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 : A Neutral Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1846)	12/30/2005 6:15:40 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2253

When anyone produces a good explanation as to how something like the bacterial rotary motor came to exist, they will have made a case against ID Not really. They may have made a case against a specific argument used to support the idea of ID. Showing that one specific thing doesn't really require ID is not much of a case against ID. OTOH showing one or more things that have not been explained by current theory doesn't strike me as a very strong case for ID. Tim

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1846)	12/31/2005 11:00:43 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2253

100 years ago nobody even knew that the bacterial rotary motor existed. Did that lack of knowledge prove the existence of God? If, in the next hundred years, scientists prove how the bacterial rotary motor came into being through evolution, will that make you disbelieve in God? No and no. Silly argument. You're grasping at straws -- as do the atheists. Just because we don't know something, or don't understand it, doesn't prove the existence of God -- nor non-existence, either. Nothing you can experience with your corporeal senses and your reason will ever prove the existence of God -- nor non-existence, either.