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: J. C. Dithers who wrote (93792)	1/17/2005 10:45:30 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

God as prime mover for creation is a "theory" that religious people have based on faith- so it's not really a theory, it's their belief, if you are going to be honest- and it's a belief people would like to sell as "scientific theory", only no scientist who isn't religious would consider it, because it really comes down to faith faith and more faith. There are no facts for your theory, in terms of facts which make you say- "look, there's God's thumbprint there, we can infer God's hand in this. " Evolution - correct or incorrect- or any other theory that is scientific, is merely an explanation for facts, and which is driven by facts, and which is supported by the facts(one hopes), and which can be thrown out, and which is not religious. God theory works backwards. You start with God, and then look around at the facts and say "God did it". God theory could support anything. You could look at ANY facts and say "God did it". That's not scientific. It's fine to teach it in comparative religion, but it's not science.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (93792)	1/17/2005 11:38:46 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

"The existence of God is one theoretical explanation, believed by many including scientists, so I see no intellectual reason why it should not be mentioned as such. Quite the contrary, actually, if we are to be intellectually honest." There is a great deal of mystery at the heart of the matter. We know, for example how photosynthesis works to trap the sun's energy in a plant cell, and movement from organism to organism. We can even watch the transfer of energy within the cell. But we don't know any more about how that non-living form of energy becomes life or even if it actually does. This is true in the cycles of the earth as well, like oxygen cycles and nitrogen cycles. We know about mitosis and myosis but we don't know how a human soul gets enmeshed with the biology we call a human being... or even how to define that non-physical awareness we call soul. The lab cloak clerics have a simple answer, 'then there aint no sech a thang' ... lol If your opponents here want to be 'intellectually honest' about it then they would agree that the science texts suggest non-religious explanations for these mysteries... explanations that require just as much faith (in the lab cloak clerics) as you have in your religion. Much of science is the simple fact gatherings of physics, chemistry, and living organisms. If they left it at that, (which they can't) I would agree with them that the more mysterious aspects of existence could best be covered in a separate venue, such as philosophy and comparative religion classes.