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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (77323)	4/10/2000 11:00:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I can explain the complex structures, or at least a theory for it- all around us in nature you can find organisms living in or with other organisms for commensal benefit- a jelly fish- for example is not a fish, but like a coral is thousands of tiny specialized individuals banding together to form one organism. It isn't hard to imagine this type of specialization being encoded for- it's more efficient that way. Of course I wouldn't worship this idea at an altar and bring it flowers, and give it money every Sunday- but considering what I know about jelly fish and corals and cyanobacteria, and photosynthesis and our own internal flora(all are examples of organisms possibly incorporating or banding with other organisms to achieve a desired result) I find the probability for the evolution of complex structures at least probable.

To: Neocon who wrote (77323)	4/10/2000 11:15:00 AM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Undoubtedly the greatest mystic-philosopher of recent ages was Immanuel Kant. Figures you would refer to him! Haha!! Believing that a god exists and going further and defining what that god wants, what are its intentions, how it specifically interacts with Man is NOT rational, it is mystical and NON-objective. If we found a working nuclear reactor in a cave in Africa, would we not assume that it was created by an intelligent creature? If we did assume that we would be wrong. In the 1970s a working nuclear reactor was discovered in a uranium mine in Africa. No intelligence had fashioned it; it had begun its reactions on its own... a fluke of nature. The Big Bang theory does not prove there is an unseen, all-knowing, supreme Creator. It does, however, lend credence to the hypotheses of ongoing creation of matter/energy from "some other place." What other place? Perhaps other universes... perhaps even the place where what goes into black holes emerges. Our universe is dynamic and has been shown mathematically to be only one of many. I suspect these universes interact with one another and cause physical laws and conditions to evolve over time into different sets of laws and conditions. There is only room for a god in all of this if one wishes to subjectively concoct one because it makes one "feel" better or somehow more secure. FT