No matter what argument you put forward, the GS always have a retort, usually in the most simple of forms, "it just is". It's just a creation of man, simple as that. And as for asking for proof that he doesn't exist? Give me a break. There are some true nut cases on this forum, grow up and stop believing in fairy tales.
it is already a hard time understanding that silver will go up, come on - give it up already ... YET the price headed lower = more bargains. its is totally different level of understanding to understand something that could not be understood by our so call big brain what anybody think may not be relevant here. "but read..> "nothing will be restrained from them, little humans, oh created in the image of the creator" it will be a lot more convenient to have god like level of understanding, so we do not need to ask.
Perhaps it is you who misunderstands the word theory in a scientific context. I have borrowed the following explanations to assist with the proper understanding of this term so as not to use it so incorrectly Gravity is 'only' a theory, but I'm pretty sure its working. Creationists and religious groups have been bastardising the meaning of this word in an attempt to prop up their own unsupported arguments. Please read the following and have a true understanding of the word within this context. "Theory" in the scientific sense means "explanation". In the sort of hierarchy of scientific ideas, facts are the lowest. A fact just means a confirmed observation, it doesn't tell you anything more than that. It's just a piece of data. What a theory does is take all of the data and put it in a frame work that explains WHY this stuff happens. Stuff falls to the ground because of gravity, but what is gravity? That is explained by Einstein's theory of general relativity. That's the theory. And it's a not a guess, in order to qualify as a scientific theory it has to be tested over and over again and it must pass every one. This is what scientists mean when they say "theory" it's an explanatory framework. For example atoms are a theory because atomic theory explains hundreds of thousands if not millions of facts. Germs causing disease is a theory. Theories in science are unifying explanations. In short, it's an explanation of observed phenomena that is supported by evidence. Yes, there's a theory of gravity. Gravity is an observed fact (things fall to the earth is one of its observed properties). The mathematical formula that gives the *rate* at which things fall is the "Law of Gravity." It's only a mathematical formula, nothing else. The explanation for how gravity works (which currently is an updated version of General Relativity, that matter curves space-time) is the theory of gravity. It is shown correct by massive amounts of evidence. The theory will never be a "law," no matter how proven correct it is (and it is). A theory in a scientific sense means that you have a hypothesis that is supported by facts. "Creationism" is simply a hypothesis, it has no facts.
:lol: you're funny, you dont even understand the process of learning, you state your ideas, and based on new information from people you either change or you hold your ground depending on how good the new information actually is. I know you have trouble with that, but thats ok if it sounds clever to you or you think im trying to sound clever maybe your just too dumb :lol: Good job just taking pot shots once others have answered tho To Mitchell & DirtBikePilot, You are right in terms of the definitions and i admit that I recall my physics professors saying that hypothesis becomes theory (after the hypothesis is proven correct time and time again, which is correctly what i thought) and theory becomes fact (which is what i thought incorrectly) BUT i just re-read the definitions from a google search and they can't have said that cause as you pointed out Dirtbikepilot , facts are observables or the core predicates of which theories are based on (If you dont use terms for a while they do tend to get messed up) . One of the reasons why I made this confusion is because I dont deal much with theories. I deal with numbers (not exclusively in the science realm) where initially we form a hypothesis, then it becomes a stronger more provable result (similar to a theory) and eventually its a fact (within our given system). Strictly speaking though in the scientific context what i said initially was wrong. Though in my context its a little more loose. Mitchell, love the post mate, and truth be told i have gone through the same thoughts that you posted but when you deal with logic then nothing works you can never prove the existence of god and I get that In reality I have learnt to silo how i think (cause that works for me), it may not for everyone but it does for me. When i need to deal with work and its numbers, equations and logic then i turn that part of my brain on. When someone is sick or something good has happened then I pray and thank god. Either way this world is not black or white, there are shades of grey and logic deals only with boolean values, nothing in between. Call it a cop out but I do what feels good, I feel good knowing there is someone watching me and there is a place to go after I die based on what I do in life, yet at the same time i also feel things need to be logically correct otherwise they are totally incorrect. Opposing thoughts right ?! Go figure, they are opposing thoughts but I just deal with it ... Its faith, what can you do
Plenty of low-hanging fruit left to pick. Any belief in shortages, 1:1 ratio, Ag depletion etc. is misplaced. Take the blinders off and swim instead of drowning in a sea of self-reaffirming info. http://www.marketwire.com/press-rel...-san-miguel-project-nyse-amex-pzg-1597191.htm http://www.marketwire.com/press-rel...ck-with-results-including-tsx-anv-1597683.htm http://www.reuters.com/article/2011...13?feedType=RSS&feedName=basicMaterialsSector Not to mention the high grade ores in South America, South Korea and many other places. Of course, all of this might be BS and Yip might be right.
I'm afraid I have been hopelessly wrong.... it appears as if we will be experiencing rivers of silver shortly and the price will inevitably drop to below $10 per troy ounce... bummer!!! :lol:
Hahaha Yip, I never said anything about rivers of $10 silver. Your straw-man logic and non-cogent responses speak for themselves. I didn't know mines used to grade higher than those referenced in the links. Which mines and when? How much higher did they grade? References? Please educate us.
The U.S. mint is running out of silver???!? Everybody panic! Oh, that's 2010. I guess people learnt their lesson after this and ignore the yearly "U.S. Mint is out of silver" panic stories. Or maybe not. LOL. Double LOL. So according to the original prediction, we now have only 5 years of silver remaining. Buy now or miss out!
^^^ And all the gold I could eat (Life of Brian) No wondering we are running out - better get some more ...
The fine gold stockpiles in the world are 59 times the average mine production of last decade. And for sure, every ounce will one day change hands again. Read: for sale. Btw this is true for everything that doesn't perish. Including the dollar. There is a red line in alot of stories like this topic: why do the ignore the existing stockpiles? These don't need to be mined, in order to make them ready for sale, it needs "at best" only a shipping cost. They only talk about the mining - what is left within human reach in Earths crest. Silvers case is alot "better" than golds one though, there's a serious chunk that gets consumed, not the Zerohedge same term applied to Chinese buying, but really such low particle density, that the cost to recover it is way beyond what it's sold for. On the other hand, there are alot stupid people on the silver market (me included since I paid $32 due to lack of understanding what central banks did) so alot money in the silver market gets milked off to shift (eventually through the gold market after a swap) into central planners pockets. A red result isn't exactly a good advertisement for a market.
Because if people knew that the above ground stockpiles constituted the majority of what's left that can be economically mined then the price will go ballistic thanks to speculators. Those who got in early will yield unreasonable power...unreasonable power...
I like silver because it's property with a costwhile an euro is some far away promise on property at zero cost and designed to be broken. Though by willing to pay a price already tripled in 3 years I broke it myself from the start. Still prefer to screw up things myself rather than powerless sitting watching it being screwed up by others. Abit same feeling like those that are forced to give away their property and take the Atlas Shrugged sledge hammer to leave the thieves nothing but scrap.
Does anyone know or have a remotely accurate idea as to how much in (oz) there is above ground and readily purchasable by industry? I hear 1-2 billion oz figures spouted about but there is no detail as to if this includes investment silver like that which we hold and wouldn't be sold if there was a real run on the price through lack of factory supply. Genuine question. The silver institute has recently stated that there will be a deficit of 57 million oz this year which is good for us but if the stock pile is 1 billion plus then that is a decade and some even if the solar and clothing uses etc grow rapidly. Makes a complete mockery of the pumpers stories for me. If we knew how much was in a stockpile for trading to supply industry things would be easier to gauge.
