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 (291)	9/21/2006 7:35:13 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17114

Huh? About that last part - if we were to find a "divine signature" or message encoded somewhere, speaking hypothetically, decoding it would be unscientific? If it were really solid, didn't rely on faith, and could be observed and analyzed repeatedly than I suppose it would be science. Re: First life You're talking about some hypothetical unknown thing that doesn't seem to exist anywhere now. Of course. Although you would agree that last part is incorrect. I'm not sure precisely what you mean. I would agree that "not science" does not equal "not correct". On the subject of "not science" and "not true", it is true that all life is dependent upon very complex information encoded in chemical bonds and there is no known natural means whereby such a thing could come into existence naturally. Well you could say there is no fully understood natural means. Evolution of life once it starts is a theory. Ideas about the origin of life are only hypotheses. They aren't fully developed let along solidly supported. Any assertion that we know that that happened by purely natural means is both not science and not true. The assertion is indeed not a scientific one. Hypotheses about how it happened that explain it all in terms of natural means are science, but any statement about the supernatural (such as "there is no supernatural", "there is no God", "God didn't have any part in the development of life" etc.) is not science. As for "not true", well that's largely a matter of faith. There is no scientific way to demonstrate it as true or false.