Book: Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
No matter how rare the conditions allowing complex life prove to be, this alone can never be an argument in favor of intelligent design. Those conditions have to exist for anyone to actually notice. That we notice them here on Earth tells us nothing beyond the fact that those conditions are possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

That'll be a nice challenge to take on, enjoy. You've summed up the hurdle right here though. A meteorite came thru my roof, smashed thru the light bulb, bouced off a door hinge, went thru the oak bookcase, penetrated a book and stopped just touching the words "lucky me". If any of 1,000's of conditions it had encountered were slightly different, it would have stopped somewhere else, if it even hit earth. Thicker oak, lower hinge, bigger light bulb, cooler day, etc. How could that ever prove 'purpose' or 'intent'? Iow, it has to stop somewhere.

luckyme

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
That'll be a nice challenge to take on, enjoy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I have no intention of taking it on any further in this thread.

One example... Your talking about a flying rock, what if it were 1,000,000,000 rocks that hit 1,000,000,000 different houses in order and landed on the words that rewrote a shakespeare classic? Is it the same, well those 1,000,000,000 rocks had to land somewhere...
I think there has to be a limit to this kind of thinking, will no amount of coincidences that point towards a creator ever make you think "maybe it's not a mistake"??

[Aytumious]

No. There is no such thing as coincidence.

[ QUOTE ]
No. There is no such thing as coincidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this?

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. There is no such thing as coincidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything that has happened had to happen that specific way. There is no way it could be otherwise, at least as far as our understanding of time and causality are concerned. To say that something that has happened was a coincidence isn't true since there is no way it could be otherwise. The supposed coincidence is just humans adding meaning to what was just another product of causality.

In short, any meaningful connections made between events are creations of the mind of man. Does a plant experience coincidence?

[ QUOTE ]
One example... Your talking about a flying rock, what if it were 1,000,000,000 rocks that hit 1,000,000,000 different houses in order and landed on the words that rewrote a shakespeare classic? Is it the same, well those 1,000,000,000 rocks had to land somewhere...
I think there has to be a limit to this kind of thinking, will no amount of coincidences that point towards a creator ever make you think "maybe it's not a mistake"??

[/ QUOTE ]

You are amazing.. Here you have the retort to you own arguments. If it was that many (rocks and houses) , it is likely than one would it the words "luckyme". I don't know why, from one word, you jumped, in your argument, to the complete words of Shakespeare. LOL

Regarding the primordial soup. It is very likely. The basics of life (in molecular terms) are relatively simple (in fact it's one of the beauty of it, imo). Also, there is no reason to believe that other self-replicationg mechanism could not exists, or be possible, on a completely different basis of life as we know it.

[David Sklansky]

Let me explain something to you godboy. Your arguments are correct. Thje philosophers who are trying to refute you are incorrect. You are wrong in your conclusions but not for the reasons these philosphers talk about. Rather it is because of the fact that the miraxculous things you see around you are NOT nearly as unlikely or coincidental as they appear to the scientifically uneducated. A simple example is the beauty of bubbles or snowflakes or mountains. Same goes for your eclipse example.

Believe me if you were arguing with physicists or molecular biologists rather than philosphers, you would no longer feel that your ideas are on firm ground.

What do have to say about the physicists or molecular biologists in support of the intelligent design theory?

[David Sklansky]

"What do have to say about the physicists or molecular biologists in support of the intelligent design theory?"

Of those who have Nobel Prize type qualifications few, if any believe in ID. And those who do, believe it for different reasons than your flawed probabilistic ones.