Observations and Collectables Message Board

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 : Observations and Collectables

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (289)	9/21/2006 7:10:57 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) of 17114

Its possible that the evolution was following some divine plan that we can not discern, but if we can discern it than it isn't really science. Huh? About that last part - if we were to find a "divine signature" or message encoded somewhere, speaking hypothetically, decoding it would be unscientific? But something that close resembles them than it resembles say an amoeba could be the 1st life on earth. You're talking about some hypothetical unknown thing that doesn't seem to exist anywhere now. You don't have to have a complex structure to have self replication. Are prions, viroids, or viruses self-replicating in the absence of more complex life? I think not. Therefore, I suggest there is good reasont to think you have to have a more complex structure than that to have true independent self-replication - which is what you need to get life started. ----------------------------------------- I'm merely recognizing that when people make a point of saying that something is "not science" or "not scientific" they are also meaning that it is "not true". Usually they also believe it to be "not true" but one statement doesn't mean or even imply the other. Usually the statement "that isn't science" is used in response to an assertion that something is science, and that it is specifically scientific truth. In such circumstances its no surprise that anyone making the "its not science claim" also is likely to believe it is false. Although you would agree that last part is incorrect. -------------------------------- On the subject of "not science" and "not true", it is true that all life is dependent upon very complex information encoded in chemical bonds and there is no known natural means whereby such a thing could come into existence naturally. Any assertion that we know that that happened by purely natural means is both not science and not true.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next