Joined: Sep. 2005
|Quote (evopeach @ Sep. 29 2005,09:39)|
I have no idea how life was started and it doesn't matter because it had to be naturalistic ... I just assume it happened without a scintilla of evidence to support it and a great deal against it. (And you call that science)
I have no basis for my theory of evolution as to the enabling mechanism of replication, the genetic code, the complex molecules necessary for the simplest imaginable life form on which my theory and its mechanism of random mutation and natural selection could act. I just don't think about that .. I just assume somehow it happened.
My kind of science mostly rests on unproved assumptions without experiemental evidence, in the face of phantasmagorically negative mathmatical probability because once that is assumed I can then extrapolate the assumption to explain the entire natual world and its operations.
I have no problem with a scientific world view whose entire foundation is unproved, undemonstrated, mathmatically impossible and rails against established scientific laws. In fact I embrace it against all odds and vehemently oppose any explanation other than mine which is no explanation at all but just an assumption.
I would rather have any answer than one which was not completely naturalistic.
I've been reading this thread for a few days, and just had a couple of points to make to evopeach.
1. You seem to have described ID rather than biological evolution, in being an unproven assumption with no evidence to support it.
2. If you are in fact describing biological evolution, and in light of your previous comments, then I can only assume that you are a shamefully ignorant lying fool of the first degree.
Fundamentalism in a nutshell:
"There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don't know that much about it does not bother me in the least."