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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (17588)	6/1/2004 10:45:22 AM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century."" And as it becomes more and more refined , so it will remain in the 21rst, 22nd and 23rd centuries . The theory and sciences of evolution do not negate the glory of God , that is what you & the creationists are trying to do. Love God more , by studying science and the great splendors and subtle nuance it reveals in the theory of evolution . Or just love God , make clay , and leave science to the scientists. Of course when anyone says anything against the theory of evolution, the the fallacy of equivocation kicks in and there is a subtle change in the meaning of the word evolution. Pointing to plant breeding as proof of life evolving from non living matter is hardly compelling argumentation Since the great meteor struck and ended the reign of the huge lizards a new plant species arrived on the scene which we call "grass", not known ever before Greg . ....The common term for members of the monocotyledon family Graminae. This family contains approximately 9000 species with global distribution. The majority are perennial with long narrow leaves, hollow stems and hermaphroditic flowers. The evolution of grass triggered significant changes in Earth life. It created a novel type of habitat, in which Humans would eventually evolve. Of all Humanity's early domesticates, only one --the cat --was not shaped by the evolutionary pressures imposed by the grasslands. The key evolutionary innovation of the grasses is their growth pattern. While other plants grow from their tips, grasses grow from their base. Rather than the above-ground bulk of most plants (that block lines of sight and impede movement) the stems of grasses grow underground. This allows them to sustain a significantly greater biomass per square kilometer than could previously existing shrubs. Grazing herbivores could be both large and social, unlike the browsers that preceded them. Adaptations for speed also became more common. The existence of herbivore herds in turn promoted the evolution of social carnivores (lions, wolves, etc.) all of which possess a significant amounts of potential. Ultimately these ecological changes set the stage for the evolution of Humanity. You see , Solon was not smoking the grass ...he was just enjoying the heaven sent feel of it between his toes. The advent of this new species of plant , led ultimately to the evolutionary environment for developmental changes in mammals , which then ultimately led to --->US. true story ...all due to the humble blades of grass....and Walt Whitman did a beautiful job in some of the Holiest Scriptures ever written in recent centuries ...The Muse knows no Religion , but inhabits them all. "Leaves of Grass" bartleby.com (try the first poem , far more appealing to the divine in you , than anything you probably have encountered in most of your forrays into the creationist's lexicons and struggles with reason and perpetual misunderstandings of God ) ;-) PS: Come to think of it , why are "Craetionists" all such bad poets ...or never write any poetry at all? Yet they expect people to believe they know all about God . Funny paradox that. Bad poets , but great lovers of God . Impossible...and true.

To: Greg or e who wrote (17588)	6/1/2004 11:23:15 AM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 28931

Pointing to plant breeding as proof of life evolving from non living matter is hardly compelling argumentation. Maybe you need to look at inorganic/non-living matter from a different perspective, instead of choosing to be merely so usually pointedly blunt. There are many forms and states of matter , to the lonliest hydrogen atoms floating in singularity in coldest depths of space , to the wild fusion of the sun creating heavier elements and iron core ...to the incredible vastness of the myriad display of these same elements subject to constant changes for several billions of years of action /interaction and manifestation in the earth/planet genesis . Plenty of time to undergo so many billions of incremential change and interaction...and so life may not seem to be possible to eveolve from such "dead stuff" as you are want to imagine it ...but given the conditions and changes of such basic materials on the planetary level from the beginning , with the added impetus of so many extraterrestial forces and energies ...the earth becomes quite a labratory for many alchemical and literal life giving possibilities. Obviously it did at some point , but anyone with an imagination would first surmise that a certain period of cooling off would be first on the agenda after gravity does its spheroid thing ...and then comes H2O, lots of it mixed with sunlight and many added electrical charges and shocks. Then presto , you have ignition. Yes , Life did not evolve from those lonely hydrogen atoms out in space ...or the matter within the Suns ...but the same material takes on a new life of its own when contain within the working model of a planet and its ever changing geologic systems, all within a certain valence and orbit from the resident star from which all its matter was born... Then many things become possible. What many well educated people are questioning Many well educated people ? Do they have the remnants of tails too? I would like to see the list please . .. ...and do any of them think for themselves?

To: Greg or e who wrote (17588)	6/1/2004 11:44:45 AM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 28931

Oh , BTW Greg.... the story of Creation is just a myth. Reality is another thing.

To: Greg or e who wrote (17588)	6/1/2004 12:14:10 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

a subtle change in the meaning of the word evolution. Any change in the meaning of the word evolution is not coming from the scientific community. Evolve means just that - to change. There are theories to explain how and why organisms change over time. Darwin's theory is called "Natural Selection" - from the title of his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life . It is only the critics who called it a "theory of evolution" because the religious thought at the time was that plants and animals had not changed over time, and fossils could be explained by Noah's flood. Only a tiny proportion of flat-earth advocates still deny that there has been change in the living matter on earth over time. Evolution is now a fact as firm as any other. Darwin's theory did not attempt to explain the origins of life, only how it may have evolved. The "origins of species" did not refer to an ultimate beginning, but the origin of new species from previous ones. There are, of course, several newer theories which do attempt to explain the first appearance of life as well as important corallaries such as why life does not seem to repeat it's origin over and over. These could be called theories of genesis, but not theories of evolution. TP