Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:55:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1361 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
>
> > In fact the odds are so _not_ with [life's formation] (about 1 in 10 with 50,
> > give or take 10, zeros chance) that we could never have come into being
> > without some other force/being/etc behind it.
>
> Exactly! And evolution is that force!
>
> More precisely, where are you getting those figures? It differs markedly
> from the estimations for number of inhabitable planets in the galaxy, much
> less the universe.
(It's Friday, so I have time to do this :-))
Evolution is not a force - it's:
a) a theory, involving
b) random chance
Random chance cannot product life. the odds are just too far much. Indeed
today's leading edge evolution scientists have either a) ceased discussing the
random chance and time tenants of evolution since they don't work out; or b)
claim that because they don't, we must have come from an alien race (another
intelligent life form)
-Jon
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Okay, but recognize outright that I was being light-hearted. (...) Which scientists? In this and our previous exhanges you often cite "respected scientists" without naming names. I'd be interested to hear who you're referring to. You likewise (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Prove it (what's that? We've said time and time again you can't prove a negative?) (...) And just EXACTLY where are you getting these odds? Have you calculated them? (...) We didn't even have to come from an INTELLIGENT life form. (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) I don't really, so apologies for the brevity of this reply. (...) As Jen Clarke pointed out, there is a theory and there is the phenomenon. The theory could be improved, refined, replaced or debunked, the phenomenon remains real (cf gravity). (...) (23 years ago, 20-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
