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 : Neocon's Seminar Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (500)	5/8/2001 10:25:32 PM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1112

Your guess is probably better than mine. I think that it is good that science uses scientific method. And since we can not tangibilize God right now, then he shouldn't be in the equation. And if Nietzsche helps break down barriers to scientific progress, then he also contributes. The way I look at it, the more science can quantify and measure, then the closer science gets to understanding Nature. And that if humanity can survive, then we will be better off for it. Of course, on the other hand, we have a theory of creation that does not seem to be corroborated by science. So it is easy to be a skeptic. I think that is the way it is intended. Remember the post of the three scholars and how they each react differently to hearing the Tao? But clearly, the Bible does not confine itself to the conclusion that man has only been around for a few thousand years, but it doesn't say we haven't either. What is to prevent one from saying that God created a world that was millions of years old? Or how do we know that carbon dating really works? As for the research and why it wouldn't be widely acknowledged, first I would say that I do not think it would go well for a young professor to apply for a research grant to show that random mutation theory is ridiculous. The dogma of Darwin is entrenched in academia, even to the point of being like the Church condeming Galileo. But of course, the research could be full of holes as well. It is a good point and an important one. But the research is at least more than a few years old. But the usual counterpoint is that it doesn't explain that life could have arrived from other planets or universes, etc. Some of the research in this area is fascinating, in that it truly shows the durability of life. But, I do not think it explains the problem via relocation. Some of the truly involved point to research showing how ultraviolet light can create enzymes, and that early life forms were all rna and no dna, and were able to mutate in many ways. But I say to them, so this dna less organism all of a sudden says it needs dna, and poof dna? I mean, if there is a need for dna or (my favorite, a fish that lived in fresh water was on the verge of extinction by the bigger fish, and if only the littler fish could somehow survive in the salt water they could avoid extinction, so they gave themselves a kidney in a short period of time and moved into the salt water and laughed at the big fishes) isn't there. I think that science is advancing rapidly. Pretty soon, to answer questions they will have to be like Einstein, and try to think how this would happen if there is a God. It is a glorious future for humanity. How about Raphael's "The School at Athens"? un2sg4.unige.ch