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.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (57906)	8/2/1999 3:38:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Last I read that Mars rock evidence was pretty much being discounted. You read something new? The other thing about the Mars rock story, when was Velikovsky rehabilitated?

To: pezz who wrote (57906)	8/2/1999 3:42:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Whatdya mean it doesn't? Twice in one solar system life appears against such supposed odds doesn't change the concept that the odds are so outrageous? of course it does!>> No it doesn't. The questionable evidence that you refer to tells us nothing except that life may exist in other parts of the universe. The creation of such is under the same auspice. You wouldn't know under your premise if life was transported from one locale to another or whether it spontaneously occurred more than once. In the case of the latter it makes the odds of your theory of creation even more far fetched. In the case of divine will, there is no problem in creation occurring here there or anywhere and at any time. <<Where is the supposed human result in the second instance that I assume you are claiming as the result of your creation theory?>> Who says there needs to be? If there are other planets with humans on them that's fine with me. If not, that's OK too. I am not even convinced life on other planets exists, yet. <<A giant leap of faith?...I think not...A logical progression of thought is more the case…>> Sorry the science on the subject is concerned with observable progressions. Natural selection has an observable fossil record that helps to explain what led to some (not all) of the "current state of the art." When you fill in the gaps with theoretical logical sequences that go outside the sound principles of natural selection to tackle the bigger question of creation of life, you are no longer dealing with observable. Especially when there is another plausible explanation that doesn't have gaps. <<That some supreme being [ok,ok,big man in the sky was uncalled for ] doing it's thing [ as you say"you have no proof of this" or even any supporting evidence what so ever ]is what would be prudently be called " a leap of faith">> Yes there is evidence. Sorry, I thought you knew. Throughout the recorded history of human beings it seems there have been messengers who have delivered the information from the source of life on how life was created. These messengers have always been proven to be impeccably honest and righteous in all things. They have been so credible that they have even given their lives on occasion to stand on this one issue and over the fullness of time have been found to be in absolute agreement. I would definitely pit this evidence against the scientific theorists who contribute practical solutions to everyday living but change their minds day in and day out about history and creation. In addition to that, there is a resource available that is apparently untapped in your case. If not, you would know this is true, as it is confirmable in your soul.