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 (16892)	6/4/1998 11:27:00 PM
From: Gregory D. John	Respond to of 39621

Donald, Hmmm... I don't think you've understood the fundamental point of what I've been trying to say... 1. science depends on questioning; but 2. faith depends on believing. I realize this is a gross generalization, but do you agree with these two points? If not, why? It is absolutely scientific to view the "laws" as theories and not as immutable facts. These laws can be depended on with almost absolute certainty; however, in the end, they are just saying things about very, very, very good models. Consider the "Law of Gravity"... what is it? Last time I checked, you don't learn about geodesic curves until your third year in college physics or math. The second law of thermodynamics is not as trivial as you seem to think it is when you're dealing with evolving, nonequilibrium open systems. I tried reading about it... I got lost in the description. The "laws of motion", as you put it, are a classic example of how laws are just only theories. Newtonian mechanics is incredibly accurate for motion not near the speed of light. But it's just an approximation. Laws of electromagnetism? Theories with equations that fit the experimental data incredibly well. Could they be wrong? Could they be just really good approximations? Sure. I don't think it should shake your Faith one iota if it can be shown that two animals clearly evolved from a common ancestor. I question the prudence of your faith in literalism; not your Faith in Christianity. You keep going back to hydrogen to man. There's a gigantic amount of middle ground between that and man and animals being created fully formed. So let's shrink our entire discussion down to one point: Is there an example of two existing, different species that can be shown, by a preponderance of evidence, to have had a common ancestor. I hope for two things from this discussion: 1. That I can convince you such an example exists; and 2. That it will not corrupt your faith in Christianity. I could be grandiose and say that your Christianity will flower once you are released from the shade of literalism. But... eh... By the way, your two quotes (John 1:1-3 and Col 1:15-17) do not necessarily preclude evolution. In any case, I will understand if you do not wish to discuss with me the subject any further; even restricted down as I have tried to do. As a final note, I think you're characterization of me as an unscientific, closed-minded person who has no interest in or understanding of science, is just rhetoric. I am not (presently) a scientist, so, yes, I am unscientific. I am not (currently) a Christian, which makes me closed-minded in your opinion (please correct me if I'm wrong about your opinion). I certainly do have an interest in science and our discussions have led me to examine science more closely. Just because you don't think I believe in what you call science, should not be misinterpreted as non-interest. I understand a very basic principle of science - that it is based completely on theories which fit experimental data. For some reason, you don't agree that science is based this way (or do you?), and so you think I have no understanding of science. I will readily admit that my understanding of science is limited, at best, but I did learn the basics. I am and will always be pleased to continue our discussion. If you need to take some time away from it all, I will understand. Please feel free to take as much time (years if necessary) as you want. Greg