From: DNAunion@aol.com <DNAunion@aol.com>
>>[unknown poster]: If they have not been done yet, then it is imho quite
>important that they are done so that they can support what is now merely
>assertions.
>
>>DNAunion: Very true. But does this not also apply to the origin of life?
>Why must Dembski have a 100% airtight, completely validated, empirically
>tried and true, perfect hypothesis, generated and completed within a couple
>years, before it is considered any more than an assertion, yet the
>purely-natural origin of life on earth is accepted as scientific fact even
>though it is not 100% airtight, it has not been completely validated, it is
>not empirically tried and true, it is not a perfect hypothesis, and very
many
>researchers have been working on it for over 60 years!
OOL researchers are *not* claiming to have scientific evidence of OOL.
Dembski *is* claiming to have scientific evidence of ID. Important
difference. (Didn't I already make this point to you on the ARN board?)
Richard Wein (Tich)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 12:16:38 EDT