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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (520685)	10/14/2009 6:53:26 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577339

CJ, > All it has to do is invoke "and then a miracle occurs" and it is explained away. Kind of like how DNA simply "evolved" from a "primordial soup"? Tenchusatsu

To: combjelly who wrote (520685)	10/14/2009 7:41:14 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577339

"Like what? You need a bit more than just strongly worded statements ..." The statement, as worded, is the position I am taking. I told you I am fully prepared to support it and I am. I figured you would be looking for some side door rather than deal with me face to face and it looks like I was right. You challenged me and declared your position. I offered you the first opportunity. "I'll take the evolution side,..." Ok, so when are you going to start? This says nothing about the infallibility or sufficiency of evolution as an explanation of things. Besides throwing out the word 'evolution,' I don't see where you've done anything that could be considered arguing for the side of evolution. "Actually, ID is more than sufficient to explain any critical feature. All it has to do is invoke "and then a miracle occurs" and it is explained away." If you believe that, it is ok with me but I don't think it adds much to this discussion. That certainly isn't my view of things (ID is more than sufficient) so I don't know why you are making such a statement. "Which is why it is totally useless as a foundation for science as we know it." I don't know who you are referring to as the 'we know it' group but I know there is more than one avenue to knowledge. You will have to define 'foundation for science' if you want to use it as a basis for arguing anything here. "There is nothing to drive questions, the answers are always there. The basic problem is that ID isn't falsifiable, per Popper. Now it was popular in the '80s for the anti-evolution crowd to claim that evolution isn't falsifiable, but they were wrong." I've never come across someone from that oft referred to crowd. So you'll have to be more specific if you want me to deal with that remark. I've already stated that everyone I've met who was educated in America has a basic understanding of evolutionary science and accepts it. "ID, however, is truly not falsifiable. Because everything can be defended on the basisc of the whim of the Great Designer." You are being redundant here and you haven't begun to do what you said you were going to do. You are merely, and predictably, attacking some straw man of your own making. "I'll take the evolution side,..." Go ahead. What are you claiming to be the evolution side?