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: Brumar89 who wrote (282)	9/14/2006 7:29:07 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17103

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. Perhaps MOST do think that way, but even ALL wouldn't be enough to show that belief in God and evolution are incompatible. My main relevant point is that they are compatible. Secondly I would say it certainly not ALL or even ALMOST ALL, although MOST seems likely. 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. I'm not just talking about amino acids, but even if I was the analogy goes to far. The difference in complexity from a complex amino acid to the simplest prion, virus, or viroid is less than the difference in complexity between a pile of sand and an Opteron. Maybe you could use the analogy of the simplest circuit or gate or transistor, to a complex processor. For viroids even that would probably be a stretch. Here is the estimated structure of a viroid and not the simplest upload.wikimedia.org Yes its still a very big jump but the amino acids can be created in minutes. On earth life had billions of years (and apparently took at least many millions of years) to develop. And life only has to develop once if its successful enough. It doesn't have to be very easy to develop if you have enough space and time for it to develop in. 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. I don't think either "no nucleic acids could exist w/o a cell or no cell could come in to existence w/o nucleic acid" is reasonable as a default assumption. The former is esp. unreasonable. "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. Again your getting the opinions of some supporters mixed up with the idea itself. The idea is either that no part has to be purposeful, or at most that no part is purposeful. I think you would get a majority of "anti-ID" people to except the later, and the former would probably include all "anti-ID people" (by definition). Some of them may go further and say that purposefulness is actually impossible, but if they say that they aren't making a scientific statement anymore. They are instead dabbling in meta-physics, religion, or pseudo science. " But "not science" doesn't mean "proved wrong" or "can be assumed to be wrong." " Hardly anyone thinks that. What do you mean? That hardly anyone thinks that not all truth is scientific truth? Even if you count history as "science", that would still leave you with only people who dismiss any notion of philosophical or religious truth in the set of people who think that there is no non-scientific truth. And the majority of the people in the world believe in some form of religious or philosophical truth. Also even if you reject all ideas of religious or philosophical truth and accept only scientific ideas as truth - 1 - You have a problem that science itself depends on logic and "the philosophy of science" and 2 - Accepting no other forms of truth still doesn't mean that the rigid scientist can assume that other ideas are "not true", if science says nothing about them (and science can't answer many of them). At most it could be said that the ideas are unproven, or perhaps meaningless in some cases.