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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Giordano Bruno who wrote (109929)	11/14/2007 12:18:04 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

jj, i disagree. many christians are anti-knowledge, but don't judge the book based on their actions. the bible doesn't teach what most folks think it does. most folks assume it teaches something in order to uphold their personal traditions. i need go no futher than the first two verses in the bible to prove this point. 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. some folks argue that this means the earth was created ~6k years ago via tracing genealogies. the fundamental problem with this view is that no time frame is indicated between verse 1 and verse 2. as an example, "in 1973 i was born. the college room was void of students, but i aced my test." in CONTEXT, it is absurd to conclude that i aced my test immediately after being born. ini the same way, it is absurd to conclude verse 2 immediately follows verse 1 IN THE CONTEXT OF KNOWN SCIENTIFIC DATA. also of interest to me is that einstein died believing the universe was eternal. the bible said it was not. now we understand that physical matter effectively didn't exist at some point in the past. the first prediction in the bible, that the universe wasn't eternal, was correct. einstein died wrong. i've also been pondering how come only end point species exist. iow, the millions of millions of transitionary entities that led to the current end point species we see around us all went extinct with 100% precision. this is entirely counter-intuitive as species with different "survivability indexes" exist side by side all the time. i've never heard this incredibly counter-intuitive result, assuming macro-evolution, discussed, let alone explained. the intuitive answer is that millions of transitional species ought to be alive and kicking today! instead, there are zero. while i will not argue either belief is provable from a scientific point of view, i am very sure that macro-evolution isn't the "lay up" many have been led to believe it is.