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: Jacques Chitte who wrote (774)	9/18/1999 12:10:00 AM
From: Tunica Albuginea	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Lather.Rinse.Repeat.:Re: The truth about Carl Sagan: My own research on Carl Sagan indicates he believe we came , fortuitously from slime : I could be wrong but here it is: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ home.pacific.net.hk "We are the product of 4.5 billion years of fortuitous, slow, biological evolution. There is no reason to think that the evolutionary process has stopped. Man is a transitional animal. He is not the climax of creation." "In the cosmic perspective there is no reason to think that we are the first or the last or the best." - "The Cosmic Connection" Comment: in Christianity: a] man's creation is a purposeful act of God's will ( not fortuitous) b]He is at the center of Creation ( Genesis ) c]He is the best and at the top d]though Holy Communion he becomes part of God's body ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The ash of stellar alchemy was now emerging into consciousness. At an ever-accelerating pace, it invented writing, cities, art and science, and sent spaceships to the planets and the stars. These are some of the things that hydrogen atoms do, given fifteen billion years of cosmic evolution." - "Cosmos" Comment: Clearly he states we came from dried slime ( ash). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ bluepoint.com.tr Nevertheless, Sagan said it is "at least very plausible that there is an organic chemistry accumulating on the surface of Titan that may be relevant to the origin of life." Comment: he is obsessed with ash turning into human beings ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Final Comments: Sagan has no proof for any of the above. These Thoughts go counter to the Divine Creation thoughts of most Americans. These unproven thoughts is what he taught in Univesities and what I am sure he would have taught at high Schools had he ben allowed to do so. I have found no mention of Divine intervention in Creation in all his writtings. I am sure that if I go through the writtings of the other famous biologists I will find the same thing: The philosophy, a form of religious belief, that " the Cosmos created us out of slime". Evolution is their springboard to that. This is what the Kansas Board does not want to be taught, at least by force,( they made it optional, unless a similarly crazy ides, Creation by Divine Design is taught, ( in non-science classes but in-school). I agree, TA Message #774 from Lather.Rinse.Repeat. at Sep 17 1999 8:57PM 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.