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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (3007)	9/11/2009 12:29:30 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

<No, I said I don't care about the difference> LOL! That was yesterday! <Ah, you see a problem now. In the popular mind, the journals you're talking about don't even exist. The "Journal of Geowhatchamacallit Subsurface Studies", to choose a mythical example, will be read by what? - a few hundred people in university geology departments and probably only by a handful of them. OTOH, a popular magazine of science will be in every public library and large book store in the country.> Yea, pretty much supporting my point that the idea that the scientific is come aethiest cabal with an agenda is, well, really quite out of line to put it nicely. Remember THAT was the whole point. <The thing is I haven't made a single badmouthing comment about the guys who write in the "Journals of Geowhatchamacallit Subsurface Studies" type journals.> Yes you did, your thinking was that there was a "scientific communtiy" that were all aethiests and had an agenda (well, 100 posts ago or whatever). You ridiculed my ideas about God fitting into my work in science as destined to failure because I'd be considered an idiot by others in science. You then went off on these popular magazines and media in general (DAwkins is really just media, with a few papers under his belt) as being "science". Now we're seeing the truth of the matter: 'science' isn't in the media ENOUGH!! DAK