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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: frankw1900 who wrote (152377)	12/22/2005 6:24:42 PM
From: briskit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793911

Would one person please just speak to the specific science in question. Take one of the biological issues raised by an ID scientist or one of its detractors and demonstrate why they are or are not scientific in their argument? That would be actually concrete and demonstrate a familiarity with the actual science, rather than guessing what is and isn't being said. Just state the scientific facts on either side, I don't care which side, and agree or dispute them. That takes this discussion out of its current generalized ideological disagreement, which has no scientific substance to it, LOL. That is a huge irony.

To: frankw1900 who wrote (152377)	12/22/2005 7:58:28 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793911

In science there are theories to explain what we observe. Just because one theory seems false to you does not prove that the subject of the theory is false. One test proves nothing. ID is a theory and has many flavors. Darwinism fails to really explain the origin of the species. It only explains the evolution of living things. It also does not prove the origin of the species homo-sapien. Laws of themodynamics are contradicted by the origin of living things. Based upon the above contradictions, clearly Dawinism is proffered into a non scientific theory.