate the THEORY of evolution with a fellow at the RA chess club here in Ottawa (with initials A.D., ironically) who has a PhD, but doesn't side with the scientific community.
Science is the modern religion.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
I am a firm believer in climate change... I looked out my kitchen window this morning and saw the first snowfall of the year in my yard... dammit! now I have to rush and get snow tires on... now if the climate would change here so I get less snow I would be much happier. Since I moved to the thriving metropolis of Salmon Arm, it has NEVER snowed until early November... not a good sign.
Btw if Paul is interested he might sometime debate the THEORY of evolution with a fellow at the RA chess club here in Ottawa (with initials A.D., ironically) who has a PhD, but doesn't side with the scientific community.
Science is the modern religion.
Is the discovery of Lucy and the suggestion Apes are descended from Man part of the argument?
It would be an argument for creationism over evolution, like in the bible.
Not quite true... in Genesis animals were created before man... actually if you read the first chapters of genesis that describe the creation they actually match up the 'eras' in evolutionary time... What I tend to say to people who are adamant '7 literal days' of creation is that God describes himself 'outside' of time when he says 'a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day'... so if says that God took one day how can anyone say that it was a literal 24 hours? I have yet to get an intelligent response to this... and thats just scratching the surface... start looking into theoretical physics and you discover that time is not a static constant :) The problem with these so called 'fundamentalists' is that they don't actually read their bible for themselves... they let their leadership interpret the little they do read and blindly follow what some leader feels is good dogma...
Not quite true... in Genesis animals were created before man... actually if you read the first chapters of genesis that describe the creation they actually match up the 'eras' in evolutionary time...
I simply asked if the discovery was being used as part of the argument for creationism. I didn't give an opinion and suspect further discoveries will be made as the years go by.
The program I watched suggested apes evolved from man.
I know what you mean about checking out a gym. I got a laugh as it reminds me of someone. :)
I simply asked if the discovery was being used as part of the argument for creationism. I didn't give an opinion and suspect further discoveries will be made as the years go by.
The program I watched suggested apes evolved from man.
I know what you mean about checking out a gym. I got a laugh as it reminds me of someone. :)
Thats the problem these days... gullible people watch these 'programs' and automatically take what they say as the truth. Very little that I read/watch do I take at face value... thats one of the reasons why I don't like groups like Greenpeace... they throw around statements but even a remote questioning of these statements is seen as heretical... I tend to listen to those people who not only make statements but can show the data to back up their arguments :) This goes for any topic, be that climate change or religion... In university and at BCIT I was not a 'popular' student with the teachers/profs because I questioned them on the validity of their statements. Socrates would be ashamed at academia today...
I would love to debate the rock solid theory of evolution. Does anybody want to also debate the idea that smoking causes cancer? How about the theory that atoms are composed of electrons and protons and neutrons?
I think that technology is the modern religion, not science. Don't forget that the Bush administration did not believe in science. People like Carl think that technology can solve every problem...
I would love to debate the rock solid theory of evolution. Does anybody want to also debate the idea that smoking causes cancer? How about the theory that atoms are composed of electrons and protons and neutrons?
I think that technology is the modern religion, not science. Don't forget that the Bush administration did not believe in science. People like Carl think that technology can solve every problem...
There are many scientific laws or theories that I myself wouldn't have trouble accepting, at least until I see new conflicting data, speaking purely from a scientific point of view. Science must always be open to changing its conclusions. I would also change my mind about such laws/theories if I'd witnessed one or more personally convincing miracles (actually has occured, although I could not prove it to anyone else, as I have written on chesstalk in the past).
Science is indeed like a religion in that when it comes to the creation of the universe, or the whole notion of a creator, the default position for many scientifically minded people is aetheistic. The correct position for a scientifically minded person, as was pointed out to me in school, actually should be to be agnostic, if only science is to be considered. That is, there is no evidence for miracles or a creator that can be reproduced at will in an experiment, so this falls outside the scope of science.
Alas, 'sciencific aetheism' insists on getting the final say with everything, e.g. trying to prove that near-death experiences can be explained as a physical manifestation of the brain. I do have sympathy for aethists and agnostics, having been each of these myself in the past. However the former is a more of a belief/'faith' system than the latter.
Certainly, as you say, technology can be like a religion to many people as well. It is a product of science, however, so saying science is the modern religion is valid even taking just technology into account.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
In my previous post I indicated that, because of personal experience, I am convinced that there is a creator.
I have no trouble theorizing that He may prefer to intervene as little as necessary in the world, so that sound scientific laws normally rule and proceed like clockwork. However, sometimes extraordinary coinincidences are, perhaps, actually a type of miracle that goes unnoticed.
It may surprise you that I am somewhat open minded about evolution. Based on my own experience I have serious doubts that the scriptures have always been translated or compiled accurately (either accidentally, or otherwise). The Dead Sea Scrolls are one example of differing ancient texts. For a practical example of what I mean, I have definite memories of a past life, something that would normally be considered heretical. It is my understanding that to improve themselves, or possibly affect the world for the better, people might live another life again sometimes.
It is written that 'all things are possible', so my story may not be, in the end, completely unacceptable for people who still would take the scriptures as they are at present.
One televangelist I happened to watch one day claimed that he believed the world had existed for billions of years, then was suddenly 'remade', and then Adam and Eve, etc. all began (though he still didn't believe in evolution). So, you see, there is ample room for interpretation, whether correct or not. Jason gave you one other opinion on the matter earlier.
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
Tweet
I guess apes could be descended from man... just check out any gym :D
Comment