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 : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DLL who wrote (16803)	6/1/1998 10:55:00 AM
From: Sam Ferguson	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 39621

I refer you to the following post: Started By: +j garcia Date: Jul 26 1996 12:29PM ET Need some Divine Intervention? Tired of all the conjecture on SI from self-serving gurus? Need to find out where your stock is headed? Well here's your chance! Direct your comments straight to the Almighty, because hey you probadly have the same chance of His answering as you do making money reading everyone elses unfounded opinions. P.S. This site is not sanctioned by the Pope If you will note this forum was started for a tongue in cheek joke about the stock market. The zionists jumped in and tried their usual scheme of control to redirect this forum for their own selfish interests. If anyone protests they are immediately denounced as Satanists and accused of the very things they promote. I suggest you Zionists return to other threads or start your own. Any fool can see you will be challenged here by an educated public. You will not promote evil without reprimand.

To: DLL who wrote (16803)	6/1/1998 11:42:00 PM
From: Gregory D. John	Respond to of 39621

Donald, OK... let me try to address your post in order. :-) But first, let me chuck in an hyperlink: unc.edu Whoever this Mark Rupright is, Cheers to him! I can't say he's right on every point (out of ignorance on my part), but he sure seems to have done his homework. Hmmm... I started with a long post... I've erased it all... I'm going to try to address the beginning stuff quickly. Everything I say comes with the usual caveats: I could be wrong; Is this clear? Given my limited understanding... &c. So I'm just going to make statements - yes, I realize they'll seem a little "strong" in their nakedness. There is no theory universally held by all scientists. I'll take your word that Hoyle is great. The theory of evolution is not contrary to the "known Laws of Nature". There are no "laws" of nature... only theories. If creationism can't be supported by data alone, but must require belief in God, then it will never be scientific. Your negative "description" of scientists could equally be applied to creationist who, in a paraphrase of your words, "simply will not believe that God did not do it [creation]." In light of that, let's just leave the bashing of scientists and creationists out of our discussion. Science can't answer whether God created the universe (as Dr. Morris puts it - the Creator/Energizer) or not. It can only address what happens after the "beginning" of the universe. So let's stick to evolution. From Rupright: In this book ["Time's Arrow and Evolution"], [Dr. Harold] Blum discusses how evolution could occur in the context of thermodynamics. Here's another quote from the same book (page 43): "Thus, although at first glance the apparent increase in complexity might suggest a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, further consideration reveals none. Later on it will be seen that the apparent lower entropy in living systems as compared to their immediate environment is explainable without denying the second law." Clearly evolution is not a closed system. What is the primary source of energy for all life on Earth? The sun. It seems to me that, drawing heavily from Rupright, the key to understanding why Dr. Morris's arguments are incorrect lies in the proper consideration of the second law of thermodynamics. Due to my limited understanding of the subject, I can't begin to give a clear presentation of equilibrium and nonequilibrium thermodynamics. Sorry. But it seems to me that systems can evolve without violating the current, sophisticated theories of thermodynamics. I realize this isn't a very satisfying argument, so if you want to press the issue, I'll do more research. Just say the word. In any case, give Rupright a read. He's clearly done a lot of research into this subject. Greg

To: DLL who wrote (16803)	6/2/1998 7:00:00 PM
From: Gregory D. John	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

Donald, In all the excitement, I keep forgetting to ask you this: What exactly do you believe about creation? In other words, do you believe that: A: God set evolution into motion; B: there is no such thing as evolution; C: something in between; or D: God set evolution into motion from the very beginning of life on Earth, then stayed out of it until his creation of human beings. Interestingly, of the four choices, only B (and maybe C depending on what "in between" you choose) is not compatible with the theory of evolution. Greg