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 : Observations and Collectables -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (281)	9/14/2006 6:30:54 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17081

I'm not just talking about things like humans on earth vs. Pluto, but for example most of evolution vs. the evolution of intelligence/sentience, or if you want to include the meta-physical evolution of man, vs. morality/ethics, purpose, relationship with God etc. The reading I have done reveals to me that most evolutionary scientists claim as a matter of fact that human intelligence/sentience and morality/ethics, etc. all originated the same way different blood types, hairless bodies, and everything else. That is considered a scientific fact. ...parts of the process can be reproduced, although since the whole process can't be reproduced and we can't find serious evidence about it, ideas about it are just hypothesis,... If you're talking about amino acids, the "building blocks of life" that IMO is like saying part of the process of making computer chips is know by the production of sand/silica from the weathering of rocks. Even the simplest life contains vastly complex information encoded in complicated chemical bonds - nucleic acids. Just as books or computer programs contain complex information encoded in other media. As far as I know there is NO explanation of how such a thing could originate "naturally". There's also a big chicken/egg problem - no nucleic acids could exist w/o a cell, no cell could come into existence w/o nucleic acid encoded to produce it. The pet hypothesis touted by a couple evangelists of Darwinism I've read, Dawkins or Dennett, involved clay crystals hypothetically providing some kind of stable template in which chemical evolution to or toward nucleic acids could occur. There were enormous problems with this even before last February when a team of scientists (reported in New Scientist and another publication I've forgotten) figured out clay was not present on earth when life started - not even close to that far back. Anyway ... Its the denial that any part has to be purposeful, and sometimes the denial that any part actually is purposeful, but neither of those things amounts to an assertion that it is impossible for any part to be purposeful. Well, that is news to me. Everything anti-ID I've read insisted ID and purposefulness was impossible. See the National Association of Biology Teacher's standards for teaching evolution, for example: The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unpredictable and natural process... ... Natural selection—a differential, greater survival and reproduction of some genetic variants within a population under an existing environmental state—has no specific direction or goal .... 72.14.205.104 These standards once used the word "purposeless" but that was dropped when ID proponents called attention to it. However the meaning of no specific direction or goal is essentially the same thing. I don't see any probably or maybe there. The absence of any direction or goal, ie. purpose is stated as a fact. But "not science" doesn't mean "proved wrong" or "can be assumed to be wrong." Hardly anyone thinks that. I think most scientists think science is about finding true things and determining true things from false things. Personally, I believe that science has proven the earth is older than 6000 years. Thus science has proven that a literal reading of the first few chapters of the Bible is wrong. Would you disagree?