Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:52:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1460 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
>
> > Actually, the Drake Equation has nothing to do with the chance of life
> > evolving. It only has to do with the chance of communication with it
> > (another life) given that one assumes a factor for the chance that is does
> > evolve.
>
> Okay, but it seems to me that life must evolve into existence before it
> can be considered likely to communicate with us, so I still think the Drake
> equation gives a useful model. Especially since the number of intelligent
> species must by definition be less than or equal to the total number of
> species, so that we may infer a larger number of total species in the
> universe than the Drake predicts us potentially to contact.
>
> > Life can't evolve. (or at least 1 in 10^50)
>
> Once again, I ask that you provide a citation for that vanishingly small
> number. Otherwise, I assert with equal confidence that a Supreme Being
> can't exist (or at least not an absolute Supreme Being).
>
> Dave!
I started a new thread to address this!
-Jon
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Okay, but it seems to me that life must evolve into existence before it can be considered likely to communicate with us, so I still think the Drake equation gives a useful model. Especially since the number of intelligent species must by (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
