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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (735592)	4/5/2006 10:06:39 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

So Pro, if you take the WORD literally.....how long is your beard? biblicalapologetics.net "One of the texts in Leviticus about which John and Ken scoffed is the prohibition against men trimming their beards and sideburns (Lev. 19:27)." I don't know why these guys are scoffing if it is from the bible...Seems if the first passage of Genesis must be read literally, then so must Lev. 19:27. Oh, and I am sure you don't wear mixed fabrics either.

To: PROLIFE who wrote (735592)	4/5/2006 10:08:35 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"I have already beaten them with just a few verses from His Word." Actually, no, not by science's rules you haven't. (Nor have you even ATTEMPTED to establish that there is ANY CONFLICT AT ALL between 'science' and your religion.... :) In science, you can't just ASSUME the answer... it has to be reproduceable, testable, quantifiable, etc. See again: FIRST you start with hypothesis (the lowest level of 'theory'), THEN you proceed to experimental testing to see if there is any supporting evidence for your hypothesis, NEXT (if there was supporting evidence) you have other people independently perform and reperform the testing to see if if is reliable, if results can be replicated, (and, THROUGHOUT this entire process, one has LOTS and LOTS of criticism, complaints, charges, differing hypothesis put forward, examination of the experimental methods, etc.). FINALLY, assuming a consensus forms around the perceived validity of the hypothesis... then you have what scientists call a 'theory'. EVEN THEN, it, (and all other theories), are always subjet to being over-turned by new and better theories, new evidence, new thinking. At no point is unsubstantiated 'faith' a significant part of the process --- which is probably what's thrown you for a loop. You simply don't understand the rules... Message 22329671