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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (738)	9/17/1999 6:10:00 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 69300

proving Creation though Science. You can't do it. Remember, proving means testing, not establishing something as an absolute. Creation can be tested, it has, it doesn't pass the test. Perhaps it's time to propose modifications to the theory. TP

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (738)	9/17/1999 8:58:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Exqueexe me?! I never said YOu were one. But you like to denigrate Sagan et al. with positions that are a tad more extreme than what they really espouse. For effect, perhaps? My request was much simpler. Find me ONE Creation Scientist (doesn't mean you or anyone here, a citation or reference would be fine) who would sit still for a deconstruction ... you get the idea. You can't "proveit" religious tenets. And the irreducible bottom line with Creation Science is that natural observation gets shoehorned into the demands of revealed truth. You can't reliably "proveit" some of our more accepted scientific theories, like the mudhole origin idea. But what honest people do is look at the world around them and try to fit what they see into patterns. If the pattern allows formulation of a model that is reliable - or better, predictive - that's science.