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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (60856)	12/28/2005 11:57:47 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"Not true!" You are mistaken! The argument I have been promoting is not whether origins are better explained by ID or evolution as scientific fact. The argument is that evolution explains adaptation very well and is a viable and practical area of study, based on observable fact. The facts stop at what caused the universe (time, space, energy, matter, life) to begin or to be in existence. There is not one piece of scientific evidence that claims to explain origins. You linked a very good article on the position of science. Evolutionists freely admit that origins are a mystery (though they mask that fact in their request for millions of tax dollars to research it). What may be commonly agreed upon in the mainstream in this debate is that there is a point in time at which nothing becomes something, and another point in time in which non-life becomes life … unless you are a believer in an eternal universe that always held biological life, which would nullify whole argument. ...The "Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative' is still in its early stages, scientists told the Boston Sunday Globe. Harvard has told the research team to make plans for adding faculty members and a collection of multimillion-dollar facilities. Most scientists believe that life on Earth originated in a soup of chemicals, but nobody knows how the chemistry moved from organic to biological. Theorists also suggest that life here could have arrived embedded in a space rock kicked up from Mars billions of years ago. Scientists say that intelligent design, unlike evolution, makes no scientific predictions and is not testable, and so it is not a scientific theory. Scientists freely admit they don't know everything, but they cite the history of figuring things out as evidence that mysteries do not imply divine, undecipherable solutions. ... I see no problem with researching cosmic soup theories, or Martian theories, but neither of these has provided any evidence of something that caused a non-existent universe to exist or life from non-life.