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: epicure who wrote (93794)	1/17/2005 11:25:50 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

"That's not scientific. It's fine to teach it in comparative religion, but it's not science." There is a great deal more evidence for the 'theory' that God did it, than there is for the 'theory' that 'absent a God, evolution acted completely on its own with no more profound purpose other than to 'evolve'. Both are theories, one of them wholistically accounts for all that is and encompasses the other. Your insistence that the 'theory of evolution' accounts for the beginnings of the universe is factually flawed, and based purely on 'belief' that it must be so because you lack faith in anything else. However, your presumptions are PURE faith based creation theory, madam lab cloak cleric... " 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. Balderdash: The theory falls apart under its own scientific analysis. What was before the first instance, or event, or entity of matter? What caused that? What was before the most extent before? Unless you ascribe to an eternal universe and then you have to start admitting some things are limitless ... so then why are you arguing about 'creation'.

To: epicure who wrote (93794)	1/17/2005 1:04:36 PM
From: redfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

If we define "God" as "the creator of all things," then it is a fact that God is the creator of all things, it's a tautology. I've never had a problem with that concept, I'll readily concede that God exists and is the creator of all things. The problem arises when you try to get a little more specific than the "creator of all things" definition, because there have been literally billions of versions of God created by humanity, with billions more to come. Even if you narrow it down to a particular flavor of God, such as the Christian God, there is a neverending variety of versions. I don't mind if the schools pitch the "God is the creator of all things" angle so long as they leave it at that and do an adequate job of teaching science. It's a meaningless exercise, like reciting the pledge of allegiance, but it does little harm.