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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (97735)	3/11/2005 10:51:55 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

That's interesting. You're telling me that the hypothesis (I hesitate to call it a theory) of intelligent design is that there was an intelligent designer. Period. I was expecting something else. I was expecting it to be an alternative process for how we got to be here, something that would replace creationism and evolution, not just as assertion of who or what instigated the process. For example, evolution tells us that mammals have walked the earth for X years and creation tells us that, no, it's Y years. So I was expecting ID to have enough science and enough detail to say, no, it's Z years. I expected ID to have an explanation for all the same things that evolution and creationism are intended to explain. This makes sense given that I've researched a fair amount on the subject and not found a layout of the process. As I mentioned earlier, it seemed that folks advocating ID had quite different processes in mind although not articulated. I took that to be a shortfall in either documentation. But perhaps an articulated process isn't intended. Although I don't know how that can be for something intended to be taught in schools as science. I'll look forward to your further exchange with cos on the subject.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (97735)	3/11/2005 11:32:19 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Brumar, I have a couple of observations and questions. First, does EVERYONE accept the premise that Darwin has limits? Second, could you possibly provide more elaborate definitions of Gaia theory and chaos theory for those of us who have not studied this subject in depth? I don't believe in God the Creator, so I am having some problems with all of this. The idea that life forms were left here by beings from Outer Space actually works for me on some level--although I had never heard that theory before tonight--because logically, if God created the earth and the animals, some force created God, and at some point you are still left with complex life form(s) with no explanation of how they came to exist, except with the idea of God it is further up the chain of creation.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (97735)	3/13/2005 7:42:15 PM
From: Yogizuna	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

>>> Francis Crick, who I think we can assume knows a little bit about DNA, has hypothesized that aliens from another planet seeded the earth with living organisms (see his book Life Itself). The reason he has produced this farfetched theory is that he thinks there is no natural way that life could have come into being on earth. I accept Crick as an informed opinion on that subject - if not on the spaceship idea. <<< And some say there is no way this moon of Saturn could have formed naturally... enterprisemission.com