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: The Philosopher who wrote (83690)	7/12/2000 8:20:27 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I don't see any basic inconsistency between science and religion -- I see them as different but complimentary ways of approaching truth. The basic difference is that the scientist must accept peer review - which can be pretty scathing - and submit evidence to support theories. A lot of scientific theories will never be elevated to the status of law, simply because it is impossible to devise an appropriate experiment. A good example would be the theory of plate tectonics. We accept the theory anyway, but we accept it because of the supporting evidence, not because some dude on a pulpit said we have to have faith.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (83690)	7/12/2000 8:26:23 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Strange that Moses didn't mention DNA and the 99% percent similarity between apes and men in their genetic makeup. Strange that you don't know that rock and fossil age can be measured to the satisfaction of anyone who knows anything about geochemistry. I think you are extremely ignorant of science. I wouldn't trust anything you have to say on the subject of "creationism." Ge 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Day = boqer (sunrise, day, etc.)