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: one_less who wrote (57911)	8/2/1999 6:53:00 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<You wouldn't know under your premise if life was transported from one locale to another or whether it spontaneously occurred more than once.>> Well this is a good point.<<In the case of the latter it makes the odds of your theory of creation even more far fetched.>> How so? <<In the case of divine will, there is no problem in creation occurring here there or anywhere and at any time.>> I have no problem with the original life resulting from "devine will" Just the idea that evolution and natural selection were not the methods with which this "devine will" was carried out. Any supreme being must still adhere to the laws of physics IMO. < <<Especially when there is another plausible explanation that doesn't have gaps. >> I guess there is a considerable disagreement here on what constitutes "plausible". I agree the fossil record is not perfect but I see no evidence at all to support the creation theory. <<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. >>I don't doubt the honesty of these messengers.... That does not in any way make their claims correct. The world is full of well meaning incorrect people.Always has always will. What I want to see is some hard evidence.This is completely lacking. << 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.>> Not me. The ability to change ones mind in response to changing evidence is a positive in my eyes. This is the flaw in religious view points as I see them.They have been locked into a particular concept and are unable to change as new evidence becomes available.Thus they make themselves look foolish trying to support implausible claims. Claims that may have looked good one hundred years ago. <<n 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.>> Well history is full of those that thought they had some sort of divine insight only to be proven incorrect by the facts. pez