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 : Neocon's Seminar Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mitch Blevins who wrote (572)	5/11/2001 8:10:30 AM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1112

My position is that faced with a choice of humans coming from extraterrestials or evolution, I would choose evolution. If the choice is evolution or creation, I choose creation. The few speciation examples found just as easily support the intelligent design theory as they do natural selection. One of the first arguments for the design theory was set out in "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" (Simon & Schuster, 1996), by Dr. Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Behe argued that various biochemical structures in cells could not have been built in a stepwise Darwinian fashion. There is also Demski, who eventually developed what he called a mathematical "explanatory filter" that he asserted can distinguish randomness from complexity designed by an intelligent agent. He explained this idea in "The Design Inference" (Cambridge University Press, 1998). Dembski has applied his explanatory filter to the biochemical structures in cells -- and concluded that blind natural selection could not have created them. But faced with discussing the topic with either an evolutionist or a ufo-ologist, I prefer the latter. Much friendlier folk who argue the case against evolution quite well. sightings.com