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: JF Quinnelly who wrote (13674)	11/18/1997 3:18:00 PM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

< Johnny is confusing categories when he argues that science is the proper field for arguing about the existence of God>> John Galt is not confusing catagories, Jfreddy. Your attempts to evade the central issue is noted. Know that the proper forum to ESTABLISH the 'existence of anything' is science and not to the exclusion of a 'creator'. Anything less, of course, must fall to subjective argument no matter the discipline. Be careful, Jfreddy. Know you place among the Galtians. If your intent is to 'invent' a new standard of 'evidence' by which 'existance' can be ESTABLISHED in order to 'proove' the existence of a 'creator', and that can be held in equatible regard to science, then you are late in the game, JFreddy. The Creationists have been around a long while and they have the audacity to declare themselves scientists! Here, then, is the central issue, JFreddy. Do not mingle science with mysticism. Do not smear the good name of science. No your place, Jfreddy, and do not confuse the central issue. Know, too, Jfreddy, that it is likely closest you or anyone else can come to clear 'evidence' of a 'creator' may be in the interactions upon these very threads with the Mighty Galt! John Galt