Sweet Weet.

I rhymed.

3,000th post!!! i did

Uhhh, Mr. Fosi did.

Congratulations!

I am headed down your way the end of this week. Any newer LFS in Lauderdale in the last 5 years?

Yah the one i use is called Living Reef Aquariums its small but nice people and live stock and its family owned so they take good care of the fish and corals right now they have at least 3 weedy scorpions.

Google shows Living Reef Creations on Dixie Hwy. just south of Commercial. Is that it?

if its on the same strip as a peace pipe and across the street there is a ladder wear house and a mexican resturant then that is it.

Nice looking cerith snail.

Nice snail Fosi, the coral is just meh compared to that super rare colorful snail

Store credit rocks.

Grow some FW plants, get some coral.

Sweet score, now grow da heck outta it will ya?

+1, that's one of the corals on my list to get sometime down the road.

Mebbe you can buy/trade a frag off me once the bad boy grows out a bit.

I'm glad my wife badgered me about pruning my son's tank because that was the last of three frags. Those frags were put out only just this morning.

There is also a sweet green velvet chalice frag there. I wants it very bad but not enough to spend my last $28 in credit plus again as much in cash to buy it. I'll hold out for something better.

Plus, if you take a look at the last post in my tank thread, I need to get some of my water chem up to spec.

Weetie's Quote for the Night:


Men don't have goals. Natural ones. So they invent them, and put them at either end of a football pitch. And then they invent football. Or they pick fights, or try and get rich, or start wars, or come up with any number of daft bloody things to make up for the act that they have no real goals.

-Hugh Laurie

I has a big size of that coral

Dr. House is a smart fella, ya?

Reading this totally awesome book by him right now, "The Gun Seller".
Bet you din't know he was an author, huh?

Hi Weetie. Can I hang out in here, the "other" Lounge is getting under my skin tonight.

Oooh, I will most certainly look into that!

O sure.
Pull up a chair.
Want me to fix you some coffee?

Na, I'm good. Won't get a good night sleep if I do. Thanks for the hospitality.

Sure, sure.
Beer?
Want me to read to you from this kickin book?
I hope you're not in the mood for a philosophical discussion or anything, I'm not up for that tonight.

Hi, Scott.

Idle chit-chat is cool.


Hi 'Lani.

Hey guize, why u think no one wants to buy my Vortech?

vortech lulz, i think boobies aka lani and scott should come to chat

Never really been there.

Chatsign?

Didn't know you were selling one. Are you sponsoring a GB?

Does Scott have the addy?

He does now.

Weetie was gone though.

You took too long, ya Dork!
I had to eat dinner.

I know, I was responding to the feedback forum. Sorry. The rest of us had fun though.

Maybe you are this morning? Here're some for you:

Eloquent persons have argued that science and "faith" or "religion" inhabit separate worlds, worlds that are not inherently unequal but simply different in methodology and intent. So then, what should be the role of science in the human life? How does one balance science and faith? Should they be balanced or should one be discarded in favor of the other? Should we allow science to influence our "religious" beliefs or those belief's to influence scientific inquiry?

An interesting question.
I will ponder it.
My immediate response though is that I agree that faith and science are different in methodology and intent.
Especially intent.

If we believe there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Creator, then we have to believe the Creator also created science. Therefore, I would guess our view of science should be through the lens of faith, not vice-versa.

How'd I do?

These are some of the questions I am most interested in answering for myself.

Being a person of both science and faith I am concerned (to say the least!) by the polarization that has ruled these questions for so long. I have a very strong feeling that there must be some common ground, some way to have both without being inconsistent.

So many of my peer, on both sides of the issue, spend little or no time pondering these things and I wonder about that... I think that these questions are very central in the lives of people living here in the West where science and faith are both very important parts of our culture, legal systems, etc.



You did fine but you made a presupposition not supported by the question.

What of those who do not believe that, or at least don't wish to?

I think our lack of comprehension of both limits our ability to reconcile them.


Well, I qualified it by saying "IF". The trouble is one cannot force anyone to have faith.

A believer is expected to be "open-minded" while everyone else is free to remain "closed-minded".

A related piece of news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7955846.stm

One thing I have noticed is that scientists who are "fundamentalist" atheists are very similar to fundamentalist religious people in their strong rejection of compassion to those who disagree with their viewpoints. For example, in the recent embryonic stem cell research debate, it was sad to see that some scientists failed to acknowledge the strong need for ethical regulations when developing medical technologies, while at the same time I think it is odd that people who supported the stem cell ban are not as vocal about how many thousands/millions more embryos get "discarded" from fertilization clinics.

Here's part of the issue though, from my perspective: Most people don't have a problem with scientific inquiry until it starts to brush up against already held beliefs.

Examples: No one has a problem with Newtonian laws or the concept of gravity. We don't mind that the advance of chemistry assumes a model of matter that can't be visually proven. And we're just fine with biology's ability to synthesize the work done over the last 160-odd years to produce microorganisms that produce insulin for diabetics.

I think you would have a difficult time finding people who had any theological or epistimological problems with these "advances". The problem comes in when someone comes along and says, "According to several lines of physical evidence, the earth is billions of years old." Then another person pops into the discussion and says, "We see microorganisms and macroorganisms alike changing up their allelic frequencies and we have noticed that in many cases, it leads to changes in the basic functions of the organisms." And finally someone comes along and suggests that, "Perhaps this has been going on for all the time the earth has been around... I wonder what changes might build up over time..."

As soon as science begins to dig for oragins, people get worried. Then people like Dawkins come along and try to make statements about how science shows that there is no "purpose" to anything, even though the method of science can in no way directly support such a claim.

Also, lak, I am very vocal about the discarding of embryos by those clinics. I find it to be just as heinous, if not more so, than an abortion chosen for a reason (even if it is a bad on). This isn't an abortion discussion though, I want it to be about science; all branches of it.

Did I scare you all off?

I'm here. I'm just not a scientist.

No, I's having coffee.
Cheez, lemme chill and unwind a bit first.
Got a late start today, brain's still foggy.

My brain is always foggy.

Great points Mr. F! We recently had a video series by Ken Hamm in Sunday School. His use of Observational Science to show how faith & science go together was awesome! He quoted Dawkins on several occasions & showed how some of his theories were not valid. I was going to give you a link to his site but if you Google his name you will find lots of hits. Some are debates that should be interesting & full of info.

I hadn't heard of Ken Hamm but I have read some of the work of Ken R. Miller and Tim Keller.

I am wondering where people around here come down on these issues.